How Induction Helped Einstein Discover Relativity!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ค. 2023
- Galilean principle of relativity states that you can't do any mechanical experiment that would detect an absolute motion and therefore all velocities are relative. When physicists discovered electromagnetism, this principle was thought to no longer hold in electromagnetic processes as the description of electromagnetic processes put a sharp distinction on which body is in motion in a given experiment. Yet, if you take a simple magnet and a coil, the result depends only on the relative motion of the two bodies even though both results are caused by different phenomena. To Einstein, it was a suspicious and how he tackled this problem you can see in the video :)
special thanks to
www.freepik.com
www.vecteezy.com
for vector graphics
www.pexels.com
for stock video
mixkit.co
for sound effects
specifically
Magnet, Gear wheel, Planets, Airplane - designed by brgfx on freepik
Hands, Metal ring, Electricity - designed by macrovector on freepik
Light bulp designed by upklyak on freepik
Blank-brown-paper-design designed by rawpixel.com on freepik
Metal ball designed by Yuliya Pauliukevich on vecteezy
Navy blue concrete wall designed on freepik (author unknown)
Character - designed by pikisuperstar on freepik
Mountain landscape - designed by vectorpocket on freepik
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA GF D1 | Summer | แข่งที่ไทย ต้องใส่ให้สุด](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Jkuf7nCS7jI/mqdefault.jpg)
I like your approach to physics. You seem to be more focused on ideas rather than talking in terms of mathematical equations, as many others on TH-cam frequently do. As I believe the right way to talk in physics is to discuss concepts and ideas, equations should be secondary. Yes, concepts of physics are highly mathematical in character and maths is must to analyse things and go further.... but still the concepts are primarily, equations should only play the supportive role...good work 👍
If I remember correctly, Maxwell equation stated that the the "rotation" of the Electric field was created by the change of the magnetic field, it didn't say that a moving magnet would create electric field.
This channel is too underrated
Agreed!
It is really nice to read such comments, thanks
@lukasrafajpps no -- he is spreading misinformation and in particular making false claims about the history of SR at least in his title. Einstein SR is unnecessary and serves no role in explanation of magnetism. The equations for magnetic and electric force as well as maxwell equations were well known. Even the Lorentz-Poincare transforms including the famous E=mc2, were know before 1905. Einstein simply claimed that these mathematical results did not require aether as justification. Particularly, Lorentz-Poncare and thus the so called Lorentz transforms used as explanation for the failed Michaelson Morely experiment was unnecessary. There was no aether and the math could be satisfied with other postulates not requiring the existence of aether.
You are very good, this is another very interesting video ... thanks!😊😊😊
Glad you liked it! :)
3:20 I don't think the generated current in the moving coil is exactly the same as the stationary coil. It's transverse to the motion, and is going to pick up a 1/gamma in the magnet's fame. Ofc, the ammeter will read the same, which means: moving ammeters don't work!
it is the same in a medium as in special relativity, but as long as the physics in the stationary frame is the same as in a single frame in special relativity. you can then go two routes, either use a basis with identical speeds of light directionally for transformations between reference frames, or use another basis for relative motion in the medium. you can go either route, it gives the same results until you go to do something fancier with the physics. the two different forms of representation are identical causally so who cares as long as we are talking about lorentz invariant physics. just try to describe this thought experiment in terms of a different basis in the speed of light instead of in a different reference frame, it works out the exact same way.
huh? what is a basis in the speed of light?
Another useful source.
very well done!
the thing is mechanical and electrodynamical experiments are basically the same thing. the utility of the ether medium is not really a necessity until you try to put the structure of matter into the picture with its broken scale invariance and quantum like phenomena like entanglement, then it is necessary to have a medium or foliated approach, because entanglement has character to is that has been taken for granted to be independent of simulaneity of space like events, but it is not so in detail, and we will see that in a couple of years hopefully.
At 6:46 you may want to check the spelling of the word "Results" (Reuslts). Yes, I know, English is not your first language.
a crucial difference between the two views optically is this, it doesn't change local causality so don't be too discouraged by it looking different. when you change basis in terms of what frame is treated as the stationary frame of a medium, you will have to apply length contraction to space as a whole. and that is fine, but it is never necessary, if you start with one frame and then you use a different basis for looking at moving frames, then the length contraction of space is just an optical effect, something seen but that isn't real, even if the causal consequences of it are identical. what you have instead is that everything that is moving with respect to the mediums stationary frame (which remember is just a convention if Lorentz symmetry if perfect) is length contracted locally, only that object with that velocity. this changes how this situation looks, it is like choosing a different kind of gauge for the problems, it doesn't change any results it just changes the representation. what is more important is when you go to include gravity and go to put it together with quantum field theory, you kind of need this point of view, this kind of convention locally to be able to modify the physics slightly to map onto nature. try it with the magnets, there is no longer any room for the silly explanation most youtubers give with an actual change in charge density, something different happens instead, i hope you will enjoy working that out :).
if your local system is not in motion , 3 atomic clocks can be used to prove it by being all running at the same time frequency . And for a system IN Motion , the same 3 clocks can be used to prove that motion , 1 being fast , the 2nd being slower ,and the 3rd being even slower
every atomic clock run at the same speed and frequency in its own frame of reference
@@lukasrafajpps indeed every clock sees itself as normal , but actually things are not normal . And if the clock can see outside it's little realm in the atomic clock experiment it will notice one other clock running faster and the 3rd other clock running slower , because the reference frames of the clocks are within a larger governing frame , and in fact TWO governing frames . The largest is the earths STATIC frame , the next down is the earths ROTATION where time runs slower than in the static frame . The clocks are bound within these two larger frames and act accordingly whether accelerated or decelerated with respect to them. Larger reference frames GOVERN smaller reference frames . They are not all equal !
@@edwardmacnab354 so do it in space, and forget the Earth. If you fail to abstract, you'll never lear SR.
Plz also make video on hyperbolic distances in spacetime
Hi. I have a video about lorentz transformations in general although I didnt touch on this particular topic but channel ScienceClinic english published a new video about hyperbolic rotations of spacetime so I recommend to check that out :)
The magnetic field around a magnet can be imagined like some fine web or mesh which moves along the magnet. In fact magnetic field can be imagined as an imbalanced electric field in disguise.This will not affect aether except for some turbulence, just like effect of wielding a stick in air. When a magnet approaches a coil or vice versa a surplus charge tends to deposit on the coil this causes a transient current in the circuit. Therefore relative motion only matters.
Because you are studying in Czechia I suppose you are Czech. Ahoj, nechceš někdy natočit video v češtině? Podle mě by to bylo skvělé, protože videí o fyzice na této úrovni v češtině opravdu moc není (krom záznamu přednášek).
Ahoj, som zo slovenská :) je to jeden z mojich plánov keďže mam uz hotových veľa animacii tak škoda nevyužiť. Ešte ale neviem kedy nato najdem čas
How would Maxwell explain the induction of current in a conductor who is moving relative to the rest frame of magnet?
if a charged particle is moving perpendiculary to the magnetic field then there is a force acting on the particle that is perpendicular to the velocity and the vector of magnetic induction.
@@lukasrafajpps can you explain it to me in fundamental terms, that is, what carries this force, what is the origin of this force, is light the carrier of such force? And if light is, from where does this light originates? From the charged particles of magnet or conductor? Does the location of cause remains the same in both scenarios of relative motion?
@@ScienceRevised don't get hung up on "force carriers". The force on a charge is caused by the local EM field, so in a sense you could say it "carries" the force, but it doesn't. It's just there, and accelerates the charge. meanwhile, charges (and currents) are the cause of EM fields. For E, +/- charges are source/sinks of the field, on the M side, there is no source, it just wraps around currents.
@@DrDeuteron words words words
Did Einstein do any experiments to see if c, the speed of light, remains constant in a vacuum with a strong magnetic field, or in a vacuum with a strong electric field??
The speed of light as being c only holds for a plane electromagnetic wave. If you change the shape of the wave in any way, the speed might change. If an electromagnetic wave goes through a space with a strong electric or magnetic field it will change the sape of the electromagnetic wave and therefore it influences its velocity. a quantum of light does not necesarily travel with the speed of light.
@@lukasrafajpps I doubt that the influence of an external magnetic field is going to have an effect on the speed. Its wavelength (possible) or polarization (possibly) may change, but as long as it's in a vacuum, the speed will remain c.
Einstein was not an experimentalist. He had no equipment other than pen and paper (or chalk/board). He relied on experimental results of others to postulate a theory and others to confirm any theory he believed was true. But it appears he did solicit others to do tests of his predictions based on his theory. This is a pretty common way of doing physics, even today.
@@lukasrafajpps but any shape is a sum of plane waves (you know that, from Jaque Jean Joseph Fourier)...so any shape travels at c, and that includes the "0" frequency term: constant fields don't affect anything (Schwinger limit notwithstanding).
But what about pair-production? A gamma ray passing by a big fat lead (Pb) nucleus might just find it energetically favorable to turn into (real) electron/positron pair....what does that look boosted (down) so a microwave and a really fast lead-brick? hmmmmm.
The intro looks good , but it's a bit short .
I agree it's kinda short
replace the bar magnet with a bunch of spherical magnet . The spherical bismuth . Say ...9
and later on he said the constancy of the speed of light is not consisten with general relativity, both statements are wrong, this is simply a question of representation theory. but the different conventions are just different points of view of the same thing, but the convention that the speed of light is constant in all directions in special relativity for one way trips as well as two way trips and in general relativity that the speed of light is constant, is an intrinsic representation that makes it very hard and silly to modify the framework or extend it to new domains. it is a mistake in representation theory to think of the speed of light as either constant or not constant in either theory, and believing the postulates to that effect constitute physical principles with physical significance on their own is a grave mistake, because different conventions where no such thing is true give the same physical results. doing so and leaning on the postulates as being somehow physically significant on their own makes for mistaken logic later on when you try to extend the theories or find successors to them. these mistaken notions of representation theory have been baked into the way qft is done, and so when you go to unify it with general relativity nobody has any idea what they are doing.
According to relativity the curvature of space affects the very flow of time itself, but which way does time curve? To the left or right? Disciples never ask these questions because the 1st commandment in relativity is to never question thy lawgiver! If spacetime is flat how can time be curved? According to relativity the curvature of space affects the very flow of time itself, but which way does time curve? To the left or right? Disciples never ask these questions because the 1st commandment in relativity is to never question thy lawgiver! Most people know the difference between science and science fiction whereas many autistics do not, taking things literally they find it difficult to distinguish between science vs reality. 1 in 44 identify with autism spectrum disorder and that creates a big problem, do the math. A perfect example: a rock falling out of an airplane cannot possibly reach light speed at 186,000 mi./s but because Einstein said gravity travels at the speed of light and the speed of light is constant they will try to find a mathematical equation for wind resistance not realizing if a rock traveled at the speed of light it would burn up in Earths atmosphere long before it hit the ground.
Autistics feel the logical thinking of science is one of their gifts-strengths and as such science becomes their identity-religious belief system, thus science must always be true-correct, thinking in absolutes. Einstein said the acceleration of stars are responsible for gravity and the moving of time, then why is gravity near zero in space?! Answer, cause time is near zero 🙂 Even tho the gravity in a black hole is a weak force it compresses time, energy and matter into a vortex of infinite density, while twisting time, energy and matter out of it's hole at the speed of light it proves all those fake over unity devices are real and the universe created itself from free energy! Two cars traveling at the same speed will arrive at their destination at the exact same time, if one one driver says he got there first we have GPS to prove he was lying. Can you guess way Einstein removed the ether ( the coordinates of cosmological objects in space ) before he released his paper on relativity in 1905?
Einstein said"...special relativity was never a theory about reality". This is what's known as the escape clause, mal practice insurance. Just in case someone with common sense was onto the bullsh** asymmetry principles. If the James Webb space telescope is able to see galaxies billions of years in Earths past, then those same galaxies in Earths past would be able to see the Milky Way galaxy billions of years in the future before it existed duh.
Run it in reverse, if galaxies are billions of years in each others past then both clocks are ticking slower so their time would be moving backwards. Visible light and radio waves are part of the same electromagnetic spectrum,. if a galaxies light is billions of light-years in Earth's past (no longer there) then radio waves would allow people on Earth to contact dead aliens billions of light-years in Earth's past! 🙂 If images of light have a limitation of speed explain how our eyes are able to view stars and galaxies that are billions of years apart from each other, gradually leading back to a big bang singularity?! If the James Webb space telescope is viewing all Einstein's space-times in the same space-time then there is only one time and the the big bang is nothing but a fairytale duh
The light between our eyes and these cosmological objects travel no distance, therefore have no speed limit. God is laughing at Einstein 🙂. If the speed of light is finite (limited) to 186,000 mi./s explain how images of stars, planets and galaxies could reach their destination when cosmological objects are moving apart from each other at light speed in a big bang expansion? Automatic tracking?! This this is like throwing a ball to a catcher that that has left the baseball field, billions of light years in Earths past. Images of light cannot travel for billions of years without an energy source, when you don't pay your electric bill, the lights go out duh. If Einstein's space-time were true we wouldn't need the James Webb space telescope to see the light from Earth's past, we'd just use our eyes to see yesterday's light on our TV's and lamps, why pay for electricity when Einstein tells us we can see yesterday's light today?! 🙂 Anyone using GPS astronomy software, a computerized GoTo telescope or equatorial mount can disprove General, Special relativity and big bang in less than 30 seconds by simply dialing in the coordinates. Anyone can be naïve, it takes endurance to be ignorant smh.
If stars, planets and galaxies were in different dimensions of space-time they couldn't possibly be tracked duh. If Einstein's space-time were true we'd be blinded by the light from Earth's past, yesterday's light would still be on our, TV's, PC's cell phones and lamps. Explain why (only) light and images from galaxies billions of years in Earths past time travel into our future, but not gravity, electromagnetic forces and galaxies that also reside in the same space-time? Ghosts are believed to appear as images of light from Earths past as well. Einstein’s ghosts from galaxies past cannot travel anywhere because the past no longer exists. Einstein's special relativity simply stated is the belief that the universe has no universal time, yet each star, galaxy and planet billions of light years apart from each other can be clearly viewed in one universal time 🙂. Doublethink is a process of indoctrination in which subjects are expected to simultaneously accept two conflicting beliefs as truth, often at odds with their own memory or sense of reality. The images taken with the James Webb space telescope are in real time.
If all the fundamental forces in the fabric of Einstein's space-time were stretched, warped and curved, then everything in the fabric of space-time would be stretched, warped and curved. Including the images in telescopes, TVs and everything you see with your eyes. Unless the electron beam in a CRT television is focused precisely on the screen in real time the dots in each frame would be out of sync with geometry (out of convergence with time) similar to the DCU digital conversion circuit in modern televisions. Our eyes only retain still image frames for 15 ms, if time was relative the images in your eyes would be out of sync. Every movie you've ever viewed relies on the same timing principles of a basic movie projector.
Special relativity states a clock attached to a moving object will tick at a slower rate than one standing still, then explain how a moving clock can tick slower while both clocks are moving forward in time. Our universe is traveling in an element of space that existed before the universe so logically we cannot conclude the Big Bang was the beginning of time. If time expanded from a big bang at the speed of light by 360°x360° the earliest galaxies in Earths past would now be in Earths future before time existed. These same people also believe the universe is flat as a shoebox while expanding at 360°x360° . The universe can neither create itself from nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing. You can lead a cult to water but you can't make them think. Disciples, remember thy 1st commandment, thou shalt not question thy lawgiver of relativity for blasphemers are the devil's pawn. Space Cat, cult intervention specialist. Albert Einstein's 1=2 Fantasy Physics th-cam.com/video/ogNkghwQrmI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=3u9kaRQozi9hijQx via
@TH-cam
CMB is show us who is in motion.
CMB is just a convenient frame in cosmology but it doesn't break the principle of relativity.
@@lukasrafajpps I know that, just i said CMB can show us who is in motion. Special relativity remain the same, but we have now a powerfull toll for a frame of reference: we all agree about CMB.
It sure seems like that; however, the CMB-defined rest frame is different at every position in space. Even over at our neighbor's (Andromeda) it's a full...hang on, I hate mega-parsecs, 20 km/s/Mly x 2.5 Mly...is, no calculator...45 km/s different, which is on the order of our orbital velocity...but still different. Make that 50 kps.
@@DrDeuteron no, is not. Every movement create an ilusion of CMB dypole, and that we know who is move.
”expansion” of universe frame does not change CMD dypole, just wavelenght increase, and this can be used as an universal time clock. Same CMB=same time= simultaneneity.
@@marchidan21 You're confusing comoving coordinates and Minkowski coordinates. There is now (1,-1,-1,-1) metric that is universally at rest.
Plus: this is a special relativity video, and bringing the FLRW metric into it isn't going to help anyone learn SR.
You can learn, or argue, but if you want to argue, I'm going to need to know where you got your PhD in physics?
Historically, magnetism had nothing to do with Einstein "discovery" of SR. Indeed, the Lorentz transforms including time, space, mass transforms were already known as was the famous equation E=mc^2 and even published by 1903. And certainly the Maxwell equations and in particular Fardays law of induction were also well known.
However, Lorentz-Poincare work was predicated on an attempt to explain the failed michaelson morley experiment in defense of the existence of aether. Einstein claimed aether did not exist and it was unnecessary, while at the same time insisting on the validity of the mathematical results. He instead claimed that all this actually pointed to new physics: SR. He later recanted this circa 1914/1915 due to various issues that came to light. Please stop spreading false history. Its not true and it doesnt help.
By the way by recanting, I don't mean Einstein suddenly started believing in aether. Rather it was an admission that there was something still not quite right with SR. And this quite not right is not resolved by GR. SR itself has problems. Perhaps not practical because it seems to work. But more because certain aberrant break downs eg the twin paradox.
❤
On one hand you assert that "magnetism had nothing to do with Einstein's discovery of SR." On the other hand, you acknowledge that Maxwell's equations were known. It seems that either you're unaware of what Maxwell's equations have to do with magnetism, or you're denying that Einstein was influenced by Maxwell's equations, specifically the assertion that the speed of light is constant and independent of the motion of the light source.
"Known as was the famous equation E=mc^2 and even published by 1903" - reference, please.
There are problems with you arguments.
what's wrong with the twin paradox? Sure, it seems like a contradiction in the various frames of reference as it is stated, but it is not. Moreover, if you analyze it in Minkowski space, not only is it not a contradiction, it's not even a paradox, as different world lines have different (but Lorentz invariant) total proper times-so it makes perfect since in ALL inertial frames. No GR required.
It is the magnetic field acting on the wire's electron that produced a electric field. At speeds that slow the magnet (metal itself) has a negligible impact on the motion of the aether . Maxwell thought of magnetism as a vortex in the aether , which I agree with , but I think he underestimate how fast / the surface area need to actually cause any significant change in the aether's motion. The magnet doesn't need to moved relative to the coil, the strength of the magnetic field can be changed(for a electromagnet), and that will give the same result .
Aether does interact with matter , because it is also matter , if it wasn't , the aether couldn't produce light and magnetism . It is not a coincidence that light is produced when matter collide , when trying to produce a sound you don't wave your hands , you clap 👏 your hands . If we didn't do this we would need to move or hands at a large velocity to produce audible sound.
but if aether interacted with matter we should be able to observe it because celestial bodies would slow down due to the drag.
@@lukasrafajpps why would it slow down by a measurable amount ?
@@lukasrafajpps Aether drag is most likely very small . The same roles of surface area ,and velocity determines drag in aether , so the best possibility to see aether drag is with large , diffuse ,and fast moving gas clouds . What I find interesting is that overall neutron stars may have a more concentrated magnetic field , but it's total magnetic field would actually be smaller than the gas cloud that formed it , because of the neutron star smaller surface it lost less angular momentum to the aether.
@lukasrafajpps the aether is the electrical energy of space. Virtual particles? Light propagates through space via a wave. What is a wave? One particle colliding with another. What determines the speed of light through space? Permittivity. Permittivity is the electrical energy (Virtual particles) of space. Otherwise known as the aether.
You can't remove virtual particles from a vacuum, which is why light travels in a vacuum. Why does light have the same speed. Because the aether is homogeneous. It only varies by a fraction of a fraction of a percent. The cosmic microwave back ground. Hot and cold spots. Sound travels faster through cold water than hot. Does light travel faster through the a cold vacuum vs a warm vacuum. Can a vacuum have a temperature. Matter within a vacuum can slow down the propagation of electromagnetic waves. I'm space, when dealing with light years, what's a day or two when you can't even determine the exact time the photon was emitted.
@@lukasrafajppsYou are assuming that matter is separate from the aether. If matter is a form of aether wave, then the aether will not create a drag on the moving matter.
Ask yourself: Does a sound wave experience drag from the air it is moving through?
and motion with respect to the medium is relative motion not absolute motion, absolute motion that is not relative motion in the space with respect to anything is also physically completely irrelevant, either we have stuff moving with respect to each other or not. all relative motion is absolute motion as well, it is just a word game tbh, depends on how coordinates are defined and so on. but absolute motion with respect to a medium with some structure is simple relative motion with respect to that medium anyway, special relativity is basically identical to that, only with different conventions, it is as simple as allowing everyone in an inertial frame to do physics as if they were stationary with respect to the medium, that is it. the transformations with respect to special relativity is just identical to taking a different basis with respect to the motion of the medium, if you don't buy it, go do the math please :) it is absolutley true in all respects. but this also means that until you do something different with the background or false vacuum or ether, whatever you want to call it, that isnt lorentz symmetric, these conventions and ways to take a basis is simple a choice of what forms of equations to use to gain the same causal analysis :).
what do you mean the vacuum isn't Lorentz invariant?
Click Like 👍 😊
1300 views and 108 likes is scientific blasphemy!!! 😮
thank you :)
Sorry! But, that theory of electromagnetism you menction is wrong, I can prove it, if you want.
Here's Einstein's error in thinking. He thought that if two frames are in relative motion that one should be considered stationary, the one that the observer is in, and the other in motion at a certain velocity relative to that stationary frame. Einstein gave one frame special status, which is not a logical thing to do. What he should have done was to consider both frames to be in motion at equal velocities in opposite directions relative to an imaginary stationary frame between them in space. When you realize that both frames are in equal opposite direction motion, you see that time dilation and length contraction are no longer required, because the opposite but equal motion simply cancels out and light speed is unaffected regardless which frame you're in.
And that is exactly what he should not do because thinking about an imaginary frame is also thinking about a special frame.
The point of relativity is in the fact that the choice of frame is arbitrary and you will get the same result of any experiment independent of the frame you choose Any frame of reference has the equal right to claim being stationary and of course you can pick a different frame and consider both observers to be moving but it wont change anything.
Lol, someone watched a few Dialect videos and is suddenly so confident that Einstein was wrong.
@@lukasrafajppsIs it possible to derive the gamma factor or something like it by first assuming a third frame of reference whilst not assuming c is constant, then at the end take limits so that c behaves like “infinity” compared to a non relativistic relative velocity? 🧐
Einstein was a plagiarist.
''In 1875, four years before Albert Einstein was born, Samuel Tolver Preston published an amazing book entitled "Physics of the Ether". In it he set down the now famous formula E = mc2 and thoroughly explained its implications. Preston expressly stated that matter contains a store of energy which if fully utilized could create atomic bombs and atomic energy. He knew that atomic energy would someday replace coal. He also described superconductivity and asserted that gravity propagates at light speed. Long before Einstein, Preston completely relativized unipolar induction. His complete works are republished along with commentary and analysis by Christopher Jon Bjerknes who discovered the fact that Preston had anticipated Einstein by many decades and had a better understanding of E = mc2 than Einstein. Albert Einstein mistakenly believed that atomic bombs and atomic energy were impossible to produce.''
The fact that someone write down a certain equation or say gravity travels at the speed of light does not make Einstein a plagiarist. Even Lorentz transformations were already known but peopke didn't understand why maxwell's equations are covarinat to these transformations and not the Galilean ones. Einstein explained everything in one single theory. The fact that gravity travels at the speed of light is nice but to be hones that could've guessed basically anybody. Having a correct equations describing the gravitation phenomena is a totally different story.
@@lukasrafajpps Eistein did not discover E=mc^. Tolver Preston did.
@@lukasrafajpps th-cam.com/video/xstRusZoweg/w-d-xo.html
@@user-ky5dy5hl4dMultiple people can discover the same thing. Unless you prove Einstein knew of Preston's work, he didn't plagiarize.
@@awesomedavid2012 th-cam.com/video/jjzx2Yj7Fwk/w-d-xo.html