Absolutely! I do have to put an introductory Quantum Mechanics video (which is already in the works). Because the explanation for permanent magnets requires QM. Appreciate you checking this out. ❤️
I have a question about moving objects being compressed in their direction of motion: How can there even _be_ a, "direction of motion," other than that observed from some other frame of reference. Even if you are accelerated to a substantial fraction of the speed of light I would think that once the acceleration ceases you are no longer aware of your motion except by comparison to other objects. If you were in a universe with no other objects you would have no idea that you were moving. But shouldn't you still be contracted in your, "direction of motion?" Once the acceleration ceases your motion does not cease. Am I right that the, "contraction," could not be self-observed and that that contraction is only from the perspective of some other frame of reference? LOL! If I had stopped the video a couple of seconds later than I did I would have heard you explain it! You said that charge is constant an unaffected by the frame of reference but I am rather confused by that. Doesn't 'your' motion with the electrons result in an electrical repulsive force because, in your reference frame, the positive ions seem to be contracted while the electrons (which are not moving, from your frame of reference) are not contracted resulting in a perceived positive charge? How can charge be constant in relation to all frames of reference when you've just demonstrated that it is not? (I do see that a particle with a positive charge that is at rest relative to the wire would be drawn towards the wire because, from the frame of reference of the particle the wire would 'appear' to have a negative charge. That seems to make sense. I think.) Another thing I'm now confused about: When current flows through a wire there is an apparent magnetic force generated _around_ the wire. A permanent magnet will align it's poles with that apparent force. Which leaves me wondering how a circular field can have a positive and negative pole. It would seem that the poles can only be relative to one another as observed by some object that is not part of the wire. Is that wrong?
Wow, absolutely loved to see this comment. 👌 Okay, now the paradox about charge being invariant. Well, actually it seems that way because we're only looking at one side of the circuit. Imagine the complete circuit (close loop). Which means somewhere down the line, the electrons/positive ions are going in opposite direction (because you have to close the loop so the wire which is going towards the right must loop back towards the left) so exactly opposite thing is happening there. So whatever positive charge you're feeling here, exactly the same amount of negative charge you'll have on that other side of the loop. And hence the total added up charge will be constant. Coming to your second question... Bingo, you just stumbled on the exact trick we use in motors to increase the overall magnetic field. You see, a straight wire generates a magnetic field but it's weak and takes a lot of current, so what we do is we coil the wire up (it's called a solenoid). So the magnetic field basically adds up. It's like each very tiny straight section of the wire creates a magnetic field and what you feel will be an aggregate of the field. Think of a field as an info board in all the points in the 3D space. Which basically tells you how much force you'll get on a particle if you put it there. Lastly, fields are a very deep topic. They have their roots all the way deep down in Quantum Mechanics. And that's why I had to leave the explanation of permanent magnets. I need to make an introductory video on QM first. To introduce my audience to the Quantum realm. I appreciate you checking out the video. And your passion in it. Absolutely makes my time worth writing code for these animations. 🤝
@@HalfIntSpin I've always been fascinated by relativity. I read the book by Einstein with the title, "A simple explanation anyone can understand," many years ago and understood most of the thought experiments. I think the spear through the barn example confused me terribly and I don't think I ever got that one. Sadly, I never learned enough math to really thoroughly understand these things. Not that I think I would have ever been a world-class physicist. I don't really think I was ever quite smart enough for that. But I do get a lot of the basic ideas that can be grasped without the math. Cosmology is pretty fascinating to me, as well. Though I am not a fan of dark matter/dark energy. I like to say that you may as well call the explanation, "invisible elves," because you can't detect them and they don't have any real effect beyond explaining away some things that no one understands. It's like hand-waving something away in a novel. "Oh, that? That's just the way it is. Don't worry about it." Not a terribly elegant solution. Then again, I don't know the math... So I expect I'm probably wrong even if I don't like it. Do you have any thoughts on the double-slit experiment and things like quantum erasers? That whole thing is terribly confusing to me. I'm not even sure what the various experiments provide proof of or how they prove anything. (I am, however, quite sure that it has nothing to do with whether or not you're looking at the results. Except, some of those experiments seem to say otherwise. I think. Which I find pretty difficult to believe.) I guess I've gotten this well and truly off-topic enough for now.
I cheated. ChatGPT "The paradox is resolved when considering that magnetism and electricity are part of the same phenomenon. The stationary observer sees a magnetic field due to the moving charges (current). The moving observer sees an electric field due to the charge imbalance caused by length contraction. These are two ways of describing the same physical reality." Here are the thoughts of a floor covering installer. r_1^t+(r_2)^t, where r_2 is the negative inverse of r_1. So... f:=t-> r^t+(-1)^t*(1/r)^t t has a real and imaginary part. (-1)^t -> e^(t*i*(x+i*y)) = e^(t*(-y+i*x)), so, the relativistic (growth, real t) effects are oscillatory and the oscillatory is relativistic. A 90-degree rotation on the manifold. f(t)/(f(t+1)) Do the Mobius transformation and project onto the sphere, and you have yourself a magnetic field. The closer the distance between r_1 and r_2, the stronger the field, which makes intuitive sense. Violate the negative inverse thing, and you no longer have a field. So, no mono poles.
Brilliant reply by it but I feel like it left some explanations, and is difficult to connect the dots here. It's amazing to understand it fully too. Also it explains why magnetic monopoles don't exist. 👌 Appreciate you checking out the content. 🤝
Excellent video, easy to follow, and I’m terrible with physics haha.
Appreciate you for all the feedback Mod. Amazing to hear this from the homies. 🥂
I changed fields of study because of physics and chemistry 😵💫 lol
I got you now though. Albeit, I'm late. 😅
It's all about perspective 🧐
Yes sir. That was the biggest idea from Einstein! Space and Time, which Newton said are absolute, are relative. Hence the name.
Nice graphics
Thanks! I appreciate you. 🤝🥂
Please 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻.
A Video for permanent magnet
Absolutely! I do have to put an introductory Quantum Mechanics video (which is already in the works). Because the explanation for permanent magnets requires QM.
Appreciate you checking this out. ❤️
wow how does this only have 700 views?
Yep. And that's okay. People will share the content if they like it. I do appreciate you checking it out and putting the kind words. ❤️🤝
I have a question about moving objects being compressed in their direction of motion:
How can there even _be_ a, "direction of motion," other than that observed from some other frame of reference. Even if you are accelerated to a substantial fraction of the speed of light I would think that once the acceleration ceases you are no longer aware of your motion except by comparison to other objects. If you were in a universe with no other objects you would have no idea that you were moving. But shouldn't you still be contracted in your, "direction of motion?" Once the acceleration ceases your motion does not cease. Am I right that the, "contraction," could not be self-observed and that that contraction is only from the perspective of some other frame of reference?
LOL! If I had stopped the video a couple of seconds later than I did I would have heard you explain it!
You said that charge is constant an unaffected by the frame of reference but I am rather confused by that. Doesn't 'your' motion with the electrons result in an electrical repulsive force because, in your reference frame, the positive ions seem to be contracted while the electrons (which are not moving, from your frame of reference) are not contracted resulting in a perceived positive charge? How can charge be constant in relation to all frames of reference when you've just demonstrated that it is not? (I do see that a particle with a positive charge that is at rest relative to the wire would be drawn towards the wire because, from the frame of reference of the particle the wire would 'appear' to have a negative charge. That seems to make sense. I think.)
Another thing I'm now confused about: When current flows through a wire there is an apparent magnetic force generated _around_ the wire. A permanent magnet will align it's poles with that apparent force. Which leaves me wondering how a circular field can have a positive and negative pole. It would seem that the poles can only be relative to one another as observed by some object that is not part of the wire. Is that wrong?
Wow, absolutely loved to see this comment. 👌
Okay, now the paradox about charge being invariant. Well, actually it seems that way because we're only looking at one side of the circuit. Imagine the complete circuit (close loop). Which means somewhere down the line, the electrons/positive ions are going in opposite direction (because you have to close the loop so the wire which is going towards the right must loop back towards the left) so exactly opposite thing is happening there. So whatever positive charge you're feeling here, exactly the same amount of negative charge you'll have on that other side of the loop. And hence the total added up charge will be constant.
Coming to your second question... Bingo, you just stumbled on the exact trick we use in motors to increase the overall magnetic field. You see, a straight wire generates a magnetic field but it's weak and takes a lot of current, so what we do is we coil the wire up (it's called a solenoid). So the magnetic field basically adds up. It's like each very tiny straight section of the wire creates a magnetic field and what you feel will be an aggregate of the field. Think of a field as an info board in all the points in the 3D space. Which basically tells you how much force you'll get on a particle if you put it there.
Lastly, fields are a very deep topic. They have their roots all the way deep down in Quantum Mechanics. And that's why I had to leave the explanation of permanent magnets. I need to make an introductory video on QM first. To introduce my audience to the Quantum realm.
I appreciate you checking out the video. And your passion in it. Absolutely makes my time worth writing code for these animations. 🤝
@@HalfIntSpin I've always been fascinated by relativity. I read the book by Einstein with the title, "A simple explanation anyone can understand," many years ago and understood most of the thought experiments. I think the spear through the barn example confused me terribly and I don't think I ever got that one.
Sadly, I never learned enough math to really thoroughly understand these things. Not that I think I would have ever been a world-class physicist. I don't really think I was ever quite smart enough for that. But I do get a lot of the basic ideas that can be grasped without the math.
Cosmology is pretty fascinating to me, as well. Though I am not a fan of dark matter/dark energy. I like to say that you may as well call the explanation, "invisible elves," because you can't detect them and they don't have any real effect beyond explaining away some things that no one understands. It's like hand-waving something away in a novel. "Oh, that? That's just the way it is. Don't worry about it." Not a terribly elegant solution. Then again, I don't know the math... So I expect I'm probably wrong even if I don't like it.
Do you have any thoughts on the double-slit experiment and things like quantum erasers? That whole thing is terribly confusing to me. I'm not even sure what the various experiments provide proof of or how they prove anything. (I am, however, quite sure that it has nothing to do with whether or not you're looking at the results. Except, some of those experiments seem to say otherwise. I think. Which I find pretty difficult to believe.) I guess I've gotten this well and truly off-topic enough for now.
Owee from texas 🔥
Let's go danny... Hope you enjoyed the content. 😎🤜🤛
I cheated. ChatGPT "The paradox is resolved when considering that magnetism and electricity are part of the same phenomenon. The stationary observer sees a magnetic field due to the moving charges (current). The moving observer sees an electric field due to the charge imbalance caused by length contraction. These are two ways of describing the same physical reality."
Here are the thoughts of a floor covering installer.
r_1^t+(r_2)^t, where r_2 is the negative inverse of r_1.
So...
f:=t-> r^t+(-1)^t*(1/r)^t
t has a real and imaginary part. (-1)^t -> e^(t*i*(x+i*y)) = e^(t*(-y+i*x)), so, the relativistic (growth, real t) effects are oscillatory and the oscillatory is relativistic. A 90-degree rotation on the manifold.
f(t)/(f(t+1))
Do the Mobius transformation and project onto the sphere, and you have yourself a magnetic field. The closer the distance between r_1 and r_2, the stronger the field, which makes intuitive sense. Violate the negative inverse thing, and you no longer have a field. So, no mono poles.
Brilliant reply by it but I feel like it left some explanations, and is difficult to connect the dots here. It's amazing to understand it fully too. Also it explains why magnetic monopoles don't exist. 👌
Appreciate you checking out the content. 🤝
Wow
Thank you!
👍
🤝
@@HalfIntSpin 👌