"Energy is a relative concept" This line brought up a lot of questions to my mind. Well if energy is relative then the law of conservation of energy can be wrong at some places , but never heard of that . If its not wrong then It means that when we deal with systems then their energy level can be measured from any reference point , the thing that matters is the energy difference not the actual energy in the system. Well dont you think that the defination of energy you gave is not the defination of energy but the defination of the total energy contained in a body , in terms of equilibrium , like thermal equilibrium. As well as this defination also seems to be valid for only a system consisting of 2 bodies. If we want to use this type of defination for larger systems , or suppose the system consisting of the entire universe then it would require some modifications Correct me if am wrong anywhere . By the way i love your intuitive explanation on these fundamental topics. Thankyou for these explanation 🙂

This is awsome, thank you.

❤😊😊

Thank you

Can we say that work is transfer of kinetic energy because energy of motion will increase why use only word energy instead of linetic energy

Hello Sir. I am a student from India and I love your content so please don't stop uploading new videos, they help me out a lot. Also sir can you please explain the topic of force exerted by photons. Thanks a lot sir 🙏 🙂

You're amazing pops!! Helped me through

What does the two units coloumb and amphere mean

@Physics Made Easy I have a question, do a single electron movement give a current and if not why

Thank you so much ❤

Hello!!! I love your point of view on explaining these physical terms, found it very helpful!! thx!! Having one interesting thought here, as you mentioned when we put a dielectric material into the capacitor, as which having a much higher permittivity (than air), it will requires more charge to be build to balance out the effect of the induced electric field. Now, as we increase the permittivity of the dielectric, more charges can be stored, to the point the permittivity is infinite (like a metal), what would happen, assuming we can have some sort of barrier to prevent the charge to go through the metal. are we creating a plasma here :)

If a black body emits as much radiation as it absorbs than what is its temperature? If it's theoretically set up so that it emits everything it absorbs then his temperature should be zero Kelvin. I'm obviously not thinking of this correctly. I'm thinking of it like filling a glass of water and then emptying it. You will have zero water in it.

طالب سادس عنده هاي التجريه فصل 4

You are really amazing teacher for ever .

Hello At time 5:24 you mention work also has to be done if you want to bring a mass m closer to mass M, in this case is the work done negative as the potential energy is decreasing and so is the distance between the two masses ?

Amazing! I‘ve tried to understand the voltage so many times through other videos, but you are the best I fully understand the voltage. Thank you so much.

You have a true gift for explaining these concepts🍎

Nice intro lol

Thank you for the lecture

You didn’t describe a magnetic field is, you described its behaviour. Like saying an apple is something that falls from a tree, and threw in some obvious maths about the falling apple to give it legitimacy.

Really interesting.. would be really nice to go over the derivation of plancks constant from the work function. It takes us back to the beginning of where quantum leap started

I'm not sure that a pressure field can be considered a Scalar example... direction required

I like the Representation of the Work of the Interaction with the other Atoms of the Metal Plate.. I never Thought about it like that!!! Thanks!!! 👍😁

Thank u sar aapane mujhe heat ke bare mein bataya kash Mera bhi teacher aapke jaisa hota😢😂❤

Hi, photon makes electron to leave solid surface and make material positively charged, does it mean while interaction with material that photon has negative charge and once it was absorbed and disappeared the proton become positively charged?

👍🏻

Great video!!!!❤

According to special relativity, when a charge moves, or a charge is seen from a moving reference, its electric field morphs into a magnetic field. My question is then, why does the electric field still exist in a moving charge - shouldnt it just have a singular magnetic field?

Can explain how the permanent magnets work according to Special Theory of Relativity.

I think that even dc current through a wire can make a magnetic field , and even heat (IR) and light if the current is high enough. Many things to consider , and your vid helps.

kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4rOfmtsbc9qrsksi=6H02tTxtq9MvQWcF

two voltage sources with emf v1 and v2 (v1≠v2) are connected in parallel, what will be the voltage difference in the common terminal points?

What a explanation it was! I have really enjoyed it because i was very anxious about the concept of heat ❤❤❤ thank you sir love from Pakistan

Wonderfully explained ❤❤

Great Explanation. Your one of the hidden gems of youtube, keep it up

This was awesome. I went to fix a polarizer lamp in the lab and went down a rabbit hole. Glad it led me here :)

If those moving charges create those strong BUT Totaly invisible fields .... my understanding is that Earth, and apl other PLANETS , Sun ..., + other Stars and + Our GALAXY Centre , .... must create enormous Electro/ Magnetic fields all acros the galaxy. Am I imagiming here or (???) ... and by those Fields they influence the entire fabric of space( time) to swirle around ...and around .... (???) . Just considering a posiblity that Those FIELDS are having an influence on human biology clocks in the proces of conception ...so ... that person's temperament might get influenced by the month that s/he is concived in .... .... Look at the spindle in the Cell division .... isn't it 2 poles and like a (electro)magnetic driven process...(???) succeptible to 12 month fluctuations... of those cosmic Fields ... (* Just THINKING next to the fire place in my Modern Cave !) Thanks for intetesting video.

Sir thank you for such great explanation over the years

You're the goat man tysm for this, cleared everything and made it super simple, so grateful that i found this channel 👑👑

Relativity is wrong! When are scientists going to wake up and look at the experiments and theory that prove that the speed of light is not a constant speed as once thought, which has been verified by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the Galilean Transform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *KZbin presentation of above arguments: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZazlX1tq7iErLM *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997

what do you mean by "it was already there" 9:39

Death grips

Thank you for explaining this important concept so effectively and thoroughly. I have a couple of questions about polarization, especially when interacting with a surface and creating the angle of incidence equal to the angle of reflectance. First, I'd like to understand the relationship between the direction of propagation and the direction of oscillation in an electromagnetic wave. Is the axis of oscillation always parallel to the direction of propagation? In other words, can an oscillation propagate horizontally while oscillating vertically in relation to the axis it travels along? Secondly, I'm curious about what causes some reflections to come back unpolarized, such as those from bare metals (usually cross-polarisation is required to minimized direct reflection in those cases). Typically, the reflection off the surface of water is polarized, with light oscillating in a plane parallel to the surface and the detector being at the same opposite angle of the angle of incidence. In other words, the surface acts as a polarizing filter. I appreciate any input you can provide. Thank you!

Thank you for this brilliant video, it is much appreciated!!

In 5:25 while incresing the temperature of the metal,the wavelenght must increase right..but why does the graph shifts backwards?

thanks sir

Thank You Sir for coming Back