Are Magnetic Fields Just an Illusion? Einstein’s Perspective on Magnetism!

[@gcewing]

I suspect the answer to "where does the extra charge come from" lies in considering the whole circuit. Somewhere there is a return path for the current, and in that leg of the circuit the charges are moving the other way. So the charge density appears increased on one side and decreased on the other, with the total charge remaining the same.

[@HalfIntSpin]

Absolutely correct. Good to see this, first in the comments. 👌🤝

[@herbertniesler320]

Am I missing something here? The contraction is not dependent on direction of movement. So charge density is increased in both directions the same amount.

[@gcewing]

@@herbertniesler320 The velocity of the moving charges in the wire adds to the velocity of the test charge on one side and subtracts from it on the other, so the length contractions are different. The velocities of the charges relative to the test charge are only equal and opposite when the test charge is stationary relative to the wire, in which case there is no force from the magnetic field to begin with.

[@hyperduality2838]

Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Time dilation (contraction) is dual to length contraction (dilation) -- Einstein, special relativity. North poles are dual to south poles -- magnets are dual. Space/time symmetries are dual to Mobius maps synthesize stereographic projection (the Hegelian dialectic). Scale invariance is dual to scale variance synthesizes mass, mass is the by-product or synthesis of scale variance. Pure energy or light does not experience time whereas mass does experience time. Electro is dual to magnetic -- Maxwell's equations are dual. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge is dual. Space, distance or length (scale) is dual -- variant is dual to invariant. Left is dual to right, big is dual to small -- space duality. Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@buildingemotionalintelligence]

@@gcewing I find trying to understand this using charges in wires creates extra confusion for me. So what happens when a single electron passes by? It creates a magnetic field. There is no length change between electrons to confuse the situation. Which suggests that is a bogus component of the explanation. How then does a single electron create a magnetic field? As it is frame dependent, it would seem, its created by relativistic effects in observing a moving electric field.

[@jlmassir]

Note that you cannot eliminate the magnetic field of an electromagnetic wave by change of reference frame. In general, I = E² - B² is a relativistic invariant and if I < 0 you can never make B = 0 by change of reference frame , otherwise I would be > 0 in that reference frame, which is impossible.

[@HalfIntSpin]

Agreed. Thanks for this addition. 🤝

[@elfeiin]

Wtff

[@jlmassir]

​@@elfeiin What is the second f?

[@elfeiin]

@@jlmassir oh my apologies. I was not expecting a reply. What you said was very surprising to me, so I said "wtf" with the last letter repeated once, as a lazy way of indicating extended pronunciation of the stressed vowel of the last word in the phrase the abbreviation represents. Ie, "what the fuu(...uck)"

[@jlmassir]

@elfeiin No problem, I was just curious about the acronym 😀 I'm glad you found it interesting.

[@Remmmm9]

Magnets are interesting!! I've always wondered how it works and I still can't manage to wrap my head around it... Great explanation!! Now I understand it a little more especially on 4:10

[@HalfIntSpin]

Thank you. Oh and Don't forget to checkout the latest one. That explains permanent magnets. 🤝

[@Remmmm9]

@@HalfIntSpin Yes, I've watched it!

[@hpeterh]

Here a thought experiment: (This is not just a thought experiment. It can be easily done in a laboratory.) Use wires which moves in longituinale direction opposite to the electron drift speed and in half of the drift speed. Now, by Lorentz contraction the positive and negative charges contract by the same amount, because electrons and wire have the same speed relative to the observer. You should get the same magnetic field. Doesnt this show that this explanation ist incomplete if not wrong? You can also arrange two parallel wires that move longitudinal at the same speed. Then the relative velocity between the charges is zero, but the wires should still attract, when there is current flowing in both wires.

[@HalfIntSpin]

First, thanks for this comment Mr. Heckert. Always glad to see a discussion like this. It was fun visualizing both of these thought experiment in my head. So, here is where my brain went to. Remember how we shifted the frame of reference to the moving charge particle which was moving with the electrons? Well, that's what Relativity is all about. In both of the scenario, you'll find a frame of reference from which there's no such thing as a Magnetic field and it's just electric field. And from some of the other frame of references, we name it Magnetic field to explain the event. In reality though, both electric and magnetic fields are not elementary. These 2 seems to be part of a bigger picture called electromagnetic field. If you switch among frame of references you'll find it to be some sort of combination of these two. I was bit slow in last 2 weeks but I'm animating my next video, which is going to be on permanent magnets (the section which I left in this video). Should be an interesting watch!

[@hyperduality2838]

Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Time dilation (contraction) is dual to length contraction (dilation) -- Einstein, special relativity. North poles are dual to south poles -- magnets are dual. Space/time symmetries are dual to Mobius maps synthesize stereographic projection (the Hegelian dialectic). Scale invariance is dual to scale variance synthesizes mass, mass is the by-product or synthesis of scale variance. Pure energy or light does not experience time whereas mass does experience time. Electro is dual to magnetic -- Maxwell's equations are dual. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge is dual. Space, distance or length (scale) is dual -- variant is dual to invariant. Left is dual to right, big is dual to small -- space duality. Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@Remmmm9]

Magnets are interesting!! I've always wondered how it works and I still can't manage to wrap my head around it...

[@hyperduality2838]

Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Time dilation (contraction) is dual to length contraction (dilation) -- Einstein, special relativity. North poles are dual to south poles -- magnets are dual. Space/time symmetries are dual to Mobius maps synthesize stereographic projection (the Hegelian dialectic). Scale invariance is dual to scale variance synthesizes mass, mass is the by-product or synthesis of scale variance. Pure energy or light does not experience time whereas mass does experience time. Electro is dual to magnetic -- Maxwell's equations are dual. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge is dual. Space, distance or length (scale) is dual -- variant is dual to invariant. Left is dual to right, big is dual to small -- space duality. Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@HalfIntSpin]

[@hyperduality2838]

@@HalfIntSpin Yoda or the teacher (Socrates) is dual to the padawan or pupil (Plato) -- The Hegelian dialectic. Thesis (master) is dual to anti-thesis (slave) creates the converging or syntropic thesis, synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Brahman (the creator God) is dual to Shiva (the destroyer God) synthesizes Vishnu (the preserver God) -- the Trimurti in Hinduism. The Trimurti is equivalent or dual to the Hegelian dialectic! Crisis, survival, advancement -- Bene Gesserit teaching (Hegel). Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Duality means that there is a 4th law of thermodynamics as knowledge is dual according to Immanuel Kant. Synthetic a priori knowledge -- Immanuel Kant. If knowledge is dual then information must be dual. Objective information (syntax) is dual to subjective information (semantics) -- information is dual. "Philosophy is dead" -- Stephen Hawking. By rejecting philosophy physicists have rejected new laws of physics! Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Pure energy is dual as photons or light are dual. Inertial reference frames (observers) are dual -- stationary is dual to motion.

[@etsequentia6765]

What do you mean not real? gravity's not real, magnets are not real... I feel like I'm losing my mind here.

[@HalfIntSpin]

Haha, wait until my next video. That's more mind bending truth from Quantum mechanics. And then there is Quantum Field theory. Which says nothing is real, everything is just wave and we are just peaks in the waves.

[@xylfox]

@@HalfIntSpin Lets say:Each 50% real or unreal😅 But don´t we go to a mix of philosophy and pure mathematics in this new theories? With allways lesser relation to hmm. reality and the ,for me, crucial,fundamental criterion of science : The proof by experiment ? Math is the slave but not the master of science

[@HalfIntSpin]

Well theory is something which has been rigoursly tested. Before tests we call it hypothesis. So if you see the word theory, that means it has been validated multiple time at multiple palace in experiments.

[@劉英仔]

​@@HalfIntSpin All in One.and the One is wave?

[@HalfIntSpin]

@@劉英仔 True. That's what it says.

[@amenoum7623]

But you can also say that the increased charge density is an illusion since it requires that the space (aether?) between the moving charges is moving as well. Otherwise there would be no increase in charge density, only the charges themselves would contract. But then again, it all depends how well are the charges localized. Instead of interpreting this as the relativistic effect on moving point-like charges it's more appropriate to state that the effect is due to the moving (and thus contracting) electric field. One can then assume that the electric field lines between the charges are contracting, increasing charge density.

[@HalfIntSpin]

Thanks for checking out the video. Here are my thoughts on your statements as per my knowledge (I am not a guru on this topic so please feel free to research more on my points): No such thing as Aether has been found till date. The "Charges themselves would contract" when you say this, you are implying that the "thing" which contains the charges will be contracted. That "thing" exists in space. So actually it is the space which "seems" to be contracted from your frame of reference (notice the word seems). We call it Lorentz Length Contraction. You can learn more on this by studying some stuff on Gravity waves and LIGO detectors - how space compress and expands. Now, there is no such thing as a "moving field". It is simply changing field. For e.g. electric field is basically a set of numbers (tensor) which tells you how much force you will feel on a unit charge if you put it there. In most cases we can get away with saying moving field, unless relativity comes into picture. Because that makes stuff to need a bit more clarity. "Electric field lines" - This is just an easier way to show the electric field strength. So rather than showing a number for every point, we can use this to show what do we mean in an easy way. And of course it depends on charge density. To me, this sounds like a circular argument. After saying all that. When we go deep into Quantum Mechanics. We have many "hypothesis" and everything is just a wave(or something which behaves like a wave mathematically). Everything we see is basically a function of that wave. But again, here this discussion is not talking about the QM wave and just the relativistic mechanics. Appreciate you adding points to the conversation. Always glad to have such discussions and I always learn from them! Would love to hear more topics on which you would like to see some animated videos, like this one! :)

[@amenoum7623]

@@HalfIntSpin Yes, I am well aware of the status of aether, but length contraction by definition involves velocity or metric contraction correlated with gravity. If you say that density of charges increases this implies that the space between charges is either moving at the same velocity as the charges (resulting in Lorentz contraction of Special Relativity) or that the space is contracting due to energy (as in General Relativity). However, the energy involved here is too small for the GR effect. In the context of SR (Lorentz contraction), you simply cannot say that the distance between charges is contracting if whatever is between the charges is not moving with charges as well.

[@HalfIntSpin]

I mean of course the space between the positive charge ions will be moving from my frame of reference. You're absolutely correct. Remember, in the lab frame I am moving with respect to the wire/space the wire occupies. Hence, when we change the frame of reference to the tiny me, yes the position ions alongside the space between them will be moving.

[@amenoum7623]

@@HalfIntSpin Ok, but I see another problem here, a Doppler shift. Photons of the em field correlated with charges moving towards you will be blue-shifted, for charges moving away the photons will be red-shifted. Since energy is proportional to frequency, doesn't that imply that the net energy density of the em field will remain constant?

[@HalfIntSpin]

I'm gonna go ahead and say no. And here are my thoughts. In order to produce EM waves, you need accelerated charge. Once anything is accelerated, it no longer depends on frame of reference. Constant velocity charges do not produce EM waves.

[@andreassteinhauser9508]

I'd say the wire has to stay neutral even if the current (aka electrons) are moving (from the labs frame of reference) otherwise the electric force would kick in. So since they are contracted in length by their movement they have to spread out by electric force in the exact same amount so the wire stays neutral. So if you animate the moving electrons you already took care of that. They ARE already length-contracted. This is the way they can expand once you (in the frame of reference of the microscopic charge) travel at the same speed (which is less then 1mm per second btw.).

[@HalfIntSpin]

👌 Completely agree with you.

[@clashthesity]

Is your theory or the content in the video proven correct?

[@HalfIntSpin]

Yes. It's called Special Relativity by Einstein. You can look it up. It's been more than 100 years. Also, that's why we call it a theory. If it was untested, we call it a hypothesis.

[@clashthesity]

@HalfIntSpin i actually commented before watching the video later i realised you were talking about special relativity and the people in the comments are just dumb. I was trying to make sure it was a video worth the time and it was thanks for teaching such a complex concept easily.

[@HalfIntSpin]

Cheers!! 🥂

[@hyperduality2838]

Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Time dilation (contraction) is dual to length contraction (dilation) -- Einstein, special relativity. North poles are dual to south poles -- magnets are dual. Space/time symmetries are dual to Mobius maps synthesize stereographic projection (the Hegelian dialectic). Scale invariance is dual to scale variance synthesizes mass, mass is the by-product or synthesis of scale variance. Pure energy or light does not experience time whereas mass does experience time. Electro is dual to magnetic -- Maxwell's equations are dual. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge is dual. Space, distance or length (scale) is dual -- variant is dual to invariant. Left is dual to right, big is dual to small -- space duality. Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@clashthesity]

@@hyperduality2838 sorry my tiny brain can't comprehend such complex concepts..

[@kavithacanchi8246]

Positively charged particles will appear like moving as we call it as conventional current.actually it’s not .in the case of electricity only electrons move not protons.if you know how electricity is generated then u will have clear perspective.

[@HalfIntSpin]

If you're on a moving train and you look outside, the trees are moving "from your frame of reference". Whenever you talk about motion, you must include a frame of reference. All it matters is what "appears" to be moving from your frame of reference. And when you move at constant velocity, your frame of reference is equally valid compared to the ground's frame kf reference. Also, it's not protons but positive ions(which will contain more than a proton) when you consider the moving electrons, that's why it is nowhere said proton. In reality things are way more complicated, but to explain this concept, it's a good enough approximation. It is mentioned in the video as well.

[@jerswinpolo]

I strongly believe that Einstein is the greatest illusionist of all time. He was able to trick most people into believing that his theory was true and correct when in reality it is an absolute illusion.

[@HalfIntSpin]

Haha

[@hyperduality2838]

Duality == absolute illusion! Truth is dual to falsity -- propositional logic. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Time dilation (contraction) is dual to length contraction (dilation) -- Einstein, special relativity. North poles are dual to south poles -- magnets are dual. Space/time symmetries are dual to Mobius maps synthesize stereographic projection (the Hegelian dialectic). Scale invariance is dual to scale variance synthesizes mass, mass is the by-product or synthesis of scale variance. Pure energy or light does not experience time whereas mass does experience time. Electro is dual to magnetic -- Maxwell's equations are dual. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge is dual. Space, distance or length (scale) is dual -- variant is dual to invariant. Left is dual to right, big is dual to small -- space duality. Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@AKA-f7p]

Please solve those three topics quickly 🙏🏿.

[@HalfIntSpin]

Could you please elaborate a bit more?

[@AKA-f7p]

@HalfIntSpin i mean those two paradox. Mess with my calculations. Not important but that mess with my understanding. And the magnet is a paradox to me. Because I didn't understand magnetism.

[@HalfIntSpin]

Of course. Will address this for sure. Thanks.

[@GrimmityClips]

It's all about perspective 🧐

[@HalfIntSpin]

Yes sir. That was the biggest idea from Einstein! Space and Time, which Newton said are absolute, are relative. Hence the name.

[@hyperduality2838]

Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Time dilation (contraction) is dual to length contraction (dilation) -- Einstein, special relativity. North poles are dual to south poles -- magnets are dual. Space/time symmetries are dual to Mobius maps synthesize stereographic projection (the Hegelian dialectic). Scale invariance is dual to scale variance synthesizes mass, mass is the by-product or synthesis of scale variance. Pure energy or light does not experience time whereas mass does experience time. Electro is dual to magnetic -- Maxwell's equations are dual. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge is dual. Space, distance or length (scale) is dual -- variant is dual to invariant. Left is dual to right, big is dual to small -- space duality. Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@RedwanAhmedShakil]

Please 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻. A Video for permanent magnet

[@HalfIntSpin]

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. ❤️

[@get5980]

This is the same as the force between 2 conductors Ampere's law.....what is not understood is that B-field is in a relation to Temperatur kai k-wavenumber

[@AntonJoseJoseph]

Thanks

[@HalfIntSpin]

You're too kind!! Tomorrow I have an interesting one for you. Quantum Mechanics!

[@xylfox]

When i squeezed my finger yesterday between two magnets it felt quite REAL!

[@HalfIntSpin]

😂

[@stephen7774]

Note - Frame of reference is code for the aether. Don't be fooled. Aether based compression - not relativity silly!

[@HalfIntSpin]

Haha you made me chuckle. Hope you enjoyed the content. And appreciate you dropping your thoughts here!

[@stephen7774]

@@HalfIntSpin When I make you cry I will know that you can see clearer.

[@HalfIntSpin]

Great. I look forward to it. Let's see.

[@jonmoore8995]

Look forward your next excellent tutorial.

[@HalfIntSpin]

Really appreciate your kind words. Writing animations for the next video (on Quantum Mechanics). Planning to drop it before the year end. Hope to see you there.

[@hyperduality2838]

Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Time dilation (contraction) is dual to length contraction (dilation) -- Einstein, special relativity. North poles are dual to south poles -- magnets are dual. Space/time symmetries are dual to Mobius maps synthesize stereographic projection (the Hegelian dialectic). Scale invariance is dual to scale variance synthesizes mass, mass is the by-product or synthesis of scale variance. Pure energy or light does not experience time whereas mass does experience time. Electro is dual to magnetic -- Maxwell's equations are dual. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge is dual. Space, distance or length (scale) is dual -- variant is dual to invariant. Left is dual to right, big is dual to small -- space duality. Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@BooBaddyBig]

I don't accept Einstein's view. It doesn't explain what a magnetic field actually is. If I have just a magnetic field in a reference frame, what is the magnetic field? Clearly magnetic fields are not fundamental, since (whether or not there actually are magnetic monopoles) they are produced by moving charges. I also think it's suspicious that magnetic monopoles have never been found. I think it's a consequence of the hairy ball theorem. I think a magnetic field is just the electrostatic field with propagation delay, no ifs no buts.

[@HalfIntSpin]

Well, actually it'll get more clear when we come to permanent magnets. The fundamental thing is the electromagnetic field. And these two seems to be 2 sides of the same coin.

[@hpeterh]

Magnetic field penetrates a Faraday Cage (if it is not superconducting), Coloumb field does not penetrate it. There is a classic experiment that was carried out more than a hundred years ago to prove Maxwell's theory: A disk is electrically charged to a high voltage and set in rapid rotation. It then deflects a compass needle, creating a magnetic field. In this case, positive and negative charges move at the same speed. How can this be explained?

[@HalfIntSpin]

Amazing both points. My first line of thought is because Magnetic monopoles don't exist. However, I'll have to go back and research for more in depth cause for this different behavior. And the rotating disc version will going to have some painful mathematics involved. Because that'll be a non intertial frame of reference. And so Special Relativity won't be applicable and we will have to turn ourselves to General Relativity. Thanks for these points. Added to my to-do list for things to dig deep on. 🤝

[@hpeterh]

@@HalfIntSpin Thank you. I believe the rotating disk experiment (which was made by top scientists like Conrad Roentgen and many others at this time) can be simplified to a moving, electrically charged infinite wire (without current) as a thought experiment or simply modelled as an infinite length electron beam. It is also to consider, because the universe in a whole is electric neutral, each electric charge must have an opposite polarity mirror charge, somewhere.

[@MinMax-kc8uj]

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.

[@HalfIntSpin]

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. 🤝

[@MinMax-kc8uj]

@@HalfIntSpin I might have been overconfident. There are some problems I'm noticing. I'll have to redo my video on this (When Roots Take Shape: Waves, Angles, and Maps). It seems there is a hyperbolic version of the magnetic field, which threw me off. It's a bunch of loxodromes.

[@calicoesblue4703]

@@HalfIntSpinActually they recently found evidence of a magnetic monopole.

[@HalfIntSpin]

Interesting. I don't have that knowledge. Can you share me some references where I can read about it?

[@calicoesblue4703]

@@HalfIntSpin "Magnetic monopoles discovered by LCN Scientists"... Type that in & the article should pop up, that is not the only article. If I recall, harvard or Mit have made some observations as well.

[@adrinfpv]

The video photo cover is misleading because a permanent magnet is pictured, but the explanation is for magnetic fields of a moving charge. Valid explanation but not what the viewer is expecting. So are fields in a permanent magnet an illusion? No. So please fix this video title and cover photo

[@HalfIntSpin]

Would rather drop part 2 covering the permanent magnets as well, with the same title and cover. Patience my friend.

[@adrinfpv]

@HalfIntSpin understand but this episode should also be accurate. Just label accordingly

[@HalfIntSpin]

Appreciate the inputs! Will be waiting to see your response on the next video on Quantum Mechanics, probably going to be live on 31st.

[@adrinfpv]

@HalfIntSpin love your work by the way

[@BrunoSantos-bt2bk]

@@HalfIntSpinI would love to see this explanation for permanent magnets, I never saw one. That must be way more complex

[@ModsixGaming]

Excellent video, easy to follow, and I’m terrible with physics haha.

[@HalfIntSpin]

Appreciate you for all the feedback Mod. Amazing to hear this from the homies. 🥂

[@GrimmityClips]

I changed fields of study because of physics and chemistry 😵‍💫 lol

[@HalfIntSpin]

I got you now though. Albeit, I'm late. 😅

[@MyName-tb9oz]

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?

[@HalfIntSpin]

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. 🤝

[@MyName-tb9oz]

@@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.

[@HalfIntSpin]

Nice. Dark matter and Dark energy are actually more than that. It's a good topic as well. We have a couple of particles which we think can be dark matter candidates MACHOs and WIMPs. Also you'll be glad to know that the double slit experiment is the place from where I'm going to enter quantum mechanics. And it is the next video which I'm working on. I will be curious to see if my explanation makes it less confusing for you. 🤝

[@HalfIntSpin]

Made a video explaining the double slit experiment. Hope you'll check it out.

[@hyperduality2838]

The twin paradox is duality. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Time dilation (contraction) is dual to length contraction (dilation) -- Einstein, special relativity. North poles are dual to south poles -- magnets are dual. Space/time symmetries are dual to Mobius maps synthesize stereographic projection (the Hegelian dialectic). Scale invariance is dual to scale variance synthesizes mass, mass is the by-product or synthesis of scale variance. Pure energy or light does not experience time whereas mass does experience time. Electro is dual to magnetic -- Maxwell's equations are dual. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge is dual. Space, distance or length (scale) is dual -- variant is dual to invariant. Left is dual to right, big is dual to small -- space duality. Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@Dymomite]

wow how does this only have 700 views?

[@HalfIntSpin]

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. ❤️🤝

[@AlexTrusk91]

Was awaiting permant magnets. Only got elöectromegnets. Meh

[@HalfIntSpin]

The explanation of permanent magnets requires Quantum Mechanics. The upcoming video is gonna do that. It's way more interesting but then requires some concepts of QM to be clear. Bear with me for 2, 3 next video. I'm gonna get there. 🤝

[@hyperduality2838]

The twin paradox is duality! Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Time dilation (contraction) is dual to length contraction (dilation) -- Einstein, special relativity. North poles are dual to south poles -- magnets are dual. Space/time symmetries are dual to Mobius maps synthesize stereographic projection (the Hegelian dialectic). Scale invariance is dual to scale variance synthesizes mass, mass is the by-product or synthesis of scale variance. Pure energy or light does not experience time whereas mass does experience time. Electro is dual to magnetic -- Maxwell's equations are dual. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge is dual. Space, distance or length (scale) is dual -- variant is dual to invariant. Left is dual to right, big is dual to small -- space duality. Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@m4rc1an08]

Wow

[@HalfIntSpin]

Thank you!

[@ironman5034]

Nice graphics

[@HalfIntSpin]

Thanks! I appreciate you. 🤝🥂

[@danny9609]

Owee from texas 🔥

[@HalfIntSpin]

Let's go danny... Hope you enjoyed the content. 😎🤜🤛

[@duytdl]

👍

[@HalfIntSpin]

🤝

[@TatuCarreta]

@@HalfIntSpin 👌

[@wdobni]

you cannot be shrunk down to the size of an electron....its impossible....so employing an impossibility (an impossible reference frame demanding impossible conditions) must surely render that 'proof' or illustration invalid.

[@HalfIntSpin]

Think of this as a means to explain how I am trying to shift the frame of reference to the moving charge particle. Nothing more, nothing less. In order to explain in more relatable term, I have to make some sort of analogy from around us. It makes things easier to understand for some people. And analogies are always imperfect. It does not render the explanation invalid. It simply says, here is how you can understand changing of the frame of reference.