Electrostatic Physics, It's Magic!

[@stefanroibu8238]

Your channel is to underrated!! Should be on top, keep up the good work!

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Stefan for the encouragement! I am glad you enjoy my work.

[@HamidKhan-uv7qm]

Love u sir.....ur English is very very simple and ur understanding method is very beautiful......

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Hamid

[@user-sb5vp3yu8m]

I like your videos. Very illustrative. How about adding a flame below the rod to remove or lower the static charge?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Why would it do that? Unless the flame disrupt the electronic structure of the insulator (Stinky plastic haha), the charge wouldn't move. (remember electric charge must ne conserved)

[@user-sb5vp3yu8m]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy I think the flame would produce ions and the positive ions would grab an electron (static charge) from the PVC tube. The flame producing lots of positive ions to remove most of the charge. This intrigued me enough to get a piece of PVC from my shop and use my wool blanket to charge it up to move a metal can around. Which it did. Then I took a butane lighter and held the top/tip of the flame about 15mm (~half inch) below the PVC so as not to melt it or make it stinky and then moved it quickly all over the tube to expose the entire surface to the flame's possible ions which I assume are carried up in the rising heat (since the charge cannot move my thought is all the surface must be exposed). Once complete the can doesn't move without actually touching it. So it seems to work. I repeated it a few times to convince myself. Perhaps there are electrons in the flame as well so I wondered if it would work. I'll have to do some more reading on the subject. It was a fun and quick experiment to do. I came across your videos looking for more information on radio waves and found some which showed me a new way to think of them. Waves as well. I'm now trying to figure out, visualize, what really happens when those waves are reflected. And brush up on my math. I've found all of your videos fun to watch and educational. Thanks!

[@MrAcc45]

Very good 👍👌

[@zakirhussain-js9ku]

Thank you for sharing physics phenomena which is truly magical. I think magic behind force acting at a distance w/o contact is interaction b/w fluxes of electric charges involved. When fluxes of like charges interact, fluxes density b/w charges increase as like fluxes can occupy same space. Due to increase in density repulsive/push force is produced b/w charges. When fluxes of opposite charges interact flux density b/w charges is decreased as opposite fluxes can't occupy same space. Due to lower flux density attractive/pull force is produced b/w charges. It is like piston and cylinder. At atmospheric ( normal) gas density inside the cylinder piston does not move. When density of gas inside the cylinder is increased the piston is pushed and when density of gas inside the cylinder is decreased piston is pulled.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hello Zakir, You seem to have discovered the concept of flux: It shows up in all your recent comments. As you are one of my first loyal subscribers, I need to intervene here and ask that your revisit your understanding… For example you wrote in another comment: “ Electric charge is made of and is surrounded by microscopic particles collectively called electric flux. Electric flux and electric field are two different entities. Electric Flux is a physical object while electric field is a force with magnitude and direction. There is no electric field around a single charge. Electric field appears only when electric fluxes of two or more charges interact with each other.” This is highly incorrect. If you are studying physics right now, I recommend you don’t follow that path. Summary of concepts: A charge is a property of an object. A charge generates a field around around it. For example, mass (Charge of gravity) --> Gravitational field, electric charge --> electric field An electric field is a region of space where a charge placed in that field experiences a force At each point of a field there is a vector called the electric field strength, which represents the force per unit charge. These are tangent to field lines. Field lines (also called lines of force), represent the path that would take a positive charge. You can see these lines as the path by which a positive charge would flow. These are not material entities but conceptual ones. And they are the elementary block of an electric flux. The electric flux measures the flow of unit charges that would occur through a set surface if these charges were placed in the field, because it actually represents the AMOUNT of electric force per unit charge passing through an area. The sum of field lines passing through that surface is thus a measurement of the electric flux. In other words, if the electric field strength represents a flux density, then, the flux itself represents an amount of field. If you want, you can use the following analogy, although I am not too fond of it: Imagine a river flowing. Imagine now placing small marbles of the density of water in the river so that they stay in suspension in the water. Because the river has flow, the marbles will feel a force and move in the direction of the flow. Now submerge a surface of A m2 in the river water so that the surface is perpendicular to the water flow. The flow itself is the electric field strength. Because bigger the flow, stronger the force on a marble (that represent a unit charge). The amount of water flow passing through that surface is the flux (= the amount of field). Inversely, the electric field strength is just a surfacic density of electric flux! When the water flow increases (E increases), the amount of water passing through that area will increase proportionally to the area of that submerged perpendicular surface. And the amount of marbles passing through that surface per second and per unit surface, is the current density… I might do a video on this, but I am still reflecting on how I will approach it (As I told you, I am not fan of the analogy above, so I am reflecting on another approach to explain it). So stay tuned, and please revisit your understanding, or you will get more and more confused further you advanced in your studies.

[@zakirhussain-js9ku]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy Sir, thank you once again for detailed explanation which is perfectly in line with contemporary theories & knowledge. But these theories don't fully explain certain phenomena like why like charges repel, there is this theory of vertual photons in QED. But when charges move away they gain KE as they carry mass. Where does the energy come from? I try to offer an alternate explanation. But I accept my view could be totally incorrect. In your future videos, pl. address following questions; 1. Why opposite charges attract & like charges repel. 2. Why force appears when a test charge is placed. Can we establish presence of force field w/o test charge i.e. w/o interaction b/w flux of charge & test charge. 3. What is source of EM flux/field of EM waves. There are no charges in EM waves. 4. What is source of magnetic flux around current carrying conductor. 5. Source of spin magnetic moment of a particle. 6. Why E & M fields are attractive & repulsive but G.F. only attractive. 7. What is flux in EM & gravitational waves made of. My view is that matter and space are made of infinitely small particles. Change in density of these particles in a region of space produces force fields. I could be wrong.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

@@zakirhussain-js9ku Hi Zakir, I understand now why you ask these questions, and attempt to answer them with an alternative theory. First my apologies for thinking you were getting confused, I thought you were not understanding the consensual views. And congratulations for asking yourself these questions. 1/ Charges gain KE when experiencing a repulsion: it is because they originally have potential energy due to their initial position. But this does not really answer your question, neither will QED. Note though that it always comes back to Energy… In all classical and quantum formulations, Energy is involved and energy is defined as the sum of PE and KE. But still this doesn’t answer your question Your question is actually: why are things the way they are? No one has an answer… Why the universe is the way it is. You can reflect on multiverse theories (like String theory or Everett’s view on the collapse of the wave function etc.) But why should there be a multiverse in the first place, and why do these universes have rules? Your question ends up being a philosophical question 2/ Kind of the same here. Would an electric field exist without any test charges to check that it’s here? Does the moon exist when nobody watches it (something that Einstein hated lol!)? 3/ If you stay within contemporary theories, the source of the electric field is the electron. If the electron is oscillating, then, at a set point, so will the electric field strength (and consequently, the electric flux). IF you place a charge on the path of the EM wave, it will oscillate (See video on why light reflects) 4/ For this, there is a clear explanation: Special Relativity. Magnetic fields do not really exist: the effect perceived as being a magnetic effect is due to a relativistic effect. For an object moving, distances within the environment of that object decrease for that moving object. So, an electron moving, will see the distance between surrounding protons decrease, i.e. the density of charge will appear to increase relatively to this electron. The electron will experience an electric force towards this apparently increased density of positive charge. This is rough explanation. Look on the web by typing relativity and magnetism… 5/ Same story: consider an electron being a little sphere, and place it in rotation. Slice it up horizontally. What you will see are loops of currents. Therefore, from answer 4/, you can deduce the apparition of magnetic field lines / flux. 6/ We might get an answer once we manage to unite QM and General Relativity and discover a better model for the nature of reality. 7/ within contemporary models, a flux is not a physical entity. I understand your attempt to justify some of these phenomena by imagining that space is made of particles for which the density will have an effect on the bodies within that space (a little like a wave pushes a surfer…). I am pretty sure this research path has been explored already, and is probably still being explored. Maybe you should turn your eyes towards quantum loop gravity, which is an alternative theory that does have a lot of merit. The starting point is to consider that space is quantized into elementary tiny quantum loops. Carlo Rovelli is a specialist in that field and vulgarizes about it. Check his books.