Electric Flux Paradox

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

To see subtitles in other languages: Click on the gear symbol under the video, then click on "subtitles." Then select the language (You may need to scroll up and down to see all the languages available). --To change subtitle appearance: Scroll to the top of the language selection window and click "options." In the options window you can, for example, choose a different font color and background color, and set the "background opacity" to 100% to help make the subtitles more readable. --To turn the subtitles "on" or "off" altogether: Click the "CC" button under the video. --If you believe that the translation in the subtitles can be improved, please send me an email.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

You can help translate this video by adding subtitles in other languages. To add a translation, click on the following link: kzbin.info_video?v=P0Jnx1BjIZM&ref=share You will then be able to add translations for all the subtitles. You will also be able to provide a translation for the title of the video. Please remember to hit the submit buttons for both the title and for the subtitles, as they are submitted separately. Details about adding translations is available at support.google.com/youtube/answer/6054623?hl=en Thanks.

[@timunterberg3289]

Maybe the answear is in the 4 Dimension becouse we are able to handle all what is lower also some teoris means that Electronic is completly difrend in 4d (sorry for Grammer im from germany )

[@theduder2617]

@@xxtradamxx E=MC2 is not a representation. It is a directly observable law of physics which occurs all day every day. Just because we do not experience it in our daily lives does not render it not real. We see the end results of that math for example. The sun is the easiest example to offer. Many physical laws can be tested and verified with physical experimentation, no math needed. You can even test aspects for yourself. Gravity as an easy example. Gravity is an extremely weak force. That can be tested without math, simply by raising your hand if you feel I am incorrect. As far as "small" physics, yes, math is our only way of representing that world due to not being able to directly view it. But when the math confirms something, chances are extremely high that it is a real thing.

[@theduder2617]

@@timunterberg3289 It is safe to say almost anything would be very different in a 4D universe. And I feel you are correct. The solutions may lie in that 4th dimension. After all, if we lived in a 2D universe, we would have no understanding of most everything we experience in our current lives. If there are other dimensional universes, there will be math heading off into one of those directions. All we have to do is locate that math.

[@joshuawhitworth6456]

Here is the missing piece to particle physics.... www.deviantart.com/joshua-j-whitworth/art/The-Official-Seed-of-Life-Fractal-Symbol-816518631

[@joshuawhitworth6456]

I am God by the way. Nice to meet you all.

[@shirshak6738]

Lord eugene is back .

[@klam77]

you mean, like, "Lord! Eugene is back" (with disgust) or "Lord Eugene (the great, in a sarcastic way) is back" or.... it's a paradox.

[@luigiionascu7056]

_the time back _sign transsinphinite number theory _archaicxn lord

[@olbluelips]

Holy cow, this is one of my favourite things I have ever seen! The idea that a universe with uniform charge density throughout space is logically impossible is beautiful! It's as if we have inferred a metaphysical truth from a physical theory, which I love

[@igehring]

I need to watch some more times to understand...

[@galvanizedcorpse]

same here, as usual LOL

[@chrish7975]

27 times and still nothing.

[@fathmasameer7523]

@@chrish7975 same here bro 😂😂😂

[@darkseid856]

@@chrish7975 hahaha .

[@godfreecharlie]

Yes, its helpful and having the PAUSE, REWIND, STOP buttons is quite beneficial too.

[@morkovija]

I'll just leave my like and slowly back away

[@interstellarconveyance4865]

😂👍

[@safasaleh3010]

Lol

[@dougg1075]

I’m right behind ya.

[@anand.suralkar]

Lol

[@anand.suralkar]

Thanks..for suggestions of 1.5x

[@MrZedblade]

I hate it when this happens.

[@dannydazzler1549]

%50 of viewers watch this channel for psychedelic entertainment

[@MrYeyda]

Exactly :)

[@Eratosthenes0fCyrene]

How else to understand this?

[@yveslaflute9228]

1% Watch to het hilarity from theories that dont add up to REALITY! Yes SIR Newton, I'm laughing at you too.

[@dannydazzler1549]

@@yveslaflute9228 stfu

[@ishworshrestha3559]

Yui

[@pranalingle9424]

really appreciated your hard work

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thank you.

[@KarTandir]

i was just reading about the utah teapot and how it became an inside joke amongst the computer graphics community, then i immediately saw one at 2:56 lol. i guess im gonna see more of it now that i know it.

[@I_am_Alan]

i can't even comprehend the paradox

[@officialspaceefrain]

It's the flux. It's all in the Flux.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Our intuition tells us that the net electric field should be zero, due to the symmetry of space. That is the paradox: We get different answers depending on how we think about it. If we think about in terms of closed surfaces, every closed surface must have an electric field, due to the charge inside. But, if we think about it in terms of the symmetry of space, the electric field should be zero.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

That's what makes a paradox 🤗

[@isnarmori5974]

@@pluggthis Closed means it's an unbroken surface. A sphere of a cube are closed surfaces. A sphere with a hole cut out of it or a flat sheet are not.

[@theduder2617]

@@pluggthis My apologies, I am not an educator. Try thinking of "closed" in this way: If you want a light to turn on, using a switch, you complete (close) the circuit which allows current to flow. When the light is off, the circuit is (open), or not completed, thus current can not flow. There are no assumptions being made. It is merely a law governing electricity. They omitted an explanation in my opinion, because this topic is far beyond introductory electricity and/or physics. By this point in the subject matter, open and closed have been clearly defined. Note: This probably is not what was meant by "closed" in this video.

[@InternetDarkLord]

8:19 Actually, Newtonian physics wrestled with this very problem. In order to explain why gravity does not cause the entire universe to collapse into one point, Newton was forced to explain this problem away with an infinite universe, which caused many problems.

[@ulflyng]

I love the smell of electrons in the morning

[@lvintagenerd]

You are BY FAR the best educational KZbin channel there is. AND active in the comment section. I just hope i can recommend you to the entire universe, and beyond. :-)

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for that really great compliment.

[@lvintagenerd]

@@EugeneKhutoryansky

[@lvintagenerd]

@@EugeneKhutoryansky Thanks. See?

[@jdtaramona]

You guy are a legend!!!

[@godfreecharlie]

The best physics videos on KZbin. Actually the best on anything.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliment about my videos.

[@noeckel]

Aside from the fact that the electrostatic energy of this charge distribution would be infinite (so it would take an infinite amount of work to create it in the first place), the "paradox" mainly illustrates the crucial importance of the boundary conditions. You could think of the infinite charged region as a limit of a finite sphere as the radius goes to infinity. Then a solution in which the electric field is zero at the center of this sphere remains valid at all values of the radius, because you have well-defined boundary conditions during the limiting process. In other words, when going to infinity, it's not the destination that matters, but the way you get there...

[@vasdgod]

I greet the the greatest animator of physics and God of physics animator Eugene Khutyransky

[@dhk1126]

We've all been waiting for you, Eugene!! Thank you from South Korea!

[@lagduck2209]

Yes, probably positive and negative charges needs to be symmetrical in net weght and equal to zero at it integral sum over all of space, by definition. Space charged equally everywhere just doesnt make any physical sense, breaking the law of neutrality of EM flux out of any closed region being neutral, hence such paradox emerges. If you imagine infinite space of equal mass-energy density, this is when laws go wrong too. Thanks for a good demonstration anyways

[@lagduck2209]

This is probably the reason why we couldnt detect magnetic monopoles as a thing, though interesting concept. Space goes eastwards and westwards with its properties, but never out of balance such as scaling up as infinite charge ewherywhere. Magnetic monopoles could be a thing, that just not. Some artifacts in our models, probably ingenious, just dont work. (s=again, thank you for great demo, in hope of future works)

[@jorcyd]

@2:52 Utah Teapot :)

[@Xphy]

Blender

[@christopleefulp5256]

I'm late.

[@rtx4070ultrawidegaming]

Impressive artwork, perfectly explained concepts! Thank you!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliment.

[@cyberaxkun2100]

Pls enlighten me with a summary .

[@interstellarconveyance4865]

That was the BEST presentations you have ever done!! It puts both support of "Quantum Flux Theory" Oxford University Press, And..Wall Thornhill's electric Universe! Your observations and presentation are breathtaking, I'm in my third year of higher physics, because I'm training my mind to visualize 4th dimensional modelling and quaternion mathematics. You have given this higher framework of electromagnetism a Viceral cognition as well. Sorry that was so long, your work has bailed me out several times in class. Love you guys!! Mr Fractal pie

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliment about my videos and I am glad that they are helpful.

[@lewiszim]

Suppose for a moment that this is not a flaw in our theory of electromagnetism. There has been some recent work on Planck satellite data that suggests the universe may have positive curvature. This is still tentative. The calculations are being checked, double checked, triple checked. But if true, would that indirectly tell us something about the net charge in our entire universe?

[@interstellarconveyance4865]

Or that the Universe is spherical? And not an A morphological blob?

[@galvanizedcorpse]

great content as usual!. This one reminds me a lot to the definition of boundary conditions in molecular dynamics simulations!

[@calicoesblue4703]

Nice video & excellent commentary

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliments.

[@ashtahoff]

thanks for the upload, your channel is a treat

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks.

[@a_a_k_13]

As always great video

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks.

[@Ev-wj3lm]

The introduction with the backgrounds reminded me of those shooting star memes

[@mwk22bath]

7:20 You may have actually convinced me that we do live in a closed universe with positive electric charge density, because it does not matter that we cannot "solve" the equations for the whole universe. The equations are just tools. They do not govern what happens, causality does. If there was an extra positive electric charge, then the effect would presumably propagate at c (which is not factored into the equations). We probably do not have good maths for this (would have to simulate), but this does not make it impossible. The field lines would multiply for each lap of the closed universe, and cause exponentially increasing electric field strength, the net result of which would be that objects would be pushed away from each other in increasing magnitudes at a cosmic scale, right? *cough* dark energy *cough* inflation *cough* new closed CMB result *cough*

[@clairpahlavi]

Today's astrophysics is messed up. How is the positive charge spread at the speed of light? It was there. It is connected and affected by every other charge in the Universe. There are no isolated islands.

[@mwk22bath]

@@clairpahlavi I mean that the charge is spreading just like a gravity wave, at c. I do not believe it is instantaneously connected to the rest of the universe. If I shake a positive charge around, you would not be able to detect it faster than c allows. So in that sense, the effect would travel around the universe repeatedly at c. And I believe this is why the equations do not add up for a disbalance, as the one extra charge would gain infinite effect.

[@Mernom]

The acceleration is uniform throughout the universe. A charge based acceleration would not be, I think. Edit: Besides, where would the extra charge come from?

[@mwk22bath]

@@Mernom The same place everything comes from. I think the slight variations in the accelerations could be explained by differing percentages of excess positive charge.

[@SebastianGarcia-ln4sd]

Thanks for the upload, love you videos !!!

[@Fitzrovialitter]

Great to see your videos back.

[@tokajileo5928]

can flux come out of a black hole? how can a black hole have charge if nothing escapes it? if EM is exchange of photons and photons cannot escae a BH how can a BH have a charge?

[@retsukage]

love your videos they give me life!!!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks!!!

[@stephendean2896]

Thanks for sharing this information in a video. It has helped me a great deal

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Glad my video was helpful. Thanks.

[@benjaminbrady2385]

Just pointing out that even if it's not possible to have a uniform charge density that there is no rule in EMT that explicitly states that so either way it seems to me that the theory could be upgraded

[@daemonnice]

She begins this video discussing electric flux. She asks you to imagine an infinite universe with infinite charge potential. She then states it brings rise to a paradox. This is what I think is why. First she is relying on theoretical math models that do not represent observations. Space is not uniform and neither is charge distribution. Galaxies and quasars may have their own intrinsic energy meaning that even big G is not a constant. Within a plasma such as the solar wind, charge does not attract and neutralize. Opposing charge forms double layers aka Alfven layers. These form currents which may just be precursors to birkeland currents. They do form zeta pinches. And this matches the observed filamentary structure, the web of space.

[@corlfranco9371]

tensor bureaucracy

[@brandonkim4675]

The most educational channel in KZbin

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliment.

[@chrish7975]

0:06 The point at which my brain melted.

[@MarkMichalowski]

Great visuals, but I still have no idea what you're on about. It feels like a video made for people who already understand this stuff.

[@corlfranco9371]

lol, yep well... you could call this episode 604; case (b) scenario 13, theoric physics #99

[@Miyelsh]

Well the Maxwell's equations video of his is a great start. It's a beautiful subject matter but requires a solid basis of multivariable calculus to truly understand.

[@oo88oo]

And what’s wrong with that?

[@MarkMichalowski]

@@oo88oo Absolutely nothing! :)

[@Abuda7amHD]

Gauss’s law

[@constpegasus]

Amazing as usual. Thank you.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks.

[@dhruvpendharkar488]

Why are all the mathematical solutions in the infinite space not considered as one but different though they are similar ? At 4:20 And why do they contradict each other ?

[@arjunaaustin1098]

Good question and I think I understand the answer but I might need to be corrected. Try and understand it step by step: 1. Imagine the infinite space with an infinite number of points of positive charge spread out in that space. At around 2:25, Eugene explains that for a closed system, the net electric flux of the system is equivalent to the sum of the electric flux exiting and entering the closed system. 2. Apply that to a closed system in our infinite space; say we have a cube with four positively charge particles and say that the each particle produces six of those arrows (field lines). Therefore the amount of arrows that we observe to be exiting is 24 (4x6) so the net electric flux would be 24. If we increase the volume of the cube so that we have 16 particles then our hypothetical electric flux would be 16x6. At around 3:50, Eugene explains this point by saying that if we increase the volume of a closed system we inherently increase the strength of electric field. 3. To define the strength of an electric field at any given point we need a boundary condition. We assume that for any object with charge, the electric field strength at a distance of infinity is zero and that the electric potential at this point is also zero (E(∞) = 0 and V(∞) = 0). The work needed to take that point from infinity to any other point closer to the charged object is described as W = -V. At a distance of 0 length from the charged object, the Electric Field strength is at a maximum and I usually say that the magnitude of E = -V at this point (but I might be wrong). 4. Apply this understanding to our infinite space and you have the answer to your question. For each 'cube' of positive particles we define E (∞) = 0 . But the electric field strength at every other point closer to the charged object is defined as E(d) > 0 [where d < ∞]. Imagine two cubes parallel to each other at a separation distance of 50m and imagine a point between these two cubes but this point is 10m away from the cube on the left and 40m from the cube on the right. The total electric field strength at that point is the change in the field strength depending upon the direction of the electric field. In this case, E(total) = - E(10) + E(40) => E(total) = E(30). This isn't a contradiction and makes perfect sense in reality. However what I believe Eugene meant is that each cube has a different electric field strength to another cube at a specific point in space where the distance for both cubes from this point is less than infinity. Does that make sense? Basically because these cubes are in different positions in space, they each have a unique electric field strength to another specific point in space. They wouldn't 'contradict' each other if they were in exactly the same position in space (overlapping one another), because they would have the same electric field strength at every other point in space depending on whether each cube has the same electric flux density as I described in the first and second paragraph.

[@dhruvpendharkar488]

@@arjunaaustin1098 The need for having a boundary condition makes perfect sense. Although , I am confused regarding whether E(d) represents field due to charge enclosed in a closed surface (the cube) or the net field due to the infinite grid of charges as only the former one would result in field at a point being different for different cubes. Also , thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

[@arjunaaustin1098]

@@dhruvpendharkar488 E(d) represents the Electric field strength at a distance of 'd' from a charged object. So yes the former one represents E(d), but 'd' depends on position away from the cube. The net field strength due to the infinite grid of charges would be a constant = infinity, so there is no point of defining the electric field strength for an object with an infinite volume in terms of E(d) as it would be the same at every point in space. Side note: you probably already know this but physicists use 'r' instead of 'd' to represent distances between point charges. My mistake.

[@crackyflipside]

Love these videos!!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks.

[@g1ld]

Interesting. I'm tempted to say that doesn't seem possible to apply symmetry because different points on the uniformly charged line have different potential but it's tricky to see it without a clear reference point where the potential is not actually infinite

[@analogplanet9675]

Very Interesting point. My intuition tells me that symmetry is actually our only hope here. From the perspective of any point in the universe, all the charge is located in spherical shells around that point, so their influence cancels out. I agree that the potential difference between anywhere in the universe and anywhere outside the universe is infinite, whatever that means.

[@asdf12369]

awesome video, although i dont feel that this is a paradox per se; thats just what happens when you deal with infinities

[@ShenLong33]

What does this mean? The universe, from electromagnetism theory, is open and closed at the same time? that the universe in not electrically neutral depending on our reference? This is something I had never encountered before. So I don't know what all this is about. Of course I'll see the videos a couple of times, but I don't know where this is coming from or what the implications are.

[@stephendean2896]

I think I have watched this video 50 times can’t seem to get it off my mind thanks for sharing

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Glad you liked my video that much. Thanks.

[@igorekudashev]

Video was uploaded yesterday, but its already has russian subtitles, great

[@Alithenius]

So is the problem something like this? We can associate a uniform positive charge density with all of real 3-space (thinking of this as the divergence of some electric field at every point). If we try to partition the space into any two continuously connected spaces (For example, cutting the space in half along the xy-plane) then our intuition would tell us that the charge density of the space would have to be zero along the boundary of those two spaces, since each component of the space would be applying the same amount of electromagnetic flux into the other partition of the space through the boundary, but if you integrate the electromagnetic potential throughout any of the closed regions, then the divergence theorem (and thus, Gauss's Law) would say that the net flux exiting any nontrivial region would be strictly positive?

[@adayinthelife5496]

Awesome video. Great philosophy in this content. I always think of Maxwell's Laws as being defined from a point source/ exchange particle perspective. But it's concerning that it doesn't follow through in greater dimensions. An upgrade to the electromagnetic model which includes general relativity seems overdue. But it's so challenging to visualize these mathematics. So few people have even tried. I think negative mass is more a shape of time and space, and not a particle per se.

[@luisbolanos8393]

I’m a novice, so please be kind with your answer. When you say negative mass, are you referring to when we square root a value but only keep the positive answer and discard the negative answer when dealing with time, length, mass, etc?

[@adayinthelife5496]

@@luisbolanos8393 um..no. I think the complex conjugate of gravity would be inertia. I thinking more like instead of a gravitational well, negative mass would be a gravitational peak. I'll let you know if I figured it out😋

[@techniquerules]

From what Ive seen the laws of physics hate unbalance, if one side of something is created its opposite is also. For example when we try to heat one area we end up cooling down another. I think a infinite net positive field would be impossible as what ever mechanism creates it would also inevitably create some net negative field and they'd begin mixing into each other like @ 1:28

[@enderyu]

"When we try to heat one area we end up cooling down another" Conservation of caloric is simply not true; you can easily transform mechanical work into heat with no cooling involved. Heat is just another form of energy

[@dbz5808]

So in an infinite universe of uniform electric charge, enclosed volumes will have a net charge different from that of the universe. Very interesting.

[@Д.Түвшинбаяр]

Is 2:23 still valid, if there is 1 extra charge that is excluded from and located near the closed surface?

[@adriansilveanu7915]

The animation is surreal. It looks like war.

[@VG__]

0:20 wow🌟 1:05 ohk 1:58 2:02 this was exactly what I wanted, angle 6:46 best❤️

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks.

[@VG__]

@@EugeneKhutoryansky omg, did u reply me😃😆 thankewww thanku thanku🌟 I just wanna let u know that your videos are mind blowing....they help me clear my concepts like crystal clear🥺❤️❤️ had subscribed your channel since years🌟 Xoxo🙂

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliments. I am glad you like my videos.

[@PrivateSi]

To make it add up and make sense +ve cells held together by -ve 'flux' are needed... forms the base material hex lattice... flux must be able to flow and cells at least move from their neutral, balanced position via energy.. out of place cells, and possibly the hole left behind form particles. From here you can explain gravity + dark energy and electricity in basic terms.

[@alirezaghaffarian9038]

My "friends" say they binge-watch Netflix. I binge-watch this!!

[@alexanderhugestrand]

I don't understand what the problem is. All this video says is that "you can express paradoxes with math". Is there a real problem hidden somewhere? The universe obviously doesn't have an infinite amount of unbalanced positive charge.

[@analogplanet9675]

Neat thought experiment. I guess an infinite, perfectly uniform charge distribution would have zero ramifications for other extra charges/the rest of the universe. So there would just be a different definition of zero charge density. No issue as far as Maxwell is concerned.

[@analogplanet9675]

@pyropulse Ok, so then what would the net force be on an extra point charge located within an infinite, uniform charge manifold? What is the net force on a point charge located inside of a spherical shell of uniform charge? What about inside an infinite number of those shells? I get your point about gauss's law and the enclosed charge, and I enjoyed thinking through your expanding sphere limit approach. But yeah, there's deffinitely no way it could be a non-uniform field. The awnser has to be invariant under translation. Think about it. Simply, there's no energy for a charge to obtain by moving from one place to another, it would not prefer any specific location. Same as if the universe was uncharged. Anyways, I hope things start to shape up for you. Keep trying at physics.

[@Luchoedge]

Why is an electric flux assumed when there's an electric charge? If there's no charge difference, electrons have nowhere to flow to. Wouldn't an infinitely positive universe be comparable to an infinite neutral universe?

[@arjunaaustin1098]

No.... for their to be electric charge, we must have a description of electric flux and vise versa or else our description of electromagnetism makes no sense. An infinitely positive universe will have an effect on any charged object that suddenly came into existence. Whilst an infinitely neutral universe (one with no charge at all) can't have an effect on a charged object at all, if one suddenly sprang into existence. That neutral universe would immediately have the same magnitude of charge as that charged object that came into existence. I know I made it confusing but it is still true. So an infinitely positive universe is non-comparable to an infinitely neutral universe by definition of charge.

[@furrytimelord]

War thunder flashbacks as I listen to physics

[@EdwardNavu]

This reminds me of speculation on symmetry between matter and anti-matter. Or rather, it is a stricter symmetry for it requires not only the charge but also the quantities of each particles to be the same on both sides.

[@rektlzz7808]

couldn't the negative pressure of dark energy be a negative mass ? I mean it's not a physical thing you can touch but it's relativistic effects kinda do an anti-gravity effects does it ?

[@fundamentalsofphysicsfop3531]

Superbly explained

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks.

[@rd9831]

How does a satellite measure field charge in space. What is its reference point. Does this reference not polarise as there is no way to discharge or ground or sink the charge built up.

[@rheamer3437]

Amazing job, thank you.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliment. More videos are on their way.

[@paulfrischknecht3999]

from what I understand about quantum physics (quantum mechanics), the electric field or electric flux (and the corresponding magnetic field which is it’s dual) does actually exist everywhere. it is the photon field, and whenever and wherever its wave function breaks down/collapses or deposits a quanta of energy, it can transport its energy to the proton or electron or neutron field, causing motion. actually, the wave functions or fields of all particles are much more real than the particles, whose existence is only a name given to the quantization and maybe the localization of local maxima of the probability wavefunction...

[@ksotar]

Can you suggest some reading about it? I feel like everything taught about electricity is 70 years old.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

I have a feeling consciousness is the sole Creator of positive charge as the word across the waters and the waves are the result and move towards the positive charges that they resonate with because they are in harmony. I think between any codependent points of resonance is formed a current that is self sustaining until a conscious choice is made to change the frequency and form a new attraction. I feel this is literally true and is demonstrated at all levels from the subatomic and Galactic to the electron transfer chain in our cells and the Cerebral Spinal fluid system to our interpersonal relationships. I think all relationships are codependent in that everything must receive it's power in the form of a resonant vibration and must send transfer this power to structures that resonate and if one doesn't exist then it will be created. It may sound crazy but I think it's true because of a lot more reasons than this phone has ink to write. 🌄✌💞

[@official-obama]

the electric flux is a vector field, which the divergence of any point is the amount of charge in the area

[@pedrovpa1]

I think the paradox is as follows: in a infinite universe, with a infinite amount of charge, evenly distributed, we have two options. Since we have particles everywhere, the net electric field should be Zero, because all the effects in every direction cancel each other, therefore no net flux crossing any Surface. But, acording to Maxwell's equations, any closed Surface in this universe would contain a net positive charge, therefore a net positive flux, no matter how arbitraly big the Surface is, and If the Surface is infinite, There should be an infinite Net flux. They are both valid and mutualy exclusive. Am I right?

[@sylviapapp8812]

Thank God for Eugene

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks.

[@mcsquared4319]

The flux is only real in the motion of the particles... The charge is not an infinite source of energy or flux. I love your videos. They are the best at explaining fundamental problems.

[@GStar1]

When you already know each and every single thing explained in this video

[@gurejalectures]

You are always great..

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks.

[@jelmar35]

Wouldn't the surface area only be able to account for the electric field produced by the particles inside and not give the net electric field at any point? So the surface growing in size would indeed produce an ever increasing electric field, but one could always construct a surface of equal size next to it which would exactly cancel out the electric field of the other surface, making the electric field at any point 0. The limit approaching infinity does not have any consequences for the electric field at any point inside the universe, since each point would be contained inside the volume and the volume would only dictate the electric field strength at the edge of the volume.

[@rosman2635]

The flux is a field the particles are imaginary.

[@jul9cuz]

But I thought the particles are a field and the flux is imaginary???

[@rosman2635]

@@jul9cuz your close but you cannot define a field especially when you add invisible particles.

[@rosman2635]

@@wajideus4591 thanks for reply, so magnetic flux is a field albeit having a quantity but it would be difficult to define a field, it is a phenomenon but what are its attributes. I think that is where the particles come in because it is the only way some people can define it. Problem is we go down the wrong path trying to fully understand its attributes and behaviour. Take the earth is has localised magnetic fields in some parts of the world stronger/ weaker than others now why is that and would particle theory help us to understand that phenomenon.

[@lidarman2]

Does this imply that del dot E = zero over the universe? That we cannot really have a single charge any more than a magnetic monopole in the larger scheme? That we have been looking only at localized space charges because we can in our frame but not for Magnetism and this is the essence of entropy?

[@warfyaa6143]

Glass of fresh water with piece of cake while watching the marvelous Video

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Glad you liked my video.

[@markkaidy8741]

Is infinite positive charge paradox in 3D space resolvable in 4D? (Since the line and plane positive charges are resolvable.)

[@iface5568]

Love the comments on this channel. How do you know negative mass do not exist? and if they do exist, can we then make an analogy between electric/magnetic fields and gravitational field? meaning it would be kind of the same "stuff" in some way? thanks for the videos

[@likhanbiswas5700]

Please post more complete topicwise video on Relativity and Quantum theory please

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

I already have many videos on Relativity and Quantum Theory. Check out my playlists: Quantum Videos in Order: kzbin.info/aero/PLkyBCj4JhHt-elH-mR1d1NfTZ-W0_DCRl Relativity Videos in Order: kzbin.info/aero/PLkyBCj4JhHt_pz8HUG7rbMeKFsStae10k

[@Odqvist89]

Was drunk, got from Invasion of the Body Snatchers to here.

[@ttmallard]

The Moon's interior, surface plasma & levitated dust is -100vdc/m ambient night side, 20k-grains/cc, a negative repulsive network trending to icosohedrons as a latent structure trying to model its dynamics. The surface will always have the same flux per unit area, charge of the interior grains isn't expressed as a sum at the surface, the force is balancing the structure against it wanting to expand, on the moon it's gravity. So, the "container" can transmit energy from directions but doesn't move grains much like waves on a sea. The density of the whole matters like the capacity of charge, a battery or capacitor, unrestrained as a faux atmosphere from bombardment it's an erosional process, grains float away. The accretion rate is only 1mm/1.2My, almost no gain, asteroids & Earth have this going on too. A reaction, capacity isn't the same as surface charge, if you stick in a ground rod you'll get more amps from more dirt volume not higher volts. Ymmv.

[@figefago]

4:17 I don't understand why it is paradox? infinite space has no "center" and is symetrical at any given point :) n + (infinity) = (n+1) + (infinity) = n * (infinity) = (n+1) * (infinity) = (infinity) / n = (infinity) so any solution aplies to any particural point :)

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Any closed surface would have a net positive charge inside, and should therefore have a net electric field exiting the volume.

[@viniciusfernandes2303]

Thanks for the video!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks.

[@jelmar35]

What happens when we look at the electic potential of the problem? Do problems arise when trying to convert the solution for the potential to the solution for fields? Since the potential formulation of EM is more fundamental

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

I have a video on visualizing electric potentials at kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y4PFapqriKqYjKc

[@jelmar35]

@@EugeneKhutoryansky thanks!

[@ferdinandkraft857]

Is there a video about the paradox of uniform mass density in newtonian gravity?

[@icebearpl188]

Double the points again. And you got flashback to several years old video about dimensions

[@narendra6153]

Awesomely explained! Thnx mam!

[@officialspaceefrain]

It's all in the Flux my dudes.

[@omaraziz5408]

Some people are saying play it on 1.5x but she is speaking slowly to give us time to think while watching. So we dont have to see the video again. Personally i paused the video so many times that it took me 25 min to finish it.

[@DeadCatX2]

Might it be that a net charge density throughout all space is not possible for similar reasons to a magnetic monopole being impossible?

[@iwantagoodnameplease]

Great video. But I feel like this should be at the start of the playlist after Maxwell's equations and the creepy angels.

[@hurktang]

Solution : The electromagnetic "pressure" of each particle will make them accelerate from others, There is therefor an event horizon for each particle where after some distance the particles will accelerate at or over 1 speed of light per plank time. Beyond that event horizon, particles simply doesn't exists in regard to that particle since no amount of energy can never be transferred between the 2. Of course this would distort space time in ways alien to our universe. But we already know that our universe is not infinitely filled with positive particles. In that sens, this situation is impossible. Pardox solved.

[@HearTruth]

Super enjoying Thank You

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Glad you liked my video. Thanks.

[@TaxPayingContributor]

There MUST BE slack and overlap, for ANY of THIS to BE!.

[@harishbare]

My Brain freezed at 8:16.. :) Comment where you people got stuck.. ;)

[@xxnotmuchxx]

In a close universe it would be impossible to make an uniform distribution of positive particles, right? Like making a grid on the surface of a sphere.

[@michaelbayer5887]

... es ist die Oberflächenspannung - CHERRY CHERRY LADY. Am Tag als der Regen kam - süsse Kirschen platzen - sauer Kirschen nicht.

[@acefebrahimi87]

Thank you so much.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

You are welcome and thanks.

[@electrikhan7190]

I do not fully understand but like trying to think about it. Is one calculation looking infinitely far away at a point and the other staying with the leading edge as you surf to infinity. Feels like two different calculations, is that why relativity solves it? The different location within the infinite sea means they would total the same but have different values? Good shit great visuals of math principles I do not comprehend. When do we get the Unreal engine game version?