The Simple Rule Obeyed by All Electric Fields - Restrictions on the Field

[@ParthGChannel]

Hi friends, thanks so much for watching! Big thanks to Squarespace for sponsoring this video - go to Squarespace.com for a free trial, and when you’re ready to launch, go to www.squarespace.com/parthg to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. Also, as always, let me know what other topics to cover in future videos!

[@iburiedmyguitar6333]

Hi Parth G. The diagrams near the start of your video with arrows pointing (1st) neg inwards and 2nd pos outwards might be more useful if you used the pos outward first. Where the neg inwards is the anti of the pos outwards by rotation of 90* x 90*. They fit together as a dipole/bi-pole EM effect. The positive charge is repulsive/travels away from its source and tends towards potential infinity. The negative charge is attractive/travels from a point along its dimension and tends back towards zero. It puts a limit on the positive energy creating a finite "thing" that can be measured and labelled with proton, electron, neutron for example.

[@brianchun8302]

I am an engineer with a master degree of electrical engineering and recently i am taking a master for quantum computing. I need to review the Maxwell equations and I found your videos are very simple and easy to understand! Please keep up the good work and many students will benefit from it!

[@TheHumanHades]

Well I just yesterday saw Clairut's theorem in using to find if a vector field is conservative and today you take this topic. Nice 👍🏻👍🏻

[@davenarisotto3674]

Yes please, a video on what happens to the electric field when the magnetic one changes over time would be awesome

[@zapdosss]

5:48 The magnetic field is induced due to the electric field or the electric field is due to the magnetic in the case of using the maxwell's equations. I mean you can't just plug in independent electric and magnetic field present in space..correct me if I am wrong

[@ParthGChannel]

Yes you're right, I'm just looking more at what happens in the mathematical treatment of this phenomenon!

[@pa.l.2499]

7:00 shows how easily partial derivatives can be explained to help understand some difficult maths. You have a gift. You have made Maxwell's math concepts even more enjoyable. I look forward to more engaging content and hope you are teaching in Uni soon, but here on YT your scope is possibly even further reaching!

[@brendanfan3245]

one of the best illustrations of the complicated basic physics idea, Thank you!

[@Zodiaczero2]

Finally an intuitive explanation for such complex mathematical terms. Thank you so much! I still don’t fully understand electromagnetism, but I understand it much better than before!

[@Fi0raVanTi97]

Hi Parth 👋 really good teacher! 👍 I'm looking forward to understand the last concept... seems really interesting

[@user-vg7zv5us5r]

2:16 Two paraboloids with the inflection point which lays on x0z plane, the other one with inflection point directed up could stand for modulus of the distribution of electric charge of both positron and electron respectively.

[@Choose52]

Hi Parth, I really like this video and many of your other videos. It’s strange, I don’t have a need to watch your videos for any particular reason, however I choose to because I find it interesting from a pedagogical perspective. I’m a physics major so I know all of these concepts already. One thing I thought that would be interesting for this video would be explaining with examples after introducing the curl and the restrictions of the E field. For example, earlier in the video you mentioned examples of electric fields such as (y, 0, 0). I think that applying the constraint for the curl of the electric field to that specific electric field or similar ones could help with showcasing possible and impossible electric fields. Anyway, thanks again for all of these videos, I really do enjoy them!

[@marisbaier6686]

I would love to see different kinds of possible vector fields!

[@curtpiazza1688]

Excellent! 😊

[@blueTwl]

hey these are great videos. may I ask what kind of software you use for the blackboard? it would be great help for my presentations

[@ParthGChannel]

Thank you! Currently switching between Adobe Premiere Pro and DaVinci Resolve. The visuals are created separately (e.g. on a tablet) and then edited into the video :)

[@blueTwl]

@@ParthGChannel So the visuals are created in something like keynote or some app more catered for math visuals?

[@michaelkosciewicz1623]

At my university in Warsaw Quantum mechanics are only mentioned in one lecture at the 1st semester... everything else we have to do alone until quantum oscillator and quarks...our prof is criminal. Thank you for the support in my and other students reality. Hope that you enjoy to create the next video.:)

[@wayneyadams]

10:45 It is not necessary to return to the same spot in a gravitational field, only to the same height. More correctly it would be the same distance from the source of the gravitational field. On Earth that would be the center of the Earth (center of mass, CM or center of gravity, CG).

[@thelocalsage]

this is true, but your critique doesn’t factor in the context/purpose of the example. Parth is drawing a bridge between gravitational vector fields and electric vector fields, and including your tidbit about height would unnecessarily obfuscate that relationship (it is hardly useful to talk about completely uniform electric fields when attempting to show a generalized relationship.) In a general gravitational field, “height” isn’t really even definable, and discussing things like centers of mass, etc. provides little leverage for understanding electric fields. Parth’s discussion is far better suited to science communication, even if you are *technically* correct.

[@wayneyadams]

@@thelocalsage He is the one who decided to use gravitational fields in his explanation so in that context my statement is correct. If you have a problem with using gravitational fields to illustrate electric fields, argue with Parth! The same thing I wrote about gravitational fields is true of electric fields, the particle need only return to a spot where the potential is the same as the starting potential, not the same spot. Notice i said electric potential not potential energy, if you are unsure of the difference i suggest you look it up. In that context, we also talk about gravitational potential which are those depressions we call gravity wells that you see in spacetime diagrams. For electricity, the potential energy of the charged particle is charge of the particle multiplied by the electric potential. for gravity it is the mass of the body multiplied by the gravitational potential. Wayne Y. Adams B.S. Chemistry M.S. Physics

[@thelocalsage]

@@wayneyadams your pedantry is not productive and does not correct or reveal insight because Parth was at no point ever incorrect-Parth never implied that the *only* way to have the same potential was to arrive at the exact same spot. It was an example of a special case that elucidates his point. He was concisely and clearly illuminating the result of a property of conservative vector fields and how they relate to processes of state (that property being that the line integral of a loop in a conservative vector field is zero for some function F when that vector field describes the gradient of said function F.) Imagine how ridiculous it would have sounded if he said "there is no change in potential if 'the particle returns to a spot where the potential is the same as the starting potential." Because that's what you just wrote... You insult my intelligence by pretending I don't know the difference between a potential and potential energy; you slither in the comments of a video meant to educate and give irrelevant and baseless criticisms; you sling pointless pedantry and pretend that it's insight; you mention spacetime diagrams not because they have anything to do with our discussion, but because you think you know some facet of physics that I don't and this will intimidate me; and you list your credentials at the end of your rebuttal in some obscure dick-swinging contest. You are strange. Jarrod Sage B.S. in Chemistry with Minor in Mathematics (Differential Equations Focus) M.S. in Chemistry Most recent publication: Catal. Sci. Technol., 2019, 9, 3020-3022

[@wayneyadams]

@@thelocalsage First of all, your unwarranted use of big words does not impress me. Secondly, you are just being argumentative for the sake of argument. Thirdly, I explained all this already. If you are incapable of understanding or ar deliberately trying to create as silly controversy where none exists, you'll hav to go pester someone else, because I am done with your foolishness. You are the kind of nattering pest that I hoped to leave behind when I left Twitter, but here you wre in all you are. I am going t delete your posts and mute you. Go ac the fool somehwhere else.

[@noebrostep1275]

Never stop, i love your content. It makes me work on my english and passionate me cause obviously physics is insane. Keep the great work up!

[@shijins1278]

Please do a video on the intuition behind Cross Products. I know its hard to explain its intuition in just one video but atleast try to do it in parts. I am really struggling with cross products as everyone around me only know its mechanism(formula) and no one around me knows the intuition behind it. The internet also haven't been helpfull and due to this situation i am being forced to memorise them in physics and this really takes the fun part from physics. I hope you can help me.

[@Godakuri]

It's really just used to capture the perpendicular nature of some phenomenon like torque. I don't see it as anything more. For example, the magnetic force. It acts perpendicular to both the velocity and the magnetic field. This was solely based on experiments and empirical evidence. So we use the cross product between the two vectors

[@shijins1278]

@@Godakuri But why does the magnetic force acts perpendicular to magnetic field and velocity. And also why does the force's magnitude depend on the sine of the angle between them and the product of their magnitudes.

[@Godakuri]

@@shijins1278 Idk if there is an answer as to why the magnetic force is like that. It's just what we observe. Honestly, I'm not sure where the sine of the angle between them comes from. Going with the torque example tho, when the angle between the two is 90 degrees, the torque is at the maximum value possible. As the angle between the two vectors shrinks, a smaller torque will be produced. If you push on a rotating door at a 90 degree angle, you're going to produce the most efficient torque/rotation. Idk. I might have made everything more confusing.

[@jimbyers3092]

Many phenomena in physics can be represented by the information in two directed line segment measurements, A and B, where the end of A is at the beginning of B. We could represent these measurements as locations, but some calculations from these measurements can be more useful: (1) the area of the rectangle whose sides are A and B to measure the strength of how A and B differ. (2) the angle from A to B to measure how much A must be turned to point in B's direction -- a measure of turning or twist. In the early 1880s, Gibbs and Heaviside concocted a single, directed line segment (a vector) to represent both the strength of A and B's difference and the direction of the twist from A to B. (By the way, Gibbs' cross product taught in engineering, unfortunately, is somewhat broken -- we should have used Clifford's geometric algebra, which is more correct and encompassing, and quickly becoming more popular.)

[@dapotatoguy7019]

I'll try to help out a little too. The cross products are used to, as @George said, define the perpendicular nature of vectors. Like torque. For example you've got a lever, if you apply a force directly 90 degrees to the arm of the lever, It's gonna turn the most. If you apply the force at a 0 degree angle, its not gonna move right?. Well coincidentally(or not) the trigonometric sin function has a maximum value at 90 degrees, and a minimum at 0 degrees. This applies to many other vectors as well like magnetic field force etc.

[@vedantvaideswar5386]

Electromagnetism is my fav physics! More vids on topics like this would be amazing!

[@MohdIrfanZ7]

One of the best videos by you.

[@m.arya_fr330]

amazing vid parth 👍🏻

[@Pedritox0953]

Great explanation!

[@Kong9901]

Can you do a video on stress in a solid ? Thank you for you videos :)

[@Robinson8491]

Awesome. Thank you Phart G

[@rishikeshjha1606]

Please make a videos on how battery work ,what is the mean of electric potential and how current flow in the conductor.

[@WilliamDye-willdye]

11:18 Squarespace, the video sponsor, supports a threaded comment system that's independent of the (frustratingly unpredictable) KZbin comment-deleting bots? In that case, does Parth have his own site for hosting comments on his videos? An admittedly brief search did not yield good hits, and I don't see a relevant-looking link in the current description.

[@asadahmed1164]

this is the most important vedio i have ever seen ❤

[@nivedvi2716]

Hi mate , I was wondering if you are planning on making a video about amperes law. I have always struggled with Knowing where and when I should apply it. Or maybe about the derivation of the formula for magntic field generated in a looped coil carrying a current. Thanks!

[@konozrashid887]

And also a video on the concept of rotation, like why things really rotate, why can't things just go in a straight line.

[@iburiedmyguitar6333]

Rotation/spin is widely accepted. Why do "things" rotate? Because there is also a fixed set of coordinates by which to measure the changes. Why can't "things" just go in a straight line? They would be doing. Except their set of coordinates (up/down for example) is rotational. There are two sets of the three dimensions length/height/width to consider.

[@jlpsinde]

Great as always!!!!

[@discoverrealityclover9620]

Awesome video, thoughtful!

[@aditisharma2523]

Excellent explanation..

[@abdulrahmanmohamed8800]

Thank you for this great video . Keep it up .

[@mohamednedal]

Great! What do you mean by "we want negative this change because that's how this law works in our universe"? Why's that? What's the intuitive meaning of the negative change? And Why the rotation of electric field produces magnetic field, and vice versa? PS. I'm a PhD student in heliophysics and still, I can't wrap my head around those fundamental questions ...

[@ashutoshtiwari8225]

Nice, I will study about this soon.

[@bernardwhipps7558]

I understood everything up to “Hi everyone, Parth here.....”

[@byronwatkins2565]

At 3:30, x and y do NOT have electric field units... You MUST multiply by a constant that yields the proper scale and units. At 10:30, your elaborate discussion on changing field components is identical to your statement that the electric field is conservative -- the two perspectives have exactly the same constraints.

[@maxwellsequation4887]

Thanks for mentioning me

[@eemryst]

Can you please make video on career in physics and the probability of getting job as professors😁

[@eriklavina2828]

Hi parth, could you explain veritasium's video about how electricity doesn't flow?

[@konozrashid887]

Can you make a video on the concept of work and energy, be it an hour long, and release it this week? I really want to know why the physicists invented this concept of work i.e the product of force applied, and the distance moved in this force's direction (W=F×d). Like, why and how was it really discovered that forces can change but the product of the distance and force doesn't.

[@stephenzhao5809]

Yes! Thanks a lot.

[@Junaid_ahmed1729]

Please make a video on Ballistic Galvanometer.

[@SigmaC]

can you make some videos on EMI stuff please?

[@mnada72]

Yes I'd like to see that 👍

[@cameronspalding9792]

The curl of E = 0 iff E is a conservative field

[@JakubS]

thank you

[@Nafeesshadab]

Please also share the pdf

[@discoverrealityclover9620]

Is it that there ' isn't a changing magnetic field ' or that the rate of change in the sum of the components is zero. That is, the sum of the components is either 0 or constant?

[@ParthGChannel]

Great question! I believe the rate of change is calculated for each component, meaning the rate of change needs to be individually zero for each component (and not just for the sum of the components, which isn't what dB/dt calculates)

[@discoverrealityclover9620]

​@@ParthGChannel That is fascinating. I am sorry to persist but doesn't this suggest then a sort of 'independence between the components? Almost like a linear independence between vectors. The reason l ask is that if the rate of change for each individual component was non-zero but equivalent to the rate of change of the other component then you could always 'invariantly' scale the rate of change of each component and perhaps do this in time but perhaps still have a zero rate of change in the sum?

[@photogenicx5788]

I would like to see what happens to the electric field when the magnetic field changes over time. I think the strength of the electric field will decrease if the magnetic field increases.

[@saskoilersfan]

Equal and opposite reactions.

[@AJalil-iz3rc]

❤🎉

[@msfmapper]

First one!!!

[@PassingThrough1972]

Superp

[@nadavdanieli]

When ever you say "this video up here" I don't see anything

[@ParthGChannel]

A card should pop up in the top right - if not, all the videos I mention are linked in the description :)

[@nadavdanieli]

@@ParthGChannel I have found out it is the ad-blocker