Physics 46 Maxwell's Equations (1 of 30) What are the Maxwell equations? Introduction

[@kevinzhang7302]

You are truly my favourite teacher. Thanks so so much for making these video :)

[@johngrant874]

I can't help think how much easier my engineering courses would have been with professor van Biezen...he's an expert at explaining difficult concepts

[@booknerd5836]

This guy is a life saver. Thank you so much for doing these videos, in 12 minutes youv'e helped me learn more than 6 hours of studying!

[@andrewrezendes]

Phenomenal. Please don't shy away from the complex topics. Your honed gift for focusing on the key elements make eating any proverbial elephant one bite at a time easy. Speaking as a University Physics student, keep it up; And remind us about ways we can help support you doing this service.

[@arkarnyanhein]

Very very concise and clear definition. It is clear enough even for a student who has no engineering or science background. Simplicity is the beauty. I strongly appreciate that.Thank you so much as well.

[@jeffreyb1613]

this dude has helped me pass so many classes. god willing he helps me pass my exam tomorrow.

[@annaandrews2904]

i learnt more in the first 4 minutes in this video than 4 weeks of lectures.. thank you so much, so clearly explained!

[@DarkRedZane]

I was having difficulty visualizing Maxwell's Eq but just right after only watching this Introduction by sir Biezen, everything went in my head smoothly. Thank you Professor!

[@valeriereid2337]

This is the most brilliant and inspiring physics lecture I have ever heard. Thank you for making these lectures available.

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Thank you. Glad you are enjoying our videos. 🙂

[@valeriereid2337]

Listening a second time, this is the best introduction to Maxwell's equation anywhere. Thank you so much Professors van Biezen.

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Thank you. Glad you found it helpful

[@rodericksibelius8472]

I only have an Associates Degree in Electrical/Electronics Technology and I continue to study the physics that Electrical Engineering basic background we needed to know, Thanks MVB. You are a WORLD CLASS TEACHER better than Most Professors at Universities I have attended,

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Thank you, we appreciate the comment.

[@muckrakerwm.8498]

Great course on Maxwell's equations. Moreover thanks a million for having the patience and taking the time to explain such a tough topic. I salute you.

[@zuhairalsaffar7001]

Since many times I have tried to understand Maxwell s equations, but l have fiald, now l'm really getting understand them thank you sir

[@CatsBirds2010]

Honestly, you made me master Maxwell's Equations and thanks to you I understand inside out and I have always found Maxwell's Equations fascinating.

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Great to hear!

[@D0CCLAY]

I'm about to defend my dissertation in April, and I've been going through U-2B to review topics that I haven't studied for a while, and as someone who's given his fair share of lectures in his day, very nicely done. Concise, and clearly stated. What more could someone want‽ (For whatever my opinion counts for.) Thanx. Later 'tater xxxooo dc

[@MichelvanBiezen]

We wish you all the best on your dissertation!

[@PerJohannessen]

Thank you so much Michel for making these more intuitive videoes. It can be really hard to digest Griffiths book, which is very mathematically and to get a clear understanding of the physics behind these formulas.

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Griffiths book is one of the best books available, but yes it can be a bit challenging to understand it at times.

[@davidbain701]

You are one who is meant to teach, and this you are meant to teach, God bless you

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Thank you.

[@bagoquarks]

This is an excellent summary of the principles of electro-magnetism.

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Thank you. Glad you liked the playlist.

[@Stelios.Posantzis]

That's just awesome. Very concise and clear and only 12 minutes long!

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Thank you. Glad it was helpful! 🙂

[@wolfpackFTW17]

Beautiful. You are amazing at explaining these concepts!

[@tnowroz]

This really is the best video on Maxwell's equations in the KZbin.

[@PM-yz8fx]

Michel Van Biezen is absolutely great! I am so greatful and I have so much fun and help with his lessons

[@nonenone5681]

Thank You. This is the first explanation of Maxwell's equations I really understand.

[@syuhada9627]

YOU ARE THE BEST TEACHER EVER!

[@81546mot]

Great job--I really enjoy your presentations--very clear. Good drawings and nice examples...and in HD so we can see what you are doing.

[@specialmindset]

I think your thumbnails are great. I would love you to include them at the end of the video so that i could save the formulas with a Screenshot. It would make such a great difference! Thank You. :)

[@Truth_Seeker567]

Thank you so much for you excellent lecture and explaining these concept so clearly.

[@MichelvanBiezen]

You're very welcome! Glad they were helfpul. 🙂

[@k7iq]

Wonderful ! Awesome teaching with a rewind if needed to watch as many times as necessary to get it ! (and work out for myself on paper) Thank you !

[@zariefqist]

thnk you soooooo much for your videos!!! helped me a lot for my exams!!!

[@Nshiime]

you are the best Mr.Biezen

[@themc3852]

Thank you for your videos. Very organized and clear. I wish you had videos for dynamics and other engineering courses too.

[@MichelvanBiezen]

The MC Thanks for the feedback. I am planning on adding additional topics to the videos, including engineering courses, but it takes time (we just started a year and a half ago).

[@themc3852]

Your work is THE best physics video in the internet.

[@kansuerdem2799]

My dear professor.. Please do something about QM (Dirac formule ) and Relative theory.. you are an amazing teacher.. In my eyes you are as smart as Einstein and Maxwell..

[@alina_dial]

sir , you are all in one package , your videos are a gift for science students , you make the problems look too easy , you are a multi talented teacher

[@safkanderik7217]

it was very good explained.but i would like to see more examples encluding polarisation and magnetisation. THX so much

[@yeyerrd]

I just have to say FAVORITE! Thanks for this whole awesome material!

[@lestheralto9804]

A moment of silence for thanksgiving. God bless Sir! My prof in these matters cant make us understand anything, so im here. and topnotched my first exam. thank you! Bracing for my 2nd exam. covering maxwell, farraday thing, dielectrics and magnetic dipoles..

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Keep studying hard and good luck on your next exam. Glad to be of help.

[@jayaramanganapathi9385]

Great teaching, second visit after particle physics.

[@yubi-buletIN]

hi! sir thank you so much for the video. This is helping me in solving the problem . I can pause and watch it back which makes me easier in understanding the derivation . :)

[@JH-ux1re]

My final is at 10:30 which is 15 minutes later. This is the last video I watch for today😁 Super helpful!

[@MichelvanBiezen]

You got this!

[@philliplayton9250]

great clarity in you lessons

[@curtpiazza1688]

Wow! Fascinating intro! I always wanted to study this subject! !

[@MichelvanBiezen]

It is a fascinating topic, but a bit challenging when looking at it for the first time.

[@Peter_1986]

One great book on this subject is "Elements Of Electromagnetics" by Sadiku. One really good thing about that book is that it spends the first 3 chapters on reviewing pretty much everything about Calculus 3, including things like directional derivatives, equations for transformations between different coordinate systems, the Divergence Theorem, Stokes's Theorem, and so on. This is a VERY good foundation for a course in electromagnetic field theory, since that course uses vector calculus all the time. The Divergence Theorem seems to be especially useful; that theorem turns surface integrals into volume integrals, and this is very convenient, since surface integrals tend to be a lot more annoying than volume integrals.

[@curtpiazza1688]

@@Peter_1986 THANX SO MUCH! 😃

[@marsbarlander]

Thanks. I've watched it. excellent. can't wait to watch the rest. Thanks again.

[@MichelvanBiezen]

The playlist is finished. PHYSICS 46 MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS kzbin.info/aero/PLX2gX-ftPVXXSzkemKeaMBWYR2TOPiOz0

[@kentdelacruz9972]

My fave teacher in youtube!

[@seelanseelan5104]

Thank you for your explanation sir

[@trig6712]

Excellent many thanks from Maxwelltown Dumfries Scotland

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Glad you enjoyed it. Welcome to the channel! 🙂

[@hhhgdgb5205]

Handsom teacher.

[@manaoharsam4211]

Very good teacher.

[@allendeguzman6771]

well explained and very helpful video sir..

[@zakirhussain-js9ku]

While strength of field is proportional to flux density, i.e. more charges mean denser flux and stronger field. But I think flux & field are different entities. Flux is scalar qty. measurable by its density while field is a force with magnitude & direction. While interaction b/w charges produces fields, a single charge has no field just flux around it. Field appears when flux of 1 charge interacts with flux of other charge. I think flux & field should be considered separate entities.

[@MichelvanBiezen]

An interesting conjecture.

[@brandyngabel5148]

I learned more in the first 60 seconds than I have in 4 lectures on Maxwell's equations at my university

[@MichelvanBiezen]

We are glad you liked the Maxwell's equation videos.

[@kapilgavali]

It is B vector dot dl vector in Ampere's law

[@123amouri]

Amazing lesson! Thank you

[@Ntifragility]

Thanks! You really made it easy to get!

[@sunnypala9694]

sir you are great ypu just helped me out so easily

[@serhatb.5703]

Your lectures are the best. Thanks :)

[@raisaar2266]

Amazing explanation! Thank you so much

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Glad it was helpful!

[@shibhanlalpandita6975]

Magnet is a sink. It has to be loaded with motion to generate electricity. Pole strength depletes as a magnetic substance moves away. Means Pole Strength is inversely proportional to the distance. It is far easier to fix pole strength as the capacity to load motion on a substance. So units will be mkg/s. In physics problem was created by Newton who went on & on from momentum to force to work & created a giggle house of dimensions.

[@surendrakverma555]

Very good lecture Sir. Thanks 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Glad you liked it.

[@vytee74]

He is a legend!

[@kshitijsrivastava6148]

Amazing sir...

[@xiaojiezhu7680]

When I become a rich engineer, I'll donate a lot of money to your project. Thank you so so so much

[@lubime10]

Excellent !

[@lebronjames6461]

Thank you so much Sir, I just want to know if in the 4th "statement", when you say "if charges move parallel to the EM field, the will experience no force", if charges are moving during a dt ( a current)?

[@MichelvanBiezen]

It doesn't have to be a current. It can be a single charge. But note that they only experience no force IF they travel parallel to a MAGNETIC field (not an "EM" field)

[@yasseindahshan3556]

What I don't understand is this. If a charge is moving it will create a magnetic field but if it is stationary it will not. But wait. Any charge that is moving is going to be seen as stationary from another frame of reference and in this frame of reference there will be no electric field but I thought physics should be the same in all frames of reference. Plz reply.

[@MichelvanBiezen]

The other "reference frame" would then contain all the other items (such as a lab and the measurement devices). So you need to define your "other reference" frame.

[@alwaysdisputin9930]

@Yassein Yes you are right the charge is stationary from the point of view of that 2nd frame of reference There are numerous videos that say what we call "magnetism" is merely electric charge getting compressed by the Lorentz contraction effect of special relativity. The explanation is something like this: Say you have electrons flowing in a wire. & let's also say outside the wire there is an electron moving in the same direction: so all the electrons (both inside & outside the wire) are moving e.g. eastwards. But like you say the electron outside can be validly regarded as stationary & from that point of view, the wire is the thing that's moving. In special relativity, moving things get contracted. Therefore the electron sees the wire as contracted. The atoms of this wire are mostly positively charged (the current flows inbetween the positive atoms). Therefore the positive parts of the wire get packed into a smaller space. So the positive charge density is high.Therefore the electron sees the wire as positive. Therefore the electron finds the wire very attractive. It is pulled towards the wire. If the electron is above the wire, the same thing happens & it will get pulled down towards the wire. If the electron is below the wire, the same thing happens & it will get pulled up towards the wire. So all around the wire 360 degrees the electron will get pulled in to the wire. But if the electron moves in the opposite direction to the current it will see itself as stationary, as per usual, & it will see the current as length contracted hence the negative charge density will be high & the electron will find this very repulsive. This is also exactly what happens with magnetism: it was observed that current flowing in a wire creates rings of "magnetism" around it & moving charges are deflected by this magnetism. But what they were really observing was relativity + like charges repel & unlike attract

[@yasseindahshan3556]

@@alwaysdisputin9930 I have heard this explanation before. But according to this explanation a charge moving on its own will not provide magnetic field, as it has to be an electron moving in a wire so that the positive charges can have any effect. What about protons or electrons moving in space? Do they not create a magnetic field?

[@alwaysdisputin9930]

@@yasseindahshan3556 From the point of view of their own frame of reference they are stationary so don't create magnetism. But let's say you have some stationary electrons floating in space & a proton shoots by. The electrons will see this proton very length contracted i.e. the electrons may be very attracted by the very high positive charge density So it depends on your frame of reference. From the proton's frame of reference it doesn't create magnetism. From those floating electrons' frame of reference it does.

[@yasseindahshan3556]

@@alwaysdisputin9930 a proton and an electron are both stationary in space. The only attraction force is electric force. Now you start moving backwards. Now both the proton and the electron are moving forwards from your perspective. Now you calculate two forces applying: the attraction electric force and the magnetic force. How do you explain this magnetic force from your perspective if you move with the same speed as the proton and electron as they appear stationary so magnetic force shouldn't exist? If there is a wire this force maybe explained using special relativity but without a wire it can't be explained.

[@chironjo]

Professor, please clarify. in the introductory statement it was written "....how they are affected by charges and currents...". Are you talking about the magnetic and electric fields or the equations? Because immediately after in the same sentence it reads "... how charges and currents affect the fields..." which is exactly the same as the previous statement, if that one referred to the field!

[@MichelvanBiezen]

The two statements are not exactly the same. Look carefully and see if you can detect the difference. (that is a key point in the concept of magnetic fields).

[@chironjo]

Michel van Biezen Considering this more of a grammar sintaxis issue (I do not mean to deem it a sintaxis error) than a physics intuition exercise I conclude the first phrase is relating the charges and currents to the mathematical equations. regardless, I do enjoy you videos and consider them extremely instructional, responsible and well done. they are in my "Favorites" folder. 👍

[@MichelvanBiezen]

The key word I was referring to is the word ""by" . Magnetic fields are generated by moving charges and moving charges experience a force when traveling through a magnetic field.

[@RotterdammerInMiami]

You are my hero!

[@solsticetwo3476]

Great!

[@satyamkumar567]

Thanks u helped me lot

[@speedbird7587]

Hello , thanks for your brilliant video lectures , would you please upload some lectures about magnetizing force , the H field , the relative permeability .

[@MichelvanBiezen]

You can start with these videos. PHYSICS 43 MAGNETIC FIELDS AND MAGNETIC FORCES and the playlists following those. We are working on the more advanced topics in E&M.

[@zubair1411]

Thank a lot sir... 😘

[@vrajan1996]

Dear sir.michael van biezen, i would like make a correction in the fourth equation.L.H.S will not have a surface integral.instead,it will have a line integral.so in case of circular loop,it will be just 2∏r..(∏=3.14).please do correct me,if i am wrong!

[@xanderl9049]

Well done , thanks!

[@tachyon7777]

Very nice!

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Thanks!

[@wellingtonmartins1659]

thanks! Excellent

[@ajaykudva1645]

Here you have mentioned two parameters...ds vector and dA vector...What is the fundamental difference between them? As in my college they have written ds everywhere.

[@MichelvanBiezen]

s us usually used for distance or arc length and A is usually used for area

[@carultch]

Since d already has a full time job in Calculus, we opt to use s to stand for distance or displacement, the next consonant in the word. I recommend writing a cursive s, so that you don't mix it up with a 5.

[@F23R1]

your awesome !

[@nielsmadsen2185]

Very good. In Maxwell's 3rd law, why use ds for element of length and not dl?

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Essentially it doesn't matter what letter we use. The letter s is typically used for arc length when the path is circular (like it is in a magnetic field)

[@lapertica8258]

great great just great

[@nellvincervantes3223]

Hi sir. I have a question about the epsilon sub infinite (dialectric constant). What does sub infinite mean?

[@MichelvanBiezen]

The little "zero" is called sub "knot" epsilon sub knot means the permeability of free space (without a dielectric) It describes the interaction of the electric field with space and helps control the speed of light.

[@douglasstrother6584]

www.rpi.edu/dept/phys/Courses/PHYS4210/S10/NotesOnUnits.pdf

[@lisabradley2556]

If someone reads this who is able to answer, I'm wondering why the length of the conductor loop has a vector notation above the "s" in Faraday's law of induction? Can vectors be curved or what am I missing?

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Since the magnetic field interacts with MOVING charges, we need to know the direction of the current in order to calculate the effect caused by the magnetic field, via taking the dot product of the magnetic field with the current direction. In the case of Faraday's law of induction, the principle is the same, as we are multiplying via the dot product the path with the magnetic field (calculating the product of the electric field with the Gaussian surface).

[@lisabradley2556]

Thank you! @@MichelvanBiezen

[@sak6012]

Perfect. Lv u ❤

[@sanjaygurugubelli]

Thank You...

[@kenzeier2943]

This professor is very good but this material can also be studied in a good electrical engineering book covering the fundamentals. Also, reprints of James Clerk Maxwell’s, “A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field” are available for purchase (under $10). There is no easy way to learn this material, really learn it. if you study Maxwell’s life he knew that he needed time to work the mathematics out. Many of these physicists worked things out over years. Most universities are degree mills. This does not allow the time for a student to really learn material. Many people in comments imply that their teachers weren’t good, but rather it may be the system does not allow the time. If one wants to learn this material then put away the distractions and put in the hundreds of hours needed to master it.

[@douglasstrother6584]

"Maxwell's Equations" ~ The Mechanical Universe #39 kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYSXpZaXn7mmjZo

[@douglasstrother6584]

"The Forgotten Genius of Oliver Heaviside: A Maverick of Electrical Science" ~ Basil Mahon www.sfcrowsnest.info/the-forgotten-genius-of-oliver-heaviside-by-basil-mahon-book-review/

[@maheshwarsambari6178]

OK please do something about simple harmonic motion

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Here is the playlist on simple harmonic motion: PHYSICS 16 SIMPLE HARMONIC MOTION AND PENDULUM kzbin.info/aero/PLX2gX-ftPVXVzGuPkVRXopSBVUxQHGoee

[@engineeringreal796]

It useful for wireless powerbeam research

[@MichelvanBiezen]

It is applicable to many parts of science and research.

[@delonmuppet964]

Can you teach a course on Electrical Machines 1 and 2?

[@MichelvanBiezen]

That would be some distance into the future. We are currently working on many topics.

[@delonmuppet964]

Thank you, that's an integral course for electrical engineering students and you tube has little in dept teaching on it, would be much appreciated.

[@bonbonpony]

Why in some of your equations the time derivatives are partial, while in other equations they are total?

[@carultch]

Partial derivatives means that there is a possible other variable of differentiation that we are treating as a constant.

[@bonbonpony]

@@carultch If I didn't know the difference between them, I wouldn't use these names, don't you think? I didn't ask what's the difference between them. I was asking why are partial derivatives used in one place, whereas they are total in another, even if both refer to the same variable. Or maybe should I ask, what's the other variable then that is being held constant in those cases where the time derivative is partial?

[@carultch]

@@bonbonpony The answer to the other variable that is held constant, is the spacial variables of x/y/z. As for why the discrepancy in notation, my guess is that it is just an oversight. I don't really see why we need separate notations for partial derivatives vs derivatives of functions of single variables. It's exactly the same mechanics of taking the derivative anyway.

[@bonbonpony]

@@carultch Not really. And it's kind of weird because the answer for the question "why we need separate notations" is already there in your previous comment: to indicate that the function has more variables than just the one you're differentiating with respect to. If you used the "d" symbol for a multi-variable function instead of "∂", that would mean a _total derivative_ of that function (i.e. with respect to _all_ of these variables at once), an it would be a vector derivative. The "∂" symbol is to remind us that there are other variables than the one we're differentiating with respect to, and that we hold constant.

[@malikyawarshafi1641]

Love you sir from kashmir India.

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Thank you and welcome to the channel!

[@nellvincervantes3223]

What about static electricity sir? This creates magnetic fields since charge also moving?

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Static means it is not moving. Static charges do not produce a magnetic field.

[@nellvincervantes3223]

@@MichelvanBiezen I mean during rubbing of two materials, theres a movement of electron from one object to another object, sir.

[@carultch]

@@nellvincervantes3223 The movement is considered negligible enough to not create a significant magnetic field that we care about. Static electricity by definition, means that the charges are not moving.

[@ThomasHaberkorn]

Are magnetic field lines describing the paths where magnetic flux is constant?

[@MichelvanBiezen]

The magnetic flux is only constant if the magnetic field is constant. (Magnetic flux is a mathematical representation, that helps us describe what is physically happening).

[@bonbonpony]

For an _actual_ answer, compare it with other vector fields, such as electric field: there, the "arrows" of the vector field are always tangent to the field lines. Those arrows change their directions, which alone should be a hint for you that the field along these lines is _not_ constant (constant vectors point at the same direction and don't change their lengths either). They often also change their lengths as you move along a particular field line. You can think of these arrows as pointing in the direction in which a hypothetical charged particle would go if you put it at this point of the field and released it. So the field line is kinda like a "streamline", picturing the trajectory of that particle as it moves in the field "carried over" by its vectors. Kinda like those streams of smoke in aerodynamic chambers. The same principle applies to other types of vector fields, e.g. wind speed fields, water flow, or magnetic field that you asked about. If there were any "magnetic charges", they would move along those magnetic field lines "carried over" by the vector field. On the other hand, if you're interested in seeing the lines / surfaces of _constant magnitude_ of the field, those are always _perpendicular_ to the field lines / field arrows at every point. For electric potential, those are called _equipotential lines_ ;)

[@ThomasHaberkorn]

@@bonbonpony Thanks for the explanation! So, on these equipotential lines the magnitude of the field (magnetic & electric) is constant. I guess, also the flux (magnetic & electric) on these equipotential lines is constant, right? Furthermore: Is it always true that the equipotential lines are perpendicular to the field lines?

[@bonbonpony]

@@ThomasHaberkorn Yes, magnitude will be constant along equipotential lines. And yes, field vectors, as well as field lines, are everywhere perpendicular to the equipotential lines, always, guaranteed by math/geometry ;) There's acutally a simple logic behind it: Imagine that this equipotential line/surface represent the surface of a charged metal solid, with the excess electric charge on its surface, and look at what happens to one of these charges. If the arrow of the vector field weren't perpendicular to that surface, it would have a sidewise component (i.e. "shadow"), tangential to the surface. This means that there's still an electric force acting on that charge, tangential to the surface, and it would cause this charge to move in that direction, along the surface of the metal, to compensate for that. The charge would move in that direction until it would cancel the electric field that caused that force, and that sidewise component of the electric force would disappear. As soon as this sidewise component disappears (and the charge stops moving), the only component that's left is the one perpendicular to the surface of the conductor. And since the electric potential inside the conductor is the same everywhere (in electrostatic condition, when the charges don't move anymore), it means that the surface of the conductor is an equipotential surface. So in electrostatic conditions, field vectors and field lines are always perpendicular to the equipotential surface. They're duals of each other, in geometric sense. You can derive one from another.

[@ThomasHaberkorn]

@@bonbonpony quite intuitive, thanks! From an educational standpoint, I think field lines and equipotential lines should never be seperated.. the former should be taught together with the latter

[@samelias2319]

Hi, this video won't start for some reason. Could you please fix that? (Maxwell Eq.1 of 30)

[@MichelvanBiezen]

It starts fine for us.

[@Slimm2240]

Are these equations in order or....

[@John-lf3xf]

3 and 4 are the vice versas of each other.

[@wajame]

Thanks! I wouldnt find better explanation

[@ahmedalgeria9570]

I don't have money to pay u ,but I ask the God to Bless you

[@MichelvanBiezen]

He already has. Thank you.

[@maheshwarsambari6178]

sir please explain about fluid mechanics

[@MichelvanBiezen]

We have these playlists: PHYSICS 33 FLUID STATICS kzbin.info/aero/PLX2gX-ftPVXWkL3PmehgzwXJ-HGyzb0N1 and PHYSICS 34 FLUID DYNAMICS kzbin.info/aero/PLX2gX-ftPVXVHnqlawAPDHuo3lg9lT6JI

[@CarlosRodriguez-ww5rl]

In the definition of the Maxwell equations, what exactly is the difference when you say "How THEY are affected by charges and currents" and "How charges and currents affect the fields"?....When you say 'they', don't you also mean 'fields'?

[@MichelvanBiezen]

"They" refers back to the electric and magnetic fields. Thus electric and magnetic fields are affected by charges (moving charges in the case of magnetic fields), and charges in turn are affected by the fields (again moving charges in the case of magnetic fields).

[@CarlosRodriguez-ww5rl]

Got it! You're basically saying that there is a reciprocal interaction between the fields and the charges. Fields affect charges AND charges affect fields...Thanks for the quick response and your videos overall!

[@rich9792]

Not trying to cause issues, but didn't Ben Rich say that Maxwell's equations were incorrect?

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Many people say many things.

[@justinb3360]

feels like this guys trying to sell me something in a mall

[@akshay8608]

equ no. 3 .... please provide me with one solution for ma doubt ..... We know that line integral of E = 0 along a closed path in a static electric field ........ It is also equal to flux change ............ how???????

[@MichelvanBiezen]

Akshay Kanwar, Watch the other videos and you'll get a good understanding of Maxwell's equations.