What is Heat? (Thermal Physics)

[@jawadsimaan6154]

Sir, you are the real Messenger of physics on earth! God bless you!

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

The messenger of Physics on Earth? That might be a little too much haha, but someone that loves Physics and wishes to inspire the fascination for our the universe works to other, yes :-)

[@prachi5181]

I wonder why your channel don't have enough subscribers because it's always been useful for me in my studies and I understand the concept so clearly Hats off your Teaching!!

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Prachi for your comment: It shows that I am reaching my goals :-)

[@productivehero9269]

This channel is so underrated... It's so sad. I love this channel and it makes physics easy for me... I am really more thankful to him than my college teacher... Big Respect... And love and prayers. ❤️

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you for your kind words. I am glad my work allows you to get a better grasp of Physics!

[@youthug6851]

You are really making physics easy , thks

[@zoyxox0]

This channel deserves more appreciation ❤️‍🔥

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you for your kind words Zoe!

[@jassarabdallah2862]

Perfect information keep up... Thanx

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Jassar for the encouragement!

[@mayugabrielmiranoortizdeor3888]

A very cleaned presentation.thanks a lot

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

You are welcome Mayu!

[@ramsaha7940]

I appreciate your contribution. It's really fun and a great way to learn physics. Thank you so much

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hello Ramsaha, thank you for your kind words. I am happy you enjoy the way I approach teaching physics.

[@TrendFusion_X]

Finally i found experienced mentor who made things simple and clear! Question: can we consider oscillation of molecules gives heat and oscillation of electrons gives Electromagnetic waves?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you for your kind words Ajay ! If a particle (or a spring) oscillates it means it has energy (when you position yourself outside of that system, this energy is called internal energy). Thus, a molecule A that oscillates has energy. If the surrounding molecules oscillate less than molecule A (lower temperature), then molecule A will transfer some of its energy to the surrounding (like a fast ball hitting a slow ball gives it some of its kinetic energy). That energy transfer is called heat : Molecule A heats up the surroundings. If that molecule is charged, the electric field it generates, seen from a fixed point, will appear to fluctuate. From that fixed point you will perceive an EM wave. The amplitude of the oscillations will be larger for an electron than a charged molecule, because the electron is lighter (F=ma). This is why we usually refer to electrons oscillating because they contribute the most for example in reflection. However molecule oscillations can have a strong impact in certain areas (this phenomena is responsible for the green house gases effect).

[@SubatomicPlanets]

You deserve more subscribers!

[@sathvikchede2917]

Super video sir. Thankyou very much !!!

[@GurmelSingh03]

what a smooth explanation. informative, interesting and concise. 👌

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Gurmel, I am glad you enjoyed the approach I took in this video :-)

[@rajeevkumar-rg7zg]

Nice explanation.. kindly upload more lecture

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

You are welcome Rajeev. Will do and don't hesitate to explore the channel for what's already there!

[@kuhumbuwa]

Nice lesson Prof.

[@firstsupper]

Absolutely love the way you explain everything! Thank you.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

You are welcome Fatyma. I am glad you enjoy my work.

[@victorreny]

Great video Edouard

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Merci Victor ;-)!

[@Untoldxperience]

Thanks for the help..🙂

[@r3jk8]

What a great presentation on this topic!

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you for your feedback. I am glad you appreciated the video :-)

[@ericschmidt6129]

Very helpful video. I was looking for a good explanation of how heat works and I found it. I look forward to checking out more of your videos on your channel.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Eric, I am glad you found this video useful :-).

[@Govi-fu1ti]

Best explanation that i have been given ❤❤❤❤

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Govi: I am glad you appreciated my approach!

[@xminty77]

I have been studying from videos of yours, your teaching is amazing and excellent. I salute you, professor.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hello Minty, thank you very much for your encouraging words :-)

[@randalldickson4603]

Fascinating content. Thank you, professor, from Albuquerque, USA

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hello Randall. you are welcome, I am glad my fellow science enthusiasts the other side of the pond appreciate my work :-)

[@rodneybernard4959]

Your teaching style is excellent.Waiting for your more videos

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Rodney

[@Misty-qo1hy]

The topic is presented and explained well, looking forward for your other videos 😊

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Misty

[@constpegasus]

Thank you for the videos sir.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

You are most welcome!

[@bilujiluajuworld7203]

Hey man, You are brilliant! from India

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Bilujiluaju :-)

[@muhammadraqibulislamraqib8134]

So simple explanation. Thank you and may God bless u. Lots love from me...💚💚

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

You are warmly welcome Muhammad. Thank you for your praise :-)

[@albertyeung5787]

very clear explanation

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thanks!

[@mahantheshag1226]

Well explanation sir🙏 watching from India

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Mahanthesha. Greetings from France :-)

[@mibrahim4245]

I am an engineer since 9 years .. and I find your videos very informative .. specially those talking about em propagation and light ... please keep up the great work :) .. now looking for Enthalpy and Entropy (if I won't be demanding :D) .. THANK YOU SO MUCH

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi Ibrahim. I love reading these kinds of words from experienced engineers and scientists. It is basically praise from my peers! Yup, enthalpy and entropy. That's a good idea. I'll put it on the list to keep it in mind. Thanks for the suggestion!

[@mibrahim4245]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy 🌹🌹

[@sudhir3044]

You are really awesome, u r really making physics easy.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thanks a ton for your kind words Sudhir!

[@peter2878cheung]

Great job! Thanks a lot. A very clear and concise lecture.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you, I am glad you enjoyed it.

[@movij534]

So good

[@aaronramsden1657]

This actually makes me consider studying physics

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hello Aaron, Studying physics is like a rough hike in the mountains. Tough to get to the top, but once you're there, you get amazed by the view. (It had this effect on me: physics was rough for me as a student, but I held on, and didn't regret it!). Enjoy!

[@Pram-ly-r]

Waiting for more videos.. 🥺🥺

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

You and others have made me move myself, there is a new video coming out soon!

[@ASAlan-sh8kf]

Please don't stop making those videos. Thanks for reading.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Alan! I am currently ultra busy, but hopefully by beg next year, I will be able to resume :-)

[@anikchatterjee5352]

Awesome video...keep up the great work

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Anik

[@nimishajain2911]

Amazing video. Yes, I imagine editing is a pain! Must take 100x effort involved in simply shooting content. The layering of concepts was very succinct and effective for me (from the individual particle bond to the nature of a system, for example). I particularly appreciate you highlighting the misleading term "non-mechanical." Many of your videos (from my vantage point) highlight nuances well beyond textbook physics, which is just really cool because it for me it creates room to ask questions that otherwise were not possible or perceptible. I will have to find the other example of such a nuance I am recalling but in general I keep seeing it in this content and it is really awesome and keeps us viewers thinking newly. Thanks for the hard work and time. Incredible channel.

[@nimishajain2911]

By the way - my personal opinion - I do not feel the animation was lacking. I think the ideas/architecture behind the animation are very thought out and precise, so simplicity is actually helpful for me in my learning style. Ie - no excess information in language or visually.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Nimisha for the very kind words. I am really glad that my videos allow you to develop your own thoughts about how this amazing world we live in works. I appreciate also how you recognise the thought process behind the structure of the videos: You are not just gobbling up, but being quite attentive to the content and its meaning, and that I value highly!

[@AdarshKumar-gq9bw]

Hey sir...for the first time in my life I started to feel EM waves by watching your video...can u please make more videos upon the phenomenons of waves like interference, diffraction and all....please..

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hello Adarsh, thank you for your words. There are already quite a few videos about waves. See the Waves playlist of the channel: kzbin.info/aero/PLU0ETLdKNmc5W6gduim48-b1hP5nGa1EH Thanks also for your suggestion. Adding a few more 'Wave' videos is on my plate for 2022...

[@AdarshKumar-gq9bw]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy thanks sir

[@Mangojimmyjournalist]

awesome video

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Unique

[@AdityaRaj-s1z5p]

Sir you are great teacher

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you for your kind words :-)

[@gowrissshanker9109]

Respected sir, I have some questions, it would be very helpful if you could answer for me,.... 1)Is it possible to produce em waves by oscillating the magnet to certain frequency?....are we producing em waves in faradeys law to induce EMF in another circuit? please explain how it works sir 2)Can we produce em waves by oscillating the vandegraff generator? 3)where does the energy of em wave come from? How accelerating charges losses it's energy so that it gives to the em wave? if I take an electron and jiggle it... How do I lose energy to give to em wave.... 4) how can an object obsorb the em wave...what does black body do when em wave falls on it,why does atoms of black body does not oscillate to the incoming em and produce its own em wave, does it produce out of phase light wave which destructively interfere on incident wave...how can a em wave be obsorbed/destroyed? 5) according to classical model of atom, how electron rotating around nucleus losses energy...it's accelerating but what's the OPPOSING FORCE that causes the ENERGY TO DECREASE/ tangential velocity to decrease and fall into the nucleus?? 6) does all AC circuits produce em waves, will AC circuit glow visibly when its frequency is frequency of visible light....why DC current does not produce em waves.... even though electrons collide with nucleus of the conductor and losses energy and ACCELERATES? 7)Why cannot neutral objects (Eventhough having positive and negative charge) does not produce em waves ...is it possible to produce em waves by shaking the a ball with our hands or machine to vibrating the neutral object to certain high frequencies...?? Thank you sir

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

1)Is it possible to produce em waves by oscillating the magnet to certain frequency?\ Yes, but this is not because it is a magnet… all materials contain electrons, so all materials would emit EM waves if the material is subject to a physical oscillation. Note though, that the EM waves of positive charges and negative charges in the object would interfere, but not completely due to phase differences. (all charge carriers are not at the exact same location).. ....are we producing em waves in faradeys law to induce EMF in another circuit? In a dynamo for example, where you produce AC current, yes, because an AC current is electrons are oscillating around a central position 2)Can we produce em waves by oscillating the vandegraff generator? In a VdG generator, yes but indirectly: it produces a very high Potential difference, by ionising the molecules, sparks are generated, which emit light.( EM waves). The current itself, even if DC, is a motion of charged particles, therefore, it can generate a change in the electric field in the space surrounding the electronic flow at the condition that such current is not perfectly stable. 3)where does the energy of em wave come from? The fluctuating electric field (EM wave) is generated by the oscillation of charge carriers. In order to generate this oscillation (and maintain it), some work must have been done (and be done) on the charge carriers. 4) how can an object absorb the em wave...what does black body do when em wave falls on it,why does atoms of black body does not oscillate to the incoming em and produce its own em wave, does it produce out of phase light wave which destructively interfere on incident wave...how can a em wave be obsorbed/destroyed? Many question Gowri! Check my videos on black bodies. The black body phenomena is basically a quantum mechanical effect, that can only be partially explained using classical physics: the energy of the absorbed EM wave is converted to the kinetic energy of the BB’s particles. Therefore the internal energy of the BB increases (that includes the KE), thus temperature. Consequently, the particles move more, and because they carry charges, they emit light. 5)can linearly accelerating, circulating, spinning charge produce light? How will that light look like? A charged particle accelerating, or even just moving, will create a change in the E Field strength at the points around it, so yes. For spinning particles, it depends of the distribution of the charges within it (if perfectly homogeneous, it can be considered like a point charge not moving, therefore, no EM fluctuation) You are maybe referring to probably to synchrotron radiation (charged particles circulating in a loop). I invite you to search for this term on internet. 6) does all AC circuits produce em waves, will AC circuit glow visibly when its frequency is frequency of visible light.... Yes why DC current does not produce em waves.... even though electrons collide with nucleus of the conductor and losses energy and ACCELERATES? \ Yes they do, but these are not wave-like, more like EM fluctuations. 7)Why cannot neutral objects (Eventhough having positive and negative charge) does not produce em waves ...is it possible to produce em waves by shaking or vibrating the neutral object to certain high frequencies....how black bodies produce em waves?? Even if an object is neutral, it does consist of charged particles (electrons, quarks). So yes, if you were able to jump up and down a quadrillion times per second, your body might glow! But as mentioned in the answer to your first question, the signals from + and - charges would interfere destructively, because oscillating with the same amplitude and frequency. However, a small phase shift due to different position of these charge could allow you to detect a weak signal (the interference is not fully destructive). In other words, the glow of your body would be barely detectable. ;-)

[@gowrissshanker9109]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy THANKS A LOT SIR, FOR SPENDING YOUR VALUABLE TIME TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS...YOUR ANSWERS ARE GREAT🎉👍🌟🌟👌🙂

[@mannmohan3009]

Lovely video 🙂

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Man!

[@sdaar211]

Thank you sir

[@Trarore.orginal]

Your videos are just INCREDIBLE

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Ahmed! Most appreciated!

[@amrimoussa2606]

Thanks for your effort

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Amri!

[@ahmedayesh3728]

Good job❤, it is really helpful and beautiful.

[@gowrissshanker9109]

Respected sir 🌟,, As galaxies and planets , Stars near our solar system is moving away from us in an INCREASING RATE In the expansion of universe(due to dark energy).....Will Astronomy(observing of stars planets and galactic events) become more and more difficult in future days? Thank you sir 🌟

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi Gowri, absolutely… at the condition that the acceleration keeps on (which, today, is believed to be the case as dark energy doesn’t seem to be diluted with the expansion of space), But non worries, we , or the Earth, or even the Sun will not be there to observe this darkening of the sky. Imagine though if humanity had emerged much later in the life of the Universe when the observable universe was limited to our galaxy… We would have never had the chance to understand the cosmos as we do!

[@Neo_743]

THANK YOU really helps😊

[@kaveeshaabewarna6386]

Thankyou so much .I got great opportunity from this 🙏

[@adhihcmw]

Keep going sir!!!!

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you for the encouragement Adhih

[@felizelamores5063]

I can't thank you enough for the 'Work' you've put into your channel! Your videos help en'Light'en me to perceive our physical world through a clearer lens. Thank you!!!!❤‍🔥

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Merci Felizel! These were beautiful words to read. I am glad you enjoy my videos :-)

[@khalidsayfullah1152]

good explanation.. I watched your many video,every video was excellent.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi Khalid, I am really glad you enjoy my work! Thanks!

[@capricepascoerealtor519]

Thank you!

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

You are welcome Caprice :-)

[@photon434]

Thank you for producing such clear videos. I have a question. When heat is transferred to a molecule, is the energy stored by the electron and\or nucleus jumping to a higher energy level? 💫 Any insight as to what is going on at the fundamental level would be appreciated. Thank you.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

It is possible for heat to make an electron jump to a higher orbit, i.e. to the atom to jump an energy level, that is what happens at the surface of stars (some absorption lines therefore disappear leading to categorizing stars in spectral classes). But at theses temperatures, molecules do not exist. heat provided to a molecule will increase the KE (and the PE) of its bonds. However, because some modes of vibrations can be favored, it is possible to consider defining their energy with quantized levels. In solids, we even talk about phonons (this is not a typo, phonon with a n), as particles of soundwaves...

[@BasitAliShahi]

What a explanation it was! I have really enjoyed it because i was very anxious about the concept of heat ❤❤❤ thank you sir love from Pakistan

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hello Ali, I am glad my video clarified things for you, and thus can help you with your studies. Love from France ❤

[@sanjanaTablet]

You are the best❤

[@kmlbth9407]

Sir, I always struggled to understand how transfer of energy between particles takes place inside of an object when two molecules or atoms in any object don't physically touch each other. Does it mean that electromagnetic radiation takes place within the object as well? If it is the electrostatic repulsive force that pushes the neighbor atoms/molecules then how do the particles (electrons) on the surface (opposite to high energy surface) radiate energy if they didn't absorb any energy? Vibration of bonds and atoms and molecules does not explain how electrons are absorbing energy (quantized energy) to radiate the energy in the form of EMR. NOTE: I may have not been able to explain very well what I mean but I am sure there are others also who don't understand this.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

In the video, I was considering energy transfer by conduction (a model where particle actually collide with one another). I understand you are referring to radiative energy transfer. Watch my video « What is an EM wave » and you will understand how this works. The confusion that you experience might come from the fact that you are blending notions of classical physics and quantum mechanics. In classical physics, radiative transfer is considered to be occuring via an EM Wave (See the video « why does light reflect ») for an example. In quantum mechanics, radiative energy transfers occure by exchange of photons between the interacting particles (i.e. exchange of quanta of energy that we perceive as light). Does this answer your question ?

[@satyawatikumari4276]

Sir,Why does object fall towards the earth,is it because of potential energy or gravitational force? Please make video on this or comment the answer.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi Satyawati. they are both facets of the same thing: the effect of a gravitational field... If there is potential energy, there is always a force involved... Your question reveals there is something you do not clearly get, maybe about forces. A Force is just a practical conceptual tool that was invented to reflect an acceleration (here in that case due to the conversion of energy of position (= potential energy) to energy of motion (Kinetic Energy). I invite you to check some of my videos that can help (What is Work, what is Energy and Why is gravitational potential energy negative). These could help clarify things in your head.

[@SalsaKingoftheApes]

Great video, keep it up!

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Nick :-)

[@SoimulPatriei]

A very good presentation. Thanks! By the way I’ve bought your course on the basics of electricity on Udemy. It would be a good idea if you will make other Physics courses on Udemy.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

HI, Thanks! I hope the course was useful to you, don't hesitate to post a question on Udemy if you have one. Yes, I know, I should create more courses, but these take a huge amount of time to produce, and I have to take care of my real life students and many other things going on in my life these days :-)! I would love to do more. and I plan to do so. The one I have in mind for the continuation of the one you purchased is electricity Part 2 (Electric potentials, electric potential energy and circuits). But it 'll have to wait a little... Thanks for your encouragements!

[@zafarullahkhan1258]

​@@PhysicsMadeEasyThank you Sir , may Allah Power to accept Islam❤🇵🇰

[@adhihcmw]

Best one!!!! ❤️❤️❤️

[@NirajKumar-m5y4b]

Thank u sar aapane mujhe heat ke bare mein bataya kash Mera bhi teacher aapke jaisa hota😢😂❤

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

आपका हार्दिक स्वागत है. आपकी इस टिप्पणी के लिए धन्यवाद :-) ❤

[@harlangleeson9496]

great!

[@johanfrancis2001]

Sir you are really amazing...i had some wrong preconception regarding heat...Hope u are working more on your animation skills....ciao

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Yo Johan, thank you for your kind words. As for the animation skills... it's stagnation lol! And besides, having limited tools at my disposal forces me to remain creative :-)

[@AdarshKumar-gq9bw]

Sir plz make one video on Alternate current we want to feel that too...

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Adarsh for the suggestion. I added it to my "would like to produce" list

[@AdarshKumar-gq9bw]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy thank u sir

[@Semachannel-r7m]

​@@AdarshKumar-gq9bwufjvhkl

[@Edison-newworldBlogspot]

Wow… love and respect from India 💯😍

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you!

[@rajinderkaur5069]

Sir I am from India..I really like and love the way you teach physics. But Can you please make a video on Simple Harmonic Motion, rotational motion and related concepts and on mechanical properties of fluids and solids. I haven't found those videos on you channel. Thank you!

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi Rajin, thanks for the suggestions and put on the wish-list. You might find some circular motion videos in my very first videos. I produce a video when I have some time to spare (1 video = about 40 -50 hours work), so of course you will not find all of physics on that channel. But step by step, little by little, the catalog gets thicker :-)

[@rajinderkaur5069]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy Okay Sir..

[@gowrissshanker9109]

Respected sir 🌟, Its know that Diffraction is an property of wave, but light behaves as particle (photons) at shorter wavelengths...Compton scattering using X rays is an example of particle nature of light....then how does X rays(very short wave length)produce Diffraction pattern in crystallography? How can same X-rays interact differently in these two cases? Thank you sir 🌟

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi Gowri, "but light behaves as particle (photons) at shorter wavelengths" It also behaves as photons at longer wavelength (think photoelectric effect with visible light)). All is a question of the experiment you are carrying out. The diffractive nature of light will show up most when the size of the slits (for X-Rays, the interatomic distances) is of the order of magnitude of the wavelength. That's why we use X-Rays to probe the structures of materials.

[@swarupkumarsatpathy]

Great Explanation Video..Thank You Sir. ❤️ From India.. Sir it will be great for us if we get more concept videos for JEE and Neet from You.. Humble Request 🙏🏼

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi Swarup, i actually focus most of the lesson videos on the basics of physics, which are common to all curricula. I prefer teaching the real foundations, and then at the light of the new understanding these provide to students, students can review their own notes. They can use what they learn with me to understand better what is taught in class. I try to make my videos conceptual pillars on which students can cling too, but its up to student to adjust to his curriculum philosophy!

[@swarupkumarsatpathy]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy That's great Sir..We appreciate.. Concept is the most important while solving a numerical...Thank You Sir... Eagerly Waiting for more videos to know something new and the basic concepts...We are getting the answer of why and how from your videos.Thank you for that sir

[@dspopnrendi1725]

I have a query but it is off topic →in our textbooks there was a formula *work done=(force)(displacement) But if we consider a vaccum for example space than, if we apply a litte force it will start to move and as there is no friction at all so it will move in a particular untill an external force act on it, so displacement will approach infinity. It means work done = infinity ♾️. But on another hand if we consider a heavy box on a surface with a higher amount of frictional force (static) let's say 1000N and if we try to move it with a force less than 1000N, it will not move, but in this case we have chemical energy in our body and we are using that energy to apply the force, but the box is not moving. So the work done = 0, but where does the chemical energy went. Is it violating the law of conservation of energy?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Be careful W = F * Displacement during which the force is applied on the object: In space, you apply a force of 100N for 10 meters on an object initially at rest, then the work done is 1000J, and that will be the kinetic energy of the object. Once your stop pushing, the object will continue to move (to displace) with a KE of 1000J until another force modifies its motion. If no forces show up on the way, it will move for infinity as you say, but the work done (and the KE) remains 1000J because you applied the force for only 10 meters. For the second question: The box remains still but stuff is still happening. At the interface friction acts like a reaction force opposite to the applied force. You are actually compressing the box, as if you were pushing it against a wall. Think of the box as a spring of very high spring constant. The chemical energy you used goes into the internal potential energy of the box. No violation of the law of conservation of energy in sight ;-)

[@dspopnrendi1725]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy Thank You Sir I am very grateful to you for solving my doubt. And your explanation is outstanding and no one can copy you.😀😀

[@shutupimlearning]

Awesome video on heat! Would you be able to make a video on enthalpy and its relation to heat? I believe enthalpy is the energy within molecular bonds, so it would be interesting to see how that is related to heat.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

That is a good idea, I will put it on the list. But as a quick fix, the relation of enthalpy with heat is that the change of enthalpy of a system is equal to the heat provided by the system, when the system is at constant pressure (example: when the system is open to the atmosphere). At P = constant: dH = dU+PdV = dQ+dW+PdV= dQ-PdV+PdV = dQ

[@gangannag9670]

Sir can you please explain difference between potential and potential energy.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hello Ganganna. Potential energy is an energy and is expressed in Joules. Potential is an energy per unit charge (or per unit mass). It is assigned to a position, not an object. It corresponds to the potential energy an object would have placed at that position per unit charge (or per unit mass). Example: A position in an electric field has a potential of 5 joules/Coulomb (= 5 Volts). A charge of 3 Coulomb placed at this position would have a potential energy of 5 x 3 = 15 Joules. (15 joules of energy were required to bring it there from infinity) Check this video where I deal with this question in detail: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oGSqo4KBp8qSlZI

[@rahulkajala25]

Dear sir, I want to ask you one question please reply , when a particle move then it's mass increases, does this mass increase refer to matter increase or this is just because mass is a relative physical quantity , does movement add new particles to the moving object?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi Rahul, Mass is the property of an object or particle. It does not in any way represent the amount of matter (saying so is just an approximation practical for low energy sciences like chemistry). You have to see mass as a form of potential energy. At rest, this energy guarantees the cohesion of the particle. It is called rest mass. When you accelerate a particle, you transfer energy to it and it gains Kinetic Energy 0.5mv^2. At low energies, what increases in the formula is the speed v. But if you transfer more and more energy, you realize you will hit a problem: You cannot increase the speed more than the speed of light, so where does the energy go? It is converted into mass. The process is progressive actually. Larger the speed, large the fraction of the energy that is converted to mass instead of motion. Approaching the speed of light, most of the energy is converted to mass. More info? Check this link: courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-physics/chapter/relativistic-quantities/#:~:text=The%20kinetic%20energy%20is%20equal,the%20velocity)%20of%20the%20body. I hope this helps!

[@sshreddderr9409]

hot / cold in an every day context can also be defined as the perception of difference in particle movement compared to your body. uncomfortably hot means so hot that the subatomic processes in your body are affected negatively by being forced to move quicker than ideal to a point where it hinders subatomic reactions in molecules in your body. the same is true for cold, only that it slows them down to a point where the subatomic particles are prevented from or at least hindered to perform their reactions properly or at the right time, speed or rate. The reason it feels nice to be exposed to heat after waking up, in the shower or when you were exposed to the cold is because the body requires less energy to maintain your body temperature so its produces hormones to reward you for staying in the heated area, especially when your metabolism is trying to wake up and come online after being shut down over night. Thats why cold showers are stupid in the morning. they force your metabolism to accelerate much quicker than with room temperature so the body has to work a lot harder, and the body can not keep up for a while, which is why its so uncomfortable. Instead, people should start out with warm water to help speed up enzymes and reactions before your metabolism is fully awake, and then after its fully working, then you should progressively lower the temperature to make it go beyond the normal level. you avoid all the uncomfortability and when you are exposed to room temperature again, you will be much more awake and capable for a while compared to just cold showers.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi, very good comment! I especially agree with your last statement about the morning showers! When the weather is warm (Spring/Summer/Autumn), this is what I do in the morning to 1/be kind with my body and 2/ wake it up! :-)

[@LECityLECLEC]

This is a really good video thank you so much, you have some of the best explanations I can find!. God bless ^^.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

I am glad I could help Chris. Thanks for the encouragement.

[@gselectricaldoraha5712]

Sir video is very nice and sir please make a video on quantum field theory and please tell us ,are fields real or just mathematical construction to understand the particles

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi, a video on quantum field theory? Maybe one day, but until then, if you are interested in that topic, check the PBS space time channel. They have great videos on that topic! As for the reality of fields... this is a big question, philosophical even. imho, they do exist physically. Particles, on the other hand, do not really: these are just what we perceive of the localised fluctuations of fields (I know, it is counterintuitive, but more we learn about reality, more it becomes strange... ;-) )

[@gselectricaldoraha5712]

@@PhysicsMadeEasybut sir there could be an one unified field and particles would be exitations in that one field with different frequencies and it would be easier to understand why there is need to make different fields and it rises question that what makes that fields different from each other

[@LukeGameDev]

Atoms not only vibrate, they are themselves the vibration. Matter as we conceptualise it does not exist. The more vibration the more energy, heat, and light

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Physics is a model of how the Universe works. Models allows to make predictions, and if these do not work out, then, we know that this model has to be revised, or even abandoned if it fails continuously. The particle nature of matter is a model that does have limits, but it works fantastically well on the macroscopic level, especially when you bring in statistics like in thermal physics. The wave nature of matter works well too, but these waves are probability waves... a mathematical concept... So do these waves actually exist or are there just a human way of conceptualizing reality?...

[@LukeGameDev]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy Yes, and according to our measurements, only 0.0000000001% of the atom is not empty, and is solid. However, just because we see an atom, and measure its interactions with other atoms, with light, forces, etc, doesn't mean we can actually prove this physical core exists. We even know all atoms repel themselves, nothing touches anything. The thing is, measurements will still be the same even if the atom is 100% void. But it's really hard to conceptualise and accept that matter does not exist

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

@@LukeGameDev Actually there are versions of quantum field theory that postulate that particles / wave functions don't exist at all, and that what only exists are the interactions... Because if you think of it, how do we define an object and its properties? by its behavior relative to other objects (i.e interactions)... Yeah, its' pretty hard to physically visualize such a reality haha!

[@LukeGameDev]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy That's even crazier yet, I wonder if we'll ever know what it all means. But what you mentioned certainly sparks one's imagination. Like simulation theory, or the consciousness theory

[@AdnanAli-cw7xt]

*Respected sir ,I have a question* .It would be really helpful if you could answer it for me . →What is the maximum theoretical limit possible temperature could we have in the universe . As we all know that there is a lowest limit of possible temperature (-273°C)(If I AM not wrong here ) bcoz the movement of all molecule and particles almost STOP . the point to be noted here is that - temperature depends on the movement of particles. Here, it seems that (motion/movement/ VELOCITY OF THE PARTICLES) is the contributing factor for deciding the limit SIMILARLY ,if we perform a thought experiment on this Principle and set the value of PARTICLES upto OR almost to the "SPEED OF LIGHT". Bcoz as far as my knowledge is concerned Nothing can go Faster than light . So from this can we tell that we can reach/Calculate the maximum theoretical temperature possible

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi Adnan, Intelligent question. But be careful… Temperature is not a measure of speed of particles but of their kinetic energy… Kinetic energy also involves mass (1/2 * m * v^2). The maximum speed in our universe is the speed of massless particles (photons for example), referred to as speed of light. Special theory of relativity mentions that when an object is provided kinetic energy, it speeds goes up, but also its mass…(When you run, your mass increases, even if it is by a micro-tiny amount!). When increasing the KE of an object, the work done is distributed between the speed of the object and its mass. When the speed approaches the speed of light, most of the KE comes from the mass of the object. not its speed. So there is no real maximum theoretical temperature. Or you could say that the maximum temperature could be defined for an hypothetical massive particle that absorbed all the energy of the universe…. As a fun fact, the maximum temperature reached by man is 6 000 000 000 000 Kelvin (6 trilliion Kelvin). This is obtained by smashing two heavy ions moving close to the speed of light. Most of the Energy transferred by the accelerator as KE to these particles went into their mass before they smashed into each other

[@AdnanAli-cw7xt]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy ... thank you sir ...now I got it. Really Love your videos.you are one of the best teachers on KZbin.plz keep up this amazing work. Thanks again.💖 From India

[@mauionamission]

Thank youl

[@gowrissshanker9109]

Respected sir, what does energy per unit volume of electromagnetic wave intuitively mean....we derived energy per unit volume of electric field For AN SYSTEM(capacitor) WHERE E field is CONFINED....electric field is present in FINITE VOLUME AND UNIFORM BETWEEN CAPACITOR....but this quantity would not make sense if we have CHARGE ARRANGEMENT WHICH DOES NOT PRODUCE AN CONFINED E field...eg E field of an dipole.... similarly for magnetic field(inductor).... EVEN THEN WHY DO WE USE THIS STATIC FIELD ENERGY of these charge arrangement TO AN DYNAMIC EM WAVE ENERGY CALCULATION..I believe the energy of em wave comes from the source which tries to accelerate the charge, energy lost by source = energy of em wave...(am I correct?)....I am still unable to know why we static energy density of fields to calculate ENERGY OF EM WAVE... Thanks you sir 🌟 your answers helped me a lot🙂

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

I am not super familiar Gowry with this type of calculation, but this is my two cents: If you take a snapshot in time of the EM wave and focus on a single point, then I understand your concern, because E and M fields are not static (Like the E field in a capacitor). EM waves, are dynamic but remember, they follow a symmetry (sine or cosine) that can be averaged. Therefore static equations should work out with minimal tweaking when calculating energy densities within the EM wave. Check in your calculation if there no averaging somewhere versus space or time. Maybe you can think of an analogy with electric circuits: When you calculate power of an AC (dynamic) circuit. I and V need to be 'rmsed' when you do so… The only difference is a simple factor of SQR(2) for I and V because of that symmetry. This operation is realised In order to make a comparison with the power generated with DC (static) circuit, and you can use the same formulas (DC: P = VI, AC: P = Vrms*Irms = VI/2). Maybe this can help understanding why calculations of energy densities in dynamic sinusoidal fields leads to the same algebraic relations than for static fields?

[@gowrissshanker9109]

Respected sir🌟🌟, During interference of EM wave... electric field adds up like vector....if two electric field of EM wave of same amplitude ,frequency,inphase...when added by vector gives,E+E= 2E, but when we add Energy of E field WHICH IS PROPORTIONAL TO E^2...it contradicts (€E^2=2€E^2).... Similarly for distructive interference of two similar PLANE Em wave of PHASE DIFFERENCE of π interfering DESTRUCTIVELY COMPLETELY... IF E field becomes ZERO EVERY WHERE..... WHERE DOES ITS ENERGY GO?what is wrong here? Thank you sir 🌟

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Think in average versus time. These vectors are dynamic (in an EM wave, the electric field strength vector changes becase it oscillates)... At a given point when there is a destructive interference, later at the same point there will be a constructive one. You can also average this in space. At one point where there is DI, there will be a CI at a point next to it…

[@asociatiaademed7417]

I love this presentation because explains the heat in the case of solids in a easy to understand way.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you :-)

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Heat and Freeze, is the Two Legs, the Stuff-side of Life, 'Walk On', they is Stuff-side of Eternal Abilities, Gravity and Feeling, Instinct keep them in a balanced tension.

[@otto8041527]

I have a question, my dear professor. I understood that heat is a mechanical process, but what about infrared radiation?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Be careful otto, heat is a more of the sum of mechanical process: there are so many interactions between so many particles, that heat is better described as a statistical process. And actually, in text books heat is described as a 'non mechanical' transfer of energy (to emphasize its statistical nature opposed to a single mechanistic interaction). Infrared radiation can be seen as light energy. IR radiation transports energy through space until it is absorbed. Usually it is absorbed by resonance by molecules that then jump to a higher vibrational and rotational energy level (understand they move more after absorbing the IR). In that case, the IR radiation increases the internal energy of molecules, providing the same effect as heating them.

[@otto8041527]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy Thank you very much professor. My mind is too short to understand this phenomena at the level I would want. But your response helped me a lot.

[@dspopnrendi1725]

Sir I have a question about centripetal acceleration. The formula that we are provided to calculate centripetal acceleration is v²/r. But sir as we know that when an object is moving along a circular path with a constant linear velocity it's direction only changes but the magnitude remain the same sir but when we calculate the centripetal acceleration through this formula then we get a neumerical value ,say 1m/s² but my question is that what it conveys to us as the speed is constant so there is no magnitude acceleration and how it tells about the change in direction?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi you have to think in two dimensions: the centripetal acceleration (v^2/r) is perpendicular to the velocity of the object in circular motion. This is why the speed doesn't change. On the other hand the acceleration will 'pull' the object towards the center., this is why the velocity changes direction. In fixed cartesian coordinates it is much more complicated to define than in a moving cartesian coordinate system (as we do in a circular motion perspective). But it can help answer your question: Imagine you throwing an object, this object will move horizontally, but gravity will pull it down at the same time. You are using here a fixed coordinate system. Now imagine you throw it very hard, with a very large initial velocity so that the curvature of the earth is too small so that the object falls continuously (the object is in orbit). Now think about what happens in time to the coordinates of the velocity vector within a fixed cartesian coordinate system. You will then realize that the magnitude of the velocity vector stays constant, but its direction changes.

[@EricPham-gr8pg]

Would dried food and roasting is better or fresh steam food. Because frozen food and canned food seems like dead food? Because no heat to begin after frozen

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

I love to cook, But I cook French (I am French), so your question is a little out of my knowledge! An example: Bread. Baguettes, it's nicer when just fresh from the baker. If I deep freeze it and then heat it up, it's not as good. Except, when I let it unfreeze slowly under the rays of the Sun. Then, it's better than fresh. I do not know why, but I find this little thing I discovered amazing!

[@gowrissshanker9109]

Respected sir🌟, consider we have an Stern gerlach DETECTOR oriented right to left , IF WE PASS AN SINGLE SPIN UP ELECTRON (detected UP by another detector) it would be either DEFLECTED RIGHT OR LEFT in our detector....IF WE DO NOT OBSERVE IT AND MAKE IT TO PASS THROUGH....EVEN THOUGH WE DO NOT OBSERVE....THE GERLACH DETECTOR WOULD EXPERIENCE AN NET FORCE OPPOSITE TO THE DEFLECTION DIRECTION OF ELECTRONS(Newton's law) RIGHT?? IS THAT AN MEASUREMENT??? DOES IT COLLAPSES THE WAVE FUNCTION??? Does gerlach DETECTOR always MEASURES while DETECTING?? what is the difference between detection and measurement.... Quantum mechanics? Why detection does not collapse wave function but MEASUREMENT DOES ?? THANK YOU SIR 🌟

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

I don’t understand all the details of your question Gowri. What is absolute though, is that once it is found out what the spin of the electron would be, the wavefunction has collapsed (or appears to have collapsed, I don’t believe in Copenhagen interpretation)… In other words, as soon as any external entity in the environment has interacted with the electron, such as we can reconstruct / define the spin of the electron from the behavior of that entity, the measurement has been made, and the wave function has collapsed.

[@SenthilKumar-yq8wg]

😍🥰

[@astro_roblox1549]

Sir if object A has thr temperature of 90 units and object B has the temperature of 10 units so,if they are touched by each other will object A loss temperature or object B gain temperature? Please answer.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi Astro. Both. You have 4 apples, and give 1 to a friend. You lost one apple, and your fiends gained one... It's the same here (temperature represents average kinetic energy of particles, so if your system (A+B) is isolated, then conservation of energy applies). Please note that you must also consider context: If one or both objects are in a phase transition, then the statement is only correct for total energy (Kinbetic + potential), not for temperature.

[@astro_roblox1549]

@Physics Made Easy Thank you so much sir I got a 98% in my exams because of you!

[@CUET_MATHEMATIC]

i am from india sir you are great

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Nishant

[@flexn01]

so the temprature depends on the nature of what we are dealing with and its particules ?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi Flexn, temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles (Kinetic theory approximation). When you provide heat to a material, increasing its Internal energy, some of it goes into potential energy of its particles, and the rest into kinetic energy of its particle. The structure of the material will define how this energy is shared between the two (the property that expresses this is its specific heat capacity). So yes, how the temperature of a material changes when you heat it does depends on the material itself.

[@flexn01]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy thank you very much :D

[@AECommonThread2137]

*The Heat: 🚨* *Heat:🔥*

[@trishandas4500]

Sir i study in class 10th(India) My ultimate goal is to become a theoretical physicist...would you pls give some advice on how to proceed(except scoring good marks)?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi Trishan. Theoretical physicists (i.e. theoretical researchers) is a fascinating route, because you explore the edge of human knowledge. It's akin to being an explorer. As you said, you understand that of course you need good marks. But moreover, you need also to develop your passion and your imagination. I would read read read... Read vulgarised books about the latest theories in your field of predilection. If you pick up an aspect that really got you interested , look at the references of articles mentioned in the book, and go and read them. Have a maths text book not too far if you need to brush up on some notions. Learn about models and even better, learn how to code these models. And read science fiction books, to develop your imagination. It is a fascinating journey, that I took professionnaly for a few years (in material sciences). It is a lot of fun, especially, when you start using particle accelerators to verify your ideas. What field are you interested in?

[@rizna114]

Thx you soo muchhh it's helped me so muchhhhhhhh ,😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hello Rizna... please don't cry, if it helped, you should be happy! thanks for your comment :-)

[@Rajbirsingh-ef5mb]

Please also explain latent heat in which temperature of system do not change and remain constant why ????

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

See my answer to your other question.

[@dspopnrendi1725]

Sir I have another question about the work, well I have asked about it earlier but sir not it's a bit different. Sir consider a weightlifter who is lifting a weight of thousands of Newton, but the general formula says that the displacement is zero so the work done by the weightlifter on the object is also zero but sir after 2 or 3 minutes the weightlifter will feel very exhausted and tired and he will lose some of his chemical energy went? We can relate it with our example also whenever we try to lift objects a compass for an hour refill very pain in a hands due to the loss of chemical energy so where does this energy went? Also I have one more question for the same as I have considered that we are lifting a box against the force of gravity so we have to apply some force so that the object can move at higher potential energy and when it reaches a certain height we stop lifting so the potential energy is also constant my question is that if the potential energy is constant then why we are feeling tired after sometimes lifting the box because it is constant it means that it has taken some certain amount of energy from our body and now it is in just same state then why we are continuously losing the energy? Also I have another question and it is about light and fires, Sir in usual campfire whenever we try to look through the fire we see objects but they are not still it seems that the light is bending and then coming one can say that the light is wobbling my question is that why it occurs? Sir I have one more question, whenever the LPG cylinder gets exhausted we usually fill it with another help of a gas refill adaptor. My question on this is that whenever we try to fill an empty cylinder from another by putting the second one on the top of the cylinder and connected with a gas refill adaptor than the second one in which the LPG is transferred gets very cold? images.app.goo.gl/kbCtLtzvvvZbu8s4A Why it is so?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi, so many question! And good ones! 1/ The weightlifter The weightlifter does work... but not on the object he is holding above his head… This object will remain at the same potential energy, so now work is done on the object. What happens actually, is that in order to hold the object, his muscles need to develop a force (to counter gravity), and tense up. This tensing up generates a lot of heat (That’s why he is sweaty). The weightlifter is actually working on the molecules of air surrounding him speeding them up (the air around him increases in temperature). Same story with the other examples you gave. You can also see it that way. Imagine a motor making a wheel rotate. Start the motor, but block the wheel with a solid piece of wood: the wheel is not turning, the motor doesn't do any work on the wheel. But the motor heats up… 2/ Light and Fire: The fire eats up the air: the density of air changes around the fire. This creates a chaotic movement of the air from high density to low density regions. The refraction index of the air depends on its density, it is therefore fluctuating, bending the rays of light that go through that air. This is why things looked across the fire appear wobbly… 3/ LPG cylinder When you fill an ‘empty’ LPG cylinder (container A) with the gas contained in another one (Container B), you are making the gas in B work against the remaining gas in container A: Gas B pushes the gas in A, and therefore the particles of gas B lose kinetic energy, in other words, the temperature of the gas lowers. This interpretation is within the ideal gas model (In that scope, if container A was truly empty (vacuum), gas B wouldn’t be pushing against nothing and remain a constant temperature.)

[@dspopnrendi1725]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy thanks a lot Sir

[@dspopnrendi1725]

Well I have an another confusion, Sir we often picture black hole as a celestial object that has very strong gravitational attraction and it curves the space time so much that nothing can escape not even light which is the fastest mathematics possible speed limit of our universe. Sir in one of my previous questions you have told me that gravitational force also has a speed of light when it propagate through space time ,it means that from the point of singularity or from the event horizon gravitational force should also not propagate or better to say gravitons the gravity particles should not propagate or make any effect of gravity but we know that a black hole exerts very strong gravitational force on its near by objects. So my question is why gravity is able to escape from the black hole, is this mean that gravity has much larger speed than light? Of course not..

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi dSpOpNreNdI (why such a complicate name?) Gravity propagates at the speed of light, but gravity is not light! For macroscopic blackholes (all those we know), it is general relativity that needs to be considered for your question: What we perceive as the force of gravity is the curvature of space time (space time is like a stage where actors can do their thing). Things inside space-time (the actors, like particles, light, cats, planets and you) just fall along its curvature. We say they follow a geodesic. A black hole is just an extreme curvature of space time (a very deep and steep well), such as when you position something inside it (an actor), even if it travels at the speed of light, it cannot escape. But that that does not concern space-time itself (the stage)… The effect of gravity will still ‘escape’ the event horizon. Does this clear up your thoughts ?

[@dspopnrendi1725]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy sir but the quantum mechanics says that gravity is one of the four fundamental forces and its particle is graviton, so if it is true then we should not feel any type of gravitational force from black hole because when ,from inside the event horizon, a black hole emits a particle of graviton it will never exceed that line. So does it resolve that gravity is not a force and if so then why we are still looking for particle of gravity? I have heard on many videos that gravity is made up of particles so that is why this question came in my mind.

[@dspopnrendi1725]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy sir and also I have one doubt about angular displacement. Sir when our vehicle makes a sharp turn we feel that we are pulled on the side opposite to the direction of turning and generally the reason for this is given as due to inertia, our body tends to move in one direction so we feel that pseudo force also called centrifugal force. In this case if we just look at our vehicle so then it makes an Arc of a circle, and if you want to find the angular velocity of the car , which is v/r or theta/time, we will require its radius because we can easily measures the velocity on speedometer said so in this case how can we calculate the radius? And if sir we can just measure the angular displacement then we can easily measure all the angular quantities so how can we calculate that how much of degree or radian that car has covered because we don't know the radius?

[@dspopnrendi1725]

Well again I have a small doubt sir and that is about friction force. Sir does friction force depend on the pressure of the body? I feel so because when we thought two bodies ,with same mass and on same surface, but the area in contact with the surface is different, Then the one with less area in contact will have high pressure on the surface and that of the another one will be comparatively lesser, so the first one will interlock with the surface more nicely as compared to the second one then the friction should have increase in the first one but according to our standard formula it only depends on the normal reaction which is same in both. Is there any mistake in my thinking or something else? Also there are many substance like tape which sticks easily on the surface, my question for this is that which force is responsible for this act?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi I imagine two identical rectangular prisms, A and B, laying on the same surface (for example the same table). One (A) is laying on its larger area, and the other one (B) on its smaller area. You are wondering why the friction should be the same, because the pressure provided by B on the surface is larger than that of A, therefore, the imperfection at the interface are more interlocked with B. Did I understand your question well? You are correct in saying that B exerts a higher pressure on the table and that in consequence the imperfections on table/B interface are more interlocked. the friction resulting from this will be larger for B than for A PER UNIT AREA. A will be subjected to a friction lower than B per unit area, but it has a bigger area in total: if you sum this friction per unit area over the whole area for each individual prism, you will get the same total friction… For your second question: All forces you experience in daily life are either of gravitational or electrical origin. For the cellar tape, it is electrostatic interactions between molecules that provide the force at the origin of the stickiness (This force is called Van Der Valls force). I hope this helps!

[@dspopnrendi1725]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy What can I say ? I am feeling very pleasurable. My doubt is clear. Thank you is nothing before you. 🙏🏿🙏🏿 Paaye laagu Also I want to know more about the van der Waals force , so will you please explain it in your later videos.

[@dspopnrendi1725]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy Also I have an another shilly shally, and that is about the gravitational force. Well when we are talking about a black hole we talk about its density that is too much strong that even light can't escape from it. But if we consider a star that has same mass like that black hole but it's density is comparatively very low as compared to that of the black hole then it doesn't capture the light. so my question is that does the gravitational force anyhow link to the density of an object? Because in the case of a black hole the light was not able to escape from its gravity but a star of same mass but very low density is not capable to trap the light with its gravitational pull, although both have the same mass and according to newton gravitational formula the gravitational force is only dependent upon the product of masses not even linked to the density of the object.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

@@dspopnrendi1725 I am glad I clarified things. for you. Van der Walls forces... it's more relevant to chemistry but it is borderline to physics too, so why not. I'll put it on the list. Thanks for the suggestion.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

@@dspopnrendi1725 You are forgetting that the gravitational force depends also on the distance between the object and the center of mass of the source of the gravitational field! Take a large star of 10 solar masses (Like Betelgeuse), it’s radius is around a half a billion km. Take a black hole of the same mass: it’s radius would be of just a few tens of km. let’s say 30 km. If a particle passes at less than 30k from the center of the black hole, it would not be able to get away. Now, what If that same particle passes at less 30 km from the center of mass of the star (it is actually inside the star), it would feel a force pulling it towards the center, but also a force pulling it outwards (by the matter located between itself and the external boundary of the star). Actually, the net gravitational force it experience would be quite small. And even zero, at the exact center of the star…

[@chrisandrade2425]

Where does the memetic energy come from?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

memetic energy?

[@glorytube3263]

I have question teacher what is the difference between heat and kinetic energy

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Kinetic energy = energy of motion of a specific system (a single particle, a car, a planet) Heat: transfer of internal energy between two systems. Internal energy of a system = sum of potential energy and kinetic energy of all the particles of a system.