So, was he right about the electricity thing?
I'm too dumb to judge it myself, but I'm interested.
So, was he right about the electricity thing? I'm too dumb to judge it myself, but I'm interested.
So, was he right about the electricity thing?
I'm too dumb to judge it myself, but I'm interested.
yea, he was right. all you really need to understand is this:
1) there are no electric fields inside of ideal conductors
2) electrons, in general, do not push on each other
you can read jackson electrodynamics if you really want to understand how electricity works
>electrons, in general, do not push on each other
Wot? How do conductors establish zero internal field if that's the case?
>inb4 it's the field created by the electrons not the electrons themselves :^)
its diffusion. imagine you have a sealed box with a divider in the middle such that the box has two partitions, one partition has air molecules at 1 atm and the other side is a vacuum. if you remove the divider, the molecules will be evenly dispersed in the box almost instantly. but there wasnt any sort of force pushing the molecules, and collisions between molecules happen pretty infrequently. its just that the molecules are moving, and they moved to the other side of the box. no force involved.
so if you have a concentration gradient of electrons, the gradient will naturally disappear if the electrons are mobile, like in a conductor.
He was correct in the sense that there was a small pulse that jumped the gap right away, but the main electromotive force came later through the wires. So for practical purposes, he was wrong, but in a strictly technical sense he was correct.
This, he was presenting a mundane phenomenon in a misleading click-bait way, making it seem wrong but technically being correct.
he was correct. this is the same situation as electrobrainlet and walter lewin. people who do not know proper electrodynamics and think that being able to grind out circuit analysis problems makes them physically intuitive. Feynman even references this exact idea in Vol II of his lectures almost verbatim.
If magnetic repulsion is recoil from emission and absorption of virtual photons, what is magnetic attraction?
theyre not 'virtual photons', theyre magnetons
Proofs?
whats the difference other than the semantics of the axiom?
So you agree that virtual particles are cope?
no he was wrong. he confused two different types of power transfer, conduction and induction. and then he was a smartass about it instead of admitting that he is a clueless idiot
First off he's a hack. He doesn't have PhD in physics, it's a PhD in "physics education", which is more of sociology - take a camera and boom and sensationalise things.
Second kys for making eceleb thread.
He's wrong, but if some schizo on street shouts some shit, its not anyone's job to go and correct him, unless you're a schizo yourself.
Came here to post this. We'd be better off without this kind of popularity and the old sci would never have entertained anything otherwise.
>He doesn't have PhD in physics, it's a PhD in "physics education"
lmao...is this true...damning if so
this guy always seemed like a gay tbh
He put three babies into this latina, so I think we can rule out homosexuality. Despite that, he's obviously a materialistic Moloch worshiper.
Damn good for Derek. He BTFOs all the losers here.
okay troon go cope more
he was incredibly misleading. the things he demonstrated in his videos were never the problem. the problem is that his explanation gives the impression that it doesnt really matter how far the wires go, which the most certainly to.
he gives the impression that the power will "jump the gap" as if you had connected it directly to the power source, and it isnt mentioned that a tiny fraction of the true power of the battery will actually jump the gap.
and the most insulting bit is that his response to the criticism is to actually go and do the experiment, as if the criticism was that no fields would jump the gap at all. of course the some amount will jump the gap, but the problem is that all the context about how a only small part of the actual power could jump wider and wider gaps is totally missed out.
It's also dumb as frick to talk about a wire with no resistance and then use the effective capacitance and an imaginary lightbulb with no basis in reality make your point. It only further confuses people who are already moronic for watching him in the first place.
>the problem is that his explanation gives the impression that it doesnt really matter how far the wires go, which the most certainly to.
It doesn't. The power is generated through fields and the field reaches the lightbulb instantly from 1 meter away. The length of the wire doesn't matter at all as long as the light is within the fields influence.
you have been misled
t. electromagnetics phd working on electromagnetics instead of popular videos
Ikr its such assasine having to explain the misinformation of click bait videos
t. ee for pcie 5.0 standard and upcoming one
He literally proved his argument with actual experimental data. The light was on faster than electricity could propagate through the wire.
the neural impulses also induce a current in the same led. so in a way, you can turn on the led by thinking about it. the problem is: its frickin weak
So? The strength of the current has nothing to do with the argument. The electromagnetic field produced the excitement of electrons and that's what powers the light, that's all that was proven
>The length of the wire doesn't matter at all as long as the light is within the fields influence.
LMAO
thank you for perfectly exemplifying how Veritasium tricked people.
Electricity is just water with smaller particles lmao
Here's why he's technically wrong. He said the lightbulb has to turn on when current passes through it. Current is electron flow. Just because the wavefront of the field crosses the gap doesn't mean an electron flows through the bulb. The field he is describing wouldn't even move an electron across the bulb, just sideways through the wire and then magically tunnel to the battery. Checkmate basedence gay.
>Current is electron flow. Just because the wavefront of the field crosses the gap doesn't mean an electron flows through the bulb.
moron.
fine...also holes. awfully pedantic for someone that doesn't even have a real degree
The whole thing was a stupid argument over semantics. Electrical Engineers use capacitors in the lumped element model to model the phenomenon, physicists might use fields, but they're both high level abstractions for the underlying interactions between particles that produce equivalent results.
Tom Scott is way better
shit !< shit
Do you want to hear science from a BA linguistics? or from a fraud with toy PhD?
None of the YouTubers actually know what they are talking, which is why IQfy and pretty much all of 4chinz hates ecelebs
man all this time I thought this guy had a PhD in physics...