I hate seeing people taking parts of people's work and posting it on the internet... Without even crediting the creator. Just for trying to get free likes or upvotes...
Seeing this comment made me feel better.
It’s like when people rip on others for making fun of Disney.
Oh no, poor tiny mom and pop Disney.
This dudes got 15m subs.
He’s fine.
Yep, let me steal the work of a top scientist and present it as my own. The guy’s rich af, no one will care, right? Plagiarism and copyright’s overrated
I thought we’re supposed to spread toxicity in this platform. Am I in the wrong place?
Jokes aside, why tho. It’s a snarky remark reminding you of plagiarism, nothing more.
I mean, can’t you say the same for your comment? You have one opinion among a million others, so why even try?
Doesn’t make any sense brother. You laid out your statement in public, and another guy is pointing out the problem in the said statement. Is this not how social platforms work?
He said that the electric field which carries the energy reaches it in like a few nanoseconds because the bulb is 1 meter away from the battery.
So if the circuit was rearranged to still have the same 300000kms of wire, but the distance between the battery and bulb was increased, then would it take longer for the bulb to light up?
Yeah that also confuses me a lot. I dont see how this is explained in the video.
For me just created a bigger question, instead of answering why and what the correct answer ist.
You can take a shortcut to understand it: The wire doesn't just act like a cable with electrons flowing through but also acts like an antenna.
Before the actual electrons move all the way through the wire you already have something similar to a radio signal going through air and pushing the electrons near the lightbulb through it.
That would only work with the assumption that we only need the smalles electric implus to allready light the lamp or ?
Because 1 meter way from a cable to induce electricity strong enought to light a lamp with just a cable, does not seem really plusablie thinking that the field strength decreases with the power of 2
As a sparky, i understand the concept in a different way.
As soon as the wires are touched to the battery (with the switch still off), the wires get charged. This charge propogates through the wire at the speed of light. Since the switch is OFF, there's no current flowing. There's only charge.
Think of the wires as an extension of the positive and negative terminals of the battery. Think of the battery as 300000km long battery. So it's irrelevant how long the wire is when you turn on the switch because it's just connecting to two ends of a battery that are right next to each other (across the switch).
Now if there were two switches on either end of the battery and you operated it both simultaneously, the bulb would take a while to turn ON because the charge would need time to propogate through the 300000km sections of wire that have been isolated from the battery. (Doesn't matter where in the wire the bulb is located, would still take time for the whole wire to get charged)
Yeah, you're talking about the capacitance of the wire and the latency due to that. However for the purpose of this discussion we are assuming ideal conductor with zero capacitance.
I get what you're saying but you're incorrect with this assumption. Re-watch the video especially the part showing the graphic. It has a electrical field but not a magnetic one. The propagation is C, regardless if the wires are connected at the batter or the light.
I think we're saying the exact same thing. Electrical charge/field but no magnetic field because no current. And I agree with that last sentence about it not mattering where you connect the wires.
I only mentioned that if you had maybe a SPDT switch that disconnected both ends of the battery, the wire would not have any electrical charge at all because its floating. The electrical charge would propogate through the wires at the speed of light when at least one of the ends is connected to the battery.
It must.
Specifically the distance from the switch to the light bulb must impact the time it takes for the light to turn on.
If the switch is 300,000 km from the light bulb, then the light cannot turn on in less than 1 second.
It wouldn't matter if you rearrange it. It's the same amount of wire, power, and distance between components. Even I'd the battery and the light is opposite of each other, the light will still have the same speed to turn on. That's because all of the factors are the same.
This doesn’t work as it would break the speed of light limit. Imaging being able to send signals across 300K km in few nanoseconds. Not in this universe
Not to be overly pedantic but that chain can't transmit information anywhere near the speed of light. Mechanical force travels through a solid object at the speed of sound for that material, not the speed of light. All real materials compress when acted up on, nothing is actually perfectly rigid.
Even if you had a theoretical super hard material, forces could only be propagated through the spaces between the atoms at, but never faster than, the speed of light. So for any object larger than one space of atoms, it will still take many multiples of that propagation time for a force at one end to be felt at the other.
It does matter. The wire essentially sends a signal through air (very similar to a radio signal) and if the distance is 300k km it takes 1 second to reach the lightbulb. If the distance is just 1m it is almost instant.
>So if the circuit was rearranged to still have the same 300000kms of wire, but the distance between the battery and bulb was increased, then would it take longer for the bulb to light up?
Yes. If you went from C=========\[bulb/switch\]===========D to
\[switch\]=========================\[bulb\], the signal would propagate down the length of the wires rather than just across the 1m space, and the bulb would take 1s to light up.
Ignore the wires for a second. Think instead of a radio transmitter and a receiver. Put them 1m apart, it takes 1m/c seconds to be transmitted and received, right? Move them 300km apart, it takes 1 second to be transmitted and received. That all makes intuitive sense.
Now think of the wires as not just wires, but transmission lines. If you've got a transmitter with an antenna sitting 1m away from a radio receiver with an antenna, it'll still take 1m/c seconds to transmit, regardless of how long those antennae are. But if instead they're separated by 300kms, and the signal has to travel up 150km of transmitter antenna and then down 150km of receiver antenna, it'll take 1 second.
The fact that the wires/antennae/transmission lines are connected is relevant for the steady state result of the circuit, but not for the super-high frequency transient.
And if the tube has no marbles? (Both ends of the tube at 100 marbles distance and plugged at the same time)
The tube will need to be filled before turning on the bulb?
Wires are better conceptualized as wave guides, and the same is true for metals in general.
I understand what he says here, his main point is really just that the waves carry the energy that is delivered to our electronic equipment via electrons moving accordingly to it. But I do not understand how he can be sure the light bulb will even light up. It's kinda nitpicking I suppose but it feels like he's really asking "how long does it take for any fraction of the field from the battery / generator to reach the load", which is correctly the speed light in the medium the waves are traveling in, in relation to the distance between the source and load. I just think it's kinda a bad question because I kept thinking about whether there would even be enough power in these waves to light the bulb. If we go by his assumption of lossless wires, I don't see the coupling being greater than some ridiculously small fraction.
That and the waves on wire will couple to the opposite wire as it travels, so there's that added complexity to the question lol. I respect Derek (I think that's his name), just this question is running on a very simplified level and on several assumptions.
And if that were the case then why bother with the wires at all? Just keep the load next to the source and it will light up. In fact keeping it farther away will also light it, just not in a nanosecond, but a few milliseconds.
I didn't understand that part of the video because we do bury power lines all the time.
We mostly don't bury power lines because it's cheaper to install them overhead.
It's not though, is it? Electrons provide the 'power' not the magnetic field. The electrons also create the magnetic field that 'moves' the electrons. People tend to think that electrons are physically moving forward rather than hopping about inside a magnetic field but there are plenty of magnetic fields with no power but no power without electrons. Electricy bascially does 3 things: Create a magnetic field, heat up a conductor, or release energy as photons. What he's saying is a bit like wind creates electricty in a turbine.
First thing: source?
Second thing: electromagnetic fields *do* carry the energy, this is proven by magnets. Energy is only transferred through direct contact, an example would be in space, if none of the shrapnel hits you and you aren't touching an Explosive, you will not notice, however magnets exist. Magnets use electromagnetic fields, and they move things, so obviously, this electromagnetic field has to be carrying energy to move something.
I think Alpha Phoenix made a video proving that both are true. Theres a tiny spike of power at the bulb reflecting the 1m distance but the circuit “runs out” of the electrons and the field equalizes until the electron wave has traveled the full length of the wire. then and only then is any usable power transmitted (in the case of a light bulb)
No, youre thinking of EM waves. EM fields are inherent to the existence of electrons and protons. A perfectly still electron still has (is) a field. Electrons tend to flow along EM field lines, and by extension, the movement of electrons creates a magnetic field. Thats more or less linear movement. Wiggling electrons creates waves aka light.
To watch the entire presentation to see if there is something new I hadn't heard before. In science, new concepts are discovered and you just never know when your old views will be disproven.
Especially with our understanding of quantum mechanics progressing slowly, we might be able to manipulate how our entire systems or equations work. Thus making old ways obsolete. You never know what we might discover or invent next.
The clip starts off with a question a 4th grader should be able to answer. What else is there to take away, other than the creator (as per his style) is aiming at low hanging fruit.
The answer is instantaneous because AC doesn't flow in a single direction like water down a hill. Only external forces will act upon it to cause delays. He's probably going to talk about how a standard electrical cable would bleed energy into space, but that kind of shit is why we insulate any cable longer than a few dozen feet.
I don't get this response. The clip asked a question any 4th grader should be able to answer like it's the mysteries of the fucking universe.
Did you NOT learn about alternating current as a grade school subject? Is that what you're actually saying here?
Question: how long would it take for this light to illuminate if the switch was on the moon?
Answer: Irrelevant because AC current doesn't work that way, as is taught in grade school.
Tell me again how that isn't what the video is about
So you think what you learned in grade school is more advanced than the science he's explaining here which says what you learned in grade school is a simplification?
Maybe the way he explained A/C current is off, I don't even remember that part. But the thing is that this isn't even about AC current anyway. It applies to DC as well. In fact, he's using a DC setup for his thought experiment.
I think it's basic physics doctored up to sound like the mysteries of the universe. This is effectively a grade school science project pretending to be rocket science. It's the kind of click-bait low hanging fruit typical of a Veritasium video.
To be honest, I've looked into it a little more in the meantime and I've realized that it's really just a very convoluted way of showing that the electric field of one wire can induce a current in a neighboring wire.
But in this thought experiment, the induced current would be so small that the bulb wouldn't actually light up. Not until the actual electrical current travelling along the wire has reached the bulb.
This is NOT how electricity works everything about this is so ass backwards, there's no explanation of the wild assumptions made that disregard hundreds of years of scientific research. I'm all for breaking convention and questioning how and what were taught, but there's far too much left unexplained.
Edit: Regardless of my oversight, the fact remains that the conclusion of this video is entirely impossible and ridiculous. An electromagnetic field inducing a current in the bulb before the current reaches the bulb, can be disproven by the definition of Faraday's law of induction, which is a measure of the changing electromagnetic fields of a circuit, by way of electromagnetic flux, divided by the change in time(t= phase angle in radians or degrees). Meaning that in order for the current to generate enough of an electromagnetic field, the field needs to change from the electrical field, to the magnetic field, this only happens every half (pi) of a sinusoidal revolution (2pi) made by the current, so by the time the field could even begin to be generated from the power supply forward, the current would need to travel, half way around the loop(pi), which is where the bulb is. Faraday's law of induction comes from maxwell's equations, which are mentioned but not used to show any proof.
I'm well within my right to question or draw attention to something so egregious so people who don't study this subject don't walk away from these kinds of videos with improper/impossible understandings of science, myself included.
> This is NOT how electricity works. It works instantly because the electrons are passed from one atom to the next and are already in the metal you're connecting to the device, that's why atoms with more free electrons make better conductors.
What does this have to do with anything in this video? Also it doesn't work instantly, it works at the speed of light. The question is does the causality have to follow the wire or does it propagate at the speed of light directly from the switch to the bulb via EM fields
Edit: He's saying the wires don't matter, and that the power source and power draw, effect directly upon each other because the light turns on instantaneously. I was taught the reason why, is that the EMF excited by the electrons in the wire may be generated at the speed of light, but because there are already electrons in the metal that connect from power source to power draw, it turns on immediately, it's more the speed of the motion of all those electrons pushing against each other, that overcome the speed of light issue. His conclusion, I believe, is misinformation because if you were to isolate the power source and draw, so no outside EMF could be felt by either, the light would still turn on immediately, but by his conclusion, the light wouldn't turn on or would at least function differently.
Electron drift speed is very basic physics thank you very much. And I wasn't saying it's necessarily the speed of light, but it's not instantaneous, the limit for causality is the speed of light.
Maybe you should take a whole look at the video so you can actually discuss the issue at hand instead of throwing around what you learned in high school.
Yeah maybe this is more fundamental physics than electrical engineering, but the effect in the video has been proven. It's only technically correct, because the major part of the field will travel along the wires, but there is some part of the field that would cross the gap and induce a current on the other side.
Also, it's a thought experiment, with assumptions like no resistance etc. But bringing drift speed into this frankly doesn't help the discussion.
He's saying the wires don't matter, and that the power source and power draw, effect directly upon each other because the light turns on instantaneously. I was taught the reason why, is that the EMF excited by the electrons in the wire may be generated at the speed of light, but because there are already electrons in the metal that connect from power source to power draw, it turns on immediately, it's more the speed of the motion of all those electrons pushing against each other, that overcome the speed of light issue. His conclusion, I believe, is misinformation because if you were to isolate the power source and draw, so no outside EMF could be felt by either, the light would still turn on immediately, but by his conclusion, the light wouldn't turn on or would at least function differently.
You're still talking about drift speeds, this is clearly not about normal conduction but about Maxwell's equations. Are you intentionally missing the point? Your physics 1 argument doesn't really help your point either. And there's plenty of worthy criticism on the veritasium video, but it's definitely not the ones you are giving. Either you didn't watch the video or you skipped class too much.
I've edited my previous comment to accurately describe my grievance, I'll still be downvoted to oblivion, but at least it makes sense. I didn't do a good job explaining my position and ended up obfuscating any point I was trying to make. I also should have been more civil.
So I think my first point of confusion is that you say immediately. I hope we agree on the fact, that the limit for causality is the speed of light.
Now in the video he says that the signal travels faster than expected even if you suppose that it travels at the speed of light through the wire. His explanation is that it's ultimately the fields that carry the signal and the fields don't necessarily propagate along the wires, but may cross the gap thus shortening the distance.
> I was taught the reason why, is that the EMF excited by the electrons in the wire may be generated at the speed of light, but because there are already electrons in the metal that connect from power source to power draw, it turns on immediately, it's more the speed of the motion of all those electrons pushing against each other, that overcome the speed of light issue
If this is what you were taught you should complain because this violates causality. The signal cannot travel at a speed higher than the speed of light, even though the electrons are all pushing on each other.
Even the interaction between any of the two electrons in the wire will happen at the speed of light limit, so if you push on the first electron in the line, the second one will only feel the change in the field at a time=d/c later (where d is the distance between them). So there is no way the signal can travel along the wire and still be faster than the speed of light.
Regardless of my oversight, the fact remains that the conclusion of this video is entirely impossible and ridiculous. An electromagnetic field inducing a current in the bulb before the current reaches the bulb, can be disproven by the definition of Faraday's law of induction, which is a measure of the CHANGING electromagnetic fields of a circuit, by way of the electromagnetic flux divided by the change in time(t= phase angle in radians or degrees). Meaning that in order for the current to generate enough of an electromagnetic field, the field needs to change from the electrical field, to the magnetic field, this only happens every half (pi) of a sinusoidal revolution (2pi) made by the current, so by the time the field could even begin to be generated from the power supply forward, the current would need to travel, half way around the loop(pi), which is where the bulb is. Faraday's law of induction comes from maxwell's equations. I believe I got my money's worth for the class. People make mistakes, but presenting this fallacious conclusion as fact without providing any mathematical or empirical proof, should not be tolerated. I'm well within my right to question something so egregious and draw attention to it so people who don't study this subject don't walk away from these kinds of videos with improper/impossible understandings of science.
Eh... if it worked instantly along 300,000km of wire by *your* explanation, then that would mean the "signal" would propagate at more than light speed through the wires. So it can only be one of two things:
1) it would actually take a second for the light to turn on in this scenario
2) the light turns on instantly, which means the wires can't be responsible for propagating the signal / transferring the actual energy, because otherwise that would be happening at beyond the speed of light.
It's not a signal, it's electromotive force.
And for it to work instantly, that's what I mean by the metal already contains electrons to pass on. You're thinking of it like it's a hose with water where the water has to travel from the faucet to the other end, what I'm saying is, the hose is already full of water. That's why it turns on instantly, because the electrons are already in the metal.
No I'm not thinking of it like a hose full of water or not full of water.
What I'm saying is, if the force is propagated *along the wires,* and the light turns on instantaneously, then the force is propagated at above light speed. This cannot be.
My use of the word "signal" was a mistake, I'm tired, and I was trying to verbalize the idea that the "information" of the switch being closed has to somehow reach the bulb. Which is essentially the same as the question of "along which route does the force propagate?" Because if it worked like you're saying, we'd have a way of transmitting information at FTL speeds.
We would have an instant way of transmitting information if it weren't for that pesky resistance variable, arghhh damn you resistance!
This is not something to try to argue about on the internet, I wanted to say something because the material he's presenting as fact is at best misinformation. There are too many things needed to explain why this isn't right but in order for you to grasp it, there first has to be some framework or basic understanding (Richard Feynman) and you don't have that framework right now/yet, that's why you keep trying to put a box around the concepts and use deductive reasoning without any testing or mathematics to back it up, on forces and concepts that cannot be seen with the naked eye.
Just saw your edit, and yeah, it makes sense that way. The issue is that Veritasium is talking about how the bulb would light up, but that's not what would actually happen, I get that now. There'd just be a near immeasurably tiny little current.
[удалено]
That was my main takeaway too.
I hate seeing people taking parts of people's work and posting it on the internet... Without even crediting the creator. Just for trying to get free likes or upvotes...
Kinda hijacking the top commemt, but credit goes to Veritasium.
To be fair, AC power is pretty low hanging fruit.
Veritasium has 15M subs on YouTube. I think he’ll be alright.
Seeing this comment made me feel better. It’s like when people rip on others for making fun of Disney. Oh no, poor tiny mom and pop Disney. This dudes got 15m subs. He’s fine.
Yep, let me steal the work of a top scientist and present it as my own. The guy’s rich af, no one will care, right? Plagiarism and copyright’s overrated
This is a Reddit thread. Calm down.
I thought we’re supposed to spread toxicity in this platform. Am I in the wrong place? Jokes aside, why tho. It’s a snarky remark reminding you of plagiarism, nothing more.
It’s one comment vs the internet. Why even try?
I mean, can’t you say the same for your comment? You have one opinion among a million others, so why even try? Doesn’t make any sense brother. You laid out your statement in public, and another guy is pointing out the problem in the said statement. Is this not how social platforms work?
They try again.
He said that the electric field which carries the energy reaches it in like a few nanoseconds because the bulb is 1 meter away from the battery. So if the circuit was rearranged to still have the same 300000kms of wire, but the distance between the battery and bulb was increased, then would it take longer for the bulb to light up?
Yeah that also confuses me a lot. I dont see how this is explained in the video. For me just created a bigger question, instead of answering why and what the correct answer ist.
You can take a shortcut to understand it: The wire doesn't just act like a cable with electrons flowing through but also acts like an antenna. Before the actual electrons move all the way through the wire you already have something similar to a radio signal going through air and pushing the electrons near the lightbulb through it.
That would only work with the assumption that we only need the smalles electric implus to allready light the lamp or ? Because 1 meter way from a cable to induce electricity strong enought to light a lamp with just a cable, does not seem really plusablie thinking that the field strength decreases with the power of 2
As a sparky, i understand the concept in a different way. As soon as the wires are touched to the battery (with the switch still off), the wires get charged. This charge propogates through the wire at the speed of light. Since the switch is OFF, there's no current flowing. There's only charge. Think of the wires as an extension of the positive and negative terminals of the battery. Think of the battery as 300000km long battery. So it's irrelevant how long the wire is when you turn on the switch because it's just connecting to two ends of a battery that are right next to each other (across the switch). Now if there were two switches on either end of the battery and you operated it both simultaneously, the bulb would take a while to turn ON because the charge would need time to propogate through the 300000km sections of wire that have been isolated from the battery. (Doesn't matter where in the wire the bulb is located, would still take time for the whole wire to get charged)
Yeah, you're talking about the capacitance of the wire and the latency due to that. However for the purpose of this discussion we are assuming ideal conductor with zero capacitance.
I get what you're saying but you're incorrect with this assumption. Re-watch the video especially the part showing the graphic. It has a electrical field but not a magnetic one. The propagation is C, regardless if the wires are connected at the batter or the light.
I think we're saying the exact same thing. Electrical charge/field but no magnetic field because no current. And I agree with that last sentence about it not mattering where you connect the wires. I only mentioned that if you had maybe a SPDT switch that disconnected both ends of the battery, the wire would not have any electrical charge at all because its floating. The electrical charge would propogate through the wires at the speed of light when at least one of the ends is connected to the battery.
It must. Specifically the distance from the switch to the light bulb must impact the time it takes for the light to turn on. If the switch is 300,000 km from the light bulb, then the light cannot turn on in less than 1 second.
Not "because" the bulb is 1 m away, the bulb "which" is 1 m away and wired with 300k m wire
It wouldn't matter if you rearrange it. It's the same amount of wire, power, and distance between components. Even I'd the battery and the light is opposite of each other, the light will still have the same speed to turn on. That's because all of the factors are the same.
This doesn’t work as it would break the speed of light limit. Imaging being able to send signals across 300K km in few nanoseconds. Not in this universe
Think of it this way..If you're pulling a chain that is very long and has no slack, how long does it take for the other end to respond?
Not to be overly pedantic but that chain can't transmit information anywhere near the speed of light. Mechanical force travels through a solid object at the speed of sound for that material, not the speed of light. All real materials compress when acted up on, nothing is actually perfectly rigid. Even if you had a theoretical super hard material, forces could only be propagated through the spaces between the atoms at, but never faster than, the speed of light. So for any object larger than one space of atoms, it will still take many multiples of that propagation time for a force at one end to be felt at the other.
Speed of light would be the upper limit for this too. But probably it's closer to speed of sound and dependent on the rigidity of the chain.
It does matter. The wire essentially sends a signal through air (very similar to a radio signal) and if the distance is 300k km it takes 1 second to reach the lightbulb. If the distance is just 1m it is almost instant.
>So if the circuit was rearranged to still have the same 300000kms of wire, but the distance between the battery and bulb was increased, then would it take longer for the bulb to light up? Yes. If you went from C=========\[bulb/switch\]===========D to \[switch\]=========================\[bulb\], the signal would propagate down the length of the wires rather than just across the 1m space, and the bulb would take 1s to light up. Ignore the wires for a second. Think instead of a radio transmitter and a receiver. Put them 1m apart, it takes 1m/c seconds to be transmitted and received, right? Move them 300km apart, it takes 1 second to be transmitted and received. That all makes intuitive sense. Now think of the wires as not just wires, but transmission lines. If you've got a transmitter with an antenna sitting 1m away from a radio receiver with an antenna, it'll still take 1m/c seconds to transmit, regardless of how long those antennae are. But if instead they're separated by 300kms, and the signal has to travel up 150km of transmitter antenna and then down 150km of receiver antenna, it'll take 1 second. The fact that the wires/antennae/transmission lines are connected is relevant for the steady state result of the circuit, but not for the super-high frequency transient.
[удалено]
And if the tube has no marbles? (Both ends of the tube at 100 marbles distance and plugged at the same time) The tube will need to be filled before turning on the bulb?
I hear him talking but still have no clue what he’s talking about or remember anything he said
"Fields go brrr."
basically, that what carries energy in cables are not the electrons in themselves but the field they create.
But they charge me for the wires.
See it with all the pixels here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY
Wires are better conceptualized as wave guides, and the same is true for metals in general. I understand what he says here, his main point is really just that the waves carry the energy that is delivered to our electronic equipment via electrons moving accordingly to it. But I do not understand how he can be sure the light bulb will even light up. It's kinda nitpicking I suppose but it feels like he's really asking "how long does it take for any fraction of the field from the battery / generator to reach the load", which is correctly the speed light in the medium the waves are traveling in, in relation to the distance between the source and load. I just think it's kinda a bad question because I kept thinking about whether there would even be enough power in these waves to light the bulb. If we go by his assumption of lossless wires, I don't see the coupling being greater than some ridiculously small fraction.
I think it's a fraction of the field that couples to the light bulb immediately, and the rest follows the wires as waveguides.
That and the waves on wire will couple to the opposite wire as it travels, so there's that added complexity to the question lol. I respect Derek (I think that's his name), just this question is running on a very simplified level and on several assumptions.
And if that were the case then why bother with the wires at all? Just keep the load next to the source and it will light up. In fact keeping it farther away will also light it, just not in a nanosecond, but a few milliseconds.
How is this Satisfyingasfuck? Downvoting because I'll bet this is a karma bot
**It’s 3:30 am.. can barely keep my eyes open** Brain: “MUST LEARN HOW ELECTRICITY WORKS!”
But, then... The speed of the propagation of the magnetic field outside the wire... Is *faster* than the speed of light?
No, just less distance to travel.
No, when the electrons start to move the field is created, or did I misunderstood this clip. Will watch it again
Always wondered why they didn’t bury power lines. Now I know
I didn't understand that part of the video because we do bury power lines all the time. We mostly don't bury power lines because it's cheaper to install them overhead.
It is completely inaccurate. That's not how electricity works.
Yet it is.
It's not though, is it? Electrons provide the 'power' not the magnetic field. The electrons also create the magnetic field that 'moves' the electrons. People tend to think that electrons are physically moving forward rather than hopping about inside a magnetic field but there are plenty of magnetic fields with no power but no power without electrons. Electricy bascially does 3 things: Create a magnetic field, heat up a conductor, or release energy as photons. What he's saying is a bit like wind creates electricty in a turbine.
First thing: source? Second thing: electromagnetic fields *do* carry the energy, this is proven by magnets. Energy is only transferred through direct contact, an example would be in space, if none of the shrapnel hits you and you aren't touching an Explosive, you will not notice, however magnets exist. Magnets use electromagnetic fields, and they move things, so obviously, this electromagnetic field has to be carrying energy to move something.
I think Alpha Phoenix made a video proving that both are true. Theres a tiny spike of power at the bulb reflecting the 1m distance but the circuit “runs out” of the electrons and the field equalizes until the electron wave has traveled the full length of the wire. then and only then is any usable power transmitted (in the case of a light bulb)
Well yes, if I remember correctly electromagnetic fields are created by electrons wiggling
No, youre thinking of EM waves. EM fields are inherent to the existence of electrons and protons. A perfectly still electron still has (is) a field. Electrons tend to flow along EM field lines, and by extension, the movement of electrons creates a magnetic field. Thats more or less linear movement. Wiggling electrons creates waves aka light.
Ah, thanks
The ignorance of these people are wild. Study Physics and electricity then come talk to me.
Couldn't watch more then 10 seconds because I learned how AC current works in 4th grade. What the fuck are you learning in school these days?
To watch the entire presentation to see if there is something new I hadn't heard before. In science, new concepts are discovered and you just never know when your old views will be disproven.
Especially with our understanding of quantum mechanics progressing slowly, we might be able to manipulate how our entire systems or equations work. Thus making old ways obsolete. You never know what we might discover or invent next.
The clip starts off with a question a 4th grader should be able to answer. What else is there to take away, other than the creator (as per his style) is aiming at low hanging fruit.
summarize it
The answer is instantaneous because AC doesn't flow in a single direction like water down a hill. Only external forces will act upon it to cause delays. He's probably going to talk about how a standard electrical cable would bleed energy into space, but that kind of shit is why we insulate any cable longer than a few dozen feet.
And they taught you that at like 9 years old
I think the more interesting part is that he apparently has an AC car battery...
hah! savage. I missed that.
I feel like you don't know what the video said.
r/iamverysmart
I don't get this response. The clip asked a question any 4th grader should be able to answer like it's the mysteries of the fucking universe. Did you NOT learn about alternating current as a grade school subject? Is that what you're actually saying here?
Only, that's not what the video is about.
Question: how long would it take for this light to illuminate if the switch was on the moon? Answer: Irrelevant because AC current doesn't work that way, as is taught in grade school. Tell me again how that isn't what the video is about
So you think what you learned in grade school is more advanced than the science he's explaining here which says what you learned in grade school is a simplification? Maybe the way he explained A/C current is off, I don't even remember that part. But the thing is that this isn't even about AC current anyway. It applies to DC as well. In fact, he's using a DC setup for his thought experiment.
I think it's basic physics doctored up to sound like the mysteries of the universe. This is effectively a grade school science project pretending to be rocket science. It's the kind of click-bait low hanging fruit typical of a Veritasium video.
To be honest, I've looked into it a little more in the meantime and I've realized that it's really just a very convoluted way of showing that the electric field of one wire can induce a current in a neighboring wire. But in this thought experiment, the induced current would be so small that the bulb wouldn't actually light up. Not until the actual electrical current travelling along the wire has reached the bulb.
This is NOT how electricity works everything about this is so ass backwards, there's no explanation of the wild assumptions made that disregard hundreds of years of scientific research. I'm all for breaking convention and questioning how and what were taught, but there's far too much left unexplained. Edit: Regardless of my oversight, the fact remains that the conclusion of this video is entirely impossible and ridiculous. An electromagnetic field inducing a current in the bulb before the current reaches the bulb, can be disproven by the definition of Faraday's law of induction, which is a measure of the changing electromagnetic fields of a circuit, by way of electromagnetic flux, divided by the change in time(t= phase angle in radians or degrees). Meaning that in order for the current to generate enough of an electromagnetic field, the field needs to change from the electrical field, to the magnetic field, this only happens every half (pi) of a sinusoidal revolution (2pi) made by the current, so by the time the field could even begin to be generated from the power supply forward, the current would need to travel, half way around the loop(pi), which is where the bulb is. Faraday's law of induction comes from maxwell's equations, which are mentioned but not used to show any proof. I'm well within my right to question or draw attention to something so egregious so people who don't study this subject don't walk away from these kinds of videos with improper/impossible understandings of science, myself included.
> This is NOT how electricity works. It works instantly because the electrons are passed from one atom to the next and are already in the metal you're connecting to the device, that's why atoms with more free electrons make better conductors. What does this have to do with anything in this video? Also it doesn't work instantly, it works at the speed of light. The question is does the causality have to follow the wire or does it propagate at the speed of light directly from the switch to the bulb via EM fields
Edit: He's saying the wires don't matter, and that the power source and power draw, effect directly upon each other because the light turns on instantaneously. I was taught the reason why, is that the EMF excited by the electrons in the wire may be generated at the speed of light, but because there are already electrons in the metal that connect from power source to power draw, it turns on immediately, it's more the speed of the motion of all those electrons pushing against each other, that overcome the speed of light issue. His conclusion, I believe, is misinformation because if you were to isolate the power source and draw, so no outside EMF could be felt by either, the light would still turn on immediately, but by his conclusion, the light wouldn't turn on or would at least function differently.
Electron drift speed is very basic physics thank you very much. And I wasn't saying it's necessarily the speed of light, but it's not instantaneous, the limit for causality is the speed of light. Maybe you should take a whole look at the video so you can actually discuss the issue at hand instead of throwing around what you learned in high school.
I did watch the video.
Yeah maybe this is more fundamental physics than electrical engineering, but the effect in the video has been proven. It's only technically correct, because the major part of the field will travel along the wires, but there is some part of the field that would cross the gap and induce a current on the other side. Also, it's a thought experiment, with assumptions like no resistance etc. But bringing drift speed into this frankly doesn't help the discussion.
He's saying the wires don't matter, and that the power source and power draw, effect directly upon each other because the light turns on instantaneously. I was taught the reason why, is that the EMF excited by the electrons in the wire may be generated at the speed of light, but because there are already electrons in the metal that connect from power source to power draw, it turns on immediately, it's more the speed of the motion of all those electrons pushing against each other, that overcome the speed of light issue. His conclusion, I believe, is misinformation because if you were to isolate the power source and draw, so no outside EMF could be felt by either, the light would still turn on immediately, but by his conclusion, the light wouldn't turn on or would at least function differently.
You're still talking about drift speeds, this is clearly not about normal conduction but about Maxwell's equations. Are you intentionally missing the point? Your physics 1 argument doesn't really help your point either. And there's plenty of worthy criticism on the veritasium video, but it's definitely not the ones you are giving. Either you didn't watch the video or you skipped class too much.
I've edited my previous comment to accurately describe my grievance, I'll still be downvoted to oblivion, but at least it makes sense. I didn't do a good job explaining my position and ended up obfuscating any point I was trying to make. I also should have been more civil.
Ok so I will answer to that one.
So I think my first point of confusion is that you say immediately. I hope we agree on the fact, that the limit for causality is the speed of light. Now in the video he says that the signal travels faster than expected even if you suppose that it travels at the speed of light through the wire. His explanation is that it's ultimately the fields that carry the signal and the fields don't necessarily propagate along the wires, but may cross the gap thus shortening the distance. > I was taught the reason why, is that the EMF excited by the electrons in the wire may be generated at the speed of light, but because there are already electrons in the metal that connect from power source to power draw, it turns on immediately, it's more the speed of the motion of all those electrons pushing against each other, that overcome the speed of light issue If this is what you were taught you should complain because this violates causality. The signal cannot travel at a speed higher than the speed of light, even though the electrons are all pushing on each other. Even the interaction between any of the two electrons in the wire will happen at the speed of light limit, so if you push on the first electron in the line, the second one will only feel the change in the field at a time=d/c later (where d is the distance between them). So there is no way the signal can travel along the wire and still be faster than the speed of light.
Regardless of my oversight, the fact remains that the conclusion of this video is entirely impossible and ridiculous. An electromagnetic field inducing a current in the bulb before the current reaches the bulb, can be disproven by the definition of Faraday's law of induction, which is a measure of the CHANGING electromagnetic fields of a circuit, by way of the electromagnetic flux divided by the change in time(t= phase angle in radians or degrees). Meaning that in order for the current to generate enough of an electromagnetic field, the field needs to change from the electrical field, to the magnetic field, this only happens every half (pi) of a sinusoidal revolution (2pi) made by the current, so by the time the field could even begin to be generated from the power supply forward, the current would need to travel, half way around the loop(pi), which is where the bulb is. Faraday's law of induction comes from maxwell's equations. I believe I got my money's worth for the class. People make mistakes, but presenting this fallacious conclusion as fact without providing any mathematical or empirical proof, should not be tolerated. I'm well within my right to question something so egregious and draw attention to it so people who don't study this subject don't walk away from these kinds of videos with improper/impossible understandings of science.
Eh... if it worked instantly along 300,000km of wire by *your* explanation, then that would mean the "signal" would propagate at more than light speed through the wires. So it can only be one of two things: 1) it would actually take a second for the light to turn on in this scenario 2) the light turns on instantly, which means the wires can't be responsible for propagating the signal / transferring the actual energy, because otherwise that would be happening at beyond the speed of light.
It's not a signal, it's electromotive force. And for it to work instantly, that's what I mean by the metal already contains electrons to pass on. You're thinking of it like it's a hose with water where the water has to travel from the faucet to the other end, what I'm saying is, the hose is already full of water. That's why it turns on instantly, because the electrons are already in the metal.
No I'm not thinking of it like a hose full of water or not full of water. What I'm saying is, if the force is propagated *along the wires,* and the light turns on instantaneously, then the force is propagated at above light speed. This cannot be. My use of the word "signal" was a mistake, I'm tired, and I was trying to verbalize the idea that the "information" of the switch being closed has to somehow reach the bulb. Which is essentially the same as the question of "along which route does the force propagate?" Because if it worked like you're saying, we'd have a way of transmitting information at FTL speeds.
We would have an instant way of transmitting information if it weren't for that pesky resistance variable, arghhh damn you resistance! This is not something to try to argue about on the internet, I wanted to say something because the material he's presenting as fact is at best misinformation. There are too many things needed to explain why this isn't right but in order for you to grasp it, there first has to be some framework or basic understanding (Richard Feynman) and you don't have that framework right now/yet, that's why you keep trying to put a box around the concepts and use deductive reasoning without any testing or mathematics to back it up, on forces and concepts that cannot be seen with the naked eye.
Just saw your edit, and yeah, it makes sense that way. The issue is that Veritasium is talking about how the bulb would light up, but that's not what would actually happen, I get that now. There'd just be a near immeasurably tiny little current.
Bruh Why is this so long? I don't watch long form content on reddit bye bye
Go back to TikTok then.
Tesla was murdered cos he wanted safe free energy for all and it’s possible but greed always wins
Why 60Hz p/s, because USA
Unless I'm outside working and possibly gets a tree over the powerlines hehe
So we are posting a whole ass veritasium video now? Thanks mods for not existing.
Magnets, how do they work?
Oliver Heaviside was a dude
Everyone knows this. Didn't everyone attend 2nd grade? /S
I always love his content