I made this new topic today here on behalf of Open Mind.Open Mind wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 1:44 pm I apologize if this is not directly related, but I saw this video from an electrical person rationalizing why moving charge produces an electric field through an Einsteinian perspective.
https://youtu.be/sDlZ-aY9GN4?si=TXRp543_29PFta43&t=1
Can we identify and elaborate on the mistake here?
Veritasium & many other science youtubers have pushed this relativistic source of magnetism near a wire.
I think it all started with Purcell in 1962.
Purcell made a number of mistakes or fudges.
I have not watched all of the quoted youtube, but i assume that it duznt have anything new re Purcell & Veritasium & Co.
Purcell uses STR to explain the magnetic field near a wire. He applies LC to the train of electrons drifting along the wire, & he calculates that the increased charge explains the extra force on a test charge moving near the wire – no magnetic force needed.
What a load of krapp.
1. Purcell starts off by saying that a stationary charge near a wire with zero electricity suffers zero force (true).
2. And that when a current is sent along the wire the charge suffers zero force (true).
3. And that when the charge is then moved along next to the wire the charge suffers a force (true).
4. Re (2), Purcell says that the drifting electrons decrease their spacings as seen by the charge due to LC, which would increase the charge on or in the wire.
5. Re (4), Purcell says that we know that in (2)&(4) there is no increase in charge on or in the wire – hence the drifting electrons must somehow increase their spacings to offset the LC.
6. Re (3), Purcell uses LC to calc the denser spacing of protons, to calc the force in (3).
7. And then Purcell uses (5) to in effect double the calculated force in (6), to make his equation work proper.
And Veritasium & Co on youtube reckon that the sun shines out of Purcell's bum.