The Magnetic Fields is a New York-based group fronted by Stephin Merritt. R… Read Full Bio ↴The Magnetic Fields is a New York-based group fronted by Stephin Merritt. Recent albums released under the name "The Magnetic Fields" usually consist of synth-pop music in a 1980s style underlying clever lyrics which are often heavily ironic. While synth-pop often forms the foundation of their music, The Magnetic Fields' music borrows from many other styles, notably country, folk and indie pop.

The band was originally formed in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1990 by friends Merritt and (percussionist/pianist/vocalist) Claudia Gonson. While 1991's Distant Plastic Trees and 1992's The Wayward Bus (now most easily available together as a compilation, The Wayward Bus / Distant Plastic Trees) are sung by Susan Anway (b. 1951 - d. 2021), all subsequent albums are principally sung by Merritt himself.

Longtime members include: Gonson, (cellist) Sam Davol, and (banjo player/guitarist) John Woo. Contributors include (but are not limited to) the singers Susan Anway, Dudley Klute, Shirley Simms, and LD Beghtol, and the accordionist/writer Daniel Handler (famous for writing the childrens' books A Series of Unfortunate Events under the alias Lemony Snicket).

Their most popular and best-selling album to date is 69 Love Songs issued on Merge Records as a triple album filled with many fairly short songs that are reminiscent of early Beatles productions.
The album is notable for its employment of many unorthodox musical arrangements and downright impressive quantity of material presented. Instruments used on this album include the ukulele, banjo, accordion, cello, mandolin, piano, flute, xylophone guitars, various percussion instruments, and a standard setup of synths and effects. It features several guest vocalists on several different tracks. The album is a three CD set, released in the US as three separate albums (also available as a boxed set) and in the UK as a triple album.

The album i (2004, Nonesuch Records) continues Merritt's fixation on the concept album, with each of the 14 songs beginning with the letter (and often the pronoun) "I".

The album Distortion, was released through Nonesuch on the 15th January 2008 and introduced noise pop to the array of styles utilized in their music. The album's release was followed by a sold-out U.S. tour starting in February. Additional albums followed in 2010, 2012, 2017, and 2020.

Stephin Merritt is involved in several other musical projects: The 6ths (featuring different guest performers on every track), The Gothic Archies (songs dealing humorously with dark themes) and Future Bible Heroes (with music written by Chris Ewen)

http://www.houseoftomorrow.com/

b
The Magnetic Fields Lyrics

Jump to: Overall Meaning ↴ Line by Line Meaning ↴

You think I'll run, not walk, to you
Why would I want to talk to you?
I want you crawling back to me
Down on your knees, yeah
Like an appendectomy
Sans anesthesia

[Chorus]

If you think you can leave the past behind
You must be out of your mind
If you think you can simply press rewind
You must be out of your mind, son
You must be out of your mind

You want what you've turned off turned on
You call it sunset, now it's dawn
You can't go 'round just saying stuff
Because it's pretty
And I no longer drink enough
To think you're witty

[Chorus]

You want to kindle that old flame
I don't remember your real name
It must be something scandalous
Lurks in your shadows
If you need a Santa Claus
To buy your gallows

[Chorus]

Overall Meaning

The Magnetic Fields's "You Must Be Out Of Your Mind" is a sarcastic and bitter song that addresses an ex-lover who is trying to reconcile. The singer of the song is refusing any advances and stating that whoever is trying to come back is out of their mind. The song starts with a direct blow, affirming that the idea of getting back together is frivolous and illogical - "You think I'll run, not walk, to you, Why would I want to talk to you?" The singer states that he wants his former partner crawling back to him, begging for forgiveness, and he wants to watch them on their knees, as if they were undergoing surgery without anesthesia. The lyrics display a kind of power dynamic where the singer holds all the cards, and the ex-lover is at mercy, trying to convince the singer to take them back.

The chorus is a clever and ironic twist on the cliched theme of reconciliation, stating that the ex is out of their mind if they think that the singer will ever forget what has happened and simply start anew. The second verse is equally cynical, saying that the ex cannot change the past by calling it differently ("You call it sunset, now it's dawn"), and that they don't have the right to say anything they want because it sounds prettier. The singer then implies that they used to drink a lot, and now that they have stopped, the ex-lover no longer appears as charming or smart. The final verse sees the singer laughing outright at the idea that the ex-lover could rekindle the old flame, disappearing so much that the singer does not even remember their name.

Overall, "You Must Be Out Of Your Mind" is a viciously witty break-up song that takes on several of the established themes of reconciliation tunes and turns them upside down. The song is about power dynamics in relationships and emotional manipulation, and it showcases The Magnetic Fields's trademark ironic wit and sharp lyrics.

Line by Line Meaning

You think I'll run, not walk, to you
You expect me to come to you very quickly without hesitation

Why would I want to talk to you?
I have no interest in communicating with you

I want you crawling back to me
I want you to come back to me humbly in a submissive way

Down on your knees, yeah
I want you to beg for my forgiveness

Like an appendectomy, sans anesthesia
I want you to feel the same intense pain and suffering as a patient undergoing an appendectomy without any pain relief

If you think you can leave the past behind, You must be out of your mind
If you believe that forgetting and ignoring the past is possible, then you are delusional

If you think you can simply press rewind, You must be out of your mind, son
If you believe that you can undo what has already happened, you are completely mistaken

You want what you've turned off turned on
You want to revive what you have already ended

You call it sunset, now it's dawn
You change your words and actions to manipulate the situation

You can't go 'round just saying stuff, Because it's pretty
You can't just say pleasing things without substance or meaning

And I no longer drink enough, To think you're witty
I am no longer intoxicated enough to find you clever or entertaining

You want to kindle that old flame
You want to rekindle a former romantic relationship

I don't remember your real name
I have forgotten your actual name

It must be something scandalous lurks in your shadows
There must be some shameful behavior or actions you are keeping hidden

If you need a Santa Claus to buy your gallows
If you still expect gifts from someone who will eventually cause your ruin

If you think you can leave the past behind, You must be out of your mind
If you believe that forgetting and ignoring the past is possible, then you are delusional

Lyrics © ROUGH TRADE PUBLISHING, Kobalt Music Publishing Ltd.
Written by: STEPHIN RAYMOND MERRITT

Lyrics Licensed & Provided by LyricFind

To comment on or correct specific content, highlight it

TRACKS

Genre not found

Artist not found

Album not found

Search results not found

Song not found

Most interesting comments from YouTube:

@deang5622

46w↑12

Total rubbish.
The magnetic field is created by a moving charge. It is nothing to do with the speed of the person observing that magnetic field.

The magnetic field does not collapse because the observer is travelling at the same speed as the electrical charge that created the magnetic field.

Such an assertion would imply that the observer is involved in the creation of the magnetic field and that is just wrong.

This is not quantum mechanics where the observer affects the experiment.

@fufaev-alexander

Thanks back for the comment!

#### Become a channel member 🏆 ####
As a channel member you have many cool benefits:
* Badge next to your name
* Unique channel emojis
* Your vote counts 10x!
* and much more
youtube.com/universaldenker-physics/join

###############
Of course, I would also appreciate a small donation:
tinyurl.com/denker-donate

--------
Top supporters appear here: universaldenker.org/hall-of-fame

@kantiankush6786

17w

As the magnetic field is perpendicular to the director of motion it does not do any work
Remember work = force. dl
As the angle is 90° cos 90°=0
So work is zero
Or other way around as it's a particle it cannot posses potential energy all it has is kinetic energy so the work done by field will go to kinetic energy
and as the force is perpendicular to velocity it changes direction but not magnitude so kinetic energy constant
So no work done by magnetic field

Hope you understand

All comments from YouTube:

@fufaev-alexander

2y↑6

eBook: https://en.fufaev.org/physics-equations-book
Paperback: https://tinyurl.com/physics-paperback
Hardcover: https://tinyurl.com/physics-hardcover

@angeldude101

48w↑147

"A Magnetic field, on the other hand, is generated ONLY by moving charges." So all you have to do is move at the same velocity as the charge and the magnetic field mysteriously vanishes, disappearing into the electric field. Because the two are just different parts of the single electromagnetic field, and which parts they each are depends on your frame of reference.

@fenhen

47w↑9

So why are there no monopoles? Why only closed loops for magnetic fields?
Feels like this explanation is insufficient.

@someguy2885

46w↑28

@fenhen From what I’ve been told, theoretically there is no physics that bar a monopole from existing, but we have never observed or been able to create one

@kiwi-sw9kn

46w

Well if we look at this relativistic we cant tell if the electron is moving or not

@deang5622

46w↑12

@deang5622

46w

@@kiwi-sw9knThat is not relativity, it is a quantum theory principle.

25 More Replies...

@TrueNoxus

2y↑102

I don't know how YouTube finds me these little but highly interesting and well researched Videos. 8 Years of German Physics classes couldn't teach me what you did in 2 minutes. Keep it up!

@fufaev-alexander

2y↑11

Thank you! Comments like this motivate me to make more video!

@TheMemesofDestruction

2y↑3

Me too! The algorithm shows us what we seek. It can be a beautiful thing. ^.^

@carcorr

42w

5 years of electrical engineering, 4 subjects of physics, plenty of subjects in electrical/electronics engineering, and this is the first time i understand this

@Przemox96

48w↑7

One of the best science channels on YouTube. It's pure gold for me as an engineer. Thank You, Herr Alexander!

@recifebra3

26w↑1

you're really good at consolidating into the really important things! great work!

@stefano.a

42w

The problem is that B in the International Standard ISO, is called Magnetic flux density or Magnetic induction.

The magnetic field intensity is the vector H that measures in A/m . (The electric field measures in V/m )

@jan-willemreens9010

2y↑7

...Good night Alexander, I hope you're doing well. If you still have not been able to convince the viewers of your explaining abilities with this presentation, then I am at my wits' end. These videos should definitely be watched certainly by students. If I had had this option in my time at school, it would have saved me a lot of valuable time! Thank you for another great job and well spent time watching your short but powerful video! Take care, Jan-W

@benjaminbirdsey6874

46w

According to the mathematics behind Maxwell's equations, the E and B fields are roughly equivalent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole#Duality_transformation). It is the fact that the standard positive particles (i.e. protons, and ionized atoms/molecules) are much heavier than the electron that we see the distinction in everyday life. But this has nothing at all to do with E or B.

@nicholasbohlsen8442

46w↑7

As a note, its not actually true that magnetic field lines have to close. (the following discussion is entirely magnetostatic so the field lines are well defined)

This is often called a "textbook error" because it is actually stated in many introductory texts in E&M but is just false. It is possible for B field lines to scatter to infinity (but does require infinite global current and so this is not really interesting). The more interesting case is when they remain contained in a finite volume but never close on themselves. Instead field lines can form an arbitrary aperiodic path within the volume, constantly looping back on themselves but never actually quite returning to the same position and so never closing.

Plasma physicists often call these "chaotic" or "stochastic" fields (they are actually studied with the theory of hamiltonian chaos) and they actually the generic behaviour. A random current density will generally induce a stochastic field. The reason we do not see these configurations in a first course in EM is that all of the configurations of currents you would look at in a textbook have some level of underlying symmetry (infinite line currents, small circular loops, e.t.c). Any continuous symmetry of the current density will reduce the dimensionality of the problem by 1, from a 3D problem to a 2D one where the field lines have to close, so we see closed lines in symmetric configurations but for arbitrary asymmetric ones will see chaotic fields.

@1943rfagan

46w↑4

Source? This is probably a leap in logic because Gauss's Law says magnetic flux through any closed surface is zero.

@nicholasbohlsen8442

46w↑2

I tried to find a source which was open to the public discussing this but could not. There are several academic sources discussing the subject but you need access to journals to read them.
The best full paper on the topic is Hosoda et. al's "Ubiquity of chaotic magnetic-field lines generated by three-dimensionally crossed
wires in modern electric circuits".
A short paper title "The magnetic field lines of a helical coil are not simple loops" is also a good read if you can find it.
Another paper "Realistic examples of chaotic magnetic fields created by wires" is also ok if a bit more concerned with some of the deep dynamical systems theory results which are related.

Regarding gauss's law (or really the no-monopole rule here), it is true that the flux through any closed surface must vanish. But that it not sufficient to require that the field lines actually close. Instead, it only ensures that each field line which enters a surface must also leave it. The formal vanishing of flux adds some technical notes onto this point but they are a bit irrelevant for the discussion here. What matters is that the association of exit points for field lines to the entering partners (which can be on the same actual field line) defines a map from a 2d surface to itself. The requirement that flux is conserved forces this map to be area preserving (this is the technical term) and it is not particularly hard to construct examples of area preserving maps for which points lie on aperiodic trajectories. In fact "almost all" points usually lie on aperiodic trajectories. If a point is on an aperiodic trajectory then what that means is that if we follow a field line which enter the surface at that point then we will observe it enter and exit the surface an infinite number of times but never in the same place twice (or else it would be a periodic trajectory).

@terrywilder9

45w↑3

This is often called a "naive student error", common among those without a sufficient mathematical background.
All you have to do is follow one of your "hypothetical" field lines repeatedly and get a divergence of B.

@filippo_piersimoni1451

45w↑1

Exactly. On my channel you can find a video where I explain an extremely precise algorithm I developed in order to visualize and simulate the magnetic field created by wires in static condition and it's clear that, given a generic system of conductors, magnetic field lines are not closed.

@mangojuice5319

46w↑1

Very good explanation especially point 6 that's the entire theory behind cyclotron

@techiesithastobetechies.8531

48w↑1

Thanks!
This makes a lot of things easier to remember!

@fufaev-alexander

48w

Thank you for the comment!

@user-us9cy7cz8g

2y↑3

I'm so glad I found your channel, you explain things so well. Thank you <3

@fufaev-alexander

2y↑1

Thank you!
Feel free to join the polls I'm doing in the community tab. There you can vote for the next video topic:
youtube.com/universaldenker-physics/community

If you like my channel and like my videos, I would be happy about a small donation:
tinyurl.com/denker-donate

Top supporter appear in the Hall of Fame: universaldenker.org/supporter

@user-us9cy7cz8g

@Universaldenker ⚛ Physics OH yes <3

@curiodyssey3867

2y↑4

dude. absolutely fascinating. great content.
however, if I may suggest one thing, number 5. in my opinion, can definitely use more of a deep dive in terms of an explanation.
I'm not naive to physics by any means, however I'm also nowhere near an expert. that's basically why I'm here watching, because I crave new knowledge in the field of all things science. physics in particular.
however, I found myself at the end of number 5 legitimately lost, which doesnt happen very often. dont mean to sound arrogant, though I may not be proficient in every subject in every field, I do have a working knowledge I would say is more robust than your average person when it comes to the content in your videos.
so can you please break down number 5 for me so I can learn something new?? thank you!!!

@fufaev-alexander

Thanks for the comment! Difference #5 are units. Do you mean you don't know how the units are obtained?

@curiodyssey3867

I'm sorry man, yeah.
what is a volt second? and you say 'in other words, a Tesla'
so a Tesla is the formula you describe. but what is it good for and why do we use it in such terms?

@martinstubs6203

30w↑2

How many differences are there between electric and magnetic fields? All around here you can find videos giving the answer: There is one difference, namely, electric fields exist, magnetic fields don't. Accorduing to these authors, magnetic effects can be explained using nothing more than electric charge and special relativity.

@frizzarazz

2y↑3

But something like an electron does react to a magnetic field because of its spin, as can be seen in the Stern Gerlach experiment. Are there any electrically charged particles without spin that we know of? Otherwise they would all interact with the magnetic field. They don't interact directly with the magnetic field because of their charge, but maybe indirectly if their spin is somehow caused by or shares a cause with their electric charge.

@fufaev-alexander

2y↑1

Yes, you are right. The spin of a charged particle would align in an external magnetic field. I didn't want to push it too far and therefore only considered the "charge" property of a particle.

@frizzarazz

2y↑1

I understand, probably a good move. But as I understand not only the orientation changes but the trajectory as well, as there are 2 spatially separated sections where the electrons are detected in the SGE detection area.

@dikshitadikshita8699

48w↑2

I am from India. I get all the concepts very clear from your videos.

@fufaev-alexander

48w↑1

Awesome!

@omarahmedibrahimnassar4199

48w↑1

Awesome explanation 👏👏

@zdlax

45w

This means E = B up to s/m. Everyone understands m/s as speed but what is its inverse seconds per meter? The flow of time in a region of space? I really like thinking deeply about dimensional analysis.

@JakubS

42w↑1

It's similar to how Period (T) is the inverse of Frequency (f), where the former is measured in seconds and the latter in hertz (1/seconds)

So speed describes an amount of distance travelled per a certain amount of time, while this s/m unit would describe the amount of time passed after travelling a certain distance.

@zdlax

42w

@@JakubS this was extremely helpful, thanks.

@sambhavgiri4007

45w↑1

Don't forget about how electric fields made by time varying magnetic fields forming loops!

@_VijayKishore_

48w

Wow! This is what people call short and sweet ❤❤❤

@antoniocampos9721

45w

Interesting. Tell me something: about electric field and electric force, who generates who ?

@LionKimbro

31w↑3

A moving charge is not actually moving, if you're moving right alongside it...

@Danielagostinho21

43w

2:00 Is that why an ideal coild doesn't consume active power?

@reinhardtristaneugen9113

41w

difference 6 is the reason one can run accelerators like for example the CERN ( ...hi Mum!... ), in that the electric field that got inversed the moment the quanta reach it provides for the acceleration every time the quanta pass through, as the magnetic field serves to get them on track that needs to be a circle... ...and I need my life back to ponder the importance and effects on the physiognomy of an atom with respect to electric and magnetic fields, as I stumbled across my thought, that they could turn out way more relevant in the phenomenology of the atoms and therefore of molecules also with regard to chemical reactions ( one electron is off to look for another atom it likes more... ...very very simplisticly spoken.. ) than one has been thinking hitherto.
And I think to look, if I am able to come up with something like an alinear version of the schrödigner-equation might be an inception, to get this on a regular mathematical base.
Le p'tit Daniel, who needs to look for other bases with respect to base-jumping for this is off due to his medical record...

@aidansgarlato9347

45w↑1

If you really look into the math the electric field is just the magnetic field in the time direction.

@pankhapinaxx4980

46w

Faraday cage or a conductor in general blocks an external magnetic field by creating an opposing electric field from conduction charges. Similar things happen with magnetic field in superconductor due to Meissner effect. If electric field can be blocked, can't you block magnetic field with superconductor ?

@deang5622

46w↑1

No this is not correct. Not for a stationary field.

For a stationary magnetic field you need a ferromagnetic material to concentrate the magnetic flux inside it.
Metals such as copper and aluminium, whilst electrical conductors, are not ferromagnetic.

RF energy comprising an electromagnetic photon consisting of a changing electric field and a changing magnetic field pointing in orthogonal directions, then it is different.

@OmegaZZ111

The electric field is composed of the dielectric field and magnetic field.
This video gives the impression of there beeing no dielectric field.
Explaining the electric or magnetic field without the dielectric field is nearly impossible.

@Nuno1137

46w

The fact that the Lorentz Force depends on v, the speed, is "weird" and should trigger any physicist. A force can be proportional to a velocity, but should be a difference between two things, should be "relative" to something else. A force cannot "disappear" by only changing inertial reference. This will eventually lead to the conclusion that electromagnetism is not compatible with classical mechanics, and relativistic mechanics is needed.

@michaelharrison1093

45w

Very true. Also when you consider these 'two' fields from this perspective then it is apparent that they are just one in the same. A magnetic field is nothing more than an illusion just in the same way that a gravitational field is an illusion.

@ThomasHaberkorn

42w↑1

general question: are moving charges causing B in a permanent magnet ?

@fufaev-alexander

42w↑2

It is the spin of the particles!

@filippo_piersimoni1451

45w↑3

0:50 this is wrong, in general magnetic field Lines are OPEN as soon as Laplace's formalism is valid. If you struggle to uderstand this fact you can find a video on my channel about this very topic where I simulate generic magnetostatic system with an extremely precise algorithm.

@zachariavallickad7264

46w

WHAT IF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ELECTRIC, MAGNETIC AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD?
PLEASE EXPLAIN

@mandarbamane4268

24w

Electric field: exists due to (electric) charges at rest
Magnetic field: exists due to moving charges (electric current) or magnets at rest

Electromagnetic field is mostly referred to waves (either standing or travelling). Electric field energy is passed on to magnetic field energy and then back & this conversion happens & they propagate as a wave (but they're both in phase in free space).

@bilalcakmak9034

45w

What a lovely compitation

@TheMemesofDestruction

2y↑1

Thank you so much!!!

@fufaev-alexander

@jordansmith1b

45w↑2

Don’t we all love computer-generated voices that talk of “no” pole and “so” pole?

@helmutalexanderrubiowilson6835

2y↑4

Noo!!.second video and i already love this channel. You got me man. I suscribed

@deepaparakkal4241

49w

I thought a magnetic field can be shielded, just like Electrostatic shielding?

@deang5622

46w

A magnetic field can be shielded by the use of a ferromagnetic material which provides a low reluctance for the magnetic field, and the field is concentrated inside the ferromagnetic material.

However, you also need to consider the topic of magnetic saturation.

@nitin-code-comedy

46w

If magnetic field doesn’t work on moving charge, and moving charge generates magnetic field. So does magnetic field won’t work on magnetic field ?

@deang5622

46w

Magnetic fields DO influence electric charges. This is how the old style cathode ray tube televisions work.

The force on a charge caused by a magnetic field is determined by the equation:
F = BqVSin(θ)

Where B is the magnetic field strength, q is the magnitude of the charge, V is the velocity of the charge, and θ is the angle of the magnetic field to the charge.

@Mohamed.Soltan1991

48w

Good Information thank you

@dark_knight2357

40w↑12

1:55 That does not sound correct.
If the motion of a charge carrier is parallel to the magnetic field, no force is exerted. However, if the motion of a charge carrier is perpendicular to the magnetic field, a force is generated. Otherwise, electric motors would not operate.

@tavobenne

38w↑2

Force perpendicular to motion does no work. Just because a force is present doesn't mean work is being done.

@dark_knight2357

38w

@@tavobenne If the summed up force on an object is greater then zero, there is an acceleration.
A force perpendicular to motion pushes the object to do a curve.

@tavobenne

38w↑2

@@whiteknight6711 Yes... I know... but that won't do work. For work to occur the force has to have a component which is parallel to the objects motion.

@ranjitmondal2374

38w↑1

Read work energy theorem, the kinetic energy of the charge remains constant in a magnetic field, that is why magnetic force is a no work force. And W=FScostheta

@dark_knight2357

38w↑4

@@ranjitmondal2374 I apologize for any confusion. As a non-native English speaker, I misunderstood the difference between "no work is done" and "no force is induced". In reality, when an object changes direction, no work is done on it, but a force is still induced to make the change. Therefore, the object's kinetic energy remains the same, but its direction is altered.

@simornadav255

2y↑1

differences are very true but the physical difference was not mentioned at all

@fufaev-alexander

2y↑1

Yes, this was supposed to be a short video for students to get an initial overview of what distinguishes E and B field.

@jocksam6634

40w

N and S mag fields are part of a vortex of Aether one cannot exist without the other….

@fufaev-alexander

40w

sure! :D

@firstnamelastname492

37w

…what?

@adriangheorghe2327

23w

E=a=L/T^2; B=f=1/T.

@laughterhub2391

40w

Can you please tell which force is stronger electric or magnetic ?
And why?

@fufaev-alexander

40w↑1

In general, the strength of the electric force between charged particles depends on the magnitude of the charges and the distance between them. The electric force follows Coulomb's law.

On the other hand, the strength of the magnetic force between moving charged particles depends on the magnitude of the charges, the speed of the particles, and the angle between their velocity and magnetic field vectors. The magnetic force follows the Lorentz force law.

@ianthehunter3532

37w

@@universaldenker but what gives? is it some atomic level magic that makes magnetic fields that much stronger?

@prajwaljadhav4386

18w↑1

If a charge is accelerating/oscillating then an electromagnetic wave (EMW) is produced. The EMW is made of electric and magnetic field. Both of them are in same phase meaning that both attain their max and min values at the same time. The total energy of the EMW is shared equally between both of them

@fizaaqeel5833

Best points 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

@fufaev-alexander

Thank you, Fiza!

@curiouscat8396

48w↑2

"The magnetic field does no work on the charge even when it's moving": Not parallelly but yes transversely.
"A magnetic field cannot be shielded": Oh yes it can, by redirection.

@deang5622

46w↑1

The magnetic field does do work on the charge, it fundamentally does.

The magnetic field exerts a force on charged particles.
That is how Hall Effect sensors work and old style cathode ray tube televisions.

Anyone claiming that a magnetic field has no effect on an electron is a complete and total idiot and you should seriously question their level of knowledge and how well qualified they are in the topic.

@warship21

43w↑2

@deang5622 not doing work and not doing anything are two very distinct concepts. Magnetic forces do no work because the force vector is always perpendicular to displacement, which by definition makes work zero. This means that magnetic forces cannot change the total energy of a particle but they can still change the direction of the velocity vector for example. In pretty much all cases where the magnetic forces seem to be doing work, you generally find that some sort of electric force is responsible for any change in energy.

@gabrielpichorim8191

48w

Ok, but if magnetic fields cant apply work to a charge, how does it accelerates a piece of metal for example?

@fufaev-alexander

48w↑1

Good question!
In the case of a piece of meta., It contains free charges (e.g., electrons) that are free to move, the magnetic field can exert a (lorentz) force on these charges. The resulting force can collectively lead to the acceleration of the entire piece of metal if the charges are not restricted in their movement.

@RET812

48w

@Universaldenker ⚛ Physics Certainly, this implies that magnetic fields can indeed perform work on charges, doesn't it?

@dikshitadikshita8699

48w

Thank you so much sir...

@fufaev-alexander

48w

Thank you for your feedback!

@davidecappelli9961

43w

👍

@firstnamelastname492

37w↑5

1:20 Shouldn’t that equation be F = qv X B? (Cross product) Please correct me if I’m wrong

@anupamyedida5484

37w↑1

yeah, its a cross product.

@ianthehunter3532

37w↑7

@@anupamyedida5484 he assumed it was always perpendicular, thus you get sin90°

@issssse

well, I guess the video is all right... BUT NOW I'M LEFT WITH EVEN MORE QUESTIONS!

@fufaev-alexander

Which one? 😁

@countryside6550

47w

amazing

@samhg3658

45w

I'm too dumb for this one but I liked hearing you

@darkgreyavenger

42w↑1

you're not too dumb, you may just not have the required knowledge to understand it yet

@JohnVKaravitis

46w

Wow!

@evergreen408

Can an electric field be a closed loop ?

@fufaev-alexander

Yes, for example it can be generated by a time-dependent B-field.

If you like my channel and like my videos, I would be happy about a small donation:
tinyurl.com/denker-donate

Top supporter appear in the Hall of Fame: universaldenker.org/supporter

@deang5622

46w

Yes, circularly polarised.

@MrCubFan415

47w

And why is magnetic field B?

@deang5622

46w

Because that is the letter someone decided to assign to it a long long time ago.

We also use H. H and B.

@jessieadore

24w↑1

Why is magnetic represented by the letter B?

@BleekersSingapore

22w↑1

Because the magnetic field deflects like the letter B. While electric field, E, aborbs. (edit: Jk just some way i remember it.)

@jessieadore

22w↑1

😂

@CDNL.

20w

That's a smart way to remember it. Thanks,@@BleekersSingapore !

@anywallsocket

43w

Certainly you should be comparing E and H no?

@mandarbamane4268

24w

Technically yes. But in my country, in high school (12th year), we didn't know about D and H. (We were introduced to E and B).
Later in Engineering I realized E and H comes first.

@samuelhepburn2636

Thanks

@fufaev-alexander

Thank for the comment, Samuel!

@rezaapply1450

18w↑1

Isn't this wrong (time: 2:02) "The magnetic field does no work on the charge even when the charge is moving"?

@prajwaljadhav4386

18w↑1

The video is correct. When charged particle in a magnetic field is at rest, it does not experience a force but when it is moving in a magnetic field it experiences a magnetic force (Lorentz force) according to the trajectory of the charged particle. If it is following a straight line parallel or antiparallel to the magnetic field then it will not experience any force. When it is travelling perpendicular to the magnetic field, it will move in a circular path. If it is travelling at any angle other than 0/180/90 degree with respect to magnetic field then it will follow a helical path.
But this force only causes change in the direction of the particle whereas no work is done as there is no change in kinetic energy according to work energy theorem.

@rezaapply1450

17w

@@prajwaljadhav4386 It might be a slip. In the video, a general claim is made as I mentioned above, so, it can be confusing especially for newbies. By the way, in contrary to your comment, changing direction is only possible by exerting force!

@kantiankush6786

17w

@TeuFortMan

48w

Charged dot not àffected by magnetic field? Am I correctly understand? I'm not native englishman.

@deang5622

46w↑1

It is not true.
Magnetic fields do affect electric charge. Mag fields exert a force on electrical charge, and anyone that says any different is an idiot.

That is how Hall Effect sensors work and old style cathode ray tube televisions.

@michaelgonzalez9058

20w↑2

Can a touching of an ark to melaliza power of ALTINATING CURRENT

@jsrlb

38w↑2

What is a charge?

@robertbatista50

28w

Charge is the name we give to a property. The property could have been called “attract/repel” or “come here/get away”, but instead it is called a single word “charge”. Just like the property called color has multiple values, red, black, white …, the property called charge only has two values. The two values could have been called any name such as ch or ma (for come here or move away), they decided on the universal opposite symbols everyone knows about, the + and -.

@jakubkusmierczak695

43w

MRI? B or E

@fufaev-alexander

42w

mri?

@jakubkusmierczak695

42w

@@universaldenker-physics magnetic resonance imaging. Electric or magnetic field?

@jakubtvrdy4934

42w↑8

@@jakubkusmierczak695 What is your guess brother? MAGNETIC resonance imaging?

@IonianGreek

1y↑5

You don't explain things that well.

@fufaev-alexander

Thank you!

@IonianGreek

@Universaldenker ⚛ Physics You need to explain for example why magnetic fields do no work even when particles are moving. Something moves, therefore has kinetic energy, yet, no work is produced by what's moving it. 🤔
A paradox.

@larana2

48w↑2

@TheAtheist He doesn't mention it here, but the force experienced by a charge in a magnetic field is the cross product of the charge's velocity and the magnetic field, multiplied by scalar q.

Because the force is the cross product of v and B, the resulting force vector is perpendicular to both. Since the force is perpendicular to the velocity at all times, the work done is zero.