Timeline for How is the answer to this question $1/c$ seconds?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 2, 2022 at 0:23 | answer | added | Anton | timeline score: 8 | |
| Nov 30, 2021 at 4:31 | answer | added | Kevin | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 23, 2021 at 1:30 | answer | added | benrg | timeline score: 7 | |
| Nov 22, 2021 at 19:44 | comment | added | Andrew | @J.G. Good point! (And I totally agree about Veritasium videos) | |
| Nov 22, 2021 at 18:47 | history | edited | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
More representative link text. There isn't a need to address anyone in particular (or call to action) - that is implied by posting here. Moved meta information to the end in order to deemphasise it (most readers will have zero interest in it) - but it really ought to have been in comments.
|
| Nov 22, 2021 at 18:43 | comment | added | J.G. | I find a lot of Veritasium videos are an excuse to find a technicality or carefully chosen definition to create "Everyone says X, but X is wrong" titles. | |
| Nov 22, 2021 at 18:40 | comment | added | J.G. | @Andrew Just to quibble further about your dimensional analysis, you don't want "seconds" there. | |
| Nov 22, 2021 at 18:40 | comment | added | Peter Mortensen | Re "the wires are a light year long": Wasn't it only a light second long in the video (approx. the moon's distance)? | |
| Nov 22, 2021 at 18:35 | history | edited | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Copy edited (e.g. ref. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube>, <en.wiktionary.org/wiki/at_least#Prepositional_phrase>, and <www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dax90QyXgI&t=0m38s>). Used more standard formatting (we have italics and bold on this platform). Added the missing punctuation.
|
| Nov 22, 2021 at 0:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1462571589434814465 | ||
| Nov 21, 2021 at 23:46 | comment | added | rob♦ | Possible duplicate. | |
| Nov 21, 2021 at 19:19 | comment | added | Andrew | Another point about the video I found misleading is that the diagram he shows around minute 7 assumes the circuit is in a steady state, which won't happen until at least one light crossing time of the circuit (ie, 1 year). But the point of his video is to consider a transient effect that happens on a much shorter timescale. So even if he is right that the light filament will light up right away (and I agree with @AndrewSteane that I am not convinced), the implicit argument he gives in the video by showing that diagram does not prove his claim. | |
| Nov 21, 2021 at 19:17 | comment | added | Andrew | This is a much more minor thing about the video that annoys me. $1/c$ is not a time. Veritasium should have said the circuit would light up in ${1\ \rm meter}/c$ seconds. | |
| Nov 21, 2021 at 17:59 | answer | added | mmesser314 | timeline score: 9 | |
| Nov 21, 2021 at 14:00 | comment | added | Andrew Steane | Sorry I don't have time to do the calculation, but this is to confirm that you are right about one thing. A non-zero Poynting vector in the space near the bulb is not enough. To light the bulb the Poynting vector has to be directed in towards the filament, and this means there has be a current in the filament. There won't be a large current until a year has passed. There can be a small current after a few nanoseconds. But I am not convinced that the small current will be large enough to cause a visible glow in the short (nanosecond) timescale. | |
| Nov 21, 2021 at 12:12 | answer | added | my2cts | timeline score: -5 | |
| Nov 21, 2021 at 11:07 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 164 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
|
| Nov 21, 2021 at 9:33 | history | asked | User | CC BY-SA 4.0 |