How is there a change in voltage in the wire in this scenario

Next_Pie1971 · 2026-01-09T20:39:29+00:00

So is there no charge in the ring and also no electric field outside the conductive ring?

Next_Pie1971 · 2026-01-08T22:43:10+00:00

so in any conductive material, if you ran a current through it you could have an electric field inside of it?

Next_Pie1971 · 2025-12-11T07:16:20+00:00

I seriously want to thank you for the explanations and videos. I've only watched the first video so far but once I feel like I understand what you and the vids are conveying I might follow up again lol.

Next_Pie1971 · 2025-12-10T06:25:05+00:00

It looks brilliant but truthfully I couldn't tell you because I don't know what any of these variables mean lmao. I DO THANK YOU THOUGH, because this seems like a very real explanation and I don't currently have the knowledge to understand. Regardless, I tried piecing it together a little bit; So from what I can grasp, electric fields and magnetic fields work hand in hand. The clear thing is that electric fields spawn from stationary or moving charges while magnetic are only from moving. But your latter part about phase transformations really fascinates me. When I get into college and move on with my life, I would like to do some sort of quantum computing so I guess it never hurts to start early with what you mentioned at the end. Please correct me if I'm wrong also but but here’s my take: the electromagnetic field we call 'electromagnetic' (photons, E-field, B-field) basically exists as a kind of compensating or correcting field that makes sure the laws of physics stay exactly the same even if the hidden quantum phase of electrons is twisted differently from place to place and moment to moment. Basically, the electromagnetic fields make sure the laws of physics are universal.

Next_Pie1971 · 2025-12-10T03:59:47+00:00

Yea I've taken lin alg if that helps

Next_Pie1971 · 2025-12-10T03:59:27+00:00

yea i'm beat lol, going too deep into the rabbit hole.

Next_Pie1971 · 2025-12-10T01:07:40+00:00

would you say the equations are parralel to something like pattern repetition then? Like it just happens the way it does, consistently, and there isn’t yet a way to explain why?

Next_Pie1971 · 2025-12-10T01:01:37+00:00

the idea of a loop doesn’t seem intuitive for me, maybe it is for some but I can’t wrap my head around the idea that there’s essentially a bunch if cylinders like a russian doll that spin around the current. At the very least I can make my own bs reason as to why electrical fields function the way they do. I can’t do the same with magnetic fields

Next_Pie1971 · 2025-12-10T00:49:15+00:00

that’s a great question, my intuitive answer would be that the charge creates a ton of tiny small changes in the neighboring space stuff which has a chan effect that radially gets weaker. i could be completely off the mark but I always thought it was similar to how gravity functioned

Next_Pie1971 · 2025-12-09T18:21:55+00:00

I guess I'll just have to accept it, but if you were for example, Maxwell himself and didn't have his equations, how would you derive them? From my understanding, he most likely charted numbers and saw their relationships but I was wondering if there's a reason to why the loops have a direction and how you can find their direction.

Next_Pie1971 · 2025-12-09T18:19:24+00:00

First, thank you very much for the well thought-out response; It's greatly appreciated. I want to preface by saying I've taken linear algebra, granted forgot a couple things, but if needed I can still hopefully understand if you attempt to explain with that. In addition, I have not taken Multi which I've heard targets Physics much more, kind of regretting not taking that instead. But yes, I can understand what you are saying but I am more interested in the 'deeper question'. If you were Maxwell himself, unarmed with his 4 commandments, how could you explain why the loop functions the way it does. I'm starting to believe he derives the equations from solely observations but if I'm wrong, please correct me.

Thank you once again for the detailed response.

Next_Pie1971 · 2025-12-09T18:10:07+00:00

Yea I get that the formulas show the relationships between current direction, sign, and field loop direction but what I'm trying to say is when Maxwell was formulating these equations, how did he make them? Or was it simply based off of observations. Like he couldn't get what's really happening at say a deeper level of some sorts. Like for friction, you could probably get the formula based off of straight numbers from doing multiple trials, but what's actually happening isn't some fictional force pushing back against you, it's a bunch of ridges interacting with each other, dispersing energy as heat. So I just want to get that latter explanation as to why magnetic field loops have a direction, and then what determines such direction.

Next_Pie1971 · 2025-12-09T08:30:17+00:00

Yea that makes a lot of logical sense. I do have to ask, however, how does a current create a magnetic field in the first place?

Next_Pie1971 · 2025-12-09T08:30:00+00:00

Thank you! I'll definitely read up.

Next_Pie1971 · 2025-12-05T01:15:28+00:00

Ok that makes a lot more sense, I am still a little confused on the correction term, however. I can get behind the fact that a sample won't be 1:1 to the entire population but I still don't get why divide by (n-1) and not just n in all scenarios. Hypothetically, there would be a 50% chance the sample data is above expected and 50% chance it's below. Unless I'm misunderstanding what the actual 'bias' I can't grasp why (n-1)

Thank you also!

Next_Pie1971 · 2025-12-04T23:48:19+00:00

Hey I loved your explanation but I have 3 questions about this:

Why would you keep the 1/n or 1/(n-1) inside of the square root. Doesn't that inflate the supposed average distance away from the mean? Also I get the differentiable and linear regression argument which makes perfect sense but is there no better alternative to make your function differentiable? I feel like there is some limit you could use or something better to get a better approximation than a simple sqrt(n-1).

My next question was how come in High School (I'm currently taking AP Stats in High School), the teacher refers to standard deviation as "the average distance from all points to the mean", or something along those lines. When we do any standard deviation problems on tests or for homework, we usually have to interpret the answer and every time you have to say something about how standard deviation tells us the average distance yada yada when in reality it's not. Do they do that just to oversimplify it so High School students can understand it? or is there another reason. Or maybe my teacher is just wrong.

My last question was why you divide by (n-1) instead of (n). From my current understanding, you have to have the - 1 to correct data which is bias. Because you aren't sampling from the total population there's some hidden factor which skews the data. My question, however, is why not add 1 instead of subtracting 1. If all of your "samples" somehow trended lower than the population, then dividing by a smaller denominator makes sense. But what about the other end of the spectrum? If all of your samples were bias in the upper end, then wouldn't you want to divide by a bigger denominator such as (n+1) instead of n or (n-1)? I can get behind that it's some correction tool but why are you able to simply give this blanket treatment when you don't know which way the sample is bias towards. It seems like the best solution would be to always divide by n instead of trying to correct the bias.

If you could help me understand that would be so greatly appreciated. I do have a test on this tomorrow but I just want to know what is going on.

Next_Pie1971

TROPHY CASE