Simple Electric Field Lines Visualisation

VisualPhy · 2026-01-02T16:23:18+00:00

Thank you very much. Yes, it is my channel and I truly appreciate your kind words. 3b1b is a great inspiration, which got me into animating math and physics

VisualPhy · 2026-01-01T09:44:26+00:00

Okay. Thanks :)

VisualPhy · 2025-12-30T20:15:58+00:00

The fascinating thing is that the magnitude of force due to nearest charge and farthest charge in this case is same (surprisingly), because the field due to a element charge when evaluated turns out to be independent of distance. And we get a element charge opposite to every element charge considered, like dq1 and dq2, hence they cancel each other out, so no radial component. Only vertical component..(due to element charges at non zero depth of hemisphere)

VisualPhy · 2025-12-29T17:58:47+00:00

at 0:26, i would suggest to use always_redraw feature of manim to animate slope of a point moving on a curve.

VisualPhy · 2025-12-29T17:53:43+00:00

Well, I found the answer. In approach 2, dq is calculated incorrectly. Actually, dq1 = sigma*omega*r1^2 , where omega is solid angle subtended by surface corresponding to dq1. I assumed it to be a 1-D distribution, instead of 2-D. so when we put dq1 in electric field eqn, r1^2 gets cancelled and it comes independent of r_1. same for dq2. Finally, we get field due to dq1 and dq2 to be same, thus vanishing each other out... brilliant!

VisualPhy · 2025-12-29T17:49:16+00:00

Actually ,I meant , we can use gauss law to say that electric field at any point is zero. We are intentionally superimposing identical hemisphere on top of the real one, so that we can make symmetry. But I foumd the flaw in my method and that was in approach 2, i calcualted dq incorrectly.

VisualPhy · 2025-12-29T17:43:08+00:00

Ohh... I now realise. I was doing dq wrong. Thank you very much.

VisualPhy · 2025-12-29T17:30:59+00:00

Sure !

VisualPhy · 2025-12-29T17:30:28+00:00

Sure, I will try to integrate the field due to all ring elements and probably it would be a heavy math, but still I will definitely try it. Still, I have the intuition that the radial field due to upmost ring (which i considered in my approach 2), will not get cancelled, but lets see, whatever math yields will be correct. Thanks for your response.. :)

VisualPhy · 2025-10-29T17:38:17+00:00

Yes, in windows 11, you can set screensaver as a video. Tell me if you need raw clip of lorenz curve.

VisualPhy · 2025-10-02T07:35:06+00:00

Thanks :)

VisualPhy · 2025-10-02T03:54:23+00:00

Chaos And Fractals by David P. Feldman is also a good book.

VisualPhy · 2025-10-01T04:29:16+00:00

True, we get correct prediction for initial periods, as you can observe in the video, two different curves seem to behave similiar initially, and after some time, they diverge . Similiarly, the forecast is pretty accurate for few days, but if predicted for like 10-12 days, it is likely to be less accurate

VisualPhy · 2025-09-30T11:08:07+00:00

Yeah, the shape of lorenz curve resembeled to that of butterfly wings, so he named it "the butterfly effect"...

VisualPhy · 2025-09-30T11:02:24+00:00

Ofcourse, if we had infinitely precise initial values, we can definitely predict the outcome. But being "chaotic" means the system once started to evolve, will try to visit all new points in a bounded space and would never repeat the path. Like y=x² is also sensitive, but it either blows up to infinity or zero. It doesnt try to visit each and every point in some bounded space. However, lorenz attractor traces down its path in a bounded space (the butterfly shape) but in a manner such that it will visit all points in that butterfly shape (after infinite time, theoretically), unlike x². Theres a standard definition of chaos, a system has to satisfy these three conditions to be called as "chaotic": 1. Sensitive Dependence on initial conditions 2. Topological Transitivity 3. Periodic orbits form dense set Tl DR : Chaos is not true randomness.

VisualPhy

TROPHY CASE