Electric Field vs Magnetic Field - Differences between Electric and Magnetic Fields

Similarities and Dissimilarities between Electric field and magnetic field

An object with moving charge always has both magnetic and electric field. They have some similarities and also have two different fields with same characteristics. Both fields are inter-related called electromagnetic field but there are not depended on each other.

More videos:-

Neutral vs Ground - Difference between Earthing and Neutral

MCCB vs MCB│ Difference between MCCB and MCB│

[Sandeep]

Did not resolves doubt..these are explainations written in text book...it is no different....
Elaborate with example could help to understand better...
How can i say which one is electric field or magnetic field.

[terminate]

At 1.59 you state that a magnetic field cannot do work. This is not true at all. Magnetic fields do do work as the force of the magnetic field will pull in and ferromagnetic material and accelerate it towards it. You also are still not explaining the physical difference between them. Although a magnetic field is the sum of electric fields. If you have a positive and negative charges close together that creates a dipole which is apparently a magnetic field. The main problem that I see is the propagation of electromagnetic radiation as it has a magnetic and electric fields at 90 degrees from each other and do not understand the difference.

[beachboardfan]

Not trying to be mean, but I appreciate the closed captions on this one!

[philipjanka]

Electro magnetic waves have a north south and east west magnetic forces. So, why are they not considered as two forces but one?
Polorized glass can stop negative or positive from passing through. This means their is 4 different kinds of magnets and anti matter is a myth?

[muntee]

So sick of these ‘lines of force’ concepts. It is lines of flow, ‘force’ is a much more complex beast.
Its like positioning a row of slightly separated bars in a flowing stream of water, diagonal to the direction of flow. By adding dye, you can see the ‘flow’ but the ‘force’ of the water is not only the flow velocity, it is also the pressure between the water molecules perpendicular to the flow of water as well as other contributing factors such as relative density, relative pressure/vacuum, external reference frame of characteristics for a given locality ie; tumbling movement, vortex movement, laminar movement, convection movement, etc etc... At certain magnitudes, many of these states can be hard to discern from one another and simply observing the motion of molecule flow do not fully illustrate the indirect dynamics of pressure mediation in the surrounding environment as the direction of ‘flow’ is far stronger and will be much more apparent in the results. Ie. small ‘pockets’ of easily compressible air in non compressible containers that exhibit a constant displacement value for that given locality as to not initially alter the ‘flow’ with respects to pressure would identify that the region prior to the diagonal row of bars shows a region of increased pressure that also are conducive to forming a secondary, indirect ‘flow’ parallel to the axis the bars are positioned in. And more of course....

So in the classical elementary school illustration of a ‘magnetic field’ this poor ‘explanation’ not only presents a very partial and incomplete view of the forces involved, it also completely fails to show the different energetic regions as the dielectric plane, null point, electro dynamics and interplay between these are all disregarded. Not to mention the addition of charge to a gas in magnetic field in a vacuum, ie; plasma.
Anyone who hasn’t seen Plasma Daves primer fields really should do so. Keep a open mind too, because at the end, if nothing sparks your curiosity or interest and you do not wish to cross examine or verify any aspects for yourself (which would be a closed minded shame.) then you can simply disregard it and move on. But I will pretty much stake a bet on it that you will not leave without, at least, questions about some aspects of it, even if you completely and totally disregard the very premise its based upon. You will still wonder about some elements you may have not of or studied conflicting theories :) It is food for thought at the very least. And food for personal and scientific revelation at the very most. I believe its not completely correct and needs further work but there are a certain aspects which are undeniable and quite controversial:) And some which I can barely grasp but are absolutely fascinating in their possible implications to our scientific understanding.

[spandana]

How magnet is stable without moving particles independently (as we say Magnfield is produced by moving charge particles)

[spandana]

In an atom -ve charge always in motion then can't we call the field is an magnetic field?

[furyberserk]

Sooo... Electric fields and Magnetic fields are exactly the same, but electric has individual particles with their own positive or negative charge, but magnetic fields has a single object producing a positive and negative on opposite ends.... Is that it?

[yogesh]

Electric field and magnetic field are two faces of one coin. And both are dependent to each other

[muntee]

Magnetic fields can’t do work? Two opposing fields or two similar fields can create very, VERY high Moving great amounts of mass that charge simply can not if the material is not conducive to Electro magnetism. Not conducive What about a magnetic field causing the movement of mass and the effect on inertia?

Not saying this bloke is wrong. Just the books he learnt from

[iramniazi]

Plz next video to belong on ruminants animal.. Eagerly waiting for dis

[TeodorAngelov]

A magnet converts potential energy to kineric so it DOES do work

[eurybaric]

3 more video views and you get the magic number!

[jamesihsan]

Your video's are the best I've learnt alot