Excellent! The true question isn't "how does light work," instead the question is "what are the widespread misconceptions which mislead everyone?" Misconception #1 is that light is "really photons," while radio waves are not. Therefore, if we debunk this mistake, then clearly a waves-based optical approach may explain things which photons cannot. So, that's the way to go! Yet also, both explanations must exist (as with QED and QFT physics.) The particle-based explanation of slowed light in glass is that photons transform into quasiparticles, the more massive polaritons, a mixed state between EM waves and lattice-interactions. Because of their finite mass, the polaritons cannot travel at "c." The radiation later turns back into pure photons upon exiting the glass. (And also, the direction of the "rays" is contained in the phases of an entire population of particles, where only the "forward" direction is reinforced by identical particle-phases, while all other directions are extinguished.)
Glass loses it's transparency as it's thickness increases. It takes on a green tone, as the other light frequencies are blocked. Glass is 80-90% light transmitting, while acrylic is 92%. While the glass will look greenish, the acrylic remains crystal clear.
Next time you say _"[...] a foreign content creator [...]"_ give the full credit in the desc at least. Nicely compressed tho. Fast pace fights timewaste.
Still not a scientific fact as far as I know. Has there ever been any studies that prove this? Does that mean it's impossible for a reflection to ever be equal in energy to the original source? ..or is there a way to reflect 100% of the lights original source? (without any loss).
OMG. That was so very hard to understand. Why can't you speak normally instead of like a demented robot? And the flashing words were a distraction rather than a help. I had to stop watching after a minute. Big thumbs down from me for poor presentation.
Excellent! The true question isn't "how does light work," instead the question is "what are the widespread misconceptions which mislead everyone?"
Misconception #1 is that light is "really photons," while radio waves are not. Therefore, if we debunk this mistake, then clearly a waves-based optical approach may explain things which photons cannot. So, that's the way to go!
Yet also, both explanations must exist (as with QED and QFT physics.) The particle-based explanation of slowed light in glass is that photons transform into quasiparticles, the more massive polaritons, a mixed state between EM waves and lattice-interactions. Because of their finite mass, the polaritons cannot travel at "c." The radiation later turns back into pure photons upon exiting the glass. (And also, the direction of the "rays" is contained in the phases of an entire population of particles, where only the "forward" direction is reinforced by identical particle-phases, while all other directions are extinguished.)
I really appreciate your interaction and your great quality feedback.
UM NO, YOU Left OUT A huge part like the Schrodinger equation and black body its WAAAAAY more complex then 5:00minutes.
I am very grateful for your interaction and also for your feedback.
Excellent 👌🏻 Thanks 👍🏻
Thank you for interacting
Reflected light is new light! Ureka!
Thank you for interacting
@@scientificcuriositiesbydoug365 Your welcome!
Nice ❤
Thanks for the comment
Glass loses it's transparency as it's thickness increases. It takes on a green tone, as the other light frequencies are blocked. Glass is 80-90% light transmitting, while acrylic is 92%. While the glass will look greenish, the acrylic remains crystal clear.
I am very grateful for your interaction and also for the great content of your feedback.
green is due to iron impurity and has nothing to do with acrylic which is a hydro carbon not SiO2 its CxH2x plus some O and OH and -O-
Next time you say _"[...] a foreign content creator [...]"_ give
the full credit in the desc at least. Nicely compressed
tho. Fast pace fights timewaste.
I really appreciate your interaction and also your tip. Thank you.
I think the sub may be off a bit, its the Huygens-Fresnel principle. Great vid!
Thank you for interacting
Still not a scientific fact as far as I know. Has there ever been any studies that prove this? Does that mean it's impossible for a reflection to ever be equal in energy to the original source? ..or is there a way to reflect 100% of the lights original source? (without any loss).
AI bull
Thank you for interacting
4:45
thanks for interacting
OMG. That was so very hard to understand. Why can't you speak normally instead of like a demented robot? And the flashing words were a distraction rather than a help. I had to stop watching after a minute. Big thumbs down from me for poor presentation.
.
You ok? Seemed fine to me.