@@mindiasferma7807 when you understand the laws of physics, spacetime becomes your b… Actually, It was unlisted a few days ago (waiting for sponsor approval). You can add comments and they stay after you have published them.
I have watched a lot of popular science TH-cam. You sir, are far the best. I feel like most people just say the same things the same way, with no real thought put on the pedagogy . For the first time I feel like have some grasp on many of the famous topics of physics on the level of intuition.
@@Mahesh_Shenoyseriously you’re an amazing teacher, your explanations for some of the more complex concepts in physics are very intuitive and easily understood
If you were my physics professor, I'd fail class so I could take it again and again. You are a brilliant, charismatic and enthusiastic teacher. I just can't stop listening to you. And even better, I understand concepts that I could not as a layman over the years. And the way you phrase question after question, it shows a deep appreciation for curiosity. A mark of great intelligence. You are simply amazing!
Wonderful! I am 60 years old and am enjoying being reminded of topics first encountered 45 years ago. And I am getting more clarity through these videos. I suppose the student in me never ever left.
Thank you very much, sir, for your very clear explanation of the UV catastrophe. My Physics lecturers just glossed over this, and I was left scratching my head over why Planck's explanation of quantization was the solution to the conundrum. Now I am much more enlightened. Well done!
17:55 i am crying, i just realized the electron shells are standing waves(This i already knew) BUT each orbital is a degree of freedom. Loooook the two p orbital looks exactly like the two possible 2nd harmonics. It just clicked me now, that everything that i have studied from class 11th to till now (class 12) is interconnected. One physicsproblem's solution gets used in other. Physics is not complicated when you know what the physicists were trying to do, its just curious people trying to solve the mysteries of the universe through experiments and theories. I really hate how, absolutely no one, tells you about the intuitions behind these theories. They are taught as facts, which they are absolutely not. You sir are one of the teachers I have found on the internet. I am frateful i stumbled upon your channel. I always loved your khan academy lectures and now I am absolutely in love with your explanation. I hated statistical mechanics but now I am interested to revisit and read all about it again. Thank you sir.
I would like to thank you for taking the time to make 3 videos explaining this, I don't believe that a single video would have explained this complicated topic in such a great manner as these 3 separate videos
I think you should have mentioned that the predictions of the classical model fit the observations at high wave lengths very well. This adds plausibility to the classical reasoning. It also clarifies why it is called the UV catastrophe: on the (far) infrared side of the spectrum the classical model works pretty well, but the farther you go into the UV side of the spectrum, the worse the classical predictions get.
can u please explain how is it gonna be infinite cuz let’s say box takes x amount of heat from thermal or light or any way and now electron will jiggle but as it took x amount of heat and there are now lets say billion frequencies possible the heat going to be distributed but how can that x amount of heat distributed to finite no. of electrons emitted by finite ways going to be infinite 😢
@@ZETAREK-66In the classical model each box must on average emit the same amount of energy. However, there are an infinite number of boxes (because as the wavelength gets closer to zero the number of standing wave modes per wavelength goes to infinity). The total amount of energy emitted is the number of boxes times the average energy emitted per box. Because the number of boxes is infinite the total energy can only be zero or infinity, neither of which agrees with experiment.
Seems more like there's just a problem with our assumptions. Infinities don't exist, or at least not in any way measurable or comprehendible to us, so trying to use it automatically changes this from trying to understand reality into a theoretical/conceptual problem. Sure, if you flip a coin a trillion times, maybe it will equal 50/50. But that's never the case in the real world. And to that point we are assuming everything takes place in a vacuum. What if some Eddy in the earths magnetic field caused it to land heads 70%, forever? I challenge you to find a place in the universe where there will never be some type of outside force affecting outcomes. Hell, we know simply observing particles makes them act differently, and we're surprised that shit like this happens?
I have watched quite a few of your videos now, and, lets face it, they're brilliant. This way of making sense of impossible subjects is just... well brilliant really
Thank you for helping us non physics literate laymen get a proper understanding of these concepts. Highly entertaining as well. You sir are both a gentleman and a scholar. A+
I watch a lot of this sorta stuff, and you are the most effective science communicator for concepts in physics as a whole. My 15yo understands your videos which is honestly remarkable
Thank you so much...! I graduated 3 decades ago and never dug into this gap in my understanding and I finally get a good intuitive picture...you explained it so well!
What a FANTASTIC video. This is coming from PhD in theoretical physics, and I must say this is the most insightful explanation I've seen on te topic. Maybe I should've read Feynman's lectures more carefully 😅 but still dude, terrific job. Can't wait for the final entry!
Bro. Firstly, great video that brought insight and reinforced my understanding of this topic. BUT THAT STANDING WAVE CLIP. I don't think I've ever seen it shown like that, and some, how it blew my mind.
can u please explain how is it gonna be infinite cuz let’s say box takes x amount of heat from thermal or light or any way and now electron will jiggle but as it took x amount of heat and there are now lets say billion frequencies possible the heat going to be distributed but how can that x amount of heat distributed to finite emitted by finite ways going to be infinite 😢
I have never heard this topic explained to me so clearly and understandably. Standing ovations for this captivating and insightful lecture. Now the tension is building for the decisive entrance of "Hilfskonstante (auxiliary constant) h".
I love your videos and the power you have to explain hard things in such a comprehensible way without distorting reality. Brilliant. I wait for the 3rd one to share and I think everybody would love it!
After seeing this it's immediately intuitive that quantization can help because if you have a minimum length you no longer have infinitely short wavelengths, so no more infinite energy! I'm not sure yet how the other issues will get resolved but it's really cool how accessible of a mental model this is. Thank you 😊
But blackbody radiation does contain arbitrarily short wavelengths. What you have in mind is called energy cutoff - an approximation tool used in field theories, not a natural phenomenon.
Even in 1-D, you'd still get energy proportional to frequency, i.e. to 1/wavelength. Consider two short wavelengths h and k; how many whole-number fractions of the width W of the box lie between k and h ? Well, how many whole numbers n have h < W/n < k ? Flipping that, we get how many n like between W/k and W/h ? Roughly W/h -W/k, give or take rounding. Each mode with wavelength W/n for n between W/h and W/k gets the same energy; or, equivalently, between any two frequencies the energy is proportional to the difference in frequency, so the energy-as-function-of-frequency graph would be your horizontal line, making the energy-as-function-of-wavelength a 1/wavelength curve.
The chance of getting exactly half heads and half tails is better at 10 flips than 1 trillion flips. You never converge, your ratio gets closer, but the number of tosses in favor of one side is likely to grow
Really well explained. Inspiring. Keep it up. Actually, I will say, you could understand this even without graphics --- it would work almost as a podcast without video. That is why it is so good --- the explanation is so clear verbally, and the pictures just support it.
I have a doubt. I understand that equipartition theorem says that all degrees of freedom must get equal amount of energy, but I don't understand why that's leads to infinite energy. If we take the test tube example, we can have 4 test tubes and they will still have the equal amount of water in each tube, but they would be less water in each tube right? Similarly if there are infinite degrees of freedom and each one gets an infinitesimally small amount of energy distributed to it, then where is the problem? The total energy would still be finite! The point about UV getting all the cookies is absolutely clear though. Love your videos!
im a neet aspirant, but thats not nearly as important as the fact that im in love with science , every time i want to learn something i search and tricks and tips are my only finds, i am often disappointed, your channel is a breath of fresh air in this toxic suffocating educational set up india has sadly developed, i think its an understatement to just thank you , my idols are carl sagan, feynman , brian cox and a lot many more and the way they convey science is poetry and physics is to me so very elegant and beautiful, you made physics poetry. i saw a lecture of yours about the proof of gauss law and i had goosebumps i know it might sound weird but it was so beautiful i stayed up all night and thats just one instance THANK YOU FOR SUCH MOMENTS OF PURE SCIENTIFIC BLISS, THANK YOU FOR TEACHING SCIENCE FOR SCIENCE
@@hpottergirl317Sup I'm a neet aspirant too , and love physics for real as in here they just focus on formulas and all that! Glad to see someone like me ...If you want , we can get in touch for such healthy discussions and neet exams .
Started thinking about Northern lights/ Aurora Borealis during the explanation at 12:45, since the Equipartition Theorem must surely be influenced by polar electro-magnetic field? Great job, I understood your explanation :)
Why has 18:07 the 3-DOF the third image? Isn't it just a combination of 1 and 2? Otherwise also the 2DOF should have more cases with valley and hills at the edge.
Hello FloatHeadPhysics !!! I have a few question about Einstein's Special Relativity Theory Q1) Einstein says that moving and stationary perspectives are totally correct and valid। And whenever Length Contraction happens Time Dilation also happens। Now comes the key part of the question- Suppose K is moving in a rocket at very high speed and B is a stationary Person, from B's perspective K is moving, so B will notice that K and his rocket is contracted and K's clock is moving slower than B's clock। But, From K's perspective B and all stationary things are moving backwards and all those are length contracted and as all stationary objects are length contracted from K's perspective then their time is also DILATED from K's perspective। But, IN REAL K's time is dilated and k is aging in less speed than B। But, K says NO B's time is dilated which is wrong,which means... Is moving perspective invalid? Q2) Light Speed is same in all inertial frames according to Einstein,Maxwell etc... Even when we move we see light's speed the same but we should see light's speed slower when we move, but even when we move the light's speed is the same for us because of time dilation and Length Contraction means we can say that the formula to calculate the times time dilation and length contraction is- √(C/C-SPOV)=TD=LC And TD×LC×(C-SPOV)= Light's Speed in an inertial frame C=Light's Velocity SPOV=Stationary Perspective's Object's Velocity TD=Time Dilation LC=Length Contraction Now for example C is 100 and SPOV is 75 So, √(100/100-75)=2=TD=LC So,here Time is 2 times slower than normal (stationary time) and Length is 2 times Shorter then normal And here 2×2×(100-75)=100 so from the Object's perspective the light's velocity is the same (100) Now, what if the light is travelling in the opposite direction of object √[100/100(-75)]=0.32 times (Length Expansion and Time becoming faster than normal) Here,you can see in both the situations Object's speed is the same but light changed its direction to opposite direction which changes time dilation and length contraction (even when the Object's speed is same) okay!!! But what if the object is travelling in a particular direction with velocity again the same(75)and in right of the object a light beam is travelling(100) in the same direction of the object but in left a light beam is travelling (100)in the opposite direction of the object,which time dilation and length contraction will happen (2 times or 0.32 times? If 2 times happen then the left beam will not be equal to light's speed from Object's perspective and if 0.32 times happen then the right beam will not be equal to the light's speed from Object's perspective) And you will notice that the Object's velocity is the same in all the situations (inertial frame) So,here even in inertial frame light's speed is changing and if light's speed is changing then the motion is detectable as from moving person's perspective light's speed is different from stationary person's perspective।।। Please clear these doubts!!! (Please make a video) And if someone knows the answer then please tell me!!!!
Q1: Is the moving perspective invalid? You are referring to the core principle of relativity-the idea that both moving and stationary perspectives are equally valid. Here's how it works: From B's perspective (the stationary observer), K is moving fast. This means that B sees K's clock run slower (time dilation), and K's rocket appears shortened (length contraction). From K's perspective (in the rocket), K considers himself stationary, and sees B moving backward. So, K sees B's clock run slower and B's world contracted. Now, the key point in relativity is that both perspectives are valid because motion is relative. No perspective is more "real" than the other. The confusion comes from thinking there's a "real" time dilation. But relativity tells us that there is no absolute time or space. What you observe depends entirely on your frame of reference. Neither K nor B is wrong; it's just that both are seeing the other as time-dilated and contracted from their own perspective. The only time we can say who has "really" aged less is when K and B reunite, say by K returning to B. This is called the twin paradox: The person who accelerated to high speeds (K in the rocket) will have aged less than the stationary observer (B), but only after they meet again. Until then, both perspectives are equally valid. Q2: Does light's speed change based on direction? Einstein’s theory of special relativity says that the speed of light is always the same (C) in any inertial frame. This remains true no matter if you're moving towards the light or away from it, or if light is traveling in different directions. Let’s address the formula you created. The correct way to understand time dilation and length contraction is that these effects adjust so that the speed of light remains constant, no matter the observer’s speed. When you’re moving toward the light: You might expect to see the light approaching faster, but instead, time slows down for you (time dilation) and distances shorten (length contraction). These effects perfectly balance out so that you still measure the light at C, the speed of light. When you’re moving away from the light: The same logic applies. Even though you'd expect the light to move slower relative to you, the effects of time dilation and length contraction adjust to ensure you still measure the light at C. So, no matter if the light is traveling in the same or opposite direction as the object (whether it's moving left or right), both light beams will still be measured at the same speed: C. Your formula is trying to connect time dilation, length contraction, and the speed of light, but the key point is that these effects are not separate. Time dilation and length contraction happen together to maintain the constant speed of light. There is no situation where light's speed changes for the moving object in an inertial frame.
It may also help to read about the "relativity of simultaneity" or "now slices". There is no universal standard for now as in the present tense. As you move you change the region of space that shares your immediate experience as being simultaneous with them.
Sorry for some typos, thanks for the video, nice one ^^. Wrote about some esoteric symmetry and conservation law stuff relating to neothers theorem that might be relevant to uv divergence and how to think about it in the future. Soeculative, but fun, only mentioned the basic principles at the end of my long comment. Have a good day
Nice video! My default mental image of the ultraviolet catastrophe is the one-dimensional case. That one works much like pouring a liter of water into a very long gutter's closed end (lowest frequency) and watching it spread out indefinitely as it tries to spread equally to every possible location (energy state) along the gutter. Because the gutter is open-ended on the high-frequency side -- because there is no end to the possible higher frequencies -- the liter of water (parcel of energy) spreads out until it becomes impossibly shallow at all locations. It's still a catastrophe in that gamma rays, X-rays, and UV all become just as likely as the same as the ordinary heat we observe in reality. However, the twist is that if you refuse to inject more energy, your "liter of water" becomes so shallow in the gutter (so dim at each frequency) that it doesn't matter. It becomes more like a disappearing act -- an infinite leak that leaves you with every frequency so dim that after a short time, none of it is visible. I liked your point about adding dimensions! That's the first time it truly hit me visually why the distribution is _not_ equal as it fades into infinite dimness. Adding dimension is like pouring a liter of water (energy) onto a flat surface (2D) or spewing a liter of air into a vacuum (3D). The distance from the starting point still defines the frequency. However, this time you get an ever-expanding perimeter (2D) or surface (3D) much larger than the tiny entry (initial low frequency) entry point of the fluid (energy). If the classical model worked, what would happen is you would see your initial insertion of low-frequency (e.g., infrared) energy into a 3D volume rapidly rise in temperature at first but then disappear from detectability as the equipartitioning becomes so huge that even the high-energy surface becomes too weak to produce detectable levels of photons. (Fair disclosure: The above analogies are my own from past contemplations of this problem. The gutter analogy is not in any textbook I know. Nonetheless, these analogies merely map frequencies to distances -- the Fourier transform -- so it's a safe analogy. I also like being clear about the energy involved. You don't notice the fadeout effect if you are careless about tracking how much energy is available for the expanding partitions or if you "assume" a completed spread without asking how it would develop over time.) One other note: Why _should_ low frequencies spread to high frequencies? Don't photons, you know, stay the same frequency as they travel. First, the photon concept did not exist then. Physicists of that time only had Maxwell's (spectacular!) equations, which are not quantized. But it's more "okay" to think of light purely in terms of waves than you might think since quantization only occurs at emission (Planck) and reception (Einstein). Everything in between is very wavy! Thus, it is helpful to think of equipartitioning as a chaotic fracturing of some form of waves. The deep technical term for it is (wait for it) "splashing." As the waves bounce around, they inevitably get a bit out of such and fractured by bouncing off surfaces. But for waves, fracturing _is_ the creation of higher frequencies. Ordinary water only supports this for a while before friction (viscosity) wears down the higher frequencies and converts the higher frequencies into heat. However, even heat is a version of the same idea of wave fracturing, just at the scale of individual molecules. Another way sto visualize wave fracturing would be placing two layers of different colors of sand into a jar and tilting it back and forth at a low frequency. Even at low frequencies, the two layers start mixing at much finer levels of detail that correspond to the generation of higher frequency "waves" of alternating sand colors. It's not that different for electromagnetic waves -- that is, it would not be if quantum mechanics didn't jump to the rescue and start limiting how high the frequencies get. Quantization -- the universe's way of preventing ultraviolet catastrophes -- is one of the most profoundly impactful effects in physics. Ironically, our classical world could not exist without quantization since all matter and energy would fade into oblivion, just like that liter of water in an infinitely long gutter. Without quantization, matter and energy would never form anything "interesting," like suns, worlds, people, and licorice whips.
Mahesh sir is back with the brand new content. Most expected one. Yesterday, I saw one reel. If you can remove one human emotion, what will you eliminate? Now,I got the answer. I will remove the feeling of expectation
4:26 I'm not sure what exactly you wanted to demonstrate, but the drawing is misleading. In the top picture the length of the string equals λ/2 and in the bottom one it is λ, not the other way around.
I guess (given f & 2f notation), the intended meaning was that if we assign the fundamental wavelength to λ then the wavelength of the first overtone would be λ/2. But labels at the measure lone are read otherwise.
18:55 for those curious: theres a formula for the number of ways you can separate a constant k into n variables (all of those parts being INTEGERS ranging from 0,k), and it's (n+k-1)C(n-1), where xCy is the binomial coefficient. ex. for x+y+z=8, the number of possible unordered pairs of partitions will be (8+3-1)C(3-1) = 10C2 = 45.
Your videos about special relativity is saving my ass in university. And this trilogy about black body radiation couldnt be more perfectly timed, since we're doing a lab project about this next week! Thanks
Interesting. I'm not a physicist, I'm an engineer, and I'm confused about where the assumption of equal distribution of energy comes from. It seems arbitrary. In the test tube analogy, I was like "we don't have enough information" because how the averages stack up in real life will vary depending on how the water was poured. But the whole thing started with the enforced assumption "the water is distributed randomly between the test tubes" - something that in reality would be very hard to do, and impossible to predict without knowing more about the mechanism. Same with the black body radiation. There seemed to be very little information about the mechanism that is causing energy to be expressed as different wavelengths of light. It was just assumed to be random. I realise this is a short video condensing a much longer lecture, so perhaps there is more explanation in the lecture about why this assumption was made?
Suppose in a country there are 1 million people and you have ordered them to pour water on 3 test tubes in random quantities. After if you take the average water level of every test tube it will be almost identical for every 3 of them. That's how statistics works.
@PartanBree I agree. Inside the black box, we are told that you can have an infinite number of possible frequencies of standing wave set up between two adjacent walls, and that because the distribution of the frequencies is random, it is therefore a uniform distribution, and therefore there's there an infinite amount of energy being radiated. Aside from the fact that the conclusion of infinite energy makes it an obviously incorrect model, there's another glaring problem, which is the one you've highlighted: why should the distribution of frequencies be even? We understand that the EM waves are created by the vibration of electrons, but why would electrons be vibrating at every possible frequency? They wouldn't. The average frequency that an electron vibrates at is surely determined by the temperature of the box. The frequency distribution would therefore follow a distribution curve, not a uniform distribution based on an analogy about randomly filling up test tubes. If anyone has an explanation for why the frequency distribution should be even, I'm all ears.
@@AdamAlton This is a multi part series where he explains the thought process of the discovery of the blackbody curve and such through intuition. He clearly says in the video that by following all this logic from classical physics like the thing with the tubes filled with water that you get outrageous solutions like infinite energy, thats why he calls the curve he shows at the end the 'ultra violet catastrophe'. He will explain in a future video how they solved this problem.
As another engineer (electronic) then I can see the test tube equivalent to be correct. If you randomly do some thing it doesn't matter if it is hard or not to do because if all possibilities haven't been used it is not random. That random may not exist doesn't matter. If it is looked at as random in a calculation then it is random for that calculation. It is possible to make calculations about things that are not technically possible. What he does not quite say correctly I believe is that only harmonics of the base standing waves are possible so not all frequencies by a long shot are possible. Now of cause that is another point where the physicians and mathematicians may go to pure calculations without thinking about physical bounds. They may say that they calculate it as the box can have any size so if we start with a box from zero size to infinity size then yes all frequencies will be covered. In regards to the radiation then I think we have to think about it not as light although light is included but as Electro Magnetic Radiation. You know radiated heat is an EMR just as Radio waves, Light, X ray and all other radiations. This video is maybe not even half of what he is probably trying to tell. I assume that he is trying to get to Planks constant "h" used in the formula to give the energy of the so called Photon. E = hf where E is energy and f is the frequency.
@@daanskiel1236 I know that this is just one of several videos in which Mahesh is going through the thought process that leads us to quantum physics. But my problem with it (not with Mahesh, but with the theory) is that I don't think we necessarily need to quantise everything in order to solve the problem; I think the problem can be solved by not making the assumption that the frequency distribution will be uniform, which as far as I can see is a misguided assumption.
Blackbody radiation is a fundamental concept in physics that describes the electromagnetic radiation emitted by an idealized object known as a blackbody. A blackbody absorbs all incident radiation, regardless of frequency or angle. When a blackbody is in thermal equilibrium, it emits radiation across a continuous spectrum of wavelengths. The spectral distribution of this radiation depends solely on the blackbody's temperature. As the temperature of the blackbody increases, the total energy radiated increases, and the peak of the spectrum shifts to shorter wavelengths. This relationship is described by Planck's law, which revolutionized our understanding of energy quantization. Blackbody radiation has significant applications in astrophysics, enabling us to determine the temperature of stars and other celestial objects. Furthermore, it plays a pivotal role in various technological fields, including lighting, imaging, and sensing.😎
Head to squarespace.com/floatheadphysics to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code FLOATHEADPHYSICS
how did u comment 2 days ago videos been out for 5 hrs
@@mindiasferma7807 when you understand the laws of physics, spacetime becomes your b… Actually, It was unlisted a few days ago (waiting for sponsor approval). You can add comments and they stay after you have published them.
@@Mahesh_Shenoy man i love comment section of science channels
@@Mahesh_Shenoybut how did u know that you will get the sponsor of squarespace 😂😂?
Hey man please tell me🥺, from where did you learn all these?
I have watched a lot of popular science TH-cam. You sir, are far the best. I feel like most people just say the same things the same way, with no real thought put on the pedagogy . For the first time I feel like have some grasp on many of the famous topics of physics on the level of intuition.
Wow, thank you! :)
@@Mahesh_Shenoyseriously you’re an amazing teacher, your explanations for some of the more complex concepts in physics are very intuitive and easily understood
Yes, completely agree, those standard by-the-book explanations everywhere over and over are often not very helpful. These videos are so great!
This is what happens when someone knows what they’re talking about.
Agreed 👍
If you were my physics professor, I'd fail class so I could take it again and again. You are a brilliant, charismatic and enthusiastic teacher. I just can't stop listening to you. And even better, I understand concepts that I could not as a layman over the years. And the way you phrase question after question, it shows a deep appreciation for curiosity. A mark of great intelligence. You are simply amazing!
+1
Just came from school and this banger dropped, my entertainment for today is done.
sameeeeee
I came from college but ok
Wonderful! I am 60 years old and am enjoying being reminded of topics first encountered 45 years ago. And I am getting more clarity through these videos. I suppose the student in me never ever left.
Exactly! This is what I am doing in retirement. TH-cam is a wonderful never ending learning platform.
Outstanding explanation. This is of great benefit to many who couldn't get their head around this
Your videos should be mandatory in every physics class. So good.
Thank you very much, sir, for your very clear explanation of the UV catastrophe. My Physics lecturers just glossed over this, and I was left scratching my head over why Planck's explanation of quantization was the solution to the conundrum. Now I am much more enlightened. Well done!
17:55 i am crying, i just realized the electron shells are standing waves(This i already knew) BUT each orbital is a degree of freedom. Loooook the two p orbital looks exactly like the two possible 2nd harmonics.
It just clicked me now, that everything that i have studied from class 11th to till now (class 12) is interconnected. One physicsproblem's solution gets used in other. Physics is not complicated when you know what the physicists were trying to do, its just curious people trying to solve the mysteries of the universe through experiments and theories. I really hate how, absolutely no one, tells you about the intuitions behind these theories. They are taught as facts, which they are absolutely not.
You sir are one of the teachers I have found on the internet. I am frateful i stumbled upon your channel. I always loved your khan academy lectures and now I am absolutely in love with your explanation. I hated statistical mechanics but now I am interested to revisit and read all about it again. Thank you sir.
I can seriously relate to this 😢
good to know that im not the only one!!
I was waiting for the "until I read Feynman Lectures." And as always, amazing work!
I would like to thank you for taking the time to make 3 videos explaining this, I don't believe that a single video would have explained this complicated topic in such a great manner as these 3 separate videos
I think you should have mentioned that the predictions of the classical model fit the observations at high wave lengths very well. This adds plausibility to the classical reasoning. It also clarifies why it is called the UV catastrophe: on the (far) infrared side of the spectrum the classical model works pretty well, but the farther you go into the UV side of the spectrum, the worse the classical predictions get.
and it breaks when the energy of a mode (hf--i.e., a photon) is NOT small compared w/ the thermal energy, kT.
can u please explain how is it gonna be infinite cuz let’s say box takes x amount of heat from thermal or light or any way and now electron will jiggle but as it took x amount of heat and there are now lets say billion frequencies possible the heat going to be distributed but how can that x amount of heat distributed to finite no. of electrons emitted by finite ways going to be infinite 😢
@@ZETAREK-66In the classical model each box must on average emit the same amount of energy. However, there are an infinite number of boxes (because as the wavelength gets closer to zero the number of standing wave modes per wavelength goes to infinity). The total amount of energy emitted is the number of boxes times the average energy emitted per box. Because the number of boxes is infinite the total energy can only be zero or infinity, neither of which agrees with experiment.
@@GrouchierThanThou ohh
thanks bro for the explanation I misunderstood it as a same box emitting infinite frequencies
Seems more like there's just a problem with our assumptions. Infinities don't exist, or at least not in any way measurable or comprehendible to us, so trying to use it automatically changes this from trying to understand reality into a theoretical/conceptual problem. Sure, if you flip a coin a trillion times, maybe it will equal 50/50. But that's never the case in the real world. And to that point we are assuming everything takes place in a vacuum. What if some Eddy in the earths magnetic field caused it to land heads 70%, forever? I challenge you to find a place in the universe where there will never be some type of outside force affecting outcomes. Hell, we know simply observing particles makes them act differently, and we're surprised that shit like this happens?
I have watched quite a few of your videos now, and, lets face it, they're brilliant. This way of making sense of impossible subjects is just... well brilliant really
I admit, this really blew my mind. This was really well presented; it is so easy to understand .
Bravo!
I'm also proud of you for making that standing wave demo. you're awesome and your videos are always amazing
Thank you for helping us non physics literate laymen get a proper understanding of these concepts. Highly entertaining as well. You sir are both a gentleman and a scholar. A+
I watch a lot of this sorta stuff, and you are the most effective science communicator for concepts in physics as a whole. My 15yo understands your videos which is honestly remarkable
you not just teaching effectively, but teaching how to teach effectively, thank you.
I'm looking forward to watching the video later! I'm very excited.
You have such a gift for explaining complex subjects in such a clear way. Thank you!
I love this channel ❤
Best channel on youtube
I’ve been looking for this sort of intuitive explanation for quite a while. Thanks!
Thank you so much...!
I graduated 3 decades ago and never dug into this gap in my understanding and I finally get a good intuitive picture...you explained it so well!
Yes Yes ! We are proud of your coding capabilities Mahesh! they are not castatrophic!
That's all I wanted to hear :D
@@Mahesh_Shenoyyeah but we don't.
@@Mahesh_Shenoy I am glad :)
thank you for taking out the time to show why something was wrong. i absolutely love it.
absolutely amazing and underrated love this ❤
Fantastic video. So clearly and intuitively explained. Thanks!!!
Brilliant video. I'd forgotten Feynman's genius in this and you present it wonderfully. It's infectious seeing your enthusiasm. Great stuff!
Wonderful explanation. I think I finally got an intuition to this idea which has previously eluded me. Thank you! 🙏
Incredible! I can hardly wait until your explanation of the solution to the puzzle arrives!
Thank you for explaining things so well! (Great animations btw)
Mahesh, I love you. You really make my day different, happy and plenty of satisfaction. Thank you
I was actually revising my notes for this topic and I didn't knew what ultraviolet catastrophe actually meant😭 so thanks for clearing that up
What a FANTASTIC video. This is coming from PhD in theoretical physics, and I must say this is the most insightful explanation I've seen on te topic. Maybe I should've read Feynman's lectures more carefully 😅 but still dude, terrific job. Can't wait for the final entry!
Bro. Firstly, great video that brought insight and reinforced my understanding of this topic. BUT THAT STANDING WAVE CLIP. I don't think I've ever seen it shown like that, and some, how it blew my mind.
I have been trying to understand this for last 20 years. This is the first time I think I understood it. Thanks, brother.
can u please explain how is it gonna be infinite cuz let’s say box takes x amount of heat from thermal or light or any way and now electron will jiggle but as it took x amount of heat and there are now lets say billion frequencies possible the heat going to be distributed but how can that x amount of heat distributed to finite emitted by finite ways going to be infinite 😢
I have never heard this topic explained to me so clearly and understandably. Standing ovations for this captivating and insightful lecture. Now the tension is building for the decisive entrance of "Hilfskonstante (auxiliary constant) h".
Very well done! Great video. Looking forward for more.
20:14 this felt so 3-D. You killed it with the animation and graphics with this video sir.❤🎉❤
Hats off to you; you are an outstanding teacher! I truly appreciate the efforts you put in to make the learning process so intuitive. Thank you!
Finest content on these core topics..... Appreciated... ❤
I love your videos and the power you have to explain hard things in such a comprehensible way without distorting reality. Brilliant. I wait for the 3rd one to share and I think everybody would love it!
Makes so much sense. I can't wait for part 3!
After seeing this it's immediately intuitive that quantization can help because if you have a minimum length you no longer have infinitely short wavelengths, so no more infinite energy! I'm not sure yet how the other issues will get resolved but it's really cool how accessible of a mental model this is. Thank you 😊
But blackbody radiation does contain arbitrarily short wavelengths. What you have in mind is called energy cutoff - an approximation tool used in field theories, not a natural phenomenon.
This is a brilliant explanation. Thank you. Wow!
Woow, that's really ELEGANT!! Thank you for your hard work! We really appreciate it😊
Even in 1-D, you'd still get energy proportional to frequency, i.e. to 1/wavelength. Consider two short wavelengths h and k; how many whole-number fractions of the width W of the box lie between k and h ? Well, how many whole numbers n have h < W/n < k ? Flipping that, we get how many n like between W/k and W/h ? Roughly W/h -W/k, give or take rounding. Each mode with wavelength W/n for n between W/h and W/k gets the same energy; or, equivalently, between any two frequencies the energy is proportional to the difference in frequency, so the energy-as-function-of-frequency graph would be your horizontal line, making the energy-as-function-of-wavelength a 1/wavelength curve.
The chance of getting exactly half heads and half tails is better at 10 flips than 1 trillion flips. You never converge, your ratio gets closer, but the number of tosses in favor of one side is likely to grow
Name a better duo than this guy and Feynman,
I'll wait.
You'll wait a long long time.
Mahesh sir and Einstein
@@Someone-cl3me Nah bro Einstein is old news , Feynman is mahesh's best bud......
Lenin and trotsky, or this guy and emmy nother
Burger and fries 😋
Sir i really love ur explanations. And ur way of explaining feymann has really took my heart hoping for more vid of you
A great explanation! Love the animations you made!
Amazing explanation Mahesh. Keep it up. Love the imaginary discussions.
Please bring a video on intuition of work and energy
I was so pumped for this. Always wrestled with this concept. Thanks!
Absolutely fantastic! There's so much work and effort you put into these videos. Thanks a lot for educating!
Great content! Fun and useful way of explaining hard concepts. Kudos!
Great story telling! Dr. Feynman would be proud.
The presentation was really good ^^ i think it's understandable for everyone. Great job :)
Awesome videos! Please keep them coming!
21:42 ahh! The wait begins again 🙁
Really well explained. Inspiring. Keep it up. Actually, I will say, you could understand this even without graphics --- it would work almost as a podcast without video. That is why it is so good --- the explanation is so clear verbally, and the pictures just support it.
I love this guy. He makes such wonderful videos. Thank you 😊.
DUDE YOU ARE AMAZING. ALL OF MY QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED. THANK YOU!
oml i recently studied this nd now here is this 😭😭🙏🙏 thanks fr man , you help me solidify my concepts
Thank you! I'm glad I just found your channel.
I have a doubt. I understand that equipartition theorem says that all degrees of freedom must get equal amount of energy, but I don't understand why that's leads to infinite energy. If we take the test tube example, we can have 4 test tubes and they will still have the equal amount of water in each tube, but they would be less water in each tube right? Similarly if there are infinite degrees of freedom and each one gets an infinitesimally small amount of energy distributed to it, then where is the problem? The total energy would still be finite!
The point about UV getting all the cookies is absolutely clear though. Love your videos!
im a neet aspirant, but thats not nearly as important as the fact that im in love with science , every time i want to learn something i search and tricks and tips are my only finds, i am often disappointed, your channel is a breath of fresh air in this toxic suffocating educational set up india has sadly developed, i think its an understatement to just thank you , my idols are carl sagan, feynman , brian cox and a lot many more and the way they convey science is poetry and physics is to me so very elegant and beautiful, you made physics poetry. i saw a lecture of yours about the proof of gauss law and i had goosebumps i know it might sound weird but it was so beautiful i stayed up all night and thats just one instance THANK YOU FOR SUCH MOMENTS OF PURE SCIENTIFIC BLISS, THANK YOU FOR TEACHING SCIENCE FOR SCIENCE
Wow, thank you. Thank you for sharing!
@@Mahesh_Shenoy I'm forever grateful sir 🙏🏻🙇🏻♀️
@@hpottergirl317Sup I'm a neet aspirant too , and love physics for real as in here they just focus on formulas and all that! Glad to see someone like me ...If you want , we can get in touch for such healthy discussions and neet exams .
@@hpottergirl317 Same with me but i am Jee aspirant
Very very well explanation 😊
Outstanding, again.
Your reference to R Feynman illustrates his place as the best physics educator of our time.
3:37 no way did he just say internet privacy 💀💀💀💀
The Basilisk has always known, and will always know so long as the power is on
I thought he was going to show a random ad of VPN
Please never ever stop making these videos ❤
This is a intuitively Brilliant explanation. ❤
Wow it is an awesome video . I can't wait watching next video of quantization.
Started thinking about Northern lights/ Aurora Borealis during the explanation at 12:45, since the Equipartition Theorem must surely be influenced by polar electro-magnetic field? Great job, I understood your explanation :)
This is invaluable knowledge you never learn in college.
Love this guy ❤
pretty sure I learned it in college.
Why has 18:07 the 3-DOF the third image? Isn't it just a combination of 1 and 2? Otherwise also the 2DOF should have more cases with valley and hills at the edge.
Excellently made intuitive explanation 🤗🤗👌🏾👌🏾👌🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
I've been waiting for this a long time... and finally its worth the wait...
Hello FloatHeadPhysics !!!
I have a few question about Einstein's Special Relativity Theory
Q1) Einstein says that moving and stationary perspectives are totally correct and valid।
And whenever Length Contraction happens Time Dilation also happens।
Now comes the key part of the question-
Suppose K is moving in a rocket at very high speed and B is a stationary Person, from B's perspective K is moving, so B will notice that K and his rocket is contracted and K's clock is moving slower than B's clock।
But, From K's perspective B and all stationary things are moving backwards and all those are length contracted and as all stationary objects are length contracted from K's perspective then their time is also DILATED from K's perspective।
But, IN REAL K's time is dilated and k is aging in less speed than B।
But, K says NO B's time is dilated which is wrong,which means...
Is moving perspective invalid?
Q2) Light Speed is same in all inertial frames according to Einstein,Maxwell etc...
Even when we move we see light's speed the same but we should see light's speed slower when we move, but even when we move the light's speed is the same for us because of time dilation and Length Contraction means we can say that the formula to calculate the times time dilation and length contraction is-
√(C/C-SPOV)=TD=LC
And TD×LC×(C-SPOV)= Light's Speed in an inertial frame
C=Light's Velocity
SPOV=Stationary Perspective's Object's Velocity
TD=Time Dilation
LC=Length Contraction
Now for example C is 100 and SPOV is 75 So,
√(100/100-75)=2=TD=LC
So,here Time is 2 times slower than normal (stationary time) and Length is 2 times Shorter then normal
And here
2×2×(100-75)=100 so from the Object's perspective the light's velocity is the same (100)
Now, what if the light is travelling in the opposite direction of object
√[100/100(-75)]=0.32 times
(Length Expansion and Time becoming faster than normal)
Here,you can see in both the situations Object's speed is the same but light changed its direction to opposite direction which changes time dilation and length contraction (even when the Object's speed is same) okay!!!
But what if the object is travelling in a particular direction with velocity again the same(75)and in right of the object a light beam is travelling(100) in the same direction of the object but in left a light beam is travelling (100)in the opposite direction of the object,which time dilation and length contraction will happen (2 times or 0.32 times? If 2 times happen then the left beam will not be equal to light's speed from Object's perspective and if 0.32 times happen then the right beam will not be equal to the light's speed from Object's perspective)
And you will notice that the Object's velocity is the same in all the situations (inertial frame)
So,here even in inertial frame light's speed is changing and if light's speed is changing then the motion is detectable as from moving person's perspective light's speed is different from stationary person's perspective।।।
Please clear these doubts!!!
(Please make a video)
And if someone knows the answer then please tell me!!!!
Q1: Is the moving perspective invalid?
You are referring to the core principle of relativity-the idea that both moving and stationary perspectives are equally valid. Here's how it works:
From B's perspective (the stationary observer), K is moving fast. This means that B sees K's clock run slower (time dilation), and K's rocket appears shortened (length contraction).
From K's perspective (in the rocket), K considers himself stationary, and sees B moving backward. So, K sees B's clock run slower and B's world contracted.
Now, the key point in relativity is that both perspectives are valid because motion is relative. No perspective is more "real" than the other.
The confusion comes from thinking there's a "real" time dilation. But relativity tells us that there is no absolute time or space. What you observe depends entirely on your frame of reference. Neither K nor B is wrong; it's just that both are seeing the other as time-dilated and contracted from their own perspective.
The only time we can say who has "really" aged less is when K and B reunite, say by K returning to B. This is called the twin paradox: The person who accelerated to high speeds (K in the rocket) will have aged less than the stationary observer (B), but only after they meet again. Until then, both perspectives are equally valid.
Q2: Does light's speed change based on direction?
Einstein’s theory of special relativity says that the speed of light is always the same (C) in any inertial frame. This remains true no matter if you're moving towards the light or away from it, or if light is traveling in different directions.
Let’s address the formula you created. The correct way to understand time dilation and length contraction is that these effects adjust so that the speed of light remains constant, no matter the observer’s speed.
When you’re moving toward the light: You might expect to see the light approaching faster, but instead, time slows down for you (time dilation) and distances shorten (length contraction). These effects perfectly balance out so that you still measure the light at C, the speed of light.
When you’re moving away from the light: The same logic applies. Even though you'd expect the light to move slower relative to you, the effects of time dilation and length contraction adjust to ensure you still measure the light at C.
So, no matter if the light is traveling in the same or opposite direction as the object (whether it's moving left or right), both light beams will still be measured at the same speed: C.
Your formula is trying to connect time dilation, length contraction, and the speed of light, but the key point is that these effects are not separate. Time dilation and length contraction happen together to maintain the constant speed of light. There is no situation where light's speed changes for the moving object in an inertial frame.
It may also help to read about the "relativity of simultaneity" or "now slices". There is no universal standard for now as in the present tense. As you move you change the region of space that shares your immediate experience as being simultaneous with them.
Sorry for some typos, thanks for the video, nice one ^^. Wrote about some esoteric symmetry and conservation law stuff relating to neothers theorem that might be relevant to uv divergence and how to think about it in the future. Soeculative, but fun, only mentioned the basic principles at the end of my long comment. Have a good day
Nice video! My default mental image of the ultraviolet catastrophe is the one-dimensional case. That one works much like pouring a liter of water into a very long gutter's closed end (lowest frequency) and watching it spread out indefinitely as it tries to spread equally to every possible location (energy state) along the gutter.
Because the gutter is open-ended on the high-frequency side -- because there is no end to the possible higher frequencies -- the liter of water (parcel of energy) spreads out until it becomes impossibly shallow at all locations. It's still a catastrophe in that gamma rays, X-rays, and UV all become just as likely as the same as the ordinary heat we observe in reality. However, the twist is that if you refuse to inject more energy, your "liter of water" becomes so shallow in the gutter (so dim at each frequency) that it doesn't matter. It becomes more like a disappearing act -- an infinite leak that leaves you with every frequency so dim that after a short time, none of it is visible.
I liked your point about adding dimensions! That's the first time it truly hit me visually why the distribution is _not_ equal as it fades into infinite dimness. Adding dimension is like pouring a liter of water (energy) onto a flat surface (2D) or spewing a liter of air into a vacuum (3D). The distance from the starting point still defines the frequency. However, this time you get an ever-expanding perimeter (2D) or surface (3D) much larger than the tiny entry (initial low frequency) entry point of the fluid (energy). If the classical model worked, what would happen is you would see your initial insertion of low-frequency (e.g., infrared) energy into a 3D volume rapidly rise in temperature at first but then disappear from detectability as the equipartitioning becomes so huge that even the high-energy surface becomes too weak to produce detectable levels of photons.
(Fair disclosure: The above analogies are my own from past contemplations of this problem. The gutter analogy is not in any textbook I know. Nonetheless, these analogies merely map frequencies to distances -- the Fourier transform -- so it's a safe analogy. I also like being clear about the energy involved. You don't notice the fadeout effect if you are careless about tracking how much energy is available for the expanding partitions or if you "assume" a completed spread without asking how it would develop over time.)
One other note: Why _should_ low frequencies spread to high frequencies? Don't photons, you know, stay the same frequency as they travel.
First, the photon concept did not exist then. Physicists of that time only had Maxwell's (spectacular!) equations, which are not quantized. But it's more "okay" to think of light purely in terms of waves than you might think since quantization only occurs at emission (Planck) and reception (Einstein). Everything in between is very wavy!
Thus, it is helpful to think of equipartitioning as a chaotic fracturing of some form of waves. The deep technical term for it is (wait for it) "splashing." As the waves bounce around, they inevitably get a bit out of such and fractured by bouncing off surfaces. But for waves, fracturing _is_ the creation of higher frequencies. Ordinary water only supports this for a while before friction (viscosity) wears down the higher frequencies and converts the higher frequencies into heat. However, even heat is a version of the same idea of wave fracturing, just at the scale of individual molecules.
Another way sto visualize wave fracturing would be placing two layers of different colors of sand into a jar and tilting it back and forth at a low frequency. Even at low frequencies, the two layers start mixing at much finer levels of detail that correspond to the generation of higher frequency "waves" of alternating sand colors. It's not that different for electromagnetic waves -- that is, it would not be if quantum mechanics didn't jump to the rescue and start limiting how high the frequencies get.
Quantization -- the universe's way of preventing ultraviolet catastrophes -- is one of the most profoundly impactful effects in physics. Ironically, our classical world could not exist without quantization since all matter and energy would fade into oblivion, just like that liter of water in an infinitely long gutter. Without quantization, matter and energy would never form anything "interesting," like suns, worlds, people, and licorice whips.
Mahesh sir is back with the brand new content. Most expected one.
Yesterday, I saw one reel. If you can remove one human emotion, what will you eliminate? Now,I got the answer. I will remove the feeling of expectation
I kept hearing "Simon says" instead of "Feynman says". Good presentation. You explained something I didn't even know I didn't understand about it.
Ah - so easy to predict intuitively - so hard to figure out mathematically.
4:26 I'm not sure what exactly you wanted to demonstrate, but the drawing is misleading. In the top picture the length of the string equals λ/2 and in the bottom one it is λ, not the other way around.
I guess (given f & 2f notation), the intended meaning was that if we assign the fundamental wavelength to λ then the wavelength of the first overtone would be λ/2. But labels at the measure lone are read otherwise.
18:55 for those curious: theres a formula for the number of ways you can separate a constant k into n variables (all of those parts being INTEGERS ranging from 0,k), and it's (n+k-1)C(n-1), where xCy is the binomial coefficient. ex. for x+y+z=8, the number of possible unordered pairs of partitions will be (8+3-1)C(3-1) = 10C2 = 45.
Thank you for clear explanation, now it is clear for me.
Great video, thanks! I'm so looking forward to quantization :-D
Wonderful Explanation ❤. Thank you
As usual, a great show, episode, video, ...
Your videos about special relativity is saving my ass in university. And this trilogy about black body radiation couldnt be more perfectly timed, since we're doing a lab project about this next week! Thanks
Sorry, i really want to watch this right now, but I'm too tired. See you in ten hours or so.
Lol 😂
Only 3 hours left
Wakey wakey, hands off snakey!
10 hours!!!???? Lucky.
But I am standing still and you are moving near speed of light towards me…how long until I see you back here?
@@abhishekak9619don't disturb let him sleep
Your method of learning others is very good
Keep it up 🎉🎉🎉
A pleasure to watch your videos!
Waiting since yesterday. I'm really excited to watch ❤
One of the best explainer ever
Thank you for that interesting and informative Video.
Interesting. I'm not a physicist, I'm an engineer, and I'm confused about where the assumption of equal distribution of energy comes from. It seems arbitrary. In the test tube analogy, I was like "we don't have enough information" because how the averages stack up in real life will vary depending on how the water was poured. But the whole thing started with the enforced assumption "the water is distributed randomly between the test tubes" - something that in reality would be very hard to do, and impossible to predict without knowing more about the mechanism.
Same with the black body radiation. There seemed to be very little information about the mechanism that is causing energy to be expressed as different wavelengths of light. It was just assumed to be random.
I realise this is a short video condensing a much longer lecture, so perhaps there is more explanation in the lecture about why this assumption was made?
Suppose in a country there are 1 million people and you have ordered them to pour water on 3 test tubes in random quantities. After if you take the average water level of every test tube it will be almost identical for every 3 of them. That's how statistics works.
@PartanBree I agree. Inside the black box, we are told that you can have an infinite number of possible frequencies of standing wave set up between two adjacent walls, and that because the distribution of the frequencies is random, it is therefore a uniform distribution, and therefore there's there an infinite amount of energy being radiated. Aside from the fact that the conclusion of infinite energy makes it an obviously incorrect model, there's another glaring problem, which is the one you've highlighted: why should the distribution of frequencies be even? We understand that the EM waves are created by the vibration of electrons, but why would electrons be vibrating at every possible frequency? They wouldn't. The average frequency that an electron vibrates at is surely determined by the temperature of the box. The frequency distribution would therefore follow a distribution curve, not a uniform distribution based on an analogy about randomly filling up test tubes.
If anyone has an explanation for why the frequency distribution should be even, I'm all ears.
@@AdamAlton This is a multi part series where he explains the thought process of the discovery of the blackbody curve and such through intuition. He clearly says in the video that by following all this logic from classical physics like the thing with the tubes filled with water that you get outrageous solutions like infinite energy, thats why he calls the curve he shows at the end the 'ultra violet catastrophe'. He will explain in a future video how they solved this problem.
As another engineer (electronic) then I can see the test tube equivalent to be correct. If you randomly do some thing it doesn't matter if it is hard or not to do because if all possibilities haven't been used it is not random. That random may not exist doesn't matter. If it is looked at as random in a calculation then it is random for that calculation. It is possible to make calculations about things that are not technically possible.
What he does not quite say correctly I believe is that only harmonics of the base standing waves are possible so not all frequencies by a long shot are possible. Now of cause that is another point where the physicians and mathematicians may go to pure calculations without thinking about physical bounds. They may say that they calculate it as the box can have any size so if we start with a box from zero size to infinity size then yes all frequencies will be covered.
In regards to the radiation then I think we have to think about it not as light although light is included but as Electro Magnetic Radiation. You know radiated heat is an EMR just as Radio waves, Light, X ray and all other radiations.
This video is maybe not even half of what he is probably trying to tell. I assume that he is trying to get to Planks constant "h" used in the formula to give the energy of the so called Photon. E = hf where E is energy and f is the frequency.
@@daanskiel1236 I know that this is just one of several videos in which Mahesh is going through the thought process that leads us to quantum physics. But my problem with it (not with Mahesh, but with the theory) is that I don't think we necessarily need to quantise everything in order to solve the problem; I think the problem can be solved by not making the assumption that the frequency distribution will be uniform, which as far as I can see is a misguided assumption.
Blackbody radiation is a fundamental concept in physics that describes the electromagnetic radiation emitted by an idealized object known as a blackbody. A blackbody absorbs all incident radiation, regardless of frequency or angle. When a blackbody is in thermal equilibrium, it emits radiation across a continuous spectrum of wavelengths. The spectral distribution of this radiation depends solely on the blackbody's temperature. As the temperature of the blackbody increases, the total energy radiated increases, and the peak of the spectrum shifts to shorter wavelengths. This relationship is described by Planck's law, which revolutionized our understanding of energy quantization. Blackbody radiation has significant applications in astrophysics, enabling us to determine the temperature of stars and other celestial objects. Furthermore, it plays a pivotal role in various technological fields, including lighting, imaging, and sensing.😎