Asking "why" light exists is such a human question. I mean, there's no way to answer that question with any kind of accuracy. The best you can hope to accomplish is understanding "how" light exists.
It exists so we can see, of course! ;-) Just kidding, you're absolutely right. The universr doesnt need reasons for us to understand to exist the way it days.
As an astronomer and science educator, I appreciate how the graphic showing multiple types of light, broke apart the different wavelengths. Most graphics that try to illustrate the EM spectrum show one large wave of ever changing wavelength...conveying a false impression that light waves normally change wavelength as they move. Thanks.
@ChiKler light appears to move at the same speed regardless of your frame of reference. The Doppler effect is the explanation we have for red/blue shift, though we pretty much only see redshifting in nature due to what we believe is the expansion of space. Looking back I realise my comments don't really make a lot of sense, sorry about that.
@ChiKler if we imagine three states: high, medium & base. electron.A goes from high to base electron.B goes from high, to medium to base. The total energy would be the same, but wouldn't electron.B emit two photons of lower energy compared to electron.A that emits one photon of higher energy?
i’m a physics student in a specification in optics and i can barely believe i just watch this phenomenal explanation on youtube. i’m extremely thankful for that. wow.
One thing that blows my mind is how different wavelengths of light can or cannot pass through different materials. We only see cristal as transparent because we see visible light, but it’s completely opaque to UV light. Wifi signal works like this too, if we saw in those frequencies we'd see through walls
If I remember correctly, the book "Hail Mary" explores this as a mechanism for an alien to detect which wavelengths a human can see, by providing a wall of different materials.
@@grimjawx1650 no i mean, same thing that in your bedroom you usually don't take full wifi signal, you'd see through the wall, but it would just be semi transparent
I considered this as well. Radio Stations are basically lighthouses and your radio antenna just detects the light it gives off and translates it into sound. If you could see radio like visible light, FM is a change in color and AM is a change in brightness.
@@Yogachara WHY AND HOW THE CLEAR, TOP DOWN, ULTIMATE, AND BALANCED MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE FACT THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY IS GIVEN BY THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA: Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Consider the man who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma !!! SO, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. Moreover, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. The Earth constitutes the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE in BALANCED and UNIVERSAL relation to what is the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!!! (The sky is BLUE, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !!!) Accordingly, time DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! INDEED, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. Think. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Great !!! SO, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out EQUAL AREAS in equal times consistent WITH/AS E=MC2, F=ma, AND what is PERPETUAL MOTION; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of WHAT IS THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great !!!! Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!!! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. MAGNIFICENT !!!! By Frank DiMeglio
@@ideasonek3374 - That’s not quite the way it works. The harmonics in an instrument are (edit: _not_ ) always integer harmonics, although in, say, a brass instrument, they really dominate. In a violin, for example, there are all kinds of paths the sound can bounce around in the body before it exits the hole beneath the strings (some does leak out through the body), and, while they are reinforced when they are an integer harmonic, much of the “richness” of sound is really distortion. If you were to hold a mic next to the body of a violin (or any instrument), and unnaturally amplify some of these, it would really sound gnarly (the technical term).
Dude, I found your channel recently and I'm astonished with the quality of your content. I love that more and more creators use 3d visualizations to explain physics and other sciences in a comprehensible way, it really makes TH-cam a special and useful place. So thank you for that, you just summed up most of light sources in the universe in 12 minutes, like, bruh.
@@localverse for some reason I cannot answer your comment properly, TH-cam deletes it after posting. Might try to edit this one. There is a channel called "Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky" which uses 3D animations (rather crude, but they have their own charm) to present math rules, graphs and equations, but also electric currents and lots of other physical phenomena. Another example would be ScienceClic English, which uses 2D and 3D, but in this context his two videos "A new way to visualize General Relativity" and "Quantum Field Theory visualized" would be great examples, because they utilize the 3rd dimension as a mean to represent time dimension, impossible to do in 2d in a clear way. Arvin Ash lately is doing similar things with physics, and Branch Education have some amazing contents about engineering and electronics. And there are of course the cellular 3D animations used by scientists, on TH-cam present e.g. in WEHImovies. Those tend to depict the chaotic nature of molecules, far from the more clear and neat (but less realistic) graphs we know from textbooks. But Why? uses those too, probably based on the models from real-life, which I greatly respect. The common point being, we live in a 4D world, understanding it through our 3D sensory systems. Presenting knowledge via 3D animations seems to be the most intuitive and versatile way to visualize hard and sometimes abstract concepts with a great precision. You can only go so far with real-life models and 2D illustrations/graphs. For linking that rule with games, check out "A Slower Speed of Light" by MIT labs, a great combo indeed.
@@OhMyRoystone these are one of the best channels I have came across. I would like to mention two more to the list The science asylum and Sabine Hossenfelder. happy to find these in one comment. Arvin ash is champ in explanations.
@@ganeshnimbalkar2792 Yup, I agree, both are great! I found Sabine lately and already binge-watched most of the content, she's great and brutal at explaining. But I didn't mention them because they don't use 3D animations.
I love these videos. They’re relatively short and start with a simple question, then go way more in depth that you would expect. I wish physics classes were taught like this
5:06 I'm so glad you animated it like this. A lot of the time textbooks and professors teach that the orbitals are like "shells" or some other hard object. Sometimes they describe electron orbitals like "clouds" but this can be confusing too, because people might still imagine a STATIC, solid cloud. The electron wave orbital is more like how you showed it: a dynamic, flowing cloud or mist. Textbooks and many professors are stuck showing you 2d and static pictures, but the key thing to remember is that the electron wave is a dynamic, flowing, moving orbital cloud. It's like the mist or fog on a cool day. It doesn't stand still, it moves around like smoke around the nucleus.
This is like the rabbit hole of Wikipedia, but with someone summarizing parts you don't need to dive too far into. Absolutely treasure of a video right here. We are absolutely gifted by this. Subbed +1
I never studied physics, and I had tried to understand this topic numerous times throughout the years and this one is absolutely the best material I have ever come across. Well done and thanks for the good work
This is one of the best channels on physics. The Author explains complicated topics with brilliant explanations and examples and I hope to see channel triple in subscribers.
That was probably the best description of how light is produced that I have seen on the internet...I finally understand the basics! Excellent video thanks
This is the most significant discussion of light that i have ever watched or read... to hear a description of light waves as they really are solves a problem i have had since my high school days... when my teachers back then would say light travels in waves like waves in water, i would be puzzled and say that can't be... what would make the wave go up and down... of course, the wave is about energy over time, which is graphically a wave. There is no actual piece of light going up and down, but as a teenage student with an active and enquiring mind, this is what was being said to me... Thank you for completing the picture and releasing me from years of angst...
Wow, this was so clear. With any complex science, I tend to get annoyed that it all boils down to “because that’s the way it is.” And this still does, obviously. But I feel you managed to explain it much further down the “but why” rabbit hole than I’ve been able to understand before. I guess hence your name. Thanks!
This video alone has improved my overall understanding of light and energy in a concise easy to understand manner. Thanks and I look forward to viewing more of your content.
Easily the most understable models and analogies on TH-cam. You make such seemingly complex phenomenon seem almost obvious that way you explain things. Quality content
Keep seeking and you will find better answers. At the end of the day, you choose what you think is the best model. This is just the most popular one, popularity does not equal correct. Start with Nikola Tesla.
"But why does light exist?" ...*12 minutes later*... "So, an alien whose homeplanet's atmosphere is different from Earth may perceive and understand the Universe in a fundamentally different way." ... ... ... ... *Subscribes*
I utterly love this channel. There is no better medicine for my well being then pondering all the little things in the universe that we most of the time over look it's importance function in the universe around us. Curiosity is the best medicine
No its not. I disliked the video because of this edgy remark. I didn't find it funny, just condescending. He has no right to call me his child , just cause he has more expertise about light than me (supposedly). It's like pal, I'm just watching a random video on TH-cam cause I'm bored. It's not that easy to make me your child, there's actually only 2 people on this earth that can qualify to say that.
@@andreww4751 jesus dude bet you are fun at parties... Seems to me that you are trying really hard just to find a reason not to like it and that's the only reason you came up with. Either way I liked it and that's all that matters to me. Enjoy your day 👍
Absolutely the best explanation of what light is that I've ever heard! I'm in my fifties and I've read and watched a fair amount of popular science stuff. Amazingly, I have never come close to understanding what's going on with light until this video. Cheers
Mind Blown ! ! ! Even a person living under a rock for the past 50 years would understand, by watching this video. Thank you for enlightening me. Keep up the good work !
Great video! However, there are a couple corrections and considerations to add to its major points. First: You attribute all light to electronic relaxations, yet show thermal images while referring to molecular vibrations and rotations in context of blackbody temperaure. Only near-infrared and above (visible, UV, X-ray) photons carry sufficient energy to directly mediate electronic transitions. Vibrational and rotational transitions (involving the nuclei coordinates) are associated with longer infrared and microwave wavelengths, respectively, which cannot directly promote electronic transitions. Further, micro- & radio waves may also originate from the acceleration of charges over macroscopic distances (as in transmitting antennae). And lastly, gamma rays may be born from higly energetic nuclear processes, and nuclear spin procession can emit radio waves too (the basis of MRI). ------------ Second: Attributing the range of human eyesight to the atmospheric window, while a very good point, ignores another possible two thirds of the answer - the sun's emission spectrum, and the resolution/contrast achieved by certain wavelengths relative to environmental features. Like other similar stars, our sun's peak emission is in the visible, with a portion in the UV and a long tail to the infrared. This is an amazing coincidence (simulated design aside...) with our atmospheric window. Also, most daily objects we are interested in looking at are not themselves a visible light source but must be illuminated, whereas not all wavelengths encode the same information when scattering off a surface. Visible light is short enough wavelength to resolve fine surface features while long enough not to diffract off their atomic lattices (though can off larger apertures). Longer wavelengths do not 'feel out' objects as finely. Further, eyesight relying on thermal IR emissions suffers from lower contrast when observing an object whose parts are at nearly equal temperature (i.e. in equilibrium). For example, a beautifully patterned color tattoo's heat signature will simply blend with the surrounding skin. Sure there would be the advantage of vision persisting at night, but where's the historical fun in that...and besides, who wants to sleep with the lights on ;-) Shorter than visible wavelengths can become harmul to life processes, namely ultraviolet damage to DNA molecus. So vision based off an abundace of this energetic light may not be favorable, which is fine because most of it it is absorped by the ozone layer anyway (chicken or the egg...). Now, this is not to rule out that elsewhere in the Universe may exist other exotic life architectues, perhaps in an ultaviolet bath exploiting more robust molecular structures. It's amazingly difficult to predict, under specific and ever-changing conditions, what forms life can learn to take, and if the clock was rewinded, if it even would so again identically.
That last sentence blew me away. When we encounter an alien species, we will "see" each other (if they have eyes) on wavelengths to which the other is not accustomed. We will be unable to understand, what they see and vice-versa. Like that filter layed over the woman from 10:58 to 11:08.
I'm pretty sure aliens will have eyesight not exact but comparable to us: Stars supporting life are not blue gamma ray monsters as biological life would have a hard time developing. Also red or brown dwarfs, mainly emitting infrared, are not energetic enough to facilitate many chemical reactions. So they might have eyes that are somewhat above or below our visual spectrum, but there will be overlap.
One question I was left asking was why the process of emitting a photon when an electron is excited happens at all. Why doesn't it just remain in its higher energy state? What causes it to fall, and what is the mechanism that causes it to produce light (as opposed to something else) in doing so?
When an atom gain or loose energy the electron's orbit goes up and down one or more levels, always getting back to initial state as a balance. This forth and back orbital motion pertubs the particles of eletromagnetic field creating a wave of particles that we sense as light.
First you need to know about the laws of repulsion and attraction, these are the laws that made the ground state of being possible in the first place, apparently that is how the universe is. Besides that you need to know about centrifugal force. Those same laws go for all matter, not just what we can see. I'll give an example. If you spin a ball with your finger tied to an elastic rope you'll notice that the faster you spin your finger the faster the ball flies and the larger the orbital range becomes. That is until you exert enough force that the rope breaks. Those same principles go for atoms, the more excited the core by outside influences or because its make up is unstable, the more energy it exerts, thus the electrons orbit faster and further away. Once the energy is expended for whatever reason this stops, the electrons orbit back into their preferred state. It's this but the the finger is always spinning a little bit at least (absolute 0 is now considered unreachable) so the orbit will forever continue because there is no rope, it's tied by (I think) electromagnetism. This analogy also helps explain why matter produces light, because it's the same question as asking why does swinging the ball around produce wind and sound? Well mostly because wind and sound are one and the same but the same goes for light, it's just vibrating matter that is reacting to a more powerful source than its own. (Which begs the question, is the vacuum of space really empty? But that's a story for another time) In understanding this it also helps to realize that the subjects discussed here go far beyond our comprehension of time. Entire books have been written about things that occur for a millisecond or occurs a couple thousand times in one second. I hope that clears things up, let me know if it hasn't.
@@jessepiologo8504 The electron has spin 2. This means that it has to be "rotated" 270 degrees to reach its next stable orbital. However given the chance, it unwinds itself, just like any other particle in the universe, it seeks to reach the lowest energy level in the electromagnetic quantum field when not kept in check by other forces. (Was quantum field theory helpful in clarifying this?)
@@Hyperborean_2 Space is a vacuum and that is why astronauts float while in a space capsule. We have built structures from which air can be removed and conducted experiments in vacuum chambers. If you add or subtract a concept in an experiment then the conclusion should differ from usual observations. th-cam.com/video/E43-CfukEgs/w-d-xo.html Here, air and thus resistance, is removed. In other experiments within a vacuum (Cern, Brookhaven, Stanford), particles are accelerated to nearly the speed of light which exposes particle existence. Prime examples of Concepts: Difference, Distance, and Dimension.
One of the best edu content on TH-cam. Author not only teaches but also understands the topic and logically plays with it venturing into some fun and bizarre thought experiments.
Wow. Hats of for the teams of this channel. You guys just answered a lot of questions almost every thing about light in one question... amazing clarity too.
Great video! The only recurrent problem I see with these representations is the transverse wave picture. Light is more akin to a pressure wave. It doesn't oscillate in 'space' as that picture suggests. It's the EM forces intensities (amplitudes) that oscillate, although they ARE transverse to the direction of propagation. It's important to repeat that for people who might not have the background to understand the picture. Otherwise, they might think that light oscillates as a rope would. I know it's basic for a lot of people, but it could easily lead to confusion for others.
What's the best way you've seen to animate that? Do any exist? I'm trying to visualize what you described but it's probably way off, would love to see good accurate visuals.
@@localverse if you include the coordinate system with the amplitudes of the EM as units, (x: E field, y: B field, z: space) that could be one step toward the solution :) The other possibility could be to use small arrows (just for direction purpose) that are all the same scale, and change their opacity and/or saturations (for the amplitude). This one wouldn't require the units axis. Also to orally explain the picture quickly can be a good support. Like if you kept that picture, you could say: "it's important to note that the height of the waves is not a height in space, but rather the amplitude/strength of the Electric and Magnetic fields along the path of propagation". And if you want to go deeper with a quantum explanation, you can say those fields are actually instead interpreted as quantities linked to the probability of finding a photon. And put the link to the Feinman lecture :)) th-cam.com/video/LPDP_8X5Hug/w-d-xo.html
@@localverse Check out the Science Clic channel on youtube. He has probably the best animations and explanations I've seen. His recent video about black holes shows a better explanation, imo, of how light behaves. I also can't vouch for explanations that go without Quantum Field Theory examples. Science Clic's QFD videos are absolutely amazing.
Sounds don't exist either, the waves through the air do, but sounds themselves are entirely mental. If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody's around to hear it, it doesn't make a sound.
However, the colloquial use refers to a phenomenon with a set of properties. The properties of that phenomenon extend into a much wider spectrum of non-visible light. This is what people don't understand and it's why light might seem mysterious to them. If you understand both what the colloquial usage refers to, as well as the wider phenomenological nature of light, then it makes more sense overall.
@@superdog797: No, that's precisely my point, the colloquial use of the word typically refers exclusively to the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that's visible to the human eyes; in other words, in that particular sense of the word, the phrase "non-visible light" is an oxymoron, since light by definition is visible. Yes, I'm aware that many people do use the word "light" to refer to other parts of the spectrum too, but that's neither how it's colloquially used, nor how it has historically been used. Those other parts are rather generally referred to in terms of radiation, e.g. "infrared radiation" rather than "infrared light", and "ultraviolet radiation" rather than "ultraviolet light"; those are even the most ambiguous ones, since they're the closest to the visible part of the spectrum, if you go further out you get to parts which virtually no one ever refers to as "light", i.e. you'd practically never hear anyone talk about "radio light", "microwave light", or "gamma light".
@@hoon_sol The point is that there is no logical reason to arbitrarily distinguish between the objectively verifiable forms of invisible and visible light because their properties are not any different. _Our_ properties as light detectors are different, not the light's. Invisible light is a very important term because not all humans have the exact same light detecting capabilities, so you are already in the realm of relative detection there. To a human, UV is invisible, but to a bee, UV is visible (but the color red is invisible). To a blind person, all forms of light are invisible. The historical point is well-noted but with knowledge comes understanding and with understanding one may reasonably change their thinking and speech. There are advantages to speaking and thinking this way too because it is easier to teach people in the future once you update your paradigm. If you teach a child that what heats up food in the microwave is "radiation" they may grow up without realizing for literally decades what is really going on. If you tell them it's a form of invisible light you're off to a much better start and it can trigger all sorts of increases in comprehension and increase their ability to learn science since you have created a paradigm they can understand and integrate a wider set of knowledge into, whereas if you teach them that there's light out there and there's radiation, you instantly will confuse them and they can grow up with a poor understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is too abstract a concept to teach them at first. It's context-dependent in the end and so the reasonableness depends on the situation, and technically while it sounds like an oxymoron, invisible light is really not, factually, an oxymoron.
@@superdog797: "The point is that there is no logical reason to arbitrarily distinguish between the objectively verifiable forms of invisible and visible light because their properties are not any different." *WRONG.* That's a completely ridiculous statement. To us humans, there is a *VAST DIFFERENCE* between the part of the electromagnetic spectrum we can see and the part we cannot see. That's why we've traditionally used a specific word to refer to the former: *LIGHT.* "Our properties as light detectors are different, not the light's." And that makes *ALL* the difference. "Invisible light is a very important term because not all humans have the exact same light detecting capabilities, so you are already in the realm of relative detection there." Again, I already addressed that specifically by pointing out how infrared and ultraviolet borders on the visible spectrum, but only when visible to humans does it make sense to call them light, so "invisible light" is still an oxymoron (and again, *NO ONE* says "microwave light" or "gamma light"). "To a human, UV is invisible, but to a bee, UV is visible (but the color red is invisible)." Irrelevant, because what we call "light" refers to the part of the spectrum *WE HUMANS* can see. "To a blind person, all forms of light are invisible." Trying to use a defective human to make your case is also totally irrelevant, because we're talking about what humans can see under normal circumstances. "The historical point is well-noted but with knowledge comes understanding and with understanding one may reasonably change their thinking and speech." This is only partially true; fact is that once we broaden our understanding, we make new terms which meet the broader definition, in this case it's *ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION* we use to refer to the broader phenomenon that light is only a small subset of, or just *RADIATION* for short. "There are advantages to speaking and thinking this way too because it is easier to teach people in the future once you update your paradigm." No, destroying what terms actually mean and refusing to use updated terms like radiation just serves to confuse even further, and makes it *HARDER* to teach, not easier. "If you teach a child that what heats up food in the microwave is "radiation" they may grow up without realizing for literally decades what is really going on." This is a completely stupid statement. First of all, part of teaching that should be to teach them about the electromagnetic spectrum. Secondly, if you were to tell them it's "light" that heats up their food, they will likely end up holding misconceptions which are even more flawed than they would otherwise. "If you tell them it's a form of invisible light you're off to a much better start and it can trigger all sorts of increases in comprehension and increase their ability to learn science since you have created a paradigm they can understand and integrate a wider set of knowledge into, whereas if you teach them that there's light out there and there's radiation, you instantly will confuse them and they can grow up with a poor understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is too abstract a concept to teach them at first." This is all horrendously wrong, and I would certainly not let someone like you teach my children ever. Telling this to a child would only serve to confuse them and decrease their comprehension and decrease their ability to learn, since you've created a paradigm of willfully conflating terms. You're essentially teaching the child to be imprecise and unclear. If you teach them that there is a phenomenon called electromagnetic radiation, and that only a part of this spectrum is visible to us, namely what we call light, that is infinitely more comprehensible and clear, and teaching the child that is what sets them up for increased comprehension and becoming good scientists. "It's context-dependent in the end and so the reasonableness depends on the situation, and technically while it sounds like an oxymoron, invisible light is really not, factually, an oxymoron." Calling it context-dependent is extremely misleading, because the only contexts where people regularly use "light" to refer to parts of the spectrum which are not normally visible is when referring to the parts bordering those parts, i.e. infrared "light" and ultraviolet "light"; no one ever says "microwave light" or "gamma light". So no, it doesn't "technically sound like an oxymoron", it is absolutely an oxymoron, factually. *_«Light or visible light is electromagnetic radiation within the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is perceived by the human eye.»_* *_«electromagnetic radiation that can produce a visual sensation»_* *_«Visible electromagnetic radiation. The human eye can typically detect radiation (light) in the wavelength range of about 400 to 750 nanometers. Nearby shorter and longer wavelength ranges, although not visible, are commonly called ultraviolet and infrared light.»_*
@@superdog797: Yes, precisely; might want to read those definition yourself, moron. 1 and 2a both describe *EXACTLY* what I'm saying, and as for 2b I already explained in detail why infrared and ultraviolet in particular are sometimes referred to as light too. In contrast, *NO ONE EVER* says "gamma light" or "microwave light", just like I pointed out previously. Time to turn on your brain and start using it.
Intresting to think about: all radiowaves are made of light too. Only we can't see them. Or turning this around visible light, colors are radio waves that our eye can "receive". Our mobile is a tiny lighthouse. Etc. Just amazing.
By gods, this is an amazing channel. Keep up the good work man. I started with why acids be acids and ended up here and it's just fascinating the way you produce, animate and present. Keeping complicated topics simply. Subscribing immediately.
Just got to your channel by the TH-cam algorithm and your work is astonishing! I never hit the sub button so fast. This is some high tier content and your channel is underrated as hell. Keep up the great work 🔥🔥🔥 Best greetings from germany :)
Just tripped over this video. This is the best and most clear explanation of this subject I have seen, and I have seen many video on this subject. New channel to watch..
Thanks for not giving up and making videos for a year. I will REALLY REALLY WAIT for new videos and even if you explain topic without animation (where it doesn't really make it necessary for an animation) in future I'll still learn from you and save my time
My god, your videos are amazing. It's mind-blowing easy to understand, and packs so much information in such a short time. Congrats, tks, and I just subscribed. Definitively deserves more subs.
99.9% of people won't believe this but light is the major building block of our universe. All matter comes from light, and since matter and energy are interchangeable, all energy must come from light too. The speed of light is the maximum velocity attainable of anything in this universe. When matter is created, a relative portion of light slows and changes its angular momentum resulting in the atom. This also means that we are light beings and like the narrator states we give off photons constantly. Metaphysically speaking, light is also love, so when you hug someone like your child, you impart not only love to them but also pure light. As a light being, if you do not receive enough love/light you become unhappy, unfulfilled and unhealthy. This explains why love is so important and why evil & malfeasance exists in our world today. Hopefully you will have a better understanding of how truly important light is to everything and everyone in our universe. I also appreciate what is being shared here in this video, but it only looks at a light from a modern physics pov. To understand light in its entirety, one must consider the metaphysical aspects as well.
This video has excellent animation that makes these complicated concepts understandable. I congratulate the creativity and of your explanations as well. Keep up the good work.
Even though I'm not native in English I'm subscribing because of the pace you're narrating besides the content you're putting together and the logical way of explaining it. I'll slow down the speed to understand, thank you very much!
Asking "why" light exists is such a human question. I mean, there's no way to answer that question with any kind of accuracy. The best you can hope to accomplish is understanding "how" light exists.
And more importantly, ‘whom’
And eventually 'when'
It exists so we can see, of course! ;-)
Just kidding, you're absolutely right. The universr doesnt need reasons for us to understand to exist the way it days.
@@HkFinn83 Whomst'd've?
I feel like a d-bag for saying this but like, that can be said about literally anything
As an astronomer and science educator, I appreciate how the graphic showing multiple types of light, broke apart the different wavelengths. Most graphics that try to illustrate the EM spectrum show one large wave of ever changing wavelength...conveying a false impression that light waves normally change wavelength as they move. Thanks.
How does redshifting work then?
@ChiKler doesn't relativity account for that?
@ChiKler light appears to move at the same speed regardless of your frame of reference. The Doppler effect is the explanation we have for red/blue shift, though we pretty much only see redshifting in nature due to what we believe is the expansion of space. Looking back I realise my comments don't really make a lot of sense, sorry about that.
7:10 why would an electron in a high energy state return to its base state all at once? Or is this simply an simplification for the illustration? 😃
@ChiKler if we imagine three states: high, medium & base.
electron.A goes from high to base
electron.B goes from high, to medium to base.
The total energy would be the same, but wouldn't electron.B emit two photons of lower energy compared to electron.A that emits one photon of higher energy?
i’m a physics student in a specification in optics and i can barely believe i just watch this phenomenal explanation on youtube. i’m extremely thankful for that. wow.
This guy understands what he "knows"! Great job.
One thing that blows my mind is how different wavelengths of light can or cannot pass through different materials. We only see cristal as transparent because we see visible light, but it’s completely opaque to UV light. Wifi signal works like this too, if we saw in those frequencies we'd see through walls
If I remember correctly, the book "Hail Mary" explores this as a mechanism for an alien to detect which wavelengths a human can see, by providing a wall of different materials.
@@grimjawx1650 no i mean, same thing that in your bedroom you usually don't take full wifi signal, you'd see through the wall, but it would just be semi transparent
@@grimjawx1650 oddly birds see UV but glass doesnt pass UV fully, but i wonder if its more reflection that's confusing
I considered this as well. Radio Stations are basically lighthouses and your radio antenna just detects the light it gives off and translates it into sound. If you could see radio like visible light, FM is a change in color and AM is a change in brightness.
This is very interesting way to think about it
Possibly the best explanation of light I have seen on TH-cam. Awesome. You just earned yourself a subscriber.
P0
It's not really a good explanation by modern standards.
He doesn’t talk about quantum electrodynamics, most accurate theory of EM so far, so this explanation is outdated and incomplete
@FiveStar23 Look into quantum field theory and QED.
@@Yogachara WHY AND HOW THE CLEAR, TOP DOWN, ULTIMATE, AND BALANCED MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE FACT THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY IS GIVEN BY THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA:
Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Consider the man who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma !!! SO, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. Moreover, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. The Earth constitutes the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE in BALANCED and UNIVERSAL relation to what is the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!!! (The sky is BLUE, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !!!) Accordingly, time DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! INDEED, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. Think. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Great !!! SO, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out EQUAL AREAS in equal times consistent WITH/AS E=MC2, F=ma, AND what is PERPETUAL MOTION; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of WHAT IS THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great !!!! Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!!! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. MAGNIFICENT !!!!
By Frank DiMeglio
One tiny correction, integer overtones do not form octaves on a piano. They form the harmonic series. Octaves are overtones at powers of 2.
Thank you, I was confused because I always knew that overtones were the waves that formed the timbre of the sound
@@ideasonek3374 - That’s not quite the way it works. The harmonics in an instrument are (edit: _not_ ) always integer harmonics, although in, say, a brass instrument, they really dominate. In a violin, for example, there are all kinds of paths the sound can bounce around in the body before it exits the hole beneath the strings (some does leak out through the body), and, while they are reinforced when they are an integer harmonic, much of the “richness” of sound is really distortion. If you were to hold a mic next to the body of a violin (or any instrument), and unnaturally amplify some of these, it would really sound gnarly (the technical term).
I have no clue what that means. I play by "ear" although I can read musical notation.
Dude, I found your channel recently and I'm astonished with the quality of your content. I love that more and more creators use 3d visualizations to explain physics and other sciences in a comprehensible way, it really makes TH-cam a special and useful place.
So thank you for that, you just summed up most of light sources in the universe in 12 minutes, like, bruh.
Curious, what other videos did you find the 3D had a useful impact in being able to grasp the science a lot better?
@@localverse I like Jared Owen's channel for that.
@@localverse for some reason I cannot answer your comment properly, TH-cam deletes it after posting. Might try to edit this one.
There is a channel called "Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky" which uses 3D animations (rather crude, but they have their own charm) to present math rules, graphs and equations, but also electric currents and lots of other physical phenomena.
Another example would be ScienceClic English, which uses 2D and 3D, but in this context his two videos "A new way to visualize General Relativity" and "Quantum Field Theory visualized" would be great examples, because they utilize the 3rd dimension as a mean to represent time dimension, impossible to do in 2d in a clear way.
Arvin Ash lately is doing similar things with physics, and Branch Education have some amazing contents about engineering and electronics.
And there are of course the cellular 3D animations used by scientists, on TH-cam present e.g. in WEHImovies. Those tend to depict the chaotic nature of molecules, far from the more clear and neat (but less realistic) graphs we know from textbooks. But Why? uses those too, probably based on the models from real-life, which I greatly respect.
The common point being, we live in a 4D world, understanding it through our 3D sensory systems. Presenting knowledge via 3D animations seems to be the most intuitive and versatile way to visualize hard and sometimes abstract concepts with a great precision. You can only go so far with real-life models and 2D illustrations/graphs. For linking that rule with games, check out "A Slower Speed of Light" by MIT labs, a great combo indeed.
@@OhMyRoystone these are one of the best channels I have came across. I would like to mention two more to the list The science asylum and Sabine Hossenfelder. happy to find these in one comment. Arvin ash is champ in explanations.
@@ganeshnimbalkar2792 Yup, I agree, both are great! I found Sabine lately and already binge-watched most of the content, she's great and brutal at explaining. But I didn't mention them because they don't use 3D animations.
2:36 is by far the BEST explanation of photons/light I've ever heard
I love these videos. They’re relatively short and start with a simple question, then go way more in depth that you would expect. I wish physics classes were taught like this
That was absolutely amazing. You got a new subscriber.
Thanks man. I enjoy making these so as long as someone enjoys them I'll keep popping em out.
I am speachless, even more and more with every ButWhy i watch!
Wow!!!
patty batman😲😲
Queue me in, another new sub! 👏👏
*( THIS IS [°THE~FIRST] · "BUT-WHY" · I'VE WATCHED & I ALLREADY SUBSCRIBED.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ) €¥£ ^
5:06 I'm so glad you animated it like this. A lot of the time textbooks and professors teach that the orbitals are like "shells" or some other hard object. Sometimes they describe electron orbitals like "clouds" but this can be confusing too, because people might still imagine a STATIC, solid cloud. The electron wave orbital is more like how you showed it: a dynamic, flowing cloud or mist.
Textbooks and many professors are stuck showing you 2d and static pictures, but the key thing to remember is that the electron wave is a dynamic, flowing, moving orbital cloud. It's like the mist or fog on a cool day. It doesn't stand still, it moves around like smoke around the nucleus.
very true.
I learned so much. Thank you. By far my top video. My jaw was open the whole time
This is like the rabbit hole of Wikipedia, but with someone summarizing parts you don't need to dive too far into. Absolutely treasure of a video right here. We are absolutely gifted by this. Subbed +1
I never studied physics, and I had tried to understand this topic numerous times throughout the years and this one is absolutely the best material I have ever come across. Well done and thanks for the good work
This is one of the best channels on physics. The Author explains complicated topics with brilliant explanations and examples and I hope to see channel triple in subscribers.
I love this explanation. I don't ever think I've seen light explained in quite this way. Thank you!
I have been thinking about light, why it exists, where it comes from and why. Thanks for this.
Me too. But now I'm more confused.
Sun?
That was probably the best description of how light is produced that I have seen on the internet...I finally understand the basics! Excellent video thanks
This is the most significant discussion of light that i have ever watched or read... to hear a description of light waves as they really are solves a problem i have had since my high school days... when my teachers back then would say light travels in waves like waves in water, i would be puzzled and say that can't be... what would make the wave go up and down... of course, the wave is about energy over time, which is graphically a wave. There is no actual piece of light going up and down, but as a teenage student with an active and enquiring mind, this is what was being said to me... Thank you for completing the picture and releasing me from years of angst...
Wow, this was so clear.
With any complex science, I tend to get annoyed that it all boils down to “because that’s the way it is.” And this still does, obviously.
But I feel you managed to explain it much further down the “but why” rabbit hole than I’ve been able to understand before. I guess hence your name.
Thanks!
This video alone has improved my overall understanding of light and energy in a concise easy to understand manner. Thanks and I look forward to viewing more of your content.
Easily the most understable models and analogies on TH-cam. You make such seemingly complex phenomenon seem almost obvious that way you explain things. Quality content
Among the 30 other videos i watched .....this is the most satisfying video which makes me to stop my search!!!
The informational quality of your videos is really setting the bar for a lot of content creators. Its so good!
Absolutely mind blown. A 12 minute video explained all my questions as a kid in school
Keep seeking and you will find better answers. At the end of the day, you choose what you think is the best model. This is just the most popular one, popularity does not equal correct. Start with Nikola Tesla.
"But why does light exist?"
...*12 minutes later*...
"So, an alien whose homeplanet's atmosphere is different from Earth may perceive and understand the Universe in a fundamentally different way."
... ... ... ... *Subscribes*
Underrated comment :)
Hahahahahahahaha
I utterly love this channel. There is no better medicine for my well being then pondering all the little things in the universe that we most of the time over look it's importance function in the universe around us. Curiosity is the best medicine
You sir are amazing! By far the best lesson on light TH-cam has to offer. "And this my children" is quality content 👍
No its not. I disliked the video because of this edgy remark. I didn't find it funny, just condescending. He has no right to call me his child , just cause he has more expertise about light than me (supposedly). It's like pal, I'm just watching a random video on TH-cam cause I'm bored. It's not that easy to make me your child, there's actually only 2 people on this earth that can qualify to say that.
@@andreww4751 jesus dude bet you are fun at parties... Seems to me that you are trying really hard just to find a reason not to like it and that's the only reason you came up with. Either way I liked it and that's all that matters to me. Enjoy your day 👍
Dad??
@@TheJim1991 He does not know joy 🤪
@@christianadam2907 my comment was half way meant as a joke, i'm sorry you were too dumb to see it.
Absolutely the best explanation of what light is that I've ever heard! I'm in my fifties and I've read and watched a fair amount of popular science stuff. Amazingly, I have never come close to understanding what's going on with light until this video. Cheers
This is really cool and well explained! Thank you very much
Mind Blown ! ! ! Even a person living under a rock for the past 50 years would understand, by watching this video. Thank you for enlightening me. Keep up the good work !
Have been binge watching a lot of your videos. This channel is a gold mine!
Best explanation by far... I have watched 100s of videos but i found this one the best... Keep doing more videos... ✌️👌
Your channel is awesome. I hope it grows and more people see your fantastic work...Hello from Brazil
Wow. Thank you. I'll keep producing it as long as I have the free time.
@@ButWhySci please do so I'm obsessed with your channel
@@phenomenalphysics3548 same here! Its abnormally great!
@@ButWhySci same here! Its abnormally great how clear the explaining in his videolessons are
I am speechless on how helpful this vid is for me. THANKS ALOT
One of the most underrated channels I've seen on yt. Really quality content.
Great video! However, there are a couple corrections and considerations to add to its major points.
First:
You attribute all light to electronic relaxations, yet show thermal images while referring to molecular vibrations and rotations in context of blackbody temperaure. Only near-infrared and above (visible, UV, X-ray) photons carry sufficient energy to directly mediate electronic transitions. Vibrational and rotational transitions (involving the nuclei coordinates) are associated with longer infrared and microwave wavelengths, respectively, which cannot directly promote electronic transitions.
Further, micro- & radio waves may also originate from the acceleration of charges over macroscopic distances (as in transmitting antennae). And lastly, gamma rays may be born from higly energetic nuclear processes, and nuclear spin procession can emit radio waves too (the basis of MRI).
------------
Second:
Attributing the range of human eyesight to the atmospheric window, while a very good point, ignores another possible two thirds of the answer - the sun's emission spectrum, and the resolution/contrast achieved by certain wavelengths relative to environmental features.
Like other similar stars, our sun's peak emission is in the visible, with a portion in the UV and a long tail to the infrared. This is an amazing coincidence (simulated design aside...) with our atmospheric window.
Also, most daily objects we are interested in looking at are not themselves a visible light source but must be illuminated, whereas not all wavelengths encode the same information when scattering off a surface. Visible light is short enough wavelength to resolve fine surface features while long enough not to diffract off their atomic lattices (though can off larger apertures). Longer wavelengths do not 'feel out' objects as finely.
Further, eyesight relying on thermal IR emissions suffers from lower contrast when observing an object whose parts are at nearly equal temperature (i.e. in equilibrium). For example, a beautifully patterned color tattoo's heat signature will simply blend with the surrounding skin. Sure there would be the advantage of vision persisting at night, but where's the historical fun in that...and besides, who wants to sleep with the lights on ;-)
Shorter than visible wavelengths can become harmul to life processes, namely ultraviolet damage to DNA molecus. So vision based off an abundace of this energetic light may not be favorable, which is fine because most of it it is absorped by the ozone layer anyway (chicken or the egg...).
Now, this is not to rule out that elsewhere in the Universe may exist other exotic life architectues, perhaps in an ultaviolet bath exploiting more robust molecular structures. It's amazingly difficult to predict, under specific and ever-changing conditions, what forms life can learn to take, and if the clock was rewinded, if it even would so again identically.
🤓
Awesome vid! you've made this subject so easy to understand and enjoy... thanks for the videos, keep up the good work :)
Same here!
"My children" I just love your explanations teacher!
Love your channel please keep making videos. Never stop.
you're amazing man, another great ep. You never fail to find best way to explain this relatively hard topics.
That last sentence blew me away.
When we encounter an alien species, we will "see" each other (if they have eyes) on wavelengths to which the other is not accustomed. We will be unable to understand, what they see and vice-versa. Like that filter layed over the woman from 10:58 to 11:08.
I'm pretty sure aliens will have eyesight not exact but comparable to us: Stars supporting life are not blue gamma ray monsters as biological life would have a hard time developing. Also red or brown dwarfs, mainly emitting infrared, are not energetic enough to facilitate many chemical reactions. So they might have eyes that are somewhat above or below our visual spectrum, but there will be overlap.
One question I was left asking was why the process of emitting a photon when an electron is excited happens at all. Why doesn't it just remain in its higher energy state? What causes it to fall, and what is the mechanism that causes it to produce light (as opposed to something else) in doing so?
When an atom gain or loose energy the electron's orbit goes up and down one or more levels, always getting back to initial state as a balance. This forth and back orbital motion pertubs the particles of eletromagnetic field creating a wave of particles that we sense as light.
First you need to know about the laws of repulsion and attraction, these are the laws that made the ground state of being possible in the first place, apparently that is how the universe is. Besides that you need to know about centrifugal force. Those same laws go for all matter, not just what we can see. I'll give an example.
If you spin a ball with your finger tied to an elastic rope you'll notice that the faster you spin your finger the faster the ball flies and the larger the orbital range becomes. That is until you exert enough force that the rope breaks. Those same principles go for atoms, the more excited the core by outside influences or because its make up is unstable, the more energy it exerts, thus the electrons orbit faster and further away. Once the energy is expended for whatever reason this stops, the electrons orbit back into their preferred state. It's this but the the finger is always spinning a little bit at least (absolute 0 is now considered unreachable) so the orbit will forever continue because there is no rope, it's tied by (I think) electromagnetism.
This analogy also helps explain why matter produces light, because it's the same question as asking why does swinging the ball around produce wind and sound? Well mostly because wind and sound are one and the same but the same goes for light, it's just vibrating matter that is reacting to a more powerful source than its own. (Which begs the question, is the vacuum of space really empty? But that's a story for another time)
In understanding this it also helps to realize that the subjects discussed here go far beyond our comprehension of time. Entire books have been written about things that occur for a millisecond or occurs a couple thousand times in one second.
I hope that clears things up, let me know if it hasn't.
There in no vacuum.
It's just theoretical
There is infinite energy everywhere
@@jessepiologo8504 The electron has spin 2. This means that it has to be "rotated" 270 degrees to reach its next stable orbital. However given the chance, it unwinds itself, just like any other particle in the universe, it seeks to reach the lowest energy level in the electromagnetic quantum field when not kept in check by other forces. (Was quantum field theory helpful in clarifying this?)
@@Hyperborean_2 Space is a vacuum and that is why astronauts float while in a space capsule. We have built structures from which air can be removed and conducted experiments in vacuum chambers.
If you add or subtract a concept in an experiment then the conclusion should differ from usual observations.
th-cam.com/video/E43-CfukEgs/w-d-xo.html
Here, air and thus resistance, is removed.
In other experiments within a vacuum (Cern, Brookhaven, Stanford), particles are accelerated to nearly the speed of light which exposes particle existence.
Prime examples of Concepts: Difference, Distance, and Dimension.
One of the best edu content on TH-cam. Author not only teaches but also understands the topic and logically plays with it venturing into some fun and bizarre thought experiments.
Wow. Hats of for the teams of this channel. You guys just answered a lot of questions almost every thing about light in one question... amazing clarity too.
Great video! The only recurrent problem I see with these representations is the transverse wave picture. Light is more akin to a pressure wave. It doesn't oscillate in 'space' as that picture suggests. It's the EM forces intensities (amplitudes) that oscillate, although they ARE transverse to the direction of propagation. It's important to repeat that for people who might not have the background to understand the picture. Otherwise, they might think that light oscillates as a rope would. I know it's basic for a lot of people, but it could easily lead to confusion for others.
What's the best way you've seen to animate that? Do any exist? I'm trying to visualize what you described but it's probably way off, would love to see good accurate visuals.
@@localverse if you include the coordinate system with the amplitudes of the EM as units, (x: E field, y: B field, z: space) that could be one step toward the solution :) The other possibility could be to use small arrows (just for direction purpose) that are all the same scale, and change their opacity and/or saturations (for the amplitude). This one wouldn't require the units axis. Also to orally explain the picture quickly can be a good support. Like if you kept that picture, you could say: "it's important to note that the height of the waves is not a height in space, but rather the amplitude/strength of the Electric and Magnetic fields along the path of propagation". And if you want to go deeper with a quantum explanation, you can say those fields are actually instead interpreted as quantities linked to the probability of finding a photon. And put the link to the Feinman lecture :)) th-cam.com/video/LPDP_8X5Hug/w-d-xo.html
@@localverse Check out the Science Clic channel on youtube. He has probably the best animations and explanations I've seen. His recent video about black holes shows a better explanation, imo, of how light behaves.
I also can't vouch for explanations that go without Quantum Field Theory examples. Science Clic's QFD videos are absolutely amazing.
I lost you at "transverse". :P
this is a dumb comment? Light IS the oscillation of the EM field amplitudes. so it's exactly the same concept as a rope oscillating.
The weird thing is that nothing has color. Everything is colorless until it reflects some of the visible light into our eyes
Sounds don't exist either, the waves through the air do, but sounds themselves are entirely mental. If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody's around to hear it, it doesn't make a sound.
no, that's exactly what color is, color is the wavelength of light that an object reflects the most
Why is it weird. Isn’t colour just a property of light reflecting? More particularly our perception of that phenomenon.
These 12 minutes answered a lot of questions I had in my head.
Your videos explain the subject so well, yet even so simply and clearly explained it’s still insanely crazy to me
The word "light" is not typically synonymous with the entire electromagnetic spectrum at, but is almost always used as a synonym for visible light.
However, the colloquial use refers to a phenomenon with a set of properties. The properties of that phenomenon extend into a much wider spectrum of non-visible light. This is what people don't understand and it's why light might seem mysterious to them. If you understand both what the colloquial usage refers to, as well as the wider phenomenological nature of light, then it makes more sense overall.
@@superdog797:
No, that's precisely my point, the colloquial use of the word typically refers exclusively to the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that's visible to the human eyes; in other words, in that particular sense of the word, the phrase "non-visible light" is an oxymoron, since light by definition is visible.
Yes, I'm aware that many people do use the word "light" to refer to other parts of the spectrum too, but that's neither how it's colloquially used, nor how it has historically been used. Those other parts are rather generally referred to in terms of radiation, e.g. "infrared radiation" rather than "infrared light", and "ultraviolet radiation" rather than "ultraviolet light"; those are even the most ambiguous ones, since they're the closest to the visible part of the spectrum, if you go further out you get to parts which virtually no one ever refers to as "light", i.e. you'd practically never hear anyone talk about "radio light", "microwave light", or "gamma light".
@@hoon_sol The point is that there is no logical reason to arbitrarily distinguish between the objectively verifiable forms of invisible and visible light because their properties are not any different. _Our_ properties as light detectors are different, not the light's. Invisible light is a very important term because not all humans have the exact same light detecting capabilities, so you are already in the realm of relative detection there. To a human, UV is invisible, but to a bee, UV is visible (but the color red is invisible). To a blind person, all forms of light are invisible. The historical point is well-noted but with knowledge comes understanding and with understanding one may reasonably change their thinking and speech. There are advantages to speaking and thinking this way too because it is easier to teach people in the future once you update your paradigm. If you teach a child that what heats up food in the microwave is "radiation" they may grow up without realizing for literally decades what is really going on. If you tell them it's a form of invisible light you're off to a much better start and it can trigger all sorts of increases in comprehension and increase their ability to learn science since you have created a paradigm they can understand and integrate a wider set of knowledge into, whereas if you teach them that there's light out there and there's radiation, you instantly will confuse them and they can grow up with a poor understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is too abstract a concept to teach them at first. It's context-dependent in the end and so the reasonableness depends on the situation, and technically while it sounds like an oxymoron, invisible light is really not, factually, an oxymoron.
@@superdog797:
"The point is that there is no logical reason to arbitrarily distinguish between the objectively verifiable forms of invisible and visible light because their properties are not any different."
*WRONG.*
That's a completely ridiculous statement. To us humans, there is a *VAST DIFFERENCE* between the part of the electromagnetic spectrum we can see and the part we cannot see. That's why we've traditionally used a specific word to refer to the former: *LIGHT.*
"Our properties as light detectors are different, not the light's."
And that makes *ALL* the difference.
"Invisible light is a very important term because not all humans have the exact same light detecting capabilities, so you are already in the realm of relative detection there."
Again, I already addressed that specifically by pointing out how infrared and ultraviolet borders on the visible spectrum, but only when visible to humans does it make sense to call them light, so "invisible light" is still an oxymoron (and again, *NO ONE* says "microwave light" or "gamma light").
"To a human, UV is invisible, but to a bee, UV is visible (but the color red is invisible)."
Irrelevant, because what we call "light" refers to the part of the spectrum *WE HUMANS* can see.
"To a blind person, all forms of light are invisible."
Trying to use a defective human to make your case is also totally irrelevant, because we're talking about what humans can see under normal circumstances.
"The historical point is well-noted but with knowledge comes understanding and with understanding one may reasonably change their thinking and speech."
This is only partially true; fact is that once we broaden our understanding, we make new terms which meet the broader definition, in this case it's *ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION* we use to refer to the broader phenomenon that light is only a small subset of, or just *RADIATION* for short.
"There are advantages to speaking and thinking this way too because it is easier to teach people in the future once you update your paradigm."
No, destroying what terms actually mean and refusing to use updated terms like radiation just serves to confuse even further, and makes it *HARDER* to teach, not easier.
"If you teach a child that what heats up food in the microwave is "radiation" they may grow up without realizing for literally decades what is really going on."
This is a completely stupid statement. First of all, part of teaching that should be to teach them about the electromagnetic spectrum. Secondly, if you were to tell them it's "light" that heats up their food, they will likely end up holding misconceptions which are even more flawed than they would otherwise.
"If you tell them it's a form of invisible light you're off to a much better start and it can trigger all sorts of increases in comprehension and increase their ability to learn science since you have created a paradigm they can understand and integrate a wider set of knowledge into, whereas if you teach them that there's light out there and there's radiation, you instantly will confuse them and they can grow up with a poor understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is too abstract a concept to teach them at first."
This is all horrendously wrong, and I would certainly not let someone like you teach my children ever. Telling this to a child would only serve to confuse them and decrease their comprehension and decrease their ability to learn, since you've created a paradigm of willfully conflating terms. You're essentially teaching the child to be imprecise and unclear.
If you teach them that there is a phenomenon called electromagnetic radiation, and that only a part of this spectrum is visible to us, namely what we call light, that is infinitely more comprehensible and clear, and teaching the child that is what sets them up for increased comprehension and becoming good scientists.
"It's context-dependent in the end and so the reasonableness depends on the situation, and technically while it sounds like an oxymoron, invisible light is really not, factually, an oxymoron."
Calling it context-dependent is extremely misleading, because the only contexts where people regularly use "light" to refer to parts of the spectrum which are not normally visible is when referring to the parts bordering those parts, i.e. infrared "light" and ultraviolet "light"; no one ever says "microwave light" or "gamma light".
So no, it doesn't "technically sound like an oxymoron", it is absolutely an oxymoron, factually.
*_«Light or visible light is electromagnetic radiation within the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is perceived by the human eye.»_*
*_«electromagnetic radiation that can produce a visual sensation»_*
*_«Visible electromagnetic radiation. The human eye can typically detect radiation (light) in the wavelength range of about 400 to 750 nanometers. Nearby shorter and longer wavelength ranges, although not visible, are commonly called ultraviolet and infrared light.»_*
@@superdog797:
Yes, precisely; might want to read those definition yourself, moron. 1 and 2a both describe *EXACTLY* what I'm saying, and as for 2b I already explained in detail why infrared and ultraviolet in particular are sometimes referred to as light too. In contrast, *NO ONE EVER* says "gamma light" or "microwave light", just like I pointed out previously.
Time to turn on your brain and start using it.
Your videos are the most simple ways to understand the most complex topics! In a word, SIMPLY AMAZING! 👌👌👌
Holy sht I learned so much more, I thought I knew all this but you brought more information, you deserve a Standing Ovation my guy
Hands down best explanation of light I've ever seen! Well done!
Intresting to think about: all radiowaves are made of light too. Only we can't see them. Or turning this around visible light, colors are radio waves that our eye can "receive". Our mobile is a tiny lighthouse. Etc. Just amazing.
By gods, this is an amazing channel. Keep up the good work man. I started with why acids be acids and ended up here and it's just fascinating the way you produce, animate and present. Keeping complicated topics simply. Subscribing immediately.
excellent film... clear, well illustrated and triggers even more questions....thank you.
Your explanations are the best i've seen on all of youtube, keep up the awesome work!
most accurate and digestible explanation of light!!!!! . thank you! wonderful video
Just found the channel thanks to TH-cam algorithms. Loved it
I absolutely enjoy watching your videos, please keep uploading.
I am speachless, even more and more with every ButWhy i watch! Now i can only say Wow!!!
Amazing explanations, thank you for all your hard work and sharing.
Just got to your channel by the TH-cam algorithm and your work is astonishing! I never hit the sub button so fast. This is some high tier content and your channel is underrated as hell. Keep up the great work 🔥🔥🔥 Best greetings from germany :)
I love how you teach things, thank you
Just tripped over this video. This is the best and most clear explanation of this subject I have seen, and I have seen many video on this subject. New channel to watch..
Best explanation on the different types of light I've ever seen.
Wow dude, you just combined all my physics chapters for this year into one 12-minute video. Consider me a fan.
Absolutely fantastic explanation and video explaining the nature of light.
This video is incredible. Thank you.
Never seen such enlighteningly delightful explanation of light.
Fantastic. Really fantastic presentation.
Thanks for not giving up and making videos for a year. I will REALLY REALLY WAIT for new videos and even if you explain topic without animation (where it doesn't really make it necessary for an animation) in future I'll still learn from you and save my time
Amazing job. You actually cleared things up for me. Thank you.
Outstandingly simple yet thoroughly thoughtful and explanatory TYVM
the best explanation of light, ive seen on youtube!!
My god, your videos are amazing.
It's mind-blowing easy to understand, and packs so much information in such a short time.
Congrats, tks, and I just subscribed.
Definitively deserves more subs.
99.9% of people won't believe this but light is the major building block of our universe. All matter comes from light, and since matter and energy are interchangeable, all energy must come from light too. The speed of light is the maximum velocity attainable of anything in this universe. When matter is created, a relative portion of light slows and changes its angular momentum resulting in the atom.
This also means that we are light beings and like the narrator states we give off photons constantly. Metaphysically speaking, light is also love, so when you hug someone like your child, you impart not only love to them but also pure light. As a light being, if you do not receive enough love/light you become unhappy, unfulfilled and unhealthy. This explains why love is so important and why evil & malfeasance exists in our world today.
Hopefully you will have a better understanding of how truly important light is to everything and everyone in our universe.
I also appreciate what is being shared here in this video, but it only looks at a light from a modern physics pov. To understand light in its entirety, one must consider the metaphysical aspects as well.
You are today's Richard Feynman; I cannot think of a higher compliment to give a science presenter.
i love this channel. thank you for your videos.
This was incredibly well done. Thank you.
The most underrated science youtuber for its content
You're doing an amazing job
Real skill to teach ... Highly recommend this vid. Great work
lovely and very informative video .. Thank you ..
Amazing... Great video!
Just, "wow!" Thanks for this video.
Finally a simple enough video to understand a complicated subject!❤️
This is incredible. I've watched a lot of Science explainers and I think you're the best one I've seen.
Finally, an explanation that makes sense and makes obvious what photons are. Outstanding video!
It only makes sense in this context. That's like explaining how unicorns exist in unicorn land.
This video has excellent animation that makes these complicated concepts understandable. I congratulate the creativity and of your explanations as well. Keep up the good work.
Even though I'm not native in English I'm subscribing because of the pace you're narrating besides the content you're putting together and the logical way of explaining it. I'll slow down the speed to understand, thank you very much!
Wow u explained all my Heart 💙 depths.....
You got yourself a new subcriber, nice and overall walk through. Made sense really fast. Great animations!
Woah. That was the clearest explanation I've ever found on TH-cam. Thank you so much :D - high schooler
This is best video to somehow bind all my previous understanding togather! Good Job! Keep it up!
Your awesome! awesome, relevant, and unique.
Unbelievably clear explanation, thank you.
This was so well explained I believe I understood more than I actually understood.
Loved your work of explanation! Thanku for making it!
Beautifully explained.
Thank you 🙏
Great job! Well done.thank you for you clear easy to follow explanation.
absolutely amazing