And to think Millikan first didn't want to be a physicist. He was a classics major at Oberlin who got press-ganged into teaching an introductory physics course by his Greek professor. " If you can understand Greek you can understand physics." When he graduates theres a depression and hes forced to keep teaching physics at Oberlin. Faculty get him to apply for a teaching assistantship at Columbia University. And his career starts
@@carlhitchon1009 not at all, if that were the reason, every single member of the physics community of the time (minus one) would be a jerk. But no, this is not a reason call someone a jerk. In fact, scientific skepticism is healthy and necessary in science. I called him a jerk for what he did to his graduate student (see the previous video) and later he became a strong and influential supporter of the eugenics movement.
I have enormous respect for both Millikan's ability to achieve such remarkable experimental data quality AND his honesty and integrity in publishing the results in spite of them showing precisely what he had set out to disprove. That's the very definition of scientific professionalism.
To be honest, after all the stories about Millikan's misconducts (outside the lab) it is refreshing to see that when it came to the physics he demonstrated integrity.
As a teacher of Physics, I am always cautious about using the term 'particle' when referring to the photon. 'Localised quantum of energy', in my view, challenges the student to dig more deeply into their understanding of this model and reduces the risk of misconceptions regarding mass.
You have a good point, most of the confusion about particle vs. wave nature of light and matter comes from our classical picture of particles as little massive marbles and this can really distort the concept.
Totally agree. From my standpoint: Photons are a concept, not something that magically changes from a physical to a non-physical thing (ie particle to wave). It is a quanta of energy, nothing more. When light (photon energy) impinges on an atom and it’s orbiting electrons, electrons gain or lose enough energy to change energy state (hence the quantum nature (ie discrete)). Light is purely EM energy.
Knowing how the things got developed really makes you understand about the concepts in entirety....keep making videos like these and lit up the fire of new generation physics students..❤
I feel that so much is left out during our studies that it is no surprise that there are also so many unclear concepts and misconceptions. Making these videos has also been a journey of discovery for me, reading the original papers by the masters is quite hard, we are used to learning from textbooks that condense decades of knowledge. In the old papers everything is all over the place and hard to follow but it is also quite refreshing to follow the reasoning of these people.
Just had to comment. I stumbled upon your channel tonight and I have absolutely fallen in love with it. Although an Engineer by training, I have always been fascinated by science and the history behind several important scientific and technological advancements. Love seeing how you explained the math and intuition that guided these discoveries. I hope you get more subscribers in future as this is an absolute gem.
Thanks for your kind message, I am glad you liked the content. I am always curious to know what brings viewers to the channel, were you searching for something in particular or did the 'mighty algorithm' find you?
true, he really trusted his experimental results more than himself. Of course, he had to find a way to still deny light as a particle, but yes, I showed that Millikan was a jerk but he was also a man of science.
He's quite the character, on the one hand he was personally an asshole but on the other hand he at least wasn't completely morally bankrupt and did genuinely care about the scientific method.
@@hedgehog3180 To be honest, after all the stories about Millikan's misconducts (outside the lab) it is refreshing to see that when it came to physics he demonstrated integrity.
Thanks, I am glad you like the content. I hope you have also checked the other videos in the series. This one ended in a cliffhanger, follow-up with the experiments that finally convinced everyone of the particle nature of light coming soon.
you are slowly becoming one of my favorite youtubers, as i am super passionate about physics and learning the history of it is always fascinating. i’m majoring in physics next year and these videos always make me look forward to my future. thank you!
Amazing. To see the symmetry and beauty of Einsteins theory and Milliken's experiments and how it all fits into physical theory. As much a intricate machine as it is a work of art.
@@romdotdog I wouldn't call it useless, math is still beautiful on its own and should be seen in the same way as philosophy, a field that doesn't necessarily apply to reality but often produces very useful insights.
@@hedgehog3180 if it produces useful insights then it has application, which contradicts the premise that "it" has no application, therefore you are still talking about useful mathematics
Great video, as always. This channel has became my favorite; great way of addressing the historical point of view, the theories themselves, and of course the math! Keep up!
Glad you enjoy it! Follow-up video coming soon. Up to now and despite the experimental confirmation of all its predictions, still nobody believes Einstein's hypothesis; the next video is about the final validation of light as a particle that changed everybody's minds.
@@larryscott3982 at 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this time it was my deteriorated elocution (I just returned from a trip and spent 7-week without speaking English)
Each one of your videos is a masterpiece, both in terms of the hard work you put into them reading research papers and the history, and in terms of the slow and calm pace of your videos which doesn't bombard us with information like Rutherford did with the gold foils using Alpha particles I had subscribed to you because of your submission for SoME, the video on saving the Enola Gay, and had not watched other videos of yours because I wouldn't understand the nuclear bomb videos very much, but this! This series has brought your channel back into my attention and I am honoured to get an opportunity to watch such high quality videos Will be waiting for the next video :D
Thanks for watching and the positive feedback, and thanks for supporting the channel with your views for a long time. It is nice to know that viewers appreciate the effort that goes into making these videos. To be honest for me it has been a treat to myself by reading these old papers that I never go to read when I was a physics student, we were in such a hurry to learn about Dirac notation and how to solve Schrödinger equation that we missed some of the excitement, drama, and brilliant experiments behind the early development of quantum mechanics. I want to change that, most videos focus of the cat in the box or the Bohr-Einstein disagreements, I will get there, but there is much interesting stuff in between that I felt that I had to share these stories, and I am grateful for the audience that finds this type of niche content of value
Next comes the compton effect? I love this series! It goex exactly along our quantum physicsclass, but in WAY more (awesome!) details regarding the difficulty of the measurements and all the historical stuff (which i love).
next video is not only about the Compton effect but also all the wild and wrong guesses by Compton before he got it right, I don't think this is thought in any class but it should because we are thought that these brilliant people just solved everything but it wasn't easy to get there. That was a big spoiler.
@@Skellborn relativity is on the to-do list, there are a lot other things that I will likely cover first but yeah, a corresponding series of relativity is definitely happening in the near future.
that's exactly where I plan to go, my only concern is that soon the history becomes quite complicated from a mathematical point of view. Anyway, I will try, I think people need to know that not all was done by Heisenberg, Bohr, Pauli, Dirac, and Schrödinger, the experiments were a crucial component to the development of the modern quantum physics. Spoiler: the next video is very relevant in this regard because it completely shutters Millikan narrative and the wave-particle duality is finally established experimentally.
There is a fine line between prediction and intuition. We can numerically speculate the behavior to an object say up to third degree in precision that doesn’t mean we know the intrinsic model of it.
Thanks, I am glad you liked the video. I am always curious to know what brings viewers to the channel, were you searching for something in particular or did the 'mighty algorithm' find you?
This was amazingly thoroughly researched (as always). Loved the video! I find it interesting seeing Pais’ quote. I heard that he wrote a great biography on Einstein called “Subtle is the Lord”, that I would like to read. The history of Millikan also is quite a fascinating tour into the biases (and other human aspects) of the community. Keep up the amazing work!
I am glad you liked the video. I can highly recommend Pais' book, I find it intended for physicists more than the general public. There is an affiliated link in the video description, in case you decide to get the book, using this link supports the channel ;)
I love your videos because it delves deeper into the evolution of science and how did we come to the conclusions we teach today. We don’t have to take the conclusions at face value, we are actually learning how we (humanity) came to know.
Yessss, in school we don't get enough time to focus on much deeper aspects of learning like getting to know about the development of the theories which is important too in my eyes, but teaching that would take too much time and schools have gone a bit too far from that type of teaching But that's what TH-cam it for and I am happy to see that actually informative and new (new in the sense that people haven't focused on making videos about the history of quantum mechanics before, at least in my radar) content is being put out on TH-cam
When I was a physics student I learned the solutions to the problems of the time but I remember that the lack of context and details was quite unsatisfactory. Now that I have time, I decided to dig deeper, read the original papers, and I decided to share the details and found that the stories get even more fascinating.
Science history is also just the history of how the scientific method itself developed and it helps you appreciate how unintuitive it is and why it's hard for us humans to stick to it.
Apparently, the timbre of your voice matches the resonance frequency of my desk. I had to move my speaker to a more "seismically stable" area. 😂 Great video!
wow, I have received many comments about my accent, pronunciation, and elocution, but resonating with objects around is a totally new one. Thanks for moving the speaker, I am glad you like the video and make sure to check the rest of the series th-cam.com/play/PL_UV-wQj1lvVxch-RPQIUOHX88eeNGzVH.html
This video is already "Millikan, round 2" (the first being the oil-drop experiment). I will definitely make the video about cosmic rays, it is a fantastic story, and I like that we encounter the duel Millikan vs. Compton one more time (Spoiler: Compton is the protagonist of the next video).
yeah, he was so good a designing brilliant experiments and he cared so much about errors that in the end, his final paper feels like he really addresses all possible questions that could arise. He was really good at physics (not much at being a kind person).
I just want to point out that Michelson did not prove that the Aether did not exist. You can't prove a negative. What he showed was that, within the accuracy of his measurement, he could not detect the Aether. Michelson made many measurements, with better accuracies, over the years trying to show there was an Aether. I believe that he continued to believe in the Aether for the rest of his life.
Franck-Hertz experiment is in the to-do list, like several other remarkable experiments. It is one that left a mark when I did it as an undergraduate student: measuring those oscillating peaks with my own hands and determining a sort-of-decent value of Planck's constant was one of the most memorable moments of my early studies.
@@jkzero I can totally relate, as a phd student I am teaching assistent for an undergraduate lab course and my current experiment is the Franck-Hertz! I always try to emphasize to my students the coolness of the measurements they are taking :)
...dual nature of light may seem trivial today, but it must've been hard for Milikan and other sceptics to accept the conundrum of two experiments confirming opposing theories. Great video as always!...:D
To be honest, after all the stories about Millikan's misconducts (outside the lab) it is refreshing to see that when it came to the physics he demonstrated integrity.
Tbf I don't think the dual nature of light is trivial today either, there's a reason why quantum mechanics is usually taught during the second year of a Bachelors degree.
@@jkzero ...most certainly. Even "morally corrupt" people have reasons behind their most neferious acts. Sometimes even trivial and benign ones. Maybe, and this is just pure speculation, he fell victim of his own fame. After all, he's the one who was brilliant experimentalis. Faking the results of the experiment would eventually come to light as others most certainly would try to reproduce the results. Ultimately, that would wreak havoc on his career (ego)...
@@hedgehog3180 ...it is a conundrum from a conceptual standpoint, but unlike before, we accept it and work around it according to the application. Very fact that light, unlike other things in the universe, doesn't have mass is a conundrum on it's own. Any phisics theory is a sort of a mathematical "hack" that gives us answers of certain accuracy. And any theory has it's limits. If wave explanation fails, make it a particle. If particle explanation fails, bend the space-time. If all explanations fail, reinvent the gravity with waving strings. Joke aside, maybe one day we'll have a better theory of how light really behaves. Until then, we'll have to juggle with waves and particles...:/
thanks, I am glad you liked it. I hope you have also checked the other videos in the series. This one ended in a cliffhanger, follow-up with the experiments that finally convinced everyone of the particle nature of light coming soon.
I appreciate the comment. I doubt that this is THE best video but I am still learning how to create content and I am delighted that there is a community of viewers around the globe enjoying the videos as much as I enjoy making them.
that's a very important observation; yes, if you want the photoelectrons to flow, like in a photovoltaic system, yes; however, Millikan was trying to stop the photoelectrons from flowing in the circuit. By stopping them he could determine how much energy they had when emitted by the metal.
My grandfather told me that when he was at Caltech Millikan (then president) would always stand at the very edge of the stage while speaking and sway. Apparently the students were sure he was going to fall off. Though, while I'm willing to forgive Millikan alot for founding Caltech, I don't think he gets that much credit for just reporting his results agreed with Einstein. I give scientists credit when they publish things which might harm their reputation - this wasn't one of those things.
Thanks for sharing that fun anecdote about Millikan. I think you are right, he is mostly remembered for his result on the oil-drop experiment with Fletcher but not much for his confirmation of Einstein's photoelectric formula or his work on cosmic rays.
When frequency approaches 0 the stopping voltage is the work function divided by e. Does this have a physical meaning? Like radio waves for example would need a stopping voltage basically equal to W/e but X rays would need more?
Thanks, I am glad you liked the video. Make sure to check the others in this series. I do not know the channel that you mention, I should check it out. Y sí, hablo español. Bienvenido al canal!
To be honest, after all the stories about Millikan's misconducts (outside the lab) it is refreshing to see that when it came to the physics he demonstrated integrity.
What a great video! this one really shows how beautiful science is, no matter the personnel drive and opinion a scientific theory that agrees with experiment is simply true, no bias, the fact that adversaries can test theories of other scientists can even make it better because of how rigorously they would carry out the tests, i wonder if you could compare Millikan and his ego/jerk like character to Robert Hooke and the way he treated Newton or Thomas Edison and his battle with Nicola tesla. I must say though Millikan's test setups and devices are certainly impressive.
Thanks, I am glad you liked the video and I hope I transmitted the message about how science is done, how theoretical ideas can be put to test, and how the establishment still resisted Einstein's light quanta, even after verifying its predictions. I do not know much about the Hooke-Newton affair, but I had read that Newton was quite a jerk too. Edison, well, Family Guy did a great portrait of him: th-cam.com/video/gu5ffdGvBCw/w-d-xo.html
Please give some thought to examining (evaluating) whether we may posit that the cosmic microwave background is in fact the elusive cosmic ether, which was originally discounted by, among others, Einstein. It is remarkably uniform, isotropic, and has a polarization.
The ether was a hypothetical substance required for light to propagate. We know now (since over a century) that light doesn't need a medium to propagate because light is not a mechanical wave but an electromagnetic wave. The ether is gone. Now there are other "substances" that can fill the universe, which might sound like the old ether but they are not an ether, they are something different. For the case of your question, we know very well what the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is: the CMB is just a lot of low-energy photons that fill the universe, remnants of the last scattering that occurred about 300,000 years after the big bang. This has nothing to do with the old ether, which we know doesn't exist.
@@kilianklaiber6367 oh yeah, by 1912 everyone knew that the photoelectric effect was real and it could be easily reproduced, the question was how to measure its quantitative features. Many tried (I left many out in the video) but Millikan excelled them all with his experimental genius.
@@kilianklaiber6367 I see what you mean. Millikan is always associated to the oil-drop experiment, but that is only one of his key contributions to modern physics, the other being the confirmation of Einstein's photoelectric formula. He also play a quite important role in the story about cosmic rays, Millikan coined this name.
A great video about Millikan's experiment on the photoelectric effect. You should do a video on Shockley. Shockley was another Nobel laureate who had controversial views on race and eugenics.
I realize you have a lot on your plate, but could you do a video on the debate between Bergson and Einstein regarding the nature of time? Bergson argued that Einstein's mathematics only applied to clocks, and that there was a component of time that could not be reduced to clocks. Einstein argued that time is what clocks measure.
We may consider that light isn’t analog but as light-quanta from observation and numerical speculation which is OK if that is all what we care for. In the next level of detail?. Analog electric charge remains analog through a conductor is converted into batches (quantized) in vacuum. As vacuum is an insulator conduct no charge unless there is a charge carrier- electron. Each electron may carry a finite amount of charge across can easily fool us to believe that was a quantized response. Seeing is believing only serve the shallow minded.
Indeed the observation that light get absorbed in discrete quantas doesn't immediately imply a particle nature .... not sure why physists treat it as an axiom or as a proven theorem.
As I believe that particles are something like standing waves of energy they are basically both correct. Planck's constant is the minimum value possible for one full cycle. The amount of energy and there by the frequency (E = hf) has to do with that the energy needed in an atom to make the electron jump out from the outer most position and the positions of the electrons in the atom are quantized. Only set energy levels are allowed. I believe that it is there fore the frequency that matters.
it is unfortunate that most people associate Einstein with the gray and messy hair, the dude was young at some point at he was freaking brilliant at that time
Hi please checkout 11:37 in the video here slope is h/e which is a very small value of the order of 10^(-15). Hence the angle made by the line is also very tiny nearly arctan(10^-15)= 10^-14 rad. How can someone measure it in a drawing paper.
I understand your concern, but your point only applies if you measure the voltage in volts and the frequency in hertz; if you have devices that measure in large multiples of these units you can clearly see the line because it will have a larger slope. You can even see Millikan's data here commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Millikan_photoelectric_experiment_1906.jpg Notice that the frequency appears in units of 10^{13}, which makes the slope clearly visible.
You are right, I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video
Suppose we were able to “improve” Michelson’s experiment (1881) so that it determines; Aircraft speed is 300, 350, 400 meters per second. Question for you: what will change in BIG SCIENCE?
my apologies but I cannot find the relation between the three sentences. What Michelson's experiment are you talking about? How is this related to an aircraft speed? Sorry, but I cannot follow. Could you explain?
@@jkzero New technologies, new research tools. BIG SCIENCE doesn't want to eliminate the *BIG MUD* of noise in fundamental optical experiments. WHY? Let me suggest for schoolchildren and students on one's own to measure the Universe, dark energy, black holes, etc. To do this, I propose two practical devices. «laser tape measure *+reference distance* 1,000,000 m”» and «Michelson-Morley HYBRID Gyroscope». I am writing to you with a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, TWO coils with a new type of optical fiber with a “hollow core photonic-substituted vacuum zone or (NANF)” where - the light travels 250000 (In a laser tape measure, the length of the optical fiber is fixed at 1000000 ) meters in each arm, while it does not exceed the parameters 84/84/84 cm, and the weight is 24 kg. Manufacturers of “Fiber Optic Gyroscopes” can produce HYBRID gyroscopes for educational and practical use in schools and higher education institutions. Einstein dreamed of measuring the speed of a train, an airplane - through the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1881/2024, and only then would the experiment be more than 70% complete. This can be done using a fiber optic HYBRID gyroscope. Based on the completion of more than 70% of Michelson's experiment, the following postulates can be proven: Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and dominant gravitational fields adjust the speed of light in a vacuum. you can make scientific discoveries; in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, higher theoretical physics,... (We are not looking for ether, we will see the work of gravitational quanta) The result is a «theory of everything» in a simple teaching device and a new tape measure for measuring the universe.
that's a nice way to put it; you might want to check the video on the Stern-Gerlach experiment because something similar happened th-cam.com/video/BDAzFIJu9_E/w-d-xo.html
You are right, I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
@@J.EnriqueVelazco-Reckling thanks for sharing this, it brings me joy knowing that my content is currently being used in universities and high schools, now you share that it also serves a "family bonding"
PF≜58 BASELINE MEASURE ON QUANTUM LEVEL. What do you think? P being power, F being force. 5 being electron Highway and 8 being in a series and infinite.
The Photo-electric effect was falsified recently by Eric Reiter. He did it in many different experiments. He has videos on youtube and some papers & discussions. You need certain setups, not to hide the underlying effect. The reason how the photoelectric breaks is simple, but a bit of a paradigm jump. In short: First we have to realize there is never a photon in any experiment. This is always an energy-transfer. With experiments we can see that, instead of particles, the quantization in the detection is caused by thresholds. The waves spread evenly, but the detecting material makes the quantum-jump due to a threshold. Like how a glass vibrates due to sound-waves, and can shatter with a certain frequency and energy-threshold. We can already see such resonance frequencies in the dielectric effect of materials. And the resonator seems to be the electron-shells. Due to the existence of many verifiable experiments, I think this would at least give us progress into understanding these phenomena better. And due to the Occam's Razor, every other interpretation should even be scrapped.
milikan should not have changed his mind though, the particle nature of light was never established, neither by milikan, einstein or compton, just that absobtion of light by atoms or other bound systems occours in chunks of energy given by einsteins expression.
No one can name a single "particle property of light" that is not also a property of waves. If anyone cares to disagree, then simply name the "particle property of light" that is not also a property of waves. I have not had a single person provide this yet and I have spoken with numerous people claiming to be physicists.
I didn't say "X-ray reflecting off each other" I referred to X-ray scattering, the phenomenon of irradiating a material with X-rays and observing the secondary X-rays coming off the material.
@@jkzero Please explain how an electromagnetic wave hitting a material, the material either reflecting the waves and/or absorbing and then emitting different electromagnetic waves constitutes the original electromagnetic waves exhibiting "particle properties." Waves often scatter when they encounter an irregular surface. On the atomic level, the surface of a material will be quite irregular. Also, please explain how gamma waves have "particle properties" when they do not exhibit particle properties at all when two or more gamma waves collide. If two waves of any type collide, they go right through each other without altering their paths. This is what is observed when two or more gamma waves collide. If two particles collide, they ricochet off of each other causing them both to change directions. This is not observed when two gamma waves collide. I am failing to see how the scattering of gamma radiation after it collides with matter is exhibiting any "particle properties" at all. Perhaps you can explain it to me so that I may better understand your point.
After all else fails, make up something that makes claim that Einstein's ballistic theory of light has validity to it. The problem with the particle theory of light is that when a particle is ejected, as in the photoelectric effect, the cone shape of light that is created is what would be expected if the particle created light as it travels through an electromagnetic medium. Einstein uses the cone of light, which is what would be expected when a particle travels through a medium, as evidence that the medium has no electromagnetic effects. Einstein tries to claim that only the ejected particle has EM effects, but not the medium. Einstein then abandons the particle idea in his Special Theory, as he presents the spherical wave proof. In the spherical wave proof, Einstein again uses a concept from an energy wave spreading out from a point source, also what is expected in a medium. The Special theory tries to tie the two concepts together in an incongruent fashion, as Einstein claims that his spherical wave proof is also evidence of the particle nature of light. To be blunt, the ballistic theory of light has been contradicted long-before Einstein misunderstood light. Einstein claims, outside of his Special Theory, that if the velocity of light is even remotely dependent upon the velocity of the source, then his theory is invalid. Einstein then formulates his 2nd postulate which then, in conjunction with his 1st postulate, requires the velocity of light to be both dependent on the velocity of the source and the observer. It is this failed attempt of Einstein that creates all of the conundrums from his version of relativity and his ballistic theory. To be fair Einstein copied, verbatim, his time-dilation equation from Lorentz, perhaps without even understanding it. It is the invalid substitutions in his time dilation derivation that both makes his derivation invalid, when two objects move or accelerate WRT each other, and also helps create the conundrums of his failed Special Theory. There is plenty of evidence that Einstein's version is contradicted but also favors the previous versions of relativity by Poincare, Lorentz, and Maxwell.
I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
It's really nice to see that Millikan reported the truth despite it being against his beliefs. He may be controversial but at least he's a true scientist.
yeah, Millikan was an a-hole (check also the video about the oil-drop experiment for what he did to his grad student) but in this case he showed some level of scientific integrity. He still denied Einstein's light quanta but he reported what he found.
I wish the scientific method became more applied to ideology and humanities as a whole. Maybe I am mistaken but whenever I read something with moral judgments I wonder whether the people involved ever considered their model to be too simple. Communism tried to pressure people (the nature of the human mind) into an incomplete theory instead of just expanding the model with more variables. The same is true whenever anybody claims absolute authority. Be it the Bible/Torah - whose rules might have made sense for a nomad tribe people but do not necessarily apply to the modern world as well as Eugenics, Nazi ideology etc. I like ways in which one uses the arguments of a theory itself to prove its weakness. Arguing within the framework of a fascist for example saying that a population where all people are equal clones (what happens if you think racism etc to its extreme) means you have a population perfectly fit to one constant set of environmental variables. This assumes that the authority selecting for traits is successful in finding the traits which give the best benefit. But change one single variable and the entire population dies out. Arguing like that makes to me way more sense because there is no way I'd ever convince a rational Nazi scientist by arguing with ethics of any kind. One should beat bad ideology by pointing out the weaknesses within the framework itself not by declaring ideology X as "inhumane, rascist, whatever" because although to our measures it is true it will probably not convince the respective people who believe in said ideology. Ironically Hitler's hatred for Jews (and other minorities) eventually led to his defeat by driving a lot of excellent scientists into seeking refuge within the US and even made Einstein convince the US president to build the nuclear bomb.
Apologies for this, I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but I said it wrong. At 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. Apologies for that, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
You are totally right, I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
@@jkzero No worries, I loved it. Thanks for creating it. It is possible to edit a visual correction into the video which could prevent further remarks about the 1805-1905 mixup.
I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "in 1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
Relativity is wrong! The speed of light is not a constant speed as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *TH-cam presentation of above arguments: th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
- We live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago and the cancer will go away - I have an explanation regarding the cause of the climate change and global warming, it is the travel of the universe to the deep past since May 10, 2010. Each day starting May 10, 2010 takes us 1000 years to the past of the universe. Today May 17, 2024 the state of our universe is the same as it was 5 million and 121 thousand years ago. On october 13, 2026 the state of our universe will be at the point 6 million years in the past. On june 04, 2051 the state of our universe will be at the point 15 million years in the past. On june 28, 2092 the state of our universe will be at the point 30 million years in the past. On april 02, 2147 the state of our universe will be at the point 50 million years in the past. The result is that the universe is heading back to the point where it started and today we live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago. Anyone who does not believe that the climate changed for the reason I mentioned should wait for cancer to disappear very soon because of this reverse movement, I will explain: the human body's immune system will be stimulated, activated and stronger as a result of this reverse process, which results in the disappearance of the cancer.
I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
You are right, I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
in addition to referring to his egotistical behavior in both videos, I explicitly pointed out the fact that he was actively involved in improper activities and shown on the screen that this refers to the eugenics movement, for which his name has been removed from all Caltech buildings th-cam.com/video/fQzirkrXOxk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=4hvIy2qjMaeKxll6&t=914
And to think Millikan first didn't want to be a physicist. He was a classics major at Oberlin who got press-ganged into teaching an introductory physics course by his Greek professor. " If you can understand Greek you can understand physics." When he graduates theres a depression and hes forced to keep teaching physics at Oberlin. Faculty get him to apply for a teaching assistantship at Columbia University. And his career starts
Millikan became really good a designing brilliant experiments and left his mark in the history of physics; too bad that he was also a jerk
@@jkzero What makes him a jerk? That he couldn't accept the quantum nature of light?
@@carlhitchon1009 not at all, if that were the reason, every single member of the physics community of the time (minus one) would be a jerk. But no, this is not a reason call someone a jerk. In fact, scientific skepticism is healthy and necessary in science. I called him a jerk for what he did to his graduate student (see the previous video) and later he became a strong and influential supporter of the eugenics movement.
I have enormous respect for both Millikan's ability to achieve such remarkable experimental data quality AND his honesty and integrity in publishing the results in spite of them showing precisely what he had set out to disprove. That's the very definition of scientific professionalism.
To be honest, after all the stories about Millikan's misconducts (outside the lab) it is refreshing to see that when it came to the physics he demonstrated integrity.
As a teacher of Physics, I am always cautious about using the term 'particle' when referring to the photon. 'Localised quantum of energy', in my view, challenges the student to dig more deeply into their understanding of this model and reduces the risk of misconceptions regarding mass.
You have a good point, most of the confusion about particle vs. wave nature of light and matter comes from our classical picture of particles as little massive marbles and this can really distort the concept.
Totally agree. From my standpoint: Photons are a concept, not something that magically changes from a physical to a non-physical thing (ie particle to wave). It is a quanta of energy, nothing more. When light (photon energy) impinges on an atom and it’s orbiting electrons, electrons gain or lose enough energy to change energy state (hence the quantum nature (ie discrete)). Light is purely EM energy.
Knowing how the things got developed really makes you understand about the concepts in entirety....keep making videos like these and lit up the fire of new generation physics students..❤
I feel that so much is left out during our studies that it is no surprise that there are also so many unclear concepts and misconceptions. Making these videos has also been a journey of discovery for me, reading the original papers by the masters is quite hard, we are used to learning from textbooks that condense decades of knowledge. In the old papers everything is all over the place and hard to follow but it is also quite refreshing to follow the reasoning of these people.
Just had to comment. I stumbled upon your channel tonight and I have absolutely fallen in love with it. Although an Engineer by training, I have always been fascinated by science and the history behind several important scientific and technological advancements. Love seeing how you explained the math and intuition that guided these discoveries. I hope you get more subscribers in future as this is an absolute gem.
Thanks for your kind message, I am glad you liked the content. I am always curious to know what brings viewers to the channel, were you searching for something in particular or did the 'mighty algorithm' find you?
You keep extracting money from me
I cannot thank you enough for your continuous support. The only way, I guess, is by keeping the videos coming. Thank you so much!
Appreciate your support 👍
Yes, and in multiples of one fundamental and discrete quantity.
Got to respect Millikan's integrity to publish results opposite to what he wanted
true, he really trusted his experimental results more than himself. Of course, he had to find a way to still deny light as a particle, but yes, I showed that Millikan was a jerk but he was also a man of science.
He's quite the character, on the one hand he was personally an asshole but on the other hand he at least wasn't completely morally bankrupt and did genuinely care about the scientific method.
@@hedgehog3180 To be honest, after all the stories about Millikan's misconducts (outside the lab) it is refreshing to see that when it came to physics he demonstrated integrity.
That is not integrity - it is science. Not 'the science'.
A little sus the machine conveniently broke before the third metal got sampled 🧐
One of the best physics you tube channels
Thanks, I am glad you like the content. I hope you have also checked the other videos in the series. This one ended in a cliffhanger, follow-up with the experiments that finally convinced everyone of the particle nature of light coming soon.
Your presentations of the history of modern science are breathtaking! Congratulations!
thanks for your comment, it really means a lot when people appreciate the content
you are slowly becoming one of my favorite youtubers, as i am super passionate about physics and learning the history of it is always fascinating. i’m majoring in physics next year and these videos always make me look forward to my future. thank you!
Thanks for your comment, it really means a lot when people appreciate the content. All the best in the coming career!
Amazing. To see the symmetry and beauty of Einsteins theory and Milliken's experiments and how it all fits into physical theory. As much a intricate machine as it is a work of art.
theory without experimental validation is just pretty math, not physics
@@jkzero math without application to reality or other applied fields is useless
@@romdotdog I wouldn't call it useless, math is still beautiful on its own and should be seen in the same way as philosophy, a field that doesn't necessarily apply to reality but often produces very useful insights.
@@hedgehog3180 if it produces useful insights then it has application, which contradicts the premise that "it" has no application, therefore you are still talking about useful mathematics
Great video, as always. This channel has became my favorite; great way of addressing the historical point of view, the theories themselves, and of course the math!
Keep up!
Glad you enjoy it! Follow-up video coming soon. Up to now and despite the experimental confirmation of all its predictions, still nobody believes Einstein's hypothesis; the next video is about the final validation of light as a particle that changed everybody's minds.
Quick correction at 0:42 - Einstein published his papers in 1905, not 1805.
wow, how could I have said 1805?! Thanks for pointing this out.
@@jkzero
Twice. 0:45 and 1:50
@@larryscott3982 at 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this time it was my deteriorated elocution (I just returned from a trip and spent 7-week without speaking English)
A perfect combinaison of history and science. It is always a pleasure to watch your videos.
Thanks, I appreciate the comment.
Christmas has come early. A new upload
Each one of your videos is a masterpiece, both in terms of the hard work you put into them reading research papers and the history, and in terms of the slow and calm pace of your videos which doesn't bombard us with information like Rutherford did with the gold foils using Alpha particles
I had subscribed to you because of your submission for SoME, the video on saving the Enola Gay, and had not watched other videos of yours because I wouldn't understand the nuclear bomb videos very much, but this! This series has brought your channel back into my attention and I am honoured to get an opportunity to watch such high quality videos
Will be waiting for the next video :D
Thanks for watching and the positive feedback, and thanks for supporting the channel with your views for a long time. It is nice to know that viewers appreciate the effort that goes into making these videos. To be honest for me it has been a treat to myself by reading these old papers that I never go to read when I was a physics student, we were in such a hurry to learn about Dirac notation and how to solve Schrödinger equation that we missed some of the excitement, drama, and brilliant experiments behind the early development of quantum mechanics. I want to change that, most videos focus of the cat in the box or the Bohr-Einstein disagreements, I will get there, but there is much interesting stuff in between that I felt that I had to share these stories, and I am grateful for the audience that finds this type of niche content of value
Next comes the compton effect? I love this series! It goex exactly along our quantum physicsclass, but in WAY more (awesome!) details regarding the difficulty of the measurements and all the historical stuff (which i love).
next video is not only about the Compton effect but also all the wild and wrong guesses by Compton before he got it right, I don't think this is thought in any class but it should because we are thought that these brilliant people just solved everything but it wasn't easy to get there. That was a big spoiler.
@@jkzero Awesome! Looking forward to it! If you feel like it, i'd love to have a series likes this for relativity as well, after this one :)
@@Skellborn relativity is on the to-do list, there are a lot other things that I will likely cover first but yeah, a corresponding series of relativity is definitely happening in the near future.
@@jkzero Wheeeeeeee
@@jkzero Yay!
Are you slowly building up to all of quantum mechanics from a historical point of view? Cause that would be GREAT!
that's exactly where I plan to go, my only concern is that soon the history becomes quite complicated from a mathematical point of view. Anyway, I will try, I think people need to know that not all was done by Heisenberg, Bohr, Pauli, Dirac, and Schrödinger, the experiments were a crucial component to the development of the modern quantum physics. Spoiler: the next video is very relevant in this regard because it completely shutters Millikan narrative and the wave-particle duality is finally established experimentally.
That would be so awesome, I would love to see everything written in my textbook come to life with the story behind them being shown
@@jkzero You've become my favorite physics channel. These videos are just a goldmine.
thanks, it really means a lot when people appreciate the content.
This is great news! Super excited to follow along on this journey and series! :))
Hello sir thanks a lot for the videos. I have watched you previous videos and learnt a lot.
thanks for your comment, it really means a lot when people appreciate the content
please don't die, I like your videos so much keep making more
I am glad you like the content. And thanks for the request, I will do my best
There was a joke in the physics community: what is one one-thousandth of the fundamental unit of publicity? Answer: the Millikan.
whoa, I didn't know this one. He was a brilliant scientists but also great marketing
@@jkzeroResponsible for creating the best scientific university in the world so I'll forgive him his foibles.
There is a fine line between prediction and intuition.
We can numerically speculate the behavior to an object say up to third degree in precision that doesn’t mean we know the intrinsic model of it.
Many thanks for uploading this video! I am so glad I found your channel.
Thanks, I am glad you liked the video. I am always curious to know what brings viewers to the channel, were you searching for something in particular or did the 'mighty algorithm' find you?
This was amazingly thoroughly researched (as always). Loved the video! I find it interesting seeing Pais’ quote. I heard that he wrote a great biography on Einstein called “Subtle is the Lord”, that I would like to read. The history of Millikan also is quite a fascinating tour into the biases (and other human aspects) of the community. Keep up the amazing work!
I am glad you liked the video. I can highly recommend Pais' book, I find it intended for physicists more than the general public. There is an affiliated link in the video description, in case you decide to get the book, using this link supports the channel ;)
@@jkzero oh perfect! Thank you for sharing the link. And of course, keep up the great work!
Great story and great video. As always thanks Dr Diaz.
I am glad you liked it and thanks for watching. I hope you come back for the follow up with Compton
I love your videos because it delves deeper into the evolution of science and how did we come to the conclusions we teach today. We don’t have to take the conclusions at face value, we are actually learning how we (humanity) came to know.
Yessss, in school we don't get enough time to focus on much deeper aspects of learning like getting to know about the development of the theories which is important too in my eyes, but teaching that would take too much time and schools have gone a bit too far from that type of teaching
But that's what TH-cam it for and I am happy to see that actually informative and new (new in the sense that people haven't focused on making videos about the history of quantum mechanics before, at least in my radar) content is being put out on TH-cam
When I was a physics student I learned the solutions to the problems of the time but I remember that the lack of context and details was quite unsatisfactory. Now that I have time, I decided to dig deeper, read the original papers, and I decided to share the details and found that the stories get even more fascinating.
Science history is really enjoyable and helps a lot in understanding the concepts and events
Science history is also just the history of how the scientific method itself developed and it helps you appreciate how unintuitive it is and why it's hard for us humans to stick to it.
Apparently, the timbre of your voice matches the resonance frequency of my desk. I had to move my speaker to a more "seismically stable" area. 😂
Great video!
wow, I have received many comments about my accent, pronunciation, and elocution, but resonating with objects around is a totally new one. Thanks for moving the speaker, I am glad you like the video and make sure to check the rest of the series th-cam.com/play/PL_UV-wQj1lvVxch-RPQIUOHX88eeNGzVH.html
Looking forward to part two on Millikan rays!
This video is already "Millikan, round 2" (the first being the oil-drop experiment). I will definitely make the video about cosmic rays, it is a fantastic story, and I like that we encounter the duel Millikan vs. Compton one more time (Spoiler: Compton is the protagonist of the next video).
almost feels like millikan was just showing off lol
yeah, he was so good a designing brilliant experiments and he cared so much about errors that in the end, his final paper feels like he really addresses all possible questions that could arise. He was really good at physics (not much at being a kind person).
I just want to point out that Michelson did not prove that the Aether did not exist. You can't prove a negative. What he showed was that, within the accuracy of his measurement, he could not detect the Aether. Michelson made many measurements, with better accuracies, over the years trying to show there was an Aether. I believe that he continued to believe in the Aether for the rest of his life.
amazing video as always!
I am glad you like the content and thanks for watching. I hope you come back for the follow up with Compton.
Amazing video as always! How about a video on the Franck-Hertz experiment? It was instrumental in attributing validity to the early quantum theory.
Franck-Hertz experiment is in the to-do list, like several other remarkable experiments. It is one that left a mark when I did it as an undergraduate student: measuring those oscillating peaks with my own hands and determining a sort-of-decent value of Planck's constant was one of the most memorable moments of my early studies.
@@jkzero I can totally relate, as a phd student I am teaching assistent for an undergraduate lab course and my current experiment is the Franck-Hertz! I always try to emphasize to my students the coolness of the measurements they are taking :)
...dual nature of light may seem trivial today, but it must've been hard for Milikan and other sceptics to accept the conundrum of two experiments confirming opposing theories. Great video as always!...:D
To be honest, after all the stories about Millikan's misconducts (outside the lab) it is refreshing to see that when it came to the physics he demonstrated integrity.
Tbf I don't think the dual nature of light is trivial today either, there's a reason why quantum mechanics is usually taught during the second year of a Bachelors degree.
@@jkzero ...most certainly. Even "morally corrupt" people have reasons behind their most neferious acts. Sometimes even trivial and benign ones.
Maybe, and this is just pure speculation, he fell victim of his own fame. After all, he's the one who was brilliant experimentalis. Faking the results of the experiment would eventually come to light as others most certainly would try to reproduce the results. Ultimately, that would wreak havoc on his career (ego)...
@@hedgehog3180 ...it is a conundrum from a conceptual standpoint, but unlike before, we accept it and work around it according to the application. Very fact that light, unlike other things in the universe, doesn't have mass is a conundrum on it's own.
Any phisics theory is a sort of a mathematical "hack" that gives us answers of certain accuracy. And any theory has it's limits. If wave explanation fails, make it a particle. If particle explanation fails, bend the space-time. If all explanations fail, reinvent the gravity with waving strings.
Joke aside, maybe one day we'll have a better theory of how light really behaves. Until then, we'll have to juggle with waves and particles...:/
I love brilliant experimental designs
Millikan was a jerk but he was really good at designing brilliant experiments
What a wonderful episode!
Thank You
thanks, I am glad you liked it. I hope you have also checked the other videos in the series. This one ended in a cliffhanger, follow-up with the experiments that finally convinced everyone of the particle nature of light coming soon.
the cliffhanger at the end :)
waiting for the next episode of the journey
I am just waiting for Netflix to call me for the long version of my scripts to make the series
This was awesome, I learned alot. Thankyou!
Thank you for your message. Knowing that the content that I enjoy so much creating is appreciated by the viewers is a bliss.
Your videos are truly amazing! Thank you so much for your contribution to society, keep it going!
Thanks for watching and the positive feedback, I am glad that viewers are enjoying this series. Follow-up coming soon.
Great presentation. Thank you.
I am glad you liked it, make sure to check the rest of the playlist th-cam.com/play/PL_UV-wQj1lvVxch-RPQIUOHX88eeNGzVH.html
Love your videos sir
I am glad you like the content and thanks for watching. I hope you come back for the follow up with Compton.
Most valuable channel on TH-cam
Thanks for the kind words, I hope you are enjoying this series. Follow-up coming soon.
Best scientific video ever in history❤
I appreciate the comment. I doubt that this is THE best video but I am still learning how to create content and I am delighted that there is a community of viewers around the globe enjoying the videos as much as I enjoy making them.
Just a small point. Shouldn't the polarity of the voltage source be reversed as electrons flow in the opposite direction to current?
that's a very important observation; yes, if you want the photoelectrons to flow, like in a photovoltaic system, yes; however, Millikan was trying to stop the photoelectrons from flowing in the circuit. By stopping them he could determine how much energy they had when emitted by the metal.
My grandfather told me that when he was at Caltech Millikan (then president) would always stand at the very edge of the stage while speaking and sway. Apparently the students were sure he was going to fall off.
Though, while I'm willing to forgive Millikan alot for founding Caltech, I don't think he gets that much credit for just reporting his results agreed with Einstein. I give scientists credit when they publish things which might harm their reputation - this wasn't one of those things.
Thanks for sharing that fun anecdote about Millikan. I think you are right, he is mostly remembered for his result on the oil-drop experiment with Fletcher but not much for his confirmation of Einstein's photoelectric formula or his work on cosmic rays.
When frequency approaches 0 the stopping voltage is the work function divided by e. Does this have a physical meaning? Like radio waves for example would need a stopping voltage basically equal to W/e but X rays would need more?
Wow. Einstein was just even more crazy good than what I previously knew!
We need more Einsteins.
Agreed, I like to say that despite all his popularity, Einstein is underrated
Nice video, thanks for the history lesson
Your channel reminds me of another of my favs, "Kathy Loves Physics"
Hablas español, por cierto?
Thanks, I am glad you liked the video. Make sure to check the others in this series. I do not know the channel that you mention, I should check it out. Y sí, hablo español. Bienvenido al canal!
@@jkzero I'll do for sure
You are gonna love it, totally on the same vein... tho she hasn't posted in a while, I'm a bit worried :(
The mark of a great scientist is to publish results you didn't want to find.
To be honest, after all the stories about Millikan's misconducts (outside the lab) it is refreshing to see that when it came to the physics he demonstrated integrity.
What a great video! this one really shows how beautiful science is, no matter the personnel drive and opinion a scientific theory that agrees with experiment is simply true, no bias, the fact that adversaries can test theories of other scientists can even make it better because of how rigorously they would carry out the tests, i wonder if you could compare Millikan and his ego/jerk like character to Robert Hooke and the way he treated Newton or Thomas Edison and his battle with Nicola tesla. I must say though Millikan's test setups and devices are certainly impressive.
Thanks, I am glad you liked the video and I hope I transmitted the message about how science is done, how theoretical ideas can be put to test, and how the establishment still resisted Einstein's light quanta, even after verifying its predictions.
I do not know much about the Hooke-Newton affair, but I had read that Newton was quite a jerk too. Edison, well, Family Guy did a great portrait of him: th-cam.com/video/gu5ffdGvBCw/w-d-xo.html
@@jkzero Family guy always gets it spot on lmao, but of course you did a great work getting the message across in the video, meticulous content!
Please give some thought to examining (evaluating) whether we may posit that the cosmic microwave background is in fact the elusive cosmic ether, which was originally discounted by, among others, Einstein. It is remarkably uniform, isotropic, and has a polarization.
The ether was a hypothetical substance required for light to propagate. We know now (since over a century) that light doesn't need a medium to propagate because light is not a mechanical wave but an electromagnetic wave. The ether is gone. Now there are other "substances" that can fill the universe, which might sound like the old ether but they are not an ether, they are something different. For the case of your question, we know very well what the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is: the CMB is just a lot of low-energy photons that fill the universe, remnants of the last scattering that occurred about 300,000 years after the big bang. This has nothing to do with the old ether, which we know doesn't exist.
Fantastic. I didn't know Millikan repeated these experiments.
I am not sure what you mean by "repeated these experiments"
@@jkzero I mean measured the photo electric effect again, "repeat" is maybe Not the right word, because Millican improved the experiment somewhat.
@@kilianklaiber6367 oh yeah, by 1912 everyone knew that the photoelectric effect was real and it could be easily reproduced, the question was how to measure its quantitative features. Many tried (I left many out in the video) but Millikan excelled them all with his experimental genius.
@@jkzero You did a great Job and I was Not aware of Millikan's historical contributions in this area. That's all I wanted to say.
@@kilianklaiber6367 I see what you mean. Millikan is always associated to the oil-drop experiment, but that is only one of his key contributions to modern physics, the other being the confirmation of Einstein's photoelectric formula. He also play a quite important role in the story about cosmic rays, Millikan coined this name.
A great video about Millikan's experiment on the photoelectric effect.
You should do a video on Shockley. Shockley was another Nobel laureate who had controversial views on race and eugenics.
I am glad you liked it. I cannot guarantee to be able to fulfill all the requests but I always open to collecting suggestions, thanks.
Muy buenas tardes dr, gracias por el video!
gracias por el saludo, espero que el video sea de tu agrado
Yay new video
Nice work
I am glad you like the content and thanks for watching. I hope you come back for the follow up with Compton.
I realize you have a lot on your plate, but could you do a video on the debate between Bergson and Einstein regarding the nature of time? Bergson argued that Einstein's mathematics only applied to clocks, and that there was a component of time that could not be reduced to clocks. Einstein argued that time is what clocks measure.
I cannot guarantee to be able to fulfill all the requests but I always open to collecting suggestions, thanks.
Check charge: Is it 1.602x10^(-19) C...
We may consider that light isn’t analog but as light-quanta from observation and numerical speculation which is OK if that is all what we care for.
In the next level of detail?.
Analog electric charge remains analog through a conductor is converted into batches (quantized) in vacuum. As vacuum is an insulator conduct no charge unless there is a charge carrier- electron. Each electron may carry a finite amount of charge across can easily fool us to believe that was a quantized response.
Seeing is believing only serve the shallow minded.
Thanks!
Thanks so much for your generous support!
Indeed the observation that light get absorbed in discrete quantas doesn't immediately imply a particle nature .... not sure why physists treat it as an axiom or as a proven theorem.
As I believe that particles are something like standing waves of energy they are basically both correct. Planck's constant is the minimum value possible for one full cycle. The amount of energy and there by the frequency (E = hf) has to do with that the energy needed in an atom to make the electron jump out from the outer most position and the positions of the electrons in the atom are quantized. Only set energy levels are allowed. I believe that it is there fore the frequency that matters.
you are describing de Broglie's approach
@@jkzero So either he was an idiot or there is still hope for me. I will read a bit more about him and his approach. Thanks.
Great video 🙏🏻
I am glad you liked it and thanks for watching. I hope you come back for the follow up with Compton
Dang, you only see Einstein as a frail old man.
it is unfortunate that most people associate Einstein with the gray and messy hair, the dude was young at some point at he was freaking brilliant at that time
Hermano! Un día más dando apoyo al GOAT
se agradece, un saludo
Vortex atoms will quantize waves.
Useful video. Thanks. I look forward to scoping your channel. Subscribed. Cheers
Wave patterns appear in the MEDIUM through which light travels. Does that really mean that light is constructed or transported as waves ?
Light is an electromagnetic wave, it does not need a medium to propagate.
Hi please checkout 11:37 in the video here slope is h/e which is a very small value of the order of 10^(-15). Hence the angle made by the line is also very tiny nearly arctan(10^-15)= 10^-14 rad. How can someone measure it in a drawing paper.
I understand your concern, but your point only applies if you measure the voltage in volts and the frequency in hertz; if you have devices that measure in large multiples of these units you can clearly see the line because it will have a larger slope. You can even see Millikan's data here commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Millikan_photoelectric_experiment_1906.jpg Notice that the frequency appears in units of 10^{13}, which makes the slope clearly visible.
@@jkzero oh great, thanks for the explanation
1:50 I think here is meant 1905 (not 1805)
You are right, I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video
@@jkzero no worries. I am very fond of your video. I just thought I let you know.
@@luudest I appreciate the notification
Suppose we were able to “improve” Michelson’s experiment (1881) so that it determines; Aircraft speed is 300, 350, 400 meters per second. Question for you: what will change in BIG SCIENCE?
my apologies but I cannot find the relation between the three sentences. What Michelson's experiment are you talking about? How is this related to an aircraft speed? Sorry, but I cannot follow. Could you explain?
@@jkzero New technologies, new research tools. BIG SCIENCE doesn't want to eliminate the *BIG MUD* of noise in fundamental optical experiments. WHY?
Let me suggest for schoolchildren and students on one's own to measure the Universe, dark energy, black holes, etc. To do this, I propose two practical devices. «laser tape measure *+reference distance* 1,000,000 m”» and «Michelson-Morley HYBRID Gyroscope». I am writing to you with a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, TWO coils with a new type of optical fiber with a “hollow core photonic-substituted vacuum zone or (NANF)” where - the light travels 250000 (In a laser tape measure, the length of the optical fiber is fixed at 1000000 ) meters in each arm, while it does not exceed the parameters 84/84/84 cm, and the weight is 24 kg. Manufacturers of “Fiber Optic Gyroscopes” can produce HYBRID gyroscopes for educational and practical use in schools and higher education institutions.
Einstein dreamed of measuring the speed of a train, an airplane - through the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1881/2024, and only then would the experiment be more than 70% complete. This can be done using a fiber optic HYBRID gyroscope. Based on the completion of more than 70% of Michelson's experiment, the following postulates can be proven:
Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and dominant gravitational fields adjust the speed of light in a vacuum. you can make scientific discoveries; in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, higher theoretical physics,... (We are not looking for ether, we will see the work of gravitational quanta) The result is a «theory of everything» in a simple teaching device and a new tape measure for measuring the universe.
True science is when your measurements contradict your expectations.
that's a nice way to put it; you might want to check the video on the Stern-Gerlach experiment because something similar happened th-cam.com/video/BDAzFIJu9_E/w-d-xo.html
In several instances, the voice talks about 1805 or 1807 instead of 1905 and 1907
You are right, I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
@@jkzero Of curse not. Your videos are really good. Thanks. I'm looking forward to go over the series with my teenager grandson. Thaks again.
@@J.EnriqueVelazco-Reckling thanks for sharing this, it brings me joy knowing that my content is currently being used in universities and high schools, now you share that it also serves a "family bonding"
PF≜58 BASELINE MEASURE ON QUANTUM LEVEL. What do you think? P being power, F being force. 5 being electron Highway and 8 being in a series and infinite.
not sure what to make out this comment, could you elaborate?
The Photo-electric effect was falsified recently by Eric Reiter. He did it in many different experiments. He has videos on youtube and some papers & discussions. You need certain setups, not to hide the underlying effect.
The reason how the photoelectric breaks is simple, but a bit of a paradigm jump. In short: First we have to realize there is never a photon in any experiment. This is always an energy-transfer. With experiments we can see that, instead of particles, the quantization in the detection is caused by thresholds. The waves spread evenly, but the detecting material makes the quantum-jump due to a threshold. Like how a glass vibrates due to sound-waves, and can shatter with a certain frequency and energy-threshold. We can already see such resonance frequencies in the dielectric effect of materials. And the resonator seems to be the electron-shells.
Due to the existence of many verifiable experiments, I think this would at least give us progress into understanding these phenomena better. And due to the Occam's Razor, every other interpretation should even be scrapped.
Terrific - You need to write a book.
I have had that idea for years, I might do it one day
Einstein the Chad🗿🗿🗿
let’s go! 🎉
milikan should not have changed his mind though, the particle nature of light was never established, neither by milikan, einstein or compton, just that absobtion of light by atoms or other bound systems occours in chunks of energy given by einsteins expression.
58m
The ether having been dis-proven light must be a particle.
No one can name a single "particle property of light" that is not also a property of waves. If anyone cares to disagree, then simply name the "particle property of light" that is not also a property of waves. I have not had a single person provide this yet and I have spoken with numerous people claiming to be physicists.
X-ray scattering: try to describe it in a way that agrees with experimental measurements using wave properties.
@@jkzero X-rays do not reflect off of each other as if they are particulate.
I didn't say "X-ray reflecting off each other" I referred to X-ray scattering, the phenomenon of irradiating a material with X-rays and observing the secondary X-rays coming off the material.
@@jkzero Please explain how an electromagnetic wave hitting a material, the material either reflecting the waves and/or absorbing and then emitting different electromagnetic waves constitutes the original electromagnetic waves exhibiting "particle properties." Waves often scatter when they encounter an irregular surface. On the atomic level, the surface of a material will be quite irregular. Also, please explain how gamma waves have "particle properties" when they do not exhibit particle properties at all when two or more gamma waves collide. If two waves of any type collide, they go right through each other without altering their paths. This is what is observed when two or more gamma waves collide. If two particles collide, they ricochet off of each other causing them both to change directions. This is not observed when two gamma waves collide.
I am failing to see how the scattering of gamma radiation after it collides with matter is exhibiting any "particle properties" at all. Perhaps you can explain it to me so that I may better understand your point.
@@jkzero I see my last comment has been censored. Is there a reason for that?
After all else fails, make up something that makes claim that Einstein's ballistic theory of light has validity to it.
The problem with the particle theory of light is that when a particle is ejected, as in the photoelectric effect, the cone shape of light that is created is what would be expected if the particle created light as it travels through an electromagnetic medium.
Einstein uses the cone of light, which is what would be expected when a particle travels through a medium, as evidence that the medium has no electromagnetic effects. Einstein tries to claim that only the ejected particle has EM effects, but not the medium.
Einstein then abandons the particle idea in his Special Theory, as he presents the spherical wave proof.
In the spherical wave proof, Einstein again uses a concept from an energy wave spreading out from a point source, also what is expected in a medium.
The Special theory tries to tie the two concepts together in an incongruent fashion, as Einstein claims that his spherical wave proof is also evidence of the particle nature of light.
To be blunt, the ballistic theory of light has been contradicted long-before Einstein misunderstood light.
Einstein claims, outside of his Special Theory, that if the velocity of light is even remotely dependent upon the velocity of the source, then his theory is invalid.
Einstein then formulates his 2nd postulate which then, in conjunction with his 1st postulate, requires the velocity of light to be both dependent on the velocity of the source and the observer.
It is this failed attempt of Einstein that creates all of the conundrums from his version of relativity and his ballistic theory.
To be fair Einstein copied, verbatim, his time-dilation equation from Lorentz, perhaps without even understanding it.
It is the invalid substitutions in his time dilation derivation that both makes his derivation invalid, when two objects move or accelerate WRT each other, and also helps create the conundrums of his failed Special Theory. There is plenty of evidence that Einstein's version is contradicted but also favors the previous versions of relativity by Poincare, Lorentz, and Maxwell.
1805?
I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
Love every Scientist Al PAZA
❤❤
It's really nice to see that Millikan reported the truth despite it being against his beliefs. He may be controversial but at least he's a true scientist.
yeah, Millikan was an a-hole (check also the video about the oil-drop experiment for what he did to his grad student) but in this case he showed some level of scientific integrity. He still denied Einstein's light quanta but he reported what he found.
I wish the scientific method became more applied to ideology and humanities as a whole. Maybe I am mistaken but whenever I read something with moral judgments I wonder whether the people involved ever considered their model to be too simple. Communism tried to pressure people (the nature of the human mind) into an incomplete theory instead of just expanding the model with more variables. The same is true whenever anybody claims absolute authority. Be it the Bible/Torah - whose rules might have made sense for a nomad tribe people but do not necessarily apply to the modern world as well as Eugenics, Nazi ideology etc.
I like ways in which one uses the arguments of a theory itself to prove its weakness. Arguing within the framework of a fascist for example saying that a population where all people are equal clones (what happens if you think racism etc to its extreme) means you have a population perfectly fit to one constant set of environmental variables. This assumes that the authority selecting for traits is successful in finding the traits which give the best benefit. But change one single variable and the entire population dies out. Arguing like that makes to me way more sense because there is no way I'd ever convince a rational Nazi scientist by arguing with ethics of any kind. One should beat bad ideology by pointing out the weaknesses within the framework itself not by declaring ideology X as "inhumane, rascist, whatever" because although to our measures it is true it will probably not convince the respective people who believe in said ideology.
Ironically Hitler's hatred for Jews (and other minorities) eventually led to his defeat by driving a lot of excellent scientists into seeking refuge within the US and even made Einstein convince the US president to build the nuclear bomb.
1905
Apologies for this, I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but I said it wrong. At 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. Apologies for that, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
Dear commentator ,
Einstein published his famous papers in 1905, not in 1805 .
You are totally right, I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
I guess it were not a few months in 1805; 1905 sounds a bit better.
I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
@@jkzero No worries, I loved it. Thanks for creating it. It is possible to edit a visual correction into the video which could prevent further remarks about the 1805-1905 mixup.
0:50 1805 ? Surely you mean 1905.
I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "in 1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
Relativity is wrong! The speed of light is not a constant speed as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*TH-cam presentation of above arguments: th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
- We live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago and the cancer will go away -
I have an explanation regarding the cause of the climate change and global warming, it is the travel of the universe to the deep past since May 10, 2010.
Each day starting May 10, 2010 takes us 1000 years to the past of the universe.
Today May 17, 2024 the state of our universe is the same as it was 5 million and 121 thousand years ago.
On october 13, 2026 the state of our universe will be at the point 6 million years in the past.
On june 04, 2051 the state of our universe will be at the point 15 million years in the past.
On june 28, 2092 the state of our universe will be at the point 30 million years in the past.
On april 02, 2147 the state of our universe will be at the point 50 million years in the past.
The result is that the universe is heading back to the point where it started and today we live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago.
Anyone who does not believe that the climate changed for the reason I mentioned should wait for cancer to disappear very soon because of this reverse movement, I will explain: the human body's immune system will be stimulated, activated and stronger as a result of this reverse process, which results in the disappearance of the cancer.
@0:42 "...but in a few months during 1805..." HUH?! You're a whole century off!
I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
@@jkzero Nobody is perfect! The video is otherwise a goodun! :]
Einstein's miracle year was 1905, not 1805.
I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
"1905" not "1805"
You are right, I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
Its Einsten. End of story.
HoW dO laSeRs wOrk?!!?1!?
Cool story
Thanks for watching; follow-up story coming soon
Two videos about Millikan and 0 mentions of his eugenicist views. "Politically influential" doesn't do justice.
in addition to referring to his egotistical behavior in both videos, I explicitly pointed out the fact that he was actively involved in improper activities and shown on the screen that this refers to the eugenics movement, for which his name has been removed from all Caltech buildings th-cam.com/video/fQzirkrXOxk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=4hvIy2qjMaeKxll6&t=914
@@jkzeroNot sure how I missed this, that is my fault. Sorry.