Indeed. Same as Grant does in 3Blue1Brown, this channel explains the most complex material in the most understandable way. It should be mandatory for every graduate textbook writer to watch this channel as they demonstrate great talent to turn simple subjects to horribly intimidating (Somehow I think they do that intentionally though)
They should do some sort of collab 4 videos, just not in the cliche sense.. Grant could REALLY help break down the math and yeah, that would be amazing!!
YES! Finally someone who uses parenthesis! So many people leave them out. As a mathematician, I love that you used parenthesis when you wrote trig. Even text books annoyingly will write sina+b. Is this: 1. sin(a)+b or 2. sin(a+b) Which is it? Plus, trig (and logs) are functions. As such, they should have functional parenthesis as found in f(x).
Yeah. Consistency and clarity are important. Especially since there are so many trig identities to remember that missing parenthesis will shift you from one to the other.
It’s cool but not 100% accurate. Very much a byproduct of Eurocentric education. Everything ancient didn’t begin in “ancient” Greece. He always implies that.
Quantum Light (h) is a dualistic quantum particle that in the cosmic vacuum can fly at a constant speed (c=1). In this movement, light uses its linear spin and it does not produce electromagnetic waves. Light behaves like a corpuscular. But light can behave like a wave if it uses its angular rotation (the torque required to accelerate angularly around the axis of rotation). In this situation, the speed of the light is faster than the constant. The speed is c>1. This situation is explained by Lorentz transformations. The problem is that we do not know the geometric shape of the light quantum.
I teach a Year 12 Physics class in NSW, Australia and I have just recommended that all of my students watch this video in order to clarify their understanding of one of the modules in this course. Your integration of mathematical content is second-to-none! Well done!
Just make sure that you explain to your students that what they are watching here is not proper physics but the science history of a false ontology similar to the phlogiston that is still around, even though we know that it's not correct.
@@sheastewart7608 Wave particle duality is not a physical theory. It's simple bullshit. As MIT's Allan Adams points out: "10^23 electrons don't make waves, they make cheese.". Every bit of matter and radiation in the universe follows the laws of quantum mechanics. There is a near endless amount of variety in those phenomena. What you will never see are particles (I hope you know what a particle is in physics) and waves.
@@sheastewart7608 Yes, but why does it matter that I am a physicist? That still doesn't help you with your problem: you aren't smart enough to outgrow a trivial false dichotomy fallacy.
I'm late for this party, I know. but as a Chemist that loves Physics, and has been taking way more Physics' classes than needed, it's such a happy and heartwarming thing to see a video that combines both of my favorite areas of science being release on my birthday!!
Some of these videos the guys talk so fast your brain can't keep up. This speaker uses great pacing and pauses along with the diagrams conducive to learning. Enjoyed this video.
As someone who studies on their own simply for the love of it; you're amazing. You explain things well, in a language that is simple to understand. Fantastic video!!
Also completely wrong. There are no particles and many quanta don't make waves. They make cheese. And tungsten metal cubes. And a copy of "Gone with the Wind". And an infinity of other solids, liquids, gases, plasmas etc.. ;-)
I put your videos on to fall asleep to. Not because they’re boring, I put them on audio only and imagine everything you’re saying and it helps me fall asleep so much faster. Thank you for these videos
This channel is a physicist treasure trove. The best physics educator on this platform. I fell in love with physics due to my fascination with the nature of light; this video, with its masterful methods of instruction and display of ideas and formulae takes me back to that initial moment of wonder and joy. I can't thank you enough!!
awsome videos and yuo have a special gift in the way you explain the subjects. I regret my English is not good enough to express how much I apprciate your work. thanks for keeping uploading
So glad that you have posted a new video! I have been checking every week for the last month in the hope that you had not disappeared! Please keep the videos coming :-)
This video reminds me of the videos series by King Crocoduck called "Quantum Theory Made Easy". In it, he presents the history and development of quantum mechanics, explaining the famous physicists' contributions on the way and touching upon the wave-particle duality of light and electrons. The only difference is that he didn't hold his promise to continue with the series, where the next topic would have been on the Schrödinger wave function. I have great hopes that you do
@@PhysicsExplainedVideos As someone who studies physics myself, I really love and admire your videos. It helps bridge the gap between facts you hear from popular science and hard scientific literature, in an easy to access and moderate to understand way. I just hope your channel grows more, because I watched all your current videos with attention and think they're gems.
@@PhysicsExplainedVideos actually, we all still hope, that you will try somewhen go back to Schrödinger equation. Understanding of it's nature and beauty during my PHD course made me fan of quantum mechanics.
This is at exactly the level of detail I'm looking for. Most science channels once found are presented either like a PhD in physics where it's too detailed to follow, or like a museum tour on the history of science which is interesting but mostly useless.
My man, you are going to reach a million subscribers easily... Best physics channel on TH-cam hands down. You are the only one that actually explain things in detail and with math, without trying to dumb things down or make everything quick for the short attention span kids to be happy. Keep it up!!!
This is truly a stupendous explanation, the best I’ve ever come across yet. No other presentation made it so clear that the crux of the probabilistic (Born) interpretation of the electron’s wave function originates in the relationship between the intensity of (any) wave and the square of its amplitude. If one doesn’t know that (from classical physics) the whole thing remains somewhat mysterious. That “analogy” was the theoretical leap in De Broglie’s mind that really needed highlighting, and you do just that. No wonder that Einstein himself was awed by De Broglie’s insight. It was then a matter of dotting the i’s and crossing thet’s for Max Born to add, almost as a post-scriptum: Oh and by the way the square of the amplitude of the quantum wavefunction Psi represents the probability of finding the particle if we look for it. Thanks for this very pedagogical and enlightening exposition. All teachers of physics and the students they teach will be able to benefit from it.
What a huge amount of effort in a single video, thank you very much for uploading these, it’s truly great to be taken back through the derivations I brushed over during my undergraduate learning, and approach these topics from your unique perspective. Thanks!
I have to admit that this channel is so fantastic, you leave me with no words, please continue making videos in this kind of style, they take things to another level of depth.
Quantum Light (h) is a dualistic quantum particle that in the cosmic vacuum can fly at a constant speed (c=1). In this movement, light uses its linear spin and it does not produce electromagnetic waves. Light behaves like a corpuscular. But light can behave like a wave if it uses its angular rotation (the torque required to accelerate angularly around the axis of rotation). In this situation, the speed of the light is faster than the constant. The speed is c>1. This situation is explained by Lorentz transformations. The problem is that we do not know the geometric shape of the light quantum.
I feel like when QM is taught nowadays there's nowhere near enough emphasis given to how we came up with it in the first place. Not by saying "this guy studied that other guy's notes and they all magically had the answer" but by presenting the whole series of discoveries since we've started looking, step by step, just like this video does
That's science history and not science. What that does for you is to reinforce mistakes of other people that were caused by a lack of evidence at that time in your mind. Not a good way of learning actual physics. You can only learn physics properly by starting with the latest set of evidence and then you don't have to go down some of the rabbit holes of the past.
Wonderful video! It's always a blast watching you take us on an adventure through the history of physics. The historical context often makes it much easier for me to remember what is what, and why it is that way.
Thank you very much, with your video you have done a great job (just like all the other ones you made!), also looking forward to that Schrödinger video. For most videos, I knew the basic results, but never the intensity of context and collaboration which went into making those discoveries possible, and I think that's one of the most unique things your channel highlights.
So glad to see you back brother! I was starting to get worried :P you are the best science channel on this site btw, you always deliver really detailed and very interesting content
I am about to complete my master's, I must say your videos are an easy way for me to revise the essential history of physics. I always love how you mention all the steps and leave nothing to the readers. If you were to become a physicist(if you aren't yet) you will be a really good one. I wish to talk to you, can I personally talk to you?
Thank you vey much,this is probably the most beautiful video that ive seen on youtube ever probably,i just realised how connected everything was due to the historical aspect you present in this video.Everything now is more clear than ever and now i hope to study everything more deeply with a better understanding.
It made me recall Quantum Theory Made Easy by King Crocoduck. The voice, as well as the sentence construction, are really similar. It's great I have subscribed to you. Your videos are surely great. Keep up the good work!
Just found your videos and your laid back yet concise storytelling helps a lot. Really looking forward to your take on the Schrödinger equation. Thanks for refreshing and consolidating QM knowledge! And happy new year! :D
A beautifully presented video. I loved this. ❤️ Your way of blending history and science with neat derivations wherever appropriate makes this truly a gem of a video. In my head, I could see jigsaw pieces neatly falling into place. The idea that the interpretation of the debroglie wavelength lead to the introduction of quantum mechanics blew me away; an absolute "aha" moment!! 🤩 I'm so thrilled that I finally understand what's the motivation behind the introduction of the wavefunction! Thank you so much for this brilliant video. 🥰 Please do keep making more of these. 😊🤝
You did a decent job as far as what we see in our textbooks. The math and model of Quantum Mechanics (QM) is: a probability wave predicts a particle-like event. There is a problem with that. A variant of the double-slit experiment is the beam-split coincidence experiment. In the language of QM and photons, a photon will go one way or another, but not both ways, at a beam splitter. This has been done with visible light and x-rays, seemingly in support of QM. This is the weirdness of QM. What would eliminate the other path? You can see in my published works that quantum physicists are either looking at noise or are doing tricks with polarized beam-splitters. With much work, I performed that beam-split test many times, but in a way no one previously attempted: with gamma-rays and alpha-rays (helium)... hundreds of times and ways. When I compare coincident detection rates with the chance coincident rate, I substantially exceed chance. QM predicts chance would not be exceeded for this test. This flaw of QM is my discovery. There is a way to re-interpret past experiments to see how an accumulation effect and a wave model is at play. For example, people should know that Compton also had a wave model to explain his effect. The conclusion is that a threshold effect can replace quantization. The weirdness disappears. All the details of my experiments and theory are at www.unquantum.net
You did an AWESOME Job, I enjoyed this very MUCH. Very cool. Learned so much finer details in this subject. Thank you, keep up the positive vibrations.
Love it! I teach high-school IB physics - I can’t wait to recommend you to all my students a colleagues. I’d love to see a series on quantum mechanics, my old text books don’t quite cut it anymore after watching your videos.
1:50 It almost sounded like you said "Other Greek philosophers, most notably Euclid and Ptolemy, used *radar guns* quite successfully to show..." and yeah, having those back then would probably have made understanding light a little easier!
Brilliant work, I have followed many of your videos and having a srong knowledge in electromagnetics, Maxwell, Stokes, Poisson divergence, gradient, vector potential et al, I could understand 100% of your expose on Schrodinger and Heisenberg equations. Remarkable way of leading the explanation you never loose sight of the relevant points although there are plenty of details. Thank you for your great work!!
I am 16 years old and seriously i understood all of this quite well, excellent explanation, do you think you can do a video on string theory if possible? And please keep uploading, best content!
The history of wave particle duality ends around the early 1930s. Everything thereafter is merely ignorant people repeating a falsehood because they don't know better.
Hi, your videos are great! I'm always looking forward to more. I was wondering if you have any advice on how to get people interested in physics to know about your channel? I noticed your channel is fairly new, but you managed to get good viewership quickly. I just started a physics channel too, but I don't really know how to get people who might be interested to know about it. Thanks, and keep up the good work!
For the water wave experiment, it is quite deterministic, since the results will never vary since one can physically watch the patterns of the waves. In this same way, why ascribe probabilities to the peaks from photons or electrons if they too are waves? If electrons or photons are shot through one slit of two slits one at a time and this same pattern shows up, then a different explanation for the pattern is needed than was given for the water waves. Another explanation for the pattern could be that the electromagnetic fields that are associated with the particles cause the diffraction pattern by deflection due to both slits as particles go through the one slit one at a time. With a little bit of effort, it should be possible to write the equation for this interaction and explain the pattern. In summary, the difference in height of the peaks for water are due to the heights of the waves and not due to the number of hits by waves. For the particles, the difference in height of the peaks is due to the number of particles that hit the detector, not due to the energy of the particles that hit at the different peaks. Again, it seems that we get the same pattern, but for entirely different reasons. Just because one can get the same pattern as from waves does not mean that an entity is not a particle (I am not inferring that you inferred that). Photons etc are clearly particles with some wavelike properties. The wavelike properties are most probably due to the accompanying electromagnetic fields that accompany the movement of those particles. If something affects one or both fields, then the particle trajectory will be altered. This has nothing to do with the particle itself, it is only due to the fields that all particles create when they move. In terms of the orbitals, an electron can only occupy orbitals where the wavelength of its accompanying electromagnetic waves are whole numbers, as it would otherwise interfere with itself and be unstable, so it naturally ends up where it is at its lowest energy state for that situation, i.e., its waves are complete. This does not mean that the particle is a wave or even has wave like properties. The particle is a particle. Its accompanying electromagnetic fields are waves and they behave like waves. Particle movement creates the waves, and the waves can only cause the particles to change direction (e.g., diffraction/scattering) or even tunnel (the wave drags the particle) across a barrier, which is simply another form of diffraction/scattering with low probability of happening. That is my understanding. Happy if someone straightens out my thinking. Great series. Thanks for the hard work.
1:36 The idea that a person's eye produces light is easily disproven every time one enters ad dark room, and it remains dark. Pythagoras should have stuck with what he did best, mathematics. 2:22 Unfortunately for Lucretius, shadows don't have sharp edges, due to a phenomenon we call diffraction. 6:50 Huygen's Wavefront Theory suffers from a fatal flaw. There are numerous interactions, so why does one set take precedence over the others. In other words, one could draw wavefronts is many different directions, 28:00 The electron orbitals are simply three -dimensional harmonic waves. Excellent historical narrative told in a logical, clear, and concise manner. If I were not retired from teaching, I would show this video in my classes.
Huygens is an approximation, so is the level of homogeneous, isotropic (or in case of bi-refringence polarization dependent) Maxwell optics that we are teaching at the university level. Are you complaining that we aren't throwing thousand page textbooks on the most general case of classical light-matter interaction at high school students???? Why? Do all students in high school need to learn how to write a CGI rendering engine that can correctly render a pearl? What for? So they will learn to hate science even more than they already do? Electron orbitals are not "simple three-dimensional harmonic waves". You may want to talk to a fellow retired chemistry teacher about that. If his students write that sentence in a test, he would have to fail them. :-)
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
This is the 3Blue1Brown of physics
You are correct band he is soooooooper coooool
Yeah. Just much more serious in tone i think
Indeed. Same as Grant does in 3Blue1Brown, this channel explains the most complex material in the most understandable way. It should be mandatory for every graduate textbook writer to watch this channel as they demonstrate great talent to turn simple subjects to horribly intimidating (Somehow I think they do that intentionally though)
@DonaldJ 😁
They should do some sort of collab 4 videos, just not in the cliche sense..
Grant could REALLY help break down the math and yeah, that would be amazing!!
YES! Finally someone who uses parenthesis! So many people leave them out.
As a mathematician, I love that you used parenthesis when you wrote trig. Even text books annoyingly will write sina+b. Is this:
1. sin(a)+b
or
2. sin(a+b)
Which is it?
Plus, trig (and logs) are functions. As such, they should have functional parenthesis as found in f(x).
Glad you appreciate the parenthesis
Engineerings are absolutely awful about that sometimes. I've had professors who write "sin ab" and "sin(a)*b" interchangeably
@@cyberbrunk or maybe (sin a) * b.
Yeah. Consistency and clarity are important. Especially since there are so many trig identities to remember that missing parenthesis will shift you from one to the other.
@@cyberbrunk engineers use () exactly like mathematicians do because they already *are* mathematicians but for real stuff.
Your in-depth physics history lessons are just incredible. Thank you for your hard work.
My pleasure!
@@PhysicsExplainedVideos c ccx
It’s cool but not 100% accurate. Very much a byproduct of Eurocentric education. Everything ancient didn’t begin in “ancient” Greece. He always implies that.
@@PhysicsExplainedVideosI agree, it's very well done. Would you mind if I used a bit of it for my class?
C
You’re the best physics explainer on youtube
Very kind of you to say, thanks for the feedback
No, Theoria Apophasis
is!
th-cam.com/video/uc6CGRjsWW0/w-d-xo.html
@@frankdimeglio8216 What non-sense. Saying in all the permutations you can think of doesn't change that.
As a chemist trying to refresh my understanding of quantum physics to a degree, these videos are invaluable. Thank you for these
Quantum Light (h) is a dualistic quantum particle that in the cosmic vacuum
can fly at a constant speed (c=1). In this movement, light uses its linear spin
and it does not produce electromagnetic waves. Light behaves like a corpuscular.
But light can behave like a wave if it uses its angular rotation (the torque required
to accelerate angularly around the axis of rotation). In this situation, the speed
of the light is faster than the constant. The speed is c>1.
This situation is explained by Lorentz transformations.
The problem is that we do not know the geometric shape of the light quantum.
This is the exact level of physics and math I can understand (electronic engineer speaking). Thank you for making this mess so much clearer !
I teach a Year 12 Physics class in NSW, Australia and I have just recommended that all of my students watch this video in order to clarify their understanding of one of the modules in this course. Your integration of mathematical content is second-to-none! Well done!
Just make sure that you explain to your students that what they are watching here is not proper physics but the science history of a false ontology similar to the phlogiston that is still around, even though we know that it's not correct.
@@schmetterling4477 I'm really unsure what you mean by this comment. This video pretty much only covers well accepted physical theories.
@@sheastewart7608 Wave particle duality is not a physical theory. It's simple bullshit. As MIT's Allan Adams points out: "10^23 electrons don't make waves, they make cheese.". Every bit of matter and radiation in the universe follows the laws of quantum mechanics. There is a near endless amount of variety in those phenomena. What you will never see are particles (I hope you know what a particle is in physics) and waves.
@@schmetterling4477 are you any sort of scientist yourself?
@@sheastewart7608 Yes, but why does it matter that I am a physicist? That still doesn't help you with your problem: you aren't smart enough to outgrow a trivial false dichotomy fallacy.
this channel is a hidden gem. please keep making videos, they are tremendous.
Thank you
the knowledge i have gathered in this 43 minute video on particle duality is more than that i acquired in high school.
I'm late for this party, I know. but as a Chemist that loves Physics, and has been taking way more Physics' classes than needed, it's such a happy and heartwarming thing to see a video that combines both of my favorite areas of science being release on my birthday!!
Some of these videos the guys talk so fast your brain can't keep up. This speaker uses great pacing and pauses along with the diagrams conducive to learning. Enjoyed this video.
As someone who studies on their own simply for the love of it; you're amazing. You explain things well, in a language that is simple to understand.
Fantastic video!!
Also completely wrong. There are no particles and many quanta don't make waves. They make cheese. And tungsten metal cubes. And a copy of "Gone with the Wind". And an infinity of other solids, liquids, gases, plasmas etc.. ;-)
I put your videos on to fall asleep to. Not because they’re boring, I put them on audio only and imagine everything you’re saying and it helps me fall asleep so much faster. Thank you for these videos
This channel is one of the TH-cam hidden treasure.
I like your way of presenting the historical evolution of an idea. Its brings out the process involved in doing physics.
This channel is a physicist treasure trove. The best physics educator on this platform. I fell in love with physics due to my fascination with the nature of light; this video, with its masterful methods of instruction and display of ideas and formulae takes me back to that initial moment of wonder and joy. I can't thank you enough!!
Thanks for the kind feedback, much appreciated
Ughhh 43 minutes well spent, really filled with gratitude towards you for making such vids
My pleasure, glad you enjoyed it
43 minutes well spent. This the quality content that is meant to be on TH-cam.
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@PhysicsExplainedVideos Thank you for making such masterpieces. Hardwork that goes behind these works shows.
awsome videos and yuo have a special gift in the way you explain the subjects. I regret my English is not good enough to express how much I apprciate your work. thanks for keeping uploading
Wow, thank you!
So glad that you have posted a new video! I have been checking every week for the last month in the hope that you had not disappeared! Please keep the videos coming :-)
Thanks for the feedback, and don't worry, more to come
This video reminds me of the videos series by King Crocoduck called "Quantum Theory Made Easy". In it, he presents the history and development of quantum mechanics, explaining the famous physicists' contributions on the way and touching upon the wave-particle duality of light and electrons. The only difference is that he didn't hold his promise to continue with the series, where the next topic would have been on the Schrödinger wave function. I have great hopes that you do
Well, the pressure is on...I will hopefully not disappoint
@@PhysicsExplainedVideos As someone who studies physics myself, I really love and admire your videos. It helps bridge the gap between facts you hear from popular science and hard scientific literature, in an easy to access and moderate to understand way. I just hope your channel grows more, because I watched all your current videos with attention and think they're gems.
@@PhysicsExplainedVideos actually, we all still hope, that you will try somewhen go back to Schrödinger equation. Understanding of it's nature and beauty during my PHD course made me fan of quantum mechanics.
This is the only video that really explains the particle aide of the duality
Great video. Lovely mix of science and history which I've always thought is necessary to bring the subject alive.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Ending quote gave me chills
I've watched dozens of lectures and videos relating to this principle and this one was just fabulous in every way
Thank you
I was supposed to go to sleep 3 hours ago. Somehow I'm about to watch just one last before sleep. This is addictive
This is at exactly the level of detail I'm looking for. Most science channels once found are presented either like a PhD in physics where it's too detailed to follow, or like a museum tour on the history of science which is interesting but mostly useless.
My man, you are going to reach a million subscribers easily... Best physics channel on TH-cam hands down. You are the only one that actually explain things in detail and with math, without trying to dumb things down or make everything quick for the short attention span kids to be happy. Keep it up!!!
This is truly a stupendous explanation, the best I’ve ever come across yet. No other presentation made it so clear that the crux of the probabilistic (Born) interpretation of the electron’s wave function originates in the relationship between the intensity of (any) wave and the square of its amplitude. If one doesn’t know that (from classical physics) the whole thing remains somewhat mysterious. That “analogy” was the theoretical leap in De Broglie’s mind that really needed highlighting, and you do just that. No wonder that Einstein himself was awed by De Broglie’s insight. It was then a matter of dotting the i’s and crossing thet’s for Max Born to add, almost as a post-scriptum: Oh and by the way the square of the amplitude of the quantum wavefunction Psi represents the probability of finding the particle if we look for it. Thanks for this very pedagogical and enlightening exposition. All teachers of physics and the students they teach will be able to benefit from it.
In other words, you don't know shit about quantum mechanics. ;-)
What a huge amount of effort in a single video, thank you very much for uploading these, it’s truly great to be taken back through the derivations I brushed over during my undergraduate learning, and approach these topics from your unique perspective. Thanks!
Glad you enjoyed it! Thank you very much for the kind feedback
As a physics student, I can say the best videos on these themes are to be found in this channel. Thank you for such a great work!
Very high quality. Really love the historic story behind our knowledge of physics. Thanks. Light is fascinating.
Glad you enjoyed it!
This is so detailed and awesome! Amazing video brother. Thank you
Glad you liked it!
I frequently put this on as a bedtime story hoping I'll gain understanding of it in my sleep
That's like hoping that you will gain an understanding about Little Red Riding Hood.
I feel like I am there as the researcher making each discovery in history when I listen to this channel. Stellar work.
I have to admit that this channel is so fantastic, you leave me with no words, please continue making videos in this kind of style, they take things to another level of depth.
Quantum Light (h) is a dualistic quantum particle that in the cosmic vacuum
can fly at a constant speed (c=1). In this movement, light uses its linear spin
and it does not produce electromagnetic waves. Light behaves like a corpuscular.
But light can behave like a wave if it uses its angular rotation (the torque required
to accelerate angularly around the axis of rotation). In this situation, the speed
of the light is faster than the constant. The speed is c>1.
This situation is explained by Lorentz transformations.
The problem is that we do not know the geometric shape of the light quantum.
I feel like when QM is taught nowadays there's nowhere near enough emphasis given to how we came up with it in the first place. Not by saying "this guy studied that other guy's notes and they all magically had the answer" but by presenting the whole series of discoveries since we've started looking, step by step, just like this video does
That's science history and not science. What that does for you is to reinforce mistakes of other people that were caused by a lack of evidence at that time in your mind. Not a good way of learning actual physics. You can only learn physics properly by starting with the latest set of evidence and then you don't have to go down some of the rabbit holes of the past.
If Scott Manley posted this it would have 25M views......Great Vid my friend....deserves more respect...imo
Cheers for the encouragement and feedback!
Wonderful video! It's always a blast watching you take us on an adventure through the history of physics.
The historical context often makes it much easier for me to remember what is what, and why it is that way.
Thanks for the feedback!
Hey man. Amazing video. Always waiting for your videos. Thanks. You take me to a journey I can't forget.
Thanks for the kind words, much appreciated
You are awesome! I wish I had had you as my physics teacher 40 years ago... i now realize what little I “learnt” then...
45 minutes well spent :)
Excellent video. Keep up the amazing work!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great and neat explanation, thank you. Today is also Schroedinger's birthday.
dude, your ability to create these visuals to exactly show what you are talking about is remarkable!
Love your videos, thanks for making them!
Wow, I've been waiting for your new video! Thank you for your work, man.
My pleasure!
Excellent
Thank you very much, with your video you have done a great job (just like all the other ones you made!), also looking forward to that Schrödinger video. For most videos, I knew the basic results, but never the intensity of context and collaboration which went into making those discoveries possible, and I think that's one of the most unique things your channel highlights.
Thank you very much!
So glad to see you back brother! I was starting to get worried :P you are the best science channel on this site btw, you always deliver really detailed and very interesting content
Much appreciated! Thanks for the kind words
Awesome! Congratulations for your videos!
Thank you very much!
Your videos are on a different level dude. So informative yet so clear and digestible
I appreciate that! Thanks for the feedback
Underrated af
Agree with all the positive comments. Discovered your channel earlier this week. Easiest subscription from me for a long while...
I am about to complete my master's, I must say your videos are an easy way for me to revise the essential history of physics. I always love how you mention all the steps and leave nothing to the readers. If you were to become a physicist(if you aren't yet) you will be a really good one. I wish to talk to you, can I personally talk to you?
Thank you vey much,this is probably the most beautiful video that ive seen on youtube ever probably,i just realised how connected everything was due to the historical aspect you present in this video.Everything now is more clear than ever and now i hope to study everything more deeply with a better understanding.
Glad you enjoyed it!
It made me recall Quantum Theory Made Easy by King Crocoduck. The voice, as well as the sentence construction, are really similar. It's great I have subscribed to you. Your videos are surely great. Keep up the good work!
And this my friends show just how Metal Newton was. what an absolute mental UNIT! Unparalleled in modern times.
I am going to share this channel as much as I can .
Brilliant graphics. Superb script, flawlessly articulated. 5/5.
Also completely wrong. :-)
One of the best physics channels on youtube..... Thanks for all your help.
Just found your videos and your laid back yet concise storytelling helps a lot. Really looking forward to your take on the Schrödinger equation.
Thanks for refreshing and consolidating QM knowledge!
And happy new year! :D
Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated
Great learning material
Thank you
I agree.
An incredible summary of the progression of our understanding of light. Your videos are great, and I hope you make more.
I needed this 12 years ago.. Perhaps then i wouldnt have quit school so incredibly dissapointed.
I’m just catching this video now. I wish I’d discovered it earlier. It’s excellent. Thank you.
You’re a born teacher. I also enjoy your Cool Worlds channel. Thanks for sharing your passion with the rest of us.
A beautifully presented video. I loved this. ❤️
Your way of blending history and science with neat derivations wherever appropriate makes this truly a gem of a video.
In my head, I could see jigsaw pieces neatly falling into place.
The idea that the interpretation of the debroglie wavelength lead to the introduction of quantum mechanics blew me away; an absolute "aha" moment!! 🤩
I'm so thrilled that I finally understand what's the motivation behind the introduction of the wavefunction!
Thank you so much for this brilliant video. 🥰 Please do keep making more of these. 😊🤝
Thank you very much for your kind words, much appreciated
Best introduction to QM in the whole internet
Vey kind of you to say
You did a decent job as far as what we see in our textbooks. The math and model of Quantum Mechanics (QM) is: a probability wave predicts a particle-like event. There is a problem with that. A variant of the double-slit experiment is the beam-split coincidence experiment. In the language of QM and photons, a photon will go one way or another, but not both ways, at a beam splitter. This has been done with visible light and x-rays, seemingly in support of QM. This is the weirdness of QM. What would eliminate the other path? You can see in my published works that quantum physicists are either looking at noise or are doing tricks with polarized beam-splitters. With much work, I performed that beam-split test many times, but in a way no one previously attempted: with gamma-rays and alpha-rays (helium)... hundreds of times and ways. When I compare coincident detection rates with the chance coincident rate, I substantially exceed chance. QM predicts chance would not be exceeded for this test. This flaw of QM is my discovery. There is a way to re-interpret past experiments to see how an accumulation effect and a wave model is at play. For example, people should know that Compton also had a wave model to explain his effect. The conclusion is that a threshold effect can replace quantization. The weirdness disappears. All the details of my experiments and theory are at www.unquantum.net
These videos are really excellent, and clearly a lot of effort goes into them. I hope you are able to continue, I'm looking forward to it!
Glad you like them! Thanks for the feedback
Very well done!!
Thank you very much!
You did an AWESOME Job, I enjoyed this very MUCH. Very cool. Learned so much finer details in this subject. Thank you, keep up the positive vibrations.
Thanks, will do!
the Schrödinger quote if great. Fantastic video (I am watching all of them!)
A great presentation. One of the finest narration and explanation techniques. Thanks from the USA. Looking forward for more!
This is exactly what I was looking for..amazingly well documented and explained chronologically... THANKS 🎉🎉🎉
It's just too bad that it's wrong. ;-)
Love it! I teach high-school IB physics - I can’t wait to recommend you to all my students a colleagues. I’d love to see a series on quantum mechanics, my old text books don’t quite cut it anymore after watching your videos.
1:50 It almost sounded like you said "Other Greek philosophers, most notably Euclid and Ptolemy, used *radar guns* quite successfully to show..." and yeah, having those back then would probably have made understanding light a little easier!
I enjoy your in-depth content. Please make more!
Brilliant work, I have followed many of your videos and having a srong knowledge in electromagnetics, Maxwell, Stokes, Poisson divergence, gradient, vector potential et al, I could understand 100% of your expose on Schrodinger and Heisenberg equations. Remarkable way of leading the explanation you never loose sight of the relevant points although there are plenty of details. Thank you for your great work!!
So you know how to solve Maxwell's equations? Please show. ;-)
I am 16 years old and seriously i understood all of this quite well, excellent explanation, do you think you can do a video on string theory if possible?
And please keep uploading, best content!
Thanks for the feedback, glad you managed to follow along! Yes, string theory is on my list!
@@PhysicsExplainedVideos great to know☺️
How should i put it? This vedio is awesome.
All theory explained in one vedio and it maintains the proper flow. 👌
Very comprehensive vedio ..I loveed it
Glad you liked it
Physics and a history lesson, great way to teach it
The history of wave particle duality ends around the early 1930s. Everything thereafter is merely ignorant people repeating a falsehood because they don't know better.
youve earned my sub, i wish bbc/netflix gave u your own documentary series
Finally new one
Awesome job. Hats off. Waiting eagerly for ur next assignment.
Your lectures never cease to amaze me!
This is incredibly well explained
Thank you
This video is actually really good.
These videos are brilliant, can’t thank you enough for what you do. Keep it up :)
Much appreciated!
Very well explained. Don't stop, thanks for the Newton perspective. Never knew calculated that.
Hi, your videos are great! I'm always looking forward to more. I was wondering if you have any advice on how to get people interested in physics to know about your channel? I noticed your channel is fairly new, but you managed to get good viewership quickly. I just started a physics channel too, but I don't really know how to get people who might be interested to know about it. Thanks, and keep up the good work!
Excellent ! .. funny .. clear and very very educational !
Congrats !
Thanks!
Great stuff man. Might show this in our AS Physics class on Diffraction.
Very interesting and informative. Thank you for the in-depth video 😊
Glad it was helpful!
brilliant video .. thanks
For the water wave experiment, it is quite deterministic, since the results will never vary since one can physically watch the patterns of the waves. In this same way, why ascribe probabilities to the peaks from photons or electrons if they too are waves? If electrons or photons are shot through one slit of two slits one at a time and this same pattern shows up, then a different explanation for the pattern is needed than was given for the water waves. Another explanation for the pattern could be that the electromagnetic fields that are associated with the particles cause the diffraction pattern by deflection due to both slits as particles go through the one slit one at a time. With a little bit of effort, it should be possible to write the equation for this interaction and explain the pattern. In summary, the difference in height of the peaks for water are due to the heights of the waves and not due to the number of hits by waves. For the particles, the difference in height of the peaks is due to the number of particles that hit the detector, not due to the energy of the particles that hit at the different peaks. Again, it seems that we get the same pattern, but for entirely different reasons. Just because one can get the same pattern as from waves does not mean that an entity is not a particle (I am not inferring that you inferred that). Photons etc are clearly particles with some wavelike properties. The wavelike properties are most probably due to the accompanying electromagnetic fields that accompany the movement of those particles. If something affects one or both fields, then the particle trajectory will be altered. This has nothing to do with the particle itself, it is only due to the fields that all particles create when they move. In terms of the orbitals, an electron can only occupy orbitals where the wavelength of its accompanying electromagnetic waves are whole numbers, as it would otherwise interfere with itself and be unstable, so it naturally ends up where it is at its lowest energy state for that situation, i.e., its waves are complete. This does not mean that the particle is a wave or even has wave like properties. The particle is a particle. Its accompanying electromagnetic fields are waves and they behave like waves. Particle movement creates the waves, and the waves can only cause the particles to change direction (e.g., diffraction/scattering) or even tunnel (the wave drags the particle) across a barrier, which is simply another form of diffraction/scattering with low probability of happening. That is my understanding. Happy if someone straightens out my thinking. Great series. Thanks for the hard work.
Yes, that was bullshit. ;-)
i was confused too
Excellent presentation and explanation.
Such a beautiful voice and wonderful explanations! I’m in love with your videos!
1:36 The idea that a person's eye produces light is easily disproven every time one enters ad dark room, and it remains dark. Pythagoras should have stuck with what he did best, mathematics.
2:22 Unfortunately for Lucretius, shadows don't have sharp edges, due to a phenomenon we call diffraction.
6:50 Huygen's Wavefront Theory suffers from a fatal flaw. There are numerous interactions, so why does one set take precedence over the others. In other words, one could draw wavefronts is many different directions,
28:00 The electron orbitals are simply three -dimensional harmonic waves.
Excellent historical narrative told in a logical, clear, and concise manner. If I were not retired from teaching, I would show this video in my classes.
Huygens is an approximation, so is the level of homogeneous, isotropic (or in case of bi-refringence polarization dependent) Maxwell optics that we are teaching at the university level. Are you complaining that we aren't throwing thousand page textbooks on the most general case of classical light-matter interaction at high school students???? Why? Do all students in high school need to learn how to write a CGI rendering engine that can correctly render a pearl? What for? So they will learn to hate science even more than they already do?
Electron orbitals are not "simple three-dimensional harmonic waves". You may want to talk to a fellow retired chemistry teacher about that. If his students write that sentence in a test, he would have to fail them. :-)
Excellent explanation of this complex matter!