Very good explanation, thank you. I prefer this way over the more common "blue light hits particles". From what I understand I think you could've even fit a part about how this all relates to light being 'slower' in air. One part that confuses me is 5:40. Why is it that two particles being half a wavelength apart is extremely likely if they're so densely packed together?

Now tell me the meaning of square-root of probability.

Sir, my name is Bibek, my question is that velocity of the particle at geostationary orbit can be written as V""=√GM/R+h.. where h is the height of that particle from the surface of earth.. Suppose, we have a long rigid rod length (L) and L=h then the formula of the linear velocity is V'=(R+L)w (w= angular velocity of earth) (w=1/R√GM/R ) then the linear velocity will be V'=((R+L)/R)√GM/R.. then V''=V' will be equal because linear velocity is same.. so if we solve both of them then L=h should happen but why is it not happening like this??

How would causality affect this?

🤯

Six minutes of the video and i still don't get what charge is😔

2025

Can a photon be observed from any direction around the body (or particle) that emitted it? And if so, can it be observed simultaneously by any number of particles in the space around it? If these things are true, then would we say the photon is actually a radiative phenomenon? Though it may be a minute and discrete energy "packet" it still doesn't seem much different from a wave.

hawk tuah radiation

6:15 This kind of touches on why a theory of everything wouldn't *necessarily* be all that big a deal (as far as its potential to give us new discoveries anyway). We don't use Lagrangian mechanics to solve trajectories because it's massively overcomplicating the problem. If I throw an object directly upward Newtonian mechanics immediately tells me it's going to accelerate downward with a constant acceleration until it returns to its initial position. With Lagrangian mechanics I have to perform multiple derivatives (both full and partial ones!) and solve a differential equation. It's a simple differential equation but why tf would I do that? If we had a theory of everything it wouldn't suddenly tell us how to do everything possible. Not even close, in fact it might not help at all. The equations would be computationally absurd, and very likely lack any analytical solutions. Science is all about developing models to simplify problems. Don't try to model mechanics with a model that includes the quantum interactions of electrons and nucleons (as a theory of everything would).

I literally shouted WHAT THE HECK IS A PHOTON then found this video

"TIME is more FUN and MENTAL than gravity!" - Time variation

I guess the important information is that quantum particles aren't actually particles, and spinors aren't really spinning. So, what is the basic difference between the different "spin" types? (I'm asking for an answer I know I won't understand, but I gotta try!) Nick, I have your book, what page/chapter has a good description?

8:31 *geek

or oh wait no sorry a geek

as a nerd who landed on this video because i am a nerd, i am offe- happ... uh.. sad to inform you that you are a nerd too.

it's wierd how we don't have spherical intuition, even though our eyes are spheres and we see a spherical view.