How Did We Figure Out What Light Is?

[@besmart]

ØØØØØØØØØØØPS! I accidentally called Ole Rømer Dutch. He is Danish. Very sorry for the error!

[@donnarafiki7252]

It's Okay To Be Smart damnit I thought we finally achieved something in Holland... ah, well, we still invented the microscope, thats something

[@zeeotter100]

iPhil dutch > danish is the difference

[@lizziecastricum4382]

+iPhil Careful there!

[@seameus91]

Im dutch, but i dont mind the mistake. Danish people are awesome!

[@lizziecastricum4382]

+Seameus True.....

[@besmart]

This week's video is a little light history lesson. Hope it brightens your day!

[@anneliseprince]

It's Okay To Be Smart that pun. 😂

[@ishaankhuranagoc1518]

sir can the next video be on physics

[@ClydeStorm43]

It's Okay To Be Smart HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAZHZHZHAHZHAH

[@happinesstowar9717]

Because of light, I will have 20/20 vision in three years.

[@mauriciovaldez4270]

DO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE ASTROID BELT CRASHED AND BECAME A PLANET EDIT: PLEASE

[@mirtul1]

Science: "Is it a particle or a wave?" Quantum Theory: "Yes."

[@1415J]

My girlfriend should be named Quantum Theory.

[@nicholasc3905]

😂

[@robertt9342]

Junaid . Is it because she exists to you but to no one else?

[@heavyhoved]

And according to Quantum Field Theory, waves, UNTIL one measures the field, THEN you see a particle.

[@TosiakiS]

@@heavyhoved Humans are not part of quantum theory, therefore measurement is not part of quantum field theory either. The only part that exists is waves.

[@HritwRaje]

I love how the minute details are introduced so subtly! For instance, the different 'glowing idea lights' on each person were according to their time! Loved it! :)

[@ETG168]

one could say this episode was ... LIT

[@brodindamp]

It's OK to be Bright (bright is synonymous to smart)

[@agrammarnazi41]

Paulus Kivelä Please stop.

[@oreoolga5393]

It's so bad it's good

[@ewwmorons]

*baa dum tss*

[@symphonielee7478]

OHHH MY GOSH UR AMAZING

[@prajnepal]

Teacher caught me watching this at school, he was like "NICE!"

[@stralax57]

They should show this instead of those boring videos that no one actually watches.

[@majsalvador5fw145]

@@stralax57 ikr

[@brickyy3106]

Lol

[@dustinejake9657]

Noice

[@insertname4337]

@@stralax57 most of those boring videos are too boring to teach me anything

[@GD15555]

i am walking on a flat Earth shining light out of my eyeballs.

[@deathhawk7114]

The flat Earth society is located all around the globe.

[@spairus4492]

Both comments are gold.

[@scishowfan2.050]

Spairus you scared me i thought i commented that and was the most confused in my life for like 1 picosecond

[@spairus4492]

lol there's also another top comment with our profile pic

[@zebmie9719]

Yea... NO

[@aaronseet2738]

"Our eyes shot out light." And then the Sun sets.....

[@somratkhan8688]

@Andrew Friend What if sun is like a magnifier to enhance your vision? People see some stuff in the dark but not as much.

[@phoneix24886]

Sun : The eye is a deady lazer!

[@Dallas-eu5nz]

it's absolutely incredible.. we wouldn't have any of our technology today without these discoveries with light.. 

[@jerm3443]

Can we get an "I did a science" shirt?

[@lollylemur5041]

I thought there already was one

[@MarcTelang]

there is

[@lessonslearned6760]

I think you have to do a science first.

[@ariosnexo-1.081]

@@lessonslearned6760 understandable

[@Psy0psAgent]

@@lessonslearned6760 the ‘science of retail purchases’.

[@maitrayeebhuyan715]

I was always inquisitive about what was light and what developments actually led to the electromagnetic spectrum.Thank you so much.This was wonderful.

[@maestroh2986]

Thanks for the great video. I love how the 'idea' light bulb over each scientist's head is a light-source that was used at the time.

[@TheTexas1994]

This video was very enLIGHTening! I'm sorry

[@proud-mom]

No you’re not

[@MGSLurmey]

You should be.

[@benjaminhawkins5805]

You should "see" yourself out!

[@idontunderstandjokes8650]

I don't feel enlightened, I think you're stupid.

[@starspawn507]

"Is light a wave or a particle?" Yes.

[@gauravproton1956]

both

[@ViratKohli-jj3wj]

@@gauravproton1956 r/woooooosh

[@seahawk124]

I've been a subscriber for a while, and I think this is one of most well-presented videos you have done to date.

[@masterofktulu]

Yeah well, I know I am late to the party...but wow! Having the entire history explained to me in a 6 minute window rather than over the period of four grades--was really helpful and I loved it.

[@johnsmith-eo3nz]

We discovered it because some dude was board and said "Let there be light!"

[@Nico-dt5hu]

Random Stuff Genius

[@jesusloveskb]

An atheist gonna be angry

[@bestgun9994]

@@jesusloveskb I think he's making fun of creationists

[@thevoicestoldmetoagain4627]

Bored*

[@hussainbiology]

Your session answers Tons of Questions.......Thanks

[@saahilshihaz5096]

Good timing! I'm doing exactly this in my physics classes​ at college

[@rousseld.nzoyem8105]

YOU ARE THE BEST SCIENCE COMMUNICATOR EVER !! There should be an award that you would win ... Thanks for making these videos !!!

[@supermasteryi9928]

Misa: i would never dream living a world without light L: yes that would be dark XD

[@tazztazztazz0855]

shut up fcking weeb

[@homieridvanboss2112]

well thats toxic

[@thevoicestoldmetoagain4627]

Just reading that, i can see that scene playing out. Awesome show.

[@ryanyes2325]

@@tazztazztazz0855 bruh, you have a profile pic of Futaba (an anime character) smh

[@fran6b]

This was a very well told story. I knew (approximately) all of its parts but it's the first time I see someone put all of them together like It's Okay To Be Smart did here. It definitively add something to my comprehension of what light is.

[@menglongyouk167]

4:55 I think Max Planck had an idea that light travels in quanta at least 15 years earlier than 1918.

[@varunkrishna930]

out of the all your videos this one is my favourite the language used & the way it was presented is easily understandable a big thumbs up for you my dear bro

[@JakeMiller2020]

Really awesome production quality. I would love more videos just like this one.

[@besmart]

Thank you! We always try to make every video better, hope we can keep moving the bar up

[@sivachevuri2345]

hes one of d best....though i learnt dis already in my high school... i realized many things and even understood connection between many chapters and people!!

[@NightWitch1630]

so next u gonna tell us how this led to quantum theory? and the history of it

[@ms4k7a]

Daggeress yeeeeeeeesssss

[@kaushikdas47]

I absolutely loved it. I love how how anchor it very much. Love the videos.

[@oniricPrj]

TRULY AWESOME EPISODE. kudos to the animation department too!!!

[@Bibibosh]

THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN THE MOST INTENCE VID SO FAR! I had to rewind it x3 TIMES!!!!! And I love this science stuff!!!!!

[@ArlekinVergeltungswaffe]

7 minutes video by "It's Okay To be Smart = 7 years of education in my country. I love this channel.

[@feynstein1004]

Your profile picture is deeply disturbing.

[@ArlekinVergeltungswaffe]

Yeah, I know. They took my that one after my surgery. But I look much better now

[@ArticBlueFox96]

I really like the frames/clip starting at 5:11 because I feel it helps to visualize particle-wave duality.

[@MrThonny15]

It's a common mistake among non-europeans but Ole Rømer was Danish not Dutch. As a Dane I feel compelled to point that out.

[@besmart]

+Christoffer Vincent Thon Dang. To all Danes, please accept my apologies for that error. Copenhagen is one of my favorite cities ever. Danish people are wonderful. I owe you all one.

[@MrThonny15]

NP

[@littleboylost1o1]

+

[@NickFisherman]

"Common mistake" is a bit of a stretch. I've never heard of him.

[@Orthagoni]

Im neither Danish nor Dutch, but I still feel you owe me one.

[@matu.ayrton]

best video i saw till now about the topic thanks for making it so succinctly!

[@Mitch_Rogoff]

0:18 Greeks figured out ray tracing 3000 years early

[@GuidoPerdomo]

this is my favorite video in this channel so far!! absolutely amazing

[@gigglysamentz2021]

Haaa ! This is so amazing ! I love to hear about all this scientific breakthroughs, achieved in ways I hadn't thought about :'D

[@abelsanchez8804]

I wish theses videos would be use in classrooms... so much info in little time! Love it!

[@woww-cr9ct]

5:27 best part of the video...

[@ryteshghotane6214]

You guys should do more videos on how did we figure out on other inventions and their history(TIMELINE). Great video, hope to see more similar videos. Vaccines Periodic table Aeroplane Radio X ray Steam engine Car Refrigerator Electricity Television Antibiotics Ship Rocket Compass Agriculture Mathematics Computers Telecommunications Etc etc.

[@mrj0rgen]

Where did you get the year 1918 from, regarding Max Planck's and Einstein's discoveries? Planck initially (in 1900) considered quantization to be only a mathemathical trick (i.e. did not speculate too much on the physical significance) to solve the problem of blackbody radiation, and Einstein wrote the paper on the photoelectric effect in 1905. Might be nitpicking, but I'm still curious.

[@lucbourhis3142]

I was gonna make the same remark when I noticed yours.

[@nathanieljames9424]

WOW I "ACCIDENTALLY" FOUND THIS.....I LOVE LOVE THIS. THIS IS FANTASTIC!!

[@hsk5234]

at least ancient Greece had X Men.........

[@joffreybluthe7906]

Just to point out something about Max Planck, he actually presented his idea about quanta of light in 1900 but he did get the Nobel prize in 1918. I'm sure that's what you meant by "1928" on the timescale but still wanted to clarify that ! Great episode btw

[@niamhoconnor8986]

I want a time-machine so that I can travel back in time, meet an ancient Greek and ask him why people can't see anything during cloudy nights without having candles in their proximity...

[@trex9907]

wow the best explanation of the electromagnetic spectrum.

[@fahyaz3643]

I Have a question and a nice topic for a video. The earth rotates anticlockwise, the moon rotates anticlockwise, the moon revolves around the earth anticlockwise, the earth revolves around the sun anticlockwise, Sun moves around the Galaxy anticlockwise, all the planets and stars rotate and revolve anticlockwise (except 2), hurricane tornados and cyclones rotates anticlockwise (Northern Hemisphere), basically everything rotates anticlockwise. Then why in the name of science do clocks rotates clockwise?

[@MarioFanGamer659]

Even though the Earth rotates counter-clockwise, the sun actually moves in the Earth's frame of reference (as if the universe is geocentric) clockwise (from the East to the South to the West). In fact, the clockhands of sundials were shadows which travelled along with the sun, in the same direction what we call "clockwise".

[@xxXthekevXxx]

The direction of shadows on sundials is clockwise.

[@wifighostcruiser9665]

Abrar Fahyaz that's like saying why is north north and south south. It all depends on your perspective. Good grief!

[@-_James_-]

The direction of the sun is clockwise in the northern hemisphere. Which is where the first civilisations arose. If they'd been south of the equator, clocks would probably run counter clockwise.

[@josephelston4101]

Great video mate, gonna use this in my physics lesson today :)

[@RobertEssence]

Today's puns were lighter than usual

[@potawatomi100]

You’re the best. Very good video, intelligent, entertaining, interesting and great delivery.

[@amandarivet7034]

This is more the history of human discovery of light, not really light itself. The properties of light have not changed, but human understanding has, as this video describes.

[@NickFisherman]

Everybody scatter! Drop your dangling modifiers, and run in serpentine! The semantics police are here!

[@edenshaeffer8736]

Boi shut up and stop picking apart people’s words so much ya know it all

[@potawatomi100]

Outstanding video and superbly well narrated.

[@MGSLurmey]

So we have the following people with the following nationalities: Euclid - Greek Ibn Al-Haytham - Arabian Ole Rømer - Danish (not Dutch!) Isaac Newton - English William Herschel - British (Born German) Johann Wilhelm Ritter - German James Clerk Maxwell - Scottish Max Planck - German Albert Einstein - German Totals: 11.1% Greek, 11.1% Arab, 11.1% Danish, 33.3% British, 33.3% German. (or 44.4% German and 22.2% British if you want Herschel to count for his birthplace, but given that he wanted to name Uranus after King George, I think he was a pretty devout Brit.) Edit: Missed Johann Ritter. Values adjusted accordingly.

[@noorazraq2245]

HMS-Captain Lurmey I think you mean Arabic,not Arabian.

[@amehak1922]

Noor Azraq Arabic is the language, Arabian is the nationality

[@Chris-27182]

HMS-Capitain Lurmey Science works as collaboration of smart people, not nationalities!

[@rajanrao]

5:24 Next level satisfying

[@dutchik5107]

I don't think ole romer is Dutch. since with my dutch keyboard. I can't type that o. and. Ole isn't a really a Dutch name.... maybe danish. since I know that they do have that character

[@jasperchristensen2761]

Dutchik true, his is danish.

[@vinaymane5538]

Ole christensen romer.

[@8948380]

Do you have to have a name specific to your country to be a citizen of said country?

[@riggygoyal]

YouDontSay Jon no, but certain countries have certain names more common then others. According to Dutchik, Ole isn't a common Dutch name, but rather it's a more Danish name. It's like how John is more common in America then a country like Mexico

[@mortennielsen3178]

He was danish, Born in Aarhus, and lived in Copenhagen.

[@tvremote9394]

I must say, This video was pretty illuminating!

[@mortennielsen3178]

Ehm, Ole Rømer wasn't dutch, he was Danish! Denmark and the Netherlands are quite far apart, and it should be obvious we're not the same country.

[@alexanderkappreumert]

+

[@mickeymoose636]

Morten Nielsen well border to border they're only like a 4 hour drive away. Also they both start with D, so they're pretty easy to mix up.

[@mortennielsen3178]

Oh yeah, 400 kilometers border to border that's like nothing. Except it's something, and it's actually a pretty long distance here. The country Denmark is 400 kilometers long, from the tip (Grenen) to the German border. I would say it's a pretty significant distance. Ole Rømer was born in the city of Aarhus, 576 kilometers from the Dutch-German border. He lived and studied in Copenhagen 700 kilometers from that same border.

[@mortennielsen3178]

Peru and Portugal also start with the same letter, but they're not the same place.

[@mickeymoose636]

Morten Nielsen I'm not arguing about whether or not he's danish, I'm just saying it's a reasonable mistake. Also to me 4 hours is nothing, I can't even get out of my state in 4 hours.

[@iqraanjum2746]

Wooow...thank you for explaining it the best possible way👍👍

[@brianhabing5076]

Why only mention the faith of one of the many Scientists discussed?

[@FrankHarrison12]

I picked up on that as well. I'm going to assume it was notable because few people are aware that there have been decent scientists in the Islamic world. Recently this fact has been exaggerated and hijacked by liberal talking heads though...

[@Goldenmaster94]

He said muslim, as you can say greek or danish, he didn't say islamic, what's the fuzz all about??

[@aasmankhan306]

...i guess it was because people might not know that he could have been muslim...i mean, there are a few people who know that muslim scientists actually existed... and that war wasnt the only thing they did. or still do.

[@hassankhan2]

@@aasmankhan306 stop blaming war on muslims

[@guitarguy3714]

aa Nope. Newton was quite religious- died a virgin, in fact. Most of the scientists before the 18th century were religious.

[@yashx26]

First Unbox Therapy then Matthew Santoro then Discovery then you in just 10mins WOW!!!!!!

[@ancientaliensarecoming7201]

and then edison stole it

[@sogerc1]

5:20 you've gotta love the animations on this channel. And the stupid jokes too :D

[@Grim1873]

I like how the title is an oxymoron. light doesn't experience time so can't have history.

[@TJ-wc3iq]

One of the best episodes. Thank you.

[@bguen1234]

Why mention the religion of one and only one of the historical figures? Is it relevant?

[@MGSLurmey]

May just be because many people have preconceived negative notions towards Muslims and so this is a positive thing to note to help combat that. Many or all of the other figures may have also been atheist.

[@Fif0l]

Nice video. Correction for the photoelectric effect: the reason why it could only be explained by light being a particle and not a wave is because when we use too low frequencies the photoelectric effect does not occur at all. If it didn't have anything to do with light being a particle, we would expect electrons to build up energy and get kicked out anyway. Or maybe increasing intensity of the low frequency light would do the trick, but it's not what we observe, therefore, particles.

[@dogmahacker8278]

Never answered the question if no ones in a room with photons is there still light? I think not. Light is a perception of our minds interpretation of certain waves lengths. If only green light was refracted in a room and we were blind to that color then the room would not be lit to us. Or take infrared for example. Shine an infrared light in dark room, to humans it will be pitch black, but to an animal that can interpret that wave length it will appear lit. While the photons are still there regardless of our perception. Light itself is a production of our minds interpretation of those photons and what light is and what dark is subjective to the creature and its minds ability to perceive. Same with sound. If a tree falls in the forest and no ones around to hear it does it make a sound? No. Sound is the subjective interpretation of waves of atoms. While the atoms are still creating vibrations if there is no subject then no sound is perceived in a mind. The only place where sound exists. Right now a volcano on Venus is erupting. There is no sound only vibrations. Until a mind can interpret those vibrations sound is irrelevant. If its confusing think of it this way. If your unconscious and someone sticks you with a needle is there pain? Of course not, pain can only be a relevant with a mind. Yes, there will still be a wound, but like photons and light or vibrations and sound, wounds and pain are only linked by perception. Outside of a minds perception they are only concepts.

[@feynstein1004]

Wow. Such arrogance. You seem to think that because you can perceive, the existence of the thing you're perceiving depends on you. That's akin to a blind person saying that light doesn't exist because he can't see it. Your existence or lack of it makes absolutely no difference to the existence of other things. Try getting your head out of your ass. Maybe then you'll realize how humbling the universe is.

[@dogmahacker8278]

I think you completely miss-understand what I ment and maybe I explained it badly. Of course things exist outside of a person being there to perceive it and other things can exist and be perceived by something else that you and I both cannot perceive, nor can imagine to perceive. For example alot of birds can perceive the earths magnetic poles. I could never imagine how they perceive it and if I could perceive it, who says I would perceive it the same way? Something still exists whether im there to perceive it or not. But like I said before. Some things can only be perceived in a mind. Whether that mind belongs to a person or some animal. I never said that the thing doesnt exist. Only that the perception of that thing is not there. I also never said that the thing that makes light doesnt exist. But the perception of color (also being the perception of light) is absent without a mind to perceive it. Yes, if there are two people in the same room and one is blind and the other sees. Of course there is a light wave spectrum in the room that consists of every color to perceive, Even for the blind person the thing that makes color is still there, but you cant say there is color in the room. Color is our mind interpreting the photons that hit our photoreceptors. It doesnt become a color until our brain processes the information to perceive an interpretation of what just hit our eye. You do know that photons by themselves dont contain any color. The color is a result of how our mind interprets this information. An alien could have evolved a completely different way of perceiving the same photons that we perceive as color and it may not appear as color to the alien. It could sense it as something unimaginable to us and our color perception could be unimaginable to the alien, yet we're both receiving information from the same photons, but our brain interprets it differently. This is why theres that philosophical argument of ""Is my red the same as your red?"" Because light waves dont posses color properties, our brains do and its the result of how we interpret what we call light waves. It seems intuitive to think photons posses their own colors because its just so familiar to us that we even call the electromagnetic spectrum that we can see "light" waves. But the light part is only perceived by our minds. Our brains invent the perception of color not the photons that exist outside of our minds. Color doesnt exist anywhere except in our heads. While everything else is still happening in the universe as it normally would, there is no such thing as color. If we could witness whats really happening in the universe, we would not see color. What we might witness is photons firing all over the place filling every square nano meter of space as these colorless vibrations of energy the void of color. This is the philosophy of Hermeneutics and Phenomenology. Very confusing and hard to grasp at first. But it deals with the problem of interpretation. Our minds merely interpret the world, not reveal it as it really is. No, this has nothing to do with reality being an illusion as in the Matrix. Hermeneutics recognizes that this reality is real and the things we observe are also real, but what is their true nature? Since we are limited by our minds interpretation of objects we can never really know the true nature of what a photon is. Color, sound, feeling, smells... Are only interpretations in our mind of subjects of the real world. Even our instruments like telescopes and X-rays are only an extension of our minds interpretations. Information goes through the instrument and passes through our brain which interprets it as our brain would. We will never perceive anything different than how our brain will allow us to perceive. We know something is there, that there is an element that represents what we perceive, but because of our minds interpretation we can not see what its reality really is. And since we are trapped in our minds and cannot perceive things outside of our minds, there is no way to know what something may really be like. We cannot see a photon any different other than how our mind allows us to perceive it (through color,) but is that as it actually is? Well, we know color only exists in our heads, so observing a photon as its true form is impossible. We also know it has a wave and vibrates. Again this is only because we use tools as an extension of our senses which again are only an interpretation of a property about that object, but not necessarily as it really is. We are only limited by our minds interpretation of that object. Thus we have this philosophical problem of hemeneutics. Also since we cant do science without our senses to test and observe, this makes hemeneutics an impossible problem for science to fix. So this is where we have Phenomenology, which is in my opinion a mess of philosophical thought which cannot logically justify any problem since something confirmed without being tested is unknowable. But it argues that we can arrive at some truths without the need for empiricism. So far Phenomenology hasent demonstrated any demonstrable examples. Some argue that psychology being a soft science is a form of Phenomenology, but not really. Phenomenology deals with what science cant know. Just Google search "does color exist" and you'll get a plethora of mind boggling scientific and philosophical responses to the problem of color actually existing.

[@LouisWongPhysics]

your point is very interesting

[@feynstein1004]

I see many flaws in your logic. First of all, I'd like to point out that I did know color is only an illusion. However, there's some merit to it as well. Color is simply a way for our brains to make sense of the *different wavelengths* of visible light. Yes, how my brain interprets it might be different from how yours does it. But that does not mean all the wavelengths *are* the same. They're not. Which is why we have different colors for them. Color is simply our brain encoding the information from our eyes into a more understandable form. Again, this does not in any way undermine the existence of light itself. Then you go on to extrapolate this faulty notion to all of science with your reason being that since our senses are somewhat limited, it means our instruments are faulty too. Umm no, they're not. Our instruments do not rely on our senses to work. If our senses were able to do it, then why would we need the instruments in the first place? The gist of your argument is that since our senses are so subjective, so must all of reality be. This goes back to blind person argument. And disregards the core essence of science: the definition of science is that it isn't subjective. To establish this, we use repeatability. If something is subjective, then different measurements/observations by different people will yield different results. This is exactly what we determine in science. We conduct hundreds, if not thousands of experiments to show that the observation must be a part of objective reality, which is the same for everyone.

[@dogmahacker8278]

I didnt mean that what we observe is subjective. Im not leaning to this my truth is different from your truth BS. But I see how its easy to think thats what I was going for. There is clearly objective consistency within our discoveries. I myself trust the scientific method and I assume that our sense do give much accuracy to what we observe. We all can feel an object vibrate, this is objective and we use this objective truth about the object to draw consistencies in our world. There are cause and effect aspects that remain objectively consistent. Indeed our senses do reveal a true nature about the object, but is that what the object is actually doing? Or is that what our senses are telling us? Maybe the object appears to be vibrations due to the information that our brains gives us, but in reality its doing something else, but we cannot perceive that something else, because our mind can only perceive it as vibrating. Regardless of what our mind perceive it will have consistencies with reality, because its applying true measures, but not necessarily true form. Of course what our mind perceives will still be logically objective with the consistency of reality, but maybe we experience it differently than what it really is. Like Newtons gravity, his interpretation was consistent all the way through with everything we observe, because the thing that was being interpreted had real applications to the way reality works, but its true nature was still hidden. Things can be subjectively interpreted, but have objective applications in the nature of things. Like gravity, our minds way of interpreting things could be the same. And the true nature of gravity may still be hidden. Doesnt mean the way we perceive it is subjective. It can still be objective and be an aspect of how gravity is consistent with what we can observe, but this doent mean we see it as it really is. And the same goes for all our senses. If we saw in only in inrered, our senses would block what people really look like. Indeed any creature that see only in inrerred probably thinks its seeing an accurate representation of its true reality. And the same could be said about the color we see now. We may think we see all the details and have a good idea that what we experience is an accurate representation, but what we imagine to be complete could just be an illusion due to the fact that we humans have a subjective view of what our mind allows us to see. So what do people really look like. Yes, I get objective truths. We all see color and this reveals certain truths. Such as shape of face revealed by shading, scares, pigmentation. And these are real applications consistent with chemistry and biology. Our mind isnt making them up. But what realities dont we see? Our observations are limited by our perception. If we had other senses we could see things like the stripes on womans bodies that men dont have. If this were our experience this would become intergrated into our subjective human perception. Beauty would have new factors, these stripes would have real world applications in our culture. Even now this reality is there, we just cant see it. Our mind wont allow it. In a world where people only saw in infrered, we wouldnt deal with a reality of pigmentation, freckles, eye color, or hair color. Sure our science would still reveal that there is this thing called pigmentation present in the skin, but it wouldnt look like anything to our senses. Our brain would not have any way to interpret it. Its still there, still measurable, but not present in our minds. We could never know what it really looks like. This is what im talking about. Like seeing in only infrered can still allow us to reveal certain truths, there is a limitation by our mind to what can truly be perceived and what these things actually look like. The same goes for what we observe with our real minds. Color, while its nice to have, is at the same time also a wall to perceiving the realities of senses we dont have. What doe reality really look like? Is there even an objective answer to that?

[@BertGrink]

Today I Learned something new! :D I didn't know that the ancient Greks thought we had flashlights inside our eyes. ;)

[@w.o.l.f.e.]

1:34 yey a Muslim is the first scientist in history yeyyyyyyy 👌👌😎😎

[@gabo12e30]

dude! I love your videos! thanks for doing them!

[@aden3113]

I sexually Identify myself as an electromagnetic wave.

[@CarlyDayDay]

Aden aio You make me not want to identify myself as a human.

[@ikerants745]

Aden aio wow you're so brave and beautiful

[@arabtrooper3929]

You should sexually identify as not funny.

[@flyingmobias]

It's important to draw a line between subjective constructs and genetic based sexuality (that environment has a role in shaping how it's expressed)... Identifying as something which isn't chromosomal like XX (female) or XY (male) is false by that paradigm. There is inter sex (xxy) but that's rare and unseen. Trans is a different case. Gender roles are different too and can be unjust, but sometimes logical like women breastfeeding and being less aggressive (males have 7-8x more testosterone on average. There are some genetic differences in guys n gals.)

[@galactorthegreat1401]

Aden aio Galator is a Nebula.

[@lalmalsawmachhangte620]

I can not comment every video,but every episode is amazing...Thank you. From junior scientist

[@meganahlquist-cheung4014]

Would love to hear you mention more women scientists (in general)! 😬 I've found it's pretty easy for their contributions to be erased, intentionally or unintentionally.

[@gaberodriguez3732]

Spotted the feminist smh

[@meganahlquist-cheung4014]

Gabe · Yup! Not entirely sure why you're shaking your head over my polite and 100% reasonable request, though.

[@MGSLurmey]

You make a good point. I can only think of one prominent female historical figure in the world of science: Marie Curie. It may be less because their achievements are erased and more because it's just less likely for women to be interested in science just as it's less likely for women to be pilots, soldiers or footballers. Not a matter of sexism but just personal choice and interests. That's not at all to say that no women are interested in science, flight, defense or sport but that's it's simply less likely due to their own individual reasons.

[@СилвияМирчева-г8з]

After watching 30 or so episodes of this channel in 4 days, I've started wandering - am I that into science or just into the guy who's hosting the show :?

[@g3ek1337]

Just something, why say Arab muslin? So should we also say German Jew?

[@joannabirmigh3899]

g3ek1337 totally right!

[@AlexYurian]

Awesome video! Loved the animations and little details.

[@simonk.4338]

Am I first?

[@jonathanschossig1276]

Simon K. Nope.

[@shoka7785]

in my kill list

[@simonk.4338]

Mostafa Shawky well said sir.

[@gayar4596]

Simon K. sorry its me who is first ;-)

[@simonk.4338]

Beyond the Horizon nope you aren't, i checked it.

[@vinuvinu3530]

super job this vedio actually helped me a lot in understanding my post graduation lesson thank you Mr. Jo 4 this vedio

[@solortus]

No one ever mentions Einstein the jew, but the guy with the arab name always has to be referred to as a muslim.

[@xxXthekevXxx]

Ikr

[@user-dx8nj7qj2g]

while Einstein was raised by Jewish parents he himself was not a jew. he described himself has agnostic, religious nonbeliever and a pantheistic believer in Spinoza's god. he didn't believe in a personal god, one which knows its a god and cares about humans and their fate.

[@jonaspaskus6207]

Fly! Fly! I tried hitting the fly ant smashed my computer.

[@crocopix]

It's basically mean he was arabian from the Islamic era.

[@smurfyday]

Einstein was atheistic.

[@Bibibosh]

This has been the most epic video so far!

[@lakedeleon3146]

Don't let trump takeaway It's Okay To Be Smart please!!!!!

[@aguywhocommentedonthisvide5453]

Lucas DeLeon why are you bringing politics into things?

[@maximos905]

you're an idiot

[@ElPrincipeMilenario]

best video ever! cool animation, nice voice 😘, and an interesting topic. keep working this hard

[@shoryasharma5258]

Well joe, youre a _bright_ man Imma see myself out

[@addymac6145]

Light and sound waves are one of my favorite things to learn about.

[@markbilger9393]

I prefer Lucretius’ explanation of light in De Rerum Natura, where he says that all objects give off shells of their image (simulacra) which our eyes can detect. He was an early atomist and assumed that light was just composed of really tiny atoms, so we can’t feel it but our eyes can see it. Interestingly, he said that the sun sends out tiny atoms which move really fast through space to bring us light.

[@Ly-lg5he]

I love its animation as well as its concept. Keep it up bro.

[@sciencenerd8879]

You almost made the quantum chemistry I learned actually interesting. Nice graphics btw.

[@TheyCalledMeT]

realy well done! loved the animations very well moderated, spoken in a exciting way (and not overblown) can't wait for #2 BTW. what about merch or winning stuff while living outside of the US ? (Europe)

[@malayagr]

This got me so excited for some reason.

[@itsnotyasir]

Just taking out the time to appreciate the amazing animation 😍

[@TinaCutri]

If there's another Cosmos series in 30 years or so, Joe should be the one to narrate it!

[@xxXthekevXxx]

Nah we need a half-cripple 100+ year-old Morgan Freeman to do it 😂

[@grayfoxart2268]

the color of an object is the color than it cant absorb right so it reflects it. So the question is what makes an object not to reflect specific color, what makes it say to reflect red and not yellow.

[@LeTtRrZ]

Great episode. Well researched.

[@dancbj-animatedreviews5253]

Great video! So much information in such a short period of time and yet so clear! Thanks!

[@paragbharadia2895]

for such amazing videos.. iam definetely ready look forward on

[@cnacma]

These are incredibly well done videos...

[@gurjeetkaur2973]

This was most illuminating!

[@Dani0x1B]

You forgot to mention ether! That's a very interesting part of the history of light

[@legendaryone696]

This video gave me goosebumps

[@Gnarmarmilla]

This is such a useful and interesting video, I regret seeing the inappropriate image of a woman in the alchemy symbolism drawing you show. I would appreciate you editing that out so I can share this with people I love. May God bless you and yours.