This effect confirmed light particles

Let our sponsor BetterHelp connect you to a therapist who can support you - all from the comfort of your own home. Visit betterhelp.com/jkzero and enjoy a special discount on your first month.
Presentation of the experimental and theoretical developments of the Compton effect or Compton scattering, which finally led to the acceptance of Einstein's hypothesis of light-quanta. The Compton effect constitutes the failure of the classical wave nature of light and the success of the particle (photon) description.
[Erratum]
∘ at 0:44 the factor 1/(μ0ε0) should be (μ0ε0), in the numerator; thanks to @FraserIland for spotting this typo
[References]
∘ A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. 17, 132 (1905) einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol5-trans/41
∘ A.H. Compton, A Quantum Theory of the Scattering of X-rays by Light Elements, Phys. Rev. 21, 483 (1923) journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.21.483
∘ A.H. Compton, The Size and Shape of the Electron, Phys. Rev. 14, 20 (1919) journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.14.247
∘ A.H. Compton, Phys. Rev. 7, 646 (1916) journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.7.646
∘ A.H. Compton, The Spectrum of Secondary X-rays, Phys. Rev. 19, 267 (1922) journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.19.267
∘ A.S. Eve, Phil. Mag. 8, 669 (1904)
∘ R.D. Kleeman, Phil. Mag. 15, 638 (1908)
∘ J.P.V. Madsen, Phil. Mag. 17, 423 (1909)
∘ D.C.H. Florance, Phil. Mag. 20, 921 (1910)
∘ C.A. Sadler and P. Mesham, Phil. Mag. 24, 138 (1912) shorturl.at/D8aHe
∘ D.C.H. Florance, Phil. Mag. 28, 363 (1914)
∘ A.H. Compton, Science 37, 803 (1913) www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.37.960.803
∘ A.H. Compton, Phys. Rev. 9, 29 (1917) [PhD thesis] journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.9.29
∘ R.H. Stuewer, The Compton effect Transition to quantum mechanics, Ann. Phys. 9, 975 (2000) onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/andp.200051211-1216
∘ A.H. Compton, Bull. Nat. Res. Coun. 4 (1922) babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044092774553&seq=41
∘ P. Debye, Zerstreuung von Röntgenstrahlen und Quantentheorie, Phys. Zeit. 24 , 161 (1923)
∘ A.H. Compton and C. F. Hagenow, A Measurement of the Polarization of Secondary X-Rays, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 8, 487 (1924) opg.optica.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-8-4-487
[Credits]
Albert Einstein in 1905, public domain
Arthur H. Compton in his X-ray lab, Photo by S.Deutch, AIP
First Solvay Conference 1911, photograph by Benjamin Couprie, public domain
James C. Maxwell, Engraved by G. J. Stodart, AIP
Light refraction, by ajizai, public domain
Interference pattern, by J.S. Diaz (own work)
Polarization clamp, by A.Davidhazy under CC BY-SA 4.0
Light bulb through diffraction grating, by R.D. Anderson under CC BY-SA 3.0
Max planck, public domain
Niels Bohr, Photo by A.B. Lagrelius and Westphal, AIP
Woman researching by T. Miroshnichenko via Pexels www.pexels.com/video/woman-researching-in-a-book-6549989/
Man teaching algebra by Y. Krukau, free use via Pexels www.pexels.com/video/man-teaching-algebra-to-a-student-8197046/
Man reading by T. Miroshnichenko, free use via Pexels www.pexels.com/video/man-reading-a-book-6550671/
Woman touching glass by Y. Shuraev, free use via www.pexels.com/video/a-woman-touching-a-glass-panel-5980032/
Wave-particle ambigram by Douglas Hofstadter under CC BY-SA 3.0 Deed
Einstein with C. Habicht and M. Solovine, ca. 1903, by E. Vollenweider, public domain
Arthur H. Compton, public domain
Peter Debye, public domain
Arthur S. Eve, AIP
Man silhouette by liftarn under CC BY-SA 3.0
John Madsen, family photo under CC BY-SA 4.0
David C. H. Florance, from Rutherford group photo 1912, AIP
J.J. Thomson, public domain
Compton Family, AIP
Halley's Comet (1910) by E.E. Barnard, public domain
Compton tube, A.H. Compton in Scientific American Supplement (1915), public domain
J.J. Thomson and Rutherford, by D. Schoenberg, AIP
Rutherford's research room at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, AIP
A History of the Cavendish Laboratory 1971-1910. London, New York, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1910, AIP
Bragg X-ray spectrometer, Science Museum under CC BY 4.0 Deed
Arthur H. Compton portrait, AIP
Paul Scherrer, public domain
Hendrik Kramers, public domain
Minutes of the Chicago Meeting APS, Dec. 1922, Phys. Rev. 21, 195 (1923)
Radon gas within a cloud chamber, unknown author under CC BY 3.0
Niels Bohr, AIP
Nobel Prize Medal, public domain
Fifth Solvay Conference, by Benjamin Couprie, AIP
Louis de Broglie, public domain
Erwin Schrödinger, public domain
Max Born, public domain
Werner Heisenberg, AIP
Wolfgang Pauli, AIP
Paul Dirac, AIP
AIP: courtesy of the American Institute of Physics, Emilio Segrè Visual Archives
CC BY-SA 3.0 Deed: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en
CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

[@primenumberbuster404]

This channel and Welch Labs are literally dropping neat quality physics videos.

[@kushagra64]

That too just hours apart

[@jeewillikers]

And promoting dogshit quality service like better help 😞 come on bro I thought you were better than this

[@mastershooter64]

gatto

[@Sugar3Glider]

Sorry my man, gotta get paid but Better help ain't the way

[@jeewillikers]

I am very dissapointed by his endorsement. Jorge of all people I know is smart enough to resarch something before promoting it, he either didn't do that here or didn't care 😔

[@supreetsahu1964]

The history of science is filled with stories of scientists succumbing to their own biases and hubris. Amazing vid again

[@jkzero]

You are right, I like to show these stories because textbooks only glorify the final results. Your continuous support is much appreciated.

[@tommihommi1]

dont support "better" help

[@berdigylychrejepbayev7503]

@@ulfaxmacher999 you should comment directly below the video

[@romdotdog]

it is not appropriate for companies that prioritize profits and minimize worker wages to be expected to address the mental health crisis through the same system that contributes to it I expected better from one of the few KZbinrs I'm subscribed to

[@brandonheaton6197]

The sponsor is questionable but the science content of this video is solid gold from start to finish. Will 100% use in class

[@Rubikorigami]

An awesome video as always ! Clear, complete yet concise, engaging, I love it. I do have to say it, though. Please stay away from BetterHelp. They have a long history of being very very shady and seem to not care at all about fixing it at all, rather focusing on their image. Of course it doesn't change anything about the quality of your video - once again, it's awesome. It's just that this sponsor really isn't a good idea. 😢

[@TheAlchaemist]

It's a pleasure to find such quality content in YT.

[@jonludwig8233]

Really love the way this material is presented, it's super helpful to get a perspective that talks about why other models which were tried were not successful, rather than just explaining the accepted model. For those of us just learning this stuff its not obvious why the other models are in contradiction with the accepted model.

[@ChaseNoStraighter]

Excellent! It takes this level of detail to understand the thought process at the time.

[@DavidMFChapman]

Another great physics story!

[@lostson1st]

19:47 First row, third from the left. Maria Skłodowska-Currie. Great Polish scientist 🇵🇱

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

Exactly. Very proud of her and proud of Polish mathematicians that cracked the German coding machine ''Enigma''. Can't stand when the British take credit for themselves for Enigma.

[@GeoffryGifari]

Did the X-ray frequency selection process use Bragg diffraction? If so its kind of funny that at one end of the experiment the wave property of X-rays is used while at the other end the particle property is shown

[@jkzero]

that is precisely the point that I tried to stress at 20:28, he confirmed the particle nature of light by measuring its wavelength... that is mind blowing.

[@kushagra64]

What will you cover next? My guess is de broglie’s hypothesis since that came in 1924…

[@jkzero]

the next video will be "bohring"

[@kushagra64]

@@jkzero ha ha…yeah of course…kinda forgot about him…

[@cewkins721]

What a great video! its interesting to see the trial and error Compton had to go through to get things right in the end, impressive to see how useful the conservation of momentum and energy are in figuring out the nature of light

[@jkzero]

Interestingly enough, Compton was questioned for assuming conservation of energy and momentum in the X-ray-electron collision. It was just not experimentally established that these relations were valid at the scale of fundamental particles. This will come up in a future video.

[@omargaber3122]

You are creative and professional, as usual. There is no doubt that these videos require a lot of time and effort, and all the love and appreciation

[@nastronautica]

Nice series. I'm also in this niche of lovers of the history of physics in 1800 and 1900, for some reason

[@t850]

...three people developed the same theory, but only one risked it all and took the Nobel prize. It's rather tragical that other two never had the chance to test their theories because thier colegues were too afraid to put their scientific careers on the line. In scientific comunity failure is threated as a weakness even though it's only a natural byproduct of problem solving. Maybe Debye knew that and because of it he modestly refused to take any credit...:)

[@jkzero]

Debye was a great theorist, luckily his work on X-ray diffraction and dipole moments was enough to get his own Nobel Prize in 1936.

[@t850]

@@jkzero ...nice to hear that he didn't go unnoticed!...:D

[@kfawell]

Thank you for another wonderful video. Must take so much time and effort to collect all this information most of which in terms of other physicists I knew nothing about. It is gratifying to see how the results of so many different physicists eventually comes together, kind of like detective work. The series of events in Compton's life show how fortunate he was. That visit to Thompson's lab and his skill that he developed or experimentation turned out to be vital for his work. Also it seems him being "isolated" in the US away from influential but incorrect physicists was very fortunate.

[@jkzero]

Yes, it takes a lot of time and effort to put these stories together, but I cannot complain, it is really fun to read the original papers, which reveal so much that textbooks leave out or simply explain wrong. I have found so many stories to be so much different from the popular versions and even those found in textbooks that this detective work has become very satisfying. Interesting that you mention the "isolated" aspect of Compton after his return from Cambridge. You could imagine that after being trained by the masters at Cavendish Lab, Compton had many offers in prestigious universities all over the US; however, he decided to go to Washington University in Missouri (a tiny school in the early 1920s in the middle of nowhere), precisely because he wanted to be isolated from the influence of other research programs and focus on his own work.

[@kfawell]

Ah! That is so interesting that he made that choice. Well, it seems like an excellent choice. Also, I would assume since it was a small school, he would likely have more standing and authority and less resistance. If he went to a very prestigious school he would have to deal with all the other personalities. This seems important given that he had to try over and over to get things right. I assume he had the time, permission, and freedom to do so. I know what you mean about the popular versions being inaccurate. Kathy loves physics channel really opened my eyes to so many reports about history that I thought I knew. I have mentioned this before, your channel and hers are very similar in that way, though the style of presentation is quite different. Your style reminds me of physics explained channel, and I mean that as a very big compliment.

[@erenerdem4657]

Thanks for that much of a good video. I think no one is going to found out why light has wave-light duality and much more. It’s all about our lacking of understanding in mathematics. As Simon-Pierre Laplace said: “Nature laughs at us when it comes to the hardness of integration.”

[@rayoflight62]

Hello Dr. Diaz, I've greet esteem of your work and your extreme ability to teach particle physics with such clarity, simplicity, and precision at the same time. I watch all of your videos as soon you upload them. I would tell you here the praise I have for this new video of yours. Also - *I don't like your sponsor*. Greetings, Anthony

[@Archiekunst]

A naive question perhaps: These days when we publish experimental data we always have a ± value that gives us the error range at a certain confidence value. At 16:03 I see his experimental difference of 0.022 A has no standard error. How did it get past the peer review process? Did he not replicate the experiment?

[@GRosa]

Maybe they had different standards back in the days

[@ihmejakki2731]

Wonderful video as always with historical details on the race to find the explanation for the phenomena! However, I always wonder what people mean when they say that light is a particle and I'm never completely convinced. Here it seems that the quantization of electromagnetic radiation is given to imply the particle nature of photons, but surely photons can be similarly treated as wavemodes localized in wavepackets without the need to treat them as point particles? I guess my confusion is just a result of what is meant by 'particle' here.

[@sturrum5250]

When talking about the discovery of photons 'light is a particle' is usually meant in the most mundane sense: 'Compton scattering is succesfully described by treating light as a point-like particle colliding with an electron and obeying energy and momentum conservations. Therefore light is a particle, whose energy and momentum can be related to the properties of an electromagnetic wave via Einstein's equation.' The collision of a classical electrodynamic wave packet carrying some amount of energy with an electron simply does not produce the same results. The precise meaning of particle is usually left out in descriptions like this because any detailed treatment of photons requires quantum field theory, which obviously did not exist in 1905. In QFT particles usually refer to states that describe fields with quantised energies, which are very much delocalised, so 'point-like' and 'particle' do not mean the same thing.

[@sphakamisozondi]

I had to drop everything I was doing when I received a notification that you have uploaded another classic.

[@jkzero]

thanks, I hope it was worth it

[@ralffig3297]

Superb!

[@juanro22]

The sheer epicness of it all gives me chills. What a time to be alive. Is this replacing my spiritual sense and needs for good, making me a hardcore atheist? You bet.

[@nickrozzi3125]

Your comment is not only ignorant but idiotic. You should read "Quantum Immortality"

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

Atheists have greatly disappointed me. I became an atheist at 14 and dreamed of the day a lot of people would join me. That is now happening in the US, but it seems man’s need for zealous thinking is irrespective of religion. Now, people are becoming zealous about political ideology and a thousand other topics. They try to appear virtuous through their ideology. Of course not all atheists are like this, but so many are. It is like there is a constant amount of tribal and ignorant people, and lack of religion really can’t change that

[@juanro22]

@@ElectronFieldPulse I think the issue is with the zealots, on any field. Be it religion, politics, food choice, sports, hell, even motorcycle brands. I don't try to convince anyone of anything. I do take issue when religion, or should I better say, ignorance in general, is used to push instructions on how other people should live their lifes. But anyway, my comment was intended to note how the great achievements of the human intellect in understanding the minute workings of the Cosmos fill me with awe, rather than talk about personal beliefs. Perhaps the use of the word 'hardcore' was misleading, excuse me as english is not my native language, but I used it to mean that I'm everyday more and more far from believing in god (any flavor). Cheers!

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

@@juanro22 - Yep, when I became an atheist at a young age it was like a light went on. I struggled with so many contradictions and lack of logic in Christianity, and I was constantly fighting an inner battle to convince myself god was real. It was like performing mental gymnastics 24/7. Ever since then, everything just makes sense and I no longer have to fight those internal contradictions. Everything I learned reinforced my atheism until it was just who I was, I don’t even have to think about it more. Like you said, the natural world is filled with so many wonders, it fills you with awe all the time. At least for me, being a Christian actually took that out of my life because I had to limit my thoughts as to what was acceptable to my religion. I basically had to imagine all of the things that fill Christian’s full of awe, and that was not a satisfying experience. I hope you lead a happy life and continue to revel in the wonders of nature. As far as the zealotry goes, it is particularly bad in my home country (USA), so it might not resonate with you. It was more of an aside anyways. Take care!

[@GRosa]

You probably meant to write 'god', not 'good'. 🙂

[@Uterr]

Sounds a bit like we did it in college doing physical experiments. If data wont fit just interprete it different way ;) at least we knew for sure if should fit one way or another

[@AroundPhysics]

frankly, I do not quite understand why the Compton effect ought to be sought as the evidence for particle nature of photon. I do not question quantum mechanics. It must be fine. However, the "quantumness" of the effect is in the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with electron. Hence, the effect itself is quantum, but it does not prove that photon is a particle. It is not photon a particle, but the interaction is quantum.

[@pablocopello3592]

This experiment "shows" that light interacts with the electrons in a quantized way (in packets of definite energy and momentum depending on its frequency called photons) . In the case of the photo-electrical effect it could be just because of the discrete energy levels of the electrons in the atoms, but in this case it seems to correspond to a general property of the interaction of the electromagnetic field with the charges, and remember, the electromagnetic field only interacts with charges, so to say that light interacts in "packets" (photons) with charges means that it can be thought as formed by those packets (photons). To be more rigorous, similar experiments should had to be done with other electrically charged "particles" (now it has been tested with many other particles). To call photons, or even electrons etc. as "particles" is just a ("lazy") way of talking, they are NOT particles and they are NOT waves, but they can be "approximated" by one or another in some circumstances, the property that those "particles" have that make them (remotely) similar to classical (true) particles is that they interact as a whole in a localized small region of space-time. For a more "convincing" "proof" that light is composed of photons see the anti-bunching experiments (search internet). But of course, never anything of "reality" can be definitively "proved", it is always possible to construct alternative theories, with different and contrary concepts, that can "explain" the experimental results, it is just that the more simple approach is taken (provisionally, as always in science) , it would have been very complicate (but not impossible) to explain Compton results without the photon hypothesis, so the much more simple photon hypothesis was admitted by the scientific community.

[@AroundPhysics]

@@pablocopello3592 Thank you. I see the concept of wave-particle duality as one of the most devastating in physics. Naming photon a particle is a huge misleading simplification. Also, the problem exists with the nature of electrons as well ("particles" with no radius). I prefer to use the concept of "events" when talking about scattering of photons on electrons.

[@alwayscurious413]

I’m in the same camp - I keep thinking that it’s all waves really and I’m going to keep trying to find a wave explanation that agrees with the quantum outcome nature of the data!

[@pablocopello3592]

3 persons can enter for a moment into a dark room with an elephant to determine what animal is there. They had never seen an elephant. One had touched the trump and said that there was a snake. Another had touched and felt the ears and said it was a bat. The third had touched the tail and said it was a giant rat. After much discussion they agreed it was a flying snake with a giant rat tail. Even if an elephant can surround things with it's trump, or agitate the air with it's ears or agitate its tail, an elephant is not a snake, or a bat or a rat or a yuxtaposition of those animals. An elephant is a completely different animal, even if in certain cases it does things similar to what those animals do. Light is not a set of particles or a wave, but a completely different thing, even if in certain cases it does things similar to what a set of particles or a wave would do.

[@AroundPhysics]

@@pablocopello3592 The channel of Alekxander Unzicker is original. He looks on particles like topological defects (in what? in timespace?). This is indeed a something close to me: I work now on computer modelling of dislocations in crystals. There is indeed some analogies between properties of defects and properties of particles. Now, what is the speed of light? It has been assumed that it is constant. Is that the speed of exchanging information in a ... possibly quite strange, disturbed medium? Why we can not calculate the mass and charge of electron? That means we know nothing..

[@alwayscurious413]

Thanks for this - great to have all of this information in one place. This is critical -the Compton effect for me is where it all happens and we need to keep thinking.

[@abhijithcpreej]

I love your channel so I'm adding a bit of constructive criticism. Your video on Planck's derivation of the black body radiation is one of my favourite science videos; because it taught me about how the science and the scientists interacted. It was drama. I feel like that sort of info keeps the viewers (especially me) interested in the process

[@christophergame7977]

Max Planck set quantum physics going, in 1900. But he did not set quantum mechanics going; that was done by Heisenberg in 1925 and Schroedinger in 1926. Between 1900 and 1925, quantum physics was expressed in what is known as 'the old quantum theory'. The old quantum theory had many successes. But it also had major defects, many of which were remedied by quantum mechanics.

[@GeoffryGifari]

Some other comments: 1. Why weren't his results correct the first two times? because he inconsistently used energy/momentum conservation from einsteinian/galilean relativity? 2. For experiments with shocking results like this, do other groups rush to replicate? Reproducing experiments is part of science (I still remember the flurry of activities when that korean superconductor paper came out a while ago) but I'm not sure how often this is done

[@jkzero]

1. the first time he used wrong data (he misinterpreted his results) and the wrong theory (fluorescence + Doppler shift); the second time he used correct data but still the wrong theory. Suppose that the second theory was correct: why was momentum conserved but not energy? The two approaches that he used (first vs. second attempt) are mutually inconsistent. Both energy and momentum are conserved. Also, the correct description requires relativistic equations for the recoiling electron. 2. yes, Compton results were replicated many times, plus there was all that historical data that also confirmed his formula.

[@JoeDeglman]

Einstein had a track record of being wrong and having to go back and make his General Theory equations match observation. Current data on particle accelerators show that the failure of the particles to obey predictions is due to the application of the Special Theory of Relativity. It is in fact the use of time-based equations instead of wave-based equations that creates the conundrums of the Einstein model of light. The same thing applies to the Michelson Morley experiment. When you assume that the ether is stationery, the experiment does not experience a variance in the speed of light, and light is an energy wave in a medium, the MMX requires the use of the Superposition of waves equation instead of einstein's particle/time-based model. AKA because the moving fringes are caused by an energy difference in the forward and reflective waves, caused by the solar wind energy, the MMX experiment requires a different equation than MMX and Miller Dayton used. When you use the Superposition of Waves Principle on the data from the MMX it returns a value of about 30 km/sec of the Earth orbital velocity vs the 7.5 km/sec which assumed an ether drift and a variance in the speed of light. Most of the failed Einstein relativity models are propped up by math equations that are invalid.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

​@@JoeDeglman Einstein was not a mathematician but a physicist. And I was wondering the same as you. The Einstein's model of light may be wrong due to the fact that time-based equations do not carry the definition of time. We know what wave is. But this still is a problem because the theory of aether is coming back. I think that space is itself has properties of aether. This video is great but I have a problem with imagining the conservation of momentum and energy in Compton experiment. Scattering produces physical impacts and when the measurement of the impact of quanta is recorded and then momentum is calculated. But it refers only to the instance of impact. Then scattering takes place. I wonder how these guys measured the speed of the photon after it was hit. And how far and where did that photon go? For a photon that loses energy must also lose speed. Also, Compton effect does not explain the cause of the incoming photons i.e. the mechanism behind the detachment of photon from the source. It only explains the intermediate happenstance and the final result without the cause of it. Einstein was a plagiarist: Link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKSyk5RoqtWfoNk

[@JoeDeglman]

@@user-ky5dy5hl4d Einstein's particle theory of does not survive observations from GPS satellites. In regard to his General Theory, ..... when a satellite at a higher altitude gives of light, it is redder than at a lower altitude, but the frequency does not blue shift into the Earth's gravity well as the general theory predicts but maintains its frequency into the Earth gravity well. ..... light (frequency) from geostationary satellites on the edge of the Earth, moving directly towards the Sun, vs geostationary satellites on the other edge of the Earth, moving directly away from the Sun, should experience 'gravitational' redshift or blueshift per Einstein's prediction, but they do not. AKA gravity does not have any effect on the energy of light. Third, in regard to the Special Theory of Relativity, light travels fasters between GPS satellite from west to east vs east to west, because the satellites are in motion WRT the Earth and the magnetic flux of the Earth. AKA it appears that light is not by particle but by energy wave in the Earth's magnetic field. AKA the Earth's magnetic field, or vacuum at satellite level, does have electromagnetic properties, in contradiction of Einstein's claims about the ether that he presented in his 1920 lecture on the ether. When you look back into the original derivation of Planck's Constant, it was done without time or the second as units, but in natural units or cycles, not cycles per second. Planck's Constant was bastardized to make it conform to the Einstein claim that the speed of light in a vacuum was a constant. But studies on Planck's Constant, using GPS clock frequency data, implies that it is more likely that the speed of light varies with altitude due to the density of the magnetic flux being less dense at higher altitudes., which is also why clock at a higher altitude gives off a redder frequency and run faster at the higher altitude.

[@JoeDeglman]

@@user-ky5dy5hl4d check out PROCEEDINGS of the NPA 1 - 'The Twin Paradox: Why it is Required by Relativity' Steven Bryant He explains why time-based equations create the paradoxes of the Einstein model, vs frequency-based equations.

[@Skellborn]

Thank you :) One question comes to mind: If the electron gets pushed away with relativistic speeds, then every photon that comes along needs its own electron sitting there at rest. Where are they all coming from? And why did No one notice the electrons bouncing away all the time earlier?

[@GRosa]

Electrons responsible for the conductivity in metals are not bound to the atoms which form their crystal lattice, forming a "sea" of negative charge. These are the electrons which are excited by the light and then emitted as photoelectrons from the metal plate. As they leave the plate, others occupy their place. A connection of the plate to earth keeps the plate grounded. Heinrich Hertz observed the photoelectric effect in 1887, long before Einstein published his theory in 1905. So, a lot of people were aware of it between those two dates.

[@bizarrecentral6032]

Was Einstein ever wrong 🤣

[@dennyoconnor8680]

Not so far.

[@alans172]

@@dennyoconnor8680 Yup, he hung onto ether for far too long!

[@triffid0hunter]

He really hated the statistical nature of quantum mechanics and refused to fully entertain the notion that things worked like that, despite making several critical contributions to the field himself - hence the "god does not play dice" quote

[@FTLRecords]

I am a computer science grad. Currently learning physics on my own. This is so helpful and great source to learn and understand things.

[@jkzero]

Thanks for your comment, I really appreciate what you share, knowing that my content can help you understand concepts is fantastic news.

[@user-vr4ih7xn2p]

Amazing story, THANK YOU for sharing it with us! Great job of teaching physics

[@MaxPower-vg4vr]

Quantum mechanics stands out as a domain where the both/and logic of the monadological framework finds profound relevance and application. The paradoxical behavior of quantum particles and systems has persistently challenged classical binary logic and representations rooted in strict separability and the mutual exclusivity of properties. Wave-Particle Duality One of the most famous quantum paradoxes is the wave-particle duality, where quantum entities like electrons and photons exhibit properties of both particles and waves depending on the experimental context. Classical logic would deem these to be contradictory and mutually exclusive properties - an entity cannot be both a localized particle and a delocalized wave simultaneously. However, quantum experiments have incontrovertibly demonstrated this seemingly impossible "wave-particle duality." The multivalent structure of the both/and logic allows us to formally represent and reason about these apparently contradictory wave and particle aspects. We can assign quantum entities like an electron a partial truth value between 0 and 1 for both the proposition "is a particle" and "is a wave" based on the specific experimental context. The coherence operator ○ in the logic allows quantifying the compatibility between the particle and wave properties. For instance, in a double-slit experiment setup, an electron could be assigned truth values of 0.7 for "is a wave" and 0.6 for "is a particle", with a coherence value ○(wave, particle) = 0.4 say. This reflects that in this context, the electron exhibits a high degree of both wave and particle properties, which are partially coherent or compatible with each other per the logic. The synthesis operator ⊕ further allows representing the integration of the particle and wave aspects into a higher-order unified description that transcends their apparent opposition in a creative/emergent way as per the quantum phenomenon. Electron ⊕ ~Electron could capture the genuine possibilistic superposition that transcends the classical dichotomies. Quantum Entanglement Another quintessential quantum paradox is the phenomenon of entanglement, where particles can remain indefinitely correlated in their properties over arbitrary distances, schematically violating the classical assumptions of separability, locality, and independence. Once in an entangled state, the individual particles lose their autonomy and must be modeled as a holistic, non-separable system exhibiting correlations that cannot be accounted for by classical probability theory. The both/and logic allows us to formally represent and reason about these non-local, holistic correlations. We can use the coherence operator to quantify how well separable vs. holistic descriptions fit the entangled system's behavior based on violations of Bell inequalities. We can assign entangled particles a high truth value for being in a unified, non-separable state and a low value for classical separability. The synthesis operator ⊕ comes into play to represent the transcendent, novel whole that emerges for the entangled system - one where properties are fundamentally de-localized and reciprocally coordinated across the individual particle descriptors. Descriptions like "SpinUp ⊕ ~SpinUp" capture the genuinely holistic and paradoxical condition evinced. The principle of holistic contradiction further allows logically deriving the non-separable correlations from any product state descriptor, formalizing how entanglement forces abandoning classical separability assumptions. Quantum Theory Interpretation More broadly, the both/and logic provides a coherent framework for interpreting and modeling the paradoxical phenomenology of quantum theory that has resisted reconciliation with classical representations. Principles like complementarity, uncertainty, non-locality, and wave-function collapse all involve apparent contradictions between operational predictions, measurements, and visualizable physical mechanisms. The multivalent structure allows assigning multiple dynamically-shifting truth values to propositions about particle/field properties, detecting vs not detecting events, local vs non-local causality, unitary evolution vs stochastic collapse etc. based on context. Coherence values between these assign degrees of compatibility. The synthesis operator captures the higher-order transcendence involved in intrinsically indeterminate or "complementary" variables. Holistic contradiction allows formalizing the genuinely paradoxical possibilistic condition where for instance, "SpinUp" and "~SpinUp" both arise as co-realizable eventualities for a single quantum event, in a way barred by classical logic. In essence, the both/and logic allows coherently representing and regimenting the intrinsically paradoxical phenomenology and interpretational paradoxes of quantum theory itself, in a way moving beyond the internal contradictions that have plagued classical analyses and models. Its paraconsistent, multivalent structure allows quantum theory's apparent contradictions and complementarities to be rendered formally consistent and expressible. By embracing the both/and logic native to quantum phenomena, the monadological framework promises fundamental advances in our capacity to model, predict, and perhaps even rationally steer the quantum realm. Where classical logic and models fail by being too restrictive, the both/and logic equips us with a radically expanded descriptive capacity befitting quantum theory's intrinsically paradoxical nature.

[@enriquemacchiavelli8771]

Thanks for this and the complete series of physics story. BEAUTIFUL!

[@eonasjohn]

Yes, it is confirmed.

[@jitenderkumaryadav6513]

Only and only lovely and mathematically and experimentally just content. Only and only love this!

[@faisalsheikh7846]

Incredible❤❤

[@dziban303]

this channel is great

[@Jtnimagery]

Love the video! Small nitpick - At 14:23 the next step of the equation is not simply squaring and rearranging, the law of cosines is applied to introduce theta.

[@jkzero]

Thanks for watching and I am glad you liked the video. I disagree with the need of the law of cosines in this step, it is an alternative way of doing it but I didn't use it. Let me show the steps I followed without the law of cosines: p = k - k' (square both sides now) |p|² = |k|² + |k'|² - 2 k·k' by definition k·k' = |k| |k'| cos θ |p|² = |k|² + |k'|² - 2 |k| |k'| cos θ so no need of the law of cosines.

[@vinniepeterss]

great!

[@GRosa]

What was the purpose of the crystal in front of the ionisation chamber? Was it to select individual wavelengths from among the secondary X-ray continuum (if it's one)?

[@jkzero]

the crystal was the key component of the Bragg spectrometer, X rays reflected on the crystal surface and by changing the incidence angle you can select the wavelength reflected in a given direction (this is call Bragg's law). This was most of Compton's PhD thesis so he knew this would give him an edge compared to all previous experiments. This is Bragg-spectroscopy technique is what allow Compton to scan a wide range of wavelengths.

[@GRosa]

That's what I thought. Gracias

[@lionel3921]

Thumbs up from France!

[@fabienleguen]

Years after Einstein and Milikan papers, the Nobel Price Willis Lamb published a paper titled : « The photoelectric effect without photons » where he showed that one can predict the photoelectric effect without quantifying the electromagnetic field if, at least, the electron states are quantized. This publication is quite late (1968) but is this that kind of argument that prevented the scientific community to accept the wave-particule duality of light after Milikan paper and before Compton paper ?

[@jkzero]

I am aware of Lamb's paper on this, I have seen it many times as "Einstein was wrong" kind of statements. Lamb himself writes in this paper that Einstein's light-quanta are still necessary to account for the Compton effect, plus this paper is from the 1960s. So, no, this was not the reason physicist didn't accept Einstein's light-quanta, they simply (and rightfully) stated that no compelling evidence of light behaving as a particle had been found. Millikan experiment (see previous video) only confirmed that the photoelectric formula discovered by Einstein was right, but Millikan convinced everyone that this was not evidence that the underlying theory was correct. I would say that the physics community was simply following Laplace's words: "the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."

[@fabienleguen]

@@jkzero thank you for your answer

[@FraserIland]

0:46 Both waves' equations are wrong because of (1 / με) instead of (με)

[@BastianCastorene]

eh, nop. they are correct

[@FraserIland]

@@BastianCastorene Did you check with "Dimensional analysis"? It takes 10 seconds!!! Hint: c^2 = (1 / με)^2 => (m/s) ^2 = [c^2] = [(1 / με)^2] = (m/s) ^2

[@BastianCastorene]

Ahhh yes, i didnt notice. The 1/ munepsilon must be with the laplacian

[@FraserIland]

@@BastianCastorene 🙂

[@FraserIland]

@@BastianCastorene I never remember. Thus I automatically check the dimensions!!!

[@tylerjmast]

You make excellent videos. But I have a prediction of my own; You're never going to hear the end of it for featuring better help as a sponsor.

[@off_Planet]

Rightfully so.

[@alans172]

9:19 I'm not sure you have correctly identified Θ: Is it the angle between the incident X-rays and the scattered X-rays (shown as as ~35° in the diagram,) or 90° in the screen text which corresponds to the angle between the incident X-Ray and the reflected X-Ray in the ionization chamber.

[@GRosa]

I think it's correctly identified. The angle could be varied through a certain amplitude, 90° included. The angle of 90° is singled out here because that's what the first graphs refer to. Later in the video, other graphs corresponding to different angles are illustrated. I don't think the angle of the reflected secondary X-ray at the crystal is relevant, but maybe the author can clarify this, including the purpose of the crystal.

[@jkzero]

The angle θ shown in the diagram is generic; Compton later used θ=0°, 45°, 90°, and 135°, but during the original experiments he used θ=90°. The angle reflected on the crystal is unrelated to θ in Compton's formula, which relates the incident and scattered X-rays. This reflection on the crystal is only relevant for measuring the wavelength of the scattered angle. So again, the angle θ shown in the diagram is just for illustrative purposes.

[@jkzero]

You are totally right. Just to add to your comment, the angle of reflection on the crystal is irrelevant when thinking on the angle θ in Compton's formula, (which is the angle between incident and scattered X-rays). However, this reflection angle on the crystal very relevant for measuring the wavelength of the scattered angle, this is essence of the Bragg-spectroscopic technique that set Compton's experiments apart for the early measurements.

[@tombouie]

Well Done but over my head

[@tombouie]

Naive questions; So light is quantumtized but ????Iwhat is the empiric proof light is an atomic particle??? For ex: atomic particles might be well-described as frozen/condensed light or something

[@GRosa]

Light quanta, i.e. photons, aren't atomic particles.

[@CaptainCalculus]

Fantastic as always, have a coffee and a bagel on me

[@jkzero]

Once again, thanks for your continuous support. That coffee and bagel make the perfect company while I finish the next video... it will be "bohring"

[@CaptainCalculus]

@@jkzero oh I'm on pins and niels waiting for it!!!

[@kenkiarie]

Let us pray!

[@GRosa]

Let us think! 🧠

[@jitenderkumaryadav6513]

I come back to you to ask a specific question. There has been a lot of hassle around whether Einstein deserves so much credit for the theory of relativity or was it poincare who did all the mathematics. Could you make some content or share some resources decoding the exact role of all physicists in relativity? And some good sources to study relativity would be great as well. Thanks!

[@jitenderkumaryadav6513]

This is related to people questioning Einstein's credibility as a physicist or mathematician.

[@jkzero]

To be honest, I know little about Poincaré's work. For what I have read, he was pretty close to crack the nut of special relativity and if Einstein had not published his paper in 1905, soon Poincaré would have been who present it to the world. People who question Einstein's credibility are usually crackpots in need of attention who have probably not read a single paper by Einstein. The myth of Einstein having bad grades in math and physics in school don't even know that the grade system changes from one country to another. In fact in Germany, getting a 1 is the best while getting a 4 makes you fail; while in most countries the order is reversed. This is the main source of confusion and it is exploited by people who wants to prove Einstein wrong or question his competence.

[@mattshu]

Why is this the only channel I see people complaining about BetterHelp

[@mattshu]

welp googling helps

[@alans172]

Veritasium is also copping flack

[@vinniepeterss]

❤❤

[@alans172]

The concept of particles possessing energy and momentum without mass is a fascinating one. It's true that photons, for example, exhibit these properties but lack intrinsic rest mass. My question is: Could there exist hypothetical particles with non-zero energy and momentum yet with zero velocity? The behaviour of such particles might align with some characteristics of dark matter, which is theorised to interact only gravitationally and not participate in electromagnetic interactions like photons. Furthermore, could the energy associated with these hypothetical particles contribute to the dark energy phenomenon driving the universe's expansion? Has this concept been explored in scientific research? I understand this might be an unconventional idea, but I'm curious if there's existing research exploring particles with these characteristics, or if there are fundamental reasons why such particles wouldn't be feasible.

[@jkzero]

I think at first we all get uncomfortable with the idea of massless particles having momentum but I believe the problem is that momentum gets introduced in high school as just p=mv, but when you study Lagrangian mechanics the concept of momentum makes sense and you find that p=mv is just a very special case. Regarding your question: Could there exist hypothetical particles with non-zero energy and momentum yet with zero velocity? I doubt it because you can relate energy, momentum, and velocity in the form v = ∂E/∂p. If you hypothetical particle has non-zero energy and momentum then you also know that E² = (pc)² + (mc²)². Using the previous expression for velocity, you will find v>0.

[@alans172]

@@jkzeroThank you for your response. I am encouraged by your qualified response ("I doubt it…" ) to my suggestion. Could not your objection, whilst holding true in 2024, have been used prior to 1922 to cast doubt on the existence of momentum in a massless photon? Is there perhaps a way to refine the concept of particles with energy and zero velocity to explore its potential connection to dark matter or dark energy phenomena, even if it doesn't perfectly align with existing models? How would we go about detecting them? P.S. I think you will find that p = mv was accepted at post graduate level until 1922 when Compton made his leap of imagination.

[@jkzero]

@@alans172 I would disagree, the concept of momentum for light existed already in classical mechanics, it can be derived from Maxwell's equations that an electromagnetic wave has a momentum p = E/c. Also, in 1909 Johannes Stark attended Einstein's presentation on quantum fluctuation in which he demonstrated the wave-particle duality of light, from where he (Stark) wrote the momentum of a light-quanta to be p=hv/c. Stark later abandoned this relation in favor of the "light is a wave not a particle" team. The first complete presentation of the photon momentum was given by Einstein in his famous 1916 paper on radiation.

[@alans172]

​@@jkzero Would you be able to recommend a reference that elaborates on the historical development of the idea that light had momentum within classical physics?

[@jkzero]

@@alans172 of course, I believe this was derived by Maxwell himself. Just google search for the Poynting vector (S) and its relation to linear momentum radiation. In a nutshell, for an electromagnetic wave p = S/c², and using the definitions of S and energy density of the EM field you will find that its momentum is p=E/c. A good reference is Jackson's Electrodynamics, it is the standard graduate-level textbook in electromagnetism. It also very dry and every student hates it.

[@jeewillikers]

Of all the people I've seen promote Better Help, this has been one of the most disappointing. As a scientifically minded person I know you know better than engaging in blind promotion without research, why didn't you do that here? Or do you not care?

[@JustNow42]

Niels Bohr did what? He did not do anything before 1913.

[@jkzero]

Most of the story in this video takes place in the early 1920s, I included the dates everywhere

[@johannsebastianbach3411]

❤

[@berdigylychrejepbayev7503]

what da hell? the term photon was developed by lewis and not by einstein? I've thought einstein was the first one to use that term since I was a high schooler

[@chillphil967]

lets goo🎉

[@MathsSciencePhilosophy]

I have a theory about light (but I am not sure whether it's correct or incorrect).

[@GRosa]

That shouldn't be very hard to evaluate. If your theory doesn't explain the already known phenomena then it's most likely incorrect.

[@jkzero]

If you have a theory, all you have to do is to express it in clear mathematical form, derive its consequences, and confirm that its predictions agree with existing experimental evidence.

[@MathsSciencePhilosophy]

@@jkzero my theory's mathematics is same as well established theories which are already derived and tested, but I have another interpretation of that mathematics

[@MustafaAlmosawi]

Please don’t support Better Help, their horrible track record with both those needing mental help assistance, and the reports of having unqualified people as ‘therapists’ topped off by selling patient data makes them a cursed rashfire of a sponsor.

[@utubesgreat4me]

Wow. Practically no content before the advert. Forget it.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Could light and electrons be waves over a ‘period of time’ with particle characteristics as a probabilistic uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds?

[@omargaber3122]

Sorry for repeating the request, but we want to know how the hydrogen bomb works using mathematics?!!

[@off_Planet]

Please, just do the mobile game sponsorship instead. That company should have been dead years ago and you probably know it. Yet still, you take their money. Not cool man.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

This video is great but I have a problem with imagining the conservation of momentum and energy in Compton experiment. Scattering produces physical impacts and when the measurement of the impact of quanta is recorded and then momentum is calculated. But it refers only to the instance of impact. Then scattering takes place. I wonder how these guys measured the speed of the photon after it was hit. And how far and where did that photon go? For a photon that loses energy must also lose speed. Also, Compton effect does not explain the cause of the incoming photons i.e. the mechanism behind the detachment of photon from the source. It only explains the intermediate happenstance and the final result without the cause of it. Einstein was a plagiarist: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKSyk5RoqtWfoNk

[@GRosa]

The speed of the photon doesn't change, only its energy.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

@@GRosa Where does the lost energy by photon go?

[@GRosa]

@@user-ky5dy5hl4d Where do you think it goes?

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

@@GRosa It goes into change of wavelength. So, from your point of thinking it looks like when you send a photon into a mirror and it reflects back, the photon never loses its speed? This would mean that after the photon bounces back from the mirror it maintans the same speed even after a reversal of direction instantaneously? Heve you ever heard of something happeineg in zero seconds. Can you run accelerate your car to 100 MPH in 0 seconds? Don't you think that if the photon hits the mirror and reverses direction 180 degrees it must first stop and then start traveling in the other direcion?

[@GRosa]

@@user-ky5dy5hl4d You're employing an inadequate analogy: a photon doesn't behave like a car (macroscopic object): its speed doesn't change, only its energy (proportional to frequency, or inversly to wavelength, since E~f~1/λ).

[@alans172]

14:38 I'm sure it can be explained, but this is where my head exploded. A particle of light has momentum? Classical physics says momentum = mass x velocity. The light particle has velocity: c. What is it's mass? Oh yes: m = E/c^2. Light has momentum, but no mass??? My brain hurts!

[@fabienleguen]

Mass does not fundamentally exist. It is just confined energy (of the massless gluonic fields or of the frozen potential energy of massless higgs field interaction with massless particule fields). This can help : You can primarly consider « momentum conservation » as the conservation of the direction and of the intensity of the linear movement of an energy packet and « mass » as a particular type of energy packet.

[@alans172]

@@fabienleguen Like I said: my brain hurts. "Mass does not fundamentally exist"! I don't doubt you, but, as an old classical physicist, it's a hard pill to swallow.😃💊

[@GRosa]

Since photons are massless particles, and therefore always travel at the speed of light, c, you can't use the relation for the momentum, p=mv, from classical physics. You have to use the relativistic relation, p=E/c, where E is the photon's energy (purely kinematic). From E=hf, you get p=hf/c=h/λ, where h is Plank's constant, f is the frequency of the associated wave, and λ is the corresponding wavelength.

[@alans172]

@@GRosa "where E is the photon's energy (purely cinematic)." ??? You rather lose credibility in this arena when you can't distinguish between cinematic and kinematic!

[@alans172]

@@fabienleguen I wonder what the dimensions of momentum are in quantum physics? In classical physics it's [M][L][-T], in MKS units momentum is measured in kg metres/sec.

[@zyxzevn]

Based on my Quantum research, I would say the opposite. There is never a time and place where the EM-wave is any particle. In the "photoelectric effect", there are well-known resonance frequencies that makes an electron-shell vibrate. This vibration collects as "energy" and will change the state of the shell, when there is enough energy. The "enough" energy has a threshold that hides the change. This change in state is falsely interpreted as a quantum-jump. And this particle model regards the photon as a "bullet" that shoots an "electron" out of orbit. This is just a belief, but has sadly embedded itself into the physics. The push-effect of EM-waves is caused by the reaction of matter to the Electric and Magnetic field. The electric fields makes an electron move (and proton the same). And the magnetic field gives a moving electron a force. Just with basic EM physics, you can see that this usually creates a push force. This is mainstream physics, but often forgotten due to the particle .. myth. This reaction of matter also creates a new wave! See recent 3brown1blue videos for great explanation. In the x-ray scattering experiment the electrons are not "particles" either. This also causes some confusion in the scattering. The electron "cloud" is probably receiving many waves and reacting to it. The outgoing wave is produced by the reaction of the electron "cloud". If you want to see all the experiments, check Eric Reiter quantum on youtube.

[@williamwalker39]

The speed of light is not a constant 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 Galilean Transform, 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. *KZbin presentation of above arguments: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZazlX1tq7iErLM *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

[@jnhrtmn]

Math has allowed rote memory dependent people to thrive in physics, because it is a procedural path to understanding. They didn't think light was wavelike because of Maxwell's equations. It was wavelike from the obvious character that it displays in every simple observation. It just looks like a wave. Maxwell's equations do not explain why electricity and magnetism are perpendicular, because that's not what a cross product does. It turns numbers perpendicular FOR NO REASON. At that point, you have skipped some very important physics believing in math. To me, it should have been obvious that light should have an affect on inertia. Gravity does. Duh,,, Everyone acts like this was some miraculous realization. It's the rote memory followers and how they turn physics into something it's not. You think angular momentum causes the gyroscopic effect, because math tells you so, and it's what you were taught. Look at my Proof video about the actual cause of the effect. Spin velocity is being steered around by a perfectly orthogonal acceleration effect, so spinning only sets a rate for the cause, and it's acceleration, not momentum. Math didn't tell you that.

[@fightingforcatalonia]

GOAT. Tu fiel fan otra vez preparado para el show.