Newton vs Huygens: corpuscular vs wave models of light explained and refuted

[@cwj9202]

It was interesting to learn that Newton described the different colored lights in terms of size - not a far jump from there to wavelengths.

[@KalebPeters99]

Right? Everyone talks about it like "aaaand then he was proven completely wrong and now we have the correct theory of photons" but like he was so close in so many ways!

[@koenraad4618]

It is beautiful how Huygens' wave principle explains several optical phenomena. I never understood why we cannot have both types of waves (longitudinal and transverse) in vacuum. An Earth quake causes primary (longitudinal) and secondary (transverse) surface waves. The primary wave velocity is higher than the secondary wave velocity. I published on a generalization of Maxwell's electrodynamics theory that describes three types of waves in vacuum: transverse electromagnetic, longitudinal electro(scalar)magnetic and longitudinal superluminal 'Phi' waves (electric field is minus the gradient of Phi, and the 'magnetic field' is minus the time derivative of Phi, where 'Phi' is the electric potential). Although Huygens assumed incorrectly that visible light is a longitudinal wave phenomenon, that does not mean that longitudinal waves in vacuum do not exist, and should have a velocity much higher than 'c' (the speed of the transverse waves in vacuum). After all, we do not have a clear understanding about the physical nature of Louis de Broglie's pilot wave in vacuum, which should have a velocity much much higher than 'c'. And what do you know: recent measurements of the propagation speed of the Coulomb field (the near electric field) shows Coulomb's electric field propagates with a velocity mucher higher than 'c', in agreement with my classical electrodynamics theory. So Huygens' suggestion of 'aetheric' longitudinal waves was not incorrect, although such waves are not the light that we see. I am Dutch, standing on Huygens' shoulders, and Newton is my hero, the greatest scientist of all time. Final remark: a "constant" TEM wave velocity 'c' (and an upper bound for all physical velocity) is a dogmatic postulate. Constant 'c' is NOT a law of physics, because theoretical upper bounds or theoretical lower bounds (regardless the theoretical background) are dogmatic non-empirical suggestions, that can't be verified/falsified by experiments. Einstein understood this very well, so he duped the 'c' velocity barrier (boundary) a 'postulate', which actually means DOGMA, and certainly does not mean LAW.

[@varsity9171]

very clear and straight to the point!

[@senukakariyawasam4461]

You single handedly moved my mark up to an A in physics. Thank you!!!

[@PhysicsHigh]

Glad I could help

[@mhub3576]

Very informative and well- presented video. Thank you.

[@matthewhield6905]

Fantastic video

[@anzatzi]

great presentation!

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

I find it odd that Newton or Huygens never came up with the idea of light being a wave with particle characteristics when the absorption and emission takes place. Spherical 4π geometry will naturally form a three-dimensional process (three-dimensional space) that has to be squared r² if the process is relative to the surface of the sphere. This could give us a reason why so much is squared in physics, t², c², e², ψ² and velocity v² as in kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy. This process would form an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future continuously unfolding with the exchange of photon ∆E=hf energy. Also it would explain why the spheres only move in the forward direction!

[@hemantkumar1487]

Beautifully explained.. you are a gem ..

[@YassineJ]

Thanks for the video !

[@roze6211]

thank you , that was really helpful

[@uranium8250]

Awesome stuff

[@hugdragon8616]

i thought the wave model kinda explained polarisation?

[@omambisseckchambert6572]

Great explanation

[@johnjeremias9437]

Excellent explanation, thank you

[@PhysicsHigh]

You’re welcome

[@CHAO4K]

thank you this really helped out a lot!

[@MohammadAli-sg8bj]

Such great content, really appreciate your efforts

[@PhysicsHigh]

Thanks

[@JeshuSavesEndTimeMinistry21C]

Sagnac interference effect hence revalidation of Ether

[@stimulantdaimamld2099]

great

[@ShivanshRana]

Huygens wavefront theory was able to explain the wave nature but Newton was. Only able to explain the particle nature,but in reality light behaves both as light as well as wave,while particle is at rest it more likely behaves like a particle but when in motion it behaves mores as a wave.

[@renevandort7015]

Christiaan Huygens had al eerder gezegd dat het .licht uit de golven bestaat zoals electronen en volgens mij bestaat het licht uit de electronen.

[@superlambmilkshake4904]

Can you please provide the link to the "light as a wave animation"?? @PhysicsHigh

[@MuriloIto1]

Thank you!

[@PhysicsHigh]

You are welcome.

[@billjump6359]

where do you get your shirts from

[@PhysicsHigh]

Most are my own designs. A few are purchased.

[@value8035]

So Newton thought light had charge and a mass.?? If that is the case, he can explain diffraction using attraction (gravitational/magnetic) between light corpuscle and the slit?

[@shimona]

but how would u explain the constructive and destructive interferences?

[@annettebertora4434]

Quanta = Electric /magnetic radiation.......I think you should have mentioned M. Planck, no??????

[@PhysicsHigh]

I could have but Planck hadn’t quite worked it out. As far as he was concerned the quanta idea was a mathematical solution to the black body curve and he still wanted to reconcile it with classical theory. It was Einstein who put it altogether.

[@beachboardfan9544]

Learned about the duality of light 15ish years ago, still doesnt sit right with me...

[@academy2247]

Shadows

[@victormaxwellpeters9771]

How could a genius like Sir Issac Netwon miss those when a layman could make out.

[@peterdevalk7929]

"layman" ?????

[@fresnelneru]

Fucking layman?

[@kinddata]

Light is such a paradox to me. Say, two people where in a library, reading books under an entangled light source. Would they see, what each other is reading, overlaying on their eyes?

[@lolnub265]

No because reflection is occurring on the book as the wave of light reflects back Since the path of reflection is not situated at the eyes, we can't see it.

[@thgr3549]

Y

[@nshaji1729]

Francis Bacon died well before Newton was born. So he did not oppose Newton's corpuscular theory. Probably you meant Hooke

[@PhysicsHigh]

Oops. You are right. That’s for the correction.

[@bonganicarlinemartiens9814]

Not you grading Sir Isaac Newton.

[@shashi2289]

Newton cannot be correct in everthing

[@cheangleng7617]

Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong

[@bishplis7226]

it was a a sad day for newton

[@danduerango7718]

Brush ur teeth man