The Spectral Spectrum | How do "Photons & Electromagnetic Waves" Work?

[@EverydayEngineer]

The nature of the quantum level of physics is.... strange, isn't it? Let me know if you have any questions!

[@rodneybernard4959]

How light wave is self generating?

[@terpderbs7342]

I came across a question that stumped me recently, anything with a lower wavelength than visible light is considered a wave, and anything with a longer wavelength is considered a ray (of particles presumptively) So is there a specific wavelength where the wave becomes a particle or are the terms simply labeled that to enhance the description?

[@Mi_Fa_Volare]

So uh, how does it work in the wave function? Are electric and magnetic fields quantum fields themselves? Is a photon a bundle of Lorenz's law? How does an excitation of a quantum field make oscillations of electric and magnetic field when the photon is a particle? Is a photon such oscillation of magnetic and electric fields when the photon is in its wave function? How so if yes? How does a transition of electric and magnetic fields work when the wave function collapses if the electric and magnetic fields exist in the wave function. This is so confusing. Like, how does it look if it splits in a double slit?

[@EverydayEngineer]

@@Mi_Fa_Volare I'm pretty sure that the wave function just "describes" the frequency of the electric and magnetic fields of the photon - they will be at the same frequency, as a photon is an electric field that has become "coupled" to the magnetic field - basically, the "change" in the electric field, will result in a "change" in a magnetic field, which will then result in a "change" in the electric field again - this is how the photon "moves" through space. The double-slit, does not really "split" the photons - it acts more like a sieve that only a few of the photons can pass through at a time - the pattern is a result of the "energy levels" of the fields (that is, the "electromagnetic fields" - the electric and magnetic fields that have been coupled together) - because the fields travel like waves, they can combine "constructively" and add together (bright spots), or "destructively" and cancel each other out (which are the dark spots). Excellent questions!

[@vomeskes142]

@@rodneybernard4959 m m

[@moistmike4150]

It took a few amazing minds to bring us to where we are today. But history is full of many more amazingly canny, genius level people who could have figured out earlier the same things that later generations discovered. Their sin is that they lived at a time which could not - or would not - allow such discoveries to be made. Very strange how history plays out.

[@alexanderquilty5705]

Just wait until we have mainstream civilian level quantum processors. We’ve got some issues to handle still but we’ve already made a quantum processor.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@alexanderquilty5705 What are you going to do with a quantum processor at home? Calculate the proton's mass from first principles?

[@privateprivate1865]

@@alexanderquilty5705 yes what will people do with quantum processors at home just curious

[@Squidkid96]

@@alexanderquilty5705 I could see people being content with just newer phone like devices forever tbh

[@MOSMASTERING]

@@schmetterling4477 the fuzzy nature of quantum processing is good for AI and path finding in giant neural networks. Processing parallel and simultaneous waves in different parts of a system mimics the human brain doing multiple things before culminating into consciousness.

[@amandeep9930]

Amazing video. Consider lowering the volume of background music. Otherwise perfect.

[@quidestveritas8713]

I agree!! Thanks for the great info but please consider limiting background music in future videos.

[@DouwedeJong]

Great video. Uneven sound levels and music make listening strained.

[@connorwhyte9442]

i feel like you are such a good you tuber but hasn't blown up yet

[@djt6fan]

His voice lacks enthusiasm, I can appreciate the content, but it's kind of boring to listen. Sounds like he is suicidal.

[@techondrugs8388]

You put an absolute banger in the backing track and expect me to learn physics?... I was dancing the whole time Bruh..

[@williampollock1274]

These guys were who gave us everything we have today! We should be grateful!!!

[@nemo9396]

5:45 animation similar to this is why there is so much misconception about the wave-particle duality theory. The particles in electromagnetic waves do not move by oscillating up and down. What would keep them from exiting the waveform's boundary at the crest and trough? The waveform is a visual representation of probabilities of finding the particle at a given point, but the particle is moving in a straight line at speed x. Compared to a higher energy particle, it is moving at a slower pace, so if one takes a snapshot at a given point in time the two particles will be further spaced apart. This is why gamma rays are portrayed with a very short wavelength and radio waves with very long wavelengths. The atoms emitting those radiations are oscillating at different speeds, and emitting particles at intervals. Add many of those particles together and you get a waveform distribution at any given time. What is oscillating is the atom that emits the radiation, not the radiation itself.

[@danr1920]

Background music is too loud and just too weird.

[@duke.q8379]

I agree, there is no need for it in such video. Great otherwise.

[@XC797]

I like to watch Re-runs of The Munsters. The photons are real dusty at 1313 Mocking Bird Lane.

[@haddow777]

I don't know if I'm just odd or something, but the cadence of the audio seemed off. Like it was rapidly cycling between slightly slower and faster pacing. Kind of like how old audio taps sounded if there was a wobble in one of the reels causing the speed of the tape feed to speed up and slow down slightly. Could be just me.

[@Skynet_the_AI]

Hh m m m mmm....?!!!! R i g h t. Speedtime.

[@nezir6050]

Great video, but the volume of the background music made it very difficult for me to focus on the material. I had to go back a few times to actually understand certain concepts. Thanks!

[@philippe2210]

Really well-done video, I imagine the amount of effort that had to go into this

[@dannync95]

Interesting video. Pretty chill, I love that

[@BenetbenetLive]

Hell yeah, I found another great creator! Keep killing it my guy. These tune slap to hard 😀

[@aku7598]

4:33 very good illustration about antenna output the signal.

[@j.maxwaddell2557]

Great easy to understand information. Fascinating how we can discover the created universe, both the seen and the unseen, through known laws and principles waiting for our finding. Thankful for men and women who dare to find the way our existence coincides with the creation around us.

[@godntmoonsa1667]

subscribed, hopefully this channel will grow better and larger soon :) keep it up

[@ephjaymusic]

Really well explained! Thank you!

[@888aga]

Thank you! Great piece to get the overall understanding!

[@Frankx520]

Keep the good work going!

[@MOSMASTERING]

8.50 Phonetically - Looey de broyle Love the 80s sounding backing track!

[@sirnonamederechte6169]

Thank you!

[@alanar8046]

Dr. Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin is the astrophysicist astronomer who used the Electromagnetic Spectrum to discover what the sun all stars are made of.

[@stevenhillas6812]

Loved it

[@AbcDef-tl2kq]

Such a soothing voice.

[@It-b-Blair]

I still feel we don’t fully understand it, and our misunderstanding creates an egocentric perspective that permeates our understanding of physics. We’ve learned how to use it quite well, yet it still feels like theory more than a law/constant

[@JeremyCook]

Question: low frequency, long wavelength EM waves have lower energy, high frequency, short wavelength EM waves have higher energy. However, how does wave amplitude factor into this? I haven't really seen this stated clearly. Certainly some radio transmitters have higher power than others, and you can even see this in visible flashlights etc. Edit: Ahh, I see you answered this in another question. Basically a higher power antenna is emitting more photons/time at a certain energy wavelength? Actually might be a good video, since it appears to be of interest.

[@schmetterling4477]

The amplitude squared is proportional to the intensity, which would be proportional to the average photon flux.

[@bethanienaylor]

Does light actually 'travel' or is it something else?

[@schmetterling4477]

Light travels, but photons do not.

[@alejomarrazzopuente]

I appreciate your vid, it made some things clearer to me

[@jakublizon6375]

Keep making videos bro.

[@flipping1n0s]

I really enjoyed watching your video!

[@ElementUup511]

this likely will fly over most your heads that read but... particle science says light is non-mechanical and gravity is not space or magnetism but maxwell clearly stated as quoted on 2:26 that light is a perturbation of "the same medium in which is the CAUSE OF ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC' modalities. Therefor light is and can only be a perturbation of the dielectric medium through the gravity(magnetic) modality caused in laymans by the drag of magnetism or gravity upon the dielectric causing dielectric discharge. the electric wave doesnt make the magnetic rather converts into it discharging units of dielectricity. tesla and cp steinmetz and others all said relatively the same thing in different ways. it seems this has been deliberately misconstrued to paint a different picture of reality. Special gr says light is not a perturbation but a self propagating photon which is em but also doesnt have electrons. how does a magnetic and electric wave exist when there are no electrons to swirl about and interact? you cant just say light self propagates because particle science thinks with no evidence that the electric wave "makes" the magnetic wave rrr perpetually as it travels. while there are no particles within it to interact to cause this so the only solution is like stated by tesla and others that there must be a medium and gravity must have a repulsive force to propel it, that being this medium called dielectricity. if light is the emission of a diffusing electron and that light appears to have no qualities of the electron how is it not a field or wave or disturbance by impressing upon the dielectric through the gravity modality or space. magnetism is the absence of inertia and gravity is not the attraction of body to body but the lowest null pressure point or point of inertia between the two. gravity is magnetism and light as field or coaxial circuit is not a particle but is a perturbation through gravity modality of the dielectric medium.

[@howtosell9912]

Awesome vid

[@physicsandchemistryfriend9784]

Sir background music is no need better to create subtitles because some words are not clear, valuable information thank you

[@steelersgoingfor7706]

Damn..Herts died at 37 years old...

[@charliesta.abc123]

Make the background music louder

[@tissuepaper9962]

This video is almost exactly in the style of a SummoningSalt Speedrun world record history video. I love it.

[@Tezza120]

Light being electromagnetic, means it has a magnetic (H) field and electric (E) field as it propagates. So how does it pass through vacuum space when there are no electrons to make these H and E fields? Is the photon just another particle that can influence the H and E fields like the electron?

[@EverydayEngineer]

Yes, but it's made out of those H and E fields - each photon has energy that is proportionate to the frequency of those fields (this is Planck's Constant) - they are coupled together, and actually form the photon. It's strange because the photons can fly through space like particles but they can add together like waves - constructive or destructive interference. Wave-Particle Duality is just a part of the subatomic world that we have to learn to deal with - but once you get past that, many doors are opened.

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

Once an accelerating electron produces an EM wave, it is self-propagating. (See Maxwell's equations.) The changing E. field produces a changing M. field, and the changing M. field produces a changing E. field, and so on.

[@bethanienaylor]

@@EverydayEngineer what if photons don't 'fly' at all, like water doesn't 'travel' when we see waves going out from a fallen pebble, but the waves do. What if it's something else?

[@MOSMASTERING]

@@bethanienaylor the universe is made up of layers of quantum fields that propagate throughout all of space. When we see particles these are purtobations within that field with enough energy to become that particle. The electromagnetic field is everywhere, a photon travelling through it is indeed like a wave travelling on the surface of the ocean. Except it's in 3D, so there is no surface for he wave to travel upon. It's more like a giant grid than chicken wire.

[@bethanienaylor]

@@MOSMASTERING so the waves are CREATING the fields, not IN the fields. Ok got it. So where are the waves coming from? What is hitting the 'water' to create these waves?

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

I am EU and plasma universe follower, jus a few days ago saw the video: PLASMA UNIVERSE AND ELECTRIC UNIVERSE - WHAT IS THE DIFFERENSE? in the channel SEE THE PATTERN at time 3:24 that show THE SUN ELECTROMAGNETISM FLOW which is made by really 2 big parts or sides that could be seen as positive and negative sides, or up and down or left and right, cold and hot etc you know. - In my point of view Hannes needs of a neutral part which he does have I think as an equator but he needs 2 equators almost one next to the other, that is the upper side or block flows the same way toward the center of the system as bottom side does but really just a bit of this 2 equators meet, they meet at the systems center but just a bit, where this 2 sides meet they produce the white sphere as is seen a white sphere in our galaxie. Hannes idea is seen in quasars, dna, in big parts of the cosmos as it is in the cosmos south wall and not sure if outer more or a bit to the inside from here in the liniakea, this same thing is what they call GALACTIC TIDES as well to me. Hannes electromagnetic flow may applye for atoms, dna, stars, galaxies etc all is an up and down a ciclical way light-matterand plasma just cant get out. Hannes sun electric fow diagram has a way of flow of light-matter- plasma so for the cosmos all around systems to be as you and me.

[@tapejara1507]

nice upload. just watched "how big is a photon" and now Im here.

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

2:33 I instinctively reached for my rad-away hotkey.

[@james6401]

Hertz, Thompson, Rutherford, Faraday ... the history of science wouldn't be the same without serious thinkers who were also serious tinkerers

[@VoidHalo]

Coming from a Jimmy Kimmel Show clip of Johnny Knoxville promoting Jackass 4 straight to this is just mentally jarring. But in such a good way. :D

[@ebaymoncton]

good video, music was too annoying sorry

[@michael5G]

Nice video! I have two questions if anyone can help me understand; 1) Is a higher power antenna just creating a higher amplitude wave (like cellular carriers are limited to how much power they can use in their antennas, this doesn't change the frequency they use but lower power is weaker signal, so is it the amplitude)? 2) If #1 is yes then would that light/radiation travel shorter distances in the same amount of time because it goes further up and down? Same would go for like colors and frequency, like would red light travel further because it has a smaller frequency than blue light?

[@EverydayEngineer]

Hm... lemme see if I can help: 1) the thing to remember about "power" is that it is a rate of energy over time - if you increase the amount of energy in the same amount of time, you have more power. the photons have the same amount of energy - they're all "radio" photons - but there are many more of them in a shorter amount of time. 2) The thing to remember about all of this is that the governing equation is basically speed of light = wavelength of photon*frequency of photon - they will always travel at the speed of light, its just a matter of how big the wavelength is. Radio photons have big wavelengths, visible light photons have smaller ones - but they all travel at the same speed. They are just on different orders of magnitude when it comes to size - radio waves can have wavelengths in the hundreds of meters, whereas even visible light (not even the highest on the spectrum) has wavelengths in the nanometers.

[@michael5G]

@@EverydayEngineer thank you, love the videos!

[@danieljust295]

There are essentially two factors, one is transmission power of the em wave - this depends on amplitude of the radiated em wave, and energy of penetration of the wave described by Planck’s equation. E = f x h , E is energy of the em wave, f is frequency of wave and h is constant. This means higher frequency waves have more power (more ability) to penetrate objects, while transmission power is ability to transfer em wave further.

[@j3ffn4v4rr0]

These are good questions, and I suspect I've had the same misunderstandings as you. (I'm not a super technical or mathematical guy, so I can only tell you the following is simply my current understanding.) To answer your 2 questions, it's super important to first realize a few things: First, the wavy line people draw to show a light wave (or other electromagnetic wave, like radio, IR, etc.) is NOT the path of the light!! Light travels in a straight line, it doesn't trace a wavy path as it moves. The wavy line is simply a graph of the varying intensity of the EM field at each point along the path. So for example, the very tightly packed up/down wavy line (high frequency) simply means the field is varying very fast as it travels. Second thing to realize is, wave vs particle are two different ways for us to approach the idea of the radiation. Some people think EM radiation is both at the same time.....or, sometimes a wave, and in other circumstances a particle...neither of those is true. Or maybe, it changes from a wave to a particle depending on how we observe it. That is still incorrect. In fact, it is a third thing, which depending on how we view it, shows wave or particle properties. In general, you can think: while traveling, it acts with a wave nature...but at the time of being emitted or detected, it appears to be a particle because energy comes in units or "chunks" aka it is "quantized". Basically this is because light is detected/emitted by knocking an electron up or down one level...one level jump=one chunk. We call quanta/chunks/particles of EM energy "photons". So......as Everyday Engineer already answered you, power output is how much energy is put out over a unit of time. For a radio transmitter, they aren't increasing the frequency of the signal (although yes, in theory this would also mean higher energy output), and not the amplitude, either. Instead, think of it as, a higher power antenna is putting out more photons at once, every one of them traveling at the same frequency and amplitude as before. And, they will travel at the same speed...the speed of light. But remember, they are not actually tracing out a wavy path in the sky, so whatever their frequency/amplitude, it takes exactly the same amount of time. Yes, if this were a road and the photon were a car driving along it, the car would be traveling a longer/shorter path depending on frequency...but that is not the case here. Whether it is a cell signal (radio wave) or light, it is traveling at light speed along the same straight-line path, and will take the same amount of time from point A to point B.

[@JeremyCook]

@@EverydayEngineer Maybe we should call it the "speed of electromagnetic radiation," ha.

[@ishaanshringi8202]

Very nice, thank you. Background music was too loud maybe

[@johnpaulsecond4626]

powerful presentation; am very interested in comparative photon energy across visible darkness and light colour spectra;

[@rodneybernard4959]

Very nicely history explained

[@davidrandell2224]

Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics classicalized QM in 2010. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon. Light is a cluster of electrons. Broken down into “ parts” by mass spectrometer- prism- the red bends least being more massive and will not recombine ( but remain red) into “ white “ light.

[@schmetterling4477]

Yeah... no.

[@comic4relief]

Is light streams of photons? What are photons?

[@rafaelarevalo8047]

thank you for the great explanation!

[@Poppageno]

Hi nice job! I don't think we still understand what light is. For instance a distant star emits light across it's surface, here on Earth I can look in my telescope and see a small dot. You can look in your telescope hundreds of miles away at the same time and see that same dot, If a third person was on Mars they could see the same dot at the same time. And the person a few feet away from you is seeing the same dot. We can't all be seeing the same particle that traveled light years through the clogged with EM vastness of space. Think about this; particle or wave, how much energy does it take to travel billions of years through space and time? Surely not enough from a simple change in electron orbit. I've only seen the slit test done on a single plane, has it ever been done with hemispheric detectors? Meaning placed around the emitter to capture "photons" at various angles.

[@MrRohailbootwala]

was that @electroboom @3:43?

[@NavajoNinja]

100 years from now, humans will laugh that we drove iron horses feed by 5 billion year old dino juice.

[@NicleT]

Came to see the animation from the thumbnail, but it never showed. Also, most of the animations and images are from other KZbin serious content channels but not mentioned in the description (or maybe they’re included in the “etc”?) Everyone already pointed out the loud music, I’ll just suggest not to put songs with lyrics, that add a lot of confusion.

[@skyz3ra]

Actually a nice video

[@travis9201]

So just curious, the first thing you said is photons travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. Photons can't be decelerated can they? They can only be blocked/deflected/converted , or else you could slow down light so a car is faster depending on atmosphere. Or am I reading too much into the statement lol

[@EverydayEngineer]

Basically what I was trying to say was that vacuum is a completely empty "medium of transmission" for the photons - they can pass through vacuum with no problem, because there is nothing in the way. When photons travel through other media, like the atmosphere, the ocean, or your windows, they interact with the materials on the atomic level, to block/deflect/convert the photons. The photons that are reflected back into your eyes, are what you "see".

[@angoor101]

I’ve been reading and watching videos dealing with electromagnetism, space time continuum, redshift and general Astronomy. Your video subject was good but the music was too loud washing over your voice like a high frequency gamma rays. Thanks for your posts

[@alchemy1]

7:40 Light was emitted in individual packets. That is Planck's consttant "h". Individual packets? That is the real photon. Planck's photon, "h", having clear discrete value. Single wavelength of any size having the same value.

[@schmetterling4477]

Photons are not packets. That's just another meme that people use who don't understand physics.

[@alchemy1]

@@schmetterling4477 Isn't that nice. That is the kind of answer one can take to the bank. Hey if you want to know what it actually is, it will cost you, or if you ask nicely and say please. And then I will think about it. There are no guarantees. At least I gave an answer freely as to why they are not packets and therefore what then are they, It is that "h" itself. And all have the same exact value in terms of energy. Electrons respond to that planck's unit, not to its amplitude but the unit per unit of time which makes it a frequency domain and not amplitude.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@alchemy1 Quanta are irreversible energy (momentum, angular momentum and charge) exchanges between a quantum field and an external system. 18 words for an exact definition. Free of charge. See how simple physics is once you know what you are talking about? Stop complaining. Just enjoy. ;-)

[@alchemy1]

@@schmetterling4477 Not so fast. Quanta? Irreversible energy? Quanta is a plural of quantum. Quantum is nothing more than the smallest unit of whatever of anything interacting and nothing more. Irreversible energy? Never heard of it. There is what is termed as irreversible process. This concept arises frequently in thermodynamics with its own lingos and meanings. However then you combine and give your own meaning/twist to a term not used anywhere, i.e. irreversible energy and then give it your own definition as to what it equates to. i.e. momentum, angular momentum and charge. Each of the three has its own unit and context. And energy its own units. Now, " exchanges between quantum field and external system". No such thing. Quantum field as it came to be states that particles ( any particles, that is) as we know it, is simply an excited states of underlying field. Therefore they are not separate, one is just an excited state of the other and not in the classical sense that the field is a product of particles. And at present time, general relativity does not fit in this. It is the biggest number 1 unresolved issue in science from day one and it ate away at the very person who coined the term. Einstein himself. He is the father of quantum physics just as he was the father of general relalitivy. When he quantized electromagnetive waves and called it photon. This conundrum was ever at his attention and never went away and to this day never has for anybody. He mentioned that in all his years he was not any closer to knowing what photon is and never did from day one. Anything else?

[@schmetterling4477]

@@alchemy1 Yes, now you are just feeling sorry for yourself. It's not my problem what you have and have not heard of. If you want to be a physicist, enroll in a university and become a physicist. It's that simple. ;-)

[@RINTAROU...]

The more i search the less i know

[@defeatSpace]

Can you install darkreader before my dual-purpose Chinese monitor and tanning lamp vaporize my retinas?

[@EverydayEngineer]

noted

[@defeatSpace]

​@@EverydayEngineer other than blindness, great videos :D

[@WTAWWR08]

i like the cute cartoon face. and the cool info.

[@fn0rd-f5o]

I believe that the correlation between redshift and cosmic expansion is fundamentally incorrect. Hubble thought of the doppler effect as in sound and applied it to light. Light does not work the same way as a wave of compressed air. I don't know why physicists just accepted it. Light's color is determined by its energy level. Closer galaxies are observed to be "blue shifted" because they are close and the light observed still has a large amount of energy. But I suppose Ph.Ds. would have figured that out a century ago by now. Then again, they accept the facts from just a small handful of men from 100 years ago and nothing has really changed. One thing of not being an academic to all of the pre-existing beliefs is to have an outside perspective

[@schmetterling4477]

Let me feed you. ;-)

[@schmetterling4477]

Why are there so many KZbin content creators who have absolutely no clue about physics? ;-)

[@Bob-of-Zoid]

I keep lots of Flat Worms in my house, because they eat the stray ions! I used to use a frequency broom to get rid of them, but the worms do a better job.

[@TheZafootz]

I must be the only one that see wave/particle conflict as an error in the way we humans understand light and electromagnetic waves. Its much better understood as particles that are emitting electromagnetic waves into space. When you look at something that is glowing or emitting light you are looking at a "Particle" that is emitting electromagnetic waves and this wave when it collides with another particle at a lower frequency or lower energy state then the original then the wave causes the particles frequency to increase or achieve a higher energy state then it was before the wave encounter thus in turn transferring energy from the glowing particle to the collided particle in the form of a wave. This is why in the double slit experiment the 1 particle emitting light that can go through both slits at the same time. The big mystery is the medium that these electromagnetic waves travel through or the medium of space itself. Because these waves are piggy-backing off of some sort of medium that makes up space and this medium unlike glass or water can be very hard to study. BUT in order to move forward with the research of light people must be able to admit that this "wave/particle duality" idea is NOT correct. Building ideas based on false concepts will lead to a vast amount of imaginary ideas that wont have any connection to reality. Sometimes its best to let ideas that DONT MAKE SENSE be seen as a possible mistake then thinking "Oh this must just be the way it is" without fully understanding all of the details.

[@TheZafootz]

There is no Wave/Particle duality Light are electromagnetic waves that are emitted by glowing particles.

[@schmetterling4477]

Well, that's also not how it works.

[@bethanienaylor]

2:21 👍🏿😀👍🏿

[@jimgraham6722]

Thankyou, what is the radius of a photon?

[@schmetterling4477]

What is the radius of a kWh? Is it larger or smaller than the radius of a photon?

[@XC797]

I thought they made Max walk the Plank.

[@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 GalileanTransform, 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

[@lepidoptera9337]

What's up with the bullshit? ;-)

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

[LUI DEBROIL]

[@mrmotion7942]

I like good stuff.

[@danieljust295]

It would be nice to mention that nearly all researchers in the past century believed that we are surrounded by the aether. Einstein brought the concept of vacuum which was the opposite to the aether. The aether explains all physical phenomena which are currently not understood such is : what is force, what is inertia, what is gravity, what is electron. Aether is the fundament, the fabric, and every mass exists (or is immersed) in this fabric. Currently physicists use terms such us: force, energy, momentum but they are unable to define what is it. These are only abstract terms. Newtown copied Hooke’s work and removed aether from the equations, probably he didn’t understand it’s meaning.

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

Any theory that claims to explain everything actually explains precisely nothing. Aether is a fantasy, like gods and spirits, an attractive and tempting idea, but one that yields no scientific value.

[@nunyabidness1852]

Aether: he put it in the title of the last chapter. Hello

[@danieljust295]

@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself God and spirits do exist of course, everyone knows that except ignorants. Explain please how em wave propagates in the vacuum if there is nothing in the vacuum? How come the photon has weight but not mass? Do you believe that electron is a wave and mass at the same time? This is heresy, current days physics knows s**t.

[@ybhan1]

photon cannon? starcraft?

[@EverydayEngineer]

You must construct additional pylons.

[@ybhan1]

@@EverydayEngineer and a forge to get the technology

[@abakanazer]

... and subscribed! :)

[@homamthewise6941]

The way you say it at the beginning is like the movie Downsizing when she says the kind of f*ck he did give her but I'm here really to understand how lights behave don't get me wrong bro 😅😂

[@Frir10]

All the video game references...

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

👍

[@thirstykoala6216]

Hello. I have a question unrelated to the video. If I have a very high electromagnetic frequency could it be block be a low frequency like a red laser? Thank you!!!

[@andrewwhite6]

What is the obsession of content producers and overbearing background music?

[@EverydayEngineer]

inexperience with sound mixing :P

[@andrewwhite6]

@@EverydayEngineer Of course. Please forgive my obnoxious frustration. We unscientific types love to learn from you guys. It is sometimes hard to comprehend scientific concepts while obsorbing art.

[@ralphsammis7330]

History, jumping all over the place - where’s the science?

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

@@EverydayEngineer What is "omega" in that equation? Isn't "f" or "nu" typically used as a symbol for frequency.

[@jamesT008]

Not enough detail...

[@benjaminthomasherrmann4575]

The music in the background is 100% annoying.

[@EverydayEngineer]

yeah i wish i could turn it down in hindsight... sorry!

[@danielraymadden]

Edit your video too many words get to the point and don't wander....off topic...don't waste words on speculation and marine biology...the answers are simple...do not waste video of pictures in books that have nothing to do with the topic...stop clutering your videos....it is obviouse the video creator does not understand the subject...cluttering meaningless trivia in a video for click bait is all this is...learn your subject befor making videos...there is alot more evidence than you present...

[@EverydayEngineer]

care to share some reference material that you are citing?

[@urinater]

Loo-eee De-broy

[@__Andrew_]

Another vid ruined by incessant unnecessary irritating background music. Why? What is wrong with a plain good narration?

[@Pierluigi_Di_Lorenzo]

terrible music

[@Blsnro]

Distracting music...

[@alistairfletcher6187]

Adun toridas

[@lundqvjrl9359]

Can someone please answer me this question. In what medium does electromagnetic waves propagate through? In the video you mention aether? Whats that?

[@EverydayEngineer]

That's the weird part - they don't propagate through a medium. The Michaelson-Morley experiment tried to find one, but the results concluded that the "luminiferous aether" didn't actually exist. The development of Quantum Mechanics would basically explain it - light isn't really a particle or a wave - it's both at the same time (photons are "light particles", but they still have a "frequency" associated with them that gives them their unique characteristics), and it just behaves differently depending on the surroundings.

[@Adrian-jk4kx]

Space!

[@atheistaetherist2747]

Radio waves are made by antennas. Photons are made by atoms. Skoolkids are not told that radio waves (ie em waves) are a different animal to photons. A 10 mm radio wave is not the same animal as a 10 mm photon. Radio waves consist of my photaenos which are the radiating part of a photon. And, re the Hertzian rolling E by H nature of radiating emissions from photons, i like the work of Ionel Dinu who has analysed the Hertz experiment & he says that Hertz's interpretation of Hertz's waves was wrong, there is no rolling E by H emission. Likewise Ivor Catt says that there is no rolling E by H emission anywhere in nature, it is a Heaviside slab of E by H energy current, a TEM. The so-called flow of so-called electrons in an antenna or in any wire is a secondary effect. There is a slab of transverse E by H energy current flowing along the outside of the antenna/wire. As explained by Heaviside, Ivor Catt & Forrest Bishop. There is no such thing as charge or voltage. Photons have a central/internal part (the central helix) & an external part (the photaeno). The central helix has a front end & a rear end, & is (possibly) 1 wavelength long. The wavelength is simply one turn of the helix (there is no wave). The central helix is an annihilation of aether. Annihilation of aether gives gravitational mass & inertial mass. The track of the annihilation forms a helix. The helical annihilation moves axially throo the aether at the speed of light c, & along its helical track at more than c. Photaenos radiate out (to infinity) from the central helix. Photaenos annihilate aether, hence they have gravitational mass & inertial mass. Photaenos include a vibration (excitation) of the aether. Photaenos propagate outwards throo the aether at perhaps 5c in the near field (approx 2 m) & perhaps c in the far field (wolfgang g gasser). www.electronicspoint.com/forums/threads/experimental-evidence-for-v-c-in-case-of-coulomb-interaction.168813/ Photaenos radiate from fixed locations in the aether, ie from fixed locations along the central helix. Photaenos do not have a sideways velocity in the aether, ie each photaeno is shed from the central helix as the rear end of the central helix passes. In a free photon every photaeno is initially attached to the central helix, & later it detaches. In a confined photon the central helix has formed a continuous loop, in which case the photaenos do not detach (the central helix has no rear end). Electrons & other elementary particle are confined photons. Photaenos give us charge fields & electromagnetic fields. An attached photaeno gives a high field strength, an unattached photaeno gives a weaker field. Hence a free photon has 3 parts, the central helix, the attached photaenos, & the unattached photaenos. A confined photon has 2 parts, it has no unattached photaenos. Man-made radio signals are carried by photaenos, they are not carried by photons. A photon with a (natural) 10 mm wavelength (the length of its central helix), is a different animal to a radio wave with a (forced) 10 mm wavelength (which has no central helix). Free photons are slowed by the nearness of mass (confined photons), as suggested/proven by Shapiro (Shapiro Delay). Shapiro Delay is due to the photaenos (from the free photon)(& from the confined photon) fighting for the limited use of the aether. Fighting/congestion slows the photaenos & this slowing feeds back to the central helix, slowing the central helix. I call this slowing "photaeno drag". It contributes to the bending of light. It gives us diffraction near an edge. Photaeno drag is very strong inside mass (air water glass). It gives us refraction, & reflexion.

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

No.

[@TrasherBiner]

invest in a better microphone man. You sound like you were talking from inside a wardrobe.

[@Tubemanjac]

And turn off the bloody disturbing music.

[@dazzassti]

Robot voice is not good at all

[@Dickator007]

Had to stop watching after 3 mins. Music is to distracting

[@joeredman569]

Can't bother to find out how to pronounce a name? That's some slack research.

[@schmetterling4477]

Look, Ma! Another person who doesn't know physics made a physics video. ;-)

[@EverydayEngineer]

care to share with the class?

[@schmetterling4477]

@@EverydayEngineer I did. I will leave this bullshit alone now. ;-)

[@rocroc]

Get rid of the music.

[@carrow2250]

I’m trying to learn about this and then out of nowhere I get “millions of years ago”. That’s a guess and a theory - just tell me about radio waves and what not. You talking about evolution is like me saying “God created our eyes”. Its your belief that we’ve evolved over millions, er now billions of years. You believe that, and that’s fine, just don’t try and insert a belief into science. I’ve spent too many decades studying the theory of evolution to think of it any more than that - a theory, and if someone wants to believe that theory so whole-heartedly that you believe it to be true without actual evidence and you base your life on that theory and belief, then it becomes a religion. No one has been able to prove squat about “billions of years ago”. For all we know some aliens twice as smart as humans came down and created us. We create organs under mice’s skin and can clone and do all kinds of stuff, maybe super smart aliens came down and created life - intelligent design. Not trying to go off, I just get tired of hearing “millions or billions of years ago” in the middle of actual scientific stuff.

[@carrow2250]

@@EverydayEngineer I’ve studied it for decades, its all based on theories and speculation. There is no proof or evidence. Evolution is something you must believe in. Also, I assume you’re referring to macro evolution, not micro evolution. Micro evolution is scientific because it is provable and demonstrable. Micro evolution is what Darwin saw and made a theory about macro evolution. There’s no evidence of anything millions of years old. Any carbon dating has always been proved false, any dna similarities between humans and monkeys has been tampered with. Also, your shitty comment only shows me your character. I won’t try and put you down or talk crap; that’s not someone I try to be.

[@schmetterling4477]

Let me feed you. ;-)

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

Electromagnetism cant have exactly the same speed of light, to me light is vapor and electromagnetism is rain while plasma is the sea that part always flow up then down.

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

Your incorrect theories are leading you to incorrect conclusions.