Can You Capture a Light Wave? Mind-Blowing Wave-Particle Duality Experiment!

In this video I show you an easy way to show that light is neither a wave nor a particle (or it is both?) by doing the double slit experiment followed by an analog of the photoelectric effect. This is a crazy experiment that shows how weird quantum mechanics really is. And an added bonus is that you can do these experiments at home! Finally I even show you what an electron orbital really means.
WARNING:
This video is for entertainment purposes only. If you use the information from this video for your own projects then you assume complete responsibility for the results.
My Other Channel:
/ @actionlabshorts
My Facebook Page:
goo.gl/dSXx8u
For more awesome videos checkout:
Stacking Pringles in a Complete Circle-The Amazing Physics of Stacking
• Stacking Pringles in a...
Mixing the World's Blackest Paint With the World's Brightest Paint (Black 2.0 vs LIT)
• Mixing the World's Bla...
Is it Possible to Unboil an Egg? The Amazing Uncooking Experiment!
• Is it Possible to Unbo...
What if You Try To Lift a Negative Mass? Mind-Blowing Physical Impossibility!
• What if You Try To Lif...
What Does a Giant Monster Neodymium Magnet do to a Mouse?
• What Does a Giant Mons...
The Worlds Blackest Black vs The Worlds Brightest Flashlight (32,000 lumen)-Which Will Win?
• The Worlds Blackest Bl...
How Much Weight Can a Fly Actually Lift? Experiment-I Lassoed a Fly!
• How Much Weight Can a ...
If You Fly a Drone in a Car, Does it Move With It? (Dangerous In-Car Flight Challenge)
• If You Fly a Drone in ...
Can Flies Actually Fly in a Vacuum Chamber?
• Can Flies Actually Fly...
I Let a Venus Flytrap Digest My Finger For a Day-Little Shop of Horrors Challenge!
• I Let a Venus Flytrap ...
Drawing On Water-It is So Surreal!
• Drawing On Water-It is...
Can Magic Sand Get Wet in a Vacuum Chamber? So Satisfying!
• Can Magic Sand Get Wet...
Stretch Armstrong Crushed In A Hydraulic Press
• Stretch Armstrong Crus...

[@Raxilla]

I love this channel. It's so underrated. No fancy graphics or animations. You cut through all the gunk with simple and clear explanations.

[@jsmunroe]

I think you mean understated, lol. He's got 809,000 subs.

[@Raxilla]

Jordan Munroe He should have more.

[@Slepepe]

not underrated anymore.

[@legonut78]

And not choked full of commercials and advertising.

[@realvoidbla4881]

@@jsmunroe 3.8M*

[@JamesSamples]

I never realized that the split could be done on a low budget. That's cool!

[@johnbuck5181]

This whole channel is the most info for the lowest cost to make. Not an insult at all. It even featured “Da Vacuum Box”..as a table.

[@gyro5d]

Use a laser and a straight pin.

[@Nosezeichen]

Actually it isn't the real double slit experiment, but the results are still the same. The original experiment shoots one particle at a time, which splits at the double slit and afterwards interacts with it self and is measerued at the backplate. If we repeat this for a while we see the interferance pattern, whose amplitude corresponds to the probabilty of the particle beeing measured at this point. Only by shooting one particle at a time but still getting the interference pattern, you can proof that light is both a particle and a wave. If it wasn't a wave we would have no interference and would end up with two slits at the backplate (when repeating the experiment). Also the interference pattern does not exist when we measure through which slit the particle went. Simplified, measuring means physically poking the wave which collapses it to a particle again, so no interference and we end up with the two slit pattern again.

[@pavel9652]

I think it can be done with the sunlight as well. This is how it was done in the first place, as they had no lasers back then ;) Veritasium has a video with a large cardboard box. The sunlight, however, produces the pattern in multiple colours.

[@jonathan1613]

Back in 2005 I successfully replicated the double slit experiment using a laser as well and found out for myself how cool physics and reality really are...

[@suga4all]

Great explanation. Love your videos. But here, a little mistake slipped in at 1:20: In order for the double slit experiment to work, you don't need plane waves. It also works with curved waves in the same way. The reason why it doesn't work with a light bulb is the low spatial coherence of the light in this case (which is an entirely different beast than curvature). It basically means, that because the light bulb is an extended light source, the light waves incident on the slit are coming from many directions at the same time. So they create many of these interference patterns which are mutually shifted and therefore wash each other out. Fun fact: If you place the light bulb very far away from the slit, it would in fact give you an interference pattern also in this case (with very low intensity though).

[@swayammm__]

I feel like you are getting ignored

[@bojan82]

Thank you for the clarification.

[@mggt4684]

I think its obvious once you understeand the concept which I think he explained perfectly.

[@realvoidbla4881]

The Action Fail

[@lazysingledaisybronwyn8105]

Suga4all, good to know. Did you notice the red light created a bulb-dimensional affect? And the blue light made a strict wall with ability to make a shadow immediately in front. Meaning, red moved away and caused a round bulge going away from us and blue caused a coming towards us with a flat wall shadow. The Red light was a real good for NOTHING liar. The blue was honest and real. So, red light makes for time and distance, a lie. Blue makes for what "is", truly. This is why the farthest thing we perceive in distance away from us is actually what is closest to us.

[@tylertalsma7794]

You basically explained quantum mechanics in a simple way it's amazing.

[@Zimrack]

Why does quantum mechanics feel like intuition.

[@noahway13]

@@Zimrack What do you mean by Intuition?

[@andrandr4974]

Ok but no .... Schrodinger cat bro. 😮

This guy just made my Physics class so much more interesting

[@sahityamhalder7098]

It is interesting already 😋

[@micro-playsquitted4132]

Nope physics is not interesting without this video bro

[@anujsinghchauhan24]

This video really made my whole day. :) The best part is explaining such topics with simple, easy and fun experiments. You are doing a great job. A video on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is requested. Thanks. (Love from India.)

[@AnilSharma-js7fi]

L

[@Johnny-tw5pr]

You should do the last experiment with blue light.

[@faridpramudya7896]

yuupzee

[@MadhawaSadil]

Johnny.50 yeah

[@tenrabbits3069]

QWERTY

[@Nesrr18]

Yes, i just wanted to write the same thing 😁

[@thedarthknight7960]

Ummm why is that?

[@spicymemeboi2646]

light is actually made of lasagna

[@itme5657]

Spicy Meme Boi stop being such a troll, that's so stupid, lasagna is made from light not vice versa. Duh

[@overweightowl2295]

Emit lasaga

[@thatguy-zester3500]

The action lab is a lasagna

[@xMOSEScb]

Light is actually a bitch lasagna. Weird flex but whatever.

[@Kris.G]

Bitch lasagna!

[@georgeplaxton3067]

When studying precious stones (opal), we were under the impression that different colours expressed was the micro beads in the silicate were of different sizes and behaved like prisms, re-enforcing individual colours (red, green and blue).

[@micro-playsquitted4132]

"micro beads in the silicate" My name is Micro

[@cjheaford]

Why didn’t you: Use the BLUE light with the make-shift double slit on the glow paint? Would we have seen an interference pattern? Particle like result? Both? We will never know.

[@42ZaphodB42]

@@Luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Like the blue flashlight. Not the red bulb.

[@sealofapoorval7437]

He did

[@cjheaford]

@@sealofapoorval7437 Not through the double slit

[@kimunpark2192]

Making interference pattern with the blue light is not easy because its wavelength is short. I guess he failed to make it at home. And it would lit the glow paint in the shape of the interference pattern.

[@cjheaford]

@@kimunpark2192 That makes sense. Never thought of that.

[@ZERO3690]

People are particles, but when you put them together, they act like waves

[@LeemaxxLyrics]

that's a cool way of thinking about it

[@94Newbie]

that alone isnt actually correct. even in experiments with individual photons they act like waves, interferring with themselves. same is true for other particles. its the propability that takes the waveform regardless of the number of particles.

[@christianlabanca5377]

@@94Newbie true. But he was talking about people, and if you think about it, he's right haha. But yeah you're correct

[@linkin543210]

Only Mexicans

[@dattatrayakulkarni4873]

Good example.

[@FriedChairs]

Someone here said your channel is underrated and I think that's probably true. You are doing a really great job explaining complicated science topics in an interesting way. My 8 year old son and I have been watching them during dinner for the last few days and we are both really enjoying them. My son usually only gets excited about basketball games or dude perfect but I can see him getting excited about what you are doing.

[@goddammitalana]

Chris Bell stop giving your kid youtube instead of actually parenting. you shouldnt be watching youtube videos during dinner you should be talking with your son. jesus christ people like you is the reason kids arent developing social skills

[@FriedChairs]

@@goddammitalana Just a small update. My son just got into the AP math program. Scored 99 percentile on CogAT.

[@abhinavprajapati5962]

That someone below is actually someone above now

[@orobinson7429]

I wish there were a better(easier)way to explain the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. Great job on this video!! Keep it up!

[@TheActionLab]

My favorite experiment:)

[@orobinson7429]

kelan andersson so it is as confusing as I originally thought!! Thanks for the link, I liked it.

[@sawwil936]

The Action Lab, wanna see the wave function?? I have a bunch of experiments showing it. Also got the electrons probability cloud nailed down.

[@PhilTibble]

So approachable and down to earth yet passes on so much knowledge. I love the genuine excitement. give this guy a laser pointer and a sharpie and some space in his garage and he makes me feel like I am learning more than I did in uni! yo PBS or TVO or BBC or someone get this guy a show!

[@LaylaVaughan]

@The Action Lab, the experiment you do around 7 minutes in, isn't the fact that you used a *red* laser but an LED flashlight (which emits blue light, especially since that appears to be one with a higher color temperature) a big confound? You had already established the red light won't charge the glow in the dark surface, and that blue light will, so it seems hard to draw any conclusions about the quantized vs wavelike properties of light from that demonstration alone.

[@ro1nash810]

brandon i lietrally came to same conclusion... a blue laser would have resolved the issue much more clearly

[@jthawken123]

Came to the comments to say this!

[@dominickscott4454]

“Then after you’re thoroughly confused, I’ll explain what light really is.” I’ve never related more to anything in my life

[@robinjahn1294]

wow, that just explained to me how the electron orbitals work better than my chemistry teacher could in a decade xD (seriously, i`ve never really understood how orbitals work but now i do). Thanks for all of that science input, you can explain it like nobody else could

[@blusky3591]

rubi_style Well i was astonished too! I used to think electrons follow just a single path orbiting the nucleus.

[@hihtitmamnan]

wtf? looking into wikipedia would fix ur problem in 1 minute...

[@gbye007]

Light has the properties of a quantized wave: neither wave nor particle, neither fish nor fowl. The particle characterization of EMR has been superseded by quantum field theory. You don't need to invoke particles with momentum to explain a transfer of energy from photons to electrons. None the less, your double slit setup with the laser pointer is fun to see.

[@vertigoz]

If only the double slit was to be made with blue light, perhaps we would see it painting it wide spread

[@247dman]

Something I've been thinking about for a few days is what would happen if you shoot the interference pattern through a prism. Be it a pyramid or cube, I was wondering if that would give a view of the "wave like" property through "space" of the beam as opposed to just having it hit an opaque surface. (Basically like ballistic gelatin for light)

[@TimothyMichaels]

Double slit glow in the dark project was lit.

[@sukin2727]

Tim Michaels is that a pun

[@TimothyMichaels]

Game IT Out 272 Yes

[@therorozizzle]

Yea. LITerally.

[@yoppindia]

Light can interfere with experiment, it should be dark.

[@petesclark]

At 7:00 you are using a red laser for the double slit. Try it with the blue laser.

[@TheActionLab]

But the point was to show that an extremely high amplitude light still cannot charge it. Which means that light cannot be purely classical waves. Blue light still would have charged it so it wouldn’t have displayed that effect.

[@mahmoudhamdi5411]

The Action Lab But red laser doesn't have a small amplitude so it won't make a difference if went through a double slit

[@mumak1232]

RED light has wavelength around 700 nm and BLUE light around 400nm. (Momentum) P is inversely proportional to λ (wavelength). P = h/λ. Amplitude does not affect the momentum or the energy of a light wave. so it proves just that blue has higher energy than red. I looked up some specs for fluorescent materials, idk if its true fore every material but at least gives an idea. you can find more here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum www.celestialescapes.com/how-to-charge-your-glow-in-the-dark-gift.html

[@rilkatop4830]

HEY did you study Einstein theory on Photoelectric Effect..... it depends on FREQUENCY not AMPLITUDE.... don't teach something wrong to guys here~~

[@simran76]

The Action Lab Great video. And it'd be great to see the lit charged with a blue laser (and a blue laser with interference)...just for completeness.

[@chrislayne9440]

So basically: Schroedinger's light.

[@sbravoo]

this is the experiment that started the quamtum physics

[@curiouschildalways8991]

Does that mean red light wont charge a glow in dark area

[@Palladiumavoid]

@@sbravoo that was the move that made scientists cry

[@sbravoo]

@@Palladiumavoid yeah lol

[@longleaf1217]

well... I mean yeah, kinda, not really though. the cat thought experiment Schrödinger proposed was meant as a way to explain just how weird quantum phenomena is. he was trying to get across the idea to the general populace how it makes no sense that light (and indeed any particle) should behave both as a wave and a particle simultaneously. normally waves are nothing but the transmission of energy through a media (such as the ocean), the particles themselves shouldn't travel as waves yet thats what we see from these experiments. it is a problem that perplexes physicists to this day. The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment was explaining this very idea so it makes it a bit weird to take it and rebrand it as "Schrödinger's light".

[@gamestuff5944]

No one: Not a single soul: This dude:just has potato chips taped to his desk

[@ARISTO_Music]

its not taped , its the glass side that holds the cardboard you can see it on the other side too , theres just a random potato chips bag on his desk

[@helloguyswelcomeback7227]

wow ur so cringe bro, stop and delete what you typed please.

[@ssonia]

@@ARISTO_Music true. 9:47

[@gabrieldelatortilla1]

@@helloguyswelcomeback7227 ruining jokes is a lot more cringe fr

[@Aric-ls7bf]

@@gabrieldelatortilla1 nobody: absolutely nobody: aliens in space: nobody at all: Am I funny yet ahhahhahhahahahahhah😃😃😃😃😃😃😃nobody: hahhahahhhahahaha funny so funny absolutely no one: 🤣🤣🤣😂🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣😄🤣😄🤣🤣🤣🤣😄🤣 the more nobodies you add the funnier the joke gets!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😄😁😄🥲🤣🤣🤣😂😂😅😂😂😂😂🤣

[@Viki-zo1bc]

I wish I were born in a simpler universe where light would be either particle or wave.

[@roberthelms1737]

It is a coaxial circuit

[@desibaaboo]

ok than u should head to hell.. otherwise rest of the universe is more complex as we know till now about it ...

[@satya9828]

@@desibaaboo How?

[@roberthelms1737]

You are in a universe where light is neither a particle nor a wave. Light is a coaxial circuit made up of rarefactions and compressions of longitudinal dielectric pulses and necessitated electromagnetic divergent fronts from the compressions and rarefactions. Do not be sucked into the idiotic belief taught to us of the dual nature of light.

[@Roosterwbass]

@@roberthelms1737 Heretic!

[@nerys71]

I hope this endeavor works out for you. I have yet to watch a single boring video from you. You are one of the few that gets a guaranteed slot in my limited "watch stuff" time :-)

[@Haze510]

Nerys yea I never got bored of his vids 👌👌

[@AJD...]

Can we PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE have more of quantum mechanics experiments? Please

[@MammaOVlogs]

Way to go on your 8 hundred thousand subscribers! This is way over my head by way interesting! l loved it!

[@simonfield9818]

L

[@awesomewolf3013]

Momma O heas on 1000000 subscribers so yea

[@al1383]

Momma O , dang! Now at 1M. Nice channel!

[@hiitsamrit]

double than that now!

[@f1shmail]

*cough* 2mil *cough cough*

[@markrigoglioso]

Hey Action Lab, you always have interesting experiments, usually in some area I am investigating! Thanks. I have studied the light 'wave-particle' duality for a long time and I have concluded light is a wave with some particle-like properties. Specifically, light is the vibration of the ether which is most likely the neutrinos that pervade the entire universe. This is the 'quantum fabric' that makes up space and is the stuff that vibrates to make light. Light acts like a particle when a wave of the quantum fabric finds a particle that can absorb it and that wave collapses instantly into a localized energy transfer. The instantaneous behavior of light is confirmed in the fact that light has no inertia - it moves at its top speed instantly (from zero to 300,000 in 0 sec.) and it stops just as quickly. This instantaneous behavior is also confirmed by experiments showing quantum entanglement. Light is also confirmed as a wave because the energy of light is determined by its frequency, not its mass or velocity. The failure of modern physics to admit an ether makes the universe appear irrational. I have heard that the Michelson-Morley experiment has been overturned, and a drag component has been detected in light when the experiment is done with more precise instruments. The quantum fabric is also the stuff that rotates to make a magnetic field and is the source of fields in general, with attractive and repulsive properties, depending on the particle and / or direction of rotation while interacting with the field. These fields include the electric field, the magnetic field, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force fields. Each field is determined by a frequency interacting with a particle and each one drops off by a particular inverse exponential - 2, 3, 4 or 5, respectively.

[@Ramitupyourkilt]

Thanks for that great explanation Mark! Saves me a lot of pondering. Lol!

[@manishakanwar8872]

So light is a wavicle

[@robertohvargas]

Chingon el canal.! Dice un dicho: "Solo puedes decir que entiendes algo, si puedes explicarselo a tu abuela y hacer que ella entienda". La encarnacion misma de esta frase es este canal. Sigue con el buen trabajo. Saludos desde Mexico!!

[@SirPhysics]

Nice video, but you were a bit off-base when you started talking about the momenta of photons in the phosphorescence of the glow in the dark paint. Light having momentum isn't really relevant to that particular phenomenon. That comes into play when you talk about things like Compton scattering (particles being deflected by light) or the photoelectric effect (electrons being ejected from atoms by light). Your explanation is mostly correct and I don't mean to be pedantic, but these demonstrations are about energy, not momentum, and you should not use the two terms interchangeably. The reason phosphorescence cannot be explained by the wave model is, as you say, the energy carried by a wave is related only to its amplitude. Thus, an intense beam of red light can have more energy in total than a dim beam of blue light. However, no matter how intense the red light, it cannot excite the atoms in the paint. This tells us that there are particles within the beam of light which interact with the electrons individually that these particles of light must have the correct amount of energy to interact with the electrons in the paint or the electrons will not be excited, and that the energy of each particle of light is different for different wavelengths of light. That said I always enjoy your videos and there are a few I show in my classes every year. Keep up the good work.

[@earthbjornnahkaimurrao9542]

SirPhysics - is it similar to a narrow band pass filter?

[@SirPhysics]

They're related in the sense that both have to do with the specific energies of light which can be absorbed by a material. All materials have different ranges of the spectrum which they will not interact with, and other ranges that they will. Glass for example, is (mostly) transparent to visible light because the energies of those frequencies of light do not correspond to any available energy level transitions or vibrational modes within the glass, but at the same time is completely opaque to infrared light. You can say the same thing about your skin; it is opaque to visible light but transparent to something like x-rays. Whether light passes through or is absorbed by a material comes down to the available energy levels in the atoms or molecules of that material and how they compare to the energy carried by photons of different "colors" of light.

[@coyotecom]

I figured it was wavelength of the light having different effects on the material due to the peaks and valleys hitting the electrons at different speeds. Red wavelength might hit them head on and pass through, but that's not enough momentum to get them into the excited state; blue wavelength would slap into them sideways, the speed between it being at its peak and valley being much higher, and imparting more energy than being hit head on. I mean, red and blue light both move at C in a vacuum, but the blue wave is covering more ground and has to be moving "faster" to maintain the same forward speed. Like two cars swerving between pylons, the red one is weaving gently between pylons that are like, 20 meters apart, the blue one is swerving every 3 meters, but they stay head to head. The blue car would be much more energetic. /never studied physics

[@bigsmall246]

@@coyotecom yeah you're wrong. If two particles are travelling at the same speed, they would cover the same amount of ground in the same amount of time.

[@bigsmall246]

Momentum is correct. The energy of any particle (including photons) can be expressed as a multiple of planck's constant and the momentum.

[@versatilesamuel1607]

You just explained my 10th grades lessons in 11 minutes... and I actually understood it this time.

[@Xeno_Bardock]

"Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the ether, involving alternate compressions and rarefactions. In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the ether." - Nikola Tesla. No bulb emits light waves just like a person in the middle of the pond moving his hands in water is not emitting any water waves. Light is the ether itself under vibration. And if there are particles of light, they are particles of ether acting very much like how air acts for sound waves.

[@michaelschardan5312]

Good old Ken

[@neonlight1214]

What a weird confusing sentence from the most intelligent scientist and the one who successfully made electricity usable in everyday life!

[@Resonant87]

I agree! Light is just waves. Not sure if longitudinal or transversal. I would suspect transverse(even though tesla said otherwise..) Saying light is a particle just because certain frequencies act diferantly is the stupidest justification I have ever heard of. Example.. I think sound is a particle because some frequencies can brake glass...

[@Xeno_Bardock]

@@Resonant87 Theoria Apophasis has videos talking about light.

[@Ramitupyourkilt]

I'm wondering if the color of the wave is pertinent? The laser you used was red, try a blue one. Also, how about shining both types of light, white incandescent and white colored laser through prism onto that sheet to see if what colors are absorbed. Might be pretty interesting. Love your show!

[@Hyxtryx]

There's no such thing as a white laser. And in fact, lightbulbs don't produce pure white light either. They are tricking your eye.

[@WalterSamuels]

Exactly. This is bunk.

[@NonstopNiels]

03:10 This thing is Lit !

[@youexpectedausernamebutitw4578]

Nonstop Niels a man of culture

[@marcoschneider8115]

I understood that reference

[@ajwdetjbb]

Ayyy

[@kronati]

Literally

[@peterwan816]

He know

[@kylevardy1325]

Isn't the laser pointer a red light you said that red light cant light up the lit

[@robertoarmstrong7317]

Kyle Vardy I don’t understand either.. every club that I’ve ever been to that was totalllllly Liiiiiit!!!! Was full of red lights and red lazers.. are u telling me if thoze lights were blue my boogie nightz would have been even more Lit??? Because I don’t think that’s possible.. bcoz I get like.. suuuper Lit..

[@jjjubies2767]

Yea Kyle your right

[@adamart8719]

And it didn't

[@rg.g2704]

I was thinking about it all the fucking time.

[@t07minas]

only because it behaves like particle if it would behave like a wave it could charge the lit doesnt matter what colour

[@win_failure]

You: Today I'll do an experiment that proves light is a wave. Me: But it has particle properties too! You:Then I will do an experiment that shows light is a particle. After you're confused, I'll explain you what light is. Me: Savage af dude! Savage. As. F.

[@rahulsawant_pikachu]

Aditya Renukdas xD

[@win_failure]

David 😂😂

[@Xiwter]

David cringe? You 13 years old? Everything is cringe to you

[@eclipsegaming4642]

You : (Ur comment) Me : so what do I do now You : start dancing Me : with your sister 😁

[@win_failure]

WTF?? WTF is wrong with you?

[@whatitmeans]

It is possible to make that "Lit paint" glow when flashed with an ordinary commercial green light laser pointer??? If so, could you make a glowing interference pattern???

[@fagica]

The best explanation of the particle-wave duality I have seen on youtube. Bravo.

[@TT-hi7lp]

Simply light and other particles are in superposition so it isn't a wave or particle but its still both before you messure it

[@TheActionLab]

Correct:)

[@TheActionLab]

Now tell me how to define a measurement:)

[@snehasissahoo2485]

The Action Lab hey is saying that as the light particles r micro particle so we cannot track it or see it under even electron microscope... It moves before we see it

[@bronske5919]

The Action Lab hey could you cover how our reality maybe a simulation in some kind of computer plz. This may explain why the quantum world behaves the way it does

[@nuggetboi301]

Torille?

[@vinodkumar-wm3oq]

Nice and informative video there, great job!! Also Can you calculate the speed of light?

[@sabeehb9514]

Great video. A question that I find never explained in any double slit video - if we fire single particles at the slits surely we aim them at the central block rather than at one slit or other right? If so then the expectation should be no pattern at all as should hit the central block. However actually goes through one or other slit, this must mean the single particle is bending its path once decides which slit to go through. Surely it is just as amazing that the particle decides to veer off a straight line as the overall result of the pattern made?

[@Hyxtryx]

A single photon goes through both slits somehow (refraction?) and winds up as a single photon again when it hits the paper. You STILL wind up with an interference pattern after many single photons are fired. If you try to measure which slit it goes through, then it goes through only 1 slit, and you lose the interference pattern. If you try to measure which slit it goes through *after* it passes the slits but before it hits the paper, you still lose the interference pattern. So it's like the light "knows" you are about to measure it and picks one of the slits, even before it reaches your measurement device.

[@sabeehb9514]

@@Hyxtryx thanks well said, yes I know what you say. My point is subtly different and never explained by any videos. A double slit by definition has a central barrier. Also to be a fair experiment you must aim your single photon at the central barrier, else you are automatically giving the photon a known path of one slit or the other. So the photon comes to the slit and it must 'see' a big barrier, so either it carries on and goes straight through the barrier missing all the atoms in its way or goes through one or both slits. But to do so it must have not travelled a straight path ie must have bent towards one or other or split into 2 and went through both and reformed. Maybe they do split eg have 2 joined halves then reform after, just a guess. But we need to be able to explain the phenomenon BOTH on a particle basis and a wave basis.

[@WillyDrucker]

If light is travelling at "the speed of light" it would have no causation or time. To an outside observer wouldn't light exhibit all possible states and travel as a wave of all possibilities? The moment you interact with it's location this would force a causation event. So is light really just a particle after all?

[@aaroncurtis8545]

That's like, one of the smartest random comments I've seen on youtube.

[@wilsongomes3360]

smart

[@noahway13]

This guy is so much better than other science channels like the Science Asylum, or Arvin Ash, etc. I watch them and don't feel I can intuitively understand any better. They always gloss over or hide behind math to explain the hard part. And the comment section is full of compliments and adulation. But the people don't REALLY understand. They just parrot the equations and the same ol' talking points. I feel it is like having to explain a lawn mowers operation to a child over the telephone. The child can say they know how the machine works-- the battery turns the engine causing the pistons to move to up and down in the block and that process pulls air thru the carb and the carb mixes air and gas utilizing the venturi effect, blah, blah... Then, after hearing several times, the child can then say they understand a mower just because they can parrot the words w/o actually knowing what the words mean, like a cam shaft. I often watch this guy and say, "Ooooohhhh, NOW I see..."

[@lionheart1522]

You actually don't need two slits you only need the center break. You can do this with a sewing needle (not necessary to use the eye of the needle)

[@TheActionLab]

True

[@philjamieson5572]

What an excellent presentation. Thanks for putting this on here. It's so cleverly explained.

[@Shagwellsback]

We need more guys like you on KZbin! Acually educating the public instead of making them dumber like some other youtubers:) thanks bud and keep up the good work!

[@jasonleejames_official]

The glow pigment doesn't care that the laser was low or high intensity but that its wavelength was too low. The commonality between the Lightbulb that didn't light it and the laser was they were both in the red wavelength. If you used a blue or green laser it would most likely work, as the lightbulb that did light it despite being weak had multiple bands of light higher than the red laser. A different way to think about it is not that the Lasers intensity mattered but its frequency, the red is too slow to push the pigment, like the delay between waves isn't enough to keep it charged or the red particle doesn't have the free electrons there's something about the red light that regardless of its amplitude wont ever push the pigment. Unless you maybe try a higher grade red. Ofc any future tests with stronger or weaker lasers should have eye protection stay safe!

[@scientist7857]

I think you should use blue light for the double slit experiment on glowing LIT. That's how we can see both photoelectric effect and double slit experiment

[@jamesgearyjames]

I'm confused by one thing: would the double slit laser make the paint glow if a blue laser was used? I thought red light couldn't make the paint glow at all

[@amaankadri9173]

James Geary yes it would make the paint glow but he showed us about the red light because even though red light has higher amplitude, what we need to make the paint glow is higher momentum of the particles and not the amplitude!!

[@WalterSamuels]

In other words, his experiment made no sense and invalidates his claim. @@amaankadri9173

[@sohamtalekar7820]

Nice and very informative Love the hard work you put into each video mate

[@moodberry]

When I took physics in college my prof taught us about light being both wave and particle. I have puzzled over this since then (mid-1970s) But you said something that tied it together when you showed that it isn't just light, it is everything else too! Now I have even MORE to puzzle over! :)

[@pavel9652]

Now, when you feel good about yourself, take a look at QFT - Quantum Field Theory ;)

[@noahhorwitz5644]

The more questions you answer the more question you will have

[@1three7]

Not sure what he meant by "the light is curved" with non-laser light. But you absolutely can still do the double slit experiment with any light. The issue is most light sources give you a lot of different colors or different frequencies of light. Each different frequency will create a slightly shifted interference pattern. That means they can cover each other up and make it hard or impossible to discern. If the slits are close enough though and the back drop is dark enough you can usually still see the interference pattern even with full spectrum sunlight. It kind of looks like a prism separating a rainbow but each color has it's own interference pattern. You can create a view box with card board and cut two small slits right beside each other and go outside to let the sun hit the slits. If you have it all lined up so you can see where they hit inside the dark box and you have other light blocked out you can see for yourself.

[@Samsv1]

You answer the question yourself and I've brought this up before. The source of the emission is important. Light refracts in 6DOF 360 degrees according to the atomic elements the light travels through. By using a strip or an edge you create a very dense alignment that transitions the coherent light into a bulb along the body of the wire. Depending on what the slit is made up of you will get a different 'interference' pattern. Just like if you were to run through different conditions of rain you would get different amounts of wet. Vertical slits = vertical 'interference' patterns. A drop of water creates a reverberation on the surface it is dropped onto, and if it's water you will see 'waves'. In the double slit experiment's case, the surface is reverberating the light and creating a harmonic pattern because each time there is a light collision the properties of the electrons in the wire body change.

[@basseldahdouh8736]

Titles like these blow my mind into pieces

[@greensky01]

Bassel Dahdouh your mind is made up of over a trillion cells!

[@mansiprajapati4863]

When I had studied this topic at first time I was not able to feel this and I had started to ignore it, but after seeing this video,I can say only one word that is wow😱

[@ancient47]

Maybe light is particles which move in waveforms 🤔

[@MikeBUSA]

The weirdness of quantum physics and what it could possibly mean should be the first thing taught in schools before anything else. Sure, nobody would understand it, but that's not the point. The point is that it would raise the interest in physics immediately. Encourage simulated universes, multiverses, etc. Whatever makes the lightbulb in their heads illuminate. The rest of physics would be more interesting with a point - the journey is a lot of fun because there is no real destination. The destination is what you make it. If this stuff existed when I was a kid and presented this way, the entire course of my life would have been different. Another really good job, Mr. Action Lab person.

[@yoshiperspectives4880]

I have a question. You said that red light doesn't have enough momentum to knock it up to the next energy level but blue light does. But since p=mv, and the velocity of photons/light waves is constant, the only thing that can change the momentum of a photon is higher mass. The one with higher mass will have higher momentum. But the wavelength(mass) of red light is 620-780 nm while the wavelength of blue light is only 446-600 nm. So seeing that red light has a bigger mass, and thus more momentum, it seems that red light should bump the glow in the dark to the higher energy level, not blue. So what am I missing?

[@esatacikgoz2016]

Man I have a hard time understanding these thingies about quantum mechanics, I am a 10 year old but I lovvvvvvee your experiments, I just can't stop watching them, thanks for making this channel, I am more of an advanced learner so I like to learn things above my level and your channel is just purrrfect for that, and thats why I subscribed by the way :)

[@HeikoWiebe]

You don't even need the laser. I did the double-slit with my students using a sharp knife, a piece of thin cardboard, and the the flash light on their phones.

[@chrisraymond2289]

Red is just the wrong frequency to get that resolution

[@acluster3411]

A single photon is a unidirectional arrow (not a sphere) which does not spread like a beam of light. If that is the case then it should not interfere with itself while passing through the narrow space. Maybe this interference is related to Heisenberg uncertainty principle where the photon is forced to change the momentum since it is forced to revel it's position with higher accuracy due to the smaller size of the opening which was created by two parallel tape you used. The change of momentum is in the direction (X, not Y because how the tape is placed) of positional accuracy that is why the line is horizontal not vertical.

[@joe-jg4bh]

The double slit experiment that demonstrate quantum properties is performed with individual particles. For example if an individual electron is fired through the double slit experiment you stil get the interference pattern. The electron wave passes through both slits simultaneously and interferes with it self modifying its probability wave function. When it strikes the back plate its quantum wave function collapses and it interacts like a point particle. The position of the interaction is random but governed by the now modified probability wavefunction of the electron that changed due to it interfering with itself. The pattern builds up over time when enough particles passed through the slit. This demonstrates that the electron is a fundamental quantum object. When the experiment is repeated but with the addition of a measurement device then particle like behaviour is observed for the individual electrons or photons. The scale of the double slit is such that the wave of an electron is able to pass through both slits simultaneously, orders of magnitude smaller than the scale of your experiment. Your double slit experiment is a classical setup that does not prove/disprove the quantum behaviour of particles. It can be performed with mechanical waves yielding the same result.

[@Viewable11]

One error: _"Light is a wave therefore it is everywhere"_ is false, because light is an electromagnetic wave that has an origin point and a direction and a velocity. An electromagnetic wave moves through space from point A to point B over a specific duration defined by its velocity.

[@choke666]

How odd. I'd say it's a 'rate of induction' as opposed to a velocity.

[@Viewable11]

@@choke666 An electromagnetic wave is not induced while it travels.

[@KennyT187]

According to quantum electrodynamics, a photon is the smallest possible unit of vibration in the quantized electromagnetic field which does not have a well defined trajectory because of quantum uncertainty, ie. the energy packets of EM fields are not localized untill they are absorbed somewhere and only then you can say "a photon traveled from point A to point B" but this does not contain any information about the route of the photon. Look up Feynman path integrals.

[@alexandrudanciu7874]

Was not an error, but a way of saying...linked to the context of the explanation.

[@Yo-rs1pi]

Sound waves are the tubes and the particles travel through for example if we can make a lone sound wave we can put particles inside the tube

[@tobi3571]

Ok today i'm going to put a huge like

[@ChallengeTheNarrative]

Tobi 👍

[@itzkurt179]

Could you do some experiments with gamma rays

[@sudiptoits]

Oh yes? And get the whole Earth destroyed?

[@Magnus_Deus]

@@sudiptoits Nothing of value would be lost!

[@sudiptoits]

@trash meme the gamma rays would destroy the Earth and that means you too

[@NadaaTaiyab]

This was a great video! Understood this concept better with this video than any other explanation in the past. Wonder if you could try the wave particle experiment with the blue light too next time.

[@Hyxtryx]

Yes, that was a big missed opportunity.

[@StarMan-h9b]

Please,watch the video named : 'quantum mechanichs : animation explaining quantum physics.' In the first 40 seconds it explains (using marbles) Why marbles create interference pattern ( as the light do). There it is the explanation According to the video marbles and light create same pattern. It mean both of them have same nature. If the marbles are particles same would be the light( light would have particle nature as marbles have ). So this experiment doesn't show anything. It confirms/affirms that the light is particle( like the marbles)( light has particle nature as the marbles have ). It confirms that the particles create interfered pattern as the the light do, so it mean light is a particle.

[@Zurenza]

Photon's are weird, so is quantum mechanics but i'll try my best to explain this issue. To put it simply, photon's together create "Waves" but they themselves do not move in "Waves", so imagine you had a bunch of people and they were standing in a really wavy line, that's what photon's do. God this ones hard, Photon's are Particles, yes but because they are Fundamental Particles, Quantum Physics prevents us from Studying them directly because of the Quantum Uncertainty Principal. So there are a couple theory's for how individual Photon's work, one is that they each move in a wave pattern, in little packets together but this probably isn't true since it conflicts with experiments. The second is that Photon's move in a straight line, but create waves when they are made together, since Photon's are never made as Individuals and usually come in Packet's based on how they were created which produces their Wavelength and gives us different types of Light, Heat and even the entire Electromagnetic Spectrum. So now to help understand a little more, i'm going to say Photon's travel in straight lines but because of the amount of energy they contain they bunch together in Packets and that's when they create their Wave Pattern that we see in Laser's, remember there are trillions of Photons in that tiny spot so they create a wave and the energy that was used to create them makes that wavelength fairly long, resulting in Red Light. Also it's important to understand that Photons and Light Ray's are different, Light Ray's are created by large quantities of Photon's, and like i say these Ray's come in the form of "Waves". Final point, now on to the Lit Substance, light when it interacts with Protons and Neutrons transfer's it's energy to them, or as you put it "Momentum", while they do have Momentum it's easier to say that Photon's contain a certain amount of energy because we can't measure the Velocity of a Photon at the same time that we Measure it's Position, the quantum uncertainty principal. So the reason why a Blue Light is able to excite the molecules of Lit is because it simple contains enough energy to, if you shined an Ultra-Violet light on it it would shine much more, and if you shined X-Ray's on it, it would still shine because all of those have plenty of energy. Now when it comes to Gamma-Ray's the photons have so much energy that they actually start to tear things apart on the Subatomic level, that's why Gamma-Ray's are so dangerous, and the Lit would probably shine rediculously bright under it before probably being destroyed.

[@reter03]

In the Feynman lectures volume 3, it states you can set a photon gun too shoot singular photons through and record the results over time and you will get the interference pattern as long as you don't know which slit the photon is coming through.

[@vitankarshreyas]

Can you please try doing the same experiment...but this time, put an observer or indicator or camera which will collapse the wave function of the light... It will be fun to watch what happens with the lit paint :)

[@subratvishwas611]

Delayed choice quantum eraser experiment.☺

[@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475]

The observer is anything in an open system that interacts with the closed quantum system. ...So the paper counts as the 'observer'. (You just want more videos, don't you? ;)

[@das_it_mane]

"Observer" doesn't mean what you think it means. It's not "something looking at it", it's literally anything interacting with it.

[@EricWAtchesVideos]

I love your videos. Question though, why do you demonstrate that a red light cannot excite the lit pigment and make it glow, but then you use a red spectrum laser. Please try this again with a different (possibly green) laser. Keep up the great informative entertainment. Thank you

[@DayanandSajjan]

No graphics no animation....you made me understand the properties of light using the simplest tools possible.

[@saksham21990]

This is an awesome video. Could you explain diffraction as well?

[@marianpelmus]

this dude teach me in 10 minutes what shcool didn't in 4 years :|

[@chetnabudhraja3253]

I am confused---- Light is beam of Photons and Photons doesn't have mass as they didn't care of Higgs field. As you said 'Light of specific momentum' but Momentum = Mass × velocity. How does light have momentum without mass????

[@exaucemayunga22]

Deepanshu Budhraja. Ex: red light doesn't have enough momentum to move the electrons, but blue light does

[@chetnabudhraja3253]

Exo Magic, but light doesn't have mass then how it has momentum

[@SPSGRG]

Because E=mc². Mass and energy are equivalent, a photon may have no mass, but it moves at light speed so has a 'mass'. That's why he said that any particle can show the split pattern.

[@WigantX]

Look, I found these two links that explain how light has momentum. I wanted to explain it myself, but english isn't my mother tongue. math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum

[@arnabsom3251]

that's right light is not a particle neither a wave it is just the rate of induction of dielectric field perturbation that is calculated as the speed of light... kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZyUh6ano5eWq9k

[@Gustavobc0]

Would be stellar if you enabled public subtitle contribution; this is a great video and I wanna get my quantum chemistry prof to show it in class, but not everyone speaks English and the automatic subtitle/translation is really subpar so I would try adding the translated subtitles myself but that's not enabled here

[@TheActionLab]

Ok I just enabled it.

[@Gustavobc0]

Awesome! Thanks so much and keep up the great work!

[@Gustavobc0]

Just submitted the complete translated captions but I think they need approval? Don't really know much how the other side of it works, but thanks again for enabling it!!

[@TheActionLab]

Ok I approved it

[@Gustavobc0]

The Action Lab awesome man, thanks! I'll try letting you know if I get my prof to show the video in class, we're approaching this very subject soon :)

[@johnrubensaragi4125]

7:01 When you were trying to charge that lit with laser behind the double slit, it will not charge because the laser is red, and not have enough frequency. I bet you will get different result with blue laser.

[@jazzram_]

John Ruben Saragi yes like a blue-white star it is hotter tyan a red one

[@gamingargamingar708]

I am a high school student, and I learn more from one of these ten minute videos than i learn over ten days in school.

[@sweateryoshi4026]

We covered this stuff in school. Might be a country thing as I am from germany.

[@arsonisalwaystheanswer7103]

Him: Ok today I’m going to do an experiment that proves light is a wave. Me: ooh cool Him: And then I’m going to do an experiment that shows you that light is a particle. Me: Wait, what? Him: And then after you’re thoroughly confused I’ll show you what light really is. Me: trying to do the equations in my head and actually helping him thoroughly confuse me

[@curiouschildalways8991]

Does glow in dark paint glow with red light? He said it wont. Is it right?? Sir Please answer

[@Steven-xp6dk]

Many ask the same question. Here's the answer. Red light created only interference and not glow because it doesn't have the right frequency (threshold frequency) to make an electron 'jump'. What should be concluded?---- Light bands(fringes) were formed because of *wave nature.* HAD IT BEEN WAVE ALONE, THEN GLOW WOULD BE POSSIBLE TOO. Since light is also a particle, Red light photons don't have the threshold frequency for the glow.

[@SomeRandomGuy121]

I really dont see how just because blue charges and red doesnt, its a particle.

[@mat5473]

Me neither. Isn't that because blue light has a shorter wavelength and so can penetrate more easily? That's why our veins appear blue and not red. The red light can't penetrate that deep into our skin. So surely in the glow in the dark example, the red light is just not able to activate the electrons because it's wavelength is too long. I'm obviously wrong, but if someone could explain why would be good!

[@votalis4089]

@@mat5473 I went looking for more info. His demonstration is only half of the explanation, but it's easier to show it that way in a video. Prior to the discovery of the photoelectric effect, light was thought of as just a wave. The referenced experiment allowed them to record the kinetic energy(velocity) of individual electrons ejected from metal with light shining on it. The rate(number of electrons in a given time or frequency) at which these electrons were kicked off, also created a measurable current in the metal. Prior to that experiment, they expected that brighter light had more energy than dim light(the wave's amplitude), and that the kinetic energy of the ejected electrons would increase with brighter light. Also, that increasing the frequency of the light(color change for visible light) would change the rate(frequency) at which more and more electrons were kicked off, even with low individual kinetic energy, and that would change the current. The results were the opposite. Frequency (color) changed the kinetic energy, and amplitude (brightness), changed the current in the metal (or rate/frequency of electron ejection). To explain this Einstein proposed that light sometimes acts as particles or little packets of light energy. That the energy of this particle was equivalent to the light's frequency (color for visible), and that the amplitude ( brightness) of the light was actually the amount of particles. So a photon with a sufficient energy level can knock an electron out of position, and the number of electrons knocked out in a given time is equal to the number of light particles. Again, the opposite of what was expected based on wave behavior (i.e frequency would have changed the frequency of ejection, and the amplitude would have changed the kinetic energy if light only acted like a wave). So in the video, bright red light doesn't move the electrons, but a really dim light with a high enough frequency like blue or violet does move the electrons. He is only showing the kinetic energy part of the experiment though, not how many electrons in a given amount of time. Sorry it's so long, but I hope it's helpful.

[@jemielparker124]

@@mat5473 you're thinking about it right, remember he said it was momentum that allowed the blue light to have an effect. The frequency of red is lower than blue, frequency = wave speed = equals momentum

[@lionheart1522]

Quantum mechanics is not the most proven theory in all of science. QM is an entire field of study and it's entirely non-observable (you can observe interference patterns but that doesn't show the young's conclusions and you obviously can't see individual photons, and there is no REAL way to measure a single photon since they can have variable energy levels and doing anything including measuring photons, emits photons which would ruin your experiment, capturing a photon often emits a photon, a photon is supposedly it's own antiparticle, there are all kinds of problems with particle photon models) and largely goes against the scientific method. QM also has obvious flaws leading to absurdities like cats that can be alive and dead at the same time in the same sense, Super-positioning, conflicting theories that can't both be tested or disproven like the many universes theory or the Copenhagen interpretation. Either all possible things happen in parallel universes or only one does and it doesn't happen unless it's measured. Both can't be true, it's possible neither is true but neither can ever be proven. They also aren't useful. They basically break every rule according to the scientific method. Luckily macro level energy equations are useful and you actually don't need to know the quantum level things exactly in order to do Q=MC(T1-T2) or similar thermodynamic equations.

[@vegardpig8634]

And how do you know?

[@saltyxd55]

I was looking for a comment like that thank you 🙏

[@juaniaranzadi1218]

I think you watched too much quantum woo videos

[@dzfz2100]

Quantisation can still be rationalised conceptually by models like particle in a box and particle in a ring, where confined waves need to be quantised to meet a resonance condition.

[@charmelink]

7:29 You think I wouldn't notice what you were drawing there 😆 good job LOL

[@Alex_441]

It's really just a wave traveling through the aether though

[@elizabethmeghana9614]

read michealson and morley experiment

[@dhruvnayi1737]

Congratulations for 800k subscribers I'm Dhruv from India

[@greensky01]

Digital infinity congratulations for being Indian.

[@dhruvnayi1737]

greensky01 Thanks

[@sritabhpriyadarshi4233]

U forgot to give credits to Einstein, youngs, huygens, de broglie 😅

[@MetalKabu]

and schrödinger, planck, heisenberg

[@scottfranco1962]

This video illustrates why I like your channel. You are using a bag of "crispy crunch" chips to support your experiment. Nobody else does that. Super high tech!

[@shreeshchhabbi]

I was taught Bohr's model in school. I did not know of quantum mechanics until few years ago. We do not yet know how electron actually revolves (or stays!) around nucleus and how particles generate interference pattern in double slit experiment. These 2 questions are mind blowing. I am an engineer. But I am really dedicating my 2nd half of life in particle physics.

[@roberthelms1737]

Do not waste your time. Everything is fields.

[@vetrivendhan6122]

Conclusion: So the Naruto's Rasengan also has both particle and wave property.

[@abhinavgaming2110]

??

[@vetrivendhan6122]

Just for fun 😁

[@ceoofs.x]

lol yes

[@shubhamsandilya5827]

seems u have studied quiet a lot about my jutsu's

[@araitol3935]

Naruto's rasengan is basically a wind. It's futoon element or wind element.

[@architaarya3829]

he just said that red light doesn't charge the glow in the dark, and then proceeds todo the last experiment with red laser. I can't-

[@jayanthikoka6969]

You didn't understand properly

[@maheshvaghasiya6508]

@@jayanthikoka6969 no her question is legitimate. The dude should have used blue LED to do a real comparison. And I'm sure, blue diffraction pattern also could have illuminate the LIT.

[@fernandocarrillo8875]

By using red he showed that there can be a difference in the way light interacts. If he used blue he would have just reinforced the wave side of the argument.

[@ElectroCosmic]

The lazer is a Red light............ Do it with a blue one to see if it makes the stuff glow, and you will surprise me if it doesn't.

[@strategen9124]

but the red laser light passed through the double slit and created an interference pattern, which shows that its a wave. the guys alr said that high energy waves light those of laser will cause the LIT paint to glow in the dark, regardless of the colour of laser. The colour of light only matters when light is a particle. so as the red laser is proved to be a wave, but it still doesnt light up the LIT paint, light must somehow be both a particle and a wave, which is crazy if u think about it

[@Ch1nSeewhY]

then he should show us if plain red laser will maked the paint glow.

[@Ch1nSeewhY]

*make

[@md.farhannaseh9924]

I think you cannot actually say that red light won't charge the glow-in-dark pigment coz blue light has higher energy than red light so even when it was of low intensity it resulted in a green glow. As blue light has higher energy some of it got absorbed and final emission was green glow where energy of green emission is lower than that of blue light. But if you shine red light the final emission after absorption may move to infrared region and one would not be able to see. Alternatively, you cannot get a green glow (higher energy) by shining it with red light (lower energy).

[@fortis7014]

Thankyou so much.. u r doing wonderful stuff.. Ur videos helps to clear my doubts...

[@Ganymede569]

It's amazing to see how easy technology advancement has made it to perform the double-slit experiment nowadays.

[@ThierryTiramisu]

3:11 it's about to get LIT in here :)

[@sammathew3332]

6:54 I think there's a mistake. If light is particles it *should* charge it.

[@TheActionLab]

It is correct how it is. If it is a wave it should charge it because high amplitude should be able to knock any electron up regardless of color. If it is particles it shouldn’t charge it because each particle doesn’t have enough momentum.

[@wierdalien1]

The Action Lab yes you are correct

[@unnatagarwal7007]

The Action Lab ,but why should particles(of red light ) be able to charge it .It shouldnt ,you were absolutely right in ur vid .

[@TheActionLab]

Unnat Agarwal you are correct:)

[@atoms_dancing]

Sam Mathew I think it's really fun to see particles engaging in identity politics. "So, Mr. Photon, are you Red or Blue because I'm afraid sir, if you are Red, we cannot let you have interactions with our electrons"

[@The_Tormented_One]

I always learn something from your videos. You are my practicals teacher. 😊

[@roadnottaken2780]

Thanks. Double slit experiment was the very first video that I watched on youtube as far as I can remember. It was back in 2006 or 2007.