Video

Thank you so much sir. Goated explanation... Also Sir had a doubt, you wrote the equation 1/f=1/v+1/u but isnt lens equation 1/f=1/v-1/u?

Thank you so much sir! Best explanation on this topic..

Brilliant. If I could give a ton more likes I would. Your explanation is superior to others 👍

can someone explain to me how he is filming this. he isn't writing in reverse right?

Came here for this specific piece of information. Thank you for a thorough explanation (and correction) of the materials!

"peak wavelength"? do you mean wavelength at peak intensity?

Planck's approach was to analyze the entropy of blackbody radiation as a function of energy. To make both high-frequency and low-frequency data consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, he included an additional "guess" term proportional to the frequency. Planck's application of Boltzmann's Statistical Mechanics led to his conclusion that the material of the walls emit and absorb radiation in discrete quanta. A paper titled "Planck’s Route to the Black Body Radiation Formula and Quantization" by Michael Fowler (7/25/08) gives a nice discussion.

Which text book are these questions from?

You have helped me so much with physics, all the way from America to middle east. Thanks a lot sir

Good video, very enjoyable to watch and informative ❤💪

Don’t know how I ended up here but you were my physics teacher back in 2018💀

Loved it, thanks!

Can i ask something why does the electric field travel

This was very helpful!

This was fantastic! Thank you :)

Thank you so much

what if the question is in velocity instead of speed, would we use the same relationship p=mv ?

So awesome!!!

Nice video and presentation. A plate capacitor without permittivity between its plates cannot establish polarized electric field inside to store charge. Permittivity is provided by dielectric materials such as glass, ceramic, gas as well as vacuum. The permittivity in vacuum is responsible for polarized electric field inside, also responsible for alternating polarized electric field in vacuum and hence electromagnetic and light wave, in vacuum. That also explain why we can see distant stars millions light years away, through vacuum. Vacuum permittivity is provided by Aether, a light medium.

not explaining enough unfortunately

Its been a while since youve posted, you alright?

Thank you for your help. Great video 👍🏾

I wish you also had add self sustaining quality of EM waves

A recent radio experiment showing light propagates instantaneously in the nearfield and reduces to the speed of light in the farfield, after one wavelength is also another discovery that will radically change our understanding of science, in particular all of modern physics. In this experiment,the time delay of signals was measured between 2 dipole antennas as the antennas were separated from the nearfield to the farfield. The results showed that the radio waves (light) propagates instantaneously in the nearfield and reduces to the speed of light in the farfield after one wavelength. This corresponds to not only the phase speed and group speed, but also the information speed. These results are completely incompatible with Special Relativity, which is based on the speed of light being a constant c. Inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz transformation yields Galilean transformations, where space and time are absolute. This shows that if an inertial moving object is observed using instantaneous nearfield light, then no time dilation , length contraction, or simultaneity Relativistic effects will be observed. So if Relativistic effects are observed using farfield speed c light, then by simply flicking a switch, one can change the frequency of the light, such that instantaneous light used instead, and the effects of Relativity would go away. This shows that the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion and that Galilean Relativity is the correct form of Relativity. Here is another very powerful argument that shows Relativity is based on a logical fallacy. According to Relativity, observers on a moving train and on a stationary train platform will disagree on the size of the ""Train"" and the passage of time on the ""Train"". This is a complete logical contradiction if the size and the passage of time of the train are real. If the size of the train is real, then the ""Train"" can not be both contracted and not contracted. The same goes for the observed passage of time on the ""Train"". If these effects are observed, then the only possible conclusion is that it is an optical illusion. Things that are real must appear to be same from all frames of reference. If not, then by definition it is an illusion. Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the train will see it not contracted (L). So the train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to passage of time on the Train, where both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated (T not equal rT). If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the ""Train"", then it must be an optical illusion. It should be noted that experiments proving Relativity can only give evidence that the theory may be true, but an experiment disproving Relativity, or a logical proof showing a logical fallacy in the theory can absolutely disprove the theory. I have provided both. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics. The current interpretation of quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler deterministic explanation explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. But because of the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics. *CZcams presentation of above argument: czcams.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/video.html *Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145

Thanks! But could you explain why emmision of light waves would result in continuous decrease energy where as emmision of photons is resulting in discrete decrease in energy. (I know the explanation for photons and discrete energy but can't understand why if em waves were used the energy decrease would be continuous)

bro seriously a very nice video

Very clear explanation. But why are the curves shown smooth? Is it that there are so many frequencies thaat they appear smooth but if we had better definition we would see little spaces between the points?

This is honestly one of the best explanations ive ever heard

Fantastic!

Excellent explanation and love the way you are presenting it gods work keep it up

dude, this made me understand the concept so well, I was so lost in my college class

This man> my college staff with phd's

This is amazing ! Thanks alot

Please tell me how you do the whiteboard thing its the exact setuo as Joel Speranza and hes keeping the secret safe. My final physics exam for 50% is tomorrow morning but this is the most important thing right now.

Man bless you for creating this .. I finally grasped this concept

thank you for posting! your simple explanation is super helpful

I think it should be the intensity (I) = sigma T^(4) cuz I=P/A 😅

Great videos! Thank you!

Great video--added significantly to the discussion!

Isn't that a HALF wavelength, though? Wavelength should be around 12cm, and that looks more like 6cm.

Thanks

Such a critical piece of the puzzle! Great job! 😀

BAM! Thank You! I couldn't comprehend get how Plank decided to use Energy as discrete units ! omg! I've been wondering that for yrs. yrs!

This is one of those those great but largely undiscovered nuggets that not only explains the subject of blackbody radiation in detail but also, importantly, the historical context of the research, the questions being asked about the relation between frequency and temperature, and the steps that led to a solution.

Excellent video!, just one question, why is image distance negative for the last question? because I thought convex lens gives real image. Thanks

So I understanding that the energy comes in packets. But why does that make the curve go back down eventually? I don’t understand that yet

thanks so much. made it 10x easier. appreciate you!

Do you have a large LED acrylic board to write on? Your technique for teaching is interesting

It's the little, but all-important and so often neglected details of the subject being given attention in this video that really help make it all so understandable. You often see representations of the wave packet in other videos, to take just one example, but what is or how it relates to wavelengths is seldom made clear. Here, though, it's perfectly spelled out. There's even a realworld demonstration of the results of a single-slit experiment! This is what an educational video should be.