Video

How did you come up with average speed = 10^9 cm/s? Given that the “temperature” of a critical assembly is rising, and scattering/absorption dynamics changes, this number probably needs either a more detailed derivation, or a description of conditions, under which it holds true. Also, as you are well aware, the energy spectrum of the fission neutrons is pretty wide. Just a thought. Thank you.

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

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

15:58 Ambiguity achieved, it seems Millikan was correct in observation, but also a reference to your other video on the same topic!

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

This video is great but I have a problem with imagining the conservation of momentum and energy in Compton experiment. Scattering produces physical impacts and when the measurement of the impact of quanta is recorded and then momentum is calculated. But it refers only to the instance of impact. Then scattering takes place. I wonder how these guys measured the speed of the photon after it was hit. And how far and where did that photon go? For a photon that loses energy must also lose speed. Also, Compton effect does not explain the cause of the incoming photons i.e. the mechanism behind the detachment of photon from the source. It only explains the intermediate happenstance and the final result without the cause of it. Einstein was a plagiarist: czcams.com/video/fsOba2upljw/video.html

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

❤Hello. With the help of the “HYBRID gyroscope” you can make scientific discoveries; in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, higher theoretical physics,... I am writing to you with a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, TWO coils with a new type of optical fiber with a “hollow core photonic-substituted vacuum zone or (NANF)” where - the light travels 48000 meters in each arm, while it does not exceed the parameters 40/40/40 cm, and the weight is 4 kg. Manufacturers of “Fiber Optic Gyroscopes” can produce HYBRID gyroscopes for educational and practical use in schools and higher education institutions. Einstein dreamed of measuring the speed of a train, an airplane - through the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1881/2024, and only then would the experiment be more than 70% complete. This can be done using a fiber optic HYBRID gyroscope. Based on the completion of more than 70% of Michelson's experiment, the following postulates can be proven: Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and dominant gravitational fields adjust the speed of light in a vacuum. (We are not looking for ether, we will see the work of gravitational quanta) The result is a «theory of everything» in a simple teaching device and a new tape measure for measuring the universe.

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

Thumbs up from France!

You are way off wrt the origins of quantum theory. It is based on the electron and its relationship with the nucleus and it was Bohr who hypothesized that, not Planck. In fact, Planck knew nothing about electrons and he later lamented that had he known about them it would have made his life far easier. The relationship between quantum theory and the electronic circuits boards you offered is the electron. I need to repeat, quantum theory is about electrons. The Schrodinger wave equation is an attempt to quantify the electron incorrectly as a wave and is based on the potential and kinetic energy of an electron as it theoretically orbits a nucleus. Planck's 'h' was extremely helpful but it plays only a small part in describing electron behavior as in E = hf. It was Bohr who discovered the relationship based on spectral lies emitted by hydrogen. The frequency of those lines, f, are the basis of Bohr's theory. I fear, however, that quantum theory has failed as well. Physicist David Bohm claimed that quantum theory and Newtonian theory have reached the ends of their respective roads, wrt atomic theory and that we'll have to begin again. Both theories lack the precision in measuring equipment to observe atoms directly. We should be focussed on developing such equipment rather than wasting time with inadequate equations from quantum theory.

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

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

Let us pray!

Useful video. Thanks. I look forward to scoping your channel. Subscribed. Cheers

Actually, the experiment only confirms that lasers and the photoelectric effect eject particles. Light is still confirmed to be an energy wave in an electromagnetic medium. The double slit experiment proves that lasers eject radiative particles which create a wave in a medium.

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

I am interested in taking up the challenge and following through the procedure to attempt to calculate the critical mass for a cylinder. I do have a background in electrical engineering, and as part of that I studied quantum mechanics, and nuclear physics, and did extensive training in calculus.... However I am more interested in trying to calculate the critical mass that relates to a nuclear reactor instead of a nuclear weapon, would you be able to do a video on that or point to where one could find information how to make such a calculation? I am thinking something like calculating the critical mass for something like a Chicago pile, CP-1... minus the bottle of Chianti Bertolli wine... and Enrico fermi!

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

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

this channel is great

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

Okay, I am a little stumped at the laplacian part. So I already specifically got the form down pretty well: (nabla)^(2)*F + (kappa)^(2)*F = 0 but now how exactly do I plug in the "auxiliary function" to this figure in order to get the positional function. At least just give me a hint or point me in a general direction that I could learn how to do this (note: I am familiar with Calculus, however, I am not entirely versed in doing these equations on my own).

❤!❤ Hello. With the help of the “HYBRID gyroscope” you can make scientific discoveries; in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, higher theoretical physics,... I am writing to you with a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, TWO coils with a new type of optical fiber with a “hollow core photonic-substituted vacuum zone or (NANF)” where - the light travels 48000 meters in each arm, while it does not exceed the parameters 40/40/40 cm, and the weight is 4 kg. Manufacturers of “Fiber Optic Gyroscopes” can produce HYBRID gyroscopes for educational and practical use in schools and higher education institutions. Einstein dreamed of measuring the speed of a train, an airplane - through the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1881/2024, and only then would the experiment be more than 70% complete. This can be done using a fiber optic HYBRID gyroscope. Based on the completion of more than 70% of Michelson's experiment, the following postulates can be proven: Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and dominant gravitational fields adjust the speed of light in a vacuum. (We are not looking for ether, we will see the work of gravitational quanta) The result is a «theory of everything» in a simple teaching device and a new tape measure for measuring the universe.

I did not appreciate how important classical thermodynamics and thermodynamics were in the emergence of quantum theory. What a time to be alive!

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Jorge S. Diaz BetterHelp is a sponsorship u don't want to take. Thier controversies are selling User Data. Look up more urself with a simple Google search, i've seen everyone say this stuff in every Sponsored video.

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

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

Another great physics story!

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

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

The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the Galilean Transform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *CZcams presentation of above arguments: czcams.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/video.html <czcams.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/video.html> *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

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

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

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

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

Was Einstein ever wrong 🤣

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

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

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

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

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

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

great!