Thank you very much for the video. It brought me some questions: 1) Can we find waves in other phenomena that do not include energy transfer? For example, if I mark a dot on a horizontally spinning wheel, to describe its position in space I need a sine function. The kinetic energy of the dot does not change (only the direction of its velocity). 2) Can energy be transferred in ways that do not require a wave function to describe them? For example, colliding balls transfer energy. If we treat them as solid objects we don't need a wave function to describe them. If we look at the balls as composed of many atoms we might need a wave function to describe the transfer of energy between them. 3) Can we find phenomena that are described by other types of waves, rather than sin/cos/tan? Like square waves or triangular waves? 4) Why does the sine/cosine functions are so fundamental even, to movements that have nothing to do with circular motion? (like your example of the oscillating spring).
Hi Lucid Thinking, Question 1) Can we find waves in other phenomena that do not include energy transfer? For example, if I mark a dot on a horizontally spinning wheel, to describe its position in space I need a sine function. The kinetic energy of the dot does not change (only the direction of its velocity). Yes, for example a standing wave (like the vibration of a guitar string) keeps the energy in a closed space (although it does go back and forth between boundaries of that space). It does contain the energy of the string. Note that If there is an interaction with an exterior system like air for example, some of it will be transferred to the air and create sound (which is a travelling wave that transfers energy to your timpani). For your example of the spinning wheel: If the wheel is vertical, the gravitational potential energy of the particle at the dot will be described as a wave. For the horizontal case, you are correct there is no energy transfer involved (in circular motion, there is no work done by the force causing the circular motion). The sine curve is just a mathematical expression of the dot’s individual coordinates (or the direction of the velocity as you mention).
Question 2) Can energy be transferred in ways that do not require a wave function to describe them? For example, colliding balls transfer energy. If we treat them as solid objects we don't need a wave function to describe them. If we look at the balls as composed of many atoms we might need a wave function to describe the transfer of energy between them. Again yes, the example of the balls is perfect. Staying in classical physics, at small scales, if you consider individual unbound particles like in a gas, they will exchange energy by colliding without involving a wave. However, as soon as they are bound, they will be oscillations. The ball (made of bound atoms) hitting the other does experience a wave that travels through it (you hear the sound, don’t you?). Imagine an asteroid hitting the Earth, the shockwave would travel through the earth (creating earthquakes everywhere). As you mentioned, at small scales, quantum physics kicks in and elementary systems are better represented as mathematical waves (Schodinger’s wave functions), and behave as waves… as well as their quantised energy states. In the video, when I discussed energy transfer, I wasn’t being absolute, I just wanted to show how the wave phenomena plays a crucial role in our understanding of how the universe works Universe. It might even be its central elementary block. Further we explore the small, thus the elementary more waves appear in our description.
Question 3) Can we find phenomena that are described by other types of waves, rather than sin/cos/tan? Like square waves or triangular waves? Yes and No. An ideal oscillation is described by a single sinusoid of single frequency (such an oscillation is called simple harmonic motion). But oscillations are nearly never ideal (the world is much messier than on the paper haha!). So, you could say yes. However, square waves, triangular waves or any type of wave are just a combination of sine waves. By adding sine waves of different phase or/and frequency, you can build up these square and triangle waves. My other professional activity apart from teaching is music production, I do this all the time when I design a sound using the oscillators of my synths! So, to your question: no. All waves, whatever their shapes are actually a combination of elementary sine waves… Any other shape emerges (here’s that word again 😉) from the combination of these elementary sine waves.
Question 4) Why does the sine/cosine functions are so fundamental even, to movements that have nothing to do with circular motion? (like your example of the oscillating spring). That is one of the main point of this video: to raise this question, which leads more towards philosophy than physics (maybe that is where you can help 😉): Why is the sine function (the wave shape) everywhere? More examples that just came to my mind to blow yours: a ball you drop bounces (oscillates), light is an oscillation of an electric field, originating from the oscillation of an electric charge, space time oscillates when two black hole merge, there are traces of the oscillation of energy density from the big bang (Wavelength is 400 million light years and is measured), it is also at the heart of life itself with the pumping on a heart beat… Thank you for your great questions! I enjoyed reflecting on them and trying to provide answers.
Hey Edouard, thank you very much for the comprehensive answers. I wanted to say that I've started following your channel after seeing the video: Why Does Light Reflect? I've never seen before an explanation that explains light reflection treating it as an electromagnetic wave. All the explanations I saw were treating it as a solid particle hitting a mirror and bouncing back. Your explanation is a step closer to another question I haven't found an answer to anywhere. The question is why light diffracts when it passes through a slit, and why does the size of the slit affect the existence or properties of the diffraction? All the explanations I have found just assume that light waves behave like water waves, and that is why it happens. But light is an electromagnetic wave. As I understand it, it does not move in space on the axis perpendicular to its movement. The sine function only describes the magnitude of the electric and magnetic fields, not a position in space. Then the question is, what is the mechanism that allows interaction of the slit and the waves in such a way that the light diffracts. If you know the answer, it would be great if you could make a video about it. @@PhysicsMadeEasy
🙏 Sir,I am from India.Sir as your channel's name suggests,you made physics really easy and understandable rather than practicing things like a robot. I am falling in love with your concepts and calmness while teaching, appreciating your effort sir❤
You are welcome Ajay. When I was a teenager, my teachers showed me physics in a very un-appealing way. I discovered "the real physics" later at Uni, and fell in love with the subject only there. Then, I thought, what a waste! The learning during my hellish highschool years could have been so much more fun! What I went through, is what I try to prevent in other student. It is all a frame of mind...
Our school system is really failing us , am a undergraduate and today from this video i understood what actually a wave is , watched 100s of video explaining amplitude oscillation etc but no body gave the meaning for a wave , am very thankful for a teacher like you who explains real logic and foundation of fudamental of a topic ❤
Thank you for your encouraging feedback. It is highly appreciated. Sometimes, to truely understand something, one needs to fly higher, and look at the whole... That;s what I tried to show with this video. I am glad you appreciated it :-)
I was thinking the other day how amazing it actually is that we have things like radio and mobile phones, all working because of Electro Magnetic waves. And then I think how strange it actually is that a particle like an electron generates a field. And how this field changes when the electron moves. And how the changing electric field generates a changing magnetic field. Like, what is even a field? How can ''stuff'' influence other ''stuff'' even through a vacuum space? It sounds like magic!
haha, good reflection... This is the kind of stuff that made people realise at the end of the 19nth century that there must be more than Newtonian physics... Because it really sounds like magic! And so quantum mechanics were born.... For example, the fact that two charged particles attract or repel each other is actually not a magical effect at distance, but its by the exchange of the particle associated with the electric field (the Photon...) If you are curious, check my videos about particle physics...
Thank you for your kind feedback! I am glad when my work triggers reflection in others. And I remember enjoying writing and producing this one: it aligns with my enjoyment in exploring the deeper meaning of things :-).
Sir please make a detailed video Newtons All 3 Laws of Motion , with detailed definition , meaning , explanation , examples with formulas and derivation
Sir please make a detailed video on All Laws of Thermodynamics with detailed definition , meaning , explanation , examples with formulas and derivation
I actually have a course online where I illustrate the 3 laws of Newton by presenting a technique to solve problems with forces: www.udemy.com/course/solving-physics-problems-with-forces/
Hello Ade, You are warmly welcome. It was trial and error with my real life students, until I found a way to explain waves in an intuitive way that spoke to them. Then, I put that pedagogy in Video. I am glad you enjoyed it!
Hello Kevin, thank you for your kind words. Physics and Music are deeply entangled. I checked your page, I like very much your duet on the flute with Tom on the drum (I am a composer / musician too). A project I am exploring right now is with an accordeonist: world music with a large fraction on celtic (more Bretton than Irish though). A lot of fun.
Sir Happy Teacher's Day from India . We celebrate It to commemorate the birth anniversary of our 1st Vice President and 2nd President Dr. S Radhakrishnan who was a teacher before becoming Vice President .
Thank you so much for this type of high quality content. Ive always wondered what even where waves... I had never thought about them being the way energy propagates, but it makes sense! In reality, everything exists in fields, the gravitational field, a magnetic field, a eletric field etc. Waves, are the result of energy propagating through said fields... or at least, that's how I imagine mechanical waves work, although I suppose eletromagnetic aren't all that different. Anyways, that's just my excited ramblings after seeing the video, Im probably wrong, but thank you for giving me a foundation to base thought on
Hi Ivan, congrats: your words are a good summary of what waves can be seen to be. I am thrilled to read that my video opened you to a path for deeper reflection. Continue, explore, you are clearly on the right track for more "ah-ah"s moments !!!
Nice videos I've learned more.Make another video on how electron rotate around the protons and how sun produce heat and light please use lots of animation.
Hello Nickson. Nice suggestions. I'd love that... My agenda though doesn't agree with my dersires these days... One day maybe. Just a few hints, for you to answer yourself these questions though: The electron has kinetic energy but has a force perpendicular to its speed. That is why it is in circular motion (in orbit: It falls on the proton, but because it has enough speed it, it continuously misses it. Lucky for us!). Note though that it is just a model. Reality is different... The Sun produces heat because of the nuclear reactions in its core... mostly beta decays...
Thank you Zakir! Yes, I am back, at slow pace for the next few months still (I still have to deal with what slowed me down in the first palce), but I very happy to have found a few days to write, shoot and edit a new video! PME is still alive and kicking! :-)
It would seem the property of acceleration is required for a wave to exist. Waves are an emergent phenomenon of an accelerating process. Although for the entire wave to be evident, the accelerating process must return to an origin state so there must be both positive and negative acceleration. Otherwise we are only observing half of the wave phenomenon. And it might not return to its original state at the same rate change. However you could just as equally say that acceleration is an emergent phenomenon from wave mechanics.
Hi Ross. What you are referring too are oscillations. An oscillation is defined by a relationship between the acceleration of the oscillating object and its position (for a pure sine or cosine curve for example, acceleration is proportional to position and of opposite sign to position, when considering the equilibrium position as origin). The Wave phenomena emerges macroscopically from the mutual interaction of oscillators (objects that oscillate and that are connected), so yes you could say it emerges from a specific constraint on the individual accelerations of these objects. However, I am not sure you can do things in reverse (A microscopic phenomena can not emerge from a macroscopic one).
haha, I know... many things on my plate, professionally and personally., and add to that that I moving house and country... And the new house, requires some work... So, I had to slow down a little the youtube activity for a while. I am still not done, but as you see, when I have a couple of days free, I write, shoot and edit a video for you guys! I might be able to shoot a few more soon, hopefully :-).
A gem for Humanity? These are strong words Niki! I see it more like, the work I put in this channel is my contribution ;-)... Thank you very much for your praise. it encourages me so much!
Could light be a spherical 4πr² EM wave over a ‘period of time’ with particle characteristics when we have absorption and emission as a probabilistic future unfolds relative to the atoms of the Periodic Table? Is the exchange of light photon ∆E=hf energy continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons, as an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds? Is the Future relative to our actions with the Planck Constant h/2π being a constant of action within a geometrical spherical 4πr² process that forms the characteristics of 3D space and time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π?
A 4πr² EM implies a 2D wave. If you consider it over a period of time, then it becomes a volume... Now if you fix time, you can describe a surface 4πr² at r from the source, and if assuming it comes from a point source, then, the state of this light can be considered like identical at each point (Same phase). Identical?... problem, Heisenberg doesn't like this... You are blending classical physics notions with probabilistic physics based on quantum physics... The context of EM wave does have much sense in this context. So if you stay in a Quantum context that, I think I understand your questions, you are talking about causality right? In that case, yes, there is an element of uncertainty due to Heisenberg, that leads to multiple possible futures (probably Everett's multiverse).
Oh, you know, that would be a short one! DC: electrons always move in the same direction along the path the circuit provides them. AC: electrons oscillate... see illustration here: czcams.com/video/hk63uUhkZH4/video.html
Sir in school I am learning that waves do not require a medium to travel. Could you please explain it to me as in your explanation you used particles to visualize it?
Maybe you missed a word during class? Mechanical waves do need a medium to travel, electromagnetic waves, like visible light or radiowaves, do not (unless you consider spacetime as a medium ;-))
the short answer is that waves are particles in motion... so when these guys are getting confused on how light can be both particles and waves, they are confused on why a particle moves and then stops moving... talk about brain damage...
Hi David. Mechanical waves emerge from bound oscillating particles . Light is not a mechanical wave: The classical view: light is the propagation of an oscillating electric field, The wave-shape comes from the delay in the influence of the oscillating charge due to the speed limit in space time (speed of light). When considering light made of particles, i.e. in a quantum mechanical scope, particles of light, photons, are not oscillating... they are considered as being waves of probability...
Hi, This video was more general. For Radiowaves, check the "what is an electromagnetic Wave?" video: czcams.com/video/hk63uUhkZH4/video.htmlsi=j7e3RjXwirxH17-S And for microwave cooking, check "The Wave Equation" video: czcams.com/video/8Dtzv5vn8qA/video.htmlsi=r2HUPlxkwlBaH98I
Sir, according to the explanation, waves are formed when there Is a link in between the particles. So does the formation of sound or even light waves show that the photons or particles in the air are linked with each other? Or is there another reason for their formation?
Hi Priyan, Waves formed where there is a link between oscillating particles are mechanical waves (Sound is part of them, it is air molecules interacting with each other). For light, it is different. It is an EM wave. the wave shape of light is due fundamentally to a limitation of space time: the oscillating influence of an oscillating charge can only travel at the speed of light, so the resulting electric field has also a wavelike character (check my video what is an electromagnetic wave for more info:czcams.com/video/hk63uUhkZH4/video.htmlsi=qd1A5eHenCK3XDL3 ) .
Waves are the visualization of energy travelling... So take your plains or plateaus, and let's see how it looks like after a major earthquake passes through it... ;-)
Hello Sir, 12:31 in the sine wave that is drawn, the particles to whom the energy is given at the first place and the neighbouring particles are tending to reach their maximum amplitudes, by why at the same time the next neighbouring particles going downwards, why are they creating a downward loop?
Oh because the source of the small wave on the rope was a hand holding the rope and going first down, and then up.. but I am not sure it answers your question. If not can you rephrase it?
I still dont see how the math isnt simply a description of an emergent property. it only appears the way it does because you impose time but there is no evidence time is actually dimensional, it is only convenient to treat it as dimensional when doing math. math is simply a language describing reality, not any different than describing water with english words. useful but not reality
Interesting thoughts. With a language like English is that when a human encounters an object, he names it : The language comes after the subject. With Maths, you can dive into a hypothesis and explore its consequences. If this hypothesis reveals to have some sense of reality, then the maths you developed predicts what future observations you will make. The language can come before the subject But, this is a long debate, what is more fundamental: Maths or Physics? I personally tend to believe the universe is mathematical in nature. My views on the subject has not always been that way, and could also change in the future if I get exposed to a destabilizing argument. Meaning, I am open to debate this. Readers of this thread, jump in! My reason to tend towards a more mathematical reality is related to Quantum Physics. One of the basic examples of why: Think about an electron diffracting. It shows its wave-like nature. But what wave are we talking about here? It is nothing physical, It is (the sware root of) a wave of probability of presence…. If that is not mathematical in nature, I don’t know what is!
@@PhysicsMadeEasy with any language you can dive into a hypothesis and even invent new terms before such things have even been witnessed. that is essentially what philosophy is, is it not? take for example the concepts of "dark energy". or the concept "string theory". Words that describe an idea without having tangible objectivity. this is what we do with math as well. I think the universe has functions that are from certain perspectives extremely rigid, and it is from those that we define the concepts of "maths". Math is just a language that cares about rigidity / objectivity and turns away from subjectivity. Math is therefore very good at describing "the universe" even though it is very poor at describing say Emotions for example, however emotions are in fact part of the universe. So to say the universe is mathematical directly opposed the reality that such subjective things are also part of the universe. it is too limited in scope to describe the universe as mathematical. physics is certainly more rigid and thus more effectively described in the language of maths than in say english. but math is more about convenience. you could in fact do maths with english "two plus two equals" yet we find it more convenient to use the language: "2+2=" this is about humans effectiveness with the tool more than anything else. physics is convenient to describe with math and you can then increase the ease of hypothetical exploration within that language. but that is really all we are doing. and often the language of math has led humans to make incorrect assumptions as well, math doesnt always lead to correct interpretations, that i think is the strongest clue that math is an emergent property of human observation, rather than inherent to the universe itself :)
Hello Python, the book I use for teaching my students is Physics for the IB Diploma (Author: Tsokos, Edition: Cambridge). But keep in mind that there is a way to read a textbook that can allow you to go beyond basic student understanding. Each time you learn something new: of course try some of the exercises, but then, also reflect/meditate on the new notion and think on what it implies in the grand picture that Physics draws (in other words, how it clicks with what you already know).
@@PhysicsMadeEasy waves that you draw cause each other, they are connected through cause and effect. In quantum mechanics those waves just appear. As they are tools to build probability of what could happen. They are not waving, just like normal distribution is not waving. Parts of normal distribution do not cause each other. Parts of normal distribution are caused by the input parameters. Like the amount of coin tosses.
@@matterasmachine Hi, I did this video a long time ago, and I f I remember well, I discussed the fact that the wavy shape / oscillations seem to be an underlying fundamental feature in the Universe. Which you reinforced by saying : "In quantum mechanics those waves (of probability, or square root of) just appear. On the other hand, illustrating your idea with normal distributions, might not be the best here: things are not 1 or 0 in QM, and when they become so (decoherence), the probability wave either collapses (Copenhage) or disappears of our perception (Everett).
@@PhysicsMadeEasy that’s why I called it tool for calculating probability.. anyway I have another interpretation of what happens there. It’s on my page..
A wave physically emerges during a mechanical energy transfer, we can observe it, so it does exists, it’s not a model: it is the physical consequence of the mechanical energy transfer. And this physical phenomena can be described exactly by a mathematical model.
I very much respect your series and your work. I must admit, though, that I find your and all of your colleagues' discussions of waves incomplete and, therefore, inaccurate.
Hello Jerry, The description of a phenomena is always a model, because the input to that description is perception, and perception is not necessarily reality. So it’s bound to be incomplete. Here, is it inaccurate, maybe, maybe not... If you have some (logical and argumented) additions or corrections to make to that description of what is a wave, feel free to share!
@@PhysicsMadeEasy The analogy to a wave is, to me, not even close to reality. Waves occur on the surface of a body. The body has little, if anything, to do with the phenomena of the wave that occurs on top of it. The body facilitates the wave. Scientists have for decades, or better, referred to the phenomena of waves as being analogist to physical events. They have done this without ever referring to that which facilitates the analogy of a wave, I.E., a body. Where is the body? If you can answer this for me, I'd be so grateful. I have done an immense amount of reading, and I have never seen any reference to the body that facilitates analogies of a wave.
@@jerry5149 Hi Jerry, Do you mean by ‘body’ for example, a ‘body’ of water, like a lake, on which surface a wave propagates ? If so, what you refer as a body is called a medium, the environment in which a wave propagates. matter (solid, liquids and gas) is the medium of mechanical waves (ex: sound, water waves), EM Fields the medium of electromagnetic waves (light), space time, the medium of gravitational waves etc. The properties of the medium will affect how well the wave travels (sound travels at different speed and is damped differently depending if it is travelling in air, water or through a wall) Additionally, waves are not limited to surfaces, they propagate in 3D. For example, the wave you see on the surface of the water makes the air molecules above it oscillates as well, and also the water molecules under it. I hope this triggers some thoughts in you, Best,
@@PhysicsMadeEasy Thank you. I've got it; it's called a medium. I still have to say that when I hear the analogy of a wave to physical phenomena, I cannot connect with it. I cannot connect because the analogy is being applied to the entire "medium" when referring to the wave. There are no waves inside the Medium, such as the ocean. Waves are only surface phenomena. To me, the discussion of waves has no connection to their medium. What am I missing?
@@PhysicsMadeEasy Indeed! 😅I was looking for educational material on the current understanding of something - I can't quite remember how to properly put it into words - how sub-atomic particles arise from and return to the quantum field very quickly...Would you be able to point me in a direction to find material on this topic?
I have so many ideas and I beleive some day I would establish something that would be my own contribution to the advancement and betterment of the human race. One if my many ideas us this: There is still an "ether", and ofcourse there are "force fields.." Just like #Faraday, this is a "#thought #experiment of mine" mathematically I might not be able to theoretically prove its ether-force fields co-existence, but I know it's a possibility.. "The straight line force fields are inside the sea of ether".. However I feel, if there be anyone that can facilitate my desire to get a #scholarship to any university in the "First worlds" just as many scientist today where able to, cuz of some "#opportunities" brains not in the first worlds at the time, like #Rutherford and #Tesla.( cuz I beleive they have the necessary tools I can use for my gifts..) I sure can be able to have a leverage I can use to my advantage and ultimately to #humanity..
Hi Sola, If there is an Ether filling space, in itself it would be considered as a field. And the goal would be to find its role in the clockwork which is our Universe, by measuring its interaction with other fields. I do not believe there is an Ether, but as a scientist, I cannot rule out the idea 100%: there are too many unanswered questions left. One thing transpires in your words that you should be careful with. Tesla and others, were controversial in they time because of the strength of their conviction. This conviction strength didn’t come from their desire to be unique and different, but from their deep understanding and interpretation of physics. If you really want to dig into this and disturb the consensus, you should first dive deep into famous Physics lectures like Feynman’s lectures (they are free to download on internet), and also brush up on maths, because you’ll need it to understand these lessons. Only then, once you have understood and assimilated these lessons (years of study), will you know if your voice should be heard by the world on that matter. Be well, and continue being curious and having ideas!
@@PhysicsMadeEasy life Is a journey...fantastic idea you have....8 feel it's the "ether" that explain these "unanswered questions" , the noticable shift in precision or skew from theoretical predicted answers we get and it is from these "sea" of ether, within which these lines( field) are within...
Thank you very much for the video.
It brought me some questions:
1) Can we find waves in other phenomena that do not include energy transfer? For example, if I mark a dot on a horizontally spinning wheel, to describe its position in space I need a sine function.
The kinetic energy of the dot does not change (only the direction of its velocity).
2) Can energy be transferred in ways that do not require a wave function to describe them? For example, colliding balls transfer energy. If we treat them as solid objects we don't need a wave function to describe them. If we look at the balls as composed of many atoms we might need a wave function to describe the transfer of energy between them.
3) Can we find phenomena that are described by other types of waves, rather than sin/cos/tan? Like square waves or triangular waves?
4) Why does the sine/cosine functions are so fundamental even, to movements that have nothing to do with circular motion? (like your example of the oscillating spring).
Hi Lucid Thinking,
Question 1) Can we find waves in other phenomena that do not include energy transfer? For example, if I mark a dot on a horizontally spinning wheel, to describe its position in space I need a sine function. The kinetic energy of the dot does not change (only the direction of its velocity).
Yes, for example a standing wave (like the vibration of a guitar string) keeps the energy in a closed space (although it does go back and forth between boundaries of that space). It does contain the energy of the string. Note that If there is an interaction with an exterior system like air for example, some of it will be transferred to the air and create sound (which is a travelling wave that transfers energy to your timpani).
For your example of the spinning wheel: If the wheel is vertical, the gravitational potential energy of the particle at the dot will be described as a wave. For the horizontal case, you are correct there is no energy transfer involved (in circular motion, there is no work done by the force causing the circular motion). The sine curve is just a mathematical expression of the dot’s individual coordinates (or the direction of the velocity as you mention).
Question 2) Can energy be transferred in ways that do not require a wave function to describe them? For example, colliding balls transfer energy. If we treat them as solid objects we don't need a wave function to describe them. If we look at the balls as composed of many atoms we might need a wave function to describe the transfer of energy between them.
Again yes, the example of the balls is perfect. Staying in classical physics, at small scales, if you consider individual unbound particles like in a gas, they will exchange energy by colliding without involving a wave. However, as soon as they are bound, they will be oscillations. The ball (made of bound atoms) hitting the other does experience a wave that travels through it (you hear the sound, don’t you?). Imagine an asteroid hitting the Earth, the shockwave would travel through the earth (creating earthquakes everywhere).
As you mentioned, at small scales, quantum physics kicks in and elementary systems are better represented as mathematical waves (Schodinger’s wave functions), and behave as waves… as well as their quantised energy states.
In the video, when I discussed energy transfer, I wasn’t being absolute, I just wanted to show how the wave phenomena plays a crucial role in our understanding of how the universe works Universe. It might even be its central elementary block. Further we explore the small, thus the elementary more waves appear in our description.
Question 3) Can we find phenomena that are described by other types of waves, rather than sin/cos/tan? Like square waves or triangular waves?
Yes and No.
An ideal oscillation is described by a single sinusoid of single frequency (such an oscillation is called simple harmonic motion). But oscillations are nearly never ideal (the world is much messier than on the paper haha!). So, you could say yes.
However, square waves, triangular waves or any type of wave are just a combination of sine waves. By adding sine waves of different phase or/and frequency, you can build up these square and triangle waves. My other professional activity apart from teaching is music production, I do this all the time when I design a sound using the oscillators of my synths! So, to your question: no.
All waves, whatever their shapes are actually a combination of elementary sine waves… Any other shape emerges (here’s that word again 😉) from the combination of these elementary sine waves.
Question 4) Why does the sine/cosine functions are so fundamental even, to movements that have nothing to do with circular motion? (like your example of the oscillating spring).
That is one of the main point of this video: to raise this question, which leads more towards philosophy than physics (maybe that is where you can help 😉):
Why is the sine function (the wave shape) everywhere?
More examples that just came to my mind to blow yours: a ball you drop bounces (oscillates), light is an oscillation of an electric field, originating from the oscillation of an electric charge, space time oscillates when two black hole merge, there are traces of the oscillation of energy density from the big bang (Wavelength is 400 million light years and is measured), it is also at the heart of life itself with the pumping on a heart beat…
Thank you for your great questions! I enjoyed reflecting on them and trying to provide answers.
Hey Edouard, thank you very much for the comprehensive answers.
I wanted to say that I've started following your channel after seeing the video: Why Does Light Reflect?
I've never seen before an explanation that explains light reflection treating it as an electromagnetic wave.
All the explanations I saw were treating it as a solid particle hitting a mirror and bouncing back.
Your explanation is a step closer to another question I haven't found an answer to anywhere.
The question is why light diffracts when it passes through a slit, and why does the size of the slit affect the existence or properties of the diffraction?
All the explanations I have found just assume that light waves behave like water waves, and that is why it happens.
But light is an electromagnetic wave.
As I understand it, it does not move in space on the axis perpendicular to its movement.
The sine function only describes the magnitude of the electric and magnetic fields, not a position in space.
Then the question is, what is the mechanism that allows interaction of the slit and the waves in such a way that the light diffracts.
If you know the answer, it would be great if you could make a video about it.
@@PhysicsMadeEasy
waaaaaaa, fantastic work Mr Edouard , this is the first time I enjoy physics
please we want more courses like this
Thank you Ayoub :-)
That temperature analogy was eye opening
🙏 Sir,I am from India.Sir as your channel's name suggests,you made physics really easy and understandable rather than practicing things like a robot. I am falling in love with your concepts and calmness while teaching, appreciating your effort sir❤
You are welcome Ajay. When I was a teenager, my teachers showed me physics in a very un-appealing way. I discovered "the real physics" later at Uni, and fell in love with the subject only there. Then, I thought, what a waste! The learning during my hellish highschool years could have been so much more fun!
What I went through, is what I try to prevent in other student. It is all a frame of mind...
Our school system is really failing us , am a undergraduate and today from this video i understood what actually a wave is , watched 100s of video explaining amplitude oscillation etc but no body gave the meaning for a wave , am very thankful for a teacher like you who explains real logic and foundation of fudamental of a topic ❤
Thank you for your encouraging feedback. It is highly appreciated.
Sometimes, to truely understand something, one needs to fly higher, and look at the whole... That;s what I tried to show with this video. I am glad you appreciated it :-)
great and simple explanation. more please.
The way you teach is amazing. I was gradually understanding what your were talking about and then it finally hit me!
Hi Davido, thank you for your kind words. I am glad you got it!
You eloquently explained this concept and also showed the philosophy in physics.Thank you!!
Thank you Micahlan for your kind words :-)
Certanly one of the best teacher,I discoverd in my long jorney searching for good material in web .The guy is fenomenal,lucid clear.clever.etc etc
Wow, thank you Wilson for this very encouraging comment!
I was thinking the other day how amazing it actually is that we have things like radio and mobile phones, all working because of Electro Magnetic waves. And then I think how strange it actually is that a particle like an electron generates a field. And how this field changes when the electron moves. And how the changing electric field generates a changing magnetic field. Like, what is even a field? How can ''stuff'' influence other ''stuff'' even through a vacuum space? It sounds like magic!
haha, good reflection... This is the kind of stuff that made people realise at the end of the 19nth century that there must be more than Newtonian physics... Because it really sounds like magic!
And so quantum mechanics were born....
For example, the fact that two charged particles attract or repel each other is actually not a magical effect at distance, but its by the exchange of the particle associated with the electric field (the Photon...)
If you are curious, check my videos about particle physics...
Such a beautiful explanation . Thank you Mr Edouard for your hard work
You are warmly welcome!
Thank You For Making My Faith More Stronger In Physics! ❤
One of my favorite educational videos. Thanks for sharing
Thank you so much for this. Please keep making these vids sir! ❤️
Thank you for your encouragement Augiyot.
Man....this video blew my mind! You just earned a subscriber
Thank you for your kind feedback! I am glad when my work triggers reflection in others.
And I remember enjoying writing and producing this one: it aligns with my enjoyment in exploring the deeper meaning of things :-).
I just laughed by the way he convinced me into realizing such a difficult concept into a generalization and realization. Thank you so much sir.
and now sir, this video of yours is now the video that made my "a-ha" moment of understanding. Thank you!
Hi Faizazhar, this is exactly the type of comment I enjoy reading! I am glad my video helped!
Sir please make a detailed video Newtons All 3 Laws of Motion , with detailed definition , meaning , explanation , examples with formulas and derivation
Sir please make a detailed video on All Laws of Thermodynamics with detailed definition , meaning , explanation , examples with formulas and derivation
I actually have a course online where I illustrate the 3 laws of Newton by presenting a technique to solve problems with forces:
www.udemy.com/course/solving-physics-problems-with-forces/
Thank you so much for this video. You brought home the concept of wave perfectly.
Hello Ade, You are warmly welcome. It was trial and error with my real life students, until I found a way to explain waves in an intuitive way that spoke to them. Then, I put that pedagogy in Video. I am glad you enjoyed it!
Excellent video sir, thank you very much!
Hello Kevin, thank you for your kind words. Physics and Music are deeply entangled.
I checked your page, I like very much your duet on the flute with Tom on the drum (I am a composer / musician too).
A project I am exploring right now is with an accordeonist: world music with a large fraction on celtic (more Bretton than Irish though). A lot of fun.
Enjoyed your lecture on waves and your take on waves as an emergent property. Very interesting!
Hi, thank Rico. I am glad you enjoyed it.
Did you know that Mass, and Temperature are also emergent properties ? ;-)
I got some real insight, thanks sir , love from india
Thank you for letting me know! Inspiring insights in students that will allow them to push further their reflexions is one my main goals in life!
Sir Happy Teacher's Day from India .
We celebrate It to commemorate the birth anniversary of our 1st Vice President and 2nd President Dr. S Radhakrishnan who was a teacher before becoming Vice President .
Thank you Shadma! We should have a teacher's day in the West too!
Thank you so much for this type of high quality content.
Ive always wondered what even where waves... I had never thought about them being the way energy propagates, but it makes sense!
In reality, everything exists in fields, the gravitational field, a magnetic field, a eletric field etc. Waves, are the result of energy propagating through said fields... or at least, that's how I imagine mechanical waves work, although I suppose eletromagnetic aren't all that different. Anyways, that's just my excited ramblings after seeing the video, Im probably wrong, but thank you for giving me a foundation to base thought on
Hi Ivan, congrats: your words are a good summary of what waves can be seen to be. I am thrilled to read that my video opened you to a path for deeper reflection. Continue, explore, you are clearly on the right track for more "ah-ah"s moments !!!
I appreciate your approach to convey. Thank you!
Thank you Khan
Great class! Thank you!
You are welcome Carlos. I am glad you enjoyed it :-)
Fantastic vedio on waves sir 👍👍👌👌your explanation are fantastic and belated happy teachers day sir (from India)🎉🎉
Thank you Gowri, I appreciate your words very much!
Nice videos I've learned more.Make another video on how electron rotate around the protons and how sun produce heat and light please use lots of animation.
Hello Nickson. Nice suggestions. I'd love that... My agenda though doesn't agree with my dersires these days... One day maybe. Just a few hints, for you to answer yourself these questions though:
The electron has kinetic energy but has a force perpendicular to its speed. That is why it is in circular motion (in orbit: It falls on the proton, but because it has enough speed it, it continuously misses it. Lucky for us!). Note though that it is just a model. Reality is different...
The Sun produces heat because of the nuclear reactions in its core... mostly beta decays...
Very well explained sir
Please make a video on quantum physics
haha, in one video? I would need to create a new channel for this!
Hey Edouard after a long time😀.... happy teachers day
Thank you Zakir! Yes, I am back, at slow pace for the next few months still (I still have to deal with what slowed me down in the first palce), but I very happy to have found a few days to write, shoot and edit a new video! PME is still alive and kicking! :-)
@@PhysicsMadeEasy yeah keep that up 😁we pray for you to stay healthy n happy🤗 will see you soon🤞
Lot's of love sir from India🇮🇳🇮🇳
Hi Atul, thank you. My turn to send love to all my Indian subscribers! ❤❤❤
I like this channel 👍
It would seem the property of acceleration is required for a wave to exist. Waves are an emergent phenomenon of an accelerating process.
Although for the entire wave to be evident, the accelerating process must return to an origin state so there must be both positive and negative acceleration. Otherwise we are only observing half of the wave phenomenon. And it might not return to its original state at the same rate change.
However you could just as equally say that acceleration is an emergent phenomenon from wave mechanics.
Hi Ross. What you are referring too are oscillations. An oscillation is defined by a relationship between the acceleration of the oscillating object and its position (for a pure sine or cosine curve for example, acceleration is proportional to position and of opposite sign to position, when considering the equilibrium position as origin). The Wave phenomena emerges macroscopically from the mutual interaction of oscillators (objects that oscillate and that are connected), so yes you could say it emerges from a specific constraint on the individual accelerations of these objects.
However, I am not sure you can do things in reverse (A microscopic phenomena can not emerge from a macroscopic one).
Wow , you took a really long time , btw Happy Teachers Day sir, from India 🇮🇳🇮🇳
haha, I know... many things on my plate, professionally and personally., and add to that that I moving house and country... And the new house, requires some work... So, I had to slow down a little the youtube activity for a while. I am still not done, but as you see, when I have a couple of days free, I write, shoot and edit a video for you guys! I might be able to shoot a few more soon, hopefully :-).
Thank you from France
De rien Darxis, tes remerciement sont bien arrives... en France ;-)
Sir I am also from India. Your teaching is super i am in love with you . I want a physics teacher like you. 💬
Thank you Shotsu for these very kind word!
Happy teacher's day sir !!!!
Thank you Pankaj! :-)
Great video sir people like you really gem for humanity and donor of knowledge 🙏🙏🙏🙏
A gem for Humanity? These are strong words Niki! I see it more like, the work I put in this channel is my contribution ;-)... Thank you very much for your praise. it encourages me so much!
wow he is a great teacher!
Thank you :-)
Excellent!
Could light be a spherical 4πr² EM wave over a ‘period of time’ with particle characteristics when we have absorption and emission as a probabilistic future unfolds relative to the atoms of the Periodic Table?
Is the exchange of light photon ∆E=hf energy continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons, as an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds?
Is the Future relative to our actions with the Planck Constant h/2π being a constant of action within a geometrical spherical 4πr² process that forms the characteristics of 3D space and time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π?
A 4πr² EM implies a 2D wave. If you consider it over a period of time, then it becomes a volume... Now if you fix time, you can describe a surface 4πr² at r from the source, and if assuming it comes from a point source, then, the state of this light can be considered like identical at each point (Same phase).
Identical?... problem, Heisenberg doesn't like this...
You are blending classical physics notions with probabilistic physics based on quantum physics... The context of EM wave does have much sense in this context.
So if you stay in a Quantum context that, I think I understand your questions, you are talking about causality right?
In that case, yes, there is an element of uncertainty due to Heisenberg, that leads to multiple possible futures (probably Everett's multiverse).
Sir please make a video regarding motion of electrons across a conductor under direct current and under alternating current... please
Oh, you know, that would be a short one!
DC: electrons always move in the same direction along the path the circuit provides them.
AC: electrons oscillate... see illustration here: czcams.com/video/hk63uUhkZH4/video.html
Sir in school I am learning that waves do not require a medium to travel. Could you please explain it to me as in your explanation you used particles to visualize it?
Maybe you missed a word during class?
Mechanical waves do need a medium to travel, electromagnetic waves, like visible light or radiowaves, do not (unless you consider spacetime as a medium ;-))
Excellent 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏. Thanks
the short answer is that waves are particles in motion... so when these guys are getting confused on how light can be both particles and waves, they are confused on why a particle moves and then stops moving... talk about brain damage...
Hi David.
Mechanical waves emerge from bound oscillating particles .
Light is not a mechanical wave:
The classical view: light is the propagation of an oscillating electric field, The wave-shape comes from the delay in the influence of the oscillating charge due to the speed limit in space time (speed of light).
When considering light made of particles, i.e. in a quantum mechanical scope, particles of light, photons, are not oscillating... they are considered as being waves of probability...
I canw to this video to understand what waves like radio waves for comms/wifi and microwaves in cooking actually are and how they work
Hi, This video was more general. For Radiowaves, check the "what is an electromagnetic Wave?" video:
czcams.com/video/hk63uUhkZH4/video.htmlsi=j7e3RjXwirxH17-S
And for microwave cooking, check "The Wave Equation" video:
czcams.com/video/8Dtzv5vn8qA/video.htmlsi=r2HUPlxkwlBaH98I
Sir, according to the explanation, waves are formed when there Is a link in between the particles. So does the formation of sound or even light waves show that the photons or particles in the air are linked with each other? Or is there another reason for their formation?
Hi Priyan,
Waves formed where there is a link between oscillating particles are mechanical waves (Sound is part of them, it is air molecules interacting with each other).
For light, it is different. It is an EM wave. the wave shape of light is due fundamentally to a limitation of space time: the oscillating influence of an oscillating charge can only travel at the speed of light, so the resulting electric field has also a wavelike character (check my video what is an electromagnetic wave for more info:czcams.com/video/hk63uUhkZH4/video.htmlsi=qd1A5eHenCK3XDL3 ) .
Thank you so much sir
I was not able to find that video
@@priyankaagrawal2321 just click on the link in my message!
@@PhysicsMadeEasy I know
About thinking of sand dunes and trees and worms wiggling.... What about plains...plateaus?!..!!!
Waves are the visualization of energy travelling... So take your plains or plateaus, and let's see how it looks like after a major earthquake passes through it... ;-)
Hello Sir,
12:31 in the sine wave that is drawn, the particles to whom the energy is given at the first place and the neighbouring particles are tending to reach their maximum amplitudes, by why at the same time the next neighbouring particles going downwards, why are they creating a downward loop?
Oh because the source of the small wave on the rope was a hand holding the rope and going first down, and then up.. but I am not sure it answers your question. If not can you rephrase it?
Thanks
Happy teachers day❤🙏🇮🇳
Thank you! I didn't know about teacher's day. Anyway, it is appreciated!
@@PhysicsMadeEasy ❤
A wave can be perceived without it's 2 points but ultimately has to be flowing and ebbing
czcams.com/video/QOjmEYan8Is/video.html
I like how dudes cat "waved" its tail 😉
Nice
I still dont see how the math isnt simply a description of an emergent property. it only appears the way it does because you impose time but there is no evidence time is actually dimensional, it is only convenient to treat it as dimensional when doing math. math is simply a language describing reality, not any different than describing water with english words. useful but not reality
Interesting thoughts.
With a language like English is that when a human encounters an object, he names it : The language comes after the subject.
With Maths, you can dive into a hypothesis and explore its consequences. If this hypothesis reveals to have some sense of reality, then the maths you developed predicts what future observations you will make. The language can come before the subject
But, this is a long debate, what is more fundamental: Maths or Physics? I personally tend to believe the universe is mathematical in nature. My views on the subject has not always been that way, and could also change in the future if I get exposed to a destabilizing argument. Meaning, I am open to debate this. Readers of this thread, jump in!
My reason to tend towards a more mathematical reality is related to Quantum Physics. One of the basic examples of why: Think about an electron diffracting. It shows its wave-like nature. But what wave are we talking about here? It is nothing physical, It is (the sware root of) a wave of probability of presence…. If that is not mathematical in nature, I don’t know what is!
@@PhysicsMadeEasy with any language you can dive into a hypothesis and even invent new terms before such things have even been witnessed. that is essentially what philosophy is, is it not? take for example the concepts of "dark energy". or the concept "string theory". Words that describe an idea without having tangible objectivity. this is what we do with math as well.
I think the universe has functions that are from certain perspectives extremely rigid, and it is from those that we define the concepts of "maths". Math is just a language that cares about rigidity / objectivity and turns away from subjectivity. Math is therefore very good at describing "the universe" even though it is very poor at describing say Emotions for example, however emotions are in fact part of the universe. So to say the universe is mathematical directly opposed the reality that such subjective things are also part of the universe. it is too limited in scope to describe the universe as mathematical. physics is certainly more rigid and thus more effectively described in the language of maths than in say english. but math is more about convenience. you could in fact do maths with english "two plus two equals" yet we find it more convenient to use the language: "2+2=" this is about humans effectiveness with the tool more than anything else. physics is convenient to describe with math and you can then increase the ease of hypothetical exploration within that language. but that is really all we are doing. and often the language of math has led humans to make incorrect assumptions as well, math doesnt always lead to correct interpretations, that i think is the strongest clue that math is an emergent property of human observation, rather than inherent to the universe itself :)
How could we understand it unless we imposed time and other scientific concepts.
Possibilities😮
Great video sir 😍😍😍😍😍
Sir i want a teacher like you ...Can you tell me which book that I can read to learn physics at this deep level ...I am a guy from India .....
Hello Python, the book I use for teaching my students is Physics for the IB Diploma (Author: Tsokos, Edition: Cambridge).
But keep in mind that there is a way to read a textbook that can allow you to go beyond basic student understanding. Each time you learn something new: of course try some of the exercises, but then, also reflect/meditate on the new notion and think on what it implies in the grand picture that Physics draws (in other words, how it clicks with what you already know).
@@PhysicsMadeEasy I will check it ...
That wave has nothing to do with quantum mechanics as in quantum mechanics wave appears everywhere at once
can you clarify the context of your comment?
@@PhysicsMadeEasy waves that you draw cause each other, they are connected through cause and effect. In quantum mechanics those waves just appear. As they are tools to build probability of what could happen. They are not waving, just like normal distribution is not waving. Parts of normal distribution do not cause each other. Parts of normal distribution are caused by the input parameters. Like the amount of coin tosses.
@@matterasmachine Hi, I did this video a long time ago, and I f I remember well, I discussed the fact that the wavy shape / oscillations seem to be an underlying fundamental feature in the Universe.
Which you reinforced by saying : "In quantum mechanics those waves (of probability, or square root of) just appear.
On the other hand, illustrating your idea with normal distributions, might not be the best here: things are not 1 or 0 in QM, and when they become so (decoherence), the probability wave either collapses (Copenhage) or disappears of our perception (Everett).
@@PhysicsMadeEasy that’s why I called it tool for calculating probability.. anyway I have another interpretation of what happens there. It’s on my page..
Love from india
Thank you Shivam, love from Europe!
👍👍
If i understand , wave is the mathematical model of energy transfer
A wave physically emerges during a mechanical energy transfer, we can observe it, so it does exists, it’s not a model: it is the physical consequence of the mechanical energy transfer. And this physical phenomena can be described exactly by a mathematical model.
@@PhysicsMadeEasy please consider doing a video about wave equation ..
Wave is field distortion that is
I very much respect your series and your work. I must admit, though, that I find your and all of your colleagues' discussions of waves incomplete and, therefore, inaccurate.
Hello Jerry,
The description of a phenomena is always a model, because the input to that description is perception, and perception is not necessarily reality. So it’s bound to be incomplete.
Here, is it inaccurate, maybe, maybe not... If you have some (logical and argumented) additions or corrections to make to that description of what is a wave, feel free to share!
@@PhysicsMadeEasy The analogy to a wave is, to me, not even close to reality. Waves occur on the surface of a body. The body has little, if anything, to do with the phenomena of the wave that occurs on top of it. The body facilitates the wave. Scientists have for decades, or better, referred to the phenomena of waves as being analogist to physical events. They have done this without ever referring to that which facilitates the analogy of a wave, I.E., a body. Where is the body? If you can answer this for me, I'd be so grateful. I have done an immense amount of reading, and I have never seen any reference to the body that facilitates analogies of a wave.
@@jerry5149 Hi Jerry,
Do you mean by ‘body’ for example, a ‘body’ of water, like a lake, on which surface a wave propagates ?
If so, what you refer as a body is called a medium, the environment in which a wave propagates. matter (solid, liquids and gas) is the medium of mechanical waves (ex: sound, water waves), EM Fields the medium of electromagnetic waves (light), space time, the medium of gravitational waves etc.
The properties of the medium will affect how well the wave travels (sound travels at different speed and is damped differently depending if it is travelling in air, water or through a wall)
Additionally, waves are not limited to surfaces, they propagate in 3D. For example, the wave you see on the surface of the water makes the air molecules above it oscillates as well, and also the water molecules under it.
I hope this triggers some thoughts in you,
Best,
@@PhysicsMadeEasy Thank you. I've got it; it's called a medium. I still have to say that when I hear the analogy of a wave to physical phenomena, I cannot connect with it. I cannot connect because the analogy is being applied to the entire "medium" when referring to the wave. There are no waves inside the Medium, such as the ocean. Waves are only surface phenomena. To me, the discussion of waves has no connection to their medium. What am I missing?
are they the band of Katrina?
?
@@PhysicsMadeEasy katrina and the waves( walking on sunshine) :)
@@mikerusby It rings a bell, Checked it out: haha, That was a while ago!
@@PhysicsMadeEasy I am getting old :)
@@mikerusby don't worry, you are not alone 😂
😮
Currently speechless
Yeah, physics hides many wonders :-)!
@@PhysicsMadeEasy Indeed! 😅I was looking for educational material on the current understanding of something - I can't quite remember how to properly put it into words - how sub-atomic particles arise from and return to the quantum field very quickly...Would you be able to point me in a direction to find material on this topic?
I have so many ideas and I beleive some day I would establish something that would be my own contribution to the advancement and betterment of the human race.
One if my many ideas us this:
There is still an "ether", and ofcourse there are "force fields.."
Just like #Faraday, this is a "#thought #experiment of mine" mathematically I might not be able to theoretically prove its ether-force fields co-existence, but I know it's a possibility..
"The straight line force fields are inside the sea of ether"..
However I feel, if there be anyone that can facilitate my desire to get a #scholarship to any university in the "First worlds" just as many scientist today where able to, cuz of some "#opportunities" brains not in the first worlds at the time, like #Rutherford and #Tesla.( cuz I beleive they have the necessary tools I can use for my gifts..) I sure can be able to have a leverage I can use to my advantage and ultimately to #humanity..
Hi Sola,
If there is an Ether filling space, in itself it would be considered as a field. And the goal would be to find its role in the clockwork which is our Universe, by measuring its interaction with other fields. I do not believe there is an Ether, but as a scientist, I cannot rule out the idea 100%: there are too many unanswered questions left.
One thing transpires in your words that you should be careful with. Tesla and others, were controversial in they time because of the strength of their conviction. This conviction strength didn’t come from their desire to be unique and different, but from their deep understanding and interpretation of physics. If you really want to dig into this and disturb the consensus, you should first dive deep into famous Physics lectures like Feynman’s lectures (they are free to download on internet), and also brush up on maths, because you’ll need it to understand these lessons. Only then, once you have understood and assimilated these lessons (years of study), will you know if your voice should be heard by the world on that matter.
Be well, and continue being curious and having ideas!
@@PhysicsMadeEasy life Is a journey...fantastic idea you have....8 feel it's the "ether" that explain these "unanswered questions" , the noticable shift in precision or skew from theoretical predicted answers we get and it is from these "sea" of ether, within which these lines( field) are within...
Telugu vally