![Larry Welles Learns by Teaching](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 63
- 1 965
Larry Welles Learns by Teaching
United States
Приєднався 11 лис 2023
This channel is dedicated to learning. Teaching is the way I learn best. Since I don't have a traditional classroom as I had for my previous 15 years of teaching technical school and high school I choose to teach via video driven by requests from my viewers. The emphasis is on having fun. So much learning has been associated with drudgery in a classroom. I aim to change this.
Beta Decay continuous spectrum and 3 body problem
Since Beta decay involves 3 bodies: proton, electron, electron anti neutrino, the spectrum is continuous. Not my best explanation. : - (
Переглядів: 20
Відео
Introduction to Fermi Beta Decay
Переглядів 1769 годин тому
What are the assumptions made by Enrico Fermi? What experimental evidence led to the the idea of the neutrino?
Quarks for Kids
Переглядів 5016 годин тому
Let's jump all the way to quarks and strings before we try to tackle more math. The reference shows quark colors red white and blue. Most refernces show quark colors red GREEN and blue.
Carbon 14 Decay and Quarks
Переглядів 2521 годину тому
Begins with 4 Fundamental Particles experienced on Earth and ties in thoughts of Quarks suggested by Carbon 14 decay
Why understand Quarks?
Переглядів 43День тому
Just a few words about mathematical tools needed to understand quarks.
The Laplacian and Spherical Coordinates
Переглядів 2314 днів тому
WARNING!!! This video uses partial derivatives with trig functions. As long as you know the derivative of the sin and cos all should be well. Notice the algebra challenge at the end that I DON'T SOLVE!!! I will solve it, but I "ran out of gas" and wanted to upload what I had so far.
Why Quantum Mechanics?
Переглядів 2021 день тому
Listen to my frustration with the mathematics associated getting to my goal...understanding the elusive QUARK!!!
Diatomic Molecule as a Rigid Rotor
Переглядів 2021 день тому
The quantum mechanical derivation is NOT included. Refer to the following videos for the mathematical derivation if you DARE! ua-cam.com/video/iNqnrJ5JjZg/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/FKk0I_SUW_0/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/g7tOgRrE9zo/v-deo.html
Quantum Harmonic Oscillator
Переглядів 2728 днів тому
Expect a little "hand waving" like a magician for evaluating the final solutions. A good UA-cam Video shows the ugly math that leads to the simple looking solutions: ua-cam.com/video/l29vbExLSak/v-deo.html Think of this as one step closer to evaluating the Hydrogen Atom....real stuff!!!
Applying Quantum Physics to the Atomic World
Переглядів 17Місяць тому
The goal is to maintain enough momentum with the derivations to maintain viewer interest...the examples, free particle and free particle in a box, all in one dimension, are intended to be thought experiments as a truly free particle is an abstract ideal.
Schrodinger Time Dependent Equation
Переглядів 212Місяць тому
Using the Time Independent Schrodinger Equation leads to the Time Dependent Equation
Fundamental Postulate of Quantum Mechanics
Переглядів 51Місяць тому
It is worth your while to follow the math steps in this half hour video. It starts with Newton's 2nd law and builds on that to find out the possible inspiration of Schrodinger for his postulate.
Hamilton and the Theory of Everything
Переглядів 52Місяць тому
Continuation of my video about Lagrange. The Hamiltonian like the Lagrangian introduce two perspectives of nature's mechanics the have led to the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
Lagrange improves on Newton's Laws !!!
Переглядів 562 місяці тому
It took about 100 years to find a principle more fundamental than Newton's Laws of Motion: The Principle of Least Action
Photons follow the quickest path
Переглядів 172 місяці тому
This explains how the path of a photon between two points can be predicted using the principle of least action and Fermat's Principle.
Superposition and Quantum State Vectors
Переглядів 123 місяці тому
Superposition and Quantum State Vectors
Paul Dirac's Quantum Mechanics and the Superposition of States
Переглядів 293 місяці тому
Paul Dirac's Quantum Mechanics and the Superposition of States
de Broglie and the Bohr model of the atom
Переглядів 265 місяців тому
de Broglie and the Bohr model of the atom
Relativity Time is NOT a Constant - WARNING lots of Algebra
Переглядів 256 місяців тому
Relativity Time is NOT a Constant - WARNING lots of Algebra
So is it true that relative to the nucleus, the emitted photon is traveling at v+c or is the photon emitted at c and the relative motion of the nucleus is a fraction of c, as in if the nucleus is traveling at .9c the photon is “escaping” the nucleus at .1c 😂
I’m going to have to think 🤔 on this!!! Why v+c?
@@Teachwelles It’s a trick question to prove if someone has thought through the garbage they are taught to memorize. If you can’t discern why I’m asking you probably don’t understand the relativistic claims on the topic that are also wrong.
It is healthy that you question science. I get what you mean now after rereading your reply. This is how new discoveries and corrected theories are developed.
Inspiring
Glad to find out!!! Thanks so much for sharing!
good vid. note my quark rant on ur next vid. i flunked calculus 3 times lol
I love a good rant…I will check it out!
Yes this is very interesting to me. I had never actually thought of that carbon changed into nitrogen. I kind of thought that it stayed as carbon but with a different number but yes of cause protons are very stable and the neutrons must either disappear totally or turn into proton's. If a neutron left the kernel of the atom a lot of energy would be freed so a change to a proton is of cause more likely. The process generates an electron as well and that is good because the material change from a carbon atom to nitrogen atom will need one more electron. Your explanation of the generation of an extra neutron from a proton by a powerful cosmic neutron doesn't quite make sense to me. You have 7 protons and 7 neutrons. One more neutron makes it 7 protons and 8 neutrons. To me it would make more sense that it is a high energy cosmic ray that changes a proton to a neutron possibly by pushing in an electron to the kernel. That would make 6 electrons, 6 protons and 8 neutrons. The extra energy that the cosmic ray brings in must then be equivalent to the anti neutrino. If this is the case then electrons can go both away from the atom and into the kernel of the atom given the right conditions. As I think you know then I believe that everything are waves and there are no particles but stationary waves with different energy levels. I have been told that that is much like Louis de Broglie's idea. That is only fair for me to go that way as he is (apparently) my 19th cousin five times removed. In any case my 23rd great grandfather should be one of his fore fathers too. Of cause that is the case for thousands of other people too if not millions. Quite interesting for me anyway. Niels Bohr is a similar relative but he wasn't quite right with his idea I believe although it helped a lot. Albert Einstein is only an in-law and quite distant too.
Your science curiosity seems to run in family! 😁 As far as the high energy neutrons in the upper atmosphere, my reference indicated that the neutron “knocked” the Nitrogen proton out and replaced it. This explanation seems weak though…I will do some more checking…thanks so much for your comments…they cause me to rethink!
Here is the result of an AI type internet search: We know carbon-14 is created by neutron spallation of nitrogen because when a high-energy neutron collides with a nitrogen-14 nucleus, it is absorbed, causing the nitrogen nucleus to lose a proton and transform into a carbon-14 nucleus; this process is observed in the upper atmosphere where cosmic rays produce neutrons that interact with nitrogen atoms, creating carbon-14 which then mixes with the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
@@Teachwelles Yes you appear to be right. Wikipedia explains a lot but I can't find where the proton and electron goes. Not easily at last. It could make hydrogen but I saw no mention of that. My philosophy is that energy in must balance energy out. That is why I made my suggestion and also I would have thought it could happen easier as I would have thought it would require less energy. Also I don't just accept anything without having had a thought about it. I do know that protons are supposed to be very stable so maybe it would take too much energy change it to a neutron. It should happen though in Magnesium23 to Sodium23 Beta+ decay it appears. I am just trying to learn but at the same time trying to poke sticks at it to see if it really is so thought through as it appear to be. I am willing to change my mind all the time if I get convinced that I was wrong. I am sure you know a lot more about it than me but we do know that even Niels Bohr was partly wrong and he made a living from physics. In regards to my blood line and interest in physics and science then surprisingly no I got it from my father and his blood line I don't know much about. My mothers blood line can be traced a couple of thousand years back but my fathers only a couple of hundreds. My mother didn't have much interest in such things but my father did to some degree. He was taking and making pictures back when the negatives where glass plates and he told me about stars and other things. He was born in 1895 and died in 1981. I remember that when I studied to become an electronic design engineer we where taught chemistry and Bohr's atom model of cause and when we where taught about coloured salt solutions I must have been bored because I started to look at the atom model and found of cause that coloured salt solutions had an electron position where the electron could easily jump. That would have been back in the early 1970's.
Keep “poking sticks at science” 🧬 …that’s how we learn and innovate…thanks for sharing about your father…fascinating!
@@Teachwelles Showing results for what happens to the proton when carbon 14 is generated Search instead for what happens to the proton when carbon14 is generated The electron is expelled with the antineutrino, but the proton remains in the nucleus, which is thereby transformed by the proton's positive charge into the nucleus of a stable isotope of nitrogen (nitrogen-14).8 July 2024 Another Google search. This is a little different isn't it?
Hi again, I look forward to your next one. They all give me some information but I don't necessarily want to do the same. You want to calculate on the quarks and you talked about the standard model. I believe that is a job and a half. I just looked at another video about the same subject and there was shown some formula's and calculations that was told would probably not even be thought in university. It was page by page of just one formula. I like to know some thing about that it exists but not how to make them so to speak. Also I understand that only a few are stable anyway. The rest break down to the stable ones and expel electrons and neutrino's. The latter tells me that they are all build up of smaller parts anyway. That is where my interest is more directed.
I will do my best not to disappoint you 😁
the best way to learn is to teach. concerning time: may I offer these tidbits from the Popcorn Model of Nature's Reality. This is in the study of the Harmonics and the Harmony of Our Universe in the context of Everything: so, lets use a metaphor where 1 musical note, (*) , represents Nature's Reality; This note, (*) , represents the true existence of Nature's reality. This is the realm of the lord, the almighty GOOD (not a religion but an attitude). The real note in which everything resides. What follows are just harmonics of the supreme existence of reality. 1st harmonic of reality (hor)* the human mind and the MotherVerse. 2nd harmonic of reality * commonly referred to as our universe and where electromagnetic radiative force is dominant. 3rd hor * dark matter, the strong nuclear force dominates. 4th hor * the weak nuclear force dominates. 5th hor * gravity, where the popcorn really explodes. 6th hor * time, the here and now where the rubber meets the road. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th combine to create Dark Energy. This not everything. Undescribed harmonics extend, ad infinitum, above and below the note (*). The harmonics show that space that appears empty is never in fact empty. Between Nothing and Everything is Something :)
I will definitely keep these thoughts to contemplate 🤔!
The first harmonic…why is it the HUMAN mind?….does this imply reality is just a figment of our imagination? What references led you to these statements?
@@Teachwelles because the human mind operates above the physical universe.
@@Teachwelles this is new physics, the references are my own lifetime of study and observations
@@tybeedave keep up your learning!
Hi. I am not exhausted but my head is hurting and I got lost on the way. I now know that it is possible to make such calculations. To get is done I call in the experts. Sorry. I take it that you are preparing to do some calculations on things in a sphere. Then just add in speed, time dilation and length contraction as well then you should cover it I would think. That is an eternity ahead of what I can do. I will go and try to fix my tractor so that I can sell it, connect some more solar cell's at the farm (it is needed in the winter) and some more batteries so that I can use some of the extra electricity to heat up my "office" sleeping quarters (I am not allowed to live in my shed so I have an office where I can sleep) instead of using oil for the heater. Nothing very sophisticated. Are you a mathematician? I am only an engineer. An engineers job is to get things done or made and if you don't know how to you call in some body that do. That is how Elon Musk builds rockets. I have been told that he does have a good education but I am sure that he delegates much more then he does him self. I did give you a thumbs up.
Leonard, In order to make new discoveries, I feel that I need to understand how others understand “reality”, which includes the math!!! Good luck on selling your tractor 🚜 and other projects!…
@@Teachwelles I applaud your effort in learning the math. It is important that at least some do. For me however math is a tool and if it can give a result then it is good but I am a combination of a design and a maintenance engineer and my approach has to come from where I have my strengths. In regards to reality then I look at it this way: Reality is too complicated for mathematics to get all the nuances involved. A few examples: If I want to build a bridge or make some thing electronic where my strength and education is then I will first start thinking about what I want and not calculate what is possible. I once designed a switch tap transformer setup that should automatically keep the output voltage within a margin regardless of load (also within output margins of cause). How do you set up mathematical formula's that can come up with an idea about how that could be done? You could use the infinite number of universe's way of cause and use all possible calculations and then make your decision from that or you could get an idea and then do some calculations to see if it is possible to do it that way. A painter wants to paint a new picture. Mathematics could generate all possible pictures and he could select the one he like or he could start painting - correct a little on the way and then eventually get close to what he wanted. I am more the artist that gets an idea (using my knowledge and experience or others for that matter) and then either try or calculate - usually both. I think the latter way is the way that the humanity has come the furthest ahead. That is not to say that mathematics is not important. Far from it. My approach would not be possible without it just like it is important to have the right quality and kind of paint for a picture and good welding technic's and materials for building a steel bridge. All the parts are important but I don't believe that it is necessary for one to know it all. I don't believe that one person can know it all. I believe we need ideas people and technical people (mathematics being a technic). For my self I see myself more like an ideas person than a builder. I like team work and I am very happy using other peoples ideas as well. Not as my own but as a part to make the final design just like calculations that can reject or accept ideas. I like to be right of cause but I don't need credit for an idea - especially if it wasn't mine - but I am often wrong and have often changed my mind. I would there fore like very much that my ideas are valuated by "No because" or "Yes maybe" and not as "No you are wrong" (as some people gives me to remarks elsewhere) and then no explanation why I am wrong. That only teaches me that they didn't like my idea and says nothing about the quality of the idea. It doesn't even say that I am wrong - only that they believe that I am wrong.
I am sorry that you look at it that way. That is if I understand you right. I hope you can get as far as you can with the math but I for one can not within a reasonable time get that far. We can not all master every thing in life. We must accept a lot as (probably) fact but if it start to be different to what we come to believe we should do some thing about it. We can then try to investigate our selves or we can seek others opinion. If we want to get on and achieve more we must delegate. It is not one engineer that designs a car. Some work on the motor and some on the body etc. I have achieved a lot by using other peoples knowledge. I have often in my previous job come in and helped some body that knew more than me just by putting in other ideas or checking what they have done - often by letting them explain what they have done and some time they find the solution them selves - not because I was better but because we had two ideas or because they rechecked them selves. That is where your calculations are valuable. If I did the same after you will only make my mathematical skills better. It would not change the result if you have done it right. To start from scratch is impossible. To put in new ideas on top of what is generally accepted is not impossible. It is in fact quite easy and many people do so but it is often not appreciated. The job of an engineer is often not to design some thing new but to build some thing according to some body else's idea. That idea may be new but I didn't get it. As an engineer I might have the skills to make it but the idea maker probably did not. If I need some thing with wheels and tyres I would never start by finding out how to make rubber. I would look for what wheels are already available. If I needed to use the rubber in a new way I might have to start investigating including calculating but I would first research if some body else had done it already. This about that older physicians telling the younger ones to calculate calculate calculate is silly in my opinion. They should in stead encourage new ideas and yes they have to be calculated to prove or disprove the idea but that would often be better served by asking a mathematical genius with no new ideas to work together with the idea person. This is of cause only my opinion but I believe that is what I see where things have been achieved. The atomic bomb wasn't made by one person. Of cause if it is our interest to know some thing in depth we can spend extra effort on it. That will then be to gain personal satisfaction. It would rarely be to gain new knowledge other than personal knowledge.
Leonard, Leonard, Leonard, You are becoming a great friend! I anxiously wait for your comments and suggestions!!! These insights that you shared really resonate with me.
@@Teachwelles I just saw a video where a mathematician said that although it is said that Physics is written in the mathematical language it is two different things. Mathematicians love calculating in all theoretical ways like many dimensions but what good is that as all we see here on earth is 4 dimensions. I am interested in many things and work on different things too. We, my wife, her sister and I live together in a house in Melbourne. We also have a 28acre hoppy farm about 140km away where we have alpaca's. I am unfortunately semi paraplegic (I walk with a frame) so I am very dependant on my wife and her sister but I am also the one with the most knowledge on mechanical and electric problems and probably farming too so I am the brains in that. At the farm we have only solar power and I am in charge of that but then I had gotten hold on some second hand solar panels, bought by me but picked up and eventually put up by my wife's sister and her friends but under my supervision of cause. How to and the final connections are my doings of cause. I also have a tractor with a front end loader that I unfortunately can't use and it is a little too big for my wife's sister. I am there fore trying to sell it but there was a problem with the fan belt slipping and the power assisted steering hydraulic ram leaking. The fan belt broke and the new one, that appeared to be too narrow, was slipping as I said so we got a wider one but then I found that the real problem was that a bearing in the generator was intermittently ceasing up. The leaking hydraulic ram should normally just be an oil seal but not being able to get down and underneath to look carefully at it I couldn't see that all I had to do was to take off a spring lock ring and replace the oil seal. It would have been easy done in place but due to my ignorance we took of the whole ram cylinder in stead. If I have it on a table I can better fix it. Of cause a bolt had to break as old bolts don't always have undamaged threat. Unfortunately it is a very special conical bolt with a ball head so not easy to get. This is part of the fun having a farm. To get around I have an old golf cart that I have changed from petrol to electric. I am probably also a bit of a philosopher. That together with a bit of physics interest gives me a bit to do.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 I also have a small amount of acreage (5 acres) and a tractor with a front end loader. I had two of the rams rebuilt and am in the process of fixing some other hydraulics
In regards to the video then you are probably right. You are the mathematician between us. I believe that I could learn it especially as I have learned most of it before but that is 50 years ago and my memory isn't as good as it used to be. The question is then if it is worth the effort. There are plenty of mathematicians around and it doesn't really have that much of my interest. I like you say you are are trying to learn more and as I don't have a life time ahead of me (I do plan to be about 112 years old and I am only a 78 year young man now) so I think about the things that I find interesting. The government pays for my keeps (public pension) so I am not pushed. I try to enjoy myself. The result that I believe you are getting at is that the electrons have a set energy in the different levels around the atom and I believe that is correct. After all we know that we get a set energy amount out when an electron jumps inwards in an atom. This is the reason for the set frequencies of the light that comes out. In regards to the length of the video then I think that if you had stopped at any earlier point it would have been like you jumped off mid stream so I think it is fine. I have been thinking a lot about time over the last few weeks and as things can apparently age differently depending upon what speed they are traveling at then I have come to the conclusion that there must a time keeper in each little module that can age. I also believe that every thing is energy and the difference between say light energy (Electro Magnetic Emission (EME)) is only that EME is traveling with the speed of light (c) and "Particles" are oscillations of energy at a location at near or total stand still. This is why I have been doing time calculations as I presented to you at my earlier comment. All these calculations brings me to a postulation that there is an absolute zero speed and an absolute maximum speed being c. I also postulate that time is accounted for locally in each particle (or oscillation I would prefer to say as I believe particles are actually like standing waves). What bothers me is length contraction as I find that EME would have to be a number of lines without any length only height representing amplitude as length contraction at speed c makes it so according to the formula. How can it be a sinewave? I believe it is a sinewave though.
You amaze me with your deep thinking 🤔
You ARE young…you are only 8 years older than me 😁. I treasure our conversations.
Hi. Do you mind having a look at this please? I know it has nothing to do with your current video but I see that you don't have too mane remarks . TIME DILATION AND LENGTH CONTRACTION. I believe it is said that the speed of light is the same for every body in all reference frames. Also all physics and mathematics should be equally valid in all reference frames. I have with this in mind done a lot of calculations on these matters. My expectation from the above has there fore been that if I wanted to measure the speed of light (Two way as one way appear very difficult if not impossible) at any time in any reference frame and in any direction it should be possible. I have there fore done the following calculations. Firstly I go with the usual time dilation calculations. A /\ The following calculations are as seen from outside (standing still). / | \ If the speed we travel with is .5c (half the speed of light) then / | \ the calculations will be as follows: / | \ Assuming the time taken for light to travel from B to A is 1 second /_____ | _____ \ = appr. 300km/second the distance from B to C will be 150km travel B C D in 1 second. A to C will be the perceived time for the traveller. A to B = c; B to C = .5c => A to C = square root (sqr) of (A to B)^2 - (B to C)^2 = sqr of c^2 - (.5c)^2 = sqr of (1 - .25)c^2 = sqr of .75c^2 = .86602540378 second. This means that if the "still standing outsider" sees 1 second gone the Traveller will only feel .86602540378 second gone. Time is dilated when traveling. The accepted Time dilation formula is: t = t0 / sqr( 1 - v^2 / c^2) This formula for .5c speed also gives .86602540378 second for one second from outside. Another way of calculating it is t = t0 (sin(cos^-1(v/c)) Now I would like to be able to measure the speed of light in any direction over a given length by measuring the time it takes light to travel over this length and back as a traveller without caring about travel direction and speed. I there fore started by trying to calculate time taken over a given length parallel to my traveling direction. I started to do the calculations as seen from outside (as standing still). A ----------C----------B (Travel direction >) Travel speed = .5c If we start with that it will take 1second to go from A to B that is = 1second When the light gets to B this will really be to C as the craft has moved half the distance in that time so we can go .5second father = .5second. This will keep on happening so we will find that it is: 1 + .5 + .25 + .125 + .0625 and so on. The result will be = 2 seconds in this example. Going reverse we will find that that we will not have the full length from B to A as A is moving towards the light so I say that we can do the following. move from B to C = .5second and then we will have half the distance between C and A left. This is a quarter of the full length. doing the same as above we get a distance of .125 that we can add and then still have a little left for the light to travel. I have found that the final result is 2/3 second. The total light travel time will there fore be measured as 2.666666.... seconds. As this is two way we must divide by 2 so it is = 1.333333333.... This is the time it takes light to travel forward and back again over a set length of appr. 300000Km. If we want to see what the distance is for 1 second we just have to divide 1 by 1.33333..... and we get .75 If we take the sqr of .75 we surprisingly gives .86602540378 It should have been that due to travel we have length contraction so lets try to do those calculations. The length contraction formula is l = l0 sqr(1 - v^2/c^2) and doing that with speed = .5c we find that the length contraction is = .86602540378 If we multiply the above gained time 1.3333333... by .86602540378 we get 1.1547005383 Now again this is the time seen from outside (standing still) for travelling the full appr. 300000km. The distance travelled in i second will be 1/1.1547005383 = .86602540378 by appr300000km. I have tried to do the calculations at .25c, .5c and .75c speeds and the results are correct at all calculations. I believe that the reason why the sqr of the parallel results is the same as the length contracted results is that it is a 90 degree direction and that the two formula's are almost the same. What I get out of this however is that if we at all move we can NOT measure even the two way speed of light correctly unless we know the angle to the motion that we measure and then take that into the calculation too. This means that even on earth we cannot get an accurate measurement of the speed of light c.
Hi Leonard, So glad to hear from you again! Your proposed topic for another video is exciting. When I finish the videos on rigid rotor and Hydrogen atom quantum mechanical models, I will take on your topic. Hoping you and yours are well in the good old "down under"! Sincerely, Larry Welles Good old Midwest United States 😁
At 3:10 you multiply negative h bar by i/i. i/i=1. So what happened to the minus sign of h bar? Also, where is the definition of time in this equation?
Thank you for your feedback. I will watch the video and respond to the particular points
When you multiply the i’s in the denominator it yields -1 which cancels out the minus sign of h bar. The definition of time is the Et in the postulated Psi function. Let me know if that is not clear.
Please reply to my message in Indonesian
?
Hi, I'm from Indonesia, I want to give advice for your channel, to make it more interesting, make videos that are liked by many people, such as facts about the world or games
I make videos to help me learn, not entertain the public (use google translate for Indonesian translation)
Neutron decay cosmology The path of least action, physical process solution to black hole paradoxes, dark energy, dark matter and critical density maintenance. A homeostatic universe maintained by the reciprocal processes of electron capture at event horizons and free neutron decay in deep voids. Gravity gathers mass to event horizons All matter is made neutrons at event horizons because of electron capture Infall neutrons drop off their kinetic energy as mass for event horizon Neutron takes an EinsteinRosen bridge from highest energy pressure conditions (event horizon) to lowest energy density points of space where the quantum basement is lowest and easiest to penetrate Neutron out in deep void Decays into amorphous monatomic hydrogen, proton electron soup, Dark matter. The decay from neutron 0.6fm³ to 1m³ of amorphous hydrogen is a volume increase of around 10⁴⁵. Expansion. Dark energy. In time the amorphous hydrogen stabilizes first into monatomic hydrogen then into H2 and everything else we see. All of it continuously flowing down the gravity hill towards an event horizon. Loop
Overwhelming…thanks so much for these comments! 🤔
Light is lazy would have been a banger name for this video
I should have thought of that!
Super informative. Thank you for the great content
Glad it was helpful! I love comments
Sparkling
What was sparkling?…my stellar performance…ha ha
Hey Mr. Welles, what’s the best way to reach out to you. I have a video I’m working on that I think you would fit very well into.
Hi @CloutySkies2, We can communicate initially with these comments…maybe leading to a live UA-cam session…I’m anxious to hear more details!!!
Now that I know who are try messaging me on Facebook!
Every thing you said is mostly correct according to what I think. A couple of things little things where a little off what I would have said. Firstly you started by asking how do we see an electron. Then you started talking about energy levels. From the energy levels we will see energy emissions when the electron is jumping inwards. These are of cause at different frequencies (f = E/h) as you said and only some of them only can be seen. All we see there is energy emissions (often called Photon's) but not at all the Electron. We see some indications of where the electron was when it emitted that amount of energy but not exactly. At 8:50 you said something that is correct but a little strange to talk about I think as we mainly talked about the electron. You said that when the electron jumps free it becomes a positive Proton. Yes the Atom does but the electron stays a negative entity. Again you started by talking about seeing the electron. The only way I know of that we can vaguely see it is by using much higher than visible light. I believe they have made laser pulses in the 10^18 (atto) range that has been able to get fuggy pictures of electrons but that is it. You ended up by asking about the energy of an electron in it's base (lowest energy) position. I am not quite sure about how they have worked it out but it might be from measuring it's free flying mass as they do by seeing how much it bends off in a known magnetic field at a known speed - all done as a free electron in vacuum. That would give the free electron's energy (= mass * c^2) and then it should be possible to calculate down using all possible energy releases when the electron get's back to it's inner position.
Good analysis…you noticed some misstatements such as looking at electrons and really the effects of electrons
Yes Niels Bohr got the planetary atom model and he worked out that the light absorption/ emission bands that is observed from hydrogen could be explained this way. Of cause we now know that it is not correct to see electrons as particles (like planets) but it did bring us to a better understanding. Niels Bohr probably altered his mind later in life as he went on to be working on Quantum like theories I believe. (The Copenhagen interpretation). We Danes did have a few smart people over the years. Our country is not big enough to have much political influence in the world and I guess for this reason we can talk and mix with every body, gain their knowledge and make our own idea's from it. Our Royalty is also related to all the Royals in Europe. I am still a Dane although I have been living in Australia for nearly 46 years.
Heritage is very important 🇩🇰 ! What led you to Australia 🇦🇺?
@@Teachwelles A stint working in Moscow back in the 1970's. I wanted to get as far away as possible. It is almost correct. I worked for an American computer company located in Vienna Austria but worked anything between 2 to 5 weeks in Moscow at the time when it was The Soviet Union and Brezhnev in power. I did that for about three and a half years and spend at least 2 years in Moscow. It became a drag so I decided to go some where else. I had been to South Africa on training with the company and I kind of liked it there except for their problems. I had been told that Australia was similar except for the racial problems and also my brother had been to Australia and as I could get a job with the company just about anywhere it was easy for me. I was guarantied permanent resident visa as soon as I put a foot on the ground in Australia. I did only plan to stay 3 - 4 years and then go some where else but I got stuck. I got a flat and some land besides my brother came back for a while. He came and left a few times but although I have been back to Denmark I just liked it here and came back. I have everything here now except for a sister in Denmark. The rest of the family there although reasonably big I really don't know any more after about 50 years away. Before all this I first had an apprenticeship fixing Radio and Tv for 4.5 years. After that I was drafted to the Danish navy where I worked with Sonar and Radar in a submarine. I was there for 17 months and then I started studying electronics and became an electronic design engineer 4.5 years later. That is when I learned about physics, chemistry and got some mathematical training as well. Unfortunately the courses where very cramped so I got more and more tired as time went. My final exam grade was not very good but the way I went through the courses I was one of only 10% doing it that way that ever finished without failing a single course. That just didn't count when trying to get a job so I had to take a kind of technician job leaving my country not speaking very much of any other language than Danish but I could learn. It was when computers took up floors of houses and not many knew anything about them. The money was quite good. Now that I am retired I start thinking about how everything is working together with having a small farm with a few alpaca's. A lot of what I learned with the computers like analysing something which was necessary when we where fault finding comes in handy I believe. Some of those problems where hard to work out. We had everything like timing problems, noise problems and cross talk problems. I used to say that if you had replaced everything 3 times and it still failed then you have got a problem. I was not the best technician but but not the worst either. We had 2 or 3 really good ones and they became managers or ended up at the factories in America. I could only handle so much at the time so in my spare time I became a forester and helped to develop a couple of hundred of acres of forest. We had our own machinery so I was fixing machinery too. Again I used my analytic skills. At the farm I have solar electricity of cause and I have a remote camera to keep track on things when we are not there. I have also done the most of building the sheds etc. That is my relaxing time. Unfortunately I had a virus attacking the nerve in my backbone about 7 years ago so from one day jumping around 3 days later I was carried around in a sling at the hospital and being basically paraplegic not even able to control my basic things from the navel and down. I am much better now and can walk with a walker and most other things. I do however spend much too much time in front of my computers instead of working at the farm. I can't get on most of the equipment any more as I have to use my hands to lift my right leg. I get around on an old golf card that I have changed to electric. Driving a car is out as I would push the accelerator to the floor all the time and I am not that good a driver that I can handle all corners at full speed. Life is not bad though. I still have my brain and I plan to live until I am 110 years old. I just irritate a few You Tubers.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 thank you so much for sharing…I especially like your goal to reach 110! I just turned 70 and finally teaching the way I want to…schools I worked for in the past were too focused on money or being politically correct.
@@Teachwelles I must admit that I was a little down the first week 7+ years ago (when I was 70) laying in bed soiling myself and could do nothing about it being told that I might never walk again. Then I looked around me and saw much younger people having similar problems and no longer able to take care of their families. I also recalled my mother being in a wheel chair for many years but still doing things she enjoyed and not appear to be unhappy and also my sister having been in a coma for about 3 months with the Herpes virus on her brain but almost totally ok for many years after (and still is by the way turning 85 soon). I then started to think about what I could do if I had to be in a wheelchair for the rest of my life (which I am not and haven't been for about 6 years). I realized that I could do a lot of things I had wanted to do but never got around to do so I got a bit happier. I am now having quite a good life. I probably could do most things on my own but it is a lot easier with help so I have some of that. Unfortunately I now realize that to do all the things I have wanted to do I do have to live until I am at least 110. One thing you must realize is that things can change in a moment so I am glad to hear that you are enjoying your teaching. You are only guarantied the moment of now and as long as your brain is ok (which must be the most important I would think) then also your memories so enjoy the moment and you good memories. The future in uncertain but as it may come you should not spend all your enjoyment now. You must have some left for the future as well. I have experienced a number of situations where I could have died without me doing anything wrong and without having any power to avoid it. It just hasn't been my time. If there has been a higher power that has taken care of me or it is purely random I don't know but I do know that I have had experiences that pointed to higher powers. It is a little difficult to believe when one also knows something about physics where causality is supposed to even prohibit randomness I would believe. Some say that we don't even have a free will but I put my hope in quantum uncertainty to allow feed back in the brain and there fore free will. Of cause it doesn't mean full control of ones surroundings but at least some control. I like to believe that I have some control. Keep on doing your teaching as you like it. I will probably not always agree with you (as you with me) but don't let that stop you. I just like to believe that even I have a few specks of knowledge. I have met so many that excel in a narrow field without any great official education. Often I think that many people put too much weight on education. It can be stifling too. If Einstein had trusted Newton too much would we have had Einstein's work?
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 tough…glad you didn’t give up.
My head hurts! I am not a mathematician. I do however believe that what you did is probably correct. I have seen similar deductions from others too. I only had a bit of a doubt when you took a part of the formula and called momentum and you later said that there where no mass involved in that yet the part you took had an m. But if you are not correct others are wrong too. In any case it makes some sense as energy is energy. I believe we know that there is energy in mass and we know that there is energy in momentum. Isn't kinetic energy the same as momentum? I am looking forward to you moving towards Quark's. If you can prove that they are waves then you prove more of my thoughts that everything are energy waves. Personally I would be happy to find out more about just Electromagnetic waves, what they really are and where the energy is in them but as I said your aim is interesting to me too.
Momentum and Mass are very closely related. Rest mass is zero momentum. A photon has zero rest mass, but has momentum and can do “work” according to its frequency…confusing myself now! 😁
@@Teachwelles Yes I believe you are correct except for the last three words. Normally EME (Photon) can not rest but it has the energy of hf. That is by the way the energy per second I believe looking at the units. EME can be slowed down and I believe it has been claimed even to a standstill. I wonder if it has any mass then. Other ways where is the energy? Does an electron gain mass when it gains energy from EME? As you know I am getting at as everything is made from energy then maybe it is made from the smallest energy possible. That is possibly a neutrino though but they apparently don't like to react with anything much.
So in Einsteins equation, it's Energy = Kinetic Energy + Potential Energy with mc^2 playing the role of potential energy. This is a really good video! Thanks for sharing. I learned something from this!
This was a recent revelation to me as well
Really good video! Appreciate the work you put into working out and explaining each part.
Glad it was helpful!
You are definitely better at mathematics than me. I give you that. I also agree with the result. Can't be much better can it?
I’m glad it passed your test! Ha ha
According to Wikipedia E=mc^2 is only at rest. This is an enormous amount of energy. It is the atomic energy that we normally think about from an atomic explosion but also a lot more. The explosion energy is only the amount of energy holding an atom together(Fission energy - this energy is by the way only present in big atoms. With smaller ones you get energy from putting them together (Fusion energy).) It is also the energy that makes up all the (so called) particles and that is a lot. That energy we never get anywhere near in an explosion. In continuation to my previous comments on other of your video's I will just make you aware of a couple of things. I have come aware of a person named Stephen Wolfram. He is supposed to be a very intelligent person, a child prodigy I have not seen him making much in regards to Physics EXEPT that he points out that it is possible to make something very complicated (like the universe) from something very simple. He does that by running a very simple computer program that does apparently not come to an end. Next I have seen a youtube video from Adam Alton called Physics talks. I find it very interesting - much more interesting than the last one I pointed you to. From that video I came to a website : "Energywavetheory.com" by Jeff Yees He together with others have made up a wave hypothesis that is an alternative hypothesis to how everything works. In this hypothesis the basic thing is not the Photon or EME as I was thinking about but the neutrino. They are well educated people that have put it together so they may be right. Many of the things are how I believe it should be so I intend to study it a lot more.
@leonhardtkristensen4093 1 second ago ADD ON: I also suggest hat you see: Dialect: Einstein's Relativity contains a HUGE Loophole., a youtube video 3 months ago and: Dialect: Matrix Theory: Relativity Without Relative Space and Time. These two UA-cam video's very much say what I believe - at least close to.
Thank you so much! Since making the video, additional research has agreed with some of your comments.
Hell yeah!
Not sure, but glad you liked it.
I survived but I could not quite follow the higher math as I only learned it quite fast more than 50 years ago and haven't used it since. So many other people have been through it and as this math is probably simple to the truth of nature then I will accept it except it does need to get momentum added to it. Light (EME) has energy. Light supposedly has no mass but it has momentum. I do however congratulate you for the effort and I thank you for the wise words you started with. This is the current believe as Newton's Law's where until it was found that they where not quite correct although close.
Add on: I have no way of saying that all these formula's are wrong in any way. I have just got a few things that I can't quite get to fit. A couple of things that have to be correct for it all to work is that the speed of light has to be constant but also that energy can't be created or destroyed. One thing that bothers me is that you can as an observer always consider yourself to be at rest. That to me is hard to believe as that means that every thing around me should follow my rules. Nothing can get away from me faster than speed c but also EME should leave me at speed c. Now the moon moves compared to me. If we had a man on the moon he should be able to say the same that he is at rest and that I move. If he sends out an EME in my direction and I send out an EME in his direction then when they meet there appears to be a problem except if we start playing with time again in the middle. I think that there might be an ABSOLUTE rest and that everything evolves around that. That means that if I send an EME in one direction it will have the speed c minus my absolute speed in that direction. It would still travel at speed c but absolute. I think all the formula's would still work but with corrected emission speeds. They would be absolute instead of relative. The correction would be very small at our speeds and possibly not noticeable.
I am planning some videos addressing some of your questions…one examining accelerating an electron enough that relativistic mass is a significant factor. Photons with no mass???..I want to discuss that also.
Thank you for “surviving”! 😅
Trying to follow the math's and also comparing what is explained on Wikipedia it all appears correct. I was also trying to follow it from an energy point of view which appear to confirm it. Although I know the math my mind capacity isn't as good as I would have liked so I have troubles getting through it. I found one interesting point which I had thought of but in reverse. I had thought about what happens if a light beam is caught between two mirrors. I thought about if there would be a mass increase. I found that when a photon leaves an atom the atom will decrease in weight. My above thought should there fore be confirmed I would believe. This in my mind means that everything could there fore be created out of light. This going to my thought that everything consists of electromagnetic waves. A little away from your theme I admit but might well be the true cause of it all.
Interesting 🧐 thoughts…everything stems from photons?
@@Teachwelles I just can't think of a simpler form of energy than photons or more correct EME. At the time of the Big Bang they say that all was plasma. They say that out of that came hydrogen H and then from that everything else. I just think that initially all was energy and I can sort of believe that EME could start making electrons. We know that EME can add energy (and mass) to electrons. How it went from there I have no idea. I just think that it is just as good an explanation than some how plasma became H and nothing else.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 you have such a great intuitive science mind. This is a welcome contrast to relying entirely on mathematical models! I look forward to your comments every day!!!
You did one very interesting thing that I haven't seen any body else do and that is to calculate it from both observers standpoint. You did that by basically having a third observer, us, seeing it from perpendicular to the movements. I think what you managed to do is to prove that there is a difference in time movement between the two but not really who's time is slowest. The red observer sees the green person moving towards him. But the green observer also sees the red person coming to him at the same speed. Einstein says (i believe) that every observer has equal right to say that he is standing still. In my opinion and many others these formula's or some thing else is not quite right. I fully agree that if you make a time piece that uses light as measurement for time over a set distance (probably also an atomic clock) then time will go slower if you move it faster BUT THE DIRECTION OF THE MOVEMENT DOESN'T MATTER. It is the faster movement that slows down time not the direction. Plus and minus doesn't matter. Actually minus is impossible I think (currently at least) as that means you travel faster than light I believe. You always have to measure your speed (and time) against a light beam you emit or really (delta distance)/(delta light speed) as it has to be on a minute scale. I believe it has more to do with the movement of the electrons (I believe they move around at c speed)in the atom and there fore the pulsation of the atom that slows down when it is moved faster. This is probably the case for the atoms in organic molecules as well but I don't know that it is proven as yet. If so you should live longer in the fast line but unfortunately accidents are more deadly there so it may give the opposite result. I believe that any clock mechanical or electronic has the same change which means we can only have two clocks synchronised if they are together. This prevent us from measuring one way speed of light. I said "change" in my last sentence as if we are already moving (as we are, the earth around the sun etc) then if we slow down the movement of time must go slower. This all goes to as some suggest and I currently believe that there is an ABSOLUTE stand still or ZERO SPEED. How to find it and how to measure it is an engineering problem.
You made me rethink things…as always…Thank you!
@@Teachwelles Try to listen to the first 20 minutes of a webcast video: David Watson - A theory of relativity. Websynradio. That pretty much points out what has bothered me about video's don't tell. Both a moving observer and a stationary observer sees the others time as slowing down.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 I will watch that video. I agree with the fact you point out. The math points out the fact that both observers see the other’s time slow down.
@@Teachwelles One other little fun observation. If you want something to be black then you need to cover it with paint that absorb all light. You can also have nothing and I mean absolutely nothing. That will also be black. It does not reflect any light if you put a beam on it just like the black painted object. The point is that you can come to some very similar results in totally different physical ways. One there fore has to be very careful about that all aspects are taken into consideration. Some simple calculations may give the right result but for the wrong reason. A painted object being black will not reflect light but it will heat up and radiate heat. Empty space will not. I have other thoughts that I may reveal at a later date that I think are just as confusing and may bring some accepted theories into doubt or at least make them not being the only thing that causes an effect.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 a black object can radiate “light” if it is heated to 5000 degrees Kelvin. This is the basis of black body radiation studies of Max Planck when he postulated his famous constant.
This is a pretty good video. I didn't know that the distant red shift has been disputed in that many ways. In my opinion you did a good job in finding them. With my interest in this subject I do however concentrate on doubler effect as I believe it to be very interesting when we come to speeds much closer to c (light speed). In this case I believe your star only travelled about 9% of c.
Thanks for the input!
Hello, an Interesting video, unfortunately the file is partially corrupted (first 20 seconds and more) also, the link to the other part is'nt in your description. I have yet to integrate and research this topic.
Great analysis. Totally agree about "choppy" video. At least the voice is solid. Let me know if I can expand on this to satisfy questions you have! Added links in description.
@@Teachwelles thank you! Will do.
Overall correct and good in my opinion except 340/1000 does only give .340 not .343 and also when you used speed of sound at the end you used 343m/s instead of 340 as you have written speed of sound to be just under the car. The result is nearly the same and the miswriting is minimal. The tutorial should be able to give a viewer a good understanding and you ended with a teaser for your viewer to come back for the next video. I will if I can. One thing I have been thinking about is that if we think about the sound propagating in rings around the car then when it is moving it compresses the ring in front of it and stretch the ring behind it. This will give the sound to be transmitted at 1,068Hz forward, 1000Hz sideways and 932Hz to behind it all due to the movement. If there is an equivalent to Planks constant for sound and the formula's are the same then the extra energy in the forward movement is equal to the lesser energy in the behind movement so it all fit's. Asking Google all the smart people have different answers so there must a doctorate in that - not for me though. I am nearly 78 years old and don't want to study much any more. I am still curious about things though.
My next video will be more “rigorous”. I so appreciate your critiques!!..I just turned 70 and I am ready to learn more than ever! 😁
My next video will be more “rigorous”. I so appreciate your critiques!!..I just turned 70 and I am ready to learn more than ever! 😁
A nearly correct explanation however talking about the coil and diode in the Buck Converter I believe you where a little wrong. In my opinion yes the polarity does switch on the coil but the current continues to the capacitor and yes now through the diode. A coil (or induction as it is) is conservative. It does not like changes and there fore the current rises slowly and dies down slowly. Without the diode there would be a high negative voltage on the left hand side of the coul making the voltage very high over the S1 switch and probably blow up this component.
Hmm…I will have to think on this one…thanks for your analysis!
You are exactly right about the diode protecting the switch.
@@Teachwelles That is why most transistor circuit's driving a relay has a diode across the coil.
Good explanation but one little fault at the end.. Fully charged battery is probably 13.8V or there about giving 2.3v per cell. Charging voltage is always over 14.4v I believe. and up to 14.65v.
Thanks for the correction!
I admit that it is hard for me to follow this calculation. I have found the article you are using and have gone through the lot of Chapter 10 but I can't quite follow it. I believe it is my difficulty in remembering but on the other hand I doubt that Physics students find it easy to grasp in a few hours unless they are very experienced in using such formula's. I believe it might make it easier to follow your explanations if you made a kind of overview first. That is the way I used to learn about computers. We used to call it a box schematic of the computer and then we looked at the boxes to get a deeper understanding. It also gives an Idea about why we talk about the different things and where and how they relate to each other. I have never gone that deep into how the formula's came about before. I have never seen the need. In likening it to say an engine I know that there has to be a certain ratio between petrol and air for it to run well. I do not calculate how many molecules of petrol to how many molecules of air and their densities. I do not see the need. This is the same for me with Physics. I believe the formula's are probably right but that does not mean that the understanding of where the formula's are used is correct. It may be possible to look at it from a different point and still get the same results. The formula E= h*f = the energy of a photon tells me that every sine wave in a frequency has a set energy. That can not be correct as we can pump up the amplitude as we like (within reason). I there fore get that it is either the minimum value or a value that corresponds with some thing else like a standard increase like maybe one Kelvin temperature increase of a set amount of a set material. Replacing Joules with Watt seconds I get that the energy of one photon at one Hz is = to one Watt second or the heating energy in a 1 ohm resistor with one volt over it for one second. The Photon is much smaller than 1 watt second of cause as h = 6.626 * 10^-34 Js or Ws^2 One Photon is of cause also the energy required to move one electron from one position in an atom outwards to another or possibly free. We know that this happens at different frequencies as we get different absorption lines depending on where it jumps.
Thank you for the feedback!
In general I will say that what you say in this video is correct - at least for general purpose what probably 99.9% of the population needs. It may be the same on youtube although I have noticed many that goes more in depth. I of cause am one of them. For the general person it is a good introduction to the Toyota Prius and also general electricity knowledge.
I am planning more detailed videos on each section: lead acid battery chemistry, inverter electronics, 3 phase motor/ alternator, etc
Can you do a circuit diagram? We did some of these at the end of physics 2 but I would like to see more, thanks
What kind of circuit are you interested in....basic electricity explanation?
@@Teachwelles a semi complex dc circuit
I will be working on a DC electricity video for you today
i keep this rap on a loop while i play fortnite and it just helped me win $3,678 in a professional tournament !!!
Super! I won't even ask for a commision! : - )
Am I right in understanding that what you are trying to do is to connect Wien's law to Plank's constant? That is connecting the h and the b constants? As I understand it the b constant constant gives a temperature change according to absorbed light. I have not looked too close at this as I currently aren't interested in heating with light. (I used to do it many years ago to stop water from freezing for my chickens). An increase in temperature is of cause also an increase of energy in whatever is heated. Plank's constant h is energy of an EME wave per second (I believe) and is what is said to be the energy of a photon at a frequency. Not having looked to close into it is the b constant giving the rise in temperature by 1 Kelvin of a mole of atoms or a single atom? Is the relationship then that 1h would be the temperature increase of one atom by 1K? If I go through your video's again I could probably work it out (maybe with Wikipedia's or other online help) I suppose but I also have other things to think about and unless there is doubt about such calculations I see no point to do it all again personally. I am an engineer and used to use formula's without having to recalculate their validity. Only if things fail or I want to go into extreme details would I normally do it. In regards to a photon it is still also said to be the energy given out when an electron jump's inwards in an atom and as there are different jumps that gives out different energy values and different EME frequencies which is also indicated with Photon energy = E = hf giving that a photon is not a set value. If it is a particle it can not be given a set value like an Electron or a Proton or a Neutron basically have. (an Electron must also have different energy values depending upon if it is free or where in the atom it is) I would love to have a person like you to discuss about such things with locally (I am in Melbourne Australia). I don't want to learn the lot. I believe that to be too much and I would get tired.
I live in a country setting in Indiana, USA...maybe a Zoom meeting one day? My background is electronics technician --> technical teacher --> test engineer for automotive electronics --> embedded software engineer --> software project manager --> retired to Chemistry / Physics Teacher for 4 years --> now full time involvement in UA-cam Videos.
@@Teachwelles As I have said before I live in Melbourne Australia but I am from Denmark where I had all my formal education. I started up as an electrician apprentice but swapped to Radio and Tv technician. I had a 4.5 year apprenticeship as that. After that I was drafted to the Danish navy where I mainly was a sonar operator in a submarine but also helped with radar and radio including some maintenance. After 17 months there I decided to become an electronic design engineer and studied for 4.5 years. I never got a job as such but instead got to maintain big computers for the next 19 years in different countries including a few years in Moscow but working for an American company. With that job I moved to Australia as far away from Moscow as possible. While studying a fellow student wanted to be a Ham radio operator and as I had knowledge of radios I helped him. I also was licenced but haven't got it moved to Australia so not licensed any more. Working with electronics full time meant I needed to do some thing else in my spare time and as I am a country lad my brother and I got hold on some land and developed it into a pine tree forest. I also dabbled with poultry. While I was studying I remember I was intrigued about that some salt solutions was coloured and I worked out that those salts had a missing electron in the outer shell. We where taught the Bohr atom model. I obviously had some interest already then. Now when retired after another job for 14 years working with some uninteresting computerised electronic equipment as a maintenance engineer I have again started to think about what is really going on with electricity and atoms etc. and how it really works taking my experience into consideration. My eyes are not perfect any more so I get tired reading too much. My memory has also never been the best. I can not remember names which make it difficult for me to follow calculations when new symbols are introduced. Because of this I have always had to compare new things I learn to what I know from before and there fore only had to learn the difference. Also I now find that youtube video's can be helpful especially lectures from know physicists but also some times lesser known people. I find a lot of garbage as well so one has to be critical but between the garbage I some times find ideas that I believe should be investigated. I do not believe that the better known physicists have all the answers. They also argue between them selves. In short I have always been a professional fixer of electronics etc. (also mechanical things) and as I am now retired and don't have too much to do with electronics full time I am trying to investigate how and why it works as it does by learning the theory behind it. A glaring question is what are electric and magnetic forces. We can calculate around it very well but have no idea what is between say two electrons that makes them repel each other. Photons as Feynman would say? - I don't think so. It does well in calculations but in my opinion is that it is not reality.
You have lead a interesting life. Thank you for sharing!
The energy of a photon is specified as hf and there is no limit on what frequency you can use. This means that any turning on and of of electricity creates a photon. There has lately been a number of videos on youtube about that electricity doesn't flow in a wire but on the outside as EM. Veritasium started it about a year ago. Some famous physicists claim that too. I believe they are partly correct as the speed of transmission along a cable depends on the surrounding of the cable. I do however think that at low frequencies it also flow inside a cable. Why should it make a difference if a cable is hollow or not for the amount of current flowing. If we have a 1/2 wave dipole antenna and transmit a radio signal from it at it's resonance frequency we will have a circular transmission perpendicular to the dipole. It will spread out in waves or rings just like waves in water if we poke a stick into the water. If we take any energy out of a water wave we suck it out of a part of that ring. We do not collapse the whole ring. Not knowing so but thinking it may be the same I would think that a similar thing happens when we take energy from an EME wave. I there fore find it difficult to understand that a photon should be a particle like thing. Also looking at E=hf then we have E in Joule or Watt seconds as I prefer. Watt is an instant energy measurement. h is in Js or ws^2. f is a number in a second (n/s). This gives that E = a number times Watt second meaning that this energy is how many times it happens multiplied with how long it takes. Energy per second is how often per second it happens (which may be a fraction of a number). The amount of energy in joules needs a correcting factor h as it is only a small part of a Joule. In my opinion h is only a correction factor or constant. This is why I prefer to think of the frequency of light being the dominant factor in electrons jumping in an atom. It appears to me that every cycle has the same energy according to this formula and only because we have more cycles at higher frequencies do we have higher energy. I am not the strongest in moving things around in mathematics so I may well be wrong. What I think happens with black bodies is that when we get the right frequencies which would be a resonance frequency for the electron then it get agitated enough and gain energy enough to jump out of where it is currently located. When it jumps back it of cause has to reemit that energy but if that happens omnidirectional or just in one direction I have no idea. I would think omnidirectional as light normally is from a source unless directed by reflection or refraction. I am only a simple electronic engineer (not all physicists like engineers but we are the ones that have to get things to work) but with many years experience one of them that I can easily be wrong so I don't mind being proved wrong.
send it to a publisher 🥱
@@buckybrown1536 I think he does read it.
Wow! There are a lot of questions/observations here! I am impressed by your deep level of thinking. Let me make comments on each point. Direct current flowing through a wire: electron flow is uniform throughout the wire. This fact was considered a major advantage for DC power transmission. When I was younger, I was very interested in this and read articles about conversion of AC power to DC for super high voltage DC transmission then converting back to AC at the other end. As frequencies of AC transmission increase the more pronounced the effect of electrons flowing on the surface becomes. Also there is corona loss in power as the AC radiates into the atmosphere. High frequency transmission lines (wave guides) are indeed hollow metal tubes. I will reply to next item shortly.
Let's consider a 1/2 wavelength dipole transmitting at 1000 kHz (AM radio). The wavelength is 3 x 10 ^ 8 m/s / 1 x 10 ^ 6 Hz = 3 x 10 ^ 2 m. 1/2 wavelength is 1.5 x 10 ^ 2 --> that's 1 and a half football fields! This gives you an idea why AM antennas are so tall. That's the length of the wave "packet" so it will act mostly like a wave at our dimension. When an electron absorbs a photon of "light" and is emitted from a metal the frequency is of the order of 1 x 10 ^ 14. Go ahead and calculate the length of the wave "packet" and I think you will get the idea.
@@Teachwelles Yes I know that but where does it stop? I believe a photon is any electro magnetic movement. The formula E = hf has no frequency limit. In regards to wavelength and frequency then I have been a submariner where under water transmission is in the kHz aria. I have worked with radios and radar. Wavelength= c/f again no limits. Your statement about DC confirms my thoughts however see you tube video about a year old from Veritasium a Darryl or something. He mucked it up and was told so but he's right in that signal fronts are on the outside with the speed of near c. It depends on the surrounding material. I am not on my computer only a pad now so I can't write much. I may not be back until Monday.
I have just looked at de Broglie's formula. I think I will have to take a sleep and a longer think on it to make any comments. The only thing I believe to know is that when an electron is accelerated in an accelerator it gains a higher frequency with the higher energy it has.
Sleep is needed to let your mind work out understanding of subjects.
I can say that I believe in what I was thought once and that is that by teaching a subject you really learn that subject. I have never really been a teacher although I once thought some students how a specific computer terminal worked. Yes I learned a lot.
I really enjoy your comments!
I have now come through to here from Photons and Electrons part 1. I could not follow every thing in the calculations so I can not say that you made any mistakes. In the regards to the atom I will now tell you what I think is probably the case although I can not prove anything. I come to it all from my knowledge of electronics and my experience over many years. I have done a lot of fault finding on complicated equipment over the years so I believe I have gained some experience in analysing things in my mind. I there fore use more of what Einstein called "Thought experiments". I have come to the conclusion that there probably are no particles. In stead I believe the so called particles are standing waves of energy. I believe that everything is actually made out of energy where the EME is the smallest energy amount some how. The reason the so called photon has no mass is that it is at the speed of light not able to give any resistance to change in speed and direction. The reason that we talk about particles is I believe that we are used to that every thing appear solid to our feeling and touch. We there fore expect that it will be like that all the way through. And that isn't even the case for gasses and liquids. Also when we test some thing it appears to come as a result at a spot but we then realize that we loose other information about the measured phenomenon. The reason why I have in a previous remark said that I believe it has more to do with the frequency of the photon than the energy is that I know from electronics that you can mix frequencies and there by get new frequencies provided that there is some non linearity involved. I can not explain how but ideas should not be rejected just because they are unexplained only if they are proven wrong. By the way it isn't really my idea. I just find it compelling as I do many other ideas. What I really would like to know is what is an EME. Not that it is an electro magnetic emission but starting with what is electricity like what makes an electron negative and the same what is magnetism. That it is lines in fields does not answer my question as the fields are really abstract things we invent to do calculation on it.
You have a great way of digging into details. I especially enjoy your "thought experiments" per Einstein! Let me know what you think about my video, Photons and Radio Waves...it is in response to our discussion from the Planck's Constant and Photons Finale Video.
I have just binge watched from video Part 1. Just to make you a little happier. I am trying to make out where you want to go with this. My education is electronic engineering so I know most of this in a similar form but I can't remember every thing.
My recent video about Math behind Max Planck's Distribution Equation is another way of explaining this using my references.
What you call a photon and what I believe gave the name to it is that when an electron jumps inwards in an atom it gives out a flash of light. This flash has a set energy but also a set frequency. To make it fit to our energy scale we have to use h (Planks constant). What I say is that we can have EME (Electro Magnetic Emission of which light is one) at just about any energy and any frequency. Only very set frequencies makes the electron jump. It does not matter what energy level as long as the frequency is wrong. I there fore believe that it is more likely the frequency that matters. Also to my knowledge radio signals and heat radiation (also EME) can be continuous and not in quantum's. To be detected there has to be enough energy but also a minimum of one frequency cycle I believe to determine the frequency.
All Electromagnetic waves are composed of wave packets ( photons). At lower frequencies the energies are so low per photon they may seem continuous. At visible light frequencies the energy steps are more pronounced. Please reply if you want to continue the discussion 😁
@@Teachwelles As I tried to explain then I don't see light as being different to any other EME other than it is at a set frequency band. What I would like you to explain is how you specify a photon if you claim that it is like a lump of energy and why all EME is in such lumps. I am quite aware that when an electron jumps inwards in an atom it gives out an amount of energy that we call a photon. As these photons have different energies according to where in the atom the electron jumps (they have different frequencies some of which is in the visible frequencies) they can not all be the same. I there fore can not see that we can say anything definite about a photon and also that EME is only in photons and not continues. Also at lower frequencies we can pump out enormous amounts of energy from radio or radar transmitters. When we measure light like with a solar panel it is obvious that a set amount of energy is needed to set the electrons free but does that really prove that the EME (light) came in such set amount. If we take a cup of water out of a bucket we get a cup full but we do not have a bucket full of cup sized water lumps. If we take a set amount of energy out of a battery we don't have a battery full of energy lumps like that. The battery gives out electrons and there are water molecules in a bucket of water. I agree that it is absolutely possible that there is a smallest amount of energy possible but I do believe that it has to be much smaller than what makes an electron jump especially because this amount of energy is different depending on where the electron jumps.
Link for my research Google Doc docs.google.com/document/d/17MrIs5qSQm3efQZmK5E_JCO9n-01ExAtbkMPSmG_O-8/edit?usp=sharing
Link to References Google Doc: docs.google.com/document/d/1aM_k1nTS4u9QyIrPbSaXZrZRhCwHTPPbwPrFDa15TPw/edit?usp=sharing
As a former Larry Welles alumni, I believe a collab would be awesome
Guess I could use some production upgrades 😂
Love your music Larry🙌
Glad you like my lame attempt 😁
Link to Google Doc used during research. If you have a particular interest in any of the information, I will be glad to build a video based on your interest. docs.google.com/document/d/1R3OublWa-GaUfop7ezuFmKQoqiaOE_jSRX8cz-UNDQo/edit?usp=sharing