Відео

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 😂

Inspiring

good vid. note my quark rant on ur next vid. i flunked calculus 3 times lol

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

Light is lazy would have been a banger name for this video

Super informative. Thank you for the great content

Sparkling

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Really good video! Appreciate the work you put into working out and explaining each part.

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?

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.

Hell yeah!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

i keep this rap on a loop while i play fortnite and it just helped me win $3,678 in a professional tournament !!!

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

Love your music Larry🙌

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