This is a really good explanation. I feel like never really internalized/believed Fermat's principle from previous videos and reading, but this made it click.
This is one of the best explanations out there. It's the best explanation because it has the correct approach. So many other videos try to explain the concept using the misconceptions you mentioned at the beginning of the video.
Light can’t think but in a very real sense neither can we, it is that density limits the potential actions a given system or structure can have in comparison to the potential energy it has at its disposal. We think, simply because energy takes the path of least resistance and to avoid uncertainty is to do just that. The difference that we see, when one makes the counter claim and says that we don’t always do what’s most logical, is that doing what’s most logical is simply to take the path at which the Universe and your potential energy allows for you to take. This can be disrupted because the Universe is turbulent, so there are problems with computation in that past a certain point of information density we can no longer perform consistent computations because we only have the energy required to wield specific fields in our methods of measurement. Thus, there are some fields and points of density that will become more chaotic as a consequence of a measurement being performed because despite what many may say, it is highly unlikely that there is a material at which can be controlled that does not contain some amount of mass, if even the ability to measure the fields mass is very fleeting in that the amount of time it can be in a non hyperbolic state is extremely low due to the fields innate ability to avoid particle collisions due to the density of the Universe selecting for those attributes over time leaving the wavelengths within these fields that are less capable of that to be consumed and distributed in ways that are high in entropy over time. Leading to the density of these structures, decreasing as they decay until the mass becomes extremely spread out over a vast distance and simply appears to be a part of other processes.
Thank. you. I SWEAR; the very thing I said (which prompted me to LOOK for your video) was, "light can't think, and it hasn't "chosen" a destination!" ... So, thank you VERY VERY much. Truly. It is RARE to find something that so quickly gratifies my confirmation bias. :) lol.
You are spot on. amazing ! I had the exact question in mind as to how the principle works to figure out point B when it appears to first decide the points and then an allowed path between them (like how would that specify point B ?). Thank You !
excellent explanation for 1st question, and I agree on that it is path deciding location of B rather than B tells path. however, can you explain more why it refract and what decide the refraction angle??
13:34 Are you really sure that you have ticked off your first point? One might ask Why does light choose this path of maximum coherence? ... and again you have an anthropomorphism. That it appears to follow your stated path seems clear but I am not convinced as to your argument. Indeed your whole argument depends on the assumption that in a medium the shortest time is by following the shortest path ... so it proves itself by assuming itself. That apart I am sure that you are not wasting your time in endeavouring to crack this. If you consider the many paths from A to B and you assign a function to a photon P(p) say and integrate it along each path then you can select one that produces a minimum in P(p) if one exists in the first place. If you assign the function P(p) = 1 to each function then the minimum is equivalent to that of the shortest path between A and B. Fermat suggests that this is not the case in general and hence P(p) is not identically equal to 1. So the question is ..what is it ... What function P(p) results in a minimum of time twixt A and B? Well thus far in the video and this comment 'time' has been ignored. Fermat has produced a Rabbit from his hat it seems. We know the photon 'p' has no concept of time as we know it so we can safely introduce a variable t and consider the minimisation of P(p,t) over all paths .. and cutting a long story short that of P(t), because let's face it there is no single 'p' in a light beam. We have to ask the nature of a function P(t) that would give rise to Fermat's Principle. Time for another Beer :-)
There are no need of particles light is an electromagnetic wave it propagates not because particles are vibrating but rather due to oscillations of electric and magnetic fields .
Plz more clear your concept
I love your concept..but you should have to...more strengthen your concept
Thanks for the feedback - will do!
This is a really good explanation. I feel like never really internalized/believed Fermat's principle from previous videos and reading, but this made it click.
This is one of the best explanations out there. It's the best explanation because it has the correct approach. So many other videos try to explain the concept using the misconceptions you mentioned at the beginning of the video.
thank you soooo much I had the same questions and no one gave the answer for nearly a year
until I watch your video
great job
Light can’t think but in a very real sense neither can we, it is that density limits the potential actions a given system or structure can have in comparison to the potential energy it has at its disposal. We think, simply because energy takes the path of least resistance and to avoid uncertainty is to do just that. The difference that we see, when one makes the counter claim and says that we don’t always do what’s most logical, is that doing what’s most logical is simply to take the path at which the Universe and your potential energy allows for you to take. This can be disrupted because the Universe is turbulent, so there are problems with computation in that past a certain point of information density we can no longer perform consistent computations because we only have the energy required to wield specific fields in our methods of measurement. Thus, there are some fields and points of density that will become more chaotic as a consequence of a measurement being performed because despite what many may say, it is highly unlikely that there is a material at which can be controlled that does not contain some amount of mass, if even the ability to measure the fields mass is very fleeting in that the amount of time it can be in a non hyperbolic state is extremely low due to the fields innate ability to avoid particle collisions due to the density of the Universe selecting for those attributes over time leaving the wavelengths within these fields that are less capable of that to be consumed and distributed in ways that are high in entropy over time. Leading to the density of these structures, decreasing as they decay until the mass becomes extremely spread out over a vast distance and simply appears to be a part of other processes.
This is good and simple explanation of the part "A More precise statement of Fermat's Principle" from Lectures of Feynman book. Liked it 👍👍
Thank. you. I SWEAR; the very thing I said (which prompted me to LOOK for your video) was, "light can't think, and it hasn't "chosen" a destination!" ... So, thank you VERY VERY much. Truly. It is RARE to find something that so quickly gratifies my confirmation bias. :) lol.
Amazing description. You made it clear like water. Thanks a lot
You are spot on. amazing ! I had the exact question in mind as to how the principle works to figure out point B when it appears to first decide the points and then an allowed path between them (like how would that specify point B ?). Thank You !
finally found someone talking about this.
This is amazing!! Thank you sooooo much for sharing this!
great explanation, thanks. Much better than all of my professors
excellent explanation for 1st question, and I agree on that it is path deciding location of B rather than B tells path. however, can you explain more why it refract and what decide the refraction angle??
Nice illustration!
Thumbnail looks like it was of 3Blue1Brown
Great explanation
Nice attempts, but unfortunately essentially wrong.
Can you please tell how?
Thx for this vid I have an exam coming up and dis helped me
Thanks, that helped a lot.
this is amazing!! thank you :)
Thx sooooo much man
So it is that Light travels the path which has more constructive interference and thence least time... WoW this is GREAT
13:34 Are you really sure that you have ticked off your first point? One might ask Why does light choose this path of maximum coherence? ... and again you have an anthropomorphism. That it appears to follow your stated path seems clear but I am not convinced as to your argument. Indeed your whole argument depends on the assumption that in a medium the shortest time is by following the shortest path ... so it proves itself by assuming itself. That apart I am sure that you are not wasting your time in endeavouring to crack this. If you consider the many paths from A to B and you assign a function to a photon P(p) say and integrate it along each path then you can select one that produces a minimum in P(p) if one exists in the first place. If you assign the function P(p) = 1 to each function then the minimum is equivalent to that of the shortest path between A and B. Fermat suggests that this is not the case in general and hence P(p) is not identically equal to 1. So the question is ..what is it ... What function P(p) results in a minimum of time twixt A and B? Well thus far in the video and this comment 'time' has been ignored. Fermat has produced a Rabbit from his hat it seems. We know the photon 'p' has no concept of time as we know it so we can safely introduce a variable t and consider the minimisation of P(p,t) over all paths .. and cutting a long story short that of P(t), because let's face it there is no single 'p' in a light beam. We have to ask the nature of a function P(t) that would give rise to Fermat's Principle. Time for another Beer :-)
what about Optical path lenght :(?
What if its at vacuum and there are no particles to scatter from A tobB
There are no need of particles light is an electromagnetic wave it propagates not because particles are vibrating but rather due to oscillations of electric and magnetic fields .
Thank you
Thanks i had the same question
What accent is this?
Who can see an explanation for dark energy in this?
Not sure anyone understands _dark energy_ quite as well as we do _light and relativity_ ... ;-)
this is really bad and most things you explain are false
Can you please tell how