At first, I was like, if photon wavelength is the issue then why not just use smaller wavelengths? Like gamma rays for instance. Then I realized that gamma rays would just pass through the sample instead of being reflected, yielding no image. Well played, universe. Well played.
I believe that fact is essentially the definition of whether a frequency is disturbed by matter, isn't it? If a photon is "too small" for a molecular structure, it's because the structure disrupts the wave? If you throw a basketball at a cheese grater, the energy of the ball will continue predictably (ignoring the classical thermodynamics of mass (which photons don't have) which would push the grater). But if you throw a grain of sand at a cheese grater, it will interact with the complex angles of the metal of the grater and bounce off at God knows what angle. In the case of light, that varied diffusion disrupts (absorbs/reflects), absorption being the disintegration into thermal energy? I guess I'm not entirely sure why molecular structures interact with light at all. What is light reflection caused by if it isn't two masses colliding?
@@Goreuncle yes, actually gamma are not an example of wavelength that would pass through, but larger, non-ionizing wavelengths would. The point of ionization essentially being both the determining factor in both relevant limits: the destruction of molecules and the demarcation of visible light.
*Can anyone explain to me Why one of the best channel on science videos get so little attention when a beauty video gets millions of views* !!! *This channel Deserves more subs and Views*
Great video again, Jon! Just one remark to pay homage to peer-review: Animalcule means "little animal", from Latin animal + the diminutive suffix -culum.
Yeah. This could have been explained in a better way. Visible light photons (200 nm max resolution) can't illuminate viruses (100nm size). If you reduce the wavelength by choosing uv ray wavelength photon or x-ray wavelength photon, the high energy of this photon will fry the organic sample. Electron microscopes have resolution up to 0.02 nanometers. (source - www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ryy07/what_is_the_smallest_object_we_can_identify/c49rw44/)
Wow Truley amazing the ultra 4K HD 200% vision Inspection. i Think you should mention teh famous video game among us in your next video please and thank you
Anthonie van Leeuwenhoek was Dutch. He was a good friend of the painter Vermeer. (Girl with a Pearl Earring). I wonder why he sent those letters to England.
THIS WAS ABSOLUTELY MARVELOUS. I did not know we were in such a great development pathway! I kind of live as if the past is more interesting than this future/present, but I’m wrong! Your explanation is so crystal clear too, thanks for the content!
Cool video. One critique, At 4:52 you mention that the photon's wavelength is bigger than a virus, but also that a photon itself is bigger than a virus. The latter is not true and I feel might cause some confusion.
4:58 you said "photons are far larger than atoms" when thats not true if im not mistaken. I think you should change that to "The wave length of photons are far larger than atoms". Otherwise your confusing people as youve done to me. Please do correct me if im wrong.
No, he says "wavelength of a photon of visible light" immediately before and after that sentence. 4:50 Some photons are bigger some are smaller, but he is clearly talking about visible wavelengths, which are all too large.
@@onetwothree4148 Several times it's denoted that photos have size or diameter which they don't. Or course we know the connotation is the wavelength, not size.
@@onetwothree4148 The image also suggests that a photon is larger than even a virus, it makes me think that maybe he didnt do it by mistake. Which is also why id like him to provide some explanation. Either correct me or correct himself but im sure hes probably refering to the wave length not the size of the photon. Photons have less mass than even an electron and atoms have at least 1 electron.
@@jevonmcpherson8054 the explanation is way more confusing and complicated if you draw a photon as a wave instead of a particle. He mentioned multiple times that he was talking about the size of the wavelength, and he did preface the explanation as not being entirely literal. Describing a visible photon as a massless entity that interacts with matter as though it has a specific spatial size is basically true and a very useful heuristic
Jevon, when creating this video we went back and forth on how to model light. In the spirit of George Box, we finally decided the large particle model was most useful in this context. We have a note on screen explaining this when we first introduce the "photon as a particle" model. I understand your critique about bouncing back between wavelength and size but once I established with the viewer that we're going with a particle model in this context, I felt it was fine to talk about photons as having size. The times I mention its "wavelength" are really just nods to the people who I knew would be upset with the particle model. Maybe what I thought was a nod, just ended up making it worse. In the future, I'd like to do a series on light: how it has been modeled over time, what we currently think it is, and so on. This animation wasn't the place for all of that.
I'm stunned that this video even exists. Secondly, I wonder where I was, where I've been, when this information was discovered? Thank you for making this video. Yeah...I subscribed. That's a given.
You stated clearly what I've been taught in school in a very short time. Thank you I'm out of school now but I still like learning about what makes the world go round that's why I search RUclips and the net as well as PBS programs to learn more. Thanks for your video series
Great stuff, John. This will be a welcome addition to my "roster" of played videos for my Biology class next fall (hopefully). Might I suggest you expand on this idea to demonstrate how the invention of the microscope led to the discovery of the Cell Theory? That's a direct standard in my home state of Florida, and I suspect it is in other states as well. There's a couple other cell theory videos out there, but, well...you can do better. Fingers crossed! Thanks again.
Have you seen our animation on major evolutionary transitions? That one might work for you. www.statedclearly.com/videos/what-caused-lifes-major-evolutionary-transitions/
Outstanding video production and editing of storyline. The facts presented were interesting, engaging and educational. Your narration is superb! Well done.
It was Nicolaas Hartsoeker who researched sperm first. Not antonio van leeuwenhoek. he just went with it and claimed that he was the first one. But originally it was Nicolaas hartsoeker who discovered it first.
It doesn't matter how knowledgeable you are in your field, you Americans are just unable to get right the Latin words you occasionally have to use (I'm referring to micrographia, no need to pronounce the first "i" like an anglophone would and while the accent is complicated because it was melodic in Latin, the closest approximation would have the accent on the first "a").
Ehrm, sorry for the nitpick, but it's kinda my thing... "-cule" is derived from a Latin diminutive suffix. So "animalcule" actually means "little animal". You can see it in "calculus" = little pebble (as used on an abacus), and "molecule" = "moles" + "-cule" or "little mass". Other than that, I really like these "ocean of photons" visualizations! It's the kind of thing I know must happen, but seeing it in action really lets me grok it.
So these advanced microscopes... can they take pictures? or you extrapolate the responses you get and build some sketches out of them? And if they do take pictures, do they have colors? I wouldn't mind if they do, but do they? And if they don't, why do we always see colors from creators talking about science if there are no colors? It is a creative process or exact science? And if they don't take colored pictures, why do we call this science? Cause it might just be a creative process. Extrapolating. Decent questions, I love science, hate creative processes scrambling science. That's TV, movies, creativity, not science. Science if beautiful, without colors. Why do we need them though? Dizzy? Yeah...
The key to efficiency is not mitigation, its to design with evolutionary processes in mind.. then at least you do the job properly once,,,,, instead of repeatedly running around with strips of duck tape there after....
It said ' microscopes the things that let us see viruses ' bit I understand the only one that can see viruses is electron microscope and then it's only dead virus. Raymond Rife was the only one with ' light ' microscope that could zoom in on live viruses.
When you say that photons are bigger than atoms or even viruses you are only refering to the wavelength of visible light right ? Great video keep up ! so much info compressed in 10min video
True, but he probably wanted to limit the information to be more directly related to the microscope topic. For someone actually learning how a microscope works for the first time, this is already mind blowing.
@@ncedwards1234 Agreed, I did think twice about mentioning it but thought it might be worth nipping that particular thing in the bud. I do love these Stated Clearly videos, though.
This video should have a better title. I wouldn't normally have clicked on this as I know how (at least early microscopes, as well as SEM, TEMs) work, but thought it would be fun to watch. Was I ever surprised when it got into the details of the most amazing modern microscopes that now exist or are under development. Compressing photons? Amazing.
This may be explained clearly but omits the most important microscope ever built. The Royal Raymond Rife No.3, which was 10,000 times more powerful than any other optical/light microscope ever built. Rife was also able "to shrink light" by using quartz prisms that split light into smaller waves/particles. Deliberately suppressed and erased from history because it is powerful enough to see "viruses" in LIVING action and not dead on a slide under an electron microscope where their origins and behaviour have been (deliberately) misunderstood/misconstrued. The truth is that bacteria and "viruses" of which we all have billions, are key components to our health, tissue repair and immune systems. Now, imagine with no previous knowledge at all, viewing a "virus" on a slide under an electron microscope is like seeing a still-photograph of hundreds of firemen attending a fire. Without being able to see what their actions are (because they are not moving - it's a photograph not a video), it would be very easy to assume that THEY are the CAUSE of the fire just because they are visible and in the location of the fire. Of course we know that they are fighting the fire and in the same way, the body creates "viruses" within cells in order to fight a toxin or pathogen that is damaging the body and like the fireman, "viruses" are not in any way shape or form the "cause" even though they have been seen surrounding a problem area. Rife's No.3 microscope allowed for the live viewing of the true nature of "viruses", which is why it has been suppressed and erased from history because if the truth was known, then the entire pharmaceutical/vaccine industry and the medical establishment would be exposed as fraudulent and brought to it's knees. This war on bacteria and viruses is as stupid and ridiculous as wanting to "cleanse" the oceans of this dangerous mass of "bacteria" called plankton, when we all now know that the tiny plankton are fundamental to life on earth!
Thank you I know 😢 it's been three years u posted this but 😢 I would love to see same reference for an assignment in the future thank you 😊 sir great job
So what's happening between the moment a photon is absorbed and the moment it's re-emitted? If you could slow down the quantum frames of our universe (if our universe even truly works that way) what is going on in that blink of a moment? Obviously using the right equations and punching in numbers where they should be gives us an accurate prediction of the future, but why? What is that math string actually represented by in the world, I'm so curious if it's a combination of wiggling stretching quantum blankets or not, and what it is between the quantum sheets that raises them in a fashion which is "energy"..
The part comparing the photon's wavelength to an atom shows a yellow sphere labeled "photon" which visually implies that the photon itself is larger than a virus
Absolutely fascinating. Had you thought that for millions and billions of years your atoms, those that form your body today, will remain in the universe after you die? You won’t even have the ones you have today in 10 years, they will be out in the universe in such short time even if you remain alive. It’s like the Adams that make you are only going through you.
yes But read this Later in the 16th century, Anton van Leeuwenhoek began polishing and grinding lenses when he discovered that certain shaped lenses increased an image’s size. The glass lenses that he created could enlarge an object many times. The quality of his lenses allowed him, for the first in history, to see the many microscopic animals, bacteria and intricate detail of common objects. Leeuwenhoek is considered the founder of the study of microscopy and an played a vital role in the development of cell theory. he is the father of the modern day microscope we have now. but it was Zacharias Jansen who created the Microscope first. He is seen as the Father of the microscope. but leeuwenhoek is seen as the father of the modern day Microscope we still use today. Its still a Dutch invention but there is some difference. Same with the Telescope. Telescope is a dutch invention as well. But Galileo perfected it. without seeing the original telescope created by Lipperhey. Who was a Dutch-German Spectacle maker. Both Leeuwenhoek and jansen where Spectacle makers was very popular back in those days.
We really do owe to all the inventors, scientist, doctors, and patients that helped develop technology and treatments for virus and bacteria that have plagued mankind.
i thought the gummy bear analogy was great! i was hoping a giant gummy bear would bounce off the target and crash into the detector to show how it can't be done if it's too large.
I just feel like I've watched 30 days of Science Lectures in 10 minutes
Doesn't it feel good?
would feel good only when you see in reality, but this is photoshop
Yes. I really enjoyed this!
I hope this video goes *viral*
I'll see myself out
Don't hope , act , share , everywhere
This is a very fine way to inform over the RUclips. Thank you, B Koller
69 likes keep it like thattttttttttttttttttttttt
Lol!
+
3 years of me being in College not getting why Light Microscopes couldn't help us see Viruses and now...THANK YOU !
From Robert hookes 7th generation great granddaughter you're welcome 😊
At first, I was like, if photon wavelength is the issue then why not just use smaller wavelengths? Like gamma rays for instance. Then I realized that gamma rays would just pass through the sample instead of being reflected, yielding no image. Well played, universe. Well played.
I believe that fact is essentially the definition of whether a frequency is disturbed by matter, isn't it? If a photon is "too small" for a molecular structure, it's because the structure disrupts the wave?
If you throw a basketball at a cheese grater, the energy of the ball will continue predictably (ignoring the classical thermodynamics of mass (which photons don't have) which would push the grater). But if you throw a grain of sand at a cheese grater, it will interact with the complex angles of the metal of the grater and bounce off at God knows what angle. In the case of light, that varied diffusion disrupts (absorbs/reflects), absorption being the disintegration into thermal energy?
I guess I'm not entirely sure why molecular structures interact with light at all. What is light reflection caused by if it isn't two masses colliding?
Wouldn't gamma rays destroy the sample? I mean, I don't think DNA reacts well to them.
@@Goreuncle yes, actually gamma are not an example of wavelength that would pass through, but larger, non-ionizing wavelengths would. The point of ionization essentially being both the determining factor in both relevant limits: the destruction of molecules and the demarcation of visible light.
We did discover what DNA was shaped like with x-rays didn't we? of course it was just a diffraction pattern but yeah.
😂
I think it’s insane how a channel this small can have this good quality! Great videos as always!
Could you imagine being the first to discover animalcules... I would be horrified for the rest of my life
but u will be oof
Especially if you realized that everything was coated in animalcules.
You dream about cat or dog... But you already have some friends since you born :D
*Can anyone explain to me Why one of the best channel on science videos get so little attention when a beauty video gets millions of views* !!!
*This channel Deserves more subs and Views*
This video is beauty too
That's how it goes.. trash gets to the top
And they so nicely explain things and don't talk down to us as if we were stupid for not knowing something ! I agree.
Because the average person is a moron and the social media in general is a gushing celebration of mediocrity.
Hans lipershey??
Great video again, Jon!
Just one remark to pay homage to peer-review: Animalcule means "little animal", from Latin animal + the diminutive suffix -culum.
Thanks, I added a correction in the video description.
You’re a great artist man!
This video *flu* over my head...
hehehehe
Lol!
The part on chemiscopes from 7:13 on is absolutely incredible!
As a med student I'm excited to witness the future use of this technology.
“Here we see the new guy in town”
This one killed me with laughter 🤣🤣🤣🤣
"A Brief History of Microscopes" would have been a more appropriate title.
10:22 it is just wrong to say photons are larger than atoms protein or viruses
The wavelength of visible light is larger
Yeah. This could have been explained in a better way. Visible light photons (200 nm max resolution) can't illuminate viruses (100nm size). If you reduce the wavelength by choosing uv ray wavelength photon or x-ray wavelength photon, the high energy of this photon will fry the organic sample.
Electron microscopes have resolution up to 0.02 nanometers.
(source - www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ryy07/what_is_the_smallest_object_we_can_identify/c49rw44/)
thanks ur right, photons r sub-atomic.
time stamp is 5:00 though
love that soft little "woosh" transition sound...
The things that only cats notice... 😸
1:20 Imagine the fact that he had to do to actually come up with this drawing. omg
TEŞEKKURLER ABI KONUYU HER SEYI SENLE ANLADIM ADAMIMSIN ABI IDOLUMSUN EYWALLAH ABIIMMMM
Such a beutiful, clear explanation about microscopes in general. So interesting and engaging!!
You are helping everybody!! I love this channel
Zacharias Janssen
Dutch spectacle-maker
Wow Truley amazing the ultra 4K HD 200% vision Inspection. i Think you should mention teh famous video game among us in your next video please and thank you
Anthonie van Leeuwenhoek was Dutch. He was a good friend of the painter Vermeer. (Girl with a Pearl Earring). I wonder why he sent those letters to England.
THIS WAS ABSOLUTELY MARVELOUS. I did not know we were in such a great development pathway! I kind of live as if the past is more interesting than this future/present, but I’m wrong! Your explanation is so crystal clear too, thanks for the content!
Cool video. One critique, At 4:52 you mention that the photon's wavelength is bigger than a virus, but also that a photon itself is bigger than a virus. The latter is not true and I feel might cause some confusion.
4:58 you said "photons are far larger than atoms" when thats not true if im not mistaken.
I think you should change that to "The wave length of photons are far larger than atoms". Otherwise your confusing people as youve done to me.
Please do correct me if im wrong.
No, he says "wavelength of a photon of visible light" immediately before and after that sentence. 4:50 Some photons are bigger some are smaller, but he is clearly talking about visible wavelengths, which are all too large.
@@onetwothree4148 Several times it's denoted that photos have size or diameter which they don't. Or course we know the connotation is the wavelength, not size.
@@onetwothree4148 The image also suggests that a photon is larger than even a virus, it makes me think that maybe he didnt do it by mistake. Which is also why id like him to provide some explanation. Either correct me or correct himself but im sure hes probably refering to the wave length not the size of the photon.
Photons have less mass than even an electron and atoms have at least 1 electron.
@@jevonmcpherson8054 the explanation is way more confusing and complicated if you draw a photon as a wave instead of a particle. He mentioned multiple times that he was talking about the size of the wavelength, and he did preface the explanation as not being entirely literal. Describing a visible photon as a massless entity that interacts with matter as though it has a specific spatial size is basically true and a very useful heuristic
Jevon, when creating this video we went back and forth on how to model light. In the spirit of George Box, we finally decided the large particle model was most useful in this context. We have a note on screen explaining this when we first introduce the "photon as a particle" model. I understand your critique about bouncing back between wavelength and size but once I established with the viewer that we're going with a particle model in this context, I felt it was fine to talk about photons as having size. The times I mention its "wavelength" are really just nods to the people who I knew would be upset with the particle model. Maybe what I thought was a nod, just ended up making it worse.
In the future, I'd like to do a series on light: how it has been modeled over time, what we currently think it is, and so on. This animation wasn't the place for all of that.
I'm stunned that this video even exists. Secondly, I wonder where I was, where I've been, when this information was discovered? Thank you for making this video. Yeah...I subscribed. That's a given.
2:46 can you find the coronavirus?
6:08 didnt know Roger Federer was into microscopes
i miss going outside
i didn't care if it rans
dam u virus
You stated clearly what I've been taught in school in a very short time. Thank you I'm out of school now but I still like learning about what makes the world go round that's why I search RUclips and the net as well as PBS programs to learn more. Thanks for your video series
Great stuff, John. This will be a welcome addition to my "roster" of played videos for my Biology class next fall (hopefully). Might I suggest you expand on this idea to demonstrate how the invention of the microscope led to the discovery of the Cell Theory? That's a direct standard in my home state of Florida, and I suspect it is in other states as well. There's a couple other cell theory videos out there, but, well...you can do better. Fingers crossed! Thanks again.
Have you seen our animation on major evolutionary transitions? That one might work for you. www.statedclearly.com/videos/what-caused-lifes-major-evolutionary-transitions/
7:33 My brain just turned into soup
Outstanding video production and editing of storyline. The facts presented were interesting, engaging and educational. Your narration is superb! Well done.
It was Nicolaas Hartsoeker who researched sperm first. Not antonio van leeuwenhoek. he just went with it and claimed that he was the first one. But originally it was Nicolaas hartsoeker who discovered it first.
Turkish Subtitle please
This is such an underrated channel. I am gonna do a thing.
It doesn't matter how knowledgeable you are in your field, you Americans are just unable to get right the Latin words you occasionally have to use (I'm referring to micrographia, no need to pronounce the first "i" like an anglophone would and while the accent is complicated because it was melodic in Latin, the closest approximation would have the accent on the first "a").
WOW !!!
I feel so much smarter now.....
An absolute gem of a resource for easily digested scientific information Thank you.
Ehrm, sorry for the nitpick, but it's kinda my thing... "-cule" is derived from a Latin diminutive suffix. So "animalcule" actually means "little animal". You can see it in "calculus" = little pebble (as used on an abacus), and "molecule" = "moles" + "-cule" or "little mass".
Other than that, I really like these "ocean of photons" visualizations! It's the kind of thing I know must happen, but seeing it in action really lets me grok it.
Ahhh you picked that nit before I could : )
Thanks, I added a correction in the video description.
So these advanced microscopes... can they take pictures? or you extrapolate the responses you get and build some sketches out of them?
And if they do take pictures, do they have colors? I wouldn't mind if they do, but do they? And if they don't, why do we always see colors from creators talking about science if there are no colors? It is a creative process or exact science?
And if they don't take colored pictures, why do we call this science? Cause it might just be a creative process. Extrapolating.
Decent questions, I love science, hate creative processes scrambling science. That's TV, movies, creativity, not science. Science if beautiful, without colors. Why do we need them though?
Dizzy? Yeah...
The key to efficiency is not mitigation, its to design with evolutionary processes in mind.. then at least you do the job properly once,,,,, instead of repeatedly running around with strips of duck tape there after....
As a Chemist, this is now my most favorite video.
Perfect, I think my Biology assignment is complete
Yay another stated clearly video, there is so much good info in this wowee
It's been a long time! Great video
The "Building A Seeing Machine" section of the video needs to be updated, photon's are not larger than viruses or atoms
I will use my microscope and get my lay’s chip and look at it in the microscope😅
It said ' microscopes the things that let us see viruses ' bit I understand the only one that can see viruses is electron microscope and then it's only dead virus.
Raymond Rife was the only one with ' light ' microscope that could zoom in on live viruses.
Animalcules is fuckin fantastic terminology! Should have kept it!
When you say that photons are bigger than atoms or even viruses you are only refering to the wavelength of visible light right ?
Great video keep up ! so much info compressed in 10min video
Yes wavelength
Please comment about chemiscope illumination wavelength selection for specific imaging requirements.
Am a business analyst but after watching this video I feel like a Microbiologist 😁😁
dahil sa activity, papanoorin ko to kahit little women yung pinapanood ko rn.😭
We fully understand only bacteria, not viruses, the theory behind them it's still unclear.
Idk why the term “animalcules” didn’t stick but I wish it would have 😂
No kids here?
i recently saw this at school and i cannot stop laughing at 1:57 , it caught me so off guard 😭
Hey class 👋
At 3:44, the retina senses and reports light at certain wavelengths. It’s the brain that assigns colour.
True, but he probably wanted to limit the information to be more directly related to the microscope topic. For someone actually learning how a microscope works for the first time, this is already mind blowing.
@@ncedwards1234 Agreed, I did think twice about mentioning it but thought it might be worth nipping that particular thing in the bud. I do love these Stated Clearly videos, though.
No portraits of Robert Hook. Hmm I wonder why. 😉
size of photons dude photons is not particle its electromagnetic waves
Oversimplified physics somewhat misleading
Strain is such a weak word for how it’s used
Shame there is no real pictures of covid though haha but lies get funding
Why don't they find something that will kill viruses
If the photon is bigger than the electron and atom how can it excite an electron present in an atom🤔
This new types of microscopes are fucking awesome
This video should have a better title. I wouldn't normally have clicked on this as I know how (at least early microscopes, as well as SEM, TEMs) work, but thought it would be fun to watch. Was I ever surprised when it got into the details of the most amazing modern microscopes that now exist or are under development. Compressing photons? Amazing.
I've liked quite a number of your videos so I decided I need to subscribe!
You really do explain complex matters clearly. Thanks!
big help bro gave me smtn to use to start a project of the microscope
Do not EVER act or represent youswlf as smarter 0:23
Fantastic explaining a very difficult subject to the simplest. Thanks for the video.
😁
Who downvoted this? This is a very informative video! So cool, thanks for teaching me and making it entertaining.
The physics part is not cool, even misleading
This may be explained clearly but omits the most important microscope ever built. The Royal Raymond Rife No.3, which was 10,000 times more powerful than any other optical/light microscope ever built. Rife was also able "to shrink light" by using quartz prisms that split light into smaller waves/particles. Deliberately suppressed and erased from history because it is powerful enough to see "viruses" in LIVING action and not dead on a slide under an electron microscope where their origins and behaviour have been (deliberately) misunderstood/misconstrued. The truth is that bacteria and "viruses" of which we all have billions, are key components to our health, tissue repair and immune systems. Now, imagine with no previous knowledge at all, viewing a "virus" on a slide under an electron microscope is like seeing a still-photograph of hundreds of firemen attending a fire. Without being able to see what their actions are (because they are not moving - it's a photograph not a video), it would be very easy to assume that THEY are the CAUSE of the fire just because they are visible and in the location of the fire. Of course we know that they are fighting the fire and in the same way, the body creates "viruses" within cells in order to fight a toxin or pathogen that is damaging the body and like the fireman, "viruses" are not in any way shape or form the "cause" even though they have been seen surrounding a problem area. Rife's No.3 microscope allowed for the live viewing of the true nature of "viruses", which is why it has been suppressed and erased from history because if the truth was known, then the entire pharmaceutical/vaccine industry and the medical establishment would be exposed as fraudulent and brought to it's knees. This war on bacteria and viruses is as stupid and ridiculous as wanting to "cleanse" the oceans of this dangerous mass of "bacteria" called plankton, when we all now know that the tiny plankton are fundamental to life on earth!
Well my mind is blown... Or maybe that sensation was my brain getting a new wrinkle? Either way, great video (and excellent channel!)
The first thing I saw through microscope 🔬 was the onion's cell in my Biology class. We were studying about cell, nucleus etc.,
you guys are literally saving and helping me soo much. If your a science major in college, YOU NEED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THEM NOW!!!
Thank you I know 😢 it's been three years u posted this but 😢 I would love to see same reference for an assignment in the future thank you 😊 sir great job
So what's happening between the moment a photon is absorbed and the moment it's re-emitted? If you could slow down the quantum frames of our universe (if our universe even truly works that way) what is going on in that blink of a moment? Obviously using the right equations and punching in numbers where they should be gives us an accurate prediction of the future, but why? What is that math string actually represented by in the world, I'm so curious if it's a combination of wiggling stretching quantum blankets or not, and what it is between the quantum sheets that raises them in a fashion which is "energy"..
The part comparing the photon's wavelength to an atom shows a yellow sphere labeled "photon" which visually implies that the photon itself is larger than a virus
Thank you so much for such a nice video. before watching this i have not known about scanning probe microscope
06:58 - I can't even imagine the amount of raw brain power that is represented, makes my simple brain hurt.
Absolutely fascinating. Had you thought that for millions and billions of years your atoms, those that form your body today, will remain in the universe after you die? You won’t even have the ones you have today in 10 years, they will be out in the universe in such short time even if you remain alive. It’s like the Adams that make you are only going through you.
Those folks in the back room are pretty smart! Thanks for sharing the video and best of luck!
Great video continue
Hi
Lol what cheap photoshop, entire video
lovely animations, man. great job
Gummy bears example was genius
Nice animation and explanation.
Please make a video about quantum physics . Please Try to tell in detail
Best channel on RUclips▶️▶️▶️▶️
Please do a video on climate change. You do a great job explaining complex issues clearly. Climate change could use your skill set please
I'm just wondering here if they built a much more complex microscope that shrunk electrons
I didnt quite get what is possible using a chemiscope that is not possible with a scanning electron microscope. Can someone explain?
Cracking video mate
Wasn't it Zacharias Janssen who invented the first microscope in 1590?
yes But read this
Later in the 16th century, Anton van Leeuwenhoek began polishing and grinding lenses when he discovered that certain shaped lenses increased an image’s size.
The glass lenses that he created could enlarge an object many times. The quality of his lenses allowed him, for the first in history, to see the many microscopic animals, bacteria and intricate detail of common objects.
Leeuwenhoek is considered the founder of the study of microscopy and an played a vital role in the development of cell theory.
he is the father of the modern day microscope we have now. but it was Zacharias Jansen who created the Microscope first. He is seen as the Father of the microscope. but leeuwenhoek is seen as the father of the modern day Microscope we still use today. Its still a Dutch invention but there is some difference. Same with the Telescope. Telescope is a dutch invention as well. But Galileo perfected it. without seeing the original telescope created by Lipperhey. Who was a Dutch-German Spectacle maker. Both Leeuwenhoek and jansen where Spectacle makers was very popular back in those days.
We really do owe to all the inventors, scientist, doctors, and patients that helped develop technology and treatments for virus and bacteria that have plagued mankind.
i thought the gummy bear analogy was great! i was hoping a giant gummy bear would bounce off the target and crash into the detector to show how it can't be done if it's too large.
0:48 a point not a lota people think about
Well made! Thank you!