Newton vs Huygens: corpuscular vs wave models of light explained and refuted

"What is light ?" was a key question for science in the 17th century. Two scientists - Newton and Huygens had opposing views. This video examines those views and how they explained various light behaviours.

And thanks to Chris Ferry for the great title idea.

If you like this video, please press the LIKE and SHARE with your peers. And please add a COMMENT to let me know I have helped you.
Follow me
facebook: @physicshigh
twitter: @physicshigh

[cwj]

It was interesting to learn that Newton described the different colored lights in terms of size - not a far jump from there to wavelengths.

[Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

I find it odd that Newton or Huygens never came up with the idea of light being a wave with particle characteristics when the absorption and emission takes place. Spherical 4π geometry will naturally form a three-dimensional process (three-dimensional space) that has to be squared r² if the process is relative to the surface of the sphere. This could give us a reason why so much is squared in physics, t², c², e², ψ² and velocity v² as in kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy. This process would form an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future continuously unfolding with the exchange of photon ∆E=hf energy. Also it would explain why the spheres only move in the forward direction!

[koenraad]

It is beautiful how Huygens' wave principle explains several optical phenomena. I never understood why we cannot have both types of waves (longitudinal and transverse) in vacuum. An Earth quake causes primary (longitudinal) and secondary (transverse) surface waves. The primary wave velocity is higher than the secondary wave velocity. I published on a generalization of Maxwell's electrodynamics theory that describes three types of waves in vacuum: transverse electromagnetic, longitudinal electro(scalar)magnetic and longitudinal superluminal 'Phi' waves (electric field is minus the gradient of Phi, and the 'magnetic field' is minus the time derivative of Phi, where 'Phi' is the electric potential). Although Huygens assumed incorrectly that visible light is a longitudinal wave phenomenon, that does not mean that longitudinal waves in vacuum do not exist, and should have a velocity much higher than 'c' (the speed of the transverse waves in vacuum). After all, we do not have a clear understanding about the physical nature of Louis de Broglie's pilot wave in vacuum, which should have a velocity much much higher than 'c'. And what do you know: recent measurements of the propagation speed of the Coulomb field (the near electric field) shows Coulomb's electric field propagates with a velocity mucher higher than 'c', in agreement with my classical electrodynamics theory. So Huygens' suggestion of 'aetheric' longitudinal waves was not incorrect, although such waves are not the light that we see. I am Dutch, standing on Huygens' shoulders, and Newton is my hero, the greatest scientist of all time. Final remark: a "constant" TEM wave velocity 'c' (and an upper bound for all physical velocity) is a dogmatic postulate. Constant 'c' is NOT a law of physics, because theoretical upper bounds or theoretical lower bounds (regardless the theoretical background) are dogmatic non-empirical suggestions, that can't be verified/falsified by experiments. Einstein understood this very well, so he duped the 'c' velocity barrier (boundary) a 'postulate', which actually means DOGMA, and certainly does not mean LAW.

[senukakariyawasam]

You single handedly moved my mark up to an A in physics. Thank you!!!

[mhub]

Very informative and well- presented video. Thank you.

[hemantkumar]

Beautifully explained.. you are a gem ..

[hugdragon]

i thought the wave model kinda explained polarisation?

[MohammadAli-sgbj]

Such great content, really appreciate your efforts

[superlambmilkshake]

Can you please provide the link to the "light as a wave animation"?? @PhysicsHigh

[value]

So Newton thought light had charge and a mass.?? If that is the case, he can explain diffraction using attraction (gravitational/magnetic) between light corpuscle and the slit?

[CHAOK]

thank you this really helped out a lot!

[JeshuSavesEndTimeMinistryC]

Sagnac interference effect
hence revalidation of Ether

[annettebertora]

Quanta = Electric /magnetic think you should have mentioned M. Planck,

[ShivanshRana]

Huygens wavefront theory was able to explain the wave nature but Newton was. Only able to explain the particle nature, but in reality light behaves both as light as well as wave, while particle is at rest it more likely behaves like a particle but when in motion it behaves mores as a wave.

[renevandort]

Christiaan Huygens had al eerder gezegd dat het .licht uit de golven bestaat zoals electronen en volgens mij bestaat het licht uit de electronen.

[beachboardfan]

Learned about the duality of light 15ish years ago, still doesnt sit right with me...

[kinddata]

Light is such a paradox to me. Say, two people where in a library, reading books under an entangled light source. Would they see, what each other is reading, overlaying on their eyes?

[victormaxwellpeters]

How could a genius like Sir Issac Netwon miss those when a layman could make out.

[nshaji]

Francis Bacon died well before Newton was born. So he did not oppose Newton's corpuscular theory. Probably you meant Hooke