I didn't understand the Ultraviolet catastrophe - until now!

Let's explore how when classical physics tried to explain the black body radiation graph (Rayleigh Jean's Law), it eventually led to a catastrophe. An ultraviolet catastrophe.

Chapters:
00:00 We thought Physics was complete
01:11 What's the issue with hot glowing things? (Black Body Radiation)
02:50 Standing waves are awesome!
05:30 Jean's cube is even more awesome!
07:56 Nothing is impossible (If you break it down)
09:32 Rediscovering equipartition theorem
13:26 Boltzmann & Maxwell are awesome! (What is temperature?)
14:35 Applying Equipartition theorem to light. (The disaster begins)
16:19 The last piece of the puzzle (Standing waves in 2D/3D)
18:24 The ultraviolet catastrophe (Rayleigh Jean's law - intuition)
20:48 Complete intuition for the ultraviolet catastrophe!

Want the math? Here are a few really good channels

This video was sponsored by SquareSpace

[nitkis]

I have watched a lot of popular science Youtube. You sir, are far the best. I feel like most people just say the same things the same way, with no real thought put on the pedagogy . For the first time I feel like have some grasp on many of the famous topics of physics on the level of intuition.

[stormlord]

If you were my physics professor, I'd fail class so I could take it again and again. You are a brilliant, charismatic and enthusiastic teacher. I just can't stop listening to you. And even better, I understand concepts that I could not as a layman over the years. And the way you phrase question after question, it shows a deep appreciation for curiosity. A mark of great intelligence. You are simply amazing!

[ace-spot]

Just came from school and this banger dropped, my entertainment for today is done.

[asif]

Outstanding explanation. This is of great benefit to many who couldn't get their head around this

[rajanvenkatesh]

Wonderful! I am 60 years old and am enjoying being reminded of topics first encountered 45 years ago. And I am getting more clarity through these videos. I suppose the student in me never ever left.

[SamiAhmad]

I was waiting for the "until I read Feynman Lectures." And as always, amazing work!

[Bildgesmythe]

You have such a gift for explaining complex subjects in such a clear way. Thank you!

[antithese]

I would like to thank you for taking the time to make 3 videos explaining this, I don't believe that a single video would have explained this complicated topic in such a great manner as these 3 separate videos

[RV_version]

Thank you so much...!

I graduated 3 decades ago and never dug into this gap in my understanding and I finally get a good intuitive picture...you explained it so well!

[volfan]

I’ve been looking for this sort of intuitive explanation for quite a while. Thanks!

[krypton]

I have watched quite a few of your videos now, and, lets face it, they're brilliant. This way of making sense of impossible subjects is just... well brilliant really

[alexanderschwarz]

I'm looking forward to watching the video later! I'm very excited.

[DeepanManoharan]

Wonderful explanation. I think I finally got an intuition to this idea which has previously eluded me. Thank you! 🙏

[axl]

Incredible! I can hardly wait until your explanation of the solution to the puzzle arrives!

[severeon]

I watch a lot of this sorta stuff, and you are the most effective science communicator for concepts in physics as a whole. My 15yo understands your videos which is honestly remarkable

[leehouchin]

I admit, this really blew my mind. This was really well presented; it is so easy to understand .
Bravo!

[DM-joko]

Thank you for explaining things so well! (Great animations btw)

[rxotmfrxotmf]

Thank you very much, sir, for your very clear explanation of the UV catastrophe. My Physics lecturers just glossed over this, and I was left scratching my head over why Planck's explanation of quantization was the solution to the conundrum. Now I am much more enlightened. Well done!

[GrouchierThanThou]

I think you should have mentioned that the predictions of the classical model fit the observations at high wave lengths very well. This adds plausibility to the classical reasoning. It also clarifies why it is called the UV catastrophe: on the (far) infrared side of the spectrum the classical model works pretty well, but the farther you go into the UV side of the spectrum, the worse the classical predictions get.

[jaytechnicaldrama]

Hello FloatHeadPhysics !!!
I have a few question about Einstein's Special Relativity Theory

Q1) Einstein says that moving and stationary perspectives are totally correct and valid।
And whenever Length Contraction happens Time Dilation also happens।
Now comes the key part of the question-
Suppose K is moving in a rocket at very high speed and B is a stationary Person, from B's perspective K is moving, so B will notice that K and his rocket is contracted and K's clock is moving slower than B's clock।
But, From K's perspective B and all stationary things are moving backwards and all those are length contracted and as all stationary objects are length contracted from K's perspective then their time is also DILATED from K's perspective।
But, IN REAL K's time is dilated and k is aging in less speed than B।
But, K says NO B's time is dilated which is wrong, which means...
Is moving perspective invalid?

Q2) Light Speed is same in all inertial frames according to Einstein, Maxwell etc...
Even when we move we see light's speed the same but we should see light's speed slower when we move, but even when we move the light's speed is the same for us because of time dilation and Length Contraction means we can say that the formula to calculate the times time dilation and length contraction is-
√(C/C-SPOV)=TD=LC
And TD×LC×(C-SPOV)= Light's Speed in an inertial frame
C=Light's Velocity
SPOV=Stationary Perspective's Object's Velocity
TD=Time Dilation
LC=Length Contraction
Now for example C is 100 and SPOV is 75 So,
√(100/100-75)=2=TD=LC
So, here Time is 2 times slower than normal (stationary time) and Length is 2 times Shorter then normal
And here
2×2×(100-75)=100 so from the Object's perspective the light's velocity is the same (100)
Now, what if the light is travelling in the opposite direction of object
√[100/100(-75)]=0.32 times
(Length Expansion and Time becoming faster than normal)
Here, you can see in both the situations Object's speed is the same but light changed its direction to opposite direction which changes time dilation and length contraction (even when the Object's speed is same) okay!!!
But what if the object is travelling in a particular direction with velocity again the same(75)and in right of the object a light beam is travelling(100) in the same direction of the object but in left a light beam is travelling (100)in the opposite direction of the object, which time dilation and length contraction will happen (2 times or 0.32 times? If 2 times happen then the left beam will not be equal to light's speed from Object's perspective and if 0.32 times happen then the right beam will not be equal to the light's speed from Object's perspective)
And you will notice that the Object's velocity is the same in all the situations (inertial frame)
So, here even in inertial frame light's speed is changing and if light's speed is changing then the motion is detectable as from moving person's perspective light's speed is different from stationary person's perspective।।।

Please clear these doubts!!!
(Please make a video)

And if someone knows the answer then please tell me!!!!