Great video, you deserve credit. Awesome phenomenon, appreciate you sharing it (one way or another).

Found your video: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/jaiCmIlnp5ihrKM.html

more than a year... nice credits they gave you :P

TheHue's SciTech basically

Photonic boom!

Photonic boom

It's basically a sonic boom but for light, yes.

That's what I came here to comment 😂

@@sonacphotos hAhA i uNdeRsTaNd pHysIcS tOo

@@sonacphotos Sorry that's spelled Scrodinger's Chat

@@AdmiralBob NaH

It's spelled Cherenkov. Period.

@@AdmiralBob it's spelled both "Schrodinger" and "Scrodinger" at the same time until you look it up on Google.

😂😂😂🤣🤣

Yeh😂😂😂

gorcrow I dont get it, could you explain?

@@xterminal5997 It's been a while but I cannot leave you without an answer. So well - radiation and mutations. :P

Sheyman thank you

Dr Lincoln should have his own channel

I also enjoy Nick Lucid over at Science Asylum for the humor as well. :D

The Science Asylum is the best but he doesn't have many subs

That's interesting, because I feel the opposite. I check out his videos maybe once a year, and they all have the same problems. The implication that these subject can be understood in any way without going though the math is simply damaging. There are at least a dozen simplification which can (and do) result in people drawing the wrong conclusions. I'd expect better.

How does not caring how a guys name is pronounced considered a short attention span

10 minutes is long attention span you think?

Both of you people replying are morons. Mark meant he wants longer videos than this which explains physics concepts in full detail

@@kiyoponnn how do you know this, do you work for the guy or something?

Ian Frost it's just common sense. Obviously he means to say he wants longer, more detailed physics videos.

Professor Susskind is even better and actually gives a full mathematical breakdown of virtually every field of physics at a graduate or post-grad level :)

The air is glowing!

@@postvideo97 Not great but not horrifying. Just like a chest x-ray. Nothing to worry about, comrade.

@@LaserBlowFish good thing we have az5 button

I came here to find your comment!

@@postvideo97 You're delusional. RBMK reactors CANNOT explode.

cit. "The council is satisfied"

Done that as a student during my PhD, first year. I'll remember it all my life. To me it was the same level of my first total solar eclipse. Such vertigo... although vertigo when you stand on top of the pool is kind of normal, call of the void is pretty strong up here, and as deadly as on the edge of any cliff... Little big story after that: At that time the terrorist counter measures were getting stronger and stronger, thus not anybody could enter the nuclear reactor anymore, even students. Most of us were just "using" the reactor. We didn't need to go inside. Builders drilled holes in that reactor for a reason. Those let the neutrons out, not the people in, it's not rocket science but still makes pretty fireworks. So yeah, organized visit inside were a thing, allowing to see Cerenkov effect "live". But those visits were not exactly the kind you could advertise. Thus eventually, the boss had to take the decision: no more visits (officially). That felt during my second year, thus i was both super glad i decided to register soon and super lucky to be picked among the every visit candidates. I understand the decision of closing it, i agree it had to be tacken. I also know a few exceptions to such rules doesn't break their effect. The idea is that people realize there is a strong security, so that they don't get funny ideas. "It's not enough to convert a PhD student to be able to enter the reactor and do shit, so let's give up". End ot the story, safety works. If there are a few exceptions, it still works perfectly fine. It would be way too dangerous to take all these risks and fail miserably at the end just because the exceptionnal visit allows for more controls. Anyway... As soon as i knew the rule was in place, i HAD to break it. Not for myself: i already had the chance to see it. But for my colleagues. Understand me: if you learn about the next solar eclipse, but government forbid the area because too many people freaks out or get blind... what would you do? Obviously, still get there. Bring your kids and friends. Leave at home that crazy aunt who was considering using that time to recharge her energy stones. Give the others the appropriate eye protections. So, nuclear reactor visits... during my second year, we had this big international course i registered to. Most of my colleagues and myself were fellow PhD students working in similar super-cool big ass facilities (nuclear reasearch reactors, synchrotrons, you name it), sharing experience and lecture over "the science of super-cool big ass facilities" (not the actual title, but close enough, i don't think it mentioned the science part). I went to the head of the "communication" team of the facility. Let her know honestly what i was aiming for. She was a great person willing to share the knowledge and the enthusiasm, thus i knew she would be an ally. She had the perfect solution. She made a suggestion for us to visit "not the reactor, but experiment setup #11, over the hundred one of them, because #11 is totally cool and not often visited, and this has nothing to do with the fact that it's the only one which actually needs to be inside the reactor. Oh, and while we are at it, we can let them have a look at the pool." Nobody's was fooled obviously. Everybody just played along. After the visit, some of my colleagues were actually crying while thanking me for the "organisation". Never been so proud. Also, turned out experiment #11 was indeed totally cool. They were the guys working with the "cool neutrons"... litterally. Neutrons which were coolled... by gravity... ever seen a parabolic beam of particules coming out of a nuclear reactor where some of them are going "fast than light", but still twenty meters away some others are just falling down like a lob tennis ball, and you catch them before they bounce? That level of cool. Unfortunately were not allowed to put our hand under it, i would have love to "feel the mass" of a neutron beam, i'm not quite sure how much unsafe that would have been (cool neutrons are chilled man, not every thing nuclear is dangerous). Physic just awesome. I wish more people could see it. Big thumbs up to your dad. Bringing the kids to places were they are absolutely notsupposed to be... is a must ;-)

Ah, one of the rare occasions being a gen-x was cool, used to just say I was a student doing research and walked in... Whatever guard there was really didn't want to hear an explanation....

Second that vote!

It’s luminal

What is it. I mean how do mechanical and non-technical transverse way behave exactly the same

Quit it. No, it's not, explained above.

Čau

And Serbian too.

Malay always uses the letter C as a 'ch' as in 'choke', although I like the accent marker in Serbian and Czech.

Are you talking about choka chola?

Ты верн. Ч=СН

thus the second spelling is the proper English transliteration.

ч

ч

Красива

@@Aochso да

Fotonic boom

It's exactly like a sonic boom. An object traveling through a medium faster than the speed of waves in that medium.

I was thinking the same thing. The photon cone reminds me of the sonic cone.

The trick is to create a sonic boom in space.

@@mr.h4267 ...but you can't make a sonic boom in space.

The fundamentals of the Doppler effect and supersonic shockwaves are all properties of wave mechanics. In the same way that waves on the beach, traffic on the roadways, and data on the internet all show the same behaviors. They are all descriptions of large amounts of smaller units, at higher energy, passing through a crowded medium.

@@LogicalNiko Bazinga.

Yes and no, it does start with the phoneme "Ch" as you rightly say, but the proper spelling is Cerenkov. This is called Romanization for a reason, you are ignoring Latin. if you want to convey the sound "Cherenkov" you should spell it "Cerenkov". The "Ch" makes no sense for someone who speaks Latin based or heavily Latin influenced languages, for example in Italian the name Celentano (pronounced Chelentano), in Romanian you have the word sky "Cer" (Cher), the bread Ciabatta (Chiabatta), etc. these phonemes are Latin, it makes perfect sense that they don't make sense to a Russian, but trust me as a Latin languages speaker, if you want to say "Cherenkov" spell it "Cerenkov".

@@eleSDSU Thank you for the insight. Although, I am not an expert, online romanization tools return "Chyeryenkov".

A full explanation, like Dr. Lincoln said, is quite complicated. You are going to need a graduate text on electrodynamics.

@@tuele4302 But he did a great job on introducing the concept of light slowing down in a refractive medium, without describing every complexity. A similar approach (if possible) with this topic would be appreciated.

The reason light slows down in a medium is because of the interaction between the incoming photon and the electrons in the atoms of the medium. Together, they all add up to a composite wave that, as a whole, moves at a slower speed, even though there are intermediate force carriers and virtual particles at work at the regular speed of "light" aka information. We only see the sum. Now I'm only an armchair physicist, so disclaimers and all that, but if you think about it, what you have is a shock cone, like a sonic boom, but imagine that the air is loosely filled (not packed solid) with ping pong balls tied together with springs that want to vibrate at a certain resonance, based on how dense they are, and the jet making the sonic boom comes in and stirs them up. The initial sonic boom will knock them back with a very powerful explosive force, but they will soon spring back after the dissipate their energy to their neighbors. Now, what would that sound like if you were listening to the chorus of them all vibrating at once? A certain resonant frequency would prevail, and that just so happens to be blue. I think Sixty Symbols did an episode on Cerenkov radiation as well, plus you have a search box up there in your browser if you really want to know. ;)

one can say that, but without boom :)

Quantum boom?

@@filipgren6091 Yes with boom. The "boom" is luminal instead of sonic.

@@seattleitefpv so, boom, onomatopoeia: 'loud, deep, resonant sound', refers also to light in other meanings than a metaphor?

@@filipgren6091 So if you really want to get pedantic, a boom is a sudden and intense burst of acoustic waves that overwhelms the senses. The OP's analogy was just that -- an analogy. There is no sonic boom per se because the waves involved here are not sound waves, but the blue glow is the equivalent phenomenon for light, i.e. electromagnetic waves.

I once have been given a guided tour through the FRM I in Munich while it was still in operation. The glow around the core was one of the most beautiful things I have seen in physics. Swimming pool reactors are quite a sight to see.

Yes, the same way you call Chekhov, but in other way proper Celentano is Челентано (Chelentano) than in should be Келентано (Целентано).

That would be Tjerenkov if transliterated into Danish. I just checked the Wikipedia (tjekkede Wikipediaen) and it checks out.

I studied Russian years ago, spent three months in Moscow in 1972, and you’re absolutely right; it’s Cherenkov. I have to say that in my humble opinion, the Cyrillic alphabet is better than ours! 🐻🇬🇧

Maybe the name was written like the Czech author Karel Čapek? So Russian and Czech way of writing was mixed up. I very often see Karel Čapek written Karel Capek, but never Karel Chapek, although his name is pronounced with a 'Ch'.

@@typograf62 no Tj = Ć, that's a tad softer than č (Ch)

and Tchaikovsky is also wrong. because when you listen to the russian pronounciation, you'll hear that it should be written "Tchikovsky", without the 'a'

Tcherenkov

probably one of the purest things i've ever seen is how pleased he was with himself after that joke

69 likes on comment *Nice*

The reason why girls called scientists pervert is that 😂😂😂

@ScienceNinjaDude Still it is not clear, what happen for example if an electron moving at 0.9c in the vacuum pass near a unique molecule of water, is some photon emitted as we are to some extent in water now? I guess the answer is "it is a lot of complicated formulae, but in the end it works this way"

Based on Maxwell's laws, a charged particle will emit electro-magnetic radiation when it accelerates.

@@pifdemestre7066 if the charged particle was going slower than the speed of light in the medium you don't get what is shown at around 5:51, the circles would instead be inside one another and you just get regular non-cherenkov radiation. Only when the particles go faster you generate the coherent wavefront (spheres lined up), the cone, which acts like a sonic boom for light. For the same reason it wouldn't work for a single molecule of water, you need a lot of molecules all radiating together to get the strong, measurable blue light.

That is what Lincoln was supposed to explain, instead of spending time on the irrelevant spelling of the scientist's name.

It's like the bow wave of a ship or the sonic boom of a plane travelling faster than the speed of sound. When the plane goes slower than the speed of sound, no more shock wave.

The animation doesn't show it, but wherever the circles intersect, there's destructive interference. So in the non-cherenkov case, you'd have all the circles overlapping and interfearing with each other's emissions and no radiation would be produced.

@@SpaghettiToaster This is incorrect. The mechanism for Cherenkov is constructive interference. Where the rings overlap is constructive, not destructive. It also acts like a phased array emitter in the sense that it creates a coherent emission.

If there was constructive interference where the rings meet, everything would be radiating light at all times, since the circles always overlap whenever chared particles move in a dielectric medium.

​@@SpaghettiToaster It is correct that there would be destructive interference, but your explanation to why is wrong. When waves are represented by circles, you usually put the ring = wave top. Then to find a wave bottom, you have to go out ½ wavelength from the wave top ring. It's hard to imagine with this simple visualisation, that's clearly not optimized to show destructive interference. A better one would use gray for background, then white for top and black for bottom. But as a guideline, if you cannot draw a line which always has a top ring nearby, there is no constructive interference. If there is no clear constructive interference, it could be only destructive or a mixture of constructive + destructive interference. This usually result in waves too weak to detect.

The Sun's inner region, the radiative zone, is an incredibly dense volume of plasma. A photon generated by a fusion event in the Sun's core ping-pongs around the radiative zone in what is a 'random walk' This is why light from the center of the Sun takes hundreds of thousands of years to escape to the convective zone. Water, air and even solid matter are no more substantial than vacuum compared to the radiative zone.

Right, that plasma is opaque (if I understand correctly), so Cerenkov radiation doesn't really apply.

I didn’t realize photons in the sun’s core take so long to leave.

yep, photons don't get a chance to travel very far. per solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/interior.shtml "The radiative zone extends outward from the outer edge of the core to the interface layer or tachocline at the base of the convection zone (from 25% of the distance to the surface to 70% of that distance). The radiative zone is characterized by the method of energy transport - radiation. The energy generated in the core is carried by light (photons) that bounces from particle to particle through the radiative zone. Although the photons travel at the speed of light, they bounce so many times through this dense material that an individual photon takes about a million years to finally reach the interface layer. The density drops from 20 g/cm³ (about the density of gold) down to only 0.2 g/cm³ (less than the density of water) from the bottom to the top of the radiative zone. The temperature falls from 7,000,000° C to about 2,000,000° C over the same distance."

Well, from what I've just learned in this video, Cerenkov radiation happens in a non-conductive medium. Unfortunately, the sun is a giant ball of blazing plasma, and plasma is technically conductive (it's a literal soup of charged particles). So my guess is that, no, the Sun's inner region does not emit Cerenkov radiation

There's graphite on the ground!

@@buckmeintheash6923 is delusional, get him to the infirmary.

@@buckmeintheash6923 don't be silly. RBMK reactors don't explode comrade.

Hellstorm Cerberus You didn’t see graphite. YOU DIDEENT!!

*roentgen

As a college physics major, it makes me cringe. It is obvious self-aggrandizement, which has no place in the study of any of the science.

Hi.. are you know how that connect between fractal and molecular structure?

We want the exact detailed mechanisms!

didn’t einstein steal most of his work from other scienticians? including the relativity equation, which is the only thing he’s famous for?

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@@lucasc5622 no, and wrong, but other than that sure whatevah

It's probably because the wavelength is compressed, as you can see in the part where the light is represented as circles. It's kind of the same thing as a sound moving towards you, you hear its sound in a higher pitch because the sound waves are more compressed

Maybe because the outer electrons in the fluid release blue light.

that was a weird little interlude, tbh

I'm not really a linguist but I'm very familiar with transliteration systems for Russian. 'Cerenkov' is not a possible transliteration in any standardised system ever used in English; also, it's just not true that the physics community uses mostly the 'Cerenkov' spelling; for example, a search in the APS physics journals at prola.aps.org reveals 108 hits for 'Cherenkov effect' and only 27 for 'Cerenkov effect', so 'Cherenkov' is used 4 times more often. Similar results are found by a search on arxiv.org (Cherenkov 5 times as common as Cerenkov). Čerenkov is the transcription according to the so-called scientific transcription (which is used officially, e.g., in Italy) and is also the same as the transcription in several national systems (Czech, Slovak, Slovene, Croatian...). `Cerenkov' in an English-language context doesn't really make sense.

A small correction: 'Cerenkov' (no diacritics, no h) is actually used in one official transliteration system, namely in the Romanian transliteration of Russian.

@ScienceNinjaDude well, not all textbooks :) For example, I have near at hand Physics, 2nd ed. by Tipler which uses 'Čerenkov'; Classical electrodynamics 2nd ed by Jackson uses Cherenkov. No big deal, anyway :) BTW in Russian Cherenkov has the word stress on the last syllable, not on the second: chee-ren-KOFF but yeah, whatever :)

Sorry. The Nobel Committee transliterate his name to "Pavel Tjerenkov". sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Tjerenkov Just like Chernobyl is transliterated to Tjernobyl. Ukrainian name but that's how we transliterate the cyrillic letter Ч. And an Italian would pronounce Cherenkov as Kerenkov instead of Cerenkov.

Faster than light but not faster than speed of light 😁

So like plinko, except every interaction is at the same energy?

No, a photon in water actually moves slower. This is due to Lorentz forces. It’s frequency doesn’t change, but it’s speed most certainly does.

*fantastic

They did such an amazing job on that.

People's on the bridge love that light

@@jamesp4521 More like garbage job. Literally nothing in this crap of the series was correct besides the fact reactor existed then malfunctioned...

It's spelled Cernobyl in the physics books

@@KuK137 That's just ridiculous. It had a civilian accurate explanation and rolled events into condensed versions to make it suitable for t.v. For all intents and purposes it got the story the right, especially where it mattered in the realm of soviet corruption.

subliminalvibes belive it or not,neutrinos are constantly entering your eye.That being said,in order for your eye to register a Cherenkov radiation it will be needed a lot more than neutrino interactions. Something on a level of ionizing radiation exposure enough to kill you. So no,you dont want to see Cherenkov radiation in your eye ; )

@@stormtrooper9404 Thank you, Vlado. That's good to know! 👍

subliminalvibes about 450 billion neutrinos go through your body EVERY SECOND. I find it incredible.

No. Like the other guys said, you're technically surrounded by billions of neutrinos from the sun, but they mostly pass right through you. Maybe once every couple months a single neutrino will interact with a molecule in your body. But even if that particular neutrino happens to accelerate an electron inside your eye, it would be too faint to be noticeable.

copydot I think it's a matter of the neutrino degenerating into an electron/muon pair, not a neutrino accelerating an already existing electron...

Ha ha! Absolutely! Just what I was thinking. I was aware of Cherenkov radiation but had to do some revision, so here I am. I’m just binge-watching Chernobyl for the second time. What a blast! (No pun intended!)

Shut up loser

should be called speed of causality

i hate comments like this