Latest / Talking Science / Light – Wave, Particle, or Both?

Transcript

Light – Wave, Particle, or Both? · Talking Science

0:00
If I told you that the vibrant yellow of that
0:02
lemon sitting on your kitchen counter right now
0:04
doesn't actually exist in the physical universe,
0:07
you'd probably call me crazy. I mean, it does
0:09
sound completely absurd when you first hear it.
0:12
Right. But by the end of our conversation today,
0:15
you're going to realize that almost everything
0:17
you think you know about the light hitting your
0:19
eyes at this very second is, well, it's a complete
0:23
biological illusion. It really is. And, you know,
0:26
we rely on light for every waking moment of our
0:29
lives. Exactly. You use it to navigate your house.
0:32
You feel its warmth on your skin. You gaze up
0:34
at distant stars. It's just so utterly ordinary
0:37
that we completely take it for granted. We do.
0:39
But the moment you actually stop and try to pull
0:41
that everyday elimination apart, when you try
0:44
to figure out what a beam of light is actually
0:46
made of, the whole concept of reality just starts
0:49
to fracture. It really broke the minds of the
0:52
greatest scientists in history. So welcome to
0:54
today's deep dive, everyone. Our mission today
0:57
is exploring a really fascinating excerpt titled,
1:00
Here is something you have never once thought
1:02
about. And it uses light to unravel our fundamental
1:05
understanding of reality. Yeah, because answering
1:08
that single, seemingly basic question of what
1:10
light is, it caused one of the most intense,
1:14
productive, and frankly bizarre arguments in
1:16
the history of physics. So to really wrap our
1:18
heads around this, we have to look at the only
1:20
two logical guesses early scientists had on the
1:23
table. Right. And these two guesses seemed completely
1:26
mutually exclusive. So back in the late 1600s,
1:30
Isaac Newton argued that light was a stream of
1:33
tiny physical particles. He said, imagine microscopic
1:37
invisible bullets being fired out of a candle
1:39
or the sun, traveling in perfectly straight lines
1:42
and physically bouncing off whatever they hit.
1:44
I mean, that makes complete intuitive sense.
1:46
If I picture light as like firing tiny bullets
1:49
from a BB gun, it perfectly explains a lot of
1:51
what we see every day. Oh, absolutely. Like,
1:53
it explains why light casts sharp, defined shadows
1:56
when an object blocks those bullets. And it explains
2:00
mirrors, too. Yes, the reflection angle. Right.
2:02
If you bounce a rubber ball off a brick wall
2:04
at an angle, it bounces off at that exact matching
2:07
angle. Light does the exact same thing when it
2:11
hits a mirror. So, you know, Newton's particle
2:13
theory feels incredibly solid. It aligns with
2:16
the physical macroscopic world we actually interact
2:18
with? It does. And he wasn't just resting on
2:21
his massive reputation either. The mathematics
2:23
of optics actually backed him up. That is, until
2:26
a Dutch physicist named Christian Huygens pointed
2:30
out a pretty glaring flaw. Uh -oh. Enter the
2:32
Challenger. Exactly. Huygens proposed that light
2:35
is not a particle at all, but a wave, like a
2:39
ripple traveling through some invisible medium.
2:41
So very similar to how sound is a ripple moving
2:43
through the air or a swell moving across the
2:46
ocean. Precisely. Huygens had observed phenomena
2:48
that Newton's tiny bullets simply could not explain.
2:52
Wait, like what? What could a wave explain that
2:55
a tiny little bullet couldn't? Well, think about
2:57
that classic broken straw optical illusion. You
3:01
know, when you look at... straw resting in a
3:02
half full glass of water oh right yeah the portion
3:05
of the straw in the air looks perfectly straight
3:08
but the moment it hits the water line it looks
3:11
completely disconnected Right. It looks bent
3:14
at a sharp angle. And that happens because light
3:17
literally bends as it passes from the medium
3:20
of air into the denser medium of water. Oh, I
3:23
see. Because if light were just tiny bullets
3:25
flying in straight lines, they would just shoot
3:27
straight into the water without magically veering
3:29
off course. Exactly. Bullets don't just abruptly
3:33
change their angle because they hit water, but...
3:36
a wave slows down and changes direction when
3:38
it hits a denser medium. Okay, so you have these
3:41
two heavyweights, particles on one side, waves
3:43
on the other. And because Newton had such a massive,
3:46
untouchable reputation, my understanding from
3:48
the source material is that the particle picture
3:50
essentially won out by default for about a century.
3:54
Pretty much, yeah. People didn't really want
3:55
to argue with Isaac Newton. I mean, fair enough.
3:58
But science relies on pushing past assumptions
4:02
and demanding proof. So how did they finally
4:06
settle a debate this massive? They actually settled
4:10
it in 1801 with an experiment so elegant you
4:13
could practically recreate it on your kitchen
4:15
table today. Really? Yeah. An English polymath
4:18
named Thomas Young devised what is now famous
4:21
as the double slit experiment. Okay, the double
4:23
slit experiment. Walk me through it. So he took
4:26
a solid barrier. cut two incredibly narrow, closely
4:30
spaced slits right into the middle of it and
4:33
shown a beam of light directly at those slits.
4:36
And then what? Then he simply observed the pattern
4:39
that the light made when it hit a blank screen
4:40
placed behind the barrier. Well, if we assume
4:43
Newton is right and light is made of solid little
4:46
bullets, shouldn't you just get two bright stripes
4:48
on the back screen? That would be the logical
4:49
assumption, yes. Yeah, it's like taking a can
4:51
of spray paint and spraying it at a piece of
4:53
cardboard with two slits cut in it. You'd just
4:55
get two lines of paint on the wall behind it.
4:57
The paint particles go through the holes or they
4:59
hit the cardboard. That should be the end of
5:01
the story. That is precisely what you would expect
5:03
from particles. But when Thomas Young actually
5:06
looked at the screen, he didn't see two crisp
5:08
lines. He saw a whole series of bright and dark
5:12
bands spreading out completely across the width
5:15
of the screen. Wait, really? A whole series?
5:17
Yeah. An intricate repeating pattern of light,
5:20
dark, light, dark. He was looking at an interference
5:23
pattern. Okay, let's unpack this because that
5:25
is wild. Yeah. So if we use the analogy of...
5:30
dropping two heavy stones into a completely still
5:33
pond at the exact same time, right? Just a few
5:35
feet apart. That's a great way to visualize it.
5:37
Each stone creates a set of circular ripples
5:40
spreading outward. And eventually, those two
5:43
sets of expanding ripples crash into each other.
5:45
When they overlap, they interfere. Exactly. They
5:47
interact with each other's energy. Right. So
5:49
if the high point, like the crest of one ripple,
5:51
perfectly meets the crest of another ripple,
5:54
they add together to make a super ripple, a much
5:56
bigger wave. Yeah. But if the crest of one wave
5:59
meets the low point, the trough of the other
6:01
wave, they just cancel each other out completely.
6:03
The water just stays flat. You nailed it. And
6:06
that is exactly what Young was seeing with the
6:08
light. So you're saying that the light emerging
6:09
from those two slits was acting like the water
6:11
ripples. Where the light waves reinforced each
6:14
other, they created a bright band on the wall.
6:16
Yeah. And where they canceled each other out,
6:19
they left a dark shadow. That's it. Exactly.
6:22
And because physical bullets absolutely cannot
6:25
cancel each other out into nothingness in midair.
6:28
Light absolutely had to be a wave. The conclusion
6:30
seemed completely unavoidable. And, you know,
6:33
it received a massive mathematical boost a few
6:36
decades later in the 1860s. Oh, this is the Maxwell
6:39
part, right? Yes. A brilliant Scottish physicist
6:42
named James Clerk Maxwell was working out the
6:45
mathematics of electricity and magnetism. At
6:47
the time, everybody thought those were completely
6:49
separate forces. Right, like static shock versus
6:51
a fridge magnet? Exactly. But Maxwell unified
6:55
them into a single set of equations. And in doing
6:58
so, he discovered that his math predicted the
7:00
existence of waves, specifically waves made of
7:04
electric and magnetic fields that basically feed
7:06
off of each other to keep moving forward. Can
7:08
we define that really quickly? Because an electromagnetic
7:10
wave is a pretty foundational concept for this
7:13
whole deep dive. Of course. So an electromagnetic
7:16
wave is a self -sustaining ripple of energy.
7:19
Unlike ocean waves that physically need water,
7:22
or sound waves that need air to travel through,
7:25
an electromagnetic wave needs no physical medium
7:28
at all. So it can travel through the absolute
7:30
empty vacuum of deep space. Exactly. And when
7:34
Maxwell calculated exactly how fast these theoretical
7:37
electromagnetic waves should move, the number
7:40
that dropped out of his equations was a massive
7:42
shock. It's the speed of light, wasn't it? It
7:44
was precisely the known speed of light. Why was
7:47
that specific number dropping out of the equation
7:50
such a bombshell for physicists? Well, imagine
7:53
doing a really complex mathematical equation
7:55
to figure out the maximum speed a new sports
7:57
car can drive, and the answer comes out to precisely
8:00
the speed of sound. Oh, wow. Okay. Right. You
8:04
would instantly know that the mechanics of the
8:06
car and the physics of sound must be deeply,
8:09
fundamentally connected. So when Maxwell saw
8:12
the speed of light emerge from equations that
8:14
were supposed to be just about magnets and static
8:16
electricity, he realized light wasn't just some
8:19
random wave. Light was an electromagnetic wave.
8:22
Exactly. Case closed. Except the universe is
8:25
never that simple, is it? No, it really isn't.
8:27
Just when the physics community thought they
8:29
had it all figured out, reality totally refused
8:32
to cooperate. Moving into the late 1800s and
8:36
early 1900s, things just started to break. Two
8:39
new experiments popped up that entirely defied
8:42
the wave theory. Yeah, and you know, science
8:44
often advances not through sudden brilliant ideas,
8:47
but through things simply failing to work the
8:49
way they are supposed to. So what was the first
8:51
failure? The first major failure involved glowing
8:53
hot objects. The wave theory made a very confident
8:57
mathematical prediction about the colors of light
8:59
that a glowing hot object should emit. Like a
9:02
piece of iron in a blacksmith's forge. Exactly
9:04
like that, but that prediction was catastrophically
9:07
wrong compared to real -life measurements in
9:10
the lab. The math just did not match reality.
9:13
So in 1900, a German physicist named Max Planck
9:17
sat down to fix the math. And how did he fix
9:20
it? Well, he found he could only make the equations
9:22
match reality by assuming something that to him
9:26
seemed completely absurd. He had to assume that
9:29
light energy isn't a continuous smooth flow like
9:32
a river. Instead, it comes in discrete individual
9:35
lumps. Hold on. What do you mean by a lump of
9:38
energy? I mean, energy isn't a physical object
9:40
you can hold in your hand. How can it be lumpy?
9:42
It is a really counterintuitive concept. We call
9:44
this quantization. Okay. Think of the difference
9:46
between walking up a smooth ramp versus walking
9:48
up a flight of stairs. Okay, I'm with you. On
9:51
a ramp, you can stop at any possible height you
9:53
want. It's totally continuous. But on a staircase,
9:56
you can only stand on step one or step two. You
9:59
cannot stand on step one and a half. Right. You
10:02
just fall down to step one. Exactly. Planck's
10:05
math suggested that light energy operates like
10:07
the stairs. It can only be emitted or absorbed
10:11
in specific, strictly defined, indivisible chunks.
10:14
He called one of these chunks a quantum. So he
10:18
essentially broke this smooth, flowing wave into
10:21
tiny, choppy staircase steps. He did. But Planck
10:25
didn't even think these quantos were physically
10:27
real. He thought he had just invented a clever
10:29
mathematical trick to make his equations balance
10:31
on paper. But he was wrong about it being just
10:33
a trick. Oh, completely wrong. And the second
10:35
problem proved him wrong. It had to do with something
10:38
called the photoelectric effect. Which is the
10:40
foundational science behind the modern solar
10:42
panels on people's roofs today, if I remember
10:44
the source right. Yes, exactly. The basic principle
10:47
is that if you shine light onto certain metals,
10:49
the metal will physically spit out electrons.
10:52
But wait, if light is a... continuous wave of
10:54
energy flowing like water. A dim light shining
10:58
on that metal for a long period of time should
11:01
eventually build up enough energy to knock an
11:03
electron loose, right? Like gentle waves slowly
11:06
eroding a piece of a beach over time. That makes
11:09
perfect sense under wave theory. Or, if you use
11:12
a super bright red light, that massive towering
11:15
wave of energy should easily blast electrons
11:17
out of the metal immediately. Both of those are
11:20
completely logical wave theory predictions, and
11:23
they both fail completely in reality. Really?
11:25
If you shine a red light on this metal, no electrons
11:29
come out. It doesn't matter how blindingly bright
11:31
you make that red light, and it doesn't matter
11:33
if you leave it shining for 10 straight years.
11:36
Zero electrons. Wow. But if you switch to a blue
11:39
light, electrons pop out instantly, even if that
11:42
blue light is incredibly faint and dim. Which
11:45
completely shatters the idea that it's just a
11:47
wave of energy slowly washing over the metal.
11:49
Completely shatters it. And this is where Albert
11:51
Einstein enters the picture in 1905, right? And
11:54
actually wins his Nobel Prize for this. He did.
11:56
Einstein looked at this failure and realized
11:58
that Planck's mathematical trick wasn't a trick
12:00
at all. Light truly does arrive in physical discrete
12:04
packets of energy. Today, we define these individual
12:07
packets of light as photons. Okay, photons. Yeah.
12:10
And Einstein's realization completely solves
12:13
the photoelectric effect puzzle. So how does
12:15
a photon explain why the dim blue light works
12:18
but the bright red light doesn't? Well, the best
12:21
way to visualize what is happening on the surface
12:23
of that metal is to think of a very stubborn
12:26
vending machine. Okay, a vending machine. Imagine
12:29
a vending machine that dispenses a snack, and
12:31
the snack represents freeing an electron from
12:34
the metal. This machine is exceptionally strict.
12:37
It only accepts $1 coins. No bills? No bills,
12:42
no smaller change, only single $1 coins. Knocking
12:45
out an electron is a strict one -on -one collision.
12:48
So a high -energy blue photon is exactly like
12:52
a $1 coin. If you put it in, you instantly get
12:55
the snack. The electron is freed. Wait, let me
12:57
make sure I get this analogy. A red photon has
12:59
a longer wavelength, so it's a lower -energy
13:01
photon. In this vending machine analogy, the
13:03
red photon is like a penny. Exactly. It's just
13:06
a penny. So if you shine a blindingly bright
13:08
red light on the metal, you are essentially dumping
13:11
a roaring torrent of 10 million pennies into
13:14
the vending machine all at once. But the machine
13:16
only takes dollar coins. Right. It doesn't matter
13:18
that 10 million pennies technically hold a lot
13:21
of value collectively. The machine rejects every
13:23
single one of them. Nothing happens. That is
13:25
brilliant. So Einstein proved that brightness
13:28
is simply the number of photons hitting the metal.
13:30
Brightness doesn't change how much energy each
13:33
individual photon carries. Light behaves exactly
13:37
like a localized physical particle. It does.
13:40
But here's where it gets really interesting.
13:42
Because this creates a massive, seemingly impossible
13:46
contradiction in physics. A huge contradiction.
13:49
Right, because Thomas Young's double slit experiment
13:52
definitively proved that light is a spread out
13:55
ripple that interferes with itself. But Einstein's
13:59
explanation of the photoelectric effect definitively
14:02
proved that light is a localized bullet, a photon,
14:04
that hits one single electron at a time. How
14:07
can it possibly be both? Well, physicists didn't
14:09
just throw their hands up into feet, though I'm
14:11
sure they wanted to. They actually combined the
14:13
experiment. Oh, this is so cool. Yeah, they went
14:15
back to Thomas Young's double slit setup, but
14:18
this time with highly advanced modern technology.
14:21
They turned the light source down so incredibly
14:23
low that the laser was only firing one single
14:26
photon at a time toward the barrier with the
14:29
two slits. Firing a single packet of light. So
14:32
what happens when that solitary photon hits the
14:35
back wall? It crosses the barrier and lands on
14:37
the back screen as a single, tiny, precise dot.
14:41
One localized particle makes one localized dot.
14:44
You fire a second photon a minute later, you
14:47
get a second distinct dot on the screen. And
14:50
if you stop the experiment right there, it looks
14:52
perfectly aligned with Newton's tiny bullets.
14:54
Exactly. But the physicists don't stop there.
14:57
They let the machine run. They let millions of
14:59
these individual solitary dots accumulate on
15:02
the screen over hours and hours. And as the dots
15:05
build up, they don't just form two stripes behind
15:08
the two slits. Dot by individual dot, they slowly
15:11
build the exact same wave interference pattern.
15:14
It's mind -blowing. That repeating pattern of
15:16
light and dark pans. How is that even possible
15:18
if the photons are traveling completely alone?
15:20
I know. It forces us to accept a concept that
15:23
entirely defies human logic. Because each individual
15:27
photon went through the entire apparatus completely
15:29
alone, there were no other photons around for
15:32
it to crash into or interfere with. So the only
15:35
way the math and the physics make sense is if
15:37
we accept that a single photon doesn't travel
15:40
through space like a tiny baseball. It travels
15:42
as a... Wave of possibility. Wave of possibility.
15:46
Yes. It essentially goes through both slits simultaneously,
15:49
interferes with itself as a wave, and then only
15:52
collapses to land as a single definitive particle
15:55
at a spot on the screen where the wave's mathematical
15:58
probability allows it to. It goes through both
16:00
slits at once. That alone is deeply unsettling.
16:04
But to me, the most disturbing part of all of
16:06
this is what happens when scientists try to cheat.
16:09
Oh, you mean the detector? Yeah. When they say,
16:11
we don't believe a single particle goes through
16:13
both slits, we're going to put a tiny detector
16:15
right at the slits to simply look and measure
16:18
exactly which slit the single photon actually
16:21
goes through. Yeah, and the result of that is
16:23
terrifying. The moment you place a detector there
16:26
to watch the slits, the interference pattern
16:29
completely vanishes on the back screen. It just
16:31
disappears. You put a camera there to watch it,
16:34
and the photons suddenly stop acting like a wave.
16:36
They abandon the complex pattern and just form
16:38
two boring stripes on the back screen, exactly
16:41
like the spray paint analogy from earlier. They
16:43
do. The simple act of trying to measure its path
16:46
forces the photon to choose a definite route.
16:50
By looking at it, you fundamentally change the
16:52
physical outcome of the experiment. This is known
16:54
in quantum mechanics as the observer effect.
16:57
And this is where physics crosses over into deep
16:59
existential philosophical dread. Einstein himself
17:03
absolutely hated this implication. He famously
17:07
asked a colleague if he truly believed the moon
17:09
did not exist when no one was looking at it.
17:12
It really makes you wonder. But we have to clarify
17:14
what observation means here. Right, because it's
17:17
a major point of confusion for people learning
17:19
this. It is a massive point of confusion. Yes.
17:22
How does a photon actually know it's being watched?
17:24
Does it have a microscopic brain? Not at all,
17:27
no. See, in the macroscopic world, you can observe
17:29
a car driving down the street entirely passively.
17:32
The ambient light bounces off the car and hits
17:34
your eye, and the car's momentum is entirely
17:37
unaffected by you looking at it. Sure. But in
17:39
the quantum realm, things are so unfathomably
17:42
tiny that you cannot passively observe them.
17:44
To quote -unquote look, at a photon passing through
17:47
a slit, you have to bounce another particle off
17:50
of it. You have to physically interact with it
17:52
to measure it. Oh I see. And that physical interaction
17:55
is what causes the delicate wave of possibility
17:57
to collapse into a definite state. The universe,
18:01
at its absolute finest, most fundamental grain,
18:04
behaves in ways that are entirely alien to the
18:08
macroscopic world our brains evolved to understand.
18:10
That makes a lot of sense. Because our ancestors
18:12
evolved to track animals, find fruit, and avoid
18:14
predators, you know? We did not evolve to intuitively
18:17
grasp a reality where particles exist in states
18:19
of probability until they are interacted with.
18:22
Wow. Okay, but if particles are fundamentally
18:25
changing their behavior just because they interact
18:28
with something, what does that mean for the normal
18:31
macroscopic world? After diving into the deep
18:34
end of quantum dread, I feel like we really need
18:37
to pull this back down to human scale. I agree.
18:39
Let's ground it. What about the light in the
18:41
room I'm sitting in right now? Let's bring it
18:43
back to the electromagnetic spectrum. We need
18:45
to introduce a measurement scale here. The nanometer.
18:48
Okay, a nanometer. A nanometer is unimaginably
18:51
small. It is one millionth of a single millimeter.
18:55
That is tiny. Extremely. And visible light, which
18:58
is the light our human eyes can actually detect,
19:01
exists only in a tiny restricted band of wavelengths
19:04
measuring just a few hundred nanometers wide.
19:07
In this visible band, red light has the longest,
19:10
most stretched out wavelength that our retinas
19:12
can register. Violet light has the shortest.
19:15
most compressed wavelength. I've always loved
19:17
comparing human vision to sitting at a piano
19:19
keyboard. Oh, that's a good one. Yeah, imagine
19:21
a grand piano keyboard that stretches for miles
19:24
and miles in both directions. The visible light
19:26
we can see, all the rich colors of the rainbow,
19:29
represents just one single octave on that endless
19:32
piano. Our eyes are entirely blind to the vast
19:35
majority of the instrument. That is a phenomenal
19:38
way to visualize it. The rest of that keyboard
19:40
is vast and it actually surrounds you constantly.
19:43
Really? Yeah. If you take a wave of light and
19:45
stretch its wavelength longer than red, moving
19:48
out of our visible octave, you get infrared light.
19:51
You can't see it, but your skin feels it as radiant
19:54
heat. Oh, like a heat lamp? Exactly. Stretch
19:57
it even longer and you hit microwaves and then
20:00
radio waves, which can be meters or even kilometers
20:02
long. Wow. And on the other end of the keyboard,
20:04
if you squeeze the wavelength shorter than violet,
20:07
you get ultraviolet light, which is the unseen
20:09
light that gives you a sunburn. Squeeze it shorter
20:12
still, and you get X -rays and finally gamma
20:14
rays. So we are effectively blind to 99 % of
20:18
the light in the universe. We are. The crucial
20:21
thing to understand here is that from a local
20:23
FM radio broadcast to the X -ray machine at the
20:27
dentist's office to the glow of your cell phone
20:30
screen, they are all exactly the same thing.
20:32
They're all just photons. They are all photons.
20:35
They're all electromagnetic waves. They differ
20:37
only in how tightly compressed their waves are.
20:40
and therefore how much energy those quantum packets
20:43
carry. So what does this all mean for our day
20:46
-to -day experience? When we talk about this
20:48
tiny slice of visible light, it completely changes
20:51
how we understand the objects around us. Let's
20:55
go back to that simple yellow lemon sitting on
20:57
the counter from the intro. Let's do it. Sunlight
20:59
is a chaotic mixture of all the visible wavelengths,
21:02
all the colors blended together. When sunlight
21:05
hits that lemon, the physical matter of the lemon
21:07
skin absorbs most of those wavelengths. It absorbs
21:10
the red photons, the blue photons, the green
21:12
photons, but it reflects a very specific band
21:15
of wavelengths back outward into the room. And
21:18
this is exactly where physics hands the baton
21:20
over to biology. Those specific reflected photons
21:23
travel through the air. enter your pupil, and
21:26
strike specialized cone cells on your retina
21:29
that are biologically tuned to react to that
21:31
exact wavelength. Those cells fire off electrical
21:35
signals into your optic nerve, which zip into
21:37
the visual cortex of your brain, and your brain
21:40
interprets that specific electrical signal as
21:42
the vibrant concept we call yellow. So the yellowness
21:46
does not actually exist in the lemon itself.
21:48
The lemon is just a bunch of atoms absorbing
21:50
and reflecting energy. And the yellowness certainly
21:53
doesn't exist in the photon either. The photon
21:55
is just a vibrating, colorless packet of electromagnetic
21:58
energy. Color is completely constructed. The
22:01
vibrant yellow of the lemon, the deep blue of
22:03
the sky, the alarming red of a stop sign, they
22:06
are all illusions entirely fabricated inside
22:08
your brain. It is basically an evolutionary user
22:11
interface designed to help you navigate a world
22:13
of radiation. It is incredibly humbling. As we
22:17
wrap up this deep dive, I want you to really
22:19
think about this. The next time you walk into
22:21
a dark room and flick on a simple desk lamp,
22:24
you aren't just illuminating a space. You are
22:28
actively unleashing a flood of quantum anomalies.
22:31
It's quite a picture. You are releasing trillions
22:34
of packets of electromagnetic energy that exist
22:37
in a bizarre state of pure possibility. rippling
22:41
through the room as waves, completely devoid
22:43
of color, until they crash into your retinas.
22:46
The most ordinary mundane sight in your house
22:49
is running on mechanics that reveal reality is
22:52
infinitely stranger than it appears on the surface.
22:54
Which leaves us with one final lingering thought
22:57
to explore on your own. Ooh, lay it on us. We've
23:00
established that the vivid color of a lemon is
23:02
a biological fabrication. The universe doesn't
23:05
possess color. only invisible wavelengths, and
23:08
we've established the observer effect. The physical
23:11
interaction of measuring a single photon forces
23:13
it to abandon its fluid, wave -like state of
23:16
possibility and collapse into a hard -to -find
23:18
particle. So if the qualities we see are just
23:21
subjective biological illusions, and if interacting
23:24
with quantum particles fundamentally changes
23:26
how they exist in space, does the physical universe
23:28
even have a defined, objective state when a conscious
23:32
observer isn't there to interact with it?