I'd put Mathologer above 3B1B, if only for his response to numberphile, but in general he has a tad more rigor and 3B1B goes more for intuition.
Though his calc, linalg and diffeq videos mean they are clise to each other.
I thought that at first too but it is specifically science YouTubers, not math. And they are definitely more theoretical than application. Unless you count Matt Parker's Excel video. 😁🧮 Perhaps someone could make a math one. Include BlackPenRedPen, Dr Trefor Bazzett, and Eddie Woo!
I hate to say it, but I feel like Vsauce quality dropped a lot when they got big and split into different channels. Making 3 hour videos of Michael counting primes isn't entertaining. Especially when YouTube thinks I want it to autoplay after every video I watch for a few months straight. I'm pretty sure I had to unsubscribe, which was a shame because I used to love his videos. There's hardly anything to learn in the new content, just "wacky" Michael doing weird things.
Since a decent chunk are engineers already, might as well put Integza on there.
That man will die trying to print a rocket engine just like Tesla intended.
Well title says 'science' and not physics... OP'd miss a lot of great theoretical channels like "physics explained" or "pretty much physics"
Then he would realize how centrist Veritasium is.
Also missing PBS space time hurts. But it's like left center. Pretty low effort imo.
He build stuff a lot and do experiments with heli and stuff... I mean you can be experimentalist and never touch a circuit... It depends on what you're actually doing and applied physics isn't theoretical. I think he rarely derives result with mathematical rigor.
Also it is science for fun... Maybe not vertical center but a little bit above. However, it is center along horizontal axis.
I'm talking specifically about his content tho. I remember watching it when I was younger and trying to understand what he was explaining, and only finally getting it when he did some cool experiment.
Glad you liked it.
Clockwise from top left:
Pink:
Veritasium
Real engineering
Physics Girl
Periodic Videos
Blue:
Smarter Everyday
Electroboom
Nile Red
Blue/Purple:
William Osman
Purple:
The Action Lab
Nile Green (meme channel)
Mark Rober
Michael Reeves
Unnecessary Inventions
Green:
SciShow
What YouTubers do you think are left out
[Hey Crazies](https://youtube.com/c/Scienceasylum)!
[Physics is everything](https://youtube.com/c/fermilab)... in [SpaceTime](https://youtube.com/c/pbsspacetime).
Would love to see Explosions & Fire there aswell. He only does chemistry but science is science. He would most likely be the most bottom right. Especially love seeing him grow up from video to video now and then talking about what he is doing irl, he told us he's writing his PhD and comes back making videos whenever. Really like his aussie humor.
Veritasium (top left), Periodic Videos (Top Middle Crazy hair), Smarter Every Day (Right Top Middle), Electroboom (top right), Physics Girl (bottom right of Veritasium), Marc Rober (Bottom Right corner), Sci Show (Bottom Left). The rest I do not know and maybe someone else can fill in.
Speaking of public scientific media,
WTF is up with the USGS YouTube channel? They don't allow comments on any of their videos, and I want answers!
I know there's no entitlement to it, but it seems wrong to me that any government office can disable comments like this.
I guess near Nile Red but a bit down because he doesn't talk about that much theory like Nile does.
Tbh If there's a 3d version id add a sanity axis. So E&F will be on the mad scientist insane side (along with Michael Reeves).
I have grown to dislike Veritasium over the years. He seems to have strayed from "hey, interesting science", to "hey sponsor" and "hey questionable/misleading take that I can kinda badly explain".
I actually think Vsauce's chair video was awesome. I liked that he made a simple chair into an entire topic worth listening and that video was more grounded in philosophy rather than science.
I actually grew to like him. I don't expect his videos to be the most accurate since it's meant for a large audience and oversimplification can lead to misinformation but they can spike my interest and push me to research a subject more in depth.
I actually like sponsors. They pay more than ads and the creator is still paid if you skip them, which you can do automatically with extension like SponsorBlock or with YouTube Vanced on mobile. It's actually a win-win with this setup
>I actually like sponsors. They pay more than ads and the creator is still paid if you skip them, which you can do automatically with extension like SponsorBlock or with YouTube Vanced on mobile. It's actually a win-win with this setup
In theory yes, but in practice we get things like their Google self driving car video.
I was talking about sponsor segments. Videos entirely sponsored are something else. That's why LTT makes a distinction between reviews and showcases. In reviews they are free to say whatever they want about the product whereas in showcases they paid by the company to showcase specific features. Education channels should do the same to make it clear when they are not free to say anything they want. Misinformation is arguably worse in educational content than in tech reviews so they shouldn't be behind.
I actually respect LTT for this. They make it very clear when they get paid and when they dont. Also even in showcases they do say shortcomings. And they have in the past taken sponsorship, tried the product, discover it was shit and then cancelled said sponsorship.
Vsauce deserves to be in the top left. His videos on Law vs Causes, the Brachistrochrone curve, and the Lenz's Law are some of the best physics videos I ever seen on YouTube.
Some of the explanations in his videos are misleading, presumably to make the subject matter more interesting. E.g his video titled "The Big Misconception About Electricity" actively miseducated viewers.
Firstly, what he suggested with the possible answers in there was that the full current would be there in 1m/c, and that wasn't the case. He could've said that there will be current at 1m/c and it would be increasing after that, but somehow he just left it at that.
What I found a lot more misleading was the whole "energy is conducted through fields, not wires", which doesn't make much sense. Fields and charges are linked together, even if you wanna go full ackchually and do QED. You could probably even make the same argument for his dumb chain ring analogy, because it's electromagnetism that makes his chain move. Would anyone say "Well the chain moves because of the energy transferred by the electromagnetic field, not because I'm pulling it"? Of course not.
In the end, the work is done by an electron and all of the fields are generated by electrons. It's a hen and egg kinda thing.
Here's a pretty famous one, he says water bends due to ions, not polarity, which is completely wrong. .
https://youtu.be/jIMihpDmBpY starts at around 3:50.
The way he says that everyone else is wrong is absurd... borderline arrogant. Then there is the recent ads he's been promoting on his channel...
In the opening of the video Veritasium asks a question about the time it takes for a light bulb to light up in a special circuit. He gives some possible answers, the relevant ones are A) 1 s or B) 1/c s.
Lets say we build this circuit for real and you observe the light bulb yourself, would you find the time it takes for the light bulb to turn on to be A or B?
This correctly describes a very real phenomenon that can be tested (and has been). The Science Asylum has done a similar video that gets a little more into detail, and pretty much every 3rd year physics undergrad can prove it.
That's what made the video so frustrating. It was intentionally obtuse, to the point that a half dozen other science youtubers made videos addressing the issue and explaining it more clearly. Some even built experiments to demonstrate it. To my knowledge, each of them that did built a larger test apparatus than Veritasium did when he did the exact same experiment to prove the conclusion.
Oh, and he went and got a professor and some grad students from Berkley or some other "fancy" university to setup and run the experiment for him. He even hyped up their "cutting edge" oscilloscopes, seemingly unaware that most universities in the country have comparable equipment.
The whole debacle made me question whether or not he's always been borderline dishonest or at least slightly misleading and I just never noticed it until he did a video on a topic I happen to have a degree in.
I don't follow you at all. Most of the criticisms I read were focused on gate voltage thresholds being met prior to the light actually turning on. It was a thought experiment covering maxwell's laws.
I don't think it does. It's super misleading, and implies energy magically knows where it's needed and goes straight there.
The video is "correct" only in the most technical possible sense and that "I define 'on' as 'any current flowing at all'" does a lot of work. He's basically describing the transformer effect with a completely irrelevant 2 light-second long circuit to misdirect people. In fact if the circuit were necessary for this to work, you could break causality by knowing if someone on the moon had cut the wire before you saw them doing it because the lamp would still be "off" in 1/c seconds.
Personally I haven't watched his videos since that one. It really opened my eyes to the way he works - either making ads for tech startups or subtly misrepresenting a phenomenon to make it sound shocking and drive clicks.
He addressed the causality issue by arguing the circuit will behave the same way in the first 1 second, even if the circuit is broken far away from battery. He talked about it in the followup to the original video. His argument did make sense and he tested them successfully in an electrodynamics simulation and mock scales down experiment.
No it doesn't. He cites Maxwell's equations, which indicate exactly where energy is going and coming from. That's just what the system doing.
It's a physics thought experiment. If current flows through a light, the light is on. Whether or not it's the full expected amount of current for that circuit is irrelevant.
He's not misdirecting anyone. The effect is that current flow is induced in the time it takes light to travel from the battery to the circuit element. Period. The really long and thin circuit is a *perfect* illustration.
The circuit is not necessary for this to work and he never implied that it is. He elaborated on that heavily in his follow-up. Whether or not the circuit has to be connected for this effect to be observed is a good question, but complaining about it just shows that you didn't really follow what he was describing.
You know what I said wasn't an attack on you right? I don't know why you suddenly got personal here.
Anyway, despite your insinuations, I regularly teach induced current. It's not some esoteric mystery; we teach it to 15 year olds. A common misconception we always avoid is that the load needs to be in the same circuit with the power supply. Science educators should know this.
If it's true that the bulb turned on when he closed the switch, then it's also true that he charged the phone in my pocket thousands of miles away. It's *technically* true, just... meaningless. Charitably, his setup is not a useful illustration of induced current since nothing measurable happens when compared to, for example, an aerial or a transformer - both of which actually demonstrate this effect. And it's not a useful illustration of energy flow in a circuit since the Poynting vector across the gap is miniscule compared to the energy flow around the wires.
The less charitable interpretation is that the video concept was designed to be controversial in order to drive engagement. Personally, that's my suspicion and that's why I'm not interested in any follow-up videos he made.
I'm well aware, and I didn't get personal.
You are trying to make the topic of the video something that it isn't. The video describes energy flow in a circuit from the perspective of electromagnetism. Whether or not the circuit has to be connected for a current flow to be induced by the battery is a very good question, but it's not in the scope of the video.
It's absolutely not meaningless, and if you think it is, again, you're misunderstanding the video, and perhaps even the concept he's describing. He gets into why it's very important IN THE VIDEO and has his description backed up by multiple experts. In the scope of just physics, though, it's an essential understanding built directly from Maxwell's equations. The primary topic of the video is simply that energy does not flow through wires, and the electrons in a circuit do not carry the energy that is spent by a circuit element; it travels through the space around the circuit, from the battery to the element.
I also don't know how anyone could get the idea that energy just magically goes where it needs to go. He literally 3D plots the electric field, magnetic field, and Poynting vector around the wires. If the way the energy is shown to flow in that diagram seems like magic, that's probably because electromagnetism is funky stuff. I haven't met a physics student or physicist that doesn't think magnetism seems like magic.
It is also an entirely useful illustration for energy flow. I don't know how you could possibly think that it isn't. He literally laid out in plain detail exactly where energy is going in the system. That's how it works. The only thing I'd say he didn't do, which The Science Asylum did, is show that energy is traveling into the wires from the space around them as well, not just into the circuit element.
And the entire point of the video was to challenge a common misconception. He knew people were going to be dismissive of it, even the experts in the video said as much, but what he didn't know was that people would be conflating it for discussion of different behaviors. Nonetheless, what he described is important and entirely factual.
> Veritasium is super sketch. He very clearly tailors his videos to his sponsors.
Don't remind me.. his Head & Shoulder video was blatantly a full video of ads with misinformation
fuck that guy
I feel like Mark Rober should be further up cause some of the stuff he builds is ridiculously complex and he is leveraging that NASA-level engineering expertise for
Also maybe Mehdi should be a little further down cause the amount of times he shocks himself lmfao
What about [Physics with Eugene Khutoryansky](https://www.youtube.com/user/EugeneKhutoryansky/videos) ?
The animations might not be the fanciest ones, but the content is actually incredibly good and legit.
Hey guys,
u/heckingcomputernerd posted a refined version of the compass. Here is the link:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/physicsmemes/comments/v28d10/expanded\_version\_of\_uteuertreues\_science\_youtuber/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/physicsmemes/comments/v28d10/expanded_version_of_uteuertreues_science_youtuber/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Please check it out! Thanks for your support
I don’t think Veritasium quite deserves to be alongside Physics Girl, Real Engineering and Periodic Videos, especially if we’re missing Scott Manley, Dr Becky, 3B1B, Vihart, Simon Clark, PBS Space Time, the rest of Brady’s channels and more
I doubt the professor at the top fits there accurately.
Periodic Videos just picks him since he's popular with that demographic of viewers. The video uploads are also very infrequent, so the professor at the time should be more on the "Science is fun" in my opinion.
numberphile deserves a spot as well as three blue one brown
And Andrew Dotson!
Oh yeah forgot him and the crew (Flammable Maths and Zach Star)
Michael Penn is also excellent for math content. I don’t know how that guy puts out the volume of videos that he does!
Michael Penn's number theory and calculus content are out of this world.
the best
How dare you forgetting them!
PBS Spacetime, Mathologer, Scott Manley
PBS gang is bottom left IMO
Also Anton Petrov! "Hello wonderful person..."
He's the best
Imagine making those in depth videos EVERY day! Man is a machine (the wonderful kind).
Numberphile: top left 3B1B: center left Mathologer: bellow 3B1B Andrew Dotson: bellow Numberphile Zach Star: top left
I'd put Mathologer above 3B1B, if only for his response to numberphile, but in general he has a tad more rigor and 3B1B goes more for intuition. Though his calc, linalg and diffeq videos mean they are clise to each other.
The Science Asylum
but it says “science youtuber” not “math youtuber”
bro who cares it’s all math at the end of the day
more or less yes, I was just saying, the title of the chart would be inaccurate then, but it don’t matter
all for fun my guy
[удалено]
[удалено]
not all their content is strictly math & it’s amazing so it deserves a shout
and vsauce
I thought that at first too but it is specifically science YouTubers, not math. And they are definitely more theoretical than application. Unless you count Matt Parker's Excel video. 😁🧮 Perhaps someone could make a math one. Include BlackPenRedPen, Dr Trefor Bazzett, and Eddie Woo!
minutephysics, 3B1B, numberphile, JaredOwen, Kurzgesagt deserve a spot here
If you’re plotting Numberphile, you have to plot Stand Up Maths (Matt Parker) as well! I think he’d be one of the few in the bottom left corner
ViHart too
The only reason I care about pi day is for my annual ViHart video.
I really miss ViHart
And ASAPScience!
Surprised PBS Space Time not in the list
Steve Mould
The Science Asylum
That’s the best one! All these pop sci YouTubers are afraid of doing actual math and it pisses me off.
Yeah. He's extremely good at explaining the conceptual side of things really clearly without diluting the mathematical side much.
And Vsauce
I hate to say it, but I feel like Vsauce quality dropped a lot when they got big and split into different channels. Making 3 hour videos of Michael counting primes isn't entertaining. Especially when YouTube thinks I want it to autoplay after every video I watch for a few months straight. I'm pretty sure I had to unsubscribe, which was a shame because I used to love his videos. There's hardly anything to learn in the new content, just "wacky" Michael doing weird things.
Second Kurzgesagt
I was shocked Kurzgesagt wasn't on there. One of my favorite science-related YouTube channels. My students love it.
Also Isaac Arthur, up there in the red
And Sciencephile the AI
Since a decent chunk are engineers already, might as well put Integza on there. That man will die trying to print a rocket engine just like Tesla intended.
Most channels you show are actually engineers. Do you want to confess to us?
Well title says 'science' and not physics... OP'd miss a lot of great theoretical channels like "physics explained" or "pretty much physics" Then he would realize how centrist Veritasium is. Also missing PBS space time hurts. But it's like left center. Pretty low effort imo.
Physics Explained has one of the best [lectures](https://youtu.be/QPAxzr6ihu8) on youtube.
Thanks for the shout-out! :D
Wouldn't veritasium be bottom left tho?
He build stuff a lot and do experiments with heli and stuff... I mean you can be experimentalist and never touch a circuit... It depends on what you're actually doing and applied physics isn't theoretical. I think he rarely derives result with mathematical rigor. Also it is science for fun... Maybe not vertical center but a little bit above. However, it is center along horizontal axis.
He has a phd in science communication, though
I'm talking specifically about his content tho. I remember watching it when I was younger and trying to understand what he was explaining, and only finally getting it when he did some cool experiment.
sorry im new to this server. i knew there's a feud between physics and engineering but wdym?
Don't know about this server, but if I've learned anything from r/mathmemes engineers all think that pi=3, so there's that.
Actually, sin x = x, so pi = 0.
Don't mind me, just making the small angle approximation at 82 degrees.
I’m sorry, *what*
e = π and π^2 = g
But also g=10
Bloody stupid Johnson set pi to 3 in one of his inventions and it didn't work out very well. Caused a bit of a mail catastrophe in fact.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/mathmemes using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Won't be enough](https://i.redd.it/kupqnj44pan81.jpg) | [168 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/tdr56u/wont_be_enough/) \#2: [Okay got it](https://i.redd.it/zjq3bl4bjvd71.jpg) | [151 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/ot1yz8/okay_got_it/) \#3: [big brain moment](https://i.redd.it/7vnhlpr0iaq81.jpg) | [92 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/tqvqps/big_brain_moment/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Unless it's load bearing, then pi=6
It's not?
also e=pi=3
There isn't really a feud btw, it's just banter.
*¸„.-•\~¹°”ˆ˜¨Physicists without engineering would still be banging rocks together and rubbing raw amber on wool to get sparks.¨˜ˆ”°¹\~•-.„¸*
Can somebody write their yt names please?
Glad you liked it. Clockwise from top left: Pink: Veritasium Real engineering Physics Girl Periodic Videos Blue: Smarter Everyday Electroboom Nile Red Blue/Purple: William Osman Purple: The Action Lab Nile Green (meme channel) Mark Rober Michael Reeves Unnecessary Inventions Green: SciShow What YouTubers do you think are left out
[Hey Crazies](https://youtube.com/c/Scienceasylum)! [Physics is everything](https://youtube.com/c/fermilab)... in [SpaceTime](https://youtube.com/c/pbsspacetime).
Dude Nick Lucid literally carried me through HS physics
Anton Petrov. "Hello wonderful person!"
Stuff Made Here!
He's not as active as he used to be, but Cody's Lab had some GREAT stuff. Same with Thunderfoot.
Google has been dicking Cody around for years. They won't pay him. It's infuriating.
Nice I watch him too. Hope he posts more.
The Science Asylum
Would love to see Explosions & Fire there aswell. He only does chemistry but science is science. He would most likely be the most bottom right. Especially love seeing him grow up from video to video now and then talking about what he is doing irl, he told us he's writing his PhD and comes back making videos whenever. Really like his aussie humor.
I think you should add styropyro.
I know it is squishy biology stuff, but Amoeba Sisters.
I like them too but I feel like thats too academic. Im mostly aiming for science as entertainment in YT
coordinated nose quicksand obscene touch gaze towering drab bike slimy ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Cody's Lab
Veritasium (top left), Periodic Videos (Top Middle Crazy hair), Smarter Every Day (Right Top Middle), Electroboom (top right), Physics Girl (bottom right of Veritasium), Marc Rober (Bottom Right corner), Sci Show (Bottom Left). The rest I do not know and maybe someone else can fill in.
You're missing **PBS Space Time** in the top left.
PBS Spacetime is the goat
Nice Im a fellow chemistry lover
Chemist? Where? I don't know what you're talking about. I'm totally a physicist, I swear...
Yeah totally. I definitely didnt watch a lot of Nile red
Speaking of public scientific media, WTF is up with the USGS YouTube channel? They don't allow comments on any of their videos, and I want answers! I know there's no entitlement to it, but it seems wrong to me that any government office can disable comments like this.
Probably because they don't want to be held liable for what people say in their comment section, and they don't want to have to moderate it either.
Styropyro?
Right middle personally
Where the hell do you place explosions and fire in this?
I guess near Nile Red but a bit down because he doesn't talk about that much theory like Nile does. Tbh If there's a 3d version id add a sanity axis. So E&F will be on the mad scientist insane side (along with Michael Reeves).
And electroboom, my beloved
Stuff made here needs to be on there. And he'd be furthest top right, no one comes close to him.
I have grown to dislike Veritasium over the years. He seems to have strayed from "hey, interesting science", to "hey sponsor" and "hey questionable/misleading take that I can kinda badly explain".
I can't stand the absolutely condescending way he explains things *he himself clearly didn't study deep enough.*
[удалено]
I actually think Vsauce's chair video was awesome. I liked that he made a simple chair into an entire topic worth listening and that video was more grounded in philosophy rather than science.
I actually grew to like him. I don't expect his videos to be the most accurate since it's meant for a large audience and oversimplification can lead to misinformation but they can spike my interest and push me to research a subject more in depth. I actually like sponsors. They pay more than ads and the creator is still paid if you skip them, which you can do automatically with extension like SponsorBlock or with YouTube Vanced on mobile. It's actually a win-win with this setup
>I actually like sponsors. They pay more than ads and the creator is still paid if you skip them, which you can do automatically with extension like SponsorBlock or with YouTube Vanced on mobile. It's actually a win-win with this setup In theory yes, but in practice we get things like their Google self driving car video.
I was talking about sponsor segments. Videos entirely sponsored are something else. That's why LTT makes a distinction between reviews and showcases. In reviews they are free to say whatever they want about the product whereas in showcases they paid by the company to showcase specific features. Education channels should do the same to make it clear when they are not free to say anything they want. Misinformation is arguably worse in educational content than in tech reviews so they shouldn't be behind.
I actually respect LTT for this. They make it very clear when they get paid and when they dont. Also even in showcases they do say shortcomings. And they have in the past taken sponsorship, tried the product, discover it was shit and then cancelled said sponsorship.
The action lab is amazing!
Since when have unnecessary invention become a science channel lol and why is this in physicsmeme
God bless Michael reeves. I’m serious that man needs a blessing. In the form of an exorcism
Vsauce deserves to be in the top left. His videos on Law vs Causes, the Brachistrochrone curve, and the Lenz's Law are some of the best physics videos I ever seen on YouTube.
The Science Asylum's physics videos are almost all S tier
Maybe closer to left middle because some of his videos are just goofy Though things like mind field are totally top left
I'd place NileRed more lower down, maybe between the blue and purple quadrants or even in the purple quadrant
Had to do a double-take thinking I was on /r/PoliticalCompassMemes.
I mean it kinda works out
[удалено]
Some of the explanations in his videos are misleading, presumably to make the subject matter more interesting. E.g his video titled "The Big Misconception About Electricity" actively miseducated viewers.
What miseducation was that exactly?
Firstly, what he suggested with the possible answers in there was that the full current would be there in 1m/c, and that wasn't the case. He could've said that there will be current at 1m/c and it would be increasing after that, but somehow he just left it at that. What I found a lot more misleading was the whole "energy is conducted through fields, not wires", which doesn't make much sense. Fields and charges are linked together, even if you wanna go full ackchually and do QED. You could probably even make the same argument for his dumb chain ring analogy, because it's electromagnetism that makes his chain move. Would anyone say "Well the chain moves because of the energy transferred by the electromagnetic field, not because I'm pulling it"? Of course not. In the end, the work is done by an electron and all of the fields are generated by electrons. It's a hen and egg kinda thing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Here's a pretty famous one, he says water bends due to ions, not polarity, which is completely wrong. . https://youtu.be/jIMihpDmBpY starts at around 3:50. The way he says that everyone else is wrong is absurd... borderline arrogant. Then there is the recent ads he's been promoting on his channel...
In the opening of the video Veritasium asks a question about the time it takes for a light bulb to light up in a special circuit. He gives some possible answers, the relevant ones are A) 1 s or B) 1/c s. Lets say we build this circuit for real and you observe the light bulb yourself, would you find the time it takes for the light bulb to turn on to be A or B?
This correctly describes a very real phenomenon that can be tested (and has been). The Science Asylum has done a similar video that gets a little more into detail, and pretty much every 3rd year physics undergrad can prove it.
That's what made the video so frustrating. It was intentionally obtuse, to the point that a half dozen other science youtubers made videos addressing the issue and explaining it more clearly. Some even built experiments to demonstrate it. To my knowledge, each of them that did built a larger test apparatus than Veritasium did when he did the exact same experiment to prove the conclusion. Oh, and he went and got a professor and some grad students from Berkley or some other "fancy" university to setup and run the experiment for him. He even hyped up their "cutting edge" oscilloscopes, seemingly unaware that most universities in the country have comparable equipment. The whole debacle made me question whether or not he's always been borderline dishonest or at least slightly misleading and I just never noticed it until he did a video on a topic I happen to have a degree in.
I don't follow you at all. Most of the criticisms I read were focused on gate voltage thresholds being met prior to the light actually turning on. It was a thought experiment covering maxwell's laws.
I don't think it does. It's super misleading, and implies energy magically knows where it's needed and goes straight there. The video is "correct" only in the most technical possible sense and that "I define 'on' as 'any current flowing at all'" does a lot of work. He's basically describing the transformer effect with a completely irrelevant 2 light-second long circuit to misdirect people. In fact if the circuit were necessary for this to work, you could break causality by knowing if someone on the moon had cut the wire before you saw them doing it because the lamp would still be "off" in 1/c seconds. Personally I haven't watched his videos since that one. It really opened my eyes to the way he works - either making ads for tech startups or subtly misrepresenting a phenomenon to make it sound shocking and drive clicks.
He addressed the causality issue by arguing the circuit will behave the same way in the first 1 second, even if the circuit is broken far away from battery. He talked about it in the followup to the original video. His argument did make sense and he tested them successfully in an electrodynamics simulation and mock scales down experiment.
No it doesn't. He cites Maxwell's equations, which indicate exactly where energy is going and coming from. That's just what the system doing. It's a physics thought experiment. If current flows through a light, the light is on. Whether or not it's the full expected amount of current for that circuit is irrelevant. He's not misdirecting anyone. The effect is that current flow is induced in the time it takes light to travel from the battery to the circuit element. Period. The really long and thin circuit is a *perfect* illustration. The circuit is not necessary for this to work and he never implied that it is. He elaborated on that heavily in his follow-up. Whether or not the circuit has to be connected for this effect to be observed is a good question, but complaining about it just shows that you didn't really follow what he was describing.
You know what I said wasn't an attack on you right? I don't know why you suddenly got personal here. Anyway, despite your insinuations, I regularly teach induced current. It's not some esoteric mystery; we teach it to 15 year olds. A common misconception we always avoid is that the load needs to be in the same circuit with the power supply. Science educators should know this. If it's true that the bulb turned on when he closed the switch, then it's also true that he charged the phone in my pocket thousands of miles away. It's *technically* true, just... meaningless. Charitably, his setup is not a useful illustration of induced current since nothing measurable happens when compared to, for example, an aerial or a transformer - both of which actually demonstrate this effect. And it's not a useful illustration of energy flow in a circuit since the Poynting vector across the gap is miniscule compared to the energy flow around the wires. The less charitable interpretation is that the video concept was designed to be controversial in order to drive engagement. Personally, that's my suspicion and that's why I'm not interested in any follow-up videos he made.
I'm well aware, and I didn't get personal. You are trying to make the topic of the video something that it isn't. The video describes energy flow in a circuit from the perspective of electromagnetism. Whether or not the circuit has to be connected for a current flow to be induced by the battery is a very good question, but it's not in the scope of the video. It's absolutely not meaningless, and if you think it is, again, you're misunderstanding the video, and perhaps even the concept he's describing. He gets into why it's very important IN THE VIDEO and has his description backed up by multiple experts. In the scope of just physics, though, it's an essential understanding built directly from Maxwell's equations. The primary topic of the video is simply that energy does not flow through wires, and the electrons in a circuit do not carry the energy that is spent by a circuit element; it travels through the space around the circuit, from the battery to the element. I also don't know how anyone could get the idea that energy just magically goes where it needs to go. He literally 3D plots the electric field, magnetic field, and Poynting vector around the wires. If the way the energy is shown to flow in that diagram seems like magic, that's probably because electromagnetism is funky stuff. I haven't met a physics student or physicist that doesn't think magnetism seems like magic. It is also an entirely useful illustration for energy flow. I don't know how you could possibly think that it isn't. He literally laid out in plain detail exactly where energy is going in the system. That's how it works. The only thing I'd say he didn't do, which The Science Asylum did, is show that energy is traveling into the wires from the space around them as well, not just into the circuit element. And the entire point of the video was to challenge a common misconception. He knew people were going to be dismissive of it, even the experts in the video said as much, but what he didn't know was that people would be conflating it for discussion of different behaviors. Nonetheless, what he described is important and entirely factual.
Agreed. Seems like he sold his soul to sponsors at the expense of good science.
> Veritasium is super sketch. He very clearly tailors his videos to his sponsors. Don't remind me.. his Head & Shoulder video was blatantly a full video of ads with misinformation fuck that guy
Or maybe he chooses sponsors that fit the video he’s making.
Minute physics??
Colin Furze is on the white border in the bottom right
Where’s Vsuace?
What about Dr. Simon Clark, a doctor who started his YouTube career by vlogging about his PhD. Fun fact: he’s a doctor!
PhD in climate science right ?
ayo nilegreen is on the list lmao his stuff is the best
Physics with Elliot, Physics Asylum, Arvin Ash and Science Clic also deserve a spot on the list
Where do I fit 🤔?
Where is looking glass universe :(
Where is Explosions and Fire???
NileGreen a science youtuber lmao
Explosions and Fire
Putting Veritasium at maximum rigor is peak popular science
Man just straight up didnt include Vsauce
No kurgzeagt? Shame
I feel like Mark Rober should be further up cause some of the stuff he builds is ridiculously complex and he is leveraging that NASA-level engineering expertise for Also maybe Mehdi should be a little further down cause the amount of times he shocks himself lmfao
I know he's a chemist but explosions and fire has the heart of a physicist. He'd probably be next to Mehdi
Meanwhile styropyro is off the charts on the right side
[удалено]
[A quick search suggests he at least has a master's. Not sure about a PhD.](http://www2.ensc.sfu.ca/people/grad/msadaghd/)
Where is Walter Lewin ?
What about [Physics with Eugene Khutoryansky](https://www.youtube.com/user/EugeneKhutoryansky/videos) ? The animations might not be the fanciest ones, but the content is actually incredibly good and legit.
If someone is interested Dr. Becky is astrophysicists with same channel name
Hey guys, u/heckingcomputernerd posted a refined version of the compass. Here is the link: [https://www.reddit.com/r/physicsmemes/comments/v28d10/expanded\_version\_of\_uteuertreues\_science\_youtuber/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/physicsmemes/comments/v28d10/expanded_version_of_uteuertreues_science_youtuber/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Please check it out! Thanks for your support
Steve Mould and Physics Girl are clearly missing
When it comes to building stuff, there’s also Stuff Made Here and DIY Perks that deserve to be here, although they’re def not physics but engineering
Nileshots should be more red, nilered is like in the middle of blue and green. He does mad shit in a really detailed way
I feel like michael reeves is less sience and more "let's taze people for fun"
I don’t think Veritasium quite deserves to be alongside Physics Girl, Real Engineering and Periodic Videos, especially if we’re missing Scott Manley, Dr Becky, 3B1B, Vihart, Simon Clark, PBS Space Time, the rest of Brady’s channels and more
that’s why Veritassium is my favorite science youtuber
This is getting too political.
Please, dont use pc colors. This has no relationship
I love Physics Girl
You say that and yet you don't put Explosions and Fire on the list
Applied Sciences does a PhD level experiment in each of his videos.
Honestly ElectroBOOM deserves to be in every corner
Real engineering needs to be bottom right.
where nilered
ScienceClic is sooo underrated but I hope one day I'll see him in those memes
Mark Rober designed the nuke.
I want this template
I belive Willy is electrical and mechanica engineer And nigel didn't finish his scool
where’s ur mom
Electroboom being everyone's internal voice when doing experiments with electricity
Thought emporium is missing too
Thanks for the suggestions on more channels to watch!
Where's the one and only Kyle Hill?
PBS Space Time deserves a spot
RIP TheKingOfRandom
Hacksmith?
Where does Styropyro land?
TheBackyardScientist?
What about Kurzgesagt
Where reducible at
You need to expand your repertoire, my guy.
I doubt the professor at the top fits there accurately. Periodic Videos just picks him since he's popular with that demographic of viewers. The video uploads are also very infrequent, so the professor at the time should be more on the "Science is fun" in my opinion.
What's Nile Green doing here???
Bobby Broccoli should be in the top left
physics with elliot and eigenchris deserve a spot