[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Huygens predicts how it will be affected by reflection,

How is a wave reflected in Huygen's model?
What makes it different than transmission?

Here's how reflection is explained using antenna model, starting at 5:45.

This is the model I used to come up with blocking mechanism, and designed polarization twister.

As shown in the video, antenna model can explain the mechanism of reflection in electromagnetic waves intuitively. I wonder why this model hasn't been further developed to explain other optical phenomena, such as refraction, diffraction, and interference of light.
With this model, the explanation for polarization is straight forward. Nothing is counter intuitive.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's another attempt to explain light more intuitively.

Coherence & Light Part1: Temporal Coherence

This is the first episode about coherence and how this wave phenomenon can cause waves to behave like localized entities or energy quanta.
Unfortunately the quantum (or corpuscular) description of light leads to a lot of confusion (and nonsense). The goal of this video is to describe "quantized" behavior of light purely from wave principles. Because: why first transform waves into particles and then try to describe them using a wave function?

Contents:
0:00 Intro
1:04 Historical perspective
2:58 Quantization and the photoelectric effect
6:42 Light is just waves
7:24 Coherence explained
12:54 Temporal coherence as a sum of EM-fields
16:47 Coherence length vs. spectral band width
20:25 experiments on the coherence length of light

Can't wait for the second part of the video.

[alancalverd]

Here's another attempt to explain light more intuitively.

Why?
Does anyone bother with an "intuitive explanation" of water, steel, cats, DNA....?
Stuff exists, things happen, and sometimes you need more than one equation to predict what happens next.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's another attempt to explain light more intuitively.

Why?
Does anyone bother with an "intuitive explanation" of water, steel, cats, DNA....?
Stuff exists, things happen, and sometimes you need more than one equation to predict what happens next.

Occam's Razor.
Unintuitive explanation means there's something unexpected, which means there's at least one false assumption. We would like to identify it, just in case it would someday lead us to make wrong decisions.
The level of understanding required depends on the purpose or terminal goal in mind.
Fishes don't care what water is made of. But Martian colonizers should.

[Bored chemist]

there's at least one false assumption.

The incorrect assumption is that light should behave like macroscopic matter- whether that's waves on the sea or snooker balls on a table.

We know that.
So what?

[alancalverd]

The ultimate test of the validity of an assumption is whether the bridge falls down or the plane crashes.So far, no current textbook assumptions about the generation propagation and interactions of visible light seem to have resulted in disaster or even mild surprise.

Science and intuition are often at odds. Eddington said that the student of physics must become accustomed to having his common sense violated five times before breakfast. Those violations are the stuff of scientific investigation, which usually ends up in  textbooks.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

there's at least one false assumption.

The incorrect assumption is that light should behave like macroscopic matter- whether that's waves on the sea or snooker balls on a table.

We know that.
So what?

So some of us wonder, is there a better way to explain light? We can find many Youtube videos try to answer that question. So I know I'm not the only one.
We can say that better means more effective and efficient in describing and predicting behaviors of light in various situations with the least amount of ad hoc assumptions. At what point can we safely say that our currently accepted theory is the best way possible to explain light?
It's also fine if you're not that into it. No one will force you to.

[alancalverd]

I'm beginning to wonder what you mean by "explain". We can certainly make lots of predictions about the behavior of electromagnetic radiation. How much more do you want?

[Bored chemist]

I'm beginning to wonder what you mean by "explain". We can certainly make lots of predictions about the behavior of electromagnetic radiation. How much more do you want?

I think he may be looking for an answer that says "why" light does what it does.
As far as I can tell, that's not something physics does.

[alancalverd]

Indeed. "Why" implies an intended objective, and AFAIK no photon has any future intentions. Physics is about "how", psychology and religion attempt to deal with "why".

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Coherence & Light Part1: Temporal Coherence

Here's the second part.

Coherence & Light part 2: Spatial Coherence

Contents:
0:00 Intro
0:38 Real life demo of spatial coherence (Lorentz pond)
2:14 Numerical wave simulations (Nils Berglund)
5:05 Area of Coherence explained
8:07 Calculating the Area of Coherence of the Sun
9:10 Spatial coherence and the double slit experiment
10:41 About the use of metaphors in science
12:45 Double slit demo without & with spatial coherence
15:43 Spatial coherence of light from far away stars
18:13 Quantization and semantics
20:39 Credits