[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Let's assume that someone knows the correct answer to why light changes its speed and direction during refraction. What prevents them from revealing it to the public?

[Bored chemist]

Let's assume that someone knows the correct answer to why light changes its speed and direction during refraction. What prevents them from revealing it to the public?

Nothing.
But they have not.
So your premise is incorrect  by reductio ad absurdum
We can conclude that nobody "knows the correct answer to why light changes its speed and direction during refraction".

[alancalverd]

It might just be something to do with ε and μ, but, like Maxwell, I'm just guessing.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Let's assume that someone knows the correct answer to why light changes its speed and direction during refraction. What prevents them from revealing it to the public?

Nothing.
But they have not.
So your premise is incorrect  by reductio ad absurdum
We can conclude that nobody "knows the correct answer to why light changes its speed and direction during refraction".

Then it's an opportunity for us to be the first to know, by doing research on this topic.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It might just be something to do with ε and μ, but, like Maxwell, I'm just guessing.

They are empirical values, which makes them more like measurable effects instead of the cause.

[Bored chemist]

Let's assume that someone knows the correct answer to why light changes its speed and direction during refraction. What prevents them from revealing it to the public?

Nothing.
But they have not.
So your premise is incorrect  by reductio ad absurdum
We can conclude that nobody "knows the correct answer to why light changes its speed and direction during refraction".

Then it's an opportunity for us to be the first to know, by doing research on this topic.

No.
It's grounds to ask what the guy who said we could make the assumption was thinking.

[Bored chemist]

It might just be something to do with ε and μ, but, like Maxwell, I'm just guessing.

They are empirical values, which makes them more like measurable effects instead of the cause.

They are, in principle, calculable.
The actual cause is arithmetically complex but fundamentally, this sort of thing.
https://www.motioncontroltips.com/four-laws-of-electromagnetism-you-should-know/

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This video tries to answer the question based on Feynman's lecture.

You can't explain prisms without understanding springs | Optics puzzles part 3
How the index of refraction arises, and why it depends on color.
Sections:
0:00 - The standard explanation
3:14 - The plan
5:09 - Phase kicks
8:25 - What causes light?
13:20 - Adding waves
16:40 - Modeling the charge oscillation
20:59 - The driven harmonic oscillator
26:57 - End notes

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

X-rays "faster" than the speed of light, and more refractive index questions | Optics puzzles part 4

Timestamps:

0:00 - Why slowing implies bending
3:36 - Recap for how slowing happens
5:08 - Birefringence
6:19 - The barber pole
8:20 - When the refractive index is less than 1

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellmeier_equation

The Sellmeier equation is an empirical relationship between refractive index and wavelength for a particular transparent medium. The equation is used to determine the dispersion of light in the medium.

Refractive index vs. wavelength for BK7 glass, showing measured points (blue crosses) and the Sellmeier equation (red line)

The X-ray should be on the left in the diagram.
The equation is pretty good at predicting the refractive index. Unfortunately, the article doesn't show it's theoretical derivation.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

For characterization of glasses the equation consisting of three terms is commonly used:
As an example, the coefficients for a common borosilicate crown glass known as BK7 are shown below:
Coefficient   Value
B1   1.03961212
B2   0.231792344
B3   1.01046945
C1   6.00069867?10−3 μm2
C2   2.00179144?10−2 μm2
C3   1.03560653?102 μm2
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellmeier_equation

Out of curiosity, I plotted the equation into Wolfram Alpha. When x is not specified, the curve doesn't seem like anything shown in Wikipedia article.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+sqrt%281%2B1.04*x%5E2%2F%28x%5E2-0.006%29%2B0.23*x%5E2%2F%28x%5E2-0.02%29%2B1.01*x%5E2%2F%28x%5E2-104%29%29+


When x is specified between 0.2 and 2, the curve looks more like in the article.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+sqrt%281%2B1.04*x%5E2%2F%28x%5E2-0.006%29%2B0.23*x%5E2%2F%28x%5E2-0.02%29%2B1.01*x%5E2%2F%28x%5E2-104%29%29+from+0.2+to+2


Extrapolation for X-ray should cover shorter wavelength.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+sqrt%281%2B1.04*x%5E2%2F%28x%5E2-0.006%29%2B0.23*x%5E2%2F%28x%5E2-0.02%29%2B1.01*x%5E2%2F%28x%5E2-104%29%29+from+0+to+0.2


It should occur close to the origin of the graph, corresponding up to 0.01 micrometer wavelength.

Roughly, X-rays have a wavelength ranging from 10 nanometers to 10 picometers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray