[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

These videos show why many explanations of refraction are wrong.

I'll show that the accepted explanation in those videos are still inaccurate.

[Kryptid]

I'll show that the accepted explanation in those videos are still inaccurate.

Is there anything in particular you're waiting for?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Is there anything in particular you're waiting for?

Nothing in particular. I was just occupied by other more urgent matters.
In video #1
from 7:06 mark, we get that amplitude of combined wave fluctuates, just like beat phenomenon. If the speed of first wave is very similar to the second wave, such as interface between vacuum and thin air, or glass and sunflower oil, we should receive low frequency beat. AFAIK, this is not observed in experiment.
from 8:20 mark, somehow the second wave changes the wavelength for no apparent reason. But curiously, the resultant wave have the same wavelength as the first wave.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In video#2
from marker 9:37 The explanation goes on to assume that the electric field is p-polarized (parallel to plane of incident. In this case, your monitor screen). It doesn't show how it works for s-polarized light (perpendicular to your monitor screen).

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In my experiment using microwave, I can confirm that partial reflections by partial polarizers can produce phase shift of one polarization component over the other, which is shown by production of circularly polarized microwave from linearly polarized transmitter as the source. This indicates that one polarization component has changed its speed when travelling between those partial polarizers.
In the next video that I'm preparing, I'll show that speed change alone is not sufficient to produce change of direction. It is possible for light to change speed when passing through different media without changing its direction, even when the incoming angle is not 0.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

My model can be thought as an extention to the working principle of antenna, which can be shown clearly here.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Light DOES NOT slow down in glass!
Light does NOT slow down when it goes from air to glass. Yet, it gets delayed. How?

The explanation offered in this video is more compatible with my own experiments using microwave transceiver, although there are still some discrepancies.
I expect to see massive revisions on physics textbooks in not so distant future. At least, refraction of X-ray by glass should be mentioned.

[Origin]

I expect to see massive revisions on physics textbooks in not so distant future

I don't.. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I expect to see massive revisions on physics textbooks in not so distant future

I don't.. 

why?

[Origin]

why?

Because we already know why the speed of light slows down when it passes through glass, water, etc. obviously.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

why?

Because we already know why the speed of light slows down when it passes through glass, water, etc. obviously.

Why X-ray seems to speed up when it passes through glass?
Have you seen the video?

“It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.”-
Epictetus

“It’s what we think we know that keeps us from learning.”― Claude Bernard

[Bored chemist]

Have you seen the video?

No, I haven't, but I'm aware of the effect of glass on a Xray beam.
So are most scientists.
So, as Origin said.

we already know why the speed of light slows down when it passes through glass, water, etc. obviously.

[evan_au]

interface between vacuum and glass...we should receive low frequency beat

To get a low frequency beat, you have to mix two frequencies together, in the same, non-linear medium.
- Vacuum and glass are not the same medium - they are two different media
- Vacuum is very linear (up to E field strengths that were only recently achieved), and common types of glass are pretty linear (provided you don't start melting it)

So I wouldn't expect to see beat frequencies, or that they would cause refraction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_optics

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No, I haven't, but I'm aware of the effect of glass on a Xray beam.

What's your explanation?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

interface between vacuum and glass...we should receive low frequency beat

Where did I say that?

[Bored chemist]

Where did I say that?

Here

we should receive low frequency beat.

No, I haven't, but I'm aware of the effect of glass on a Xray beam.

What's your explanation?

More or less the one given in that video- in which the guy cites Feynman's books on the subject.
Those books are older than I am.
So this

I expect to see massive revisions on physics textbooks in not so distant future.

makes very little sense.
The stuff is already in the textbooks and has been since (at least) the 1960s.

[Origin]

Have you seen the video?

No, the reason there is no need to see it is this statement you made:
"The explanation offered in this video is more compatible with my own experiments".

You are not physicist (probably haven't even taken a single physics course) and your posting history is full of errors and misconceptions, so if the video disagrees with mainstream physics and aligns with your ideas then it is not worth watching.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

interface between vacuum and glass...we should receive low frequency beat

To get a low frequency beat, you have to mix two frequencies together, in the same, non-linear medium.
- Vacuum and glass are not the same medium - they are two different media
- Vacuum is very linear (up to E field strengths that were only recently achieved), and common types of glass are pretty linear (provided you don't start melting it)

So I wouldn't expect to see beat frequencies, or that they would cause refraction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_optics

That's why I rejected the explanation in the first video.

[Origin]

More or less the one given in that video- in which the guy cites Feynman's books on the subject.
Those books are older than I am

Well that's pretty humorous, so apparently the video is accurate it's just that hamdani doesn't understand it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

More or less the one given in that video- in which the guy cites Feynman's books on the subject.
Those books are older than I am.

Most physics textbooks explain refraction using Snell's law which is derived from Fermat's principle. Feynman's explanation is more similar to derivation using Huygen's principle. They leave the part of how the media change phase velocity of light unexplained.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law