[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

At least we know that there's still a gap in understanding of refraction.

A more accurate statement is:
At least we I know that there's still a gap in [my] understanding of refraction.

I don't know if your understanding of refraction is correct or not, because you never told us here. But the first videos in this thread shows many of us misunderstand it, including professional physicists. If you think you have a better explanation, let us know. Now you can peacefully put up or shut up.

[Bored chemist]

because you never told us here.

He did, though he was a bit obscure about it.
That stuff about a man from Porterhouse referred to this guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell
and his equations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
which let you calculate refraction.

How come you didn't realise that?
Is it because you refuse to learn science?

[evan_au]

x-ray photons transfer significant momentum, so conservation demands that the forward displacement of the substrate electrons

The IXPE space telescope (launched end-2021) measures the polarization of X-Rays from astronomical sources.
https://www.space.com/nasa-ixpe-satellite-begins-gathering-science-data

Rather than detect X-Ray polarization by refraction, they monitor it by watching the direction electrons are ejected when the X-Ray photon hits a gas molecule.
https://ixpe.msfc.nasa.gov/detectors.html

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

because you never told us here.

He did, though he was a bit obscure about it.
That stuff about a man from Porterhouse referred to this guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell
and his equations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
which let you calculate refraction.

How come you didn't realise that?
Is it because you refuse to learn science?

Why do we still have widely spread incorrect explanations as described in the first videos here?

[alancalverd]

Why indeed? At least it's not as stupid, dangerous or widespread as religion.

[Bored chemist]

Why do we still have widely spread incorrect explanations as described in the first videos here?

Once again, we are in "lies we tell to children" territory.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Why do we still have widely spread incorrect explanations as described in the first videos here?

Once again, we are in "lies we tell to children" territory.

What's the adult version?

[Bored chemist]

Why do we still have widely spread incorrect explanations as described in the first videos here?

Once again, we are in "lies we tell to children" territory.

What's the adult version?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
Or, if you like, the one actually given as an explanation (rather than as an example of "wrong answers") in the first video.
Or the pretty similar version given here.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

The macroscopic equations define two new auxiliary fields that describe the large-scale behaviour of matter without having to consider atomic scale charges and quantum phenomena like spins. However, their use requires experimentally determined parameters for a phenomenological description of the electromagnetic response of materials.

It means that it doesn't really explain how materials behave to produce observable phenomena like refraction and absorption.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Or, if you like, the one actually given as an explanation (rather than as an example of "wrong answers") in the first video.
Or the pretty similar version given here.

They are different. The first video explains refraction as result of superposition of waves with different speeds.
The last video explains refraction as result of superposition of original wave with reactionary wave from molecules of the medium, which have the same speed, but different phase. .

[alancalverd]

Neither is an explanation. They are mathematical models that generate the observed result.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Neither is an explanation. They are mathematical models that generate the observed result.

What else does it take to make an explanation?

[alancalverd]

Maxwell's equations derive v from measurable quantities and hence explain why v varies with photon energy and substrate.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Maxwell's equations derive v from measurable quantities and hence explain why v varies with photon energy and substrate.

Do you count them as explanation?

[Bored chemist]

The first video explains refraction as result of superposition of waves with different speeds.

Where does it say that (about light in glass)?

[alancalverd]

Maxwell's equations derive v from measurable quantities and hence explain why v varies with photon energy and substrate.

Do you count them as explanation?

Yes. If you can derive an observable effect from a measurable quantity, you have explained the effect.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Yes. If you can derive an observable effect from a measurable quantity, you have explained the effect.

How do you derive X-ray refraction in air-glass interface using Maxwell equation? What's the ε and μ?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The first video explains refraction as result of superposition of waves with different speeds.

Where does it say that (about light in glass)?

Skip to 7:06, and continue watching.

[Bored chemist]

He makes a statement about combining waves.
If you combine waves of different speeds you get other, slower waves.
This is true; but irrelevant.
At about 8:55 he says that you get a combination of waves in light travelling through matter.
He doesn't say how they differ. He doesn't say if they differ in phase or speed.
In fact, they have the same speed, but different phase.

He could certainly have made it clearer than he did.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

He makes a statement about combining waves.
If you combine waves of different speeds you get other, slower waves.
This is true; but irrelevant.
At about 8:55 he says that you get a combination of waves in light travelling through matter.
He doesn't say how they differ. He doesn't say if they differ in phase or speed.
In fact, they have the same speed, but different phase.

He could certainly have made it clearer than he did.

But light propagates through optical fiber slower than through air. Hence the speed is different.

Even a professional physicist can't explain refraction clearly. Yet some non-scientists claimed to understand it completely without evidence.