正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Back in the 90s we discovered strontium aluminate - the most powerful glow-in-the-dark substance there is, as far as we know. It is easy to make as a powder, but almost impossible to grow as a crystal, and a friend of Gems of Science(Turtle's Hoard (Gems of Science)) spent... show more

Strange Parts

47,736 subscribers

79,217 次观看 • 18 天前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

20 条评论

flow in 的头像

flow in18 天前

@AngryTurtleGems i have strontium aluminate tattoos. i got ptfe coated crystal grains from a company that no longer exists, and put them into my dermis using a fairly bloody process. They are still there, and still glow nicely, nearly 20 years later

Nero3D the Canuck Creator 的头像

Nero3D the Canuck Creator18 天前

@AngryTurtleGems fun fact, @Prusa3D makes some @prusament glow in the dark PETG with it, its crazy how much it glows, its also unbelievably abrasive

John Hickelmeyer 的头像

John Hickelmeyer18 天前

@AngryTurtleGems Hello, entire watch industry..... *gestures vaguely*

Arcturus 🌥️ 的头像

Arcturus 🌥️18 天前

@AngryTurtleGems The raver in me is going crazy rn

Zazzy Xandrax 的头像

Zazzy Xandrax18 天前

@AngryTurtleGems What if you suspended particles in a transparent substance like epoxy?

Radish 🫜 的头像

Radish 🫜18 天前

@AngryTurtleGems Imagine using a small crystal of this for lume in a watch

Charles Preston Gourd 的头像

Charles Preston Gourd18 天前

@AngryTurtleGems The most powerful glow in the dark substance is strontium "aluminate?"

The Godfather 的头像

The Godfather17 天前

@AngryTurtleGems I WANT ONE SO BAD!

K.A. 的头像

K.A.18 天前

@AngryTurtleGems Hmmm I've seen them before somewhere 🤔

Erik Fair17 天前

@AngryTurtleGems Modern traditional wristwatches use "lume" for watch hands & hour marks to make time visible at night. "SuperLumiNova" is made in part from strontium aluminate …

Oren T 的头像

Oren T18 天前

@AngryTurtleGems Czochralski FTW!

Evo 的头像

Evo18 天前

@AngryTurtleGems Very cool, direct solar batteries open up, for lighting and energy generation after dark.

Andrew Sanderson 的头像

Andrew Sanderson17 天前

@AngryTurtleGems Odd q have they tried "growing" the crystal structure as a single layer instead of a full crystal to create a sheet of material

HELLO3D FILAMENT 的头像

HELLO3D FILAMENT16 天前

@AngryTurtleGems 哦哦，还有其他颜色吗？

J M 的头像

J M18 天前

how long does a single crystal take to grow?

Hacking Nirvana 的头像

Hacking Nirvana18 天前

@AngryTurtleGems I have been looking for this for so long

Leah Meah 的头像

Leah Meah17 天前

@AngryTurtleGems But strontium gives off a red color as seen in fireworks. So how is this green?

RDC 的头像

RDC17 天前

@AngryTurtleGems This is such a cool find!!! Strontium aluminate for the win! 😄

NXTX 的头像

NXTX18 天前

@AngryTurtleGems Cosmetic dentists would be all over that

T_Khanh2026.eth 🐬TermMax 的头像

T_Khanh2026.eth 🐬TermMax17 天前

@AngryTurtleGems 13 years is wild

相关视频

Today we rallied in support of science and the scientific community in Woods Hole as part of the nationwide #StandUpForScience movement. Science is not a divider - it is a unifier.

Today we rallied in support of science and the scientific community in Woods Hole as part of the nationwide #StandUpForScience movement. Science is not a divider - it is a unifier.

Congressman Bill Keating

10,808 次观看 • 1 年前

Uncover 200 years of science at the Ri, as we celebrate a host of landmark anniversaries – including the 200th year of the world-famous Christmas Lectures. #Discover200 with us in 2025. Explore the past, present and future of science. Find out more:

Uncover 200 years of science at the Ri, as we celebrate a host of landmark anniversaries – including the 200th year of the world-famous Christmas Lectures. #Discover200 with us in 2025. Explore the past, present and future of science. Find out more:

Royal Institution (now on Bluesky)

13,243 次观看 • 1 年前

Nobel laureate, Sir Peter Medawar, pointed out that the idea that science is the only way to truth is unworthy of science itself. Science deals with the 'what' and the 'how' but it is easy to see science cannot deal with the 'why' of purpose. Pt 3/7: Do science and faith mix?

Nobel laureate, Sir Peter Medawar, pointed out that the idea that science is the only way to truth is unworthy of science itself. Science deals with the 'what' and the 'how' but it is easy to see science cannot deal with the 'why' of purpose. Pt 3/7: Do science and faith mix?

Prof John Lennox

22,657 次观看 • 2 年前

Richard Feynman’s savage takedown of pseudo-science still burns in 2026: “Social science is an example of a science which is not a science. They follow the forms… but they don’t get any laws. They haven’t found out anything.” He goes harder: Experts who “sit at a typewriter and make up” claims — “organic food is better,” “this diet cures everything” — as if it’s settled science, when no rigorous experiments or checks have been done. Feynman: “I know what it means to really know something. How careful you have to be. How easy it is to fool yourself. I see how they get their information… and I can’t believe that they know.” The Nobel physicist calls it straight: most of what passes for “expert” opinion is noise dressed up as knowledge. In an age drowning in TikTok “science,” influencers, and clickbait studies — Feynman’s 1:52 rant feels more relevant than ever. Who’s the biggest pseudo-expert that grinds your gears right now? Clip is timeless fire — watch it and feel the clarity.

Richard Feynman’s savage takedown of pseudo-science still burns in 2026: “Social science is an example of a science which is not a science. They follow the forms… but they don’t get any laws. They haven’t found out anything.” He goes harder: Experts who “sit at a typewriter and make up” claims — “organic food is better,” “this diet cures everything” — as if it’s settled science, when no rigorous experiments or checks have been done. Feynman: “I know what it means to really know something. How careful you have to be. How easy it is to fool yourself. I see how they get their information… and I can’t believe that they know.” The Nobel physicist calls it straight: most of what passes for “expert” opinion is noise dressed up as knowledge. In an age drowning in TikTok “science,” influencers, and clickbait studies — Feynman’s 1:52 rant feels more relevant than ever. Who’s the biggest pseudo-expert that grinds your gears right now? Clip is timeless fire — watch it and feel the clarity.

Camus

532,983 次观看 • 6 个月前

These beings and their craft belong to the same Reality as humans, however their advancement in the realms of physical science and the science of consciousness has given them competence in a broader aspect of the Full Spectrum of Reality than is usually experienced by humans.

These beings and their craft belong to the same Reality as humans, however their advancement in the realms of physical science and the science of consciousness has given them competence in a broader aspect of the Full Spectrum of Reality than is usually experienced by humans.

Dr. Steven Greer

25,795 次观看 • 10 个月前

🇮🇷 The will is there, the knowhow is nearly there, and the only thing holding them back is fear of being caught. Ex-JCPOA Negotiator Robert Malley just laid it all out. "They're getting all of the costs of having the sanctions and pressures as if we had a bomb, but we don't have a bomb, so we don't have that deterrent." Iran is stuck in the worst of both worlds, and they know it. Robert Malley

🇮🇷 The will is there, the knowhow is nearly there, and the only thing holding them back is fear of being caught. Ex-JCPOA Negotiator Robert Malley just laid it all out. "They're getting all of the costs of having the sanctions and pressures as if we had a bomb, but we don't have a bomb, so we don't have that deterrent." Iran is stuck in the worst of both worlds, and they know it. Robert Malley

Mario Nawfal

45,122 次观看 • 4 个月前

Sanatana Dharma is neither a tradition from the past, nor a belief system. It is a profound science of wellbeing – the science of living life to the fullest and liberating oneself. If we present it to the world properly, it will be the future of humanity. - Sg

Sanatana Dharma is neither a tradition from the past, nor a belief system. It is a profound science of wellbeing – the science of living life to the fullest and liberating oneself. If we present it to the world properly, it will be the future of humanity. - Sg

Sadhguru

140,159 次观看 • 1 年前

David founder Peter Rahal on why there's not much innovation in food: "Food entrepreneurs are predominately luddites. A lot of talented entrepreneurs just don’t go into food. Because it’s hard. And it’s not obvious how to differentiate. Nutrition science is not seen as a real science. This leads to a lot confusion in the market. For example, the economics don’t work to study the effect of a potato on the human body. There’s just not enough money in potatoes to justify the R&D budget to learn more about them. And so there’s actually not a lot of money going into the research and science of nutrition. Peter Thiel has a quote “If you ever put science behind something, it’s not a real science.” And so nutrition science is not a real science. But it can be. There’s just no money in it. And what is food? It’s really just understanding biochemistry. But it just doesn’t exist. And I think it’s probably driven by the economics of it. So I think that’s the main reason. But hopefully it will change in the future." Full conversation with Peter here:

David founder Peter Rahal on why there's not much innovation in food: "Food entrepreneurs are predominately luddites. A lot of talented entrepreneurs just don’t go into food. Because it’s hard. And it’s not obvious how to differentiate. Nutrition science is not seen as a real science. This leads to a lot confusion in the market. For example, the economics don’t work to study the effect of a potato on the human body. There’s just not enough money in potatoes to justify the R&D budget to learn more about them. And so there’s actually not a lot of money going into the research and science of nutrition. Peter Thiel has a quote “If you ever put science behind something, it’s not a real science.” And so nutrition science is not a real science. But it can be. There’s just no money in it. And what is food? It’s really just understanding biochemistry. But it just doesn’t exist. And I think it’s probably driven by the economics of it. So I think that’s the main reason. But hopefully it will change in the future." Full conversation with Peter here:

The Peel

12,128 次观看 • 2 个月前

David Chalmers on why consciousness is science's greatest unsolved problem: Science has mapped subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life yet it remains almost completely silent on the one thing we know most directly: our own conscious experience. In a rare early interview, philosopher David Chalmers explains why: "Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world. I know that I exist. I know that I'm conscious. Everything else is secondary." And yet, despite this intimacy, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture. Chalmers points to a deep irony: science has made extraordinary progress on phenomena that are extraordinarily remote: subatomic particles, distant galaxies, the molecular machinery of biology while making almost no progress on the one thing closest to us. Why? Because science, by design, eliminates the subjective. "To do proper science, you have to be objective. You have to eliminate anything subjective from the picture." He uses heat as the perfect example. Physics gives us a complete account of heat molecules in motion, energy transfer, temperature gradients. It explains every objective aspect of the phenomenon. But it never explains what hotness actually feels like. "Science doesn't actually give a theory of the conscious feeling of hotness." This is what Chalmers calls the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can trace every neural signal from your heat sensor along your nerves into your brain and still have explained nothing about the subjective experience of feeling warm. As interviewer Jeffrey Mishlove puts it: you can't even do science without a conscious mind to observe, interpret, and make meaning of data. Consciousness is the precondition for science itself and yet science has no framework to account for it. Chalmers' conclusion is striking: The methods of science may need to be expanded. Consciousness might not be something science explains away. It might be something science has to learn to start with.

David Chalmers on why consciousness is science's greatest unsolved problem: Science has mapped subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life yet it remains almost completely silent on the one thing we know most directly: our own conscious experience. In a rare early interview, philosopher David Chalmers explains why: "Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world. I know that I exist. I know that I'm conscious. Everything else is secondary." And yet, despite this intimacy, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture. Chalmers points to a deep irony: science has made extraordinary progress on phenomena that are extraordinarily remote: subatomic particles, distant galaxies, the molecular machinery of biology while making almost no progress on the one thing closest to us. Why? Because science, by design, eliminates the subjective. "To do proper science, you have to be objective. You have to eliminate anything subjective from the picture." He uses heat as the perfect example. Physics gives us a complete account of heat molecules in motion, energy transfer, temperature gradients. It explains every objective aspect of the phenomenon. But it never explains what hotness actually feels like. "Science doesn't actually give a theory of the conscious feeling of hotness." This is what Chalmers calls the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can trace every neural signal from your heat sensor along your nerves into your brain and still have explained nothing about the subjective experience of feeling warm. As interviewer Jeffrey Mishlove puts it: you can't even do science without a conscious mind to observe, interpret, and make meaning of data. Consciousness is the precondition for science itself and yet science has no framework to account for it. Chalmers' conclusion is striking: The methods of science may need to be expanded. Consciousness might not be something science explains away. It might be something science has to learn to start with.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

31,662 次观看 • 6 个月前

Sergey Brin: "AI Pulled Me Out of Retirement" "This is the most fun I've had in my life honestly and ... this is the greatest transformative moment in computer science ever. Being a computer scientist, it is the most exciting thing of my life technologically."

Sergey Brin: "AI Pulled Me Out of Retirement" "This is the most fun I've had in my life honestly and ... this is the greatest transformative moment in computer science ever. Being a computer scientist, it is the most exciting thing of my life technologically."

Overlap: Business & Tech

173,456 次观看 • 1 年前

David Chalmers on the one thing science can't explain: Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the one science has almost nothing to say about. That's the puzzle Chalmers lays out in this early interview, and it's as disorienting today as it was then. His starting point is deceptively simple. Everything we know about the external world: subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life. We know through consciousness. It's the very first thing we have. And yet when we turn science around and try to explain consciousness itself, we hit a wall. "Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world and looking out at the world… everything else is secondary." What makes this so strange is the asymmetry. We've made extraordinary progress understanding things that are genuinely remote and difficult quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, molecular biology. But understanding our own inner experience? Almost nothing. "It almost sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture." This is what Chalmers would later formalise as the "hard problem of consciousness": not just explaining how the brain processes information or controls behaviour. Those are hard, but tractable. The real mystery is why any of that physical activity is accompanied by experience at all. Why is there something it feels like to be you? The question isn't abstract. It sits at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, physics, and AI. As we build systems that process language and reason about the world, the question of whether they are or could be conscious presses harder than ever. Chalmers doesn't offer an answer here. Only the sharpest possible version of the question.

David Chalmers on the one thing science can't explain: Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the one science has almost nothing to say about. That's the puzzle Chalmers lays out in this early interview, and it's as disorienting today as it was then. His starting point is deceptively simple. Everything we know about the external world: subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life. We know through consciousness. It's the very first thing we have. And yet when we turn science around and try to explain consciousness itself, we hit a wall. "Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world and looking out at the world… everything else is secondary." What makes this so strange is the asymmetry. We've made extraordinary progress understanding things that are genuinely remote and difficult quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, molecular biology. But understanding our own inner experience? Almost nothing. "It almost sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture." This is what Chalmers would later formalise as the "hard problem of consciousness": not just explaining how the brain processes information or controls behaviour. Those are hard, but tractable. The real mystery is why any of that physical activity is accompanied by experience at all. Why is there something it feels like to be you? The question isn't abstract. It sits at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, physics, and AI. As we build systems that process language and reason about the world, the question of whether they are or could be conscious presses harder than ever. Chalmers doesn't offer an answer here. Only the sharpest possible version of the question.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

14,034 次观看 • 5 个月前

This is honestly one of my favorite explanations of how magic works and why it's not openly available in the universe. The metaphor of the wall as a psychological barrier we humans as creatures of logic put up on ourselves as we even with it before us can not accept it as real. Sorcerers are the rare few who are not slaves bound to the laws of logic and science. Heck, it took Stephen hell to even just be a beginner, and it all felt earned... truly beautiful in a way.

This is honestly one of my favorite explanations of how magic works and why it's not openly available in the universe. The metaphor of the wall as a psychological barrier we humans as creatures of logic put up on ourselves as we even with it before us can not accept it as real. Sorcerers are the rare few who are not slaves bound to the laws of logic and science. Heck, it took Stephen hell to even just be a beginner, and it all felt earned... truly beautiful in a way.

Fenrir the Ice Wolf

72,933 次观看 • 4 个月前

Elon Musk: We've got to have a serious science base on the moon "We got to get back to the moon and build a base there. A science base. I think we could learn a lot about the nature of the universe if we have a proper science base on the moon. We have a science base in Antarctica and many other parts of the world. So that's, I think, the next big thing. We've got to have a serious moon base and then get people to Mars, you know, get out there and be a space-faring civilization."

Elon Musk: We've got to have a serious science base on the moon "We got to get back to the moon and build a base there. A science base. I think we could learn a lot about the nature of the universe if we have a proper science base on the moon. We have a science base in Antarctica and many other parts of the world. So that's, I think, the next big thing. We've got to have a serious moon base and then get people to Mars, you know, get out there and be a space-faring civilization."

ELON CLIPS

1,322,775 次观看 • 2 年前

Harnessing the science of scent, dsm-firmenich is on a mission to make repelling mosquitoes as easy as washing up in the morning.

Harnessing the science of scent, dsm-firmenich is on a mission to make repelling mosquitoes as easy as washing up in the morning.

Bill Gates

521,818 次观看 • 3 年前

They made a whole comical production out of it. Little do they know it will inevitably go down in history as the number four story ever. He is controlling the world and we have proven it, and this is not a joke.

They made a whole comical production out of it. Little do they know it will inevitably go down in history as the number four story ever. He is controlling the world and we have proven it, and this is not a joke.

MAGA Cult Slayer

102,402 次观看 • 1 年前

The process of Grafting and Transplanting is as much an art as it is a science. Each system allows for different outcomes. Humans have been doing versions for 100s of years.

The process of Grafting and Transplanting is as much an art as it is a science. Each system allows for different outcomes. Humans have been doing versions for 100s of years.

Brian Roemmele

44,604 次观看 • 1 个月前