Similar to previous video, but now we are investigating polarization in partial and amplified internal reflection.I think I'm going to have to start at the very beginning of your YouTube experiments and watch them all in one go... I get the impression you are building up to something important that is presently evading me, and that I should pay more attention.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd_p-pwB41U
I think I'm going to have to start at the very beginning of your YouTube experiments and watch them all in one go... I get the impression you are building up to something important that is presently evading me, and that I should pay more attention.Thank you for your appreciation to my work.
Do the results of your experiments lead you to a definitive hypothesis?
Have you mistaken this site for your blog?No. I think that this part of the forum is for "Discussion of science experiments on the show or to do at home".
I watched a few of the experiments, and they illustrate some interesting effects of electromagnetism.Thanks for your advice.
I hope the power of the transmitter is quite low, as microwave exposure has been associated with development of cataracts in the eyes - the lens of the eye has a poor blood supply, and so has trouble keeping at 37C when exposed to microwaves. Maybe just turn on the transmitter for a few seconds while filming, then take a break while planning the next experiment?
...A discussion needs more than one person.
No. I think that this part of the forum is for "Discussion of science experiments on the show or to do at home".
...
Thank you for this great information. I was interested always how microwave works :)I'm glad I can help.
Indeed Informative. I was just looking how microwave behave and got it hereThank you. I'm glad to help.
Assuming that bodies at rest with zero mass necessarily have zero energy, this implies the famous formula E = mc2 but only for bodies which are at rest.
Assuming that bodies at rest with zero mass necessarily have zero energy, this implies the famous formula E = mc2 but only for bodies which are at rest.Does that have anything to do with this thread?
Thanks once again! I'm starting to be a little bit less clueless with your content, it's really easy to wrap your head around when you're a newcomer to that field!You're welcome. I'm glad that what I did is somehow useful for someone. I already recorded many more videos on microwave polarization twister, but unfortunately I couldn't find adequate time to write the scripts, edit, and upload them.
I'm preparing a new experiment video called Redirecting Grid. It's a follow up of my previous experiments using polarization twister. They all show that microwave coming out of the aperture don't have the same angle as the incoming wave.Here is the video I promised.
In polarization twister, the orientation of the receiver is perpendicular to that of the transmitter. But in the new experiment, they will have the same orientation. For convenience, I only take vertical polarization, although the horizontal can also be done in principle.
The grid works based on aliasing effect. The conductors in the grid are made more sparse than half of the wavelength.
I've uploaded a new video investigating further into the behavior of microwave when interacting with a redirecting grid. Additional conductors to the grid change the behavior depending on their positions on the grid.Thank you for your video, this is very enlightening
Thank you for your video, this is very enlighteningI'm glad to help. If you have interesting ideas, or curious about some aspects of the experiments, but have no access to necessary resources to make them happen, please let me know. Maybe there's something I can do to help.
Perhaps it can help demystifying many experimental results involving its usage which many people said to be weird or even mind blowing.Who said that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experimentPerhaps it can help demystifying many experimental results involving its usage which many people said to be weird or even mind blowing.Who said that?
In quantum mechanics, the quantum eraser experiment is an interferometer experiment that demonstrates several fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics, including quantum entanglement and complementarity.[1][2][3] The quantum eraser experiment is a variation of Thomas Young's classic double-slit experiment. It establishes that when action is taken to determine which of 2 slits a photon has passed through, the photon cannot interfere with itself. When a stream of photons is marked in this way, then the interference fringes characteristic of the Young experiment will not be seen. The experiment also creates situations in which a photon that has been "marked" to reveal through which slit it has passed can later be "unmarked." A photon that has been "marked" cannot interfere with itself and will not produce fringe patterns, but a photon that has been "marked" and then "unmarked" will interfere with itself and produce the fringes characteristic of Young's experiment.[1]
A very common misunderstanding about this experiment is that it may be used to instantaneously communicate information between two detectors. It is important to understand the role of the coincidence detector in this experimental setup. The linear polarizer in the top path is effectively filtering out half the entangled photons, and via the coincidence detector, is filtering out the corresponding photons in the bottom path. The coincidence detector can only function by comparing data from both sensors, making it impossible to use this setup for instant communication.
https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/science-futures/the-quantum-eraser-experiment-what-happens-in-the-present-can-change-the-past/
In Brief
The Facts:
At the quantum scale, what we do in the present can impact what happens in the past. This is shown through what's known as the quantum delayed choice choice, or quantum eraser experiment.
Reflect On:
Why are factors associated with consciousness directly intertwined with physical material matter at the quantum scale? What does this mean when it comes to our physical material world in relation to our thoughts, perceptions, feelings and emotions?
One of the founding fathers of quantum theory, Max Planck, who is often credited with originating quantum theory – a feat that won him the Physics Nobel Prize in 1918 – once stated: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as exiting, postulates consciousness.”
John Wheeler's original discussion of the possibility of a delayed choice quantum appeared in an essay entitled "Law Without Law," which was published in a book he and Wojciech Hubert Zurek edited called Quantum Theory and Measurement, pp 182–213. He introduced his remarks by reprising the argument between Albert Einstein, who wanted a comprehensible reality, and Niels Bohr, who thought that Einstein's concept of reality was too restricted. Wheeler indicates that Einstein and Bohr explored the consequences of the laboratory experiment that will be discussed below, one in which light can find its way from one corner of a rectangular array of semi-silvered and fully silvered mirrors to the other corner, and then can be made to reveal itself not only as having gone halfway around the perimeter by a single path and then exited, but also as having gone both ways around the perimeter and then to have "made a choice" as to whether to exit by one port or the other. Not only does this result hold for beams of light, but also for single photons of light. Wheeler remarked:
The experiment in the form an interferometer, discussed by Einstein and Bohr, could theoretically be used to investigate whether a photon sometimes sets off along a single path, always follows two paths but sometimes only makes use of one, or whether something else would turn up. However, it was easier to say, "We will, during random runs of the experiment, insert the second half-silvered mirror just before the photon is timed to get there," than it was to figure out a way to make such a rapid substitution. The speed of light is just too fast to permit a mechanical device to do this job, at least within the confines of a laboratory. Much ingenuity was needed to get around this problem.
After several supporting experiments were published, Jacques et al. claimed that an experiment of theirs follows fully the original scheme proposed by Wheeler.[14][15] Their complicated experiment is based on the Mach–Zehnder interferometer, involving a triggered diamond N–V colour centre photon generator, polarization, and an electro-optical modulator acting as a switchable beam splitter. Measuring in a closed configuration showed interference, while measuring in an open configuration allowed the path of the particle to be determined, which made interference impossible.
In such experiments, Einstein originally argued, it is unreasonable for a single photon to travel simultaneously two routes. Remove the half-silvered mirror at the [upper right], and one will find that the one counter goes off, or the other. Thus the photon has traveled only one route. It travels only one route. but it travels both routes: it travels both routes, but it travels only one route. What nonsense! How obvious it is that quantum theory is inconsistent!
DIY Homemade Double-slit Quantum Eraser Experiment under 50$
Did you notice that the "The super bizarre quantum eraser experiment" video didn't seem to use a beam splitter?You can see its front picture. It uses a device to split a light beam into 2 different directions. Hence a beam splitter.
You can see its front picture. It uses a device to split a light beam into 2 different directions. Hence a beam splitter.Please post a screen shot.
Please post a screen shot.(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=66414.0;attach=32416;image)
Since there is no beam splitter in that experiment, no experiments you do to clarify your personal understanding of the splitter will help explain the weird effects.In that experiment, the beam splitter is the double slit and splitting crystal. An ordinary glass prism can also be used as a beam splitter. With certain incoming angle, some of the light will be reflected while the other will be refracted.
In that experiment, the beam splitter is the double slit and splitting crystal.Why are you changing the definition of "beam splitter" here?
proper understanding on how each of its components work is essential to find out the explanation,
Why do you propose to study a beam splitter which is not in the experiment?It is used in another experiment, which is also weird. To understand something, we should start with the simple version of it.
Here's another oneThis diagram below is from the same Wiki article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed-choice_experiment#Experimental_detailsQuoteJohn Wheeler's original discussion of the possibility of a delayed choice quantum appeared in an essay entitled "Law Without Law," which was published in a book he and Wojciech Hubert Zurek edited called Quantum Theory and Measurement, pp 182–213. He introduced his remarks by reprising the argument between Albert Einstein, who wanted a comprehensible reality, and Niels Bohr, who thought that Einstein's concept of reality was too restricted. Wheeler indicates that Einstein and Bohr explored the consequences of the laboratory experiment that will be discussed below, one in which light can find its way from one corner of a rectangular array of semi-silvered and fully silvered mirrors to the other corner, and then can be made to reveal itself not only as having gone halfway around the perimeter by a single path and then exited, but also as having gone both ways around the perimeter and then to have "made a choice" as to whether to exit by one port or the other. Not only does this result hold for beams of light, but also for single photons of light. Wheeler remarked:
The experiment in the form an interferometer, discussed by Einstein and Bohr, could theoretically be used to investigate whether a photon sometimes sets off along a single path, always follows two paths but sometimes only makes use of one, or whether something else would turn up. However, it was easier to say, "We will, during random runs of the experiment, insert the second half-silvered mirror just before the photon is timed to get there," than it was to figure out a way to make such a rapid substitution. The speed of light is just too fast to permit a mechanical device to do this job, at least within the confines of a laboratory. Much ingenuity was needed to get around this problem.
After several supporting experiments were published, Jacques et al. claimed that an experiment of theirs follows fully the original scheme proposed by Wheeler.[14][15] Their complicated experiment is based on the Mach–Zehnder interferometer, involving a triggered diamond N–V colour centre photon generator, polarization, and an electro-optical modulator acting as a switchable beam splitter. Measuring in a closed configuration showed interference, while measuring in an open configuration allowed the path of the particle to be determined, which made interference impossible.
In such experiments, Einstein originally argued, it is unreasonable for a single photon to travel simultaneously two routes. Remove the half-silvered mirror at the [upper right], and one will find that the one counter goes off, or the other. Thus the photon has traveled only one route. It travels only one route. but it travels both routes: it travels both routes, but it travels only one route. What nonsense! How obvious it is that quantum theory is inconsistent!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Beam_Split_and_fuse.svg/300px-Beam_Split_and_fuse.svg.png)
Beam splitters don't do magic. They are very simple.Here's what I found in your link.
The fact that this sort exists tells you a lot.
https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=1110&gclid=CjwKCAjwwsmLBhACEiwANq-tXItnY7Y9tZ_9NJnIlPiJWQoOVO-sbl9M3BNJYM7Fc-W_2PF5PkJzQhoCnmkQAvD_BwE
Constant Reflection to Transmission Ratio Over RangeMy microwave beam splitter has different characteristics. Closer to normal angle, the reflectivity is minimum. 50-50 split is achieved around 45 degree incoming angle. So there's clearly something to learn here.
50:50 Beamsplitters
So there's clearly something to learn here.Yes there is.
I'll figure it out when the experiments are done.So there's clearly something to learn here.Yes there is.
You need to focus on what's unusual about those beam splitters- the wavelength of the EM radiation isn't particularly important. Nor is the variation of reflection with angle.
What's important is the design.
Did you spot that?
A few months ago I've made an experiment investigating microwave transmission through plasma. At the time, I found a counterfeit money detector with UVA source from a gas discharge lamp. The experiment can show a weak but convincing difference of opacity in microwave frequency between on and off UVA lamp.It's unlikely that the phosphor is a significantly better conductor when the lamp is lit.
Unfortunately, the plasma inside the lamp is not the only electrically conductive material there. There's also phosphor coating inside of the lamp glass which may also change its conductivity when powered on..
Did you check that the microwave detector is not picking up microwaves emitted by the plasma?Yes. The microwave receiver showed nothing when the UV lamp was turned on and off, and microwave transmitter were not involved. I'll upload the video soon.
If you want to be really certain, you can buy a UV C bulb with no phosphor.That's what I did last week. I've done the recording of the experiment, but the editing and uploading may take a while.
You will probably want to screen the UV it produces.
Can you measure the microwaves scattered by the plasma in the lamp when it is on?In previous experiment, I've measured the scattered microwave from a metal stick. Even though the metal stick is a very good conductor and shows appreciable opacity, the scattered microwave by the metal stick is very weak because it's dispersed to various direction. Only a small portion of the scattered microwave can get to the receiver.
Did you look at the spatial distribution of the "transmitted" radiation?I'm not sure if it's related, because I only measured the central position of the microwave beam.
You might get something like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk
Meanwhile, I've repeated the investigation on blocking mechanism of microwave using aluminum sheet 0.1 mm thick with various width from 7 to 70 mm, corresponding to around 0.25 to 2.5 wavelengths.Here is the video. To reduce the filesize, I made the video smaller.
Here is the follow up of previous experiment. The longitudinal metal sheet now acts like the tail of a quarter wavelength metal strip which blocks the microwave transversally. You can also skip to 5:05 if you want to save your time and just want to know the final results.
I also have recorded the experiment but the metal sheet is placed in front of the transmitter. I decided to split the video to make the results easier to follow, also to reduce the length of the video so the editing and uploading can be done faster.Here is the video.
While preparing the much greater than interferometer, I inadvertently found interesting effects with a linear polarizer when placed between transmitter and receiver in longitudinal orientation.Here it is
I hope I can upload the video soon to share it with you.
Based on its shape, I think I can rightly call it much greater than interferometer.
When editing the experiment with double reflector, I got an idea that diagonally polarized microwave can produce interesting results. I hope to share the new video with you soon. Stay tuned.Here it is. I hope you enjoy it.
It turns out that the design is similar to my plan of an experiment using single photon.Based on its shape, I think I can rightly call it much greater than interferometer.
Investigation on Microwave Transceiver 70 : Construction of Much Greater Than Interferometer
Design and construction of a type of interferometer to investigate deeper on polarization and phase changing
Ok. I have a question.Even ungrounded peace of metal sheet can prevent the wave to pass through, providing that it can generate adequate reactional electric field to cancel out the oscillating electric field of the incoming wave. In general, higher intensity wave requires thicker material to block.
What material protects from this waves? Grounded peace of metal would be enough?
I've made a new video investigating diffraction of microwave using metamaterials. Previously, it was shown that an aluminum plate, which virtually reflects all of microwave power, didn't show any observable diffraction effect. This time, we tested if diffraction effect can be observed in a partially transparent obstacle which is constructed as metamaterial. The metamaterial obstacle is made from an array of aluminum stripes. There will be some follow up videos to eliminate some uncertainties around diffraction phenomenon.
So?I've just finished the editing. But since the videos are quite large, I"ll upload them when I get access to a reliable internet connection.
What do you have to say as a result?
We are waiting and curious.
And here are videos demonstrating conjoined twin polarizerIt's been a while since these videos were uploaded. There is still questions I want to answer regarding the conjoined twin polarizer. What would happen if the second polarizer is half wavelength away from the first?
In the end of the experiment, it's shown that rotating the receiver can make the reading down to 0, which means that the microwave is linearly polarized instead of eliptical or circularly polarized.