[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You Don't Know How Mirrors Work

Mirrors are weird. To truly understand them, we'll need not only ray and wave optics, but also photons, wave functions, probability, and quantum mechanics.

Clarification: In my quantum animations, that is not multiple photons taking different paths. It is a single photon taking multiple paths simultaneously. We're releasing only one photon at a time. Adding those phasor arrows together gives us the probability of receiving a single photon at any given moment.

Minor Correction: I show the paths leaving the source at the same time and arriving at the detector at different times, when it should actually be the other way around. Paths that take more time should be leaving the source earlier in order to arrive at the detector at the same time as the others. The reason we can add the phasor arrows together is because the paths arrive at the detector at the same time.

Feynman's lecture on Quantum Electrodynamics explains light reflection similar to this video.
Douglas Robb Memorial Lectures: Lec2: Fits of Reflection & Transmissions: Quantum Behaviour

When we say that something is weird, it simply means that our observation doesn't match with our expectations. We can just ignore it, or we can trace back our reasoning to identify our false assumptions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Any models for light are constrained by observations. Good models are compatible with many experimental results. Bad models are compatible with only a few of them.
Pair of wheels model of light beam is compatible with refraction and total internal reflection. But it's incompatible with almost every other experimental results, such as ordinary reflection, polarization, diffraction, and interference.

Many models for light are incompatible with double slit experiment. But instead of looking for a compatible model, some of us just simply call it weird, and think that the problem is already solved.

In the Double Slit Experiment...

Where is the Gun pointing at?

1st Slit or 2nd Slit or Right in the Centre of both Slits?

There are two more possible locations: Outside of both slits.
Any serious model should successfully predict that removing the outer sides of light barriers changes the light pattern on the screen. The width of the central bright would be double of side bright lines. The aperture would effectively be a thin wire, which would produce interference pattern similar to single slit diffraction, according to Babinet's principle.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Picket fence model is often used to explain the linear polarization of light phenomena. But a simple scrutiny shows that it's incompatible with observations. It's even useless in explaining circular polarization and reflection by polarizers.

I’ve been teaching microwave polarisation wrong! - A Level Physics

So it turns out the way I've been teaching microwave polarisation is wrong!! Well, it's not so much wrong, it's the fact that the 'picket fence' analogy for polarisation isn't what it first seems. Where the picket fence only allows vertically polarised light through, a corresponding polarising filter only allows horizontally polarised light through! Watch this video for more explanation.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We often hear about duality of light, which says that light sometimes behave like a wave, but some other times like a particle. But it's less often mentioned what kind of wave would light behave.

There are many kinds of waves which have different behaviors, like sound, water surface, drum surface, music string, chain, and slinky.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There are other kinds of wave less often mentioned in physics courses.
For example, wave formed by stream of particles, like bullets coming out of machine gun.

Another example, water stream coming out of vibrating hose.

In the first case, interaction among streaming particles is negligible. But in second case above, the interaction is significant.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Seismograph is another kind of wave. Its speed and direction entirely depend on the movement of the paper.

Similar type of wave is found in mat forming of MDF production process. Its speed and direction entirely depend on the movement of the conveyor.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here is a demonstration of photoelectric effect, which is thought as an evidence that light behaves like particles.

The video shows that visible light cannot release electron from the metal plate, while UV lamp can.

The follow up questions would naturally occur. What would happen if we use lower frequency radiation, such as infrared, microwave, radio wave, or induction heater?
What if we use higher frequency, such as X ray and gamma ray?
Can strong enough red laser release the electrons from the plate?

It turns out that an alternative model to explain photoelectric effect has been proposed here previously. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75994.0
Photoelectric effect as resonance phenomena?

And here is an older source.
https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/184655/5-11_Stuewer.pdf

In his new model, Thomson postulated the coexistence of two forces: a radial inverse cube repulsive force "diffused throughout the whole of the atom," and a radial inverse square attractive
force "confined to a limited number of radial tubes in the atom." 28 Thus,
inside such a radial tube both forces would be present, and by setting up
the equation of motion of an electron in it, Thomson readily demonstrated that the electron could oscillate about an equilibrium position with a frequency depending on the force constant of the repulsive force. Once
again, that was all Thomson required, for now an incident wave would
certainly find an electron with which it could resonate, and if, after being
set into oscillation, some "casual magnetic force" moved it laterally out of
the tube, it would come under the "uncontrolled action" of the repulsive
force and be expelled from the atom.

Assume that the incident
radiation-electromagnetic waves-sets a bound electron into oscillation
by resonance, and that after a certain timer the electron's energy becomes
large enough for it to be released from the atom. (Sommerfeld later36 estimated r to be on the order of 10^{- 5} second, a small, and in 1911, unobservable, delay, but nonetheless one that is inconsistent with Einstein's
interpretation.) Substituting the electron's kinetic and potential energies
into the above condition, transforming the result by partial integration,
and introducing the electron's equation of motion, Sommerfeld proved
that T = hv0, where vo is the natural frequency of the electron in the atom.

Sommerfeld drew attention to both a similarity and a difference between his theory and Einstein's. The theories were similar in that both predicted that as the electron was ejected from the atom, a discrete
amount of energy would be abstracted from the incident radiation. The
theories were different in that Sommerfeld, unlike Einstein, but like
Thomson, envisioned a resonance phenomenon. This difference had observable consequences.
Whereas Einstein's equation predicted that the
electron's energy should be entirely independent of any atomic frequencies, Sommerfeld's theory predicted that a plot of energy versus frequency ·'should possess, for each natural frequency of the atom, a maximum."
(Had Thomson not concentrated only on the case of complete resonance,
he would have been driven to the same conclusion.) Which theory fit the
existing data better, Sommerfeld's or Einstein's? Sommerfeld had the
answer. J. R. Wright in Millikan's laboratory at the University of Chicago
had recently shone ultraviolet light on aluminum and had demonstrated
''with certainty ... that the maximum photoelectron energy does not vary approximately linearly with the frequency."
Furthermore, Wright had found evidence that the photoelectric effect depends on the plane of polarization of the incident radiation.
"With respect to both points," Sommerfeld concluded, "our theory is in better accord with Wright's
measurements than Einstein's light quantum theory."

Another point, is that gamma ray is less effective in producing photoelectron, is compatible with this interpretation.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Can strong enough red laser release the electrons from the plate?

Google search gives us the answer.

https://inspirehep.net/files/bd3842a84491afe5caf41ea01c03ee3f

PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT INDUCED BY
HIGH-INTENSIlY LASER LIGHT BEAM
FROM QUARTZ AND BOROSILICATE GLASS

J. J. Muray
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Stanford University
Stanford, California

Work performed under the auspices of the U.S, Atomic Energy Commission.

ABSTRACT
Using a high-intensity light beam from a rub;r laser, the number of
photoelectrons from quartz and the number of photoelectrons for borosilicate glass were measured as a function of the laser output power.
The number of electrons is an exponential function of the field in the
light beam. The delay between the maximum of the electron current and
maximum intensity of the light pulse decreases with increasing output
power. Previous low-intensity experiments on photoelectron emission
from borosilicate glass have shown that the photon energy must exceed
4.9 electron volts, but in the present experiments electron emission was
observed with 1.78 electron volt photons. Thus the present experiments
cannot be explained purely on the basis of the photoelectric effect.
However, by using the theory of thermal breakdown in a dielectric surface the observed electron current as function of the light beam power can be explained. The yield of electrons from borosilicate glass exceeds the yield from quartz at the same photon intensities.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How does the polarization behave?

Just the way you showed it did in your experiments.

List of random facts doesn't represent scientific knowledge. It should contain general rules governing behaviors of objects in various but related situations. Comprehension is a data compression process.   

I designed the filters in my experiments with microwave based on antenna theory as shown in the old training videos by Royal Canadian Air Force.

AFAIK, the antenna model can cover most observed phenomena with light in wide range of frequency. It takes minimum amount of assumptions to explain various experimental results, which is not possible with other models. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We often hear about duality of light, which says that light sometimes behave like a wave, but some other times like a particle. But it's less often mentioned what kind of wave would light behave.

There are many kinds of waves which have different behaviors, like sound, water surface, drum surface, music string, chain, and slinky.

The behavior of electromagnetic waves in conductors resembles sound wave. That's why it's called phonon. But I think there's a difference due to skin effect at high frequency.
Which kind of wave is electromagnetic radiation more similar to, when it propagates through vacuum, or dielectric materials?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82644.msg647118#msg647118
Considering the blocking mechanism I've shown in reply#3, also with normal linear polarizer used as reflector, we are constrained by the fact that conductor gratings can generate cancelling reaction wave even when the area covered by the conductor is much smaller than the area not covered by the conductor. Hence, it behaves like the second kind of wave below.

There are other kinds of wave less often mentioned in physics courses.
For example, wave formed by stream of particles, like bullets coming out of machine gun.

Another example, water stream coming out of vibrating hose.

In the first case, interaction among streaming particles is negligible. But in second case above, the interaction is significant.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Many physicists currently think that photon as elementary particle of light is a simple fact, hence it's unquestionable. So, when light behaves like a wave instead of particles in some experimental setups, they are forced to make weird assumptions to explain them.

Alternatively, we can try to find other model of light that can explain its particle like behavior in terms of wave interaction with the experimental equipments, which are made of particles.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In the past, some weird or unexpected experimental results can be used as the reason to reject or modify a scientific theory. But currently, they are just accepted as  natural phenomena, without having to change the existing theory.

The question is, how to determine if a weird result is still acceptable, or if it's a good reason to reject or modify a theory?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Understanding Electromagnetic Radiation

In the modern world, we humans are completely surrounded by electromagnetic radiation. Have you ever thought of the physics behind these travelling electromagnetic waves? Let's explore the physics behind the radiation in this video.

The explanation seems reasonable for radio waves and microwave. But it doesn't seem to work for higher frequency such as visible light and X-ray.
Is there a cutoff frequency that makes the underlying mechanism different?

[Colin2B]

Is there a cutoff frequency that makes the underlying mechanism different?

I don’t think so, but there is a region around visible spectrum where our detection methods start to change so we see more particle behaviour at higher energies than wave behaviour.
Both behaviours are always there, but at lower frequencies it is harder to detect photons as they are down in the noise levels. In radio astronomy photon detection requires cooling of the detectors to reduce thermal noise.

PS you do nice experiments by the way, I like the diffraction/interference ones.

[puppypower]

If you plug the speed of light into the Special Relativity Equations, time and distance become zero or infinite depending on how you write it. Photons travel at the speed of light, yet they show a wide range of diversity in distance and time; spectrum of wavelength and frequency. Even though they travel at the speed of light, they are not restricted to just zero or infinite wavelength, in terms of our reference.

What that tells us is although photons travel at the speed of light they have attributes in distance and time that are connected to inertial reference and not just the speed of light reference. Photons have two legs, with one leg is in the speed of light reference; v=c, and the other leg is in inertial reference. They are a bridge state between these two references.

This could also be inferred by photons able to alter the energy of mass and matter. Mass and matter cannot travel at the speed of light, yet photons, while traveling at the speed of light, can impact inertial mass and matter, through its inertial bridge state; finite wavelength. There should be a gap between at the discontinuity at C.

The question that arises is, what does the speed of light leg of the photon do, since this leg is not about the diversity of photon wavelength we see. If you plug the speed of light into the SR equations discontinuities appear in space, time and mass. This implies that space-time no longer applies at the speed of light. Space-time is an inertial leg affect. 

Logically, with space, time and space-time discontinuous, space and time are not restricted by each other. One can move in time without the constraints of space and move in space without the constraint of time. This creates a state of infinite entropy, since all levels of complexity are possible when you remove the constraints of space-time. The speed of light leg drives the second law within space-time. The speed of light aspect of photons is connected to entropy and assures an increase in entropy and complexity within our inertial universe.

[Bored chemist]

But it doesn't seem to work for higher frequency

In what way?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But it doesn't seem to work for higher frequency

In what way?

Since their first discoveries, X-ray and gamma ray have never been explained as the result of oscillating electrons on a conductor. There's no obvious structure that act as transmitting antenna.

[puppypower]

But it doesn't seem to work for higher frequency

In what way?

Since their first discoveries, X-ray and gamma ray have never been explained as the result of oscillating electrons on a conductor. There's no obvious structure that act as transmitting antenna.

Electrons are elementary particles that have both negative charge and mass. Since they are single  particles, their mass and negative charge are unified, since these two attributes cannot be broken down into two single sub particles. They exist in an intimate unified state. This is the key to unifying the forces of nature.

In the case of x-ray generation, the heat cause electron momentum, which impacts the mass side of the mass-negative charge equilibrium. The interaction with the metal, shifts the equilibrium back toward the negative charge side, adding mass energy to the EM output.

Oscillating electrons on a conductor use primarily the negative charge side of the mass-negative charge unification. To get faster frequencies, like x-rays and gamma you need swing the pendulum to the mass side to boost the EM side of the unification. The electron is robust and can handle this.


The two legs of photons

Getting back to the speed of light leg of photons. At the speed of light, one should not expect to see diversity of wavelength, since a speed of light reference should compress all sizes to the same  limiting state. Any size space ship, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light, will all look the same in our reference. They will not retain their original nor their proportional size. Since the EM spectrum is diverse, it is not connected to the speed light leg, but is connected to the inertial leg of photons; one side of the bridge.

The speed of light leg of photons is connected to entropy and the second law. Entropy needs energy to increase, while entropy has to increase setting a potential for energy and change. 

At the speed of light, one would expect a break down of space-time. All sizes of space ships looking like point-instants, at the speed of light, implies all sizes becoming the same in distance and time; break down in space-time.

Space-Time only applies to inertial, but not the speed of light. With space-time dissociated at the speed of light, more options open up, since inertial restriction do not apply. Higher levels of complexity become possible. I call it infinite entropy, but at the speed of light entropy may be very large, but still finite. Either way, the entropy at the speed of light will be higher than inertial, and will set a potential for the second law, that increases entropy is inertial space-time via the photon bridge. Changes to higher complexity, in space-time, such as life and consciousness become inevitable since this is already posable on the speed of light side.

In the Gibbs Free energy equation G=H-TS, one half of the change in free energy is connected to entropy times temperature. Temperature includes the entire spectrum of heat, unified into a single variable T.  It goes from absolute zero to near infinite temperature; all wavelengths can alter free energy via entropy. In our universe this happens at the same time.

Entropy is a state variable, meaning it defines matter under specific conditions. Water at 25C and 1 atmosphere has a specific entropy value. In our universe a huge range of states all exist simultaneously, at all temperatures, with all driven by the 2nd law. This is the speed of light leg of photons; heat=all wavelengths.

The inertial leg of photons gives us the specifics and details, while the speed of light leg of photons drives all aspects of inertial toward a general goal; 2nd law, with both connected via the photon bridge between space-time and the speed of light reference.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Electrons are elementary particles that have both negative charge and mass.

Electrons have positive mass.