[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

These are videos showing experiments on refraction of microwave using metamaterials.

All attempts to emulate refraction using metamaterial require pretty complex structure, which would be hard to express in simple equations. Simpler metamaterial structure such as two dimensional partial polarizers can not show the effect of refraction, but it can show the change of direction which is different than a simple reflection. Hopefully, by understanding the diffraction effect better, we can improve our understanding about refraction as well.

[theThinker]

Dear Hamdani,

I am late to see your original post.

To be honest, I think contemporary physics cannot yet explain the actual physical mechanism that gives the property of light refraction - the change in direction as found in Snell's law. It cannot be properly explained because we still almost have no real understanding of what light is; there may be claims otherwise by some people, but I don't buy them.

I personally is very interested in the answer. I will go through the earlier posts to see what have been written.

[theThinker]

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

Textbooks cannot yet explain the physical cause of refraction, why light speed slows down in optical medium causing the change in light direction.

It's easier to do string theory then to explain the physical cause of the laws governing the refraction of light.

[Bored chemist]

Textbooks cannot yet explain

Well... they can't explain it to you.

[theThinker]

Textbooks cannot yet explain

Well... they can't explain it to you.

Sure! The texbook could explain special relativity to me.  Time dilation, etc., but the explanation still mean nothing to me.  It does not matter to me if the whole world accepts special relativity. I don't.  Don't ask why!

[alancalverd]

Then we won't.

[theThinker]

Then we won't.

You can't blame me. Bored chemist was dismissive - sarcastic.

I come here to ask questions which I don't understand. In science we are free to hold differring opinions, even views completely at odd with what all the universities hold dear. The ONLY criterion is we are completely honest to our self - and this is verry, very difficult.   

[Bored chemist]

In science we are free to hold differring opinions, even views completely at odd with what all the universities hold dear. The ONLY criterion is we are completely honest to our self - and this is verry, very difficult.   

No.
The important criterion is that the opinions are consistent with the evidence.

[theThinker]

In science we are free to hold differring opinions, even views completely at odd with what all the universities hold dear. The ONLY criterion is we are completely honest to our self - and this is verry, very difficult.   

No.
The important criterion is that the opinions are consistent with the evidence.

No! People who don't believe in the Almighty God cannot be honest! They will always argue without knowing when to stop. Even when you give them evidence the size of an elephant, a dishonest person will still insist he sees no elephant.

So honesty is the foremost criterion. It is for this reason that Newton's Principia can stand the test of time for more than 300 years without equal.

[Bored chemist]

People who don't believe in the Almighty God cannot be honest!

The God portrayed in the Bible is inconsistent with our observations.

[Origin]

It is for this reason that Newton's Principia can stand the test of time for more than 300 years without equal.

Except for general relativity which is better than equal because it fits better with observation.

[theThinker]

People who don't believe in the Almighty God cannot be honest!

The God portrayed in the Bible is inconsistent with our observations.

If only your are humble and honest, else you will observe nothing.

[theThinker]

It is for this reason that Newton's Principia can stand the test of time for more than 300 years without equal.

Except for general relativity which is better than equal because it fits better with observation.

If there is a poll, I'll vote otherwise.

Much of physics is a matter of opinion - just like voting for the US president.

[Bored chemist]

Much of physics is a matter of opinion

Not really, no.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Much of physics is a matter of opinion

But not every opinion is the same. Some can get you a job, or college entrance. Some can get you killed.

[Origin]

If there is a poll, I'll vote otherwise.

It's not a poll it is a statement of fact

[Colin2B]

Except for general relativity which is better than equal because it fits better with observation.

If there is a poll, I'll vote otherwise.

Much of physics is a matter of opinion - just like voting for the US president.

I think your prejudice is showing.
Measurements are not opinions just because you don’t like the results.

[theThinker]

Except for general relativity which is better than equal because it fits better with observation.

If there is a poll, I'll vote otherwise.

Much of physics is a matter of opinion - just like voting for the US president.

I think your prejudice is showing.
Measurements are not opinions just because you don’t like the results.
[/quote]
No. It is all a matter of opinion and faith and belief in the experimenters.

Take the discovery of the Higgs boson. Yes! They claimed they found it through experiments - meaning they have done measurements and detected the Higgs. But then many people "vote" against their "measurements" and dismiss the work of particle physics. They hold the "opinion" that the "mesaurements" cannot be trusted.
 

[alancalverd]

Fortunately, science does not depend on consensus. 100 Nazi professors signed a letter criticising Einstein's Jewish theory of relativity. A journalist asked for his reaction: "Had I been wrong, one student would have been enough."

Whether you like the result or not is irrelevant. The most important part of an experimental science paper is the description of the method, which must be sufficiently explicit to allow a skilled technician to build the equipment and replicate the measurement.  If you want to prove that the emperor has no clothes, just publish a photo of his willy.

[Bored chemist]

But then many people "vote" against their "measurements" and dismiss the work of particle physics.

You can't "vote against" a measurement. That's silly.