0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
My model can be thought as an extention to the working principle of antenna, which can be shown clearly here.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=md7GjQQ2YA0
The screen shows nothing but a small circular bright spot.
The direction of reactionary wave is determined by the distribution of the charged particles,
It doesn't seem to be the case for light, as shown by vertically tilted diffraction
non-diffractive edge experiment.
Yes it does. The problem is that you do not understand that, in that case, Huygens's construction predicts a cone of beams which, when they strike a screen, form a curve.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/12/2022 09:54:14Yes it does. The problem is that you do not understand that, in that case, Huygens's construction predicts a cone of beams which, when they strike a screen, form a curve.How do you explain cone of beam produced by a single edge diffraction using Huygen's principle?
I pointed this out when you first raised it.https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68595.msg647308#msg647308And the linkhttps://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/optical-engineering/volume-58/issue-8/087105/Understanding-diffraction-grating-behavior--including-conical-diffraction-and-Rayleigh/10.1117/1.OE.58.8.087105.full?SSO=1#f6
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/12/2022 12:38:45Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/12/2022 09:54:14Yes it does. The problem is that you do not understand that, in that case, Huygens's construction predicts a cone of beams which, when they strike a screen, form a curve.How do you explain cone of beam produced by a single edge diffraction using Huygen's principle? To be honest, I don't bother.I know that when this was originally being sorted out in about the 18th and 19th century, people who were better at maths than I am did the calculations and found that they agree with the observations.If they hadn't then it would have been argued about at the time.Essentially, if Huygens' ideas had not agreed with the observations then we wouldn't still be using them.So, which is more likely ; you can't apply the principles correctly or all those scientists, and all those since, were wrong?
And, in particular, which is more likely given that you have already shown that you don't understand the underlying principles of science (like, for example, dimensional analysis)?
Thinking that someone smarter than us must have solved the problem before us,
AFAIK, diffraction requires partial transparency/opacity.
Which dimensional analysis are you talking about?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/12/2022 14:20:17Which dimensional analysis are you talking about?Two things can not be the same if they have different dimensions.For example, a speed can never be the same as a distance.And you can not measure mass in seconds.So a current which has units of charge divided by time can not be a charge.So a coulomb is not, and can not be, a current.If you find that your maths shows that they are, you should go back and find the error in your maths- because you can be absolutely certain that there is one.So, yes, you are human and will make mistakes.Please check for them before wasting the site's bandwidth.Also, when someone points them out, please correct them rather than trying to pretend that you are right.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/12/2022 10:42:23Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/12/2022 02:41:53A 1 Coulomb charged particle moves at 1 m/s speed. What's the current?It dependsImagine I put that coulomb into a 1 metre cube box. At 1 m/s the whole coulomb goes past me in 1 second and that's a current of 1 amp.Now imaging I put the same charge in a box 10 metres long.It now takes 10 seconds to go past me.So that's 1 C in 10 S or 0.1 C/S so that's 0.1 amps.You really need to study science a bit more in order to avoid asking meaningless question.It's meaningless to you because you haven't understood the problem yet. It shows that Maxwell's equations are not adequate to describe electrodynamics systems. Let's distribute the electric charge into a thin metal disc with 10 m diameter and 0.1 mm thick. The disc moves axially at 1 m/s. What's the electric current? Here's another example. Electrons move in a CRT at approximately 0.1 c. What's the current generated by each electron? What's the expected B field at a point 1 mm from the trajectory of the electron?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/12/2022 02:41:53A 1 Coulomb charged particle moves at 1 m/s speed. What's the current?It dependsImagine I put that coulomb into a 1 metre cube box. At 1 m/s the whole coulomb goes past me in 1 second and that's a current of 1 amp.Now imaging I put the same charge in a box 10 metres long.It now takes 10 seconds to go past me.So that's 1 C in 10 S or 0.1 C/S so that's 0.1 amps.You really need to study science a bit more in order to avoid asking meaningless question.
A 1 Coulomb charged particle moves at 1 m/s speed. What's the current?
Isn't this you refuting your own argumentations?
Electrons move in a CRT at approximately 0.1 c. What's the current generated by each electron? What's the expected B field at a point 1 mm from the trajectory of the electron?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 20/12/2022 01:29:32Isn't this you refuting your own argumentations?No, it's not.But your post shows that you don't understand the issues.A poorly phrased question is open to different interpretations and thus to different answers.
Two things can not be the same if they have different dimensions.For example, a speed can never be the same as a distance.And you can not measure mass in seconds.So a current which has units of charge divided by time can not be a charge.So a coulomb is not, and can not be, a current.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/12/2022 14:36:52AFAIK, diffraction requires partial transparency/opacity. It is possible to create a diffraction grating entirely from materials that are "perfectly" transparent.https://physics.nyu.edu/grierlab/cgh2b/node5.html
AFAIK, diffraction requires partial transparency/opacity. But it may not be adequate. Some other factors may be also necessary to produce diffraction. Some of my experiments using microwave might have hinted at that hypothesis. I'm trying to design a new experiment to test it. The experiment should be considered as successful whether it confirms or refutes that hypothesis. It would only be a failure if it can't reduce the uncertainty.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/12/2022 15:00:49Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/12/2022 14:36:52AFAIK, diffraction requires partial transparency/opacity. It is possible to create a diffraction grating entirely from materials that are "perfectly" transparent.https://physics.nyu.edu/grierlab/cgh2b/node5.htmlThe quotation mark in the word perfectly means it's not perfect.
you need to recheck the meaning of your own statements.