Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: hamdani yusuf on 12/07/2021 02:12:39
-
This thread is a follow up of my previous thread discussing and criticizing existing theories about light.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68595.0
Here I'll try to figure out if there is a way to improve it. If there is, what will it look like?
I just become aware that a similar topic has been created by CrazyScientist.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82373.0
What Is The Nature Of Photons & EM Radiation?
He has his own reasoning to come to his conclusion, which has some differences and similarities than my current understanding of this matter. If I have something to say about his reasoning, I'll post it there. But to avoid complication, I'll post my own reasoning here.
To avoid getting unexpected results, I'll try to avoid making false assumptions, especially the hidden ones, which are likely hard to identify. Any assumptions put into the model should be stated explicitly, along with the reasons why they can't be dismissed. This can significantly slow down the process, but I guess it worths the efforts to resolve spookiness in science.
-
Pathological Science
"The science of things that aren't so"
Just to remind myself from being overly enthusiastic with my own model of light.
-
As promised, I'll propose a plausible model to explain behavior of light here. The model should be able to explain some observations like I've posted in the other thread.
I'd like to remind you that this thread is meant to compare currently accepted theories with our observations. What are the results predicted by the mathematical models for a particular experimental setup? What is actually observed? Is there a discrepancy? Can we identify the cause of the discrepancy? Can it be removed by changing some aspect of the experimental setup?
Here are some experimental observations I uploaded to Youtube. I think you can easily reproduce them to make sure that they are not misleading tricks.
Investigation on Diffraction of light 4 : Non-diffractive obstacle
Investigation on Diffraction of Light 9 : Horizontally Tilted
Investigation on Diffraction of Light 10 : Vertically Tilted Obstacle
Investigation on Diffraction of Light 13 : Non-Diffractive slit; A Challenge to Huygen's Principle
-
Here's the model I proposed. I'm not really sure if it's new, since it's based on how a dipole antenna work. Can we derive Huygen's principle from equations of antenna? Or can we derive equations of antenna from Huygen's principle?
Investigation on microwave 37 : blocking mechanism
Investigation on microwave 38: blocking mechanism explanation
Investigation on microwave 39: Blocking mechanism evidence
-
This thread is a follow up of my previous thread discussing and criticizing existing theories about light.
So from your failed thread on the existing theory of light, you are now going to make a failed thread on a new theory of light? Well isn't that swell.
-
This thread is a follow up of my previous thread discussing and criticizing existing theories about light.
So from your failed thread on the existing theory of light, you are now going to make a failed thread on a new theory of light? Well isn't that swell.
How do you define failure in this context?
It looks more like you're failing to understand how science works.
-
Here's an example how the model can be used to predict experimental results.
Polarization twister design.
Signal splitting.
Asymmetric twister/splitter
-
How do you define failure in this context?
It would be good if Origin answered that.
But, in fairness, you need to provide a similar answer.
If you seek a "better" way to explain light, you need to explain in what ways the current explanation fails.
If it doesn't, then there's no need for a better explanation.
-
If you seek a "better" way to explain light, you need to explain in what ways the current explanation fails.
My main concern regarding current explanations are the lack of physical model which can help describe the cause and effect relationship in interaction between light and matter. Many electromagnetic phenomena are given ad hoc physical interpretations which makes them lack of generality. Here is an example in my other thread.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=77687.0
My model can be thought as an extention to the working principle of antenna, which can be shown clearly here.
An improvement by providing a general purpose physical model is similar to improvement made by Schrodinger to use wave model to describe quantum mechanics, compared to Matrix mechanics which has no physical model.
Matrix mechanics is a formulation of quantum mechanics created by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and Pascual Jordan in 1925. It was the first conceptually autonomous and logically consistent formulation of quantum mechanics. Its account of quantum jumps supplanted the Bohr model's electron orbits. It did so by interpreting the physical properties of particles as matrices that evolve in time. It is equivalent to the Schrödinger wave formulation of quantum mechanics, as manifest in Dirac's bra–ket notation.
In some contrast to the wave formulation, it produces spectra of (mostly energy) operators by purely algebraic, ladder operator methods.[1] Relying on these methods, Wolfgang Pauli derived the hydrogen atom spectrum in 1926,[2] before the development of wave mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_mechanics
The Schrödinger equation is a linear partial differential equation that governs the wave function of a quantum-mechanical system.[1]:1–2 It is a key result in quantum mechanics, and its discovery was a significant landmark in the development of the subject. The equation is named after Erwin Schrödinger, who postulated the equation in 1925, and published it in 1926, forming the basis for the work that resulted in his Nobel Prize in Physics in 1933.[2][3]
Conceptually, the Schrödinger equation is the quantum counterpart of Newton's second law in classical mechanics. Given a set of known initial conditions, Newton's second law makes a mathematical prediction as to what path a given physical system will take over time. The Schrödinger equation gives the evolution over time of a wave function, the quantum-mechanical characterization of an isolated physical system. The equation can be derived from the fact that the time-evolution operator must be unitary, and must therefore be generated by the exponential of a self-adjoint operator, which is the quantum Hamiltonian.
The Schrödinger equation is not the only way to study quantum mechanical systems and make predictions. The other formulations of quantum mechanics include matrix mechanics, introduced by Werner Heisenberg, and the path integral formulation, developed chiefly by Richard Feynman. Paul Dirac incorporated matrix mechanics and the Schrödinger equation into a single formulation. When these approaches are compared, the use of the Schrödinger equation is sometimes called "wave mechanics".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation
-
There's a perfectly sound reason for using matrices.
With numbers A times B is equal to B times A.
That's not always true with matrices.
And that allows you the mathematical "wriggle room" for the uncertainty principle.
Are you familiar with the use of matrices to represent operations?
The best known are those used for transforming images - reflections rotations etc).
Once you are used to using them as simply a short-hand way of doing maths, they acquire a physical model
.
-
Polarization twister design.
I can only do this with physical model based on how antenna works.
And the results remind me of parametric downconversion mentioned by Evan in my other thread.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Spontaneous_Parametric_Downconversion.png/350px-Spontaneous_Parametric_Downconversion.png)
How can we rationalize a vertically polarized photon to spontaneously split into two specific directions and become horizontally polarized?
-
Are you familiar with the use of matrices to represent operations?
The best known are those used for transforming images - reflections rotations etc).
Math videos from 3Blue1Brown can give us intuitive explanation about them.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
The Planck constant, or Planck's constant, is a fundamental physical constant denoted h, and is of fundamental importance in quantum mechanics. A photon's energy is equal to its frequency multiplied by the Planck constant. Due to mass–energy equivalence, the Planck constant also relates mass to frequency.
In metrology it is used, together with other constants, to define the kilogram, an SI unit.[1] The SI units are defined in such a way that, when the Planck constant is expressed in SI units, it has the exact value h = 6.62607015×10−34 J⋅Hz−1.[2][3]
At the end of the 19th century, accurate measurements of the spectrum of black body radiation existed, but predictions of the frequency distribution of the radiation by then-existing theories diverged significantly at higher frequencies. In 1900, Max Planck empirically derived a formula for the observed spectrum. He assumed a hypothetical electrically charged oscillator in a cavity that contained black-body radiation could only change its energy in a minimal increment, E, that was proportional to the frequency of its associated electromagnetic wave.[4] He was able to calculate the proportionality constant from the experimental measurements, and that constant is named in his honor. In 1905, Albert Einstein determined a "quantum" or minimal element of the energy of the electromagnetic wave itself. The light quantum behaved in some respects as an electrically neutral particle, and was eventually called a photon. Max Planck received the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics "in recognition of the services he rendered to the advancement of Physics by his discovery of energy quanta".
Confusion can arise when dealing with frequency or the Planck constant because the units of angular measure (cycle or radian) are omitted in SI.[5][6][7][8][9] In the language of quantity calculus,[10] the expression for the value of the Planck constant, or a frequency, is the product of a numerical value and a unit of measurement. The symbol f (or ν), when used for the value of a frequency, implies cycles per second or hertz as the unit. When the symbol ω is used for the frequency's value it implies radians per second as the unit. The numerical values of these two ways of expressing the frequency have a ratio of 2π. Omitting the units of angular measure "cycle" and "radian" can lead to an error of 2π. A similar state of affairs occurs for the Planck constant. The symbol h is used to express the value of the Planck constant in J⋅s/cycle, and the symbol ħ ("h-bar") is used to express its value in J⋅s/rad. Both represent the value of the Planck constant, but, as discussed below, their numerical values have a ratio of 2π. In this article the word "value" as used in the tables means "numerical value", and the equations involving the Planck constant and/or frequency actually involve their numerical values using the appropriate implied units.
The unit of Planck constant is J⋅s/cycle. If there are 2 cycles in a chirp of electromagnetic wave, the energy would be twice as much. It's implicitly assumed that the value of cycle must be an integer. Otherwise there would be no observed quantization of energy transfer.
The word quantum is the neuter singular of the Latin interrogative adjective quantus, meaning "how much". "Quanta", the neuter plural, short for "quanta of electricity" (electrons), was used in a 1902 article on the photoelectric effect by Philipp Lenard, who credited Hermann von Helmholtz for using the word in the area of electricity. However, the word quantum in general was well known before 1900,[2] e.g. quantum was used in E.A. Poe's Loss of Breath. It was often used by physicians, such as in the term quantum satis. Both Helmholtz and Julius von Mayer were physicians as well as physicists. Helmholtz used quantum with reference to heat in his article[3] on Mayer's work, and the word quantum can be found in the formulation of the first law of thermodynamics by Mayer in his letter[4] dated July 24, 1841.
In 1901, Max Planck used quanta to mean "quanta of matter and electricity",[5] gas, and heat.[6] In 1905, in response to Planck's work and the experimental work of Lenard (who explained his results by using the term quanta of electricity), Albert Einstein suggested that radiation existed in spatially localized packets which he called "quanta of light" ("Lichtquanta").[7]
The concept of quantization of radiation was discovered in 1900 by Max Planck, who had been trying to understand the emission of radiation from heated objects, known as black-body radiation. By assuming that energy can be absorbed or released only in tiny, differential, discrete packets (which he called "bundles", or "energy elements"),[8] Planck accounted for certain objects changing color when heated.[9] On December 14, 1900, Planck reported his findings to the German Physical Society, and introduced the idea of quantization for the first time as a part of his research on black-body radiation.[10] As a result of his experiments, Planck deduced the numerical value of h, known as the Planck constant, and reported more precise values for the unit of electrical charge and the Avogadro–Loschmidt number, the number of real molecules in a mole, to the German Physical Society. After his theory was validated, Planck was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his discovery in 1918.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum#Etymology_and_discovery
-
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.
-
But E = hf and E > 0 for a photon!
More to the point, there is no such thing as a negative frequency. Fact is that it doesn't matter where you put the "center" frequency, the spectrum of a delta function is infinite, but the energy of a photon is absolutely defined.
You can use online calculators such as wolfram alpha to show that the width of the curve in time domain is proportional to the height of the corresponding curve in frequency domain. So, if the time domain signal is infinitesimally thin, then the frequency domain curve is infinitesimally low. I'd like to elaborate further, but I'm afraid that I'll have to do it in new theory section.
So, here we are. To avoid getting unexpected results, we must make sure that we don't make false assumptions. We must distinguish between observed facts and assumptions, or conclusions based on observation results combined with our assumptions.
First, I'd like to point out that Fourier transform tells us that it's impossible to produce infinitesimally thin spectrum of radiation with limited amount of time. On the other hand, it's impossible to produce infinitesimally thin pulse of radiation with finite range of spectrum.
Here are some more examples. Perhaps we can see some patterns.
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-vector/fourier-transform-ft-600w-773535130.jpg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.salina.k-state.edu%2Ftim%2FmVision%2F_images%2Fcommon_FT_pairs.png&hash=44c1d607eaa0ed150845de7c608bfedd)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.etc.tuiasi.ro%2Fcin%2FDownloads%2FFourier%2FTable2.gif&hash=953c644f86840785e2cb2bbbbe819cf3)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dsprelated.com%2Fblogimages%2FSteveSmith%2FSWSmith_Power_Law_Pairs.gif&hash=0515d14c58c6fbc67d286dc0e2156c6d)
The last diagram shows that fourier transform mirrors original function, with the curve t-0.5 similar to ω-0.5
-
Photons move at the speed of light. They have attributes we call wavelength and frequency. The wavelength and frequencies obey the laws of inertial reference. However, they do not obey the laws of a speed of light reference, even though photons move at the speed of light.
If we plug the speed of light into the equations of Special Relativity, distance and time or wavelength and frequency should become discontinuous; zero or infinite, and not remain as finite wavelength and frequency. The speed of light is not defining these attributes. Finite wavelength and frequency are connected to inertial and space-time.
If wavelength and frequency was being defined by the speed of light we would get only photons with zero wavelength; very powerful, or infinite wavelength; almost zero energy. The stuff in the middle is the rule and this is all based on inertial.
One possible explanation for the dual natural of the photon, is that the speed of light aspect of photons, exists in the gaps between photon quanta, The quanta are inertial and the gaps between is where space-time become discontinuous at the speed of light. The photon is a single particle with two extreme reference states; inertial and speed of light. The photon combine these in a way that allows both to be expressed; quantum and gaps. Matter then becomes quantized through the interaction with the quantum nature of photons; electron orbitals.
Has anyone run experiment with two adjacent photon quanta with a gap in the middle to see if we isolate gap based affects? We can use two lasers and an appropriate excitation material.
-
The wavelength and frequencies obey the laws of inertial reference
Why do you post this nonsense?Has anyone run experiment with two adjacent photon quanta with a gap in the middle to see if we isolate gap based affects?
No, because it is nonsense.
-
Here I'll try to figure out if there is a way to improve it. If there is, what will it look like?
As we know light has no visible quality in the absence of matter why photons are lacking mass and are too small to see unless we look at the source of the light or the object that the light is reflecting off. If we look into a 100 watt spotlight we see that intensity if we look into a 200 watt spotlight we see that it is considerably brighter we are now producing more photons yet the gap between the photons is very large in relation to the photons themselves. Now look at electrons there is some comparison to be made take a simple playing card it is made up of countless electrons although electrons have a very large space between them just like the planets orbiting the sun. If we shine that 200 watt light on the card it will be illuminated very brightly by photons that have a larger gap between them than the electrons and atoms that make up the card. If we could extract all the potential energy from the card it could produce more light than the sun for a brief moment that little playing card has more potential energy and light than any light you could ever shine on it. So what does all this mean the light leaves its source after being converted and lands back to the unconverted potential source only revealing its self leaving and returning not on the journey in between. Light is produced by excitement and light can illuminate matter by re excitement as light travels it maintains its potential until interrupted. I hope this explanation helps in some way if not it's just my electrons protons and atoms shorting out. PS. and my neurons.
-
Here is an example of a Gaussian pulse and its Fourier transform.
(https://www.gaussianwaves.com/gaussianwaves/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Gaussian-Pulse-Matlab-FFT-how-to-plot-PSD-using-FFT-in-Matlab.png)
https://www.gaussianwaves.com/2014/07/generating-basic-signals-gaussian-pulse-and-power-spectral-density-using-fft/
This kind of pulse can be generated using electronic circuits. The value of σ can be adjusted. The vertical axis of frequency domain is not probability. It's magnitude instead.
You can use online calculators such as wolfram alpha to show that the width of the curve in time domain is proportional to the height of the corresponding curve in frequency domain. So, if the time domain signal is infinitesimally thin, then the frequency domain curve is infinitesimally low.
The Fourier transform of a Gaussian pulse in time domain is just a different representation of the same pulse in the frequency domain. With appropriately chosen unit for vertical axis, a pair of Gaussian pulses can be arranged to represent the same signal in both time and frequency domains, where the area below the curves are maintained equal between two domains.
If the vertical axis in time domain is power, then the area below the curve represents energy. The corresponding vertical axis in frequency domain of the same pulse would be angular momentum. Thus, the area below the curve also represents energy of the pulse.
-
Re: Is there a better way to explain light?
« Reply #17 on: Yesterday at 03:46:50 »
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 12-07-2021, 11:12:39
Here I'll try to figure out if there is a way to improve it. If there is, what will it look like?
As we know light has no visible quality in the absence of matter why photons are lacking mass and are too small to see unless we look at the source of the light or the object that the light is reflecting off. If we look into a 100 watt spotlight we see that intensity if we look into a 200 watt spotlight we see that it is considerably brighter we are now producing more photons yet the gap between the photons is very large in relation to the photons themselves. Now look at electrons there is some comparison to be made take a simple playing card it is made up of countless electrons although electrons have a very large space between them just like the planets orbiting the sun. If we shine that 200 watt light on the card it will be illuminated very brightly by photons that have a larger gap between them than the electrons and atoms that make up the card. If we could extract all the potential energy from the card it could produce more light than the sun for a brief moment that little playing card has more potential energy and light than any light you could ever shine on it. So what does all this mean the light leaves its source after being converted and lands back to the unconverted potential source only revealing its self leaving and returning not on the journey in between. Light is produced by excitement and light can illuminate matter by re excitement as light travels it maintains its potential until interrupted. I hope this explanation helps in some way if not it's just my electrons protons and atoms shorting out. PS. and my neurons.
That's what I thought to only you have explained it better than I could have ever tried.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
But it doesn't seem to work for higher frequency
In what way?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Electrons are elementary particles that have both negative charge and mass.
Electrons have positive mass.
-
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.
And these are the version of US Air Force
Radio Antenna Fundamentals - Part 1 1947
Radio Antenna Fundamentals - Part 2 1947
-
Electrons are elementary particles that have both negative charge and mass.
Electrons have positive mass.
That is what I said, but I phrased it in an unclear way. We live in a mass dominate universe, so positive mass was implied.
You made a good point about x-rays and gamma rays not being generated by antenna. You indirectly suggested the basis for an experiment to prove that negative charge and mass are integrated and unified via the electron. A complete explanation for light needs to take in account that transitional antenna change within electron/photon properties. This transition is where the mass side of the unity becomes more noticeable; thermal/EM.
A complete explanation for light also needs to take into account the observation that photons can travel at the speed of light, but still show finite distance and time attributes; wavelength and frequency, in our finite reference. These should show the space-time contraction, expected of something moving at the speed of light; Special relativity.
If we had 10 hypothetical rockets, of different lengths, each sending out pulses at different frequencies; rough simulation of wavelength and frequency, at the speed of light, they will all look the same in our reference. One could not tell the difference. Photons can somehow avoid this, because they have two separate legs; two integrated properties. This is similar to the electron; one particle with two integrated properties.
-
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.
No
They were explained as a the result of accelerating a charge.
You don't need an antenna.
You can also do the same thing like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation
or this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-electron_laser
The antenna is just one way to achieve the acceleration.
There's no "mystery" to solve here.
-
You indirectly suggested the basis for an experiment to prove that negative charge and mass are integrated and unified via the electron.
They aren't.
This will remain true no matter how often you post nonsense about it.
-
No
They were explained as a the result of accelerating a charge.
You don't need an antenna.
You can also do the same thing like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation
or this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-electron_laser
The antenna is just one way to achieve the acceleration.
There's no "mystery" to solve here.
Thank you for the reference.
In dipole antenna, we can control how the distribution of frequency, as well as emission pattern.
It's not so clear how to control them in synchrotron.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Synchrotron_radiation_energy_flux.png/500px-Synchrotron_radiation_energy_flux.png)
When the electron velocity approaches the speed of light, the emission pattern is sharply collimated forward.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Critical_frequency_and_critical_angle.jpg/350px-Critical_frequency_and_critical_angle.jpg)
Angular distribution of radiated energy
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Frequency_distributions_of_radiated_energy.png/400px-Frequency_distributions_of_radiated_energy.png)
Frequency distribution of radiated energy
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Undulator.png/300px-Undulator.png)
Working of the undulator. 1: magnets, 2: electron beam entering from the upper left, 3: synchrotron radiation exiting to the lower right
Hans Motz and his coworkers at Stanford University demonstrated the first undulator in 1952.[4][5] It produced the first manmade coherent infrared radiation. The design could produce a total frequency range from visible light down to millimeter waves.
I wonder how they managed to arrange magnets alternatingly in merely half microns.
If there's only one electron involved, how many photons would be produced?
-
It's not so clear how to control them in synchrotron.
They are often considered a problem by people who build synchrotrons as particle accelerators- They spread out in a disk from the places where the beam "turns a corner".
But they are a very nice bright, monochromatic X-ray source which is great for doing crystallography; chemists love them.
I think the medical X-ray people might like them too- any thoughts Alan?
-
What Is The Nature Of Photons & EM Radiation?
As I have stated in my own thread, Is light real, I believe that light is a phenomenon that is produced by the brain of living creatures. Photons and radiation are parcels of energy that travel from their source and land on a detector/converter this is known as the eye. The energy is then received by the brain and perceived as light. My best example of this being true is the fact that when we dream we see light the light in our dreams come from the brain the only instrument capable of producing this vision of light. The skin can feel intense radiation but only the brain its self can see it.
-
What Is The Nature Of Photons & EM Radiation?
As I have stated in my own thread, Is light real, I believe that light is a phenomenon that is produced by the brain of living creatures. Photons and radiation are parcels of energy that travel from their source and land on a detector/converter this is known as the eye. The energy is then received by the brain and perceived as light. My best example of this being true is the fact that when we dream we see light the light in our dreams come from the brain the only instrument capable of producing this vision of light. The skin can feel intense radiation but only the brain its self can see it.
A camera can record light even when no one is seeing it.
Do you think microwave doesn't exist because no one can see it?
-
A camera can record light even when no one is seeing it.
The camera monitor projects the energy to our eyes them our brain see,s the image. There is no light in the camera only stored information waiting to be emitted from the monitor just as all photons are projected/emitted by the source of the energy. A camera is a device that can store and emit photons.
-
A camera can record light even when no one is seeing it.
The camera monitor projects the energy to our eyes them our brain see,s the image. There is no light in the camera only stored information waiting to be emitted from the monitor just as all photons are projected/emitted by the source of the energy. A camera is a device that can store and emit photons.
Depending on the camera type, the information from light can be stored in photosensitive film or flash drive, etc.
Do you think microwave doesn't exist because no one can see it?
Do you exclude infrared and ultraviolet light?
-
Depending on the camera type, the information from light can be stored in photosensitive film or flash drive, etc.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on Today at 17:58:48
Do you think microwave doesn't exist because no one can see it?
Do you exclude infrared and ultraviolet light?
the photosensitive film has the image produced by the photons of different intensity reacting with the chemicals on the film just like a portrait artist creating a painting. Microwaves and ultraviolet radiation can be seen with the aid of equipment that is designed to detect this frequency as our eyes are not designed to work at that range. We humans make it possible to see and do things with the aid of technology that our bodies cant do alone.
-
As I have stated in my own thread, Is light real, I believe that light is a phenomenon that is produced by the brain of living creatures.
Ancient humans can't detect microwave or ultraviolet light. Their brains didn't produce phenomena of light in those frequencies. Your statement implies that they didn't exist back then.
-
Ancient humans can't detect microwave or ultraviolet light. Their brains didn't produce phenomena of light in those frequencies. Your statement implies that they didn't exist back then.
I never thought of that so I must be wrong thank you for that insight.
-
If you think that light is already well understood using our currently accepted model, just watch this video.
The super bizarre quantum eraser experiment
The quantum eraser experiment is one of the weirdest phenomena that has ever been observed. It seems that quantum mechanics mixes past and future together. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don take you through this quantum conundrum.
-
If you think that light is already well understood using our currently accepted model, just watch this video.
No this is just it I have my own theory of just what light is I think light is not well understood.???
-
If you think that light is already well understood using our currently accepted model, just watch this video.
No this is just it I have my own theory of just what light is I think light is not well understood.???
I wasn't addressing you specifically. Otherwise, I would have mentioned you or quote your previous statement.
-
I wasn't addressing you specifically. Otherwise, I would have mentioned you or quote your previous statement.
Apologies for the misunderstanding. I watched the video and found it very interesting all the split experiments are fascinating light never disappoints.
-
The super bizarre quantum eraser experiment
The video shows that the experiment gives unexpected result. So, there must be some false assumptions involved somewhere.
I suspect that one of them is unjustified simplification of the experimental setup. E.g. how can macroscopic beam splitters split a single photon into two identical photons? How many times can they be split in cascade? How much energy is carried by each split photons? Do the beam splitters affect the frequency?
How actually did they detect which way the photon goes?
-
The video shows that the experiment gives unexpected result.
At this point I am clueless as to what is happening with the experiment it takes a lot of mind power to even try to comprehend.
-
Here is a link given in video description.
https://medium.com/@josephjake01/did-the-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser-experiment-break-causality-cd0ee999348d
Which-Way Information
One variation of the two-slit experiment tries to detect which slit the photon traveled through. A which-way double-slit experiment. Pretty self-explanatory right?
But, placing a detector right before the double-slit causes a double band on the sheet instead of the interference pattern. The photon acted as a particle instead of a wave as expected.
Somehow the act of observation forced the wavefunction to collapse and become a particle. It’s almost as if the universe is shy and freaks out when someone tries to detect its true nature.
Here we can see a problem. It's as if the writer never really perform the experiment himself. A double band pattern on the screen is only possible if the width of the slits are large enough so diffraction effect is insignificant. But it means that there would be no observable interference effect even if no detector was placed right before the double slit.
-
Here we can see a problem. It's as if the writer never really perform the experiment himself. A double band pattern on the screen is only possible if the width of the slits are large enough so diffraction effect is insignificant. But it means that there would be no observable interference effect even if no detector was placed right before the double slit.
Thanks for the link this is amazing how can one photon become two. It is as if the photon has created a new photon by the interaction of its self? And I know that this makes no sense.
-
Re: Is there a better way to explain light?
« Reply #59 on: Today at 17:28:00 »
What will happen if we fire a single photon at a 50% reflective mirror sorry for my poor knocked up diagram. Will the single photon become two? [ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Here's another excerpt from the same article.
But here is where it gets interesting. If you place the detector after the slit there will be no interference pattern. Even after the photon left the slits as a wave it somehow freaks out and tells itself to act as if it came out as a particle. This is a delayed-choice double slit experiment.
How could a photon change what state it was, in the past?
Well trying to conclude that the photon was either a wave or a particle in the past would have to imply some form of time travel. Instead, physicists tend to conclude that it is neither a wave nor a particle. Rather a photon remains undefined until the measurement which prevents the need to bring in time travel.
IMO, most of the time, light behaves like a wave. Except when there's interaction with non-linear electronic components such as dynode/photomultiplier, CMOS sensor, or photovoltaic cell, in which case it shows behaviors like a particle. Thus I think that those electronic components are the cause of particle like behaviors related to light.
-
Re: Is there a better way to explain light?
« Reply #59 on: Today at 17:28:00 »
What will happen if we fire a single photon at a 50% reflective mirror sorry for my poor knocked up diagram. Will the single photon become two? [ Invalid Attachment ]
Common explanation says that the photon has 50% chance of being reflected, and another 50% chance of being transmitted.
It would mean that if you shine a single photon to the beam splitter 4 times consecutively, there's 1/16 chance that all of them will be transmitted. I haven't found something like this being demonstrated in an experiment.
-
I haven't found something like this being demonstrated in an experiment.
I haven't seen this either it might be interesting to find out.
-
I haven't found something like this being demonstrated in an experiment.
Yes you have; you just didn't realise it.
-
Yes you have; you just didn't realise it.
Will it work or is it a fail.
-
I haven't found something like this being demonstrated in an experiment.
Yes you have; you just didn't realise it.
Can you provide the link?
-
Instead, physicists tend to conclude that it is neither a wave nor a particle. Rather a photon remains undefined until the measurement which prevents the need to bring in time travel.
IMO, most of the time, light behaves like a wave.
Once again, we see the dangers of confusing a model with an object, and using animalistic terms like "behave" as if our object had reason and choice.
We have observed the properties of electromagnetic radiation. We do not have a unique mathematical model that describes and predicts all of them, but by using two models we can get very close. Why make it any more complicated?
-
Once again, we see the dangers of confusing a model with an object, and using animalistic terms like "behave" as if our object had reason and choice.
We have observed the properties of electromagnetic radiation. We do not have a unique mathematical model that describes and predicts all of them, but by using two models we can get very close. Why make it any more complicated?
Relating foreign or new things to more familiar things is part of learning . That's why we use the word virus for computer programs that behave like biological viruses.
What's the rule we can use to select between those two models to solve the problem we are facing?
-
The super bizarre quantum eraser experiment
DIY Homemade Double-slit Quantum Eraser Experiment under 50$
The DIY version doesn't look bizarre.
-
Here's my newest video investigating diffraction of light by producing single side interference pattern.
I'd like to know if there's an alternative explanation for this experiment.
-
It would mean that if you shine a single photon to the beam splitter 4 times consecutively, there's 1/16 chance that all of them will be transmitted. I haven't found something like this being demonstrated in an experiment.
You really have seen the experiment done countless times.
There's nothing special about a beam splitter- it's just a thing that reflects some light.
And a photon can't have a "memory" of whether it's been reflected before- it certainly can't tell if it was reflected from a thing that some experimenter had chosen to label as a "beam splitter".
So the question is equivalent to asking how reflection works in general.
And if I look at the lighting in this room- where the sunlight comes in through the window and is scattered (multiple times) round the room, I can judge things like the surface texture, and colour of objects.
That's also true, if I bring the light source into the room by waiting until night and turning the lights on.
Or if I wait until the sun is no longer shining through the window, but is scattered into my room by the sky and other stuff outside.
The room looks the same.
Things don't suddenly change their properties because the light hitting them has already been reflected.
So we know that the reflectance (and by analogy, the transmission) is unaffected by the history of the photons.
But, if you like, there are actual real experiments using multiple reflections.
One involves looking at eclipses of the sun.
Before we had good optical filters, one way to get a good view of the sun was to get some black glass and polish some flat sheets of it then look at a reflection of a reflection.
Each surface gives (roughly) 10% reflection so 4 or 4 in sequence gives you an image you can look at with a telescope (with a small aperture).
That sort of experiment was done so long ago that it's not easy to find details written up.
But the important thing to realise is this.
If it had not worked, that would have been interesting and there would have been further work until there was an explanation.
-
You really have seen the experiment done countless times.
I haven't. I only need the recording of single photon detection of reflected and transmitted light from a beamsplitter, side by side in a two columns table. I think 1000 data points would be enough to make a conclusion. Only real experiments are acceptable to represent objective reality. No amount of simulations can resolve it.
-
I haven't.
Yes you have.
I pointed out that every time you look at something you are in effect, doing the experiment.
-
I haven't.
Yes you have.
I pointed out that every time you look at something you are in effect, doing the experiment.
But the result is different. Here is what's expected when the beamsplitter randomly directs 100 single photons in a row coming into it.
passed
0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
reflected
1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
You can see that activation of second sensor depends on activation of first sensor. They're always complementary.
If my popcorn analogy is correct, it won't be the case. My prediction/hypothesis might be false, but at least it's falsifiable, hence scientific.
-
Here's what would be expected if activation of sensor in the path of passed photon is independent from activation of sensor in the path of reflected photon.
passed
0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0
reflected
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
There would be time when both sensors are triggered, but also when none of them are. Statistically, only half of them are complementary.
-
Are you aware of the conservation of energy?
-
Are you aware of the conservation of energy?
How do you think it would affect the results?
The expected result in reply #76 wouldn't make sense according to conservation of energy, if the transmitter actually sends a single photon at a time, which then triggers the detectors.
But it makes sense if the transmitter transmit the dim light continuously, and trigger the detectors after they accumulate adequate amount of energy. That's why temperature of the detectors affects the detection rate.
-
What Is The Nature Of Photons & EM Radiation?
As I have stated in my own thread, Is light real, I believe that light is a phenomenon that is produced by the brain of living creatures. Photons and radiation are parcels of energy that travel from their source and land on a detector/converter this is known as the eye. The energy is then received by the brain and perceived as light. My best example of this being true is the fact that when we dream we see light the light in our dreams come from the brain the only instrument capable of producing this vision of light. The skin can feel intense radiation but only the brain its self can see it.
You seem to have muddled "vison" which happens in the brain with "light" which happens in the outside world.
-
The expected result in reply #76 wouldn't make sense according to conservation of energy, if the transmitter actually sends a single photon at a time, which then triggers the detectors.
But it makes sense if the transmitter transmit the dim light continuously, and trigger the detectors after they accumulate adequate amount of energy. That's why temperature of the detectors affects the detection rate.
The main difference between my hypothesis and photon model is where the randomization occurs.
My hypothesis asserts that the randomization occurs at the detector. Light energy received by the detector will either be reflected, absorbed, or transmitted. Absorbed light will be transformed into other forms of energy, like heat, light at different frequency, chemical reaction, electron ejection, etc. which can be sensed by detector.
In photon model, randomization occurs at the transmitter, as well as beam splitter. Many pop-sci articles presented that the event when a detector is triggered simply means a photon has been captured, with no room for uncertainty. AFAIK, it is affected by environmental condition, such as temperature, cosmic ray, interference of electromagnetic wave, and electrical potential applied to the detector.
-
My hypothesis asserts that the randomization occurs at the detector.
So does everyone else's.
The specifications for photo-detectors often include "quantum yield".
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
So does everyone else's.
I wish everyone knew it.
Unfortunately, we can find many science communicators presented this in a way which may misled their audiences, like this video.
To be fair, he also mentioned uncertainty on the detector and cosmic ray effect in another video. Although it doesn't seem to affect the conviction that light energy is quantified from the start.
-
I'm sorry for missing this question.
Re: Is there a better way to explain light?
« Reply #59 on: Today at 17:28:00 »
What will happen if we fire a single photon at a 50% reflective mirror sorry for my poor knocked up diagram. Will the single photon become two? [ Invalid Attachment ]
Some sources assert that the photon has 50% chance of being reflected, and 50% chance of being transmitted. So in any instance, one photon in, one photon out.
-
The super bizarre quantum eraser experiment
Here's an alternative explanation which is less bizarre.
-
For many of us, the behavior of light is thought to have been fully understood by modern scientific theories. Introductory physics textbooks only mention a few experiments and theories that made historical paradigm shifts in science. It's understandable due to the limited space they have. The cost is the lost of acknowledgement of competing hypotheses which were supposed to be resolved by experiments, which might make our understanding on the subject incomplete. The article below shows some experimental results forming our current understanding on behavior of light.
https://www.academia.edu/37682307/Einsteins_reinterpretation_of_the_Fizeau_experiment_How_it_turned_out_to_be_crucial_for_special_relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
-
If you look at light; photon, it travels at the speed of light, yet it does not show a space-time reference shift of its wavelength and frequency all the way to the point-instant one would expect of velocity at the speed of light; special relativity. If we substituted a space ship of length L, to define a given wavelength=L and made it travel at the speed of light, its original size would not perpetuate in our reference. We would see a distance contraction. Yet light or photons can perpetuate its size; wavelength, even at the speed of light. All wavelength, which is a finite property, should appear compressed to point-instants at the speed of light, but this is not observed.
This tells me that light exists in two separate references, at the same time; speed of light and local inertial reference; two legs. Light can be influenced by a gravitational field causing either red or blue shift depending on the direction. It can also be impacted by special relativity, if released by a moving object; Doppler shift. Yet these actions do not impact the speed of light. It only impacts the inertial leg of the photon, that acts independently of its speed of light leg.
Light is like a bridge state between all universal inertial references and the single speed of light reference. The question is what is the impact of the speed of light reference? In Special Relativity, is we input c or the speed of light into the three equations for mass, distance and time, discontinuities appear in mass, distance and time. There is no mass and space-time breaks down at the speed of light This means E=MC2 does not apply at the speed light since there is zero mass there. One will not get energy to mass conversion so velocity does not change.
The dissociation of space-time results in time and space becoming disconnected allowing one to travel in time without the constraint of space and/or travel in space without the constraint of time. This causes the photon have eternal wavelength and frequency unless acting upon by inertial properties.
In the speed of light reference, since time and space are not connected, the constraints we call the laws of physics do not apply in all cases. More things can happen than are expected from space-time alone. This is a state of infinite entropy; complexity. If you move in time apart from space at the same time you move in space apart from time, anything is possible. This state of infinite entropy is the drive behind the second law. It has an impact on our inertial universe; our universe increases entropy. This potential should also impact light.
An entropy increase is endothermic and absorbs energy. Since the entropy of the universe has to net increase over time, that means our universe is bleeding energy into entropy states, which cannot be net used again, or else the second law is not valid. This loss of light energy can be understood as energy going into complexity that cannot get simple again in any net way. For example, the building of the atoms of the periodic table caused energy loss, into entropy. The atoms do not go backwards in spontaneous way because the entropy increase does not net reverse. It tied up entropic based energy, that is not net retrievable. Spinning particle at the smallest levels are perpetual sources of net irreversible entropic energy.
Light is like a bridge that spans the speed of light reference with our inertial universe. This bridge is also like a moving sidewalk that pulls energy toward the speed of light reference; 2nd law and universal red shift. This energy is conserved via states of entropic information. Information type energy does not follow the same laws as the inertial states of energy since this energy cannot be retrieved as energy These information states are conserved within the irreversible complexity of matter and their information base helps to define the laws of physics. The actions of matter is dependant on their current state of irreversible complexity.
-
When someone taught you that it was good to show your references, they did not mean this
space-time referenc
t perpetuate in our reference.
light exists in two separate references
inertial reference; two legs
universal inertial references
single speed of light reference.
speed of light reference
speed of light reference
light reference with our inertial universe.
speed of light reference; 2nd law and universal red shift.
You keep using phrases like that, but you never say what they are meant to mean.
-
Let me explain these various references. Inertial references exist everywhere where the concept of space-time applies. This is where mass can also exist. The speed of light reference is where space-time breaks down into separated space and time that can act independently of each other. One can move in space without any time requirement such as a quantum jump or a worm hole. Or one can move in time without the constraint of space. This is more connected to information such as what makes the laws of physics the same in all inertial references. There is no space constraint in terms of action and reaction in time; universal laws the same in all inertial references.
Photons or light exist in a reference state between these two extreme references. Photon move at the speed of light. However, photons are part of space-time. They can maintain finite wavelength or red/blue shift. The photon reference states can be considered a bridge state between the two extreme references.
If we assume the inertial universe; singularity, starts from nothing it it would need to appear from the speed of light reference; where space-time does not initial apply therefore the law of physics are difference. The creation of mass, which firmed up space-time, sets a potential with the speed of light reference. This origin potential is the basis for gravity as well as all the forces of nature.
The forces of nature are based on accelerations, which has the units of d/t/t. Dimensionally, this amounts to space-time; d-t plus time; t, with the extra time, beyond space-time connected to the speed of light reference. This second time vector is not dependent on space. It is part of the laws of nature that are common through the universe, which help to coordinate the evolution of the universe. This model does not use separated forces, but integrates this via the time potential from the c-reference, to explain all the forces as one thing.
This model may be too integrated for those who are used to something more dissociated. That is an artifact of space-time being defined apart from the speed of light reference. The standard models do not define a true c-reference so they can make use to its theoretical advantages. Without that true c-reference everything appears to be detached without any integrating principle to make it simple.
The speed of light reference is also a state of infinite entropy since with space and time dissociated more things are possible since the limitations of space-time do not apply. This is the drive for the 2nd law in terms of all inertial references. This universal increase in entropy is mediate through the bridge state of energy/light, since an entropy increase needs to absorb energy. While the second law also implies that the universe is bleeding energy into ever increasing entropy that is not net reversible. This energy is conserved but not in a way that is directly useable by the inertial universe. This state of entropic energy is more connected to informational states of complexity that exist and perpetuate; particle spin for example. We cannot stop all spin to retrieve this stored energy; this energy is not available as free energy but is being conserved closer to the c-reference.
The expansion of the universe is connected to the 2nd law since by speeding up time, through expanding space-time, the rate of entropy increase speeds up, thought the entire universal; inertial universe move back to c-reference faster.
The speed of light reference created the inertial universe and after that the inertial universe started to head back to the speed of light reference; expanding and creation of photons via the forces of nature. It is also reflected in mass burn; stars, since mass cannot exist at c-reference but has to first change into the bridge state of energy; E=MC2.
The c-referenrce provides all the missing links needed to simplify the universe.
-
The speed of light reference is where space-time breaks down into separated space and time
Who breaks it?
-
Or one can move in time without the constraint of space.
What does it mean?
Can something stay at its position for a long time? From which frame of reference?
-
Or one can move in time without the constraint of space.
What does it mean?
Can something stay at its position for a long time? From which drame of reference?
There is seldom any point in either trying to work out what PuppyPower means, or asking him.
His posts are simply not logical.
-
Has quantum mechanics proved that reality does not exist?
In the past years you may have seen headlines claiming that objective reality does not exist because some quantum mechanics experiment has shown it. In this video I explain what this is all about and why this experiment doesn't show that reality doesn't exist.
0:00 Intro
0:51 Wigner's friend
5:03 The Extended Wigner's Friend Scenario
8:18 The experiment that shows reality doesn't exist
9:12 What does it mean?
10:04 Sponsor message
I prefer explanation which doesn't suggest that reality does not exist.
-
The videos below summarize the historical progress of theory of light.
In this part, we will explore how the corpuscular theory of light and the wave theory of light would each have their own champions and compete for ultimate success. We will discuss the contributions made by the likes of Bernoulli, Young and Fresnel
-
What's the Real Meaning of Quantum Mechanics? - with Jim Baggott
Jim explores what are the most popular interpretations of quantum mechanics and how we might need to be a little more specific when we talk about ‘reality’.
-
Has quantum mechanics proved that reality does not exist?
You can define a word to mean anything you like, then use any formalism you choose to prove that the thing you defined doesn't exist. As long as you have defined "exist" in a suitable manner.
You can't see a black cat in a dark cellar. You can't feel any cats in my cellar. Therefore the cats in my cellar are made of black air.
Philosophy is bunk.
-
Philosophy is bunk.
It just means that your philosophy is different than others that you've ever read.
-
What makes mainstream scientists accept weird explanation for light? What can possibly be done to make it less weird?
https://phys.org/news/2022-10-scientists-nobel-prize-physics-quantum.html
Frenchman Alain Aspect, American John F. Clauser and Austrian Anton Zeilinger were cited by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for experiments proving the "totally crazy" field of quantum entanglements to be all too real. They demonstrated that unseen particles, such as photons, can be linked, or "entangled," with each other even when they are separated by large distances.
It all goes back to a feature of the universe that even baffled Albert Einstein and connects matter and light in a tangled, chaotic way.
"It's so weird," Aspect said of entanglement in a telephone call with the Nobel committee. "I am accepting in my mental images something which is totally crazy."
https://phys.org/news/2022-10-quantum-entanglement-spooky-science-physics.html
This year's physics Nobel prize was awarded Tuesday to three men for their work on a phenomenon called quantum entanglement, which is so bizarre and unlikely that Albert Einstein was skeptical, famously calling it "spooky".
https://phys.org/news/2022-10-nobel-winners-quantum-spooky-action.html
Physicists Alain Aspect, John Clauser and Anton Zeilinger developed experimental tools that helped prove quantum entanglement—a phenomenon Albert Einstein famously dismissed as "spooky action at a distance"—is real, paving the way for its use in powerful computers.
-
What makes mainstream scientists accept weird explanation for light?
The physics of light is based on observation and experimentation. The fact that you think the physics is weird is irrelevant.
What can possibly be done to make it less weird?
The only solution I see is for you realize that your senses and experiences are limited so stop thinking it is weird.
-
What makes mainstream scientists accept weird explanation for light?
It works.
There's really no other consideration.
-
The physics of light is based on observation and experimentation. The fact that you think the physics is weird is irrelevant.
Who says what?
"It's so weird," Aspect said of entanglement in a telephone call with the Nobel committee. "I am accepting in my mental images something which is totally crazy."
It sounds like you know this matter better than Aspect himself.
-
Joshua Gold - How Occam’s Razor Guides Human and Machine Decision-Making (October 19, 2022)
Deciding something as potentially complicated as what to do next or as deceptively simple as where to look next requires our brains to deliberate; that is, to move beyond the rigidness and immediacy of sensory-motor reflexes and instead take time to process and weigh evidence in a flexible manner until arriving at a categorical judgment that guides behavior. Our understanding of this deliberation process, which represents a major building block of cognition, has benefited greatly from mathematically rigorous theories from some unexpected places.
In this lecture, Joshua Gold will describe two theoretical frameworks that support ongoing studies of deliberative decision-making in the brain, focusing on their historical origins. The first describes quantitatively the process by which uncertain evidence can be accumulated over time to balance the competing needs of maximizing decision accuracy while minimizing decision time. This framework is built on mathematical advances that Alan Turing and colleagues developed to decode messages sent via the Enigma machine during World War II. The second describes how biases can emerge in this information-accumulation process that can be helpful when considering options that differ in form and scope. This framework is a formalization of Occam’s razor, which states that all else being equal, simple solutions are better — an idea directly relevant to how biological and artificial brains can make effective decisions.
-
The physics of light is based on observation and experimentation. The fact that you think the physics is weird is irrelevant.
Who says what?
"It's so weird," Aspect said of entanglement in a telephone call with the Nobel committee. "I am accepting in my mental images something which is totally crazy."
It sounds like you know this matter better than Aspect himself.
Here are some definitions of "weird":
suggesting something supernatural; uncanny.
(Oxford)
The meaning of WEIRD is of strange or extraordinary character: odd, fantastic.
(Merriam-Webster)
very strange and unusual, unexpected, or not natural
(Cambridge)
It means that the observation results differ from expectation. Otherwise, they won't be called weird.
His expected results must be based on some axioms/assumptions/model. But since they don't agree with observations, then at least one of those assumptions must be false.
Here are the assumptions used:
Principle of locality, the idea that a particle can only be influenced by its immediate surroundings, and that interactions mediated by physical fields can only occur at speeds no greater than the speed of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
The assumption above also refers to special theory of relativity.
The light was generated and interact with polarizers and detectors as photons.
Measurements are performed independently on the two separated particles of an entangled pair
The outcomes depend upon hidden variables within each half
-
Why Did Quantum Entanglement Win the Nobel Prize in Physics?
The Nobel prize in physics is typically awarded to scientists who make sense of nature; those whose discoveries render the universe more comprehensible. But the 2022 Nobel has been awarded to three physicists who revealed that the universe is even stranger than we thought thanks to Quantum Entanglement
This video adds some historical context to this year's Nobel Prize in Physics.
-
But the 2022 Nobel has been awarded to three physicists who revealed that the universe is even stranger than we thought
And now we know that it is,
Knowing stuff is good- you get things like Nobel prizes for it.
-
Try, Try, Until You Succeed!
P.S. - 👍
-
The physics of light is based on observation and experimentation. The fact that you think the physics is weird is irrelevant.
Who says what?
"It's so weird," Aspect said of entanglement in a telephone call with the Nobel committee. "I am accepting in my mental images something which is totally crazy."
It sounds like you know this matter better than Aspect himself.
Here are some definitions of "weird":
suggesting something supernatural; uncanny.
(Oxford)
The meaning of WEIRD is of strange or extraordinary character: odd, fantastic.
(Merriam-Webster)
very strange and unusual, unexpected, or not natural
(Cambridge)
It means that the observation results differ from expectation. Otherwise, they won't be called weird.
His expected results must be based on some axioms/assumptions/model. But since they don't agree with observations, then at least one of those assumptions must be false.
Here are the assumptions used:
Principle of locality, the idea that a particle can only be influenced by its immediate surroundings, and that interactions mediated by physical fields can only occur at speeds no greater than the speed of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
The assumption above also refers to special theory of relativity.
The light was generated and interact with polarizers and detectors as photons.
Measurements are performed independently on the two separated particles of an entangled pair
The outcomes depend upon hidden variables within each half
Mr. Yousuf, seeing the thread, i could not keep away sharing some of mine findings. When I was sat near a canal where water was flowing I could see bending of water, diffraction. It is known fact, however, to my enthusiasm started noting down important points:
01 There must be sufficient water to cause diffraction.
02 As assumed by De broglie, movement "P" plays key role. Without momentum of water particles there is no diffraction.
03 Key observation is that moving particles are affecting the particles at rest or stationary at the sides and making them to move sides.
In the case of electromagnetic waves also we can observe several similarities. Here also momentum of particles plays key role.
Basic difference is, we are presuming space as empty. When there are no particles in the space, how light is bending.
Diffraction in the case of water clearly tells us that without existing particles, there is no question of diffraction.
So, Space is not empty. As assumed by Descartes space is completely filled with particles. It is moving particles that are affecting particles at rest, causing diffraction.
-
As assumed by Descartes space is completely filled with particles.
Descartes was wrong. I would not be too hard on him though he died before relativity and quantum mechanics were discovered.
Basic difference is, we are presuming space as empty. When there are no particles in the space, how light is bending.
I assume you think that light bending around a massive object is due to refraction and not due to space warping as shown by GR. That is clearly wrong for several reasons the many glaring reason is that if there were particles in space that would cause this alleged refraction they would easily be detectable.
-
SideNote -
Hello Mr Reddy!
Nice of You to have come back into the Forum, Welcome back!
Hope We can continue the journey of Learning & Understand the Universe.
P.S. - Tc!
-
I would reckon that there is a better explanation for many phenomena-we haven't got them yet so the standard explanation holds sway.
-
Mr. Yousuf, seeing the thread, i could not keep away sharing some of mine findings. When I was sat near a canal where water was flowing I could see bending of water, diffraction. It is known fact, however, to my enthusiasm started noting down important points:
01 There must be sufficient water to cause diffraction.
02 As assumed by De broglie, movement "P" plays key role. Without momentum of water particles there is no diffraction.
03 Key observation is that moving particles are affecting the particles at rest or stationary at the sides and making them to move sides.
In the case of electromagnetic waves also we can observe several similarities. Here also momentum of particles plays key role.
Basic difference is, we are presuming space as empty. When there are no particles in the space, how light is bending.
Diffraction in the case of water clearly tells us that without existing particles, there is no question of diffraction.
So, Space is not empty. As assumed by Descartes space is completely filled with particles. It is moving particles that are affecting particles at rest, causing diffraction.
Hi, welcome to my thread.
We can see that there are some similarities between light and (surface) water wave. But we must also acknowledge that there are differences, such as their dimension in space.
In material waves such as water surface, they propagate faster in denser media. On the other hand, light propagates fastest through vacuum.
-
Diffraction in the case of water clearly tells us that without existing particles, there is no question of diffraction.
So, Space is not empty. As assumed by Descartes space is completely filled with particles. It is moving particles that are affecting particles at rest, causing diffraction.
There are many problems with diffraction not yet properly addressed by most physics textbooks that I know. Some of them are single edge diffraction, non-diffractive edge, non-diffractive slit, horizontally and vertically tilted diffraction. Descartes' theory doesn't explain them either.
-
But the 2022 Nobel has been awarded to three physicists who revealed that the universe is even stranger than we thought
And now we know that it is,
Knowing stuff is good- you get things like Nobel prizes for it.
It's good for them to do the experiment anyway, in spite of Feynman's objection.
-
Here's another video from a science Youtuber, experimenting on diffraction and interference of light.
-
SideNote -
Hello Mr Reddy!
Nice of You to have come back into the Forum, Welcome back!
Hope We can continue the journey of Learning & Understand the Universe.
P.S. - Tc!
Thank you so much.
-
Diffraction in the case of water clearly tells us that without existing particles, there is no question of diffraction.
So, Space is not empty. As assumed by Descartes space is completely filled with particles. It is moving particles that are affecting particles at rest, causing diffraction.
There are many problems with diffraction not yet properly addressed by most physics textbooks that I know. Some of them are single edge diffraction, non-diffractive edge, non-diffractive slit, horizontally and vertically tilted diffraction. Descartes' theory doesn't explain them either.
Diffraction of light is bending around corners. What ever type it may. Ok, let me tell with one best example. Suppose in a carrom board, you have arranged coins at the centre and when you hit any coin from any side, coins in the straight line start moving. However, coins in the straight line, while moving, faces coin in the que, due to conservation of momentum it alters or changes the course of other coins. They start moving to the sides, this is diffraction. For diffraction, there must be coins in the sides.
Similarly particles in the light ray while moving alters or changes the course of other particles in the space, which in turn moves to the sides, this is diffraction.
Descartes never said about diffraction. Descartes assumption is that space is not empty and it is completely filled with particles.
It is mine assumption that space is completely filled with particles similar to that of carrom board. When a particle hits other particle in the space, a chain like reaction starts. Light waves when faces obstacle, affect or alter the course of other particles which start bending around corners.
So, Space is not empty.
-
Mr. Yousuf, seeing the thread, i could not keep away sharing some of mine findings. When I was sat near a canal where water was flowing I could see bending of water, diffraction. It is known fact, however, to my enthusiasm started noting down important points:
01 There must be sufficient water to cause diffraction.
02 As assumed by De broglie, movement "P" plays key role. Without momentum of water particles there is no diffraction.
03 Key observation is that moving particles are affecting the particles at rest or stationary at the sides and making them to move sides.
In the case of electromagnetic waves also we can observe several similarities. Here also momentum of particles plays key role.
Basic difference is, we are presuming space as empty. When there are no particles in the space, how light is bending.
Diffraction in the case of water clearly tells us that without existing particles, there is no question of diffraction.
So, Space is not empty. As assumed by Descartes space is completely filled with particles. It is moving particles that are affecting particles at rest, causing diffraction.
Hi, welcome to my thread.
We can see that there are some similarities between light and (surface) water wave. But we must also acknowledge that there are differences, such as their dimension in space.
In material waves such as water surface, they propagate faster in denser media. On the other hand, light propagates fastest through vacuum.
Really, it is surprise to see, as of now, we don't know what exactly a light wave is. Still there is no clarity on whether it is a wave or particle, since at times it behaves as wave and at times as particle. When there is no clarity, by creating vacuum are we really taking away particles causing light.
Classical view is that light is a disturbance in the space. What is causing this disturbance. Suppose let us imagine that you are having a torch cell. Now, when you switched on it electrons start flowing out. So, these electrons are causing disturbance. If space is empty, how these electrons coming out from torch cell cause disturbance, simply moves out freely. In other words there is no scope for light at all.
I would like to propose this torch cell test as acid test to find out what is there in the space. For our naked eye it appears space is empty and there is nothing. However space reacts to only certain particles such as electrons. These electrons are having momentum and they passes it other particles in the space.
Ok, suppose at a particular time certain amount of energy is released from Sun's core. A particle that is freed from an atom start its journey towards Earth. Similar to that of particle from torch cell it got momentum. If space is empty, it cannot cause any disturbance and makes its journey. However the thing is otherwise, space is not empty, as said by descartes a particle can occupy a place thus vacated by other particle. It only passes on momentum to other particle and a chain reaction starts, known as disturbance in the space,
It is similar to that of a pebble in the water pond. As there is no place for pebble it disturbs the water particles. Water particle that is disturbed cannot move, it only passes the momentum to other particles.
I would like to propose torch cell example to propose space is not empty.
Ok, as said by you in vacuum light travels with maximum speed. That's true and I also accept it. But, how we are creating vacuum. By creating vacuum means we are simply removing air particles. As obstacles are removed particles gains momentum.
I don't think we are having capacity to separate or remove particles that are aiding or causing light or disturbance in the space. If we are having that capacity our energy problems might have gone. Unless we remove these particles we cannot say it as perfect vacuum.
In my view, at present we are striving hard with Solar energy because we are working on it keeping in mind photo electric effect.
-
Sidenote -
Isn't a True Vacuum Space a False Assumption as Virtual Particles & Quantum Field Fluctuations exist Everywhere.
P.S. - Please carry on with your Discussions, Thanks.
-
If space is empty, it cannot cause any disturbance and makes its journey. However the thing is otherwise, space is not empty, as said by descartes a particle can occupy a place thus vacated by other particle. It only passes on momentum to other particle and a chain reaction starts, known as disturbance in the space,
You started by assuming your own conclusion.
Can you apply that to gravity?
-
If space is empty, it cannot cause any disturbance and makes its journey. However the thing is otherwise, space is not empty, as said by descartes a particle can occupy a place thus vacated by other particle. It only passes on momentum to other particle and a chain reaction starts, known as disturbance in the space,
You started by assuming your own conclusion.
Can you apply that to gravity?
When General relativity was introduced, Lorentz wrote a letter to Einstein, "within GR you have reintroduced Aether". In his reply, Einstein also accepted it saying "it must be new aether".
At present we are of the opinion that space is empty. Ok, then I would like to put a small question to scientific community.
Let us see our solar system. Planets are spread in a wide area. Ok, please examine these planets. All the innermost planets are rocky. Whereas outermost planets are gaseous. It is true and known fact. Why this difference. Can't this rocky planet stay or exist in outermost area?. At the same time, can't a gaseous planet stay or exist in innermost area ?.
As per GR if we place a mass anywhere in the universe, in response it will distort or curve the space time around it. It is not clear what is being curved. Ok, in case if it is energy and it is from the mass, in such case mass is independent and it can stay anywhere in the universe.
This is not the case. Planets are within the area of solar system only. Further non-existence of gaseous planets within the area of innermost, tells us that it is energy density that matters.
Whomsoever argues that space is empty have to give answer to this.
This is for discussion purpose only.
-
At the same time, can't a gaseous planet stay or exist in innermost area ?.
They can. We've found planetary systems with gaseous planets that are even closer to their stars than Mercury is to the Sun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Jupiter
-
At the same time, can't a gaseous planet stay or exist in innermost area ?.
They can. We've found planetary systems with gaseous planets that are even closer to their stars than Mercury is to the Sun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Jupiter
"Hot Jupiters are a class of gas giant exoplanets that are inferred to be physically similar to Jupiter but that have very short orbital periods (P < 10 days).[1] The close proximity to their stars and high surface-atmosphere temperatures resulted in their informal name "hot Jupiters".[2]".
That is true and it happens at the time of formation of solar system. But, I think it is better to explore our solar system before going to others.
The thing is that, space is not empty. As per General relativity, mass curves the space time around it. We all accept it. Basic question is what is being curved. Suppose if it is energy, its density at a particular place that decides type of planet at a particular place.
Basic question is, can we change Neptune planet and Mercury planets order.
-
At present we are of the opinion that space is empty.
Who is we. I’m not aware of anyone who thinks space is empty.
However, the fact that space contains things does not explain diffraction as you claim.
It is not clear what is being curved.
It is clear to anyone who has studied physics.
We measure spacetime by using rulers for distance and clocks for time. Newton assumed that those rulers and clocks would show the same distance and time throughout the universe, but Einstein showed that this is not a correct assumption. In some circumstances the differences in the measurements are best described by a curvature of spacetime.
Ok, in case if it is energy and it is from the mass, in such case mass is independent and it can stay anywhere in the universe.
This statement doesn’t make any sense. Mass is not independent of the energy stored within it, neither is the energy that can be released independent of the mass. E=mc2.
-
At present we are of the opinion that space is empty. Who is we. I’m not aware of anyone who thinks space is empty.
However, the fact that space contains things does not explain diffraction as you claim
It is not clear what is being curved.
It is clear to anyone who has studied physics.
We measure spacetime by using rulers for distance and clocks for time. Newton assumed that those rulers and clocks would show the same distance and time throughout the universe, but Einstein showed that this is not a correct assumption. In some circumstances the differences in the measurements are best described by a curvature of spacetime.
Ok, in case if it is energy and it is from the mass, in such case mass is independent and it can stay anywhere in the universe.
This statement doesn’t make any sense. Mass is not independent of the energy stored within it, neither is the energy that can be released independent of the mass. E=mc2.
Thank you. I am also saying that space is not empty and it is completely filled with aether. Basic question is how to find out this aether. As per Classical view of light is that it is a disturbance in space.
It is the electrons that are released into space are causing EMR or light or in fact a disturbance. It is creating vibrations in the space. What I would like to say that, electrons released by us are charging particles in the space.
It is the space fabric that is being curved or distorted in space. I did not said anything about measurement of distance.
Then, space fabric is nothing but aether only.
Any discussion gives an opportunity to learn
-
I’m not aware of anyone who thinks space is empty.
It is, by definition.
Not to be confused with the universe, which consists of bits of stuff separated by space.
-
But, I think it is better to explore our solar system before going to others.
Any theory you come up with is going to need to be applicable to other planetary systems as well.
Basic question is what is being curved.
If space-time is curved then what is being curved is space-time. I mean it's right there in the description.
Suppose if it is energy, its density at a particular place that decides type of planet at a particular place.
I don't know what it would mean to "curve" energy, but your assertion is still refuted by the existence of hot Jupiters.
Basic question is, can we change Neptune planet and Mercury planets order.
If Mercury formed as far out as Neptune in the Solar System, its physical properties would likely be far different by the fact that temperatures out there are far lower. That means it would have a much higher ice content (ice and water boil away where Mercury is now).
I am also saying that space is not empty and it is completely filled with aether.
How are you defining your aether?
-
I’m not aware of anyone who thinks space is empty.
It is, by definition.
Not to be confused with the universe, which consists of bits of stuff separated by space.
Space around me is filled with lots of stuff. The boss calls it clutter.
You are of course correct, I was trying to explain to Pasala on his own terms. Failed again ;D
I am also saying that space is not empty and it is completely filled with aether. Basic question is how to find out this aether. As per Classical view of light is that it is a disturbance in space.
The classical view is not that light is a disturbance in space.
As @Kryptid says, how do you define your aether, also how do you plan to detect it? There have been many attempts to detect an aether and all have failed. The main problem is that suggesting a medium in which light propagates usually results in light behaving in ways that experiment shows it doesn’t.
-
It is the electrons that are released into space are causing EMR or light or in fact a disturbance. It is creating vibrations in the space. What I would like to say that, electrons released by us are charging particles in the space.
In radio antenna, no electron needs to be released into space to generate radio wave.
-
I’m not aware of anyone who thinks space is empty.
It is, by definition.
Not to be confused with the universe, which consists of bits of stuff separated by space.
Empty space is empty.
Space filled with electromagnetic radiation isn't empty. It contains something instead of nothing, even if it's massless.
-
Here are the assumptions used:
Principle of locality, the idea that a particle can only be influenced by its immediate surroundings, and that interactions mediated by physical fields can only occur at speeds no greater than the speed of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
The assumption above also refers to special theory of relativity.
The light was generated and interact with polarizers and detectors as photons.
Measurements are performed independently on the two separated particles of an entangled pair
The outcomes depend upon hidden variables within each half
If we assume that there's no speed limit for physical interaction, then the results were not weird.
If we don't use photon model for light, then the results were not weird either.
If we assume that there's supersymmetry or we accept superdeterminism, the measurements won't be actually random nor independent, then the results were not weird either.
-
If we assume that there's no speed limit for physical interaction, then the results were not weird.
If we don't use photon model for light, then the results were not weird either.
If we assume that there's supersymmetry or we accept superdeterminism, the measurements won't be actually random nor independent, then the results were not weird either.
Instead of rejecting one of these assumptions, mainstream physicists just put ambiguity to the first assumption. They just declare that there's instantaneous physical interaction through entanglement, but somehow it doesn't violate special theory of relativity which put speed limit for physical interaction. It's no wonder that therefore they claim that nobody understand quantum mechanics.
Someone even goes further to declare that the universe is not real.
-
If we don't use photon model for light, then the results were not weird either.
Somehow I rarely see someone expressing doubt about photon model for light, even among dissident scientists and cranks.
Here's an excerpt from a documentary video allegedly prove beyond doubt that light consists of particles called photons.
-
Drivel. When you "observe" the photon passing through a slit, you must have extracted some energy from it. Problem is that you can't extract "some" from a quantum. So if anything appears downstream of the slit, it isn't the original photon.
It's the usual misrepresentation of "observe" that folk use to make life appear mysterious. In the mesoscopic world we observe things by bouncing photons or acoustic waves off them, trusting that the energy and momentum imparted by doing so is negligible on the scale of the object or process we are observing. But when the object of interest is a photon, electron , or other microscopic phenomenon, any such interaction is necessarily commensurate with the phenomenon itself and therefore must significantly influence it.
In the case of the double slit, the word isn't "observe" but "destroy".
And the experiment doesn't demonstrate that photons are particles: if you don't destroy it, the interference pattern cannot be described by a particle model. If you fire a machine gun, or pour sand, through a shield with two slits, you get two lines of hits on your target.
-
Using LED as single photon avalanche detector.
The basics of single photon avalanche diodes.
The experiments shown increase in frequency of spike in the oscilloscope when the voltage bias is increased. Increasing temperature also increases the rate of spike. They undermine the interpretation that the spikes represent a single photon hitting the detector.
-
Drivel. When you "observe" the photon passing through a slit, you must have extracted some energy from it. Problem is that you can't extract "some" from a quantum. So if anything appears downstream of the slit, it isn't the original photon.
The confusion about double slit experiments come from misunderstandings of diffraction and interference of light and their underlying mechanisms.
Double slit experiment is taught in schools to be the simplest case of interference of light. Interference pattern formed in single slit experiment is analyzed as a more complex case. That's when I started to suspect that something was not right, and motivated me to make videos investigating diffraction of light.
The light and dark spots on the screen are usually thought to be produced by interference of light waves passing through the slits. It's often visualized using interference of water surface wave as analogy. But this analogy is misleading, just like rope wave and fence analogy to explain polarization of light. Light has different mechanism than waves in water surface and rope.
My experiments suggest that the interfering light waves come from the edges of the apparatus, not the slits themselves (spaces between opaque obstacles). It's shown that interference pattern bends when the slit apparatus is tilted vertically, making the trajectory of light looks like surface of a cone. This phenomenon also appears in single edge diffraction, which should be recognized as the simplest case of diffraction.
Single slit diffraction and interference should be treated as double edge diffraction, just like a thin wire. Don't treat it as interference of infinitely many point sources of space between the edges of the slit. Double slit experiment should be treated as quadruple edge diffraction, just like double wire.
Non-diffractive slit can be built using total internal reflection, which shows no interference pattern. Combining a normal edge and a non-diffractive edge, we can produce a half interference pattern.
Let's see how long mainstream physics community can manage to ignore those experimental results.
-
I don't know of any "confusion" about the DSE except in the writings of the woo-woo brigade who don't understand the meaning of "observe" in physics.
Single edge diffraction is easily demonstrated, particularly at low frequencies, but does not produce an interference pattern as there is no second wavefront to interfere.
-
The confusion about double slit experiments come from misunderstandings of diffraction and interference of light and their underlying mechanisms.
Your opinion of your abilities and knowledge is WAY out of whack! You demonstrate over and over that you understand very little physics. Your posts are only interesting when others on this site add some real science as they refute your misunderstandings.
-
The confusion about double slit experiments come from misunderstandings of diffraction and interference of light and their underlying mechanisms.
Your opinion of your abilities and knowledge is WAY out of whack! You demonstrate over and over that you understand very little physics. Your posts are only interesting when others on this site add some real science as they refute your misunderstandings.
What's your understanding about diffraction and interference of light? Let's start with the simplest case of diffraction.
What causes the diffracted light in a vertically tilted single edge diffraction to produce curved pattern?
-
I don't know of any "confusion" about the DSE except in the writings of the woo-woo brigade who don't understand the meaning of "observe" in physics.
Single edge diffraction is easily demonstrated, particularly at low frequencies, but does not produce an interference pattern as there is no second wavefront to interfere.
Someone who misunderstands the mechanism of double slit experiment would not likely to admit that they are confused by the result. It would jeopardize their credibility.
Single edge diffraction is also easily demonstrated in visible light spectrum, which is usually considered as high frequency electromagnetic wave.
-
Someone who misunderstands the mechanism of double slit experiment would not likely to admit that they are confused by the result. It would jeopardize their credibility.
Physicists are just pretending to understand physics? You're a funny guy...
-
What causes the diffracted light in a vertically tilted single edge diffraction to produce curved pattern?
Geometry.
-
Someone who misunderstands the mechanism of double slit experiment would not likely to admit that they are confused by the result. It would jeopardize their credibility.
Physicists are just pretending to understand physics? You're a funny guy...
They misunderstand what's going on with their experiments. That's a possibility, and already happened from time to time.
In case you missed these questions.
What's your understanding about diffraction and interference of light? Let's start with the simplest case of diffraction.
What causes the diffracted light in a vertically tilted single edge diffraction to produce curved pattern?
If you have problem answering the questions, you can ask for help from some professional physicists. You don't have to answer them yourself.
-
What causes the diffracted light in a vertically tilted single edge diffraction to produce curved pattern?
Geometry.
How does one word explain anything?
My experiment using microwave shows an aluminum plate doesn't produce measurable diffraction, but acrylic plates do. They have similar geometry.
-
Draw some pictures and you will see what is happening. What determines the separation of the interference lines?
As I pointed out some time ago, your dielectric was much thicker (commensurate with the microwave wavelength) and also capable of refraction.
-
How does one word explain anything?
Well... it depends on you understanding the word.
-
Draw some pictures and you will see what is happening. What determines the separation of the interference lines?
As I pointed out some time ago, your dielectric was much thicker (commensurate with the microwave wavelength) and also capable of refraction.
I've made 2 videos exploring vertically tilted diffraction, which showed that diffraction patterns come from the light which changes direction after hitting the obstacles. They can't possibly come from the space uncovered by the obstacles.
At the end of the my video on horizontally tilted diffraction, you can see a half interference pattern produced by two cylindrical batteries. I've repeated the experiment using two knives and got similar pattern.
In my early video about diffraction of light I've shown that diffraction is distinguished from refraction, based on the angle of deflection.
You can make the aluminum plate thicker, and still don't get diffracted microwave.
-
How does one word explain anything?
Well... it depends on you understanding the word.
How do you understand it?
-
How does one word explain anything?
Well... it depends on you understanding the word.
How do you understand it?
Someone on this site (and I think it was you) asked about the pattern you get using a diffraction grating at an angle.
The answer is that the diffracted beams form a cone.
That's what you get from the geometry of the system.
I think I posted pictures to illustrate the idea.
Do you recall that?
-
They misunderstand what's going on with their experiments. That's a possibility, and already happened from time to time.
This video shows an example where physicists made mistakes. Another physicist points out the mistakes. Although the explanation hasn't yet cover the experimental results I've described above.
-
There's little point in making videos of people making mistakes, except for safety training. And even less point in watching them.
-
There's little point in making videos of people making mistakes, except for safety training. And even less point in watching them.
Don't you think that it's important to prevent misinformations from spreading? They can affect people's decisions, and have real world consequences.
-
Don't you think that it's important to prevent misinformations from spreading? They can affect people's decisions, and have real world consequences.
My irony meter just exploded...
-
Origin, on reading some of the "new theories" threads my bullshit meter failed catastrophically-it pegged so hard that the pointer separated from the moving coil ( old analogue bs meter ).
-
My irony meter just exploded...
A moving irony device, perhaps? But the moving iron mechanism is generally nonlinear and very tolerant of overload!
-
Don't you think that it's important to prevent misinformations from spreading? They can affect people's decisions, and have real world consequences.
My irony meter just exploded...
Surely you need to improve your argumentation skill in scientific discussion.
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement
When you discuss a topic and everyone agrees, the conversation often dies out quickly. But when you disagree, you're putting yourself in opposition to what was said, and the discussion continues. Paul Graham, a computer engineer, therefore proposed a “Hierarchy of Disagreement” in 2008. Learn at which level you are able to articulate your disagreement. Hopefully it’s not just name-calling or responding to tone.
CHAPTER
00:00 Opening quotes and statement
00:52 Introduction
01:19 Graham's hierarchy of disagreement
01:32 Level 1: Name-calling
01:48 Level 2: Ad hominem
02:14 Level 3: Responding to tone
02:41 Level 4: Contradiction
03:08 Level 5: Counterargument
03:41 Level 6: Refutation
04:13 Level 7: Refuting the central point
05:05 Benefit of knowing the form of argument
06:06 What do you think?
06:58 Patrons credits
07:07 Ending
When we disagree, it would be helpful to identify the level of our disagreement.
-
The point of posting science Youtube videos in a scientific forum is to determine their veracity through discussions based on scientific knowledge of the forum members. Someone else out there know something that we don't know. Be humble and open minded. Only then we can learn something new.
-
When we disagree, it would be helpful to identify the level of our disagreement.
The problems is that you do not reliably recognise a refutation of your ideas when it is presented to you.
-
When we disagree, it would be helpful to identify the level of our disagreement.
The problems is that you do not reliably recognise a refutation of your ideas when it is presented to you.
Point one.
-
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 31/10/2022 12:10:29
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement
Calverd's hierarchy of disagreement
1. State case
2. set out counterarguments
3. how many lives/how much money at stake? If none, continue, else go to 8
4. agree the critical experiment
5. do the critical experiment
6. review critical experiment
7. agree - go to end
8. take the less dangerous or if equally dangerous, less costly route
9. evaluate
10 agree - go to end.
11. end - shake hands, write down and remember the answer.
If neither lives nor money are at stake, and there is no critical experiment, do something important instead of arguing.
-
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 31/10/2022 12:10:29
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement
Calverd's hierarchy of disagreement
1. State case
2. set out counterarguments
3. how many lives/how much money at stake? If none, continue, else go to 8
4. agree the critical experiment
5. do the critical experiment
6. review critical experiment
7. agree - go to end
8. take the less dangerous or if equally dangerous, less costly route
9. evaluate
10 agree - go to end.
11. end - shake hands, write down and remember the answer.
If neither lives nor money are at stake, and there is no critical experiment, do something important instead of arguing.
Instead of hierarchy, the list above looks more like a flowchart. This thread is supposed to be in step #6.
-
This thread is supposed to be in step #6.
You missed steps 3, 4 and 5.
-
This thread is supposed to be in step #6.
You missed steps 3, 4 and 5.
I agreed to do the experiment using my own money.
-
Constructivism sounds Better than blatant Criticism any day any time.
Hopefully more Emphasis would be laid upon the Experiments, rather than the Experimenters.
Wishing this OP leads into collaborative team work!
👍
-
I agreed to do the experiment
What experiment?
-
I agreed to do the experiment
What experiment?
Experiments on diffraction of light, and microwave transceiver.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66301.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66414.0
-
Constructivism sounds Better than blatant Criticism any day any time.
Hopefully more Emphasis would be laid upon the Experiments, rather than the Experimenters.
Wishing this OP leads into collaborative team work!
👍
Thanks for your supportive comment. It means a lot. It helps giving me confidence that I'm not the only one searching for the more accurate model of physical reality. We should not be willfully ignorance.
-
Experiments on diffraction of light, and microwave transceiver.
And with whom did you 4. agree the critical experiment
?
Or did you just pick some that you liked?
-
I'm not the only one searching for the more accurate model of physical reality.
Stafford Beer is credited with saying that a dead mouse is a perfect model of a live mouse, but only for an infinitesimal time.
What matters (i.e. what is useful) is an adequate model of reality, and the fact is that photon and wave models between them predict everything we observe about electromagnetic radiation, to an astonishing degree of accuracy. The time to look for a better model is surely when you discover a phenomenon that is not calculable with exiting models (which is how Planck got involved).
Do you have an inexplicable experimental result?
-
Experiments on diffraction of light, and microwave transceiver.
And with whom did you 4. agree the critical experiment
?
Or did you just pick some that you liked?
I picked the experiments based on their potential to eliminate wrong hypotheses, and within my financial budget and other resources.
The only important agreement I needed was with the fund provider, which were me and my wife.
It was a good thing that John Clauser kept going on with his experiment without agreement with Richard Feynman.
-
Experiments on diffraction of light, and microwave transceiver.
And with whom did you 4. agree the critical experiment
?
Or did you just pick some that you liked?
I picked the experiments based on their potential to eliminate wrong hypotheses, and within my financial budget and other resources.
The only important agreement I needed was with the fund provider, which were me and my wife.
It was a good thing that John Clauser kept going on with his experiment without agreement with Richard Feynman.
So, you didn't check that the experiment was useful?
-
So, you didn't check that the experiment was useful?
Should I?
Should Galileo check the usefulness of dropping balls?
Should Thomas Young check the usefulness of double slit experiment?
Should I cancel my experiments and remove them from Youtube because I haven't found them useful?
-
There may be many uses for an experiment.
It may be entertaining.
It may be educational.
It may bring about scientific discovery.
Any of those uses is fine, but only one is really science.
-
What matters (i.e. what is useful) is an adequate model of reality, and the fact is that photon and wave models between them predict everything we observe about electromagnetic radiation, to an astonishing degree of accuracy. The time to look for a better model is surely when you discover a phenomenon that is not calculable with exiting models (which is how Planck got involved).
By having frequency and wavelength, we know that light is wavy. But there are more than one kind of waves, e.g. transversal/longitudinal, 1/2/3 dimensional, stationary/moving wave, etc. Which kind of wave most resembles light?
Is it sound wave? Or wave on water surface, rope, string, slinky? Or seismogram? Or solar wind?
-
Do you have an inexplicable experimental result?
My experiments on diffraction contradict Huygen's principle. Do you think it's part of mainstream physics? Is there a better alternative to Huygen's principle to explain interference and diffraction of light which is compatible with modern physics as you understand it?
My experiments on refraction using microwave contradict Fermat's principle. Do you know a better alternative?
-
There may be many uses for an experiment.
It may be entertaining.
It may be educational.
It may bring about scientific discovery.
Any of those uses is fine, but only one is really science.
Scientific discoveries are not usually obvious until all of the pieces of puzzle are revealed.
-
Light is a transverse electromagnetic wave. Not to be compared to mechanical waves.
-
By having frequency and wavelength, we know that light is wavy. But there are more than one kind of waves, e.g. transversal/longitudinal, 1/2/3 dimensional, stationary/moving wave, etc. Which kind of wave most resembles light?
Is it sound wave? Or wave on water surface, rope, string, slinky? Or seismogram? Or solar wind?
Er, no.
Unlike waves on water or rope, we have no direct evidence of the wave nature of light. Nor, unlike a machine gun, do we have any direct evidence of its particulate nature.
What we have is two mathematical models which between them describe everything we have actually observed and so far have predicted everything that was observed in a new experiment, and Maxwell's equations that accurately predict the speed of a selfpropagating electromagnetic wave from static measurements of the permittivity and permeability of free space.
The time to look for a new model is when one of these fails to predict something you have observed
Your diffraction experiments were, IIRC, entirely consistent with the predictions of classical wave optics.
-
There may be many uses for an experiment.
It may be entertaining.
It may be educational.
It may bring about scientific discovery.
Any of those uses is fine, but only one is really science.
Scientific discoveries are not usually obvious until all of the pieces of puzzle are revealed.
The point of a properly designed experiment is to make the outcome obvious.
-
My experiments on diffraction contradict Huygen's principle
In what way?
-
My experiments on refraction using microwave contradict Fermat's principle.
In what way?
-
Do you have an inexplicable experimental result?
Just watch this video and tell me how you would explain the experimental results presented in it (pay attention especially to the later part of the video)
The experiments in this video strikingly contradict all you know, actually, you believe about light.
The video deserves billions of views. Everyone interested in light and its mysteries should analyze it from the beginning to the end.
The author of the video has even more results which are not presented in the video, but at his website.
-
Do you have an inexplicable experimental result?
Just watch this video and tell me how you would explain the experimental results presented in it (pay attention especially to the later part of the video)
The experiments in this video strikingly contradict all you know, actually, you believe about light.
The video deserves billions of views. Everyone interested in light and its mysteries should analyze it from the beginning to the end.
The author of the video has even more results which are not presented in the video, but at his website.
Have you come back to explain why you got everything wrong last time?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81758.msg630258#msg630258
-
The point of a properly designed experiment is to make the outcome obvious.
What makes the difference? Mechanical waves can also be transversal.
-
My experiments on diffraction contradict Huygen's principle
In what way?
How do you explain non-diffractive slit?
-
My experiments on refraction using microwave contradict Fermat's principle.
In what way?
Some materials show apparent refractive index less than 1. Fermat's principle suggests that light propagates faster there compared to vacuum.
-
Some materials show apparent refractive index less than 1
It's only "apparent" to a guy working with toy equipment in his kitchen as long as his wife isn't using it.
Specifically, a guy who has repeatedly shown a lack of understanding of both the facts, and the practice of science.
On the other hand, there's practically the whole of science.
Which should I believe?
-
There are various metamaterials that appear to exhibit anomalous refraction of microwaves, but this is done by creating a matrix of absorbers and retransmitters - what comes out is not directly related to what goes in!
I've been quite impressed with HY's experimental ingenuity, less so with his willingness to believe that his inability to rationalise the result is because everyone else has got it wrong.
-
Some materials show apparent refractive index less than 1
It's only "apparent" to a guy working with toy equipment in his kitchen as long as his wife isn't using it.
Specifically, a guy who has repeatedly shown a lack of understanding of both the facts, and the practice of science.
On the other hand, there's practically the whole of science.
Which should I believe?
Your argumentation shown above is at level 2 in Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. Which is surprisingly low for someone who declared to be a scientist.
-
The experiments in this video strikingly contradict all you know, actually, you believe about light.
No, they just demonstrate a lack of understanding on the part of the narrator.
-
Your argumentation shown above is at level 2 in Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.
It seems you can't count.
04:13 Level 7: Refuting the central point
On the other hand, there's practically the whole of science.
If you were right, practically the whole of science would have to be wrong, and that's clearly impossible.
For example, your computer would not work.
So, I refuted your whole point, but you didn't understand that I had done so.
As I said.
When we disagree, it would be helpful to identify the level of our disagreement.
The problems is that you do not reliably recognise a refutation of your ideas when it is presented to you.
Point one.
-
he doesn't give any explanations.
Nobody said he did.
-
It seems you can't count.
It seems like you don't understand English.
-
If you were right, practically the whole of science would have to be wrong, and that's clearly impossible.
For example, your computer would not work.
So, I refuted your whole point, but you didn't understand that I had done so.
Humans used tools while not understanding the accurate model of their working principles.
Ancient humans had been using fire before even understanding it.
They also built boats before understanding correct theory for buoyancy.
They also used arrows effectively before understanding the correct theory of mechanics.
Alchemists produced useful chemical reactions while having wrong theory of chemistry.
The Mayans can predict the position of planets without understanding universal gravity.
Newton wrote Optics and successfully built mirror telescope while using the wrong model of light.
-
If you were right, practically the whole of science would have to be wrong, and that's clearly impossible.
For example, your computer would not work.
So, I refuted your whole point, but you didn't understand that I had done so.
Humans used tools while not understanding the accurate model of their working principles.
Ancient humans had been using fire before even understanding it.
They also built boats before understanding correct theory for buoyancy.
They also used arrows effectively before understanding the correct theory of mechanics.
Alchemists produced useful chemical reactions while having wrong theory of chemistry.
The Mayans can predict the position of planets without understanding universal gravity.
Newton wrote Optics and successfully built mirror telescope while using the wrong model of light.
Yes, Hamdani Yusuf, That is very true.
But the advocates of the fake science, in a lack of any real arguments, say: the machine is functioning, that is a proof that our explanations are valid.
Poor them!
This guy doesn't know to say anything other than "your computer is working".
I have shown that this science doesn't even understand what is the physical reality behind the "one" and "zero" in digital electronics.
-
It seems like you don't understand English.
Well... one of us can't understand that this
On the other hand, there's practically the whole of science.
is a refutation of this
My experiments on refraction using microwave contradict Fermat's principle.
and of this
My experiments on diffraction contradict Huygen's principle.
because science actually works.
-
Humans used tools while not understanding the accurate model of their working principles.
Ancient humans had been using fire before even understanding it.
They also built boats before understanding correct theory for buoyancy.
They also used arrows effectively before understanding the correct theory of mechanics.
Alchemists produced useful chemical reactions while having wrong theory of chemistry.
The Mayans can predict the position of planets without understanding universal gravity.
Newton wrote Optics and successfully built mirror telescope while using the wrong model of light.
And not a jot of that has any influence on the fact that modern electronic devices are designed and built using science, does it?
Just because a cave man made a stone axe without understanding geology does not mean that the man who made a computer does not understand quantum physics.
How did you imagine that it might?
-
Yes, Hamdani Yusuf, That is very true.
No, it's not, and you are, as usual, very wrong.
-
I have shown that this science doesn't even understand what is the physical reality behind the "one" and "zero" in digital electronics
No, you have not. You just think you have.
-
On the other hand, there's practically the whole of science.
You mean the whole science that you understood, or rather, misunderstood. If observable facts contradict your model's predictions, you can either change your model, or find flaws in the observation. You can't just dismiss the facts and be wilfully ignorant while declaring that your model is flawless.
You can consult these cases with some more competent physicists that you know, and hear what they think. It's possible that they know something that you don't.
It's ridiculous to assume that all scientists have the same level of understanding as you about every scientific problems.
-
Please present an observation that has been independently repeated and cannot be explained in terms of what we already know. That's how great discoveries are made.
Note: this is how Calverd's Hierarchy works - instead of sniping at one another we are looking for the Critical Experiment.
-
You can consult these cases with some more competent physicists that you know
You should try that.
Well, in a sense, you did.
And here's the reply you got.
Your diffraction experiments were, IIRC, entirely consistent with the predictions of classical wave optics.
Yet you somehow still think you have contradicted physics.
You haven't contradicted it; you have misunderstood it.
-
It's ridiculous to assume that all scientists have the same level of understanding as you about every scientific problems.
Yes, that would be ridiculous,.
And that's why I didn't do it.
But you somehow imagined that I did- probably because you didn't understand something.
Just like you imagine that you had shown that physics is wrong because you don't understand it..
-
Just like you imagine that you had shown that physics is wrong because you don't understand it..
Physics is not wrong.
PHYSICS IS FRAUD.
(https://mindreach.net/uploads/default/original/2X/5/5596ccacb24624269282b83d9847668a4d057d2b.png)
There is a huge difference between wrong and fraud.
Just watch this video and see the TRUTH.
-
I watched your video a while ago
I even said so at the time.
I'm watching it on a colour monitor; what I see is a pattern of red, green and blue dots. There is no yellow.
and I pointed out the problems.
You are still trying to pass it off as "truth", even though you know it's not.
There is a huge difference between wrong and fraud.
Yes there is.
The first time you posted it, you may have simply been wrong.
But now, you are trying to con people after having the issues explained to you.
And that's fraud.
-
Please present an observation that has been independently repeated and cannot be explained in terms of what we already know. That's how great discoveries are made.
Note: this is how Calverd's Hierarchy works - instead of sniping at one another we are looking for the Critical Experiment.
I can't force someone else to repeat my experiments. It should be done voluntarily. For now, I'll just wait and see.
You can try to explain my experimental results using your currently embraced model. Start with non-diffractive slit, and compare it with diffraction and interference pattern from a normal single slit experiment.
You can then try to do the same with my other experiments, such as vertically/horizontally tilted diffraction. Then the experiments with partial polarizers and microwave.
-
Yet you somehow still think you have contradicted physics.
You haven't contradicted it; you have misunderstood it.
If you can't explain things in simple terms, you don't really understand it. Just ask Feynman.
I haven't read your explanation yet, so I can't determine if you understand it or not.
-
Yet you somehow still think you have contradicted physics.
You haven't contradicted it; you have misunderstood it.
If you can't explain things in simple terms, you don't really understand it. Just ask Feynman.
I haven't read your explanation yet, so I can't determine if you understand it or not.
You have yet to come up with anything to explain.
All your observations are perfectly consistent with classical physics.
-
You can try to explain my experimental results using your currently embraced model.
I did so, about a year ago.
-
There is a huge difference between wrong and fraud.
As there is between physics and engineering. At least MG was honest enough to show a very narrow incident beam in his "fraud" diagram, and a wide beam in "truth". Fact is that for any finite width, i.e. any real experiment, there will be a lot of overlap in the near field and a cunning engineer can exploit this to generate a spectrum of complementary colours
But a real engineer will know that the underlying physics remains true: the most energetic photons undergo the greatest deflection in a normally dispersive medium, as can be demonstrated with monochromatic light sources.
-
There is a huge difference between wrong and fraud.
As there is between physics and engineering. At least MG was honest enough to show a very narrow incident beam in his "fraud" diagram, and a wide beam in "truth". Fact is that for any finite width, i.e. any real experiment, there will be a lot of overlap in the near field and a cunning engineer can exploit this to generate a spectrum of complementary colours
But a real engineer will know that the underlying physics remains true: the most energetic photons undergo the greatest deflection in a normally dispersive medium, as can be demonstrated with monochromatic light sources.
What a meaningless waste of words!
Let me tell you some basic stuff.
There is no need of double refraction (as it is happening on a triangular prism) to get refraction colors.
A single refraction is quite enough (as it is visible in this video 0:54, watch it on full screen).
Now, let's say that the incident beam doesn't get refracted because it reaches the border between the two mediums at right angle (figure a below):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15QbYQnYticIXc2CLtuUZw1h5rxytpmA_/view?usp=share_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/15QbYQnYticIXc2CLtuUZw1h5rxytpmA_/view?usp=share_link)
Now, let's say the beam is only very little refracted, as it is happening at 0:24 of the video above (figure b in the file above).
Should we expect that in this case b something will drastically change in a visual sense compared to the case when the beam is not refracted at all (case a)?
Of course not.
And still, the case b doesn't principally differ from any other case of refraction (it doesn't matter whether single or double)!
-
There is no need of double refraction (as it is happening on a triangular prism) to get refraction colors.
Nobody suggested that there was.
Why are you making a fuss about it?
Should we expect that in this case b something will drastically change in a visual sense compared to the case when the beam is not refracted at all
Yes.
For the case where the light beam hits the boundary between the two media exactly at a right angle there is no refraction.
And, therefore, there is no dispersion.
But for even the smallest deviation from a right angle, there is diffraction and thus there is dispersion.
If you let the beam of light carry on far enough then you will see a spectrum.
The difference between seeing white light, and seeing a rainbow is pretty drastic.
So this claim (like some of your others) is absurd.
Of course not.
Why wouldn't there be?
-
But a real engineer will know that the underlying physics remains true: the most energetic photons undergo the greatest deflection in a normally dispersive medium, as can be demonstrated with monochromatic light sources.
X-ray is deflected to opposite direction in glass.
-
Because at high energies it is not a "normally dispersive medium".
-
Physics is not wrong.
PHYSICS IS FRAUD.
Is your model part of physics?
Or do you call it something else?
-
Because at high energies it is not a "normally dispersive medium".
So, it's all normal until it deviates from your model.
-
(https://mindreach.net/uploads/default/original/2X/5/5596ccacb24624269282b83d9847668a4d057d2b.png)
There is a huge difference between wrong and fraud.
Just watch this video and see the TRUTH.
The picture on the right (labeled truth) looks different than the video at 3:30.
What's your explanation?
-
You can try to explain my experimental results using your currently embraced model.
I did so, about a year ago.
Can you give the link?
Or perhaps give us the summary of your explanation?
Did you use Huygen's principle?
Can you explain half interference pattern that I got when the single slit consist of a normal edge and a non-diffractive edge?
-
Physics is not wrong.
PHYSICS IS FRAUD.
Is your model part of physics?
Or do you call it something else?
We can probably save a lot of time by ignoring Mitko.
What he says makes no sense.
-
Can you give the link?
Or perhaps give us the summary of your explanation?
What would be the point?
if you didn't understand it a year ago, will you do so today?
-
Can you give the link?
Or perhaps give us the summary of your explanation?
What would be the point?
if you didn't understand it a year ago, will you do so today?
Perhaps. Let's give a try.
-
Physics is not wrong.
PHYSICS IS FRAUD.
Is your model part of physics?
Or do you call it something else?
We can probably save a lot of time by ignoring Mitko.
What he says makes no sense.
At least we can help him (and others) to identify his mistake.
-
At least we can help him (and others) to identify his mistake.
He doesn't listen.
-
So, it's all normal until it deviates from your model.
I haven't used a model. "Normally dispersive" applies to most media at low photon energies, where wave models describe the interaction satisfactorily. Wave equations describe x-ray diffraction in exactly the same way as for visible photons, but the gross phenomenon analogous to refraction invokes momentum transfer and it all comes out differently.
-
I haven't used a model.
Yes, you have. You just don't realized it. Maxwell's equations are mathematical model. They don't always have physical analogy.
"Normally dispersive" applies to most media at low photon energies, where wave models describe the interaction satisfactorily. Wave equations describe x-ray diffraction in exactly the same way as for visible photons, but the gross phenomenon analogous to refraction invokes momentum transfer and it all comes out differently.
What makes the difference? How can it be explained using Fermat's principle?
-
You can try to explain my experimental results using your currently embraced model.
I did so, about a year ago.
Can you give the link?
Or perhaps give us the summary of your explanation?
Did you use Huygen's principle?
Can you explain half interference pattern that I got when the single slit consist of a normal edge and a non-diffractive edge?
Just in case you missed to read my post here.
-
Can you explain half interference pattern that I got when the single slit consist of a normal edge and a non-diffractive edge?
What do you think "non diffractive edge means"?
-
Can you explain half interference pattern that I got when the single slit consist of a normal edge and a non-diffractive edge?
What do you think "non diffractive edge means"?
The edge which doesn't cause light beam to propagate behind the opaque obstacle.
-
Can you explain half interference pattern that I got when the single slit consist of a normal edge and a non-diffractive edge?
What do you think "non diffractive edge means"?
The edge which doesn't cause light beam to propagate behind the opaque obstacle.
But any illuminated edge diffracts.
-
This thread is a follow up of my previous thread discussing and criticizing existing theories about light.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68595.0
Here I'll try to figure out if there is a way to improve it. If there is, what will it look like?
I just become aware that a similar topic has been created by CrazyScientist.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82373.0
What Is The Nature Of Photons & EM Radiation?
He has his own reasoning to come to his conclusion, which has some differences and similarities than my current understanding of this matter. If I have something to say about his reasoning, I'll post it there. But to avoid complication, I'll post my own reasoning here.
To avoid getting unexpected results, I'll try to avoid making false assumptions, especially the hidden ones, which are likely hard to identify. Any assumptions put into the model should be stated explicitly, along with the reasons why they can't be dismissed. This can significantly slow down the process, but I guess it worths the efforts to resolve spookiness in science.
I recently discussed this topic with another scientist who was writing a paper on this topic . In his paper he explained the transfer of heat via a new term , a Thermo-particle. In discussion I suggested he added the term Thermo-Ghost-Particle.
I think this would explain a Photon quite well.
-
But any illuminated edge diffracts.
Not necessarily. I've shown non-diffractive edge in experiments using total internal reflection in visible light. I 've also shown using a metal plate and microwave.
-
I recently discussed this topic with another scientist who was writing a paper on this topic . In his paper he explained the transfer of heat via a new term , a Thermo-particle. In discussion I suggested he added the term Thermo-Ghost-Particle.
I think this would explain a Photon quite well.
How can a ghost explain anything? Doesn't that mystify things, which is contrary to the goal of scientific researches?
Can you ask them to answer my previous questions?
Can you explain half interference pattern that I got when the single slit consist of a normal edge and a non-diffractive edge?
What causes the diffracted light in a vertically tilted single edge diffraction to produce curved pattern?
-
How can a ghost explain anything? Doesn't that mystify things, which is contrary to the goal of scientific researches?
Fictionally , a ghost can pass through solid objects such as glass or a wall . Defining a particle in being a ghost particle , simply allows a student to instantly understand the nature of the particle by comparison . I don't think the use brings any mystic stuff to physics,it's not as bad as virtual particles. :o
-
How can a ghost explain anything? Doesn't that mystify things, which is contrary to the goal of scientific researches?
Fictionally , a ghost can pass through solid objects such as glass or a wall . Defining a particle in being a ghost particle , simply allows a student to instantly understand the nature of the particle by comparison . I don't think the use brings any mystic stuff to physics,it's not as bad as virtual particles. :o
What's the advantage of using this thermo-ghost-particle model to explain light, compared to existing models?
How does it explain light frequency, wavelength, and polarization?
-
I don't think the use brings any mystic stuff to physics,
Then you are wrong because ghosts are inherently mystical.
-
. I've shown non-diffractive edge in experiments using total internal reflection in visible light. I 've also shown using a metal plate and microwave.
Can you post a link?
-
But any illuminated edge diffracts.
Not necessarily. I've shown non-diffractive edge in experiments using total internal reflection in visible light. I 've also shown using a metal plate and microwave.
From my experience, diffraction requires partial opacity/transparency. Perfectly opaque objects, as well as perfectly transparent objects don't produce observable diffraction.
In visible light range of frequency, metals are partially transparent. This video from 4:20 time stamp shows this clearly.
Most published experiments involving diffraction of light, including double slit experiments often ignore this.
-
. I've shown non-diffractive edge in experiments using total internal reflection in visible light. I 've also shown using a metal plate and microwave.
Can you post a link?
video #4 Non-diffractive Obstacle
video #9 Horizontally tilted diffraction
video #10 Vertically tilted diffraction
video #11 Non-parallel light source
video #12 Non-diffractive interference
video #13 Non-diffractive slit
Here's my newest video investigating diffraction of light by producing single side interference pattern.
I have uploaded new video showing diffraction in microwave frequency.
Basically, the experiment result leads us to conclude that diffraction comes from the material blocking the microwave path. When the obstruction is opaque enough, we find no diffraction. It's similar to my experiment using laser showing non-diffractive obstruction.
This result is not widely known yet.
Here is a new video demonstrating diffraction of microwave using multilayer metal grating, which is a meta-material.
Same as diffraction by normal material, it only occurs when the meta-material is adequately transparent to the microwave.
-
26 seconds into the first video you say that diffraction by a single edge can not be explained.
In fact, it can be explained (and modeled).
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/232254/how-to-calculate-a-straight-edge-diffraction-pattern
-
It is indeed accurately modelled by wave diffraction, but with my pedant hat on I can't agree that it is explained, since what we actually observe at any point downstream is a quantum phenomenon!
-
26 seconds into the first video you say that diffraction by a single edge can not be explained.
In fact, it can be explained (and modeled).
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/232254/how-to-calculate-a-straight-edge-diffraction-pattern
Don't cut a sentence arbitrarily just to make a point.
I said that deflection of light beam to the left, i.e. the area behind the obstacle, can't be explained by reflection, as well as refraction. It's a separate phenomenon called diffraction.
-
Finally this OP seems to be getting somewhere...Good!
P.S. - 👍
-
I've shown non-diffractive edge in experiments using total internal reflection in visible light.
Can you post a link?
video #4 Non-diffractive Obstacle
I said that deflection of light beam to the left, i.e. the area behind the obstacle, can't be explained by reflection, as well as refraction. It's a separate phenomenon called diffraction.
What the hell point were you trying to make with the video then?
-
I said that deflection of light beam to the left, i.e. the area behind the obstacle, can't be explained by reflection, as well as refraction. It's a separate phenomenon called diffraction.
So far, classical physics. And a well-known problem solved daily in classrooms around the world, at all wavelengths from "Elementary Radio Navigation" to "Introduction to X-ray Crystallography".
-
I've shown non-diffractive edge in experiments using total internal reflection in visible light.
Can you post a link?
video #4 Non-diffractive Obstacle
I said that deflection of light beam to the left, i.e. the area behind the obstacle, can't be explained by reflection, as well as refraction. It's a separate phenomenon called diffraction.
What the hell point were you trying to make with the video then?
The fact that a self-declared scientist like you don't get the point makes my point exactly.
26 seconds into the first video shows the diffraction produced in the edge of a normal/ordinary obstacle.
My explanation on non-diffractive edge can be found at 3:24 time stamp. Thus, you've skipped 3 minutes before writing a comment, which made you miss my point.
-
It is indeed accurately modelled by wave diffraction, but with my pedant hat on I can't agree that it is explained, since what we actually observe at any point downstream is a quantum phenomenon!
Declaring that a phenomenon is quantum doesn't give a legitimate reason to discard the efforts to search for a simpler or more consistent explanation.
The video below starting at 13:00 and 14:00 shows that the light propagates in observable trajectory. No need to introduce quantum mysticism here.
Here's another video from a science Youtuber, experimenting on diffraction and interference of light.
-
26 seconds into the first video you say that diffraction by a single edge can not be explained.
In fact, it can be explained (and modeled).
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/232254/how-to-calculate-a-straight-edge-diffraction-pattern
Here's a diagram shown in the link above.
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/d6XG5.jpg)
This pattern can only appear with diverging light beam before hitting a diffractive edge. My experiment in
video #11 Non-parallel light source
shows this phenomenon.
Single edge diffraction of a narrow parallel light beam like an ordinary laser pointer doesn't produce interference pattern.
-
I've recorded some raw footages for new videos investigating diffraction of light. One of them explores more on horizontally tilted diffraction. There's also demonstration of half interference pattern from same sided diffraction edges. There are also a few more.
I'll upload them once I finished the editing.
-
It is indeed accurately modelled by wave diffraction, but with my pedant hat on I can't agree that it is explained, since what we actually observe at any point downstream is a quantum phenomenon!
How does treating it as quantum phenomenon improve the accuracy of prediction in single edge diffraction?
-
It doesn't.
Diffraction can only be modelled by wave equations, detection (at optical and shorter wavelengths) by quantum mechanics.
-
From my experience, diffraction requires partial opacity/transparency. Perfectly opaque objects, as well as perfectly transparent objects don't produce observable diffraction.
I haven't found a published source mentioning the necessity of partial opacity/transparency of the obstacle to produce diffraction of light. Please let me know if I miss something.
-
It doesn't.
Diffraction can only be modelled by wave equations, detection (at optical and shorter wavelengths) by quantum mechanics.
Even at optical and shorter wavelengths, wave model can still make a good prediction. Quantization only becomes apparent at low amplitude, which then requires ultrasensitive sensors to detect. The possibility that the quantization is a feature of the sensor itself instead of the characteristics of the incoming light hasn't been adequately eliminated.
-
It was the failure of the wave model to predict the photoelectric effect that led to the establishment of quantum theory.
The granularity of sand is only apparent close up and in small quantities, but it would be foolish to assume it to be a feature of your hand, because it is the same for all sensors.
However we measure the energy of a monchromatic source, we get the same answer. Better still, there is a very simple school experiment where you apply an increasing voltage to a set of LEDs. To nobody's surprise, they light up in the order red, yellow, green, at exactly the forward voltage corresponding to the photon energy you can measure with a photocell.
-
It was the failure of the wave model to predict the photoelectric effect that led to the establishment of quantum theory.
That's true, for wave models based on analogy of mechanical waves like sound and wave on water surface. Other kinds of wave can be built to conform to photoelectric effect.
Schrodinger equation to describe atoms is also a wave model.
-
The granularity of sand is only apparent close up and in small quantities, but it would be foolish to assume it to be a feature of your hand, because it is the same for all sensors.
Your analogy fails because grains of sand can be observed independently using other methods. I haven't found any sensor whose working principle is based on the movement of particles smaller than electrons.
-
However we measure the energy of a monchromatic source, we get the same answer.
A strictly monochromatic photon in a finite amount of time is a mathematical impossibility, as I've shown in reply#14 on the first page of this thread.
-
Better still, there is a very simple school experiment where you apply an increasing voltage to a set of LEDs. To nobody's surprise, they light up in the order red, yellow, green, at exactly the forward voltage corresponding to the photon energy you can measure with a photocell.
How do you relate it to quantization of light?
How does a photon produced in an atom?
-
Single edge diffraction of a narrow parallel light beam
What made the beam narrow?
-
The fact that a self-declared scientist like you don't get the point makes my point exactly.
26 seconds into the first video shows the diffraction produced in the edge of a normal/ordinary obstacle.
My explanation on non-diffractive edge can be found at 3:24 time stamp. Thus, you've skipped 3 minutes before writing a comment, which made you miss my point.
I asked for a link, not a library.
The first thing I came across in your gish gallop flatly contradicted what you said you were trying to demonstrate.
Why did you think I would plough on through the rest of it?
-
Could someone please give me a transcript of the first 30 seconds or so of this video. I don't think it's very clear.
Thanks
I don't want to influence you by saying what I think it says.
-
Single edge diffraction of a narrow parallel light beam
What made the beam narrow?
Collimating lens.
-
Why did you think I would plough on through the rest of it?
To avoid embarrassment.
-
Single edge diffraction of a narrow parallel light beam
What made the beam narrow?
Collimating lens.
That doesn't answer the question.
The beam they bounced off the mirrors on the moon was sent out via a collimating lens (OK strictly a mirror but that makes no difference) 3 metres across.
But the mirrors are only about 1/6 of that size.
What you seem not to realise is that a beam is only "finite" because it has been sent through some aperture.
In the case of a laser pointer, the aperture is inside the laser itself.
But there is always some sort of limit.
So the answer to "What made the beam narrow?" is always " a set of edges".
You think you have an experiment where there's only one diffracting edge.
Are you sure?
Why did you think I would plough on through the rest of it?
To avoid embarrassment.
Whose?
Who will be embarrassed by you posting a video in which you say something that's wrong.
-
So the answer to "What made the beam narrow?" is always " a set of edges".
Here's a diagram of semiconductor laser.
(https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/laserdiode.png)
The width of the gap between the substrates determines the minimum width of the light beam at the focal point of Collimating lens. Without the lens, the light beam would be divergent, thus won't stay narrow for long.
-
You think you have an experiment where there's only one diffracting edge.
Are you sure?
How many edges do you find in that video?
-
Whose?
Who will be embarrassed by you posting a video in which you say something that's wrong.
What's the wrong thing I said?
What should be said instead to make it right?
-
So the answer to "What made the beam narrow?" is always " a set of edges".
Here's a diagram of semiconductor laser.
(https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/laserdiode.png)
The width of the gap between the substrates determines the minimum width of the light beam at the focal point of Collimating lens. Without the lens, the light beam would be divergent, thus won't stay narrow for long.
You missed a few relevant bits.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
You missed a few relevant bits.
After hitting the edges, the laser beam will diverge, until it's made parallel by Collimating lens.
-
You missed a few relevant bits.
After hitting the edges, the laser beam will diverge, until it's made parallel by Collimating lens.
No
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
You missed a few relevant bits.
After hitting the edges, the laser beam will diverge, until it's made parallel by Collimating lens.
No
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Where do you think the top and bottom light beam coming out from the lens come from?
What do you think the light beam would look like if the lens is removed?
-
You missed a few relevant bits.
After hitting the edges, the laser beam will diverge, until it's made parallel by Collimating lens.
No
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Where do you think the top and bottom light beam coming out from the lens come from?
What do you think the light beam would look like if the lens is removed?
Please try to pay attention.
The edge of the lens will cause diffraction.
So the light coming out of the lens can not possibly all be collimated.
-
Please try to pay attention.
The edge of the lens will cause diffraction.
So the light coming out of the lens can not possibly all be collimated.
The lens is much larger than the gap between the substrates. The light beam coming to the edges of the lens has near zero intensity. Its contribution to the diffraction and interference pattern in commonly used single slit experiment is negligible.
It seems like you have been misled by a rough sketch. Your attention was driven to focus on some errors in the details, rather than how it was intended to illustrate, which is showing how a semiconductor laser work.
-
The lens is much larger than the gap between the substrates.
It is finite.
It diffracts.
It seems like you have been misled by a rough sketch.
In what way?
which is showing how a semiconductor laser work.
Do you really think I didn't know?
-
Not sure who is arguing what here, but it's worth noting that unlike a gas laser, the emission from a solid state unit is not inherently parallel, nor is it from a point source. Therefore focussing, either to a point or to a parallel beam, is inherently imprecise.
-
It is finite.
It diffracts.
The diffraction is produced by the edges of the aperture, rather than the lens.
https://photographylife.com/what-is-diffraction-in-photography
When photographers talk about lens diffraction, they are referring to the fact that a photograph grows progressively less sharp at small aperture values – f/16, f/22, and so on. As you stop down your lens to such small apertures, the finest detail in your photographs will begin to blur.
A lens utilizes an aperture to help control depth of field, one of the most important tools in photography. However, leaving the aperture wide open will often result in slightly soft images, due to the lens's lack of ability to focus the light rays at that aperture. On the other hand, if you stop down too much, diffraction will also soften images because the extremely small aperture opening will bend the light in a different way, resulting in rays that aren’t accurately captured.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/lens-diffraction-what-it-and-how-avoid-it
-
The diffraction is produced by the edges of the aperture, rather than the lens.
That is exactly what I said.
Why are you repeating it as if it's somehow news to us all?
Why waste that bandwidth?
-
The diffraction is produced by the edges of the aperture, rather than the lens.
That is exactly what I said.
Why are you repeating it as if it's somehow news to us all?
Why waste that bandwidth?
What you seem not to realise is that a beam is only "finite" because it has been sent through some aperture.
In the case of a laser pointer, the aperture is inside the laser itself.
But there is always some sort of limit.
So the answer to "What made the beam narrow?" is always " a set of edges".
The edge of the lens will cause diffraction.
-
The diffraction is produced by the edges of the aperture, rather than the lens.
That is exactly what I said.
Why are you repeating it as if it's somehow news to us all?
Why waste that bandwidth?
What you seem not to realise is that a beam is only "finite" because it has been sent through some aperture.
In the case of a laser pointer, the aperture is inside the laser itself.
But there is always some sort of limit.
So the answer to "What made the beam narrow?" is always " a set of edges".
The edge of the lens will cause diffraction.
You seem to have forgotten to make any sort of point.
-
The diffraction is produced by the edges of the aperture, rather than the lens.
That is exactly what I said.
Why are you repeating it as if it's somehow news to us all?
Why waste that bandwidth?
What you seem not to realise is that a beam is only "finite" because it has been sent through some aperture.
In the case of a laser pointer, the aperture is inside the laser itself.
But there is always some sort of limit.
So the answer to "What made the beam narrow?" is always " a set of edges".
The edge of the lens will cause diffraction.
You seem to have forgotten to make any sort of point.
You seem to have forgotten what you've said previously.
-
You seem to have forgotten what you've said previously.
It only seems that way to you.
All the things I said are consistent with each other.
Do you understand that an aperture and an edge mean the same thing?
The only reason you have a beam of finite width is that something got in the way of light outside the beam.
-
Young's interference experiment with single photons (Hamamatsu Photonics, 1982)
This experiment, conducted by Hamamatsu Photonics in 1981, captured the dual nature of the photon by a special camera for the first time ever in the world.
It seems that this kind of experiments have convinced people that light consists of particles called photon.
-
You seem to have forgotten what you've said previously.
It only seems that way to you.
All the things I said are consistent with each other.
Do you understand that an aperture and an edge mean the same thing?
The only reason you have a beam of finite width is that something got in the way of light outside the beam.
Do you now accept that you were talking nonsense when you said
You seem to have forgotten what you've said previously.
-
You seem to have forgotten what you've said previously.
It only seems that way to you.
All the things I said are consistent with each other.
Do you understand that an aperture and an edge mean the same thing?
The only reason you have a beam of finite width is that something got in the way of light outside the beam.
Do you now accept that you were talking nonsense when you said
You seem to have forgotten what you've said previously.
It seems like edge is not the same as aperture, according to this wikipedia article.
In optics, an aperture is a hole or an opening through which light travels. More specifically, the aperture and focal length of an optical system determine the cone angle of a bundle of rays that come to a focus in the image plane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Lenses_with_different_apertures.jpg/330px-Lenses_with_different_apertures.jpg)
It's not the edges of the lens as you suggested.
How many edges do you consider when observing a standard single slit experiment using laser pointer?
-
26 seconds into the first video you say that diffraction by a single edge can not be explained.
In fact, it can be explained (and modeled).
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/232254/how-to-calculate-a-straight-edge-diffraction-pattern
Here's a diagram shown in the link above.
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/d6XG5.jpg)
This pattern can only appear with diverging light beam before hitting a diffractive edge. My experiment in
video #11 Non-parallel light source
shows this phenomenon.
Single edge diffraction of a narrow parallel light beam like an ordinary laser pointer doesn't produce interference pattern.
The pattern in single edge diffraction experiment shown in the diagram above looks more like diffraction of Non-parallel light source
Instead of parallel light source.
The rest of the video can be watched here
video #2 Edge shapes effect
video #3 Diffraction by transparent objects
-
#282 shows a very interesting graph, suggesting that, 1 m from the edge, 140% of the incident intensity appears 12 meters into the shadow area and 100% is still present at 50m. Beyond Nikola Tesla's wildest dreams! The fringe spacing of between 5m and 12 m seems remarkable considering the incident light wavelength is 0.0000005 m. I wonder what phenomenon is occurring here?
-
It seems like edge is not the same as aperture
Do you understand that you can't have one without the other?
-
#282 shows a very interesting graph, suggesting that, 1 m from the edge, 140% of the incident intensity appears 12 meters into the shadow area and 100% is still present at 50m.
Yes.
It's interesting,but not unexpected.
A diffraction pattern typically has light and dark areas.
But there's no mechanism for the light energy to "disappear" from the dark areas.
The conservation of energy tells you it has to go somewhere.
Measurements tell you it goes into the bright areas which can be brighter than they would be without the effects of interference.
I think there are "problems" with the distances on that graph, but 140% brighter than you would expect is... just what you expect.
-
It seems like edge is not the same as aperture
Do you understand that you can't have one without the other?
Every aperture has edge(s), but not the other way around.
Do you have something to say about my statements below?
From my experience, diffraction requires partial opacity/transparency. Perfectly opaque objects, as well as perfectly transparent objects don't produce observable diffraction.
I haven't found a published source mentioning the necessity of partial opacity/transparency of the obstacle to produce diffraction of light. Please let me know if I miss something.
-
Perfectly opaque objects, as well as perfectly transparent objects don't produce observable diffraction.
Most people consider a ball bearing to be perfectly opaque to visible light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spot
-
#282 shows a very interesting graph, suggesting that, 1 m from the edge, 140% of the incident intensity appears 12 meters into the shadow area and 100% is still present at 50m. Beyond Nikola Tesla's wildest dreams! The fringe spacing of between 5m and 12 m seems remarkable considering the incident light wavelength is 0.0000005 m. I wonder what phenomenon is occurring here?
Here's a diagram of knife edge diffraction-interference pattern, plotted on top of the photograph of an experiment.
(https://dlmf.nist.gov/7/SB1/g1.png)
And here are pictures of knife edge diffraction experiment.
(https://physics.montana.edu/demonstrations/video/6_optics/demos/pics/knifeedgediffraction2.JPG)
(https://physics.montana.edu/demonstrations/video/6_optics/demos/pics/knifeedgediffraction3.JPG)
(https://physics.montana.edu/demonstrations/video/6_optics/demos/pics/knifeedgediffraction4.JPG)
What do you think is the cause of the difference?
-
Perfectly opaque objects, as well as perfectly transparent objects don't produce observable diffraction.
Most people consider a ball bearing to be perfectly opaque to visible light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spot
It's not perfectly opaque in visible light, especially at the edge.
-
The diffraction pattern now makes perfect sense - we are looking at interference between the primary beam and the diffracted light in the illuminated area. However the horizontal scale in the calculated graph you presented earlier is wrong by several orders of magnitude! The dangerous stuff actually occurs in the dark area, where a diffracted medium wave radio signal is detectable and appears to be coming from somewhere other than the transmitter. This can result in flying into a cliff or a mountain, thinking that the edge of the obstruction is actually the nondirectional homing beacon some miles away.
-
Perfectly opaque objects, as well as perfectly transparent objects don't produce observable diffraction.
Most people consider a ball bearing to be perfectly opaque to visible light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spot
It's not perfectly opaque in visible light, especially at the edge.
You are saying that light goes through hardened steel.
Do you have evidence of that?
-
This is a video demonstrating Poisson's spot. The thumbnail is misleading, just used as a clickbait.
Notice that the light source used here has a wide beam when it hits the ball, thus lights up the whole circumference.
You won't find the Poisson's spot if you use a laser pointer with a light beam narrower than the ball.
You'll get a diffraction effect like what I've shown in edge shape effect video when the light beam only hits a small part of the ball's edge.
-
The diffraction pattern now makes perfect sense - we are looking at interference between the primary beam and the diffracted light in the illuminated area. However the horizontal scale in the calculated graph you presented earlier is wrong by several orders of magnitude! The dangerous stuff actually occurs in the dark area, where a diffracted medium wave radio signal is detectable and appears to be coming from somewhere other than the transmitter. This can result in flying into a cliff or a mountain, thinking that the edge of the obstruction is actually the nondirectional homing beacon some miles away.
In the picture below, the diffracted light is only the small portion shown on the right side of the vertical axis. It's where the light beam goes to the area behind the obstacle.
(https://dlmf.nist.gov/7/SB1/g1.png)
The bright area on the left side with periodic dark stripes are the result of interference between the original wide beam light source and the light slightly deflected by the edge of the obstacle. It's an example of non-diffractive interference, which I discussed in another thread about common confusion between diffraction and interference.
Here's my video about non-diffractive interference.
-
You won't find the Poisson's spot if you use a laser pointer with a light beam narrower than the ball.
Nobody said that you would.
Now, can we get back to this?
You are saying that light goes through hardened steel.
Do you have evidence of that?
-
Most people consider a ball bearing to be perfectly opaque to visible light.
Steel is not perfectly opaque in visible light spectrum. It has penetration depth longer than the wavelength.
The depth of a ball is nearly zero at its edge.
-
The depth of a ball is nearly zero at its edge.
At the edge it is exactly zero. But it gets thicker very quickly.
Are you saying that the Poisson spot is cause by light going through the metal?
Can you think of a simple way to test that?
-
So far this is all classical optics, from last century's textbooks. Is this discussion going anywhere in the direction of new theories?
-
So far this is all classical optics, from last century's textbooks. Is this discussion going anywhere in the direction of new theories?
Considering how many misconceptions we can find online, my explanation for light can be said to be new for many of us. It's even new for myself. I was also misled by widely taught explanations in textbooks, especially involving Huygen's and Fermat's principles. I found no reference in quantum mechanics textbooks which decisively state the errors of those principles
-
Considering how many misconceptions we can find online,
Like the idea that a meaningful amount of light will go through a steel ball bearing...
-
Considering how many misconceptions we can find online,
Like the idea that a meaningful amount of light will go through a steel ball bearing...
Isn't it your idea?
-
I found no reference in quantum mechanics textbooks which decisively state the errors of those principles
Precisely because they don't describe quantum events!
For the umpteenth time: we need two distinct mathematical models of electromagnetic phenomena. We use continuous wave equations to describe propagation, and quantum mechanics to explain microscopic interactions with matter. So far, one or other always works, and the experimental result tells you which one to use.
-
I found no reference in quantum mechanics textbooks which decisively state the errors of those principles
Precisely because they don't describe quantum events!
For the umpteenth time: we need two distinct mathematical models of electromagnetic phenomena. We use continuous wave equations to describe propagation, and quantum mechanics to explain microscopic interactions with matter. So far, one or other always works, and the experimental result tells you which one to use.
Prior to Newton, heavenly bodies were thought to follow a different set of rules compared to terrestrial objects.
-
And now we realise that scientific "laws" are not prescriptive rules but mathematical models that have proved to be very robust.
Consequently we are happy to use Newton's "laws" to build cars and Einstein's "laws" for the GPS system that tells us where we are. Likewise two very effective models for electromagnetic radiation.
Nobody ever claimed physics was easy or obvious (Eddington said the student of physics must become accustomed to having his common sense violated five times before breakfast) but unlike philosophy or religion, which are deliberately obfuscatory, it works.
-
Considering how many misconceptions we can find online,
Like the idea that a meaningful amount of light will go through a steel ball bearing...
Isn't it your idea?
No.
Please try to pay attention.
It's the exact opposite of what I said.
Do you remember , this is what I posted
Most people consider a ball bearing to be perfectly opaque to visible light.
But you tried to say that the light goes through the metal
Steel is not perfectly opaque in visible light spectrum. It has penetration depth longer than the wavelength.
And I pointed out that , if that's really what you believe, you can easily prove it.
Set up the experiment with white light and a copper, brass or gold bead.
If the light goes through the metal then you will get a coloured spot, not a white one.
-
Prior to Newton, heavenly bodies were thought to follow a different set of rules compared to terrestrial objects.
Prior to Newton they were not using science; but faith.
-
And I pointed out that , if that's really what you believe, you can easily prove it.
It's easily deduced from my previous video, especially when using a cutter knife made of steel. How do you think the light can go to the area behind the knife?
The rest of the video can be watched here
video #2 Edge shapes effect
video #3 Diffraction by transparent objects
video #4 Non-diffractive Obstacle
It seems like you haven't watched my video below.
Here is a new video demonstrating diffraction of microwave using multilayer metal grating, which is a meta-material.
Same as diffraction by normal material, it only occurs when the meta-material is adequately transparent to the microwave.
-
We use continuous wave equations to describe propagation, and quantum mechanics to explain microscopic interactions with matter.
What does quantum mechanics tell you about a single photon? Does it have a single frequency? Does it have a finite wave number?
-
For those who doesn't know that metals are partially transparent in visible light spectrum.
But any illuminated edge diffracts.
Not necessarily. I've shown non-diffractive edge in experiments using total internal reflection in visible light. I 've also shown using a metal plate and microwave.
From my experience, diffraction requires partial opacity/transparency. Perfectly opaque objects, as well as perfectly transparent objects don't produce observable diffraction.
In visible light range of frequency, metals are partially transparent. This video from 4:20 time stamp shows this clearly.
Most published experiments involving diffraction of light, including double slit experiments often ignore this.
-
Optical phonons are out-of-phase movements of the atoms in the lattice, one atom moving to the left, and its neighbor to the right. This occurs if the lattice basis consists of two or more atoms. They are called optical because in ionic crystals, such as sodium chloride, fluctuations in displacement create an electrical polarization that couples to the electromagnetic field.[2] Hence, they can be excited by infrared radiation, the electric field of the light will move every positive sodium ion in the direction of the field, and every negative chloride ion in the other direction, causing the crystal to vibrate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon
I think it's possible to explain how light seem to propagate through the edge of a ball as optical phonon. In visible light, the vibrating particles are the electron, instead of ion.
-
It's easily deduced from my previous video, especially when using a cutter knife made of steel. How do you think the light can go to the area behind the knife?
By going through the air.
Was that really a serious question?
-
Incidentally, you need to be very careful with the "edges" of transparent objects.
The manufacturers generally polish the edges to give something curved (so it isn't dangerously sharp).
But a curved bit of glass is a lens and will produce changes of the light beam that you might not have considered.
Can you explain how you have allowed for this factor?
-
For those who doesn't know that metals are partially transparent in visible light spectrum.
Who doesn't know that?
I have seen through gold leaf.
A cheap mirror will show the effect just fine if you clean the paint off the back.
You seem not to have noticed some of my words.
Most people consider a ball bearing to be perfectly opaque to visible light.
I know it isn't strictly true. But it's very close to true.
And we know that the light that forms the bright spot at the centre of a shadow can't be due to light going through the metal.
So we know that it's near enough to being true.
-
I think it's possible to explain how light seem to propagate through the edge of a ball as optical phonon.
Yes, you can; by using science.
You discover that light that goes through gold leaf is green.
That's been known for centuries.
And, if the light that caused the bright dot in the centre of a shadow of a gold ball was green, you would have a point.
But it isn't.
So we know that the light is not going through the metal.
So, why are you still talking about something we know is wrong?
-
You discover that light that goes through gold leaf is green.
Did I?
-
It's easily deduced from my previous video, especially when using a cutter knife made of steel. How do you think the light can go to the area behind the knife?
By going through the air.
Was that really a serious question?
Is vacuum can be used?
If the knife is removed, will the light still go to that area?
-
Incidentally, you need to be very careful with the "edges" of transparent objects.
The manufacturers generally polish the edges to give something curved (so it isn't dangerously sharp).
But a curved bit of glass is a lens and will produce changes of the light beam that you might not have considered.
Can you explain how you have allowed for this factor?
What kind of changes do I need to consider?
-
For those who doesn't know that metals are partially transparent in visible light spectrum.
Who doesn't know that?
I have seen through gold leaf.
A cheap mirror will show the effect just fine if you clean the paint off the back.
You seem not to have noticed some of my words.
Most people consider a ball bearing to be perfectly opaque to visible light.
I know it isn't strictly true. But it's very close to true.
And we know that the light that forms the bright spot at the centre of a shadow can't be due to light going through the metal.
So we know that it's near enough to being true.
If the ball is replaced by a cylinder, what will be shown on the screen?
What if it's replaced by a box?
-
So we know that the light is not going through the metal.
So, you still don't know it, yet.
-
The expected result in reply #76 wouldn't make sense according to conservation of energy, if the transmitter actually sends a single photon at a time, which then triggers the detectors.
But it makes sense if the transmitter transmit the dim light continuously, and trigger the detectors after they accumulate adequate amount of energy. That's why temperature of the detectors affects the detection rate.
The main difference between my hypothesis and photon model is where the randomization occurs.
My hypothesis asserts that the randomization occurs at the detector. Light energy received by the detector will either be reflected, absorbed, or transmitted. Absorbed light will be transformed into other forms of energy, like heat, light at different frequency, chemical reaction, electron ejection, etc. which can be sensed by detector.
In photon model, randomization occurs at the transmitter, as well as beam splitter. Many pop-sci articles presented that the event when a detector is triggered simply means a photon has been captured, with no room for uncertainty. AFAIK, it is affected by environmental condition, such as temperature, cosmic ray, interference of electromagnetic wave, and electrical potential applied to the detector.
Just in case someone hasn't known what my model of light is, or has already forgotten about it.
So far, it can be used to explain various experimental results that I've done.
One of the most convincing results is that it allows me to design and correctly predict the results of disjointed twin polarizers and conjoined twin polarizers experiments in microwave frequency.
Here is another video investigating the effect of twin polarizer.
It shows the effect of double polarizer when they are close to each other but are still separated electrically. The last part shows the polarisation of microwave coming out from the last polarizer.
The next video will show the effect of double polarizer when they are close to each other and electrically connected, so stay tuned.
And here are videos demonstrating conjoined twin polarizer
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.
-
You discover that light that goes through gold leaf is green.
Did I?
You did if you used science.
-
If the ball is replaced by a cylinder, what will be shown on the screen?
What if it's replaced by a box?
You have two options.
Do the experiment to find out, or look at the results from the 17th, 18th and 19th century researchers who did make the observations, and, on whose observations the likes of Huygens and Maxwell constructed their models.
-
So we know that the light is not going through the metal.
So, you still don't know it, yet.
Yes... I do.
How did you come to your contrafactual conclusion?
-
Incidentally, you need to be very careful with the "edges" of transparent objects.
The manufacturers generally polish the edges to give something curved (so it isn't dangerously sharp).
But a curved bit of glass is a lens and will produce changes of the light beam that you might not have considered.
Can you explain how you have allowed for this factor?
What kind of changes do I need to consider?
Which ones do you think you should ignore, and why?
If someone says "Your experiments on diffraction by "edges" of transparent objects will be misleading because you are not paying attention to the fact that the edges are rounded" it's your job to explain how you accounted for that.
Please do so.
-
You discover that light that goes through gold leaf is green.
Did I?
You did if you used science.
Where did I discover that?
-
If someone says "Your experiments on diffraction by "edges" of transparent objects will be misleading because you are not paying attention to the fact that the edges are rounded" it's your job to explain how you accounted for that.
Please do so.
I already explained the edge shape effect on diffraction pattern using rounded edges with different radii. I assumed the same for transparent objects. I've also shown rounded edge in the explanation for non-diffractive edge using total internal reflection surface.
-
[The double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery.
—Richard Feynman
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. I: The New Millennium Edition: Mainly Mechanics, Radiation, and Heat (October 4, 2011), Chapter 37 (Quantum Behavior), page 37-2 (An experiment with bullets). Paperback ISBN-13: 978-0465024933 | Online
It seems that if we can explain the weirdness of the double-slit experiment, we can reveal the mystery of quantum mechanics. In other words, how to correctly interpret the equations produced by quantum mechanics.
Now we know that commonly published explanations for double slit experiment contains some misconceptions. If all of those misconceptions are corrected, can we make physics reasonable again?
Most discussions of double-slit experiments with particles refer to Feynman’s quote in his lectures: “We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery.” Feynman went on to add: “We should say right away that you should not try to set up this experiment. This experiment has never been done in just this way. The trouble is that the apparatus would have to be made on an impossibly small scale to show the effects we are interested in. We are doing a “thought experiment”, which we have chosen because it is easy to think about. We know the results that would be obtained because there are many experiments that have been done, in which the scale and the proportions have been chosen to show the effects we shall describe”.
https://physicsworld.com/a/the-double-slit-experiment/
-
Just in case someone hasn't known what my model of light is, or has already forgotten about it.
So far, it can be used to explain various experimental results that I've done.
One of the most convincing results is that it allows me to design and correctly predict the results of disjointed twin polarizers and conjoined twin polarizers experiments in microwave frequency.
Here is another video investigating the effect of twin polarizer.
It shows the effect of double polarizer when they are close to each other but are still separated electrically. The last part shows the polarisation of microwave coming out from the last polarizer.
The next video will show the effect of double polarizer when they are close to each other and electrically connected, so stay tuned.
And here are videos demonstrating conjoined twin polarizer
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.
These experiments show that electromagnetic wave can propagate longitudinally on electrically conductive material. Due to its high frequency which causes skin effect, the longitudinal wave would mostly propagate through the surface.
This is consistent with the explanation for how light can propagate from front side of a metal object's edge to its rear side.
-
It seems that if we can explain the weirdness of the double-slit experiment,
What weirdness? You need two sources to get interference. Simple linguistics: interference occurs between A and B .
-
You discover that light that goes through gold leaf is green.
Did I?
You did if you used science.
Where did I discover that?
I was lucky.
I had the chance to discover it in one of the metalwork classrooms when I was at school.
You discovered it when I told you about it in this thread.
Now you know that it's true, you can see why you must be wrong about light going through the metal to cause the bright dot.
-
It seems that if we can explain the weirdness of the double-slit experiment,
What weirdness? You need two sources to get interference. Simple linguistics: interference occurs between A and B .
Ask Einstein, Feynman, or Aspect. If you don't think that it's weird, congratulations. Perhaps you have found a better explanation. I'd like to see it. Perhaps you can answer my previous question.
We use continuous wave equations to describe propagation, and quantum mechanics to explain microscopic interactions with matter.
What does quantum mechanics tell you about a single photon? Does it have a single frequency? Does it have a finite wave number?
BTW, in a double slit experiment, there are 4 diffracting edges which act as the sources of interfering light beam. On the other hand, single slit experiment consists of 2 diffracting edges which act as the sources of interfering light beam.
-
I already explained the edge shape effect on diffraction pattern using rounded edges with different radii
Could you point out where you showed the effects of what would be almost cylindrical lenses in the light path please?
Also, please don't list three videos, the first of which starts by saying the opposite of what I asked about.
Thanks
-
You discover that light that goes through gold leaf is green.
Did I?
You did if you used science.
Where did I discover that?
I was lucky.
I had the chance to discover it in one of the metalwork classrooms when I was at school.
You discovered it when I told you about it in this thread.
Now you know that it's true, you can see why you must be wrong about light going through the metal to cause the bright dot.
At least for now, I can't confirm your discovery. Do you have any link to an online source?
Let me help you to correct your misunderstanding. Here's a list of relevant facts about diffraction of light.
1. Perfectly transparent medium (or negligible opacity) doesn't cause a light beam to diffract. e.g. air.
2. Perfectly opaque medium (or negligible transparency, or extremely short penetration depth) doesn't cause a light beam to diffract. e.g. total internal reflection of visible light at glass-air interface, or aluminum plate for microwave.
3. Penetration depth of visible light into a steel object is short, but significant compared to the wavelength. It's clearly much smaller than the diameter of an ordinary bearing ball. Thus, no significant light will go through direct hit to the center of the ball.
4. Optical phonon has been observed independently among different researchers.
5. My experiment on conjoined twin polarizers shows that electromagnetic wave can propagate longitudinally in electrically conducting medium.
6. Any diffraction effect involves a light beam hitting an edge of partially transparent object.
-
I wasI already explained the edge shape effect on diffraction pattern using rounded edges with different radii
Could you point out where you showed the effects of what would be almost cylindrical lenses in the light path please?
Also, please don't list three videos, the first of which starts by saying the opposite of what I asked about.
Thanks
I was referring to reply #306, at labelled video #2 Edge shapes effect.
Where did I mention cylindrical lens?
-
Perfectly transparent medium (or negligible opacity) doesn't cause a light beam to diffract. e.g. air.
Yes it does,
Every point in space is the source of a new set of wavelets- as per Huygens.
If there's nothing else nearby, the effect of "diffraction" is that the light carries on in a straight line.
What was that about correcting misunderstandings?
Perfectly opaque medium (or negligible transparency, or extremely short penetration depth) doesn't cause a light beam to diffract. e.g. total internal reflection of visible light at glass-air interface
Are you saying that air and glass are perfectly opaque, but hardened steel ball bearings are transparent.
Were you expecting to be taken seriously?
Penetration depth of visible light into a steel object is short, but significant compared to the wavelength. It's clearly much smaller than the diameter of an ordinary bearing ball. Thus, no significant light will go through direct hit to the center of the ball.
Nobody ever said it did.
My contention is that even if you (magically) had a ball that really was totally opaque, the diffracted light would still form a bright spot at the centre of the shadow.
Optical phonon has been observed independently among different researchers.
By what weird pathway did you come to the conclusion that I had any misconceptions about that?
My experiment on conjoined twin polarizers shows that electromagnetic wave can propagate longitudinally in electrically conducting medium.
Light goes through water. Water conducts.
Again, how did you think I had any misconceptions about this?
Any diffraction effect involves a light beam hitting an edge of partially transparent object.
In practice, yes, because nothing is ever truly black.
But, if you do the maths to predict the diffraction pattern for a perfectly black object and compare it to the observed pattern for a practically black object- say one made from black plastic- the patterns are essentially identical.
-
Where did I mention cylindrical lens?
You didn't, and that's the problem.
Because there is a lens, and you seem to be ignoring it.
Here's a close up diagram of the edge of a glass cube
[ Invalid Attachment ]
From the point of view of light traveling up the diagram near the edge of the block, the bit circled in red looks exactly like a small cylindrical lens.
And that will give rise to a beam of refracted light superimposed on any diffracted light.
As I said, it's tricky to try to account for this.
Please show how you did so.
-
What does quantum mechanics tell you about a single photon? Does it have a single frequency? Does it have a finite wave number?
Yes. E = hc/λ = hf.
-
Does it have a finite wave number?
Anything with a physical meaning pretty much has to be finite.
-
You didn't, and that's the problem.
Because there is a lens, and you seem to be ignoring it.
Here's a close up diagram of the edge of a glass cube
Let's consider the simplest case of experiment using an ordinary laser pointer and a screen. The only lens is in the pointer itself. Nothing but air is there between the pointer and the screen. The screen shows nothing but a small circular bright spot.
-
From the point of view of light traveling up the diagram near the edge of the block, the bit circled in red looks exactly like a small cylindrical lens.
And that will give rise to a beam of refracted light superimposed on any diffracted light.
As I said, it's tricky to try to account for this.
Please show how you did so.
To explain it satisfactorily, we need to understand the most basic mechanism for electromagnetic waves in interaction with charged particles. I've proposed such thing in my previous posts.
Here's the model I proposed. I'm not really sure if it's new, since it's based on how a dipole antenna work. Can we derive Huygen's principle from equations of antenna? Or can we derive equations of antenna from Huygen's principle?
Investigation on microwave 37 : blocking mechanism
Investigation on microwave 38: blocking mechanism explanation
Investigation on microwave 39: Blocking mechanism evidence
-
The direction of reactionary wave is determined by the distribution of the charged particles, which is a result of superposition of waves which they produce, as explained in the video below.
My model can be thought as an extention to the working principle of antenna, which can be shown clearly here.
Huygen's principle seems to work fine in material waves like water surface wave and sound, because the gap between the slit is filled with particles of the wave medium. It doesn't seem to be the case for light, as shown by vertically tilted diffraction and non-diffractive edge experiment.
-
The screen shows nothing but a small circular bright spot.
Not really.
You get this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk
Did you consider learning optics before trying to re-write it?
But, anyway, let's ignore that problem and move on to the current problem .
You have shown videos of light going through the edges transparent objects.
How did you allow for the refraction of light by the curved edge?
-
The direction of reactionary wave is determined by the distribution of the charged particles,
Diffraction patterns work in a vacuum too.
-
It doesn't seem to be the case for light, as shown by vertically tilted diffraction
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.
I pointed this out when you first raised it.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68595.msg647308#msg647308
And the link
https://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
non-diffractive edge experiment.
You have yet to explain how you can have a "non diffractive edge".
-
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.
How do you explain cone of beam produced by a single edge diffraction using Huygen's principle?
-
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.
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)?
-
I pointed this out when you first raised it.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68595.msg647308#msg647308
And the link
https://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
The article simply describes observational results of experiments using diffraction grating and a light beam. It doesn't derive the results from underlying mechanisms through more general and fundamental principles.
For analogy, Keppler's laws describe the motion of planets quite accurately. But they don't explain why those planets move that way, and it can't be generalized for motion of moons and comets.
The article even fails to mention that in reflection mode, the interference pattern produced by the diffraction grating doesn't involve diffraction phenomenon. The pattern is just a result of superposition of reflected light beams at different angles when hitting the surface of the grating.
-
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.
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?
It seems like you have fallen into a herd mentality problem. Thinking that someone smarter than us must have solved the problem before us, and stopping us from solving the problem ourselves can hinder scientific progress.
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)?
As a human being, I may have made mistakes. I may make more mistakes in the future. But it doesn't mean that I can't make a correct conclusion.
Which dimensional analysis are you talking about?
-
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.
-
Thinking that someone smarter than us must have solved the problem before us,
That's not what I'm doing, is it?
I'm not saying "Huygens solved it."
I'm saying that thousands of people looked at his work and their o3wn observations and none of those people- many of whom will have been really clever- found any indication that Huygens was wrong.
And people will have built machines like spectroscopes and integrated circuits based on the assumption that Huygens was (within defined limits) right.
Yet you turn up and say you think he was wrong.
Well, I'm certainly allowed to ask "why did nobody notice?".
And I'm asking it now.
-
AFAIK, 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
-
Which 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.
-
Which 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.
Isn't this you refuting your own argumentations?
A 1 Coulomb charged particle moves at 1 m/s speed. What's the current?
It depends
Imagine 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?
-
Isn'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.
-
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?
I thought I'd answered that somewhere else, along with a discussion of magnetic deflection CRTs. Apologies if not, but it's in most classical physics and old-school electronic engineering textbooks.
-
Isn'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.
Let's check again your statement.
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.
And your answer to my question.
A 1 Coulomb charged particle moves at 1 m/s speed. What's the current?
It depends
Imagine 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.
If you can't find the contradiction between the two, you need to recheck the meaning of your own statements.
-
AFAIK, 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
The quotation mark in the word perfectly means it's not perfect.
-
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.
I've finished recording the experiment in several video clips. It will take some time to edit, add narration, and upload it to my Youtube channel.
As a sneak peek, the partial opacity in my experiment is achieved using an array of aluminum stripes, each has 5 mm height and 0.1 mm thickness.
-
AFAIK, 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
The quotation mark in the word perfectly means it's not perfect.
Yes, I know.
That's why I put it there.
Why did you feel the need to explain it?
But the point is that if you did have perfectly transparent materials, you could make diffraction patterns with them.
You could, for example, consider the quartz that is used for optical cables that transmit light for miles without significant attenuation and water which is similarly transparent for visible light.
And you could make a hologram using just those materials only a millimetre thick.
The fact that they are not actually perfectly transparent is beside the point.
Do you understand that?
-
you need to recheck the meaning of your own statements.
One of us does, and it's not me.
The fact that there are two different answers to your question just shows that it isn't a well framed question, doesn't it?
-
Yes, I know.
That's why I put it there.
Why did you feel the need to explain it?
Because it defeats your reasoning.
-
But the point is that if you did have perfectly transparent materials, you could make diffraction patterns with them.
You could, for example, consider the quartz that is used for optical cables that transmit light for miles without significant attenuation and water which is similarly transparent for visible light.
And you could make a hologram using just those materials only a millimetre thick.
The fact that they are not actually perfectly transparent is beside the point.
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jing-Chie-Lin/publication/274430836/figure/fig5/AS:339195081052175@1457881817545/Color-online-Optical-reflectance-spectra-of-quartz-glass-asdeposited-ZnO-and.png)
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Color-online-Optical-reflectance-spectra-of-quartz-glass-asdeposited-ZnO-and_fig5_274430836
If you think that 7% reflectance is "perfect", it's up to you. But I classify it as partial opacity. Especially at the edge of an obstacle, where the incident angle is close to 90°.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Fresnel_power_air-to-glass.svg/330px-Fresnel_power_air-to-glass.svg.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations#Power_(intensity)_reflection_and_transmission_coefficients
R=reflectance
T=transmittance
S & P refer to polarization axes of electric field compared to plane of incidence, perpendicular and parallel, respectively.
-
you need to recheck the meaning of your own statements.
One of us does, and it's not me.
The fact that there are two different answers to your question just shows that it isn't a well framed question, doesn't it?
They are not well framed answers.
-
Yes, I know.
That's why I put it there.
Why did you feel the need to explain it?
Because it defeats your reasoning.
No, it doesn't.
My reasoning is that your question is badly written and can provide two answers which contradict eachother.
The current is zero because the charge does not change.
Or the current is undefined because it does ot specify the time over which the change happens (from another perspective.) and current is defined as a rate of change of charge with time.
you need to recheck the meaning of your own statements.
One of us does, and it's not me.
The fact that there are two different answers to your question just shows that it isn't a well framed question, doesn't it?
They are not well framed answers.
No.
See above.
-
But the point is that if you did have perfectly transparent materials, you could make diffraction patterns with them.
You could, for example, consider the quartz that is used for optical cables that transmit light for miles without significant attenuation and water which is similarly transparent for visible light.
And you could make a hologram using just those materials only a millimetre thick.
The fact that they are not actually perfectly transparent is beside the point.
If you think that 7% reflectance is "perfect", it's up to you. But I classify it as partial opacity. Especially at the edge of an obstacle, where the incident angle is close to 90°.
You don't seem to understand what transparent means.
It refers to the material, not the interface.
We say "water is transparent".
we don't says "the interface between water and air is transparent".
If I wanted to measure the transmission of quartz per se, I would get two pieces of different lengths and compare the transmission through both of them.
Why did you waste time and bandwidth with those diagrams when you could have just said "What about reflectance?"?
-
Nothing is perfectly transparent other than empty space. Quartz is, however, highly transparent and may be called perfectly transparent for all practical purposes.
-
My reasoning is that your question is badly written and can provide two answers which contradict eachother.
The current is zero because the charge does not change.
Or the current is undefined because it does ot specify the time over which the change happens (from another perspective.) and current is defined as a rate of change of charge with time.
You have two contradicting answers because you don't understand the question.
-
Why did you waste time and bandwidth with those diagrams when you could have just said "What about reflectance?"?
So that you don't get confused for too long.
-
Nothing is perfectly transparent other than empty space. Quartz is, however, highly transparent and may be called perfectly transparent for all practical purposes.
As shown in the diagram I posted, it's clearly far from transparent in the conditions relevant to diffraction, which is around the edge of an object, where incident angle can be close to 90°.
-
My reasoning is that your question is badly written and can provide two answers which contradict eachother.
The current is zero because the charge does not change.
Or the current is undefined because it does ot specify the time over which the change happens (from another perspective.) and current is defined as a rate of change of charge with time.
You have two contradicting answers because you don't understand the question.
They are both correct answers to your question, and they contradict each other.
That is a problem with the question, not with my understanding.
-
Why did you waste time and bandwidth with those diagrams when you could have just said "What about reflectance?"?
So that you don't get confused for too long.
How did you come to the conclusion that I'm confused?
Is it because you can not accept that your question was meaningless?
-
As shown in the diagram I posted, it's clearly far for transparent in the conditions relevant to diffraction, which is around the edge of an object, where incident angle can be close to 90°.
So, you are still struggling with what transparent means.
It's to do with absorbing light, not with reflecting it
-
My reasoning is that your question is badly written and can provide two answers which contradict eachother.
The current is zero because the charge does not change.
Or the current is undefined because it does ot specify the time over which the change happens (from another perspective.) and current is defined as a rate of change of charge with time.
You have two contradicting answers because you don't understand the question.
They are both correct answers to your question, and they contradict each other.
That is a problem with the question, not with my understanding.
How should the question be stated according to your understanding?
-
As shown in the diagram I posted, it's clearly far for transparent in the conditions relevant to diffraction, which is around the edge of an object, where incident angle can be close to 90°.
So, you are still struggling with what transparent means.
It's to do with absorbing light, not with reflecting it
So, you are still struggling with understanding a diagram.
In interaction between visible light beam and a glass, most of the intensity is either reflected or transmitted. Only a small amount is absorbed. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a laser cutter, or beam splitter commonly used in interferometers.
-
How should the question be stated according to your understanding?
How am I meant to guess what you want t know if you can't write it down?
-
As shown in the diagram I posted, it's clearly far for transparent in the conditions relevant to diffraction, which is around the edge of an object, where incident angle can be close to 90°.
So, you are still struggling with what transparent means.
It's to do with absorbing light, not with reflecting it
So, you are still struggling with understanding a diagram.
In interaction between visible light beam and a glass, most of the intensity is either reflected or transmitted. Only a small amount is absorbed. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a laser cutter, or beam splitter commonly used in interferometers.
Go and look up what the words mean.
-
How should the question be stated according to your understanding?
How am I meant to guess what you want t know if you can't write it down?
I already wrote it down. You only need the ability to read and understand meanings of words in a sentence.
-
Go and look up what the words mean.
Does a silver mirror transparent, as per your definition?
-
How should the question be stated according to your understanding?
How am I meant to guess what you want t know if you can't write it down?
I already wrote it down. You only need the ability to read and understand meanings of words in a sentence.
What you wrote down does not make sense.
It's not a matter of understanding the words.
It is a problem because you used words that say something that makes no sense
The cat chaired the car.
You know what every word means, but the sentence has no meaning.
-
Go and look up what the words mean.
Does a silver mirror transparent, as per your definition?
Does it what?
Or did you use the wrong word?
-
Go and look up what the words mean.
Does a silver mirror transparent, as per your definition?
Does it what?
Or did you use the wrong word?
Is the silver mirror transparent?
-
Go and look up what the words mean.
Does a silver mirror transparent, as per your definition?
Does it what?
Or did you use the wrong word?
Is the silver mirror transparent?
No.
In principle it does not absorb light.
-
Whatever the model offered to explain light, it should not contradict my experimental results.
I just got an even stronger evidence that diffracted light is produced by the edges of the obstacle, instead of the space between those edges. The experiment involves linear polarization.
I've finally uploaded the video.
-
I've come to this discussion a bit late, but isn't that obvious? Something that isn't there can't have an effect on anything that is, and the simplest definition of a space is surely "something that isn't there"?
-
I've come to this discussion a bit late, but isn't that obvious? Something that isn't there can't have an effect on anything that is, and the simplest definition of a space is surely "something that isn't there"?
But that's what Huygen's principle is based on. Every point in space between a slit becomes a source of light wave.
You can't agree with Huygen's principle while saying
Something that isn't there can't have an effect on anything that is
-
Not "every point in space" but every point on a wavefront. Huygens describes the geometry of its propagation. There's nothing to "agree with" - it just works.
A problem arises when you talk about slit interference.The slit is mostly irrelevant: what you see according to Huygens is the interference between two edge-truncated sources and the primary geometric beam, and as the slit gets narrower, so the primary beam component becomes less relevant.
-
Not "every point in space" but every point on a wavefront. Huygens describes the geometry of its propagation. There's nothing to "agree with" - it just works.
A problem arises when you talk about slit interference.The slit is mostly irrelevant: what you see according to Huygens is the interference between two edge-truncated sources and the primary geometric beam, and as the slit gets narrower, so the primary beam component becomes less relevant.
In the wave model, every point in space becomes a wavefront at different point in time.
What would happen if those edges are removed altogether?
What if those edges are made of polarizing material?
-
What would happen if those edges are removed altogether?
What if those edges are made of polarizing material?
In principle, nothing.
-
What would happen if those edges are removed altogether?
What if those edges are made of polarizing material?
In principle, nothing.
My experimental results are:
1. The diffraction and interference pattern disappears. The bright spot on the screen returns to show the shape of original light beam.
2. The bright spot on the screen can be separated into 2 parts. The original light beam is polarized the same way as the laser pointer. The diffracted light beam which appears as a bright line or curve perpendicular to the slit is polarized perpendicular to the polarization axis of the single slit aperture.
So, which principle are you referring to?
-
The diffraction and interference pattern disappears. The bright spot on the screen returns to show the shape of original light beam.
Which part of this do you not yet understand?
I have tried to point it out several times.
The " shape of original light beam" is a "diffraction and interference pattern".
Some part of the laser acts as an aperture. That aperture has edges (or one roughly circular edge).
Those edges cause diffraction.
Also, how did you address the cylindrical lens effect?
-
In the wave model, every point in space becomes a wavefront at different point in time.
What would happen if those edges are removed altogether?
Rectilinear propagation, as predicted and observed.
-
The diffraction and interference pattern disappears. The bright spot on the screen returns to show the shape of original light beam.
Which part of this do you not yet understand?
I have tried to point it out several times.
The " shape of original light beam" is a "diffraction and interference pattern".
Some part of the laser acts as an aperture. That aperture has edges (or one roughly circular edge).
Those edges cause diffraction.
Also, how did you address the cylindrical lens effect?
A good laser pointer produces a single circular spot on the screen. The other side lobes can be minimized to the point of insignificance through careful engineering methods.
When you analyze the effects of an action, you need to compare them with the base case, which is nothing is changed from previous conditions. The base case here is a standard single slit experiment. While the action is removing the edges.
When you say that nothing changes, you are saying that removing or not removing the edges produce the same result, whether or not you are intentionally making that implication.
-
A good laser pointer produces a single circular spot on the screen.
Yes,
One of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk
-
When you say that nothing changes, you are saying that removing or not removing the edges produce the same result, whether or not you are intentionally making that implication.
Imagine you can make a light source that is a surface- say a small disk- covered with molecules that fluoresce under UV light and that, for some reason, all the molecules emit light perpendicular to the plane of the surface.
Do you understand that you will get exactly the same diffraction pattern as if you used a beam of collimated light and an aperture?
In a conventional experiment you have light which hits an obstacle of some sort and the light that continues on forms a diffraction pattern.
But the incoming light only has two possible fates.
It hits the obstacle and is absorbed, or it misses it and carries on.
The light that is absorbed can't do anything.
So the diffraction pattern is formed entirely from the light that carries on past the obstacle.
But it has no way of "knowing" that it went past something.
So, the diffraction pattern arising from that light will be exactly the same as if the obstacle was not present.
And that's what I said.
What would happen if those edges are removed altogether?
What if those edges are made of polarizing material?
In principle, nothing.
If you remove the obstacle then the light that is now allowed to carry on interacts with the other light and changes the pattern it produces.
Very simplistically, the light near the outside of a "beam" holds the light near the middle together.
-
There is a way to remove much of unwanted diffracted light.
First, use a normal aperture which causes light to diffract.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Airy-pattern.svg/330px-Airy-pattern.svg.png)
Then place the second aperture whose size equals the first dark ring, hence its edge doesn't interact with light.
Behind the second aperture, the light would be mostly free from diffraction.
-
But the incoming light only has two possible fates.
It hits the obstacle and is absorbed, or it misses it and carries on.
There are other possibilities. It can be reflected, diffracted, or refracted.
-
There are other possibilities. It can be reflected, diffracted, or refracted.
Only if it hits the obstacle.
And, in the classic experiment, the obstacle is black so any light that hits it is absorbed,
So, as I said, it either gets absorbed, or it passes straight on.
-
whose size equals the first dark ring
Would that be the inner or the outer edge of the dark ring? You might enjoy doing the experiment with microwaves!
-
There are other possibilities. It can be reflected, diffracted, or refracted.
Only if it hits the obstacle.
And, in the classic experiment, the obstacle is black so any light that hits it is absorbed,
So, as I said, it either gets absorbed, or it passes straight on.
Even with black surface, some of the light beam hitting it will be reflected, especially when the incident angle is close to 90°.
I can still clearly see the diffracted light by an edge of a metal plate covered in soot, which is the blackest thing in pre-modern life.
-
whose size equals the first dark ring
Would that be the inner or the outer edge of the dark ring? You might enjoy doing the experiment with microwaves!
Simply aim the darkest part of the ring.
-
Huygens predicts how it will be affected by reflection,
How is a wave reflected in Huygen's model?
What makes it different than transmission?
Here's how reflection is explained using antenna model, starting at 5:45.
This is the model I used to come up with blocking mechanism, and designed polarization twister.
As shown in the video, antenna model can explain the mechanism of reflection in electromagnetic waves intuitively. I wonder why this model hasn't been further developed to explain other optical phenomena, such as refraction, diffraction, and interference of light.
With this model, the explanation for polarization is straight forward. Nothing is counter intuitive.
-
Here's another attempt to explain light more intuitively.
Coherence & Light Part1: Temporal Coherence
This is the first episode about coherence and how this wave phenomenon can cause waves to behave like localized entities or energy quanta.
Unfortunately the quantum (or corpuscular) description of light leads to a lot of confusion (and nonsense). The goal of this video is to describe "quantized" behavior of light purely from wave principles. Because: why first transform waves into particles and then try to describe them using a wave function?
Contents:
0:00 Intro
1:04 Historical perspective
2:58 Quantization and the photoelectric effect
6:42 Light is just waves
7:24 Coherence explained
12:54 Temporal coherence as a sum of EM-fields
16:47 Coherence length vs. spectral band width
20:25 experiments on the coherence length of light
Can't wait for the second part of the video.
-
Here's another attempt to explain light more intuitively.
Why?
Does anyone bother with an "intuitive explanation" of water, steel, cats, DNA....?
Stuff exists, things happen, and sometimes you need more than one equation to predict what happens next.
-
Here's another attempt to explain light more intuitively.
Why?
Does anyone bother with an "intuitive explanation" of water, steel, cats, DNA....?
Stuff exists, things happen, and sometimes you need more than one equation to predict what happens next.
Occam's Razor.
Unintuitive explanation means there's something unexpected, which means there's at least one false assumption. We would like to identify it, just in case it would someday lead us to make wrong decisions.
The level of understanding required depends on the purpose or terminal goal in mind.
Fishes don't care what water is made of. But Martian colonizers should.
-
there's at least one false assumption.
The incorrect assumption is that light should behave like macroscopic matter- whether that's waves on the sea or snooker balls on a table.
We know that.
So what?
-
The ultimate test of the validity of an assumption is whether the bridge falls down or the plane crashes.So far, no current textbook assumptions about the generation propagation and interactions of visible light seem to have resulted in disaster or even mild surprise.
Science and intuition are often at odds. Eddington said that the student of physics must become accustomed to having his common sense violated five times before breakfast. Those violations are the stuff of scientific investigation, which usually ends up in textbooks.
-
there's at least one false assumption.
The incorrect assumption is that light should behave like macroscopic matter- whether that's waves on the sea or snooker balls on a table.
We know that.
So what?
So some of us wonder, is there a better way to explain light? We can find many Youtube videos try to answer that question. So I know I'm not the only one.
We can say that better means more effective and efficient in describing and predicting behaviors of light in various situations with the least amount of ad hoc assumptions. At what point can we safely say that our currently accepted theory is the best way possible to explain light?
It's also fine if you're not that into it. No one will force you to.
-
I'm beginning to wonder what you mean by "explain". We can certainly make lots of predictions about the behavior of electromagnetic radiation. How much more do you want?
-
I'm beginning to wonder what you mean by "explain". We can certainly make lots of predictions about the behavior of electromagnetic radiation. How much more do you want?
I think he may be looking for an answer that says "why" light does what it does.
As far as I can tell, that's not something physics does.
-
Indeed. "Why" implies an intended objective, and AFAIK no photon has any future intentions. Physics is about "how", psychology and religion attempt to deal with "why".
-
Coherence & Light Part1: Temporal Coherence
Here's the second part.
Coherence & Light part 2: Spatial Coherence
Contents:
0:00 Intro
0:38 Real life demo of spatial coherence (Lorentz pond)
2:14 Numerical wave simulations (Nils Berglund)
5:05 Area of Coherence explained
8:07 Calculating the Area of Coherence of the Sun
9:10 Spatial coherence and the double slit experiment
10:41 About the use of metaphors in science
12:45 Double slit demo without & with spatial coherence
15:43 Spatial coherence of light from far away stars
18:13 Quantization and semantics
20:39 Credits