[alancalverd]

And how thick is the "edge"?

[Zer0]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts#Engineers_and_inventors

i won't say anything more.
Not Required.


*Note of Appreciation*

For Everyone who spends Time in here and is Helping...
Thank You So Very Much!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

And how thick is the "edge"?

How does it affect the Huygens' construction?

[alancalverd]

If it has a finite thickness, it isn't an edge, so you need an infinite number of Huygens constructions to predict the outcome. Better to simply note that as n→∞   so the diffraction pattern becomes less intense and more diffuse than two classic single-ray plots.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If it has a finite thickness, it isn't an edge,

Why do you think that an edge must have infinite thickness, which is physically impossible?

[alancalverd]

As usual, we need to distinguish between a model and reality. 

"Huygens" is a very good model, using an idealised edge of zero thickness. In fact an edge could be no more than one atom thick and therefore correspond very closely to the model if the photon wavelength is greater than an atomic diameter - true for visible light but not for x-rays.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As usual, we need to distinguish between a model and reality. 

Adequacy of a model depends on its applications. Flat earth model is good enough for building a house. Newton's model is good enough to send people to the moon and back.

[Zer0]

lol

Watevr U both eat 4 brkfst, i'd lyk 2 eat it too!

plz cary on,
hav funn!
: )

[alancalverd]

Adequacy of a model depends on its applications.

And as you have shown, you can't apply Huygens usefully to a thick boundary.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Adequacy of a model depends on its applications.

And as you have shown, you can't apply Huygens usefully to a thick boundary.

It means that we need a more general model.

[alancalverd]

Not "we". Just you.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Not "we". Just you.

I don't think that I'm the only one.
If you choose to be ignorant of it, I can't force you to care.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I agree with Alan that Hamdani behaves in a gentlemanly manner despite my disagreement with his technical arguments. On the subject of Tesla and his quotes I disagree. Tesla was a brilliant engineer but he was totally out of touch with the rapidly advancing scientific knowledge of his era and this situation worsened with time.

Which technical arguments do you think that I got wrong?

To maintain order, IMO it would be better to discuss technical issues in their respective threads. As far as possible, here we'll discuss non-technical things only.

Mockery is a Terrible Tactic for Changing Minds

Sure, there are hard targets out there, but in the one-on-one exchanges about identity beliefs, there's likely a better way. Here's a clip by educator Melanie Trecek-King of www.thinkingispower.com..

let's use a better way.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Let's begin with your perspective. What unexpected observation have you made?

There's no way I can guarantee that nobody else has expected my observations. But at least I know they deviate from some mainstream textbooks.
I've made many experiments using laser and microwave transceiver, and some results that I think are unexpected by most people are as follows.
Non-diffractive edge and non-diffractive slit using total internal reflection.
Polarized diffraction by the edge of abortive polarizers.
Blocking mechanism of microwave by partial polarizers.
Conjoined twin polarizers.
Polarization twister of microwave.
Electrodynamic balance.

There are many questions I want to find out the answers, but I only have finite time to pursue them. For now, I'll just focus on a few of them, based on their importance/significance of their impacts, how much efforts are required, and how close or how likely I think I have the chance to solve them.

In mathematics, I'm investigating Riemann's Hypothesis.

In mathematics, the Riemann hypothesis is the conjecture that the Riemann zeta function has its zeros only at the negative even integers and complex numbers with real part 1/2. Many consider it to be the most important unsolved problem in pure mathematics. Wikipedia

I think I'm getting close to get it proven. And the reason why it hasn't been solved yet for so long is because of overthinking.


Another topic that I've been working on is about different sizes of infinity. Cantor's continuum hypothesis has caused a deep epistemological conundrum, according to an article in Quantamagazine.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-many-numbers-exist-infinity-proof-moves-math-closer-to-an-answer-20210715/

https://brilliant.org/wiki/infinity/
Infinity is the concept of an object that is larger than any number. When used in the context "...infinitely small," it can also describe an object that is smaller than any number. It is important to take special note that infinity is not a number; rather, it exists only as an abstract concept. Attempting to treat infinity as a number, without special care, can lead to a number of paradoxes.

Infinity is not a number!

I think the problem emerged from the flaw in Cantor's diagonalization proof.

Accepting the validity of diagonalization method comes with the cost of flawed and broken math. The diagonalization method contains loop holes like what we find in "proof" demonstrating that 1=2.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I've also been working to address widespread confusion between diffraction and interference. It might not be seen as physics problem itself, but rather a problem in science communication.

I also found a knowledge gap in the problem of twin paradox, where some physicists don't seem to agree about the best solution. I also have a question about symmetrically travelling twins which hasn't found a satisfactory answer.

Another significant question in physics that I want to answer is about the relationship between gravity and electromagnetism. My experiment with electrodynamic balance seems to have a promising outcome.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In the field of philosophy, I'm interested in the most important question of all time: what is the universal terminal goal? Some people think that it's a thing of the past which has become irrelevant in modern world. But on the contrary, it's becoming even more important and urgent than ever with the quick advancement in the field of AI towards AGI and ASI.

Researchers in AI safety is struggling with the goal alignment problem. What should entities much smarter than all of humans combined should align their goals to? Should they align their goals with us, humans who created them? Or should we humans align our goals with theirs instead?

The question can't be answered  without properly defining goal. It leads to the concept of consciousness, which also needs to be properly defined. Philosophers of the pasts have failed to reach a consensus because they haven't found workable definitions of those concepts.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Another important question in philosophy is about ethics or morality. Although its commonly used definition is fine, there are still persistent disagreements among philosophers. They haven't been able to close the gap in is and ought problem created by Hume's guillotine.

Hume stopped short at pleasure and pain as the ultimate causes of human decision making process as the subject of morality. If only he followed through with how those feelings could've emerged in the first place as a product of natural processes. He could've eventually found the universal terminal goal as the bridge that would close the gap between is and ought. It would have been easier to deal with nihilism and moral relativism.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Alignment between our goal and our decisions is a problem for any rational agents. Before making a decision, we need to consider the consequences of each available option. Cost of inaction in time should also be included in the consideration. That's why we need some sort of virtual universe.

Some neuroscience researchers have concluded that brains are prediction machines. They predict the consequences of each optional actions, and execute one with the most desirable outcomes.

[alancalverd]

That's why we need some sort of virtual universe.

You have the best one inside your head.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

That's why we need some sort of virtual universe.

You have the best one inside your head.

I think it can still be improved, in terms of processing speed, information volume/capacity, robustness, interconnection with data sources and other units of virtual universes.