[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here they are.

Why do you think those people are crazy?  I didn't see where any of them said "reality doesn't exist".

I didn't call them crazy. You did.

These results will have profound impact on our understanding of diffraction and interference of light.

I don't think so.

This will be the first step to explain a kind of physical phenomenon which has baffled most people like double slit experiment.

I don't think the most people are baffled by the double slit experiment.

Some said it's mind boggling and defies logic, some others even said that it shows that reality doesn't exist.

I think those might just be the crazy people.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Questions about reality.

[Origin]

I didn't call them crazy. You did

This isn't that difficult.  You said some people think that the double slit experiment shows that reality doesn't exist.  I said those people are crazy people.  Then you quoted some individuals talking about the double slit experiment and implied I think they are crazy.  If these people you quoted believe that reality exists then I don't think they're crazy.

This thread is getting as pointless as your thread about heat transfer between ice and water.
 

[Origin]

Questions about reality.

Oh great here we go, hamdani is hijacking his own thread again.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Most explanations about diffraction of light depict the edges of the slit as featureless rectangular solid objects, which perfectly absorb the light hitting them, while letting the light missing them passes through. The authors seem to assume that the effects of the edges are insignificant in shaping the pattern of diffracted light. My experiments will be reminders that false assumptions can lead to unexpected results.

My last experiment with polarized diffraction is not an isolated anomalous result. It's a corroborating evidence with my previous experiments, especially diffraction in microwave transceiver, non-diffractive edges with total internal reflection, and vertically tilted diffraction.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I didn't call them crazy. You did

This isn't that difficult.  You said some people think that the double slit experiment shows that reality doesn't exist.  I said those people are crazy people.  Then you quoted some individuals talking about the double slit experiment and implied I think they are crazy.  If these people you quoted believe that reality exists then I don't think they're crazy.

This thread is getting as pointless as your thread about heat transfer between ice and water.
 

This is what you should have done to avoid misunderstandings. Quote only the sentence you are going to comment. Here's an example.

some others even said that it shows that reality doesn't exist.

Or you can mark the portion of your concern, like using italic or bold font.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Questions about reality.

Oh great here we go, hamdani is hijacking his own thread again.

Those videos were meant to answer your question. It's fine if you already forget it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This thread is getting as pointless as your thread about heat transfer between ice and water.

What makes you think that they are pointless?
Perhaps you haven't understand them yet?
Or may be you think that they don't affect your personal life at all?
I realize that scientific research is not everyone's passion, although most people have some degrees of curiosity.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

My last experiment with polarized diffraction is not an isolated anomalous result. It's a corroborating evidence with my previous experiments, especially diffraction in microwave transceiver, non-diffractive edges with total internal reflection, and vertically tilted diffraction.

This video showing a half interference pattern is also a strong evidence corroborating with other experiments above.

Here's my newest video investigating diffraction of light by producing single side interference pattern.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's another video trying to explain the double slit experiment.

Down The Rabbit Hole of the Double Slit Experiment | Answers With Joe
The Double Slit Experiment started as a way to determine if light is a wave or a particle - but it uncovered mysteries that have baffled science to this day.

In the late 1600’s it was pretty much settled science that light traveled as a particle.
 
There had been many experiments that seemed to back this up and it even had the support of Sir Isaac Newton. 

But then a physicist named Thomas Young created the double-slit experiment. The thinking was, if light were traveling as a particle, it would create 2 parallel lines on the background, because the particles that are passing through the two slits would hit the wall behind those two slits.

Instead, he got an interference pattern. This can only happen if the light was traveling as a wave. But other experiments proved light was a particle. Somehow light functioned both as a particle and as a wave.

This was known as the wave-particle duality.

in the 1920's, physicists added another layer to the experiment when they fired photons through one at a time, amazingly still getting the interference pattern.

This proved that the photons were going through both slits at the same time and interfering with themselves.

This is because quantum particles travel in a wave function of potentials, only returning to the particle state when the wave function collapses.

Adding to the weirdness was another extension of the Double Slit Experiment - the Which Way variation.

In this experiment, they placed a tiny detector on one of the slits. Surprisingly, the pattern on the back wall of the experiment was a particle pattern. This means the wave function collapsed before it went through the slits. Why? Because it was being observed.

It was the act of observing the particle that caused its wave form to collapse. This cannot be explained to this day.

Yet another layer of weirdness is the Delayed Choice experiment conducted by John Archibald Wheeler.

In this, he added a second double slit that changes while the photon is in mid-flight. The results showed that by changing the nature of the second slit, it altered the behavior of the particle at the first slit.

In other words, this particle was being altered by things that hadn’t happened yet. Future events can change the present.

When Thomas Young created the double slit experiment, he had no idea the endless stream of mysteries this would create. Who knows what mysteries still await us...

In the past, if some axioms lead to ridiculous conclusion, we would reject them, or modify some of them. But identifying those false assumptions could be tricky, especially when they are hidden, and we are not aware of making them in the first place, like the featureless and infinitely rigid blocks of single or double slit aperture.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Frequently. I  am a physicist.

It looks like we are lucky to have a physicist on board. I'd like to hear what you think about this problem.
Or may be you know someone who is more suitable to give an answer.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In the past, if some axioms lead to ridiculous conclusion, we would reject them, or modify some of them. But identifying those false assumptions could be tricky, especially when they are hidden, and we are not aware of making them in the first place, like the featureless and infinitely rigid blocks of single or double slit aperture.

Some modern scientists seem to be too confident in their own scientific knowledge. So when their predictions differ from observations, they just declare that objective reality may not exist, instead of scrutinizing their assumptions more thoroughly.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a40460495/objective-reality-may-not-exist/
...
That reality might be in the eye of the observer is a very peculiar aspect of the physical reality in the quantum domain, and the mystery itself shows no signs of abating, both researchers agree.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Investigation on Diffraction of Light 20: Revisiting Vertically Tilted Diffraction, fixing glitches in previously uploaded video.

[Bored chemist]

Some modern scientists seem to be too confident in their own scientific knowledge. So when their predictions differ from observations, they just declare that objective reality may not exist, instead of scrutinizing their assumptions more thoroughly.

When do you imagine that happened?
Because, in general, if you make a discovery where reality departs from theory, that's your chance to get a Nobel Prize.

[alancalverd]

Frequently. I  am a physicist.

It looks like we are lucky to have a physicist on board. I'd like to hear what you think about this problem.
Or may be you know someone who is more suitable to give an answer.

Apologies for picking this up so late in the discussion. Please remind me which problem? 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Some modern scientists seem to be too confident in their own scientific knowledge. So when their predictions differ from observations, they just declare that objective reality may not exist, instead of scrutinizing their assumptions more thoroughly.

When do you imagine that happened?
Because, in general, if you make a discovery where reality departs from theory, that's your chance to get a Nobel Prize.

Anytime someone says that double slit experiment is weird and defy logic. Just like this year's Nobel prize in physics.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a40460495/objective-reality-may-not-exist/
...
That reality might be in the eye of the observer is a very peculiar aspect of the physical reality in the quantum domain, and the mystery itself shows no signs of abating, both researchers agree.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Frequently. I  am a physicist.

It looks like we are lucky to have a physicist on board. I'd like to hear what you think about this problem.
Or may be you know someone who is more suitable to give an answer.

Apologies for picking this up so late in the discussion. Please remind me which problem? 

Here. See the pattern shown in 0:07. Do you have a better explanation?

Here's my newest video investigating diffraction of light by producing single side interference pattern.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Investigation on Diffraction of Light 21 : Long Shot Diffraction
Experiment on diffraction of light with long distance between the obstacle and the screen to show the difference of interference pattern between single slit and thin wire diffraction.

[Darlalarsen]

Investigation on Diffraction of Light 21 : Long Shot Diffraction
Experiment on diffraction of light with long distance between the obstacle and the screen to show the difference of interference pattern between single slit and thin wire diffraction.

Something new and interesting for me, if you still find this kind of video, please let me know.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Investigation on Diffraction of Light 21 : Long Shot Diffraction
Experiment on diffraction of light with long distance between the obstacle and the screen to show the difference of interference pattern between single slit and thin wire diffraction.

Something new and interesting for me, if you still find this kind of video, please let me know.

I've got some other videos in progress. Most of them are investigating the behavior of electromagnetic waves in various frequency, from radio wave, microwave, and visible light. I'll share them here as soon as I finish editing and upload them to my YouTube channel.