[alancalverd]

Just shows how bad Google is! Putting this so-called definition into the drivel you got from Sonnet implies that diffraction depends on geography!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

One difference between new AI models and earliest version of language models is that they understand context, so humans can interact with them more efficiently.
 Words can be interpreted differently based on the context. In most descriptions of double slit experiment which are used to introduce the concept of interference, the parallel slits are oriented vertically next to each other.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As usual, when I get access to a new AI model, I  check its understanding of topics I'm interested in.

AI with large-language models does not "understand" a subject. It is good at suggesting what words might be relevant and is trained to assemble meaningful sentences. That's about all it can do, search a large database which is a kind of dictionary, and string words together. It will make things up to try to impress you. (Ask that lawyer who lost their licence).

See if you can get one to understand French.

Newer AI models are not limited to LLM. They combine whatever models work best for different use cases. That's why they need huge computational power to train. And they are growing exponentially.
I highlight the recent breakthroughs in AI, which I posted in my other thread.

6. Future directions:
   - Exploring more efficient training methods, like Microsoft's SLMs (small language models).
  - Decoupling reasoning from factual knowledge.
   - Potential for open-source models to facilitate experimentation.

What does it take for something to understand anything? Can animals understand something?
Can Neanderthals or other hominids understand something? Can aliens understand something?
Can children understand something? What about brainoid which can play Doom?

6 Levels of Thinking Every Student MUST Master

=== Timestamps ===
00:00 Intro
01:14 Level 1 - Remember
02:16 Level 2 - Understand
04:00 Level 3 - Apply
05:43 Level 4 - Analyze
09:20 Level 5 - Evaluate
12:11 Level 6 - Create
13:36 How to Get to Level 5 and 6
16:16 Putting it all together

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_taxonomy

[alancalverd]

the parallel slits are oriented vertically next to each other.

Are you suggesting that if they were oriented horizontally, you'd get a different result? Not in my experience.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

the parallel slits are oriented vertically next to each other.

Are you suggesting that if they were oriented horizontally, you'd get a different result? Not in my experience.

In my experience, when they are oriented horizontally, the light spreads vertically, and vice versa.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This is an answer on quora by mahesh shenoy, aka floatheadphysics on YouTube.
His answer is similar to mine.
Question on @Quora: What is the difference between interference and diffraction in terms of physics or optics? https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-interference-and-diffraction-in-terms-of-physics-or-optics?ch=3&oid=136197105&share=f99baa62&srid=uvWW4&target_type=question

The name interference itself gives it away. Two waves interfere or meet each other. When they do they cause an energy distribution which makes the famous bright and dark bands.

Diffraction refers to the fact that waves can bend around things. Diffraction of sound is so common, that you must have never thought about it. But since light is a wave, it diffracts too.

If you look at the two definitions, it would make one wonder, what?s the meaning of this question. The two phenomenon are so different and so nicely defined, why is there a confusion? Forget differences, what is even the similarity between the two?

Well the confusion is caused by a lot of teachers and books. It?s because of captions given to the images like these

Some are called as interference patterns, and some others are called as diffraction patterns. Which is absolutely non sense. So here is what is really going on.

In each picture, the light is made to pass through slit/s. When they do, the small opening makes the light diffract (bend around and spread out). So there is diffraction happening in all of these pictures. These waves, eventually meet each other and redistribute their energies, ergo, interfere with each other, which we can see as alternate dark and bright regions.
So all patterns (bright and dark regions) are caused by interference of light (by the very definition of it), and in all experiments when slits are used there is diffraction happening at each slit.

So it?s wrong to call something as interference or diffraction pattern. All are interference pattern itself.

Then we have something called the diffraction grating. It?s called so, because it has lots of slits, and so light undergoes lots of diffraction, but again, eventually the pattern is caused by interference of light.

So to summarise, all the energy distribution business, which causes coloration (in white light) or alternate dark and bright bands (in mono chromatic light) are called interference. Whenever waves spread out, or bend around a corner, it?s called diffraction. The two are worlds apart.

Quora's own chatbot also gives similar answer, which is better than Claude 3.5 Sonnet.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As usual, when I get access to a new AI model, I  check its understanding of topics I'm interested in.

AI with large-language models does not "understand" a subject. It is good at suggesting what words might be relevant and is trained to assemble meaningful sentences. That's about all it can do, search a large database which is a kind of dictionary, and string words together. It will make things up to try to impress you. (Ask that lawyer who lost their licence).

See if you can get one to understand French.

What's your argumentation? Perhaps you can teach her a lesson or two.

With Spatial Intelligence, AI Will Understand the Real World | Fei-Fei Li | TED

In the beginning of the universe, all was darkness ? until the first organisms developed sight, which ushered in an explosion of life, learning and progress. AI pioneer Fei-Fei Li says a similar moment is about to happen for computers and robots. She shows how machines are gaining "spatial intelligence" ? the ability to process visual data, make predictions and act upon those predictions ? and shares how this could enable AI to interact with humans in the real world.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Quora's own chatbot also gives similar answer, which is better than Claude 3.5 Sonnet.

I asked Poe, Quora's AI chatbot. What is the difference between interference and diffraction?

The main difference between interference and diffraction of light lies in the underlying physical phenomena involved.

Interference:
Interference is the phenomenon where two or more waves of the same type (e.g., light waves) combine to form a new wave pattern.
Interference occurs when two or more coherent waves (waves with a constant phase difference) interact with each other.
Interference can result in either constructive interference (where the waves reinforce each other) or destructive interference (where the waves cancel each other out).
The interference pattern observed in the Young's double-slit experiment is a prime example of the interference of light waves.

Diffraction:
Diffraction is the bending or spreading of waves around the edges of an obstacle or aperture.
Diffraction occurs when waves encounter an obstruction or a change in the medium through which they propagate.
Diffraction is a property of all types of waves, including light, sound, and matter waves.
Diffraction allows waves to bend around corners or spread out after passing through small openings, even in the absence of interference.
Diffraction is the reason why light can be detected in the shadow region behind an obstacle, and why sound can be heard around corners.

In summary, interference is the interaction between coherent waves, while diffraction is the bending or spreading of waves around obstacles or apertures. Both interference and diffraction are important wave phenomena in optics, acoustics, and other fields of physics.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I continued. Can you provide some examples where interference happen without involving diffraction?

Certainly! Here are some examples of interference occurring without significant diffraction effects:

Thin-film interference:
This occurs when light reflects off the top and bottom surfaces of a thin, transparent film or layer.
The reflected light waves from the two surfaces can interfere, resulting in constructive or destructive interference, leading to the appearance of colors.
Examples include soap bubbles, oil films on water, and the iridescent colors seen in some insects and bird feathers.
Interference in optical fibers:
In optical fiber communication, light signals can interfere with each other when they travel through the fiber.
This interference can be used to detect small changes in the fiber, such as bending or strain, which is the basis for fiber optic sensors.
Diffraction effects are minimal in the narrow, confined space of the optical fiber.
Interference in Michelson interferometers:
Michelson interferometers split a light beam into two paths, reflect the beams, and then recombine them to create an interference pattern.
This setup is used to measure small changes in the optical path length, without significant diffraction effects.
Applications include the detection of gravitational waves and the precise measurement of distances.
Interference in laser speckle patterns:
When a coherent light source, such as a laser, illuminates a rough surface, the reflected light can create a random interference pattern known as a speckle pattern.
This speckle pattern is formed due to the interference of the scattered light waves, without the involvement of diffraction.
Speckle patterns can be used for object detection, surface characterization, and other applications.
These examples demonstrate that interference can occur in various optical systems and phenomena without the dominant influence of diffraction effects.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Unfortunately, it failed the next question.
Can you provide some examples where diffraction happen without involving interference?

Certainly, here are some examples of diffraction occurring without significant interference effects:

Diffraction through a single slit:
When a beam of light passes through a single narrow slit, the light will diffract and spread out, even without the presence of a second slit.
This diffraction pattern can be observed on a screen placed behind the single slit, and it is a result of the wave nature of light, not interference.
Diffraction around a straight edge:
When light encounters a straight edge, such as a wall or a building, the light will bend and spread around the edge, creating a diffraction pattern.
This diffraction pattern can be observed without the need for any interfering waves.
Examples include the diffraction of light around the edges of buildings, causing the appearance of bright and dark regions in the shadow region.
Diffraction through a circular aperture:
When a beam of light passes through a circular aperture, the light will diffract and create a diffraction pattern known as the Airy disk.
This diffraction pattern is observed on a screen placed behind the aperture and is a result of the wave nature of light, not interference.
Examples include the diffraction of light through the pupil of the eye, creating the Airy disk pattern on the retina.
Diffraction of X-rays by crystals:
When X-rays are incident on a crystalline material, they can undergo diffraction due to the periodic arrangement of atoms in the crystal structure.
This diffraction of X-rays by crystals is a fundamental technique in X-ray crystallography and is used to determine the structure of materials.
In this case, the diffraction occurs without the involvement of interference between multiple waves.
These examples demonstrate that diffraction can occur as a standalone wave phenomenon, without the need for interference between multiple waves. The diffraction patterns observed in these cases are a direct consequence of the wave nature of light or other types of waves, such as X-rays.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

the parallel slits are oriented vertically next to each other.

Are you suggesting that if they were oriented horizontally, you'd get a different result? Not in my experience.

In my experience, when they are oriented horizontally, the light spreads vertically, and vice versa.

Let's see the results in real life.

After a long break, I finally finish a new video demonstrating that geometrical optics is still working in the formation of diffraction patterns.

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

[alancalverd]

In my experience, when they are oriented horizontally, the light spreads vertically, and vice versa.

Obviously. So "vertical " and "horizontal" are irrelevant.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In my experience, when they are oriented horizontally, the light spreads vertically, and vice versa.

Obviously. So "vertical " and "horizontal" are irrelevant.

It makes different result if the direction of the tilting is different than the orientation of the slits.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In my experience, Babinet's principle wasn't widely taught in schools, compared to Huygen's principle, although both are generally accepted with limitations in the modern physics community. My experiments below show where it fails.

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.

Here's the video.

Investigation on Diffraction of Light 26: Deep Single Slit and Wire

This video compares the result of diffraction and interference pattern from a deep single slit experiment and a thick single wire experiment. It explores the effects of depth or thickness of the aperture to the diffraction and interference pattern which is rarely discussed elsewhere.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I asked Gemini: Is Babinet's principle widely accepted in modern physics community?

Babinet's principle is generally accepted with limitations in the modern physics community. It's a valuable tool for understanding and approximating diffraction patterns, but it has its areas where it doesn't hold perfectly true.

Here's a breakdown of its acceptance:

Widely accepted aspects:

Simple geometries: Babinet's principle is very accurate for predicting the diffraction patterns of simple opaque objects like straight edges, circular apertures, and thin wires.
Complementary screens: It works well for calculating the diffraction pattern of a screen by considering it as the complement of another simpler screen. In essence, the light that gets through one screen is blocked by the other, and vice versa, leading to an identical but reversed intensity pattern.
Qualitative understanding: Babinet's principle provides a good qualitative understanding of how diffraction patterns change with different obstacles.
Limitations and areas of debate:

Complex objects: For objects with intricate shapes or three-dimensional structures, Babinet's principle may not provide accurate quantitative results. The diffraction from different parts of the object can interact in complex ways, leading to deviations from the simple complementary screen model.
Diffraction ≠ Absorption: The principle assumes that the complementary screen completely absorbs light, which isn't always the case. Real materials can exhibit both absorption and diffraction, leading to discrepancies with the predicted pattern.
Surface plasmons: When light interacts with metallic objects, surface plasmons (collective electron oscillations) can come into play. These effects are not captured by Babinet's principle, which focuses purely on geometric optics.
Modern approaches:

While Babinet's principle remains a valuable tool, physicists often rely on more advanced techniques for analyzing diffraction, such as:

Huygens-Fresnel principle: This more rigorous approach considers every point on the wavefront as a source of secondary wavelets, allowing for a more accurate calculation of the diffracted wave.
Computational methods: Numerical simulations using software can model complex diffraction scenarios involving intricate objects and various materials.
Conclusion:

Babinet's principle is a well-established concept with limitations. While it offers a good starting point for understanding diffraction, particularly for simple geometries, modern physics employs more advanced methods for precise calculations and complex scenarios.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's the answer from Claude:

Babinet's principle is indeed widely accepted in the modern physics community, particularly in the field of optics and wave theory. However, it's important to understand its context and limitations. Let's explore this:

Acceptance and validity:

Babinet's principle is considered a fundamental concept in diffraction theory.
It's taught in advanced undergraduate and graduate-level optics courses.
The principle is regularly applied in research and practical applications.


Scope of application:

It's most applicable in scalar diffraction theory.
Works well for opaque screens with apertures or complementary obstacles.


Limitations:

It assumes perfect conductivity of the screen, which is an idealization.
The principle can break down for very small apertures or obstacles (comparable to wavelength).
It doesn't account for polarization effects in some cases.


Modern extensions:

Researchers have developed extensions to Babinet's principle for more complex scenarios.
These include applications in electromagnetic theory and for non-ideal conductors.


Experimental verification:

Numerous experiments have confirmed the principle's predictions.
It's routinely used in designing and analyzing optical systems.


Practical applications:

Antenna design in radio and microwave engineering.
Optical system analysis and design.
Understanding diffraction patterns in various fields of physics.


Theoretical importance:

Serves as a bridge between geometric and physical optics.
Helps in understanding the duality of apertures and obstacles in wave phenomena.


Recent research:

Still being applied and studied in emerging fields like metamaterials and nanooptics.
Some researchers are exploring its applicability in quantum optics.


Consensus:

While accepted, physicists are always aware of its assumptions and limitations.
It's used as a powerful tool, but not without consideration of its scope.



In summary, Babinet's principle remains a well-accepted and useful concept in modern physics, particularly in optics and wave theory. Its simplicity and predictive power make it valuable, but like all physical principles, it's applied with an understanding of its domain of validity and limitations.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's the answer by Poe:

Yes, Babinet's principle is widely accepted and used in the modern physics community.

Babinet's principle is a fundamental concept in optics and wave physics that states that the diffraction pattern produced by an opaque obstacle is the same as the diffraction pattern produced by an aperture of the same size and shape as the obstacle.

This principle has several important implications:

It allows the analysis of diffraction patterns to be simplified, as the study of an obstacle can be replaced by the study of an aperture of the same shape.
It provides a way to derive the diffraction pattern of an aperture from the known diffraction pattern of an obstacle, and vice versa.
It has applications in various areas of optics, such as the design of optical components, the analysis of diffraction-limited imaging systems, and the study of the wave nature of light.
The validity of Babinet's principle has been extensively verified through both theoretical and experimental investigations in the physics community. It is considered a fundamental and widely accepted principle in the fields of optics, electromagnetic theory, and wave physics.

Babinet's principle is taught in standard textbooks on optics and electromagnetism, and it is routinely used in the analysis and design of optical systems and devices. It remains an essential tool for understanding and predicting the diffraction of waves in a wide range of applications, from classical optics to modern photonics and quantum optics.

Its limitations are not mentioned until it's specifically asked for.

Babinet's principle, while widely applicable, does have some limitations and conditions under which it may not hold true. Here are some of the key limitations of Babinet's principle:

Finite size of the aperture or obstacle:
Babinet's principle is most accurate when the aperture or obstacle is much larger than the wavelength of the light.
For apertures or obstacles with dimensions comparable to the wavelength, the principle may not hold as well, and diffraction effects become more complex.
Absorbing or non-transparent materials:
Babinet's principle assumes that the obstacle is perfectly opaque and the aperture is perfectly transparent.
In practice, real materials may have some absorption or partial transparency, which can affect the diffraction patterns and limit the accuracy of the principle.
Polarization effects:
Babinet's principle is most applicable for unpolarized or linearly polarized light.
For other polarization states, such as circular or elliptical polarization, the principle may not hold as well, and the diffraction patterns can be different for the aperture and the obstacle.
Nonlinear optical effects:
Babinet's principle is derived based on linear wave theory and may not apply in situations where nonlinear optical effects become significant, such as in high-intensity laser applications.
Near-field effects:
Babinet's principle is most accurate in the far-field region, where the diffraction pattern is observed at a large distance from the aperture or obstacle.
In the near-field region, close to the aperture or obstacle, the diffraction patterns may deviate from the predictions of Babinet's principle.
Despite these limitations, Babinet's principle remains a valuable and widely used tool in optics and wave physics. Its applicability is well-established for many practical situations, and it provides a useful framework for understanding and analyzing diffraction phenomena. Researchers and engineers often consider the limitations of the principle when applying it to specific problems or situations.

[alancalverd]

Babinet was certainly taught in th e1960s. Nothing to do with "modern" physics - it's derived from very old mathematics!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Babinet was certainly taught in th e1960s. Nothing to do with "modern" physics - it's derived from very old mathematics!

It's a curious case that no one seems to realize that it can be refuted easily by simply placing the screen far enough from the obstacle.

[alancalverd]

It can't be "refuted" because it is a sound mathematical model of what happens when λ << d. You might as well claim that newtonian mechanics can be "refuted" when v → c. Fact is that Babinet and Newton are useful mesoscopic approximations, as everyone knows.