[alancalverd]

A chatbot that doesn't recognise the difference between an edge (passive, absorptive) and a source (active, generative) is not worth consulting.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A chatbot that doesn't recognise the difference between an edge (passive, absorptive) and a source (active, generative) is not worth consulting.

Which statement indicates the mixing between those things?

[Origin]

why do a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?  Because they do not have a good understanding of either of the terms.

[alancalverd]

Which statement indicates the mixing between those things?

When we deal with a large number of sources (like the edges of an object)

The Huygens construction treats an edge as though it is a line source. It obviously isn't. Common problem of confusing a model with reality.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This was Gemini's answer when I asked about the source it used.

My response on the differences between interference and diffraction of light is based on information from a variety of sources, including:

Scientific textbooks:
"Fundamentals of Optics" by Francis A. Jenkins and Harvey E. White
"Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Optics" by Raymond A. Serway and John W. Jewett Jr.
Online resources:
Khan Academy articles on interference and diffraction
The Physics Classroom website
The MIT OpenCourseware website
Academic research papers:
"The double-slit experiment: A review" by Thomas Young
"Diffraction of light: A historical perspective" by Edmund Hecht
While I cannot directly cite specific pages or paragraphs due to my nature as a large language model, I can assure you that my response is consistent with the established scientific understanding of these phenomena.

If you'd like to explore any specific sources in more detail, I'd be happy to assist you in finding them!

[alancalverd]

In other words, "I don't know and can't be bothered to find out".

I've always defined intelligence as "constructive laziness". Well, it seems that Gemini certainly meets half of that definition.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In other words, "I don't know and can't be bothered to find out".

I've always defined intelligence as "constructive laziness". Well, it seems that Gemini certainly meets half of that definition.

At least it has shown some improvements compared to its predecessor, Bard. It has unlearned some erroneous information and acquired more correct information. What's unclear is whether it made those changes through self learning by analyzing all relevant information, and then rejected contradicting statements, or someone acted as its supervisors and forced it to accept newer information.

[alancalverd]

As if newer equals better.

The laws of physics are very old, as are Huygens' very effective construction and the simple mathematics of superposition. Why bother with the new, or multiple sources of dubious validity, when every physicist knows the answer?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Huygens' principle, while groundbreaking and valuable in understanding wave propagation, does have some limitations when it comes to explaining the entirety of light's behavior:

1. Inability to explain the particle nature of light: Huygens conceived light as purely wave-like, with wavefronts emanating from each point on the initial wave. However, modern physics reveals that light also exhibits particle-like behavior, explained by quantum mechanics. Huygens' principle doesn't encompass this duality.

2. Dependence on the hypothetical "ether": The principle proposed that light needed a medium, called the "ether," to propagate. However, numerous experiments failed to detect such a medium, rendering this aspect of the theory obsolete.

3. Incomplete explanation of light interactions: While useful for diffraction and wavefront construction, Huygens' principle doesn't fully explain why light bends (refraction) as it enters different mediums. Additionally, it falls short in explaining phenomena like light polarization and the photoelectric effect.

4. Difficulty handling specific wave behaviors: The principle struggles to accurately predict the exact intensity distribution in diffraction patterns, especially near sharp edges or narrow slits. This is because it doesn't fully account for the constructive and destructive interference between secondary wavelets in these scenarios.

5. Lack of explanation for energy transfer: Huygens' principle describes wave propagation but doesn't delve into how light interacts with matter and transfers energy. This aspect is crucial for understanding phenomena like absorption and scattering, which remain outside the scope of the principle.

Overall, Huygens' principle remains a valuable tool for understanding wave behavior in light, particularly diffraction and wavefront construction. However, its limitations highlight the need for more comprehensive theories like quantum mechanics to explain the full spectrum of light's characteristics and interactions.

That's its answer when I asked about limitations of Huygens' principle.

[Origin]

That's its answer when I asked about limitations of Huygens' principle.

What part do you not understand about Bard being a chatbot?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

That's its answer when I asked about limitations of Huygens' principle.

What part do you not understand about Bard being a chatbot?

What makes you think I don't understand it?
Btw, it's Gemini, the successor of Bard. It has better math skill.

[alancalverd]

Huygens' principle, while groundbreaking and valuable in understanding wave propagation, does have some limitations when it comes to explaining the entirety of light's behavior:

Wrong, right from the start.
It doesn't purport to be an explanation of the entirety of light's behavior. It is a mathematical model of the propagation of a wave.
I have previously suggested that ChatGPT produces text that might merit a B or C mark for a 14-year-old, but this crap falls below that standard.
Try asking what are the limitations of a fish.

[varsigma]

Your average photon is a quantum thingy.

What does that mean, aside from my laconic description?

It means light diffracts around solid objects, and it interferes when it interacts with itself.
Photons (of, you know, light) are waves or particles, right?

Almost there, sorta, QM says if a photon is a wave or a particle, then it must be the case that a photon is also a wave and a particle, also, a photon is neither a wave nor a particle.

Sorta does your head in, until you do those which-way experiments with lasers and stuff. Then it's sorta the only possible explanation.

[Origin]

Btw, it's Gemini, the successor of Bard. It has better math skill.

You don't seem to get it.  It's a chatbot.

[alancalverd]

Photons (of, you know, light) are waves or particles, right?

Wrong!

A photon is a mathematical model of how (mostly high energy) electromagnetic radiation can be generated or interact with matter.

A travelling wave is another model, useful for describing the propagation of em radiation or its generation at low frequencies.

Huygens' construction is a usefully predictive development of the wave model.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Huygens' principle, while groundbreaking and valuable in understanding wave propagation, does have some limitations when it comes to explaining the entirety of light's behavior:

Wrong, right from the start.
It doesn't purport to be an explanation of the entirety of light's behavior. It is a mathematical model of the propagation of a wave.
I have previously suggested that ChatGPT produces text that might merit a B or C mark for a 14-year-old, but this crap falls below that standard.
Try asking what are the limitations of a fish.

Flat earth model doesn't purport to be an explanation of the entirety of space objects.
Something called principle should be a general pattern useful to explain diverse phenomena.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Btw, it's Gemini, the successor of Bard. It has better math skill.

You don't seem to get it.  It's a chatbot.

The veracity of information doesn't depend on the form of its source. It can be statement of a teacher, or colleague, textbooks, online encyclopedia, news, TV, website, blogs, social media, or AI models.

[alancalverd]

Something called principle should be a general pattern useful to explain diverse phenomena.

Huygen's construction doesn't purport to explain anything. Nor does a timetable explain how a bus works. But both are quite good at predicting what will happen in specified circumstances. (In the UK, train timetables are a waste of paper.)

[alancalverd]

The veracity of information doesn't depend on the form of its source. It can be statement of a teacher, or colleague, textbooks, online encyclopedia, news, TV, website, blogs, social media, or AI models.

But it has to be correct, and if it is in response to a question, it has to be relevant and informative. Better still if it is actually helpful.

One line of code:

IF CHAR=<?> THEN PRINT "the answer may be found in textbooks". 

How's that for efficient programming, in genuine 1960s Algol!

[varsigma]

Wrong!

A photon is a mathematical model of how (mostly high energy) electromagnetic radiation can be generated or interact with matter.

Actually, that is not even wrong. As I go on to say. And the experiments say it too.

A Feynman diagram can also say it, of course.