[Bored chemist]

You discover that light that goes through gold leaf is green.

Did I?

You did if you used science.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You discover that light that goes through gold leaf is green.

Did I?

You did if you used science.

Where did I discover that?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

[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/

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[alancalverd]

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 .

[Bored chemist]

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I was

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

I was referring to reply #306, at labelled video #2 Edge shapes effect.

Where did I mention cylindrical lens?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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

edge2.png (1.39 kB . 245x219 - viewed 1012 times)

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[Bored chemist]

Does it have a finite wave number?

Anything with a physical meaning pretty much has to be finite.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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