[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The direction of reactionary wave is determined by the distribution of the charged particles, which is a result of superposition of waves which they produce, as explained in the video below.

My model can be thought as an extention to the working principle of antenna, which can be shown clearly here.

Huygen's principle seems to work fine in material waves like water surface wave and sound, because the gap between the slit is filled with particles of the wave medium. It doesn't seem to be the case for light, as shown by vertically tilted diffraction and non-diffractive edge experiment.

[Bored chemist]

The screen shows nothing but a small circular bright spot.

Not really.
You get this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk

Did you consider learning optics before trying to re-write it?

But, anyway, let's ignore that problem and move on to the current problem .
You have shown videos of light going through the edges transparent objects.
How did you allow for the refraction of light by the curved edge?

[Bored chemist]

The direction of reactionary wave is determined by the distribution of the charged particles,

Diffraction patterns work in a vacuum too.

[Bored chemist]

It doesn't seem to be the case for light, as shown by vertically tilted diffraction

Yes it does. The problem is that you do not understand that, in that case, Huygens's construction predicts a cone of beams which, when they strike a screen, form a curve.
I pointed this out when you first raised it.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68595.msg647308#msg647308

And the link
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/optical-engineering/volume-58/issue-8/087105/Understanding-diffraction-grating-behavior--including-conical-diffraction-and-Rayleigh/10.1117/1.OE.58.8.087105.full?SSO=1#f6

non-diffractive edge experiment.

You have yet to explain how you can have a "non diffractive edge".

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Yes it does. The problem is that you do not understand that, in that case, Huygens's construction predicts a cone of beams which, when they strike a screen, form a curve.

How do you explain cone of beam produced by a single edge diffraction using Huygen's principle?

[Bored chemist]

Yes it does. The problem is that you do not understand that, in that case, Huygens's construction predicts a cone of beams which, when they strike a screen, form a curve.

How do you explain cone of beam produced by a single edge diffraction using Huygen's principle?

To be honest, I don't bother.
I know that when this was originally being sorted out in about the  18th and 19th century, people who were better at maths than I am did the calculations and found that they agree with the observations.

If they hadn't then it would have been argued about at the time.
Essentially, if Huygens' ideas had not agreed with the observations then we wouldn't still be using them.

So, which is more likely ; you can't apply the principles correctly or all those scientists, and all those since, were wrong?

And, in particular, which is more likely given that you have already shown that you don't understand the underlying principles of science (like, for example, dimensional analysis)?



 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I pointed this out when you first raised it.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68595.msg647308#msg647308

And the link
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/optical-engineering/volume-58/issue-8/087105/Understanding-diffraction-grating-behavior--including-conical-diffraction-and-Rayleigh/10.1117/1.OE.58.8.087105.full?SSO=1#f6

The article simply describes observational results of experiments using diffraction grating and a light beam. It doesn't derive the results from underlying mechanisms through more general and fundamental principles.

For analogy, Keppler's laws describe the motion of planets quite accurately. But they don't explain why those planets move that way, and it can't be generalized for motion of moons and comets.

The article even fails to mention that in reflection mode, the interference pattern produced by the diffraction grating doesn't involve diffraction phenomenon. The pattern is just a result of superposition of reflected light beams at different angles when hitting the surface of the grating.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Yes it does. The problem is that you do not understand that, in that case, Huygens's construction predicts a cone of beams which, when they strike a screen, form a curve.

How do you explain cone of beam produced by a single edge diffraction using Huygen's principle?

To be honest, I don't bother.
I know that when this was originally being sorted out in about the  18th and 19th century, people who were better at maths than I am did the calculations and found that they agree with the observations.

If they hadn't then it would have been argued about at the time.
Essentially, if Huygens' ideas had not agreed with the observations then we wouldn't still be using them.

So, which is more likely ; you can't apply the principles correctly or all those scientists, and all those since, were wrong?

It seems like you have fallen into a herd mentality problem. Thinking that someone smarter than us must have solved the problem before us, and stopping us from solving the problem ourselves can hinder scientific progress.

And, in particular, which is more likely given that you have already shown that you don't understand the underlying principles of science (like, for example, dimensional analysis)?



 

As a human being, I may have made mistakes. I may make more mistakes in the future. But it doesn't mean that I can't make a correct conclusion.
Which dimensional analysis are you talking about?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

AFAIK, diffraction requires partial transparency/opacity. But it may not be adequate. Some other factors may be also necessary to produce diffraction. Some of my experiments using microwave might have hinted at that hypothesis.
I'm trying to design a new experiment to test it. The experiment should be considered as successful whether it confirms or refutes that hypothesis. It would only be a failure if it can't reduce the uncertainty.

[Bored chemist]

Thinking that someone smarter than us must have solved the problem before us,

That's not what I'm doing, is it?
I'm not saying "Huygens solved it."
I'm saying that thousands of people looked at his work and their o3wn observations and none of those people- many of whom will have been really clever- found any indication that Huygens was wrong.

And people will have built machines like spectroscopes and integrated circuits based on the assumption that Huygens was (within defined limits) right.

Yet you turn up and say you think he was wrong.
Well, I'm certainly  allowed to ask "why did nobody notice?".

And I'm asking it now.

[Bored chemist]

AFAIK, diffraction requires partial transparency/opacity.

It is possible to create a diffraction grating entirely from materials that are "perfectly" transparent.
https://physics.nyu.edu/grierlab/cgh2b/node5.html

[Bored chemist]

Which dimensional analysis are you talking about?

Two things can not be the same if they have different dimensions.
For example, a speed can never be the same as a distance.

And you can not measure mass in seconds.

So a current which has units of charge divided by time can not be a charge.
So a coulomb is not, and can not be, a current.

If you find that your maths shows that they are, you should go back and find the error in your maths- because you can be absolutely certain that there is one.

So, yes, you are human and will make mistakes.
Please check for them before wasting the site's bandwidth.

Also, when someone points them out, please correct them rather than trying to pretend that you are right.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Which dimensional analysis are you talking about?

Two things can not be the same if they have different dimensions.
For example, a speed can never be the same as a distance.

And you can not measure mass in seconds.

So a current which has units of charge divided by time can not be a charge.
So a coulomb is not, and can not be, a current.

If you find that your maths shows that they are, you should go back and find the error in your maths- because you can be absolutely certain that there is one.

So, yes, you are human and will make mistakes.
Please check for them before wasting the site's bandwidth.

Also, when someone points them out, please correct them rather than trying to pretend that you are right.

Isn't this you refuting your own argumentations?

A 1 Coulomb charged particle moves at 1 m/s speed. What's the current?

It depends
Imagine I put that coulomb into a 1 metre cube box. At 1 m/s the whole coulomb goes past me in 1 second and that's a current of 1 amp.
Now imaging I put the same charge in a box 10 metres long.
It now takes 10 seconds to go past me.
So that's 1 C in 10 S or 0.1 C/S so that's 0.1 amps.

You really need to study science a bit more in order to avoid asking meaningless question.

It's meaningless to you because you haven't understood the problem yet. It shows that Maxwell's equations are not adequate to describe electrodynamics systems.

Let's distribute the electric charge into a thin metal disc with 10 m diameter and 0.1 mm thick. The disc moves axially at 1 m/s. What's the electric current?

Here's another example.
Electrons move in a CRT at approximately 0.1 c. What's the current generated by each electron?  What's the expected B field at a point 1 mm from the trajectory of the electron?

[Bored chemist]

Isn't this you refuting your own argumentations?

No, it's not.
But your post shows that you don't understand the issues.
A poorly phrased question is open to different interpretations and thus to different answers.

[alancalverd]

Electrons move in a CRT at approximately 0.1 c. What's the current generated by each electron?  What's the expected B field at a point 1 mm from the trajectory of the electron?

I thought I'd answered that somewhere else, along with a discussion of magnetic deflection CRTs. Apologies if not, but it's in most classical physics and old-school electronic engineering textbooks.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Isn't this you refuting your own argumentations?

No, it's not.
But your post shows that you don't understand the issues.
A poorly phrased question is open to different interpretations and thus to different answers.

Let's check again your statement.

Two things can not be the same if they have different dimensions.
For example, a speed can never be the same as a distance.

And you can not measure mass in seconds.

So a current which has units of charge divided by time can not be a charge.
So a coulomb is not, and can not be, a current.

And your answer to my question.

A 1 Coulomb charged particle moves at 1 m/s speed. What's the current?

It depends
Imagine I put that coulomb into a 1 metre cube box. At 1 m/s the whole coulomb goes past me in 1 second and that's a current of 1 amp.
Now imaging I put the same charge in a box 10 metres long.
It now takes 10 seconds to go past me.
So that's 1 C in 10 S or 0.1 C/S so that's 0.1 amps.

You really need to study science a bit more in order to avoid asking meaningless question.

If you can't find the contradiction between the two, you need to recheck the meaning of your own statements.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

AFAIK, diffraction requires partial transparency/opacity.

It is possible to create a diffraction grating entirely from materials that are "perfectly" transparent.
https://physics.nyu.edu/grierlab/cgh2b/node5.html

The quotation mark in the word perfectly means it's not perfect.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

AFAIK, diffraction requires partial transparency/opacity. But it may not be adequate. Some other factors may be also necessary to produce diffraction. Some of my experiments using microwave might have hinted at that hypothesis.
I'm trying to design a new experiment to test it. The experiment should be considered as successful whether it confirms or refutes that hypothesis. It would only be a failure if it can't reduce the uncertainty.

I've finished recording the experiment in several video clips. It will take some time to edit, add narration, and upload it to my Youtube channel.
As a sneak peek, the partial opacity in my experiment is achieved using an array of aluminum stripes, each has 5 mm height and 0.1 mm thickness.

[Bored chemist]

AFAIK, diffraction requires partial transparency/opacity.

It is possible to create a diffraction grating entirely from materials that are "perfectly" transparent.
https://physics.nyu.edu/grierlab/cgh2b/node5.html

The quotation mark in the word perfectly means it's not perfect.

Yes, I know.

That's why I put it there.
Why did you feel the need to explain it?


But the point is that if you did have perfectly transparent materials, you could make diffraction patterns with them.
You could, for example, consider the quartz that is used for optical cables that transmit light for miles without significant attenuation and water which is similarly transparent for visible light.
And you could make a hologram using just those materials only a millimetre thick.
The fact that they are not actually perfectly transparent is beside the point.

Do you understand that?

[Bored chemist]

you need to recheck the meaning of your own statements.

One of us does, and it's not me.
The fact that there are two different answers to your question just shows that it isn't a well framed question, doesn't it?