[alancalverd]

What causes the diffracted light in a vertically tilted single edge diffraction to produce curved pattern?

Geometry.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Someone who misunderstands the mechanism of double slit experiment would not likely to admit that they are confused by the result. It would jeopardize their credibility.

Physicists are just pretending to understand physics?  You're a funny guy...

They misunderstand what's going on with their experiments. That's a possibility, and already happened from time to time.

In case you missed these questions.

What's your understanding about diffraction and interference of light? Let's start with the simplest case of diffraction.
What causes the diffracted light in a vertically tilted single edge diffraction to produce curved pattern?

If you have problem answering the questions, you can ask for help from some professional physicists. You don't have to answer them yourself.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What causes the diffracted light in a vertically tilted single edge diffraction to produce curved pattern?

Geometry.

How does one word explain anything?
My experiment using microwave shows an aluminum plate doesn't produce measurable diffraction, but acrylic plates do. They  have similar geometry.

[alancalverd]

Draw some pictures and you will see what is happening. What determines the separation of the interference lines?

As I pointed out some time ago, your dielectric was much thicker (commensurate with the microwave wavelength) and also capable of refraction.

[Bored chemist]

How does one word explain anything?

Well... it depends on you understanding the word.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Draw some pictures and you will see what is happening. What determines the separation of the interference lines?

As I pointed out some time ago, your dielectric was much thicker (commensurate with the microwave wavelength) and also capable of refraction.

I've made 2 videos exploring vertically tilted diffraction, which showed that diffraction patterns come from the light which changes direction after hitting the obstacles. They can't possibly come from the space uncovered by the obstacles.

At the end of the my video on horizontally tilted diffraction, you can see a half interference pattern produced by two cylindrical batteries. I've repeated the experiment using two knives and got similar pattern.

In my early video about diffraction of light I've shown that diffraction is distinguished from refraction, based on the angle of deflection.

You can make the aluminum plate thicker, and still don't get diffracted microwave.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How does one word explain anything?

Well... it depends on you understanding the word.

How do you understand it?

[Bored chemist]

How does one word explain anything?

Well... it depends on you understanding the word.

How do you understand it?

Someone on this site (and I think it was you) asked about the pattern you get using a diffraction grating at an angle.
The answer is that the diffracted beams form a cone.
That's what you get from the geometry of the system.
I think I posted pictures to illustrate the idea.
Do you recall that?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

They misunderstand what's going on with their experiments. That's a possibility, and already happened from time to time.

This video shows an example where physicists made mistakes. Another physicist points out the mistakes. Although the explanation hasn't yet cover the experimental results I've described above.

[alancalverd]

There's little point in making videos of people making mistakes,  except for safety training. And even less point in watching them.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There's little point in making videos of people making mistakes,  except for safety training. And even less point in watching them.

Don't you think that it's important to prevent misinformations from spreading?  They can affect people's decisions, and have real world consequences.

[Origin]

Don't you think that it's important to prevent misinformations from spreading?  They can affect people's decisions, and have real world consequences.

My irony meter just exploded...

[paul cotter]

Origin, on reading some of the "new theories" threads my bullshit meter failed catastrophically-it pegged so hard that the pointer separated from the moving coil ( old analogue bs meter ).

[alancalverd]

My irony meter just exploded...

A moving irony device, perhaps? But the moving iron mechanism is generally nonlinear and very tolerant of overload! 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Don't you think that it's important to prevent misinformations from spreading?  They can affect people's decisions, and have real world consequences.

My irony meter just exploded...

Surely you need to improve your argumentation skill in scientific discussion.

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

When you discuss a topic and everyone agrees, the conversation often dies out quickly. But when you disagree, you're putting yourself in opposition to what was said, and the discussion continues. Paul Graham, a computer engineer, therefore proposed a “Hierarchy of Disagreement” in 2008. Learn at which level you are able to articulate your disagreement. Hopefully it’s not just name-calling or responding to tone.

CHAPTER
00:00 Opening quotes and statement
00:52 Introduction
01:19 Graham's hierarchy of disagreement
01:32 Level 1: Name-calling
01:48 Level 2: Ad hominem
02:14 Level 3: Responding to tone
02:41 Level 4: Contradiction
03:08 Level 5: Counterargument
03:41 Level 6: Refutation
04:13 Level 7: Refuting the central point
05:05 Benefit of knowing the form of argument
06:06 What do you think?
06:58 Patrons credits
07:07 Ending

When we disagree, it would be helpful to identify the level of our disagreement.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The point of posting science Youtube videos in a scientific forum is to determine their veracity through discussions based on scientific knowledge of the forum members. Someone else out there know something that we don't know. Be humble and open minded. Only then we can learn something new.

[Bored chemist]

When we disagree, it would be helpful to identify the level of our disagreement.

The problems is that you do not reliably recognise a refutation of your ideas when it is presented to you.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

When we disagree, it would be helpful to identify the level of our disagreement.

The problems is that you do not reliably recognise a refutation of your ideas when it is presented to you.

Point one.

[alancalverd]

Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 31/10/2022 12:10:29
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

Calverd's hierarchy of disagreement
1. State case
2. set out counterarguments
3. how many lives/how much money at stake? If none, continue, else go to 8
4. agree the critical experiment
5. do the critical experiment
6. review critical experiment
7. agree - go to end
8. take the less dangerous or if equally dangerous, less costly route
9. evaluate
10 agree - go to end.
11. end - shake hands, write down and remember the answer.

If neither lives nor money are at stake, and there is no critical experiment, do something important instead of arguing.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 31/10/2022 12:10:29
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

Calverd's hierarchy of disagreement
1. State case
2. set out counterarguments
3. how many lives/how much money at stake? If none, continue, else go to 8
4. agree the critical experiment
5. do the critical experiment
6. review critical experiment
7. agree - go to end
8. take the less dangerous or if equally dangerous, less costly route
9. evaluate
10 agree - go to end.
11. end - shake hands, write down and remember the answer.

If neither lives nor money are at stake, and there is no critical experiment, do something important instead of arguing.

Instead of hierarchy, the list above looks more like a flowchart. This thread is supposed to be in step #6.