[Bored chemist]

This thread is supposed to be in step #6.

You missed steps 3, 4 and 5.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This thread is supposed to be in step #6.

You missed steps 3, 4 and 5.

I agreed to do the experiment using my own money.

[Zer0]

Constructivism sounds Better than blatant Criticism any day any time.

Hopefully more Emphasis would be laid upon the Experiments, rather than the Experimenters.

Wishing this OP leads into collaborative team work!
👍

[Bored chemist]

I agreed to do the experiment

What experiment?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I agreed to do the experiment

What experiment?

Experiments on diffraction of light, and microwave transceiver.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66301.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66414.0

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Constructivism sounds Better than blatant Criticism any day any time.

Hopefully more Emphasis would be laid upon the Experiments, rather than the Experimenters.

Wishing this OP leads into collaborative team work!
👍

Thanks for your supportive comment. It means a lot. It helps giving me confidence that I'm not the only one searching for the more accurate model of physical reality. We should not be willfully ignorance.

[Bored chemist]

Experiments on diffraction of light, and microwave transceiver.

And with whom did you

4. agree the critical experiment

?
Or did you just pick some that you liked?

[alancalverd]

I'm not the only one searching for the more accurate model of physical reality.

Stafford Beer is credited with saying that  a dead mouse is a perfect model of a live mouse, but only for an infinitesimal time.

What matters (i.e. what is useful) is an adequate model of reality, and the fact is that photon and wave models between them  predict everything we observe about electromagnetic radiation, to an astonishing degree of accuracy. The time to look for a better model is surely when you discover a phenomenon that is not calculable with exiting models (which is how Planck got involved).

Do you have an inexplicable experimental result?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Experiments on diffraction of light, and microwave transceiver.

And with whom did you

4. agree the critical experiment

?
Or did you just pick some that you liked?

I picked the experiments based on their potential to eliminate wrong hypotheses, and within my financial budget and other resources.
The only important agreement I needed was with the fund provider, which were me and my wife.
It was a good thing that John Clauser kept going on with his experiment without agreement with Richard Feynman.

[Bored chemist]

Experiments on diffraction of light, and microwave transceiver.

And with whom did you

4. agree the critical experiment

?
Or did you just pick some that you liked?

I picked the experiments based on their potential to eliminate wrong hypotheses, and within my financial budget and other resources.
The only important agreement I needed was with the fund provider, which were me and my wife.
It was a good thing that John Clauser kept going on with his experiment without agreement with Richard Feynman.

So, you didn't check that the experiment was useful?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So, you didn't check that the experiment was useful?

Should I?
Should Galileo check the usefulness of dropping balls?
Should Thomas Young check the usefulness of double slit experiment?

Should I cancel my experiments and remove them from Youtube because I haven't found them useful?

[Bored chemist]

There may be many uses for an experiment.
It may be entertaining.
It may be educational.
It  may bring about scientific discovery.

Any of those uses is fine, but only one is really science.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What matters (i.e. what is useful) is an adequate model of reality, and the fact is that photon and wave models between them  predict everything we observe about electromagnetic radiation, to an astonishing degree of accuracy. The time to look for a better model is surely when you discover a phenomenon that is not calculable with exiting models (which is how Planck got involved).

By having frequency and wavelength, we know that light is wavy. But there are more than one kind of waves, e.g. transversal/longitudinal, 1/2/3 dimensional, stationary/moving wave, etc. Which kind of wave most resembles light?
Is it sound wave? Or wave on water surface, rope, string, slinky? Or seismogram? Or solar wind?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Do you have an inexplicable experimental result?

My experiments on diffraction contradict Huygen's principle. Do you think it's part of mainstream physics? Is there a better alternative to Huygen's principle to explain interference and diffraction of light which is compatible with modern physics as you understand it?

My experiments on refraction using microwave contradict Fermat's principle. Do you know a better alternative?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There may be many uses for an experiment.
It may be entertaining.
It may be educational.
It  may bring about scientific discovery.

Any of those uses is fine, but only one is really science.

Scientific discoveries are not usually obvious until all of the pieces of puzzle are revealed.

[paul cotter]

Light is a transverse electromagnetic wave. Not to be compared to mechanical waves.

[alancalverd]

By having frequency and wavelength, we know that light is wavy. But there are more than one kind of waves, e.g. transversal/longitudinal, 1/2/3 dimensional, stationary/moving wave, etc. Which kind of wave most resembles light?
Is it sound wave? Or wave on water surface, rope, string, slinky? Or seismogram? Or solar wind?

Er, no.
Unlike waves on water or rope, we have no direct evidence of the wave nature of light. Nor, unlike a machine gun, do we have any direct evidence of its particulate nature.
What we have is two mathematical models which between them describe everything we have actually observed and so far have predicted everything that was observed in a new experiment, and Maxwell's equations that accurately predict the speed of a selfpropagating electromagnetic wave from static measurements of the permittivity and permeability of free space.

The time to look for a new model is when one of these fails to predict something you have observed

Your diffraction experiments were, IIRC, entirely consistent with the predictions of classical wave optics.

[Bored chemist]

There may be many uses for an experiment.
It may be entertaining.
It may be educational.
It  may bring about scientific discovery.

Any of those uses is fine, but only one is really science.

Scientific discoveries are not usually obvious until all of the pieces of puzzle are revealed.

The point of a properly designed experiment is to make the outcome obvious.

[Bored chemist]

My experiments on diffraction contradict Huygen's principle

In what way?

[Bored chemist]

My experiments on refraction using microwave contradict Fermat's principle.

In what way?