[Bored chemist]

You can consult these cases with some more competent physicists that you know

You should try that.
Well, in a sense, you did.
And here's the reply you got.

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

Yet you somehow still think you have contradicted physics.
You haven't contradicted it; you have misunderstood it.

[Bored chemist]

It's ridiculous to assume that all scientists have the same level of understanding as you about every scientific problems.

Yes, that would be ridiculous,.
And that's why I didn't do it.
But you somehow imagined that I did- probably because you didn't understand something.

Just like you imagine that you had shown that physics is wrong because you don't understand it..

[Mitko Gorgiev]

Just like you imagine that you had shown that physics is wrong because you don't understand it..

Physics is not wrong.

PHYSICS IS FRAUD.



There is a huge difference between wrong and fraud.

Just watch this video and see the TRUTH.

[Bored chemist]

I watched your video a while ago
I even said so at the time.

I'm watching it on a colour monitor; what I see is a pattern of red, green and blue dots. There is no yellow.

and I pointed out the problems.

You are still trying to pass it off as "truth", even though you know it's not.

There is a huge difference between wrong and fraud.

Yes there is.
The first time you posted it, you may have simply been wrong.
But now, you are trying to con people after having the issues explained to you.
And that's fraud.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Please present an observation that has been independently repeated and cannot be explained in terms of what we already know. That's how great discoveries are made.

Note: this is how Calverd's Hierarchy works - instead of sniping at one another we are looking for the Critical Experiment.

I can't force someone else to repeat my experiments. It should be done voluntarily. For now, I'll just wait and see.
You can try to explain my experimental results using your currently embraced model. Start with non-diffractive slit, and compare it with diffraction and interference pattern from a normal single slit experiment.
You can then try to do the same with my other experiments, such as vertically/horizontally tilted diffraction. Then the experiments with partial polarizers and microwave.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Yet you somehow still think you have contradicted physics.
You haven't contradicted it; you have misunderstood it.

If you can't explain things in simple terms, you don't really understand it. Just ask Feynman.
I haven't read your explanation yet, so I can't determine if you understand it or not.

[Bored chemist]

Yet you somehow still think you have contradicted physics.
You haven't contradicted it; you have misunderstood it.

If you can't explain things in simple terms, you don't really understand it. Just ask Feynman.
I haven't read your explanation yet, so I can't determine if you understand it or not.

You have yet to come up with anything to explain.
All your observations are perfectly consistent with classical physics.

[alancalverd]

You can try to explain my experimental results using your currently embraced model.

I did so, about a year ago.

[alancalverd]

There is a huge difference between wrong and fraud.

As there is between physics and engineering. At least MG was honest enough to show a very narrow incident beam in his "fraud" diagram, and a wide beam in "truth". Fact is that for any finite width, i.e. any real experiment, there will be a lot of overlap in the near field and a cunning engineer can exploit this to generate a spectrum of complementary colours

But a real engineer will know that the underlying physics remains true: the most energetic photons undergo the greatest deflection in a normally dispersive medium, as can be demonstrated with monochromatic light sources.

[Mitko Gorgiev]

There is a huge difference between wrong and fraud.

As there is between physics and engineering. At least MG was honest enough to show a very narrow incident beam in his "fraud" diagram, and a wide beam in "truth". Fact is that for any finite width, i.e. any real experiment, there will be a lot of overlap in the near field and a cunning engineer can exploit this to generate a spectrum of complementary colours

But a real engineer will know that the underlying physics remains true: the most energetic photons undergo the greatest deflection in a normally dispersive medium, as can be demonstrated with monochromatic light sources.

What a meaningless waste of words!

Let me tell you some basic stuff.
There is no need of double refraction (as it is happening on a triangular prism) to get refraction colors.
A single refraction is quite enough (as it is visible in this video 0:54, watch it on full screen).

Now, let's say that the incident beam doesn't get refracted because it reaches the border between the two mediums at right angle (figure a below):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15QbYQnYticIXc2CLtuUZw1h5rxytpmA_/view?usp=share_link

Now, let's say the beam is only very little refracted, as it is happening at 0:24 of the video above (figure b in the file above).

Should we expect that in this case b something will drastically change in a visual sense compared to the case when the beam is not refracted at all (case a)?
Of course not.
And still, the case b doesn't principally differ from any other case of refraction (it doesn't matter whether single or double)!

[Bored chemist]

There is no need of double refraction (as it is happening on a triangular prism) to get refraction colors.

Nobody suggested that there was.
Why are you making a fuss about it?

Should we expect that in this case b something will drastically change in a visual sense compared to the case when the beam is not refracted at all

Yes.
For the case where the light beam hits the boundary between the two media exactly at a right angle there is no refraction.
And, therefore, there is no dispersion.

But for even the smallest deviation from a right angle, there is diffraction and thus there is dispersion.
If you let the beam of light carry on far enough then you will see a spectrum.
The difference between seeing white light, and seeing a rainbow is pretty drastic.

So this claim (like some of your others) is absurd.

Of course not.

Why wouldn't there be?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But a real engineer will know that the underlying physics remains true: the most energetic photons undergo the greatest deflection in a normally dispersive medium, as can be demonstrated with monochromatic light sources.

X-ray is deflected to opposite direction in glass.

[alancalverd]

Because at high energies it is not a "normally dispersive medium".

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Physics is not wrong.

PHYSICS IS FRAUD.

Is your model part of physics?
Or do you call it something else?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Because at high energies it is not a "normally dispersive medium".

So, it's all normal until it deviates from your model.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There is a huge difference between wrong and fraud.

Just watch this video and see the TRUTH.

The picture on the right (labeled truth) looks different than the video at 3:30.
What's your explanation?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You can try to explain my experimental results using your currently embraced model.

I did so, about a year ago.

Can you give the link?
Or perhaps give us the summary of your explanation?
Did you use Huygen's principle?
Can you explain half interference pattern that I got when the single slit consist of a normal edge and a non-diffractive edge?

[Bored chemist]

Physics is not wrong.

PHYSICS IS FRAUD.

Is your model part of physics?
Or do you call it something else?

We can probably save a lot of time by ignoring Mitko.
What he says makes no sense.

[Bored chemist]

Can you give the link?
Or perhaps give us the summary of your explanation?

What would be the point?
if you didn't understand it a year ago, will you do so today?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Can you give the link?
Or perhaps give us the summary of your explanation?

What would be the point?
if you didn't understand it a year ago, will you do so today?

Perhaps. Let's give a try.