The two slit experiment ...a sensible answer

[DraftScience]

The two slit experiment can be better, and more completely, explained by a particle theory.

It should now be known by most physicists that two waves cannot explain the complex pattern (a pattern in an envelope pattern) of the double slit experiment in light. Two wave math will fail if the slits and the width of the impediment are much larger than the wavelength of the light. The math that works reliably regardless of the slit width, views the experiment as having four (wave) sources with centers located at the slit surfaces. When this correct math, is drawn as waves the image is irrational. The waves must pass through the blocking material and they without sensible cause must break in the middle of the open slit... Good reason to believe waves are not a complete or correct explanation. It can also be clearly deduced, that events at the surfaces is the cause of the effect which cast doubt on Richard feynman's random Randomness Theory.

I would argue that a photon of light is a "pattern" of corpuscles travelling at a frequency between each other. When the photon interacts with the surfaces, elements of the pattern are scattered by electrons on the surfaces. The scattered elements of the photon pattern hit all locations on the target screen and in places where the scattered bits arrived in the proper sequence, or phase, a visible photon is reconstructed.

No interference
No superposition
No wave function
Just a completely mechanical and understandable probability of reconstruction.

 

 

[swansont]

Can you derive the two-slit interference equation from this idea?

[DraftScience]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Can you derive the two-slit interference equation from this idea?

As I explained in the linked video the mathematics is rather simple. The shortest distance between any of the surfaces will tell you the number and placement of the envelope fringes (the big fringes) Just divide the wavelength of the light into the distance between the surfaces and multiply by pi x the distance to the target. That product will tell you how large the individual fringes are as a portion of a 180 degree arc. You do the same for the largest distance between two surfaces and that will tell you the fringe size for the smaller pattern inside the envelope. Where the two patterns superimpose on top of each other in phase (the four sources are in phase) you see a photon.

[MigL]

Are we replacing the wave nature of light ( the photon ) with a 'pattern' of corpuscles then ?
I read that as a 'wave' of corpuscles.

Only question is then, "What are these corpuscles ?"
And why are they even needed ?

[DraftScience]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Are we replacing the wave nature of light ( the photon ) with a 'pattern' of corpuscles then ?
I read that as a 'wave' of corpuscles.

I am asserting that there are no waves involved... A photon is a sequence of "bit" particles arriving at a frequency.

 

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Only question is then, "What are these corpuscles ?"

They are small bits of mass that move at a constant speed in free space and carry a quantum of momentum.

 

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

And why are they even needed ?

Obviously a photon couldn't cause effects without them. A deeper truth  is when these bits are not at a frequency they cause gravity charge and magnetism. All force moving the speed of light (the speed of force) is made of these bits in different configurations.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, DraftScience said:

As I explained in the linked video the mathematics is rather simple.

Then post it here. The rules require it; videos can't be the primary source of information for your proposal (see rule 2.7).

 

10 hours ago, DraftScience said:

The shortest distance between any of the surfaces will tell you the number and placement of the envelope fringes (the big fringes) Just divide the wavelength of the light

I'm sorry - wavelength? I thought we had particles here.

 

10 hours ago, DraftScience said:

into the distance between the surfaces and multiply by pi x the distance to the target.

Why would you do this calculation? What's the physical justification for it?

 

10 hours ago, DraftScience said:

That product will tell you how large the individual fringes are as a portion of a 180 degree arc. You do the same for the largest distance between two surfaces and that will tell you the fringe size for the smaller pattern inside the envelope. Where the two patterns superimpose on top of each other in phase (the four sources are in phase) you see a photon.

Which surfaces are these? Shortest and longest distances - can you put this in terms of the slid width and separation? i.e create a proper equation for the location of the fringes?

 

[DraftScience]

57 minutes ago, swansont said:

Then post it here. The rules require it; videos can't be the primary source of information for your proposal (see rule 2.7).

The vector math is already conceded in the  Argument ""The math that works reliably regardless of the slit width, views the experiment as having four (wave) sources with centers located at the slit surfaces" and I did post my derivation:  slit distance divided be wavelength x pi x distance to target = fringe size

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I'm sorry - wavelength? I thought we had particles here.

All manner of objects that are not waving can have a wavelength...bullets, cars on a highway etc.

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Why would you do this calculation? What's the physical justification for it?

The calculation predicts the size and position of the fringes

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Which surfaces are these? Shortest and longest distances - can you put this in terms of the slid width and separation? i.e create a proper equation for the location of the fringes?

The equation isn't in any way improper and gets to the truth a lot faster than
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction
The math is merely deriving A "path length difference" there is agreement that the path length difference creates the phase differences. As stated their 4 Source Math Works but their analysis of cause is incorrect and frankly irrational.

D1 creates the large envelope pattern d2 creates the smaller Fringe pattern

[MigL]

9 hours ago, DraftScience said:

I am asserting that there are no waves involved... A photon is a sequence of "bit" particles arriving at a frequency.

A sound wave is a pattern of compression/rarefaction pulses ( of particles or molecules of gas ) arriving at a frequency.
How is that any different from what you describe ?
You have simply inserted a 'medium' for EM waves where none is needed.

 

9 hours ago, DraftScience said:

They are small bits of mass that move at a constant speed in free space and carry a quantum of momentum.

As this is in Speculations, you require some basis for this assertion, as it is not accepted Physics.
Since these bits have mass this constant speed cannot be the speed of light.

 

9 hours ago, DraftScience said:

Obviously a photon couldn't cause effects without them. A deeper truth  is when these bits are not at a frequency they cause gravity charge and magnetism. All force moving the speed of light (the speed of force) is made of these bits in different configurations.

Whoa!
So these 'small bits of mass' cause gravity, charge and magnetism ?
How exactly do 'small bits of mass' cause charge ?
And again, forces propagating at the speed of light are made of these 'bits of mass' ?

This last statement of yours is very far 'off the beaten path' of accepted Physics.
Sticking to it requires the overturning of almost all Physics and our best theories, and a lot of patchwork.
That's a pretty steep mountain to climb.
( wow, that's a lot of metaphors )

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, DraftScience said:

The vector math is already conceded in the  Argument ""The math that works reliably regardless of the slit width, views the experiment as having four (wave) sources with centers located at the slit surfaces" and I did post my derivation:  slit distance divided be wavelength x pi x distance to target = fringe size

Fringe size is fringe separation?

So is it (1) d/(lambda * pi * D) or is it (2) (d * D * pi)/lambda

(this is why you need to write out the equations)

Equation 1 has units of 1/distance, so it can't be right

 

It also disagrees with the accepted (and experimentally confirmed) equation,  (m * lambda * D)/d, and if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong

Your equation doesn't trend properly with slit separation and wavelength. Also, where would the second or third order fringes appear And why would they be there for particles?

As I already said, you would need to provide a derivation (physical reasoning) for this equation. But as it's demonstrably wrong, that's really not necessary.

 

5 minutes ago, DraftScience said:

All manner of objects that are not waving can have a wavelength...bullets, cars on a highway etc.

No, if it has a wavelength there is some wave behavior

 

5 minutes ago, DraftScience said:

The calculation predicts the size and position of the fringes

Incorrectly predicts.

 

 

[DraftScience]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

A sound wave is a pattern of compression/rarefaction pulses ( of particles or molecules of gas ) arriving at a frequency.
How is that any different from what you describe ?

Particles in a transmitting medium are "stuck to each other" and are affected by each other's movement. They do not scatter independently like a bullet can.

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

As this is in Speculations, you require some basis for this assertion, as it is not accepted Physics.
Since these bits have mass this constant speed cannot be the speed of light.

Whether photons have mass is far from settled science. Einstein clearly thought they did.

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

Whoa!
So these 'small bits of mass' cause gravity, charge and magnetism ?
How exactly do 'small bits of mass' cause charge ?
And again, forces propagating at the speed of light are made of these 'bits of mass' ?

Yes I believe most of your physics is wrong and believe given the opportunity I can prove it... But let's start with the two slit experiment and my assertion that the particle theory provides a better more complete explanation.

 

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

This last statement of yours is very far 'off the beaten path' of accepted Physics.
Sticking to it requires the overturning of almost all Physics and our best theories, and a lot of patchwork.
That's a pretty steep mountain to climb.
( wow, that's a lot of metaphors )

I have spent 10 years analyzing the key experiments and I've earned what I consider my improved understanding of reality. I am offering $2,000 to any notable physicists who can debunk my observations.

[MigL]

13 minutes ago, DraftScience said:

But let's start with the two slit experiment and my assertion that the particle theory provides a better more complete explanation.

Yet Swansont has just finished explaining to you that it doesn't.
Einstein did NOT think light had mass and gas 'particles' are not 'stuck' to each other.
And I hope you aren't hard headed and, at least, learn something from this, so that 10 years isn't totally wasted.
Good luck in your pursuit of knowledge.

Edited December 23, 2020 by MigL

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, DraftScience said:

Particles in a transmitting medium are "stuck to each other" and are affected by each other's movement. They do not scatter independently like a bullet can.

So much for the ideal gas law, then

 

Quote

Whether photons have mass is far from settled science. Einstein clearly thought they did.

No, it's as settled as it gets. Relativity works, and relativity has massless photons.

 

Quote

Yes I believe most of your physics is wrong and believe given the opportunity I can prove it... But let's start with the two slit experiment and my assertion that the particle theory provides a better more complete explanation.

Your "theory" needs to predict correct results, and it doesn't. That's the first thing to check.

Because it's game over when it doesn't. 

 

Quote

I have spent 10 years analyzing the key experiments and I've earned what I consider my improved understanding of reality. I am offering $2,000 to any notable physicists who can debunk my observations.

Just about every college freshman doing a physics interference experiment has debunked your claim.

 

[TooSilly]

Just FYI, you people are wasting your time with this guy.

He has been shown the math for the double slit pattern several times but he can't understand simple high school math, so he ignores it and keeps repeating his word salad in a desperate bid for attention.  He keeps making the same video over and over again, repeating his word salad and "you can kind of see that it works" without providing any math to support his claims.  When someone asks him for a proper math derivation, he bans them from his YouTube channel.

Recently he has been claiming that momentum equals energy (he understands neither) and the 1/2 mv^2 is a bogus formula not needed.  When I showed him the math behind a trivial example of elastic collision of a mass 2m at velocity v hitting a stationary mass m, he did his usual word salad of backtracking on his own claims, shifting all over the place, and confirming that he lacks the intellectual integrity to stand behind his own claims when confronted with facts.  To top it off, he deliberately misquotes mainstream physics educators on YouTube, flat out lying about what they say in their videos.  Straight up lies.

On a side note, you people are far more generous to him that he is to his critics.  He immediately bans anyone from his YouTube channel who points out his idiocy.  He banned me just for showing the math for an elastic collision, proving him wrong.  It's a trivial experiment that millions of high school students do every year around the world, albeit with blocks or balls instead of trains, to learn about elastic and inelastic collisions, but he lacks the skills to understand basic high school algebra or mechanics.

His "physics" assertions are just a way to pass the time and get some attention since he has nothing to do all day, living on welfare for 32+ years.  I am not disputing his welfare status, simply point out that he has a lot of free time which he spends all day watching physics videos and then plays pretend physicist by regurgitating poorly understood physics jargon in his own videos.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Not to worry. We have every intent to enforce our rules, but it’s also our policy that we don’t apply them for actions that took place elsewhere

 

[joigus]

On 12/22/2020 at 11:40 PM, DraftScience said:

No interference

In contradiction with experiments, then.

5 hours ago, TooSilly said:

Just FYI, you people are wasting your time with this guy.

 

Thanks for the heads up. Although I don't think living on welfare, if that's the case, automatically disqualifies you to do good science. Some folks may be able to keep a no-nonsense attitude and have a lot of time on their hands at the same time. I don't think that's impossible.

Edited December 24, 2020 by joigus

[DraftScience]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Fringe size is fringe separation?

So is it (1) d/(lambda * pi * D) or is it (2) (d * D * pi)/lambda

(this is why you need to write out the equations)

Equation 1 has units of 1/distance, so it can't be right

(d/lambda) *pi*D = this equals the width of a on or off Fringe. Applying this formula to the shortest distance between two surfaces will give you the size of the envelope fringes. Applying it to the largest distance between two surfaces gives you the size and number of the smaller fringes.

11 hours ago, swansont said:

It also disagrees with the accepted (and experimentally confirmed) equation,  (m * lambda * D)/d, and if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong

Any two source math applied to the double slit experiment will in fact not get the correct answer. You have to use the 4 source math are you will not get experimental confirmation. Your assertion is plainly false.

 

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Your equation doesn't trend properly with slit separation and wavelength. Also, where would the second or third order fringes appear And why would they be there for particles?

My simple math not only predicts as well as their complex math. It properly accounts for the fact that the pattern starts at the 90 degree angle where there is a maximum path length difference. I can also explain why the central grouping of fringes is twice as large as the other fringes.

 

11 hours ago, swansont said:

As I already said, you would need to provide a derivation (physical reasoning) for this equation. But as it's demonstrably wrong, that's really not necessary.

The physical reasoning is based on understanding that there are a finite number of possible wavelength long path length differences that any two points can create. The simple fact is you are just projecting the number of wavelengths between the two points onto a longer line some distance away.

 

11 hours ago, swansont said:

No, if it has a wavelength there is some wave behavior

So if two golf balls are on the same trajectory 5 m different in distance you're claiming they must be waving?

 

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Incorrectly predicts.

An assertion without evidence

 

11 hours ago, MigL said:

Yet Swansont has just finished explaining to you that it doesn't.
Einstein did NOT think light had mass and gas 'particles' are not 'stuck' to each other.

Swansont did nothing but distort what I wrote. Can you give me an Einstein quote claiming photons have no Mass? Gas particles outside of atmospheric pressure will not transmit sound. Gravity forces close contact which is essentially the same as being stuck.

 

10 hours ago, swansont said:

So much for the ideal gas law, then

The ideal gas law does not say gases under zero pressure transmit sound

 

10 hours ago, swansont said:

No, it's as settled as it gets. Relativity works, and relativity has massless photons.

If they are massless how do they carry momentum and how can they be bent twice as much by gravity?

 

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Your "theory" needs to predict correct results, and it doesn't. That's the first thing to check.

Because it's game over when it doesn't. 

The fact is it predicts better and I'm willing to wager any amount you wish to put up on a proving experiment.

 

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Just about every college freshman doing a physics interference experiment has debunked your claim.

Like those College students I bet you don't even realize that if you do any math predicting a pattern on a flat screen you'll get wrong answers. The distance to the screen is a radius and the mathematics predicts the pattern on an ark created by that radius. If you don't view the pattern on a curved screen you won't see the pattern the mathematics predicts.

 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Not to worry. We have every intent to enforce our rules, but it’s also our policy that we don’t apply them for actions that took place elsewhere

You are demonstrating gross hypocrisy! The unfounded a unevidenced personal attacks made by the commenter "too silly" would not be tolerated if they were directed at one of you.

 

1 hour ago, joigus said:

In contradiction with experiments, then.

What experiments? You have no Postcards From The Multiverse... Nor do you have any video of a wave function. Just as "jamming" explains two source " interference" in radar experiments, I am asserting that photon "reconstruction" completely explains the double slit results.

 

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Thanks for the heads up.

Why are you thanking someone for making a non evidence personal attack totally irrelevant to the subject?

[MigL]

None of the above makes any sense.
But the one that really stands out...

1 hour ago, DraftScience said:

The ideal gas law does not say gases under zero pressure transmit sound

You do realize 'sound' is a pressure wave, don't you ?
Do you actually know ANY Physics ?

[DraftScience]

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

You do realize 'sound' is a pressure wave, don't you ?
Do you actually know ANY Physics ?

You do realize that you were asserting that air isn't "stuck together". I reasonably explained the atmosphere transmits sound because the molecules are forced into close contact. Effectively meaning if one moves others must move and that is why sound is allowed to propagate. Remove air pressure and sound no longer propagates. Obviously bullets have no such limitation.

[TooSilly]

3 hours ago, joigus said:

Thanks for the heads up. Although I don't think living on welfare, if that's the case, automatically disqualifies you to do good science.

Absolutely.  Sorry if my post gave the wrong impression.

The only reason I mentioned his work situation was to explain that it is futile arguing him.  His harangue has nothing do with physics.  It is a way for him to pass the time, to get attention.  It will never end.  It does not matter what you say, what experiments you show him, what math you show him.  He will deny everything as "made up woo", and repeat his claims.

For the last ten plus years, his modus operandi is to attack dozens of people on YouTube just to provoke a response and get attention for himself and his YouTube channel.  He even goes so far as to flat out lie and misrepresent what they say to provoke them into responding.  Luckily, and quite astonishingly, almost none of his targets has taken the bait and responded.  Most just ignore him and he eventually gives up and looks for another victim to taunt into getting some attention for himself.

I am posting here because he doesn't tolerate dissent on his YouTube channel.  He banned me after just one post where I proved his claims wrong using simple high school algebra. 

2 hours ago, DraftScience said:

The unfounded a unevidenced personal attacks made by the commenter "too silly"

Show me which of my claims is unfounded.  Go ahead.

As for the subject where you banned me, let's recap.

1.  You claimed that a train with mass 2m velocity v hitting a stationary train with mass m (elastic collision) would cause the heavier train to stop and the lighter train to take off at 2v.

2. I showed you that it is impossible.  The predicted velocities are v/3 for the heavy train and 4v/3 for the lighter train.  This is the only allowable outcome given conservation of momentum and energy.  (There is a second trivial solution that the two train velocities do not change, but that is irrelevant.)

3. You did your usual word salad evasion, talking about Newton's cradle and billiard balls.  Irrelevant because your initial claim was about unequal masses.

4.  Then you repeated your assertion that P.G. and Professor L. said the same thing as you.  I challenge you to show me where P.G. or Professor L. claim that when a mass 2m velocity v has an elastic collision with a stationary mass m, the result will be the heavier mass coming to a full stop, and the lighter mass taking off at 2v.  Show me video timestamps of P.G. and Professor L. making those claims.

[joigus]

3 hours ago, DraftScience said:

Why are you thanking someone for making a non evidence personal attack totally irrelevant to the subject?

It's common courtesy, and how relevant it is remains to be seen. I also gave you the benefit of the doubt.

So far you haven't used or mentioned any sensible physics, and you seem not to understand very basic principles (pressure, wavelength, action at a distance...) and deny evidence, so the doubt is vanishing fast.

[studiot]

On 12/22/2020 at 10:40 PM, DraftScience said:

The two slit experiment can be better, and more completely, explained by a particle theory.

....................................

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crH5qZ_4Ns0

 

 

Thank you for a practical demonstration that  many youtube videos are unreliable, so as to be unusable as a source of evidence.

Which is why they are frowned on in ScienceForums.

I will be able to point to this thread in future as good reason for upholding that policy.

Edited December 24, 2020 by studiot

[DraftScience]

5 hours ago, joigus said:

It's common courtesy,

So if I merely suggested that too silly is actually a psychotic child molester without providing any evidence whatsoever... Your theory is, you would thank me as a common courtesy and allow me to continue posting on this board.

I would suggest you're not very good at theoretical reality

5 hours ago, joigus said:

and how relevant it is remains to be seen.

So your theory is that something in the garbage he typed might have something to do with facts concerning the double slit experiment.

Once again I don't think you're grasping the concept of reality

5 hours ago, joigus said:

I also gave you the benefit of the doubt.

It is a plain fact that I have diligently attempted to stay on the subject. Why do I need any benefit of a doubt?

 

5 hours ago, joigus said:

So far you haven't used or mentioned any sensible physics

So you don't think gravitational air pressure makes it possible for air to transmit sound?

And you disagree that the two slit experiment math predicts a pattern on a curved surface?

5 hours ago, joigus said:

and you seem not to understand very basic principles (pressure, wavelength, action at a distance...)

can you quote the sentence where I said something incorrect about pressure?

You don't think there can be a wavelength between cannonballs?

 "action at a distance" is a very basic principle? Is the Holy Ghost a very basic principle?

5 hours ago, joigus said:

and deny evidence

This is an accusation you will never back up with a fact

5 hours ago, joigus said:

so the doubt is vanishing fast.

I wouldn't let you babysit a goldfish either

 

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Thank you for a practical demonstration that  many youtube videos are unreliable

Compared to what? science forums? LOL

 

3 hours ago, studiot said:

so as to be unusable as a source of evidence.

Which is why they are frowned on in ScienceForums.

I might question whether you have ever gotten a baby or bath water judgement right

 

3 hours ago, studiot said:

I will be able to point to this thread in future as good reason for upholding that policy.

Like your scientific predictions i'll be betting that that hot air was just another of your smelly brain farts.

 

Since none of you can make anything like a civil scientific counter argument... How about just providing a reference to any scientific presentation on the subject of the two slit experiment that accurately describes the pattern, the experiments performed, and provides a reasonable explanation for the patterns features (the envelope and a larger central Maxima)

 

[joigus]

2 minutes ago, DraftScience said:

So if I merely suggested that too silly is actually a psychotic child molester without providing any evidence whatsoever...

You obviously have problems processing what you read, or do not read at all. Go back to my words in and around "if that's the case".

The rest of your blabbering is not worth my time.

[DraftScience]

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

if that's the case

You shouldn't even be considering "if that's the case". You have no right to obligate me to counter his personal attacks. If the same attacks were directed at you, you would ban him. Your duplicitous standards are obvious.

 

4 minutes ago, joigus said:

The rest of your blabbering is not worth my time.

I would argue you haven't said anything worth anyone's time

[joigus]

1 hour ago, DraftScience said:

You shouldn't even be considering "if that's the case". You have no right to obligate me to counter his personal attacks. If the same attacks were directed at you, you would ban him. Your duplicitous standards are obvious.

I did take a look at your channel, I don't obligate you to anything, and I do not have the power to ban you nor any will to do so.

I agree with @studiot that it's a good example of a very bad simulation of science. If you care about these things, you should take time to learn them. Pressure does not require contact. We understand today that contact forces do not really exist, in the strict sense. It's all fields. You seem to ignore also that there are models of QM based on particles following the Hamilton-Jacobi equation with a quantum potential. They reproduce all the kinematical results.

It's not that you don't understand pressure, or interactions monitored by fields, etc. It's, as very often happens in the realm of crackpottery, that you couldn't care less.

You should open your ears and you could learn something in these forums from other users who know more than you. I have.