The two slit experiment ...a sensible answer

[swansont]

13 hours ago, DraftScience said:

(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.

You still haven’t explained what you mean by “shortest distance between two surfaces” I assume this is the slit separation, or related to it (since d is measured center-to-center)

Diagrams help.

Being vague does not.

 

Quote

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.

I don’t know what two/four source math means.

My assertion us clearly true. The equation works. I’ve done the measurement, as have countless others. It would seem you have not.

Asserting otherwise is not an argument in good faith.

 

Quote

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.

Do you have data and experimental results to share? 

Better still, it shouldn’t be hard to find a data set from an independent source, like an online lab course.

 

Quote

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.

That’s the wave description, which you reject. Path length differences causing interference, with constructive interference where the path length is an integral number of wavelengths.

But if the wavelength is shorter, the fringes get closer together, because this path difference is achieved at a smaller angle. The opposite of what you say.

 

Quote

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

Where did I say anything about golf balls?

I said wavelength means there is wave behavior. 

 

Quote

An assertion without evidence

Being ignorant of the physics experiments that have been performed is not a winning strategy.

 

Quote

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

You have presented no evidence of your assertion. You haven’t derived your formula.

If you don’t fix this, the thread will be closed. 

 

 

An image from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/421688/white-light-instead-of-monochromatic-light-in-interference

Red fringes have greater spacing than blue, or green. As the standard equation predicts, and opposite of what you predict.

I was thinking the bet could be a cool million US dollars.

 

[DraftScience]

49 minutes ago, joigus said:

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.

What would I be banned for? I haven't invaded your privacy or talked about how you make a living. Too silly is doing those things and clearly if he was doing them to you this message board would protect you. Clearly you have double standards.

 

51 minutes ago, joigus said:

I agree with @studiot that it's a good example of a very bad simulation of science.

Just for fun could you quote something I've said that's factually wrong?

 

53 minutes ago, joigus said:

If you care about these things, you should take time to learn them. Pressure does not require contact.

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

 

56 minutes ago, joigus said:

We understand today that contact forces do not really exist, in the strict sense.

Is Gravity the proximate cause of air pressure in a strict sense? Is uncompressed air capable of transmitting sound?

 

59 minutes ago, joigus said:

You seem to ignore also that there are models of QM based on particles following the Hamilton-Jacobi equation with a quantum potential.

Where does the model explain the two slit experiment? You apparently think all particle models are the same? Is many worlds the same as Copenhagen?

 

1 hour ago, joigus said:

They reproduce all the kinematical results

You have certain knowledge of the kinematics of photon production and reception? Can you post a reference?

 

1 hour ago, joigus said:

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.

Future history will tell the tale... I am confident reguarding my pristine intentions. And it's just a plain fact that you are Rude enough to make accusations you can't back up with a fact.

 

1 hour ago, joigus said:

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

If you're an example of the Forum educated I am less than impressed... So far You've just talked trash and  haven't said anything specific on the subject of the two slit experiment. Do you think two wave Math Works?

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

You still haven’t explained what you mean by “shortest distance between two surfaces” I assume this is the slit separation, or related to it (since d is measured center-to-center)

Diagrams help.

Being vague does not.

I provided an image clearly marking shortest distance and largest distance between surfaces. In an example where the slits are wider than the central impediment, the distance between the surfaces of the impediment will tell you the envelope Fringe size, and the distance between the two outer most surfaces will tell you how large the small fringes will be.

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t know what two/four source math means.

My assertion us clearly true. The equation works. I’ve done the measurement, as have countless others. It would seem you have not.

Asserting otherwise is not an argument in good faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction

This is the only mathematics (Other than my own) that makes accurate predictions regardless of the number of slits. It considers each surface a point source... That means the single slit is really the two Source experiment. The single impediment is another two Source experiment. The double slit is the four Source experiment. etc

 

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

Where did I say anything about golf balls?

I said wavelength means there is wave behavior.

Physics commonly uses the word wavelength to describe objects at a frequency. You clearly have been asserting only waves can have a wavelength. I am asserting golf balls can have a wavelength without waiving in any manner.

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

Being ignorant of the physics experiments that have been performed is not a winning strategy.

Another accusation without any evidence... Link me to the experiment for which I am unaware or ignorant.

 

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

You have presented no evidence of your assertion. You haven’t derived your formula.

If you don’t fix this, the thread will be closed. 

You choose a double slit configuration... slit width and impediment width... You predict with your math and I'll predict with my math.

Clearly you're desperate to close the thread because you can't deal with the actual arguments.

You are clearly showing your true character and the show isn't a good one

 

 

42 minutes ago, swansont said:

As the standard equation predicts, and opposite of what you predict.

How is it the opposite of what I predict? In my formulation the wavelength of the light clearly dictates the width of the fringes. Your accusation is outrageously incorrect.

 

45 minutes ago, swansont said:

I was thinking the bet could be a cool million US dollars.

No surprise you can't take anything seriously. The truth is you hurled a lot of reckless insults and aren't willing to put up anyting of any Integrity behind them.

[John Cuthber]

 

15 minutes ago, DraftScience said:

Just for fun could you quote something I've said that's factually wrong?

On 12/23/2020 at 2:28 PM, DraftScience said:

Yes I believe most of your physics is wrong and believe given the opportunity I can prove it

 

57 minutes ago, swansont said:

Red fringes have greater spacing than blue, or green. As the standard equation predicts, and opposite of what you predict.

 

Edited December 24, 2020 by John Cuthber

[MigL]

12 hours ago, DraftScience said:

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.

This is probably off-topic but it has to do with your assertion of how gas particles behave.

Particles in a gas have a mean free path ( before a collision ), and a mean free time ( before a collision ) from which we can get mean free velocity, which is a measure of their kinetic energy, or temperature, and the density, or pressure, of the gas.
If a particle is 'pushed' at a velocity LESS than its mean free velocity, it has time and speed enough to reach the next particle and 'communicate the 'push', through a collision ( and momentum conservation ). No such thing as action at a distance.
If a particle is 'pushed' at a velocity GREATER than its mean free velocity, a particle cannot reach the next to 'communicate' the 'push, rather, it is 'pushed into it, and the next, and the next, and so on. This is what a shock wave is, and what happens when you have 'supersonic' flows, and the particles are pushed together into contact ( that is the only time you are right ). Supersonic means faster than the mean free velocity of the gas particles, and is dependent on temperature and pressure ( density ). Mean free velocity is, then, an indication of the speed at which pressure pulses, where each particle communicates with the next, propagate through the gas; our ear drums pick up these pressure pulses as sound. Sound is, therefore, a longitudinal pressure wave in the gas ( air ).
Incidentally, if you had ^.02 x 1023 bullets ( in a mole of bullets ) they would act the same way.
Welcome to Statistical Mechanics 101.

Edited December 24, 2020 by MigL

[swansont]

1 hour ago, DraftScience said:

How is it the opposite of what I predict? In my formulation the wavelength of the light clearly dictates the width of the fringes. Your accusation is outrageously incorrect.

You have wavelength in the denominator

 

Quote

(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.

When wavelength increases, the fringe spacing must decrease, according to your formula.

 

!

Moderator Note

Your proposal is wrong, as demonstrated, you have not complied with the requirements of the speculations section (no derivation, no evidence), and since I have no interest in your inevitable arguments based on not understanding math, I'm closing this.

DO NOT open a new thread on the topic. You're fortunate this nonsense was left open this long.

 

12 hours ago, TooSilly said:

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

!

Moderator Note

As I suggested earlier, we don't care what happened elsewhere, and litigating such actions here is decidedly off-topic. Don't do this again.