Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Why do pairs of waves make unequally spaced patterns but light patterns are equal?

  1. #1 Why do pairs of waves make unequally spaced patterns but light patterns are equal? 
    Forum Senior bill alsept's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    386
    Instead of discussing the whole content of my paper
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/lu5irtlxxe4hp ... .docx?dl=0
    I was hoping maybe we could start with the first subject and ask one question at a time. The following was taken from part of the first two pages:
    The debate over the nature of light and matter goes back to the 17th century when Isaac Newton and Christian Huygens offered conflicting theories. Newton proposed that light was made of particles while Huygens's theory consisted of waves.
    For 350 years these competing theories have continued to develop as new experiments confirmed new ideas. Scientist such as Young, Planck, Einstein and many others have worked to compile the current scientific theory that all particles have a wave nature. In other words a wave particle duality.
    I never gave it much thought and until recently had never even considered the double slit experiment. As you know there is a light source directed toward two narrow slits and a fringe pattern forms on a distant screen beyond. The fringe pattern is made of equally spaced bright and dark fringes and the phenomenon has intrigued many for centuries.
    Often if not most of the time this concept is diagramed with overlapping semicircles representing waves as in the figure in this link.
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/wfcmg0maax...mages.png?dl=0


    The theory is that the two sets of waves overlap to form constructive and destructive interference. In figure 1 the lines with arrows follow the points where these wave amplitudes add up and project outward to where the interference is and will be. At the top of the image is a screen showing an equally spaced bright and dark fringe pattern.
    In my line of work I do a lot of mechanical drawing but it doesn't take much to see that these projection lines do not match the fringe pattern. Diagrams like these are always set up in the same incorrect way. If you continue following the lines outward until they hit the screen you will see that they do not match or intersect with the equally spaced fringe patterns that are observed. Instead the spacing of the projected lines grows wider and wider as the fringe pattern stays equally spaced.
    Most of these diagrams go out of their way to cover this up. For example in fig-1 the projection lines not only stop short of the screen but are intentionally stopped where they will line up vertically with the fringe pattern on the screen. This is misleading but you will find that most wave interference drawings seem to manipulate the outcome in the same way. It’s amazing to me that no one questions this.
    In reality a fringe pattern formed by a pair of interfering waves (as with water) would have an intensity pattern that was not equally spaced. The simulator below accurately shows how constructive and destructive wave interference (as with water) would form unequal patterns with the spacings getting farther apart as they go out. My point is that a wave interference or diffraction theory of light cannot explain the equally spaced fringe patterns we actually observe in nature.
    Click on Simulator by Roger G Tobin Two-source interference - GeoGebra Dynamic Worksheet

    Anyway this got me to thinking about the wave theory in general. You can hardly find a description of light that does not include analogies of water waves or sound waves when explaining the slit experiment. I can understand how water or sound will form waves because there are multiple forces involved. With water there is the initial force pushing on a medium of water molecules. A wave crest forms as the displacement meets resistance but gravity pushes down on the crest countering the whole effect. There wouldn't even be a wave without gravity or any one of the other forces. As for sound waves they too have multiple forces including momentum, pressure and density differences.
    Light doesn’t have any of these countering forces. The wave theory of light doesn’t even offer an explanation of these forces or a cause for the so called wave. The only descriptions given are Huygens and the uncertainty principle but again nothing to explain the forces. I believe Huygens or the uncertainty principles are unneeded complications. Infinite wave fronts and wavelets infinitely radiating out from…. what??
    What bothers me the most about the wave theory of light is that most interpretations try to use the double slit experiment as proof that light cannot be a particle. I believe on the contrary that light is made up of particles and it's these same experiments that will prove it. With certainty


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    I'm moving this to personal theories and giving Bill Alsept a week off. Bill, after all this time, you should know better than to put your anti-science crankery in the Physics forum.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Think before you post, Bill. The Wikipedia article derives this formula for the spacing of the interference fringes. At small angles the projection on a flat surface has very nearly equally spaced fringe maxima.
    The interference fringe maxima occur at angles
    Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Think before you post, Bill. The Wikipedia article derives this formula for the spacing of the interference fringes. At small angles the projection on a flat surface has very nearly equally spaced fringe maxima.
    The interference fringe maxima occur at angles
    Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Quite so.

    Bill, any good school or university description will make clear that the "equal" spacing is an approximation that is valid when the distance from slits to screen is very much larger than the distance between the 2 slits. Here is an example: http://h2physics.org/?cat=48

    If you have based an entire theory on missing this obvious point then I'm afraid you are going to look very silly indeed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    Instead of discussing the whole content of my paper...
    Bill,

    You've simultaneously grossly underestimated the collective competence of countless scientists who have gone before you, and overestimated your own.

    Given how unlikely it is that you've uncovered an error that has eluded everyone else, despite its being a very well-studied area, your first instinct should have been to assume that you're the one who was in error, and then to expend diligent effort to see if you were. The time you spent writing a (wrong) paper on the topic would have been far better spent studying the topic in depth. From the posts preceding this one, it's evident that the required depth wasn't particularly great. You didn't even have to consult obscure references -- Wikipedia would have pointed you in the right direction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    The other mistake Bill made was to assume his illustration was drawn to scale. If the illustration were drawn with angles like a real double slit diffraction pattern, the angles between maxima would be too small to illustrate the interference principle that they were trying to show.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Senior bill alsept's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    386
    My original paper "Single Edge Certainty" https://www.dropbox.com/s/lu5irtlxxe...inty.docx?dl=0 had a short intro discussing the concept of waves. I'll admit that somewhere I got sidetracked or mislead on the subject of wave interference and the fringe patterns. I mistakenly added the beginning section that disputed the matching of the fringe patterns. I started out looking for something else and somehow ended up there. I thought it was icing on the cake and did not fully investigate it before adding it to my paper, Sorry about that. That being said it does not change the content of my original paper or my extreme interest in this subject. Contrary to Harold's insult I am not anti-science. I wish nothing more than to discuss and study these subjects. I started a new thread "A Particle Theory Of Light" with my original paper linked there. I put a lot of thought and time into it and contrary to tk421 comment I have from day one assumed I was in error. I have expended diligent effort to see if was me and I have learned a great deal on many areas of this subject all in the true interest of science. Thanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 12th, 2014, 09:10 AM
  2. Brain Patterns
    By Duke Mocoy in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 9th, 2013, 10:04 PM
  3. patterns exist in everything?
    By PhysicsKidd in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 18th, 2013, 05:16 AM
  4. Science of patterns
    By SonicEvolution1550595650 in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 28th, 2012, 03:52 PM
  5. Sleeping patterns...
    By Hanuka in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 5th, 2008, 04:53 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •