February 19th, 2012, 03:21 PM
It appears to be the case that the wave theory of quantum particles is proven wrong with an extremely simple experiment.
There's a short illustration with two experiments:
What is light? - Theory of everything!!! - YouTube
A very short followup video:
Photons - the wave theory problem - YouTube
Indeed instead of linear propagation there is clearly a phenomenon causing an exponential result.
Anyone have any opinions on this?
It is on YouTube so I expect it is meaningless drivel.Originally Posted by grandi
Can you describe this "extremely simple experiment"?
He makes a slit with two razor blades and gets a normal diffraction pattern. He then tilts the slit back away from the laser beam and expects to see a planar projection of the same pattern. Instead, there is a curved diffraction pattern, so he dreams up a cockamamie explanation about gravity affecting the beam.It is on YouTube so I expect it is meaningless drivel.
Can you describe this "extremely simple experiment"?
What probably happens is that the light from the top part of the beam is out of phase with the light below it because it strikes the slit at a different time. This creates a combined vertical and horizontal diffraction pattern. That would be my guess.
Meaningless drivel? The videos are about pointing a laser pointer at a slit (two razor blades) and then explaining the results. A total of 4 minutes of video explains the problem quite well. The problem is that instead of getting a linear result predicted by the wave theory an exponential curve is observed. The specific problem is explained in the second video which is less than a minute long.It is on YouTube so I expect it is meaningless drivel.
Can you describe this "extremely simple experiment"?
Sorry, just the application of statistics. I think there are three (maybe four) useful videos on youtube. Most of the content appears to be generated by people with IQ in the low 70s. And commented on by people who aren't that smart.Meaningless drivel?It is on YouTube so I expect it is meaningless drivel.
Can you describe this "extremely simple experiment"?
My sincere apologies if you are not one one of these.
And thanks for the brief explanation. I would much rather see a full description (with diagrams) etc. Than watch a video. And I don't have access to YouTube currently. So I can't really comment further .... (Sorry for wasting your time)
How do you explain the exponential curvature of the pattern? It doesn't fit into the wave theory.
And that's the trouble with YouTube.
If you were to write a scientific paper, or even a school lab report, you would have to include all sorts of details about the experimental setup, what was measured and how, what the sources of errors were, etc. Just showing a video and going "oooh, look..." doesn't really help anyone to understand or explain what is happening or, just as importantly, repeat the experiment themselves.
And how do you know it is "exponential curvature"? Where are the measurements? The curve fitting? The error analysis?
I took a screen grab of the video:
laser.jpg
That is not linear, it's for sure.
"not linear" != "exponential curvature"
In other words, you might want to put a little more rigour into your experimental method and analysis.
I think you are making an incorrect assumption about what the wave theory predicts. It would only be a planar projection if you tilted both the slit and the laser beam.How do you explain the exponential curvature of the pattern? It doesn't fit into the wave theory.
Linear change, exponential change, is there something else?"not linear" != "exponential curvature"
In other words, you might want to put a little more rigour into your experimental method and analysis.
And the curve is perfectly circular by the way.
I think you have answered your own question there. A circle is not an exponential curve.Linear change, exponential change, is there something else?"not linear" != "exponential curvature"
In other words, you might want to put a little more rigour into your experimental method and analysis.
And the curve is perfectly circular by the way.
The wave theory predicts wave propagation downwards relative to the slit. The wave theory does not predict a curve, it predicts linear transition.
How do you mean? It is not a circle. It is a curve matching a 1/4 of a circle. No linear equation produces this. Only an exponential equation produces this kind of curves.
I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "exponential".
Hint: it isn't any equation containing an exponent.
Yes, sure. Sorry, I was not specific enough. The curve matches a gravitational curve though.
Not just "not specific" but wrong.Yes, sure. Sorry, I was not specific enough. The curve matches a gravitational curve though.
What do you mean by a "gravitational curve"? Wouldn't that be a parabola? I thought you said it was circular?
WTH is a "gravitational" curve? You can't just make up new terms whenever you want without having at least a youtube explanation
Beat me by a minute
I'm sure you've heard of gravitational fields and their curvature. The first part of the parabola is quite circular (say for x² between -0.5 and 0.5, which matches closely with the picture above). Considering the part that is visible in the picture above, that can fit in both a circle and a parabola. The human eye can not see the difference. Further investigation with better accuracy is needed.Not just "not specific" but wrong.Yes, sure. Sorry, I was not specific enough. The curve matches a gravitational curve though.
What do you mean by a "gravitational curve"? Wouldn't that be a parabola? I thought you said it was circular?
Did you have an explanation for the "exponential"/parabolic/circular curvature visible in the picture?
[QUOTE=grandi;309543]Do you realize what a silly statement that is? It can't be all 3 at once, unless you have no idea what the terms mean.
I think the fact you have posted a video on yootoob instead of writing it up, and the fact you don't appear to know what you are talking about leaves me rather sceptical that you are demonstrating a anything significant.
I know exactly what I mean. Currently by human eye it can be made to match all of them. Even exponential e.g 2^x.Do you realize what a silly statement that is? It can't be all 3 at once, unless you have no idea what the terms mean.
So the curvature is one of the following:
1. exponential
2. parabolic
3. perfectly circular
The eye can not distinguish it from that picture.
Well I am not here to ask you to believe me. I am here to see what you people think of this and if you have any further leads.
So when it is just YOU (and nobody else) and the phenomenon you observe. How do YOU explain it?
That is not how science works. (Although "it looks like" is a common technique used in pseudo-science.)
Write up your experiment with a clear description of the equipment and procedure, with detailed reporting of the measurements made.Well I am not here to ask you to believe me. I am here to see what you people think of this and if you have any further leads.
So when it is just YOU (and nobody else) and the phenomenon you observe. How do YOU explain it?
I think it's pretty clear what we think of it; youtube just don't want to hear it.Well I am not here to ask you to believe me. I am here to see what you people think of this and if you have any further leads.
So when it is just YOU (and nobody else) and the phenomenon you observe. How do YOU explain it?
The experiment is so simple that it does not really need any write up. Just point a laser beam towards a single slit and tilt the slit.Write up your experiment with a clear description of the equipment and procedure, with detailed reporting of the measurements made.Well I am not here to ask you to believe me. I am here to see what you people think of this and if you have any further leads.
So when it is just YOU (and nobody else) and the phenomenon you observe. How do YOU explain it?
Well you have not expressed your explanation for the curvature. What is your explanation?
Which curvature is that? The exponential, the circular, or the parabolic?
While a part of an exponential curve can be fitted on that curve it is unlikely that it is exponential as the origin would need to be shifted. I'm still giving this the benefit of the doubt due to all this hilarious "photons can exist in multiple places at once" situation.
I think it is most likely either parabolic or circular. What would your explanation for these two possibilities be then?
So IOW, you still haven't decided which curve it fits yet.
I think it is most likely either parabolic or circular. What would your explanation for these two possibilities be then?
If I tilt the blades so that they are close to being parallel to the beam and move the spot close to the top edge of the blades then I can see that the reflection joins with the beam that goes through the slit and it makes a perfect circle. There we have it. It is actually perfectly circular. I am actually using Stanley RB108 plane blades which are solid and have no holes in them...So IOW, you still haven't decided which curve it fits yet.
I think it is most likely either parabolic or circular. What would your explanation for these two possibilities be then?
So what's your explanation for that?
OK fine, so you are using blades made for wood shop tool. What is the measured angle you are holding them at, and how are they mounted? How are you measuring the angle? How did you determine the circle is perfect? How are you measuring it's "perfection"? Can you show us the date, or at least a graph of the data for examination? Is the edge a sharp cutoff, or if not, what is the slope of the edge? Is it a bell curve, or an exponential decline?So IOW, you still haven't decided which curve it fits yet.
I think it is most likely either parabolic or circular. What would your explanation for these two possibilities be then?
If I tilt the blades so that they are close to being parallel to the beam and move the spot close to the top edge of the blades then I can see that the reflection joins with the beam that goes through the slit and it makes a perfect circle. There we have it. It is actually perfectly circular. I am actually using Stanley RB108 plane blades which are solid and have no holes in them...
So what's your explanation for that?
All these are needed for a proper experiment.
Otherwise, bring your shovel...BTW, that's a garden tool, not a wood shop tool.
The angle of the blades does not really matter, the less you tilt them the bigger circle you get. And the circle is a perfect circle at least according to the tools that I have at my disposal. Of course there is no such thing as perfect in science. So let's settle for perfect within the accuracy of my tools.
Here's the proof and something extremely interesting. You get the circle even with just one blade, that's proof of gravity right there.
laser_setup.jpg Screenshot-3.jpg
The upper bright spot is the direct reflection of the beam and the lower bright spot is the part of the beam that goes directly past the blade and to the surface.
The image on the right contains a computer generated perfect circle. This is a down scaled version for the forum but the same applies when measuring from the original 8 megapixel image and then there's even better accuracy.
You can clearly see the setup there. So how do you explain this phenomenon?
Maybe there is something strange going on, maybe...But it certainly isn't gravity. We can calculate the bending of light due to gravity, there is no way you could see the effect in such a small distance.
Looks like simple refraction to me...
Explaining this as an effect of gravity is of course just another falsifiable hypothesis. While it fits the bill and is not falsified it remains as good an explanation as any that have not been falsified. It would make sense that "bending" of light is caused by gravity...
Light going through the metal blade? How is that possible?
I didn't say it went through...Light going through the metal blade? How is that possible?
Refraction off the edge, which is not a perfect edge, but rather an imperfect ground surface, especially for a shop tool...
Perhaps you are confused with the scientific terms. You mean diffraction? Refraction occurs when light travelling through one medium enters another medium which differs in density.I didn't say it went through...Light going through the metal blade? How is that possible?
Refraction off the edge, which is not a perfect edge, but rather an imperfect ground surface, especially for a shop tool...
By the way, the phenomenon occurs even when you point the beam directly in the center of the blade and it's not even close to the edges...
Would you like to change your explanation or leave it at that?
Single slit.jpgI've been noodling on this for a while and think I can explain it.
The usual explanations of single slit diffraction show it in 2 dimensions, as in these web sites.
Fraunhofer Single Slit Diffraction
Exercise, Single-Slit Diffraction
In the real 3-dimensional case, the waves are actually concentric spheres rather than circles. In order to be able to see the light on the screen, the beam has to have some thickness, and the light from the upper part of the slit has to fall in the same area as the light from the bottom part. If the slit is vertical, at right angles to the beam of light, and the light falls on a vertical screen, then the light from the top of the beam reinfoces the light at the bottom of the beam, in the center of the spot of light.
Now what happens when you tilt the slit back, at about a 45 degree angle? The light from the top of the beam hits the slit at a different point in its phase than the light at the bottom of the beam. This means that the light will not reinforce at a point directly behind the slit. Instead, the light from the top of the beam will be in phase with the light from the bottom at a distance as shown in the attached sketch. Each successive maximum will be a little higher than the previous maximum. The horizontal dispersion will be the same as when the slit was vertical. Adding these two effects together gives you a curve that goes out and up, hence a semicircle.
Last edited by Harold14370; February 21st, 2012 at 06:04 PM.
I did also consider what you describe. However, it does not explain this:
Photons - They expose gravitational fields - YouTube
That is mostly plain and simple reflection, the "bending" of light isn't very visible there. This seems to prove the gravity hypothesis.
Well, I am not an expert in optics, but I can tell you for certain that the effect you observe has nothing to do with gravity. Gravitational bending of light is a very well understood and observed effect of General Relativity; this effect however only becomes apparent for large masses and long distances. It does not play any role in terrestrial slit experiments. Given very strong gravitational fields you would get this :
Gravitational lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But once again, you would need a mass far larger than the Earth to obtain such an effect.
Or.. Corona is just gravity bent light:Well, I am not an expert in optics, but I can tell you for certain that the effect you observe has nothing to do with gravity. Gravitational bending of light is a very well understood and observed effect of General Relativity; this effect however only becomes apparent for large masses and long distances. It does not play any role in terrestrial slit experiments. Given very strong gravitational fields you would get this :
Gravitational lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But once again, you would need a mass far larger than the Earth to obtain such an effect.
220px-Solar_eclipse_1999_4_NR.jpg
Currently gravity is the only suitable explanation for the effects occurring in that video. Wave theory falls apart in this case, it does not predict radial dispersion of the specular spot from a flat surface.
If there is no other explanation than gravity, then gravity must be the explanation.
Nano scale gravity must work differently than the bending of light among planets etc. though because of the very short distances and high speed of light.
I have noticed a distinct similarity between what light exposes around different small objects and what metallic powder exposes in a magnetic field. This is very intriguing.
That is approximately equal to saying that if there is no other explanation than space aliens, then space aliens must be the explanation. And you have earned a trip to the pseudo bin.
Your thought process goes from gravity to space aliens? Really?That is approximately equal to saying that if there is no other explanation than space aliens, then space aliens must be the explanation. And you have earned a trip to the pseudo bin.
I must say that I am very baffled by your action. I have already stated that from the scientific perspective this hypothesis is as falsifiable as any other.
Is this an emotional response now from you? How is experimentation and observation pseudo science to you?
You do understand that the wave theory does not apply, don't you?
Perhaps you could now explain your actions, this being a scientific forum and all. Or perhaps this is not so scientific forum after all?
It has already been explained to you why gravity can't do that. Your theory makes as much sense as saying there are space aliens bending the light. See the logic?
Your theory is not only falsifiable, it has been falsified by every experiment that's ever been done with light and gravity.
Invisible pink unicorns with little mirrors is more likely.
How do you know they are pink?
Thank you for confirming my suspicion about this forum being merely a playground for students moderated by teenagers making decisions based on emotions. It is funny how you don't really care to observe yourself but you only seek to believe what you are told.
I'll continue my search for scientific discussion based on actual observations and not some plain babbling and speculation about what is written in some book...
Just remember to not make the mistake of thinking that you might know some scientific theory to be true. The requirement for hypotheses is that they are falsifiable. Something known to be true is not falsifiable.
The same way grandi knows it is because of gravity.
A hypothesis is not falsifiable if you are determined to ignore evidence that it is false. You have observed something which you do not understand. Instead of trying to understand it, you create a hypothesis that it is gravity. But you already know that it does not act like gravity so you dream up something called "nano scale gravity." I would like to hear your plan for testing your nano gravity hypothesis. What are the properties of nano gravity? Can you calculate nano gravity? It is not a hypothesis at all, it's just a name you dreamed up. Like invisible pink unicorns.
| « Did anybody hear/read about Dr. Stephen M.Phillips? | Over 100 alternatives to neo-Darwinism » |
| Tags for this Thread |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
