Light reacts with the field of the matter holding the slits and surfaces, so various types including carbon to be electrically neutral have to be used.
@@QuantumLab-bt7yq If you find your matter holding the slit has a charge, then make it grounded neutral or charge is up + or - is the obvious next steps. In fact, you don't need matter at all for a slit, it would seem vertical laser beams could be used for blocking but the outcome could be unusual. If opposing photons produces a pattern different than matter, then we learn something more about light behavior.
I have been "playing" with lasers since the mid 1980's when I built my first HeNe laser in my living room. This brings up the question regarding color. This experiment uses a green, shorter wavelength and the results are obvious. So how would a longer wavelength red work out? Will the battern be wider spaced? I do have a blue laser, but it has a focal point for burning and at 6 Watts output, might be a bit dangerous for this type of experiment. The red laser is still functional, and I will see what kind of results I get. The beam is much narrower so it may take a little creativity to duplicate here.
found the following using google Shape When light with a longer wavelength is used, the interference fringes will be wider and farther apart. Spacing For example, if red light is replaced with blue light, the fringe width will decrease, meaning the fringes will be closer together.
2:47 I noticed the thick part of the caliper jaw is being used instead of the sharp/tapered part. I found this an odd choice as it puts more material in the path of the photons between the source and the destination.
My premise is the photons bounce of the edge. My guess is the second pattern is a reflection pattern. Something you will never see in a ripple tank demo.
The problem is quantum labs does not understand the expeiment proving that light changes it's behavior if it's being directly observed. IE: Actual scientific experiment results are different patterns develop, depending on the simple act of turning on a detector to see the photons travelling. Fact: Photons behave differently if they are being directly observed, and that is what no one can explain.
The observation is not visual. It's with an instrument. That is what confuses a lot of people! If you put an instrument in light's path, it's perfectly understandable that light will be affected. Nothing conscious on light's part. Be rational.
@@SciD1 I am familiar with the experiment and will comment on it in a future video. Currently i am interested in what you think of all the ripple tank demos that say phtons act like water waves? My laser experiments say they do not.
@@joestute6434 I particularly like the experiment with the guard rail. It's impossible to deny the evidence. There is absolutely no light wave interference.
Water or air against a surface is not particles and a surface. The behavior is particles against particles against a surface. This causes their velocity to slow down in contact with a surface due to friction, producing curvatures in wave patterns. The slower reflections against the faster outer water produces interferences. You are showing that photons do not slow down closer to surfaces. The surfaces can reflect water, but the light is absorbed by your surfaces since you did not use mirror surfaces. Next, aluminum foil surfaces.
Agree with the 1st half of your comment about particle velocity slowing. i have tried reflective surfaces. see ua-cam.com/video/5saZ0He0Nps/v-deo.html. Does that help?
No, light does not lose velocity due to friction when reflecting off a surface. The speed of light remains constant when it reflects, regardless of the surface it encounters. However, the intensity (or energy) of the light may decrease if some of it is absorbed by the material, but this does not affect its velocity.
@@SciD1 Light does not exhibit friction as far as we know, but one can probably explain red shift of star light due to attenuation with light from interfering sources, more interference the farther the light travels.
Sarcasm can be extremely satisfying when you are trying to make people understand something they just don't want to accept by any means, no matter how much evidence is presented. I don't know for Mr. Stute, but I have been debunking the double-slit experiment for years. But the wave dogma is so deeply rooted in people's minds, that it's like trying to talk to a Christian fundamentalist.
@@joestute6434 In early tests in the late 1800s there were no lasers, and probably no electricity. They used white light, probably from a candle source. Later, light bulbs.
There simply is no "quantum weirdness". It's a 200 year old misinterpretation. Light was never a "wave". Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a probabilistic mathematical framework based on the misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of the nature of light, and the double-slit experiment. Maybe that's why it is "probabilistic"... The math may be useful for replicating technology and chemical reactions, but it has no bearing on reality itself, because the theory is founded on the fallacy of quantum state superposition.
@@nissimhadar it's an interpretation based on a fallacy. Quantum entanglement is impossible because superposition is impossible, it doesn't exist. It was based on the misunderstanding of the double-slit experiment. No superposition, no "quantum weirdness".
There is also single slit interference. Because there is also single slit interference when the width of the slit is comparable to the wavelength. So if you analyze the geometry of the waves carefully, and apply huygen's principle, you will find that a single slit should also have places after the slit where the wave front has traveled different distances, and so there should be interference from only one slit. But you only see it if size of the slit is comparable to the wavelength. Also, you don't understand the conclusion of Young's experiment. Your version also confirms that wave mechanics govern light.
Can you provide a reference for experiment mentioned in paragraph 1. Contend my guardrail experiment proves the light dark pattern of Young's experiment can not be an interference pattern and we should stop using ripple tank demos.
Watched the video. I've done several single slit ripple tank experiments and did not see evidence of the pattern referred to in the video you recommended. All I have seen is each wave turns into one continuous arc.
@@QuantumLab-bt7yq I like the fact that you are not content with the textbook description- you want to see it yourself. But I think you'll go farther if you augment your knowledge with the textbook description. Don't shy away from the math- it can all be done with rules of triangles, if you like geometry better. I've never tried it with water, but my guess would be that you need the aperture to be the size of the wavelength, and you need to look for the interference much farther to the sides. Remember the single slit interference pattern has a very strong peak that is wide compared to the double slit pattern. So you're looking for the place where the waves are very small amplitude, and fairly great distance from the center. The laser has a wavelength that is microscopic, and so you are only looking a fraction of an inch to the left or right to see the fringes. But the wavelength of your water waves might be a million times greater. So you're looking for interference in the very small ripples, far to the sides. And it will be quite a bit less noticeable than the double slit.
@@vwcanter You present a valid question. One i wrestled with for a long time. I am familiar with Huygen's theory. Have yet to see any experimental evidence to support it. The biggest flaw in quantum wave theory is the assumption photons interact with each other. They do not. Suggest searching DO PHOTONS INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER. They pass through each other unchanged. You can do the experiment yourself. Any two lasers will do. Several years ago I bought a laser and started doing experiments. That is when I saw photons do not act like ripple tank demos predict. That realization led to my guardrail experiment. I placed a barrier between the two slits preventing interference. With the barrier in place we still see a light dark pattern. The experimental results indicate if quantum wave theory is going to survive it needs a better explanation.
@myspeechles Particles are excitations of a field, if you want to be pedantic. But treating light as a wave is the only rational way to design a radio antenna, or explain how an electron microscope works. The words we use are tools, and we use them to help us. Photons do act like waves, in a practical sense.
@myspeechles _"And no we do not ever (ever) see a particle acting like a wave. We may say (only in poetic manner) that particles behave statistically like waves behave physically."_ It's so funny how you people use waves the way it suits your needs. Sometimes physical waves, sometimes probability waves, or waves of math. The double-slit experiment has been interpreted as light interfering with itself for 200 years! You will literally find thousands of videos on UA-cam claiming light behaves like water waves. The fact remains, nobody has ever observed light waves, and never will. It was Young's interpretation, pure assumption, and it's nothing more than that today. Why aren't you discussing Mr. Stute's results in the video, instead of telling us what we all already read many times in text books and "scientific" articles?
@myspeechles blame that on UA-cam's poor notification system, and its ridiculous filters. I never got notified. I have never seen your comment. So, I am sorry for not replying.
@myspeechles How do you explain the "interference" pattern when you fire many photons through a double-slit, one at a time? You can either invoke MWI, or interpret the photons as "waves". Do you see a third option?
Light reacts with the field of the matter holding the slits and surfaces, so various types including carbon to be electrically neutral have to be used.
Can you supply a reference to support the use of carbon. If you can i will give your recommendation a try.
@@QuantumLab-bt7yq If you find your matter holding the slit has a charge, then make it grounded neutral or charge is up + or - is the obvious next steps. In fact, you don't need matter at all for a slit, it would seem vertical laser beams could be used for blocking but the outcome could be unusual. If opposing photons produces a pattern different than matter, then we learn something more about light behavior.
What are you talking about???
I have been "playing" with lasers since the mid 1980's when I built my first HeNe laser in my living room.
This brings up the question regarding color. This experiment uses a green, shorter wavelength and the results are obvious. So how would a longer wavelength red work out? Will the battern be wider spaced?
I do have a blue laser, but it has a focal point for burning and at 6 Watts output, might be a bit dangerous for this type of experiment.
The red laser is still functional, and I will see what kind of results I get. The beam is much narrower so it may take a little creativity to duplicate here.
found the following using google
Shape
When light with a longer wavelength is used, the interference fringes will be wider and farther apart.
Spacing
For example, if red light is replaced with blue light, the fringe width will decrease, meaning the fringes will be closer together.
@@joestute6434 That was what I was thinking. I don't have the room to set anything up here but it makes sense.
2:47 I noticed the thick part of the caliper jaw is being used instead of the sharp/tapered part. I found this an odd choice as it puts more material in the path of the photons between the source and the destination.
My premise is the photons bounce of the edge. My guess is the second pattern is a reflection pattern. Something you will never see in a ripple tank demo.
If i understand your comment correctly, the edge and the flat both reflected laser light.
The problem is quantum labs does not understand the expeiment proving that light changes it's behavior if it's being directly observed. IE: Actual scientific experiment results are different patterns develop, depending on the simple act of turning on a detector to see the photons travelling. Fact: Photons behave differently if they are being directly observed, and that is what no one can explain.
Some say the experiment you are referring to violates Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal. Any conclusions derived from the experiment are invalid.
How would you apply the observer effect to explain the results of my experiment?
The observation is not visual. It's with an instrument. That is what confuses a lot of people! If you put an instrument in light's path, it's perfectly understandable that light will be affected. Nothing conscious on light's part. Be rational.
@@SciD1 I am familiar with the experiment and will comment on it in a future video. Currently i am interested in what you think of all the ripple tank demos that say phtons act like water waves? My laser experiments say they do not.
@@joestute6434 I particularly like the experiment with the guard rail. It's impossible to deny the evidence. There is absolutely no light wave interference.
This would be great for a high school kid's science project.
i prefer religion be left out of the discussion
Water or air against a surface is not particles and a surface. The behavior is particles against particles against a surface. This causes their velocity to slow down in contact with a surface due to friction, producing curvatures in wave patterns. The slower reflections against the faster outer water produces interferences. You are showing that photons do not slow down closer to surfaces. The surfaces can reflect water, but the light is absorbed by your surfaces since you did not use mirror surfaces. Next, aluminum foil surfaces.
Agree with the 1st half of your comment about particle velocity slowing. i have tried reflective surfaces. see ua-cam.com/video/5saZ0He0Nps/v-deo.html. Does that help?
No, light does not lose velocity due to friction when reflecting off a surface. The speed of light remains constant when it reflects, regardless of the surface it encounters. However, the intensity (or energy) of the light may decrease if some of it is absorbed by the material, but this does not affect its velocity.
@@SciD1 Thank you for the reminder. I was making the mistake of comparing light to how water moves over a surface. I should know better. LOL
@@SciD1 Light does not exhibit friction as far as we know, but one can probably explain red shift of star light due to attenuation with light from interfering sources, more interference the farther the light travels.
@@donaldkasper8346 I call that refraction.
Kind of handwavy. And why use music when you can just demonstrate the experiment without showmanship? In showmanship necessary to make his point?
Just trying to make the learning process fun.
Sarcasm can be extremely satisfying when you are trying to make people understand something they just don't want to accept by any means, no matter how much evidence is presented. I don't know for Mr. Stute, but I have been debunking the double-slit experiment for years. But the wave dogma is so deeply rooted in people's minds, that it's like trying to talk to a Christian fundamentalist.
Was a laser used in the original experiments??
May i ask you be more specific. By the term "original experiments" not sure which experiments you are referring to?
@@joestute6434 In early tests in the late 1800s there were no lasers, and probably no electricity. They used white light, probably from a candle source. Later, light bulbs.
There simply is no "quantum weirdness". It's a 200 year old misinterpretation. Light was never a "wave". Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a probabilistic mathematical framework based on the misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of the nature of light, and the double-slit experiment. Maybe that's why it is "probabilistic"... The math may be useful for replicating technology and chemical reactions, but it has no bearing on reality itself, because the theory is founded on the fallacy of quantum state superposition.
i agree 100%
Can you explain entanglement simply?
@@nissimhadarthere is no entanglement.
@@SciD1 What do you mean? This is an observation.
@@nissimhadar it's an interpretation based on a fallacy. Quantum entanglement is impossible because superposition is impossible, it doesn't exist. It was based on the misunderstanding of the double-slit experiment. No superposition, no "quantum weirdness".
There is also single slit interference. Because there is also single slit interference when the width of the slit is comparable to the wavelength. So if you analyze the geometry of the waves carefully, and apply huygen's principle, you will find that a single slit should also have places after the slit where the wave front has traveled different distances, and so there should be interference from only one slit. But you only see it if size of the slit is comparable to the wavelength.
Also, you don't understand the conclusion of Young's experiment. Your version also confirms that wave mechanics govern light.
Can you provide a reference for experiment mentioned in paragraph 1. Contend my guardrail experiment proves the light dark pattern of Young's experiment can not be an interference pattern and we should stop using ripple tank demos.
@@QuantumLab-bt7yq
ua-cam.com/video/7CmbItRjM-Y/v-deo.htmlsi=op_1J-u4lUwX77la
Watched the video. I've done several single slit ripple tank experiments and did not see evidence of the pattern referred to in the video you recommended. All I have seen is each wave turns into one continuous arc.
@@QuantumLab-bt7yq I like the fact that you are not content with the textbook description- you want to see it yourself. But I think you'll go farther if you augment your knowledge with the textbook description. Don't shy away from the math- it can all be done with rules of triangles, if you like geometry better.
I've never tried it with water, but my guess would be that you need the aperture to be the size of the wavelength, and you need to look for the interference much farther to the sides. Remember the single slit interference pattern has a very strong peak that is wide compared to the double slit pattern. So you're looking for the place where the waves are very small amplitude, and fairly great distance from the center. The laser has a wavelength that is microscopic, and so you are only looking a fraction of an inch to the left or right to see the fringes. But the wavelength of your water waves might be a million times greater. So you're looking for interference in the very small ripples, far to the sides. And it will be quite a bit less noticeable than the double slit.
@@vwcanter You present a valid question. One i wrestled with for a long time. I am familiar with Huygen's theory. Have yet to see any experimental evidence to support it. The biggest flaw in quantum wave theory is the assumption photons interact with each other. They do not. Suggest searching DO PHOTONS INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER. They pass through each other unchanged. You can do the experiment yourself. Any two lasers will do. Several years ago I bought a laser and started doing experiments. That is when I saw photons do not act like ripple tank demos predict. That realization led to my guardrail experiment. I placed a barrier between the two slits preventing interference. With the barrier in place we still see a light dark pattern. The experimental results indicate if quantum wave theory is going to survive it needs a better explanation.
Does anyone want to comment on my experiments showing photons do not act like ripple tank demos?
@myspeechles Photons are excitations of a field, but they can also be seen as waves.
@myspeechles Particles are excitations of a field, if you want to be pedantic.
But treating light as a wave is the only rational way to design a radio antenna, or explain how an electron microscope works.
The words we use are tools, and we use them to help us.
Photons do act like waves, in a practical sense.
@myspeechles _"And no we do not ever (ever) see a particle acting like a wave. We may say (only in poetic manner) that particles behave statistically like waves behave physically."_
It's so funny how you people use waves the way it suits your needs. Sometimes physical waves, sometimes probability waves, or waves of math. The double-slit experiment has been interpreted as light interfering with itself for 200 years! You will literally find thousands of videos on UA-cam claiming light behaves like water waves. The fact remains, nobody has ever observed light waves, and never will. It was Young's interpretation, pure assumption, and it's nothing more than that today. Why aren't you discussing Mr. Stute's results in the video, instead of telling us what we all already read many times in text books and "scientific" articles?
@myspeechles blame that on UA-cam's poor notification system, and its ridiculous filters. I never got notified. I have never seen your comment. So, I am sorry for not replying.
@myspeechles How do you explain the "interference" pattern when you fire many photons through a double-slit, one at a time? You can either invoke MWI, or interpret the photons as "waves".
Do you see a third option?