Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #535722 > unrolled thread

The Original Double Slit Experiment

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The Original Double Slit Experiment Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 16:01 -0600
    Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-27 10:24 +1100
      Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 17:51 -0600
      Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment Lester Thorpe <lt11@thorpe.info> - 2015-11-27 05:03 +0000
        Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 01:19 -0500
          Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-27 02:09 -0800
            Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 11:25 -0500
              Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment Lester Thorpe <lt11@thorpe.info> - 2015-11-27 16:42 +0000
            Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 09:42 -0800
        Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-27 20:15 +1100
          Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 01:29 -0800
          Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 05:16 -0500
          Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 13:23 -0500
            Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 10:30 -0800
              Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 12:40 -0600
                Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 13:28 -0800
                  Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 15:38 -0600
                  Re: Now, instead of "From: Ross A. Finlayson", I see "RossBot". benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 22:28 -0500
              Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 20:42 -0500
          Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 13:26 -0500
            Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained. Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 12:29 -0800
              Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 20:54 -0500
      Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 22:54 -0800
      Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 10:41 -0800
        Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-28 15:38 +1100
          Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 03:27 -0500
          Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-29 10:33 -0800
        Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-29 10:32 -0800
    Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 10:34 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#536132 — Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained.

In article <ilm6y.196940$rM.92793@fx16.iad>, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/28/2015 06:29 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> >
> > Bell's theorem states:
> >
> >    No physical theory of local hidden variables
> >    could ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
> >
> > In other words, quantum mechanics remains statistical, always;
> > the actual, local causes are unknowable.
> >
> > It does not mean: The actual, local causes don't exist.
> >
> > Medical Science is like that too, statistical.
> >
> >
> Statistics are NOT reality! They are the science of IGNORANCE! Better 
> than nothing at all, but only showing ignorance!

We are in a universe of limitted information. When individual particles are 
identified the limitted information is visible as uncertainity of exact position 
and momentum. When individual particles can no longer be distinguishes the 
limitted information is visible as entropy.

> Bells theorem actually states that either QM is correct or relativity is 
> correct, They BOTH can't be correct!

GR doesn't require hidden variables. Because GR and QM don't mesh, GR is likely 
incomplete, not wrong, just like Newton's gravity and spacetime are incomplete, 
not wrong in the circumstances the theory was developped for.

-- 
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists since we
cannot prove the consistency.  ~~ Morris Kline

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536264 — Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained.

On 11/28/2015 03:29 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <ilm6y.196940$rM.92793@fx16.iad>, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2015 06:29 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>>
>>> Bell's theorem states:
>>>
>>>     No physical theory of local hidden variables
>>>     could ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
>>>
>>> In other words, quantum mechanics remains statistical, always;
>>> the actual, local causes are unknowable.
>>>
>>> It does not mean: The actual, local causes don't exist.
>>>
>>> Medical Science is like that too, statistical.
>>>
>>>
>> Statistics are NOT reality! They are the science of IGNORANCE! Better
>> than nothing at all, but only showing ignorance!
>
> We are in a universe of limitted information. When individual particles are
> identified the limitted information is visible as uncertainity of exact position
> and momentum. When individual particles can no longer be distinguishes the
> limitted information is visible as entropy.
>
>> Bells theorem actually states that either QM is correct or relativity is
>> correct, They BOTH can't be correct!
>
> GR doesn't require hidden variables. Because GR and QM don't mesh, GR is likely
> incomplete, not wrong, just like Newton's gravity and spacetime are incomplete,
> not wrong in the circumstances the theory was developped for.

Mostly wishful thinking on your part in my estimation.



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#535844

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 1:24:33 AM UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27/11/2015 9:01 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > The Original Double Slit Experiment
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuv6hY6zsd0
> >
> >> Light is so common that we rarely think about what it really is. But
> >> just over two hundred years ago, a groundbreaking experiment answered
> >> the question that had occupied physicists for centuries. Is light
> >> made up of waves or particles?
> >>
> >> The experiment was conducted by Thomas Young and is known as Young's
> >> Double Slit Experiment. This famous experiment is actually a
> >> simplification of a series of experiments on light conducted by
> >> Young. In a completely darkened room, Young allowed a thin beam of
> >> sunlight to pass through an aperture on his window and onto two
> >> narrow, closely spaced openings (the double slit). This sunlight then
> >> cast a shadow onto the wall behind the apparatus. Young found that
> >> the light diffracted as it passed through the slits, and then
> >> interfered with itself, created a series of light and dark spots.
> >> Since the sunlight consists of all colours of the rainbow, these
> >> colours were also visible in the projected spots. Young concluded
> >> that light consist of waves and not particles since only waves were
> >> known to diffract and interfere in exactly the manner that light did
> >> in his experiment.
> >>
> >> The way I have always seen this experiment performed is with a laser
> >> and a manufactured double slit but since the experiment was conducted
> >> in 1801 I have always thought that it should be possible to recreate
> >> the experiment using sunlight and household materials. That is
> >> basically what I did here. I will show the interference pattern I
> >> observed with my homemade double slit on 2Veritasium but I chose to
> >> use a manufactured double slit here to ensure that the pattern was
> >> impressive for observers at the beach.
> >>
> >> Special thanks to Henry, Brady, and Rupert for their cameos, Glen for
> >> filming and Josh for helping create the apparatus. Thanks also to the
> >> Royal Society for allowing us to view the original manuscript of
> >> Young's lecture and the University of Sydney for lending the double
> >> slits.
> 
> It was a nice example of how an experiment can seem conclusive, only to 
> be shown much later to be capable of a different interpretation.
> 
> The subsequent realisation that electrons could be made to do much the 
> same thing indicated that while the experiment showed that waves were 
> involved, it didn't necessarily show that light consisted of a wave.
> 
> Now, the group's kooks will no doubt jump on this as proving that 
> science was wrong. They would be mistaken. Experiments only verify; they 
> don't prove. The double slit experiment was, and remains, consistent 
> with the idea that light is a wave. However, it happens to be consistent 
> with other possibilities as well, which wasn't obvious at the time.
> 
> Sylvia.

==========================
that experiment is based on an ignorant 'understanding that we
(you !!...) know
what is A SINGLE PHOTON '
the energy of the single photon is 
NOT
E= hf
it is 
E=hf times n
while 

0 > n <<<< 1.0000 !!
historic finding by Y.Porat

next i quoted that n to 
THE SCALAR PART OF PLANK TIME 
and got the historic finding that the
** mass  (only mass (not relativistic 
and not schmelativistic mass 
is
about exp -90 Kilogram  !!!(the only Kilogram !!)

no one will ever even be able to detect that single photon !!!

i got it by dividing the energy of the single photon
by c^2 )
2
if so 
=========================================
ENERGY HAS MASS THE ONLY MASS !!
========================================
and if so !!--
one of the "little "conclusions of it :
no need for the idiotic Higgs Boson
to 'give mass ' to particles 

it is energy which  does it 
  (E=m c^2 ....)
=========================================
NO MASS - THE ONLY !!MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS 

=============================================
historic basic  physics rule by  Y Porat
=======================================

TIA
Y.Porat
===========================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#535936

On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 3:24:33 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27/11/2015 9:01 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > The Original Double Slit Experiment
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuv6hY6zsd0
> >
> >> Light is so common that we rarely think about what it really is. But
> >> just over two hundred years ago, a groundbreaking experiment answered
> >> the question that had occupied physicists for centuries. Is light
> >> made up of waves or particles?
> >>
> >> The experiment was conducted by Thomas Young and is known as Young's
> >> Double Slit Experiment. This famous experiment is actually a
> >> simplification of a series of experiments on light conducted by
> >> Young. In a completely darkened room, Young allowed a thin beam of
> >> sunlight to pass through an aperture on his window and onto two
> >> narrow, closely spaced openings (the double slit). This sunlight then
> >> cast a shadow onto the wall behind the apparatus. Young found that
> >> the light diffracted as it passed through the slits, and then
> >> interfered with itself, created a series of light and dark spots.
> >> Since the sunlight consists of all colours of the rainbow, these
> >> colours were also visible in the projected spots. Young concluded
> >> that light consist of waves and not particles since only waves were
> >> known to diffract and interfere in exactly the manner that light did
> >> in his experiment.
> >>
> >> The way I have always seen this experiment performed is with a laser
> >> and a manufactured double slit but since the experiment was conducted
> >> in 1801 I have always thought that it should be possible to recreate
> >> the experiment using sunlight and household materials. That is
> >> basically what I did here. I will show the interference pattern I
> >> observed with my homemade double slit on 2Veritasium but I chose to
> >> use a manufactured double slit here to ensure that the pattern was
> >> impressive for observers at the beach.
> >>
> >> Special thanks to Henry, Brady, and Rupert for their cameos, Glen for
> >> filming and Josh for helping create the apparatus. Thanks also to the
> >> Royal Society for allowing us to view the original manuscript of
> >> Young's lecture and the University of Sydney for lending the double
> >> slits.
> 
> It was a nice example of how an experiment can seem conclusive, only to 
> be shown much later to be capable of a different interpretation.
> 
> The subsequent realisation that electrons could be made to do much the 
> same thing indicated that while the experiment showed that waves were 
> involved, it didn't necessarily show that light consisted of a wave.
> 
> Now, the group's kooks will no doubt jump on this as proving that 
> science was wrong. They would be mistaken. Experiments only verify; they 
> don't prove. The double slit experiment was, and remains, consistent 
> with the idea that light is a wave. However, it happens to be consistent 
> with other possibilities as well, which wasn't obvious at the time.
> 
> Sylvia.

Sylvia it could be a simple answer such as this. What we see as one is in reality two. Good reason for that is.Nature only creates particles in pairs.Also every particle has a wave going for it. Once you has an electron you also have a positron. Like the song goes. "YOU CAN"T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER."  I also like Feynman's Some of Histories.  TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536048

On 28/11/2015 5:41 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 3:24:33 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>> On 27/11/2015 9:01 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> The Original Double Slit Experiment
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuv6hY6zsd0
>>>
>>>> Light is so common that we rarely think about what it really
>>>> is. But just over two hundred years ago, a groundbreaking
>>>> experiment answered the question that had occupied physicists
>>>> for centuries. Is light made up of waves or particles?
>>>>
>>>> The experiment was conducted by Thomas Young and is known as
>>>> Young's Double Slit Experiment. This famous experiment is
>>>> actually a simplification of a series of experiments on light
>>>> conducted by Young. In a completely darkened room, Young
>>>> allowed a thin beam of sunlight to pass through an aperture on
>>>> his window and onto two narrow, closely spaced openings (the
>>>> double slit). This sunlight then cast a shadow onto the wall
>>>> behind the apparatus. Young found that the light diffracted as
>>>> it passed through the slits, and then interfered with itself,
>>>> created a series of light and dark spots. Since the sunlight
>>>> consists of all colours of the rainbow, these colours were also
>>>> visible in the projected spots. Young concluded that light
>>>> consist of waves and not particles since only waves were known
>>>> to diffract and interfere in exactly the manner that light did
>>>> in his experiment.
>>>>
>>>> The way I have always seen this experiment performed is with a
>>>> laser and a manufactured double slit but since the experiment
>>>> was conducted in 1801 I have always thought that it should be
>>>> possible to recreate the experiment using sunlight and
>>>> household materials. That is basically what I did here. I will
>>>> show the interference pattern I observed with my homemade
>>>> double slit on 2Veritasium but I chose to use a manufactured
>>>> double slit here to ensure that the pattern was impressive for
>>>> observers at the beach.
>>>>
>>>> Special thanks to Henry, Brady, and Rupert for their cameos,
>>>> Glen for filming and Josh for helping create the apparatus.
>>>> Thanks also to the Royal Society for allowing us to view the
>>>> original manuscript of Young's lecture and the University of
>>>> Sydney for lending the double slits.
>>
>> It was a nice example of how an experiment can seem conclusive,
>> only to be shown much later to be capable of a different
>> interpretation.
>>
>> The subsequent realisation that electrons could be made to do much
>> the same thing indicated that while the experiment showed that
>> waves were involved, it didn't necessarily show that light
>> consisted of a wave.
>>
>> Now, the group's kooks will no doubt jump on this as proving that
>> science was wrong. They would be mistaken. Experiments only verify;
>> they don't prove. The double slit experiment was, and remains,
>> consistent with the idea that light is a wave. However, it happens
>> to be consistent with other possibilities as well, which wasn't
>> obvious at the time.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Sylvia it could be a simple answer such as this. What we see as one
> is in reality two. Good reason for that is.Nature only creates
> particles in pairs.Also every particle has a wave going for it. Once
> you has an electron you also have a positron. Like the song goes.
> "YOU CAN"T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER."  I also like Feynman's Some
> of Histories.  TreBert
>

That explains nothing. It's just drivel.

Sylvia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536057

On 11/27/2015 11:38 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 28/11/2015 5:41 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 3:24:33 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else
>> wrote:
>>> On 27/11/2015 9:01 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> The Original Double Slit Experiment
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuv6hY6zsd0
>>>>
>>>>> Light is so common that we rarely think about what it really
>>>>> is. But just over two hundred years ago, a groundbreaking
>>>>> experiment answered the question that had occupied physicists
>>>>> for centuries. Is light made up of waves or particles?
>>>>>
>>>>> The experiment was conducted by Thomas Young and is known as
>>>>> Young's Double Slit Experiment. This famous experiment is
>>>>> actually a simplification of a series of experiments on light
>>>>> conducted by Young. In a completely darkened room, Young
>>>>> allowed a thin beam of sunlight to pass through an aperture on
>>>>> his window and onto two narrow, closely spaced openings (the
>>>>> double slit). This sunlight then cast a shadow onto the wall
>>>>> behind the apparatus. Young found that the light diffracted as
>>>>> it passed through the slits, and then interfered with itself,
>>>>> created a series of light and dark spots. Since the sunlight
>>>>> consists of all colours of the rainbow, these colours were also
>>>>> visible in the projected spots. Young concluded that light
>>>>> consist of waves and not particles since only waves were known
>>>>> to diffract and interfere in exactly the manner that light did
>>>>> in his experiment.
>>>>>
>>>>> The way I have always seen this experiment performed is with a
>>>>> laser and a manufactured double slit but since the experiment
>>>>> was conducted in 1801 I have always thought that it should be
>>>>> possible to recreate the experiment using sunlight and
>>>>> household materials. That is basically what I did here. I will
>>>>> show the interference pattern I observed with my homemade
>>>>> double slit on 2Veritasium but I chose to use a manufactured
>>>>> double slit here to ensure that the pattern was impressive for
>>>>> observers at the beach.
>>>>>
>>>>> Special thanks to Henry, Brady, and Rupert for their cameos,
>>>>> Glen for filming and Josh for helping create the apparatus.
>>>>> Thanks also to the Royal Society for allowing us to view the
>>>>> original manuscript of Young's lecture and the University of
>>>>> Sydney for lending the double slits.
>>>
>>> It was a nice example of how an experiment can seem conclusive,
>>> only to be shown much later to be capable of a different
>>> interpretation.
>>>
>>> The subsequent realisation that electrons could be made to do much
>>> the same thing indicated that while the experiment showed that
>>> waves were involved, it didn't necessarily show that light
>>> consisted of a wave.
>>>
>>> Now, the group's kooks will no doubt jump on this as proving that
>>> science was wrong. They would be mistaken. Experiments only verify;
>>> they don't prove. The double slit experiment was, and remains,
>>> consistent with the idea that light is a wave. However, it happens
>>> to be consistent with other possibilities as well, which wasn't
>>> obvious at the time.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> Sylvia it could be a simple answer such as this. What we see as one
>> is in reality two. Good reason for that is.Nature only creates
>> particles in pairs.Also every particle has a wave going for it. Once
>> you has an electron you also have a positron. Like the song goes.
>> "YOU CAN"T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER."  I also like Feynman's Some
>> of Histories.  TreBert
>>
>
> That explains nothing. It's just drivel.
>
> Sylvia

Sylvia you are not a thinker. Herb is an imperial thinker! He knows how 
everything works. For example, you haven't a clue how the double slit 
thing works, but Herb has the theory that photons aways travel in pairs!

This clearly explains the double slit experiment because one photon goes 
through one slit and the other of the pair goes through the OTHER slit! 
Hence all the questions about which slit the photon goes through are 
nonsense!

This is what imperial thinking can give you!


-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536366

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 8:38:54 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 28/11/2015 5:41 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 3:24:33 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else
> > wrote:
> >> On 27/11/2015 9:01 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>> The Original Double Slit Experiment
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuv6hY6zsd0
> >>>
> >>>> Light is so common that we rarely think about what it really
> >>>> is. But just over two hundred years ago, a groundbreaking
> >>>> experiment answered the question that had occupied physicists
> >>>> for centuries. Is light made up of waves or particles?
> >>>>
> >>>> The experiment was conducted by Thomas Young and is known as
> >>>> Young's Double Slit Experiment. This famous experiment is
> >>>> actually a simplification of a series of experiments on light
> >>>> conducted by Young. In a completely darkened room, Young
> >>>> allowed a thin beam of sunlight to pass through an aperture on
> >>>> his window and onto two narrow, closely spaced openings (the
> >>>> double slit). This sunlight then cast a shadow onto the wall
> >>>> behind the apparatus. Young found that the light diffracted as
> >>>> it passed through the slits, and then interfered with itself,
> >>>> created a series of light and dark spots. Since the sunlight
> >>>> consists of all colours of the rainbow, these colours were also
> >>>> visible in the projected spots. Young concluded that light
> >>>> consist of waves and not particles since only waves were known
> >>>> to diffract and interfere in exactly the manner that light did
> >>>> in his experiment.
> >>>>
> >>>> The way I have always seen this experiment performed is with a
> >>>> laser and a manufactured double slit but since the experiment
> >>>> was conducted in 1801 I have always thought that it should be
> >>>> possible to recreate the experiment using sunlight and
> >>>> household materials. That is basically what I did here. I will
> >>>> show the interference pattern I observed with my homemade
> >>>> double slit on 2Veritasium but I chose to use a manufactured
> >>>> double slit here to ensure that the pattern was impressive for
> >>>> observers at the beach.
> >>>>
> >>>> Special thanks to Henry, Brady, and Rupert for their cameos,
> >>>> Glen for filming and Josh for helping create the apparatus.
> >>>> Thanks also to the Royal Society for allowing us to view the
> >>>> original manuscript of Young's lecture and the University of
> >>>> Sydney for lending the double slits.
> >>
> >> It was a nice example of how an experiment can seem conclusive,
> >> only to be shown much later to be capable of a different
> >> interpretation.
> >>
> >> The subsequent realisation that electrons could be made to do much
> >> the same thing indicated that while the experiment showed that
> >> waves were involved, it didn't necessarily show that light
> >> consisted of a wave.
> >>
> >> Now, the group's kooks will no doubt jump on this as proving that
> >> science was wrong. They would be mistaken. Experiments only verify;
> >> they don't prove. The double slit experiment was, and remains,
> >> consistent with the idea that light is a wave. However, it happens
> >> to be consistent with other possibilities as well, which wasn't
> >> obvious at the time.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Sylvia it could be a simple answer such as this. What we see as one
> > is in reality two. Good reason for that is.Nature only creates
> > particles in pairs.Also every particle has a wave going for it. Once
> > you has an electron you also have a positron. Like the song goes.
> > "YOU CAN"T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER."  I also like Feynman's Some
> > of Histories.  TreBert
> >
> 
> That explains nothing. It's just drivel.
> 
> Sylvia

Hanson your slip is showing  TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536365

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 10:41:59 AM UTC-8, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 3:24:33 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 27/11/2015 9:01 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > The Original Double Slit Experiment
> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuv6hY6zsd0
> > >
> > >> Light is so common that we rarely think about what it really is. But
> > >> just over two hundred years ago, a groundbreaking experiment answered
> > >> the question that had occupied physicists for centuries. Is light
> > >> made up of waves or particles?
> > >>
> > >> The experiment was conducted by Thomas Young and is known as Young's
> > >> Double Slit Experiment. This famous experiment is actually a
> > >> simplification of a series of experiments on light conducted by
> > >> Young. In a completely darkened room, Young allowed a thin beam of
> > >> sunlight to pass through an aperture on his window and onto two
> > >> narrow, closely spaced openings (the double slit). This sunlight then
> > >> cast a shadow onto the wall behind the apparatus. Young found that
> > >> the light diffracted as it passed through the slits, and then
> > >> interfered with itself, created a series of light and dark spots.
> > >> Since the sunlight consists of all colours of the rainbow, these
> > >> colours were also visible in the projected spots. Young concluded
> > >> that light consist of waves and not particles since only waves were
> > >> known to diffract and interfere in exactly the manner that light did
> > >> in his experiment.
> > >>
> > >> The way I have always seen this experiment performed is with a laser
> > >> and a manufactured double slit but since the experiment was conducted
> > >> in 1801 I have always thought that it should be possible to recreate
> > >> the experiment using sunlight and household materials. That is
> > >> basically what I did here. I will show the interference pattern I
> > >> observed with my homemade double slit on 2Veritasium but I chose to
> > >> use a manufactured double slit here to ensure that the pattern was
> > >> impressive for observers at the beach.
> > >>
> > >> Special thanks to Henry, Brady, and Rupert for their cameos, Glen for
> > >> filming and Josh for helping create the apparatus. Thanks also to the
> > >> Royal Society for allowing us to view the original manuscript of
> > >> Young's lecture and the University of Sydney for lending the double
> > >> slits.
> > 
> > It was a nice example of how an experiment can seem conclusive, only to 
> > be shown much later to be capable of a different interpretation.
> > 
> > The subsequent realisation that electrons could be made to do much the 
> > same thing indicated that while the experiment showed that waves were 
> > involved, it didn't necessarily show that light consisted of a wave.
> > 
> > Now, the group's kooks will no doubt jump on this as proving that 
> > science was wrong. They would be mistaken. Experiments only verify; they 
> > don't prove. The double slit experiment was, and remains, consistent 
> > with the idea that light is a wave. However, it happens to be consistent 
> > with other possibilities as well, which wasn't obvious at the time.
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> Sylvia it could be a simple answer such as this. What we see as one is in reality two. Good reason for that is.Nature only creates particles in pairs.Also every particle has a wave going for it. Once you has an electron you also have a positron. Like the song goes. "YOU CAN"T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER."  I also like Feynman's Some of Histories.  TreBert

Every particle has a wave.Einstein had light going in quanta.Why bdoes light bend hitting a corner and making a grey shadow.Why does light go with the inverse square law? A 90w bulb is 9 times dimer just 3 feet from its source WOW that's not a very far distance.Get the picture  TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#535935

On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 2:01:31 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> The Original Double Slit Experiment
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuv6hY6zsd0
> 
> > Light is so common that we rarely think about what it really is. But
> > just over two hundred years ago, a groundbreaking experiment answered
> > the question that had occupied physicists for centuries. Is light
> > made up of waves or particles?
> >
> > The experiment was conducted by Thomas Young and is known as Young's
> > Double Slit Experiment. This famous experiment is actually a
> > simplification of a series of experiments on light conducted by
> > Young. In a completely darkened room, Young allowed a thin beam of
> > sunlight to pass through an aperture on his window and onto two
> > narrow, closely spaced openings (the double slit). This sunlight then
> > cast a shadow onto the wall behind the apparatus. Young found that
> > the light diffracted as it passed through the slits, and then
> > interfered with itself, created a series of light and dark spots.
> > Since the sunlight consists of all colours of the rainbow, these
> > colours were also visible in the projected spots. Young concluded
> > that light consist of waves and not particles since only waves were
> > known to diffract and interfere in exactly the manner that light did
> > in his experiment.
> >
> > The way I have always seen this experiment performed is with a laser
> > and a manufactured double slit but since the experiment was conducted
> > in 1801 I have always thought that it should be possible to recreate
> > the experiment using sunlight and household materials. That is
> > basically what I did here. I will show the interference pattern I
> > observed with my homemade double slit on 2Veritasium but I chose to
> > use a manufactured double slit here to ensure that the pattern was
> > impressive for observers at the beach.
> >
> > Special thanks to Henry, Brady, and Rupert for their cameos, Glen for
> > filming and Josh for helping create the apparatus. Thanks also to the
> > Royal Society for allowing us to view the original manuscript of
> > Young's lecture and the University of Sydney for lending the double
> > slits.
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Treb tells me this experiment proves parallel universes are real and also proves they have life much older and in class II We just do not have the brain power to get the pictures they are showing us.I do,and that is why Treb chose me. Go figure  TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web