Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment
Date	2015-11-28 15:38 +1100
Message-ID	<dbspenF7sfcU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<krCdnf0c0_ilHMrLnZ2dnUU7-L-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <dbpildFe6k6U1@mid.individual.net> <37bb6d61-ed79-4230-ac06-f4b9e0e06ad7@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

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

Thread

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

csiph-web