| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
19 Nov 2005 01:33:26 AM |
| Object: |
Silly question viz. split-screen experiment |
Hi.
The original explanation for the diffraction pattern appearing in the
split-screen experiment was that the photons (then light waves) were
interfering with each other. Later experiments showing that the
pattern persisted even when the photons passed through the slits
individually are now interpreted as the photons interfering with
themselves.
If in the original experiment the photons are interfering with
themselves _and_ each other, shouldn't a different diffraction pattern
appear? Or do the photons _ever_ interfere with each other in this
experiment? In any experiment? (I understand they don't interfere
with each other in free space.)
Thanks.
-- Walter
(If you consider me or this question utterly stupid, I already know
that!)
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Silly question viz. split-screen experiment |
19 Nov 2005 08:42:47 AM |
|
|
<wfaxon@gis.net> wrote in message
news:1132385606.543481.208110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi.
The original explanation for the diffraction pattern appearing in the
split-screen experiment was that the photons (then light waves) were
interfering with each other. Later experiments showing that the
pattern persisted even when the photons passed through the slits
individually are now interpreted as the photons interfering with
themselves.
If in the original experiment the photons are interfering with
themselves _and_ each other, shouldn't a different diffraction pattern
appear? Or do the photons _ever_ interfere with each other in this
experiment? In any experiment? (I understand they don't interfere
with each other in free space.)
Thanks.
-- Walter
(If you consider me or this question utterly stupid, I already know
that!)
Ok...
Here's some simple observations that need to be thought about and
put together into a simple and consistent theory to explain the phenomena.
1) Radio works, has done so for 100 years.
2) Light can be beamed, we talk of light rays.
3) Waves diffract.
4) Transformers have big iron loops for magnetic fields and little copper
loops for electric fields. Electric fields and magnetic fields are at right
angles to each other.
5) A changing electric field produces a magnetic field.
6) A changing magnetic field produces an electric field.
7) A "wave" is a changing field.
So... you have a wave, it diffracts.
You have two waves, because 5,6,7.
This is a wave--> /-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\
This is another wave --> -\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\
The second wave is at a right angle to the first, but I can't draw it,
it comes out of the page toward you.
The two waves in a beam:
\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\
-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-
As one changes, it causes the other. The magnetic field plays
leapfrog with the electric field.
The photon:
\-/- E
-/-\ M
Two photons, one coming after the other:
\-/-\-/-
-/-\-/-\
Four photons:
\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/- E
-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\ M
The beam is not a wave. It is TWO waves.
Radio is a wave.
A radio photon is a wave that has been turned on and then
turned off again after one cycle.
Radio is usually broardcast. A reflecting dish is used to
turn it into a beam. You phone needs no dish, but has a weak
range. Your satellite TV has a long range, but it needs a dish.
Now go back and look at diffraction.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Silly question viz. split-screen experiment |
19 Nov 2005 03:58:45 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:HRGff.31482$6A4.20148@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
<wfaxon@gis.net> wrote in message
news:1132385606.543481.208110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
.... As one changes, it causes the other. The magnetic field plays
leapfrog with the electric field. ....
*****. Old Man has corrected Androcles about this
before. In a traveling EM wave, the electric and magnetic
fields are in phase. Androcles' standing wave doesn't
go anywhere. Calculate the Poynting vector, stupid.
[Old Man]
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Silly question viz. split-screen experiment |
19 Nov 2005 08:15:22 PM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:7rGdnaXZFruFPeLenZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:HRGff.31482$6A4.20148@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
<wfaxon@gis.net> wrote in message
news:1132385606.543481.208110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
.... As one changes, it causes the other. The magnetic field plays
leapfrog with the electric field. ....
*****. Old Man has corrected Androcles about this
before. In a traveling EM wave, the electric and magnetic
fields are in phase.
FUCKWIT! Assertion carries no weight, you dumb *****.
What the ***** do you think carries the energy, fucking aether?
You're a useless ignoramus, old fart.
sin^2 + cos^2 = 1, you jerk. The electric field and the magnetic
field CANNOT be in phase or they'd both be zero at the same
instant and energy would not be conserved, it would be ZERO.
Fucking useless aetherialist! Go play with your ectoplasm, store
the energy in that for half a cycle, you senile old goat.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Silly question viz. split-screen experiment |
19 Nov 2005 09:17:04 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:__Qff.38599$375.13746@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:7rGdnaXZFruFPeLenZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:HRGff.31482$6A4.20148@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
<wfaxon@gis.net> wrote in message
news:1132385606.543481.208110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
.... As one changes, it causes the other. The magnetic field plays
leapfrog with the electric field. ....
*****. Old Man has corrected Androcles about this
before. In a traveling EM wave, the electric and magnetic
fields are in phase.
FUCKWIT! Assertion carries no weight, you dumb *****.
What the ***** do you think carries the energy, fucking aether?
You're a useless ignoramus, old fart.
sin^2 + cos^2 = 1, you jerk. The electric field and the magnetic
field CANNOT be in phase or they'd both be zero at the same
instant and energy would not be conserved, it would be ZERO.
Fucking useless aetherialist! Go play with your ectoplasm, store
the energy in that for half a cycle, you senile old goat.
Androcles edits his education. He shouldn't have sniped
the part about the Poynting vector.
Yes, for Androcles' standing wave, energy is conserved
in place because it doesn't go anywhere. A traveling
wave also conserves energy, but it moves energy from
one region to another. For Androcles' standing wave,
the time averaged energy flux, < S > = < E x B > = 0.
For a traveling wave, whereof E and B are in phase, < S >
has both direction and finite magnitude.
[Old Man]
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Silly question viz. split-screen experiment |
20 Nov 2005 06:24:48 AM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:psCdnVeUSb4pd-LeRVn-qA@prairiewave.com...
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:__Qff.38599$375.13746@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:7rGdnaXZFruFPeLenZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:HRGff.31482$6A4.20148@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
<wfaxon@gis.net> wrote in message
news:1132385606.543481.208110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
.... As one changes, it causes the other. The magnetic field plays
leapfrog with the electric field. ....
*****. Old Man has corrected Androcles about this
before. In a traveling EM wave, the electric and magnetic
fields are in phase.
FUCKWIT! Assertion carries no weight, you dumb *****.
What the ***** do you think carries the energy, fucking aether?
You're a useless ignoramus, old fart.
sin^2 + cos^2 = 1, you jerk. The electric field and the magnetic
field CANNOT be in phase or they'd both be zero at the same
instant and energy would not be conserved, it would be ZERO.
Fucking useless aetherialist! Go play with your ectoplasm, store
the energy in that for half a cycle, you senile old goat.
Androcles edits his education. He shouldn't have sniped
the part about the Poynting vector.
Yes, for Androcles' standing wave, energy is conserved
in place because it doesn't go anywhere.
What standing wave, you fucking moron?
Get yourself a basic electronics course from the internet,
you obviously are hopeless at designing a simple radio transmitter.
Failing that (and you will) look up "power factor", "kVA".
A traveling
wave also conserves energy, but it moves energy from
one region to another. For Androcles' standing wave,
the time averaged energy flux, < S > = < E x B > = 0.
For a traveling wave, whereof E and B are in phase, < S >
has both direction and finite magnitude.
[Old Man]
Hey arsehole! The ideal transformer uses a superconductor.
Transformers are only 99% efficient, the 1% is lost as heat
as the copper windings DO have a slight resistance.
If the mag field were in phase with the voltage the fucking thing
would smoke, probably the same ***** you are.
The idea is NOT to produce power in the transformer but take
it where it is needed.
What are you trying to do, idiot, heat up the imaginary aether?
Get real, beginner!
http://enspecpower.com/powerfactorcorrection/PFC_BEGINNERS_GUIDE.PDF
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Silly question viz. split-screen experiment |
20 Nov 2005 03:01:08 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:kWZff.58225$Es4.41211@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:psCdnVeUSb4pd-LeRVn-qA@prairiewave.com...
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:__Qff.38599$375.13746@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:7rGdnaXZFruFPeLenZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:HRGff.31482$6A4.20148@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
<wfaxon@gis.net> wrote in message
news:1132385606.543481.208110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
.... As one changes, it causes the other. The magnetic field plays
leapfrog with the electric field. ....
*****. Old Man has corrected Androcles about this
before. In a traveling EM wave, the electric and magnetic
fields are in phase.
FUCKWIT! Assertion carries no weight, you dumb *****.
What the ***** do you think carries the energy, fucking aether?
You're a useless ignoramus, old fart.
sin^2 + cos^2 = 1, you jerk. The electric field and the magnetic
field CANNOT be in phase or they'd both be zero at the same
instant and energy would not be conserved, it would be ZERO.
Fucking useless aetherialist! Go play with your ectoplasm, store
the energy in that for half a cycle, you senile old goat.
Androcles edits his education. He shouldn't have sniped
the part about the Poynting vector.
Yes, for Androcles' standing wave, energy is conserved
in place because it doesn't go anywhere.
What standing wave, you fucking moron?
Get yourself a basic electronics course from the internet,
you obviously are hopeless at designing a simple radio transmitter.
Failing that (and you will) look up "power factor", "kVA".
Androcles defeats himself.
In an LC circuit, the current is 90 deg. out of phase
with the voltage. Net power consumption is zero.
Energy is conserved in place. That's a standing wave.
An EM plane wave moves energy from the transmitter
to the receiver at the speed of light. Energy isn't
conserved in place. The energy moves in half-cycle
bunches according to
| S | = | E x B | / c = [E_0 * sin( k*x - w*t )]^2 / c
E and B are in phase. See:
JD Jackson, "Classical Electrodynamics"
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Silly question viz. split-screen experiment |
22 Nov 2005 02:41:01 AM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:FqidnSYmVLqFeR3eRVn-vw@prairiewave.com...
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:kWZff.58225$Es4.41211@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:psCdnVeUSb4pd-LeRVn-qA@prairiewave.com...
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:__Qff.38599$375.13746@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:7rGdnaXZFruFPeLenZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:HRGff.31482$6A4.20148@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
<wfaxon@gis.net> wrote in message
news:1132385606.543481.208110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
.... As one changes, it causes the other. The magnetic field plays
leapfrog with the electric field. ....
*****. Old Man has corrected Androcles about this
before. In a traveling EM wave, the electric and magnetic
fields are in phase.
FUCKWIT! Assertion carries no weight, you dumb *****.
What the ***** do you think carries the energy, fucking aether?
You're a useless ignoramus, old fart.
sin^2 + cos^2 = 1, you jerk. The electric field and the magnetic
field CANNOT be in phase or they'd both be zero at the same
instant and energy would not be conserved, it would be ZERO.
Fucking useless aetherialist! Go play with your ectoplasm, store
the energy in that for half a cycle, you senile old goat.
Androcles edits his education. He shouldn't have sniped
the part about the Poynting vector.
Yes, for Androcles' standing wave, energy is conserved
in place because it doesn't go anywhere.
What standing wave, you fucking moron?
Get yourself a basic electronics course from the internet,
you obviously are hopeless at designing a simple radio transmitter.
Failing that (and you will) look up "power factor", "kVA".
Androcles defeats himself.
In an LC circuit, the current is 90 deg. out of phase
with the voltage. Net power consumption is zero.
Correct.
Energy is conserved in place.
Correct.
That's a standing wave.
Old Fart defeats himself.
In an LC circuit no energy is radiated, energy is conserved in place.
That's not a wave at all.
When the LC circuit is tied to an antenna, two travelling waves are
emitted (at c) that are 90 degrees phase shifted.
Old Fart thinks one of the waves shifted 90 degrees by magic.
Energy is still conserved until it reaches the receiver where once
again energy is conserved in an LC circuit.
Gradual and unavoidable losses take place in the resistive RLC,
but vacuum has no resistance.
As with many phuckwits, Old Fart confuses resistance
with impedance because both are measured in ohms.
An EM plane wave moves energy from the transmitter
to the receiver at the speed of light.
Correct, without resistance. Properly focussed, the E plane
wave and the M plane wave carry ALL the conserved
energy to the receiver, switching the conserved energy between
then as they go and the inverse square law does not apply.
Old Fart defeats himself, he thinks the two waves are in phase.
Energy isn't
conserved in place.
Corect. Energy is conserved all along the path.
There is no point along the path where the E field and the M field
are both zero or energy would not be conserved.
OldFart thinks there points along the path where the E field and M
field are in phase and both are zero at a single point.
The energy moves in half-cycle
bunches according to
| S | = | E x B | / c = [E_0 * sin( k*x - w*t )]^2 / c
E and B are in phase. See:
JD Jackson, "Classical Electrodynamics"
*****. See Gauss and Faraday's equations.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node38.html
"It describes how a changing magnetic field can generate, or induce, an
electric field. Gauss' theorem applied to Eq. (3.177) yields the familiar
field equation"
Tell Jackson to take a hike. You can go with him, Old Fart.
Y'know what's weird, Old Fart?
You don't even NEED to say the E and M fields are in phase,
but it's a good thing the vacuum is not resistive to EM fields.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Silly question viz. split-screen experiment |
22 Nov 2005 03:16:01 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
You don't even NEED to say the E and M fields are in phase,
but it's a good thing the vacuum is not resistive to EM fields.
Androcles
Stick with heckling. Facts don't become you.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Silly question viz. split-screen experiment |
20 Nov 2005 03:25:43 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message news:__Qff.38599$375.13746@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:7rGdnaXZFruFPeLenZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:HRGff.31482$6A4.20148@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
<wfaxon@gis.net> wrote in message
news:1132385606.543481.208110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
.... As one changes, it causes the other. The magnetic field plays
leapfrog with the electric field. ....
*****. Old Man has corrected Androcles about this
before. In a traveling EM wave, the electric and magnetic
fields are in phase.
FUCKWIT! Assertion carries no weight, you dumb *****.
What the ***** do you think carries the energy, fucking aether?
You're a useless ignoramus, old fart.
sin^2 + cos^2 = 1, you jerk. The electric field and the magnetic
field CANNOT be in phase or they'd both be zero at the same
instant and energy would not be conserved, it would be ZERO.
http://images.google.com/images?q=em+wave
Fucking useless aetherialist! Go play with your ectoplasm, store
the energy in that for half a cycle, you senile old goat.
Androcles.
Title: "Useless Ignoramus":
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EMWaves2.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Silly question viz. split-screen experiment |
19 Nov 2005 08:55:56 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message news:HRGff.31482$6A4.20148@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
<wfaxon@gis.net> wrote in message
news:1132385606.543481.208110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi.
The original explanation for the diffraction pattern appearing in the
split-screen experiment was that the photons (then light waves) were
interfering with each other. Later experiments showing that the
pattern persisted even when the photons passed through the slits
individually are now interpreted as the photons interfering with
themselves.
If in the original experiment the photons are interfering with
themselves _and_ each other, shouldn't a different diffraction pattern
appear? Or do the photons _ever_ interfere with each other in this
experiment? In any experiment? (I understand they don't interfere
with each other in free space.)
Thanks.
-- Walter
(If you consider me or this question utterly stupid, I already know
that!)
Ok...
Here's some simple observations that need to be thought about and
put together into a simple and consistent theory to explain the phenomena:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EMWaves.html
[snip irrelevant nonsense]
Dirk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: Silly question viz. split-screen experiment |
21 Nov 2005 01:30:18 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
The photon:
\-/- E
-/-\ M
Two photons, one coming after the other:
\-/-\-/-
-/-\-/-\
Four photons:
\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/- E
-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\ M
A photon is not a cycle of an EM wave.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silly question viz. split-screen experiment |
19 Nov 2005 01:55:14 AM |
|
|
Yikes! Make that "double-slit" experiment.
(Silly + Stupid), squared.
-- W:)ter
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
