Young's double slit,Newton's ring's

[kevinfr0st]

is the banding in young's double slit Newton's rings,just a small cross section,
please look at my video before saying no,

it is only 5.30 long
reply's welcome

 

[kcdodd]

I'm sorry I still do not quite understand what you are trying to get at. They are both examples of interference and wave properties of light.

 

[kevinfr0st]

I'm sorry I still do not quite understand what you are trying to get at. They are both examples of interference and wave properties of light.

thanks for your reply
did you watch all the video ? with the film of me doing slit experiment with sun light?
i think you need to empty your head for a few min about what you have been told and look with your eyes and think with your own mind (sorry don't want to be rude) try to think of it like this, 2 Newton rings fighting for space on 1 lens, down the center of the lens the lines go straight, that straight bit is the small cross section of the experiment,in my video i was tilting the angle of light through the slit to see the 2 Newton rings move tilt it to far one way the rings will form 1 ring and to far the other way it will again form 1 ring but when it is level it forms 2 rings 1 branching to the left and one to the right,the compressed sides of the ring that meet are straight in middle but branch off at top and bottom,

the pice of card i held up in front of my face with the slit cut in it,if it was just across the bridge of my nose,all u would see was the straight part of my nose not the ends where it branches out over my eyes,or branches out for my nostrals,
i can't explain it any more
the lines are in the slit,if the slit was straight,then the Newton rings would be Newton lines,hold a slit to ur eye and see the faint banding,shine a laser on to the wall and look at the dot through the slit,it is all just a projection of the slit any interference,is in side the slit not on the way to the wall
again thanks for your reply and i hope i don't sound to mad,it is such a shame so few vewing this page seem to not even bother looking at the video,and even fewer want to comment

 

[kevinfr0st]

iv just added a few text tags on my video to see if that helps to explain it better

 

[kevinfr0st]

whats going on ? 116 views and only 1 person commented,and very few even bothered to look at the video,52 views and not all from here,a simple question,can youngs double slit with sun light or electric light work without a lens ? i cannot get any thing without a lens,
i still say the bading in youngs double slit is Newton's ring's.if you think it is rubbish please show me,i have put a pice of card on top of lens with a slit cut in it and all it shows the straight banding,it hides the rest of Newton's ring's.i even put a partition between the slit and the projected banding (Newton's ring's) and it still makes the same pattern,and please don't say the THE ELECTRON SPLITS IN 2 AND INTERFERES WITH IT'S SELF lol
am i mad or just so thick i just don't get it or are you ?

 

[paulselhi]

I preferred your vids on Magic Mushrooms !

 

[kevinfr0st]

I preferred your vids on Magic Mushrooms !

that might be why I am mad :) ooops no picking or eating happened with them mushrooms :) :)
will we get done for flaming my own post ??

 

[paulselhi]

A tired mind become a shape-shifter
Everybody need a mood lifter
Everybody need reverse polarity
Everybody got mixed feelings
About the function and the form
Everybody got to deviate
From the norm

 

[kevinfr0st]

A tired mind become a shape-shifter
Everybody need a mood lifter
Everybody need reverse polarity
Everybody got mixed feelings
About the function and the form
Everybody got to deviate
From the norm

a lot seem to frightened to deviate from the norm,believe what there told,why because a brainy person tells them so,or to fit in,or to pretend there brainy iv seen a lot of parrots just repeating what they were told no imput of there own,told 1 that i could teach a parrot to recite the experiment,but would it be stupid enough to pretend to understand it ),some one told me on a youtube page i commented on about youngs double slit,
FROM RichLOAguy
Kind of funny to be calling the double slit experiment rubbish. This experiment has baffled einstein. It is called the "double slit experiment" and is accepted as fact by 99.9% of scientists.
Obviously you are the .1% who disagree. Rubbish? OMG.
does that make it true NO just excepted there is a big difference.
think I am going to have to start makeing youtube videos takeing the p=-=s of all that think a electron can be in 2 places at the same,just to provoke a responce,a inteferance pattern between the slit and the wall (paper or what ever your project the light on to) lol lol

 

[kevinfr0st]

is there anyone to comment ?
or have i upset parrots ? :)

 

[sophiecentaur]

is there anyone to comment ?
or have i upset parrots ? :)

I can't understand what your problem is with this.
Setting up an experiment at home can be very fraught. If what you have seen, somehow doesn't agree with what you feel the theory should be showing you then the first direction to look is at the experimental setup.

The two slit experiment works a treat if you do it carefully and the fringe spacing agrees excellently with predictions - I've done it many times, with and without a Laser (my history goes well pre-laser for the amateur experimenter / School lab) and the equivalent microwave / radio wave / ultrasound demo. The 'theory' is very, very sound and can't be faulted (by a parrot or by Albert - who had no problem with the sums either, btw).

Newtons rings are just another example of interference - this time due to path length differences at curved interfaces of lenses and other curved bits of transparent media. Describe the profiles of the optics and you can predict accurately the shape of the interference pattern. The 'rings' don't have to be circular - only when there is circular symmetry to the setup.

The theory also describes, accurately, how oil films, insect wings and birds' feathers produce their colours and also how Holograms will look.

What more is there to say except that you should read around the subject and get as well informed as possible about the theory - with which no one who can understand it disagrees. You recommended, earlier on, that someone should open their eyes. Perhaps you should do just that and find out more than you have done so far.

 

[kevinfr0st]

I can't understand what your problem is with this.
Setting up an experiment at home can be very fraught. If what you have seen, somehow doesn't agree with what you feel the theory should be showing you then the first direction to look is at the experimental setup.

The two slit experiment works a treat if you do it carefully and the fringe spacing agrees excellently with predictions - I've done it many times, with and without a Laser (my history goes well pre-laser for the amateur experimenter / School lab) and the equivalent microwave / radio wave / ultrasound demo. The 'theory' is very, very sound and can't be faulted (by a parrot or by Albert - who had no problem with the sums either, btw).

Newtons rings are just another example of interference - this time due to path length differences at curved interfaces of lenses and other curved bits of transparent media. Describe the profiles of the optics and you can predict accurately the shape of the interference pattern. The 'rings' don't have to be circular - only when there is circular symmetry to the setup.

The theory also describes, accurately, how oil films, insect wings and birds' feathers produce their colours and also how Holograms will look.

What more is there to say except that you should read around the subject and get as well informed as possible about the theory - with which no one who can understand it disagrees. You recommended, earlier on, that someone should open their eyes. Perhaps you should do just that and find out more than you have done so far.

thanks for your reply,but that is why I am here is to find out what is going on,you say you did it without lasers,did you use a lens ??i cannot get it to work without a lens,even if i remove the lens from a laser the experiment fails,here is another question light isn't a constant stream is it ? there is a spaceing between the waves yes ?so isn't it just showing the spaceing or the wave patteren,do you believe it when they say that the electron can be in 2 places at once that some how the electron can pass through the blocked slit ? the whole experiment is flawed shoot electrons randomly,if you cannot shoot a electron in a straight line,with out knowing the exact path of a electron,you have nothing to compair it with

 

[sophiecentaur]

Some of the questions you ask show that you really need to find out more of the basics of interference and diffraction. You won't get to sort this out by expecting people like me to answer the odd question you may have. Get some basics from Wikipedia and other sources.
Diffraction can't be explained by just arm waving. It is mathematical!
Btw, why do you keep confusing light with electrons?

 

[kevinfr0st]

Some of the questions you ask show that you really need to find out more of the basics of interference and diffraction. You won't get to sort this out by expecting people like me to answer the odd question you may have. Get some basics from Wikipedia and other sources.
Diffraction can't be explained by just arm waving. It is mathematical!
Btw, why do you keep confusing light with electrons?

lol do u think i haven't looked into this on wikipedia iv been looking into this for over 2 years,
why do you seem to want to run from a simple question (it must be for you )can the experiment work with LIGHT without a lens ?? that must be a simple question for anyone who thinks they know it all,
light,packets of protons,or electrons,isnt it all the same with the experiment ?
iv seen video of electrons in a crystal,and the voice over the top talking crap,saying the electrons are bending around barriers,if you shoot a machene gun out of a side window of a fast moveing car,looking from above the line of bullets would look like a curve,but they are going in a straight line
It is mathematical lol lol iv read about the problem of the space between a orbiting electron,and it's attom,and they use maths to say the space is nothing and therefore does nothing,so it doesn't need to be taken into account (not going to look it all up again for names ect) maths does not prove some thing,after all you said it is a theory
CAN THE EXPERIMENT WORK WITH OUT A LENS ??

 

[sophiecentaur]

If the light has a reasonably parallel path ('collimated') and is reasonably monochromatic then it will produce fringes or rings.
A lens has the effect of giving a brighter image.

Do you know just how fast electrons travel through solids? Your 'bullet' picture is well adrift there.
You refer to accepted Science, in this respect, as 'crap'. Just what do you think your statements appear like to people who have actually done the groundwork and who can see the bigger picture? I think we are seeing a bit of inverted snobbery here.

 

[kevinfr0st]

If the light has a reasonably parallel path ('collimated') and is reasonably monochromatic then it will produce fringes or rings.
A lens has the effect ig giving a brighter image.

Do you know just how fast electrons travel through solids? Your 'bullet' picture is well adrift there.
You refer to accepted Science, in this respect, as 'crap'. Just what do you think your statements appear like to people who have actually done the groundwork and who can see the bigger picture? I think we are seeing a bit of inverted snobbery here.

have you seen the video on youtube with electrons in a crystal ? when the wave hits the barrier the electrons compress up into the wave and then flow back out in the void in the wave,no bending
do you follow the accepted Science that the electron can still go through the the slit if it is covered but other slit is uncovered,
that on its own is crazy,not possable don't care if every one except me thinks it is right,there are other reasons that could give that impression,(iv seen it said that they can't even guarantee
that one particle is getting fired at a time or not)
the parrot remark was for some on youtube that pretend they understand it,not to all,
do you mind if i ask you a few other questions,if not ill go thanks for your reply

 

[jtbell]

CAN THE EXPERIMENT WORK WITH OUT A LENS ??

Yes. Thomas Young himself did it without a lens, and it can be done that way today:

http://cavendishscience.org/phys/tyoung/tyoung.htm

 

[sophiecentaur]

"do you follow the accepted Science that the electron can still go through the the slit if it is covered"
That would imply that the electron could go through anything! I'm sure you don't mean that and it is certainly not what is accepted - nor is it logical.

Your last post appears to be just rambling and doesn't make any point at all. Furthermore, you haven't addressed any of my points that you have quoted. I should be pleased to discuss something concrete and sensible but not a general slagging off of real Science. You have clearly not grasped what Science is actually saying so there is little point in carrying on as we have been doing. Sorry.

 

[kevinfr0st]

Yes. Thomas Young himself did it without a lens, and it can be done that way today:

http://cavendishscience.org/phys/tyoung/tyoung.htm

thanks for your reply and link i have seen that link a few times thanks
i would think the mirror had same affect as a lens,focus the light,

 

[kevinfr0st]

"do you follow the accepted Science that the electron can still go through the the slit if it is covered"
That would imply that the electron could go through anything! I'm sure you don't mean that and it is certainly not what is accepted - nor is it logical.

Your last post appears to be just rambling and doesn't make any point at all. Furthermore, you haven't addressed any of my points that you have quoted. I should be pleased to discuss something concrete and sensible but not a general slagging off of real Science. You have clearly not grasped what Science is actually saying so there is little point in carrying on as we have been doing. Sorry.

here is some thing for you to look at,if you have not seen it at all.
Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment, on youtube,
please don't think that iv only looked at his videos
you say i have not addressed any of your points,sorry what points ?
are you saying I am wrong when i say the banding is from a small cross section of Newtons rings ?
even when my video shows it
thanks for your reply

 

[sophiecentaur]

kevinfr0st
The points I made were in posts 11,13 15.
How do Newton's rings come into your simple slit pattern? A reasonable optical system shouldn't introduce them to any appreciable degree - compared with the fringes you can expect from two slits. Are you using suitable widths and gaps for your slits?
There are many ways of producing not-very-good optical results. The trick is to eliminate odd effects and you can do this by looking at other people's setups and seeing what they've done. Your demo seems to be hand held (?) and a bit ad-hoc. Set it up properly - you don't need an optical bench but you need some solid blocks of wood and clamps to hold your bits in and a well blacked out room for best results. The experimenters of old were really fastidious in their methods, which is why their results were often so good, despite not having a supplier of optical equipment on a handy website.

But there are two issues here. The first is the way the Maths can predict the results of a simple two slit experiment with light. Sort out the two slit interference formula and you will get just what you expect. The phenomenon is just to do with path differences and angles. Practical problems like Newton's rings can be solved easily.

The other issue - about the wavelike behaviour of electrons, 'what really happens' and how the experiment relates to quantum theory is much more complex. You have made a few muddled statements about that (e.g. what you say about electron movement) and I don't think you are in a position to decry accepted scientific ideas in that respect- not until you have a full enough knowledge to appreciate what those views actually consist of, in detail. The occasional Utube movie is hardly relevant in these matters. That old quote "if you think you understand QM then you don't" is very apposite.