B A view of the double-slit experiment

[ZapperZ]

Here i present to you this ridiculous "simulation" of the image in my head about waves that i can't seem to unsee:



It is a fun toy to play with if anything

Isn't divergence a linear "thing"? If it is, any divergence at all should cause the wavefront to expand inside the slit?

Edit: Okay now I'm confusing myself even more, shouldn't you get electrons at the other side if the slits were made of metal and if you hit the slit walls with photons?

Once again, you don’t get it. What is the PATTERN you get after all this? Does it match the diffraction pattern to a T?

If it doesn’t, then why would this “simulation” be relevant here?

This is starting to feel like talking to a wall (pun intended).

Zz.

 

[Qhmu]

Once again, you don’t get it. What is the PATTERN you get after all this? Does it match the diffraction pattern to a T?

If it doesn’t, then why would this “simulation” be relevant here?

This is starting to feel like talking to a wall (pun intended).

Zz.

And you seem to take everything literally but the text.

"ridiculous "simulation" of the image in my head"

How is "Zz." relevant?

 

[ZapperZ]

And you seem to take everything literally but the text.

"ridiculous "simulation" of the image in my head"

But again, how is this relevant to the TOPIC that you have created, and how is this relevant to the issue at hand? I still do not know if you are aware of why there is such a major shortcoming with the picture that you have. And the fact that you keep coming back to it, and even attempted another "simulation" is puzzling.

So make it relevant and answer this question: Do you still think that diffraction of light AND the double-slit interference can be explained using this bouncing-off-the-slits-walls picture?

Zz.

 

[Qhmu]

So make it relevant and answer this question: Do you still think that diffraction of light AND the double-slit interference can be explained using this bouncing-off-the-slits-walls picture?

Zz.

That's what I'm thinking, yes. Only thing that's different from shooting a laser at the wall and shooting it through a hole is the amount of surfaces said laser can interact with.

I'm just going to leave it here now, there's no need to make a fuss about it. I apologize to you for being so dense.

 

[ZapperZ]

That's what I'm thinking, yes. Only thing that's different from shooting a laser at the wall and shooting it through a hole is the amount of surfaces said laser can interact with.

So let me get this right just in case I misunderstood what you said here. You STILL think that this bouncing-off-the-slits-walls is a valid explanation for the single-slit diffraction and the double-slit interference? After ALL that have transpired here, and the fact that you can't show the result of your simulation and how it matches the diffraction pattern, you are still holding on to this model?

Then there is nothing else for me to do here either, because I have just proven that I've been talking to a wall. I definitely have better things to do.

 

[Qhmu]

So let me get this right just in case I misunderstood what you said here. You STILL think that this bouncing-off-the-slits-walls is a valid explanation for the single-slit diffraction and the double-slit interference? After ALL that have transpired here, and the fact that you can't show the result of your simulation and how it matches the diffraction pattern, you are still holding on to this model?

Then there is nothing else for me to do here either, because I have just proven that I've been talking to a wall. I definitely have better things to do.

Because i see it would be utterly pointless to make a computer "model" of interference pattern and present it to you without providing maths or explanations, but in case you ever feel the need to waste more of your time, here's an example of a double-slit-pattern done with only bouncing behavior, just watch where my balls land *giggle*:

 

[ZapperZ]

Because i see it would be utterly pointless to make a computer "model" of interference pattern and present it to you without providing maths or explanations, but in case you ever feel the need to waste more of your time,...

No, I don’t, because you haven’t learned anything.

Zz.

 

[Nugatory]

Edit: Okay now I'm confusing myself even more, shouldn't you get electrons at the other side if the slits were made of metal and if you hit the slit walls with photons?

There's no such thing as hitting the walls with photons - photons aren't like little objects that move around until they hit something and a beam of light is not photons moving by the way a stream of water is water molecules moving by. These light waves are electrical and magnetic fields evolving according to the differential equation derived from Maxwell's equation.

 

[Ibix]

Because i see it would be utterly pointless to make a computer "model" of interference pattern and present it to you without providing maths or explanations, but in case you ever feel the need to waste more of your time, here's an example of a double-slit-pattern done with only bouncing behavior, just watch where my balls land *giggle*:

Your pattern is dependent on the thickness of the wall. This is not the case for diffraction. Try again with the wall as thin as you can make it.

Your pattern is dependent on the existence of significant curvature of your incident pattern. This is not the case for diffraction. Try again with a slit separation of 0.5mm and your particles radiating from a point eight light minutes - 1.4×10¹¹m - away. Or even 1m.

Your pattern is dependent on the symmetric distribution and separation of your particles. This is not the case for diffraction. Try again, displacing the particles to the left by 1/4 of their initial separation.

Your pattern is dependent on the angle of incidence of your particles. This is not the case for diffraction (more precisely, it simply changes the scale and location of the pattern). Try again with particles incident at 30° to the vertical.

Furthermore, your simulation has no analog to wavelength, which is critically important to the scale of a diffraction pattern.

You cannot explain diffraction with ray optics. Ray optics is a mathematically simple approximation to wave optics, and the approximation falls apart under these circumstances. Worse, you aren't even simulating ray optics, as there is no analog to refraction in this particles-move-in-straight-lines model.

You said in your first post that you were here to ask questions. I don't understand why you bother if you are just going to ignore the answers.