I problem I am struggling: Experiment included.

  • Thread starter WIM_PHOTON
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Experiment
In summary, the conversation revolved around a theoretical experiment involving two identical beams meeting out of phase and canceling each other out. It was inspired by the double slit experiment and the question of whether it is possible to create destructive interference without also having constructive interference occur elsewhere. The conclusion was that due to fundamental limitations, this is not possible. Additionally, the importance of formulating the question correctly in the first place was emphasized.
  • #1
WIM_PHOTON
3
0
Hello,

First I would like to say I don't have a formal education in physics but I've dropped everything in order to pursue an education in it. My knowledge is at least high school level and dipping into higher level.

Recently I thought of a situation and devised an experiment around it. It was based on a problem, I have attached a .jpeg illustrating the experiment and its premise. Even then I will describe it here, along the reasoning I used. It was inspired by the double slit experiment and the phenomena correlated with it. My greatest interest was in the the actual interference. So I pondered:

What if you could create two beams, which are ideally identical in every way (frequency, wavelength, synchronization) and all components are ideal, and they both meet (illustrated in attachment) out of phase and as such "negate" each other, i.e the sum of the E and M fields are 0?

When I mean ideal I mean ideal; complete vacuum, etc,. I realize that actually building such an experiment physically might be practically impossible, really this is an issue about the theoretical aspect.

I have asked this question to a professor and several grad students and I have only received an, "I don't know.".
 

Attachments

  • PhysProb.jpg
    PhysProb.jpg
    23.6 KB · Views: 405
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Once the antiphase photon gets into an emitter, what happens there? There are not too many options. All of them imply that the emitter will have to emit the absorbed energy in some way.
 
  • #3
Reflection necessarily introduces a phase shift. This is not just some practical issue, but a very fundamental limitation. Any beam splitter, merger or divider, whether in the visible or radio frequency or whatever range, cannot leave the relative phase of transmission versus reflection unchanged. As a consequence, if you get destructive interference at one exit port of the beam splitter, you necessarily get constructive interference at the other port.

As a fundamental rule you cannot ever dynamically create a situation where destructive interference occurs without having constructive interference occurring somewhere else.
 
  • #4
Cthugha said:
Reflection necessarily introduces a phase shift. This is not just some practical issue, but a very fundamental limitation. Any beam splitter, merger or divider, whether in the visible or radio frequency or whatever range, cannot leave the relative phase of transmission versus reflection unchanged. As a consequence, if you get destructive interference at one exit port of the beam splitter, you necessarily get constructive interference at the other port.

As a fundamental rule you cannot ever dynamically create a situation where destructive interference occurs without having constructive interference occurring somewhere else.

Thanks for the answer. I suspected that there was something fundamentally wrong my question, though, I can't lie, a small part of me felt "smart" when a prof didn't manage to answer it. Worst part is I read about it this in my textbook and already forgot. I have a follow-up question, but I'm so tired at the moment I can't remember it (just noticed the broken English of the title).
 
  • #5
Just because the prof had no answer doesn't automatically make you profound. There is a vast asymmetry between posing questions (easy) and responding with a correct, succinct answer (lots harder). That's the story of science, where we work on questions that might have been posed decades or centuries ago. An equally tough task is often that of formulating the question correctly in the first place. Without that, a meaningful answer might not be possible.
 
Last edited:

1. What was the purpose of your experiment?

The purpose of my experiment was to investigate a specific problem or phenomenon and gather data to better understand it.

2. How did you design your experiment?

I designed my experiment by first identifying the problem and then constructing a hypothesis to test. I then determined the variables, controls, and methods for collecting and analyzing data.

3. What were your findings from the experiment?

The findings from my experiment showed that [insert findings here]. These results support or reject my hypothesis and provide insight into the problem I am struggling with.

4. What are the limitations of your experiment?

Some limitations of my experiment include [insert limitations here], which may have affected the accuracy or generalizability of my findings. These limitations should be considered when interpreting the results.

5. How can your experiment be improved or expanded upon?

My experiment can be improved or expanded upon by [insert suggestions here]. This could include altering the methods, manipulating different variables, or conducting further research to gain a deeper understanding of the problem.

Similar threads

  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
162
Replies
7
Views
681
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
105
Views
4K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top