I problem I am struggling: Experiment included.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter WIM_PHOTON
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiment
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a proposed experiment inspired by the double slit experiment, focusing on the theoretical implications of creating two identical beams of light that meet out of phase to achieve destructive interference. Participants explore the feasibility and implications of such a scenario, touching on concepts of phase shifts and energy emission in the context of quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes an experiment involving two identical beams of light that meet out of phase, questioning the theoretical implications of achieving complete destructive interference.
  • Another participant raises the issue of what happens to the energy of an antiphase photon when it enters an emitter, suggesting that it must be emitted in some form.
  • A participant emphasizes that reflection introduces a phase shift, arguing that destructive interference at one port of a beam splitter necessitates constructive interference at another, indicating a fundamental limitation in achieving purely destructive interference.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about their understanding, noting that a professor was unable to provide an answer to their question, which leads to a reflection on the complexity of formulating scientific questions.
  • Another participant comments on the difficulty of providing succinct answers to complex questions, highlighting the challenges inherent in scientific inquiry.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of achieving destructive interference without constructive interference occurring elsewhere. There is no consensus on the theoretical implications of the proposed experiment, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge practical limitations in conducting the proposed experiment, as well as the complexity of the underlying physics, which may not be fully captured in their discussions.

WIM_PHOTON
Messages
3
Reaction score
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: 482
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
12K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
5K