Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/24/20 in Posts

  1. You still haven’t explained what you mean by “shortest distance between two surfaces” I assume this is the slit separation, or related to it (since d is measured center-to-center) Diagrams help. Being vague does not. I don’t know what two/four source math means. My assertion us clearly true. The equation works. I’ve done the measurement, as have countless others. It would seem you have not. Asserting otherwise is not an argument in good faith. Do you have data and experimental results to share? Better still, it shouldn’t be hard to find a data set from an independent source, like an online lab course. That’s the wave description, which you reject. Path length differences causing interference, with constructive interference where the path length is an integral number of wavelengths. But if the wavelength is shorter, the fringes get closer together, because this path difference is achieved at a smaller angle. The opposite of what you say. Where did I say anything about golf balls? I said wavelength means there is wave behavior. Being ignorant of the physics experiments that have been performed is not a winning strategy. You have presented no evidence of your assertion. You haven’t derived your formula. If you don’t fix this, the thread will be closed. An image from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/421688/white-light-instead-of-monochromatic-light-in-interference Red fringes have greater spacing than blue, or green. As the standard equation predicts, and opposite of what you predict. I was thinking the bet could be a cool million US dollars.
    1 point
  2. Toyota recently announced plans to release cars soon using a solid state battery to replace lithium ion. These types of advances surely help. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Toyota-s-game-changing-solid-state-battery-en-route-for-2021-debut
    1 point
  3. Thank you for a practical demonstration that many youtube videos are unreliable, so as to be unusable as a source of evidence. Which is why they are frowned on in ScienceForums. I will be able to point to this thread in future as good reason for upholding that policy.
    1 point
  4. None of the above makes any sense. But the one that really stands out... You do realize 'sound' is a pressure wave, don't you ? Do you actually know ANY Physics ?
    1 point
  5. If they can reasonably accurately recognize and quantify the benefits and harm to the public, why should it not be within their mandate to put in place reasonable taxes and/or incentives, and allow the industries to compete on that basis, and essentially pick winners and losers on that economic market basis? Why should clean energy have to compete evenly against a dirty one barely meeting some arbitrary target, if the difference can be fairly and efficiently quantified?
    1 point
  6. As my Mum used to say, "funny peculiar not funny haha"
    1 point
  7. I have not used PyTorch so I can't offer an opinion but I would not be surprised if there are scenarios where PyTorch is an obvious choice. Google for instance provides Tensor Processing Units (TPUs) and TensorFlow could be a good choice when the model has suitable properties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_Processing_Unit
    1 point
  8. How about this? https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46568913/tensorflow-import-error-no-module-named-tensorflow
    1 point
  9. I find anaconda useful for managing environments. I also had problems installing tensorflow, then a bunch of computer scientists said google didn't support it that much and that Pytorch was the way to go anyway.
    1 point
  10. a very very bad video , but a qualified musics
    1 point
  11. an artistic party would be good really under a music like this : piano piano piano
    1 point
  12. light light light oh romantic?? noooooo! what ? just a tea ..
    1 point
  13. So if I merely suggested that too silly is actually a psychotic child molester without providing any evidence whatsoever... Your theory is, you would thank me as a common courtesy and allow me to continue posting on this board. I would suggest you're not very good at theoretical reality So your theory is that something in the garbage he typed might have something to do with facts concerning the double slit experiment. Once again I don't think you're grasping the concept of reality It is a plain fact that I have diligently attempted to stay on the subject. Why do I need any benefit of a doubt? So you don't think gravitational air pressure makes it possible for air to transmit sound? And you disagree that the two slit experiment math predicts a pattern on a curved surface? can you quote the sentence where I said something incorrect about pressure? You don't think there can be a wavelength between cannonballs? "action at a distance" is a very basic principle? Is the Holy Ghost a very basic principle? This is an accusation you will never back up with a fact I wouldn't let you babysit a goldfish either Compared to what? science forums? LOL I might question whether you have ever gotten a baby or bath water judgement right Like your scientific predictions i'll be betting that that hot air was just another of your smelly brain farts. Since none of you can make anything like a civil scientific counter argument... How about just providing a reference to any scientific presentation on the subject of the two slit experiment that accurately describes the pattern, the experiments performed, and provides a reasonable explanation for the patterns features (the envelope and a larger central Maxima)
    -1 points
  14. What would I be banned for? I haven't invaded your privacy or talked about how you make a living. Too silly is doing those things and clearly if he was doing them to you this message board would protect you. Clearly you have double standards. Just for fun could you quote something I've said that's factually wrong? Accurately quoting me "So you don't think gravitational air pressure makes it possible for air to transmit sound?" Is Gravity the proximate cause of air pressure in a strict sense? Is uncompressed air capable of transmitting sound? Where does the model explain the two slit experiment? You apparently think all particle models are the same? Is many worlds the same as Copenhagen? You have certain knowledge of the kinematics of photon production and reception? Can you post a reference? Future history will tell the tale... I am confident reguarding my pristine intentions. And it's just a plain fact that you are Rude enough to make accusations you can't back up with a fact. If you're an example of the Forum educated I am less than impressed... So far You've just talked trash and haven't said anything specific on the subject of the two slit experiment. Do you think two wave Math Works? I provided an image clearly marking shortest distance and largest distance between surfaces. In an example where the slits are wider than the central impediment, the distance between the surfaces of the impediment will tell you the envelope Fringe size, and the distance between the two outer most surfaces will tell you how large the small fringes will be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction This is the only mathematics (Other than my own) that makes accurate predictions regardless of the number of slits. It considers each surface a point source... That means the single slit is really the two Source experiment. The single impediment is another two Source experiment. The double slit is the four Source experiment. etc Physics commonly uses the word wavelength to describe objects at a frequency. You clearly have been asserting only waves can have a wavelength. I am asserting golf balls can have a wavelength without waiving in any manner. Another accusation without any evidence... Link me to the experiment for which I am unaware or ignorant. You choose a double slit configuration... slit width and impediment width... You predict with your math and I'll predict with my math. Clearly you're desperate to close the thread because you can't deal with the actual arguments. You are clearly showing your true character and the show isn't a good one How is it the opposite of what I predict? In my formulation the wavelength of the light clearly dictates the width of the fringes. Your accusation is outrageously incorrect. No surprise you can't take anything seriously. The truth is you hurled a lot of reckless insults and aren't willing to put up anyting of any Integrity behind them.
    -1 points
  15. (d/lambda) *pi*D = this equals the width of a on or off Fringe. Applying this formula to the shortest distance between two surfaces will give you the size of the envelope fringes. Applying it to the largest distance between two surfaces gives you the size and number of the smaller fringes. Any two source math applied to the double slit experiment will in fact not get the correct answer. You have to use the 4 source math are you will not get experimental confirmation. Your assertion is plainly false. My simple math not only predicts as well as their complex math. It properly accounts for the fact that the pattern starts at the 90 degree angle where there is a maximum path length difference. I can also explain why the central grouping of fringes is twice as large as the other fringes. The physical reasoning is based on understanding that there are a finite number of possible wavelength long path length differences that any two points can create. The simple fact is you are just projecting the number of wavelengths between the two points onto a longer line some distance away. So if two golf balls are on the same trajectory 5 m different in distance you're claiming they must be waving? An assertion without evidence Swansont did nothing but distort what I wrote. Can you give me an Einstein quote claiming photons have no Mass? Gas particles outside of atmospheric pressure will not transmit sound. Gravity forces close contact which is essentially the same as being stuck. The ideal gas law does not say gases under zero pressure transmit sound If they are massless how do they carry momentum and how can they be bent twice as much by gravity? The fact is it predicts better and I'm willing to wager any amount you wish to put up on a proving experiment. Like those College students I bet you don't even realize that if you do any math predicting a pattern on a flat screen you'll get wrong answers. The distance to the screen is a radius and the mathematics predicts the pattern on an ark created by that radius. If you don't view the pattern on a curved screen you won't see the pattern the mathematics predicts. You are demonstrating gross hypocrisy! The unfounded a unevidenced personal attacks made by the commenter "too silly" would not be tolerated if they were directed at one of you. What experiments? You have no Postcards From The Multiverse... Nor do you have any video of a wave function. Just as "jamming" explains two source " interference" in radar experiments, I am asserting that photon "reconstruction" completely explains the double slit results. Why are you thanking someone for making a non evidence personal attack totally irrelevant to the subject?
    -2 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.