Lazarus Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT WITH BASEBALLS First we do the experiment for single edge diffraction Make a horizontal edge 3 feet wide with a thickness of 6 inches. Then cover the 6 inch surface with 4 sided pyramids with their square bases 6 inches wide. Use pyramids with 3 different heights. 12 inches, 9 inches and 6 inches. When we drop baseballs from 10 feet above the baseballs will land in one of 3 lines on the floor as they bounce off of the pyramids. Now round off the exposed edges of the pyramids. That causes the baseballs to land in 3 wider lines to form the diffraction pattern. The next thing to do is build a double slit replica with rounded pyramids on all the 6 inch surfaces. Now the baseballs will land in multiple fuzzy distinct lines similar to Young’s Experiment. If this makes sense to you, the Double Slit Experiment does not offer strong evidence that photons are waves. Electrons in elliptical orbits in atoms could make the leading edge of a razor blade bumpy to produce the diffraction effect. I have previously shown that a rotating magnetic force in the nucleus of atom would account for the discrete orbits of electrons. In single edge diffraction photons do not go back under the edge. That makes the pinhole diffraction interference explanation suspicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Prehaps you could show us the evidence that this experiment works as claimed; for example, some photos of the experimental setup and the positions that the balls land. I have previously shown that a rotating magnetic force in the nucleus of atom would account for the discrete orbits of electrons. I think you have claimed that. I am fairly sure you didn't show it to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Do you have evidence to back up your claim? Do you have a calculation that predicts the size of the interference pattern? If yes, please present them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 If I have done my sums right - and actually using a double slit set up with a counter about 5 foot from the slits which are separated by six inches with balls falling a bit faster at say 14 feet per second then the fringes would be separated by 3.3*10e-33 feet *. I am not sure you are going to be able to measure that using baseballs * wow - doing this in imperial is really hard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted July 23, 2015 Author Share Posted July 23, 2015 If I have done my sums right - and actually using a double slit set up with a counter about 5 foot from the slits which are separated by six inches with balls falling a bit faster at say 14 feet per second then the fringes would be separated by 3.3*10e-33 feet *. I am not sure you are going to be able to measure that using baseballs * wow - doing this in imperial is really hard Did you take into account that the pyramids are 3 different hights so the angle of bounce is different for each type? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Did you take into account that the pyramids are 3 different hights so the angle of bounce is different for each type? Or how about: you show us your calculations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Did you take into account that the pyramids are 3 different hights so the angle of bounce is different for each type? No - as I said "and actually using a double slit set up with a counter about 5 foot from the slits which are separated by six inches with balls falling a bit faster at say 14 feet per second" My calculations were based on the canonical set up of the youngs double slit experiment. But then I cannot see how an analogue to this set up would vary greatly in the experimenal precision. Baseballs will show an interference pattern - but the experimental set up would be extreme and quite possibly physically impossible After more back of the envelope calculations - in a realistic setup that would actually get fringes (delta_fringe = .1m , D=1000m, d=.01m) if you had fired the first baseball as soon as the epoch of recombination began at around 380,000 years after the big bang then the first ball would be a less than half way to the collection screen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Baseballs aren't photons. They do not have the properties of photons (i.e. mass), so expecting them to behave like photons, or vice versa, seems a little silly. What you've basically done is thrown a car in the ocean to show why submarines don't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Baseballs aren't photons. They do not have the properties of photons (i.e. mass), so expecting them to behave like photons, or vice versa, seems a little silly. What you've basically done is thrown a car in the ocean to show why submarines don't work. Atoms and molecules have been shown to diffract. The problem with the concept of the OP is that the though experiment does not match with the physics. (Straw man arguments are usually wrong; that's the point of using them) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Atoms and molecules have been shown to diffract. The problem with the concept of the OP is that the though experiment does not match with the physics. (Straw man arguments are usually wrong; that's the point of using them) Is the experiment not valid because it is not bound by quantum rules at that scale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Is the experiment not valid because it is not bound by quantum rules at that scale? I think he is trying to show that you don't need quantum effects to generate an interference pattern using solid objects. By contriving a set of suitably sized and shaped objects for the balls to bounce off, he is (I think) claiming that the balls will land in a pattern resembling a diffraction pattern. (The word quincunx comes to mind: http://www.mathsisfun.com/data/quincunx.html) And therefore (look out for the leap in logic) light is not waves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Is the experiment not valid because it is not bound by quantum rules at that scale? It would work - but the distance between fringes is related to the screen distance, slit seperation, and crucially the de broglie wavelength. The de broglie wavelength is planck's constant (very very small) over the momentum (normally pretty big for a baseball). This means that to get appreciable fringe seperation you need to have the screen a decent distance away and very small slit gaps - but for an actual experiment there are limits to this. The only thing you can get really low is the momentum - so to get this low enough to make the fringe seperation about the same order of magnitude as the baseball you need to lower the speed to an absolute crawl; my sums has it as 4.4 *10-27 m/s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 It would work - but the distance between fringes is related to the screen distance, slit seperation, and crucially the de broglie wavelength. The de broglie wavelength is planck's constant (very very small) over the momentum (normally pretty big for a baseball). This means that to get appreciable fringe seperation you need to have the screen a decent distance away and very small slit gaps - but for an actual experiment there are limits to this. The only thing you can get really low is the momentum - so to get this low enough to make the fringe seperation about the same order of magnitude as the baseball you need to lower the speed to an absolute crawl; my sums has it as 4.4 *10-27 m/s But a basketball can't interfere with itself... can it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Is the experiment not valid because it is not bound by quantum rules at that scale? QM always applies; imatfaal's calculations show that the diffraction is too small to see. If some other rule is being applied, then there is absolutely no relevance to the validity of the double-slit experiment. But a basketball can't interfere with itself... can it? It can, in principle, but it won't, because of the scale involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 QM always applies; imatfaal's calculations show that the diffraction is too small to see. If some other rule is being applied, then there is absolutely no relevance to the validity of the double-slit experiment. It can, in principle, but it won't, because of the scale involved. Right. OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted July 24, 2015 Author Share Posted July 24, 2015 Strange said: I think he is trying to show that you don't need quantum effects to generate an interference pattern using solid objects. By contriving a set of suitably sized and shaped objects for the balls to bounce off, he is (I think) claiming that the balls will land in a pattern resembling a diffraction pattern. (The word quincunx comes to mind: http://www.mathsisfu.../quincunx.html) And therefore (look out for the leap in logic) light is not waves! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply: Creating a pattern similar to the light defraction is what it is trying to do. Adjusting the shape and number of pyramids with adjusting the sizes almost any pattern could be produced. Producing a similar pattern does not say that a phonon is not a wave, merely that there are other possibilites. Thank all of you for your comments. Lazarus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Adjusting the shape and number of pyramids with adjusting the sizes almost any pattern could be produced. Maybe. Although you have provided no support for this. It also means that the thought experiment has no value at all, if it can produce any result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Maybe. Although you have provided no support for this. It also means that the thought experiment has no value at all, if it can produce any result. In the classic double slit experiment I understand you can vary the result if the slits are varied in width and spacing, and I wouldn't call that experiment without value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 In the classic double slit experiment I understand you can vary the result if the slits are varied in width and spacing, and I wouldn't call that experiment without value. You can vary the results in a predictable way that is consistent with theory. What Lazarus is claiming is that you can produce any result. That is what makes it worthless as a model of anything in particular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted July 24, 2015 Author Share Posted July 24, 2015 You can vary the results in a predictable way that is consistent with theory. What Lazarus is claiming is that you can produce any result. That is what makes it worthless as a model of anything in particular. When you produce a pattern that matches a light Dpuble Slit pattern, you can use that to speculate on the shape of the surface that could cause the photons to react similarly. Everything that I have read clains that the reason the Young Double Slit Experiment implys a wave is that it is impossible for a partical to produce the pattern. Wasn't that the original argument.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 When you produce a pattern that matches a light Dpuble Slit pattern, you can use that to speculate on the shape of the surface that could cause the photons to react similarly. Everything that I have read clains that the reason the Young Double Slit Experiment implys a wave is that it is impossible for a partical to produce the pattern. Wasn't that the original argument.? Yes. The slits don't have the shape you describe for the baseballs. There are no pyramids to bounce off of, even if you were able to show that that model actually worked as advertised. So there is no relevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted July 25, 2015 Author Share Posted July 25, 2015 Yes. The slits don't have the shape you describe for the baseballs. There are no pyramids to bounce off of, even if you were able to show that that model actually worked as advertised. So there is no relevance. No real surface is perfectly smooth. I will try to produce something to show that a reasonable diffraction pattern can be created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 (edited) You can vary the results in a predictable way that is consistent with theory. What Lazarus is claiming is that you can produce any result. That is what makes it worthless as a model of anything in particular. I read it as "almost any result" so that might imply not all results hence not truly random. I have my doubts that it will be anything other than truly random but I want to see the results of his experiment first. Edited July 25, 2015 by Robittybob1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 No real surface is perfectly smooth. I will try to produce something to show that a reasonable diffraction pattern can be created. Not perfectly smooth ≠ shaped like a regular pattern of pyramids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Not perfectly smooth ≠ shaped like a regular pattern of pyramids In the standard experiment, how much is the thickness of the slit and its relation to the photon's wavelength? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now