It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
No, it is not "only dependent on the difference between lens 1 and 22.5 deg". I gave you a link to the correct math a few posts ago, which could be a little over your head, but one concept you should be able to understand is that the math is non-commutative. Your post implies the sequence of the filters doesn't matter, but it does matter, and that's sort of what makes it an odd phenomenon according to simple logic, which might suggest that the order of the filters shouldn't matter. Even if you don't get all the math, you should get that much of the concept, that re-ordering the filters changes the results, as explained in the link. You don't need to know math to understand that idea that the sequence of the filters matters, but if you want to calculate or predict how much different the result will be with a different sequence you need math for that.
originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I will attempt to answer the question in the video...
The relationship is only dependent on the difference between lens 1 and 22.5 deg.
"I found some course notes that explain the math of how you can calculate what the polarizing filters will do..."
If you're lost, why do you say "he's great"? He's trying to over-simplify. I did watch the part where he says it's not a normal lecture in quantum mechanics where you might get lectured on such topics as the Schrodinger equation, wave functions, etc.
originally posted by: blackcrowe
He's great.
...
I'm lost again after this point.
The way he explains bits is very, very confusing and doesn't really make sense to me. Why doesn't he just name a monochromatic x/y-array like everybody knows from computer displays - everybody today would understand what he is trying to say. Messing up classical issues like room temperature gradients with bits in the way he does is just confusing, because it's not a real good model for moving air molecules for example.
Keep in mind this is not a course to learn the actual mathematical proofs of Quantum Mechanics, but to understand it intuitively. It’s an open course for us that have no true mathematical background.
Remember this? Or are you not reading my posts?
If you're lost, why do you say "he's great"?
I had no idea you were being sarcastic, but instead of typing in (sarc) or (no sarc) the way I usually interpret remarks is to take them seriously if not modified, but if somebody writes
originally posted by: blackcrowe
I was being sarcastic.
...
I remember i did enjoy it (no sarc).
originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I will try to explain in my crude math. Which i hope you understand.
If we label the lenses from left to right as, (0), (=1), (+1).
(=1) and (+1) are the two positions responsible for blocking or allowing the light.
Each blocks 12.5% of light.
Any additional lens. Would then become a (-1) or a (+1).
George Box said "All models are wrong, some are useful". The math we have for polarizing filters may not know the correct physical model, but the math is useful because it makes correct predictions. If your math is not only wrong like all other models, but not useful either if it can't account for the variables, what's the point?
originally posted by: blackcrowe
Yes it gets much more complicated when you have to account for variables.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. If I had to guess it looks like maybe you saw 12.5% mentioned in some example somewhere but I don't know why you are using 12.5% in your math. The angles of the filters are continuously variable and the useful math follows trig functions based on that. I re-checked the sources I gave you and the video mentions 22.5% as an example angle, and it mentions 15% of the photons getting blocked at that 22.5 degree angle. But those aren't the numbers you're using and they are just examples. A good model will deal with any angle or series of angles.
As in. The 12.5% removal of light over the more widely accepted. Although seemingly woo figure of 15%. Mine is more woo. But there is no woo. So who's correct in this situation? Me with 12.5%, or Bell's 15%?
...he wishes to claim or state that the geometric confinement of a laser is entirely based upon blocking light that emanates to the sides in a circular wavefront, and so is only projected forward.
By his own reasoning, he seems to suggest that every light source can be turned into a laser with the application of geometric collimation.
Lasers operate via stimulated emission, a property that occurs in QM in which a photon, causes a electron from a higher energy level to drop to the ground state, transfering the energy to the electromagnetic field in the form of a photon that has the same directionality, and wavelength and is coherent with the incoming photon
Now what is important to note is that observationally, the experiment works, if you use a high intensity laser that is producing millions of coherent photons at every second. It also still works if you fire each photon separately. What appears to matter is that the light is coherent. What this strongly suggests is that photons undergo the same process of interference with or without the presence of other photons. It suggests that the waveform or wavelength property of the photon is exactly that...
As the photon passes to the slit, it passes through both and exactly which one it passed through is unknown till it is detected.
..it passes through both and exactly which one it passed through is unknown till it is detected.
This one is a tricky one to really understand or accept.
I've never seen you do any quantitative observation fitting. Not only are the EU ideas not expressed quantitatively, but your own ideas are similarly lacking in any kind of quantitative prediction so without that you don't really have anything to compare to observation, and nothing to support that statement that they "they just fit my observations more".
originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Thanks.
Q1. Lens at 0 deg is removing 50% of (100% of 360) deg the light. eg vert axis.
Lens 2 at 5 deg is removing 5% of (100% of 360 deg.) of (100% of 180) deg of filtered light.
= 9%.
I can sort of understand "Lens (0) removes 50% of 100% of 360 deg." is supposed to mean something like
originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Arbitrageur
One more point to add.
Lens (0) removes 50% of 100% of 360 deg.
Lens (-1) removes 12.5% of 100% of 180 deg.
Lens (+1) removes 12.5% of 100% of 180 deg.
So why don't you wait until it's done before burdening us with your statements which have no math or predictive power to back them up?
originally posted by: KrzYma
I know, you want math, equations, drownings...
...NO! not till it's done
I think anybody who has an interest in physics gets this warm feeling inside that the world is orderly when seeing how well the classical world follows our intuitive logic, then has the rug pulled out from under them when they learn about the experiments like the double slit, and that as much as we want Einstein to be right that "God doesn't play dice", the evidence keeps piling up that it looks like he was wrong about that. But sure I've had my own ideas and thought the scientists must be overlooking some things, like take dark matter for example. I thought maybe they didn't consider certain things, let's call them A, B, and C, but on digging into their research I find they not only considered A, B, and C, but also D, E, and F and probably a lot more of the alphabet in papers I haven't even read yet, though I've read a number of them. The bullet cluster papers are a must read for people who have doubts, and I even read Moffett's papers saying there is no dark matter and observations can be explained by changing gravity theory.
BTW: Arbitrageur... did you ever said anything by yourself ? how you think "it is", made any new statements ?
originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Sorry. I am as dyslexic as a dog.
This is very embarrassing. And ruins my life.
I have had my nephew round this evening. He has told me where i was wrong.
Answer to Q1. Again. 47.2% recurring. Light passed. Not lost.
The pic is in my nephews writing. It shows how he got to it.
But if you look at the graph. You find it also.
The Malus' Law calculator computes the intensity of light based on the initial intensity and the angle between the light's initial polarization direction and the axis of the polarizer.
INSTRUCTIONS: Enter the following:
(I0) Initial Intensity
(θ) angle the light's initial polarization direction and the axis of the polarizer
Intensity (I): The calculator returns the intensity in Watts per square meter.
The Math / Science
Malus' Law says that when a perfect polarizer is placed in a polarized beam of light, the intensity, I, of the light that passes through is given by the following equation:
I = I0 • cos²θi
where:
I = Intensity of light based on Malus' Law
I0 = Initial Intensity in W/m2
θi = Angle between the light's initial polarization direction and the axis of the polarizer
99.24038765 W/m^2