another double-slit video

In my view, removing the idea of photon-photon collision, there really is no major difference between one, two, three, etc slits. For me, the explanation is down to two theories: 1) photons are dispersed into colors and different angles strictly by collisions with photons on the side of the slit or grating, or 2) photons are sent into different angles because of the photons on the sides, but also collide with each other, which creates color (frequency) dispersion.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• photons
• color
• dispersion
• grating
• prism

[mjennings1271]

i think i solved the equation that links the two relative equations according to einstine's theorem of relativity i am probably wrong but email me to see my proof. einstine: E=mc^2

this is false or less correct, true for 2 dimensions.maybe

2 variables = 2 variables x y = x y

y = energy = e

x= variable(relative)

einstine is missing a variable ? delta? ( three forces?? a matrix? lol jk)

delta energy(e) = mass by relative speed of observer?

observer 2 eyes?(see 3d tv technology)8083615

[tedhuntington]

@mjennings1271

I will tell you what kid Jennings. You need to be more clear when talking about science. Isn't it interesting that the famous E=mc^2 shows that all matter may be made of light particles? I think there is a problem in using "energy" or "vis-visa" as Leibniz called it - in that matter and motion, I don't think can be exchanged- that is - mass cannot be changed into motion and motion cannot be changed into mass - because of the conservation of mass and conservation of motion princip

[EnderW1gg1n]

@tedhuntington Well, if an electron's velocity were to change, it would mean that energy would have to be applied or lost. and we know that energy and matter are the same thing. so it seems to make sense that when something's velocity changes, we also see it's mass change.

[tedhuntington]

@EnderW1gg1n

This idea that an electron velocity changing implies that energy is gained or lost which implies that mass changes raises some interesting issues. These questions will probably be debated until the end of time - for example - there is this idea of conservation of motion - which implies that there is a finite quantity of motion in the universe. One view is that this motion can be transferred from particle to particle- another is that the motion remains attached to each particle.

[tedhuntington]

@EnderW1gg1n

Just to add that - there are different theories. For example I doubt that motion can be converted into matter or vice versa. Another interesting point is: is acceleration only the result of particle collision? Do we live in an all-particle-collision only universe without action-at-a-distance gravity or electromagnetism? These questions many times send people to celebrate what we do know - that if humans are successful we will build a globular cluster - that at least is simple.

[89013344]

@tedhuntington we observe particles forming out of photons all the time and vice versa. also, how is light clearly material? i can name you a few decays/reactions that are ONLY possible because light has a rest mass of zero. and where is a problem with time dilation? it has been observed and measured all the time.

[tedhuntington]

@89013344 I think most people accept that relativity theory is a violation of the conservation of mass theory - Cecil Powell states this in one of his books. There are a lot of problems with relativity - for example clearly light is material, and another problem is the concept of time dilation/contraction which originated with Lorentz to save the aether theory for light.