Apparently you did not understand the link. It is a property of waves. The math is pretty clear. No need to invent some silly fake process. The affect will work with light, electrons, protons, water or sound.
Can't be moved? Motion isn't simply about mass, and you expose your lack of education here kid. Direct a beam of photons through a magnetic field, and they will bend because of their property of charge . Stick a beam of neutrons through that magnetic field, and they ain't gonna bend. Mass alone has nothing to do with it. Now, can we use mass to deflect massless photons? Not really. Mass bends space-time via gravity, and photons follow the shortest path, so it can appear they have deviated from their course, from a 3rd party perspective. Can you however, affect a massless photon,... sure,.. the Faraday effect means we can Polarise beams of light with magnetic fields, so we can effectively 'twist' them. The final proof you are wrong would be if we could find a massless charged particle,....
AlexG/Origin: Read it . . . understand it . . . .does not provide the "mechanism" of diffraction . . . only the effects. . . . . Regards, wlminex
Fine, your photon interaction with electrons occurs at the edges of the slit. Why would such a small interaction cause the entire wave front to take the shape that it does. Could you show the mathematics of your proposal that acounts for the diffraction pattern that occurs, specifcally around the maxima and minima spacing in the diffraction pattern?
Hi KneD: Consider this mechanism for diffraction . . . part of my larger, detailed diatribe: The process described herein visualizes an interaction of the source beam with the slit edges that actually refracts that portion of the beam impinging upon the slit edge. This beam-matter interaction takes place within a definable “refraction volume” in the thinner portions of the slit edge. Regardless of the source (electrons or photons, or ions), the source beam will interact with the matter comprising the thin slit edge. This interaction takes place on an atomic level. Mass within the slit edges are of a thinness that allows energetic interactions with the source beam. As the edge thickens, away from the slit opening, these interactions will become insignificant (opaque due to mass thickness). For example, if the slit edge is (ideally) only one atom thick, the beam will greatly energize that thin portion of the slit edge. This energetic interaction will result in either deflection of the source beam, or activation to a higher energy level of the atom’s outer electrons. If the latter occurs, we could expect a re-emission of energy as the atom’s electron(s) resume their normal state. Energetic emission may initiate photons of different (measureable?) energy levels or frequencies than that of the source beam. The net effect is either source beam deflection or a decrease in beam photon energies (e.g., longer wavelength), or energetic re-emission (via atomic interactions) of secondary photons. If the latter occurs, such secondary photons may exhibit variations in energy levels, frequency, or wavelength relative to the source beam. Regards, wlminex
Origin: NO! . . . I'm not a mathmatician . . just a lowly geologist . . . but I try to understand "processes" (i.e., how things work). I know . . .your next comment will be "don't quit your day job" . . . and . . . "stick to rocks". I still recommend your 'getting-out-of-the box' on occasion. Questioning traditional and classical beliefs/views (e.g., Copernicus, Einstein, Feynman, etc.) is 'the mechanism' by which science evolves to scientific truth. Thanks for your comments . . . wlminex
After reading all 5 pages of discussions I only have one question? Didn't Einstein say that any thing moving at the speed of light would become infinitely massive? so why are photons not infinitely massive, and how can we observe light in waves or make lasers for that matter?
Because if you look at the Lorentz transformation and apply it to mass, ...ah, well, there you go. Photons have no rest mass, so can travel at C. Nothing with mass can.
I too am not a physicist, I am an engineer. I always try to work 'in the box' and 'out of the box' in the experimentation I do in my job. However, I am under no delusions that in a field that is not even my own field, that I am going to come up with some new or revolutionary idea that some of the greatest minds have missed. When it comes to physics, all I can do is try to understand what the real physicist are teaching. To think otherwise just makes you look silly IMO.
Origin: Do you suffer from an inferiorty complex? You under-estimate your worth and capabilities. I refer you again to Copernicus, Einstein, Feynman, etc. It's worthwhile (even if for no more than self-agrandisement (sp?), or ego, etc.) to shoot for the new and revolutionary idea(s). . . . that's called progress As an aside, I also recommend that you, the engineer, look on Utube at the amazing 3D printer that has been recently developed - real out-of-the box thinking!
phlogistician & AlexG: "How'se 'bout them thar neutrinos?" . . . re: rest mass and velocity. No argument . . . just curious for your answers . . . . . wlminex
The upper limit of the neutrino mass has been measured to be no greater than .25 EV, and the velocity of these neutrinos has been measured at Cern to be less than c. http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1040108
. . . Thanks . . . so the neutrino may be an Arkansas backwoods cousin (no offense intended!) of the photon. Or maybe . . . just a "slowed-down" photon via E=mc(x e02) (haha)? wlminex
thanks I don't have lots of time to study but i just picked up a book called The Concepts Of Physics and plan to read it cover to cover with intervening study of the contents so that I can make more informed comments. So thanks to all of you that have been patient with mePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!