Definite integration 🙄

Hello sir

@@SuperBhavanishankar hello..

THANK YOU! FOR THIS! :))

@@jerichobauner5914wlc

@@nikhilgarg2929 E

Well, there's interference but it's likely not visible because I don't think you can guarantee that every photon will be produced with a 90 degree phase difference. When the laser goes through the wire it forms something like circular waves on each side of the wire - with the same phase - and it's the interference between these two "sources" that produce the pattern. Huygens, when he proposed the wave nature of light, designed an experiment using a thin hole that should produce circular pattern of interference. A video showing waves in water: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b82lnKlimbS7oI0.html A simulation of the double slit experiment in water (each side of the wire behaves like on slit): kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Zsmqp6ybltOblWg.html Hole electron diffraction from an Australian school: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/g895dNGprsCvgaM.html

you can search Michelson interferometer

Woww.. that would be interesting to explore. Thanks.

@@razz6475 Please let me know what you find out.

@@razz6475 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rMWldcRz2sfWdYE.html The beam certainly is not as wide as the pattern on the screen, is it?

@@odal6770 yeah it isn't. The lady tried to explain using the arrows, which almost seems like divergence of electric field from a point source. Anyway really appreciate the comment.

I would guess that you'd have more pronounced dots with larger spaces between them due to more sources of interference. It would only be very slight and not easily visible to be different. If you want to see what would happen if there were loads of wires, look up diffraction gratings.

Because what Feynman means when he talks about particles are actually quanta. Quanta only exist wherever there is an irreversible energy transfer between an electromagnetic field and an external system. The notion of a quantum within the em field itself is unworkable (it leads to the well known problems with physical realism). It is also complete unnecessary. You do have to understand, though, that these details do not matter to Feynman because the formalisms of QED and QFT in general are taking care of this automatically (and so does the Copenhagen interpretation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics). As a theorist who is mostly concerned with predicting high energy physics phenomena he can allow himself to gloss over these details and it does not hurt his ability to make solid physical predictions. If you are more interested in the structure of quantum mechanics than actual physics (like the standard model), then you have to develop a somewhat refined sense for how you want to talk about these things. When you do, however, you will quickly realize that this refinement is mostly cosmetic. It doesn't allow us to make any physical predictions that do not also pop out of Feynman's crude way of talking about these things in the particle language of the high energy physicist. It's pretty much all just icing on the physics cake, if you like.

🇧🇩

For me history class is like 😴

Although it may be seemingly deceiving that an object needs to have mass to hold momentum, this isn’t the case at relativistic velocities as photons of light have energy in the electromagnetic form and since E=mc^2, energy means mass and therefore momentum