1
$\begingroup$

Recently, I started to go deeper into physics. I don't speak English well, so I'm sorry. This experiment was carried out in Hungary 25 years ago. The measurement results were not accepted by the experts. The cause of the error was not justified. It was repeated several times in a home laboratory, the result was always the same. 1; IT IS POSSIBLE? 2; WHY DOES THE DIFFRACTION PATTERN SPECTRUM CHANGE DUE TO THE DISCS? 3; WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL ERRORS? 4; HAS ANYONE TRIED THIS BEFORE? Thank you in advance for your answers!

Metal discs of various materials were also tested. Lead showed the biggest difference. The diffraction pattern is also created in many ways. Through two slits and other materials in the path of light. The largest deviation was achieved as shown in the picture. I made the sketch. The diagram is original.enter image description here

The experiment was performed on a variety of optical benches.  They always got similar results.  All measurements were repeated without discs.  The phase shift has always been the effect of the discs.  The discs were not in direct contact with the tube.

Here's the original study. http://hunok.hu/vegyes/tireslab-english/all-labor2.html Since then, the experiment has been repeated many times and under better conditions.  The discs were in separate holding troughs, completely independent of the tube support structure. Phase shift and Amplitude Change have always been measured Heat and frequency compensated lasers were used.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't see big changes here - just some shift in phase. Besides, How do you know that this phase shift is due to disks ? There can be bunch of error sources, not directly related to disks at all $\endgroup$ – Agnius Vasiliauskas Sep 11 at 9:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Is there more to this experiment than just these two plots? Like a paper or something? $\endgroup$ – probably_someone Sep 11 at 9:40
  • $\begingroup$ You might want to read this meta post about peer review as you decide whether to edit this question. Your first edit will put the question in a queue in front of other site users, who will decide if it should be re-opened. $\endgroup$ – rob Sep 11 at 20:59
  • $\begingroup$ Well, paper critics. Optical setup is not very detailed, so it's hard to understand exact installation. No error bars in plots, example Fig. 3. Maybe intensity change is within error scope ? First series of experiments: Have they tried a blind test ? (Assistant could leave tube empty, but lie to the other man making measurements that it is filled with mercury) Have they tried to fill tube with different materials, not mercury alone ? If ALL filling materials gives the same effect - nothing serious can be extracted from setup $\endgroup$ – Agnius Vasiliauskas Sep 12 at 6:49
  • $\begingroup$ They have many flaws in explanation too. They give as a reference Kerr effect and others which relates to changing optical parameters of medium in an applied electric or magnetic fields. However in their setup no such fields exists, only strong force field of material which dissipates with distance VERY fast, so can't be a root course of effect. Mass of material alone is also very small, so gravity effect on photons also doesn't counts. Thus this effect can't be related to any fields at all $\endgroup$ – Agnius Vasiliauskas Sep 12 at 6:58