Optics: Two-beam interference - collimated beams | MIT Video Demonstrations in Lasers and Optics

Optics: Two-beam interference - collimated beams
Instructor: Shaoul Ezekiel
View the complete course: ocw.mit.edu/RES-6-006S08
License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA
More information at ocw.mit.edu/terms
More courses at ocw.mit.edu

[@stb1820]

Excellent. I was wondering what the interference would look like, & this video demonstrated it perfectly.

[@sandrooliveira334]

Great....thank you teacher!!!

[@1234ToddgMr]

How long can you keep it totally blacked out (total interference)?

[@HDsharp]

Can a laser beam interfere with another laser beam if they meet head on? or at an adjacent angle?

[@ParsaIQT-lk4um]

I have looked around youtube and have yet to see another video that gets complete destructive interference with their interferometer like this, this setup is either really good or its more to do with skill

[@odal6770]

I wonder what we would see it we moved the screen to the location of the last mirror, without using neither the mirror nor the lens.

[@saleshpal4924]

I have cleared my confusion through it

[@MC-wg3fm]

Two laser lights, cross hair and different frequency(color) so that a green laser light is perpendicular to a red laser with a hair in the center of the intersecting lights?
My guess is the light frequency difference isn’t going to affect anything with similar results in the crosshair experiment.
Bending the laser light into a slit experiment would be cool too.

[@wayneyam1262]

can I just shot two laser together at home and see the interference?

[@papz5049]

👍👍👍👍👍

[@andymiron7941]

Proof that Light is a wave of energy and that Photons does not exist as particles at all.

[@anonmoto4648]

ether does exist

[@cristig243]

Special Relativity still holds based on a mathematical prank . The relativistic dummy copy of the Sagnac formula is a shameless make up. It is the same v = Rw formula used by Sagnac, yet written in a funky way, such as to induce the illusion that it is relativistic.The only relativistic "contribution" is the Minkowsky ct^2 = ct^2 1 = 1 start. Crucially, the c + v (as measured by a relativistic stationary observer !) is artificially implanted through the back door, without any theoretical justification. The cheap clownery is eventually useless, because if you chose R tends to infinity, you measure c + v in a straight line.

[@dreamdiction]

Agreed. Relativity is bullshit.

[@asdfasdfuhf]

"High quality" ... 480p

[@mitocw]

These videos are well before the days of Blu-Ray and HD video.

[@lordblanck7923]

hahh, i think its cause they are old videos.

[@Mathin3D]

MI freaking T!