[General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

Sun Apr 5 00:38:29 PDT 2015

Thx Chip,

I won't be able to access the paper until Wednesday.

Andrew

On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Andrew
>
>
>
> I have some information regarding the polarization dependence of
> diffraction through Fraunhofer gratings, but will have to find it.
>
>
>
> Meanwhile here is one reference to it you might find interesting.
>
>
>
> “*Analysis on polarization dependence of Fraunhofer diffraction by
> metallic grating with short period*”, Min Ouyang
> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030399207000333>, Yang
> Cao <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030399207000333>, Hua
> Gao <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030399207000333>, Jinwei
> Shi <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030399207000333>, Jing
> Zhou <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030399207000333>
> , Dahe Liu
> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030399207000333>
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew
> Meulenberg
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 04, 2015 3:33 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew
> Meulenberg
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
>
>
>
> Dear Chip,
>
> I look forward to the time when I have more available to give your views
> the full effort and thought they deserve. ( I have not even had time to
> read Christian’s work yet). Some quick comments below.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 2:41 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew
>
>
>
> Thank you for those references.
>
>
>
> For a few reasons I had temporarily ruled out the notion that photon spin
> can be in any axis other than around the longitudinal.  One reason is that
> if spin is parallel to the plane of the longitudinal axis it requires the
> field velocity for half the cycle to be twice the speed c and for the other
> half cycle to reach zero.  Neither of which seem reasonable.
>
>
>
> I think that this can be a 'given'. However, in the context of standing
> waves the net energy transport would not exceed the speed of light and
> local 'motion' might be able to exceed c. Whether it can produce photon
> spin with an axis along the velocity vector and still be linear is the
> question.
>
>
>
> Due to the wide use of down-converting crystals to create a pair of
> “entangled” photons, at half the frequency (energy) of the original
> incident photon, for photon polarization “entanglement” experiments, I am
> similarly temporarily setting aside the notion that polarization is a
> multiple photon effect. For if it required more than one photon to
> constructively interfere to pass through a polarizer, those experiments
> would be much less informative than they are currently believed to be by
> most physicists.  The nature of those experiments indicates the belief that
> photon polarization is a single photon phenomena.
>
>
>
> Some interferometer experiments seem to indicate that single photons can
> actually split and go both ways - but only if they can recombine at some
> later point.
>
>
>
> One popular interpretation of experiment uses the quantum notion of
> superposition of spin states to explain polarization.  But this seems to be
> an unphysical explanation to me, so I am looking at possible alternates,
> with a more causal and classical description.
>
>
>
> me too!
>
>
>
> One of those alternates is described as follows… It may be that a photon
> can have any spin value up to the limit +/- ħ. If I remember correctly
> Chandra and John W. have commented on this and may have more information.
> If this is the case then a single photon may be able to consist of more
> than one set of fields. The frequency and confinement (quantization) we
> have discussed, will still work in that scenario, because it is the
> energy density in that volume of space which causes the total EM forces
> which also would produce quantization, (frequency, and confinement).  It
> seems that a single photon is always monochromatic, so the frequency and
> wavelength would be the same for each set of fields (waves).  However if
> one set of fields is “pulling left” and the other set is “pulling right”
> then the composite set of fields displays a lower spin angular momentum
> value, and even a zero spin angular momentum value, for a plane polarized
> photon with balanced and equal sets of fields spinning opposite directions.
> Of course we know, and can demonstrate easily, that EM waves can pass
> through one another and coexist, so it is not difficult to imagine these
> photon fields behaving in such a manner.  Quantum physics posits the
> superposition of two spin states with an entangled wave function collapse
> at the measurement of one of the entangled particles. Joy Christian’s work
> shows how two non-commuting spin operators, as local variables, satisfy the
> same Bell’s inequalities. Both explanations (quantum and non-commuting
> local variable) can be realized by a classical, causal based physical
> topology, with two sets of fields, each exhibiting spin, but in opposite
> directions. If this scenario is accurate it would imply that plane
> polarized photons would behave slightly differently in some diffraction
> experiments, than circularly polarized photons. Such an effect has already
> been shown in experiment, using the polarization dependence of Fraunhofer
> diffraction and a metallic grating.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Since photons must be composed of (decomposed into?) many waves of
> different frequencies, then  see no reason not to mix spin components.
> Until you suggested that, I would have been very resistant to the idea of
> non-unit spin. I am reluctant to give physical identity to the individual
> components of the Fourier decomposition. Nevertheless, I can easily believe
> that they are to be represented in the interactions with matter (or perhaps
> with other  photons. My feeling that photons are solitons/resonances
> discourages, but does not eliminate, the mixture of counter-rotating
> components.
>
> Do you have any references for the polarization dependence of Fraunhofer
> diffraction and a metallic grating?
>
> Re your notes to John M and Richard:  You have raised the question of "topological
> origin of charge." I believe that this is a very important concept that has
> been ignored. Bob Hudgins' thoughts, developed in the analysis of standing
> waves, have led to a paper on the topic to be presented in San Diego. If
> Bob is not feeling up to presenting up to presenting a second (or third)
> paper at the conference and our other coauthor, Ralph Penland, is not able
> to attend, we might ask you or someone else in the group to present it for
> us. [My wife is expecting twins in September and that has screwed up our
> plans to attend the conference and then fly back to India, which were made
> when we were expecting only a single baby.]
>
> Thanks again for your thoughts and contributions.
>
> Andrew
>
> _______________________________
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew
> Meulenberg
> *Sent:* Friday, April 03, 2015 12:27 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew
> Meulenberg; Jean-Luc Pierre P.
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
>
>
>
> Dear Chip,
>
> Since I have been having this discussion with someone (Jean-Luc Paillet)
> in a different context, I thought that I would take the time to try and
> find a paper that contained a statement that I had interpreted to mean that
> a linear-polarized photon still had a spin of 1.
>
> I found what I think may be what I had seen (attached). However, now that
> I look more closely, I am not sure that it is referring to a photon or a
> collection. Perhaps someone more mathematically sophisticated can look at
> sections 6.7 (for circular-polarization) and 6.8 (for linear-polarization)
> of the attached and let me know if it can refer to single photons as well
> as collections. "We recover the classical result derived in Section 6.7:
> the spin is in the direction of propagation of the wave."
>
> Jean-Luc referred to the 3rd from last paragraph of
> http://mathpages.com/rr/s9-04/9-04.htm , which states that
> linear-polarized light is only balanced circular-polarized light. However,
> it further states that individual photons will register as +/- hbar. Thus,
> it is a superposition of 2 states, rather than a 3rd state. If this is the
> case, does the E = n h nu relation come into play? If so, then I assume
> that spectrometers could respond differently to  linear- and
> circular-polarized light of the same energy (with n = 2 and 1
> respectively). On the other hand, since w = w1+/- w2, a spectrometer might
> see only the sum of the two coherent photons (a thermally stable BEC?). It
> is an interesting problem that I see no convincing solution to.
>
> Andrew
>
> ______________________--
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi John W
>
>
>
> The intent of this line of discussion is to probe more deeply into the
> structure of the photon and to address polarization entanglement
> experiments.
>
>
>
> A thought and some questions for you John.
>
>
>
> First some background.  As I understand it Quantum physics posits a
> superposition of spin states as a cause for planar polarization. In order
> to reach a more causal explanation, can we then envision two fields within
> the photon, spinning opposite directions, and constructively interfering
> only in a plane, which is dependent on their spin phase?
>
>
>
> Are you familiar with Joy Christian’s work?  He writes that two
> non-commuting rotations (spin operators) as local variables, exactly
> duplicate the predictions of Quantum mechanics and satisfy Bell’s
> inequalities in precisely the same way. I have checked some of the math and
> so far it seems to be quite accurate. In both of these approaches, two
> oppositely rotating fields would apparently satisfy these physical aspects
> of the theories… ???
>
>
>
> Christian uses a Clifford algebra to illustrate his theory.  Have you had
> the chance to compare that with the work you are doing using Clifford
> algebra to in your new theory of light and matter?  Specifically have you
> had any opportunity to check to see if two opposite, (non-commuting local)
> spins caused by your framework would also satisfy Bell’s inequalities? Or
> CHSH inequalities?
>
>
>
> Of course you can see the underlying reasons for these questions.  One
> underlying reason is to discover if two equal and oppositely spinning
> fields, confined within the photon, can explain polarization.  In both,
> quantum physics, and Christian’s theories, it seems that two opposite spins
> are required, hinting that we would need those two opposite physical spins
> to be possible in a physical model of the photon.
>
>
>
> The other underlying reason is to discover if non-commuting (rotation)
> local variables can potentially be the cause for the appearance of
> entanglement.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150405/96726c7a/attachment-0001.htm>