[General] Light from Light reflection
A. F. Kracklauer
af.kracklauer at web.de
Sat Aug 15 11:16:27 PDT 2015
Isn't it the charges in the Laser interacting, not the emitted photons
(aka: waves, interactions)?
On 15.08.2015 09:50, John Macken wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> It was great meeting with all of you.
>
> I would like to introduce a different perspective to the discussion of
> the interaction of light with a thought experiment. Suppose that we
> have a billion small microwave antennas randomly distributed in
> space. The antennas on average are separated by a distance equal to
> about 10% of the wavelength that they will emit and the size of each
> antenna is much smaller than a wavelength. A billion of these
> antennas from a "cloud" about 100 wavelengths in diameter. If each
> antenna emits randomly, then the total cloud of antennas would emit an
> incoherent spherical emission pattern. However, if all antennas emit
> the same frequency and if the phase is properly controlled, then the
> emitted radiation can form a beam with a divergence angle of about
> 0.01 radian. Furthermore, the beam can be steered to propagate in any
> direction with proper phase adjustment. When the emission forms a
> coherent beam, then the cloud of antennas feels momentum in the
> opposite direction of the emitted radiation. This momentum would
> accelerate the cloud of antennas in the recoil direction.
>
> The example just given is a simulation of what happens in a laser.
> Each atom in the excited state can either emit a photon by spontaneous
> emission or by stimulated emission. When stimulated emission occurs,
> the emission is still generally spherical, but the phase of emission
> is coordinated so that part of the spherical emission is coherently
> added to the beam causing the stimulated emission. The spherical
> emission of a single atom "interacts" with the other waves to form a
> collimated beam propagating in a particular direction. The force
> imparted to the emitting atom is random if the emission is spontaneous
> or in a particular direction if it is stimulated.
>
> In my way of looking at this, this example satisfies a loose
> definition of interaction of light waves. I assume that there might
> be a way of looking at this in which it can be argued that there was
> no interaction of waves, but this position will require stretching of
> definitions.
>
> John M.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *David Mathes
> *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2015 8:58 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Andrew Meulenberg
> <mules333 at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Light from Light reflection
>
> Andrew
>
> One paper that might be of interest is:
>
> *arXiv:1205.5897 <http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5897> [pdf
> <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.5897>]*
>
> *Spin and Orbital Angular Momenta of Light Reflected from a Cone*
>
> Masud Mansuripur
> <http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Mansuripur_M/0/1/0/all/0/1>,
> Armis R. Zakharian
> <http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Zakharian_A/0/1/0/all/0/1>, Ewan
> M. Wright <http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Wright_E/0/1/0/all/0/1>
>
> Another paper is:
>
> Fearn 2012 [1212.4469] Radiation Reaction Force on a Particle
> <http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4469>
>
> David
>
> *From:*Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com
> <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>; Andrew
> Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2015 8:36 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Light from Light reflection
>
> Forgot the paper.
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Andrew Meulenberg
> <mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> In discussions after Bob Hudgins' presentation on Wednesday, I
> realized that we had been too close to the problem (and
> solution) and did not recognize the information gap that
> existed within the community. The reference was with regards
> to the nature of light-light interaction. The paper by Dowling
> (attached) identifies the problem between the NIW school and
> the light-light interaction school.
>
> It is necessary to emphasize and clarify some points.
>
> 1. Dowling proposed that IDENTICAL waves interact. However,
> 2. he was unable to PROVE reflection, rather than transmission.
> 3. Mathematically the results are identical.
> 4. In Dowling's paper, he demonstrates that even identical
> *components* of colliding waves have this property.
> 5. The difference of the colliding waves always is
> transmitted, not reflected.
> 6. Therefore, when added to the identical portion (that is
> the reflected part), the sum becomes equivalent to a
> transmitted wave.
> 7. The paper showed that the differences could be in:
>
> 1. phase
> 2. amplitude
> 3. polarity
> 4. change in frequency
>
> Thus, while Chandra's NIW view is almost always correct, if
> based on numbers alone, there is a growing field (based on
> lasers), which proves that interaction of identical light goes
> beyond Dirac's statement that photons can only interact with
> themselves. With this new information, it is possible to view
> ordinary light from a different perspective. "Any identical
> portions of light beams can (and will) reflect from each other."
>
> An example of this can be demonstrated by an
> introductory-physics device (Newton's cradle,
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation ). Only if
> equal numbers of balls are dropped simultaneously will there
> be reflection of the same number as the input. If unequal
> numbers are dropped simultaneously, then it would appear that
> the larger number of balls is transmitted thru the set of
> balls. No one would say that the balls travel thru the
> stationary balls. Momentum reflection is the obvious answer in
> this case - and in the case of light.
>
> Had Dowling remembered this demonstration, he would have been
> able to say with absolute authority that light can reflect
> from light. The appendix of our paper is a mathematical proof
> of the null-momentum point in the center of the 'dark' zone
> for equal waves. This is the wave equivalent of the
> equal-particle demonstration.
>
> My task for the next conference may be to demonstrate how this
> reflection effect affects the photon structure within the
> electron.
>
> Andrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
> Light and Particles General Discussion List at
> davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?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/20150815/171be8aa/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list