[General] Wave Amplitude-Amplitude Interactions

[Roychoudhuri, Chandra]

Dear Bob H.:
I do not want to make any significant deviation from my main role as the facilitator of the conference and the discussion platforms. That is why I am always welcoming all possible logically self-consistent views in all aspects of EM waves and their intrinsic relation to relativity and particles.

BUT!
I am also one of the recent proponents of the old concept of "Non-Interaction of Wave" (NIW) as a generalized property of all wave amplitudes that are linear excitations of some parent tension fields. So, I should articulate some general observations as to why I have not yet accepted your view points.

First, I do not see Chip Akin's input in this email. I cannot correlate your answer to Chip's enquiry. So, I am summarizing a limited number of points that worth contemplating carefully:

(i)               The entire branch of optical science and engineering have been thriving till today based upon Huygens' principle of secondary wavelets; which Huygens claimed  in his book that they do not interfere (interact) with each other. If one can magically banish the Huygens-Fresnel diffraction integral, the entire optical science and engineering enterprise will collapse because QM has not given any systematic mathematical tool that can replace HF integral.

(ii)             As you underscore, the "standing wave" phenomena is also established beyond any shadow of doubt for almost a couple of centuries. Unfortunately, the problem lies with the mis-use of the English language to explain the phenomenon and then confuse ourselves. What we observe and register by detectors, are "locally stationnary nodes and antinodes" as a result of counter propagating waves; and they certainly are not "standing waves"! In fact, if you make one of the counter propagating waves of slightly different frequency, then the nodes and antinodes will be slowly moving in one or the other direction! Waves, by definition, are perpetually propagating entities. They cannot stop. Otherwise, laser cavities would not have worked. Within the cavity we have standing nodes and antinodes (spectral and spatial hole burning). Outside the cavity, we have propagating waves. Output laser beams are certainly not jumping out with the velocity "c" out of "stationary waves" inside the cavity!

(iii)           Planck also underscored in his book on the derivation of "Planck's law" (free from Gutenberg press) that all the re-radiated wave packets, after the attainment of the steady state, propagate through each other unperturbed (without interaction). I have mentioned this also in my book, "Causal Physics: ....".

(iv)            Bose's heuristic introduction of conservation of "photon number" in his phase-space box also functionally imply non-interaction of waves. See, Proc. SPIE Vol.9570-09 by M. Ambroselli.

(v)             Dirac was also forced to acknowledge that "interference between different photons do not occur". So,  in reverence to Einstein, he was forced to introduce a totally non-causal concept, "a photon then interfere only with itself". But, we know that all photon wave packets are diffractively spreading (thinning) out packet (centuries of success of HF integral for all EM waves, except gamma rays). So, a diffractively propagating single light wave packet cannot provide the necessary quantum "cupful" of energy to a quantum detector. Good luck to all those ventures who are building quantum computers using single photon interference!!

(vi)            All the diverse significance of the Non-Interaction of Waves have been illustrated in my Book, "Causal Physics:....", in details in twelve chapters. I do not find any fundamental contradictions with the basic formulation of QM. In fact, I have underscored that a good number of heuristic and non-causal postulates used in QM interpretations can be thrown out; which then make QM more realistic than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us so far. QM also becomes non-mystical and "understandable".

(vii)          It is amazing how we selectively accept the viewpoints of some pioneering scientists over the other pioneers based upon the prevailing pressures of collective cultural preferences!

Of course, we all are subservient to our personal highly developed neural logic system; which we have accepted over decades' of studies and contemplations. I cannot claim that I am not under the shadow of my personally biased but self-consistent logics. So, my apology.

Sincerely,
Chandra.
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of robert hudgins
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 10:58 AM
To: chipakins at gmail.com; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc: robert hudgins
Subject: [General] Verification of Light Interactions

Dear Chip,

   To have our SPIE  presentation, with its data, receive a broad, non-specific and vocal rejection from many attendees was personally confusing.  From our perspective, those results (and ideas) had been thoroughly tested, retested and reconciled with current literature. The openness you indicated by your intent to try replicating some our results felt refreshing.

What follows are some pointers about possible ways to work-around the problem of short wavelength intervals:

The standing wave frequency is 1/2 the wave length of the light used.  Consequently, some method of expansion is usually required for clear visualization of a standing wave pattern.   Many investigators use Otto Wiener's 1890 method or some variation.  Recently, a simplified classroom demonstration procedure was published.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/77/8/10.1119/1.3027506

Standing waves of light in the form of optical lattices are currently a workhorse for manipulating ultra-cold bosons and fermions.  The atoms are trapped between the oscillating potentials.


Another important standing wave/interference demonstration is the 1837 Lloyd's mirror experiment.


For our study we used a precision 15 X 5cm mirror.  A laser beam was reflected a shallow angle and the resulting interference pattern was examined after expanding its image.  This was accomplished with a convex mirror placed near the end of the reflection zone.  We did this experiment to demonstrate that a mirror reflection would substitute for one of the beams in a two crossing-beam interference pattern, and that the null zones in the crossed-beam interference behaved as mirror--like reflection zones.

The set-up we use for our interference studies is very simple.   It requires only two components; a laser and a variable density filter.  The variable density filter becomes a beam splitter when the laser beam is reflected from both the front and the back (partially mirrored) surface.  Adjusting the relative intensities and phases of the emerging beams is accomplished by changing the reflection angle and the point where the beam strikes the splitter.  Proper adjustment should give two clearly separated, and independent beams.   This system gives clear, unambiguous results.

We began our pursuit as a search for the "cancelled" energy of light interference.  It was quickly obvious that all the light energy in the beams emerging from the beam splitter was detectable in the interference patterns, that formed at some distance from the splitter.   (Well after the beams had merged.)  Although interference confined the light to a smaller area, (compressed the light) we found no evidence of "cancelled" light waves (energy) or of photodetector limitations.



Hudgins, W. R., Meulenberg, A., Ramadass, S., "Evidence for unmediated momentum transfer between light waves," Paper 8121-39, Proc. SPIE 8121 (2011)
 [1]Hudgins, W., R., A. Meulenberg, A., Penland, R. F. "Mechanism of wave interaction during interference," SPIE (2013) Paper 8832-7, in The Nature of Light: What are Photons?

Please let us know if you were successful, or not, with your testing.

Bob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150829/f0243310/attachment.htm>