[General] Verification of Light Interactions

Sat Aug 29 14:48:27 PDT 2015

Dear David,
Shockwaves or anything like that require a non-linear medium.

In a linear medium, for any kind of wave, the superposition principle in physics applies and hence implies, manifestly, NIW.

It is absolutely ludricous to make crossing beams in a linear medium and say that they actually do cross when the beams are different, but reflect when they are identical. How identical? Exactly identical, so that no difference can be seen at all? By ockham's razor, by arguments of continuity and by the abscence of a physical reason for interaction (linearity), then, the beams cross. Always.

The mathematics of Cl(1,3) is the clifford algebra of space-time, also called geometric algebra. The complexification of it is identical to what is generally called the Dirac algebra.
It has nothing to do with any model.
The "4-fold view" is just a proper explanation of the physical projection of vectors we all have been doing since high school, perhaps without knowing it, and Cl(1,3) is the right tool. It is very useful, but as always, one has to suffer and learn how to use it...

Very best, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 29 aug. 2015 om 23:15 heeft "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>> het volgende geschreven:

Chanda, Chip and Bob,

Amplitudes may not be the only way to produce wave interference. Phase and polarization should be able to produce the reflected wave. However, the reflected wave suggests some sort of radiation reaction. Has radiation reaction been taken into account in these fine simulations?

The boundary conditions for NIW need to be established by wavelength, bandwidth, amplitude and other parameters. So NIW may be true for unbounded, unconditioned photons, at some point one would expect a shock like condition which would establish a reflection.

Alternatively, one could approach the issue of NIW by looking at the numerous conditions for reflection in materials and matter states and then ask under what conditions a radiation reaction would occur that would result in a reflection.

Just a note, I'm still wondering about the four C(3,1) frames that Williamson and van der Mark speak of. Seems like that type of model leaves a lot of wiggle room from various anomalies.

David

________________________________
From: "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu<mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions

Chip A. and Bob H.:

Here is a copy of the animation by my student, Michael Ambroselli, which I have been showing people for several years now. The stationary pictures are now in several papers and also in my book.

Of course, it does not show “reflection” of waves by waves; because we use the same prevalent model of superposition of wave amplitudes as simply linear sum of the propagating waves. We did not put in any wave-wave interaction term. Even people who firmly believe in “single photon interference”, sum the linear amplitudes. Some resonant detectors, if inserted within the volume of superposition, can carry out the non-linear square modulus operation to absorb the proportionate energy out of both the fields, not just one or the other, as is erroneously assumed by most believers of “single photon interference”, defying the starting math of summing two amplitudes a1 and a2. The energy absorbed is proportional to: [(a1)-squared+(a2)-squared+ 2a1a2 cos2(pi)(nu)(t2-t1)]. Linear waves do not have the intrinsic physical capacity to carry out the mathematical quadratic operation.

Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 1:22 PM
To: 'robert hudgins'; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions

Hi Robert Hudgins

Thank you for the email.  Your concepts show an “out-of-the-box” imagination, and so they were intriguing to me.

So far, I have run some simulations to see what the interference patterns would be for waves which did not reflect off each other at all.  The way I know that these simulated waves do not reflect, is of course because I wrote the simulations to explicitly show only two waves passing through each other, with no ability to reflect off each other.

Here are the results of some of those simulations:

Image: 1, Left Side, Two waves of the same frequency and phase, incident at 45 degrees.
Image: 2, Right Side, Two waves of the same frequency with 180 degree phase shift, incident at 45 degrees. Note the expected interference pattern and no reflection.
<image002.jpg><image003.jpg>

Image: 3, two waves of different frequencies passing through each other.
[cid:yDnsDw595VPKKUiSSOMy]

So far, using simulations, and varying angles of incidence, we are able to reproduce the experimentally observed interference patterns. And this is done with no reflection of waves.

So, sorry, I do not see any physical reason to assume that waves reflect off one another.

Chip

From: robert hudgins [mailto:hudginswr at msn.com]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 9:58 AM
To: chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com<mailto:hudginswr at msn.com>>; Ralph Penland <rpenland at gmail.com<mailto:rpenland at gmail.com>>; Andrew meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>>
Subject: 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

_______________________________________________
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>

<image003.jpg>
<image004.jpg>
<image002.jpg>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

________________________________
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150829/a78b0b3a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7726 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150829/a78b0b3a/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8888 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150829/a78b0b3a/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7747 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150829/a78b0b3a/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8888 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150829/a78b0b3a/attachment-0003.jpg>