[General] Verification of Light Interactions

Sat Aug 29 19:42:31 PDT 2015

Dear Chip and Chandra,

I will not have time to contribute much to this topic until next week.
Before then, I hope that both of you will have a chance to read both
Dowling's paper attached to my email of:
Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:33 PM
Light from Light reflection
and my comments on it in the email.

Also, please look at the attached copy of our paper for the conference.
Comments would be appreciated for both papers, since Dowling is a much
better mathematical physicist than any of us and Chip's simulations agree
100% with the 1st 1/2 of Dowling's paper. To agree with the second 1/2,
Chip needs to run his simulations assuming only reflected light and no
transmitted light for equal components of the incident waves (assuming
reflection from the null zones of the interference pattern). I will predict
(as did Dowling's mathematics) that, for the equal waves, the results will
be identical with Chip's figures 1 & 2. For his Figure 3, there will only
be a component corresponding to the beat frequency envelope of the incident
waves.

Thus a conclusion based on those results could be, to modify Chips comment,
is:
"The interference patterns we see in experiment, agree with the simulated
interference patterns.  And these are obtained simply by the waves
REFLECTING FROM each other. So there seems to be no physical basis for
assuming any TRANSMISSION, when IDENTICAL waves ENCOUNTER each other."

The resolution of the two statements is Dowling's conclusion (and mine in
the email):
"Dowling proposed that IDENTICAL waves interact. However, he was unable to
PROVE reflection, rather than transmission."
I will extend that statement to contend that Chip, based on his
simulations, will be unable to PROVE transmission, rather than reflection
of identical waves.

For background, consider the basis for Bose-Einstein (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics) and Dirac
statistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics)
for non-interacting, identical particles. Does this resolve, or increase,
the conflict between Chandra's NIW view and our contention that the
observed interference region demands interference between two waves?

Andrew
_________________________________---
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Chandra
>
>
>
> I agree completely.
>
>
>
> My simulations also produce the results your student obtained.
>
>
>
> No reflections occur when waves cross.  NIW is quite real and
> understandable.
>
>
>
> Maybe I did not express that point well enough in my email to Robert with
> graphics.
>
>
>
> The interference patterns we see in experiment, agree with the simulated
> interference patterns.  And these are obtained simply by the waves passing
> through each other. So there seems to be no physical basis for assuming any
> reflection, when waves pass through each other.
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Roychoudhuri,
> Chandra
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 29, 2015 12:47 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *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
> <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
> *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.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Image: 3, two waves of different frequencies passing through each other.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 <hudginswr at msn.com>]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 28, 2015 9:58 AM
> *To:* chipakins at gmail.com; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Cc:* robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com>; Ralph Penland <
> rpenland at gmail.com>; Andrew meulenberg <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 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/20150829/18b72653/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150829/18b72653/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6441 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150829/18b72653/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5451 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150829/18b72653/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Wave Interference & 'Which Way' 2015-6g.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 845067 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150829/18b72653/attachment.pdf>