[General] Verification of Light Interactions
Andrew Meulenberg
mules333 at gmail.com
Sun Aug 30 12:24:56 PDT 2015
Dear Chip,
Thank you for your thinking about the problem and your comments. You have
identified several areas in which we need to clarify and/or emphasize our
language. See comments below.
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew
>
>
>
> There are at least a couple of ways to show that reflection does not occur.
>
>
>
> Varying phase or frequency of one wave and looking at where the changes
> occur is one fairly clear method. No two waves are identical in all
> respects, so arguing that only two identical waves can reflect is a mute
> and empty point.
>
1. The identical part is for *components*, not necessarily for the whole
wave. However, if all components are identical, then the waves are also.
This identity of waves is mathematically possible. It is also possible for
a single wave to be 'identical' with itself (this is important in the
photon-to-electron transition) or for *portions* of a single wave (e.g.,
a split beam) to be identical.
2. For intersecting coherent waves, the phases will become coincident
with specific phase angles, in specific portions of space. Where the phases
differ by 180 degrees (the null zones), reflection of identical components
occurs.
3. Non-identical portions do not reflect, they transmit. This is a
common source of 'error' in the analysis of standing waves created by
reflection of normally incident light from a physical mirror. Since
reflection and transmission in space is generally not loss (or divergence)
free, there will always be a 'flow' of light to the mirror. Only identical
portions are reflected before reaching the mirror. Think about this: most
of the incident light never reaches the physical mirror.* It reflects
before it ever gets there. *Can you simulate that by assuming no
transmission of identical light? Simulation of a Bragg reflector might be
similar to this concept.
4. Re varying phase: see Dowling's section IV *Phase Labeling*
5. Re varying frequency: see Dowling's section V *Detuning*
To make our point, we will need to emphasize that:
1. it is only the identical components of the waves that reflect;
2. the reflection plane (the 'mirror') is the bisector of the
intersection angle.
3. There is no way to distinguish the reflected and transmitted beams
visually or within the limits of the wave theory. Amplitudes, phases and
directions are identical.
>
>
But there exists another method to test for reflection:
>
>
>
> If we start with this configuration…
>
> And reflection occurs, then we would have the reflected components, as
> shown in red below…
>
>
>
> But we do not see these reflected components in simulation or in
> experiments.
>
> So why chase, and try to prove, something for which there is no evidence?
>
Chip, you have missed an important point. The reflection planes are the
bisector or are parallel to the bisector of the beams. you have not shown
that. You have shown reflection from the other beam (this doubles the
reflection angle). There should be no reflected energy in the directions
that you have indicated. We will need to emphasize that point in the future.
*From your next email, you state:*
Hi Andrew
Let me rephrase my argument.
*First*, *we know that transmission occurs*, *because we know that the
waves propagate*.
Correct
Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected
interference pattern for *transmission*.
Correct
And we measure the *intensity, phase, and frequency*, of the output of the
two waves, as if they passed through each other, without interaction.
Correct
However, we can also say:
*First*, *we know that reflection occurs*, *because we know that the waves *
*reflect*. Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the
expected interference pattern for *reflection of identical components*.
And we measure the *intensity, phase, and frequency*, of the output of the
two waves, as if their equal components reflected each other, *with* the
interaction.
*Second*, we do not see the reflections at the locations they would have to
exist, *if we vary the angles of incidence* through a full 360 degrees, and
look for reflections. In this, *we only see the transmitted components*.
However, we can also say:
*Second*, we *do* see the reflections at the locations they would have to
exist, *if we vary the convergence angles of incidence* through a full 360
degrees and look for reflections. However, *we cannot distinguish them from
transmitted components*.
So for me, those findings constitute sufficient “proof”.
*If the alternative statements above are also 'true', do you still consider
the findings sufficient for your proof? *I, like Dowling and
Gea-Banacloche, find the math ambiguous and in need of additional physics
to resolve the issue. I feel that we have provided that in our papers.
In your most recent email, you state: " If you conduct this experiment, and
there are no waves following the red paths, then it seems it must mean that
no reflection occurred at the intersection of the waves."
First let me thank you for the figure. It provides some additional detail
and information on the interference region. However, I believe that there
are 2 errors.
1. The reflection plane should be the null-zone (across the center), not
the other beam. The red lines are incorrectly placed.
2. I think that the diagonal blue 'arrow' is reversed. If it is as shown
by the arrowhead, then the null zone would be diagonally 'down', rather
than 'up' as shown.
Chip, you bring some powerful tools to the group. If we can work together
to get the reflection picture properly expressed in your model then
Dowling's paper would be confirmed and the momentum analysis that we
provided would resolve the issue.
It might seem that transmission or reflection that produce the same results
has no significance. However, the distinction provides important
information for both the photonic electron and the nature of photons and
their interactions. I can detail some of these things in the future. Some
of it is in my other papers. I'll send them later.
Andrew
_______________________
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew
> Meulenberg
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 29, 2015 9:43 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Andrew Meulenberg <
> mules333 at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions
>
>
>
> 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
>
> _________________________________---
>
> *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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150830/ef1d7eb6/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/20150830/ef1d7eb6/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5665 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150830/ef1d7eb6/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7375 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150830/ef1d7eb6/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- 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/20150830/ef1d7eb6/attachment-0001.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/20150830/ef1d7eb6/attachment-0002.jpg>
More information about the General
mailing list