[General] Verification of Light Interactions

Mon Aug 31 13:42:03 PDT 2015

Dear Chip,
I have only made a clear distinction to what is, in fact, done by the Maxwell equations, and what is caused by boundary conditions, including those of spatial, temporal at material nature.
What you seem to attribute to Maxwell's equations is not at all the consequence of the equations or their (in)validity, but a consequence of those boundary conditions. It is VERY important to see the distinction, that is all I am saying. (otherwise it will lead to confusion and misunderstanding, not to mention inconsistencies)
I hope I make myself clear enough. In the past I have been teaching a lot of this and it takes weeks and months to educate my students on the subject, it is very involved indeed.
For the rest, I do not necessarily disagree with what you are trying to argue.
Best regards, Martin

Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare

Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
Prof. Holstlaan 4
5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 40 2747548

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: maandag 31 augustus 2015 22:17
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions

Hi Martin

So maybe I have been mistaken, and laboring under a false premise.
I have felt that Maxwell's equations did a wonderful job of describing EM only, but that there are additional forces or fields, especially in the higher energy, micro region, which are unaddressed by Maxwell's equations.  My though was that in the 1860's Maxwell formulated an excellent set of equations aimed at understanding the then known and measured EM phenomena. Which has led me to believe that Maxwell's equations did a fairly good job of describing part of what we see.  Meaning that Maxwell's equations are quite good regarding EM, but don't tell the whole story.  For me space is the fundamental media, and displays a fundamental set of properties.  Material objects then can add to or modify these fundamental properties, causing us to "see" a different set of properties, different permittivity and permeability for examples.
So do you feel this approach is incorrect?  Do you feel that Maxwell's equations describe all there is to the behavior of energy propagating through space?  And if so, can you give me some insight into the fine structure constant using Maxwell's equations alone? And what is it, in Maxwell's equations, which explains the binding force for the electron?
Warmest Regards
Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 7:17 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions

Dear Chip and John W,
I must "interfere" for a second, just a matter of education.
Maxwell's equations come different varieties, microscopic, macroscopic, homogeneous, inhomogeneous, integral form, etc.
Maxwell's equations are perfectly applicable to any linear medium and even non-linear medium, but one should always take the refrective index, or Chi1, or the dielectric permeability (and magnetization, etc) coefficients into account. Also the non-linear coefficients, n_2, or Chi_2 and Chi_3 and all of that along any symmetry axis of the material. And then the boundaries between different media.
The medium has nothing to do with Maxwell's equations, and that is actually the whole point. The medium provides extra input to the physical problem.
Maxwell's equations must NOT be extended, it will ruin its Lorentz covariance. The extra bit must come from the boundary conditions, whether that is space time or matter.
Chandra's CFT is just a philosophical name, different but actually the same as ether, but with more emphasis on the things it may perhaps do. There is no description or rather prescription  for it as yet. That is how I see it. It is not wrong, but for me "ether" works just as well. So we cannot say what properties it actually does support, but we could make a wish-list.
The vacuum is linear up to energies close to 1 MeV, and even then the intensity matters, it depends at least on 4th power of intensity, but I have to look it up, and only a diffraction limited (subwavelength) focus of two gamma beams has an appreciable chance of producing an e+ e- pair.
So, whatever, please do not attribute things to Maxwell's equations that shouldn't be, either historically, logically or experimentally. It is not Maxwell's equations that are the problem, it is the inhomogeneous bit that we put in by our own stupid minds and dirty hands ;-)
Very best, Martin
Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare

Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
Prof. Holstlaan 4
5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 40 2747548

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: maandag 31 augustus 2015 13:26
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions

Hi John W. Andrew, and David

John W. and David
It is my belief that Maxwell's equations MUST be extended, and that the observations which brought Chandra to propose the CTF is one reason.
We see that light reacts with matter more readily than light reacts with light.  We see that the energy in matter is in many ways similar to the energy in light.  And we see that the energy in matter is confined by something not described by Maxwell's equations.
We can see properties displayed by various forms of the propagation of energy in space, like spin, and confinement, which were not addressed by Maxwell.
So I see Chandra's CTF to be the space which supports the real set of properties, and an extension to Maxwell's equations to be required in order to sort this out, specifically because of the reaction of space, to energy propagating through space.
It is interesting that Pauli exclusion, and spin ½, and often charge, is present in matter, and that with these properties, this energy can apparently more easily react with light.
So far, in my research, this has indicated again that the "spin mode" of matter is a significant contributor to the ability of matter to react with light waves. However, it also seems that it will be quite difficult to use light alone to create the correct circumstances to produce this "spin mode". So making matter from light will be a very elusive pursuit, it seems.
When this energy is localized, that is to say confined, it takes on a new topology.  For Martin's hierarchy to work, for stable particles to exist, there is required to be more to the properties of space, and its reaction to energy, than Maxwell calculated.
While, on the surface, it may seem that many of us have totally different ideas, I think that is more a matter of perspective, as John W. has pointed out, and that we are all using those different perspectives, and moving toward the same set of conclusions eventually.

Andrew
The beam splitter will not "destroy" the standing wave.  It will reduce the intensity of the standing wave to about 25%.  But this is enough to detect if light is being reflected from light in this standing wave, using a test setup like the one suggested.  If even half the light in the standing wave portion of the beam is reflected you may see as much as a 12.5% decrease in the intensity with the mirror in place. But I suspect that none of the light is reflected, and you will see no change in the detector output with the mirror in place, or removed.
Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 9:41 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Cc: Joakim Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com<mailto:joakimbits at gmail.com>>; Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk<mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk>>; Manohar . <manohar_berlin at hotmail.com<mailto:manohar_berlin at hotmail.com>>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr<mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>>
Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions

Dear All,

I scarcely know where to start. How can I agree with so much of what you are all saying and yet disagree, in detail, with all of you. Let me try to communicate that.

This email is likely to seem to contradict itself. Let me set your mind at rest: it does!

The reason is that I am going to argue from a few different perspectives, and different perspectives give different perspectives. Funny that!

Firstly, from the perspective of the (linear) Maxwell equations. The NIW of pure-field light-light interactions as described by Maxwell is linear. Superposition applies. Interference is a bad word for interference (as Chandra has emphasised).  The "I" in NIW is a different thing entirely from the "interference" of light with light. This leads to the following manifestly true(if not very helpful) statement : interference is not interference.

Maxwell is very very good. It is (as far as I know, sub pair production threshold and within its realm of validity) supported 100 percent by known experiment. Indeed photons do not "interfere only with themselves". Experimentally, they superpose on other photons. Linearly. Any simulation based on this is going to show this. Likewise, in light-light only interactions it is going to (very likely) agree with experiment. Conclusion: light does not reflect from light.

Wait a minute: are not some of us arguing that "everything is made from (the same stuff as) light"?

What is going on?

So: lets expand the perspective to include matter. And its experimental properties.  Matter does interact with light. Mirrors reflect it. Material refracts it. Atoms absorb and emit it. Material particles may annihilate to give pure light. In fact it is continuously created and destroyed.
This is not just a bit of interference (in either meaning of the word above) this is life or death for light.

Conclusion: one needs to go beyond (just) Maxwell if one wishes to describe this.
HOW?

One could go to QED. Then light interacts with light via a "box" diagram.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum
Ok ... but is this the whole story?  I think not. QED does not, can not, and will never explain the physical properties it puts in a-priori. This is true of any theory. It puts in point, massive, charges. Also: all it does is provide (miniscule) corrections to what Maxwell says, until you get right up to the pair-production threshold (and even there Maxwell is nearly 100 percent right). Material particles do not bind themselves with miniscule corrections.
No, we need a theory that allows the topological confinement of light. Something that allows an extra degree of freedom, over and above the pure fields.
Now this could be Chandra's CTF, it could be an extension of Maxwell along some of the lines Martin and I are considering, or it could be something else. That is what all this is about.
For me, for what it is worth, this extra thing does reside in the extra degrees of freedom that David was talking about, over and above the fields, afforded by such things as the angular momentum (T) p-vot (P) and quadrivector (Q) terms in the equations proposed.
Anyway, matter happens, so it has got to be something!
If so, then Bob and Andrew are right and we should be thinking of experiments to try to throw light on matter. I've suggested a few in the papers. We should think of more.
Cheers, John W.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [mules333 at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:55 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions
Dear Chip,
You are thinking along the right lines. However, your example won't work. It requires a beam splitter (or sampler) that will not 'destroy' the standing wave. If there is no reflected wave at some point, the whole standing wave collapses.

On the other hand, this exercise may have also proved my hypothesis incorrect (that only slightly more than 1/2 of the incident beam will reach the physical mirror - I need to do the math).
It might be possible to set up standing waves in something like the figure below. Measuring the intensity of the evanescent waves at sequential reflection points might prove, or disprove, the point.
[Inline image 1]
I need to think about the details of such an experiment; however, I'm not sure that the intensity will diminish at the far end, if the aligned mirror is added.
It is worth thinking about.
Andrew
_______________________________

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Andrew

Then if you set up this experiment.

[cid:image002.png at 01D0E43D.63653720]
And then remove the mirror, if wave reflection is occurring in the beams of light, you would see the light intensity increase at the bottom detector. Without wave reflection the bottom detector will register about 50% of the beam intensity.

But if wave reflection does occur then the bottom detector would measure significantly less than this value, and the intensity at the bottom detector would increase to about 50% when the left mirror is removed.

If wave reflection does not occur, you would see no significant change in the bottom detector output, with or without the mirror.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins<mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 2:25 PM
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>>
Cc: Mary Fletcher <marycfletcher at gmail.com<mailto:marycfletcher at gmail.com>>; robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com<mailto:hudginswr at msn.com>>

Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions

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<mailto: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...
[cid:image003.jpg at 01D0E43D.63653720]
And reflection occurs, then we would have the reflected components, as shown in red below...

[cid:image004.jpg at 01D0E43D.63653720]
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<mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>; Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>>
Cc: robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com<mailto: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<mailto: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] 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.
[cid:image005.jpg at 01D0E43D.63653720][cid:image006.jpg at 01D0E43D.63653720]

Image: 3, two waves of different frequencies passing through each other.
[cid:image007.jpg at 01D0E43D.63653720]

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 mules333 at gmail.com<mailto: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>

________________________________
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/20150831/ce2fa048/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 33080 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150831/ce2fa048/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 16172 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150831/ce2fa048/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3117 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150831/ce2fa048/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3729 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150831/ce2fa048/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5451 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150831/ce2fa048/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5609 bytes
Desc: image006.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150831/ce2fa048/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6441 bytes
Desc: image007.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150831/ce2fa048/attachment-0004.jpg>