[General] Meulenerg comments

Hodge John jchodge at frontier.com
Thu Dec 3 14:14:57 PST 2015


Andrew Thanks for your knowledgeable comment.The STOE model of light was developed over years and therewere several modification sine the first paper (“Photon diffraction andinterference”) to the last (“Diffraction experiment and its STOE photon simulationprogram rejects wave models of light”). You might want to start with the last. Have you written a paper on your proposed (?) experiment?“beam splitters like in the Michelson--Morely experiment or the Fresnellens/mirrors.  Your subtle reference to the not using slits forinterference experiments was a complex issue in the first paper. I understand(I think) your reticence to use slits because of the light from edges effectthat Young noticed that also definitely needs to be explained in a particle modelof light. The wave model of this effect is somewhat unclear to me except to saythe math that developed worked. The historical developments of the other meansof generating interference pattern were because of the wave interferenceassumption. Therefore, it has to be addressed in a photon model. However, theSTOE model explains this neatly in the first figure of the last paper. I’m abit surprised this was not pounced on because its importance in experiment wasdownplayed (but still mentioned) in my papers. Now that you have brought thesame issue up that Young had to face, I think you are correct - The alternatemeans of generating interference should be done to help support or reject theSTOE model. Redoing the experiment of the last paper should be done. Perhapsyou could do it if you already have the beam splitters. The camera should begood enough for a first look.  COHERENCE Your subtle reference to this issue is a majorconsideration to what has/had to be overcome for a particle model of light. Thelast few days emails have suggested to me that the NOL group doesn’t understandthe importance of coherence even for their electron models. Or, perhaps I don’tget it.  The historical development of interference study startedwith the definition of coherence as that which produced the fringes. First thefringe observations, then the model definitions. This is the definition I used- first paper: coherence produces a diffraction pattern when directed through aslit. The wave model has come to mean 2 points on wave front maintain aconstant phase (this definition is required for the Fraunhofer and othersdevelopment). I note your reference to the wiki, wave explanation of coherence.The first paper was written when the computer model could duplicate a photonpattern for long distance travel that showed coherence - the first majormilestone. This also shows why the laser particle model works to produceinterference. Once the coherence was demonstrated in the last paper, theexperiment could proceed.  The ability of coherence from incandescent light can be donein several ways. Didn’t Michelson use a sodium flame? Light can be madecoherent although I hesitate about “from anything” - It should be nearlymonochromatic and from an extended source. If you are going to try to getcoherence from light bulb, Try to avoid the pinhole camera effect ( a groundglass screen may help).   Another small point - theoretical wave sources require anextended source of light. Point sources don’t fit the wave model or my model ofphotons. The investigation of point sources to help the electron model withphotons seem doomed or another wave model needs to be recalculated. The otherwave requirement of monochromatic light is a requirement for equal energies ofphotons. Therefore, the implied “problems” with using a laser are actuallyrequirements for the diffraction experiment to work - but this can be highlyargumentative so I’ll avoid it. Newton achieved the interference pattern from the sun byallowing light through a hole in the room to pass through a feather (multipleslits). You really don’t need to do all that table tilting.  You hit the nail on the head. Time to do or addressundergrad light issues is not what I want or will do. We got to move on.  I was hoping Chandra would have some time, he has a Fresnellens equipment setup. I am not affiliated with any institution. My getting a paperpeer reviewed is nearly impossible although I had been published in NewAstronomy and the arXiv. I’m torn between buying the equipment ($10,000?) whichwill probably not be published in peer review. Or, do it anyway for all usout-of-the-guild folks (getting noticed is the problem). Or, see if someone wants to first author a paper (my egotells me this could be Nobel material if it works). Right now, I think I wouldrather continue the independent researcher role and get on with the new stuff.I’m introverted and live away from people. I don’t crave recognition. I craveknowledgeable comments to advance my research (fun).  How would the equipment you donated be accessed? How do Iarrange it? I’ 73 and don’t travel well. What is the equipment ( meterdescription, etc.)?  Hodge 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151203/a13ecd27/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list