[General] Meulenerg comments

[Roychoudhuri, Chandra]

Hello John Hodge: I do not have a “Fresnel lens set up”. I do not know where you have heard it from. By the way, Fresnel lenses are not terribly expensive. They are also poor optical component. I was trying to do some Talbot imaging through two Talbot gratings, but gave up for lack of money to buy super precision optical components free of aberration and computer interface-able precision digital camera for quantitative measurement of field energy.

Sorry that I am now about sound like a broken record (CD!)

My purpose was opposite to yours – one more way to demonstrate Non-Interactions of Waves (NIW). Light waves (photons) do not interfere. Nobody will ever succeed in making a quantum computer using “single photon interference”; because this is not a phenomenon that exist in nature. We are confusing “clicks” of pulses of billions of electrons in the circuit as “indivisible photons”!

To me, the Superposition Principle (SP) is not a measurable or observable phenomenon for EM waves. Superposition Effect (SE) is a measurable phenomenon after a quantum detector carries out the nonlinear step of taking the square modulus of sum of  all the simultaneous amplitude stimulations induced by all the impinged waves. Recall Glauber’s quip, “I see a photon only after I have detected one”. So, Glauber tacitly accepts the critical operational behavior of a quantum detector:  we cannot observe any superposition effect by light waves without the mediation of a quantum detector. The detector creates the quantumness in the data. Had Einstein recognized that electron binding energies are always quantized, he would have invented Quantum Mechanics 20 years earlier by assigning the quantumness in photoelectric data to electron, rather than to EM waves. History would have been remarkably different. Physics would have been advancing much faster than it has been for the last hundred years. Most likely, we would not have needed this forum!!

Physics does not have any choice but to digest this interpretational paradigm shift. Because NIW-property is built into our current working theories. Once we accept this reality; reality will be restored in QM and a lot of confusing wrong interpretations will vanish automatically without the need for another unsettling Bohr-Einstein debate! To me “photon”, as an “indivisible quanta”, is an invalid statement for the entire range of EM waves from Radio to Gamma; all of them can share energy in steps, or collectively, while interacting with matter; even though Gamma wave packet does not appear to suffer from diffractive spreading like the rest of the EM wave spectrum.

All this is explained in my book, “Causal Physics: Photon Model by Non-Interaction of Waves”, CRC, 2014. I have used a wide variety of experiments to validate the NIW-property and have also shown that where the current math is based upon the NIW-property (like Huygens-Fresnel Diffraction integral and Jones matrix for polarized light; etc.) and where the current math must be modified, as in the theory of spectrometry.

Have happy debates and discussions.

Sincerely,
Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Hodge John
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 5:15 PM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: [General] Meulenerg comments

Andrew

Thanks for your knowledgeable comment.
The STOE model of light was developed over years and there were several modification sine the first paper (“Photon diffraction and interference”) to the last (“Diffraction experiment and its STOE photon simulation program 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 Fresnel lens/mirrors.

Your subtle reference to the not using slits for interference experiments was a complex issue in the first paper. I understand (I think) your reticence to use slits because of the light from edges effect that Young noticed that also definitely needs to be explained in a particle model of light. The wave model of this effect is somewhat unclear to me except to say the math that developed worked. The historical developments of the other means of generating interference pattern were because of the wave interference assumption. Therefore, it has to be addressed in a photon model. However, the STOE model explains this neatly in the first figure of the last paper. I’m a bit surprised this was not pounced on because its importance in experiment was downplayed (but still mentioned) in my papers. Now that you have brought the same issue up that Young had to face, I think you are correct - The alternate means of generating interference should be done to help support or reject the STOE model. Redoing the experiment of the last paper should be done. Perhaps you could do it if you already have the beam splitters. The camera should be good enough for a first look.

COHERENCE Your subtle reference to this issue is a major consideration to what has/had to be overcome for a particle model of light. The last few days emails have suggested to me that the NOL group doesn’t understand the importance of coherence even for their electron models. Or, perhaps I don’t get it.

The historical development of interference study started with the definition of coherence as that which produced the fringes. First the fringe observations, then the model definitions. This is the definition I used - first paper: coherence produces a diffraction pattern when directed through a slit. The wave model has come to mean 2 points on wave front maintain a constant phase (this definition is required for the Fraunhofer and others development). I note your reference to the wiki, wave explanation of coherence. The first paper was written when the computer model could duplicate a photon pattern for long distance travel that showed coherence - the first major milestone. This also shows why the laser particle model works to produce interference. Once the coherence was demonstrated in the last paper, the experiment could proceed.

The ability of coherence from incandescent light can be done in several ways. Didn’t Michelson use a sodium flame? Light can be made coherent although I hesitate about “from anything” - It should be nearly monochromatic and from an extended source. If you are going to try to get coherence from light bulb, Try to avoid the pinhole camera effect ( a ground glass screen may help).

Another small point - theoretical wave sources require an extended source of light. Point sources don’t fit the wave model or my model of photons. The investigation of point sources to help the electron model with photons seem doomed or another wave model needs to be recalculated. The other wave requirement of monochromatic light is a requirement for equal energies of photons. Therefore, the implied “problems” with using a laser are actually requirements for the diffraction experiment to work - but this can be highly argumentative so I’ll avoid it.

Newton achieved the interference pattern from the sun by allowing light through a hole in the room to pass through a feather (multiple slits). You really don’t need to do all that table tilting.

You hit the nail on the head. Time to do or address undergrad 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 Fresnel lens equipment setup.

I am not affiliated with any institution. My getting a paper peer reviewed is nearly impossible although I had been published in New Astronomy and the arXiv. I’m torn between buying the equipment ($10,000?) which will probably not be published in peer review. Or, do it anyway for all us out-of-the-guild folks (getting noticed is the problem).
Or, see if someone wants to first author a paper (my ego tells me this could be Nobel material if it works). Right now, I think I would rather 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 crave knowledgeable comments to advance my research (fun).

How would the equipment you donated be accessed? How do I arrange it? I’ 73 and don’t travel well. What is the equipment ( meter description, etc.)?

Hodge

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151204/f36aa702/attachment.htm>