[General] Verification of Light Interactions
Richard Gauthier
richgauthier at gmail.com
Mon Sep 7 09:48:51 PDT 2015
Hello Chandra,
Thank your for your explanations. I am completely sympathetic with your desire to rehabilitate the traditional concept of “ether” scientifically by giving it the newer, more descriptive name Complex Tension Field. I think the same approach could be done with the other four traditional fundamental material factors described in Eastern philosophies: the aerial, luminous, liquid and solid factors. Have you considered how this might be done? Yoga philosophy describes these five fundamental physical factors (painca mahabhutas) as varying from the most subtle (etheric factor) to the most crude (solid factor). All of these factors are described in yoga philosophy as successively evolving from a cosmic mind which itself evolves from a state of pure consciousness (Nirguna Brahma). Do you think that physics is ready to consider this approach? In recent years consciousness studies have emerged as an active branch of research in many fields, including physics. The relationships of mind to matter still need to be better explained and explored scientifically. Understanding more deeply the nature of light and matter could be part of this exploration.
Richard
> On Aug 31, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:
>
> Dear All: I will write a more detailed response to the NIW-related discussions. This has reached a good positive level out of collective discussions; meeting the key purpose of this forum.
>
> Dear Richard G.: My personal belief is that nature is not subservient to elegant human theories. We should feel lucky that how much QM formalisms have given us access to validate diverse measurable data. This means we humans are not heading in a totally wrong direction.
>
> However, this does not mean that the foundational postulates of QM have captured all the necessary final set of postulates to build the perfect model of the Cosmic Building! Emulating a success track brings more successes more easily. But, following the same track of thinking will stop the evolution of human enquiring minds!
>
> We must keep on challenging the foundational postulates of the working theories: Classical, Relativities and QM. Then re-build a new set of postulates that harmoniously starts from a unified field-platform, which allows the harmonious emergence of waves and particles out of the same Complex Tension Field (CTF). We have been wasting time to unify diverse fields of physics by forcing the apples and oranges to become a new lovely fruit without going through the foundational genetic engineering by starting with the genes of the two plants!
>
> People in the field of biology are smarter than us; because they are a lot more humble people. They are rapidly advancing; physics is moribund for over 90 years!
>
> One can register the spectrum of Fe-atoms (photons?) by gathering the light from the sparks that one can generate by carefully swinging an iron rod against a cement floor. The iron-spectrum reflects QM excitations. But, it is the hand that provided the energy to the rod as classical kinetic energy, (1/2)mv-squared! We are not yet smart enough to connect directly the “alpha” with the physical processes that went on between the molecules of iron-rod and the cement platform when they were forcefully grazed against each other.
>
> How do we bring conceptual continuity between delivering classical kinetic energy and the emergence of discrete set of quantum mechanical frequencies? QM does not have any fundamental postulate that QM excitation and/or QM energy transfer can happen only through QM interactions between QM-entities. Otherwise, the biological and cosmological evolution would not have been continuing! And, yet we are accepting, over a century, that the emission of a photo electron (QM-bound) conclusively proves that photons are quantized!! Creation and annihilation operators are no more than representing the functions of material dipole emitters and detectors. Only they can be the creators and annihilators of the “available” EM energy which exists only as excitations of the vacuum (CTF); just like particles are. Vacuum holds all the energy. We are all assemblies of diverse excitations of the CTF. That is why the realities of the universe appear soelusive; but they are not illusions!
>
> Sincerely,
> Chandra.
> <>
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:32 PM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions
>
> Hi all,
> Just by looking at the the dimensions of the QED fine structure constant alpha = e^2/hbar c = approx 1/137 we can see what is important in the interaction between a photon and an electron is the electron’s charge -e, the photon’s speed c (and possibly the electron’s internal speed c) and the spins of the photon and/or the electron. We can’t get alpha from Maxwell’s equations, can we?
> Richard
>
> On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> 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 <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 <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 <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [mules333 at gmail.com <mailto: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.
> <image004.png>
> 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.
>
>
>
> <image005.png>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> Re varying phase: see Dowling's section IV Phase Labeling
> Re varying frequency: see Dowling's section V Detuning
> To make our point, we will need to emphasize that:
>
> it is only the identical components of the waves that reflect;
> the reflection plane (the 'mirror') is the bisector of the intersection angle.
> 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…
>
> <image006.jpg>
>
> And reflection occurs, then we would have the reflected components, as shown in red below…
>
>
>
> <image007.jpg>
>
> 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.
>
> The reflection plane should be the null-zone (across the center), not the other beam. The red lines are incorrectly placed.
> 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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics>) and Dirac statistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_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 <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.
>
> <image008.jpg><image009.jpg>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Image: 3, two waves of different frequencies passing through each other.
>
> <image010.jpg>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 <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 <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 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%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/20150907/ef1f29d1/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list