[General] Verification of Light Interactions
Chip Akins
chipakins at gmail.com
Tue Sep 8 14:09:53 PDT 2015
Hi Richard and Chandra
Richard it seems that space is composed of smaller stuff.
We can observe transverse waves traveling through space. When we study
materials we find transverse waves in elastic solids. Elastic solids have
“nodes” (atoms or molecules), which have both attractive and repulsive
forces between them. The simplest form, atomic binding, achieves both
attractive and repulsive forces due to the structure of the atom. With
positive charges in the nucleus and negative charges in the electron cloud.
For metals the equilibrium distance is on the order of 100 to 300 pm in
order to balance the forces.
For space to display the properties of shear modulus, it seems it must also
have nodes with both attractive and repulsive forces, and the equilibrium,
the balance of forces, is at the scale of the Planck length. But this
implies a structure which can cause these forces. (And these forces are
probably more fundamental than electrostatic force, and not easily
detectible by matter).
We may be able to discover some of the details of this structure due to the
properties of EM waves, and a better understanding of the nature of
particles.
But is seems that space is a bit more complex than we normally consider. And
there is at least another layer of stuff smaller than subatomic scales.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 12:52 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions
Hello Chandra,
Thank you for your detailed explanations. Whether or not the CTF (or the
ether) is conscious is definitely an open question. We still need to know
how mind and subjective experience arise in this physical universe, since
that’s how we know about the physical universe. The old materialistic
explanation that mind is an epiphenomenon of organized matter (“the brain
secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.”) may satisfy some materialists
(thinking themselves to be scientific). But this is not the only possible
explanation of mind. Matter itself is yet to be fully understood. It’s
unlikely to be composed of other matter “all the way down”.
Richard
On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra
<chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> >
wrote:
Richard: As far as the scholarly knowledge in Vedic, Upanisadic and Yogic
fields are concerned; I do not have any choice but take the American “Fifth
Amendment”! I am promoting enhanced Western method of thinking; not Eastern.
Why?
1. Knowledge of Physics: My knowledge of science is entirely through
Western books and PhD from USA. Clash came in my mind when I found that I
can do the math to get the necessary grades, but I do not understand the
underlying physical processes behind the Relativity and the QM theories.
This was during my BS and MS classes in India. So, right from the beginning
of my graduate life in USA, I started devising and doing experiments that
facilitates exploring the physical processes that give rise to the
measurable data. Obviously, this “process-seeking” mind must have evolved
out of my Indian blood and Indian culture; but, not through formal training
in Indian philosophies. In fact, in my first interview with Prof. Leonard
Mandel at the Rochester University; I was stupidly trying to convince him
that I would work under him to demonstrate that the “single photon
interference” is not a valid physics conclusion. This was in 1969. Arriving
from India, I had no idea that Mandel, during that period, was already
“riding high” for demonstrating “single photon interference” through several
different experiments! Mandel summarily transferred me from the Physics
Department to the Institute of Optics. My ego felt deflated at that time;
but Mandel took the most effective decision to build my future experience as
a good engineering, with the enquiring mind intact. It took me many decades
to recognize that we have a much bigger global problem. The Knowledge
Gatekeepers in all fields, both in the East and the West, suffer from the
same spell of Messiah Complex; which they impose, hand-in-glove, with the
entire socio-econo-political culture.
2. “Ether”, Indian “Brahmha” and my “CTF”: While Indian cultural
upbringing does help Indian children to become “Indian” in cultural
behavior; very little is taught about the Indian philosophy in the
mainstream schools and colleges. My concept of the existence of a “Complex
Tension Field” (CTF) emerged just as “ether” concept was felt necessary in
the West since Newton’s time. But, it got strengthened when I convinced
myself of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) based on my experiments during mid
1970’s. NIW is valid for all tension-field based waves that are linear
excitations of the mother tension field. Waves do not have SEPARATE
existence, or SEPARATE INDENTITY. Then, I recognized that weakness of the
old ether concept can be removed, once we validate that particles themselves
are also various excited states of the same “CTF”, without separate
existence. The manifest universe is full of diverse dances of the same CTF
field! That is when I realized that India ancient Hrishis must have known a
lot more through their intuitive life-long meditation than the current
Western Physics thinkers. But, they miserably failed to pass on that
millennia-old knowledge seeking skills to average Indians. So, the current
Indian backwardness gives me pause to recommend coopting the Indian Vedic
epistemology, as is. I would still promote the Western Path, the “evidence
based” science, which is accessible to average people to pick up all over
the world. Science for everybody to learn and to survive; it is not just for
elites. We just need to add iterative application of Interaction Process
Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) over and above the prevailing Western method of
Measurable Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E). MDM-E is insufficient to keep
us evolving. No data (evidence) can ever provide all the necessary
information about the interactants we are interested in. We must learn to
overcome nature imposed perpetual information retrieval problem by combining
MDM-E and IPM-E.
3. Consciousness: Many well-known people have been promoting emergence
of Consciousness out of Quantum Uncertainty Principle. Nature does not have
an “Uncertainty Principle”, albeit global scientific belief in it. [See my
attached publication of 1978.]. It is about time that the Homo Sapiens stop
arrogantly telling nature how she ought to behave out of our incomplete
theories about her. Instead, we should keep on humbly discovering how she
actually functions in reality. Our, sustainable survival depends upon this
latter attitude. Otherwise, we will make ourselves extinct out of our
arrogant ignorance! We have already become the most destructive pest in the
biosphere!
Deductively, it is clear that the biological consciousness and the
biological intelligence, not just that of the Homo Sapiens, are deeply
connected with the ultimate cosmic field, the ether in some form, or my CTF
concept in some form. And, I promote this postulate, as yet un-validated,
from the following deductive logics. Data from MRI and fMRI clearly indicate
that Human consciousness is an emergent property of our total neural network
(body and skull), made out of diverse kinds of biological cells. All cells
are built out of diverse kinds of molecules. All biological molecules are
built out of a small set of atoms. All atoms are built out of protons,
neutrons and electrons. And, we are on the path to validate that all
particles are localized self-looped oscillations of the same CTF (in which
EM waves are perpetually propagating linear excitations). Now, if we accept
that elementary particles are really emergent properties (excitations) of
the CTF (self-looped oscillations); then by the chain of logics, the
emergence of biological consciousness out of biological bodies is clearly an
emergent property of the CTF. But, we are still very far off from our
ability to experimentally follow the emergence of every new property through
every step of the way and scientifically claim that consciousness is an
emergent property of the CTF (or the Eastern Brahmha). If the concept of CTF
survives in some form or other, then we will have to agree that the
potentiality of the emergence of consciousness is definitely contained
(buried) in the CTF. Is CTF conscious? We really do not know; it could be;
or may not be! But, publicly declaring so as a final knowledge without
experimental validation will be just as arrogant as claiming human
consciousness is a product of the Uncertainty Principle!
Sincerely,
Chandra.
From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightan
dparticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightand
particles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 12:49 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions
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 <
<mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> 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.natureoflightan
dparticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightand
particles.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 < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
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.o
rg] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 9:41 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Joakim Pettersson < <mailto:joakimbits at gmail.com> joakimbits at gmail.com>;
Nick Bailey < <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> nick at bailey-family.org.uk>;
Manohar . < <mailto:manohar_berlin at hotmail.com> manohar_berlin at hotmail.com>;
Ariane Mandray < <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
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 [
<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightand
particles.org>
general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticle
s.org] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [ <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
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 < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
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: <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>
general-bounces+chipakins=
<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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 <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Andrew Meulenberg <
<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> mules333 at gmail.com>
Cc: Mary Fletcher < <mailto:marycfletcher at gmail.com>
marycfletcher at gmail.com>; robert hudgins < <mailto:hudginswr at msn.com>
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 < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
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
<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.
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: <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>
general-bounces+chipakins=
<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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 <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Andrew Meulenberg <
<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> mules333 at gmail.com>
Cc: robert hudgins < <mailto:hudginswr at msn.com> 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 <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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.natureoflightan
dparticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightand
particles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 1:22 PM
To: 'robert hudgins'; <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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: <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> chipakins at gmail.com;
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc: robert hudgins < <mailto:hudginswr at msn.com> hudginswr at msn.com>; Ralph
Penland < <mailto:rpenland at gmail.com> rpenland at gmail.com>; Andrew meulenberg
< <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> 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 <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
mules333 at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
<1978.xx_Found.Phys._Uncrtnty.
Prncpl.pdf>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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/20150908/7c132ed8/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list