[General] Verification of Light Interactions
Richard Gauthier
richgauthier at gmail.com
Tue Sep 8 15:57:08 PDT 2015
> On Sep 8, 2015, at 12:35 PM, M.A. <ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> Interesting discussion.
> Why do you think that 'mind' may not be an epiphenomenon of
> matter? (I mean 'matter' here in the broader sense that includes
> EM and all the other known interactions - essentially Chandra's CTF)
>
> I've recently heard (on NPR I believe) an argument that it is
> essentially impossible for us to reach a point at which we have
> expressed everything one can possibly express on twitter (i.e.
> within the confines of 140 characters). The argument included
> time scales on the order of the current age of the universe,
> and, I believe, only one language.
>
> Now, the human (or even animal) body (including brain) is
> infinitely more complicated than 140 characters and in a
> continual feedback loop with its surroundings that consists
> itself of a mind-boggling number of (evolved) initial
> conditions etc.. I would not find it surprising at all that
> something like intelligence/mind/awareness would emerge.
>
> I'm not saying I understand it, but I don't find it surprising.
> Incredibly complex systems can do (at least) one of two things:
> they can be on a path that causes them to blow up eventually
> (a lot of stars do that, I hear), or they settle into some kind
> of interesting dynamic steady state. Not sure were humanity falls.
> But then again the time scales are mind-boggling, too. Maybe it
> all just blows up in the end, and sometimes something interesting
> happens along (for part of) the way...
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:52:11 -0700
>> From: Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions
>> Message-ID: <5AE0CAA3-2648-4AE7-A87C-B261D99E886B at gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>>
>> 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> 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
>>> Mande
>> l, 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 Hr
>> ishis 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 oscill
>> ations); 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.natureoflightandparticles.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
>>> <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu <mailto: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 ?, 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>
>>>
>>> <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 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/20150908/41957825/attachment-0001.htm>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you would like to change your settings for the Nature of Light and
>> Particles General Discussion List, please visit
>> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/
>> listinfo/general-natureoflightandparticles.org
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of General Digest, Vol 8, Issue 6
>> *************************************
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
More information about the General
mailing list