[General] Verification of Light Interactions
Richard Gauthier
richgauthier at gmail.com
Tue Sep 8 15:58:29 PDT 2015
Please ignore last email, I hit send by accident.
Richard
> On Sep 8, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> 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