[General] Fw: A few interesting papers - Sept 8

Tue Sep 8 15:56:17 PDT 2015

All,
I haven't the time to detail the work just yet. Hopefully, the following papers may provide the basis for a fruitful discussion. 

1. Molecules of Light
NIST Physicists Show ‘Molecules’ Made of Light May Be Possible
Ho (2015) Coulomb bounds states of strongly interacting photons http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.03859
Ho 2012 Annabelle Dark Matterhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0503v3.pdf
2.  Swimming in spacetimehttp://web.mit.edu/wisdom/www/swimming.pdf

3. Magnetic wormholeA Magnetic Wormhole : Scientific Reports

4. Toroidal model with electric, magnetic and anapole momentsNonradiating anapole modes in dielectric nanoparticles : Nature Communications : Nature Publishing Group
Note: Toroidal moment - Wiki

Best
David

      From: Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 10:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions

Hello Chandra,   Thank you for your detailed explanations. Whether or not the CTF (or the ether) is conscious is definitely an open question. We still need to know how mind and subjective experience arise in this physical universe, since that’s how we know about the physical universe. The old materialistic explanation that mind is an epiphenomenon of organized matter (“the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.”) may satisfy some materialists (thinking themselves to be scientific). But this is not the only possible explanation of mind. Matter itself is yet to be fully understood. It’s unlikely to be composed of other matter “all the way down”.       Richard

On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote: 
Richard: As far as the scholarly knowledge in Vedic, Upanisadic and Yogic fields are concerned; I do not have any choice but take the American “Fifth Amendment”! I am promoting enhanced Western method of thinking; not Eastern. Why?1.      Knowledge of Physics: My knowledge of science is entirely through Western books and PhD from USA. Clash came in my mind when I found that I can do the math to get the necessary grades, but I do not understand the underlying physical processes behind the Relativity and the QM theories. This was during my BS and MS classes in India. So, right from the beginning of my graduate life in USA, I started devising and doing experiments that facilitates exploring the physical processes that give rise to the measurable data. Obviously, this “process-seeking” mind must have evolved out of my Indian blood and Indian culture; but, not through formal training in Indian philosophies. In fact, in my first interview with Prof. Leonard Mandel at the Rochester University; I was stupidly trying to convince him that I would work under him to demonstrate that the “single photon interference” is not a valid physics conclusion. This was in 1969. Arriving from India, I had no idea that Mandel, during that period, was already “riding high” for demonstrating “single photon interference” through several different experiments! Mandel summarily transferred me from the Physics Department to the Institute of Optics. My ego felt deflated at that time; but Mandel took the most effective decision to build my future experience as a good engineering, with the enquiring mind intact. It took me many decades to recognize that we have a much bigger global problem. The Knowledge Gatekeepers in all fields, both in the East and the West, suffer from the same spell of Messiah Complex; which they impose, hand-in-glove, with the entire socio-econo-political culture.2.      “Ether”, Indian “Brahmha” and my “CTF”: While Indian cultural upbringing does help Indian children to become “Indian” in cultural behavior; very little is taught about the Indian philosophy in the mainstream schools and colleges. My concept of the existence of a “Complex Tension Field” (CTF) emerged just as “ether” concept was felt necessary in the West since Newton’s time. But, it got strengthened when I convinced myself of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) based on my experiments during mid 1970’s. NIW is valid for all tension-field based waves that are linear excitations of the mother tension field. Waves do not have SEPARATE existence, or SEPARATE INDENTITY. Then, I recognized that weakness of the old ether concept can be removed, once we validate that particles themselves are also various excited states of the same “CTF”, without separate existence. The manifest universe is full of diverse dances of the same CTF field! That is when I realized that India ancient Hrishis must have known a lot more through their intuitive life-long meditation than the current Western Physics thinkers. But, they miserably failed to pass on that millennia-old knowledge seeking skills to average Indians. So, the current Indian backwardness gives me pause to recommend coopting the Indian Vedic epistemology, as is. I would still promote the Western Path, the “evidence based” science, which is accessible to average people to pick up all over the world. Science for everybody to learn and to survive; it is not just for elites. We just need to add iterative application of Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) over and above the prevailing Western method of Measurable Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E). MDM-E is insufficient to keep us evolving. No data (evidence) can ever provide all the necessary information about the interactants we are interested in. We must learn to overcome nature imposed perpetual information retrieval problem by combining MDM-E and IPM-E.3.      Consciousness: Many well-known people have been promoting emergence of Consciousness out of Quantum Uncertainty Principle. Nature does not have an “Uncertainty Principle”, albeit global scientific belief in it. [See my attached publication of 1978.]. It is about time that the Homo Sapiens stop arrogantly telling nature how she ought to behave out of our incomplete theories about her. Instead, we should keep on humbly discovering how she actually functions in reality. Our, sustainable survival depends upon this latter attitude. Otherwise, we will make ourselves extinct out of our arrogant ignorance! We have already become the most destructive pest in the biosphere!     Deductively, it is clear that the biological consciousness and the biological intelligence, not just that of the Homo Sapiens, are deeply connected with the ultimate cosmic field, the ether in some form, or my CTF concept in some form. And, I promote this postulate, as yet un-validated, from the following deductive logics. Data from MRI and fMRI clearly indicate that Human consciousness is an emergent property of our total neural network (body and skull), made out of diverse kinds of biological cells. All cells are built out of diverse kinds of molecules. All biological molecules are built out of a small set of atoms. All atoms are built out of protons, neutrons and electrons. And, we are on the path to validate that all particles are localized self-looped oscillations of the same CTF (in which EM waves are perpetually propagating linear excitations). Now, if we accept that elementary particles are really emergent properties (excitations) of the CTF (self-looped oscillations); then by the chain of logics, the emergence of biological consciousness out of biological bodies is clearly an emergent property of the CTF. But, we are still very far off from our ability to experimentally follow the emergence of every new property through every step of the way and scientifically claim that consciousness is an emergent property of the CTF (or the Eastern Brahmha). If the concept of CTF survives in some form or other, then we will have to agree that the potentiality of the emergence of consciousness is definitely contained (buried) in the CTF. Is CTF conscious? We really do not know; it could be; or may not be! But, publicly declaring so as a final knowledge without experimental validation will be just as arrogant as claiming human consciousness is a product of the Uncertainty Principle! Sincerely,Chandra.  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.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> 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] 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> wrote: Hi John W. Andrew, and David John W. and DavidIt is my belief that Maxwell’s equations MUST be extended, and that the observations which brought Chandra to propose the CTF is one reason.We see that light reacts with matter more readily than light reacts with light.  We see that the energy in matter is in many ways similar to the energy in light.  And we see that the energy in matter is confined by something not described by Maxwell’s equations.We can see properties displayed by various forms of the propagation of energy in space, like spin, and confinement, which were not addressed by Maxwell.So I see Chandra’s CTF to be the space which supports the real set of properties, and an extension to Maxwell’s equations to be required in order to sort this out, specifically because of the reaction of space, to energy propagating through space.It is interesting that Pauli exclusion, and spin ½, and often charge, is present in matter, and that with these properties, this energy can apparently more easily react with light.So far, in my research, this has indicated again that the “spin mode” of matter is a significant contributor to the ability of matter to react with light waves. However, it also seems that it will be quite difficult to use light alone to create the correct circumstances to produce this “spin mode”. So making matter from light will be a very elusive pursuit, it seems.When this energy is localized, that is to say confined, it takes on a new topology.  For Martin’s hierarchy to work, for stable particles to exist, there is required to be more to the properties of space, and its reaction to energy, than Maxwell calculated.While, on the surface, it may seem that many of us have totally different ideas, I think that is more a matter of perspective, as John W. has pointed out, and that we are all using those different perspectives, and moving toward the same set of conclusions eventually. AndrewThe 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] 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>
Cc: Joakim Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com>; Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Manohar . <manohar_berlin at hotmail.com>; Ariane Mandray <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_vacuumOk … 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] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [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 InteractionsDear 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> 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=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>; Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
Cc: Mary Fletcher <marycfletcher at gmail.com>; robert hudgins <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> 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=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>; Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
Cc: robert hudgins <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 PMLight from Light reflectionand 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) and Dirac 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>
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] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 1:22 PM
To: 'robert hudgins'; 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] 
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 9:58 AM
To: chipakins at gmail.com; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc: robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com>; Ralph Penland <rpenland at gmail.com>; Andrew meulenberg <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

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
<a href="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
<a href="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
<a href="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
<a href="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 davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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/ff2553a6/attachment.htm>