[General] response to WOLF

[Hodge John]

Wolf: Your observations and intuitive thought seem more orientedto the traditional diffraction experiment and not the varying illuminationexperiment. For example, in the present experiment, one side has almost noillumination. Confirming Young’s model took over 100 years during which itwas considered erroneous. But even in Kirchoff’s model that supported Young’smodel the Huygens-Fresnel (HF) assumptions were used.  Fraunhofer and the others produced models of single- anddouble slit experiments the worked in the Fraunhofer domain (between a minimumdistance and maximun distance with limited slit widths). This is the domain ofthe paper’s experiment. Certainly, Fresnel and Sommerfield by accounting forphase could extend Fraunhofer’s domain. However, these models and Young’s modelinvolved an input illumination coherent and of constant amplitude and phaseacross a slit. The present experiment involve VARYING ILLUMINATION ACROSS THESLIT. By varying the illumination, the HF assumption was found to beinconsistent with the observations. All the wave models of light to myknowledge use some form of the HF assumption. If HF is false, the models arefalse. There are a great many more consideration on this complexissue. Let me discuss them one at time in a qualitative way. Figures 11 and 15 of the input pattern used in theexperiment were done to show the consistency with other edge diffractioneffects. That is, the input is varying illumination input of a diffractionpattern. Certainly, beyond the edge the pattern should be just the input patternwhich it nearly is. The interesting part is close to the edge and behind the mask.The deviation from other models is close to the image of the edge. What is seenis a wide high pulse that eventually degenerates into the image of the inputsignal. There is an issue of whether the image actually goes to a zero value atthe first minimum or not. This is one of the areas I’d like to have much moreaccurate measure of a photon counter. The second reason for the edge images is to contrast an edgewith the slit. That is in Fig 5 the right side could look like a slit with noor little input. But the presents of the right mask mass is required for thediffraction pattern even if the illumination is very low - this is anotherdeparture from the wave models. The Fresnel model of an edge could be of asingle slit with one side of the slit removed to infinity.  Your point on Young and edge excitation: See Fig 1. Thesimulation duplicates Young’s observation with a bit more. Note that justbefore the mask, the photon are moving toward the closest edge and then arereflected to cross just beyond the mask. The STOE model starts to modify thephoton’s path before the slit. That is, near the edge has more illumination perarea than the center. This is Young’s and your observation (the center has someillumination reduced). This is the “more” you asked for. I think the wavemodels don’t do this. So if Young is accepted, the STOE is more accurate thanwave model in this respect.   Now to split some hairs. Fig 1 looks like “reflection” andsome dispersal over a limited angel toward the other side of center - a diffusereflection rather than a mirror reflection. Young’s model invokes HF in that itmentions (like you did) “re-radiation” which would involve a more sphericalangular dispersal. A wave model tends toward a re-radiation. (2nd tolast paragraph in Introduction) Waves, extension effect, inertia, and the difference betweena cloud of particles and an oscillation of a medium:Do you have the equipment to do a varying intensityexperiment with propagation EM energy like the present paper?   Considera pendulum. At minimum extent, there is no motion (Kinetic energy) and maximumpotential (gravitational) energy. At center swing the potential energy is at aminimum and the kinetic (inertial) energy is maximum. This motion is describedby sin and cos functions (wave functions). Likewise for solutions of the “waveequation”. Next, consider the undulations of a medium that is carrying a wave.If light is a wave it must have a medium to wave in. (yes I know). Perhaps thismedium is “space” as in General Relativity Space, ether, or my plenum.Therefore, the “space”/plenum has the inertia property and there is aproportionality between gravitational mass and inertial mass (Albrecht’sextent). This concept was incorporated into the simulation program and taken asa concept of inertia in Inertia according to the STOE http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1676 The HF model has that each point in a wave re-radiates awavelet in a spherical pattern and the obliquity factor that calculates theenergy move forward, only (this is the inertia of the STOE). Consider theFraunhofer derivation of the diffraction pattern (it’s simlper but has thenecessary points - I’ll get to Young in a bit). A constant phase and constantwave is in the slit. Each point radiates a wavelet across the entirediffraction pattern on the screen. The wavelets from 2 points then interfere toproduce the maxim and minima of the diffraction pattern. If the intensity ofeach wavelet is the same, the cancellation is total at the 180 degree phasedifference points. The varying intensity experiment has the point of the leftside of the slit radiating with much more intensity than the right side.   First: A wave model would have each point on the left (highintensity side) illuminate the entire screen pattern so the diffraction patternshould be seen on both sides in the varying intensity experiment - THIS IS NOTOBSERVED. My intuition tells me that if the majority of the illumination isleft-of-center in the slit, most of the illumination on the screen should beleft-of-center on the screen.  Second: consider another point near the right side of theslit. If it radiates it radiates at a much lower intensity than a point on theleft side. The interference at a screen minima does not totally cancel.Therefore, the pattern on the screen should be nearly flat intensity withpoorly defined minima. THIS IS NOT OBSERVED.  We considered 2 points. Now consider these points are at theedges of the slit. The same applies. A wave model should have the entire screenilluminated and the poor definition in the varying light experiment.  The varying light experiment has one edge illuminated andthe other edge with little, if any, illumination. This could be confused withan edge effect. But as we see the edge effect is different (Fig 11 - not 15-where the tail “A” in the figure.). Therefore, the other side of the mask isneeded and the width of the slit still plays a role in the diffraction pattern. Perhaps, the integration of all points in the slit in theFraunhofer model should be only to the zero point of intensity not to the otherslit edge. The slit width (the integral limits) is part of the placement of themaxima and minama. The placement does not change from full to varyingillumination.  So the observed results are NOT consistent with a Young’smodel with both edges. Illuminated. A single edge illuminated cannot give aninterference effect. The quantum mechanics weird postulates about the observer,collapse of the wave function, etc. are not needed in the STOE. Consideringthe light as a wave is inconsistent with the observations.  Ithink the STOE is not a “fix-up” model. It is totally different than both bigand small standard models Universe according to the STOE http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648 The STOE simulation considers the photon emits waves thatare reflected by matter to direct the photon. Consequently, any matterintroduced into the experiment looks like “observer” induced changes such aswires in Afshar experiment or extra screens or masks.  Hodge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160412/3e0ac69a/attachment.htm>