[General] response to WOLF
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Tue Apr 12 11:33:21 PDT 2016
John;
I think you answered my questions in more detail than I expected, and I
agree the Fraunhoffer model has problems you point out
but to go further I'll have to study your STOE model - It sound s bit
like Bohm's pilot wave.
I'll be going on vacation for a couple of weeks so will get back then.
Thanks for the reply
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 4/12/2016 7:02 AM, Hodge John wrote:
> Wolf:
> Your observations and intuitive thought seem more oriented to the
> traditional diffraction experiment and not the varying illumination
> experiment. For example, in the present experiment, one side has
> almost no illumination.
> Confirming Young’s model took over 100 years during which it was
> considered erroneous. But even in Kirchoff’s model that supported
> Young’s model the Huygens-Fresnel (HF) assumptions were used.
> Fraunhofer and the others produced models of single- and double slit
> experiments the worked in the Fraunhofer domain (between a minimum
> distance and maximun distance with limited slit widths). This is the
> domain of the paper’s experiment. Certainly, Fresnel and Sommerfield
> by accounting for phase could extend Fraunhofer’s domain. However,
> these models and Young’s model involved an input illumination coherent
> and of constant amplitude and phase across a slit. The present
> experiment involve VARYING ILLUMINATION ACROSS THE SLIT. By varying
> the illumination, the HF assumption was found to be inconsistent with
> the observations. All the wave models of light to my knowledge use
> some form of the HF assumption. If HF is false, the models are false.
> There are a great many more consideration on this complex issue. Let
> me discuss them one at time in a qualitative way.
> Figures 11 and 15 of the input pattern used in the experiment were
> done to show the consistency with other edge diffraction effects. That
> is, the input is varying illumination input of a diffraction pattern.
> Certainly, beyond the edge the pattern should be just the input
> pattern which 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 seen is a wide high pulse that eventually
> degenerates into the image of the input signal. There is an issue of
> whether the image actually goes to a zero value at the first minimum
> or not. This is one of the areas I’d like to have much more accurate
> measure of a photon counter.
> The second reason for the edge images is to contrast an edge with the
> slit. That is in Fig 5 the right side could look like a slit with no
> or little input. But the presents of the right mask mass is required
> for the diffraction pattern even if the illumination is very low -
> this is another departure from the wave models. The Fresnel model of
> an edge could be of a single slit with one side of the slit removed to
> infinity.
> Your point on Young and edge excitation: See Fig 1. The simulation
> duplicates Young’s observation with a bit more. Note that just before
> the mask, the photon are moving toward the closest edge and then are
> reflected to cross just beyond the mask. The STOE model starts to
> modify the photon’s path before the slit. That is, near the edge has
> more illumination per area than the center. This is Young’s and your
> observation (the center has some illumination reduced). This is the
> “more” you asked for. I think the wave models don’t do this. So if
> Young is accepted, the STOE is more accurate than wave model in this
> respect.
> Now to split some hairs. Fig 1 looks like “reflection” and some
> dispersal over a limited angel toward the other side of center - a
> diffuse reflection rather than a mirror reflection. Young’s model
> invokes HF in that it mentions (like you did) “re-radiation” which
> would involve a more spherical angular dispersal. A wave model tends
> toward a re-radiation. (2^nd to last paragraph in Introduction)
> Waves, extension effect, inertia, and the difference between a cloud
> of particles and an oscillation of a medium:
> Do you have the equipment to do a varying intensity experiment with
> propagation EM energy like the present paper?
> Consider a pendulum. At minimum extent, there is no motion (Kinetic
> energy) and maximum potential (gravitational) energy. At center swing
> the potential energy is at a minimum and the kinetic (inertial) energy
> is maximum. This motion is described by sin and cos functions (wave
> functions). Likewise for solutions of the “wave equation”. 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 this
> medium is “space” as in General Relativity Space, ether, or my plenum.
> Therefore, the “space”/plenum has the inertia property and there is a
> proportionality between gravitational mass and inertial mass
> (Albrecht’s extent). This concept was incorporated into the simulation
> program and taken as a concept of inertia in Inertiaaccording to the
> STOE http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1676
> The HF model has that each point in a wave re-radiates a wavelet in a
> spherical pattern and the obliquity factor that calculates the energy
> move forward, only (this is the inertia of the STOE). Consider the
> Fraunhofer derivation of the diffraction pattern (it’s simlper but has
> the necessary points - I’ll get to Young in a bit). A constant phase
> and constant wave is in the slit. Each point radiates a wavelet across
> the entire diffraction pattern on the screen. The wavelets from 2
> points then interfere to produce the maxim and minima of the
> diffraction pattern. If the intensity of each wavelet is the same, the
> cancellation is total at the 180 degree phase difference points.
> The varying intensity experiment has the point of the left side of the
> slit radiating with much more intensity than the right side.
> First: A wave model would have each point on the left (high intensity
> side) illuminate the entire screen pattern so the diffraction pattern
> should be seen on both sides in the varying intensity experiment -
> THIS IS NOT OBSERVED. My intuition tells me that if the majority of
> the illumination is left-of-center in the slit, most of the
> illumination on the screen should be left-of-center on the screen.
> Second: consider another point near the right side of the slit. If it
> radiates it radiates at a much lower intensity than a point on the
> left side. The interference at a screen minima does not totally
> cancel. Therefore, the pattern on the screen should be nearly flat
> intensity with poorly defined minima. THIS IS NOT OBSERVED.
> We considered 2 points. Now consider these points are at the edges of
> the slit. The same applies. A wave model should have the entire screen
> illuminated and the poor definition in the varying light experiment.
> The varying light experiment has one edge illuminated and the other
> edge with little, if any, illumination. This could be confused with an
> 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 is needed and the width of the slit still plays a role in the
> diffraction pattern.
> Perhaps, the integration of all points in the slit in the Fraunhofer
> model should be only to the zero point of intensity not to the other
> slit edge. The slit width (the integral limits) is part of the
> placement of the maxima and minama. The placement does not change from
> full to varying illumination.
> So the observed results are NOT consistent with a Young’s model with
> both edges. Illuminated. A single edge illuminated cannot give an
> interference effect. The quantum mechanics weird postulates about the
> observer, collapse of the wave function, etc. are not needed in the STOE.
> Considering the light as a wave is inconsistent with the observations.
> I think the STOE is not a “fix-up” model. It is totally different than
> both big and small standard models Universe according to the STOE
> http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648
> The STOE simulation considers the photon emits waves that are
> reflected by matter to direct the photon. Consequently, any matter
> introduced into the experiment looks like “observer” induced changes
> such as wires in Afshar experiment or extra screens or masks.
> Hodge
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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/20160412/74aa39d5/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list