[General] response to WOLF

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>