[General] separate the inertial and gravitational aspects of mass

Sat Jun 4 02:13:09 PDT 2016

Chandra,

I also read Huygen's book on Gutenberg in the same year! (2014) Your
comment about theoretical physics being behind engineering made me think of
the first line from Carver Mead's book:

*It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century
will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics. *

Incidentally, Carver Mead is another person with a ton of practical
experience working with electronics who is suspicious of photons.

*Superposed wave amplitudes cannot induce energy re-distribution upon
themselves.*

This is a very sharp expression of a fundamental difficulty. It seems
everyone on this list (and everyone involved in thinking about these
matters) needs energy to be confined. There must be some sort of
circulation, some *a priori* force holding things together, etc. Either we
are stuck multiplying onta in the universe (there are particles, and waves,
and some glue, plus these rods plus ...) or we try to work only with waves.
So the waves need to interact in some way to model particles. And yet they
pass through each other! The linearity of the fundamental differential
equation derived by Euler in 1759 is inescapable.

I am presently writing about the Huygens-Fresnel integral in my PhD thesis.
I too am amazed at how such a simple fuzzy idea, once clothed in
mathematical form, has survived daily use for 200 years essentially
unchanged. I am extremely interested in your comment that optical engineers
do not use any of the discrete quanta machinery of quantum theory and
instead rely entirely on Huygens-Fresnel.  On reflection, this makes sense,
because the Schrodinger equation for a photon is just... Maxwell's
equations. Right? But for all practical purposes it seems people use
Huygens-Fresnel, which just reduces to the wave equation.

Does everybody just wave (haha) their hands when it comes to the difference
between a scalar diffraction theory and the 'real' vectorial theory? I keep
seeing this happening in my reading. The scalar theory is excellent, and
evidently Kottler proved the vectorial theory is consistent, but I am
unaware of anyone working with it. Also, everyone talks about how Kirchhoff
put Huygens-Fresnel on a firm mathematical foundation, and yet his integral
is mathematically inconsistent! What is your feeling about the Kirchhoff
diffraction integral as compared to HF?

Adam

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <
chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:

> Adam: Here is a bit more comparative information to energize you further!
>
> Both Newton’s and Einstein’s precise mathematical formulation of gravity
> fail to predict the measured velocity distribution curves for stars in
> hundreds of galaxies (star velocity variations from the center to the outer
> periphery of a galaxy). That is why we have postulated the existence of
> Dark Matter but cannot find it!
>
>
>
> But, Huygens fuzzy-logic postulate has been giving us all the engineering
> precision so far we have demanded out all possible classical optical
> applications.
>
> I think Huygens’ accomplishment in physics is non-trivial. We need to
> understand why, in relation to our modern Physics-Thinking! Huygens did not
> use any equation to present his ideas; only some diagrams for the secondary
> wavelets.
>
>
>
> It took me many sophisticated experiments to convince myself of the
> universality of non-interaction of wave amplitudes – they evolve and
> propagate through each other unperturbed. The energy re-distributions (or
> superposition fringes) appear only after a detector array carries out the
> non-linear square modulus operation when placed at some plane in the
> forward diffraction field of the HF integral. Superposed wave amplitudes
> cannot induce energy re-distribution upon themselves.
>
>
>
> Then, in 2013, or 2014, I found a Gutenberg Press translation of Huygens’
> original book, where he categorically states that his secondary wavelets
> evolve as expanding and overlapping circular wave fronts unperturbed by
> each other. How silly of all of us that Fresnel, in his 1818 formulation of
> Huygens principle in the famous diffraction integral, embeds this
> non-interaction between the secondary wave amplitudes; but we still do not
> want to accept it! This has been causing us to unnecessarily live with the
> confusion of “wave-particle duality” for a century now!
>
>
>
> Chandra.
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=
> uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Adam K
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 5:53 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] separate the inertial and gravitational aspects
> of mass
>
>
>
> Chandra,
>
>
>
> Nice email! I have some ideas on the question you pose in the last
> paragraph. I will gather them sometime. As for your dates: Fresnel: 1818.
> You were off by 3 years. Huygens: 1678. Spot on.
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <
> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Chip:
>
> You certainly have added some novel elements to model “photon” having
> possibly both “transverse” and “longitudinal velocities.
>
> Are there any related experiments?
>
> The field of precision optical engineering is far more advanced than
> theoretical physics, demonstrated through the progress in nano photonics
> and plasmonic photonics. Can you identify something that these optical
> engineers might able to measure and discern something positively?
>
>
>
> Remember, our Knowledge Age, ushered in by laying down global fiber optic
> network, which is driven by laser light from semiconductor devices. None of
> the involved engineers ever tried to propagate light as “indivisible
> quanta”. These fantastic advancements in communications were not held up
> due to our lack of any proper quantum equation to propagate “quantized
> photon”! They are happy that all the precision they need is available from
> Huygens-Fresnel wave propagation integral, presented by Fresnel during the
> first quarter of the nineteenth century (1815?)  using the Huygens
> postulate of secondary wave lets, presented during the third quarter of the
> seventeenth century (1678?).
>
>
>
> The question is as follows:  Why is the HF propagation integral is
> continuing to be so successful even today; but we cannot provide anything
> better mathematical tool to optical engineers with so much knowledge about
> “indivisible light quanta”; even though Huygens postulate of “secondary
> wavelets” resemble some fuzzy-logic, or some educated guess?
>
>
>
> Chandra.
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=
> uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Chip Akins
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 3:58 PM
> *To:* 'Hodge John' <jchodge at frontier.com>; 'Nature of Light and Particles
> - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] separate the inertial and gravitational aspects
> of mass
>
>
>
> Hi John
>
>
>
> I have a few questions regarding your experiment.
>
> What was the wavelength of the laser used? For example, if it was a red
> laser it was probably in the range of 650nm wavelength.  The width of the
> slits? The distance from the laser to the slits and to the target?
>
>
>
> The reason I am asking has to do with the quantization of light.  If we
> assume that Planck’s constant is the quantization of action, and that a
> single photon has spin angular momentum of hbar, then the effective spin
> radius of this construct (photon particle) is the wavelength divided by 2
> pi.
>
>
>
> Then if we assume that transverse waves do indeed travel at the speed of
> light in space, but that there could also be associated longitudinal waves,
> which remain principally undetected by normal instrumentation, then we can
> consider at the following:
>
>
>
> As we study transverse waves in an elastic solid medium we see that the
> velocity of propagation of a transverse wave is:
>
> Where is the propagation velocity of the transverse wave, is the shear
> modulus, and *p* is the density of the medium.
>
> Longitudinal displacements or longitudinal waves simply travel faster in
> every known elastic solid medium.
>
>
>
> Longitudinal propagation velocity is expressed as:
>
> Where is the propagation velocity of the longitudinal wave or
> displacement, and *K* is the compression modulus.
>
> Since both the *K* modulus and modulus are always positive we can see
> that the longitudinal displacement propagation velocity will always be
> faster than the transverse wave velocity: is always larger than
>
>
>
> So I am wondering if the photon is a tightly confined rotational
> transverse wave, with a radius expressed as    which also has a small
> associated longitudinal wave component acting as a "pilot" wave.
>
>
>
> For a red laser the speculated radius of a photon would be 103.45nm so its
> diameter would be 206.9nm.
>
>
>
> Your thoughts?
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Hodge John
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 11:42 AM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* [General] separate the inertial and gravitational aspects of
> mass
>
>
>
> Vivian Robinson:
>
> I suggest the following experiment does separate the inertial and
> gravitational aspects of mass.
>
>
>
> Diffraction experiment and its STOE photon simulation program rejects wave
> models of light http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603
>
>
>
> STOE assumptions that model particle diffraction and that replaces QM
>
> http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1719
>
>
>
> The proposed photon model predicted this experiment. Some of the required
> postulates to make the model match experimental observations are to
> separate the inertial and gravitational mass. No other model of the photon
> or of diffraction fits the observation.
>
>
>
> The diffraction model also explains the “walking drop” observation of Fig.
> 5c in Bush,~J.W.M., 2015, *The new wave of pilot-wave theory*, Physics
> Today, 68(8), 47
>
>
> http://newfos.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/Pilot_Waves_Phys_Today_Aug_2015.pdf
>
> wherein the inertia of the medium allows the wave to reflect and influence
> the drop that caused the wave. Compare Fig. 5c of Bush with Fig. 1 of
> “Diffraction experiment …”
>
>
>
> Hodge
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%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 afokay at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%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/20160604/15efb3d8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 727 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/15efb3d8/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 338 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/15efb3d8/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 426 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/15efb3d8/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 376 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/15efb3d8/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 407 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/15efb3d8/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1199 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/15efb3d8/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1931 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/15efb3d8/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 358 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/15efb3d8/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 417 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/15efb3d8/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1156 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/15efb3d8/attachment-0009.png>