[General] wavelets not needed

[Roychoudhuri, Chandra]

John H.:
Thanks for articulating your “photon as a particle” model. Unfortunately, it is a lot more complex and a lot more confusing to me than the Huygens’ wave model that follows a classical wave equation – JUST waves; and it has been working for centuries with superb engineering precision!

Remember, the real father of emission and absorption of light as discrete packets of energy, was Max Planck. He already explained that the emitted packet of energy (“photon”?) evolves as a classical wave packet in the ether tension field (perhaps, you call that as the “Plenum”). That is why simple Huygens Principle, a solution to Maxwell’s wave equation, is working so well.

In detection, the detecting instruments’ intrinsic energy absorption process dictates whether it will absorb the field energy (i) continuously (radio waves detected by resonant LCR circuits); (ii) or a “quantum cupful” of energy out of all the frequency-resonant waves passing through it (optical waves by atomic or molecular quantized dipoles). We see EM waves only through the “eyes” of detectors and they have their own classical or quantum “goggles”. They report to us what they see through their personal goggles! We need to be careful how we interpret and model those detectors’ “prejudiced” data. Experimental Radio physicists never waste their time counting “Radio Photons”!

We try to model the “second hand” information (data), out of detecting instruments, using human-mind invented mathematical logics; which are definitely not god’s logics; and hence fallible! So, we need to keep on exploring what are ontological realities in nature out of second-hand information provided by different detectors. We need to learn to visualize the physical interaction processes going on between the interactants inside our detecting instruments; albeit, they are invisible to human eyes and tools.  We should always be vigilant and remain aware that we are forever slaves of detectors in exploring nature; an unfortunate reality; unless a future physicist comes as the begotten son of the creator.

I also find that you need to use so many new concepts that I cannot quite fathom:
“force field directing the photon”
“The photon emits a plenum wave.”
“…virtual mask atoms…”
“…direct the photon forward…”
“…virtual reflected wave…”
Etc., etc.

Let us accept that we are on distinctly different  “parallel” logical paths to explore nature; which may not cross or converge! That is OK. The future generations will sort them out.
Chandra.
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Hodge John
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 3:28 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: [General] wavelets not needed

Chandra.
The referenced experiment rejects wave models of light and the Huygens-Fresnel postulates. However, the fuzzy logic of the HF wavelets can be replaced by the reflection phenomena from the model:

“Why is the screen display of Young's Experiment indistinguishable between a Fraunhofer (Fresnel, Sommerfield) wave through the slit model and the STOE model of a particle through the slit?
Because the derivation of the force field directing the photon includes the Fraunhofer (Fresnel, Somerfield) model with the Huygens--Fresnel assumptions replaced by the characteristics of a reflected plenum wave. The photon emits a plenum wave. The effect at the photon is a reflected wave from a plane minus the contribution of a reflected wave from a virtual mask atoms in the slit. The reflected wave from a plane has been developed in antenna models. It is as if the same source is perpendicular and equidistant from the plane. Its effect is to direct the photon forward. This limits the angel the photon may be diverted as it leaves the slit unlike the wave model. The virtual reflected wave (180 degree phase shift negates the minus sign and corresponds to the obliquity factor) from the slit then forms the force field with the same math as the Fraunhofer pattern.”

Hodge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/b8421440/attachment.htm>