[General] Path of photons Fig1

Sun Mar 6 23:03:34 PST 2016

Hi Hodge
 Another thing I remembered: the patterns of your ray paths greatly resemble the standing waves also known as bow waves or the wake for example of a speeding boat, in hydrodynamics. In my Cancellation paper http://vladimirtamari.com/The%20Cancellation%20of%20Diffraction%20In%20Wave%20Fields.pdf   see Fig. 5 . In Fig 6 I call them intensity maxima. Interestingly they sometimes correspond to wave interference maxima but not always - in Fig. 6b you can see that the streamlined energy flows through these maxima not along them as in your ray model! 

You can observe such maxima in running water in a sink flowing past an obstacle, or in a rainy gutter corner. Drop a piece of paper and see it flow right across these maxima. And yes they appear to form along a line from the right obstacle edge pointing to the left and vice versa.

These non- interfering maxima may be what Chandra is talking about? They do not negate waves...
Cheers
Vladimir
_____________________
vladimirtamari.com

> On Mar 6, 2016, at 5:33 PM, Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com> wrote:
> 
> Vladimir:
> In “Diffraction to …”, Fig2a, the streamlines (rays?) cross (A typical convex lens).
>  
> In my Fig.1, the origins of the photon paths are before the aperture. Each photon’s path (trace) is plotted one at a time. The calculation involves the travel to the mask and sometime through the slit. Note that some of the paths stop at the mask. The calculation determines if the photon is in the slit which continues its journey or on the mask which stops its journey and starts the next photon before the mask.
>  
> Mine is not a “ray” model. It is a calculation (simulation) of the path of photons like Bohm suggests. The path of photons is not always the same as the ray model such as the crossing of paths just beyond the slit.
>  
> Hodge
> 
> 
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 10:32 PM, Vladimir Tamari <vladimirtamari at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Hodge
> I understand your conclosion re photon particle diffraction. If by Ray model you mean your photon paths criss-crossing, then yes the Streamline model is different in that the streamlines never cross. Each point on the aperture is connected to each point on a screen by one single unique streamline path. The other difference is that the streamlines are curved as in Fig. 4 which is a calculated path not one of my drawings.
> Your Fig. 1 does not show clearly the origins of the rays in the aperture - are they just from the edges as in my Fig. 11?  What is the difference betwen your Ray model and Boundary Diffraction model my  Fig . 11?
> 
> For the rest please forgive me in not going into too much detail to answer your interesting questions right now- still recovering from the eye operation and need to fix new glasses! 
> Best wishes,
> Vladimir
> 
> Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 09:50:45 +0000
> From: jchodge at frontier.com
> To: vladimirtamari at hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: [General] Path of photons Fig1
> 
> Vladimir:
> Do you have access to a ripple tank?
> I should reiterate, the “diffraction…” paper was for photons and concluded that light is not waves.
>  
> What is the difference between your streamlines and the Ray model? The Figs. 14, 16 seem like the ray model.
> I note in your Fig. 1 the slit is less than a few wavelengths wide. This is why the interference pattern is not seen. Does the “diffraction” in your paper include refraction and not just interference of waves? If not, won’t the streamlines cross at the focal point through a convex lens (the Fig.2 in “diffration to de-defraction”).
> The Fig.3 shows the waves crests from each side of the slit (dashed lines) But the crests (equipotential surfaces of each wave should have streamlines. That is the waves add but remain independent. Hence, the streamlines are not what is real. Or is there something in this redefinition of streamline. A streamline represents the flow of energy which in interference is with each wave (not summed). If the experiment has 2 sources (rather than a slit), each wave has it’s own propagation of wave. This is seen in water. The old Polynesian culture used this to find islands over the horizon - they noted ripples superimposed on larger waves.
>  
> As I understand the model of the wave equation (which may be faulty), there is some physical mechanism to maintain the movement of each element. Often this is inertia of mass such as in a pendulum, water wave, and vibrating string. In HF this is the role of the wavelet and obliquity factor (to prevent backward movement). This is thee idea of the ray model from each source (edge of a slit if the slit width is greater than a few wavelengths).
>  
> Consider Fig.3 in “The cancellation …” paper. The streamline through the left side (say) spread from the center and to the left. This is difference with my model of photons. The photos in “diffraction…” show light through the left side of slit ends on the right side.
> If you have access to a ripple tank, you right do the experiment as outlined in “diffraction …”. A source sends waves to a slit (wider than a few wavelengths) to produce a diffraction (interference pattern) onto a second mask. Move the slit in the second mask to allow the varying height of the diffracted wave to fall on one side of the slit. Then note where the resulting wave go.
>  
> Hodge
> 
> 
> On Friday, March 4, 2016 11:34 PM, Vladimir Tamari <vladimirtamari at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Hodge
> Thanks - without seeing your simulation paper I did not realize your model photon paths cross.
> There are so many ways conceptual and mathematical to describe various aspects of the same physical phenomena, but eventually it becomes obvious one explanation fits in better with others and describes nature more economically and elegantly.
> 
> A model can work within its given parameters but not in others. Apart from the several possible wave models of diffraction, Heisenberg showed that diffraction can be a consequence of the uncertainty principle. But in view of several experimental results annuling diffraction  (not mine) this is obviously wrong.
> 
> I am now convinced, initially through my own conclusions about the double slit experiment in a streamline context and the idea of gradual absorption, that Einstein's point photon concept is simply wrong. This has been experimentally proven by Eric Reiter. And Compton himself had given an alternative  wave explanation for his effect as Reiter found out.
> 
> The Couder / walking drop experiment is very interesting, and may be an excellent model for particle diffraction, not of light. 
> http://youtu.be/W9yWv5dqSKk
> 
> Thank you for reading my papers written so long ago!
> Best,
> Vladimir
> 
> 
> _____________________
> vladimirtamari.com
> 
> On Mar 5, 2016, at 3:28 AM, Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com> wrote:
> 
> Vladimir:
> Thanks for your links.
>  
> Fig. 1 is a trace of the path of the photons (particles not waves and not streamlines) of the simulation program. Note the paths cross (therefore not streamlines). I also note that the “walking drop” experiments also show a similar pattern of each drop through the slit producing a diffraction pattern. This was presented in a Physics Today article the end of last year. Drops going through the left side ended on the right side of the diffraction pattern.
> “Varying intensity across the slit” means more photons go through one side of the slit. Or, the model of the wave intensity must have greater intensity on one side of the slit than the other. The “Diffraction experiment …” paper explains the experimental apparatus to accomplish this.
> I’ve printed your papers. Thanks. I’ll read them soon (today).
> Hodge
>  
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at vladimirtamari at hotmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.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 vladimirtamari at hotmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.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/20160307/c9b8d178/attachment.htm>