[General] STOE paper on light

[Hodge John]

John Williamson:Thanks for your response. The  path integral formulation is essentially for particles, not waves.  That wavelike functions are used is more of a stochastic purpose. Conceptually, if  the mask and not the slit (what action is originating IN the slit?) as the STOE suggest and other STOE assumptions about that action are made , the Lagrangian action should result in the STOE model. But the Newtonian style derivation of the action seems more straight forward. Alternatively, the action could come from the edge of the slit. But then another integration or assumption concerning uniformity across the entire slit would be required. The Fraunhofer approach is similar. But the STOE experiment was a varying intensity across the slit - very difficult (impossible) math. That the particle path integration formulation results in the STOE formulation should come as no surprise.  The STOE approach is to recalculate the direction of photon movement (Bohm - particle has definite position and momentum). This is close to the path integration formulation without the statistical functions.Likewise, the STOE model reduces to the Fraunhofer equation if the intensity of light across the slit is uniform and coherent as mentioned in the paper. 
BTW Young's original idea was of waves originating at the slit edges and projecting only forward. This came close to observation. After a couple centuries, the description may be returning to Young's concept where instead of waves, the action on photons is from only the edges of the slit. But what would that action be? The STOE says it's the reflection of action waves. But the quest was for a wave model.
The site you referenced is NOT the experiment in the STOE paper. It uses a pencil to block the center peak after the diffraction image forms, But otherwise the pattern is a standard diffraction pattern such as has been in textbooks for decades. That is, the light around the right side of the pencil is on the right of the screen. The Hodge Experiment forms a varying light intensiy in the slit. If the impinging light intensity is high on the left side of the slit, the image is predominately on the left of center on the screen rather than on the left or spread across the screen as mentioned in the STOE paper. The edge result in the STOE paper had a deceasing light intensity illuminating the edge. The PHYWE paper had a uniform intensity across the edge. Hence, the differing screen image.
BTW, putting an additional object in the experiment such as a pencil or detector is a no-no for any comment involving quantum mechanics. This was the attack point against the Afshar Experiment.
Therefore, your conclusion is unsupported and incorrect. 
Your work "On division and the algebra of reality": I have maintained that division is very questionable for a description of reality. Is there some link to this work, Can I get at least a summary?Hodge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170824/da698d63/attachment.htm>