[General] Bosonic and Fermionic nature of light

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Chip,

comments below

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Andrew
>
>
>
> You say “*Mathematically, it is impossible to tell the difference between
> reflection and transmission of these two beams.”*
>
>
>
> But I am not sure that is correct.  I think that there may be one or two
> ways to tell of the resultant beams are reflected or transmitted.
>

If you are correct and can provide such a means (mathematically or
experimentally), I would be impressed and appreciative. I have tried and
failed. But I still have some things that I have not yet tried.  In the
attached paper, the authors proved, mathematically, the case for
indistinguishability with two orthogonal identical beams in a plane. There
may be cases where this proof is not possible. I haven't yet looked at the
case where the E-fields are 180 deg out-of-phase, but the B-fields are in
phase. What does this do in vacuum? In a material?

>
>
> If one beam source is moved gradually so that the angle between the beams
> is increased and we compare the predictions of reflection with the
> predictions of transmission and interference at the target, we can see that
> the only scenario which holds true for any beam angle as we move the beam,
> is the transmission and interference at the target prediction.
>

Experimentally, I did the reverse. I gradually decreased the angle between
split and crossing laser beams until they would no longer separate in the
far-field. It was not easy to reach this limit, until we realized that the
result was the same for parallel beams that were simple to produce.

Bob Hudgins found the papers on oblique reflections from a front-surface
mirror and we saw that, within our experimental error, the result was the
same as that for crossing beams. (There might be a skin-depth effect that
could distinguish the two results.)

You state that you can "see" proof of the non-reflection possibility. Can
you provide documentation of that? I have occasionally thought that to be
the case, until I looked more closely at the premises.

>
>
> Also the reflection predictions do not accurately predict the multiple
> fringe pattern and many angles. While transmission and interference at the
> target does accurately predict the pattern at all angles.
>

Reflection, being indistinguishable, must and does predict the same
patterns.

>
>
> So while I agree with you that it is important for us to look at the
> possibilities, it seems that once we fully and accurately look at this
> possibility we can see that what we are observing is transmission and
> interference rather than reflection.
>

Reflection is also interference. We are simply holding that such
interference/interaction between photons can take place without the
presence of a medium. The question is "at what point can one distinguish
the two effects - reflection or transmission?"  This is the same question
for identical particles.

Would you say that the field lines of two magnets do not interfere or
interact if there were no iron filings about?

Andrew M.

>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew
> Meulenberg
> *Sent:* Monday, December 25, 2017 3:00 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Andrew Meulenberg <
> mules333 at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Bosonic and Fermionic nature of light
>
>
>
> Dear Chip,
>
>
>
> Mathematically, it is impossible to tell the difference between reflection
> and transmission of these two beams. However, if the two beams are actually
> crossing (not parallel) then an obstruction in the near-field
> (pre-crossing) of one beam will show up in the opposite side of the center
> line at post-crossing points. While this is readily explained by
> non-interference, it can be as easily expressed as a lack of reflection of
> the un-obstructed beam from the shadowed region along the null zone (thus
> an interaction). All examples seem to give the same ambiguity as shown in
> our primary reference of Dowling and Gea-Banacloche (see earlier emails for
> a copy of the paper).
>
>
>
> The case for reflection, while not violating the mathematical ambiguity,
> is made by the pairs of parallel beams that are seen to diverge while still
> remaining within the expanding foot print of the original beams. Thus, just
> as in the case of identical particles where it is impossible to say that
> the particles do not pass thru each other even tho it violates our sense of
> the nature of matter, it is impossible to say that light beams do not
> reflect from each other even tho it violates our sense of the nature of
> light. *Accepting and understanding the basis of these 'impossibilities'
> gives us a great tool for better explaining the nature of both. *
>
>
>
> In my response to André's email below, I will continue my comments.
>
>
>
> Andrew M.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew
>
>  In an experiment like the one you describe, why do you assume that the
> light itself is curving (reflecting or refracting) in its trajectory? Using
> the “interference” concept at the target produces exactly the intensity
> results of the experiment with the trajectory of the light not curving at
> all. When simulating this experiment this turns out to be the simplest
> explanation which yields the observed patterns. Attempting to simulate this
> using reflection and refraction requires adding a lot of unnecessary math
> and rules in order to obtain the patterns observed in experiment.
>
>  Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew
> Meulenberg
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 24, 2017 11:32 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Andrew Meulenberg <
> mules333 at gmail.com>; robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com>; Ralph Penland <
> rpenland at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Bosonic and Fermionic nature of light
>
>
>
> Dear Wolf,
>
>  comments below
>
>   On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com>
> wrote:
>
> Always been interested in your experimental setup for showing beam-beam
> interactions
>
> do you have a description of exactly what you do show interactions in a
> vacuum -
>
> I have had to make the assumption that air is so much lower density than
> any detectors that any interaction of light with air can be neglected. Lack
> of funds and time prevent me from actually performing the experiments in
> vacuum. Air does effect the refractive index in the light path; however,
> the effect is so small that it would not be noticed in our experiments. It
> is known that high intensity light can alter the refractive index (general
> relativity?); but, the effect is very many orders of magnitude below our
> sensitivity.
>
> how can you tell identical frequency waves in closely spaced parallel
> beams apart if they d interact?
>
> You have asked an important question. It is similar to one that I have
> recently raised myself.
>
>  After interacting with our beam splitter (a parallel surface
> neutral-density filter), a single laser beam becomes two parallel beams
> with a fixed phase relationship. The relative phase of the 2 waves depends
> on the path length of the beam thru the filter. As the beams spread with
> their natural individual divergence angle, the two beams will begin to
> overlap. Eventually the overlap will become almost complete and the two
> beams with identical individual  'footprints' will have a nearly identical
> joint far-field footprint (however the light pattern will be quite
> different).  If they are out-of-phase, then, even as they overlap, there
> will be a 'null-zone' between them. If in-phase, the central zone of the
> common far-field pattern will be bright and have at least one pair of
> null-zones enclosing it.
>
>  If the two out-of-phase beams just out of the splitter have the same
> intensity, then, in the far field, there will still be two same-intensity
> beams. Are these the same two beams? That is the question. Blocking one of
> the beams leaves the other intact but eliminates the null zone that had
> separated the two. Thus, it appears that the two uninterrupted beams each
> reflect from the null zone and do not interact further. When the null zone
> is removed by blocking one beam, light 'bleeds' across the central line and
> spreads into the shadow of the blocking mask.
>
>  If the two beams just out of the splitter have the same intensity, but
> are in-phase, then, in the far field, there will now be three beams (a
> bright central beam ad two weak side beams). Obviously, none of these three
> is one of the original two. The two original beams interact to provide
> three nearly independent beams. Blocking either of the small outer beams
> will leave the other two beams nearly unaffected. It only eliminates one of
> the null-zones. The other null-zone remains between the two remaining beams
> and keeps them separated. The fact that the two remaining beams, of quite
> different intensity, maintain their relative size and intensity tells an
> interesting tail. The two beams are not identical, yet together, they
> create a null-zone as a reflective barrier that prevents more than a small
> bit, if any, of the more intense beam from crossing into the weaker beam
> region. In its turn, the weak beam will shift intensity further away from
> the center line.
>
>  The null-zone is established as a region where the two beams have no net
> flow. The fact that the two beams are not equal intensity undermines my
> hypothesis that only identical-frequency and intensity beams, exactly in or
> out of phase, act like identical particles. Surprisingly, the intensity
> does not appear to be critical. The phase and frequency appear to be the
> critical features. This intensity problem and its implications must be
> investigated further.
>
> Andrew M.
>
>
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>
> Research Director
>
> Nascent Systems Inc.
>
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>
> E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
>
> On 12/17/2017 6:48 AM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>
>  Dear folks,
>
> For the last several years, we (Hudgins, Meulenberg, and Penland) have
> been studying the interference effects of identical-frequency waves. Using
> a thin optical flat as a laser-beam splitter, it is possible to easily
> provide closely-spaced parallel beams of coherent light that appear to
> interact indefinitely (in vacuum, and even down to the individual-photon
> level?).
>
> Over the last year, in parallel with the forum discussions of the photonic
> electron, the implications of this interaction have been evolving. The
> first step was the recognition that the two beams were equivalent to
> streams of identical particles. Furthermore, depending on their phase, the
> two beams acted as both bosons and fermions. In their constructive
> interactions (as a Bose condensate?) and destructive interactions (obeying
> the Pauli exclusion principle?), they attracted each other when in phase
> and appeared to repel one another when 180 degrees out of phase. This
> observation (a phase dependence, perhaps related to charge, as suggested by
> Penland) is beginning to expand into explanations and hypotheses for many
> of the laws (and tools) of physics.
>
> Since many of this group believe that leptons are self-bound photons, the
> proposed dual nature of photons, which is dependent on a major
> characteristic of the wave nature of light (phase), could be fundamental to
> the understanding of much of physics. Despite being bosons, by definition,
> photons are seen to have both bosonic and fermionic natures in their
> interactions and, perhaps, within their very nature. Another concept
> includes that of symmetry and parity. Within a photon and its interactions,
> we can find both symmetric and anti-symmetric conditions as well as those
> of even and odd parity.
>
> Thus, within the nature of a photon, we can find the physical bases for
> much of the mathematics that is the basis of theoretical physics. I believe
> that the macroscopic observations, which have led to much of physics
> theory, can be explained in the study of light and its interactions
> (including those with itself). The reasons that this observation is not
> obvious lie within our inability to 'see' the interaction. First, light is
> not composed of point particles. With the exception of a few manufactured
> cases, photons are many wavelengths long (up to 1E8 cycles?). Only if
> photons can interact  (collectively, in time and/or space) over a large
> percentage of these wavelengths will any effects be noticeable without the
> aid of matter as a detector to sum over many interactions. And, even then,
> it is mathematically impossible to distinguish the effects of transmission
> (non-interaction?) or reflection (interaction?) in the coincidence of
> identical photons. Nevertheless, the fact that the mathematics for
> identical particles is different from that of identifiable particles gives
> us the precedent for looking at this aspect of light.
>
> The observation of particle (e.g., electron) interaction is possible
> because the photons composing the particles have all of their high-energy
> nodes collected in small enough regions for their energy density to be
> sufficiently high to distort the space in which they reside. The
> 'permanence' of these structures depends on resonance, which provides and
> depends on a fixed internal phase relationship. Thus, the particular
> interaction of light with itself is reflected in the nature of matter.
>
>  Neither the statement that "light interferes with light," nor the
> statement that "light does *not* interfere with light," is completely
> correct. It is the combination of these two statements, along with their
> exceptions and understanding, that provides the basis for understanding the
> physical universe.
>
>  Andrew M.
>
>  __________________
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.
> cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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/20171227/4582cde9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1991 light off light dowling.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 653939 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171227/4582cde9/attachment.pdf>