[General] Bosonic and Fermionic nature of light

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Hodge,

We have neither the time nor equipment for single-photon experiments. We
are assuming that the result will be the same - as it is in the double-slit
experiment.

Your question raises the same issue of single-particle self-interaction
that I do not believe has been resolved yet. The multi-path of a photon
seems to be the best option at the moment and I can tentatively accept it
based on my understanding and model (not yet fully validated
mathematically) of evanescent wave phenomena.

Andrew M.
_ _ _

On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com> wrote:

> Were the experiments done with very low intensity light (single photon)?
> Did the pattern change for the same setup single photon v. high intensity?
> The double-slit experiment shows no difference.
>
> Hodge
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 1:01 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <
> mules333 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dear André,
>
> I am not sure that the energy/momentum dilemma is not resolved when
> examined in the context of relativity (as must be the case for light);
> however, I am not sure that momentum and energy are equally distributed
> within a photon and therefore can be analyzed in necessary detail. QM does
> it in a before and after manner and thus integrates over the process. The
> assumption that both electrons and photons are point sources is legitimate
> in this context. The fact that the beginning of a real photon alters the
> bound electron orbit before the later portions of the photon interact with
> the electron is completely ignored (and rightfully so for most cases).
>
> In short, I can't answer your question.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andrew M.
> _ _ _
>
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 6:02 PM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
> Isn't the translational momentum of the incoming photon moving at c
> transfered to the target at the same time its kinetic energy is
> communicated to the target in the photoelectric effect, right at the moment
> when the photon velocity becomes zero in absentiam ?
>
> Best Regards ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 16:02:21 -0500, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>
> Dear Andre,
>
> Einstein was correct; but, he may not have been complete. Frequency
> addresses energy, but not momentum (a vector).
>
> As presented by one of my professors, "The conservation of kinetic energy
> (a quadratic) and momentum (a linear relationship) of two particles do not
> have a common solution unless the velocities are zero."
>
> We are presently trying to understand (and resolve) the ambiguity of
> transmission and reflection in these terms.
>
> Andrew M.
> _ _ _
>
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 9:59 AM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Andrew, Chip and all.
>
> Andrew, Your observation during your experiment that intensity doesn't
> seem to be critical but that frequency appears to be directly connects with
> EInstein's photoelectic effect, which confirmed that frequency was the
> critical factor in knocking electrons out of their orbitals and that
> intensity did not matter.
>
> Best Regards ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
> On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 07:37:24 -0600, "Chip Akins" 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
> <general-bounces%2Bchipakins>=gmail.com at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org
> <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
> <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' willhave 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.
>
> wolf
>
> 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 Wolf at nascentinc.com
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflig htandparticles.org/options.cgi /general-natureoflightandparti cles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com ?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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 jchodge at frontier.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
> natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.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 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/20171228/5938738f/attachment.html>