[General] light light interactions

Thu Sep 14 02:08:25 PDT 2017

Dear Chandra,

This was not a trick question. It goes to the differences between your view
of non-interaction and Bob's, Ralph's, and my view of light-light
interactions.

Looking at my original question, I see that I did not give sufficient
background for you to see where I was going. The key points are:

   1. Identical particles -  for colliding non-identical particles, one can
   tell if they reflect or pass thru each other. For colliding identical
   particles, one *cannot* tell if they reflect or pass thru each other.
   The concept of *Fermi-Dirac* vs *Bose-Einstein* statistics is based on
   the inability to distinguish particles. On the other hand In statistical
   mechanics <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics>,
*Maxwell–Boltzmann
   statistics* describes the average distribution of *non-interacting*
   material particles over various energy states in thermal equilibrium
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium>, and is applicable
   when the temperature is high enough or the particle density is low enough
   to render quantum effects negligible.
      - Your NIW view is based on non-interaction of non-identical particles
      - Our light-interaction work is based on identical waves.
      - We would contend that to deny the possibility of interaction of
      light is equivalent to throwing out the basis for Fermi-Dirac and
      Bose-Einstein statistics..
   2. The idea of talking about the wave function for identical particles
   was to tie the wave-nature of light to the QM wave description of particles.
   3. I was hoping to see if you were open to the similarities between
   light and particle statistics because I feel that there is much to be
   learned from the comparison.
   4. While, mathematically, it is not possible to determine transmission
   vs reflection in the standing waves of interacting 'identical' light beams,
   we have pushed into the physics and nature of light to indicate that
   reflection (and therefore interaction) is not only possible but probable,
   under the correct circumstances.
   5. There are reasons for the non-interaction of light. There are also
   reasons for the interaction of light. They are not mutually exclusive.

Best regards,

Andrew
_ _ _ _
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <
chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:

> *“If 2 identical particles, each described by a wave function, collide
> head on, do they reflect from each other, go thru each other, neither, or
> both?” *
>
> Andrew: I do not know whether you have deliberately set up a “trick
> question”, or not. QM is not matured enough and our particle-particle
> scattering data are not exhaustive enough to answer your question in any
> definitive or closed form.
>
>
>
> 1.      *Colliding particles will do many things; only some of which have
> been tabulated by the humans! Defining the Impact parameter and the force
> of interactions for a specific pair of particles is still an on-going
> research:* Starting from Rutherford’s Alpha-Gold foil scattering to any
> of the latest particle-particle scattering, the impact parameter is a
> critical issue in determining the interaction process and the nature of the
> resultant product. And it is very tough for us to quantify this impact
> parameters, whether zero or, say, 100 nuclear diameter. And for most
> elementary particles, we are still struggling to find their “effective”
> diameters, which is different from interaction to interaction. It is an
> observed fact that “Quantum Mechanical Tunneling” is real. So, it may not
> even be impossible for certain interactions, one particle may even pass
> through the other. You have strong background in Nuclear Fission/Fusion.
> Why does fast neutrons pass right through U-235 nuclei, while slow neutron
> cause fission?
>
> 2.      *Wave function does not make a particle a finite or a plane wave:*
> I am thoroughly baffled with the original and still continuing
> interpretation of Schrodinger exp[-2‘pi’vt], as a “plane wave”, when we
> know that all atoms and material bodies, built out of elementary particles,
> always are of finite physical size. The expression, exp[-2‘pi’vt],
> generically represent the harmonic oscillation-component of any oscillator,
> propagating wave or a stationary particle. It is the amplitude which we
> need to understand and visualize. For any propagating wave, we now
> understand what this “amplitude” physically means – the physical strength
> of the physical parameter which is oscillating. This is why, for particles,
> I have proposed, they constitute localized self-looped oscillation of the
> stationary Complex Tension Field (CTF; old ether in new “bottle”), which
> constitute our cosmic space. CTF holds 100% of the cosmic energy. EM waves
> and particles are different kinds of excitations of this same CTF; the
> energy still resides in the CTF. This is why the law of *Conservation of
> Energy* is the supreme rule in our Cosmic System. Uncertainty Principle
> only indicates that our QM, in spite of its grand successes, is definitely
> an incomplete/insufficient theory to explain our universe.
>
>
>
> I am sorry that I have failed to give you a very succinct answer.
>
>
>
> Chandra.
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.
> edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Meulenberg
> *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017 7:27 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew
> Meulenberg
> *Cc:* robert hudgins
> *Subject:* Re: [General] light light interactions
>
>
>
> Dear Chandra,
>
> I did not read the paper or analyze the announcement in detail, as you
> did, so your model might still hold for this work.
>
> It did focus your attention so that i could ask you a question "What is
> your view on identical particles?"
>
>    1. If 2 identical particles, each described by a wave function,
>    collide head on, do they reflect from each other, go thru each other,
>    neither, or both?
>    2. Would you explain your answer?
>    3. Or, is the question bad, is there insufficient information, or is
>    the result just indeterminate?
>
> How I phrase the next question depends on how you answer the above.
>
> Andrew
> _____________________________
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <
> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:
>
> Hello Everybody:
>
> I have again looked at the original ATLAS publication. The experiment is a
> very high energy non-linear phenomenon in the vicinity of highly charged
> Pb-atoms. As an experimental physicist in the field of optical sciences, I
> do not find the experiment as generalizable to state “light-by-light
> scattering” phenomenon. The scattering of high energy Gamma-Gamma wave
> packets, still in the vicinity of highly-charged, high energy Pb-nuclei,
> should not be generalized to incorporate the entire band of EM radiation,
> from radio, to micro, to visible, to X-ray wave packets. [See below the
> reference to the original paper.]
>
>
>
> I do find it sad that the title of the paper uses generalized expression
> “Evidence for light-by-light scattering…”; instead of calling out that it
> is a very high energy complex phenomenon. It is susceptible to subjective
> interpretations of the theory since the interaction of the parameters are
> quite complex, which are not yet all quantified very well.
>
> In the process, we are pro-actively weakening the platform of “Evidence
> based science”, which has very serious long-term re-percussions for the
> entire scientific enterprise.
>
>
>
> Of course, the technical content of the paper is scientifically beyond
> criticism. But, in the age, when the most powerful country is trying to run
> the world by “twit-headlines”; we need to be a lot more thoughtful!
>
>
>
> Chandra.
>
>
>
> https://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nphys4208.pdf
>
>
>
> Evidence for light-by-light scattering in heavy-ion
>
> collisions with the ATLAS detector at the LHC
>
> ATLAS Collaboration†
>
> *Light-by-light scattering (*  !  *) is a quantum-mechanical process that
> is forbidden in the classical theory of*
>
> *electrodynamics. This reaction is accessible at the Large Hadron Collider
> thanks to the large electromagnetic field strengths*
>
> *generated by ultra-relativistic colliding lead ions. Using 480 *_*b*􀀀*1
> **of lead–lead collision data recorded at a centre-of-mass*
>
> *energy per nucleon pair of 5.02 TeV by the ATLAS detector, here we report
> evidence for light-by-light scattering. A total of 13*
>
> *candidate events were observed with an expected background of 2.6 *_ *0.7
> events. After background subtraction and analysis*
>
> *corrections, the fiducial cross-section of the process Pb*C*Pb (*  *)*!
> *Pb*._/C*Pb**(*_*)*  *, for photon transverse energy **E**T*>*3 GeV,*
>
> *photon absolute pseudorapidity *j_j<*2.4, diphoton invariant mass
> greater than 6 GeV, diphoton transverse momentum lower*
>
> *than 2 GeV and diphoton acoplanarity below*
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.
> edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Meulenberg
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 27, 2017 10:39 AM
> *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:* [General] light light interactions
>
>
>
> For those who argue against light-light interactions
>
>
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2017/aug/18/
> light-is-seen-to-scatter-off-light
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170914/f31373ae/attachment.htm>