<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.MsoEndnoteReference
{mso-style-priority:99;
vertical-align:super;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.SPIEreferencelisting, li.SPIEreferencelisting, div.SPIEreferencelisting
{mso-style-name:"SPIE reference listing";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.25in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:41684538;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1130310826 2063525680 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-text:"\(%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.75in;
text-indent:-.5in;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:windowtext;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear Bob H.: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I do not want to make any significant deviation from my main role as the facilitator of the conference and the discussion platforms. That is why I am always welcoming all possible logically self-consistent
views in all aspects of EM waves and their intrinsic relation to relativity and particles.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">BUT!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I am also one of the recent proponents of the old concept of “Non-Interaction of Wave” (NIW) as a generalized property of all wave amplitudes that are
<b><i>linear excitations</i></b> of some parent tension fields. So, I should articulate some general observations as to
<b><i>why I have not yet accepted your view points.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">First, I do not see Chip Akin’s input in this email. I cannot correlate your answer to Chip’s enquiry. So, I am summarizing a limited number of points that worth contemplating carefully:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">(i)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The entire branch of optical science and engineering have been thriving till today based upon Huygens’ principle of secondary wavelets; which Huygens claimed in his book that they do not interfere
(interact) with each other. If one can magically banish the Huygens-Fresnel diffraction integral, the entire optical science and engineering enterprise will collapse because QM has not given any systematic mathematical tool that can replace HF integral.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">(ii)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt">As you underscore, the “standing wave” phenomena is also established beyond any shadow of doubt for almost a couple of centuries. Unfortunately, the problem lies with the mis-use of the English language
to explain the phenomenon and then confuse ourselves. What we observe and register by detectors, are “locally stationnary nodes and antinodes” as a result of counter propagating waves; and they certainly are not “standing waves”! In fact, if you make one of
the counter propagating waves of slightly different frequency, then the nodes and antinodes will be slowly moving in one or the other direction! Waves, by definition,
<b><i>are perpetually propagating entities</i></b>. They cannot stop. Otherwise, laser cavities would not have worked. Within the cavity we have standing nodes and antinodes (spectral and spatial hole burning). Outside the cavity, we have propagating waves.
Output laser beams are certainly not jumping out with the velocity “c” out of “stationary waves” inside the cavity!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">(iii)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Planck also underscored in his book on the derivation of “Planck’s law” (free from Gutenberg press) that all the re-radiated wave packets, after the attainment of the steady state, propagate through
each other unperturbed (<b><i>without interaction</i></b>). I have mentioned this also in my book, “Causal Physics: ….”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">(iv)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Bose’s heuristic introduction of conservation of “photon number” in his phase-space box also functionally imply non-interaction of waves. See, Proc. SPIE Vol.9570-09 by M. Ambroselli.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">(v)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dirac was also forced to acknowledge that “interference between different photons do not occur”. So, in reverence to Einstein, he was forced to introduce a totally non-causal concept, “a photon
then interfere only with itself”. But, we know that all photon wave packets are diffractively spreading (thinning) out packet (centuries of success of HF integral for all EM waves, except gamma rays). So, a diffractively propagating single light wave packet
cannot provide the necessary quantum “cupful” of energy to a quantum detector. Good luck to all those ventures who are building quantum computers using single photon interference!!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">(vi)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt">All the diverse significance of the Non-Interaction of Waves have been illustrated in my Book, “Causal Physics:….”, in details in twelve chapters. I do not find any fundamental contradictions with
the basic formulation of QM. In fact, I have underscored that a good number of heuristic and non-causal postulates used in QM interpretations can be thrown out; which then make QM more realistic than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us so far. QM
also becomes non-mystical and “understandable”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">(vii)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt">It is amazing how we selectively accept the viewpoints of some pioneering scientists over the other pioneers based upon the prevailing pressures of collective cultural preferences!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Of course, we all are subservient to our personal highly developed neural logic system; which we have accepted over decades’ of studies and contemplations. I cannot claim that I am not under the shadow of
my personally biased but self-consistent logics. So, my apology.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>robert hudgins<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 28, 2015 10:58 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> chipakins@gmail.com; general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br>
<b>Cc:</b> robert hudgins<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [General] Verification of Light Interactions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Chip,<br>
<br>
To have our SPIE presentation, with its data, receive a broad, non-specific and vocal rejection from many attendees was personally confusing. From our perspective, those results (and ideas) had been thoroughly tested, retested and reconciled with current
literature. The openness you indicated by your intent to try replicating some our results felt refreshing.<br>
<br>
What follows are some pointers about possible ways to work-around the problem of short wavelength intervals:<br>
<br>
The standing wave frequency is 1/2 the wave length of the light used. Consequently, some method of expansion is usually required for clear visualization of a standing wave pattern. Many investigators use Otto Wiener's 1890 method or some variation. Recently,
a simplified classroom demonstration procedure was published.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/77/8/10.1119/1.3027506" target="_blank">http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/77/8/10.1119/1.3027506</a><br>
<br>
Standing waves of light in the form of optical lattices are currently a workhorse for manipulating ultra-cold bosons and fermions. The atoms are trapped between the oscillating potentials.
<br>
<span style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
Another important standing wave/interference demonstration is the 1837 Lloyd's mirror experiment.
<br>
<br>
<br>
For our study we used a precision 15 X 5cm mirror. A laser beam was reflected a shallow angle and the resulting interference pattern was examined after expanding its image. This was accomplished with a convex mirror placed near the end of the reflection zone.
We did this experiment to demonstrate that a mirror reflection would substitute for one of the beams in a two crossing-beam interference pattern, and that the null zones in the crossed-beam interference behaved as mirror--like reflection zones.
<br>
<br>
The set-up we use for our interference studies is very simple. It requires only two components; a laser and a variable density filter. The variable density filter becomes a beam splitter when the laser beam is reflected from both the front and the back (partially
mirrored) surface. Adjusting the relative intensities and phases of the emerging beams is accomplished by changing the reflection angle and the point where the beam strikes the splitter. Proper adjustment should give two clearly separated, and independent
beams. This system gives clear, unambiguous results.<br>
<br>
We began our pursuit as a search for the "cancelled" energy of light interference. It was quickly obvious that
<b>all the light energy</b> in the beams emerging from the beam splitter was detectable in the interference patterns, that formed at some distance from the splitter. (Well after the beams had merged.) Although interference confined the light to a smaller
area, (compressed the light) we found no evidence of "cancelled" light waves (energy) or of photodetector limitations.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="SPIEreferencelisting" style="margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="SPIEreferencelisting" style="margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in">Hudgins, W. R., Meulenberg, A., Ramadass, S., “Evidence for unmediated momentum transfer between light waves,” Paper 8121-39, Proc. SPIE 8121 (2011)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-language:EN-US">[1]</span></span></span>Hudgins,
W., R., A. Meulenberg, A., Penland, R. F. “Mechanism of wave interaction during interference,” SPIE (2013) Paper 8832-7, in The Nature of Light: What are Photons?
<span style="font-size:12.0pt"> <br>
<br>
Please let us know if you were successful, or not, with your testing.<br>
<br>
Bob <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>