<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma; color:#000000; font-size:10pt"><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}</style>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">Dear All,<br>
<br>
I scarcely know where to start. How can I agree with so much of what you are all saying and yet disagree, in detail, with all of you. Let me try to communicate that.<br>
<br>
This email is likely to seem to contradict itself. Let me set your mind at rest: it does!<br>
<br>
The reason is that I am going to argue from a few different perspectives, and different perspectives give different perspectives. Funny that!<br>
<br>
Firstly, from the perspective of the (linear) Maxwell equations. The NIW of pure-field light-light interactions as described by Maxwell is linear. Superposition applies. Interference is a bad word for interference (as Chandra has emphasised). The "I" in NIW
is a different thing entirely from the "interference" of light with light. This leads to the following manifestly true</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">(if
not very helpful)</span> statement : interference is not interference.<br>
<br>
Maxwell is very very good. It is (as far as I know, sub pair production threshold and within its realm of validity) supported 100 percent by known experiment. Indeed photons do not "interfere only with themselves". Experimentally, they superpose on other photons.
Linearly. Any simulation based on this is going to show this. Likewise, in light-light only interactions it is going to (very likely) agree with experiment. Conclusion: light does not reflect from light.<br>
<br>
Wait a minute: are not some of us arguing that "everything is made from (the same stuff as) light"?<br>
<br>
What is going on? <br>
<br>
So: lets expand the perspective to include matter. And its experimental properties.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Matter does interact with light. Mirrors reflect it. Material refracts it. Atoms absorb and emit it. Material particles may annihilate to give pure light. In fact it is continuously created and destroyed.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">This is not just a bit of interference (in either meaning of the word above) this
is life or death for light.<br>
<br>
Conclusion: one needs to go beyond (just) Maxwell if one wishes to describe this.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">HOW?<br>
<br>
One could go to QED. Then light interacts with light via a "box" diagram.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span lang="EN-US">Ok … but is this the whole story?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>I think not. QED does not, can not, and will never explain the physical properties it puts in a-priori. This is true of any theory. It puts in point, massive, charges. Also: all it does is provide (miniscule) corrections to what Maxwell says, until you
get right up to the pair-production threshold (and even there Maxwell is nearly 100 percent right). Material particles do not bind themselves with miniscule corrections.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span lang="EN-US">No, we need a theory that allows the topological confinement of light. Something that allows an extra degree of freedom, over and above the pure fields.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span lang="EN-US">Now this could be Chandra’s CTF, it could be an extension of Maxwell along some of the lines Martin and I are considering, or it could be something else. That is what all
this is about.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span lang="EN-US">For me, for what it is worth, this extra thing does reside in the extra degrees of freedom that David was talking about, over and above the fields, afforded by such things
as the angular momentum (T) p-vot (P) and quadrivector (Q) terms in the equations proposed.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span lang="EN-US">Anyway, matter happens, so it has got to be something!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span lang="EN-US">If so, then Bob and Andrew are right and we should be thinking of experiments to try to throw light on matter. I’ve suggested a few in the papers. We should think of more.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span lang="EN-US">Cheers, John W.</span></p>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#000000; font-size:16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF22927" style="direction:ltr"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [mules333@gmail.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 31, 2015 12:55 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>Dear Chip,<br>
<br>
</div>
You are thinking along the right lines. However, your example won't work. It requires a beam splitter (or sampler) that will not 'destroy' the standing wave. If there is no reflected wave at some point, the whole standing wave collapses.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, this exercise may have also proved my hypothesis incorrect (that only slightly more than 1/2 of the incident beam will reach the physical mirror - I need to do the math).<br>
<br>
</div>
It might be possible to set up standing waves in something like the figure below. Measuring the intensity of the evanescent waves at sequential reflection points might prove, or disprove, the point.<br>
<img alt="Inline image 1" src="cid:ii_14f80f61d4800b0f" height="79" width="251"><br>
<div>I need to think about the details of such an experiment; however, I'm not sure that the intensity will diminish at the far end, if the aligned mirror is added.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>It is worth thinking about.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Andrew<br>
_______________________________<br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Chip Akins <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank">chipakins@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204); padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear Andrew<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Then if you set up this experiment.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img src="cid:image003.png@01D0E340.35DD1DC0" height="346" width="650"><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">And then remove the mirror, if wave reflection is occurring in the beams of light,
<b><i>you would see the light intensity increase at the bottom detector</i></b>. Without wave reflection the bottom detector will register about 50% of the beam intensity.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">But if wave reflection does occur then the bottom detector would measure significantly less than this value, and the intensity at the bottom detector would increase to about 50% when the left mirror is removed.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">If wave reflection does not occur, you would see no significant change in the bottom detector output, with or without the mirror.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> General [mailto:<a href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins" target="_blank">general-bounces+chipakins</a>=<a href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Andrew Meulenberg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, August 30, 2015 2:25 PM<span class=""><br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>; Andrew Meulenberg <<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a>><br>
</span><b>Cc:</b> Mary Fletcher <<a href="mailto:marycfletcher@gmail.com" target="_blank">marycfletcher@gmail.com</a>>; robert hudgins <<a href="mailto:hudginswr@msn.com" target="_blank">hudginswr@msn.com</a>></span></p>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions<u></u><u></u></div>
</div>
<p></p>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">Dear Chip,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt">Thank you for your thinking about the problem and your comments. You have identified several areas in which we need to clarify and/or emphasize our language. See comments below.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt">On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank">chipakins@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt; border-style:none none none solid; padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt; margin-left:4.8pt; margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">Hi Andrew</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">There are at least a couple of ways to show that reflection does not occur.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">Varying phase or frequency of one wave and looking at where the changes occur is one fairly clear method. No two waves are identical in all respects, so arguing that only two identical waves can
reflect is a mute and empty point.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt">The identical part is for <b>components</b>, not necessarily for the whole wave. However, if all components are identical, then the waves are also. This identity of waves is mathematically possible. It is also
possible for a single wave to be 'identical' with itself (this is important in the photon-to-electron transition) or for
<b>portions</b> of a single wave (e.g., a split beam) to be identical.</span><u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt">For intersecting coherent waves, the phases will become coincident with specific phase angles, in specific portions of space. Where the phases differ by 180 degrees (the null zones), reflection of identical
components occurs.</span><u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt">Non-identical portions do not reflect, they transmit. This is a common source of 'error' in the analysis of standing waves created by reflection of normally incident light from a physical mirror. Since reflection
and transmission in space is generally not loss (or divergence) free, there will always be a 'flow' of light to the mirror. Only identical portions are reflected before reaching the mirror. Think about this: most of the incident light never reaches the physical
mirror.<b> It reflects before it ever gets there. </b>Can you simulate that by assuming no transmission of identical light? Simulation of a Bragg reflector might be similar to this concept.</span><u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt">Re varying phase: see Dowling's section IV
<b>Phase Labeling</b></span><u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt">Re varying frequency: see Dowling's section V
<b>Detuning</b></span><u></u><u></u></li></ol>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt">To make our point, we will need to emphasize that:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt"> it is only the identical components of the waves that reflect;</span><u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt">the reflection plane (the 'mirror') is the bisector of the intersection angle.</span><u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt">There is no way to distinguish the reflected and transmitted beams visually or within the limits of the wave theory. Amplitudes, phases and directions are identical.</span><u></u><u></u></li></ol>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt; border-style:none none none solid; padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt; margin-left:4.8pt; margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt"><br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt; border-style:none none none solid; padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt; margin-left:4.8pt; margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">But there exists another method to test for reflection:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">If we start with this configuration…</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt"><img src="cid:image001.jpg@01D0E340.35F14200" height="199" border="0" width="196"></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">And reflection occurs, then we would have the reflected components, as shown in red below…</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt"><img src="cid:image002.jpg@01D0E340.35F14200" height="200" border="0" width="202"></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">But we do not see these reflected components in simulation or in experiments.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">So why chase, and try to prove, something for which there is no evidence?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">Chip, you have missed an important point. The reflection planes are the bisector or are parallel to the bisector of the beams. you have not shown that. You have shown reflection from
the other beam (this doubles the reflection angle). There should be no reflected energy in the directions that you have indicated. We will need to emphasize that point in the future.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><b><span style="font-size:10pt">From your next email, you state:</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:30pt"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">Hi Andrew</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:30pt"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:30pt"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">Let me rephrase my argument.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:30pt"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:30pt"><b><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">First</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">,
<i>we know that transmission occurs</i>, <i>because we know that the waves propagate</i>.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">Correct</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:30pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:30pt"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected interference pattern for
<i>transmission</i>. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">Correct</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:30pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:30pt"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">And we measure the
<b>intensity, phase, and frequency</b>, of the output of the two waves, as if they passed through each other, without interaction.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">Correct</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt">However, we can also say:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">First</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">,
<i>we know that <b>reflection</b> occurs</i>, <i>because we know that the waves <b>
reflect</b></i>. Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected interference pattern for
<b><i>reflection of identical components</i></b>. And we measure the <b>intensity, phase, and frequency</b>, of the output of the two waves, as if their equal components reflected each other,
<b>with</b> the interaction.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:30pt"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:30pt"><b><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">Second</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">, we do not see the reflections at the locations they would have to exist,
<i>if we vary the angles of incidence</i> through a full 360 degrees, and look for reflections. In this,
<b>we only see the transmitted components</b>.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt">However, we can also say:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">Second</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">, we
<b>do</b> see the reflections at the locations they would have to exist, <i>if we vary the convergence angles of incidence</i> through a full 360 degrees and look for reflections. However,
<b>we cannot distinguish them from transmitted components</b>.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:30pt"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div style="margin-left:30pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">So for me, those findings constitute sufficient “proof”.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10pt">If the alternative statements above are also 'true', do you still consider the findings sufficient for your proof?
</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt">I, like Dowling and Gea-Banacloche, find the math ambiguous and in need of additional physics to resolve the issue. I feel that we have provided that in our papers.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin-left:30pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:30pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">In your most recent email, you state: " If you conduct this experiment, and there are no waves following the red paths, then it seems it must mean that no reflection occurred at the intersection
of the waves."</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">First let me thank you for the figure. It provides some additional detail and information on the interference region. However, I believe that there are 2 errors.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt">The reflection plane should be the null-zone (across the center), not the other beam. The red lines are incorrectly placed.</span><u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt">I think that the diagonal blue 'arrow' is reversed. If it is as shown by the arrowhead, then the null zone would be diagonally 'down', rather than 'up' as shown.</span><u></u><u></u></li></ol>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt">Chip, you bring some powerful tools to the group. If we can work together to get the reflection picture properly expressed in your model then Dowling's paper would be confirmed and the momentum analysis that we provided would
resolve the issue.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt">It might seem that transmission or reflection that produce the same results has no significance. However, the distinction provides important information for both the photonic electron and the nature of photons and their interactions.
I can detail some of these things in the future. Some of it is in my other papers. I'll send them later.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt">Andrew</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> _______________________</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt; border-style:none none none solid; padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt; margin-left:4.8pt; margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black">Chip</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:7.5pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:7.5pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> General [mailto:<a href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins" target="_blank">general-bounces+chipakins</a>=<a href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Andrew Meulenberg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 29, 2015 9:43 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>; Andrew Meulenberg <<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> robert hudgins <<a href="mailto:hudginswr@msn.com" target="_blank">hudginswr@msn.com</a>></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">Dear Chip and Chandra,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">I will not have time to contribute much to this topic until next week. Before then, I hope that both of you will have a chance to read both Dowling's paper attached to my email of:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="margin-left:30pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:33 PM</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:30pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">Light from Light reflection</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">and my comments on it in the email.<br>
<br>
Also, please look at the attached copy of our paper for the conference. Comments would be appreciated for both papers, since Dowling is a much better mathematical physicist than any of us and Chip's simulations agree 100% with the 1st 1/2 of Dowling's paper.
To agree with the second 1/2, Chip needs to run his simulations assuming only reflected light and no transmitted light for equal components of the incident waves (assuming reflection from the null zones of the interference pattern). I will predict (as did
Dowling's mathematics) that, for the equal waves, the results will be identical with Chip's figures 1 & 2. For his Figure 3, there will only be a component corresponding to the beat frequency envelope of the incident waves.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">Thus a conclusion based on those results could be, to modify Chips comment, is:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div style="margin-left:30pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">"The interference patterns we see in experiment, agree with the simulated interference patterns. And these are obtained simply by the waves REFLECTING FROM each other. So there seems
to be no physical basis for assuming any TRANSMISSION, when IDENTICAL waves ENCOUNTER each other."</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">The resolution of the two statements is Dowling's conclusion (and mine in the email):</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:30pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">"Dowling proposed that IDENTICAL waves interact. However, he was unable to PROVE reflection, rather than transmission."</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">I will extend that statement to contend that Chip, based on his simulations, will be unable to PROVE transmission, rather than reflection of identical waves.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">For background, consider the basis for Bose-Einstein (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics</a>)
and Dirac statistics (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics</a>) for non-interacting, identical particles. Does this resolve, or increase, the conflict
between Chandra's NIW view and our contention that the observed interference region demands interference between two waves?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">Andrew</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">_________________________________---</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt; border-style:none none none solid; padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt; margin:5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium; border-style:solid none none; padding:3pt 0in 0in; border-color:-moz-use-text-color">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:7.5pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">To:</span></b><span style="font-size:7.5pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">Chip A. and Bob H.: </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">Here is a copy of the animation by my student, Michael Ambroselli, which I have been showing people for several years now. The stationary pictures are now in several papers and also in my book.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">Of course, it does not show “reflection” of waves by waves; because we use the same prevalent model of superposition of wave amplitudes as simply linear sum of the propagating waves. We did not put in any wave-wave
interaction term. Even people who firmly believe in “single photon interference”, sum the linear amplitudes. Some resonant detectors, if inserted within the volume of superposition, can carry out the non-linear square modulus operation to absorb the proportionate
energy out of <b><i>both the fields</i></b>, not just one or the other, as is erroneously assumed by most believers of “single photon interference”, defying the starting math of summing two amplitudes a1 and a2. The energy absorbed is proportional to: [(a1)-squared+(a2)-squared+
2a1a2 cos2(pi)(nu)(t2-t1)]. Linear waves do not have the intrinsic physical capacity to carry out the mathematical quadratic operation.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">Chandra.</span><a name="14f807eaaf50ea2a_14f7fc6ed4bf9e19_14f7fad64eb59f01_14f7eb"></a><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium; border-style:solid none none; padding:3pt 0in 0in; border-color:-moz-use-text-color">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:7.5pt; font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:7.5pt; font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Chip Akins<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 29, 2015 1:22 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'robert hudgins'; <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">
general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black">Hi Robert Hudgins</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black">Thank you for the email. Your concepts show an “out-of-the-box” imagination, and so they were intriguing to me.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black">So far, I have run some simulations to see what the interference patterns would be for waves
<i>which did not reflect off each other at all</i>. The way I know that these simulated waves do not reflect, is of course
<b>because I wrote the simulations to explicitly show only two waves passing through each other, with no ability to reflect off each other</b>.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black">Here are the results of some of those simulations:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black">Image: 1, Left Side, Two waves of the same frequency and phase, incident at 45 degrees.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black">Image: 2, Right Side, Two waves of the same frequency with 180 degree phase shift, incident at 45 degrees.
<b>Note the expected interference pattern and no reflection.</b></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u><img src="cid:image011.jpg@01D0E33E.75700EE0" height="251" hspace="12" align="left" width="246"><u></u><u></u><img src="cid:image012.jpg@01D0E33E.75700EE0" height="245" hspace="12" align="left" width="246"><u></u><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">Image: 3, two waves of different frequencies passing through each other.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u><img src="cid:image013.jpg@01D0E33E.75700EE0" height="261" hspace="12" align="left" width="263"><u></u><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black">So far, using simulations, and varying angles of incidence,
<b>we are able to reproduce the experimentally observed interference patterns</b>.
<b>And this is done with no reflection of waves. </b></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black">So, sorry, I do not see any physical reason to assume that waves reflect off one another.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black">Chip</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt; color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium; border-style:solid none none; padding:3pt 0in 0in; border-color:-moz-use-text-color">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:7.5pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:7.5pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> robert hudgins [<a href="mailto:hudginswr@msn.com" target="_blank">mailto:hudginswr@msn.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 28, 2015 9:58 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank">chipakins@gmail.com</a>;
<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> robert hudgins <<a href="mailto:hudginswr@msn.com" target="_blank">hudginswr@msn.com</a>>; Ralph Penland <<a href="mailto:rpenland@gmail.com" target="_blank">rpenland@gmail.com</a>>; Andrew meulenberg <<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Verification of Light Interactions</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">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>
<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.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:7.5pt">Hudgins, W. R., Meulenberg, A., Ramadass, S., “Evidence for unmediated momentum transfer between light waves,” Paper 8121-39, Proc. SPIE 8121 (2011)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> [1]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?
<br>
<br>
Please let us know if you were successful, or not, with your testing.<br>
<br>
Bob </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>