<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2702">Wolf:</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2703"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2704">Your observations and intuitive thought seem more oriented
to the traditional diffraction experiment and not the varying illumination
experiment. For example, in the present experiment, one side has almost no
illumination.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2705"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2706">Confirming Young’s model took over 100 years during which it
was considered erroneous. But even in Kirchoff’s model that supported Young’s
model the Huygens-Fresnel (HF) assumptions were used. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2707"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2708">Fraunhofer and the others produced models of single- and
double slit experiments the worked in the Fraunhofer domain (between a minimum
distance and maximun distance with limited slit widths). This is the domain of
the paper’s experiment. Certainly, Fresnel and Sommerfield by accounting for
phase could extend Fraunhofer’s domain. However, these models and Young’s model
involved an input illumination coherent and of constant amplitude and phase
across a slit. The present experiment involve VARYING ILLUMINATION ACROSS THE
SLIT. By varying the illumination, the HF assumption was found to be
inconsistent with the observations. All the wave models of light to my
knowledge use some form of the HF assumption. If HF is false, the models are
false.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2709"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2710">There are a great many more consideration on this complex
issue. Let me discuss them one at time in a qualitative way.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2711"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2712">Figures 11 and 15 of the input pattern used in the
experiment were done to show the consistency with other edge diffraction
effects. That is, the input is varying illumination input of a diffraction
pattern. Certainly, beyond the edge the pattern should be just the input pattern
which it nearly is. The interesting part is close to the edge and behind the mask.
The deviation from other models is close to the image of the edge. What is seen
is a wide high pulse that eventually degenerates into the image of the input
signal. There is an issue of whether the image actually goes to a zero value at
the first minimum or not. This is one of the areas I’d like to have much more
accurate measure of a photon counter.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2713"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2714" style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2715">The second reason for the edge images is to contrast an edge
with the slit. That is in Fig 5 the right side could look like a slit with no
or little input. But the presents of the right mask mass is required for the
diffraction pattern even if the illumination is very low - this is another
departure from the wave models. The Fresnel model of an edge could be of a
single slit with one side of the slit removed to infinity. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2716"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2717">Your point on Young and edge excitation: See Fig 1. The
simulation duplicates Young’s observation with a bit more. Note that just
before the mask, the photon are moving toward the closest edge and then are
reflected to cross just beyond the mask. The STOE model starts to modify the
photon’s path before the slit. That is, near the edge has more illumination per
area than the center. This is Young’s and your observation (the center has some
illumination reduced). This is the “more” you asked for. I think the wave
models don’t do this. So if Young is accepted, the STOE is more accurate than
wave model in this respect.<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2718" style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2719"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2720">Now to split some hairs. Fig 1 looks like “reflection” and
some dispersal over a limited angel toward the other side of center - a diffuse
reflection rather than a mirror reflection. Young’s model invokes HF in that it
mentions (like you did) “re-radiation” which would involve a more spherical
angular dispersal. A wave model tends toward a re-radiation. (2<sup id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2721">nd</sup> to
last paragraph in Introduction)</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2722"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2723">Waves, extension effect, inertia, and the difference between
a cloud of particles and an oscillation of a medium:</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2724">Do you have the equipment to do a varying intensity
experiment with propagation EM energy like the present paper?<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2725" style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2726"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2727" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">Consider
a pendulum. At minimum extent, there is no motion (Kinetic energy) and maximum
potential (gravitational) energy. At center swing the potential energy is at a
minimum and the kinetic (inertial) energy is maximum. This motion is described
by sin and cos functions (wave functions). Likewise for solutions of the “wave
equation”. Next, consider the undulations of a medium that is carrying a wave.
If light is a wave it must have a medium to wave in. (yes I know). Perhaps this
medium is “space” as in General Relativity Space, ether, or my plenum.
Therefore, the “space”/plenum has the inertia property and there is a
proportionality between gravitational mass and inertial mass (Albrecht’s
extent). This concept was incorporated into the simulation program and taken as
a concept of inertia in Inertia<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2728" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman""> according to the STOE <a id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2729" href="http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1676">http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1676</a>
</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2730" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2731" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2732">The HF model has that each point in a wave re-radiates a
wavelet in a spherical pattern and the obliquity factor that calculates the
energy move forward, only (this is the inertia of the STOE). Consider the
Fraunhofer derivation of the diffraction pattern (it’s simlper but has the
necessary points - I’ll get to Young in a bit). A constant phase and constant
wave is in the slit. Each point radiates a wavelet across the entire
diffraction pattern on the screen. The wavelets from 2 points then interfere to
produce the maxim and minima of the diffraction pattern. If the intensity of
each wavelet is the same, the cancellation is total at the 180 degree phase
difference points.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2733"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2734">The varying intensity experiment has the point of the left
side of the slit radiating with much more intensity than the right side.<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2735" style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2736"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2737" style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2738">First: A wave model would have each point on the left (high
intensity side) illuminate the entire screen pattern so the diffraction pattern
should be seen on both sides in the varying intensity experiment - THIS IS NOT
OBSERVED. My intuition tells me that if the majority of the illumination is
left-of-center in the slit, most of the illumination on the screen should be
left-of-center on the screen. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2739"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2740">Second: consider another point near the right side of the
slit. If it radiates it radiates at a much lower intensity than a point on the
left side. The interference at a screen minima does not totally cancel.
Therefore, the pattern on the screen should be nearly flat intensity with
poorly defined minima. THIS IS NOT OBSERVED. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2741"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2742">We considered 2 points. Now consider these points are at the
edges of the slit. The same applies. A wave model should have the entire screen
illuminated and the poor definition in the varying light experiment. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2743"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2744">The varying light experiment has one edge illuminated and
the other edge with little, if any, illumination. This could be confused with
an edge effect. But as we see the edge effect is different (Fig 11 - not 15-
where the tail “A” in the figure.). Therefore, the other side of the mask is
needed and the width of the slit still plays a role in the diffraction pattern.
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2745"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2746">Perhaps, the integration of all points in the slit in the
Fraunhofer model should be only to the zero point of intensity not to the other
slit edge. The slit width (the integral limits) is part of the placement of the
maxima and minama. The placement does not change from full to varying
illumination. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2747"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2748">So the observed results are NOT consistent with a Young’s
model with both edges. Illuminated. A single edge illuminated cannot give an
interference effect. The quantum mechanics weird postulates about the observer,
collapse of the wave function, etc. are not needed in the STOE.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2749" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2750" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">Considering
the light as a wave is inconsistent with the observations. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2751" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2752" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">I
think the STOE is not a “fix-up” model. It is totally different than both big
and small standard models <span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2753" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">Universe according to the STOE <a id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2754" href="http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648">http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648</a>
</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2755"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2756">The STOE simulation considers the photon emits waves that
are reflected by matter to direct the photon. Consequently, any matter
introduced into the experiment looks like “observer” induced changes such as
wires in Afshar experiment or extra screens or masks. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2757"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1460469662389_2758">Hodge</div><div dir="ltr">
</div></div></body></html>