<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
John;<br>
<br>
I think you answered my questions in more detail than I expected,
and I agree the Fraunhoffer model has problems you point out<br>
but to go further I'll have to study your STOE model - It sound s
bit like Bohm's pilot wave.<br>
I'll be going on vacation for a couple of weeks so will get back
then.<br>
<br>
Thanks for the reply<br>
Wolf<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/12/2016 7:02 AM, Hodge John wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:916934974.1271350.1460469726465.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>