<div dir="ltr"><div><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:15px">Chandra,</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:15px"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:15px">I also read Huygen's book on Gutenberg in the same year! (2014) Your comment about theoretical physics being behind engineering made me think of the first line from Carver Mead's book:</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:15px"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:15px"><i>It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics. </i></span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:15px"><br></span></font></div><div><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:15px">Incidentally, Carver Mead is another person with a ton of practical experience working with electronics who is suspicious of photons. </span><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:15px"><br></span></font></div><div><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:15px"><br></span></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"><b>Superposed wave amplitudes cannot induce energy re-distribution upon themselves.<u></u><u></u></b></span></p></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:15px">This is a very sharp expression of a fundamental difficulty. It seems everyone on this list (and everyone involved in thinking about these matters) needs energy to be confined. There must be some sort of circulation, some <i>a priori</i> force holding things together, etc. Either we are stuck multiplying onta in the universe (there are particles, and waves, and some glue, plus these rods plus ...) or we try to work only with waves. So the waves need to interact in some way to model particles. And yet they pass through each other! The linearity of the fundamental differential equation derived by Euler in 1759 is inescapable. </span></div><div><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:15px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:15px">I am presently writing about the Huygens-Fresnel integral in my PhD thesis. I too am amazed at how such a simple fuzzy idea, once clothed in mathematical form, has survived daily use for 200 years essentially unchanged. </span><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:15px">I am extremely interested in your comment that optical engineers do not use any of the discrete quanta machinery of quantum theory and instead rely entirely on Huygens-Fresnel. On reflection, this makes sense, because the Schrodinger equation for a photon is just... Maxwell's equations. Right? But for all practical purposes it seems people use Huygens-Fresnel, which just reduces to the wave equation. </span></div><div><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:15px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:15px">Does everybody just wave (haha) their hands when it comes to the difference between a scalar diffraction theory and the 'real' vectorial theory? I keep seeing this happening in my reading. The scalar theory is excellent, and evidently Kottler proved the vectorial theory is consistent, but I am unaware of anyone working with it. </span><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:15px">Also, everyone talks about how Kirchhoff put Huygens-Fresnel on a firm mathematical foundation, and yet his integral is mathematically inconsistent! What is your feeling about the Kirchhoff diffraction integral as compared to HF? </span></div><div><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:15px"><br>Adam</span></div><div><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:15px"><br></span></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:15px"> </span></div><div><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:15px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:15px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:15px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:15px"><br></span></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu" target="_blank">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Adam: Here is a bit more comparative information to energize you further!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Both Newton’s and Einstein’s precise mathematical formulation of gravity fail to predict the measured velocity distribution curves for stars in hundreds of galaxies (star velocity variations from the center
to the outer periphery of a galaxy). That is why we have postulated the existence of Dark Matter but cannot find it!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">But, Huygens fuzzy-logic postulate has been giving us all the engineering precision so far we have demanded out all possible classical optical applications.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">I think Huygens’ accomplishment in physics is non-trivial. We need to understand why, in relation to our modern Physics-Thinking! Huygens did not use any equation to present his ideas; only some diagrams for
the secondary wavelets. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">It took me many sophisticated experiments to convince myself of the universality of non-interaction of wave amplitudes – they evolve and propagate through each other unperturbed. The energy re-distributions
(or superposition fringes) appear only after a detector array carries out the non-linear square modulus operation when placed at some plane in the forward diffraction field of the HF integral. Superposed wave amplitudes cannot induce energy re-distribution
upon themselves. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Then, in 2013, or 2014, I found a Gutenberg Press translation of Huygens’ original book, where he categorically states that his secondary wavelets evolve as expanding and overlapping circular wave fronts unperturbed
by each other. How silly of all of us that Fresnel, in his 1818 formulation of Huygens principle in the famous diffraction integral, embeds this non-interaction between the secondary wave amplitudes; but we still do not want to accept it! This has been causing
us to unnecessarily live with the confusion of “wave-particle duality” for a century now!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Chandra.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><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%2Bchandra.roychoudhuri" target="_blank">general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri</a>=<a href="mailto:uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Adam K<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 02, 2016 5:53 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>></span></p><div><div><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] separate the inertial and gravitational aspects of mass<u></u><u></u></div></div><p></p><div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chandra,<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nice email! I have some ideas on the question you pose in the last paragraph. I will gather them sometime. As for your dates: Fresnel: 1818. You were off by 3 years. Huygens: 1678. Spot on. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Adam <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <<a href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu" target="_blank">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left-width:1pt;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Hi Chip:
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">You certainly have added some novel elements to model “photon” having possibly both “transverse” and “longitudinal velocities.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Are there any related experiments?
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">The field of precision optical engineering is far more advanced than theoretical physics, demonstrated through the progress in nano photonics and
plasmonic photonics. Can you identify something that these optical engineers might able to measure and discern something positively?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Remember, our Knowledge Age, ushered in by laying down global fiber optic network, which is driven by laser light from semiconductor devices. None
of the involved engineers ever tried to propagate light as “indivisible quanta”. These fantastic advancements in communications were not held up due to our lack of any proper quantum equation to propagate “quantized photon”! They are happy that all the precision
they need is available from Huygens-Fresnel wave propagation integral, presented by Fresnel during the first quarter of the nineteenth century (1815?) using the Huygens postulate of secondary wave lets, presented during the third quarter of the seventeenth
century (1678?).</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">The question is as follows: Why is the HF propagation integral is continuing to be so successful even today; but we cannot provide anything better
mathematical tool to optical engineers with so much knowledge about “indivisible light quanta”; even though Huygens postulate of “secondary wavelets” resemble some fuzzy-logic, or some educated guess?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Chandra.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border-style:solid none none;border-top-width:1pt;border-top-color:rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<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%2Bchandra.roychoudhuri" target="_blank">general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri</a>=<a href="mailto:uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Chip Akins<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 02, 2016 3:58 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Hodge John' <<a href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com" target="_blank">jchodge@frontier.com</a>>; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] separate the inertial and gravitational aspects of mass</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi John</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I have a few questions regarding your experiment.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">What was the wavelength
</span><img border="0" width="17" height="38" src="cid:image001.png@01D1BCF9.92AC50A0"><span style="color:black">of the laser used? For example, if it was a red laser it was probably in the range of 650nm wavelength. The width of the slits?
The distance from the laser to the slits and to the target? </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">The reason I am asking has to do with the quantization of light. If we assume that Planck’s constant is the quantization of action, and that a single
photon has spin angular momentum of hbar, then the effective spin radius of this construct (photon particle) is the wavelength divided by 2 pi.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Then if we assume that transverse waves do indeed travel at the speed of light in space, but that there could also be associated longitudinal waves, which
remain principally undetected by normal instrumentation, then we can consider at the following:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">As we study transverse waves in an elastic solid medium we see that the velocity of propagation of a transverse wave is:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img border="0" width="121" height="113" src="cid:image002.png@01D1BCF9.92AC50A0"><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Where
</span><img border="0" width="27" height="28" src="cid:image003.png@01D1BCF9.92AC50A0"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">is the propagation velocity of the transverse wave,
</span><img border="0" width="19" height="28" src="cid:image004.png@01D1BCF9.92AC50A0"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">is the shear modulus, and
<i>p</i> is the density of the medium.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Longitudinal displacements or longitudinal waves simply travel faster in every known elastic solid medium.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Longitudinal propagation velocity is expressed as:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img border="0" width="237" height="128" src="cid:image005.png@01D1BCF9.92AC50A0"><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Where
</span><img border="0" width="33" height="38" src="cid:image006.png@01D1BCF9.92AC50A0"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">is the propagation velocity of the longitudinal wave or displacement, and
<i>K</i> is the compression modulus.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Since both the
<i>K</i> modulus and </span><img border="0" width="21" height="42" src="cid:image007.png@01D1BCF9.92AC50A0"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">modulus are always positive we can see that the longitudinal displacement propagation
velocity will always be faster than the transverse wave velocity: </span><img border="0" width="162" height="65" src="cid:image008.png@01D1BCF9.92AC50A0"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">is always larger than</span><span style="font-size:18pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
</span><img border="0" width="28" height="42" src="cid:image009.png@01D1BCF9.92AC50A0"><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">So I am wondering if the photon is a tightly confined rotational transverse wave, with a radius expressed as
</span><span style="font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black"> </span><img border="0" width="104" height="56" src="cid:image010.png@01D1BCF9.92AC50A0"><span style="font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"> which also has a small associated longitudinal wave component acting as a "pilot" wave.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">For a red laser the speculated radius of a photon would be 103.45nm so its diameter would be 206.9nm.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Your thoughts?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border-style:solid none none;border-top-width:1pt;border-top-color:rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<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 [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Hodge John<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 02, 2016 11:42 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">
general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [General] separate the inertial and gravitational aspects of mass</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">
<span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue';color:black">Vivian Robinson:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">
<span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue';color:black">I suggest the following experiment does separate the inertial and gravitational aspects of mass.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">
<span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue';color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'Courier New';color:black">Diffraction experiment and its STOE photon simulation program rejects wave models of light
<a href="http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603" target="_blank">http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603</a>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">
<span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue';color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'Courier New';color:black">STOE assumptions that model particle diffraction and that replaces QM
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'Courier New';color:black"><a href="http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1719" target="_blank">http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1719</a>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'Courier New';color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">
<span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue';color:black">The proposed photon model predicted this experiment. Some of the required postulates to make the model match experimental observations are to separate the inertial and gravitational mass. No other model
of the photon or of diffraction fits the observation. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">
<span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue';color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">
<span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue';color:black">The diffraction model also explains the “walking drop” observation of Fig. 5c in Bush,~J.W.M., 2015,
<i>The new wave of pilot-wave theory</i>, Physics Today, 68(8), 47</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">
<span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue';color:black"><a href="http://newfos.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/Pilot_Waves_Phys_Today_Aug_2015.pdf" target="_blank">http://newfos.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/Pilot_Waves_Phys_Today_Aug_2015.pdf</a>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">
<span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue';color:black">wherein the inertia of the medium allows the wave to reflect and influence the drop that caused the wave. Compare Fig. 5c of Bush with Fig. 1 of “Diffraction experiment …”
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">
<span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue';color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">
<span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue';color:black">Hodge</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">
<span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue';color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">
<span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue';color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com" target="_blank">afokay@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</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:afokay@gmail.com" target="_blank">afokay@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>