<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Helvetica Neue";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Adam: You have raised several questions (issues). So, my reply is embedded within your original email below (in green):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Adam K<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, June 04, 2016 5:13 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] separate the inertial and gravitational aspects of mass<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Chandra,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.5pt">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. </span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Incidentally, Carver Mead is another person with a ton of practical experience working with electronics who is suspicious of photons.<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#127C15">====================<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#127C15"> Your observation about Carver Mead is correct. That is why I had invited him as the Keynote Speaker for or 2013- “What are photons?” conference. Marlan Scully was the last year’s Keynote Speaker.
Carver learned QM from Feynman!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#127C15">===================<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Superposed wave amplitudes cannot induce energy re-distribution upon themselves.</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">This is a very sharp expression of a fundamental difficulty.
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#127C15">====================<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#127C15">Yes, it is a “sharp statement”. You should get your university to buy my book, “Causal Physics: Photon Model by Non-Interaction of Waves”, Taylor and Francis, 2014. I had to re-discover the Non-Interaction
of Waves (NIW) while trying to understand the “physics” behind Huygens-Fresnel (HF) near field becoming Fraunhofer’s far-field as the Fourier transform of the “amplitude aperture function”. [Of course, Huygens postulated this NIW property over 300 years earlier.]
Why Fourier transform? In the far field, the HF secondary circular wavelets, emerging out of the aperture, become a linear summation (superposition) plane wavelets with continuous tilts (within the 5-degree field covered by the inclination factor). Mathematically,
the general HF integral morphs into a Fourier Transform-like integral. Since the “far-field condition” can also be generated by a lens at its focal plane; optical engineers are immensely happy to use Goodman’s “Fourier Optics” to carry out all sorts of imaging
analysis. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#127C15"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#127C15">Making more sharp statements. Superposition Principle (SP), the summation of wave amplitudes, is not observable effect in the optical domain. Visible (quantum) detectors display the Superposition
Effect (SE) after they carry out the nonlinear quadratic operation, square modulus of the sum of all the dipolar stimulations induced in it by all the simultaneously present wave amplitudes. See my book, “Causal Physics”. You will find many more strong statements.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#127C15">===================<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#127C15">====================<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#127C15"> I am attaching an article where the old ether field is modified into a Complex Tension Filed (CTF) to accommodate (i) perpetually propagating EM waves as linear excitations of the CTF; and (ii)
localized particles as non-linearly excited self-looped oscillations of the same CTF. <b><i>100% energy is still held by the CTF.</i></b> EM waves and particles are its excited states of different kinds; they do not exist independently, separate from CTF.
<b><i>This is the biggest problem of modern physics in its inability to formulate a unified field theory.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#127C15"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#127C15">The emergence of particles as excitation of the same “ether field” has been proposed by many scientists. However, nobody has yet developed a self-consistent mathematical model for the two key
stable particles, electrons and protons. Our group (this web) has been working on modeling the electron from various angles. All of them do not agree with a unifying single “ether field” (CTF), not yet! Diversity is healthy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#127C15">===================<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">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. 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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">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. 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? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#127C15">====================<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#127C15"> Vector vs. scalar diffraction theory becomes relevant where the E-vector of the incident EM wave encounters material dipoles; which are not completely free to oscillate along its own vectorial
direction. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#127C15">===================<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><br>
Adam</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <<a href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu" target="_blank">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Adam: Here is a bit more comparative information to energize you further!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">But, Huygens fuzzy-logic postulate has been giving us all the engineering precision so far we have demanded out all possible classical optical applications.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;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><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] separate the inertial and gravitational aspects of mass<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Chandra,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Adam <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Hi Chip:
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">You certainly have added some novel elements to model “photon” having possibly both “transverse” and “longitudinal velocities.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Are there any related experiments?
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">Hi John</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">I have a few questions regarding your experiment.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">What was the wavelength
</span><img border="0" width="17" height="38" id="_x0000_i1025" src="cid:image001.png@01D1BE75.A2EDF590"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><img border="0" width="121" height="113" id="_x0000_i1026" src="cid:image002.png@01D1BE75.A2EDF590"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Where
</span><img border="0" width="27" height="28" id="_x0000_i1027" src="cid:image003.png@01D1BE75.A2EDF590"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">is the propagation velocity of the transverse wave,
</span><img border="0" width="19" height="28" id="_x0000_i1028" src="cid:image004.png@01D1BE75.A2EDF590"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">is the shear modulus, and
<i>p</i> is the density of the medium.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Longitudinal displacements or longitudinal waves simply travel faster in every known elastic solid medium.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Longitudinal propagation velocity is expressed as:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><img border="0" width="237" height="128" id="_x0000_i1029" src="cid:image005.png@01D1BE75.A2EDF590"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Where
</span><img border="0" width="33" height="38" id="_x0000_i1030" src="cid:image006.png@01D1BE75.A2EDF590"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Since both the
<i>K</i> modulus and </span><img border="0" width="21" height="42" id="_x0000_i1031" src="cid:image007.png@01D1BE75.A2EDF590"><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" id="_x0000_i1032" src="cid:image008.png@01D1BE75.A2EDF590"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">is always larger than</span><span style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">
</span><img border="0" width="28" height="42" id="_x0000_i1033" src="cid:image009.png@01D1BE75.A2EDF590"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><img border="0" width="104" height="56" id="_x0000_i1034" src="cid:image010.png@01D1BE75.A2EDF590"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">Your thoughts?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">Chip</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">Vivian Robinson:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">I suggest the following experiment does separate the inertial and gravitational aspects of mass.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:black">STOE assumptions that model particle diffraction and that replaces QM
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">Hodge</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>