<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:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" 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 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* 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;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal, li.m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal, div.m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal
{mso-style-name:m_3405675004245748151gmail-m_-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal;
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;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@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='color:black'>Dear Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>You say “<i>Mathematically, it is impossible to tell the difference between reflection and transmission of these two beams.”<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>But I am not sure that is correct. I think that there may be one or two ways to tell of the resultant beams are reflected or transmitted.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>If one beam source is moved gradually so that the angle between the beams is increased and we compare the predictions of reflection with the predictions of transmission and interference at the target, we can see that the only scenario which holds true for any beam angle as we move the beam, is the transmission and interference at the target prediction.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Also the reflection predictions do not accurately predict the multiple fringe pattern and many angles. While transmission and interference at the target does accurately predict the pattern at all angles.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>So while I agree with you that it is important for us to look at the possibilities, it seems that once we fully and accurately look at this possibility we can see that what we are observing is transmission and interference rather than reflection.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><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:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Andrew Meulenberg<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 25, 2017 3:00 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Andrew Meulenberg <mules333@gmail.com><br><b>Cc:</b> robert hudgins <hudginswr@msn.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Bosonic and Fermionic nature of light<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Dear Chip,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Mathematically, it is impossible to tell the difference between reflection and transmission of these two beams. However, if the two beams are actually crossing (not parallel) then an obstruction in the near-field (pre-crossing) of one beam will show up in the opposite side of the center line at post-crossing points. While this is readily explained by non-interference, it can be as easily expressed as a lack of reflection of the un-obstructed beam from the shadowed region along the null zone (thus an interaction). All examples seem to give the same ambiguity as shown in our primary reference of Dowling and Gea-Banacloche (see earlier emails for a copy of the paper). <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The case for reflection, while not violating the mathematical ambiguity, is made by the pairs of parallel beams that are seen to diverge while still remaining within the expanding foot print of the original beams. Thus, just as in the case of identical particles where it is impossible to say that the particles do not pass thru each other even tho it violates our sense of the nature of matter, it is impossible to say that light beams do not reflect from each other even tho it violates our sense of the nature of light. <b>Accepting and understanding the basis of these 'impossibilities' gives us a great tool for better explaining the nature of both. </b><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>In my response to Andr<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>é's</span> email below, I will continue my comments.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Andrew M.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank">chipakins@gmail.com</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-right:0in'><div><div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='color:black'>Hi Andrew</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='color:black'> In an experiment like the one you describe, why do you assume that the light itself is curving (reflecting or refracting) in its trajectory? Using the “interference” concept at the target produces exactly the intensity results of the experiment with the trajectory of the light not curving at all. When simulating this experiment this turns out to be the simplest explanation which yields the observed patterns. Attempting to simulate this using reflection and refraction requires adding a lot of unnecessary math and rules in order to obtain the patterns observed in experiment.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='color:black'> Chip</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt;color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-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> Sunday, December 24, 2017 11:32 AM</span><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><br></span><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>>; Andrew Meulenberg <<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a>>; 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>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Bosonic and Fermionic nature of light</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>Dear Wolf,</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt'> comments below</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt'> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Wolfgang Baer <<a href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com" target="_blank">wolf@nascentinc.com</a>> wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><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><p><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>Always been interested in your experimental setup for showing beam-beam interactions </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>do you have a description of exactly what you do show interactions in a vacuum - </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>I have had to make the assumption that air is so much lower density than any detectors that any interaction of light with air can be neglected. Lack of funds and time prevent me from actually performing the experiments in vacuum. Air does effect the refractive index in the light path; however, the effect is so small that it would not be noticed in our experiments. It is known that high intensity light can alter the refractive index (general relativity?); but, the effect is very many orders of magnitude below our sensitivity.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><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><p><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>how can you tell identical frequency waves in closely spaced parallel beams apart if they d interact?</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>You have asked an important question. It is similar to one that I have recently raised myself.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt'> After interacting with our beam splitter (a parallel surface neutral-density filter), a single laser beam becomes two parallel beams with a fixed phase relationship. The relative phase of the 2 waves depends on the path length of the beam thru the filter. As the beams spread with their natural individual divergence angle, the two beams will begin to overlap. Eventually the overlap will become almost complete and the two beams with identical individual 'footprints' will have a nearly identical joint far-field footprint (however the light pattern will be quite different). If they are out-of-phase, then, even as they overlap, there will be a 'null-zone' between them. If in-phase, the central zone of the common far-field pattern will be bright and have at least one pair of null-zones enclosing it.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt'> If the two out-of-phase beams just out of the splitter have the same intensity, then, in the far field, there will still be two same-intensity beams. Are these the same two beams? That is the question. Blocking one of the beams leaves the other intact but eliminates the null zone that had separated the two. Thus, it appears that the two uninterrupted beams each reflect from the null zone and do not interact further. When the null zone is removed by blocking one beam, light 'bleeds' across the central line and spreads into the shadow of the blocking mask.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt'> If the two beams just out of the splitter have the same intensity, but are in-phase, then, in the far field, there will now be three beams (a bright central beam ad two weak side beams). Obviously, none of these three is one of the original two. The two original beams interact to provide three nearly independent beams. Blocking either of the small outer beams will leave the other two beams nearly unaffected. It only eliminates one of the null-zones. The other null-zone remains between the two remaining beams and keeps them separated. The fact that the two remaining beams, of quite different intensity, maintain their relative size and intensity tells an interesting tail. The two beams are not identical, yet together, they create a null-zone as a reflective barrier that prevents more than a small bit, if any, of the more intense beam from crossing into the weaker beam region. In its turn, the weak beam will shift intensity further away from the center line. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt'> The null-zone is established as a region where the two beams have no net flow. The fact that the two beams are not equal intensity undermines my hypothesis that only identical-frequency and intensity beams, exactly in or out of phase, act like identical particles. Surprisingly, the intensity does not appear to be critical. The phase and frequency appear to be the critical features. This intensity problem and its implications must be investigated further.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>Andrew M.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><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><pre><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>Dr. Wolfgang Baer</span><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>Research Director</span><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>Nascent Systems Inc.</span><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432</span><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_blank">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></span><o:p></o:p></pre><div><div><div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>On 12/17/2017 6:48 AM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt'> Dear folks,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>For the last several years, we (Hudgins, Meulenberg, and Penland) have been studying the interference effects of identical-frequency waves. Using a thin optical flat as a laser-beam splitter, it is possible to easily provide closely-spaced parallel beams of coherent light that appear to interact indefinitely (in vacuum, and even down to the individual-photon level?).</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>Over the last year, in parallel with the forum discussions of the photonic electron, the implications of this interaction have been evolving. The first step was the recognition that the two beams were equivalent to streams of identical particles. Furthermore, depending on their phase, the two beams acted as both bosons and fermions. In their constructive interactions (as a Bose condensate?) and destructive interactions (obeying the Pauli exclusion principle?), they attracted each other when in phase and appeared to repel one another when 180 degrees out of phase. This observation (a phase dependence, perhaps related to charge, as suggested by Penland) is beginning to expand into explanations and hypotheses for many of the laws (and tools) of physics.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>Since many of this group believe that leptons are self-bound photons, the proposed dual nature of photons, which is dependent on a major characteristic of the wave nature of light (phase), could be fundamental to the understanding of much of physics. Despite being bosons, by definition, photons are seen to have both bosonic and fermionic natures in their interactions and, perhaps, within their very nature. Another concept includes that of symmetry and parity. Within a photon and its interactions, we can find both symmetric and anti-symmetric conditions as well as those of even and odd parity.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>Thus, within the nature of a photon, we can find the physical bases for much of the mathematics that is the basis of theoretical physics. I believe that the macroscopic observations, which have led to much of physics theory, can be explained in the study of light and its interactions (including those with itself). The reasons that this observation is not obvious lie within our inability to 'see' the interaction. First, light is not composed of point particles. With the exception of a few manufactured cases, photons are many wavelengths long (up to 1E8 cycles?). Only if photons can interact (collectively, in time and/or space) over a large percentage of these wavelengths will any effects be noticeable without the aid of matter as a detector to sum over many interactions. And, even then, it is mathematically impossible to distinguish the effects of transmission (non-interaction?) or reflection (interaction?) in the coincidence of identical photons. Nevertheless, the fact that the mathematics for identical particles is different from that of identifiable particles gives us the precedent for looking at this aspect of light.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>The observation of particle (e.g., electron) interaction is possible because the photons composing the particles have all of their high-energy nodes collected in small enough regions for their energy density to be sufficiently high to distort the space in which they reside. The 'permanence' of these structures depends on resonance, which provides and depends on a fixed internal phase relationship. Thus, the particular interaction of light with itself is reflected in the nature of matter.</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt'> Neither the statement that "light interferes with light," nor the statement that "light does <u>not</u> interfere with light," is completely correct. It is the combination of these two statements, along with their exceptions and understanding, that provides the basis for understanding the physical universe.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt'> Andrew M.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal> __________________<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=m3405675004245748151gmail-m-2594976865231973605gmail-msonormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>