Started a new thread on this subject. 04-05-2008
SUBJECT: MAJOR EARLY PHYSICS ERROR
LIGHT WAVES CAN BOUNCE OFF EACH OTHER
HUGE ERROR IN BASIC PHYSICS: FOUNDATION ERROR. EVERYTHING THAT IS RELATED MUST BE RE-EVALUATED. ALL THE TEXT BOOKS ARE IN ERROR, OR ARE NOT CLEAR. This does not negate the results of the equations. Only the concept.
PROOF THAT LIGHT WAVES BOUNCE OFF EACH OTHER. THE SUPERPOSITION ANALYSIS OF CONSTRUCTIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE OF LIGHT IS IN ERROR.
THE PRISM TYPE CUBE BEAM SPLITTER - a peculiar exception of importance.
You can under certain circumstances make light waves bounce off each other. * Ref 5.
Ref. 5: All em waves apply to varying degrees.
USING THIS SETUP IT IS EASILY DETERMINED THAT LIGHT WAVES BOUNCE OFF ONE ANOTHER.
This experiment is the proof that light interference patterns are the result of light waves bouncing off each other and the redirecting their paths. The redirection of their paths forms the interference pattern. The double slit experiment does not make this apparent. Only the experiment as described below will prove this. This is not the Michelson Morley ether experiment. It does use the Michelson type interferometer however.
SOMETHING NEW: THIS EXPERIMENT IS THE PROOF.
It is because of the double slit experiments, and interferometers that use flat plate beam splitters, that this has not been confirmed before. In this experiment using a prism type cube beam splitter it becomes apparent that light waves bounce off each other. Light wave interference patterns are produced by wave collisions. This is the definitive proof. Seeing the results of this experiment, you only have to ponder it awhile to come up with the correct conclusion. Your going to have to conduct it yourself else you will not believe it.
There is a common misconception regarding the phenomenon of light interference. The textbooks clearly and errantly describe the interference of light as constructive and destructive or the adding of waves, similar to that of water waves. They compare water to light almost directly.
Instead, it can be shown that electromagnetic waves must be undergoing elastic collisions. Their bouncing apart. The resulting interference pattern from the collisions remains the same. Wave bouncing and redirecting of the energy gives the appearance of superposition. The interference pattern from wave bouncing is the same as superposition. I.E. The same build up of three to four times the energy in the constructive areas (near the center region) and zero energy in the destructive regions. I will show a different way to look at the phenomenon interference. Instead of wave canceling and adding, wave collisions will replace it. One way light could get three to four times brighter near the center (not considering the center) which it does, is through wave collisions. The waves split apart and bounce to either side of each fringe. Building up three to four times. The same result described by constructive and destructive interference is possible if waves bounce off one another. Please read further.
I’ve seen a lot of interference patterns and I’ve always tried to locate the center. Sometimes it seemed to be a bright fringe and other times it appeared to be a dark region. It was difficult to determine. So I strove to determine which one. Is Light or Dark the true center. Note: The two slit experiment is not adequate as the beams are not parallel and any number of fringes are possible although the center normally is bright.. I set up the below experiment to get to the root of the problem. In so doing, I discovered something unusual about light that is different from that of water.
It made since to reduce the number of fringes down to the absolute minimum. What is the minimum? Without perfectly parallel beams there is no way to determine where the center of the pattern is. The fringes simply scroll from side to side depending on the alignment. Making locating the center of the pattern difficult. So in this setup the split beams are in perfect parallel. This results in only a single bright fringe in the center with a dark area on either side. Ergo, the circular spot from the simple lense becomes a single wide line. The results are similar to a beam Magnified by a Cylinder lense.
OBJECTIVE: ATTAIN A SINGLE CENTERED BRIGHT INTERFERENCE FRINGE WITH A DESTRUCTIVE REGION ON EACH SIDE. NO PART OF THE INTERFERENCE PATTERN IS BLOCKED OR SEPARATED OUT. AFTER DETERMINING THE RESULTING INTENSITY AND THE DIMENSION OF THE SINGLE BRIGHT FRINGE, THE ONLY CONCLUSION AVAILABLE IS THAT LIGHT WAVES HAVE BOUNCED OFF ONE ANOTHER. THEY HAVE BOUNCED FROM THE OUTER DESTRUCTIVE REGIONS INTO THE CENTER BRIGHT FRINGE INCREASING ITS INTENSITY UP TO FOUR TIMES. THEY HAVE FOLDED OVER INTO THE BRIGHT FRINGE REFUSING TO INTERFERE AGAIN.
SETUP AS FOLLOWS TO INSURE YOU ARE ABLE TO ATTAIN A SINGLE FRINGE
(also see the simple setup for those not having a light table)
1. Michelson type interferometer (See drawing)
2. REQUIRED: Prism type Cube beam splitter only. (A half silvered plate will not work - its surfaces are parallel to the silver plating)
3. REQUIRED: At least one mirror must have a micrometer adjustment
4. Standard front silvered mirrors (you cannot use standard mirrors with silver on the back)
5. Choose a good quality 10 mm dia. double convex lense with a 15 mm focal length and minimal surface aberrations. Dimensions are approximate.
6. Laser light source. My choice: Vertically Polarized HeNe TEM 00
7. Button sized light cell milliwatt power meter. (Note: The human eye perceives intensity on a logarithmic scale, similar to our ears- it is not correct). You might get by with a Cds cell and a voltage meter. although you will have to calibrate it. Doubling the distance from the light source reduces the intensity by four. (Inverse square to the distance)
Must use a PRISM TYPE CUBE BEAM SPLITTER ONLY. The cubes mirror is diagonal to the surfaces. Only a prism type cube splitter can attain a single interference fringe.
Note: the very thin membrane pellicle type may work also.
You CAN NOT use a flat plate mirror beam splitter. The minimum amount of fringes you can get is two. This is because the beam bounces off the front surface as well as the silvered side. A phase change is inherent in the thickness of the glass (multiple phase paths). It cannot produce a single interference fringe. The thin sandwiched glass plate ones will not work either. This is similar to trying to use common back silvered mirrors. There are two images. One off the front of the glass and one off the back silver.
The “prism type cube” by way of its design has only one light splitting surface. It is diagonal and redirects the light away from the surface reflections which create multiple light fringes. This is probably why we never considered wave collisions as a possibility. Only a cube can do it. Why no one questioned the extra intensity is somewhat of a mystery however.
THE EXPERIMENT SETUP:
Setup the Michelson interferometer. Both optical path distances must be equal. My path length was 7 centimeters. Place the lense on the output path only. Align both beams into perfect parallel paths. (A prism type cube beam splitter insures this) (NOTE: The cube beam splitter will have multiple images from its square sides. Direct the weak ones to the side). Align one spot directly on top of the other. This is most easily done by blocking one side then the other. When the both beams are absolutely parallel a single constructive fringe will appear in the center only, with dark destructive bands on either side. Any misalignment will result in multiple fringes. Using a power meter only, not by eye, record the wattage intensity of each split beam separately then the final bright fringe.
Be certain the button sized detector cell is completely bathed in uniform light for all readings. Be careful with this - any visual perception will be off by a multiple of two.
The single center bright fringe is now three to four times brighter than the path from either single beam. The results are similar to a beam magnified by a cylinder lense. This is not possible with water waves. In this case light waves and water waves do not relate. Water waves only double in height amplitude when two waves constructively interfere. Also, water waves will crash into another when their height is at maximum. i.e. when they are ready to break. In the controlled environment of a ripple tank producing small amplitude waves, they simply will pass through another. See, one difference is in the wave heights. A free space electromagnetic wave always exhibits its maximum height based on a uniform sine wave. So we can consider crashing, just like a full size water wave. Since it is nearly massless it would bounce. Another difference: Electromagnetic waves have only one propagation velocity in any medium, while water waves can have many.
Something else however must be in effect. Why would two beams of light then pass through one another. The answer is related to the folding inward effect witnessed in this experiment. The waves dissociate then re-associate immediately after the collision. They fold back into place. (Swing or whip back and/or deform). (There is something else that could be considered here. I am not going into that yet.)
This is the clue that light has something different and does not obey the rules of water waves. Water wave interference pattern is produced by constructive and destructive interference. Light wave interference patterns are produced by wave collisions. The question we should ask is; What could be occurring that produces a single constructive fringe that has three to four times the intensity of the split single beam.
The once circular beam has become a single bright fringe down the center.. The size of the illuminated area decreases. The sides of the circle no longer illuminate. This is the clue that the intensity has increased beyond two times. The same amount of power is hitting the screen, but the illuminated area has decreased. This can be judged even without a power meter.
The conclusion I’ve made is that the beam is folding inward to the center. Wave collisions are occurring, not constructive and destructive interference. So light undergoes a type of elastic collision. The outer light folds into the center producing a single bright fringe. No energy is hidden through destructive interference. There is no destructive interference as previously thought. It appears to be destructive interference, but is actually ‘waves bouncing into new directions’. The key to comprehending this is the single bright fringe. The energy of the two outer dark regions ends up in the center single bright fringe. I have never read an adequate description of where the energy of the dark fringe is. Why? Because its in the bright fringes. A child could see this!
This leads to some other very interesting conclusions which answer some unknowns in modern physics. This is enough for now. Try it for your self, and try to figure out why its three to four times brighter. Where has energy from the destructive zones gone, and how did it get there?
Since this is just a interference experiment adjusted to produce one fringe. It is not hard to make the conclusion: multiple fringe light interference is the same phenomenon.
This leads to a spectacular understanding of magnetism, and gravity, as well as chemical bonding.
RULE: Electromagnetic Waves of the Same Phase and Wavelength under go elastic like collisions. This is a visual. Waves of differing sizes may interact but not so obvious, because they re-acquire their original paths. (requires a ‘net like’ concept). As a transverse wave, something still keeps them uniform. Whether its is the magnetic field or a net like concept. This will be left to the future.
Related Also: (Tuning microwave standing waves through reflection)
Wave height compression within a wave guide revels an elastic like nature.
In the cases having multi fringes such as double slit experiments. The transverse wave could be breaking into sections (compare the width of the bright line to the width of the dark). If you imagine a short section of rope moving transversely you may be able to more easily comprehend what diffraction and refraction is.
Todd G.
HOW TO DEMONSTRATE LIGHT WAVES BOUNCE OFF EACH OTHER:
A LOW COST INTERFEROMETER SETUP:
Any one can do it. You could do this on a heavy kitchen table or work bench. If your on a low budget, I have found this method works quite well. This is how you can get good results with just a 12 inch table. (Large tables can cost thousands of dollars). This setup works.
A small light table platform for the interferometer can be made from a 1/4 - 3/8 inch flat steel plate about 10 inches square supported by four small pieces of neoprene soft foam. The laser and output lense do not need to be on the steel platform. Only the 3 parts of the interferometer (2 mirrors and the prism type cube beam splitter). You can get the optical parts through Edmund Scientific. A PRISM TYPE CUBE BEAM SPLITTER IS REQUIRED. A plate type beam splitter can not produce a single fringe.
PARTS NEEDED:
1. Laser: HeNe Vertically Polarized TEM 00 preferred (a quality laser pointer might work but their beam may not be round after its magnified)
2. One 1/4 to 3/8 inch flat steel plate 10 inches square. (Don’t go thinner the weight is important)
Cold rolled is ok as long as it has a smooth flat surface. Local steel yard.
3. Four large tuna cans (2 inches deep). (The small ones are not deep enough)
4. Enough very fine grain sand to fill the four tuna cans. (Must use very fine sand)
5. Output lense: Good quality 10 mm dia. double convex lense with a 15 mm focal length and minimal surface aberrations. Dimensions are approximate.
6. Two ½ inch square front surface mirrors. Approx dimensions (Edmund Scientific)
7. One Prism type Cube beam splitter. (Edmund Scientific)
8.. 15 inches of ½ inch wood dowel.
9. 5 minute epoxy glue
The optical parts must be clean and of a good quality. (Do not touch the optic surfaces)
The lense is quite small be careful not to get a finger print on it as well as the beam splitter.
Any finger prints may ruin the experiment. The front surface mirrors are difficult to clean and damage scratch easily. They cannot have scratches.
Each of the four optical parts will be glued on top a short section of wood dowel.
Determine what length to cut the 4 wood dowels to so that the light beam will travel about ½ inch over the tops of the tuna cans (2 ½ inches approx.) . Because the lense is so small, you should trim the top of the dowel that the lense will be mounted to.
Here is the really simple adjustable method to mount your mirrors. (You must use a very fine grain sand) Fill three large tuna cans with a finest grain of sand as you can find and place them on the steel plate. Glue your mirrors on the dowels (don’t use hot melt it will vapor deposit). All 3 parts (2 mirrors and the beam splitter) must be the same height, just above the top of the tuna cans. With the plane of the reflective coating in the vertical position (so it directs the beam to the sides), glue the prism type cube beam splitter on top of a ½ inch wood dowel. Be sure not to touch any of the surfaces, and be extra careful with the glue. Wearing disposable rubber gloves helps a lot. Now stick each part into their own sand filled large tuna can. This makes adjustments easy as you can slide the tuna cans around as well. Only the two mirrors and the beam splitter are placed on the steel plate. These are the vibration sensitive parts. The laser and the output lense are placed off the steel plate (this works fine).
For a 1/4 inch thick steel plate place 3/4 inch square 3/8 thick pieces of neoprene foam (I used an old wet suit) under the steel table to absorb vibration. If you have a heavier plate then use thicker neoprene. Sounds from your house or neighborhood will cause vibration. A running refrigerator, or furnace motor, or even a nearby small space heater fan will cause the interference fringes to vibrate. Best to run the experiment at night when the traffic is low. I have found this setup to be quite stable. But just clapping your hands will be enough to cause a slight vibration.
Attaining a single bright fringe will require a bit of tweaking. The optical paths lengths must be equal. Measure this from each mirror to where the beam hits the silver of the cube beam splitter. Use a divider to get as close as you can. Tap the mirrors lightly with a pencil to align them. Adjusting the horizontal angle of the laser or rotating the steel plate to get one beam directly over the other. You want to attain a single bright fringe. See the above for a more complete explanation. Have fun experimenting with the setup. Your going to discover, light waves bounce off one another. Remember only a “Prism type Cube beam splitter” can be used (see the explanation above). The mirror type flat plate beam splitter will fool you.
MICHELSON INTERFEROMETER LAYOUT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laser. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . Mirror | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . |. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . .Lense . . . . . . . . . . Screen .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cube Splitter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ Mirror. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Just imagine the dots are not there.
A LOW COST INTERFEROMETER SETUP:
Any one can do it. You could do this on a heavy kitchen table or work bench. If your on a low budget, I have found this method works quite well. This is how you can get good results with just a 12 inch table. (Large tables can cost thousands of dollars). This setup works.
A small light table platform for the interferometer can be made from a 1/4 - 3/8 inch flat steel plate about 10 inches square supported by four small pieces of neoprene soft foam. The laser and output lense do not need to be on the steel platform. Only the 3 parts of the interferometer (2 mirrors and the prism type cube beam splitter). You can get the optical parts through Edmund Scientific. A PRISM TYPE CUBE BEAM SPLITTER IS REQUIRED. A plate type beam splitter can not produce a single fringe.
PARTS NEEDED:
1. Laser: HeNe Vertically Polarized TEM 00 preferred (a quality laser pointer might work but their beam may not be round after its magnified)
2. One 1/4 to 3/8 inch flat steel plate 10 inches square. (Don’t go thinner the weight is important)
Cold rolled is ok as long as it has a smooth flat surface. Local steel yard.
3. Four large tuna cans (2 inches deep). (The small ones are not deep enough)
4. Enough very fine grain sand to fill the four tuna cans. (Must use very fine sand)
5. Output lense: Good quality 10 mm dia. double convex lense with a 15 mm focal length and minimal surface aberrations. Dimensions are approximate.
6. Two ½ inch square front surface mirrors. Approx dimensions (Edmund Scientific)
7. One Prism type Cube beam splitter. (Edmund Scientific)
8.. 15 inches of ½ inch wood dowel.
9. 5 minute epoxy glue
The optical parts must be clean and of a good quality. (Do not touch the optic surfaces)
The lense is quite small be careful not to get a finger print on it as well as the beam splitter.
Any finger prints may ruin the experiment. The front surface mirrors are difficult to clean and damage scratch easily. They cannot have scratches.
Each of the four optical parts will be glued on top a short section of wood dowel.
Determine what length to cut the 4 wood dowels to so that the light beam will travel about ½ inch over the tops of the tuna cans (2 ½ inches approx.) . Because the lense is so small, you should trim the top of the dowel that the lense will be mounted to.
Here is the really simple adjustable method to mount your mirrors. (You must use a very fine grain sand) Fill three large tuna cans with a finest grain of sand as you can find and place them on the steel plate. Glue your mirrors on the dowels (don’t use hot melt it will vapor deposit). All 3 parts (2 mirrors and the beam splitter) must be the same height, just above the top of the tuna cans. With the plane of the reflective coating in the vertical position (so it directs the beam to the sides), glue the prism type cube beam splitter on top of a ½ inch wood dowel. Be sure not to touch any of the surfaces, and be extra careful with the glue. Wearing disposable rubber gloves helps a lot. Now stick each part into their own sand filled large tuna can. This makes adjustments easy as you can slide the tuna cans around as well. Only the two mirrors and the beam splitter are placed on the steel plate. These are the vibration sensitive parts. The laser and the output lense are placed off the steel plate (this works fine).
For a 1/4 inch thick steel plate place 3/4 inch square 3/8 thick pieces of neoprene foam (I used an old wet suit) under the steel table to absorb vibration. If you have a heavier plate then use thicker neoprene. Sounds from your house or neighborhood will cause vibration. A running refrigerator, or furnace motor, or even a nearby small space heater fan will cause the interference fringes to vibrate. Best to run the experiment at night when the traffic is low. I have found this setup to be quite stable. But just clapping your hands will be enough to cause a slight vibration.
Attaining a single bright fringe will require a bit of tweaking. The optical paths lengths must be equal. Measure this from each mirror to where the beam hits the silver of the cube beam splitter. Use a divider to get as close as you can. Tap the mirrors lightly with a pencil to align them. Adjusting the horizontal angle of the laser or rotating the steel plate to get one beam directly over the other. You want to attain a single bright fringe. See the above for a more complete explanation. Have fun experimenting with the setup. Your going to discover, light waves bounce off one another. Remember only a “Prism type Cube beam splitter” can be used (see the explanation above). The mirror type flat plate beam splitter will fool you.
MICHELSON INTERFEROMETER LAYOUT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laser. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . Mirror | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . |. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . .Lense . . . . . . . . . . Screen .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cube Splitter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ Mirror. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Just imagine the dots are not there.
The major problem with your premise is that you forgot about how exactly you are able to observe the phenomena is the first place and that is by actual bouncing 
but by the light off air and dust molecules surrounding the experiment. Everything happens at that point and more or less randomly bounces off to your eyes (or whatever detector you have). So you are seeing (and interpreting) a secondary process.
but by the light off air and dust molecules surrounding the experiment. Everything happens at that point and more or less randomly bounces off to your eyes (or whatever detector you have). So you are seeing (and interpreting) a secondary process.
Yet another crank who will rant and rave until they are banned. It's useless trying to reason with them, as they never listen to anyone.
- Gehn
- Gehn
Are you all just a bunch of kids? Grow up.
Where is the intelligent life? Who are you?
Where is the intelligent life? Who are you?
I light can bounce off eachother then any wave can, think about it
Hi Todd,
We've been through this before.
Light waves and water waves are completely different. You do realize that an EM wave is a combination of a magnetic wave perpendicular to an electric wave. (A moving electric charge creates a magnetic field).EM waves undergo reflection, refraction and diffraction. Do you know the relationship between the wavelength of an EM wave and the slits in Young's experiment? Do you know why this is key to the experiment? Do you know even a little bit of QED? All of these thing make your hypothesis and conclusions erroneous. Yes, waves constructively and destructively interfere with each other, but that is the only mechanism that you seem to be accounting for. Do you know the relationship between the percentage of light reflected through a pane of clear glass, and do you know that this percentage repeats, depending on the material and the wavelength. Light reflects from about 1 to 4 % then repeats depending on the thickness (and material) of the glass. Do you know that the angle of incidence does not equal the angle of reflection off a mirror?
Read up on Young's experiment and Feynman's QED and the think some more about your "breakthrough"
Peace,
Ron
We've been through this before.
Light waves and water waves are completely different. You do realize that an EM wave is a combination of a magnetic wave perpendicular to an electric wave. (A moving electric charge creates a magnetic field).EM waves undergo reflection, refraction and diffraction. Do you know the relationship between the wavelength of an EM wave and the slits in Young's experiment? Do you know why this is key to the experiment? Do you know even a little bit of QED? All of these thing make your hypothesis and conclusions erroneous. Yes, waves constructively and destructively interfere with each other, but that is the only mechanism that you seem to be accounting for. Do you know the relationship between the percentage of light reflected through a pane of clear glass, and do you know that this percentage repeats, depending on the material and the wavelength. Light reflects from about 1 to 4 % then repeats depending on the thickness (and material) of the glass. Do you know that the angle of incidence does not equal the angle of reflection off a mirror?
Read up on Young's experiment and Feynman's QED and the think some more about your "breakthrough"
Peace,
Ron
QUOTE (theory_of_nj+Apr 14 2008, 05:14 PM)
I light can bounce off eachother then any wave can, think about it
That's correct. By this analysis, all em waves can bounce off each other. I mentioned that. It only becomes apparent when they are the same phase and wavelength.
Todd Grigsby
QUOTE (Ron+Apr 14 2008, 07:51 PM)
Hi Todd,
We've been through this before.
Light waves and water waves are completely different. You do realize that an EM wave is a combination of a magnetic wave perpendicular to an electric wave. (A moving electric charge creates a magnetic field).EM waves undergo reflection, refraction and diffraction. Do you know the relationship between the wavelength of an EM wave and the slits in Young's experiment? Do you know why this is key to the experiment? Do you know even a little bit of QED? All of these thing make your hypothesis and conclusions erroneous. Yes, waves constructively and destructively interfere with each other, but that is the only mechanism that you seem to be accounting for. Do you know the relationship between the percentage of light reflected through a pane of clear glass, and do you know that this percentage repeats, depending on the material and the wavelength. Light reflects from about 1 to 4 % then repeats depending on the thickness (and material) of the glass.
Do you know that the angle of incidence does not equal the angle of reflection off a mirror?
Read up on Young's experiment and Feynman's QED and the think some more about your "breakthrough"
Peace,
Ron
Thanks for your reply..
Yes I know most of this quite well. You seem to be missing the point I am trying to make.
One point I make is that the double slit experiment does not readily reveal that waves are bouncing. This is why I stressed the point of using the prism cube type beam splitter (a requirement).
Another point: How can the bright fringe areas become 4 times brighter? This is what they do.
How does Feynman answer the below.
If these waves are canceling then where did the canceled energy go?
It's obvious to me, if the bright fringe if 4 times brighter then the energy has gone into the bright fringe area.
Todd Grigsby
We've been through this before.
Light waves and water waves are completely different. You do realize that an EM wave is a combination of a magnetic wave perpendicular to an electric wave. (A moving electric charge creates a magnetic field).EM waves undergo reflection, refraction and diffraction. Do you know the relationship between the wavelength of an EM wave and the slits in Young's experiment? Do you know why this is key to the experiment? Do you know even a little bit of QED? All of these thing make your hypothesis and conclusions erroneous. Yes, waves constructively and destructively interfere with each other, but that is the only mechanism that you seem to be accounting for. Do you know the relationship between the percentage of light reflected through a pane of clear glass, and do you know that this percentage repeats, depending on the material and the wavelength. Light reflects from about 1 to 4 % then repeats depending on the thickness (and material) of the glass.
Do you know that the angle of incidence does not equal the angle of reflection off a mirror?
Read up on Young's experiment and Feynman's QED and the think some more about your "breakthrough"
Peace,
Ron
Thanks for your reply..
Yes I know most of this quite well. You seem to be missing the point I am trying to make.
One point I make is that the double slit experiment does not readily reveal that waves are bouncing. This is why I stressed the point of using the prism cube type beam splitter (a requirement).
Another point: How can the bright fringe areas become 4 times brighter? This is what they do.
How does Feynman answer the below.
If these waves are canceling then where did the canceled energy go?
It's obvious to me, if the bright fringe if 4 times brighter then the energy has gone into the bright fringe area.
Todd Grigsby
QUOTE (Gehn+Apr 13 2008, 10:54 AM)
Yet another crank who will rant and rave until they are banned. It's useless trying to reason with them, as they never listen to anyone.
- Gehn
Indeed.
- Gehn
Indeed.
I don’t want to get too lengthy here because it is not being read thoroughly. The point is that there is an error here.
This error occurred well before the development of QED. At the time when Newton’s corpuscular theory was rejected. The early pioneers of physics, Newton, Huygens, and Young, argued several points about what light is and how it propagates. The conclusions of the superposition of light were based on the adding of waves. They simply assumed that interference or superposition of light was the adding of waves. I contend that assumption is not correct. They must have incorrectly based this decision on the visual effects from water waves. Which is why I brought up water waves.
Their main objective was to determine if light is a wave or a particle:
In the early 19th century Thomas Young correctly established the theory that light is a wave by the interference of light. The conclusion was accepted on the basis of light passing through a double pin hole.
I contend that the physics community at that time, made the huge error by assuming that the pattern was the result of the adding of waves. The interference pattern is not from the addition of waves, but from a new concept that light waves bounce off one another heading into new directions. This forms the light /dark fringe patterns. There is a way to answer some further early debated questions such as duality, but not before it is concluded that light waves are actually bouncing. This experiment lays out a visual way to show that light waves bounce off one another. Something that Young’s double pinhole experiment was unable to determine, and was not setup to determine. He was simply trying to determine if light was a wave or a particle. This experiment gives insight revealing how light can appear as either a wave or a particle (a single photon) or duality..
Using some modern tools that the early pioneers did not have access to. We are only looking for wave bouncing. Re-describing the principles of superposition. Maxwell’s principles on the propagation of light are not affected, nor are the equations resulting in the dimensions of the patterns formed by varying the distance between two slits.
Re-evaluating early arguments whether light is a wave or a particle. It is both.
For now I have to leave out an important principle that combines the two theories that light is both a wave and a particle. If we can not accept that light waves are bouncing first. The path to understanding duality can only be understood with this extra principle that I must leave out. It must be accepted that the interference pattern can be produced by light wave bouncing before we can go on.
It is not that difficult to see this. You will have to run the experiment. The words in the explanation I’ve used may not be adequate. But you have got to know what your looking for. Put your thinking cap on. Newton had the idea correct, but so did Young, it also is a wave. This combines the early theories and results in duality. I don’t want to fight , its just an obvious fact that can be easily determined with modern equipment. Only visually determining that light waves bounce It is a huge hindrance believing superposition of light waves is the addition of waves.
Todd Grigsby
This error occurred well before the development of QED. At the time when Newton’s corpuscular theory was rejected. The early pioneers of physics, Newton, Huygens, and Young, argued several points about what light is and how it propagates. The conclusions of the superposition of light were based on the adding of waves. They simply assumed that interference or superposition of light was the adding of waves. I contend that assumption is not correct. They must have incorrectly based this decision on the visual effects from water waves. Which is why I brought up water waves.
Their main objective was to determine if light is a wave or a particle:
In the early 19th century Thomas Young correctly established the theory that light is a wave by the interference of light. The conclusion was accepted on the basis of light passing through a double pin hole.
I contend that the physics community at that time, made the huge error by assuming that the pattern was the result of the adding of waves. The interference pattern is not from the addition of waves, but from a new concept that light waves bounce off one another heading into new directions. This forms the light /dark fringe patterns. There is a way to answer some further early debated questions such as duality, but not before it is concluded that light waves are actually bouncing. This experiment lays out a visual way to show that light waves bounce off one another. Something that Young’s double pinhole experiment was unable to determine, and was not setup to determine. He was simply trying to determine if light was a wave or a particle. This experiment gives insight revealing how light can appear as either a wave or a particle (a single photon) or duality..
Using some modern tools that the early pioneers did not have access to. We are only looking for wave bouncing. Re-describing the principles of superposition. Maxwell’s principles on the propagation of light are not affected, nor are the equations resulting in the dimensions of the patterns formed by varying the distance between two slits.
Re-evaluating early arguments whether light is a wave or a particle. It is both.
For now I have to leave out an important principle that combines the two theories that light is both a wave and a particle. If we can not accept that light waves are bouncing first. The path to understanding duality can only be understood with this extra principle that I must leave out. It must be accepted that the interference pattern can be produced by light wave bouncing before we can go on.
It is not that difficult to see this. You will have to run the experiment. The words in the explanation I’ve used may not be adequate. But you have got to know what your looking for. Put your thinking cap on. Newton had the idea correct, but so did Young, it also is a wave. This combines the early theories and results in duality. I don’t want to fight , its just an obvious fact that can be easily determined with modern equipment. Only visually determining that light waves bounce It is a huge hindrance believing superposition of light waves is the addition of waves.
Todd Grigsby
ToddG: Right. 
Now explain "diffraction".
Now explain "diffraction".
Hi Todd,
I agree that your observations are something that any person interested in physics should be able to answer to his or her own satisfaction. I cannot do that for you, because, it turns out to be a very philosophical discussion.
I will, however give you my understandings and a few references that you can look into, if you like.
Please don't be insulted if I specify parts of Young's experiments, which you are very familiar with, it is only to make some points.
Firstly, the corpuscular theory of light was not abandoned. In fact Albert Einstein won his Nobel prize proving that light must have individual quanta. (Just for quick review, if a beam of light was shined on a metal who's electron binding energy is higher than the energy of that frequency of light (E=hf), that electron will never be released from that metal atom, no matter the intensity of the beam.)
Secondly, light will act as either a wave or a particle in Young's experiment, depending on the setup. (Again, excuse my review, I am getting to a point.) two slits are placed in between a coherent light source and a photographic plate. If one slit is blocked, the light acts like a particle (this can be done with electrons or actually any matter whose energy/size is practical), when both slits are left open, the source acts as a wave. If we do the same 2 experiments shooting 1 photon at a time the results will be the same. Think about that. if we shot 1 photon every minute, or every year, or every millennium, they will still hit the screen the same as if we just sot a continuous flow of photons.
How do you explain this with your 'bouncing theory?
Just to go one step further with Young's experiment. If both slits are open (which should show a diffraction pattern) but one of the slits are monitored to see if a photon passed through it, the result is no longer a wave-like interference pattern.
I just want to add that part of the experiment to show just how bizarre light acts. (This is where philosophers start arguing about free will and such!)
AS far as Feynman goes, I would ask you to read his book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter". It is a very short read but very comprehensive. You won't become a physicist reading it, but it may help you understand what you are, apparently, very interested in.
Good luck.
Peace,
Ron
I agree that your observations are something that any person interested in physics should be able to answer to his or her own satisfaction. I cannot do that for you, because, it turns out to be a very philosophical discussion.
I will, however give you my understandings and a few references that you can look into, if you like.
Please don't be insulted if I specify parts of Young's experiments, which you are very familiar with, it is only to make some points.
Firstly, the corpuscular theory of light was not abandoned. In fact Albert Einstein won his Nobel prize proving that light must have individual quanta. (Just for quick review, if a beam of light was shined on a metal who's electron binding energy is higher than the energy of that frequency of light (E=hf), that electron will never be released from that metal atom, no matter the intensity of the beam.)
Secondly, light will act as either a wave or a particle in Young's experiment, depending on the setup. (Again, excuse my review, I am getting to a point.) two slits are placed in between a coherent light source and a photographic plate. If one slit is blocked, the light acts like a particle (this can be done with electrons or actually any matter whose energy/size is practical), when both slits are left open, the source acts as a wave. If we do the same 2 experiments shooting 1 photon at a time the results will be the same. Think about that. if we shot 1 photon every minute, or every year, or every millennium, they will still hit the screen the same as if we just sot a continuous flow of photons.
How do you explain this with your 'bouncing theory?
Just to go one step further with Young's experiment. If both slits are open (which should show a diffraction pattern) but one of the slits are monitored to see if a photon passed through it, the result is no longer a wave-like interference pattern.
I just want to add that part of the experiment to show just how bizarre light acts. (This is where philosophers start arguing about free will and such!)
AS far as Feynman goes, I would ask you to read his book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter". It is a very short read but very comprehensive. You won't become a physicist reading it, but it may help you understand what you are, apparently, very interested in.
Good luck.
Peace,
Ron
Thanks for your reply.
I have been quite busy, but will reply back soon.
I have been quite busy, but will reply back soon.
Hi Todd,
Actually two photons can bounce off each other in higher order QED. A Feynman diagram can be written and calculated where the two photons are actually bouncing off a closed charged particle loop .
Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering and look at the diagram where a photon bounces off an electron and goes away with a different energy.
A higher order diagram can be written where the electron closes into a loop and the second photon bounces off the loop similarly. Energy then can be transfered between the two photons off the virtual electron loop.
The effect can be taken into account. If you do a google on "two photon interaction" a number of entries appear.
Have a look at the N photon diagram in http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0610/0610028v1.pdf
hope this helps.
Actually two photons can bounce off each other in higher order QED. A Feynman diagram can be written and calculated where the two photons are actually bouncing off a closed charged particle loop .
Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering and look at the diagram where a photon bounces off an electron and goes away with a different energy.
A higher order diagram can be written where the electron closes into a loop and the second photon bounces off the loop similarly. Energy then can be transfered between the two photons off the virtual electron loop.
The effect can be taken into account. If you do a google on "two photon interaction" a number of entries appear.
Have a look at the N photon diagram in http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0610/0610028v1.pdf
hope this helps.
QUOTE (ToddG+Apr 18 2008, 11:16 PM)
How can the bright fringe areas become 4 times brighter?
Todd Grigsby
Hello Todd...
Of course, the fringe becomes brighter.....you've DECREASED the area, haven't you?
I don't see what the problem is. Reduce the area, for example, from a circle to a spot, and you should EXPECT the spot to get much 'brighter'.
More photons on a smaller area....greater brightness.
Where's the problem?
JW
QUOTE (Just Wonderful+Apr 24 2008, 07:54 PM)
Hello Todd...
Of course, the fringe becomes brighter.....you've DECREASED the area, haven't you?
I don't see what the problem is. Reduce the area, for example, from a circle to a spot, and you should EXPECT the spot to get much 'brighter'.
More photons on a smaller area....greater brightness.
Where's the problem?
JW
Quess I stumped him.
Didn't think I'd get an answer on that.
JW
Hi J.W.,
I'm not sure that Todd really understands the experiment. Your explaination is a good classical assumption, but I don't believe it's the real description of the situation that he's trying to grasp.
I'm sorry if I sound like I'm correcting you. I'm not. I have not the pleasure of knowing you well enough to presume such.
All I would like Todd to try to grasp is the specifics of the Young experiment and try to understand what it is that most of us only accept from experiment and from the leaders of the physics community.
The rest of this post is to our co-member of this forum (and of course humankind, to be overly profound!), Todd.
Hi Todd,
Do you, firstly, understand the specifics of the setup of Young's double slit experiment? (I am not trying to be condescending, but these specifics are what set it apart from our understanding of the macro world.)
Secondly, what is your understanding of , let's start with the simplest situation, the source of photons and the characteristics of these photons?
And, thirdly, what do you understand of the physical dimentions of all of the components involved (the source, the slits, the screen, and the many different configurations of the detectors?
I'm only asking because I don't know you and I would like to make sure we are talking about the same things.
Shall we start discussing this experiment (one that I consider on the same historical level as the Rutherford-Bohr backscattering experiment) because I am certainly no expert , and I'd like to learn more through discussion.
Peace,
Ron
I'm not sure that Todd really understands the experiment. Your explaination is a good classical assumption, but I don't believe it's the real description of the situation that he's trying to grasp.
I'm sorry if I sound like I'm correcting you. I'm not. I have not the pleasure of knowing you well enough to presume such.
All I would like Todd to try to grasp is the specifics of the Young experiment and try to understand what it is that most of us only accept from experiment and from the leaders of the physics community.
The rest of this post is to our co-member of this forum (and of course humankind, to be overly profound!), Todd.
Hi Todd,
Do you, firstly, understand the specifics of the setup of Young's double slit experiment? (I am not trying to be condescending, but these specifics are what set it apart from our understanding of the macro world.)
Secondly, what is your understanding of , let's start with the simplest situation, the source of photons and the characteristics of these photons?
And, thirdly, what do you understand of the physical dimentions of all of the components involved (the source, the slits, the screen, and the many different configurations of the detectors?
I'm only asking because I don't know you and I would like to make sure we are talking about the same things.
Shall we start discussing this experiment (one that I consider on the same historical level as the Rutherford-Bohr backscattering experiment) because I am certainly no expert , and I'd like to learn more through discussion.
Peace,
Ron
QUOTE (Ron+Apr 26 2008, 04:40 PM)
Hi J.W.,
I'm not sure that Todd really understands the experiment. Your explaination is a good classical assumption, but I don't believe it's the real description of the situation that he's trying to grasp.
Ron;
You are right; I really don't undertsand what he's trying to do.. How the heck does an increase in "brightness" PROVE that the waves are 'bouncing off' each other.??
BTW, you have a great question which he hasn't answered .....How can single photon experiments build up a diffrection pattern over time if each photon has no other photon to bounce off of?
I'm not sure that Todd really understands the experiment. Your explaination is a good classical assumption, but I don't believe it's the real description of the situation that he's trying to grasp.
Ron;
You are right; I really don't undertsand what he's trying to do.. How the heck does an increase in "brightness" PROVE that the waves are 'bouncing off' each other.??
BTW, you have a great question which he hasn't answered .....How can single photon experiments build up a diffrection pattern over time if each photon has no other photon to bounce off of?
Hi Todd, J.W.,
Just another thought to throw out there; A Photon is a boson which can occupy the same quantum state (unlike fermions), but I don't know if this precludes them from bouncing off of each other, rather than interfering, like a wave. Maybe some of our well educated friends will pop in here for a a little push?
Peace,
Ron
Just another thought to throw out there; A Photon is a boson which can occupy the same quantum state (unlike fermions), but I don't know if this precludes them from bouncing off of each other, rather than interfering, like a wave. Maybe some of our well educated friends will pop in here for a a little push?
Peace,
Ron
QUOTE (Ron+Apr 27 2008, 10:32 AM)
Hi Todd, J.W.,
Just another thought to throw out there; A Photon is a boson which can occupy the same quantum state (unlike fermions), but I don't know if this precludes them from bouncing off of each other, rather than interfering, like a wave.
Well ; 1st lets make it clear ; quantum physics states clearly that photons do NOT interact with each other; (except at extremely high energies where nonlinear effects kick in -never observed). Todd's idea is the total antithesis of what standard Quantum states.
This is not about spin states either....Lasers are examples where bosons are in a monochromatic and coherent state and they don't bounce off each other...
Interference patterns are not due to photon interaction but are simply the result of the difference in PHASES of the EM waves when they hit the detecting surface.
If photons 'bounced off' each other then you wouldn't even need an interferometer to show it....simply shine two lasers beams at right angles to each other , cross their beams and they should interact....and scattering should be evident.
If Todd would answer our questions maybe we could understand what exactly he is trying to get at.
JW
Just another thought to throw out there; A Photon is a boson which can occupy the same quantum state (unlike fermions), but I don't know if this precludes them from bouncing off of each other, rather than interfering, like a wave.
Well ; 1st lets make it clear ; quantum physics states clearly that photons do NOT interact with each other; (except at extremely high energies where nonlinear effects kick in -never observed). Todd's idea is the total antithesis of what standard Quantum states.
This is not about spin states either....Lasers are examples where bosons are in a monochromatic and coherent state and they don't bounce off each other...
Interference patterns are not due to photon interaction but are simply the result of the difference in PHASES of the EM waves when they hit the detecting surface.
If photons 'bounced off' each other then you wouldn't even need an interferometer to show it....simply shine two lasers beams at right angles to each other , cross their beams and they should interact....and scattering should be evident.
If Todd would answer our questions maybe we could understand what exactly he is trying to get at.
JW
Thanks I appreciate that! I'll check them out.
Todd
Todd
Well we are straying from my original position “how could the fringe be 4 times brighter”, as well as the shape of the single bright fringe. But that’s ok! Your right; It will need to be covered.
>It turn out to be a very philosophical question.>
Very good point! Which is usually what happens when there are mysterious unknowns. Or mistakes in some basic scientific principles.
>The corpuscular theory of light was not abandoned.<
I left out that Newton also thought there was ether field with the particle or corpuscular theory.
I can verbally explain how the famous MM experiment is unable to detect an ether field.
Were getting off into deep space now (pun), so please bear with me for a moment. You seem to have a creative mind full of much knowledge.
I would like to premise this: Fully combining the two theories.
If we replace Newton’s “ether” back in, the mystery of duality can be easily solved.
>Secondly, light will act as either a wave or particle in Young’s experiment, depending on the setup. <
I prefer to consider the Rochester Experiment.
First I would like to rephrase the word bouncing:
But to get a better picture, the word I’ve used “bouncing” must be expounded upon.
This is an usual kind of bounce. It helps to visualize two dumbbells bouncing off another. There is no doubt in my mind that a type of bouncing is going on. Question is how could they bounce and still pass through another?
I know they are bouncing and want to figure how light waves could also pass through each other.
Or appear to pass through each other.
NEW DESCRIPTION: They bounce and go around each other - like two dumbbells that have collided at their ends. They spin, or tumble end to end one time. This gives the appearance as though they have passed through each other. Their direction of velocity remains the same if the two ends strike head on. The ends of the bells strike bounce and turn breaking off sections in pairs off the transverse wave. If a wave is split apart it must be a complete wave. Having both a up and down component (360 degrees). It would not be possible to only have half a wave. Thus the dumbbell example fits. This would give the appearance that they are traveling through another.
This can be seen in the interferometer experiment as described in the first message. If everything is in perfect alignment the interference pattern disappears. A slight misalignment is required to produce fringes. Ref: Exploring Laser Light by T. Kallard. Pg 137 (9-11). If we imagine the photons as dumbbell like then a perfect collision head to head results in the dumbbells simply tumbling over each other. Re-acquiring their original path. If the ends strike slightly off center then they bounce somewhat outward depending on how far off center (the slit separation). Another mysterious factor might encourage them to travel in straight paths.
NOTE: Maxwell’s equations do not support more than 1 em field (two waves passing through another) at any given time and space.
This is going to show how light can be both a wave and particle. Hope your interested in this? I think it is exciting.
Thanks for the reference Feynman’s book QED.: I have it already. I have reality reservations on some of his work.
Todd Grigsby.
>It turn out to be a very philosophical question.>
Very good point! Which is usually what happens when there are mysterious unknowns. Or mistakes in some basic scientific principles.
>The corpuscular theory of light was not abandoned.<
I left out that Newton also thought there was ether field with the particle or corpuscular theory.
I can verbally explain how the famous MM experiment is unable to detect an ether field.
Were getting off into deep space now (pun), so please bear with me for a moment. You seem to have a creative mind full of much knowledge.
I would like to premise this: Fully combining the two theories.
If we replace Newton’s “ether” back in, the mystery of duality can be easily solved.
>Secondly, light will act as either a wave or particle in Young’s experiment, depending on the setup. <
I prefer to consider the Rochester Experiment.
First I would like to rephrase the word bouncing:
But to get a better picture, the word I’ve used “bouncing” must be expounded upon.
This is an usual kind of bounce. It helps to visualize two dumbbells bouncing off another. There is no doubt in my mind that a type of bouncing is going on. Question is how could they bounce and still pass through another?
I know they are bouncing and want to figure how light waves could also pass through each other.
Or appear to pass through each other.
NEW DESCRIPTION: They bounce and go around each other - like two dumbbells that have collided at their ends. They spin, or tumble end to end one time. This gives the appearance as though they have passed through each other. Their direction of velocity remains the same if the two ends strike head on. The ends of the bells strike bounce and turn breaking off sections in pairs off the transverse wave. If a wave is split apart it must be a complete wave. Having both a up and down component (360 degrees). It would not be possible to only have half a wave. Thus the dumbbell example fits. This would give the appearance that they are traveling through another.
This can be seen in the interferometer experiment as described in the first message. If everything is in perfect alignment the interference pattern disappears. A slight misalignment is required to produce fringes. Ref: Exploring Laser Light by T. Kallard. Pg 137 (9-11). If we imagine the photons as dumbbell like then a perfect collision head to head results in the dumbbells simply tumbling over each other. Re-acquiring their original path. If the ends strike slightly off center then they bounce somewhat outward depending on how far off center (the slit separation). Another mysterious factor might encourage them to travel in straight paths.
NOTE: Maxwell’s equations do not support more than 1 em field (two waves passing through another) at any given time and space.
This is going to show how light can be both a wave and particle. Hope your interested in this? I think it is exciting.
Thanks for the reference Feynman’s book QED.: I have it already. I have reality reservations on some of his work.
Todd Grigsby.
The experiment as I set it up makes it obvious they are bouncing.
I repeat: The double slit experiment will not give obvious results. That's how the early pioneers made the mis-interpretation of superposition.
You have to run the experiment yourself. I admit it is difficult to believe.
The conclusion is obvious. The light intensity can be as much as 4 times greater.
This is twice as intense as the addition of waves as described as superposition.
The AREA of brightness must shrink down to attain this brightness level. Remember it is only a single interference fringe.
Todd G
I repeat: The double slit experiment will not give obvious results. That's how the early pioneers made the mis-interpretation of superposition.
You have to run the experiment yourself. I admit it is difficult to believe.
The conclusion is obvious. The light intensity can be as much as 4 times greater.
This is twice as intense as the addition of waves as described as superposition.
The AREA of brightness must shrink down to attain this brightness level. Remember it is only a single interference fringe.
Todd G
Ron, Hello again.
I am not an expert either. But I know when there has been a mistake. Especially when it is as simple to see as this one is.
I have a small physics laboratory in my basement. Have read much on electronics, holography, And done some experimental work as well. In such a broad field, it is difficult to call one self an expert on any one single field. I have performed Young’s double slit experiment many times. You have to remember that this is an interferometer not a double slit which is probably where the mistake originated from.
>>>
Secondly, what is your understanding of , let's start with the simplest situation, the source of photons and the characteristics of these photons?
<<<
Yes, Photons come from quantum jumps. I probably am weak on some of the characteristics of photons. I now know that they do not pass directly through one another as superposition claims. This is just a simple mistake made many years ago. It is just wrong. That's it. The physics community is going to have a difficult time accepting this one. A lot of work as been built upon it. It blocks off further understanding. Gravity, and inertia will never be understood. They are spinning their wheels.
I have performed Young’s double slit experiment many times. You have to remember that this is an interferometer, not a double slit, which probably generated the error to begin with.
>Shall we start discussing this experiment<
Yes I would like to discuss this.
It is possible I will be cut off from this forum. So I will post some further messages here. Then we can communicate by e-mail if required. I’ve got some big stuff and you wont want to miss it.
I greatly value your input.
Todd Grigsby.
I am not an expert either. But I know when there has been a mistake. Especially when it is as simple to see as this one is.
I have a small physics laboratory in my basement. Have read much on electronics, holography, And done some experimental work as well. In such a broad field, it is difficult to call one self an expert on any one single field. I have performed Young’s double slit experiment many times. You have to remember that this is an interferometer not a double slit which is probably where the mistake originated from.
>>>
Secondly, what is your understanding of , let's start with the simplest situation, the source of photons and the characteristics of these photons?
<<<
Yes, Photons come from quantum jumps. I probably am weak on some of the characteristics of photons. I now know that they do not pass directly through one another as superposition claims. This is just a simple mistake made many years ago. It is just wrong. That's it. The physics community is going to have a difficult time accepting this one. A lot of work as been built upon it. It blocks off further understanding. Gravity, and inertia will never be understood. They are spinning their wheels.
I have performed Young’s double slit experiment many times. You have to remember that this is an interferometer, not a double slit, which probably generated the error to begin with.
>Shall we start discussing this experiment<
Yes I would like to discuss this.
It is possible I will be cut off from this forum. So I will post some further messages here. Then we can communicate by e-mail if required. I’ve got some big stuff and you wont want to miss it.
I greatly value your input.
Todd Grigsby.
Hi Todd, J.W.,
Using an interferometer is like comparing apples to oranges. The experiment that you 'seem' to be setting up for is more along the lines of an EPR test than a wave-particle test.
If you use an interferometer you would need to have some pretty specialized equipment to ensure that you are splitting the beam, (or combining beams) properly.
When I asked your 'source' I just wanted to know lambda. I assume you have some sort of coherent source? Why not just get a simple diffraction grating an prove to yourself the intensity of the fringes with a single beam. You can get more complicated from there, but if you start out with an interferometer you are, right away, starting with a heterodyning system, which is going to need a very clear understanding of the interference of 2 waves, including sub-harmonics. Depending on your setup, how would you differentiate (2f2-f1) or (2f1-f2) at nanometers? Eyeballing's not going to work here.
You can PM me if you've got interesting thoughts, if you like, but you should really start from the point of view that you are trying to 'reproduce' an experiment for a baseline, otherwise your flying sort of blind.
Good luck,
Peace,
Ron
Using an interferometer is like comparing apples to oranges. The experiment that you 'seem' to be setting up for is more along the lines of an EPR test than a wave-particle test.
If you use an interferometer you would need to have some pretty specialized equipment to ensure that you are splitting the beam, (or combining beams) properly.
When I asked your 'source' I just wanted to know lambda. I assume you have some sort of coherent source? Why not just get a simple diffraction grating an prove to yourself the intensity of the fringes with a single beam. You can get more complicated from there, but if you start out with an interferometer you are, right away, starting with a heterodyning system, which is going to need a very clear understanding of the interference of 2 waves, including sub-harmonics. Depending on your setup, how would you differentiate (2f2-f1) or (2f1-f2) at nanometers? Eyeballing's not going to work here.
You can PM me if you've got interesting thoughts, if you like, but you should really start from the point of view that you are trying to 'reproduce' an experiment for a baseline, otherwise your flying sort of blind.
Good luck,
Peace,
Ron
I have to echo Ron, here. Years ago I worked with an infrared interferometer (in support of some remote Martian sensing instruments) and while I don't fully understand all the specifics the tolerances required were far, far beyond anything possible with home-brew. In other words, to get a proper signal (and thus a correct result) you can't expect just to slap a few things together in a sand box.
Did I mention the massive isolation system we needed just to keep the odd vibration at bay or the incredibly precise linear stepping motors needed to drive the moving arms or the cooled detectors?
I think we would have noticed something ourselves given the heavy-duty equipment we had. Sorry, the results all came out to theory.
Did I mention the massive isolation system we needed just to keep the odd vibration at bay or the incredibly precise linear stepping motors needed to drive the moving arms or the cooled detectors?
I think we would have noticed something ourselves given the heavy-duty equipment we had. Sorry, the results all came out to theory.
HI Ron good to hear from you.
>>
Using an interferometer is like comparing apples to oranges. The experiment that you 'seem' to be setting up for is more along the lines of an EPR test than a wave-particle test. <<
I have several other messages I have not posted yet. You guys don't seem to be catching on to well. Maybe its my fault I haven't explained well.
EPR: Yes, good point. However this experiment was several years after the original error and is just an extension of the error. They are using the principles of superposition not wave bouncing.
I will brush up.
>>
When I asked your 'source' I just wanted to know lambda. I assume you have some sort of coherent source
>>
I'm sure I mentioned using a coherent, HeNe laser, linearly polarized. Message #2 maybe.
Maybe I have put too much info in these messages and their being glossed over.
>>
If you use an interferometer you would need to have some pretty specialized equipment to ensure that you are splitting the beam, (or combining beams) properly. <<
A prism cube beam splitter is a step more in advancement than a simple flat plate beam splitter. It is an high end optical.
>>
just get a simple diffraction grating an prove to yourself the intensity of the fringes with a single beam.
<<
How about a CD disk?
I believe a special organic crystal is required to produce heterodyning. I have only use optical glass.
>>
but you should really start from the point of view that you are trying to 'reproduce' an experiment for a baseline, otherwise your flying sort of blind.
<<
Can you be more detailed here?
Thanks
Todd Grigsby
>>
Using an interferometer is like comparing apples to oranges. The experiment that you 'seem' to be setting up for is more along the lines of an EPR test than a wave-particle test. <<
I have several other messages I have not posted yet. You guys don't seem to be catching on to well. Maybe its my fault I haven't explained well.
EPR: Yes, good point. However this experiment was several years after the original error and is just an extension of the error. They are using the principles of superposition not wave bouncing.
I will brush up.
>>
When I asked your 'source' I just wanted to know lambda. I assume you have some sort of coherent source
>>
I'm sure I mentioned using a coherent, HeNe laser, linearly polarized. Message #2 maybe.
Maybe I have put too much info in these messages and their being glossed over.
>>
If you use an interferometer you would need to have some pretty specialized equipment to ensure that you are splitting the beam, (or combining beams) properly. <<
A prism cube beam splitter is a step more in advancement than a simple flat plate beam splitter. It is an high end optical.
>>
just get a simple diffraction grating an prove to yourself the intensity of the fringes with a single beam.
<<
How about a CD disk?
I believe a special organic crystal is required to produce heterodyning. I have only use optical glass.
>>
but you should really start from the point of view that you are trying to 'reproduce' an experiment for a baseline, otherwise your flying sort of blind.
<<
Can you be more detailed here?
Thanks
Todd Grigsby
THE SAND TRICK:
I picked up this sand trick from a book on holography years ago. The first experiment the book recommended was to build a interferometer. That was for practice in getting accustomed to the tolerances that were required.
Since industrial tables can cost thousands of $s.
The authors somehow came up with the idea of building a huge sand box like table supported by inflated auto inner tubes. It probably weighed in at 1000+ lbs.
I took their idea and tried small cans of sand instead, on a large isolated table.
It worked also. Later I found it can be reduced in size even further.
Well a He-Ne Laser is 640 nano-meters.
I am surprised myself. I grew up with a slide rule in back pocket and a micrometer in my hand. My micrometer can read to .0005 inches. 640 NM = .00002519 inches. Surprised me that's 200 times more precise than my micrometer.
Apparently the sand somehow allows very precise movements - even beyond what I expected. It works, and that is all there is to it. Must be something how lightly taping the mirrors into position moves the very small sand particles around. I have noticed the mirrors bounce forward then return back. It is more precise than I had expected also. Thank's for alerting me.
Don't take my word for it, try it your self. A laser pen for a source works also. You can also use a heavy steel frying pan or skillet for the base.
Hows that for laughs!
I did mention that any nearby sound causes the fringes to jump a bunch.
As far as the instrument you worked with. The environment causes a lot of problems. I can see why such a beefy setup was required. People are quite rough on things and just a few minor bumps are all would be needed. Not even considering temp changes from sunlight on one side causing warping of the entire structure. I'm sure they over designed on purpose.
Todd Grigsby
I picked up this sand trick from a book on holography years ago. The first experiment the book recommended was to build a interferometer. That was for practice in getting accustomed to the tolerances that were required.
Since industrial tables can cost thousands of $s.
The authors somehow came up with the idea of building a huge sand box like table supported by inflated auto inner tubes. It probably weighed in at 1000+ lbs.
I took their idea and tried small cans of sand instead, on a large isolated table.
It worked also. Later I found it can be reduced in size even further.
Well a He-Ne Laser is 640 nano-meters.
I am surprised myself. I grew up with a slide rule in back pocket and a micrometer in my hand. My micrometer can read to .0005 inches. 640 NM = .00002519 inches. Surprised me that's 200 times more precise than my micrometer.
Apparently the sand somehow allows very precise movements - even beyond what I expected. It works, and that is all there is to it. Must be something how lightly taping the mirrors into position moves the very small sand particles around. I have noticed the mirrors bounce forward then return back. It is more precise than I had expected also. Thank's for alerting me.
Don't take my word for it, try it your self. A laser pen for a source works also. You can also use a heavy steel frying pan or skillet for the base.
Hows that for laughs!
I did mention that any nearby sound causes the fringes to jump a bunch.
As far as the instrument you worked with. The environment causes a lot of problems. I can see why such a beefy setup was required. People are quite rough on things and just a few minor bumps are all would be needed. Not even considering temp changes from sunlight on one side causing warping of the entire structure. I'm sure they over designed on purpose.
Todd Grigsby
File:: WaveMec35Mes
Ron,
If you are still questioning some of my equipment. I get the same results as T. Kallard in his manual EXPLORING LASER LIGHT (© 1977 optosonic press). He verifies my results. I have used his alignment instructions and they work just fine. I also use much of the equipment outlined here and from other books. His equipment is better than mine. Although I get the same results. I am not a neo in lasers and optics. This is standard stuff, easy to attain and not difficult to assemble. I do not make lenses. I just sort of thought everyone had an interferometer, and took for granted, the accuracy of the sand method. I did not realize it would be a point of argument, simply because it works very well.
I will e-mail you 3-4 pg’s. of scanned excerpts from his book. This is going to be an important part of this topic so I hope you will read it carefully. Especially steps 9-11. This is the same interferometer I use.
Normally in an interferometer, fringes are what you want to attain. Filling in the screen with interference fringes.. So one normally adjusts past the center or dead point, ignoring it all together. Instead this is the area I am concentrating on and just a very slight point off center where the very first fringe appears.
Kallard’s steps 6-11 on adjusting the interferometer. He describes the very same phenomenon of a single bright region.
This confirms that a single bright fringe is attainable. Use his results -they are the same as mine. Carefully consider what is happening! Can’t you see from this, that wave bouncing is the only way? After years of believing superposition, its not going to be easy to flip a brain the other way.
I would like to post another message in further analysis of the single interference fringe and try to get some agreement on wave bouncing. If not, then the next posts will be meaningless. Like a step missing from a ladder.
Appreciating your input. Todd Grigsby
Ron,
If you are still questioning some of my equipment. I get the same results as T. Kallard in his manual EXPLORING LASER LIGHT (© 1977 optosonic press). He verifies my results. I have used his alignment instructions and they work just fine. I also use much of the equipment outlined here and from other books. His equipment is better than mine. Although I get the same results. I am not a neo in lasers and optics. This is standard stuff, easy to attain and not difficult to assemble. I do not make lenses. I just sort of thought everyone had an interferometer, and took for granted, the accuracy of the sand method. I did not realize it would be a point of argument, simply because it works very well.
I will e-mail you 3-4 pg’s. of scanned excerpts from his book. This is going to be an important part of this topic so I hope you will read it carefully. Especially steps 9-11. This is the same interferometer I use.
Normally in an interferometer, fringes are what you want to attain. Filling in the screen with interference fringes.. So one normally adjusts past the center or dead point, ignoring it all together. Instead this is the area I am concentrating on and just a very slight point off center where the very first fringe appears.
Kallard’s steps 6-11 on adjusting the interferometer. He describes the very same phenomenon of a single bright region.
This confirms that a single bright fringe is attainable. Use his results -they are the same as mine. Carefully consider what is happening! Can’t you see from this, that wave bouncing is the only way? After years of believing superposition, its not going to be easy to flip a brain the other way.
I would like to post another message in further analysis of the single interference fringe and try to get some agreement on wave bouncing. If not, then the next posts will be meaningless. Like a step missing from a ladder.
Appreciating your input. Todd Grigsby
Here is the reference for using sand. (HOLOGRAPHY HANDBOOK Making Holograms the Easy Way by Unterseher, Hansen and Schlesenger ROSS BOOKS
ISBN: 0-89496-018-0 Holography requires the same exacting tolerances.
Todd G
File: WaveMec34mes Further support of wave bouncing. Visual of near and dead center adjustment of interferometer. Can we comprehend a type of wave bouncing from here?
Ron;
I hope you had time to read my previous message with the description of the dumbbells.
There are a lot of little details here on how they bounce. My main goal was to prove that they are bouncing- which is what they do. If people can not see this from the experiment as laid out they are blind. Ron, I'm not referring to you. If they can not figure out how they are passing through then they need to go back to the experiment and check it out again. Wavering opinions back and forth with out doing the experiment themselves will only take us back to the 1800's again. This will solve the mystery. Physicists must perform this experiment as laid out, and re-evaluate the results. There is no other way. They are going to have to believe they are bouncing. To carry this mistake further is a huge mistake, and the mystery of light will never be solved. PERIOD. NO OTHER WAY! I pray we can get verification and come to agreement before we are cut off.. This is a XXXX mess. A foundational error, big time!
Please try to be attentive and read on. This is an important part - a conclusion. I hope you are able to see the truth. I sent you an E-mail, a short 4 pg. excerpt from a book on laser light. So you can refer to it, and not just accept everything I have to say. May the force be with you.
Review of previous message:
Almost like a magic knot trick. A bit of a pun. The point is that they are bouncing and passing by somehow. A good exercise for a mathematician and computer simulation.
It has to be a ‘dumbbell like’ because dumbbells can pass by each other after end to end collisions. They spin. The end collision of two dumbbells represents an in or out of phase condition depending how the alignment of the ends strike. They still end up traveling forward.
After they have spun 1 time they collide a second time end to end in the same way only in the opposite direction.. This stops the spin. Now they have passed each other. Trying to occupy the same position at the same time they simply rotate in opposite directions.
Equally spaced dumbbells . (Assume they are flexible as well -like evenly spaced pairs of water filled balloons in a weightless environment)
The ends are round, thus if they strike off center of the round then they acquire a new trajectory based on where the spherical ends make contact.
They all interact with another.
Two rows of dumbbells - the transverse waves (of course the real pattern is 3d)
Each dumbbell represents 1 photon.
Striking off center from non-parallel beams.
O--O O--O O--O
O--O O--O O--O
I don’t know what this means. But, there would be a counter-clockwise spin and a clock-wise spin resulting from these collisions as the rows of dumbbells pass by each other.
The more uniform the pattern (Monochromatic, & Cohere), the less scattering from the edges.
How the interference patterns form. Using the interferometer setup as described in the first message. Details and adjustments give a visual into the bouncing.
We have these following parameters that result in interference:
Try to clear your mind of superposition for the moment. Approach it as one would viewing it for the first time. What type of conclusion do you arrive at? This is part of the mystery! Look for wave bouncing. Your mind has been conditioned to superposition. Try to shield that concept out for the moment.
When the transverse row of dumbbells are directly on top of another from a perfectly parallel beams (90 degree mirrors) and the phase is slightly off - a circular interference pattern appears. This is from Kallard’s book. You can double check the below from his work.
When the light comes from other than a perfect 90 degree alignment of the mirrors the pattern becomes lines. It all depends on how the dumbbell angles bounce off another as to what type of pattern as well as the angle of the pattern. I.e. The lines can be vertical, horizontal or circular
I repeat: The interferometer as laid out in the first message is the only way to reveal that waves bounce. The double slit will only fool you.
The below Conditions are REAL from experiment and can be found in some text books. These apply only to the interferometer because the double slit cannot reach parallel.
THE INTERFEROMETER HAS THESE RESULTS BASED ON ADJUSTMENTS.
1. Perfect 90 degree mirrors and parallel beams, & d1=d2 (in phase) = No interference what so ever. Both beams have passed directly through another. The intensity here is only 2. (Wave adding or simply 2 beams passing through another) Not 4 as when interference occurs.
2. Perfect 90 degree mirrors and parallel beams, & out of phase = circular fringe pattern begins appearing, the # of fringes is relative to the phase difference. (Intensity becomes 3-4 times)
3. Mirrors slightly off 90 degrees, & out of phase = lines appear, qty. relative to phase difference.
4. Mirrors slightly off 90 degrees, & d1=d2 (in phase) = Lines ?
SUMMERY: As seen by the wave bouncing viewpoint.
#1. The photons have managed to get around each other like the colliding ends of dumbbells yet still may be breaking into pairs? Note: spinning is required (adjacent pairs will spin in opposite directions in order to pass by). The spin is caused by the end collisions.
#2. Results in a random direction bouncing and their not sure which way to go and bounce outward in a circular pattern trying to avoid each other. Splat.
#3. The dumbbell like photons should form a bright interference line.
As can be seen the intensity at step #1 is double. But at step 2 it becomes 3-4 times. Why did the intensity suddenly jump from 2 to 4? THIS IS THE BIG ONE!!! Answer this yourself.
QUESTION: Considering step #2 when using the rules of textbook superposition. The wave crest and troughs are lined up directly on top of another. Would not all these waves simply cancel ending up in a dark screen? No light what so ever?
THERE IS NO WAY TO DENY THAT SUPERPOSITION IS WRONG.
I don’t believe that a slow micrometer adjustment like that described in EXPLORING LASER LIGHT pg 137 steps 9-11 from condition 1 to condition 2 can be explained by superposition. Reading about it as opposed to watching it happen probably use different sides of the brain. Watching it enhances our power of perception and sparks curiosity.
These conditions can only be met through a unique type of collision. A transverse row of elastic dumbbells breaking into pairs. THESE ARE THE ATTRIBUTES OF A COMPRESSION WAVE much like sound. I don’t believe superposition as currently described in texts can satisfy all these conditions. Fact, I don’t see any way waves passing through each other adding and subtracting as they go satisfying all these conditions. No Way! This is from an interferometer employing a prism cube type beam splitter. No other method I know of will reveal all these conditions. A double slit has refraction and cannot ever have parallel optic paths. It is not possible for a double slit to reveal these essential facts. If we can not get the double slit off our minds we are never going to see it.
They have to be bouncing. There is no other conclusion. Especially if we take into account the fact that the bright regions are 3-4 times brighter and that a single bright fringe can be attained.
A HUGE ERROR OCCURRED IN THE LATE 1800's. A lot of physics has been designed around it.
Newton probably Intuitively perceived this along with something else. His tools at the time were probably too crude for him to properly describe it. If I remember correctly, he used soap bubbles for some of his analysis. If the early pioneers of the late 1800's simply judged the light intensity by eye they would be off by a factor of 2. Not knowing the judgment of the eye is logarithmic. They would then assume the waves were adding. The double slit proliferated the error, PERIOD.
This leads to a spectacular understanding of magnetism, inertia, and gravity as well as chemical bonding. As you may have guessed; I have left a mysterious part out. Placing it in, will solve everything including the EPR paradox.
Fun Fact: During the initial ignition stage of a atomic bomb blast, there is a brief brown out effect where light, seems to disappear.
Todd Grigsby.
Ron;
I hope you had time to read my previous message with the description of the dumbbells.
There are a lot of little details here on how they bounce. My main goal was to prove that they are bouncing- which is what they do. If people can not see this from the experiment as laid out they are blind. Ron, I'm not referring to you. If they can not figure out how they are passing through then they need to go back to the experiment and check it out again. Wavering opinions back and forth with out doing the experiment themselves will only take us back to the 1800's again. This will solve the mystery. Physicists must perform this experiment as laid out, and re-evaluate the results. There is no other way. They are going to have to believe they are bouncing. To carry this mistake further is a huge mistake, and the mystery of light will never be solved. PERIOD. NO OTHER WAY! I pray we can get verification and come to agreement before we are cut off.. This is a XXXX mess. A foundational error, big time!
Please try to be attentive and read on. This is an important part - a conclusion. I hope you are able to see the truth. I sent you an E-mail, a short 4 pg. excerpt from a book on laser light. So you can refer to it, and not just accept everything I have to say. May the force be with you.
Review of previous message:
Almost like a magic knot trick. A bit of a pun. The point is that they are bouncing and passing by somehow. A good exercise for a mathematician and computer simulation.
It has to be a ‘dumbbell like’ because dumbbells can pass by each other after end to end collisions. They spin. The end collision of two dumbbells represents an in or out of phase condition depending how the alignment of the ends strike. They still end up traveling forward.
After they have spun 1 time they collide a second time end to end in the same way only in the opposite direction.. This stops the spin. Now they have passed each other. Trying to occupy the same position at the same time they simply rotate in opposite directions.
Equally spaced dumbbells . (Assume they are flexible as well -like evenly spaced pairs of water filled balloons in a weightless environment)
The ends are round, thus if they strike off center of the round then they acquire a new trajectory based on where the spherical ends make contact.
They all interact with another.
Two rows of dumbbells - the transverse waves (of course the real pattern is 3d)
Each dumbbell represents 1 photon.
Striking off center from non-parallel beams.
O--O O--O O--O
O--O O--O O--O
I don’t know what this means. But, there would be a counter-clockwise spin and a clock-wise spin resulting from these collisions as the rows of dumbbells pass by each other.
The more uniform the pattern (Monochromatic, & Cohere), the less scattering from the edges.
How the interference patterns form. Using the interferometer setup as described in the first message. Details and adjustments give a visual into the bouncing.
We have these following parameters that result in interference:
Try to clear your mind of superposition for the moment. Approach it as one would viewing it for the first time. What type of conclusion do you arrive at? This is part of the mystery! Look for wave bouncing. Your mind has been conditioned to superposition. Try to shield that concept out for the moment.
When the transverse row of dumbbells are directly on top of another from a perfectly parallel beams (90 degree mirrors) and the phase is slightly off - a circular interference pattern appears. This is from Kallard’s book. You can double check the below from his work.
When the light comes from other than a perfect 90 degree alignment of the mirrors the pattern becomes lines. It all depends on how the dumbbell angles bounce off another as to what type of pattern as well as the angle of the pattern. I.e. The lines can be vertical, horizontal or circular
I repeat: The interferometer as laid out in the first message is the only way to reveal that waves bounce. The double slit will only fool you.
The below Conditions are REAL from experiment and can be found in some text books. These apply only to the interferometer because the double slit cannot reach parallel.
THE INTERFEROMETER HAS THESE RESULTS BASED ON ADJUSTMENTS.
1. Perfect 90 degree mirrors and parallel beams, & d1=d2 (in phase) = No interference what so ever. Both beams have passed directly through another. The intensity here is only 2. (Wave adding or simply 2 beams passing through another) Not 4 as when interference occurs.
2. Perfect 90 degree mirrors and parallel beams, & out of phase = circular fringe pattern begins appearing, the # of fringes is relative to the phase difference. (Intensity becomes 3-4 times)
3. Mirrors slightly off 90 degrees, & out of phase = lines appear, qty. relative to phase difference.
4. Mirrors slightly off 90 degrees, & d1=d2 (in phase) = Lines ?
SUMMERY: As seen by the wave bouncing viewpoint.
#1. The photons have managed to get around each other like the colliding ends of dumbbells yet still may be breaking into pairs? Note: spinning is required (adjacent pairs will spin in opposite directions in order to pass by). The spin is caused by the end collisions.
#2. Results in a random direction bouncing and their not sure which way to go and bounce outward in a circular pattern trying to avoid each other. Splat.
#3. The dumbbell like photons should form a bright interference line.
As can be seen the intensity at step #1 is double. But at step 2 it becomes 3-4 times. Why did the intensity suddenly jump from 2 to 4? THIS IS THE BIG ONE!!! Answer this yourself.
QUESTION: Considering step #2 when using the rules of textbook superposition. The wave crest and troughs are lined up directly on top of another. Would not all these waves simply cancel ending up in a dark screen? No light what so ever?
THERE IS NO WAY TO DENY THAT SUPERPOSITION IS WRONG.
I don’t believe that a slow micrometer adjustment like that described in EXPLORING LASER LIGHT pg 137 steps 9-11 from condition 1 to condition 2 can be explained by superposition. Reading about it as opposed to watching it happen probably use different sides of the brain. Watching it enhances our power of perception and sparks curiosity.
These conditions can only be met through a unique type of collision. A transverse row of elastic dumbbells breaking into pairs. THESE ARE THE ATTRIBUTES OF A COMPRESSION WAVE much like sound. I don’t believe superposition as currently described in texts can satisfy all these conditions. Fact, I don’t see any way waves passing through each other adding and subtracting as they go satisfying all these conditions. No Way! This is from an interferometer employing a prism cube type beam splitter. No other method I know of will reveal all these conditions. A double slit has refraction and cannot ever have parallel optic paths. It is not possible for a double slit to reveal these essential facts. If we can not get the double slit off our minds we are never going to see it.
They have to be bouncing. There is no other conclusion. Especially if we take into account the fact that the bright regions are 3-4 times brighter and that a single bright fringe can be attained.
A HUGE ERROR OCCURRED IN THE LATE 1800's. A lot of physics has been designed around it.
Newton probably Intuitively perceived this along with something else. His tools at the time were probably too crude for him to properly describe it. If I remember correctly, he used soap bubbles for some of his analysis. If the early pioneers of the late 1800's simply judged the light intensity by eye they would be off by a factor of 2. Not knowing the judgment of the eye is logarithmic. They would then assume the waves were adding. The double slit proliferated the error, PERIOD.
This leads to a spectacular understanding of magnetism, inertia, and gravity as well as chemical bonding. As you may have guessed; I have left a mysterious part out. Placing it in, will solve everything including the EPR paradox.
Fun Fact: During the initial ignition stage of a atomic bomb blast, there is a brief brown out effect where light, seems to disappear.
Todd Grigsby.
INTERFERENCE QUESTION
A condition of total cancellation
A standard Michelson type interferometer employing two mirrors is setup. Source is a polarized coherent HeNe Laser. A beam splitter splits the beam. The two split beams are placed in perfect parallel alignment with each other by way of the mirrors.
The two absolutely parallel beams from the mirrors are directed toward the screen.
One mirror is positioned slightly back so that its light is exactly 180 degrees off phase from the other. Except for this small difference, both legs (beams) are the same distance to the screen. They are still perfectly parallel, just 180 degrees out of phase.
Now all the wave crests of one beam fit (align) exactly within the wave troughs of the other beam and vice versa. Every wave emitted exactly matches or is superimposed fully crest within trough of the other beam. Both beams are parallel so the fit is exact - crest within trough, all the way. A perfect parallel fit, crests with in troughs.
What should happen at the screen?
Since there is perfect crest within trough alignment and both beams are in perfect parallel alignment (they don’t cross each other). Shouldn't’t the screen be totally void of light? It has all canceled by superposition in perfect alignments. Don’t the rules of superposition result in complete cancellation in this situation? Why or why not?
Todd Grigsby
A condition of total cancellation
A standard Michelson type interferometer employing two mirrors is setup. Source is a polarized coherent HeNe Laser. A beam splitter splits the beam. The two split beams are placed in perfect parallel alignment with each other by way of the mirrors.
The two absolutely parallel beams from the mirrors are directed toward the screen.
One mirror is positioned slightly back so that its light is exactly 180 degrees off phase from the other. Except for this small difference, both legs (beams) are the same distance to the screen. They are still perfectly parallel, just 180 degrees out of phase.
Now all the wave crests of one beam fit (align) exactly within the wave troughs of the other beam and vice versa. Every wave emitted exactly matches or is superimposed fully crest within trough of the other beam. Both beams are parallel so the fit is exact - crest within trough, all the way. A perfect parallel fit, crests with in troughs.
What should happen at the screen?
Since there is perfect crest within trough alignment and both beams are in perfect parallel alignment (they don’t cross each other). Shouldn't’t the screen be totally void of light? It has all canceled by superposition in perfect alignments. Don’t the rules of superposition result in complete cancellation in this situation? Why or why not?
Todd Grigsby
STATED UNEQUIVOCALLY:
TWO REASONS WHY LIGHT DOES NOT SUPERIMPOSE
1. While the total of the areas of light striking the screen may vary. The total energy striking the screen always remains constant.
2. They are not adding. Intensities of four times greater are possible.
Even with parallel beams that are 180 degrees out of phase. No amount of light can be canceled. The total energy striking the screen always remains constant.
Todd Grigsby
TWO REASONS WHY LIGHT DOES NOT SUPERIMPOSE
1. While the total of the areas of light striking the screen may vary. The total energy striking the screen always remains constant.
2. They are not adding. Intensities of four times greater are possible.
Even with parallel beams that are 180 degrees out of phase. No amount of light can be canceled. The total energy striking the screen always remains constant.
Todd Grigsby
THE SPOOKY OR MYSTERIOUS EFFECTS OF LIGHT CAN BE EXPLAINED
HOW LIGHT CAN APPEAR AS BOTH A PARTICLE AND A WAVE.
File: Torpedo+mmExp
Since I have a mechanical mind. So I will lay it out from a mechanical viewpoint. You can solve the mathematics for yourself. I find when I go directly to math. The mechanics get clouded. I realize many of you feel different. With a good mechanical foundational understanding the mathematics will follow. Most of the math has already been laid out, but from the wrong viewpoint. It appears that much of the mathematical work has some validity.
This must be laid down first to enable an understanding of wave particle duality.
RE-VISITING THE MICHELSON MORLEY EXPERIMENT:
A MECHANICAL REPRESENTATION OF HOW THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT ALWAYS APPEARS AS A CONSTANT:
I understand and respect the high regard of the famous Michelson Morley ether experiment:
But the Michelson Morley experiment is not capable of detecting a true ether if properly described. What did they think? That the experiment was separated from the ether field, like a wind? Like the wind blowing around it and not completely through it. Through and Through its atoms? If the aether permeates every where then its in the mirrors as well. Possibly nullifying the outcome. The MM setup is not isolated from the field if the field has been defined correctly. The photon on impact with the atomic makeup of the mirror (along the velocity leg) surface affects the photons return velocity. No instrument is capable of detecting this velocity change - it too is affected. The light source would also be affected.
This instrument cannot detect a field that is permeating its very structure. Any instrument within this field becomes a part of it (if properly described) and will be unable to detect it. I have a unique paradigm that helps understand why. It is a Gif. I’m not sure how to upload here. To put it briefly; the velocity’s of light bouncing off the mirror along the velocity leg are altered by the flow of the ether field. I.e. the mirror returns a different velocity. I explain it as a pitcher and a batter standing on a rotating platform. When the pitcher throws the ball and the batter hits it back while standing on the rotating platform. There has to be a galactic inertial reference frame for this to work. It is all in sync together through an helix electromagnetic wave that has a rotating attribute. (I have a more detailed analysis of this with a drawing)
I have visual proof this wave exists. There is another part that fits into this that connects inertia and it is all very simple to understand. But wave interactions must be in effect not superposition. This is undetectable in any sensor or instrument because the ether field is permeating atomic structure. Principles of inertia can be conceptually derived from this.
The Sagnac effect however is more suited and sensitive to detecting an aether field. Optical gyroscopes.
The aether field is like a auger field that penetrates everything. Stabilizing everything. It carries the inertial, and G. force, and why light appears to have a constant velocity.. I can explain how this is. The error in superposition stands in the way of this understanding.
If we can understand that the MM experiment could be based on this false premise, and that the Sagnac effect is more suited to detecting an aether. Then we can move on to understanding why duality is in effect.
The aether: A Unique 3d net like field, Knot’s or kinks in space: Existing waves emitted from atomic particles filling the void. Also carries the gravitational and inertial forces. How will be explained later and is quite simple from a mechanical viewpoint.
Interference (wave bouncing) details.
The dumbbell like shape (a mechanical description) of the E and B fields combined with wave bouncing interactions cause side by side photons to spin in opposite directions. This enables them to appear to pass through one another. There also seems to be an edge effect on a beam of light that interacts with the aether field. This is a possible conclusion to why a single bright fringe is possible. Else a type of collision that causes a wrapping around effect must be considered. Forcing the photons and or waves inward resulting in a single center bright fringe.
These next two paragraphs overlap each other a bit.
DUALITY and the AETHER:
Light waves must be traveling on a kind on three dimensional net like structure. Could this be the elusive aether I thought? Because the photon is traveling through the aether field, it appears as both a wave and a particle. Much like a torpedo traveling through the water. As a torpedo (the photon) travels through the water (the aether) it makes a wave and leaves a wake. If we could somehow with a big hand reach down and remove the torpedo from the water during its flight. Its wake would still travel on for sometime. Similarly, If a photon is stopped by a detector then its wake would travel on. Aether? Didn’t the Michelson - Morley experiment disprove this long ago? Could something be wrong with that experiment as well? Yep! Wave collision interactions resulting in undetectable velocity shifts in moving matter only along the velocity path., i.e., ‘the mirrors along the velocity leg’. Undetectable because any detector aligned along this path is affected by the same. This is probably related to the Sagnac effect. This velocity shifting mechanism will be elaborated on later by a rotationally polarized (helix) em wave that is rotating.
WAVE PARTICLE DUALITY:
The subject of wave particle duality often becomes a philosophical debate. Why? ; Because a mysterious unknown has been left out. If we put back Newton’s aether in the reasoning, duality can be easily explained.
Torpedo-photon illustration: And the sound reflection back from a bullet striking a distant object.
A MECHANICAL REPRESENTATION:
The torpedo (photon) strikes the detector and absorbs the photon. Now even though the photon has been removed, the accompanying aether field wave is reflected back or may even continue forward through the detector as well as the surrounding area. A wave traveling on a wave. Much like striking the end of a long rod. The pulse travels along the rod till it comes to the end then is reflected back and forth. If the rod is not the correct length the back and forth vibrations may tend to interfere. Thus a wave pulse (not the photon) reflected back into the system will cause a disturbance not allowing interference to occur. Regarding the Rochester Experiment. One might try placing the photo detector at an equal distance to the interference legs. Then the reflected wave ring back may result in an interference pattern. This may be a check for the aether. However I have not been able to get opposing beams to interfere any way. The ring back would be coming from an opposing direction. The detector probably would need to be aligned like a mirror. Directly back into the down converter. There is some type of feed back going on. The Rochester experiment, etc, reveals this. When the beam of the down converter is blocked by a detector the wave within a wave feeds back, upsetting the interference pattern. A compression wave has this characteristic. Much like sound that echos back off a distant canyon.
Consider the Rochester Experiment. The aether can explain this simply. As an un-compressible like fluid composed of em waves.. The down converted photon that strikes a detector would send a reverse feed back pulse back along the original path disassociating the interference pattern.
This reverse feed back effect may also by way of wave bouncing produce the trough like patterns of a interference pattern. A dumbbell like shape would have to be considered as well.
TWO SLIT DIFFRACTION Wave or Particle
If we assume aether exists. And apply the rules of compression waves. We will began to see why under certain conditions the diffraction pattern disappears. Light diffraction is very sensitive.
Placing measuring devices in the beam path in the wrong places will likely upset it. Even if an aether did not exist. The photon must not be touched is several areas because they are forming matching pairs of waves.
If aether does not exist:
1. Cannot place a sensor at just one slit. Why? The slits are imparting the Initial uniform spin directions.
2. Cannot place a sensor in the area after the slits and before the paths meet.
3. Should be able to place it before the photon comes to the slits.
Now if we assume an aether exists. Applying principles that it leaves a wake in the aether and can ring back information when it has struck an object. All the more reasons why a diffraction pattern might be disrupted.
CONCLUSION:
As you see a compression wave will answer all the mysterious factors. We might consider sound waves when looking at least some of the attributes of the photon. But not in totality of course.
If the photon is like a compression wave. A compression wave requires a medium to travel on.
You can not touch a photon without altering its spin and feeding back information back to the source. The photon is picking up a spin direction when the dumbbell shape collides with the edge of the slits. At this point all the spins are aligned in CW and CCW depending which side of the slit it struck.. Once the two beams have met the spins are again rearranged due to the beam collisions. The spins are altered by the angles and phase between the two beams. At which point they will interfere, possibly because their spins are in the same direction, bouncing them into new directions.
NOTE: there are actually 4 beams emerging from a double slit. This can be determined by looking at a beam that has intersected with a knife edge. A double slit has 4 knife edges. 8 may be considered when considering both reflection and diffraction from each edge. Reflection and diffraction should end up with the same spin direction however. When a dumbbell collides with the left knife edge and it has collided right of the center of the left bell it will go left (diffraction). If it has collided near the dumbbells left edge it will go right (reflection). If it strikes the left knife edge a CCW spin is imparted. A right knife edge collision produces a CW spin. This sorts the dumbbells into left and right spins. There are two collisions. First at the knife edges of the double slit. Then a second collision occurs when the two beams cross. This results in a sort and place system. The interference pattern. I’ve already covered how a bunch of random spins of dumbbell shapes can appear to directly pass through another even though they have collided. They fold over another.
As you can see wave bouncing coupled with an aether concept can answer mysteries. Occam’s razor.
THE MICROWAVE SPACE PLATFORM: Another fun thought to break the tedium.
2.4 ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE TO FORCE CONVERSION:
The energy from the once proposed huge solar energy production array satellite is beamed down to earth. Here energy from the sun is converted to a electromagnetic (microwave) wave beamed to earth and converted to electricity and then to mechanical motion (force) viva electric motors.. Then, the question we should ask; If man using the elements of nature can convert an electromagnetic wave to mechanical motion (the force) why could not nature? The answer is, it most certainly could. A force drawn out of an electromagnetic wave is the foundation of this theory of gravity and magnetism. An electromagnetic wave can be converted to a torsional form enabling a direct transmission of a force without physical mechanics. Through electromagnetic wave mechanics. A type of wave bouncing and interactions must be in effect. I.e. Superposition is defunct.
ROTATING ROTATIONALLY POLARIZED (HELIX) EM WAVE:
The aether: An auger like field that passes through everything. Carrying forces.
This is the key that ties everything together. MM experiment, Gravity, and Inertia.
After this I will have to direct you to the web page.
Todd Grigsby
HOW LIGHT CAN APPEAR AS BOTH A PARTICLE AND A WAVE.
File: Torpedo+mmExp
Since I have a mechanical mind. So I will lay it out from a mechanical viewpoint. You can solve the mathematics for yourself. I find when I go directly to math. The mechanics get clouded. I realize many of you feel different. With a good mechanical foundational understanding the mathematics will follow. Most of the math has already been laid out, but from the wrong viewpoint. It appears that much of the mathematical work has some validity.
This must be laid down first to enable an understanding of wave particle duality.
RE-VISITING THE MICHELSON MORLEY EXPERIMENT:
A MECHANICAL REPRESENTATION OF HOW THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT ALWAYS APPEARS AS A CONSTANT:
I understand and respect the high regard of the famous Michelson Morley ether experiment:
But the Michelson Morley experiment is not capable of detecting a true ether if properly described. What did they think? That the experiment was separated from the ether field, like a wind? Like the wind blowing around it and not completely through it. Through and Through its atoms? If the aether permeates every where then its in the mirrors as well. Possibly nullifying the outcome. The MM setup is not isolated from the field if the field has been defined correctly. The photon on impact with the atomic makeup of the mirror (along the velocity leg) surface affects the photons return velocity. No instrument is capable of detecting this velocity change - it too is affected. The light source would also be affected.
This instrument cannot detect a field that is permeating its very structure. Any instrument within this field becomes a part of it (if properly described) and will be unable to detect it. I have a unique paradigm that helps understand why. It is a Gif. I’m not sure how to upload here. To put it briefly; the velocity’s of light bouncing off the mirror along the velocity leg are altered by the flow of the ether field. I.e. the mirror returns a different velocity. I explain it as a pitcher and a batter standing on a rotating platform. When the pitcher throws the ball and the batter hits it back while standing on the rotating platform. There has to be a galactic inertial reference frame for this to work. It is all in sync together through an helix electromagnetic wave that has a rotating attribute. (I have a more detailed analysis of this with a drawing)
I have visual proof this wave exists. There is another part that fits into this that connects inertia and it is all very simple to understand. But wave interactions must be in effect not superposition. This is undetectable in any sensor or instrument because the ether field is permeating atomic structure. Principles of inertia can be conceptually derived from this.
The Sagnac effect however is more suited and sensitive to detecting an aether field. Optical gyroscopes.
The aether field is like a auger field that penetrates everything. Stabilizing everything. It carries the inertial, and G. force, and why light appears to have a constant velocity.. I can explain how this is. The error in superposition stands in the way of this understanding.
If we can understand that the MM experiment could be based on this false premise, and that the Sagnac effect is more suited to detecting an aether. Then we can move on to understanding why duality is in effect.
The aether: A Unique 3d net like field, Knot’s or kinks in space: Existing waves emitted from atomic particles filling the void. Also carries the gravitational and inertial forces. How will be explained later and is quite simple from a mechanical viewpoint.
Interference (wave bouncing) details.
The dumbbell like shape (a mechanical description) of the E and B fields combined with wave bouncing interactions cause side by side photons to spin in opposite directions. This enables them to appear to pass through one another. There also seems to be an edge effect on a beam of light that interacts with the aether field. This is a possible conclusion to why a single bright fringe is possible. Else a type of collision that causes a wrapping around effect must be considered. Forcing the photons and or waves inward resulting in a single center bright fringe.
These next two paragraphs overlap each other a bit.
DUALITY and the AETHER:
Light waves must be traveling on a kind on three dimensional net like structure. Could this be the elusive aether I thought? Because the photon is traveling through the aether field, it appears as both a wave and a particle. Much like a torpedo traveling through the water. As a torpedo (the photon) travels through the water (the aether) it makes a wave and leaves a wake. If we could somehow with a big hand reach down and remove the torpedo from the water during its flight. Its wake would still travel on for sometime. Similarly, If a photon is stopped by a detector then its wake would travel on. Aether? Didn’t the Michelson - Morley experiment disprove this long ago? Could something be wrong with that experiment as well? Yep! Wave collision interactions resulting in undetectable velocity shifts in moving matter only along the velocity path., i.e., ‘the mirrors along the velocity leg’. Undetectable because any detector aligned along this path is affected by the same. This is probably related to the Sagnac effect. This velocity shifting mechanism will be elaborated on later by a rotationally polarized (helix) em wave that is rotating.
WAVE PARTICLE DUALITY:
The subject of wave particle duality often becomes a philosophical debate. Why? ; Because a mysterious unknown has been left out. If we put back Newton’s aether in the reasoning, duality can be easily explained.
Torpedo-photon illustration: And the sound reflection back from a bullet striking a distant object.
A MECHANICAL REPRESENTATION:
The torpedo (photon) strikes the detector and absorbs the photon. Now even though the photon has been removed, the accompanying aether field wave is reflected back or may even continue forward through the detector as well as the surrounding area. A wave traveling on a wave. Much like striking the end of a long rod. The pulse travels along the rod till it comes to the end then is reflected back and forth. If the rod is not the correct length the back and forth vibrations may tend to interfere. Thus a wave pulse (not the photon) reflected back into the system will cause a disturbance not allowing interference to occur. Regarding the Rochester Experiment. One might try placing the photo detector at an equal distance to the interference legs. Then the reflected wave ring back may result in an interference pattern. This may be a check for the aether. However I have not been able to get opposing beams to interfere any way. The ring back would be coming from an opposing direction. The detector probably would need to be aligned like a mirror. Directly back into the down converter. There is some type of feed back going on. The Rochester experiment, etc, reveals this. When the beam of the down converter is blocked by a detector the wave within a wave feeds back, upsetting the interference pattern. A compression wave has this characteristic. Much like sound that echos back off a distant canyon.
Consider the Rochester Experiment. The aether can explain this simply. As an un-compressible like fluid composed of em waves.. The down converted photon that strikes a detector would send a reverse feed back pulse back along the original path disassociating the interference pattern.
This reverse feed back effect may also by way of wave bouncing produce the trough like patterns of a interference pattern. A dumbbell like shape would have to be considered as well.
TWO SLIT DIFFRACTION Wave or Particle
If we assume aether exists. And apply the rules of compression waves. We will began to see why under certain conditions the diffraction pattern disappears. Light diffraction is very sensitive.
Placing measuring devices in the beam path in the wrong places will likely upset it. Even if an aether did not exist. The photon must not be touched is several areas because they are forming matching pairs of waves.
If aether does not exist:
1. Cannot place a sensor at just one slit. Why? The slits are imparting the Initial uniform spin directions.
2. Cannot place a sensor in the area after the slits and before the paths meet.
3. Should be able to place it before the photon comes to the slits.
Now if we assume an aether exists. Applying principles that it leaves a wake in the aether and can ring back information when it has struck an object. All the more reasons why a diffraction pattern might be disrupted.
CONCLUSION:
As you see a compression wave will answer all the mysterious factors. We might consider sound waves when looking at least some of the attributes of the photon. But not in totality of course.
If the photon is like a compression wave. A compression wave requires a medium to travel on.
You can not touch a photon without altering its spin and feeding back information back to the source. The photon is picking up a spin direction when the dumbbell shape collides with the edge of the slits. At this point all the spins are aligned in CW and CCW depending which side of the slit it struck.. Once the two beams have met the spins are again rearranged due to the beam collisions. The spins are altered by the angles and phase between the two beams. At which point they will interfere, possibly because their spins are in the same direction, bouncing them into new directions.
NOTE: there are actually 4 beams emerging from a double slit. This can be determined by looking at a beam that has intersected with a knife edge. A double slit has 4 knife edges. 8 may be considered when considering both reflection and diffraction from each edge. Reflection and diffraction should end up with the same spin direction however. When a dumbbell collides with the left knife edge and it has collided right of the center of the left bell it will go left (diffraction). If it has collided near the dumbbells left edge it will go right (reflection). If it strikes the left knife edge a CCW spin is imparted. A right knife edge collision produces a CW spin. This sorts the dumbbells into left and right spins. There are two collisions. First at the knife edges of the double slit. Then a second collision occurs when the two beams cross. This results in a sort and place system. The interference pattern. I’ve already covered how a bunch of random spins of dumbbell shapes can appear to directly pass through another even though they have collided. They fold over another.
As you can see wave bouncing coupled with an aether concept can answer mysteries. Occam’s razor.
THE MICROWAVE SPACE PLATFORM: Another fun thought to break the tedium.
2.4 ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE TO FORCE CONVERSION:
The energy from the once proposed huge solar energy production array satellite is beamed down to earth. Here energy from the sun is converted to a electromagnetic (microwave) wave beamed to earth and converted to electricity and then to mechanical motion (force) viva electric motors.. Then, the question we should ask; If man using the elements of nature can convert an electromagnetic wave to mechanical motion (the force) why could not nature? The answer is, it most certainly could. A force drawn out of an electromagnetic wave is the foundation of this theory of gravity and magnetism. An electromagnetic wave can be converted to a torsional form enabling a direct transmission of a force without physical mechanics. Through electromagnetic wave mechanics. A type of wave bouncing and interactions must be in effect. I.e. Superposition is defunct.
ROTATING ROTATIONALLY POLARIZED (HELIX) EM WAVE:
The aether: An auger like field that passes through everything. Carrying forces.
This is the key that ties everything together. MM experiment, Gravity, and Inertia.
After this I will have to direct you to the web page.
Todd Grigsby
I should have mentioned that when the photon goes through the double slit it produces matching pairs of waves. These matching pairs are what cause the interference pattern. If one of the waves of the matching pair are touched in any way then they no longer are matching pairs. Thus the interference pattern collapses.
Todd G.
Todd G.
I know that this theory is correct. I’ve made some mistakes, but there is no way to correct them because the past messages cannot be replaced.
If we consider that an aether may exist and coupled with a type of wave bouncing. Then the double slit mystery can be solved. The double slit experiment is proof that the aether field exists. It shows there is a mystery. Something mysterious has been left out (the aether). We know that placing a detector in the path collapses the interference pattern.
It appears to be the aether that makes the interference pattern. An in and of itself concept. The photon could be bouncing off itself and also with the aether. The E and B fields: possibly one of these is part of the aether. This is a puzzle and requires an ethereal presence to place the pieces together.
The photon traveling through the aether, makes waves in the aether. The photon, like a boat traveling in the water, leaves a wake behind it. Its this wake that passes through the double slit forming the pattern. If you try to detect the wake at the slit you only block or upset it. The wakes from each slit are matched pairs.
There is no other way to explain it.
The Rochester Experiment. This is another proof that the aether exists. A reflection or ring back on the aether destroys the interference pattern. This will have to be looked at further with the consideration of an aether.
Their spending billions of dollars pursuing physics in the wrong directions. The credit belongs to a very old person who is difficult to communicate with. I tried to forward his work. How this was accomplished can be found in the biography.
This full theory on gravity can be found at:
http://home.sprynet.com/~jolsen03/
This is the real one. All the rest are man made contrivances. I highly recommend you check this site out.
Please keep an open mind. I do not have a degree in physics. I am sure you will find it worth your time. Here you will find a spectacular visual gravitational phenomenon. Many years of studying with the help of this very old person. It has not been updated for 7 years. After many years studying the phenomenon. I'm getting tired now, and cannot get proper help. The finances are really tight. Incomplete and has some errors. The foundation is there. On the whole it is ok. It will require a lot of help to finish this work.
Todd Grigsby.
If we consider that an aether may exist and coupled with a type of wave bouncing. Then the double slit mystery can be solved. The double slit experiment is proof that the aether field exists. It shows there is a mystery. Something mysterious has been left out (the aether). We know that placing a detector in the path collapses the interference pattern.
It appears to be the aether that makes the interference pattern. An in and of itself concept. The photon could be bouncing off itself and also with the aether. The E and B fields: possibly one of these is part of the aether. This is a puzzle and requires an ethereal presence to place the pieces together.
The photon traveling through the aether, makes waves in the aether. The photon, like a boat traveling in the water, leaves a wake behind it. Its this wake that passes through the double slit forming the pattern. If you try to detect the wake at the slit you only block or upset it. The wakes from each slit are matched pairs.
There is no other way to explain it.
The Rochester Experiment. This is another proof that the aether exists. A reflection or ring back on the aether destroys the interference pattern. This will have to be looked at further with the consideration of an aether.
Their spending billions of dollars pursuing physics in the wrong directions. The credit belongs to a very old person who is difficult to communicate with. I tried to forward his work. How this was accomplished can be found in the biography.
This full theory on gravity can be found at:
http://home.sprynet.com/~jolsen03/
This is the real one. All the rest are man made contrivances. I highly recommend you check this site out.
Please keep an open mind. I do not have a degree in physics. I am sure you will find it worth your time. Here you will find a spectacular visual gravitational phenomenon. Many years of studying with the help of this very old person. It has not been updated for 7 years. After many years studying the phenomenon. I'm getting tired now, and cannot get proper help. The finances are really tight. Incomplete and has some errors. The foundation is there. On the whole it is ok. It will require a lot of help to finish this work.
Todd Grigsby.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.