🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 5, 1:09 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> n...@bid.nes wrote:
> >On Jun 4, 8:20 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >(brevity snip)
>
> >> Yes, I have not discussed the electron diffraction phenomenon in this
> >> book.
>
> >> In my opinion, the fringe pattern in the electron beam diffraction
> >> experiments is a consequence of diffraction from sharp edges (or the
> >> electron biprism) and not a result of mutual interference of matter
> >> waves of electrons.
>
> >  If that were the case a double-slit pattern would be the simple
> >linear sum of the individual slits' patterns, but that isn't what's
> >seen.
>
> >> And  I don't think quantization of mass or charge
> >> has anything to do with this phenomenon.  Even in the interference of
> >> photons, there is no question of 'self-interference'.
>
> >  I see no room for any other interpretation of the one-photon-at-a-
> >time, two-slit version; an interference pattern slowly builds up, but
> >there's nothing for any given photon _to_ interfere with except
> >itself. Again if it were simple diffraction the double-slit pattern
> >would be the simple linear sum of the individual slits' patterns, but
> >it isn't.
>
> The idea that a photon 'interferes' with itself is absurd in the classic
> sense of the word 'interfere'. If two waves of unity amplitude interfere
> the result is an amplitude which can vary between 0 and 2 depending on
> the phase and can have every value in between. e.g. At some phase
> difference there will be an amplitude of say 0.345.
>
> If you think about the photon model it may well conform mathematically
> to the concept of interference but physically it just is not
> interference. Two things do not arrive at a point and partially cancel
> out. You cannot get 0.345 of a photon. In the double slit experiment, a
> complete whole photon arrives at some point on the detector each and
> every time. Some mechanism is involved which determines which direction
> a photon takes when leaving the slit and that mechanism is such that
> there is an increased probability of it travelling in some directions
> and a decreased probability of it travelling in others.
>
> Maxwell's wave in aether theory was comprehensively disproved by both
> the MMX and the discovery of the particulate nature of light and yet
> relativity is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's theory is
> impeccable.
>
> Orthodox physics has compromised its integrity by dispensing with the
> aether while arbitrarily clinging to aspects of aether theory it was
> reluctant to lose. It failed to keep the intellectual discipline to
> follow through on its own doctrine. In Maxwell's theory a 'field' is a
> stress in the aether. If one accepts the no aether doctrine of modern
> physics then clearly it cannot be a stress in the aether but physics has
> failed to say what else it can physically be. On the contrary it has
> arbitrarily made it a key doctrine that it doesn't need to.
>
> My argument goes as follows. While Maxwell's theory was wrong in the
> sense that light does not consist of physical waves, its predictive
> accuracy shows that there is a link between charge and light - Maxwell's
> equations are based upon the properties of charge. It follows therefore
> that there must be a link between photons and charge.
>
> If one applies the necessary discipline then in the absence of an aether
> one should accept that action at a distance is the axiomatic way in
> which all force acts and that a 'field' is simply the metaphysical
> 'field of influence' caused by charge and cannot exist in the absence of
> the cause of that influence.
>
> If you take these two things together then it supports the model of a
> photon put forward by Waldron [1] that a photon consists of equal
> quantities of positive and negative charge which are rotating. The field
> of influence produced by this rotating charge is the electromagnetic
> field associated with the photon. One does not then need an aether to
> support the concept of an independent field nor does one have to jump
> intellectual hoops to convince oneself that 'no aether' and 'independent
> fields' are somehow compatible or convince oneself that 'space in which
> independent fields can exist' is somehow fundamentally different to 'the
> aether'. As Waldron points out [2] if a positron and an electron result
> in two neutral photons each photon must carry away half the +ve charge
> of the positron (and half its mass) and half the -ve charge of the
> electron (and half its mass). His maths work.
>
> While the photon may indeed pass through one slit, the rotating field
> could energise the other and have the necessary effect on the resultant
> direction.
>
> One question you might ponder is why, if photons singly produce the
> distribution associated with 'interference' why monochromatic incoherent
> light does not.
>
> One might also look at the geometry of the double slit experiment. One
> has to conclude that independent of the photon density far more photons
> must fail to go through the slits than make it to the detection screen.
> It would be naive to simply assume that these have no effect whatsoever.
>
> Now my own field is electronics but I am not an expert in antenna design
> but I believe the following is correct. If one moves the double slit
> experiment down the frequency scale to Radio frequency the first thing
> one finds is that one would have to make the slits out of a material
> opaque to radio waves i.e. a metal. Secondly one would see the two slits
> as slot antenna. Thirdly one would not see energy emerging from the
> slits as merely the energy which 'got through because it was going in
> the right direction' one would see all the energy incident on the plate
> as energising the slot antenna and the slot antenna re-radiating that
> energy. The efficiency depends on optimising the dimensions of the
> slots.
>
>  From this one might conclude that in the optical experiment one should
> perhaps pay more attention to the difference between material opaque to
> light (and therefore suitable for making the slits) and transparent to
> light. To the actual dimensions of the slits in relation to the
> wavelength which give best results and to whether the total energy
> reaching the detector is actually simply in proportion of the area of
> the slits to the area of the beam. One might experiment to see whether
> the interference patterns caused by a low intensity beam can be
> disrupted by illuminating the slits with a high intensity beam of a
> different colour.
>
> [1] "The Spinning Photon" R A Waldron 'Speculations in science and
> technology Vol 6, No 2 (1983) p171-181'.
> [2] "The wave and Ballistic Theory of light - a critical review"
> R.A Waldron Muller 1977
> --
> John Kennaugh

Nice ideas. A true revolution in science is coming but first
Einsteiniana's priests should OFFICIALLY abandon Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate. For the moment theoreticians all over the world
continue to reject, automatically and subconsciously, any idea, not
necessarily contradicting, just leading to a discussion of, the Divine
Beginning of modern physics.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com