Light 420
From: ben ito (benito20044_at_yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid)
Date: 12/12/04
- Next message: Leslie A Rhorer: "Re: how to couple light into photonic crystal fiber?"
- Previous message: Chris Carlen: "Shanghai Dream Lasers, Viasho and other cheap Chinese vendors?"
- Next in thread: Joe Rongen: "Light 101 was: Re: Light 420"
- Reply: Joe Rongen: "Light 101 was: Re: Light 420"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 11 Dec 2004 23:26:18 -0600
Optica!
Ben Tsutomu Ito
12-12-04
I will prove that the wave-particle duality theory of light is invalid
then form a particle theory of light that describes the aperture
diffraction, and transmission & reflection effects of light. The
optic particle's energy is represented with the photoelectric energy
equation; the constant (h) is derived using the ionization energy and
emitted electron's kinetic energy. In addition, the optic particle's
mass equation is derived using the kinetic energy equation.
1. Introduction
This paper addresses the wave and particle problem of light. The
reason that the wave and particle problem of light exist is because
of the enormous velocity and infinitesimal size of the optic
particles that composed a light beam. The photoelectric effect proves
that light is composed of particles which conflicts with Maxwell's EM
[electromagnetic] plane wave structure of light.
"we will soon encounter evidence that light and other radiation carry
energy in discrete units a fact that cannot be explained by a wave
theory." (Michels, p. 357)
"during most of time, diverse opinions have been held, based on
conflicting theories and speculations or on apparently conflicting
experimental evidence." (Monk, p. 100)
The justification of the wave theory of light is the assumption that
interacting waves form the wave effects of light, and that Maxwell's
structure of light forms a discrete energy and structure;
consequently, the wave theory of light becomes the wave-particle
duality theory of light where light has both wave and particles
properties.
"a wave-particle [duality] is "against common sense" or "paradoxical"
or, worse still, that "scientists cannot make up their minds"."
(Asimov, p. 136)
The wave-particle duality theory of light is justified with Huygens's
principle, Fresnel's T&R [transmission & reflection]
equations, polarization, Maxwell's structure of light, Einstein's
photoelectric quanta, quantum mechanic wave packet, and quantum
electrodynamics (QED) of light.
I will prove that the wave-particle duality theory of light is
invalid. I will then form a particle theory of light that describes
the aperture diffraction, and T&R [transmission & reflection]
effects of light. The optic particle's energy is described using the
photoelectric energy equation; the constant (h) of a potassium
surface is derived using a potassium atom's ionization energy and
emitted electron's; the optic particle's mass equation is derived
using the kinetic energy equation.
2. Huygens Principle
Huygens's principle describes wave theories' propagation, and aperture
diffraction mechanism of light. Huygens implies that a candle flame
emits spherical waves that when summed form a wave front (fig 1).
However, a candle flame cannot form a wave front since:
1. A candle flame's alleged spherical wave emissions are chromatic.
2. The short wavelengths of light cannot form a wave front form a
candle flame's volume.
The formation of Huygens's wave front requires the alignment of a
candle flame's monochromatic spherical wave emissions, that when
summed, form a coherent wave front (fig 2); however, candle light is
chromatic. Therefore, candle light cannot form a coherent wave front.
In addition, the Huygens's spherical wave emissions originate from
within the volume of a candle flame which cannot form the alignment,
of the spherical waves, required to form a coherent wave front (fig
3). The short wavelengths of light do not allow for a volume of a
candle flame to from a wave front since the wavelengths of candle
light are much shorter than the thickness of a candle flame. Huygens
is assuming that the wavelengths of candle light are large. Huygens
did not know the wavelengths of light.
"we must recognized that a vast gap exist between Hertz's waves [radio
waves] and visible light. The frequencies of the former are about 5 x
10^8 oscillations per second; frequencies of light are about a
million times greater." (Sobel, p. 22)
Candle light cannot form a coherent wave front yet physicists assume
that an chromatic unaligned spherical waves can form a coherent wave
front.
"But notice what happen as the waves move farther from there source.
The chaos of ripples smooths out, and if one imagines not three
particles but million, it becomes smoother still. By the time they
reach us from a distant star theory will have formed a single, simple
ripple." (Park, p. 217)
Parks is assuming that the unaligned chromatic spherical waves'
structures becomes aligned after propagating a large distance.
However, the original spherical wave emissions are not aligned and
chromatic; therefore, a large distance of propagation cannot align
the spherical waves' structures since the star light remains
chromatic and the spherical waves are originally unaligned.
Consequently, star light cannot form Huygens's wave front since
Huygens's wave front is monochromatic and unaligned. Originally star
light is not coherent or chromatic; therefore, a large distance of
propagation cannot align the emitted spherical waves that allegedly
form star light.
Huygens's propagation mechanism of light is described. Huygens's
alleged wave front becomes a LOPS [line-of-point-sources]; the
point-sources are described with secondary wavelets that disperse
(propagate) a distance of a wavelength (Resnick, p. ). The sum of
infinitesimal size segments of the LOPS secondary wavelets from the
next wave front (fig 4). The newly created wave front becomes another
LOPS. This mechanism repeats over and over, at intervals of a
wavelength (fig 5).
"light was propagated by secondary actions. This is the basic concept
that later was attributed to Huygens. The main reason for Girmaldi's
objection was that if this type of propagation were true, then the
points reached by light would also become sources of light" (Ronchi,
p. ).
The majority of the LOPS secondary wavelets' structure are eliminated
after each wave front is formed since only infinitesimal size
segments, of the LOPS' secondary wavelets, form the next wave front.
Huygens's propagation mechanism repetitively destroys the majority of
the LOPS secondary wavelets' structure, after each new front is
formed, then recreating the entire LOPS secondary wavelets,
repetitively, at intervals of a wavelength. Consequently, each wave
front becomes a source; an enormous amount of energy is created then
destroyed. Huygens's propagation mechanics is an extreme violation of
the law of conservation of energy. Consequently, Huygens's propagation
mechanism does not describe the physical propagation of light.
Huygens's aperture diffraction LOPS mechanism is described. Huygens's
alleged wave front forms in the aperture and becomes a LOPS
[line-of-point-sources] that produces the aperture diffraction
effects of light. Huygens's LOPS are described with spherical waves.
"Thus is the case of a single point source the closed surface S may be
taken as a spherical wave front." (Longhurst, p. 192)
A spherical wave has a symmetric structure; therefore, the LOPS
described with spherical waves forms a retrogressive wave that
propagates in the reverse direction (fig 6). Huygens assumed that the
retrogressive wave does not exist.
"Huygens simply assumed that such "reflected" [retrogressive] waves do
not exist, that is in effect, that the amplitude of the secondary
wavelets in the backwards direction is zero" (Reimann, p. 914)
The retrogressive wave is not experimentally observed; half of the
aperture diffracted light does not propagate in the reverse
[retrogressive] direction.
"Had we drawn the [secondary wavelets] as spheres, there would have
been a backward [retrogressive wave] moving toward the
source-something that is not observed." (Hecht, p. 105)
Kirchhoff's formulation of Huygens's principle (Longhurst, p. 193)
eliminates the retrogressive wave by deriving a non-symmetric
spherical wave structure described with an obliquity factor.
"The absence of the direct backwave [retrogressive wave] is taken care
of by the obliquity factor" (Longhurst, p. 193)
Kirchhoff's non-symmetric spherical waves are used to eliminate the
retrogressive wave.
"It is obviously necessary to postulate the existence of an obliquity
factor in the amplitude of the secondary wavelets whose value is
maximum in the forward direction an falls away with increasing angle
made with this direction, to become zero in the backward
[retrogressive] direction." (Reimann, p. 915).
However, by definition, a spherical wave has a symmetric structure.
"a description of spherical waves, waves that are spherically
symmetrical" (Hecht, p. 29)
In addition, a point source emits a symmetric spherical wave.
"Consider now an idealized point source of light. The radiation
emanating from it streams out radially, uniformly in all directions"
(Hecht, p. 28).
Huygens's LOPS described with spherical waves forms a retrogressive
wave yet the retrogressive wave is not experimentally observed.
Kirchhoff's formulation is used to justify the non-existence of the
retrogressive wave by implying that a point source does not form a
symmetric structure of a spherical wave; however, there is no
physical condition where a point source, emitted in a consistent
medium or vacuum, forms a wave that only propagates in a single
forward direction. In addition, the definition of a spherical wave is
that the structure has a symmetric structure. Consequently, the
non-existence of the retrogressive wave is physical proof that
Huygens's LOPS do not physically exist.
Huygens's aperture diffraction mechanism originates form water waves.
After a water wave propagates through an aperture, the water wave
collapses into smaller segments that radiate in a semi-radial pattern
and form the interference effect of water waves (fig 7). The water
wave molecules propagate in a vertically transverse motion;
consequently, the surface effect of water waves form the vertical
alignment required in forming the interference effect of water waves.
However, the aperture diffraction effect of light is not a surface
effect. The aperture diffraction effect of light forms within the
volume between the aperture and the diffraction screen yet the
surface effect forms only on the surface; therefore, Huygens's
surface effect cannot explain how the diffracted waves interact above
and below the surface. Consequently Huygens's aperture diffraction
mechanism is incomplete and therefore invalid.
Huygens's aperture diffraction mechanics is described. According to
Huygens, the intensity and dark areas of the aperture diffraction
pattern are formed by the partial and complete annihilation of the
diffracted waves that interact at the diffraction screen; however,
the partial and completely annihilated waves do not contribute to the
total intensity of the diffraction pattern; therefore, the formation
of the intensity and dark areas, by the partial and complete
annihilation of the diffracted waves would substantially reduce the
total intensity of the aperture diffraction effect; however, a
significant reduction in the aperture diffraction effect's total
intensity is not experimentally observed. The intensity that enters
the aperture is approximately equal to the intensity that forms the
aperture diffraction effects of light. In the small square aperture
diffraction experiment, 80% of the aperture diffraction pattern is
formed of dark areas (fig 8) which would reduce the total intensity
of the aperture diffraction pattern by more than 80%, using Huygens's
aperture diffraction mechanism, yet a significant reduction in the
aperture diffraction effect's total intensity is not experimentally
observed which is physical proof that Huygens's aperture diffraction
interacting waves do not form the aperture diffraction effects of
light.
3. Fresnel's T&R Equations
The derivation of Fresnel's T&R equations is described. An
incident light beam that interacts normal to a flat glass surface is
used. The incident(I), transmission(T), and reflection(R) light beams
are represented with the following plane wave equations (Hecht, p.
111),
I = I'cos(kz - wt), (equ l)
T = T'cos(kz - wt), (equ 2)
R = R'cos(kz - wt).(equ 3)
Hecht states that "at the boundary at any time and any point" (Hecht,
p. 112)
I' + R' = T'.(equ 4)
However, equation 4 is only valid for t=0; example, when wt = .1
equation 4 would not form; therefore, Hecht statement that equation 4
represents the boundary condition at any time (t) is false. Hecht then
states that
"the continuity of the tangential component of B/u requires"
that at the glass surface, the derivative of the incident and
reflection plane waves equal the derivative of the transmission plane
wave (Hecht, p. 113).
-I'k'cos(kz - wt) + R'k'cos(kz - wt) = T'k"cos(kz - wt) (equ 5)
However, the derivative of a cosine is a sine. The cosine incident,
transmission and reflection plane waves (equ 1,2 & 3) do not form
equation 5. Example, using incident plane wave (equ 1) and z=0 and t =
0,
(d/dz)I'cos(kz - wt) = -kI'sin(kz - wt) = 0. (equ 6)
Consequently, equation 5 cannot be derived using equations 1,2 and 3.
Fresnel's T&R derivation is based on a contradiction. To form
equation 4, the incident, transmission and reflection plane waves
must be represented with cosine yet to form equation 5 the plane
waves must be represented with sine. Wave theory uses the imaginary
exponential to represent the plane waves yet when the imaginary
exponentials are expanded
e^(iA) = cos(A) - isin(A), (equ 7)
the plane wave is either a sine or cosine structure not both.
Fresnel's then uses equations 4 and 5, that are derivation forms a
contradiction, to derive the Fresnel's equations. Using equations 4
and 5, and z = 0 and t = 0, Fresnel's equations are formed,
r = (n' - n")/(n' + n"), (equ 8)
t = 2n'/(n' + n"). (equ 9)
However, when n' = 1 and n" = 1.5,
r = .2 and t = .8 (equ 10).
The experimental reflection of light through glass is approximately 4%
and the transmission is 96%. Squaring equations 8 and 9,
r^2 = .04 and t^2 = .64 (equ 11)
Fresnel's T&R equations have a problem. Using Fresnel's original
method the T&R equations do not describe the transmission and
reflection effects of light. Consequently, a reflectance and
transmittance equations are formed using Fresnel's equations,
R = [(n' - n")/(n' + n")]^2, (equ 12)
T = 4n'n"/(n' + n")^2. (equ 13)
However, the amplitude of the electric field (equ 8 & 9)
determines the intensity of the reflection and transmission light
beams. According to wave theory, the intensity is determined with,
I = E^2 (equ 14)
where E represents the maximum amplitude of the wave structure. Hecht
states that the intensity of the reflection and transmission beams
are describe with equations 12 and 13. The square root of equation 12
and 13 would from Fresnel's amplitude equations. However, the
transmittance equation does not form Fresnel's transmission equation
when squared rooted,
[4n'n"/(n' + n")^2]^(1/2) =/ 2n'/(n' + n"). (equ 13)
(n'n")^(1/2) = n' (equ 14).
The reflectance and transmittance equations form a contradiction since
the reflectance and transmittance equations do not form Fresnel's
T&R equations.
In addition, the incident (I) and reflection (R) light beams are
propagating in opposite directions. The addition of the incident and
reflection light beams' amplitudes cannot be described with equation
4 since the amplitude of the propagation waves is change at a fix
point at the glass surface. The propagation of light would not form
equation 4. Fresnel's boundary equation (equ 4) is derived using
non-propagating plane wave structure (t=0) yet light experimentally
propagates.
Fresnel's transmission and reflection equations are invalid, and the
reflectance and transmittance equations are derived from and invalid
equations.
4. Polarization
The polarization of light is described. Wave theory changes the
structure of light that is used in Fresnel's T&R equation
derivation. According to polarization, the incident (natural) light
is composed of many plane waves that field structures oscillate in
different directions (fig ). Nature light's field structures' that
are oscillating in different directions is physically not possible
since the sum of the field structures would annihilated.
Wave theories' polarization mechanism is described. The alleged nature
light is emitted through a linear polarization filter and is said to
form polarized light. According to wave theory, the polarization
filter only emits the nature light that plane waves field structure
oscillates along the transmission axis of the polarization filter. A
second polarization filter is placed in the path of the polarized
light (fig ). As the second polarization filter is rotated the
intensity of the light that exist the second filters is diminished.
Wave theory implies that the components of the resultant wave are
emitted thought the second filter; consequently, wave theory uses two
completely different polarization mechanism to explain the
polarization effects of light. The first filter only emits waves that
are oscillating along the first polarization filter's transmission
axis; however, no field structure would be possible if a second
filter were not align with the first filter; therefore, wave theory
changes the mechanism and states that part of the plane wave is
emitted by the second filter that intensity is determined by angle of
the polarization filters.
"to develop an understanding of the techniques used to generate,
change, and manipulate it to fit our needs." (Hecth, P. 331).
Wave theory has created a new wave structure of (nature) light and is
using two completely different and contradicting mechanisms to
describe the polarization effects of light.
Circular polarized light is described. Left-circular polarized light
is represented with (Hecht, p. 328),
E = E'[cos(kz - wt)i - sin(kz -wt)j], (equ 15)
However, a field structure does not act independently as implied by
the circular polarized light mechanism. The field structure
described with equation 15 would superposition and a resultant field
structure would form. Circular polarized light is implying that two
electric fields act indenpendently which is not physically possible.
When the field structure of equation 15 are summed the frequency of
the circular polarized light would change; however, experimentally,
when light is emitted through a circular or elliptical polarization
filter the frequency of the emitted light beam does not change;
therefore, the mechanism of circular and elliptical polarization are
invalid.
4. Maxwell's Structure of Light
Maxwell's structure of light described. Maxwell's structure of light
is derived from Maxwell's equations (Jenkins, p. 408),
= - dB/dt and = ue(dE)/dt. (equ 14a,b)
A continuous and dispersive field structure of an EM [electromagnetic]
spherical wave is represented with Maxwell's equations. The current
displacement is not related to Maxwell's derivation of the EM plane
wave structure of light since the electric field formed by the two
plates of the current displacement only occurs between the plates
(fig ). Maxwell's EM plane wave structure of light has an arbitrary
length that is not bounded by two plates. Therefore, Maxwell's
structure of light is not derived from the current displacement.
Maxwell's derivation of the EM plane wave structure of light
describes. A segment of a spherical wave, that is formed by an
oscillating point source, is approximated with a plane wave structure
(fig ). As the distance from the source increase the spherical waves
dispersive and continuous EM field structure can be approximated with
a plane wave structure. This is done mathematically by expanding
equations 14a,b using rectangular coordinate system then eliminating
the expanded differentials (dE(z)/dt, dB(z)/dy, dB(z)/dt.........)
that do not form a field structure on the x-y plane (fig );
consequently, Maxwell's plane wave approximation eliminates the
majority of the spherical waves field structure. Consequently, the
plane wave approximation is only valid if light has a non-discrete
structure since the elimination to form the plane wave approximation
would violation the law of conservation of energy if light has a
discrete structure.The remaining differentials equations are
differentiated a second time to form a second order differential
equations that solutions produce Maxwell's EM plane wave structure of
light,
E = E'cos(kz - wt)y and B = cos(kz - wt)x (equ 15a,b)
However, using the same method, the plane wave in the x and y
direction can also be derive,
E = E'cos(kx - wt)y and B = cos(kx - wt)z (equ 16a,b)
E = E'cos(ky - wt)x and B = cos(ky - wt)z (equ 17a,b)
Consequently, Maxwell's equations represent the symmetric structure of
a spherical wave. The continuous and dispersive field structure of an
EM spherical wave is approximated with Maxwell's plane wave structure
of light in three directions (equ 15,16 & 17).
Maxwell does not include the dimensions of the plane wave that is
being approximated since the existence of the dimensions of a plane
wave of light would imply that Maxwell's plane wave structure of
light has a discrete structure. However, a spherical wave that
Maxwell's structure of light is derived from is not a discrete
structure.The derivation of the plane wave from a spherical wave is
base on a continuous structure of light. A continuous and dispersive
EM field structure is not a particle structure; therefore, Maxwell's
structure of light is not a particle structure yet the photoelectric
effect proves that light is composed of particles.
"we will soon encounter evidence [photoelectric] that light and other
radiation carry energy in discrete units a fact that cannot be
explained by a wave theory." (Michels, p. 357)
In the photoelectric effect experiment, when the intensity of the
incident beam is increased, expected, using Maxwell's structure of
light, is an increase in the kinetic energy of the emitted
photoelectric electrons; however, experimentally the photoelectric
electron's kinetic energy is unaffected by the change in the incident
beam's intensity.
"According to Maxwell, a light waves energy is proportional to its
brightness or as scientist say, its intensity. By increasing the
beam's intensity one should be hitting the zinc with arbitrarily
large amounts of energy. Something should happen. Below the
threshold frequency nothing did. For the same reason, once the
electrons are effected, increasing the light intensity should
increase the electron energy. Again nothing." (Rothman, p. 155)
The photoelectric effect proves that light is composed of particles
since only a particle structure of light can explain the results of
the photoelectric effect of light.
The double slit aperture diffraction experiment proves that Maxwell's
continuous plane wave structure of light cannot not be used to
represent light. Maxwell's plane wave structure of light is formed
of a continuous EM plane structure; therefore, if Maxwell's plane
wave is used to represent the physical structure of light then a
laser beam's width would represent the width of the continuous EM
plane of Maxwell's plane wave structure of light. During the double
slit diffraction experiment, when a laser beam is represented with
Maxwell's plane wave structure of light, the plane wave interacts
with both slits. Light is emitted through both slits (fig )
"How can one photon pass through two slits? One way to restate the
question is, how can light have both particle and wave properties in
the same experiment (Orear, p. 306).
A photon described with a plane wave cannot interact with the two
slits of the double slit aperture diffraction effect of light. The
double slit experiment prove that light has a discrete structure
since the double slit experiment emits two discrete structures from a
plane of the alleged plane wave structure of light.
According to the wave theory of light, Maxwell's plane wave structure
of light is structurally identical to a radio wave; the only
difference being the wavelengths since Maxwell's structure of light
is derived from Maxwell's (radio wave) equations,
"In 1873 Maxwell advanced his theory that light waves where
electromagnetic waves and, apart from wavelength, theory were
identical with all waves [radio waves] which could be obtained by
radiation from electrical circuits" (Ronchi, p. 263)
Maxwell assumed that since radio waves and light propagated at the
same velocity that both have the same continuous EM structure.
"he [Maxwell] obtained a numerical result equal to the measured speed
of light! The conclusion was inescapable---light was "an
electromagnetic disturbance in the form of waves" (Hecht, p. 6)
Light and radio waves may propagate at the same velocity; however,
this does not justify that both light and radio waves have the same
structure.
"Maxwell jumped to a conclusion. He concluded that light is one form
of electromagnetic wave. He had no real evidence of this, but he
felt that the coincidence of that "tremendous speed was not a
coincidence at all." (Bova, p. 159)
Maxwell's structure of light is based on the assumption that since
light and EM radio waves have the same velocity that their structures
are identical yet the photoelectric effect and the double slit
aperture diffraction experiments prove that light is a composed of
particles which conflicts with the wave theory of light.
Quantum radio frequency physics is used to justify that a radio wave
is composed of particles.
"It [quantum frequency radio physics] is based on the phenomenon of
resonant interaction with matter of electromagnetic radiation in the
microwave and RF [radio frequency] regions. As a result of this
interaction, a quantum of electromagnetic energy is either radiated
or absorbed." (Stepin, p. 23)
"Radio waves are generated and detected as an oscillating electric or
magnetic field, and it is unusual (but not unknown) to hear a
physicists refer to a quantum process in the radio frequency
spectrum. (Smith, p. 1)
However, an emitted "quantum" of an EM radio wave always disperses
during propagation; consequently, an emitted quantum of a radio wave
is not a a particles structure. The photoelectric effect proves that
light is composed of particles; consequently, the structure of light
and a radio wave are not related as implied when Maxwell's structure
of light is derived from Maxwell's equations.
Light does not have the characteristics of an EM radio wave since:
1. Light is composed of particles yet a radio wave has a continuous
EM structure.
2. Light forms the photoelectric effect; whereas, a radio wave does
not from the photoelectric effect.
3. Light forms wavelengths between 390nm-790nm; however, radio waves
have wavelengths between lm-100km.
4. Light forms a visiable intensity yet a radio waves intensity is
not visible.
5. Light does not propagate through an opaque medium yet a radio wave
propagates through a non-conducting opaque medium.
Consequently, light is not an electromagnetic phenomenon as implied by
Maxwell.
The energy of Maxwell's structure of light is described. The
fundamental problem with Maxwell's structure of light is that an EM
plane wave has an arbitrary length.
"There is one complication with a plane wave representation in
infinite space; it forms a continuous infinite set" (Maruse, p. 60)
When Maxwell's structure of light is integrated to form the energy of
the electric field structure of the plane wave and infinite amount of
energy is formed,
U(total) = /E/^2 = E'^2 inter[cos^2(kz)dz] = infinity {limits 0 to
infinity} (equ 17)
The arbitrary length of Maxwell's plane wave structure of light is
required in the derivation of the aperture diffraction intensity
equations. The distances from the aperture to the diffraction screen
point vary; therefore, Maxwell's structure of light must have an
arbitrary length to describe the aperture diffraction effect of
light.
The coherency of Maxwell's structure of light is described. Maxwell's
EM plane wave structure of light is used to describe a light beam
formed by a physical source. Light from a candle flame, sun, and a
laser originate form within a volume. The point sources are
represented with spherical waves and are represented with Maxwell's
plane wave structure of light. To form a wave front requires the
alignment of the spherical waves field structure to form the
coherency of a the wave front. There are two components that form
the coherency of Maxwell plane wave structure of light:
1. The vertical coherency of Maxwell's structure of light requires
that the plane waves' electromagnetic field structure all point in
the vertical direction after being emitted from a source (fig )
2. The horizontal coherency of Maxwell's plane wave requires that the
summed plane wave EM field structure's peaks and nodes occur at the
same positions along the horizontal length(fig ).
Radio waves form the vertical and horizontal coherent of a plane wave
since a radio wave originates form the surface of an antenna, and the
wavelengths of a radio wave are long (lm-100km) which allows for the
formation of the vertical and horizontal alignment of the radio wave.
The vertical coherency is formed because the antenna molecules are
bounded to one another. However, candle, sun and laser light are
formed by the alleged spherical wave emissions that originate from
point source emission that are suspended in a volume; therefore, the
unbounded point source emissions within a gaseous volume cannot form
the vertical and the horizontal coherency of Maxwell's structure of
light. The vertical coherency would require that all of the spherical
wave emissions emit a field structure that point in the same
direction;however, the point source, within a volume are not
connected to one another, therefore, it is unlikely that the
unbounded point source emissions would emit field structures that all
point is in same direction. In addition, the horizontal coherency
requires that the nodes and peak of the wave structure occur at the
same position along the horizontal length. Yet sun and candle light
are chromatic, therefore, cannot form the horizontal coherency of
Maxwell's structure of light. Chromatic light has many wavelengths;
therefore, chromatic light cannot form the coherency of Maxwell's
plane wave structure of light. Laser light is chromatic yet laser
light originates from the volume of a laser tube, not a surface, that
would form the horizontal coherency. Therefore, light cannot from the
coherency of Maxwell's structure of light.
Wave theories aperture diffraction intensity equations are described.
A non-propagating plane wave structure of light is used to describe
the aperture diffraction effects of light. The time variable (t) of
equation 15 & 24 are used to represent the propagation of the
plane waves EM field structure. However, the average field effect of
a propagating plane wave structure of light, at a point (z') on the
diffraction screen is zero,
E = E'sin(k'z' - wt) = 0
Consequently, all of wave theories aperture diffraction derivation use
a non-propagating plane wave structure of light where t=0 yet light
propagates; therefore, wave theories aperture diffraction derivation
conflict with the propagation of light. The aperture diffraction
effect of light, that the wave theory of light is base on, is invalid
since:
1. The point source emission, that from in the aperture describe with
spherical waves form a retrogressive wave that is not experimentally
observed.
2. The spherical waves represented with non-propagating plane waves
yet light propagates.
3. The dark areas of the aperture diffraction pattern are formed by
the annihilation of the interacting wave would substantially reduce
the total intensity which reduction is not experimentally observed.
4. The photoelectric effect prove that the light is composed of
particles; however, particles cannot form the wave structure.
The wave theory of light, that foundation is Huygens's principle, is
physically invalid.
5. Planck's Blackbox Emission Derivation
*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*
- Next message: Leslie A Rhorer: "Re: how to couple light into photonic crystal fiber?"
- Previous message: Chris Carlen: "Shanghai Dream Lasers, Viasho and other cheap Chinese vendors?"
- Next in thread: Joe Rongen: "Light 101 was: Re: Light 420"
- Reply: Joe Rongen: "Light 101 was: Re: Light 420"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
