Re: The biggest mistake in classical optics and its solution
From: xxein (xxein_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 10/15/04
- Next message: Eugene Shubert: "Re: A Challenge for the Experts"
- Previous message: Pax: "Ken, need help with this"
- In reply to: josefmatz: "The biggest mistake in classical optics and its solution"
- Next in thread: josefmatz: "Re: The biggest mistake in classical optics and its solution"
- Reply: josefmatz: "Re: The biggest mistake in classical optics and its solution"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Oct 2004 18:52:13 -0700
"josefmatz" <josefmatz@arcor.de> wrote in message news:<416eb355_2@news.arcor-ip.de>...
> We consider a glass system with tree glass plates (all having weak
> neglectable absorption). All of these three
> glass plates shall have an different refraction index, that means non of
> these three indexes shall be equal.
> Now we put these three plates together and let light fall perpendicular onto
> the surface.
>
> We look into standard books like Max Born or other good optical books and
> find the solution for this problem or at least the way the sokutions are
> built. We get simple Formulas for the reflection and transmission
> coefficient, they belong to a Formula System containig Fresnels formulas or
> Drudes Formulas (if you have complex indices with absorption). But here we
> restrict to the above mentioned system of three glas plates
> with different real index.
>
> Now you can make the following: If you let the thickness of the middle glass
> plate go to zero. What happens:
> If you do this, the formulas for the system of the two outer glas plates is
> not the formula, you would get
> if you are doing the same process for the two outer glas plates. The formula
> where you let the thickness
> of the middle plate go to zero still contains the index of the middle plate
> when you let go thickness d to zero.
>
> This is a paradox which shows, that something on the theory is wrong. It is
> not a small mistake, it is a big error. The theory is wrong !
>
> But what is wrong with this theory, i will answer it here. When i say you
> that it took me more than 20 years to
> find the simple error, then laugh !
>
> Let us consider a third arrangement: We have our three glass tubes same as
> above but we separate them
> from each other. What we do: We separe them in vacuum ( Index 1 ). Now we
> make the following:
> We take for this also the Drude theory and then shift the plates ( in
> between the vacuum ) together.
> Now we have a second formula for three plate system which is different from
> the first which stands in the Books. This formula has one big advantage
> against that one in the books:
>
> If you now let the thickness d of the middle glass plate go to zero, then
> you get a solution where the index of the middle glass plate plays no roll
> any more ! And this formula you get ( the two plate formula) is identical
> with the solution you derive when you have a two plate system with a vaccum
> layer in between land let the thickness of the vacuum layer go to zero !
>
> The soltions of this theory are fully self consistent !
>
> Thats the biggest mistake of the old optics of layers at all. The old optics
> of layers is wrong, except you have
> exact vacuum between all plates. In this case the old theory is right.
xxein: Sort of like taking the ether out of relativity?
- Next message: Eugene Shubert: "Re: A Challenge for the Experts"
- Previous message: Pax: "Ken, need help with this"
- In reply to: josefmatz: "The biggest mistake in classical optics and its solution"
- Next in thread: josefmatz: "Re: The biggest mistake in classical optics and its solution"
- Reply: josefmatz: "Re: The biggest mistake in classical optics and its solution"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
