Light 420
From: ben ito (benito20044_at_yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid)
Date: 12/12/04
- Next message: G=EMC^2 Glazier: "Re: Google is God ;-)"
- Previous message: dynamics_at_vianet.on.ca: "Re: THE EFFECT OF TIDAL FORCES ON MOON'S ORBIT"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 12 Dec 2004 16:25:57 -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; this equation's constant (h) is derived using the atomic
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).
I will prove that the wave 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 kinetic energy. 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 mechanisms 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 coherent wave front
from spherical waves that originate from within the volume of a
candle flame.
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 yet coherent light of Huygens's wave front is
mono-chromatic. Therefore, candle light cannot form a coherent wave
front.
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 point
source emissions are randomly disturbuted within the volume of the
candle flame. Randomly distrubuted point sources within a volume
cannot form the coherency of the wave front. In addition, the short
wavelengths of light do not allow for a volume to from a wave front.
The wavelengths of candle light are much shorter than the thickness
of a candle flame.
"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)
Huygens and Parks is assuming that the unaligned chromatic spherical
waves' structures becomes aligned after propagating a large distance.
However, the original spherical wave emissions are unaligned and
chromatic; therefore, a large distance of propagation cannot align
the spherical waves' structures. The alignment of the spherical waves
is create at the source or by another effect on the spherical waves.
Huygens and Parks is assuming that the wavelengths of candle light
are large compared to the thickness of the candle flame and from this
mon-chromatic spherical wave emissions form a wave front yet
experimentally, candle is chromatic and has a short wavelength.
Candle light cannot physically form a coherent wave front yet
physicists accept that Huygen's spherical waves emissions form a
coherent wave front.
Huygens's propagation mechanism of light requires the existence of
Huygens's wave front. Huygens's alleged wave front becomes a LOPS
[line-of-point-sources]. The point-sources are described with
secondary wavelets that structure disperse (propagate) a distance of
a wavelength (Resnick, p. ). The sum of infinitesimal size segments,
of the outer portion of the secondary waves, segments farthest from
the source, form 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 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 aperture diffraction mechanism forms a
LOPS exactly in the aperture. 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's spherical waves forms a retrogressive wave yet
experimentally, the retrogressive wave is not observed. Kirchhoff's
formulation of Huygen's principle (Longhurst, p. 193) is used to
justify the non-existence of the retrogressive wave by implying that
a spherical wave does not form a symmetric structure. The definition
of a spherical wave is that the structure has a symmetric structure.
Consequently, the experimently, 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.
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. Huygens's surface effect cannot explain how the
diffracted waves interact above and below the surface. Huygens's
aperture diffraction mechanism, that originate from th observation of
water waves, do not describe the diffraction effects of light.
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. The partial
and completely annihilated waves do not contribute to the total
intensity of the diffraction pattern. 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 yet a significant reduction in the
aperture diffraction effect's total intensity is not experimentally
observed. 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 the derivitives of
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. Both
equations 4 and 5 are the foundation of Fresnel's T&R derivation.
Wave theory uses the imaginary exponential to represent the sinusodial
plane wave representation yet when the imaginary exponential is
expanded,
e^(iA) = cos(A) - isin(A), (equ 7)
the plane wave is either a sine or cosine structure not both.
Consequently, Fresnel's uses conflicting structures to form equations
4 and 5.
Fresnel's then uses equations 4 and 5, to derive the Fresnel's
equations. Using z = 0 and t = 0, in equation 5,
-I'k' + R'k' = T'k". (equ 8)
Using
I' + R' = T'. (equ 9)
equation 8 and n' = k' and n" = k", Fresnel's equations are derived,
r = (n' - n")/(n' + n"), (equ 10)
t = 2n'/(n' + n"). (equ 11)
However, when n' = 1 and n" = 1.5,
r = .2 and t = .8 (equ 12a,b).
The intensity of lignt is
I = E^2 (equ 13)
since Fresnel's equations represent the amplitude of the waves at the
glass surface, Fresenl's equations are used in equation 13 to derive
the intensity equation. Squaring equations 12a,b,
r^2 = .04 and t^2 = .64 (equ 14)
Fresnel's T&R equations have a problem. The experimental
reflection of light through glass is approximately 4% and the
transmission is 96%.
Wave theory than invents a reflectance and transmittance equations
that are used to describe the intensity,
R = [(n' - n")/(n' + n")]^2, (equ 15)
T = 4n'n"/(n' + n")^2. (equ 16)
The amplitude of the electric field of Fresnel's equations (equ 10
& 11) determines the intensity of the reflection and transmission
light beams (equ 13). The square root of equation 15 and 16 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 17)
(n'n")^(1/2) = n' (equ 18).
The reflectance and transmittance equations do not represent the
transmission and reflection intensities of light.
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 propagating waves are changing, at a fix point, on
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/reflection equations, and the
reflectance/transmittance equations are invalid and conflict with
the propagation of light.
4. Polarization
The polarization of light is described. According to polarization, the
incident (natural) light is composed of many plane waves that field
structures oscillate in different directions (fig 9) which is
physically not possible since the sum of natural light's field
structures would annihilated.
Wave theories' two filter 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
resultant 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 altered. 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 resultant field structure is oscillating along the
first polarization filter's transmission axis yet no field structure
would be possible if a second filter were not align with the first
filter. Wave theory changes the mechanism that describes how the
second filter forms the polarization of light. The second
polarization filter allows the compoments of the resultant vector to
exist the second polarization filteris which is a completely
different mechanism then the mechanism that describes light that is
emitted by the first polarization filter.
"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 19)
However, a field structure does not act independently as implied by
the circular polarized light mechanism. The field structure
described with equation 19 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 19 are summed the frequency and
wavelength of the circular polarized light would change; however,
experimentally, when light is emitted through a circular or
elliptical polarization filter the frequency and wavelength 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),
(delta)xE = - dB/dt and (delta)xB = ue(dE)/dt. (equ 20a,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 10). 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 finite segment of spherical wave, that is formed by an
oscillating point source, is approximated with a plane wave structure
(fig 11). 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 20a,b using rectangular coordinate system then eliminating
the expanded differentials (dE(z)/dt, dB(z)/dy,.........) that do not
form a field structure on the x-y plane (fig 12); consequently,
Maxwell's plane wave approximation eliminates the majority of the
spherical waves field structure. 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. If light
has a discrete structure then the all of the field structure must be
included and the plane wave approximation would not be possible. Wave
theory based on the asumption that light has a continous structure
similar to a radio wave. Consequently, to complete the plane wave
approximation the remaining differentials equations are
differentiated a second time to form a second order differential
equations that solution produce Maxwell's EM plane wave structure of
light,
E = E'cos(kz - wt)y and B = cos(kz - wt)x (equ 21a,b)
However, using the same elimination method using different
eliminations, 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 22a,b)
E = E'cos(ky - wt)x and B = cos(ky - wt)z (equ 23a,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 (equ 21,22 or 23). The derivation of the plane wave from a
spherical wave is base on a continuous 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)
Yet 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. 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 plane wave. 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 13)
"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.
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 also 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 continuous radio
wave and a continuous structure of a plane wave of light are composed
of particles that form the photoelectric effect.
"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. Light and a radio waves 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)
Integrating Maxwell's structure of light forms an infinity energy,
U(total) = /E/^2 = E'^2 int[cos^2(kz)dz] = infinity {limits 0 to
infinity} (equ 24)
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.
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 14)
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 15).
Radio waves form the vertical and horizontal coherent of a plane wave
since a radio wave originates form the surface of an antenna,
wavelengths of a radio wave are long (lm-100km) and the emissions at
any time are all the same wavelength which allows for a radio antenna
to form 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. 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 peaks of the wave structures occur at the same position
along the horizontal length. Yet sun and candle light are chromatic,
therefore, cannot form the horizontal coherency of a summed plane
wave describe with 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: G=EMC^2 Glazier: "Re: Google is God ;-)"
- Previous message: dynamics_at_vianet.on.ca: "Re: THE EFFECT OF TIDAL FORCES ON MOON'S ORBIT"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
