Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 251 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Do we have a moderator?
by paul
10/23/19 12:30 AM
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
10/23/19 12:22 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 13
Topic Options
#714 - 12/14/04 01:23 AM Light
ben ito Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 10/23/04
Posts: 10
Optica!
Ben Tsutomu Ito
12-13-04 (1pm)

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 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 make the isolation the the optic particle difficult.

"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 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 [photoelectric effect] that light and other radiation carry energy in discrete units a fact that cannot be explained by a wave theory." (Michels, p. 357)

The justification of the wave theory of light is the assumption that interacting waves form the wave effects of light [aperture diffraction and T&R], and that Maxwell's plane wave 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 potassium surface is derived using the potassium atom's ionization and emitted electron's kinetic energies. The optic particle's mass equation is derived using the kinetic energy equation.

2. Huygens Principle

a. Wave Front

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. Light has very short wavelengths and originates from within the volume of a candle flame.

Huygens's implies that the point source emission described with spherical waves, when summed, forms a coherent wave front (fig 2) yet candle light is chromatic. Chromatic spherical waves have different wavelengths; whereas, coherent light is mono-chromatic. The sum of different wavelength spherical waves cannot form a coherent wave front as implied by Huygens's principle. 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 distributed within the volume of the candle flame. Randomly distributed point sources within a volume cannot form the coherency of a wave front. The short wavelengths of light do not allow the volume of a source to from a 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)

Huygens and Parks are 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. Since the spherical wave originate from a volume and emit chromatic light, a large distance of propagation cannot align the spherical waves' structures. The alignment of the spherical waves, that is required to form a coherent wave front, is create at the source or by another effect. Huygens and Parks are assuming that the wavelengths of candle light are large compared to the thickness of the candle flame thus forming a coherent wave front by using a large distance from the source, however, that argument is only valid if the emitted wavelengths are larger than the volume that the spherical wave originate from. Consequently, candle and star light does not form a coherent wave structure as implied by Huygens.

b. Propagation

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. ) only in the forward direction. The sum of infinitesimal size segments, of the outer portion of the secondary waves, segments in the forward direction, 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 (99%) of the LOPS secondary wavelets' structure are eliminated after each new 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' structures then repetitively recreating the entire LOPS secondary wavelets 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. Huygens's propagation mechanism does not describe the physical propagation of light.

c. Retrogresive Wave

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 in the plane of the aperture. Huygens's LOPS secondary wavelets 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 back-wave [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)

Huygens's LOPS's spherical waves forms a retrogressive wave yet experimentally, the retrogressive wave is not observed. Kirchhoff's formulation of Huygens'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 yet by definition a spherical wave has a symmetric structure. The experimental non-existence of the retrogressive wave is physical proof that Huygens's LOPS do not physically exist.

d. Aperture diffraction

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 wave mechanism does not describe 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 derivatives 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 sinusoidal 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, Fresnel'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 components of the resultant vector to exist the second polarization filter is 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 independently 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 assumption that light has a continuous 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 has the continuous structure of a radio wave.

"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 Maxwell's plane wave structure of light since a particle structure is diametrical to a continuous structure of a plane wave. Yet quantum radio frequency physics is used to justify that a continuous 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 since a dispersive and continuous EM field structure is not a particle structure. A particle structure requires that the structure remains discrete after propagating yet a radio waves structure always disperses during propagation. 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 visible 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.The arbitrary length of Maxwell's plane wave structure of light is required in the derivation of the aperture diffraction intensity equations. The distance between the aperture and the diffraction screen point where the plane wave interacts determines the length of the plane wave; These distances vary for each point in the aperture. The distance between a point in the aperture and the diffraction screen point where the plane wave interacts determines the length of the plane wave; therefore, Maxwell's structure of light must have an arbitrary length to describe the aperture diffraction effect of light yet an arbitrary length field structure forms two different energies since the total length of a field structure determines the energy. A 5 x 10^14 Hz plane wave the length of 10.00 cm and 10.01 cm interact at the diffraction screen. The total electric field structure and the frequency determines the energy of a plane wave yet the photoelectric effect proves that light has a discrete energy that is determine only by the frequency yet Maxwell's plane wave that forms an arbitrary total field structure and energy. Maxwell's plane wave does not represent the physical structure 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 point source. Light from a candle flame, sun, and a laser originate form within a volume that allegedly emit point sources. The point sources emit spherical waves that are approximated with Maxwell's plane wave structure of light. Yet to form a wave front, the alignment of emitted spherical waves field structures is required to form the coherency of a the wave front. The coherency of the wave front requires both the vertical and horizontal coherency:

1. The vertical coherency of Maxwell's structure of light requires that the plane waves' electric field structures oscillate in positive and negative vertical directions. (fig 14)

2. The horizontal coherency of Maxwell's plane wave requires that the summed plane waves EM field structures' peaks and nodes occur at the same positions along the horizontal length(fig 15).

Radio waves form the vertical and horizontal coherency of a radio plane wave since a radio wave originates from the surface of a radio antenna, the wavelengths of a radio wave are long (lm-100km), and the point source emission along the length of the antenna, at any time, all have the same wavelength which allows for a radio antenna to form the vertical and horizontal alignment of a radio plane wave. The vertical coherency is formed since the radio antenna atoms are bounded to one another. However, candle, sun and laser light are formed by the alleged spherical wave emissions that originate from point source emissions 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 the spherical wave emissions that form Maxwell's structure of light. The vertical coherency would require that all of the spherical wave emissions emit an electric field structure that electric field oscillate in the positive or negative vertical directions. Yet the point sources, within a volume, are not connected to one another. The unbounded point source emissions are not connected to one another, a requirement, in forming the vertical coherency of the plane wave. In addition, the horizontal coherency requires that the electric fields' nodes and peaks of the emitted wave structures occur at the same position along the horizontal length which when summed would form a plane wave. Yet sun and candle light are chromatic, therefore, cannot form the horizontal coherency of a summed plane waves describe with Maxwell's structure of light. MAXWELL'S STRUCTURE OF LIGHT ONLY DESCRIBES MON-CHROMATIC LIGHT. Chromatic light has many wavelengths; therefore, chromatic light cannot form the coherency of Maxwell's plane wave structure of light. Laser light is mono-chromatic yet laser light originates from the gas molecules that are suspended within the volume of a laser tube. A surface origination and long wavelengths are require to form a plane waves horizontal coherency. Therefore, light cannot from the coherency of Maxwell's structure of light.

The derivation of wave theories aperture diffraction intensity equations is described. A non-propagating plane wave structure of light is used to describe the aperture diffraction effects of light. The time variable (t) of equations 21a,b are used to represent the propagation of the plane waves EM field structure. However, the average field electric effect effect of a propagating plane waves field structure, at a point (z'), on the diffraction screen is zero,

E(ave) = E'sin(k'z' - wt) = 0 (equ 24)

All of wave theories aperture diffraction derivation use a non-propagating plane wave structure of light using t=0 yet light experimentally propagates; therefore, wave theories aperture diffraction derivation conflict with the experimental propagation of light. The wave theories aperture diffraction mechanism is invalid since:

1. The LOPS [line-of-point-sources] emissions, that from in the aperture describe with secondary wavelet [spherical waves], form a retrogressive wave that is not experimentally observed.

2. Fresnel's aperture diffraction intensity derivations use non-propagating plane waves (t=0) yet light experimentally propagates.

3. The dark areas of the aperture diffraction pattern are formed by the annihilation of the interacting waves that would substantially reduce the total intensity which reduction in intensity is not experimentally observed.

4. The photoelectric effect prove that the light is composed of particles; however, particles cannot form the wave structure that is used to describe the aperture diffraction effects of light.

Maxwell's plane wave structure of light does not describe the physical structure of light.


5. Planck's Blackbox Emission Derivation

Planck's blackbox emission derivation (1900) is described. Planck's uses the standing wave mechanism of Maxwell's structure of light to describe light emitted within the blackbox,

"a set of simple harmonic oscillating standing waves in thermal equilibrium in a blackbox cavity"(Eisberg, p. 15)

The standing wave mechanism originates form Rayleigh-Jean's blackbox emission derivation.

"We assumed for simplicity that the metallic wall cavity filled with electromagnetic radiation" (Eisberg, p. 8)

"the radiation inside the cavity must exist in the form of standing waves with nodes at the metallic surface."(Eisberg, p. 8)

The standing wave mechanism requires that Maxwell's structure of light is emitted normal to the glowing hot metallic emission surface, maintain nodes of Maxwell's plane wave of light at both surfaces, and resonate between both emission surfaces. Light cannot physically form standing waves since:

1. Light does not always propagate normal to the emission surface.

2. The majority of the emitted wavelengths cannot form wave structures that produce nodes at both surfaces (fig 17).

3. The propagation of the standing waves field structure cannot maintain nodes at both surfaces.

4. The superposition of the standing waves EM field structure would annihilate.

Light does not always propagate normal to the emission surface. In an experiment, a flat metallic surface is heated red hot. If the light emissions only propagated normal to the emission surface then the light emissions, formed by the red hot surface, would only be visible viewed perpendicular to the emission surface yet the red hot metallic surface is visible from all outward angles. The light emissions are not all propagating normal to the emission surface as implied by Planck's standing wave mechanism. Secondly, the standing wave mechanism requires that the plane waves form nodes at both surfaces yet the majority of the emitted wavelengths do not form nodes at both surfaces. Example, if a 550nm wavelength plane wave emission formed nodes at both surfaces, in a 5.5 cm blackbox, then 551nm and 552nm wavelength plane waves would not form nodes at both surfaces. The majority of the emitted wavelengths do not form the standing waves that form nodes at both emission surfaces, an essential component of Planck's standing wave mechanism. Thirdly, the plane wave structure of light must propagate. It would not be possible for for the standing waves composed of plane waves to maintain the nodes at both surfaces and also propagate yet experimentally light propagates. Consequently, wave theory use a standing wave string analogy to describe the standing wave of light yet an EM standing wave is formed by field structure which cannot be compared with a mechanical standing wave formed by a string. The EM plane waves that form the standing waves have a constant maximum amplitude yet according to the standing wave string analogy the maximum amplitude of the string changes when a string forms a standing wave. Therefore, a mechanical string standing wave cannot be compared to a standing wave of light. Finally, the superposition of the standing waves field structure would annihilate and no field effect would form from a standing wave of light formed by Maxwell's EM plane wave structure of light. Light does not physically form standing waves.

Planck uses the standing waves of Maxwell's structure of light to derive Planck's discrete energy equation.

"The energies of the entities in the system we are considering, a set of simple harmonic oscillating standing waves in thermal equilibrium in a blackbody cavity, are governed by (1-20)." (Eisberg, p. 15).

Planck is assuming that the formation of the standing wave forms the discrete energy yet it is not physically possible for light to form standing waves within a blackbody. The derivation of Planck's discrete energy equation

E = hf (equ 25)

derived from standing waves is invalid.

The derivation of Planck's blackbox average total energy equation is described. The discrete energies emitted by the blackbox emission effect are represented with Boltzmann's thermodynamic kinetic energy distribution equation (Eisberg, p. 15),

e^(-E/kT)
P(E) = -------------- (equ 26)
kt

The law of equipartition of energy equation is derive using energies from 0 to infinity and equations 26,

inte[EP(E)dE]
E(T) = --------------------- = kT (equ 27)
inte[P(E)dE]

Planck then states that as the frequency (f), of the blackbox emission effect, approaches infinity,

f ---> infinity (equ 28)

the total energy of the blackbox emission effect approaches zero (Eisberg, p. 15),

E ---> 0.(equ 29)

"Planck was led to consider the possibility of a violation of the law of equipartition of energy on which the theory [blackbox] was based." (Eisberg, p. 14)

Planck implies that since equation 29 violates the law of equipartition of energy (equ 27) that the average total energy of the blackbox emission effect is a function of the frequency.

"Planck realized that, in the circumstances that prevail for the case of blackbody radiation, the average energy of the standing waves is a function of frequecy E(f) have the properties indicated by (equ 27) and (equ 29)" (Eisberg, p. 15)

However, the law of equipartition of energy (equ 27) is derived using the entire range of emission wavelengths, from X-rays to radio waves. When Planck uses frequencies that approaches infinity, (equ 28), only short wavelengths emission are represented,

wavelength ---> 0. (equ 30)

Planck is assuming that equation 29, E ---> 0 when f --> (infinity) represents the entire range of wavelength emissions of the blackbox effect yet equation 29 only represents an infinitesimal range of wavelength emissions, wavelength --> 0 (equ 30). Consequently, equation 29 does not violate the law of equipartition of energy that Planck's blackbox emission derivation is based on. Planck's justification that the average total energy is a function of the frequency is invalid.

Planck replaces the integrations that form the law of equipartition of energy equation (equ 27) with summations which forms Planck's average total energy equation that is a function of the frequency (Eisberg, p. 16),

sum[EP(E)dE] hf
E(f) = --------------------- = ------------------- (equ 31)
sum[P(E)dE] e^(hf/kT) - l

However, mathematically, a summation is an approximation of an integration. Replacing the integration of the derivation of the law of equipartition of energy equation (equ 27) with Planck's summation cannot substantially change the resulting equation yet Planck's average total energy equation (equ 31) is a function of the frequency; whereas, the law of equipartition of energy equation (equ 27) is a function of the temperature. Consequently, Planck's derivation of the blackbox average total energy equation (equ 31) is invalid.

Planck uses the average total energy equation (equ 31) to derive the blackbox intensity equation, L = wavelength (Eisberg, p. 19),

8(pi)hc dL
I(L) = --------- -------------------- (equ 32)
L^5 e^(hc/LkT) - 1

Planck uses equation 32 and the experimental blackbox emission curve to obtain the value of the constant (h) of Planck's energy equation (equ 25). However, the blackbox intensity curve (fig 17) is formed using five different experiments:

1. Radio waves-circuits
2. Microwaves-crystal
3. Infrared-bolometer
4. Light & UV-photomultiplier
5. X-rays-ionization chamber

Five completely different measurement methods' results cannot be represented on a single graph. The intensity of light is visible yet the intensity of a radio wave are not visible; therefore, the intensity of light and radio wave are not equivalent and cannot be represented on the same graph. The derivation of the constant (h) cannot be derived from the blackbox emission graph since the intensities of different effects are not comparable. Planck's derivation of the discrete energy equation's constant (h) is invalid.

6. Einstein's Photoelectric Quanta

The derivation of Einstein's photoelectric quanta equation is described.

"The photoelectric-effect paper, "On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light," demonstrated the necessity of incorporating the atomistic (or quantum) idea into the electromagnetic theory of light. Here Einstein demonstrated that the mathematical description for the entropy of black-body radiation in a closed volume is identical to that of a gas in the same volume. By analogy, then, electromagnetic radiation may be treated as a dynamic collection of particles, as is the case for a gas, where the energy of the electromagnetic or light particles is proportional to the frequency of radiation. Einstein's revolutionary paper made clear that the "atomistic" or discontinuous nature of matter is characteristic of energy as well, generalizing Planck's recent work on the existence of discontinuities, or "quanta" of energy in black-body radiation. (Nye, p. 460)

In Einstein's photoelectric effect paper (1905), Einstein uses Wien's gas molecule analogy.

"We now wish to compare the average magnitude of the "blackbox" energy quanta with the average kinetic energy of the translational motion of a molecule at the same temperature." (Einstein's paper, Nye, p. 472)

However, it is physically inappropriate to use a gas molecule analogy to describe light since:

1. Gas molecules exist within a container yet particles of light originate [emitted] from the red hot surface of the metallic container.

2. Gas molecules have varying velocities that are substantially affected by the temperature yet optic particles have a constant velocity that velocity is not substantally affect by the change in temperture.

3. Gas molecules kinetic energies are dependent on the temperature yet the energy of the optic particles are determined by the frequency.

4. Gas molecules kinetic energy is dependent on the temperature; however, after the optic particles are emitted, the temperature does not substantially affect the energy of the optic particles.

It is physically inappropriate to use Wien's gas molecule analogy to describe light since light does not have the physical characteristic of gas molecules.

In section 5 of Einstein paper, Einstein implies that the probability is a "statistical probability".

W = (v/v')^n (equ 33)

where

"Let us consider a number, n, moving points (e.g., molecules) in a volume v." (Nye, p. 470)

Einstein describes the probability (W) with the following equation,

W = (v/v')^NE/Rbf. (equ 34)

"Monochromatic radiation of low density behaves--as long as Wein's radiation formula is valid---in a thermodynamic sense, as if it consisted of mutually independent energy quanta of magnitude Rbf/N." (Nye, p. 472)

Einstein is assuming that the NE/Rbf of equation 34 is equal to one,

NE/Rbf = l ---------------> E = Rbf/N (equ 35a,b)

However, using equation 35, when NE/Rbf =1 then n of equation 33 represent a single gas molecule. Therefore, the volume v' is the volume of a single gas molecule.

Einstein uses the probability in the thermodynamic work-dependent entropy equation,

(delta)S = (R/N)ln[V'/V"] (equ 36)

Einstein uses the probability equation (equ 34) in place of the work of the thermodynamic entropy equation,

(delta)S = nRln{[v/v']^(NE/Rbf)}. (equ 37)

Einstein derives the energy quanta equation by assuming that the NE/Rbf of equation 37 is equal to one. Yet if NE/Rbf is equal to one this would imply that v' is the volume of a gas molecule which would form a tremendously large change in the entropy of equation 37. However, the volume, number of gas molecules, and the temperature of Einstein's system are constant; therefore, the thermodynamic change in the entropy of Einstein's system is zero. The energy quanta equation cannot be derived from the thermodynamic change in the entropy equation as implied by Einstein. Einstein's gas molecule analogy that implies that an electromagnetic wave forms a particle effect of the blackbox emission effect is invalid.

Top
.
#715 - 12/14/04 02:05 AM Re: Light
Uncle Al Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 540
Loc: Southern California
"Optica!
Ben Tsutomu Ito
12-13-04 (1pm)

I will prove that the wave-particle duality theory of light is invalid"
(snip unconscionable crap)

You are a spewing psychotic idiot in sci.physics and you are a spewing psychotic idiot here.

http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/research/matterwave/c60/
C60 is more massive than a photon, ineducable spewing psychotic idiot.

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html[/URL]
http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html
http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html
_________________________
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf

Top



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.