On Jun 5, 1:09*pm, John Kennaugh
wrote:
wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:20 am, GSS wrote:

(brevity snip)

Yes, I have not discussed the electron diffraction phenomenon in this
book.

In my opinion, the fringe pattern in the electron beam diffraction
experiments is a consequence of diffraction from sharp edges (or the
electron biprism) and not a result of mutual interference of matter
waves of electrons.

*If that were the case a double-slit pattern would be the simple
linear sum of the individual slits' patterns, but that isn't what's
seen.

And *I don't think quantization of mass or charge
has anything to do with this phenomenon. *Even in the interference of
photons, there is no question of 'self-interference'.

*I see no room for any other interpretation of the one-photon-at-a-
time, two-slit version; an interference pattern slowly builds up, but
there's nothing for any given photon _to_ interfere with except
itself. Again if it were simple diffraction the double-slit pattern
would be the simple linear sum of the individual slits' patterns, but
it isn't.

The idea that a photon 'interferes' with itself is absurd in the classic
sense of the word 'interfere'. If two waves of unity amplitude interfere
the result is an amplitude which can vary between 0 and 2 depending on
the phase and can have every value in between. e.g. At some phase
difference there will be an amplitude of say 0.345.

If you think about the photon model it may well conform mathematically
to the concept of interference but physically it just is not
interference. Two things do not arrive at a point and partially cancel
out. You cannot get 0.345 of a photon. In the double slit experiment, a
complete whole photon arrives at some point on the detector each and
every time. Some mechanism is involved which determines which direction
a photon takes when leaving the slit and that mechanism is such that
there is an increased probability of it travelling in some directions
and a decreased probability of it travelling in others.

Maxwell's wave in aether theory was comprehensively disproved by both
the MMX and the discovery of the particulate nature of light and yet
relativity is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's theory is
impeccable.

Orthodox physics has compromised its integrity by dispensing with the
aether while arbitrarily clinging to aspects of aether theory it was
reluctant to lose. It failed to keep the intellectual discipline to
follow through on its own doctrine. In Maxwell's theory a 'field' is a
stress in the aether. If one accepts the no aether doctrine of modern
physics then clearly it cannot be a stress in the aether but physics has
failed to say what else it can physically be. On the contrary it has
arbitrarily made it a key doctrine that it doesn't need to.

My argument goes as follows. While Maxwell's theory was wrong in the
sense that light does not consist of physical waves, its predictive
accuracy shows that there is a link between charge and light - Maxwell's
equations are based upon the properties of charge. It follows therefore
that there must be a link between photons and charge.

If one applies the necessary discipline then in the absence of an aether
one should accept that action at a distance is the axiomatic way in
which all force acts and that a 'field' is simply the metaphysical
'field of influence' caused by charge and cannot exist in the absence of
the cause of that influence.

If you take these two things together then it supports the model of a
photon put forward by Waldron [1] that a photon consists of equal
quantities of positive and negative charge which are rotating. The field
of influence produced by this rotating charge is the electromagnetic
field associated with the photon. One does not then need an aether to
support the concept of an independent field nor does one have to jump
intellectual hoops to convince oneself that 'no aether' and 'independent
fields' are somehow compatible or convince oneself that 'space in which
independent fields can exist' is somehow fundamentally different to 'the
aether'. As Waldron points out [2] if a positron and an electron result
in two neutral photons each photon must carry away half the +ve charge
of the positron (and half its mass) and half the -ve charge of the
electron (and half its mass). His maths work.

While the photon may indeed pass through one slit, the rotating field
could energise the other and have the necessary effect on the resultant
direction.

One question you might ponder is why, if photons singly produce the
distribution associated with 'interference' why monochromatic incoherent
light does not.

One might also look at the geometry of the double slit experiment. One
has to conclude that independent of the photon density far more photons
must fail to go through the slits than make it to the detection screen.
It would be naive to simply assume that these have no effect whatsoever.

Now my own field is electronics but I am not an expert in antenna design
but I believe the following is correct. If one moves the double slit
experiment down the frequency scale to Radio frequency the first thing
one finds is that one would have to make the slits out of a material
opaque to radio waves i.e. a metal. Secondly one would see the two slits
as slot antenna. Thirdly one would not see energy emerging from the
slits as merely the energy which 'got through because it was going in
the right direction' one would see all the energy incident on the plate
as energising the slot antenna and the slot antenna re-radiating that
energy. The efficiency depends on optimising the dimensions of the
slots.

*From this one might conclude that in the optical experiment one should
perhaps pay more attention to the difference between material opaque to
light (and therefore suitable for making the slits) and transparent to
light. To the actual dimensions of the slits in relation to the
wavelength which give best results and to whether the total energy
reaching the detector is actually simply in proportion of the area of
the slits to the area of the beam. One might experiment to see whether
the interference patterns caused by a low intensity beam can be
disrupted by illuminating the slits with a high intensity beam of a
different colour.

[1] "The Spinning Photon" R A Waldron 'Speculations in science and
technology Vol 6, No 2 (1983) p171-181'.
[2] "The wave and Ballistic Theory of light - a critical review"
R.A Waldron Muller 1977
--
John Kennaugh

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

Pentcho Valev