| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"ben ito" |
| Date: |
15 Dec 2004 10:25:10 PM |
| Object: |
Light |
Optica!
Ben Tsutomu Ito
12-16-04
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 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.
"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 [Planck's blackbox];
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, 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. 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. However, the thichness of the
candle flame and the volume of the star is much larger than the
wavelengths of light. Consequently, candle and star light do 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 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' structures 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; the energy of the source created then destroyed, at intervals
of a wavelength in Huygen's propagation mechanism. 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 is not formed; 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 sinusoidal 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.
The derivation of 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 the second filter
emits light that is not aligned with the transmission axis. 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, two field structures do not act independently as implied by
the mechanism of circular polarized light. 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 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 wave's dispersive and
continuous EM field structure can be approximated with a plane wave
structure by 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 of the plane wave
approximation is based on a continuous nono-discrete structure of an
EM spherical wave. 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. The plane wave approximation's
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)
Using the same elimination method, the plane waves propagating 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)
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 10.000 cm and 10.001 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 two different
length field structure, 10.00 cm and 10.001 cm, that are described
with the same energy which violates logic. 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 point source. Light from a candle flame, sun, and a
laser originate from within a volume that allegedly emit point
sources. The point sources emit spherical waves that are summed and
approximated with Maxwell's plane wave structure of light. Yet to
form a coherent 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 a coherent 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 emissions 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 plane waves that when summed form the wave front 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 point source emissions that are suspended
in a volume; therefore, the unbounded point source emissions within a
gaseous volume cannot form the vertical coherency since the point
sources are unbounded. 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 as is with the point source emissions of a radio wave
anntena's atoms. 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 which cannot form a coherent
wave structure; therefore, chromatic star and candle 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 would not form the horizontal alignment required in
forming the coherency of Maxwell's plane wave structure of light.
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] describe with secondary wavelet
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 formed by the
annihilation of the interacting waves would substantially reduce the
total intensity.
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 EM plane wave
structure of light is emitted normal to the glowing hot metallic
emission surface, maintain nodes of Maxwell's plane wave structure of
light at both emission surfaces, and resonate between both red hot
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 string standing wave analogy is inappropriate since Maxwell's
structure of light is a field structure.
5. 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 a 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. 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 standing wave
formed by a string since a string is not a field structure. 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 string standing wave cannot be compared
to an EM 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 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 used to derive 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). To justify that and electromagnetic wave of Maxwell's
structure of light forms a discrete energy and particle structure.
However, the blackbox intensity curve (fig 17) is formed using five
different measuring devises:
1. Radio waves-circuits
2. Microwaves-crystal
3. Infrared-bolometer
4. Light & UV-photomultiplier
5. X-rays-ionization chamber
The results of five completely different measurement devises cannot be
represented on the same graph. The intensity of light is visible yet
the intensity of a radio wave are not visible. If the blackbox
emission intensity curve equation (equ 32) and the resulting
experimental graph are invalid then Planck's derivation of the
constant (h) is also 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 optic particles are
emitted from the red hot surfaces 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
and frequency yet the energy of the optic particles are determined by
only the frequency.
4. Gas molecules kinetic energy varies depending 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
characteristics 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.
7. Quantum Mechanic Wave Packets and Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) of
Light
The quantum mechanic wave packet structure of light is describe.
Quantum mechanics is a wave theory yet "quantum" implies a particle
theory.
"the basic conceptual framework of the subject [quantum mechanics] has
been considered by many scientists to be unsatisfactory" (Rae, p.
222)
The problem with quantum mechanics is that a continuous wave
structures are used to describe a particle structure yet a continous
EM wave structure is the opposite of a particle structure. The
quantum mechanic wave packet structure of light is an attempt at
forming a particle structure from Maxwell's plane wave structure of
light. The quantum mechanic wave packet structure of light is formed
by the,
"superpositioning, that is sum of plane waves [Maxwell] of different
frequencies and amplitudes" (Brandt, p. 21)
Two plane waves of slightly different angular frequencies are
superpositioned which forms wave packets along the horizontal length
(fig ). The wave packets formed are not a particle structures since
two plane waves can form more than two wave packets. Quantum
mechanics then uses 14 plane waves of different frequencies and
amplitudes to form a quantum mechanic wave packet. A single wave
packet formed by 14 plane waves is used to represent a quantum
mechanic wave packet structure of light. Yet according to the wave
theory of light, a plane wave represents the structure of a photon.
Using 14 plane waves to form a QM wave packet that describe a
particle structure of a photon when a single plane wave is used to
describe a single photon is questionable physics.
"It seems to me that far from there being only one interpretation of
quantum mechanics, there is today no fully satisfactory way of
understanding this theory." (Healey, p. 2)
The quantum mechanic wave packet structure of light does not describe
the physical structure of light.
QED [quantum electrodynamics] of light is described. QED is another
attempt at quantizing Maxwell's EM plane wave structure of light.
QED quantizes Maxwell's structure of light by enclosing a segment of
a plane wave's EM field structure within a box (normalization).
QED quantizes the length and the plane (width) of the plane wave. Yet
Maxwell's plane wave structure of light is formed of a continuous EM
field 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 and
emits light 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).
QED particle structure of light is not a continuous structure. Yet
Maxwell's structure of light is derived form a continuous structure
of a spherical wave; therefore, the derivation of the QED discrete
quantum structure of light using Maxwell's plane wave structure of
light is not physically possible since the original spherical wave
structure is not a particle structure. QED quantum structure of light
conflicts with the continuous structure that is describe with
Maxwell's equations.
8. Particle Theory of Light
The particle theory of light is describe. The photoelectric effect of
light proves that light is composed of particles. I will prove that
the aperture diffraction effect of light is a particle effect. In an
experiment, a small diameter laser passes through a small circular
aperture without contacting the aperture edge; the aperture
diffraction pattern is not formed when the incident light does not
contact the aperture edge. Consequently, the interaction of the optic
particles with the aperture edge atoms is an esstential part of the
aperture diffraction mechanism. I predict that the interaction of
light with the aperture edge atoms form an "aperture effect" that
diffracts the optic particles that enter the aperture.
In an experiment, a photomultiplier is used to test the light that
forms the small aperture diffraction effect of light. A
photomultiplier is placed in the aperture, and between the aperture
and the diffraction screen.
"a photomultiplier that utilize the photoelectric effect is used to
test a single photon" (Orear, p. 34)
The photomultiplier experiment proves that, in the plane of the
aperture, the optic particles are directed to the intensity areas and
not allowed in the areas where the dark areas of the aperture
diffraction pattern. Consequently, I predict that the optic
particles that contact the aperture edge forms an "aperture effect",
in the plane of the aperture, that directs the optic particles, that
enter the aperture, to the intensity areas of the diffraction
pattern. In addition, the intensity of light that enter the aperture
is approximately equal to the intensity formed by the diffraction
pattern. The intensity is spread out on the diffraction screen by
the aperture effect. The aperture diffraction effect of light is a
particle effect.
The T&R [transmission& reflection] effect of light is also a
particle effect. In the T&R experiment of light, a
photomultiplier is placed in front of the glass plate and embedded in
the glass medium. The photomultiplier experiment prove that the
incident, transmission and reflected light beams are composed of
particles. Consequently, the T&R effects of light is a particle
effect. I predict that the glass surface molecules act as an atomic
grid. When the optic particle are incident normal to the glass
surface the full face of the atomic grid is exposed; 94% of the
incident beam's optic particles are transmitted through the glass
surface atomic grid and 4% of the optic particles are reflected when
interacting with the atomic grid. When the incident angle measured
from the glass surface normal increases, the atomic grid's effect on
the incident beams' optic particles increases and decreases the
transmission beam's intensity. Consequently, the T&R effect of
light is a particle effect.
The constant (h) of the photoelectric energy equation is derived using
the ionization energy. The energy required to release (ionize) the
electron from the surface atom and the kinetic energy of the emitted
photoelectric electron represents the total energy of an optic
particle. To ionize a potassium atom 4.3 eV (Lide, p. 10-215) of
energy is required. A (5 x 10 ^14 Hz) optic particle emits a .5 eV
kinetic energy electron from a potassium atom (Hecht, p. 1123).
Consequently, the total energy of a 5 x 10^14 Hz optic particle is
derived by adding the atomic ionization (IE) and emitted electron's
kinetic (KE) energies,
(IE) + (KE) = 4.3 eV + .5 eV = 4.8 eV. (equ 38)
Using a 5 x 10^14 Hz optic particle's energy of 4.8 eV (equ 38) in
the photoelectric energy equation, the approximate value of the
constant (h) is derived for a potassium surface,
h = E/f = 4.8eV/(5 x 10^14 Hz) = 9.6 x 10^(-15) eV-s. (equ 39)
The mass of a 5 x 10^14 Hz optic particle is derived using the
kinetic energy equation,
E = (1/2)mv^2 -----------------> m = 2E/c^2 (equ 40)
The mass of a 5 x 10^14 Hz optic particle is derived using v=c= 3 x
10^8 m/s, and E = 4.8 eV or 7.7 x 10^19 J in equation 40,
m = 2(7.7 x 10^(-19)J)/c^2 = 1.69 x 10^(-34) kg. (equ 41)
9. Conclusion
Huygens's principle describe the propagation and aperture diffraction
mechanisms of light. Huygens's propagation mechanism, repetitively,
destroys the majority of the LOPS secondary wavelets' structures
after every wave fronts is formed, at intervals of a wavelength.
Huygen's propagation mechanism is an extreme violations of the law
of conservation of energy. Huygen's aperture diffraction mechanism's
interaction wave mechanism would substantially reduce the total
intensity of the diffraction pattern. A substantially reduction in
the total intensity of the diffraction pattern is not experimentally
observed; therefore, Huygen's aperture diffraction mechanism does not
describe the aperture diffraction effects of light.
The derivation of Fresnel's equations is based on conflicting
structures. A cosine wave structures are required in forming the
boundary equation,
I' + R' = T',
yet a sine plane wave structures are require in forming the tangental
equation,
-I'k' + R'k' = T'k".
Both equations are used to derive Fresnel's T&R equations. The
derivation of Fresnel's T&R equations is invalid since Fresnel's
derivation uses conflict structures to describe the incident,
transmission, and reflection plane waves. In addition, Fresnels
derivation of the T&R [transmission and reflection] equations of
light uses non-propagating plane waves (t=0) yet experimentally light
propagates. Fresnel's derivation of the T&R equations uses
conflicting structures and uses a wave structure that does not
propagate using t=0. The derivation of Fresnel's T&R equations is
invalid.
Maxwell's structure of light is derived form Maxwell's (radio wave)
equations where a infinitesimal size segment of an EM spherical wave
is approximated with a continuous EM plane wave structure of light.
Maxwell's structure of light is not a particle structure yet the
photoelectric effect prove that light has a particle structure.
According to Maxwell light has a continuous structure yet a
continuous structure of a plane wave interact with both slits of the
double slit aperture diffraciton experiment. The emission of light
through both slits is experimental proof that light is composed of
particles which conflict with Maxwell's continuous EM plane wave
structure of light. Maxwell's structure of light originated form
radio waves. Maxwell believe that since light and radio waves have
the same velocity that both have an electromagnetic structure.
However, an EM field structure is a continuous structure and the
photoelectric effect and the double slit aperture diffraction
experiments prove that light is composed of particles which conflict
with Maxwell's structure of light. Maxwell's structure of light also
forms a coherency problem since candle light, star, and laser light
originate from the volume of point source emission that are suspended
within a volume. The short wavelengths of light and the volume that
the point sources originate do not form a coherent structure of
Maxwell's plane wave structure of light. The reason for Maxwell's
structure of light is to describe the aperture diffraction effects of
light, a wave effect. 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. In addition:
1. The LOPS [line-of-point-sources] describe with secondary wavelet
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 formed by the
annihilation of the interacting waves would substantially reduce the
total intensity.
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.
Planck's blackbox emission derivation is described. Planck assume
that light within the blackbox forms standing waves; however, it is
not physically possible for light to form standing waves within a
blackbox 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 string standing wave analogy is inappropriate since Maxwell's
structure of light is a field structure.
5. The superposition of the standing waves EM field structure would
annihilate.
Planck uses the standing waves to derive a discrete energy equation
yet it is physically not possible for light to form standing waves.
Planck's derivation of the discrete energy equation, based on the
formation of standing waves, is invalid. Planck then derives the
average energy equation by replaces the integrations of the law of
equipartition of energy with summations. A summation is an
approximation of an integration, replacing the integrations with
summations cannot substantially change the original equation yet
Planck's derivation of the average total energy equation does not
resemble the original law of equipartition of energy equation. Planck
derivation of the average total energy equation is mathemically
invalid.
Einsteins photoelectric quanta equation derivation (1905) is
described. Einstein uses a gas molecule analogy to describe light
within the blackbox emission effect. However, it is inappropriate to
use thermodynamic gas molecules to describe light since light and gas
molecule a physically unrelated.
1. Gas molecules exist within a container yet optic particles are
emitted from the red hot surfaces 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
and frequency yet the energy of the optic particles are determined by
only the frequency.
4. Gas molecules kinetic energy varies depending on the temperature;
however, after the optic particles are emitted, the temperature does
not substantally affect the velocity of the optic particles.
Einstein replaces the work (V'/V") of the thermodynamic entropy
equation with a probability equation (W),
dS = nRln([v/v']^(NE/Rbf).
then implies that NE/Rbf of the previous equation is equal to one,
NE/Rbf = 1 ------> E = (Rbf)/N.
Einstein uses an improper substitution; the probability is not
equivalent to work and cannot be used in an entropy equation. The
volume, number of gas molecules and temperture of Einstein system is
constant; therefore, the change in entropy of Einstein's system is
zero. Einsteins derivation of the energy quanta equation is derive
from a system that change in entropy is zero.
The QM [quantum mechanic] wave packets of light are described. The QM
wave packet is an attempt at forming a particle structure from
Maxwell's plane wave structure of light by superpositioning plane
waves of different frequencies and amplitudes. Plane waves form more
wave packets than the number of plane waves used; therefore, quantum
mechanic wave packets do not from a particle structure. Quantum
mechanics then uses 14 plane waves to describe a "quantum" structure
of light; yet using 14 plane wave to derive a single "quantum"
structure of light violates logic since a single plane wave is used
to describe a photon. The QM wave packet structure of light is
invalid. QED [quantum electrodynamics] of light is another attempt
at quantizing Maxwell's structure of light. QED quantizes Maxwell's
structure of light by enclosing a segment of a plane wave within a
box (normalization). However, the plane of a plane wave structure of
light represent the width of the light beam; therefore, the
quantumization of Maxwell's structure of light would effect the
continuity of Maxwell's plane wave structure of light. Consequently,
the QED particle structure of light conflict with the continuity of
Maxwell's EM plane wave structure of light.
The particle theory of light is described. The photoelectric effect
proves that light is composed of particles; therefore, the aperture
diffraction effect of light is a particle effect. I predict that the
optic particles that contact the aperture edge form an aperture effect
that directs the optic particles, to the intensity areas of the
diffraction pattern and does not allow the diffracted optic particles
in the dark areas. Using a photomultipier, a light that enter the
aperture are directed to the intensity areas of the diffraction
pattern and not allowed the dark areas. The photomultiplier
experiment proves that the aperture diffraction effect of light is a
particle effect.
The constant (h) of of the photoelectric energy equation is derived
using the atomic ionization energy (IE) and emitted electron's
kinetic energy (KE).
(IE) + (KE) = 4.3 eV + .5 EV = 4.8 eV
Using a 5 x 10^14 Hz optic particle's energy of 4.8 eV, the value of
the constant (h) is derived for a potassium surface,
h = E/f = (4.8 eV)/(5 x 10^14 Hz) = 9.6 x 10^1- eV-s.
Using the kinetic energy equation the mass of a (5x 10^14 Hz) optic
particle is derived,
m = 2E/c^2 = 2(7.7 x 10^(-19)J)/c^2 = 1.69 x 10^(-34) kg.
9. References
Isaac Asimov. "Understanding Physics Vol 11." George Allen &
Unwin Ltd. 1966.
Ben Bova. "The Beauty of Light." John Wiley. 1988.
Siegmend Branddt and Hans Dieter Dahmen. "Quantum Mechanics". 3rd
ed. Springer. 1985.
Robert Eisberg and Robert Resnick. "Quantum Physics of Atoms,
Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles." John Wiley & Sons.
1974.
Eugene Hecht. "Optics." 4th ed. Addison-Wesley. 2002.
Eugene Hecht. "Physics." Brooks/Cole. 1996.
Francis A. Jenkins and Harvey White. "Fundamentals of Optics." 3rd
ed. McGraw-Hill. 1957.
Lide. "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics." 77th ed. CRC Press.
1996.
R. S. Longhurst. "Geometrical and Physical Optics." Longmans.
1956.
Walter Michels. "Physics: Priciples and Applications." Houghton
Mifflin. 1977.
George S. Monk. "Light" 2nd ed. Dover Pub. 1963.
Mary Jo Nye. "The question of the Atom." Tomash. 1984.
Jay Orear. "Fundamental Physics. John Wiley & Sons. 2nd ed.
1967.
David Park. "The Fire Within the Eye." Princeton University Press.
1997.
Alastair Rea. "Quantum Physics Illusion or Reality." Cambridge
Universtiy Press. 1986.
Arnold Reimann. "Physics." Vol 2. Barnes & Noble. 1973.
Vaco Ronchi. "The Nature of Light. Harvard University Press. 1970.
Rothman and Sudarshan. "Doubt and Certainty." Perseus. 1999.
L.D. Stepin. "Quantum Radio Frequency Physics." MIT Press. 1965.
*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Light |
15 Dec 2004 10:29:35 PM |
|
|
*plonk*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Light |
16 Dec 2004 09:28:21 AM |
|
|
ben ito wrote:
Optica!
Ben Tsutomu Ito
12-16-04
I will prove that the wave-particle duality theory of light is
invalid"
(snip 1370 lines of unconscionable crap AGAIN)
You are a spewing psychotic idiot troll.
http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/research/matterwave/c60/
C60 is more massive than a photon, ineducable spewing psychotic idiot
troll.
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/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
