"Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:7xNck.205681$SV4.152949@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> This time, Bill walks to the wall, whisks out a cigarette (though he
does
> not smoke) lights it and grips it between his lips. He removes a
bandanna
> from his hip pocket and ties it around his eyes.
>
> He takes a deep breath. "Ready! Aim! Fire!" he shouts.
>
> He hears a multitude of CLICKS. Puzzled, he removes the blindfold and
> watches as the firing squad begins dis-assembling their weapons,
obviously
> looking for some universal flaw.
>
> He tosses the unsmoked cigarette on the ground and walks away.
> *************************************************
>
> A few weeks ago, I suggested that the Double Slit experiment may have
been
> misinterpreted.
>
> (You know. This is the experiment done first by Young in the 19th
Century.
> It "proved" the wave nature of light. It also led the way to a
puzzling
> phenomenon wherein light <as well as electrons, protons, neutrons and
atoms
> and maybe dumptrucks became waves AND developed sentience by apparently
> "knowing" about the existence of a second slit even though they were
passing
> nowhere near it.> It's the experiment from which the statistical nature
of
> light etc. led us to Quantum Mechanics.)
>
> My suggested alternate explanation was that the slits were simply acting
as
> slot antennas and were coupling EM energy from one to the other.
>
> Dumb idea. That was the opinion of many. (But not all.)
>
> So... I hopped onto Google Scholar and started looking for construction
> details of slits. That way, I could make some back-of-an-envelope
> calculations to see if anything I suggested might vaguely fit
>
> What I found exceeded all my expectations.
>
> Here is the abstract from a January 2005 paper published in the Physical
> Review Letters entitled "Plasmon-Assisted Two-Slit Transmission: Young's
> Experiment Revisited"
>
> Here is the abstract:
>
> "We present an experimental and theoretical study of the optical
> transmission of a thin metal screen perforated by two subwavelength
slits,
> separated by many optical wavelengths. The total intensity of the
far-field
> double-slit pattern is shown to be reduced or enhanced as a function of
the
> wavelength of the incident light beam. This modulation is attributed to
an
> interference phenomenon at each of the slits, instead of at the
detector.
> The interference arises as a consequence of the excitation of surface
> plasmons propagating from one slit to the other."
> In other words, something different is happening from what is suggested
by
> Quantum theory. And that difference appears to be much more consistent
with
> Classical EM than with playing dice with the universe. In the paper, the
> performance of the experiment seems very similar to what I had suggested
in
> my earlier posting.
>
> Here is a link to the paper:
>
> http://download.antennex.com/listarch/files/Dbl_Slit_Plasmon.pdf
>
> You will have to register (FREE) in order to see it unless you are
> previously registered.
>
> Assuming that the experimental results are correct, what does this mean
to
> the whole panoply of ideas associated with Quantum mechanics?
>
> Bill
>
Well, after reading the above post yesterday morning I thought I'd wait
untill the inevitable pandamonium settled. However, apart from Ben the
silence is deafening.
Should I be surprised at this silence? I truly don't know if that is the
correct responce. Undoubtedly a clear indication of lack of experience on
my part.
On a side note, Ben asked in a previous post whether or not using the
negative numbers side in some theoretical works was valid. And since then
I
have read the following.
[quote]
Imagine an AM antenna one-fiftieth of a wavelength long, that needs no
radial ground system, occupies a small parcel of land, produces little or
no
RFI (Radio Frequency Interference), has great bandwidth and performs
better
than a full-sized vertical radiator.
Does this sound like a fantasy?
Until recently, it would have been.
Now working models of such an antenna exist in the Middle East and at
NAB99
(National Association of Broadcasters' 1999 Convention in Las Vegas).
[/quote]
[quote]
The "reversed form" (negative solution) of Maxwell's Fourth Equation,
states
that a magnetic field can be produced without current flowing in a
wire........
On April 19, 1999, at the Las Vegas Convention Center, Brian Steward from
the Department of Engineering at Glasgow Caledonian University presented a
paper on what has been patented as the Crossed-Field Antenna
[/quote]
I found the above very interesting, and have begun to wonder at what else
may be lurking within other negative solutions.
Is a negative power solution not valid? Negative work is still work is it
not?
I've never been able become comfortable with the interpretion of Young's
experiment. It's an interesting case (apparently) of where the
interpreation has been tailored to fit the result. A difficult thing to
critisize or question successfully. You are a brave man Bill!!
Thank you very much,
Highest regards,
Vince
|
