The First Experiment (The razor blade)

Fig 1

Light that passes very close to the edge of the blade is diffracted as shown in the figure. I prefer to use the word deflected since 'diffracted' gives the impression that the exact mechanism that causes the light to be deflected is understood - it is not understood. It is vital in the further understanding of the experiment, to appreciate that the rest of the beam, which is not blocked, passes the razor edge too far away to be affected or deflected by the edge.
On the screen, the undeflected light just produces a bright spot, whilst the light that has been deflected produces a continuous beam of light, extending equally on both sides of the bright spot.
A second razor blade edge is now introduced into the part of the laser beam about two inches further along the laser beam. It is introduced however, at the other side of the beam, but again so that it blocks about two fifths of the original beam. Thus, there remains one fifth of the beam that remains unaffected and undeflected. The second edge, being identical to the first edge has exactly the same light and energy deflecting characteristics. Its affect is not influenced by the first edge, and the first edge is unaffected by the second edge. This all follows from the fact that there is an undeflected one fifth of the original beam that passes both edges at the same distance - too far away from the edges to be affected. Note that the body of the second razor blade will block half the deflected light from the first edge. However, the second edge must cause the same distribution of light and energy on the screen as the first edge. When we examine the composite image on the screen, we see that at part A where deflected light arrives from only the second edge, the anticipated continuous line of light is seen. When we examine at the point where light arrives from both the edges (part B), a typical interference pattern is produced due to light from the two razor edges, as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig 2



Fig 3



Fig 4

We know that both edges must have the same even distribution of light and energy on the screen at B, therefore there must be the same energy distribution at the bright fringes as at the dark fringes. At first thought this seems impossible, but we must remember that experimental results must always take precedence over theories, no matter how well and how long these theories have existed and been believed by multitudes of university students. In the two remaining figures, methods are shown that confirm that the presence of any one edge has no affect on the other. No detailed explanations of the figures are made, since the methodology will be self-evident to anyone familiar with optical laboratory procedures.

Conclusions

Although standard theories assert that there is little light nor energy in the dark fringes, this experiment shows that is not so, and there is the same amount of energy incident at both dark and bright fringe areas. There is however, a well-known standard "proof" that almost all the energy is in the bright fringes and hardly any in the dark areas, but it is a 'proof' dependent on the standard theories. Since here these theories are in question, they cannot be cited against the experimental results, otherwise we would have a circular, and therefore meaningless, argument.

Here I propose no detailed explanation of the observed effect, other than to say I use my personal explanation for all the experiments, and also in the demonstration of Young's two-slit experiment that you may download if you have not already done so. I call it the Accumulator Effect. Since both wave theory and quantum theory contain this error, regarding the distribution of photons in an interference pattern, it will be necessary to modify them if they are to continue to be taught in schools and universities. First, it will be necessary to overcome the prejudice and narrow-mindedness. Secondly the stress and fear associated with the career prospects of all teachers of these flawed theories will have to be overcome.

The Second Experiment (Disappearing Light)

Fig 1

Object of experiment.
To show that a beam of photons can be invisible and therefore almost undetectable.

This experiment is a modified form of Michelson's interferometer. It has two added parts. First, an additional mirror (mirror 3 in the diagram) is added to reflect back into the interferometer the light that usually forms the main output of the interferometer. The second addition is that of a second beam-splitter, placed between the laser's output and the interferometer proper. This second beam-splitter directs half the light from the single output that is heading back towards the laser, from the interferometer onto a screen. Its function is to provide a means of conveniently monitoring the interferometer's light output. A lens widens the image on the screen and again is present just for convenience. All the mirrors of the interferometer are set-up to be perfectly aligned. The means of ensuring this alignment are obvious to those familiar with working with interferometers, so no explanation here. The actual experiment is now done by moving one or more of the mirrors, 1 through 3, so that the light seen on the screen is a minimum. Of course, these adjustments are carried out with aid of specialised manipulators. Given that no matter how precisely the optical components are manufactured, there will be some imperfection in the image, so that zero light on the screen will be unlikely, nevertheless the minimum will normally be very close to zero. The question is; What has become of all the light and associated energy which enters the interferometer?

Interpretation: - Two professors have analysed this result using wave theory and their conclusions are illuminating. First, they add all the components of light that are reflected back towards the laser and screen. They agree that for certain positions of the three mirrors, these components sum to zero in accord with the experimental result. However when asked where the light and energy has gone, the answer is given that it has been dissipated at the surfaces of the mirrors, because there are multiple reflections occurring. There are however two problems with this "explanation". First, if the light is dissipated in the mirrors, how is it that its components heading towards the laser can be added? How can light that is lost in the three mirrors, also exist on its way towards the screen when it has been dissipated in the mirrors? The second way to show that this interpretation is wrong, is to use mirrors that transmit a very small proportion of the light hitting their surface. This transmitted light need be only 1%, so that the rest, minus losses, is all reflected. This transmitted light can be monitored with light sensitive detectors. The transmitted light is of course a small part of the light in the three arms of the interferometer. When this is done, the total transmitted light is found to be virtually constant whatever the settings of the mirrors. Thus we can set the light intensity on the screen to a maximum or a minimum (zero), and observe that the light intensity in the three arms and therefore the losses in the three arms are the same in both cases. Now when there is a bright light on the screen and the losses are the same as when there is nothing on the screen, it follows that losses cannot account for the disappearing light.

Of course the correct interpretation is simple and easily understood, provided that one dismisses the previous indoctrination that we all have undergone at one time or another. There is nothing wrong with indoctrination provided that we realise it is just that, and that we are prepared to discard it when a better explanation or an original experimental result is available:- as here.

As in the first experiment, we see that it is possible to have a beam of waves/photons that are not visible, but exist.

This experiment shows that the two principal theories of light phenomenon, wave and quantum theories, are flawed and should be recognised as such, so that modified versions can be formulated. To continue teaching theories that are proved by experiment to be wrong is anti-scientific.

Although the apparatus, like that of the other experiments, is simple and easily accessible, it does incorporate one special piece of apparatus - a mirror. This mirror is somewhat unusual in so far as it is specially shaped to correspond with the shape of just one interference fringe. To produce the fringes, a Michelson interferometer, in which the reflection mirrors are very slightly mis-aligned, is used in conjunction with a short focal length lens. The arrangement and the fringe pattern is shown in the diagram.

A screen is used to help set the interference pattern so that about four fringes are produced within a circle of 3 inches diameter. It would be possible to select just one of the fringes, bright or dark, by making an appropriate shaped slit in the screen, but this would have the unfortunate effect of producing, at the same time, a lot of diffracted light, caused by the slit's edges. To overcome this difficulty,the specially shaped mirror is used to select and reflect the fringe to be used by simply placing it just infront of the screen at a dark or bright fringe area. Diffraction effects still occur, but none of the diffracted light is reflected into the path of the remaining optical components, which consist of a set of suitable lenses (3 in my case). These are selected and positioned to produce a much enlarged, in-focus image of the two virtual light sources which give rise to the interference. The images of the two sources should be spaced about 1cm apart and appear on a screen, which can be conveniently observed in subdued lighting conditions during the rest of the experiment.

Experimental method

2) Now the lens system is adjusted to de-focus the images so that they overlap, whereupon the overall brightness of the images is much reduced. If the small mirror is placed to reflect a bright fringe then the overlapping will give a brighter image than when a dark fring is reflected. It is obvious that the energy passing though the lens system is the same irrespective of whether the images are in or out of focus yet the intensity changes dramatically. Standard theories do not predict or acknowledge this effect.

3) In the final part of the experiment, a small piece of dark card is used to block, in turn, the path of the light within the interferometer which is responsible for one of the light sources. Under this condition there remains only one light source so that no interference can possibly occur. This means that where there was a dark fringe area there now must be an intermediate light intensity. This intensity is uniform over the 3 inch diameter area of the original fringes. Thus at a dark fringe, this area will increase in brightness when any one of the light sources is blocked. It is observed that the only effect on the image screen is that one or other of the two images disappears/reappears. That is, the total image brightness is halved/doubled whilst at the same time the intensity at the selected dark area decreases/increases. Again this could not possibly be anticipated according to standard teaching.

Conclusion:- Each of the three variations of the experiment proves, by demonstration, that just because it is not possible to see light at a particular place, it does not mean that there is no light energy there, and that in at least some situations it is possible to re- transform this hidden energy back into observable light.

If you have understood experiment 1 (Razor blade) and experiment 4 (Phoenix) and have not been able to find a flaw in the experimental method or the interpretation of the results, then you have no alternative but to reject both classical wave theory and quantum theory. I don't mean that these theories are all wrong, but rather that they need modification.