Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Remove the comment about the comment and that will be the end of it.

Remove the comment about the comment and that will be the end of it.

Hi Good Elf!
Thanks for those plasmon links.
I would hate to be a physics teachers and have this kind of info brought to me by a smart student reading the web.
Everything is different with the web.
jal
ps I'm sure that admin. would help with "editing" past the dead line

Hi Neil,

I already deleted all reference to you but do you want me to leave my apology and my explanation?

Too late about my apology and personal details... I hope this is all you need. Only your comments really indicate anything happened at all. Just remember that nothing I said was directly aimed at you. They were my experiences not yours. I thought you would understand. Unfortunately "good will" and intent cannot be guaranteed in this form of anonymous communication.

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jan 23 2007, 03:52 AM

Hi Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, Jal, Fivedoughnut, Yquantum, Neil et al,

I have been looking at "Singular Optics" and this reference is highly instructive on the matter. It refers to experimentally derived observations not just theory...
Creation and annihilation of phase singularities near a sub-wavelength slit
In particular where practical dislocations can occur in the vacuum state where the sign of polarization and magnitude of the field falls naturally to zero. It would seem this can occur in free space as well as in materials. These behave in ways not described by the general interpretation of the Electromagnetic Wave Equations where sources and nodes do not just appear in free space without a good reason. It seems the good reason is the appearance of topological charge makes this possible in regions where the div and curl of the field drop anomalously to zero. Light can then do some very strange things...

Certain cavity sub-wavelength structures in materials create anomalous transmission of light... these are indirectly related to left and right handed vortex structures existing in the space on the far side of the slit from the source. These take the role of both sourceless field curls and sourceless field saddle points. These "defects" in the local space merge slowly as the slit width increases resulting in anomalous enhanced propagation through the region freed of these "defects". A movie of these processes are linked from within the pdf file above showing an animation on a website. It is strongly reminiscent of the formation of particles and antiparticles which form when energetic photons are dispersed around stray nuclei to produce particles and antiparticles.

The existence of localized topological charge of opposite signs around each of these vortices also indicate that a general optical principle is involved in those spaces and these relate to the law in particle physics akin to Lorentz-CPT Conservation Laws. It is also the analog in optics of those Falaco Solitons previously mentioned where the centers are "zeros" of the curl singularity... in Falaco Solitons these lead to a "string" linking the two structures.

Funny that most of the literature neglect to mention these experimentally derived electromagnetic phenomena grouped under a class of studies called "Singular Optics". These phenomena are not Quantum Related since they are dealt with using pure Classical Field Theory and to "force" this into a particle picture fails to recognize that at this stage of the process no particles have yet formed. The anomalous transmission of light (another experimentally derived phenomenon) is seen in these regions after the defect is removed incrementally where the refractive index of light is then altered in the open space to effectively focus the light through this "gap" anomalously... . I feel this is related to the cavities stated in the reference in solid matter only this is occurring in free space... This is the first instance I have heard in the literature of where the refractive index of "free space" can be modified by a propagating field. The residual effect is a zone of anomalous optical properties different from the surrounding space. All other cases of such "modification" have occurred inside dielectrics. Now this throws dielectrics into a totally new light (figuratively speaking... no pun here). Obviously this has great bearing on the Double Slit Experiment since it does not take any of these phenomena into account. Figure 3 show an array of these structures existing in the space behind the slit.

Funny how there is little or no mention of this experimentally derived "semi-classical" phenomena... is there such prejudice against this measurable and repeatable phenomena that the particle theory is already showing a flaw in its impenetrable wall even on bench tops?

Of course this does sort of relate to the surface plasmons as well but I am unsure which could be termed primary in this process. Comment welcome and any ideas will not be dismissed out of hand.

Cheers

PS: A certain elf I know is modifying some ideas to settle in with the new terminology and practical results. Everything old is new again.

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jan 23 2007, 08:52 AM

Good Day All!
I did a search of this thread .... its now a good source of info.

23 pages later We are now into p.104
plasmons is what we should have been looking at.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/PWslits.pdf
Yes, ....It has been said for about 100 pages the electrons in the material making up the slit do set up waves that interact with the photon that make up the pattern that we see in the DSE. The experiments have been carried out with gold and the calculations have been done.
And now…. From the same source Good Elf is suggesting that spacetime is also involved

However, I disagree with you Good Elf

We need both. Review
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#hv Bohmian Mechanics
Are we approaching a new level of agreement?
jal

Hi Jal, Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, Fivedoughnut, Yquantum, Neil et al,

Thanks Jal for the reply. I am still seeing something different in that paper. This does not divide any photons up but it obviously rearranges the pointing vectors in space. As to Bohmian Mechanics The "guiding waves " they are purely "defect free" and the illustration of the Bohmian DSE on the page of your reference indicates a very "unimaginative" interpretation. However since these pages were not written by David Bohm I cannot completely say he did not understand that implication. He saw enough to understand the manipulation of this defect in the Aharanov-Bohm Effect so maybe he did envision "Singular Optics". What I would like to say to all is that"Singular Optics" is not quantum Theory it is "semi-classical" optics.... this is in keeping with the thrust of my arguments. I still think that the modification of the free space refractive index is an insight that I would have thought have been noted in the literature very early. This offers a strong Geometrodynamic Flavor to the problem.

I suppose everyone was able to view the defect animations. This shows how the defects migrate relative to each other in the zone close to the slit or pinhole. Then after that you see the streaming defects developing from the widening slit geometry.
Click on Figure 4 or click here...
http://www.opticsexpress.org/view_media.cfm?umid=3815
Click on Figure 6 or click here...
http://www.opticsexpress.org/view_media.cfm?umid=3816
These animations are able to be saved as gif's. The second shows a field of spreading defects "periodically" filling space as the slit widens, each side a mirror symmetric image of the other side of the slit. More importantly though is the first illustration which shows how the defects "merge" as the slit is dynamically widened to produce "superbrightening" in the residual zone if everything is correctly arranged. The phenomenon is very exciting and I am truly stunned that these phenomena have largely escaped a lot of public scrutiny. The "superbrightening" is clearly due to the change in refractive index in free space and this is very interesting and shows an interesting light cone effect. The existence of the "string" now needs to be confirmed experimentally. This treatment is only two dimensional a better three dimensional treatment is required to indicate solutions for single circular orifices. I do not think we can assume that this solution can be simply projected into figure of rotation rotating the plane through the symmetry axis by 2 pi radians??

All these "non-particles" are clearly requiring more than a particle solution for description and need a better treatment. I wonder if Taco Visser has been able to do some more work on this problem. In the case of pseudo particle production this throws the recent production of ball lightning into a totally different light (no pun again). The use of two silicon wafers being widened and subjected to "excitation" may very well produce a ball defect as stated.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?fee...=mg19325863.500
These solitons can last up to 8 seconds in the lab environment and with sizes between a ping-pong ball to a grapefruit. Obviously the excitation of surface "plasmons" can generate these very stable solitons.

It is not far from that to true particle production with pairs of "appropriately" energetic solitons.... "Let there be Light"... and you could see for bloody miles... he he he! Has anyone got some information from either the Visser Home Page Site
... his Journal Page...
Journal Page of Taco Visser
... or elsewhere about the analog of the "Falaco String Defect" that just must be there.

... Click to enlarge ...
Other input welcome. Maybe yquantum could comment on this turn up if he is still watching.

As an afterthought these link with Orbital Angular Momentum and the Holographic Defect Creation of "twisted light" and "optical tweezers".
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/res...cs/oamgp/gp.htm
What those references do not say is anything about the "very interesting" aspects of this phenomena. This leads to a very important aspect of the Holographic Universe concept the emergence of charge and solitons created in part by this kind of holographic defect...

... A holo-image that can generate these defects on that page referenced. The emergence of free space "artifacts" such as the modification to the refractive index and to the emergence of topological charge is also very intellectually pleasing.

Experiments in this field could be done in your basement on a bench top... he he he!

Now we have pure optics generating defects in space and these defects lead to charge and to remote forces (these are the source of optical tweezers you realize) on objects by manipulating the velocity of light in free space the way a hunk of glass can bend light inside matter . These "cavities... and they are definitely cavities that can trap light in some fashion have all been demonstrated in laboratories around the world. So now you have an experimental basis for a phenomenon that can produce force at a distance and charge and optical cavities all seamlessly related to a very weak field Lorentz-CPT Principle in optics. This will transition to real particles and so on obviously when certain conditions in the curl of the three dimensional field results in "real particles".

In the extreme case this is particle production however this is a linear process that leads gradually to more and more free space phenomena as the curl in the defects are two pi radians and multiples of that... a primary condition for stationary states. Below a certain threshold these soliton states are not stable and so are not stationary but when particles are produced they become stable. All through this evolution the Lorentz-CPT laws are maintained in the defects. This offers a path to solve that mystery that Einstein wondered about... "To solve the riddle of the electron would be enough".

All this theory though very appealing still does not completely solve the mystery of the Double Slit Interference Experiment or the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser since the informational side of these interference patterns is not a part of this theory. We have been on a separate course that merges here with Visser's concepts. many threads have pulled together and I can see that this is going to be a "complete" theory.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jan 23 2007, 09:07 PM

GE, C2, Jal, TRoc and All,

As you know, I have proposed that different sized slit aperture of the DSE act as a rectangularly
shaped "lenses", each with an individual index of refraction with a spacially
separated focal plane (gap between slits), that projects a mixed signal gaussian
distribution interference "image" onto the "screen".

I have also proposed the idea that the slit surface "edge effects" (light interacting
with surface "plasmon's") change the phase relationship (superposition) between
the unobstructed EM field's wavefront and the delayed "sides" of the
wavefront that are interacting with the edges of the slits, which causes interference
as the wavefront "edge wavelets" are rephased and mixed, due to plasmon
timing delays. My contention has been that the relationship of the variable
geometry of the wavefront is interacting with the fixed geometry of the
slit(s) which is responsible for the observed diffraction and interference of the
spacially divided, but "time coherent", wavefronts that propagate thru the slits.

There are several interesting papers, referenced by GE on Taco Visser's website,
that deal with light interacting with various optical arrangements. IMO, several
of them are compelling in that they "indirectly", and directly, support some of the
proposals that I have suggested. There is a lot of advanced mathematics in these
papers, but interspersed within there is quite a bit of text, especially in the introductions and conclusions that generalizes the discussion.

http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/jump.pdf

http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/diffraction.pdf

http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/PRE02355.pdf

http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/comparison.pdf

http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/shifts.pdf

http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/phase.pdf

http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/material.pdf

If we all agree that the slit aperatures act like projection lenses, each with its own
index of refraction, focal plane, and inherent timing delays, and if we agree that an
advancing EM wavefront can simultaneously propagate thru multiple slits, then I believe we will all
be on the same "sheet of music" and can formalize the theoretical "mechanics" of
the DSE.
IMO, we are close to finally achieving some general "agreements" as to what
is really happening to explain the DSE.

Edit added:

Of interest re:

Comments, discussion, constructive opinions welcomed.
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jan 24 2007, 12:25 AM

Hi Jal, Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, Fivedoughnut, Yquantum, Neil et al,

Laserlight I am sure we are agreeing on most points but I have two "small" issues now. The shape of any aperture does condition the output from that secondary source. Optical theory still says that any shaped aperture can be "constructed" or "synthesized" from a large number of "identical primitives" which are the standard function obtained from a small diffraction hole... they are not usually perfectly Gaussian but are a sync function (normalized for an intensity).


They are Gaussian if the source is wholly incoherent. Alternatively if the holes are large enough the "apparent Gaussian" envelope swamps the small scale periodic structure. Individually you can decide just what size the individual primitives are so long as when you sum them vectorially they result in the exact slit mask you require. So a square aperture (or any other shaped aperture) is simply the coherent correlated sum of an large number of individual pinholes which would as completely as required "punch out " a mask for your square hole... each "punch hole" is a perfect circular "perforation". This is the way Feynman Many Paths Method would construct it and it is the way optics in either the near or far field would construct it. The models in each case are different but they arrive at a similar answer. This works for one hole or perforation or many ... distributed or clumped into a single or many shapes. This model does not work for uncorrelated sources. Each "source" in the "image plane" ... perhaps the distant stars... is a separate partially correlated source at any of the co-traveling optical frequencies. To generate the total scene a very large number of superpositions for each frequency would be needed to arrive at the image plane result. The DSE is usually just one frequency and just two "small" holes or slits, and most importantly just one single source.
http://www.phy.davidson.edu/StuHome/cabell...experiments.htm

The only assumption is the single source you are using is the one "point" source and that it is a correlated (coherent) source... in a worst case it may be only partially coherent. In every other respect that statement you made is correct.

The other issue is I think some of that last reference you are quoting may be experimentally incorrect or at best "incomplete" unless the distributed sources are correlated at source. I have indicated that sources can be correlated artificially by connecting the pump sources or correlated spatially through co-travel to the screen. Some work has been done in an experimental sense. What that reference may have implied is that each separate source is coherent and together they form two "separate" spatially distributed interference patterns through the two slits each one is displaced from the other by a scaled source to screen distance laterally. In many cases of a practical concern this lateral displacement is too small to be measured. Alternatively the reference did not stipulate that the light from each coherent source was actually in high angular proximity to each other and may be forming a bosonic state if allowed to co-travel some distance together. It does suggest that the distances are sufficient to have the primary mode of the beams (merged or otherwise) larger than the footprint of the two slits. For instance if one of the laser beams was too wide of the aperture and the beam width collimated such that the probability of photons from one of the beams was small to actually pass through the slit then this may not be an observable effect.

Could you nominate the specific source that you are quoting from please LL and I will look into it and avoid having me guess about it.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jan 24 2007, 01:04 AM

Good Day Everyone!
Particles are wave-like and waves are particle-like Bohmian Mechanics needs improving and the standard understanding of “waves” need improving to get to the next level of a model that can give us greater understanding of how the universe works.
Do we agree?

Good Elf

You always discount Planck Scale as being beyond the reach of experiment.
Therefore, YOU must also discount two other ways of looking at how the universe works.
1. The size of the holographic units do not have to be Planck size or Planck energy. They must be smaller than 0.05 mm. As a result, packing comes into the arrangement of these units.

Then you need to make your own diagram. I’ll bet that when you do make your diagram, you will get my SPOT.


( See my thread or previous post on this thread.) Vacuum effects (ZPE etc.) do not need to come from Planck Size. They only need to be all the same size.
The speed of light is CONSTANT. If you change the speed of light then you have changed the distance, (l), that light must travel. © as a constant depend directly on (l) the distance. It does not depend on the size of (l). Therefore, (l) can be 10^-33 or even 10^-18. It does not depend on Planck size. They only need to be the same size.
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/res...cs/oamgp/gp.htm

Without comments …. Phase shift


2. You postulate a time frame ( let’s call it e-time ) for the photon that you have not identified. It has no definition or parameters that can ever be reached by experiments. The creation of a photon or vaccum effects is instantaneous by your definition, and therefore happens in e-time by something ( an electron ) in real time, which does not exist in e-time and which should not be visible in e-time. Since the photon is created in e-time, which is no time in our frame of reference, then it would not get created. Then you say that the photon does not go to another electron by using our time frame but rather by using e-time. In e-time the electron creating the photon would be the same at the electron receiving the photon. There is no separation of time and distance in e-time. Therefore, there is only one electron. The photon would never leave “its” electron. It would only stay in “its” electron. As a result, there is no need to have more than one electron or more than one photon. What we “see” in our time frame is just an illusion of “nothing” happening since it is happening in e-time which we will never be able to detect.

If you can suspend those two concepts we will be able to be in closer agreement.
We should, therefore, be able to apply some solutions such as TRoc’s approach and quantum geometry.

Did you make orange juice?
Here is more work from E.J. Galvez, N. Smiley, and N. Fernandes
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/fac...cles/spie06.pdf
Composite Optical Vortices Formed by Collinear
Laguerre-Gauss Beams

http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/res...amgp/geomph.htm

http://www.mi.infm.it/manini/berryphase.html
Berry's phase
http://www.mi.infm.it/manini/offdiagonal.html
Off-Diagonal Geometric Phases

This material is rich in potential and well worth the time to investigate.
Jal

GE,

You are correct, I meant to post the link to that quote but got distracted...

http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/neweffects.pdf

I am pleased that our paths are merging, perhaps we will all soon "be in phase"
(pun intended).

The articles on Visser's website are very intriquing and have provided many
answers to topics that we have discussed over these many months. Their
experimental approach and theoretical discussions offer formal proof of concept
regarding diffraction, plasmons, wavefunctions, EM phasing, local field effects,
optical effects, etc. This should be consolidated into a single volume and
be required reading, IMO. Personally, I want the "Readers Digest" layman's
version as the math is way too tedious for general information purposes.

I'm wondering just how many physicists and scientists are even aware of the
findings presented in these papers?

LL

TRoc,

You should find this interesting. It follows some of your color spectrum and
low energy field zone cancellation discussions.

http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/physicsworld.pdf

http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/hidden.pdf

http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/threepoint.pdf

LL

Hi C2 and All,

Well, it appears that we have taken a very roundabout detour in our discussions
about the base nature of photons/light and have come full circle, right back to
your early insistence that light propagates like a water wave thru the slits.

IMO C2, YOU WERE RIGHT that wavefronts propagate and divide to go thru the
slits, and we were wrong to discount your beliefs. Some very good information
and education has come out of the circuitous journey over the past many months,
and we are all the better for having taken the journey, even though it was often
at times a painful exercise in mental futility and frustration.

In retrospect, the hardest thing to comprehend was the concept of particle vs.
wavefront and how localized quantum energy of atoms/electrons interact with
propagating EM fields, and just where and why the interference phenomenon is
occuring. IMO, we now have a workable model of the mechanics of the DSE phenomenon that can be explained. Conceptually, that seems pretty clear now.
The puzzle pieces are finally aligningand interlocking to show the correct picture,
even though there was no reference picture on the outside of the box. There are
still some pieces that need to be inserted, but at least the difficult part of
the "quest" seems to be nearly complete.

I believe that an abbreviated, simple, and clearly worded summary needs to be
written to sequentially tie all of the information into a "story" that anyone can
understand. This should be a collaborative effort, IMO.


Other comments, discussion, opinions welcomed
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jan 24 2007, 08:25 AM

Hi Laserlight, Confused2, Aerohead, TRoc, Fivedoughnut, Yquantum, Neil et al,

Waaa... at!! I am totally shocked but pleased... I wonder if anyone else out there is following other than the list at the top here?... Yes.. your question is intriguing about "others". I will now digress into some elven speculation for a change... warning regards this "uncertain information".

As for myself I have been scratching in the dust and circling without the crucial bit of experimental fact for a long time. Without it ... I was not quite hitting the mark. I realized that the spaces were filled with something and the possibility of light cones resulting in infinite refractive indices and providing free standing "bubbles" in space. TRoc and I had a lengthy thread some months ago on just this subject and much of this was discussed there but the "connection" eluded me. I had no positive inkling about the possibility of free standing spatial refractive indices altered from the normal vacuum state because I never saw it stated at any time such things were possible. I guess I hoped that it may occur since spacetime contraction and extreme time dilation were a necessary feature of true particle creation. All that discussion about Special Relativity and rotating frames of reference and "wheels made of light" on the edge of the lightcone.

I thought if they had nothing then this must have occurred during that "collapse of the state" when the particle is detected ... after that happens it is difficult to know if there was any in-between state that ever existed. but I really never found anything to confirm these ideas. Obviously Visser has known for quite a long time about this and "Singular Optics". I realized from Jal's reference that solutions to Schrodinger's Equations exist in free space in a real practical sense, the tricky bit is there is no indication in Schrodinger's Solutions that topologic charges might occur at spontaneous null points appearing in the vacuum.

There is the obvious case of Berry (Geometric) Phase and special mappings. Visser's 2D solutions will yield to 3D solutions similar to Williamson's Paper, I hope that these nulls, vortices and saddle points have "spatial and temporal extension".. None of this makes any sense unless some unusual topology is taking place in those "vacuoles" and in and around those "defects". What is most important is to understand that this is not Loop Quantum Gravity... It is something based entirely on "optics" and Lorentz-CPT Conservation Laws... In ohter words "electromagnetism" as originally proposed by Einstein. He could never have advanced without the practical experimental findings of a Unified Field Theory for sources. The issue of sources went mostly in the direction of particles so charge was considered the "primitive" and there was a 30 year hunt for magnetic monopoles that continues to this day. What hey never wanted to see was that magnetic monopoles were the fiction and thus charges was the fiction as well leading to "topological charge" which have no source. These "properties" are simply "added" to the fields and they surround singularities. String Theory tried to remove those singularities by having very tiny curled up dimensions but failed because the vision was too constricted to allow many to see "strings" at the dimensions we find around us in our world and also at those very low energies. And these energies are indeed low since these defects and zeros in the field have never been fully reported probably because they do not fit certain pet ideas. Youa re right to say just what would a lecturer in Physics do if he/she was confronted with a question regarding these ideas... as Aerohead previously stated.

The maths is not that formidable and basically resolves itself into various null points in the field and the fields themselves either circulating ("curl") or converging or diverging ("div"). The existence of surface polarons is "debatable" and Visser himself admits that the actual existence of "resonant quasi-particles" seem unlikely and in some cases un-necessary. However Visser does see the need for the resonances seen in those spaces. It may be that the desire to interpret everything as particles is holding back a wave interpretation because at this point in time there is no wave Theory of Everything. This theory is purely "semi-classical" and does not fit with particle interpretations since particles sometime do not exist in this paradigm but physical properties do turn up that highly resemble the full blown particle properties but "toned down" as a continuous extension of that theory. particles do not have "in between" states and this is one of the problems of only particle interpretations.

The extreme case is Yquantum's Relational Quantum Mechanics where nothing other than particles, relationships and their interactions exist... so all this would be "fairyland" to him at this stage. But that would be the logical extension of particle physics and most of use have dabbled with particle physics and accepted the current view. I am dead sure we are way outside the envelope of respectability in this and other matters. Yet experiments do exist which are not particle interactions that are related to "quanta" that "nearly became particles". One such non-particle are all those neo-particles such as "bright matter solitons" and even "ball lightning". These "cannot exist" and will be hotly disputed for some time. The topological charge aspect of all this is the intriguing part. I have understood about this for along time with radio transmitters and I am sure Confused2 also can remember some very odd things happening inside and out of the screen of high power RF Transmitters.

Still I think it would be possible to understand that there are groups who have known about all this for a very long time with the information locked up ... perhaps never to be revealed. Maybe we can all have a quiet soirée someday and discuss "travelers tales".

All this is part of a "String Theory" based on "Optics" and "Geometry". These "artifacts" and the interpretation may have been understood by some I am sure, there are smarter people than us out there (Maybe even Feynman knew but decided to go with the flow... he had an earlier theory... The Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory but to this day nobody takes this theory as being the real deal (I do though... and the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment as devised originally by Wheeler is an "intelligence test" for our species... the conclusions are still inescapable). It took Feynman's version of "Seeking all paths" particle theory to gain some acceptance, It still competes with other ideas such as Quantum Field Theory.

There are many stories in his books and about him by others that showed that he understood more than he was letting on but seemed constrained ... perhaps by convention. His reputation was formidable and I would find it difficult if I were him to throw it all away on a "crackpot theory" that may lead to a Holographic Universe and time converted to a frequency and even reciprocal space.I think that conventional physicists just did not want to speak up and possibly lose their tenure and Feynman wanted to be only a little ahead of his time because to leap way out there on the edge of the envelope is to be totally isolated from the mainstream. The Holographic idea Bohmian Mechanics and Aharanov-Bohm Effect did not constrain David Bohm (Einstein's protege and a genius in his own right was swayed by religious concepts) but he was so far out in left field that nobody wanted to take him seriously. People would speak about him as being "cr*zy" in "hushed tones"... Well maybe they wont speak as harshly in the future.

If we wanted to straddle both "worlds"... the accepted paradigm and this rogue theory at the same time we would use it as a "secret tool" to help them to see just what kind of predictions in the particle world fit with this "Optics". Otherwise we may never know about your question. What I will say is this... if it was a secret in the past there will be a flurry to publish now since those who come after will "steal their thunder".... and you know that in the World of Physics it is "publish or perish".

Cheers

Good Day Everyone!
Good Elf! Like you I am amazed at the wealth of information from here.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/threepoint.pdf

See Fig. 4. The (a) geometry of a three-pinhole system arranged as an equilateral triangle, and ( b ) the spectral density produced by such a system, with a=1 mm, k=9921 mm_1 and z=2 m.
It shows my 2d packing.
Can anyone explain it?
JAL