Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi Laserlight, Jal, "THEY", TRoc, Confused2 plus lots of othrs,

First I would like to say thanks to Laserlight and the meaning of ISL... Inverse Square Law... Little point but it had confused me. I saw it also on Jal's Theory Page so I understand now.

The thread is wandering and is heading into topics that have nothing to do (directly) with understanding the Double Slit Experiment and "Observing later". I could "mince my words" and not address the real question or I can do this...

Jal, I have been in trouble a lot on this thread and I want to distinguish from what is about to be said from what I think of you as a thinking individual. I have the greatest respect for you in all the areas of you are researching but regardless how much you promote this theory of yours it is without any experimental vindication. This is a real problem. It is not able to answer simple experimental questions about our Universe. For instance your theory does not answer the question at hand... the Double Slit Experiment (DSE).

I have gained no insight from the DSE in this thread trying to use your concepts. A theory that does not answer real questions and agrees with experimental results breaks the most fundamental measure of practicality... It is a physical theory of no practical use to humankind. I lump it alongside Loop Quantum Gravity and most String Theories and also with a heap of "crackpot theories"... maybe even my own. Mine differs only in that it is a Modified Theory of Optics and as such can be tested at all ranges of scale and so has that "saving grace". I have noted with disdain that Quantum Theory does not allow for any dissent and ignores a "gathering storm" of data that just does not fit its "billiard ball" Universe. It and the Standard Model fail as Theories that are able to be all encompassing. They work when applied "within a very small box" and no further. The numbers they are able to produce are excellent... but as numbers go, that is the way it was designed and is not a Theory of Physics and is only a behavioral model. You know the analogy... The Ptolemaic view of the Universe worked "perfectly" and I am sure if a very smart individual was to take it right now and add 24 or so movable parameters, it will fit our Universe "perfectly"... that is until the next inconsistency appears. That is the value and the failing of all models. It is time to extend some theory to answer all the questions for which we have supporting experimental data. Einstein's Approach was very productive and still leads to insight that other theories fail to recognize AT THEIR PERIL.

First the good news... Jal, I totally agree that the Double Simplex Particle view of Chris Quigg is very suggestive.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0509037
I think maybe someday there will be evidence for it but like all particle theories they are based on "point sources" and rigid particles without underlying mechanism. The symmetry is fine and I can't argue with that "scheme" but remember it is only a "scheme" it is not a true Physics, it is a model, and it can be altered at the drop of a hat. What a real predictive theory needs is underlying principle that is always right and where experiment always supports it. Not as "sexy" but it keeps us from speculations beyond what is observed or measured. It is a particle interpretation of the World and it lacks the interconnectiveness of the real world... the 'entanglement" and non-local physical reality that is completely omitted from this picture. It is "steady as she goes and full speed ahead". It is ignoring the developments in the experimental sciences around it at its own expense.

Now the bad news... It seems a big jump to go from point particle construction schemes based on a very incomplete identification of all the issues, to the very uniform structure of spacetime based on a rigid hexagonally arranged matrix of closely packed perfectly arranged sphere shaped cells. This is very "classical" and mechanically based mostly on a desire to fit "Platonic Solids" into a clockwork Universe. It hearkens back to Ptolemy and the view of the Universe with his nested perfect circles. This was fine when we had nothing better, today we have a sophisticated Physics and do not need "magic clockwork" to move the "celestial spheres" by way of "heavenly music". It has a certain poetic sense and indeed the ancients saw the relevance of "resonance" and pattern to the way the Universe worked, but they were not experimentalists. We have come too far to rely on "magic". We perform "wizardry" on a scale no ancients ever witnessed and all because we became "observers" of the the Universe and incorporated these observations into our "Philosophy" with a devastating capacity to finally achieve permanent continuous progress... The Scientific Method.

So what about experiment? Your theory has a number of issues that are unresolvable such as Lorentz Covariancy at any velocity. What you are appearing to say is we need to reject all of Einstein's Special Relativity and all experimental evidence and accept a theory that has no present experimental basis for the vacuum state. I like Supersymmetry but I reject the rigid mechanical embedding you have proposed. This is not "personal"... but you have nothing practical to justify it. The appellation to the Planck Length as the region for these processes seems to me wholly irrational since the smaller the scale the greater the energy of the processes involved. This is one of the failings of the Loop Quantum Gravity Theories as well especially where they need to break many Laws at that scale of the Universe to fit all their facts in. All that without a reference to the current understanding of Physics. You are "covering" for your models deficiencies using the smallness of the scale and the understanding that nobody can prove it wrong. It is an intellectual fortress designed to imprison those who crave "ultimate understanding"... It is the "God of the Gaps" Theory when the "gaps" finally reach the Planck Length. I could just as easily say that pixies live at the Planck Length and they create all the Physics we see at our level of the Universe... I can't accept arcane areas of research while we have so much experimental physics already to work with. This is the "Holy of Holies" where high priests of Loop Quantum Gravity work telling their acolytes to simply believe and all will be made clear. Sorry, don't buy it, they will soon be inviting you all to be part of the "Away Team" and handing around the paper cups with grape juice. My advice ... don't drink!

It is great to be innovative but unless you are writing for some religious group you will need to convince people that we are speaking about the same universe we are living in here and it relates to the same experimental science. It is the method... Theory plus Experiment... and to be able to keep them in touch with each other. It is also the real issue that is at fault with most present day String Theories, they too want to "hide" their physics below the Planck Length so it too becomes beyond reproach. Your geometrical arguments are not "isotropic" as is space. Of course you might argue it is... but diagonals are different in "length" from "perpendiculars".

The next issue seems to be a graphical analog to SU2 and SU3 symmetry that leads you to a physical analog that you have not justified. These geometries and symmetries can be accommodated already without invoking new physics and so your argument of invoking Occam's Razor fails right there in being unable to be shown to be both simple and in accord with experiment, at our scale of the Universe, at the same time. Like so many, including those who wanted to "solve" the riddle of the Quantum, they went wrong by having a lot of unsubstantiated postulates without first having done much of the physics to prove they were on the right track. Instead of checking to see if they had not made gross errors they simply carried on regardless with the Standard Particle Model... No real Physics, just a lot of symmetry. Good work in its own way but it became the rod for Science's Back being the only interpretation for the behavior of our Universe.

Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theories both suffer the same fate of trying too hard and not working from the top down. They all work from the bottom up without reference to existing theory and experiment. If neither LQG or String Theories can explain how they fit into the Universe at our scale they are not a theory of everything at all. As Leonard Susskind once said "String theory is a theory of everything or it is a theory of nothing"... the same goes for all theories that cannot primarily satisfy a real physical purpose in our Universe.

The other basis of many theories is the Anthropic Principle which I believe is all "bunk". The Anthropic Principle is a belief system that has no place in Physics Theory in much the same way that "Intelligent Design" has no place in Evolutionary Theory. There are venues on this Forum to discuss unanswered questions with more questions elsewhere. The concept of a "spot" is extended to include things that are not spots. Do you have a "point source" or do you have "extended points"? Spot theories need to be one or the other . String and LQG Theories are not point source theories, in that sense I agree this is a far better approach. That too seems a stretch beyond my ideas of a definition.

This is not to be a sanction it is a "wake up call" to consider relevance to a problem ... In this case the Double Slit Experiment and to especially consider the "Observing later" aspect of the experiment. This is as everyone may remember has to do with the very important experimental fact of the Double Slit Experiment with entangled photons operates without reference to causality as we measure it. This is the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment as originally devised by J. A. Wheeler and has particular inference to the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory and the Cramer Quantum Transactional Interpretation. The existence of waves that completely disappear and can be revived elsewhere in our universe with the information that was thought missing completely revived is an indication of just how important this process is to the DCQE. The experimental fact that a boson can be converted to a pseudo-fermion and then back again to a boson has significance beyond a "simple experiment" and is of the highest significance to the way we view our Universe and the processes in it. This is pure optics ... obviously not of the common variety. It is also a lossless process that defies the quantum randomness that many would have you believe exists.

Many say we are losing direction but we must retain focus and separate theories that are not answering this particular question from those that can. I obviously have a preference to treat this concept of the Double Slit Experiment and the issue of the quantum information as "Advanced Optics" and waves, while others want to deal with it as "Billiard Balls" or a pure particle theory and statistics. Some of us do not want to pursue a logical path beyond this junction simply because it goes beyond what we know. My view is we need to refer back to these new experiments to derive new theory and not simply accept the limitations of those Scientists of 50 or more years ago. What did they know of the Science of Today... Nothing. Only a few figures stand abover the rest... they include Einstein, Feynman, Wheeler, de Broglie, Schrodinger. All of them believed that their theories were basically flawed and that Quantum Theory was at best a stop gap. Of course there were dissenters but if you examine their arguments in the light of new knowledge their answers are now as dated as their theories.

There is a vast store of information beyond the Heisenberg Uncertainty Limit... This is no conjecture it is a fact and is supported by optical experiments that show super-resolution. Quantum Electrodynamic Theory has a basic tenant that says this is not possible. Who are you going to believe? ... those with only a limited numbers of questions that are allowed to be asked or the open ended series of questions that are being asked with staggeringly penetrating insight into the nature of our Universe beyond the "quantum". Quantization is a simple property and not a limiting condition. Somewhere on the edge of that envelope lies new ways and new ideas that will be able to meet the next generation of thinking seekers of truth. The Wright Brothers with the "Right Stuff"... or the Wrong Brothers with chaos and an ever narrowing focus on the arcane and unprovable? Nobody ever said it was going to be easy.

One last point...

This is "absolutely correct" as far as I see. We need to ask where do you get your supply of hands and gloves from and to specify the relationships and "materials".

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Feb 10 2007, 03:40 AM

Hi Confused2,

I have never added anything of my own that others have not tried in the past. Some of the events unfolding right now could have been predicted by a number of sources using various theories. I always initially justify mine with experiment or where experiment is lacking I fill it in with theory and sources that are as respected as I can find, given the resource available and the "zero cost" download requirement. It is not "Elf Theory", it is current theory when you try and integrate Photonics and other Geometrodynamic Theories together. If you like go and search it out, I am the only one on the web that is expressing these ideas in this way so you will not be able to read this elsewhere. There has been a strong compartmentalization that separate information into little categories. All I am trying to add is to show we are still speaking about the one Physics here and not several different theories. The other point I am stressing is working from the top down rather than the bottom up. Science knows absolutely nothing that may or may not exist at the Planck Length so all the speculation there is hubris. This is the reason all the mathematical theories seem to be of only "heavenly concerns" and of no "earthly good".

This establishment "blindsight" is leading to various groups not speaking to each other. For instance the HEP Area could well look carefully into the new Photonic developments. What is happening at the LHC is couched in "self reflexive" terms and has already been decided on... and whatever is found will be carefully "tooled" to fit the edifice already developed to hold their existing structure. Nobody wants to use the paradigms of Photonics to explain High Energy Physics. I would say the reverse is also true but I guess "money talks". I am not complaining but Science is no "Democracy".

David Bohm developed his theory in a different historical period with the information to hand at that time. Many groups working in different countries today are proceeding with the principles he has established but NOT with his original "ansatz"...
Wikipedia:Ansatz
A lot that the "Elf" does is also an ansatz but is trying to take in a wider context. I would also include Einstein Unified Field Theories as also various "ansatz's" waiting for something better to come along. What I would say is if the tests of Einstein Theories in the 1950's had been couched in a modern context and used modern results, some of the negative results found then would now have tested positive. The same with Bohm... time has moved on and a new theory is needed since the old theory is no longer fully "viable".

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Feb 10 2007, 04:11 AM

GE,

I think most of us agree with this. My attempt to describe a conceptualization
of what happens in the first cavity from emission to the cavity wall got very little
response. My very brief description of wave interaction inside the slit
cavities and dielectric plasmon fields met with some disagreement, but no one
offered an alternative, and I would like to pursue this further.

IMO, the slit cavities act as optical geometrical "lenses" to light wavefronts and
like a lens, inverts the the incoming light similar to what occurs when a reflecting
wave is inverted.
http://physicslearning.colorado.edu/Movies/3B25.20dv.mpg
wave superposition
http://physicslearning.colorado.edu/Movies/3B27.15dv.mpg

I think we should explore why and how a narrow slit manipulates photons/light
and acts like an optical lens on a projector. Optics and lenses would be the
preferred topic of discussion and how they cause diffraction, if others are in agreement.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 10 2007, 05:59 AM

Hi Good Elf,

Of David Bohm.. (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation ). Would I be wrong to suspect that 'pancakeification' is your own addition to the theory? It seems reasonable that there might be an identifiable expanding 'shell' (at the speed of light) and we expect there to be no link between anything inside that shell and anything beyond it. The problem I have with your exposition of the Bohm theory is that you seem to claim interaction only happens at the 'front' of the expanding shell. By modifying the original idea I feel you have created the situation where the DSE tells us more about Elf Theory than Elf Theory can tell us about the DSE. Because of the way the DSE is arranged it would seem all waveforms are reduced to sinewaves (the equations show this) .. into this happy zone of sinusoidal harmony you introduce your impulse. The need for the impulse would seem to stem from the assumption that the only interaction occurs at the 'front' and the DSE is telling us a different story. I appreciate it is not easy to review a belief that is firmly held but I would suggest at least trying to see it as others see it.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi Laserlight, Good Elf , jal, THEY, Aerohead, TRoc et al,

Looking at the DSE I think we (mostly) agree that the results show the main effect (the interference) is only affected by the difference in path length betwen the two slits and the screen. Sometimes you seem to see the relevence of the ripple tank and other times you don't .. I don't understand how you can exist in both states apparently simultaneously.

There are certainly interesting effects caused by the slits themselves -- most obviously the first slit changes the situation from looking up the barrel of a laser to one where the photons (waveforms if you must) are reduced to a level of simplicity which we could possibly attempt to analyse if we wanted to. We have heard a lot about complexity .. holograms etc .. but by ignoring the simplest of states I fear we gain no insight into the origin of the more complex states.

Should we ignore the effects seen in the DSE and look at something else or should we try to draw some sort of conclusion from the result before us?

I have already mentioned Feynman's 'sum over paths' analysis which gives the right answer .. might this be worth looking at in more detail?

-C2.

We've been here before ..

Spreading from the slit ...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...t/sinslitd.html
"The spreading of the waves into the area of the geometrical shadow can be modeled by considering small elements of the wavefront in the slit and treating them like point sources. "
The 'point sources' are chosen so they cancel the wave behind and become the new wavefront.

Diffraction

The slit obviously has 'width' .. the difference in path length from the 'sources' (see spreading) to any point is the cause of the of the constructive and destructive interference known as diffraction patterns.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...sinslit.html#c1

Can you (anyone) clarify the bit that you feel has not been satisfactorily dealt with already?

Best wishes,
-C2.

Good day Everyone!
It going to be a lot of reading for “THEY” when she gets back on Monday.
LL
You are trying to apply the “minimum length” concept without trying to understand how it works.
Confused2
I agree.
It looks like everyone is trying to avoid looking at “minimum length” and want to go back to the rehashing the old arguments that gets us nowhere.
Good Elf
You gave a good expose of where you stand.
You want "Advanced Optics" and waves.
You made it clear that you do not think that any math approach being done by LQG, strings and others will lead to anything.
I do not have a rigid mechanical embedding. It is very dynamic (so is my thinking and learning).
In my thread, I use the term “packing”. You can substitute it with “minimum length” since it results in “packing”.
Minimum length does not mean that it is equal to Planck length. Many have said it in their own ways. (see their quotes in my thread.)
I thought that the links and the explanations in my thread were clear.
(If I do not come across clearly, then those who understand can try to explain it better.)
(point… particle ….wave …energy density … all mean the same thing.)

QM assumes a point of origin for a wave function etc.
A point cannot exist unless it is the size of the minimum length/area.
Refer to the paper
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0702/0702016.pdf
Multi-Particle States in Deformed Special Relativity

To have a point smaller than minimum length is meaningless.
You cannot place two points side by side.
They must be separated by the minimum length.
As a result you will end up with the structure that I have shown.
This will mean that you will end up with an energy distribution pattern.
There are “places” which will not have any energy densities (no waves).

This, I’m sure, will also be shown to be the case with TRoc’s approach.

… depends not only on the single mode but on the energy density of all the present excitations.

If you try to make a sphere with “minimum lengths” then you will realize that there must be 6 point… particle ….wave …energy density.
There is no interpretation or speculations no unsubstantiated postulates. It is the only way that minimum scale works.
I even explain the proper application of the uncertainty principle for “minimum length”.

You speak of evidence … I can extrapolate my model from the quantum world and see it everywhere.
You see the evidence at the triple slit

I can only quote T.D. Visser.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/threepoint.pdf

Look at his picture, you will see the minimum length structure.

I can extrapolate my model from the quantum world and see the minimum length structure in the arrangements of the atoms ….. in the arrangement of the molecules …. In the arrangement of everything.

Your model does not extrapolate from the quantum world. There is no evidence of quantum effect above the size of an electron. Your model is "a god particle" requiring 10 dimensions that will never be detected.
Sorry, but its your model that has no proof and never will.

Once you have understood the concept of “minimum length” you will be able to see that it is the fundamental building block of EVERYTHING and that it is observable everywhere., including giving an insight into the Double Slit Experiment (DSE).
Read the links on “Structuralism”. You will find the explanations much better than my efforts.
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926969-6.pdf
Quantum Gravity Meets Structuralism: Interweaving Relations in the Fundation of Physics
by Dean Rickles and Steven French

Many are searching paths that are parallel to my model. (All those that you feel are wasting their time.)
I agree with you …. Our approaches are different …. BUT I do not want to always look at your approach to try to find answers? Give everyone a chance to present their approach.
I would also like to get a look at TRoc’s approach to get an insight into the Double Slit Experiment (DSE).

Therefore,until TRoc presents his approach ….. Any comment on “minimum length”?
There is a minimum length. Here is the structure.
JAL

Jal,

I think I have a pretty good idea of how minimum length "works", but I don't see
how it is important with the DSE. Minimum length is nothing more than
particle packing density of an atomic structure. It is the
minimum energy (field) state that can be attained in a matter matrix and
represents the maximum energy potential that the matrix can "store" at some
ambient background temperature. Different ambient temperatures have a
direct proportional relationship to the minimum packing density that can be
attained in any matter matrix. I guarantee you that the volume of a packing
density at 1000 degrees C is hugely different than the packing density at
0 degrees K. You can verify this in any materials reference. The packing density
volume is directly proportional to temperature.

Your argument has not presented how this is important in EM field theory where
the field "flux" density follows the ISL, or how the geometry of the slits affects
the result. There is no way to correlate the two.

Once EM energy departs the immediate confines of the surface matter that emitted
it packing density becomes time or pulse overlap density. Let me provide you with
a real life scenario. A semiconductor vacuum chamber can be "fed" with
various mixtures of specialty gases at various ambient pressures. The chamber
pressure can be controlled via an exhaust throttle valve to maintain some desired
chamber pressure (gas packing density). Into this wide range of operating
pressures an external RF energy source is introduced to ionize the gases present.
A byproduct of the ionized gases is light (photons) that yield an exact range
of spectral wavelengths, depending upon which gas(es) are being ionized. If the
chamber pressure is varied, the only difference in spectral output is the intensity
of the light emitted. The point being the packing density only affects the total
energy contained in the closed energy system in which it operates.

What happens when you have an alloy? Your packing system model must change
to include the mixture of atoms in the alloy, and the structure and the energy
density of the alloy has different intrinsic characteristics than a pure matrix has.

You still have not provided a convincing argument as to how packing density
can be applied to the DSE. How does a structural phenomenon relate to an
energy distribution phenomenon?

Regards,
LL

C2,

Sorry, but you are missing the "essence" of the DSE and only focusing on the
results that it provides. The "essence" is, what happens at the point sources,
between the geometries of light and matter, that cause the interference results.

What you are failing to see or understand, is that when you move the screen back
and forth the pattern size changes even though the angle also changes. We
are merely observing a projection of an image onto a screen, just like a
projector when you move the movie screen back and forth. The focusing
lens (slit) is where the actual signal alteration/mixing is taking place. There
is a focal point in the cavity beyond the slit(s) where the image applied to the
front of the slit(s) is inverted. There is signal crossover. You are completely
ignoring this phenomenon. Think about what happens in a camera obscura,
the image is inverted by passing thru a pinhole due to the optical characteristics
of the aperture. A similar effect is occuring in the SSE/DSE. In the case of
the DSE, these overlapping focal points is where TRoc's harmonic signal mixing is
being finalized, but the optical nature of the slits themselves introduce timing
and phase changes into the incident signals and modify those relationships.

Why does the signal spread by different amounts depending upon the slit width or
the wavelength applied? There is a geometrical and physics explanation of why
photon energy and matter interact to cause scattering and spreading.

Why can't you see this phenomenon? It is very obvious? Why do you insist on
disregarding the underlying physics responsible for the results of the SSE/DSE?

Baffled,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 10 2007, 05:30 PM

Laserlight

If nobody speaks up and explains it to LL then I'm gone.
Jal

Jal,

You have not provided a convincing argument for the issues that I raised. It
appears that you cannot do so and are looking for someone else to explain
your position as to how minimum length applies to the SSE/DSE. If you can't
do it that is ok, just say so.

IMO, you are looking for answers to questions/phenomena that have nothing to
do with the DSE. Prove me wrong and I'll gladly listen, but your argument must
be convincing. So far it isn't.

The DSE will not solve the mysteries of the universe, but may provide some
clues to help in the relationships that exist between energy and matter.
IMO, packing spheres and minimum length do not offer the "key" that you are
seeking, but I could be wrong if you can convince me otherwise.

What is the minimum packing density of the core matter in a black hole, and
does your packing density/minimum length theory work there? If you can
apply your packing density length theory there then I would admit that yes you
are holding one of the fundamental keys. I challenge you to convince me/us.

Regards,
LL

I can lead a horse to water but I cannot make him drink.
You know dam well that I'm not a "math kid".
I can make the links to the work being done.
If you don't want to read ... learn ... assimilate
Then stay on your knees and worship the god particle and 10 dimensions.
jal

Jal,

What do you expect to happen if you lead a horse to salt water? He won't
drink if it is unhealthy to do so. You drink it first, and show me/us why we
should also. I am not a big fan of "spiked" cool aid.

BTW, I am not of the equine persuasion, but perhaps I do have some
mule-like stubborn qualities, and on occasion been accused of being a
horses arse.

I am not asking you to provide mathematical proof, just a verbal argument
of your position. If you cannot defend a conceptualization of your argument
so that anyone can understand what you are proposing, then how do you
expect us to link your minimum distance to its importance to the SSE/DSE
and other physics phenomena that we have been discussing?

I'm asking you to defend your argument and subject it to peer scrutiny and
analysis. Either your proposal has merit, or it doesn't.....defend it! No math
required! Energy will tend to move to where the least energy exists, like
water seeks the lowest level. When equilibrium is established energy "flow"
stops.

Remember Ying-Yang, it is the fundamental law of the universe.
When opposites can no longer define their bounds, and their individual
energy components have merged to become "one state", that represents field
unity. Infinity cannot attain unity as long as it can be divided. So exactly what
is the minimum length of infinity?

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 10 2007, 08:17 PM

Hi jal,Laserlight,

Two horses meet in a field.One asks the other "Why the long face?".
Sorry jal, I don't see the relevence of a minimum distance either.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hello everyone

Lets see if we can agree or disagree on the following points. This may help steer the discussion into more profitable lines of thought.

1) The DSE is just a limited (two element) diffraction grating.

2) Diffraction gratings and prisms separate light by frequency. Is there a common mechanism here?

3) The energy/power of light is held in the electric and magnetic fields that define said light.

4) The fields, both magnetic and electric, that are inherit in matter react to and emit EM radiation. The converse is also true.

5) The EM frequency of interaction is dependent on local resonant conditions.

6) There are many forms of resonant conditions. Atomic, molecular, velocity motion changes by static fields, etc. are all resonant conditions.

7) The amount of interaction between matter and EM radiation is dependent on how closely coupled the EM frequency is to the resonant condition.

8) The photon is a transitory phenomena. It only exists at the resonant condition interface.

9) Diffraction gratings apply to all forms of time varying electric and magnetic fields. Velocity will generate a time varying field.