Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1 of 1 [4 Posts]
Author Message
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 142

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:51 am    Post subject: Re: Narrow-mindedness and insolence of "Optics Connumications" editors

Josef Matz wrote:
 Quote: A beam cant carry angular momentum, it has angular momentum, each photon has.

Dear Josef,
I do not understand you.
You write:
"A beam cant carry angular momentum, it has angular momentum".
Josef Matz
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 255

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:15 am    Post subject: Re: Narrow-mindedness and insolence of "Optics Connumications" editors

The geometric representation of spin for an elliptic polarized wave

_____________________________________________________

A very general form of electromagnetic waves is the so called elliptic
polarized light.
The electrical field of the propagating beam or plane wave rotates around
the propagation direction
on an ellipse. This is called the real valued interpretation of light
according to Maxwell theory.

In order to visualize the spin of an elliptic polarized wave we draw an
ellipse onto an paper in a
x - y coordinate system. The center of the ellipse we locate at the origin.
The big semiaxis of the the
ellipse we call a1 and rotate the ellipse so that a1 is oriented in y
direction.. The small semiaxis we call
a2 and it looks in x direction.
The field of this light beam rotates with contsant angular velocity around
this ellipse ether clockwise or
counterclockwise. The electric field vector at any time is a vector from the
origin to a point on the ellipse.
(The wave propagates in z direction).

The energyflux of this plane wase is given by the formula

S = a abs(E)**2 and is pointing in propagation direction.. In the following
we set a = 1.

Then

S = abs(E)**2 = a1**2 + a2**2

According to pythagoras a1'**2 + a2**2 = a3**2 where a3 is the hypothenuse
of the rectangle.

Thus we have S = a3**2 is the energy flux.

What is spin now ? As i said any elliptic polarized wave carries spin. In
our simple picture
the spin simply is the area of rectangle a1 * a2.

The correct formula is:

L = sgn * a1 * a2 / w

w = 2 Pi v and v the frequency of rotation of the field.
a1 * a2 is the area of the rectangle between big and small semiaxis of the
ellipse.

L shows in direction of propagation or the opposite. For clockwise rotation
of the electric field
L shows in direction of propagation. Hence here the sign sgn = +1.
For counterclockwise rotation of the electric field the Spin L shows
oppostite to the direction of
propagation. Hence here the sidn sgn = - 1.

If you set the rotation angular frequency w = 1 and only view clockwise
rotating light beam, then
you have simply

L = a1*a2

The spin simply is the area of the rectangle of big and small semiaxis of
the ellipse. Thats the
geometric representation of spin of an elliptic electromagnetic wave.

In the special case of linear polarized light a2 = 0. Therefore linear
polarized light carries no spin.

Best regards

Josef Matz

josefmatz@arcor.de

<khrapko_ri@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
Josef Matz
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 255

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:14 am    Post subject: Re: Narrow-mindedness and insolence of "Optics Connumications" editors

E/L = w is only valid for circular polarized light. Natural light and linear
polarized light carry no spin.
Therefore this formula is wrong for example for linear polarized light.

A beam cant carry angular momentum, it has angular momentum, each photon
has. And angular momentum
is dependent on the selection of origin, while spin is not.

Spin is a real flux indeed compatible with quantummechanics. But spin in
general is not conserved.
Only the total momentum including mechanical momentum of bodies, radiation
momenta and spin
might be conserved. But infact thinking deeper you always will find
arrangements, where it is really
hard to see that you do not land in non energy consevation or perpetuum
mobiles.

Radi, i have viewed some of your papers now. It is really hard to follow.
Hasnt Beth got a noble price
for his work ? Could you give me copy of his publishings ?
josefmatz@arcor.de

So one is clear: The present theory is wrong in respect to energy and spin
phenomena. Not compatible
with quantum mechanics and even quantum mechanics contradicts experiments.
Thats fact. Only a blind
hen does not see that.

But your publishings are really hard to follow. And they contain errors too.
So you are also only hopping
around what you dont understand.

As i told already told that for a classical non aborbing dielectric there
exists spin conservation (as energy
conservation). And even you have energy conservation you have linear forces
due to reflection and transmission
of light. And you have also momentum forces due to angular momentum and due
to spin effects.

As i sayed spin effects are not consevative in general. Therefore you can
construct certain inlogics if you
just deal with them. Inlogics saying the energy conservation or the 1st
thermodynamics main assumption
is broken. In such cases you could construct energy conservation taking the
complete makroskopic system.
But who wants to proove that ? So it seems that to the last spin physics
might be physics where even
energy conservation principles might be violated.

If you want L < E w is necessary condition for a logic theory. While you say
L = 2 Ew or even 4 Ew
in the classical Beth experiment. Also you say a photon having L = 2 hbar
mechanics says.

But what could be is that from left circular polarized beam you attain right
circular polarized beam.
If thaths the case then you have Delta L = 2 hbar in accordance with QM. So
if every right turning
photon is changed to left turning then you can generate effects with 2 hbar.
But that dont means as
you say that photons have 2 hbar. But Beth has 4 hbar as you say and this
even unexplainable with this.

But it easily can be shown that with idealized machinery you can construct
withspeakings to thermo-
dynamics first law. Also with Beth experiment. This shows that we bring
whole physics in trouble with
spin radi. And therefore all of these guys are very careful with. Now
radiation spin forces are generally small
in comparison with other environmental forces. But in fact there are cases
where they can become dominant
and then we are lost with our old physics concepts.

If you have no energy conservation anymore you are trapped in the dark and
only can wonder.

Josef Matz

<khrapko_ri@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 142

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 1 [4 Posts]
 The time now is Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:44 am | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics Marasmus of "Optics Connumications" editors Radi Khrapko Electromagnetics 0 Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:38 am Optics of door security viewer Jane Physics 10 Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:54 am The biggest mistake in classical optics Josef Matz Electromagnetics 12 Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:54 pm Optics: need help understanding lens flare/smear effect Gert Physics 1 Wed May 17, 2006 9:22 am Wave-particle duality in quantum optics Stephen Parrott Research 1 Fri May 05, 2006 4:26 am