Author 
Message 
Radi Khrapko science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 142

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:51 am Post subject:
Re: Narrowmindedness 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".
Radi Khrapko 

Back to top 


Josef Matz science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 255

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:15 am Post subject:
Re: Narrowmindedness 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
news:1152934238.411073.246380@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:  Narrowmindedness and insolence of OC editors are boundless. Dr. Kawata
could move forward through four lines of my paper only since March 22,
2006
Nevertheless he wrote:
"The paper under consideration is erroneous. The spin of an
electromagnetic field is a well known concept, but the ratio of energy
to spin is equal to angular frequency for the circular polarized plane
wave only. So the formula (1.2) of the R.I. Khrapko paper is wrong
because according to this formula E/L=\omega for the radiation of
rotating electric dipole, but this radiation is not the circular
polarized plane wave." And this is his message wholly.
Dr. Kawata ignored a common knowledge. A. Corney, for example, wrote:
"We have E/L=\omega. By introducing the factor h we are able to
interpret this classicallyderived relation in terms of the quantum
theory. We see that each quantum h\omega of circularlypolarized light
emitted by an oscillating dipole moment transport a zcomponent of
angular momentum of h." (A. Corney, "Atomic and Laser Spectroscopy",
Oxford University Press, 1977, page 42).
I referred to the Corney's book. There is no objection against this
fact anywhere. Dr. Kawata could find this knowledge in Landau 
Lifshitz's "The Classical Theory of Fields" which was referred to as
well. Dr. Kawata could find the same information simply in R. A.
Meyers, "Encyclopedie of Physics Science and Technology", v. 2, p. 266
(N.Y., AP, 1987) which was referred to as well.
BTW, Dr. Kawata could know nothing because I calculated the energy and
the angular momentum emitted by a rotating dipole in detail in Sect. 2
of my paper, but Dr. Kawata could move forward through four lines of my
paper only.
No sense of my paper is accessible for Dr. Kawata.
Meanwhile, in the paper "A rotating electric dipole radiates spin and
orbital angular momentum" I show that, according to the standard
electrodynamics, a rotating electric dipole emits angular momentum
mainly into the equatorial part of space situated near the plane of the
rotation where polarization of the radiation is almost linear. Polar
regions situated near the axis of rotating are scanty by the angular
momentum, although they are intensively illuminated by the almost
circularly polarized radiation, which must carries spin angular
momentum. A conclusion is made that the electrodynamics sights orbital
angular momentum only and overlooks spin. This means that the
electrodynamics is not complete. I use a spin tensor and calculate the
whole angular momentum flux radiated by the dipole.
I think Dr. Kawata and Dr. Narducci represent dadaism in Physics.
I wrote on March, 23 2006:
"None is so blind as they who will not see.
I wrote to Prof. Kawata that a publication of referees' comments will
raise the responsibility of referees. I supposed he was afraid that I
should make a laughingstock of his referees. He answered nothing
I wrote that Prof. Kawata received a description of a wonderful
phenomenon, a transmission of classical spin to a perfect mirror. He
answered nothing
I wrote, Prof. Kawata's statement that my paper does not address issues
that fall within the scope of our journal is a lie. I have no reply.
I wrote to Prof. Nardicci that his report blatantly contradicts a style
of referee reports because there are no objections in it. He presented
no objections.
In a paper "Inner incompleteness of the Maxwell electrodynamics"
D3715 (submitted on 22 Sep 2002) I proved that a light beam, in
reality, carried the double angular momentum compared to standard
theory. Prof. Nardicci made no judgment on the correctness or technical
aspects of this paper.
I have no evidences that editors of OC can understand a physical text.
The maximum of their understanding is a sentence: "Your manuscript
contains too many controversial comments."
My resume is: my worse suspicions are confirmed. Editors of OC are not
interested in physics; they are interested in the stability of their
status among editors and referees only. And what is more, I think the
policies of Optics Communications not to publish official conclusions
of other journals means an existence of collusion for the sake of
corporate interests, which differ from interests of science.
The Editors of OC had a chance to understand and to support my work.
They missed this chance. They rejected my papers many times, and Prof.
Lorenzo Narducci rejected the papers as Associate Editor Physical
Review A as well. The number 351 is a disgrace of OC rather than my
pride.
Nevertheless, I continue my research of OC. I send a new paper, "A
rotating electric dipole radiates spin and orbital angular momentum" to
Prof. Rene Dandliker, Editor OC."
Unfortunately, my research of OC turned out to be sad.
Radi Khrapko
P.S. These papers are published at www.sciprint.org,
www.mai.ru/projects/mai_works/ and mp_arc@mail.ma.utexas.edu 03315



Back to top 


Josef Matz science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 255

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:14 am Post subject:
Re: Narrowmindedness 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
instead of hbar as quantum
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
news:1152934238.411073.246380@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:  Narrowmindedness and insolence of OC editors are boundless. Dr. Kawata
could move forward through four lines of my paper only since March 22,
2006
Nevertheless he wrote:
"The paper under consideration is erroneous. The spin of an
electromagnetic field is a well known concept, but the ratio of energy
to spin is equal to angular frequency for the circular polarized plane
wave only. So the formula (1.2) of the R.I. Khrapko paper is wrong
because according to this formula E/L=\omega for the radiation of
rotating electric dipole, but this radiation is not the circular
polarized plane wave." And this is his message wholly.
Dr. Kawata ignored a common knowledge. A. Corney, for example, wrote:
"We have E/L=\omega. By introducing the factor h we are able to
interpret this classicallyderived relation in terms of the quantum
theory. We see that each quantum h\omega of circularlypolarized light
emitted by an oscillating dipole moment transport a zcomponent of
angular momentum of h." (A. Corney, "Atomic and Laser Spectroscopy",
Oxford University Press, 1977, page 42).
I referred to the Corney's book. There is no objection against this
fact anywhere. Dr. Kawata could find this knowledge in Landau 
Lifshitz's "The Classical Theory of Fields" which was referred to as
well. Dr. Kawata could find the same information simply in R. A.
Meyers, "Encyclopedie of Physics Science and Technology", v. 2, p. 266
(N.Y., AP, 1987) which was referred to as well.
BTW, Dr. Kawata could know nothing because I calculated the energy and
the angular momentum emitted by a rotating dipole in detail in Sect. 2
of my paper, but Dr. Kawata could move forward through four lines of my
paper only.
No sense of my paper is accessible for Dr. Kawata.
Meanwhile, in the paper "A rotating electric dipole radiates spin and
orbital angular momentum" I show that, according to the standard
electrodynamics, a rotating electric dipole emits angular momentum
mainly into the equatorial part of space situated near the plane of the
rotation where polarization of the radiation is almost linear. Polar
regions situated near the axis of rotating are scanty by the angular
momentum, although they are intensively illuminated by the almost
circularly polarized radiation, which must carries spin angular
momentum. A conclusion is made that the electrodynamics sights orbital
angular momentum only and overlooks spin. This means that the
electrodynamics is not complete. I use a spin tensor and calculate the
whole angular momentum flux radiated by the dipole.
I think Dr. Kawata and Dr. Narducci represent dadaism in Physics.
I wrote on March, 23 2006:
"None is so blind as they who will not see.
I wrote to Prof. Kawata that a publication of referees' comments will
raise the responsibility of referees. I supposed he was afraid that I
should make a laughingstock of his referees. He answered nothing
I wrote that Prof. Kawata received a description of a wonderful
phenomenon, a transmission of classical spin to a perfect mirror. He
answered nothing
I wrote, Prof. Kawata's statement that my paper does not address issues
that fall within the scope of our journal is a lie. I have no reply.
I wrote to Prof. Nardicci that his report blatantly contradicts a style
of referee reports because there are no objections in it. He presented
no objections.
In a paper "Inner incompleteness of the Maxwell electrodynamics"
D3715 (submitted on 22 Sep 2002) I proved that a light beam, in
reality, carried the double angular momentum compared to standard
theory. Prof. Nardicci made no judgment on the correctness or technical
aspects of this paper.
I have no evidences that editors of OC can understand a physical text.
The maximum of their understanding is a sentence: "Your manuscript
contains too many controversial comments."
My resume is: my worse suspicions are confirmed. Editors of OC are not
interested in physics; they are interested in the stability of their
status among editors and referees only. And what is more, I think the
policies of Optics Communications not to publish official conclusions
of other journals means an existence of collusion for the sake of
corporate interests, which differ from interests of science.
The Editors of OC had a chance to understand and to support my work.
They missed this chance. They rejected my papers many times, and Prof.
Lorenzo Narducci rejected the papers as Associate Editor Physical
Review A as well. The number 351 is a disgrace of OC rather than my
pride.
Nevertheless, I continue my research of OC. I send a new paper, "A
rotating electric dipole radiates spin and orbital angular momentum" to
Prof. Rene Dandliker, Editor OC."
Unfortunately, my research of OC turned out to be sad.
Radi Khrapko
P.S. These papers are published at www.sciprint.org,
www.mai.ru/projects/mai_works/ and mp_arc@mail.ma.utexas.edu 03315



Back to top 


Radi Khrapko science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 142

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:30 am Post subject:
Narrowmindedness and insolence of "Optics Connumications" editors



Narrowmindedness and insolence of OC editors are boundless. Dr. Kawata
could move forward through four lines of my paper only since March 22,
2006
Nevertheless he wrote:
"The paper under consideration is erroneous. The spin of an
electromagnetic field is a well known concept, but the ratio of energy
to spin is equal to angular frequency for the circular polarized plane
wave only. So the formula (1.2) of the R.I. Khrapko paper is wrong
because according to this formula E/L=\omega for the radiation of
rotating electric dipole, but this radiation is not the circular
polarized plane wave." And this is his message wholly.
Dr. Kawata ignored a common knowledge. A. Corney, for example, wrote:
"We have E/L=\omega. By introducing the factor h we are able to
interpret this classicallyderived relation in terms of the quantum
theory. We see that each quantum h\omega of circularlypolarized light
emitted by an oscillating dipole moment transport a zcomponent of
angular momentum of h." (A. Corney, "Atomic and Laser Spectroscopy",
Oxford University Press, 1977, page 42).
I referred to the Corney's book. There is no objection against this
fact anywhere. Dr. Kawata could find this knowledge in Landau 
Lifshitz's "The Classical Theory of Fields" which was referred to as
well. Dr. Kawata could find the same information simply in R. A.
Meyers, "Encyclopedie of Physics Science and Technology", v. 2, p. 266
(N.Y., AP, 1987) which was referred to as well.
BTW, Dr. Kawata could know nothing because I calculated the energy and
the angular momentum emitted by a rotating dipole in detail in Sect. 2
of my paper, but Dr. Kawata could move forward through four lines of my
paper only.
No sense of my paper is accessible for Dr. Kawata.
Meanwhile, in the paper "A rotating electric dipole radiates spin and
orbital angular momentum" I show that, according to the standard
electrodynamics, a rotating electric dipole emits angular momentum
mainly into the equatorial part of space situated near the plane of the
rotation where polarization of the radiation is almost linear. Polar
regions situated near the axis of rotating are scanty by the angular
momentum, although they are intensively illuminated by the almost
circularly polarized radiation, which must carries spin angular
momentum. A conclusion is made that the electrodynamics sights orbital
angular momentum only and overlooks spin. This means that the
electrodynamics is not complete. I use a spin tensor and calculate the
whole angular momentum flux radiated by the dipole.
I think Dr. Kawata and Dr. Narducci represent dadaism in Physics.
I wrote on March, 23 2006:
"None is so blind as they who will not see.
I wrote to Prof. Kawata that a publication of referees' comments will
raise the responsibility of referees. I supposed he was afraid that I
should make a laughingstock of his referees. He answered nothing
I wrote that Prof. Kawata received a description of a wonderful
phenomenon, a transmission of classical spin to a perfect mirror. He
answered nothing
I wrote, Prof. Kawata's statement that my paper does not address issues
that fall within the scope of our journal is a lie. I have no reply.
I wrote to Prof. Nardicci that his report blatantly contradicts a style
of referee reports because there are no objections in it. He presented
no objections.
In a paper "Inner incompleteness of the Maxwell electrodynamics"
D3715 (submitted on 22 Sep 2002) I proved that a light beam, in
reality, carried the double angular momentum compared to standard
theory. Prof. Nardicci made no judgment on the correctness or technical
aspects of this paper.
I have no evidences that editors of OC can understand a physical text.
The maximum of their understanding is a sentence: "Your manuscript
contains too many controversial comments."
My resume is: my worse suspicions are confirmed. Editors of OC are not
interested in physics; they are interested in the stability of their
status among editors and referees only. And what is more, I think the
policies of Optics Communications not to publish official conclusions
of other journals means an existence of collusion for the sake of
corporate interests, which differ from interests of science.
The Editors of OC had a chance to understand and to support my work.
They missed this chance. They rejected my papers many times, and Prof.
Lorenzo Narducci rejected the papers as Associate Editor Physical
Review A as well. The number 351 is a disgrace of OC rather than my
pride.
Nevertheless, I continue my research of OC. I send a new paper, "A
rotating electric dipole radiates spin and orbital angular momentum" to
Prof. Rene Dandliker, Editor OC."
Unfortunately, my research of OC turned out to be sad.
Radi Khrapko
P.S. These papers are published at www.sciprint.org,
www.mai.ru/projects/mai_works/ and mp_arc@mail.ma.utexas.edu 03315 

Back to top 


Google


Back to top 



The time now is Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:10 am  All times are GMT

