# Trial for Interpretation of Newton's Diffraction Experiments

With combination of Heisenberg's structure of photons, Dirac's interference of photon with itself, Broglie's guidance-field, and Sommerfeld's unconscious proof that the Schrödinger-equation can be a formula of vortex-dynamics, a work-hypothesis for diffraction is formed. With interaction of photons with structure of electromagnetic vortex pairs and its field is tried to establish the diffraction as change of direction as result of hindered returning field according vortex-dynamics. With it Newton's diffraction experiments are explicable and the usual inadmissible and wrong extrapolation on the slit-plane is superfluous.

...

#### Interpretation of the experiments with photons with structure

From the photon started running an electromagnetic field. The photon forms a source and for the field runs back to its photon it is also a sink for the own field. For field has the effect of a phase so it could exceed or underlie the velocity of light. The field of photon is a part of photon. If field is hindered asymmetrically so that it can not return or only retarded, the photon executed a swinging according equation (2) till it is again symmetrized. As alteration of direction and not as extinction this could correspond to Young's or Huygens-Fresnel's principle. Here the interaction of photon with its field could cause diffraction.
The diffraction at the triangular-slit, reported by Nieke [3], is to describe: Is to the photon, which passed near the edge, only asymmetrical field returned which passed near the edge, so the photon has only information of the near edge and executed that turn or swing which belongs to this disturbance of symmetry. This should give the inner diffraction-fringes of slit which corresponds to the diffraction-figure of half-plane at this edge. If on the farther way parts of field, which passed the other half of slit, returned to the photon so gets the photon information of the whole slit and executes a turn or swing which belongs to the outer diffraction-fringes of slit.
The results in the schlieren-apparatus by Nieke [4] directed to the origin of bent photons, for all photons which are not sufficiently bent are masked by schlieren-diaphragma. In Abbe's schlieren-apparatus the slit is imaged as double-stripes with a dark strip at the places of edges. The breadth of one double-stripe was maximal 0.1 mm and is dependent of the aperture of objective for imaging. In the schlieren-apparatus takes place an imagery of slit with bent light, at which this light is rectilinearly to follow backward. So for shadow-sided bent photons a shadow-sided displacing is to suppose for they can not come from the slit-jaws as shown by Nieke [3], [4] and [5]. This displacing would be conditioned first by hinder of field by the edge and then by returning of field-parts which passed the edge in some distance.
If in diffraction one after another by Nieke [7] the photons were not again symmetrized for not all the field is returned, so the photons react differently on the following diffraction for they react still on missing or returning field of the first diffraction.
At masking of one image in the image of double-slit by Nieke [7] not only returned the field of single slit but also field which passed the other single slit. If the field run a sufficient long way (order dm) between double-slit and imaging optic, then the photon has got information of both slits of double-slit. No more diffraction-fringes of the masked single-slit image are to see but diffraction-fringes of double-slit.
Nieke [8] showed that light has partial a diminishing frequency after diffraction what is demonstrable with small slit-widths. If a part of the field of a photon can not return to the photon, so a diminishing of frequency or energy is self-evident if the field is a part of photon.
Not self-evident shines that in great distances light-side diffracted light behave as the shadow-sided bent light: It run into the same order as shown in the masking-experiments of Nieke [4]. Because the field of photons have passed the whole slit, this symmetry is understandable. This was finally the statement of Young which caused him to Young's principle, even if he supposed falsely that bent light goes out only from edges.
Carnal a. Mlynek [42] reported that also atoms and elementary-particles show diffraction. Because uncontested atoms have a structure so it should be possible to explain diffraction by their structure.
The interference of photon with itself by Dirac [43] should have found an obvious interpretation by interaction of photon with its field. If this field is asymmetrically hindered so can result a deflection and therefore a diffraction. Also the demand of Einstein [15] for a fusion of wave and particle is fulfilled with it.
The capitulation of Feynman [12]: "Give we up" prolonged only the life-time of the inadmissible and wrong extrapolation and their taking over by Bohr in the Copenhagen interpretation. Not to capitulate brought in this paper a new interpretation of diffraction.

#### References

[1] I. Newton, Opticks, or a Treatise of the Reflexions, Refractions, Inflextions and Colours of Light. London 1704; Opera quae exstant omnis, Tom IV. London 1782; Optics. Reprint, Bruxelles 1966; Optik II + III, Übers. W. Abendroth, Ostwald's Klassiker Nr. 97, Engelmann Leipzig 1898; Neuauflage Bd. 96/97, Vieweg, Braunschweig 1983. Optique. Trac. J. P. Marat 1787; Reproduction, Bourgois, Paris 1989.
[2] A. J. Fresnel, Oeuvres Complétes I. Paris 1866; Abhandlungen über die Beugung des Lichtes. Ostwalds Klassiker Nr. 215, Engelmann, Leipzig 1926. [3] H. Nieke, Newtons Beugungsexperimente und ihre Weiterführung. Halle 1997, Comp. Print 1, Arbeit 1.
(Vorhanden in vielen deutschen Universitätsbibliothken) Newton's Diffraction Experiments and their Continuation. Halle 1997, comp. print 3, paper 1; (Available in some university libraries)
[4] As [3], paper 2.
[5] As [3], paper 3.
[6] As [3], paper 4.
[7] As [3], paper 5.
[8] As [3], paper 6.
[9] M. Born, Albert Einstein - Hedwig und Max Born - Briefwechsel Nymphenburger, München 1969, S. 119; The Born - Einstein Letters. Walke New York 1971.
[10] N. Bohr, Atomphysik und menschliche Erkenntnis I. Die Wissenschaft Bd 112, Vieweg, Braunschweig 1964, S. 5 + 11; Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. Wiley, New York 1958.
[11] N. Bohr, Atomphysik und menschliche Erkenntnis II. Die Wissenschaft Bd. 123, Vieweg, Braunschweig 1966, S. 4 - 5; Essays 1958/1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. Wiley, New York 1963.
[12] R. P. Feynman, R. B. Lighton u. M. Sands, Feynman Vorlesungen über Physik. Bd. III Quantenmechanik. Oldenburg, München-Wien und Addison-Wessely, London 1971, S. 1-1.
[13] L. de Broglie, DieElementarteilchen. Govarts, Hamburg 1943.
[14] M. Born, Physik im Wandel meiner Zeit. Vieweg, Braunschweig u. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1958; Physics in my generation. Pergamon, London, New York 1956.
[15] A.Einstein, Phys. Z. 18 (1917) 121.
[16] K. Przibram (Hrsg.), Schrödinger, Planck, Einstein, Lorentz, Briefwechsel zur Wellenmechanik. Springer, Wien 1963, S. 29.
[17] M. Jammer, in: Einstein Symposium Berlin. Lecture notes in physics) Bd. 100. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, New York 1979. S. 146-167.
[18] M. Bunge, as [17] S. 204-219.
[19] F. Hund, Materie als Feld. Springer, Berlin, Göttingen, Heidelberg 1954, S. 379.
[20] E. Mach, Die Prinzipien der physikalischen Optik. Barth, Leipzig 1921; The Principles of Physical Optics. New York 1926.
[21] R. Hofstadter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 28 (1956) 214; 30 (1958) 482; Phys. Bl. 18 (1962) 193.
[22] W. Heisenberg, Introduction to the Uniform Field Theory of Elementary Particles. Interscience, New York 1966; Einführung in die einheitliche Feldtheorie der Elementarteilchen. Hirzel, Stuttgart 1967, S. 116.
[23] L. P. Hughston, Twistors and Particles. Lecture notes in physics Bd 97, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York 1979, p. 102.
[24] As [13], p. 215.
[25] J. A. Christiansen, Mt. Fys. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk 37 (1968) 1.
[26] N. D. Shewandow, Die Polarisation des Lichtes. WTB 44, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1973.
[27] K. Nowak, Neue Physik (Wien) 1 (1953) 56; 4 (1964) 120.
[28] L. S. Levitt, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 21 (1978) 222.
[29] D. H. Deutsch, Phys. Essays 2 (1989) 3.
[30] D. E. McLennan, Phys. Essays 2 (1989) 51.
[31] D. Canals-Frau, Phys. Essays 4 (1991) 577.
[32] G. H. Hunter a. R. L. P. Wadlinger, Phys. Essays 2 (1989) 158.
[33] W. M. Honig, Found. Physics 4 (1974) 367; Quantum Uncertainities. Nato Series B Nr. 162, New York, London 1987, 69.
[34] G. E. Uhlenbeck u. S. Goudsmith, Naturwiss. 13 (1915) 953.
[35] T. W. Marshall, Found. Phys. 22 (1992) 363.
[36] H. Hertz, Ann. Physik III 36 (1889) 1; Ges. Werke, Bd. 1. Barth, Leipzig 1892.
[37] A. Sommerfeld, Vorlesungen über theoretische Physik, Bd. II, Mechanik deformierbarer Medien. Akad. Verlagsges. Leipzig 1945, S. 155, 156 u. 153.
[38] H. Helmholtz, J. angew. Math. 55 (1858) 25; Ges. Werke Bd. II, Barth, Leipzig 1882, 5. 101.
[39] As [37], p. 142.
[40] A. Sommerfeld, Atombau und Spektrallinien. Bd. II, Vieweg, Braunschweig 1960. Atomic Structure and Spectrallines. Methuse, London 1923, 1930, 1934.
[41] H. Hönl, A.W. Maue u. K. Westphal, in: Handbuch der Physik Bd. XXII/1, Springer, Göttingen, Heidelberg, Berlin 1961.
[42] Carnal u. J. Mlynek, Phys. Bl. 47 (1991) 379.
[43] P. M. A. Dirac, Die Prinzipien der Quantenmechanik. Hirzel, Leipzig 1930, S. 14; The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Clarendon Press Oxford 1935, 1947, 1958.

© 2006 by tediamedia •  info@gebeugtes-licht.de