Newton's and Fresnel's Diffraction Experiments The Continuation of Newton's Diffraction
Experiments Diffraction of Light at Slit and Hindrance InterferenceAngle Condition, Diffraction and
Imagery Diffraction One After Another and with
Intermediate Imagery Diminishing of Frequency of Light after
Diffraction Inner and Outer DiffractionFringes at
Circular Openings Superposition of Interference and Diffraction Diffraction Experiments with Inhomogeneous
Illumination Experiments with Polarized Light at Slit and
DoubleSlit The Background of DiffractionFigures Trial for Interpretation of Newton's Diffraction
Experiments Consequences for Photons out of Newton's
Diffraction Experiments Consequences for Structure of Electrons out of
that of Photons The Thermally Conditioned Electromagnetic Field Diffraction and LightEmission of Electrons EnergySteps of Electrons in Magnetic EigenField Faraday's Electrotonic States NearField Optics with Regard to Newton's
DiffractionExperiments Consideration of Magnetic Moment of Electron
in Quantum Theories 

Newton's and Fresnel's Diffraction Experiments
Photos of diffraction figures of triangular slit and Grimaldi's luminous edge confirm Newton's observations. Newton described the transition from inner to outer fringes of triangular slit and showed that bent light (Grimaldi's luminous edge) only comes out of narrow surroundings of every edge and not of the whole slit. On the contrary Fresnel communicated only easily calculable borderline cases and disregarded transitions of inner to outer fringes and localization of bent light. Since 1850 textbook authors took over Fresnel's theory and intercepted Newton's diffraction experiments. Experiments and FiguresFigure. 1. Newton's drawing of diffraction at the triangular slit. Newton [1] III 10th observation. Newton used sunlight and a narrow hole in a shutter, distance to triangular slit 10 feet, and drawing plane 9 feet. With sunlight there are to observe only three (coloured) diffraction fringes but corresponding more with monochromatic light. ABC projection at triangular slit (shadowlimit).
lightside shadowside lightside shadowside Figure 6. Photographic pictures of a slit according the arrangement of figure 5, O  tessar 1:2.8, f' 50 mm. The upper parts show the slit only with incident light, the lower parts additional with transmitted light illumination.a. Ø H = 50 mm, s = 1 m, f' = 50 mm, b = 7°, b. Ø H = 50 mm, s = 0,5 m, f' = 50 mm, b = 7°, c. Ø H = 50 mm, s= 1 m, f' = 50 mm, b = 15°, d. Ø H = 50 mm, s = 1 m, f' = 50 mm, b = 30°. Figure 7. As figure 6. O  tessar 1:4.5, f' = 135 mm or microtar f' = 10 mm. a. Ø H = 50 mm, s = 1 m, f' = 135 mm, b = 7°, b. Ø H = 50 mm, s = 1 m, f' = 135 mm, b = 14°, c. Ø H = 50 mm, s = 1 m, f'= 10 mm, b = 7°, d. Ø H= 50 mm, s = 1 m, f' = 10 mm, b = 14°. Figure 8. Photos of the scattering figures of spores of ground pine (lycopodium) according to figure 5 but instead of Lt up to H a heliumneon laser HNA 188 and instead of the slit S a glassdisk with the spores of ground pine in the same scale ratio as figure 6. a: Only incident light, b: Only transmitted light, b = 7°, Figure 9. Photos of the top of a triangularslit according figure 5 in the same scale as figure 6. í Ø B = 0.5 mm, s = 1 m. The outside lines point to the position of the slit. a: b = 7°, b: b = 15° . ConsequencesFresnel [2] confirmed in his first paper about diffraction that bent light comes only 'from the edge', but with it he could not calculate the inner diffractionfringes of hindrance (and the outer of slit). Also he established that it is not permitted to mask within the slit simple the sphere between the spheres of which bent light is coming. If one do so, the diffraction figure of doubleslit will arise. Therefore in his second paper Fresnel took as pretend Huygens' principle and gave no more mention or respect to physical contradiction in origin of bent light; the mathematical description in large distances was satisfied to him, and later he drew his waves as circles not up to the hindrance. Fresnel was conscious of the weaknesses of his theory. From about 1850 the textbook authors left out Newton's diffraction experiments and so they could feigned a simple but misleading description. That the sphere between bent light is coming should not be masked, Therefore it is not necessary that everyone have to test experimentally the communications of Fresnel [2] over his measurements; it is sufficient to examine the extrapolation of formula (1) as inadmissible and wrong by comparison with Newton's diffraction experiments. Here Rubinowicz [11] attempted to bridge over this contradiction. In the function theory it is possible to transform a line integral into a planeintegral. With light, exhibited by an efunction as analytic function, he believed to have removed that contradiction; according to this it is indifferent if bent light is coming from the edge or from the plane. However, light is no analytic function and bent light is coming neither from the edge nor from the whole plane but out of narrow surroundings of every edge. The lightline of Grimaldi is not to exhibit as a lineintegral. That bent light is coming only out of the surroundings of edges is a wellknown fact since centuries, never one has shown that bent light comes from the whole slitplane, but nevertheless general planeintegrals were used for calculation of diffraction. has to be establish in future papers, but it does not justify the extrapolation. It is to sumarize that Fresnel in later papers


© 2006 by tediamedia • info@gebeugteslicht.de 