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 

Diminishing of Frequency of Light after Diffraction
Laser light fell through a narrow slit into a LummerGehrcke plate. Their interference fringes show a spread of one flank to place of lower frequencies, but there is no displace of the whole line to lower frequencies. This is proved with slitwidth below 0.01 mm, in higher orders till some 0.001 mm. So narrower slits, so higher orders of diffraction, and so higher frequency of light, so stronger was the spread of the flank to lower frequencies. Already Smekal predicted diminishing of frequency of light after diffraction Figure 1. Experimental arrangement. L  HeNe or Argon laser; f1, f2 lens for radiationenlarging; S  precisionslit with a maximal width of 0.3 mm; e  distance; LG  LummerGehrcke plate; O  objective tessar 1:4.5, f' 135 mm; P  singlelens reflexcamera. Figure 2. Curves of photometer of the first lines of the LummerGehrcke plate, illuminated with a HeNe laser HNA 188 with the slitwidth 0.2, 0.02, 0.01, and 0.005 mm by e = 0.2 m. The middles of the zeroth orders are examined by varied slitwidths. The optical transparency of the negatives is drawn in arbitrary units in dependence of place of the lines. The dotlines of slitwidth of 0.02 and 0.005 are only there drawn where they deviate from the drawlines of 0.2 and 0.01 mm. The inner lines are drawn in normalized height. Linepoint exhibited the line of symmetry of the photos of LummerGehrcke plate Figure 3. As Figure 2 only e = 1.2 mAbb. 3. Wie Abb. 2, nur e = 1,2 m. Figure 4. The orders 0 till 4 of the diffractionfigures with a slitwidth of 0.025 mm. Drawn is the left inner line of the photometercurves of LummerGehrcke plate. The arrow at the foot of the curves will direct to the spread in higher orders. The high of the lines is drawn normalized. Figure 5. Photometercurves of the both first left lines of the LummerGehrcke plate. As in figure 2 the zeroth order is examined with varied slitwidth. An argon laser ILA 120 illuminated the slit with the bluegreen adjustment. In difference to the HeNe laser the Argon laser yields doublelines. Else as figure 2. Figure 6. Photometercurves from negatives which are taken in constant slitwidth of 0.025 mm with an argon laser. Shown are only the first left doublelines of the 0th till 4th order where the inner maxima is drawn normalized in equal height. DiscussionBy knowledge of Comptoneffect the redshift at diffraction is not astonishing. Indeed, who has expected a displacing of the whole line like Hubble [5] found in the spectra of light of externalgalaxy nebulas should be disappointed. This is to compare with Comptoneffect with summing over the whole anglereach where also is to expect a spread to lower frequency side. This was here to compare with a sum up over slitwidth. Newton [2] III 5th observation found and Nieke [6] and [7] confirmed that bent light comes only out of the narrow surroundings of every edge. At slitwidth smaller as 0.1 mm overlap both spheres where bent light is coming from. The ascertainment of slitwidth nought is not unequivocal. If one put in slitwidth nought in incident light that a movement of slityaws is to see, so in transmitted light a first lightperception is to establish in slitwidth of 0,001 till 0.002 mm. Smekal [8] wrote in his paper in which he predicted the RamanEffekt (translated): "It has the appearance as if with every change of direction of light are connected proceedings of similar quality as described above as 'translationquantumtransitions'. The formal use of Einstein's impulseinference then yields on principle a change of frequency resp. diminishing of light at every reflection, refraction and diffractionprocess, a consequence already W. Duane[9] called attention in a special way independent of the above placed question. A more accurate examination shows that thereby involved deviations of classical wavetheory are to make conveniently interferometric measurable in favourable experimental cases. Till realization of such futurehopes, which are suitable in various respect to destroy the dogma of indispensable of wavetheoretical considerations in optics of reflection and interference, perhaps this is still a very long way." Raman had exposuretimes of hours or days, today with a laser the Ramaneffect is to prove in seconds or minutes. So it is no feat to prove diminishing of frequency of light after diffraction with a laser. The dispersionrange of used LummerGehrcke plate is about Δf / f ~ 4 10^{5} (1) The maximal displacing is only a split of them. References[1] H. Nieke, Newtons Beugungsexperimente und ihre Weiter führung. Halle 1997, Comp. Print 1, Arbeit 4. (vorhanden in vielen Deutschen Universitätsbibliotheken); Newton's Diffraction Experiments and their Continuation. Halle 1997, comp. print 3, paper 4. (available in some university libraries.) [2] I. Newton, Opticks, or a Treatise of the Reflexions, Refractions Inflexions 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, Engelmannn, Leipzig 1898; Neuauflage Bd. 96/97, Vieweg, Braunschweig 1983; Optique, Trad. J. P. Macat 1787; Bourgois, Paris 1989. [3] A. Fresnel, Oeuvres Complétes I. Paris 1866; Abhandlungen über die Beugung des Lichtes. Ostwalds Klassiker Nr. 215, Engelmann, Leipzig 1926. [4] As [1], paper 5 [5] B. Hubbel, The realm of nebula. Yale Univ. London 1936; Das Reich der Nebel, Vieweg, Braunschweig 1938. [6] As [1], paper 2 [7] As [1], paper 3. [8] A. Smekal, Naturwiss. 11 (1923) 973. [9] W. Duane, Proc Nat. Aced. Amer. 9 (1923) 158.


© 2006 by tediamedia • info@gebeugteslicht.de 