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 

Superposition of Interference and Diffraction
In a MachZehender interferometer is shown that the diffraction figure of a halfplane does not superpose with the interference figure of the halfplane undisturbedly. This is reduced because photons of the diffraction figure of halfplane do not go rectilinearly. The same fact is shown with Newton's rings where likewise diffraction and interference do not superpose undisturbedly. Whereas in scattering the superposition could not be examined, it was discussed why the common scattering figure can not originate in an usual interference apparatus. Figure 1: MachZehender Interferometer (Leybold Didaktik). L  HeNelaser; f1, f2  lens for beamenlarging, parallel setting; T1, T2 beamsplitters; H  in some photos place of halfplane or scatteringplate; e  distance 16.5 cm; S1, S2  mirrors; Al, A2  outlets, as positive and negative; P  corpus of a singlelens miniaturereflex camera. Figure 2. Interferencefigure of the interferometer according to figure 1 Figure 3. Diffractionfigure of a halfplane in H and masked other way of light. Figure 4. Superposition of diffraction and interference. Figure 5. Undisturbed interferencefigure with a limpid objectplane in H of figure 1, new adjusted Figure 6. Scatteringfigure with spores of groundpine on an object plane in H, the other way of light was masked. Figure 7. Wholeresult with scatteringfigure superposed of interferencefigure. Figure 8. As figure 7, but the objectplane with spores of groundpine moved additionally. Figure 9. Experimental arrangement for examination of Newton's rings with illumination of diffractionrings in reflectionposition. L lightsource, a mercurysuperpressure lamp HBO 100; C  condenser; F  greenfilter; D  circularopening ~ 0.1 mm; S  variable slit; PP  planeparallel plates that show Newton's rings; P  photofilm. Figure 10. Parts of Newton's rings after Figure 9, illuminated with a slitwidth of S with 2 mm. Arrows  cf. text. Discussion of scattering experimentsFor scattering at irregular particles usually used spores of groundpine as for example Pohl [11] described with dusty mirror and irregular circularopenings. The there described scatteringfigures are only visible if a small plane is illuminated and this is project on a large plane. In an usual interferenceapparatus this scatteringfigure is not to obtain, but only as in figure 6 scatterparticle are to see as points. Well, interferences are to show also in divergent light but this demand a special greater apparatus where light is lead convergent to H and then off H with scatterplate divergent. This could be attempt. Then is to quote Laue [12] who reported at irregularly arranged scatteringparticle about a refuse of classical wavetheory. He reported also about radial fringes that do not correspond to the theory, also Nieke [6] found starlike scatteringfringes. Laue[13] wrote (translated): "... for experiment and theory on this place are passed without took cognizance each other." In this paper he put against one another without to give a solution. According Laue the so called waveoptics failed in scatteringfigures but waveoptics failed also in Newton's diffraction experiments (Nieke [6] and [14]). With Fourier's theorem every piecemeal monotonous function is to perform approximately, so Fresnel could give solutions for specific cases. In case of need with help of an arbitrarily introduced phasejump only because deviation of wavetheory with experimental results. Laue [12] wrote (translated): "We see in this a refute of classical wavetheory, which has proved true at all interference and diffractionappearances so excellently." Here Laue respected only the formal mathematical application of Fouriertheorem and not Newton's diffraction experiments ([8] book III observation 5 and 10 and Nieke [14]). Here Laue is nowhere quoted, exact so like Laue [15] did not quoted in his handhook article about diffraction Newton's diffraction experiments. References[1] H. Nieke, Newtons Beugungsexperimente und ihre Weiterführung. Halle 1997, Comp. Print 1, Arbeit 5. (Vorhanden in vielen deutschen Universitätsbibliotheken): Newton's Diffraction Experiments and their Continuation. Halle 1997, comp. print 3, paper 5. (Available in some university libraries). [2] A. Fresnel, Oevre Complétes I. Paris 1866; Abhandlungen über die Beugung des Lichtes. Ostwalds Klassiker Nr. 215, Engelmann, Leipzig 1926. [3] W. M Honig, In: Hrsg. W. M Honig, D. W. Kraft, E. Panarella: Quantum Uncertainties. Nato AST Series B Vol. 162, Plenum Press N.Y., London 1987, S. 97: Summary of de Martini's Paper. [4] H. Nieke, Exp. Techn. Phys. 31 (1983) 53 [5] As [1], paper 4. [6] As [1], paper 2. [7] As [1], paper 3. [8] 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. [9] L. de Broglie, La Physique quantique resteratelle indéterministe? GauthierVillars, Paris 1953; Phys. Bl. 19 (1953) 488, 541. [10] E. Mach, Die Prinzipien der physikalischen Optik, Barth, Leipzig.1921. The Principles of Physical Optics. New York 1926 [11] R. W. Pohl, Optik. 8. Aufl. 1948 Springer, Berlin, Göttingen, Heidelberg S. 79 u. 107. [12} M. v. Laue, Ber. Dtsch. Phys. Ges. 19 (1917) 19. [13] M. v. Laue, Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1914 XLVII S. 1144. [14] As [1], paper 1 [15] M. v. Laue, In: Handbuch der Experimentalphysik Bd 18. Akad. Verlagsges. Leipzig 1928.


© 2006 by tediamedia • info@gebeugteslicht.de 