Researchers make better sense of incoherent light

Researchers make better sense of incoherent light
A new technique detects spatial coherence in light at smaller scales than had been possible. The image shows visibility curves appearing at the nanoscale, the telltale sign of spatial coherence. Credit: Pacifici Lab / Brown University

One of the differences between lasers and desk lamps is that laser light is spatially coherent, meaning the peaks and valleys of the light waves are correlated with each other. The jumbled, uncorrelated waves coming from a desk lamp, on the other hand, are often said to be incoherent.

That's a bit of a misnomer, however. In theory, virtually all —even "incoherent" light—can have a high degree of spatial coherence. But detecting that coherence requires probing light at extremely small length scales that cannot be accessed using traditional techniques.

Now, researchers in the lab of Domenico Pacifici, professor in Brown University's School of Engineering, have found a way to detect spatial coherence in light beams at the scale of a few hundred nanometers—a much smaller scale than has ever been possible. The research provides the first experimental verification of optical coherence theory at the nanoscale.

"There's a very small length scale at which light that's often said to be incoherent behaves coherently, but we've lacked experimental techniques to quantify it," said Drew Morrill, lead author of an article describing the new research. "That degree of coherence contains meaningful information we can now access, which could be useful in characterizing light sources and potentially for new imaging and microscopy techniques."

Morrill, now a graduate student at the University of Colorado, performed the work as an undergraduate at Brown. The research paper, coauthored with Pacifici and Brown postdoctoral scholar Dongfang Li, is published in Nature Photonics.

Traditional methods for testing the extent to which light is spatially coherent involve devices that can split the wavefront of a light beam. The most famous of these is the Young interferometer, also known as the . The experiment consists of a aimed at a detector screen, with an opaque barrier between the two. The barrier has two small slits in it, allowing two rays of light to pass through. As the two rays emerge from the slits, some of the are bent toward each other, causing them to recombine. Recombining waves that are coherent will create an interference pattern—a series of light and dark patches—on the detector screen. By measuring the contrast of those light and dark patches, researchers can quantify the light's coherence.

The problem is that for light sources with very low spatial coherence, the double slit experiment doesn't work as well because the length scales at which the interference patterns appear is very small. Producing interference over small length scales requires the two slits to be placed very close together. But when the distance between the two slits gets close to of the wavelength of the light shown upon them, the experiment breaks down. The interferometer can no longer split and recombine the beam properly to look for interference.

"The interference fringes are smeared out, making it difficult to quantify the degree of coherence," Morrill said. "But if you could get around the fundamental limitations of the double slit experiment, theoretically you should be able to see those fringes."

To get around those limitations, the researchers employed a different kind of interferometer that makes use of plasmonics, the interaction between light and electrons in a metal. Instead of two slits, the plasmonic interferometer has a slit and a groove in a surface made of silver. Light hitting the groove creates a surface plasmon polariton (SPP), a density wave of electrons moving across the silver surface. The SPP propagates toward the slit, where it recombines with the light going through the slit. Because the SPP is related to the original beam of light but has a smaller wavelength, and because it diffracts at a 90-degree angle toward the slit, the groove and slit in the plasmonic interferometer can be placed closer together than the two slits in the Young interferometer.

The researchers amassed hundreds of these tiny interferometers, designed and fabricated with nanometric precision, on a microchip. They used that chip to the measure coherence lengths of a broadband xenon lamp for hundreds of wavelengths across the visible spectrum. For blue-green light, measured coherence lengths dropped as low as 330 nanometers—smaller than the 500 nanometer incident wavelength of the light source.

The results are the first experimental confirmation of coherence theory at or below the wavelength of light.

"That was a really exciting result," Morrill said. "Without experimental verification, we really didn't know if these equations held up for these small scales, but it turns out that they do."

In terms of potential applications, the plasmonic chip could help manufacturers of light sources for microscopy, holography and other applications to better characterize their light sources. The integration of the interferometers on a single chip makes the processes of characterizing a light source quick and easy.

"You can just record the degree of spatial coherence in a single snapshot by taking a picture of the light intensity through the densely spaced plasmonic interferometers, which only takes a few seconds," said Li, who led the fabrication of the meter.

"We're providing scientists with a new tool to quantify the degree of of light at a length scale that hadn't been possible before," Pacifici said.


Explore further

Advance could aid development of nanoscale biosensors

More information: Drew Morrill et al. Measuring subwavelength spatial coherence with plasmonic interferometry, Nature Photonics (2016). DOI: 10.1038/nphoton.2016.162
Journal information: Nature Photonics

Provided by Brown University
Citation: Researchers make better sense of incoherent light (2016, September 16) retrieved 20 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-09-incoherent.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
452 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 16, 2016
It's good to see how quickly mainstream has come round to my way of looking at the two-slit behavior. :)

Some years back, in OLD physorg (now the defunct physforum), I had occasion to explain to Confused2/others that the classic two-slit results could be explained by PLASMONIC behavior of any surface bombarded by photons/electrons; effectively building up 'plasmon waves' on the slitted barrier surface; which waves naturally propagated/concentrated at EDGES of slits, created interference/reinforcement phenomena there which effectively made the TWO-SLIT arrangement an RE-EMITTER of newly created 'Electrons/Photons' which hit the screen to produce observed pattern.

No 'mystical' so-called 'explanations' necessary. Just rational known phenomena which was obviously overlooked by the all too eager (but all too self-important) 'mystery' proponents who, as it were, 'couldn't see the wood for the trees'.

Believe me now, Confused2/others? :)

Kudos, Drew Morrill. Well done all. :)

Sep 16, 2016
It's good to see how quickly mainstream has come round to my way of looking at the two-slit behavior. :)
Well you are the incoherent Earthman-Skippy Cher. I expect everything you look at looks incoherent.

Sep 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

RNP
Sep 17, 2016
@RealityCheck
[|q]Some years back, in OLD physorg (now the defunct physforum), I had occasion to explain to Confused2/others that the classic two-slit results could be explained by PLASMONIC behavior of any surface bombarded by photons/electrons;

You have either not read the article or completely misunderstood it. The paper does not claim that the "classic two-slit results" are explained by plasmonic behaviour, it says simply that it can be used to measure the coherence more accurately. READ THE ARTICLES BEFORE YOU COMMENT LIKE THIS.

RNP
Sep 17, 2016
CORRECTION:

@RealityCheck
Some years back, in OLD physorg (now the defunct physforum), I had occasion to explain to Confused2/others that the classic two-slit results could be explained by PLASMONIC behavior of any surface bombarded by photons/electrons;................

Kudos, Drew Morrill. Well done all. :)


You have either not read the article or completely misunderstood it. The paper does not claim that the "classic two-slit results" are explained by plasmonic behaviour, it says simply that it can be used to measure the coherence more accurately. READ THE ARTICLES BEFORE YOU COMMENT LIKE THIS.

Sep 17, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

No, mate; you're not reading me right (reading confirmation bias at work, because you automatically assume I must be wrong somehow?). If you read again, you will see that I effectively point out TWO separate THINGS, ie that:

1) it was ME realized YEARS AGO that SURFACE PLASMONIC phenomena explains the two-slit effects/patterns; and that

2) the above mainstream researchers NOW realized that PLASMONIC phenomena DOES OCCUR at the barrier/slit material surface/edges, and the incident energy (photons/electrons) concentrates in 'plasmonic energy waves' at such SLITS; and so they are using that realization for their own experiments to detect spatial coherence in light beams at the scale of a few hundred nanometers.

Their realization/application NOW tacitly confirms my LONGSTANDING observation that plasmonic phenomena DOES occur at slits, and can ALSO explain the classical two-slit observations without needing 'mystical' QM 'interpretations'.

They're catching up! :)

Sep 17, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
That is wholly incorrect, RC.
Read up on plasmon-polaritons to find out why.
Mate, you are, as that old saying goes: "Trying to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs". :)

I knew about these things long before you; and more consistently. Your knowledge base/insights chain is not yet up to speed with mine on this (and many other phenomena/observations).
it was ME who realized YEARS AGO that SURFACE PLASMONIC phenomena explains the two-slit effects/patterns
That is incorrect. Sorry..
Do you understand that any material can exhibit surface plasmon phenomena given incident energy at relevant scales/types and harmonic rates etc, Phys1? If you are still learning about these things, then beware being simplistic and naively constraining the complexity of natural systems in certain scales/situations (such as the slit/two-slit situation). There is more happening than previous simplistic 'interpretations' could describe let alone explain.

Learn more. :)

Sep 17, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
mainstream researchers
There is no such thing. Researchers find NEW things. How can NEW be mainstream. I don't get this mainstream thing. It's just passive aggression.
Mate! Now you're doing exactly what you accuse Benni et al of doing: Semantical diversions which misconstrue what was meant. Please stop it or you will prove yourself a hypocrite in front of those whom you would attack for such behavior. You know perfectly well that mainstream researchers are finding/applying mainstream known science things I already realize do occur in relevant situation (in this instance in such a SLIT situations; as explained).
It does not take much, in a sense, to convince me. You only have to be right. On my side I will try my best to understand what you are saying. But you are not right. Surface plasmon polaritons have nothing to do with two slit interference.
The phenomenon effectively induces a CONCENTRATOR/RE-RADIATOR at slit-surface-edges structure.

Sep 17, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
I did not expect such an arrogant answer from you mate.
But I should have. Great way to kill a discussion.
Good luck with your superior knowledge.
If you want to see what "arrogant" looks like, just take a look at the CERTAINTY in YOUR responses, mate. You asserted I was "wholly incorrect.". Now that is rich coming from a wiki-warrior who is obviously not yet up to speed with the many decades of objective and consistent research and insight I have in many areas of the hard sciences relevant to this and many other QM (as well as Relativity/Cosmological) subjects of investigation/theory. :)

Our discussion involves two questions:

Do you understand that the above mainstream researchers confirm that PLASMONIC phenomena does occur at SLITS?

and

Are you capable of putting aside personal prejudices against ME, and realize the implications, for TWO-SLIT experiment, of such PLASMONIC phenomena; and of slits/two-slit concentration/re-radiation behavior? :)

Sep 17, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? That is the rhetoric question, I see you are grumpy like usual. I'm good and fit, thanks for asking.

Cher why you make the misere for the humans and scientists every single time you come around? Some of these guys might be real-scientist-Skippys like you are not. Every once and awhile you should give one of them a chance to be right. To hear you tell him, you have never been wrong about anything since you were nine years old and out grow the Junior Earthman Playhouse.

It must be really lonely being the only person who is always right, and stuck in the world with all those peoples who are always wrong.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. You doing that NON-Keplerian-Orbiting gobbledygook again anytime soon? I still want to know more about that stuffs.

Sep 17, 2016
And right on cue: enter the bot-voting Ira idiot.

Hi Ira. :)

You missed where I am teaching them something they didn't know. Also that the above researchers are making use of exactly the plasmonic phenomena at slits which I long ago pointed out occurs in the two-slit experiment setup. I even explained how the concentration/re-radiation process explains the pattern on the detector screens in the two-slit setups.

PS: Ira, any scientist-skippy who must rely on YOUR 'defense' and 'assistance' for his 'correctness', is in big trouble! Maybe you should ask all your preferred 'expert -skippys' here whether you are actually helping them, or actually embarrassing them, with your bot-voting/uncomprehending drivel whenever you come to their 'aid'. :)

PPS: I note you bot-vote 1 for me who explains the science which above article agrees with me on now; while you vote 5 for those who merely say "you're wrong" even though they do not understand the science I point out. You poor slob. :)

Sep 17, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@Uncle Ira
Great lines, Uncle, you have a way with words.
It is always fun to read you.
That just about sums up what you're really here for, mate. You approve bot-voting idiots, but attack me who is pointing out REAL SCIENCE for you. It makes all your attacks on Benni et al hypocritical to say the least. You should know better, if you are really a physicist. But it's becoming apparent you evade the obvious implications from what I just pointed out re plasmonic phenomena at any slit-edge-surface situation (which above researchers are finally getting round to realizing too). But do you fairly acknowledge my point? No. You make certainty-riddled diversions in denial that I may just be correct and you not. If you condone Ira's stupid, diversionary crap and bot-voting skewing of the metrics here, then you are WORSE than anyone you attack here, mate----because you should know better if you really are a true scientist of any sort. You patently are not. Too bad. :(

Sep 17, 2016
And right on cue: enter the bot-voting Ira idiot.

Hi Ira. :)

You missed where I am teaching them something they didn't know.
Everybody missed it. You are the only person that noticed that.

I even explained how the concentration/re-radiation process explains the pattern on the detector screens in the two-slit setups.
You must have explained it wrong. Otherwise maybe one other person in the world notice besides you.

Maybe you should ask all your preferred 'expert -skippys' here whether you are actually helping them, or actually embarrassing them, with your bot-voting/uncomprehending drivel whenever you come to their 'aid'. :)
What I should do that for? I am here for me, not them.

I note you bot-vote 1 for me who explains the science which above article agrees with me on now; while you vote 5 for those who merely say "you're wrong" even though they do not understand the science I point out.
I am glad you noted that Cher. What now?

Sep 17, 2016
If you condone Ira's stupid, diversionary crap and bot-voting skewing of the metrics here, then you are WORSE than anyone you attack here


You tell the GREAT BIG LIE Skippy. I did not skew any metrical stuffs. I skewered you. Get your lies straight so I don't have to come back and defend me from your dishonor.

Do your diligence like you always tell us to do. DO BETTER Matey, if not for the humans and scientists, then do it for your posterior.

Sep 17, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
You missed where I'm teaching them something they didn't know.
Everybody missed it. You are the only person that noticed that
A bot-voting idiot in denial.
I even explained how the concentration/re-radiation process explains the pattern on the detector screens in the two-slit setups.
You must have explained it wrong. Otherwise maybe one other person in the world notice besides you.
They are in denial too. Not a good sign for them, joining a bot-voting idiot in that state.
Maybe you should ask all your preferred 'expert -skippys'
What I should do that for? I am here for me, not them.
You long ago also said you were here to provide your preferred "science-skippy's" with your "free service" to help them; and provide your free bot-idiocy here.
I note you bot-vote 1 for me who explains the science which above article agrees with me...
I am glad you noted that Cher. What now?
No change; you remain a 'free' bot-idiot. :(

Sep 17, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
If you condone Ira's stupid, diversionary crap and bot-voting skewing of the metrics here, then you are WORSE than anyone you attack here
You tell the GREAT BIG LIE Skippy. I did not skew any metrical stuffs. I skewered you. Get your lies straight so I don't have to come back and defend me from your dishonor. Do your diligence like you always tell us to do. DO BETTER Matey, if not for the humans and scientists, then do it for your posterior.
No surprise; that a bot-voting idiot, who rates according to person and not science posted, does not understand that doing the one is automatically doing the other....on a science site.

But don't worry, Ira, your 'contribution' is unwittingly helpful in teaching the newbies to science what can happen when one lets personal idiocy substitute for scientific integrity. You are a perfect cautionary lesson in that regard, Ira. Even though you didn't mean to be, you are a great FREE object lesson in idiocy! :)

Sep 17, 2016
You long ago also said you were here to provide your preferred "science-skippy's" with your "free service" to help them; and provide your free bot-idiocy here.


That is not true Cher. I realize you are really old and your memory might be failing, but if your memory is fine, then you tell another GREAT BIG LIE.

The free service I provide is for everybody, not just scientists. Anybody who don't want to be distracted by your mental conditional postums, can set their karma filter slider thingy to "2" and poof, they don't have to see it. It's sort of like the ignore thing, only this lets them see it if you accidentally write something smart.

Sep 17, 2016
You are a perfect cautionary lesson in that regard, Ira. Even though you didn't mean to be, you are a great FREE object lesson in idiocy!


Well thanks for that Cher. Apology accepted. Are you going to apologize to the rest of the peoples here you were disrespecting to?

Sep 17, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
You long ago also said you were here to provide your preferred "science-skippy's" with your "free service" to help them; and provide your free bot-idiocy here.
That is not true Cher....The free service I provide is for everybody, not just scientists.
So you just contradicted your denial, and admit you said you were providing a free bot-voting/skewing idiot service to 'science skippys' as well. D'oh. Anybody who don't want to be distracted by your mental conditional postums,.... Except I keep inconveniently proving that I am correct all along on science and humanity matters. You're an idiot in denial. Double-whammy of 'mental conditions', Ira.
You are a perfect cautionary lesson in that regard, Ira. Even though you didn't mean to be, you are a great FREE object lesson in idiocy!
Well thanks for that Cher.
Your apology accepted, Ira; but only on condition you don't start charging a fee for your heretofore 'free' bot-idiot service. :)

Sep 17, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
I will put you on the same garbage pile as your mate Benni, then.
Reg Mundy is there too, and bschott. Quite a madhouse!
That's the 'scientific method' where you come from, is it, mate: to just attack the messenger and deny and ignore inconvenient science facts/insights when they are politely pointed out and explained to you? Not a good 'ad' for whatever it is you are selling yourself as here, Phys1. You pretend to be a physicist but act just as badly as you say Benni et al are; but you are worse if you are a physicist, because you should know better. Sad, mate; real sad. Time wasted on you could have been better spent on others who are not so obviously prejudiced and biased and just plain ignorant and behind-speed on the science matter I am pointing out. Never mind; go back to whatever it is you are doing here, Phys1; it's not OBJECTIVE science discourse,that's for sure. I'm sure your bot-idiot friend Ira can give you 5 all day long, irrespective. :)

Sep 17, 2016
REFORMAT:

Hi Ira. :)
You long ago also said you were here to provide your preferred "science-skippy's" with your "free service" to help them; and provide your free bot-idiocy
That is not true Cher....The free service I provide is for everybody, not just scientists.
So you just contradicted your denial, and admit you said you were providing a free bot-voting/skewing idiot service to 'science skippys' as well. D'oh
Anybody who don't want to be distracted by your mental conditional postums,.
Except I keep inconveniently proving that I am correct all along on science and humanity matters. You're an 'idiot in denial': a double-whammy of 'mental conditions', Ira.
You are a perfect cautionary lesson in that regard, Ira. Even though you didn't mean to be, you are a great FREE object lesson in idiocy!
Well thanks for that Cher
Your apology accepted, Ira; but only on condition you don't start charging a fee for your heretofore 'free' bot-idiot service. :)

Sep 17, 2016
REFORMAT:

Hi Ira. :)

Blah, Blah, Blah and a few more Blahs for good measure.



Redoing it did not make it any better Cher.

You are a perfect cautionary lesson in that regard, Ira. Even though you didn't mean to be, you are a great FREE object lesson in idiocy!


Well thanks for that Cher Apology accepted


Okayeei, then I accepted Cher.

but only on condition you don't start charging a fee for your heretofore 'free' bot-idiot service.
You think I could charge money for what I do? We got some real morons around here, but not that kind of morons.

Sep 17, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Redoing it did not make it any better Cher.
Not for an admitted bot-voting idiot like you skewing the metrics on a science site, that's for sure, Ira. You long ago admitted you don't understand anything worth understanding in science or humanity discourse; and just come in here to demonstrate how dumb you are by being captive to an off-the-shelf bot-voting program which you installed; and have since found that you are too dumb to UN-install when you tried. D'oh.
Okayeei, then I accepted Cher.
Thanks for your apology, Ira. Accepted...
...but only on condition you don't start charging a fee for your heretofore 'free' bot-idiot service.
You think I could charge money for what I do? We got some real morons around here, but not that kind of morons.
No one here can match your extra industrial strength moronicity, Ira; so, yeah, no one would pay you for being a bot-voting, metrics-skewing, anti-science/anti-humanity idiot. You got that right! :)

Sep 17, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
I have disproved your message.
You take it personal and become condescending and disrespectful.
Not only are your theories fundamentally flawed, so is your debating style.
How have you "disproved" anything?

Before kneejerking again, just answer for yourself the following two questions:

1) Do you agree, or not, that above researchers are exploiting the plasmonic effects attending any slit-edge-surface configuration of the relevant scales?

2) Do you understand, or not, how similar plasmonic effects must also attend any TWO-slit-edge-surface setup of the relevant scales?

We can continue this conversation properly once you indicate what your answers to the above two questions were. Thanks, mate. :)

RNP
Sep 18, 2016
@RealityCheck
No, mate; you're not reading me right.......


Yes, I am.

.........plasmonic phenomena DOES occur at slits, and can ALSO explain the classical two-slit observations without needing 'mystical' QM 'interpretations'.


The article says: "To get around those limitations, the researchers employed a different kind of INTERFEROMETER that makes use of plasmonics,.............".

I.e. Clearly, the (apparently, to you "mystical") QM effect of interference is still required to produce the fringes even when plasmonic affects are being employed. How then, do you arrive at the conclusion above?


Sep 18, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

I direct your attention to the rest of that description/explanation:
Instead of two slits, the plasmonic interferometer has a slit and a groove in a surface made of silver. Light hitting the groove creates a surface plasmon polariton (SPP), a density wave of electrons moving across the silver surface. The SPP propagates toward the slit, where it recombines with the light going through the slit. Because the SPP is related to the original beam of light but has a smaller wavelength, and because it diffracts at a 90-degree angle toward the slit, the groove and slit in the plasmonic interferometer can be placed closer together than the two slits in the Young interferometer.
Note that they use ONE-SLIT and a GROOVE, which can be CLOSER together (than usual two-slits); and that the PLASMONS from the GROOVE diffract along the surface toward the SLIT at 90-degrees, and have a smaller wavelength than incident light its related to, so it CAN.....CONTINUED

Sep 18, 2016
CONTINUED.... @ RNP. :)

.....it CAN produce an interference pattern for light having lower spatial coherence than the usual two-slit setup can resolve, due to the latter's two-slit separation being constrained to a certain minimum distance (as they also explained in their intro).

See? They are using what plasmons are generated in any such situations, to help resolve the light pattern; but in this case they are cleverly reconfiguring the usual setup to specifically EXPLOIT those plasmons to help resolve light components having much less spatial coherence.

They made one slit "BLIND" (ie a GROOVE) and put it closer to remaining slit; effectively using the 90-degree diffracted plasmonic waves from the groove as the OTHER (interfering) waves component going through the ONE slit!

See? The usual two-slits generate plasmons; but two slits cannot be placed close enough for THIS job; so they came up with a way of exploiting the plasmonic waves as described!

Plasmons are key. :)

Sep 18, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
You talk ludicrous nonsense about the two slit experiment.
This will be rejected instantly by anyone knowledgeable QM, surface plasmon polaritons or both. I am in the latter category.
Because the rejection is instant you try to frame it as "knee jerk". You don't fool anyone.
This is as despicable as your claim that you know more, much more than anyone else.
Such methods reduce your credibility to zero.

Mate, please read what I just posted to RNP. It will explain everything you are obviously missing. I will therefore leave your above comments alone and trust to your further reading and understanding properly before you again reply to me. No hard feelings at this end, Phys1. Cheers. :)

Sep 18, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
I am no longer reading your posts. Sorry.
Your loss, mate; not mine. :)

It also seems you didn't read the above mainstream article properly either; as it confirms my years long observation that plasmonics plays a key role in all the slit type interferometer results (including the above one using one slit and a groove to change the plasmonic wave behavior and wavelengths to suit lower spatial resolution mixed light beams).

Never mind, though, mate, the mainstream researchers will soon be explaining it all to you via the literature, once they have caught up with what I have been pointing out for years now. :)

Anyway, stay well; and try not to come across so 'certain' in replies to me; especially when you obviously haven't yet caught up with the knowledge and insights I have gained through diligent objective scientific research and observation across many disciplines for many years now.

Good luck, mate. :)

RNP
Sep 19, 2016
@RealityCheck
You are just obfuscating again. You write long posts summarizing the article, but you do not, as asked, write anything to support your arrogant claims, such as:

Some years back ........., I had occasion to explain to Confused2/others that the classic two-slit results could be explained by PLASMONIC behavior of any surface bombarded by photons/electrons.


or

No 'mystical' so-called 'explanations' necessary. Just rational known phenomena which was obviously overlooked by the all too eager (but all too self-important) 'mystery' proponents who, as it were, 'couldn't see the wood for the trees'.


or

.........it confirms my years long observation that plasmonics plays a key role in all the slit type interferometer results;


So I am, for a final time, asking you to support these statements.

In other words, either put up or shut up.


Sep 19, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

Mate, you don't seem to know what is going on, let alone know what you want from me. :)

I already explained how two-slit experiments involve concentrating plasmonic energy AT THE TWO-SLITS and RE-RADIATE that energy to produce the interference patterns we see.

Show me where above article says that about the USUAL TWO-SLIT setup. It doesn't. :)

It only describes their SLIT-and-GROOVE modification of a TWO-SLIT setup. Got that straight?

I spoke of the USUAL two-slit setup; and I spoke of PLASMONIC WAVES in THAT setup.

Now these researchers are exploiting the PLASMONIC waves phenomenon which I ALREADY LONG AGO EXPLAINED WAS INVOLVED IN ALL SUCH SURFACE-EDGE-SLIT SETUPS.

See? I did NOT just "summarize the article". OK?

Please try not to let your own certainty, prejudices and biased reading get in the way of READING and UNDERSTANDING PROPERLY.

Sorry I had to use CAPITALS mate; but some people seem to MISS or DENY IT ALL when its put in lower case. :)

Sep 19, 2016
Hi FORUM. :)

It's amazing, isn't it? I just point out that the classic two-slit experiment results can be explained due to the plasmonic wave energy built up at, and re-radiated by, the two-slit-edge-surface 'structure' formed in the barrier material (as further confirmed by above article exploiting plasmonic wave energy in their one-slit-and-groove setup).

And how do the usual suspects react to that momentous news? Do they cry EUREKA!...because the QM results are NOT so 'mysterious' after all?

Alas, NO!

They just IGNORE THE GROUNDBREAKING INSIGHT INTO THE TWO-SLIT RESULTS WHICH I JUST GAVE THEM!

And instead, make petty and uninformed assertions, accusations etc at ME, who just told them something IMPORTANT to CONSIDER when reviewing their understandings about the CLASSIC QM experiment TWO-SLIT RESULTS!

Sad how certain 'mainstream parrots' prefer to IGNORE a new and important scientific insight from ME, rather than ADMIT they had no clue.

Amazing bias/prejudice. :(

RNP
Sep 19, 2016
@RealityCheck
I am sorry but your continued spewing of this nonsense, while refusing to give any valid supporting evidence, shows you to be a CRANK.

Bye Bye for now, crank.

Sep 19, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

Mate, you have caught the bias-and-prejudice-method 'disease' of misreading/not-reading-at-all anything inconvenient to your beliefs.

Just calling me 'crank' doesn't explain why YOU HAVEN'T addressed yourself to the new insight about plasmonic waves involved in two-slit and also one-slit-and-groove type results.

I have been the ONLY SCIENTIST who long ago pointed out the PLASMONIC phenomena explanation for what happens at two-slit-edge-surface 'structures' of all types at that scale.

Meanwhile you keep kneejerking from your own ignorance and malice against the person (ME) while totally missing the fact that the above article CONFIRMS I was correct about the PLASMONIC phenomena involved in the results of not only their ONE-slit-and-GROOVE setup, but also, by extension, in the CLASSIC TWO-SLIT setups.

PS: RNP, if you, Phys1 et al, are the stuff of the 'new breed' of 'modern scientists', then no wonder you/they have no clue about the REALITY under your noses. :(

Sep 19, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

ONLY SCIENTIST


Cher, you are not the scientist. You only play SCIENTIST here and in the Earthman Playhouse. Do better lying Matey if you have to tell the lies.

@RNP-Skippy. How you are too Cher? I am good.

Don't mind Really-Skippy too much,,,,, he does this with everybody here and has been doing the exact same thing here for years and years. You are new here so maybe you did not see this.

http://earthlingclub.com/

Take a peek at that if you want to see what kind of scientist Really-Skippy is when he's not playing scientist here on the physorg place. That is his Earthman Playhouse and he wrote all that scientifical stuffs him self. It all got peer reviewed by the other Earthman Club members who are bat doo-doo crazy like he is.

Sep 19, 2016
Hi again, RNP. :)

You get '5' from a known ignoramus who bot-votes 'Karma points' for persons instead of science. Many posters allow such '5' ratings to go to their heads and think they are correct when they are not. If that ignoramus's bot-votes are what you crave and enjoy, then you are not a true objective scientist, but a ratings whore who doesn't care about science, only his ratings.

If you really want to be a true objective scientist, then take no notice of your ratings; just stick to the science matters in discussion, regardless of bot-voting ignoramuses like that (and the latest addition to that woeful category here, calling itself: "JimD").

Now, RNP, I had the impression you were not as 'far gone' as many others here; so, if that impression was correct, then please stop all personal attacks and just:

ADDRESS YOURSELF TO THE QUESTION/INSIGHT OF PLASMONIC WAVE ENERGY EFFECTS IN TWO-SLIT AND ONE-SLIT-AND-GROOVE setups.

Consider its implications for the results. :)

Sep 19, 2016
@RNP-Skippy. How you are too Cher? I am good.

Don't mind Really-Skippy too much,,,,, he does this with everybody here and has been doing the exact same thing here for years and years. You are new here so maybe you did not see this.

http://earthlingclub.com/

Take a peek at that if you want to see what kind of scientist Really-Skippy is when he's not playing scientist here on the physorg place. That is his Earthman Playhouse and he wrote all that scientifical stuffs him self. It all got peer reviewed by the other Earthman Club members who are bat doo-doo crazy like he is.

Sep 19, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

Don't mind that bot-voting ignoramus. He drivels a lot and still fails to make heads or tail of actual science objectively discovered. He therefore has to content himself with bothering people on the Internet Forums with his 'Karma points' ratings bot program. The reason he is so pissed off with me is that he failed the intelligence, comprehension and objectivity test when he tried to join that earthling club. His test results showed he was even dumber and more malicious than his dog (and since then, the bot-voting program which he installed but now controls him because he proved he was even too dumb to UN-install it).

Don't let personal considerations, feuds, ignoramuses/karma points distract you from your duty to be objective true scientist and ethical human being. That poor slob hasn't clue one what such things are. Hence he comes into forums and craps and drivels on the floor and leaves his stupidity there for all to see for posterity. That pitiable slob. :(

Sep 19, 2016
He drivels a lot and still fails to make heads or tail of actual science objectively discovered.


I do the best I can Cher. True, I can not write stuffs like this,,,,,

http://earthlingclub.com/

,,, but then I am not the real scientist like you are not either.

Sep 19, 2016
Ira. :)

You have proved yourself incapable of understanding anything worth understanding in science or humanity, that's your problem, Ira. Compounded by your ignorant malicious and bot-voting skewing of the site metrics of a science site.

You don't even understand what the above article explains: about exploiting plasmonics to solve the low spatial coherence resolution problem in the usual two-slit setup. They got round it by using the plasmonics generated in their one-slit-and-groove setup.

Have you even got a clue about the old saying, "If you can't take it, then don't dish it out", Ira? Apparently not.

Never mind, Ira. Go ask your dog how to UN-instal that off-the-shelf bot-voting program you installed; and which you recently found you were/are too dumb to un-install.


Sep 19, 2016

You don't even understand what the above article explains: about exploiting plasmonics to solve the low spatial coherence resolution problem in the usual two-slit setup.
Yeah, I do understand what he is explaining. Which is why I agree with the other Skippys,,,, it sounds like you are talking about exploding plastics, not exploiting plasmonics.

Have you even got a clue about the old saying, "If you can't take it, then don't dish it out", Ira? Apparently not.


Take what? Now you are accusing me of taking stuffs from you again. What the heck do you have that you think I would want to take?

Go ask your dog how to UN-instal that off-the-shelf bot-voting program you installed; and which you recently found you were/are too dumb to un-install.
Why I would want to do that Cher? It saves me the trouble of having to weed through all the physorg articles to give you the "1" karma point.

Sep 19, 2016
Awww, how cute! :)

Ira-the-bot-voting-ignoramus, who has been forced to admit more than once before that he does not understand the scientific issues being discussed, now claims to 'understand'....while obviously still not having a clue about the subject matter and explanations.

And that sort of bot-voting uncomprehending malignant idiocy on the net is what Phys1 now condones and rates '5'!

No wonder the 'mainstream parrots' are without a clue; they prefer to read/enable bot-voting idiots rather than read science insights posted for their education. If this is the sort of 'material' from which modern 'physicists' are made, then no wonder they prefer ignorance while chastising 'cranks'...they are worse than those cranks, because they should know better than to condone and enable Ira's bot-voting idiocy which mocks all proper science and humanity principles and ethics. Sad. :(

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more