Refraction and Diffraction
It is observed that a beam of light on entering a plane sheet of glass is refracted proportionally to the angle of incidence, and on exiting from the second surface the reverse occurs.
It is also observed that when a beam is directed at a glass prism the light is observed to be subsequently diffracted into colours following its emission from the secondary surface.
The first diagram below (from a current textbook) depicts the generally accepted interactions of this beam of light with, and through, the glass prism, in that diffraction commences on entry to the prism at the first surface.
Diagram 1 below depicts the (again currently accepted) passage of a beam of light through two such prisms, the second prism being inverted.
In this case it is suggested that the beam of light is diffracted into the full spectrum of colours of visible light as it passes into and through the first prism, after which the spectrum emerges into the intervening atmospheric gases and then on passing through the glass of the second prism, these colours are recombined into white light on emission from its rear surface.
However if these two prisms are brought together, and so can be effectively considered as a single entity, then this raises a serious question.
How is this assumed internal colour diffraction in the first prism reversed at this effectively non-existent dividing line, as in Diagram 2 below ?
The answer is of course that it is not reversed and, just as with a plane sheet of glass, no diffraction of light into the spectrum occurs at the entry point of the beam into the first prism and is refracted as ‘white’ light in its passages through the glass of both prisms, as depicted in Diagram 3.
But if the two prisms are moved apart as in Diagram 4, the beam is observed to be diffracted on exiting from the first prism while the reverse occurs in its progress through the second, so that the angles of incidence and emergence are the same.
This means that this observed diffraction of light into colours on the emission of the beam from the second surface of a prism can only be as a result of its interactions with the intervening atmospheric gases, and only with these gases, and on the entry to the second inverted prism the reverse occurs and the colours propagate through the glass and are reconstituted into white light on exit.
And so the first diagram, which is still generally represented in student textbooks, is completely false.
And further the observed emission of colours from the first prism is not the full spectrum as in the first image, but is as depicted in Diagram 4, where ‘white’ light is the main component and subsequently red and yellow appear on one side, while blue and magenta appear on the other.
If the second prism in this diagram were removed, when the white proportion disappears the colour emissions eventually combine and these four specific colours are seen, following which the blue and the yellow combine to create a green hue, after which the yellow is eliminated and three colours remain – red, green and magenta, as in the images below.
All this demonstrates that the diffraction of light emerging from the second surface of the prism is not due to any prior interaction with the structure of the glass itself, but instead it can only be due to its interactions with the structure of the atmospheric gases that are in contact with this surface.
But then of course the currently accepted ‘kinetic’ theory of this structure states that it is composed of a 0.1% volume of atoms/molecules within a 99.9% volume of vacuum, and it is therefore practically impossible for a ray of light to produce these observed effects by instantaneously interacting with atoms that are in constant motion and are colliding with the glass surface.
The Electron Microscopy images below are of the atomic structure of glass, on the left in its quartz crystal form, which show the structural arrangements of silicon atoms.
The lower part of this image has been manually edited to show the silicon atoms, in green, as being less than 10% of the actual volumes depicted, and in this image there is no visual evidence whatever of the existence of oxygen atoms, which are edited in and depicted in red as being completely enveloped by the silicon atoms in these specific positions.
So here we have a case of ‘scientists’ adapting observed results, falsifying real images, to suit their theoretical beliefs as to the ultimate structure of glass.
However this can be used to consider the passage of light through such a hypothetical structure of glass.
As Huygens suggested, and Young proved, that light propagates as a wave, and as Einstein et al, (of theoretical necessity) proposed a particulate, a photonic light, the passage of such light rays through these structures can be examined.
The diagrams below show observed interactions of rays of light through sheets of glass, both in terms of Huygens waves and that of sinusiodal ‘waves’ of photons, and clearly there is no possible explanation for the passage of either through such a structure of glass.
Nor is there for the observed deflections resulting from any entry angle other than 90 degrees as in these diagrams.
Of course both of these are hypothetically acting through a kinetic atomic gas, as in the artificially concentrated beams of light in the image below, and again this glass structure is clearly incapable of sustaining any such wavelike progression.
And further these hypothetical structures, both that of the atmospheric gases and of glass, cannot support the observed refraction of light through a prism, as in the image below.
It is therefore generally accepted that in such circumstances light is somehow immediately, instantaneously, refracted at the surface of glass and other translucent matter.
These interactions should also be considered with respect to the observed refraction of light when passing a corner, the edge of, solid matter as in the diagrams below.
Where A is the observed deviation of light around a corner (which conforms to Newton’s observations in experiment) and the progression in B is that which would be expected if the atmosphere were composed of a ‘kinetic’ gas, while those in C would be those expected in a progression of Huygens concept of wavelets, neither of which could possibly act in such circumstances to generate the observed diffraction around a corner.
It been known for centuries that, away from the observers zenith, light is refracted in its passage down through the atmosphere, so that corrections have to be made for the observed positions of celestial bodies.
It is also known that this refraction is progressive, which is due to the increasing density of the atmospheric gases. The image below is copied from the Admiralty Manual of Navigation 1954.
And today, it is now proven that light is coincidentally slowed in its passage down through and into the Earth’s atmosphere, which can only be due to the progressive increase in the density of, and accordingly a progressive increase in resistance generated by, atmospheric gases.
These images below depict the passage of a ray of light from a star down through the atmosphere to an observer at the surface the red stars being the observed position.
Image B is an enlargement of part of A, where the density of the atmosphere is artificially separated into sections as in the Admiralty manual. But of course the density of the atmosphere increases progressively with the reduction in altitude down to the surface and so the curve is parabolic, as is depicted in C.
It is therefore obvious that the density of the atmospheric gases will progressively increase down to the matter at the surface, and that the increase in resistance and the reduction in velocity will be proportionate to the density of this matter and accordingly the refraction of light will be proportionate to these densities.
For example in the close vicinity of surfaces, those of liquids such as water, bromine and mercury and solids such as glass, diamond, granite or lead, the densities of gases will increase in proportion to their diverse densities. Therefore the velocities, and accordingly any angular deflections, of rays of light impacting these various surfaces will differ in concert.
As there are no natural circumstances where gases or liquids can be assumed to be of perfectly consistent densities, then the passage of rays of light through matter cannot be assumed to propagate perfectly linearly, however no deflection is observable in the transit through solid translucent matter such as crystal glass.
It is evident from all the above observations that light is at all times interacting directly with gaseous and liquid matter and is directly influenced by variations in its densities.
The progressive increases in the densities of the atmosphere will continue to the surface and there will be no point where this progression ceases to act within these gases, whether the surface encountered is composed of solids or liquids of varying densities.
In this respect Newton observed, in his extensive experiments, that a ray of light is deflected before it enters a prism, and that this can only be due to its interactions with the atmospheric gases in the vicinity of the surface.
“if a ray move obliquely through such an unevenly dense medium it must be incurved as it is found to be, by observation in water, whose lower parts were made gradually more salt, and so more dense than the upper”
“and the refraction I conceive to proceed from the continual incurvation of the ray ” (my emphasis)
http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/NATP00002
And so light from the sun will be progressively slowed down to the earth’s surface and, away from the vertical, will be refracted progressively and continuously down to the point where it is in direct contact with this surface.
As this surface can be of differing densities, such as those of water or solid matter, the increase in the densities of gases in direct contact with these will also vary and the velocities and refraction of light will accordingly be affected.
Examples are the observed variations in refraction at the surfaces of water, glass and diamond of masses of 1, 2.5 and 3.5 g/cm³ respectively, as in the diagrams below, where an incident angle of light of 45 degrees results in respective refractions of 32°, 28° and 17° to the normal.
The image below is copied from a textbook and depicts the currently accepted tracking of a perfectly linear ray of light through the atmosphere at the surface of water, and its progression down into the water.
The images below are of the transmission of a reflected ray of light upwards to an observer from a fish in water.
The generally accepted progress of this is of light emerging from water, where again the emergent ray (in black) is presented as being linear at all times and is immediately deflected at the surface.
The red dashed line image is that of a ray of light reflected from the fish traveling upwards through the water and when it is then emitted out into the atmospheric gases of progressively decreasing densities is subjected to a level of refraction that is dependent both on these densities and on the angle of the observers eye to the water surface.
The images below are of the variations in the incidental angles of rays of light emitted from water, where there is no direct mathematical relationship between the incident and the refracted angles.
However if this is considered when the atmospheric gases are of progressively increasing densities towards the surface, then the variations in density experienced by a ray of light passing through at an incident angle of 5 degrees is significantly lower than that passing through at 45 degrees.
The first image below is a copy from a textbook of the interactions of a ray of light emitted out from water to the surface, where the rays are depicted as being linear.
Clearly these emergent rays are moving upwards from the surface into decreasing densities of air, and these rays will be fractionally influenced and progressively diverted.
The second diagram depicts such interactions where apart from the ray emerging parallel to the surface the refractive curves are parabolic.
The third image above is of the refraction of light that is often seen on water due to the reverse occurring on these surfaces, as well as in the mirages seen on land, as in the following diagram.
“in the case of light – it bends on the borderline between two media” “therefore, we do not observe a sudden change – light changes direction gradually”
http://www.pl.euhou.net/docupload/files/Excersises/WorldAroundUs/Refraction/refraction.pdf
This image is a representation of Newton’s experiment, referred to earlier, of the passage of a ray of light into fresh water above a saline solution in which he observed a “continual incurvation of the ray” in such an “unevenly dense medium”.
“The density of surface seawater ranges from about 1020 to 1029 kg/m3, depending on the temperature and salinity. At a temperature of 25 °C, salinity of 35 g/kg and 1 atm pressure, the density of seawater is 1023.6 kg/m3.
Deep in the ocean, under high pressure, seawater can reach a density of 1050 kg/m3 or higher.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater
In conclusion, and in agreement with experiment, the combined direction and the velocity of a ray of light are dependent upon the density of the medium, and there is no situation in nature where the density of a fluid medium is absolutely consistent.
Therefore, in no such circumstance, does a ray of light propagate perfectly linearly, therefore the current belief that its direction alters instantaneously at the surface of translucent matter is false.
“Everything you’ve learned in school as ‘obvious’ becomes less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe. For example, there are no solids in the universe. There’s not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute continuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines.”
R. Buckminster Fuller (1895–1983)