William J. Blackmon                       { blackmon@pivotalconceptsinscience.com}


PC Blog 1-light

{This blog is derived from a theory entitled The Criton Oscillator Model (COM) that is accessible in its current state of development at [http://www.critonoscillator.com].  A significant time for download exists.  A brief overview of COM is presented at Com view.  Excerpts  from COM are included in the blog body where directly relevant.  Brief descriptions of my background and “World View Glasses” are presented in Snakes in a box.}


Pivotal concepts in science arise at branch points in our conceptualization of the physical world.  (The inter conversion of matter and energy and the dual nature of light represent contemporary examples of pivotal concepts.)  Our educational process leads us along the intellectual pathways that have produced useful laws and theories.  Sometimes while focused on a selected niche we pass through branch points or parachute beyond them without noting the consequences, anxious to engage science at the cutting edge.  Scientists, who act as our mentors, have felt justified in ignoring logical flaws simply because of the vast success of contemporary theories.  This lures us into an illusionary reality baited with mathematical correlations.  The objective of this blog is to revisit selected areas where foundational concepts have been developed.  Could we have guessed wrongly about the possible interpretations of some observations?  What is the structure of the Universe that accounts for the functionality of our laws and theories?  

The Structure of Energy Transfer and its Relationship to the Photon


Portions of our Universe have segregated into granules that serve as packages of “rest” energy. Under appropriate excitations of granules, energy is released in the form of electromagnetic radiation.  A proposal for the structure of such energy transmissions and thus a structure that accounts for the photon phenomenon is presented.

Laws and theories are not logical necessities but empirical associations derived from observations in the distributions of matter.  Thus, the ultimate unit of matter should represent the ultimate reference point.  If one had a grasp of the ultimate components of a system, it should be possible, in theory, to envision a structure for the system that accounts for the phenomena as detected at the observational level. 

There is a fork in the conceptualization of matter.  Along one fork, matter is infinitively divisible.  The equation E = mc2 appears to be consistent with that pathway.  However, what controls the balance point between matter and energy?  How can the expression of energy go from an apparent velocity of zero to c and vice versa?   If matter is infinitively divisible, how does one reconcile a supposedly continuum of mass components with the distinct constituents in the hierarchical patterns of matter that we observe?  For example, encounters between positrons and electrons, under appropriate conditions, “appear to” result in their mutual annihilation or disappearance and a release of energy in the form of and at a specific photon level.  In the converse situation, photons of the same precise energy level fired into the environment of a bubble chamber “appear to” create electron-positron pairs.  Where do charges lurk within photons?  Why isn’t there an analogous sequence for each species of photon?

If the path toward an ultimate particle is taken, it conceptually undermines the contemporary interpretation of the relationship E = mc2.  It distinguishes the motion (energy) associated with particles from matter itself.  (It is assumed that the experimental determination of mass is mechanistically equivalent to matter in its relationship to energy.) The ultimate particle or indivisible unit of matter is designated the criton; whereas, the entity responsible for relative motion among critons is designated velose [U. components]. Why have scientists missed elucidation of the criton?  It is proposed that its experimental accessibility is associated with the “crossover zone”.  In the crossover zone, a single criton or small, unit-like entities do not have sufficient energy to be detected individually.  As a consequence, experimental measurements involving critons can only be associated with the collective energies of populations.  Thus the illusion of an energy source without a matter carrier is manifested.  Particles in this zone are collectively designated “crossons” [zones].  Inherent in observations associated with populations is uncertainty, especially, if  populations vary.  As developed, herein, the creation of the photon concept is the consequence of the manner in which populations of critons interact with the individual detection units, such as the light sensitive grains of a photo emulsion, utilized as our detection devices.

Packaging of energy

If matter (critons) and energy (velose) [U. components] are different, distinct entities, the enigma becomes how can energy be packaged in a stable manner in small granules?  Presented in Fig. 1-A is a proposal for a focal structure in the mediation of energy, the criton swirl.  It is envisioned as a ring of critons spinning at a velocity of c relative to its geometrical midpoint.  Within the ring, governed by their mutual attractive force (crifor), the degree of relative motion among critons allows for a structural integrity of the swirl [U. components].  The maximum expression of an attractive force per quantity of matter occurs when two critons are in contact.  A criton swirl positioned at a specific point on a grid possesses packaged energy relative to other points on the grid. 

Mediation of energy

{Superimposed on energy mediation are the apparent properties that the velocities of energy releases never exceed c and that electromagnetic radiation components are released at only c.}

If there were a mechanism to eject critons from the swirl, it would create an energy source emanating from the position of the criton swirl.  To satisfy this requirement a focal body (Fig. 1-B) comprised of subcomponents is placed at the center point of the criton swirl.  {The composite structure (criton swirl + focal body) is referred to as a macron (Fig. 1-C).} The relative dispositions of the criton swirl rings to focal bodies are governed by the mutually attractive forces of the swirls and focal bodies versus their individual capacities for relative motion. It is further specified that focal bodies exhibit distinct oscillation patterns in accordance with their internal energies and matter compositions (Fig.1-B).  As oscillation patterns within the focal body occur, collisions of its oscillating components with the criton swirl are orchestrated and pulsed emissions of critons (pulsons) occur that would have a velocity of c relative to the macron’s position (Fig. 1-D). The frequency and direction of the signal from a specific macron would be governed by the oscillation characteristics of its focal body, the orientation of its associated criton swirl, and the environment of the signal-emitting macron.  The emission of an individual pulson occurs in a very short interval and the frequencies and densities of criton fronts may vary among macrons (Fig. 1).

How could signals created by pulsons be detected by instruments?  Since our instruments are insensitive to individual critons, the detection effects must necessarily involve coordinated populations of critons.  A moderate release of critons would potentially raise the temperature of their environment; whereas, a massive release of critons, generated by a population of macron emitters, would be analogous to an explosion whose upper limit for acceleration to target bodies would be c

In order to anticipate a more sensitive detection response, a single macron is imagined to be positioned at a reference position to provide an energy source (Fig. 2-A).  (A single macron represents an idealized point source for energy.)  An identical second macron is positioned to serve as a detector.   When the signal generating macron is stimulated to a specific oscillation pattern, what would be the response of the detector macron?  The detector experiences the arrival of criton fronts exhibiting a frequency pattern (pulsons). If the pulson confronts the detector with appropriate energy, the detector begins resonating with the incoming signal and emits, in turn, new pulsons. It is the properties of detector macrons, i.e. their signals at different excitation levels that correspond to our observations.  Also, very importantly, the transmission of the energy signal is modified with each interaction with another macron. (At the detector in the contemporary laboratory, parameters such as the emissions of electromagnetic radiation or responses of electrons as byproducts of the detectors’ excitation states translate into observations. At this stage of presentation the momentum component potentially imparted to a target macron is not considered. The focus is on the mediation of energy associated with the internal excitation.)

Consider the following sequence of idealized scenarios that have been developed as future reference conditions:

Case I: Basic measurement of the pulson signal.

All measurements are conducted in a vacuum and all macron components are assumed to be identical.  The comparative reference is a single source macron as mentioned above that emits pulsons across an otherwise barren grid.  The resonance pattern set up in a single detector macron is expected to be the same as the source macron, although its duration may not be the same (Fig. 2-A). 

Case II: Signal transfer with no relative movement.

A row of macrons in a straight line is positioned between a single macron source of the signal and a single macron detector (

Fig. 2-B).  If the signal were intense enough to cascades through the line of macrons to the detector, how would the signal compare with Case I?  If the excitation of macrons were time dependent, transit time for passage of the signal would be slower through a population of macrons than the vacuum atmosphere of the grid.  The transit speed would be a function of the activation time and inversely proportional to the number of macrons per unit length.  Under idealized conditions the initiating frequency would prevail after transit, however phase synchrony or coherence relative to the original signal would be a function of the mechanistic sequence that generates the de nova pulsons.  The emergence velocity from each macron of the line and at the detector would be c.   Pulsons detected would appear identical to those of Case I. (The detector becomes visible when a critical energy state has been reached or surpassed.  It does not distinguish between pulsons with different numbers of criton fronts.  In general a decrease in criton front number per pulson would be expected associated with the excitation and emission processes. However, each target macron would be in a certain state of oscillation such that under appropriate conditions some pulson emissions could exceed the length of the activating pulsons.  Criton swirls represent a source of potential energy.)

Case III: Signal transfer with relative movement of the source.

The experimental conditions are set up as for Case II.  However the signal-generating macron is set in motion toward the line of macrons on the grid (Fig. 2-C).  In this situation, the first macron recognizes a higher frequency for the approaching pulsons, i.e. criton fronts arrive in shorter intervals that are a function of the relative velocities of the macron sources.  Thus its focal body resonates at a higher frequency and emits a higher frequency pulson than the frequency of the originating signal (pulson) relative to its focal body. The emission velocity occurs at c and transmission along the rest of the macrons in the line mimics that of Case II except that the detector records a higher frequency pulson.  However, if activation times are different for respective frequencies, the transit times would differ among frequencies.  The transit velocity in free space would be in excess of c for the primary pulson relative to the detector. 

Case IV: Signal transfer with relative movement of the medium.

Conditions are created such that the signal macron is stationary and the row of macrons is moving toward the source (Fig. 2-D).  The activating frequency of the signal would be a function of the relative movement of the source and medium (row of macrons); whereas, the velocity of the signal through the medium relative to the primary source and detector would be impacted by both the activation time of the signal-transporting macrons and their translational velocity.  The emission velocity from the medium would be a function of the relative motion of the emitting macron to the detector.  However, the detector would respond to any signal variation from c as a frequency phenomenon.  The frequency experienced at the detector should match that of the originating signal macron.

Case V: Excitations of multiple macrons in a planer disposition by a single pulson.

A detection screen is created by uniformly distributing macrons in a plane.   The screen is placed perpendicular to the anticipated path of the signal (Fig. 2-E).  A single, source macron is stimulated to emit pulsons.  If the activating signal were intense enough to excite multiple macrons, a pattern of pulsons centered relative the signal’s path would be observed. 

         Suppose we have available single-macron and multi-macron detectors to position beyond the screen and analyze the nature of the secondary signal(s) transmitted by its component macrons as the patterns of secondary source macrons in the screen are changed.  (The macrons of the transmitting plane are analogous to Huygens generators.)  If the signals of each secondary macron, excited by a common, primary-source pulson could be analyzed separately in a temporal manner, their signals would be entangled, and unless the microstructures of the secondary pulsons could be distinguished, their signals would appear essentially identical. However, if the oscillator-type detector interacted simultaneously with populations of secondary pulsons from different sources, its excitations would represent a negotiated response among interactions of secondary criton fronts.  Where the primary source were a common macron, since the phases of secondary pulsons would be entangled, under appropriate conditions observable interference effects could be demonstrated. As presented, a single pulson emission would be expected to excite macrons of the detector in a linear arrangement that corresponded with the planer orientation of the pulson.  As developed later, the planer properties of pulsons are proposed to be associated with polarization properties.

Case VI: Interactions among pulsons.

Two temporally, idealized, coherent pulson sources are envisioned for interactions.  When the activated, coherent macrons are superimposed at the same locus, an enhanced coherent pulson signal is produced that always remains in phase. 

Starting from a superimposed locus, when the two synchronized, activated macrons are separated along a line perpendicular to a screen, the arrivals of their signals at the detection screen are temporally separated (Fig. 3-A).  The coherences of their interactions are functions of the wavelength offsets of their pulson fronts and exhibit cyclic patterns of interference as distances between sources change in a uniform manner.  Since the trailing pulson begins its interactions with the oscillators in the detection screen after the lead pulson, and pulsons are of limited durations, the peak intensities of the constructive interference patterns diminish as separation distances increase.  However the durations of the excitations intervals for detector macrons may vary.  Excitation states of macrons that serve as detector points represent temporal resultants of incoming pulsons.

If two emitting, coherent macrons are separated on a line parallel to the screen, interference patterns analogous to the Young-type, two-slit experiments develop (Fig. 3-B).  Although the interference pattern of Fig. 3-B appears to be equivalent to a textbook rendition for two very narrow slits under appropriate spatial geometry, as will be developed the signal for each individual slit is, in actuality, composed of two sources.  (See Fig. 9.)  However, if the separation of the coherent pulsons is less than the distance between their criton fronts, the fronts interfere constructively to varying degrees at the screen and the composite signal spreads out at large angles into the region beyond the line connecting the two pulson sources (Fig. 3-B). Thus excitations of detector macrons are resultants of energy delivered in phased, partitioned sequences.  If the pulson sources were positioned along the edges of an aperture, the smaller the aperture, the more nearly circular the composites of diffracted waves would become. 

Criton fronts of the same generation from the respective coherent pulsons arrive in phase along a line centered between sources and perpendicular to the line connecting the sources.  Arcs from same generational criton fronts, from pulson sources separated at distances greater than their criton front separation, migrating toward the detection screen, only interact (intersect) at a single locus along the centerline for a given distance. At the centerline the maximum number of constructive interference loci for the two-pulson sources occurs.   Subsequent generational criton fronts intersect the arcs of their predecessors from sister pulsons at an angle from the centerline.  Thus the number of mutually constructive, off-center loci decreases by one with each following generation. Thus an obliquity factor is inherent in the situation depicted in Fig. 3-B. The angle of the loci for interactional tracks also increases at a greater rate as generations are more separated in time.  As the distance between the screen and two coherent pulsons sources that are parallel to the screen increases, criton fronts within the pulsons become more parallel as they approach the detection screen; whereas, when the detector screen is moved closer to the two sources, the loci for their mutual, in phase signal interactions form more acute angles relative to the plane containing the sources. A shorter distance from source to the detector increases individual signal intensity while changes in mutual approach of angles for pulson tracks potentially impact the effectiveness of their coherence on the excitation process of target macrons with a decrease in effectiveness as the angles created by the intersections of ray paths from respective sources increase.  These conditions potentially enhance the  an obliquity function relative to the centerline noted for Fig. 3-B.  The closer together the two sources, the greater the distance from the center line before the first minima occur; whereas as separation distance of sources increases for a constant screen distance, the patterns for minima and maxima are created closer to the centerline.

The apparent wave nature is a function of the excitation profile of populations of individual detectors that respond as macrons that are distributed in a uniform manner such as in a flat screen.  Since criton fronts are composed of matter points, the question arises as to how do pulsons pass through each other without leaving a significant imprint?   As developed in COM  critons approach each other along their relative motion lines with equal but opposing momentum magnitudes [U. components].  An elastic collision at contact between critons (rigid bodies) of the pulsons preserves the individual integrity of the crossing signals.  This property, which dictates that all motion is relative, is considered in detail in a future section of Pivotal Concepts.   

If the emission properties of two isolated pulson sources could be monitored in situ, the interference patterns at a detection screen, or any reference point could be predetermined, based on their coherence, frequencies, polarizations, and spatial distributions. When the number of non-coherent pulson sources interacting with the detection screen is increased the interference patterns are functions of the same parameters but more complex.  At some point as the number of overlapping, non-coherent pulsons at the detection screen increases per unit of time, the interference patterns create an overall negotiated, uniform illumination with respect to detector sensitivity, i.e. the illumination patterns.  In order to observe interference for large population of pulsons, conditions must exist that create highly redundant patterns.  When working with large populations of pulsons that occur in a very short interval, as with an extended source, the sequence of excitations for detector macrons is obscured.     

Case VII: Pulson interactions at an edge.

A single, isolated macron in an excited state could potentially create a signal that possesses a 360-degree arc (Fig. 1-D).  An individual pulson migrating through space cannot interfere with itself.  The criton fronts as envisioned here do not contain Huygens-type generators and thus points within fronts cannot change directions.  A change in signal direction involves the production of secondary pulsons.  Associated with any change in direction is the requirement that the signal velocity must remain at c in free space relative to the source of emission.  As developed, the analogy to the Huygens generator is an appropriately placed macron emitter.  (The proposed Huygens phenomena, with superimposed frequency and obliquity factors, appear to be consistent with many observations associated with the propagation properties of light.  However, there is no mechanism to account for a change in direction at points within a wave front that spawns wavelets, an obliquity factor, why there is not a back wave, or the compositions of such primary and secondary wavelets.)

Consider the following idealized situation.  An opaque, perpendicular barrier with a straight edge is inserted between a single-source macron and the detector so that its edge intersects the line between the source macron and the center of the signal at the detector.  If the barrier edge were inert to pulson interactions, it should merely block portions of the criton fronts (Fig. 4-A).  Now suppose that the edge of the barrier contains embedded, signal-transmitting macrons that are activated by the primary signal. Such resonating macrons could transmit a signal into the shadow of the barrier and into the path traversed by the mother signal (Fig. 4-B).   It might be expected that the degrees and criton densities of the arcs of emitted pulsons from a macron would be controlled by the nature of its embedded environment.  Emissions beyond the geometrical shadow into the illuminated region should possess more uniform arcs.  The Huygens model (Fig. 4-C) would also account for transmission into the shadow zone.  As presented the Huygens model would not have back wavelets. This illustrates an apparent logical flaw in the Huygens concept.  What controls the directional demarcation line for the intensity of wavelet production, i.e. its assumed obliquity factor? The activated macron would create a backward pulson arc (Fig. 4-B).  Although the Huygens generators may be a mathematical invention created to help explain the apparent wave phenomena of light, the question is:  Why has the model been so useful? 

Although the time interval is very short, the excitation of the edge macron to a specific pulson-emitting status is proposed to be time dependent and require a controlled exposure to a specific pulson frequency to produce a coherent signal.    It might also be anticipated that a reduction in pulson length, i.e. the number of criton fronts per pulson would be associated with the secondary signal relative to the activating signal.   Although the frequency and velocity of the de nova signal from the edge and the primary signal should be the same, its translational advance toward the detection screen would be delayed and its coherence potentially altered relative to the primary signal by the activation time of the edge macron.  (See Case II and Fig. 4-B.) 

Under appropriate conditions (large distance or lens adjusted) the activating signal approaches the edge macron in an approximately parallel configuration relative to the plane of the edge, whereas the secondarily activated signal is emitted as circular pulson fronts.  At the source point the criton densities of the circular arcs of the pulson fronts would be expected to exceed those of the parallel activating signals.  The production of secondary pulsons of the same frequency as the primary source under the conditions as illustrated in Fig. 4-B creates the opportunity for the observation of interference effects. For a single edge this would occur out of the geometrical shadow zone since the primary signal would be excluded from the geometrical shadow. Interference effects occur via interaction with oscillators that are components of the detector and not in free space.  As a result of activation time for the emission of secondary pulsons they reach the detector after it has begun interaction with the primary signal. [The coherence of the secondary signal relative to the primary signal is represented to be ½ wavelength out of phase (retarded) in the direction of the primary signal’s translational advance (Fig. 4-B).  The reflection process associated with Lloyd’s mirror arrangement creates a reflected signal that is 180 degrees out of phase with the initiating signal.  A reflected signal from a small smooth surface is considered to be analogous (mechanistically similar) to that emitted from the edge of the opaque barrier without the option of emissions beyond the line created by the extension line of the geometrical shadow.  The precise delay in phase is expected to be related to the activation properties of the edge macron that for transparent media are expressed as their refractive indices.]   This creates a situation where maximum destructive interference effects begin at the geometrical shadow’s edge as a function of the translational coherence of the primary and secondary signals and transition into a series of decreasing maxima-minima effects as the lateral distance from the edge is increased (Fig. 5-A).  The domains of maxima and minima at the screen expand as the distance to the detection screen increases.  It is the consequence of the circular configuration of the secondary pulsons centered on the edge of the barrier interacting with the disposition of the primary signal (Fig. 4-B).  The emission processes for both the primary and secondary pulsons are of limited durations, and the number of temporally mutual interactions between the primary and secondary signals at the screen decreases as the lateral distance from the geometrical shadow increases, i.e. more of the criton fronts of the primary signal will have reached the screen before the arrival of the secondary signal.  Under such conditions the trailing signal may interact with the decaying oscillation patterns set up in detector macrons.  Thus the intensity responses for the interference effects decrease as a function of the angle of approach of the secondary signal to the primary signal becomes more acute. (The extreme situation for potential interactions occurs when an angle of 90 degrees relative to the direction of the primary signal is considered.)  Also a change in the angle of approach changes the relationship between the excitation vectors from the primary and secondary signals for screen-embedded macrons at the observation screen.  In addition as the distance from the origin of the secondary signal increases, its intensity decreases. (These conditions could potentially create an obliquity function that corresponds with the diminution of maxima and minima as shown in Fig. 5-A).

Thomas Young proposed that diffraction effects were the result of interference interactions between the geometrically propagated wave past an edge and waves originating at the edge of the obstacle.  (Usually the primary source approaching an edge is considered to have originated from such a distance that its wave fronts would be parallel.)  Young did not provide an explanation for the origins of the waves from the edges. Sommerfield analyzed Young’s proposal and found it to be mathematically consistent with observations (Wood, R. D. 1934.  Physical Optics. The MacMillan Company, New York.  p. 221.)  Fresnel accounted for the interference as the integrated effects of the secondary wavelets of Huygens originating from those portions of the wave fronts not intercepted by the obstacle (Fig. 19-C).  Fresnel performed a series of experiments with slits that had rounded edges versus sharp edges and polished edges versus blackened edges, and found that the intensities of fringes were essentially independent of the nature of the edges.  Although Young’s theory is effective in predicting the positions of maxima and minima, Fresnel concluded that Young’s theory was incomplete after making quantitative observations of the intensities of interference effects expressed by twin slits versus the two edges of a narrow barrier (Crew, Henry.  1900.  The Wave Theory of Light. American Book Company.  pp. 79-144). [Fig. 18.]  These observations presumably led him to support a modification of the Huygens wavelet proposal involving an obliquity factor over Young’s theory that he had initially supported.

  Wood noted that when viewed from the geometrical shadow, the edge of an obstacle in a diffraction phenomenon shines like an independent source of light and demonstrated, utilizing a long focus lens, that the light radiates from the edge into the geometrical shadow and into the illuminated region (Wood, R. W. 1934. Physical Optics. The MacMillan Company, New York. p. 222).   He proposed that wave fronts from the edge radiate into the illuminated field and by interfering with the plane waves that pass by the edge, give rise to interference fringes.  This model is in agreement with Young’s suggestions, Sommerfeld’s and Herzfeld’s analyses (Wood, R. W.  1934. p. 221), and essentially coincides with the pulson model (Fig. 4-B).  Fig. 5-B is Wood’s proposal that includes a phase shift between the primary and secondary signals that accommodates the interference patterns presented in Fig. 5-A (Wood, R. W. 1934. p. 221).  The evidence of the phase relationships of criton fronts occurs in conjunction with the creation of oscillation patterns within the detectors that comprise the observational screen.  The pulson model provides a mechanism for the creation of circular waves centered on a barrier’s edge.  The secondary pulsons as presented in Fig. 4-B are 180 degrees out of phase with the primary parallel signal.  Pulson signals are delayed in arrival at the detection screen as result of activation time and the arc of their criton fronts.  Pulson durations of secondary signals may be less than the primary signal.  (These parameters probably vary with experimental conditions.) The pulson model indicates that the illumination arcs created in the edge macron should extend into the area on the side of the barrier from which the primary signal approached (Fig. 4-B).  The Huygens model does not possess a backward wavelet component.   

The interference profile as presented in Fig. 5-A, under Fresnel conditions, would be that expected where a single secondary wave of great length was induced by a parallel wave also of great length passing an edge.  However, in accordance with pulson model, the typical primary light source emits many pulsons of different frequencies and short durations that are uncoordinated in time and space.  Their interactions in the absence of a barrier culminate in a probabilistic base line illumination at the detector.  Not every individual pulson that passes the edge may result in inducement of a secondary pulson either at the edge or detection screen.  The observations of detectable interference effects associated with single edges, develop from the collective effects of populations of pulsons from a primary source that individually induce secondary pulsons and the management of their mutual interactions. 

The excitation intervals of detector macrons within the screen have finite existences.  The effective length of the primary pulson at the detection screen would be impacted by the duration of the activated oscillation cycles induced in detector macrons.  Enormous numbers of excitations in a short interval create an illusion of simultaneity for the individual events.  In order to observe interference patterns, conditions are created utilizing a point source such that excitation episodes are sequentially executed under essentially the same geometrical parameters.  Thus a predictable, probabilistic pattern for excitations occurs at the screen as a function of time.  (See Cases VIII and IX below.) However, recording devices such as film emulsions plot the summation totals of excitation points. The interpretation that the source represents a continuous phenomenon analogous to water waves appears to fit under appropriate experimental conditions. It seems difficult to conceptually apply the uncertainty principle, based on the emissions of photons from a primary source and their transit to the detection screen, to the interference patterns associated with a single edge.

(Since the edge is involved in production of the secondary signal and creates a demarcation line by removal of critons from the primary signal, it functionally changes the position of the geometrical shadow.  The shadow of a narrow barrier illuminated by a distance source cast a shadow of lesser width than the width of its physical dimensions.  How accurately can the geometrical edge be positioned at the detection screen?)

Case VIII: Pulson interactions with a narrow barrier.

A narrow, opaque rectangular strip with edges analogous to the barrier for Case VII (Fig. 4-B) is centered between a point or line source and detector (Fig. 6).  (The objective is to bring coherent pulsons from two separated edges into interaction with each other exclusive of the primary signal.)  At the appropriately wide dimensions for the barrier at a specific distance to the detection screen, an intensity pattern, i.e. complementary bands of illumination associated with respective sides of the strip should be displayed similar to that of Case VII for the geometrical shadow zone (Fig. 5-A).  As the effective diameter of the barrier relative to the observational screen is reduced it should reach a critical size where pulsons from the different edges can mutually interact (Zone d of Fig. 6.  See also COM-Fig. 10).  Where the energy pulses are in phase (indicating secondary pulsons from a common macron source) excitation responses of the detector would be enhanced; whereas, if they arrive out of phase the stimulation of oscillation of the focal body of a target macron would be muted and thus the transfer of energy would be decreased.  Under idealized conditions of perfect geometry, as the barrier is made narrower, the opportunity for signal enhancement should occur first along the centerline.  (Of special interest would be the detection of a signal before the dimensions of the illumination bands from the edges, derived from single edge exposure, had overlapped.)  Within the geometrical shadow zone, as the width of the barrier allowed signal overlap beyond the centerline, the pulsons from opposite sides would be distributed at the target in regular in-phase and out-of-phase zones.  This is in essence the two-slit, Young-type interference pattern (Fig. 3 and Zone d of Fig. 6).                        Initially the interference patterns outside the shadow zone for each edge would be mechanistically generated as presented in Fig. 4-B and Fig. 5-B for light passing an edge (Zones c of Fig. 6).  However, as the barrier is made effectively narrower, the edge-emitting pulsons would interact beyond the geometrical shadow with each other and mutually with the primary signal as indicated for the Zones e in Fig. 6.  A similar condition for a disc could be compared with a rectangle.  A disc provides the Poisson spot and has a much greater ratio of border points to the geometrical shadow Fig. 7-A. 

Case IX: Sequential pulson patterns at very low intensity.

Now suppose that the production of source pulsons for conditions as described in Case VIII from a line source can be attenuated to the point where they only occasionally and randomly are emitted, but are still capable of exciting paired macrons embedded in the edges to emit pulsons.  Such secondary pulsons in turn may be feeble and some individually invisible, i.e. they are not energetic enough to create the photon response, but are able to mutually interact to produce enhanced macron excitations (photons) at the detection screen.  (Experimentally, from the perspective of intensity, pulsons of the same frequency, emanating from different macron sources are not necessarily of equal magnitude.  The length of pulson emissions and the densities of criton fronts are potentially variable.  The localized detectors register “visible” responses when they reach a critical excitation level that exists for varying, very short, finite intervals. In addition the energy states of macrons comprising the detection system are unlikely to be identical.  These conditions add a probabilistic factor to the excitation processes of detector macrons.)   Instead of a uniform, immediate patterned signal, as created by an intense multi-macron primary source, a stepwise, unit-like development of a pattern would occur in a probabilistic protocol at the detector screen.  The localized, excited, detector macrons are analogous to photons. In the very short-term analysis, photons appear to be created individually in a random disposition. At appropriate time intervals, as a function of the specific experimental conditions, signals from Cases VIII and IX would exhibit essentially the same cumulative patterns.  Observations interpreted on the one hand as wave and on the other as particulate phenomena would have mechanistically identical origins.  It further means that the cumulative patterns observed at the detection screen are formed from populations of non-coherent primary pulsons that individually execute similar interaction patterns via the production of secondary pulsons (Fig. 6).  Such a scenario is also consistent with the changes created in interference patterns when attempts are made to individually monitor the different slits for the Young-type experiment between source and screen to detect passages of individual photons.  Parts of the signals that culminate in and are required for a predictable interference patterns, i.e. photon creation and distribution, at the screen are altered.  Case IX is essentially the experiment conducted by G. I. Taylor early in the 20th century (Fig. 8).  The assumption that creates the contemporary mechanistic enigma is that the photons that are observed at the detection screen are the same energy packets that originated at the primary source.  (Why should photons, emitted one at a time, that represent different energy levels (frequencies) arrange themselves in distinctly different interference patterns?)  In contrast for the pulson model, observations that have been designated photons include the results of detector macrons reaching a critical excitation level after mutual interactions with coherent secondary pulsons that have been induced by a common, activated macron from a primary source.  From a measurement perspective the precise order and interval of pulson creations originating in a primary source occur in a random manner.

Case X: Pulson interactions with a slit.

In the converse situation to a single barrier the intersection of light with a slit is considered.  The experimental arrangement is adjusted so that two parallel edges of a slit, individually interacting, as the edge of Fig. 4-B, in a synchronous manner with the primary source, are created in the same plane (Fig. 9).  This situation is analogous to the barrier for Fig. 6 with respect to the production of secondary pulsons.   Systematic arrays of patterns for diffraction from a single slit can be created as the width of the slit and/or the distances from the source to the slit and from the slit to the screen are changed (Fig. 10 and Fig. 7 D).  The observed patterns are derivations of the basic interactions of the primary light signal passing and interacting with an edge to create secondary signals with a specific delayed phase relationship to the primary signal and the subsequent interactions of the primary and secondary signals at the detection screen as presented in Fig. 9.  (Although the precise delayed phase relationship between the primary, activating pulson and the secondary pulson should be a function of the specific macron activated, for discussion, a delay in phase of 180 degrees is utilized based on observations with LLoyd’s mirror.)

On the centerline between slit edges that is perpendicular to the plane of the slit, the secondary pulsons induced from the respective edges by a common source are keyed to arrive in phase with each other.  However, at the edges of the slit, the secondary pulsons are emitted at ½ wavelength out of phase (retarded) in a circular configuration with respect to the direction of the parallel, activating primary signal from a distant source (Fig. 4-B, Fig. 6 and Fig. 9).  Starting at the respective edges with minima for illumination, as the lateral distance is increased, the phases of secondary signals relative to the primary signal at the detection screen shift. This creates two series of minima and maxima (one for each edge in accordance with the patterns as shown in Fig. 5).  At a critical ratio of distance to slit width, the pulsons of the primary signal pass points on the centerline before the secondary pulsons arrive.  Starting with a wide slit, as the slit is made progressively narrower and/or the distance to the screen is increased, the overlapping of mutual interactions of the primary signal and secondary signals from each individual edge is initiated at the centerline (Fig. 10-d). Thus the secondary signals are involved in interactions with each other and mutual as well as individual interactions with the primary signal.  As the edges approach each other, i.e. the slit is made physically narrower, the contribution from the primary signal is diminished and an increasing dominance of the secondary signals is manifested.  The closer together the sources of synchronous pulsons emitted from the edges, the further they must travel away from the centerline to create their first mutual minima.  At some width the illumination from the slit approaches the functional properties of a point source (actually a line source which is equivalent to a point source in two dimensions). At this point the oscillators in the detection screen do not respond to the secondary signals from the different edges as individual signals but as an enhanced coherent single signal. (See Fig. 3.)

Under the carefully controlled experimental conditions usually employed for the Young double slit experiment, the slits have been adjusted to a condition such that their central diffraction peaks spread into the entire space beyond the slit system where interference measurements are made and effects from the primary signal are eliminated or obscured. The intensity of the secondary signals from each slit represents the superposition or fusion of the signal emissions from two edges.  This results in the type of pattern presented in Fig. 3-B.

{The stability of the criton swirl as depicted in Fig. 1 is dependent on the mutual attractions between its critons that are mediated by crifor [U. components].  When pulson arcs are emitted in a temporally coherent manner, in close proximity, i.e. at two very narrow edges, it might be anticipated that portions of their criton fronts would merge to create negotiated criton arc segments.  This is in contrast to the scenario in which critons of the signals from individual edges tend to maintain their integrity along radial paths.  Do the signals from a very narrow illuminated slit or barrier morph into single signals or is it an illusion created by experimental sensitivity?  A manifestation of these alternatives may express itself under appropriate experimental conditions.  After slit widths are reduced to a dimension narrower than the wavelength, points on the screen always express some degree of constructive interference.}

Utilizing a slit width of the appropriate size that is held constant and starting at a close distance (Fresnel zone) from a detection screen, as the distance to the screen is increased, the domains centered on the various peaks expand. As a consequence their inner boundaries shift toward the centerline. As the patterns from the respective edges expand toward the centerline, at the centerline, a synchronized overlapping is initiated, i.e. minima overlap minima and maxima overlap maxima (Fig. 10-d).  After diffraction patterns overlap at the centerline the illumination contributed at the screen in the overlap region is derived by the mutual interactions of the signals from the edges with the primary signal. Mechanistically, the ray paths of coincidence points at the screen change as the screen distance is increased.  Unlike the constant pattern for the two-slit, Young-type experiment, every increment of change in distance creates a different pattern of interference at the detection screen until a single central peak forms (Fig. 10-a).  Although the secondary signals from the edges are executing the interactions of the double-slit arrangement, they are superimposed on and integrated into the parallel pattern for the primary signal (Zone A of Fig. 9).  The phase relationships between the primary and secondary signals shift as functions of wavelength, slit width, and screen distance from the slit.  In contrast to where the slit width is physically decreased, for the constant slit width, the intensity of the parallel, primary signal segment remains more nearly constant with an increase in distance to the screen; whereas, the intensity of the secondary signals decreases as their arcs expand from the slit edges.  As the distance to the screen from the single slit is increased the ray paths to the center point at the screen of the secondary signals from the different edges become more nearly parallel and the criton fronts of the secondary signals become more nearly parallel to the primary signal.  Thus at the screen, as the distance increases from the slit, the phase changes between the primary and secondary signals occur more gradually.  At large distances the relative intensities between the primary and secondary signals approach constant values. 

The variations in illumination at the screen as a function of distance would be expected to occur at a greater magnitude where simultaneous interactions between the primary and both mutually in phase, secondary, edge signals occur (Zone A of Fig. 9).  Integrated into the process are the mutual interactions between the edge pulsons.  At a large distance, observations suggest that the intensity of the primary signal after a critical slit width has been exceeded is greater than that of the constructive mutual interactions of the activated secondary signals (Fig. 10).  Therefore, the net effect of constructive interference between the primary and secondary signals creates greater illumination than the primary signal alone and the mutual destructive interference effects of both edges with the primary signal does not completely sequester illumination.  Another factor is the balance between the arrival of the primary signal at the detection screen before the arrival of the secondary signal and the residual from the screen-induced secondary pulsons after the primary pulsons have completed interactions at the detection site. 

The interactions of primary and secondary signals create a systematic interference pattern originating from the edge (Fig. 5); whereas the mutual interactions of the secondary signals create a regular, Young-type interference pattern relative to the centerline between the edges of the slit (Fig. 3-B).  The patterns are not the same.  The diffraction fringes relative to the edge are not as equally spaced as the case for two-slit interference.  They become less intense and more closely spaced as the distance from the border of the shadow increases (Fig. 5-A).  The distances of fringes for the double-slit pattern become more widely spaced as distance from the centerline increases.  Beyond the domain of the primary signal, i.e. the edges of a single slit, the two-slit interference pattern is exclusively expressed (Zone B of Fig. 9).  

At an appropriate distance between the slit and screen, the inside minima associated with the parabolas next to the slit edges for the screen patterns derived from the interactions of the primary signal, destructively interfering in an independent manner with the respective secondary pulsons, overlap at the center line (Fig. 10-b). Both edge pulson signals are in phase with each other and out of phase with the primary signal at this point. It represents a minimum created by the mutually destructive interference of the edge signals with the primary signal. This type minimum corresponds with the dark spot shown in Fig. 7-C.  In contrast the maxima for the parabolas on either side of the centerline occur where the edge signals are individually in phase with the primary signal at different loci.  As the distance is adjusted such that the maxima represented by the edge parabolas are superimposed, a central peak is created (Fig. 10-a and A*). The requirement for constructive interference at the screen for pulsons is that the criton fronts from the edges and primary signal arrive so that they create in phase oscillations within the detection macrons.  At the point where the individual maxima between the secondary and primary signal become exactly superimposed to create a single peak represents the greatest illumination for any point on the centerline for a single aperture.

In the transition from the centerline, mutual minimum of Fig. 10-b to the centerline maximum of Fig. 10-a, a situation has been created where the central maximum represents the condition where the initiating parallel signal and secondary edge signals are superimposed in phase at the centerline of the detection screen.  With respect to the secondary signals this centerline point is out of phase with the edge initiating points.  (If a plot for two in phase pulsons were graphically represented as shown in Fig. 3-B, the constructive interference between the pulsons from the edges and primary signal would be positioned between the centerline intersections for the depicted wave fronts.  This condition is the consequence of phase relationship created at the activation of the secondary signal by the primary signal.) Thus the edge pulsons interfere off centerline to create slit minima where both edge pulsons are in phase with each other, at a maximum, and out of phase with the primary signal.  This interaction is integrated into the shoulder of the parabola of Fig. 10-A*.  The first minima, resulting solely from the edge signals would be produced at the angle represented by an integral wavelength on either side of the central maximum, i.e. centerline for the illumination pattern.  This creates markers for the two-signal interference pattern generated by edge pulsons whose central portion is obscured by its interactions with the primary signal (Zone A of Fig. 9).  When the geometry is appropriate the typical textbook presentation of diffraction for a single slit occurs (Fig. 10-A*).  The interference fringes beyond the portion of the central peak, containing the primary signal, usually referred to as the central diffraction peak, are derived exclusively from the mutual interactions of secondary signals from the slit edges and are a function of slit width (Zones B of Fig. 9). 

When the edge signals and primary signal become superimposed in phase at the centerline, it creates the point of maximum intensity for the single peak.  At this point the ray path difference between the edges and centerline rays is ½ wavelength.  As the distance to the screen is increased beyond this point the illumination at the center broadens and intensity gradually decreases.  The ray points of interference are represented by fewer and lesser in-phase combinations of edge signals with the primary signal.  Since the edge ray paths are nearly parallel at a large distance from the slit, a bright central zone with its associated interference bands would exist over an extended interval in the Fraunhofer zone.  These conditions create the Airy pattern when a circular aperture is utilized (Fig. 7-E).  The ring patterns surrounding the central zone are mechanistically generated according to the twin-slit-type interactions (Zones B of Fig. 9).  Compare Fig. 7-B with 7-E.

Case XI:  The Huygens model.

Under appropriate experimental conditions, the consequences of the Huygens and pulson models culminate in very similar responses for diffraction-interference effects.  Both models involve wavelet generators.  However, when an explanation is sought for the occurrence of the first minima from the centerline of a single slit, it requires a different base line from which to develop explanations for the respective models.  In utilizing the Huygens principle, wave fronts passing through slits are considered to be divided into a series of wavelets (Fig. 11) that mutually interfere as ray pairs for the appropriate angles and spacings on either side of the centerline (Fig. 12). This explanation is applied under Fraunhofer conditions (Fig. 12-A).  As the angles of the secondary wavelets are increased an interference pattern beyond the domain of the central dominant peak is produced as a function of the size of the angles and the width of the slit (Fig. 12-B and C).  When the paths from the edges of the slit to the screen occur such that the center and edge rays are ½ wavelength out of phase, the first minimum occurs (Fig. 12-B).  Under such conditions, each wavelet point for the slit has a sister point with which it is out of phase.  As the slit width increases the distance between interfering pairs increases.  As noted in Case X: Pulson interactions with a slit, the activated edge pulsons are 1/2 wave length out of phase with the primary signal.  Thus the first minima would occur at the same positions as that predicted by the Huygens model. However, interference from two wavelet-initiation points could not be achieved by absolutely parallel ray paths unless their spacing were less than the diameter of the oscillator detector.  This suggests flaws in the explanation presented for interference of Huygens wavelets. If rays are truly parallel, they should never interfere.  What does a ray physically represent?

In its original proposed format, Huygens’s Principle is independent of wavelength considerations.  Fresnel responded to this difficulty by integrating the concept of interference by requiring that: “Every unobstructed point of a wave front, at a given instant, serves as a source of spherical secondary wavelets (with the same frequency as that of the primary wave).  The amplitude of the optical field at any point beyond is the superposition of all these wavelets (considering their amplitudes and relative phases)”.  (Hecht, E. 2001.  Optics, 4th ed.  Addison-Wesley, San Francisco. p.  444.)  [What is the physical platform that mediates interference effects for light?  Within the pulson model interference effects are functions of the incoming criton fronts and the oscillation modes of detector components.]

Functionally for a single slit of the appropriate dimensions in the Fraunhofer zone, essentially the same conditions are created at the detection screen by the interactions of edge pulsons with each other and with the primary signal as those attributed to the Fresnel-Huygens model. Utilizing the pulson model, as a result of the activation time required for emission of the secondary signals induced by the primary signal, their arrival at the screen creates predictable interference patterns between circular wave patterns created at the diffraction edges and the parallel disposition of the primary signal (Fig. 5 and Fig. 9).  Under Fraunhofer conditions when the maximum constructive interference for a slit occurs between the primary and secondary signals at the centerline (Fig. 10), the edge pulsons are at half wavelength out of phase with respect to the constructive interference pattern presented in Fig. 3.  On either side of the centerline within the slit boundaries minima are created where maximum mutual constructive interference of edge pulsons interferes destructively with the primary signal. These interactions are integrated into the shoulders of the central peak.  The subsequent mutual destructive interference between edge pulsons occurs outside the slit in the exclusive domain of the secondary signals creating minima as illustrated in Fig. 10-A*.   For the pulson model the secondary edge pulsons should function according to the idealized, twin-slit protocol with each edge representing a slit.  However, based on the explanation presented for constructive interference utilizing the Huygens model, the illumination intensity for off center maxima should be greater for wider slits in the appropriate range since the number of wavelets would be greater and the angles of inclination less. 

Perhaps experimental conditions can be created that distinguishes the pulson model from the Huygens model.  Variations in the properties of signals associated with slit widths as a function of distance to the screen need to be carefully established.  For the pulson model as the slit becomes physically narrower, the edge signals become more dominant and the compositions of the signals at the detection screen changes.  If for an approaching parallel signal, the ratio of screen distance to slit size is held constant, how are interference patterns impacted?  Starting with the Fresnel zone and transitioning into the Franhoffer zone, as the slit width, distance between slits, and distance to the detection screen are changed do the expected patterns for the Fresnel-Huygens and pulson models remain the same?  The pulson model should provide predictions from the Fresnel zone to the Franhoffer zone without the necessity to utilize the approximations presented in Fig. 12

Suppose that two very narrow slits are arranged under the experimental conditions that create the Young-type interference effects (Fig, 3).  A wider than normal spacing is initially utilized for the slit separations.  (This parameter may be varied.)  As the widths for the two slits are increased while the distance of the slit separation is held constant, the interference effects of the secondary signals should transition from two coherent line sources into that associated with four coherent line sources. Although offset from the diffraction-interference effects associated with the centerline between the slits, the impact of the primary signal on diffraction patterns at the detection screen also increases as the slit widths are increased.  The effects of the primary signal are centered on each slit.  Under appropriate Fraunhofer conditions each slit is functioning to individually produces a central bright peak and pattern at the screen as the shown in Fig. 10-A* that would be centered on the respective individual slits.   However, the interactions within the domains of the primary signal for the two slits involve the generation of secondary pulsons from four edges.  The interference patterns in the shadow zone between the slits are mediated exclusively by the mutual interactions of four line sources, one from each edge, derived from the portions of the signal from zones B of Fig. 9, and are marked on either side of the respective slits by the first minima from the centers of the slits.  See Fig. 11-B for impact of slit width on interference fringes and note the protocol depicted in Fig. 32.

The mathematics to describe the interference patterns, outside the geometrical boundaries for two paired slits, should be derivable utilizing four idealized, coherent, point sources arranged parallel to the detection screen as noted for Fig. 3 B.  The points coincide with the relative positions of slit edges.  Such equations should be valid in both Fresnel and Fraunhofer zones. 

A control for the experiment is to create four very narrow slits in an opaque barrier that match the positions of the edges for the two wide slits.  Patterns for interference in the central diffraction zone, i.e. comparable to the area between the wide slits, should be the same, as those created by pulson pairs from the edges of wider slits.  The narrow slits represent two edges for each slit that yields an influence that expresses itself as a single signal. 

Overall analysis of pulson

The pulson has been proposed as the physical entity that accounts for electromagnetic radiation and the photon phenomenon.  In Cases I – VI, idealized situations were created in order to develop a model for energy transfer by pulsons.  Under experimental conditions the primary sources of light (excluding lasers) are usually complex involving large populations of activated macrons, separated in space, emitting pulsons of different frequencies in a temporally random manner (Fig. 13-A).   An individual macron emits a single pulson during a very short interval (approximately 10-8 sec based on the excitation interval for atoms emitting electromagnetic radiation).  The durations (lengths) of the pulsons potentially vary.  (The physical disposition of the macron in situ is considered in another section.) The illumination experienced at the detection screen is the resultant of how its component oscillators are excited.  The measured illumination does not represent a quantification of the total energy emitted by the source.  Rather it is the rate of pulson emissions versus “absorption” for energy transfer and the after effects on target macrons.  A steady primary source, at an appropriate intensity, interacting with a detection screen is considered to be a uniform source.  Its substructure represents populations of pulsons that are capable of rapidly creating changing interference patterns at a detection screen.  It is the management of the populations of macron emitters that has contributed to the current models for light. 

Ideally the experimenter would like to create isolated macrons that can be maintained at designated loci for which pulson emissions can be controlled.  An important first step toward this objective is the selection or creation of a point-like illumination source.  This may be approximated by the utilization of a small aperture to modulate pulsons from a primary source (Fig. 13-B).  Such an arrangement favors the distributions beyond the slit or aperture of arc segments of criton fronts that have originated from pulsons within the primary source that are able to trace straight-line ray paths from the source through the opening.  When conditions are created such that the intensities of such rays from source pulsons are maximized at a second screen without significant overlap of pulson arc segments, the functional pinhole camera is realized (Fig. 13-B).  However, each pulson at a different angle to the centerline sees a differently shaped portal in its transit to the detection screen that alters the balance of the ray paths at the edges of and through the aperture. The signal emerging from an aperture is composed of the primary signal and the induced secondary edge signals (Fig. 9).  Therefore, to create a satisfactory image the interactions of the secondary signals with the primary signals must be satisfactorily balanced. 

To further manage the signal a second aperture is utilized in a screen parallel to the first screen.  When the geometry, illumination intensity, and aperture size are appropriate, the arc segments of the primary signal that arrives at the second aperture are composed of and/or derived from tandem emissions from a restricted zone of the primary source.  These restricted, closely-spaced pathways serve to create tandem pulson emissions to the opening that trace approximately parallel paths, thereby increasing the probability that nearly identical interactions with the second aperture happen in sequence according to the protocol presented in Fig. 9.  Although the tracks for different primary pulsons to the second aperture are essentially the same, their spatial and temporal coherences are random.  By creating tandem spacings the probability that the sequence originating with a specific macron execute its excitation at the aperture within the second screen with less interference from other primary macron emissions is increased.  Individual patterns created by such multiple tandem interactions are highly redundant within the energy codes that are carried from the originating pulsons.  This arrangement accounts for the patterns created by a single aperture.

When two closely spaced, very narrow slits in a second screen are utilized, the secondary pulson fronts from the edges of a single slit in the first screen, interact in synchrony with the two slits in the second screen to create paired generations of secondary pulsons separated in space that are in phase with each other.  In this scenario the segments of the primary signals that are able to pass through the single slit in the first screen without modification interacts with the second screen between the two slits. Alternatively, if the first slit possesses a signal that is wider than the separation of the two slits, the primary signal in conjunction with the secondary signal would activate both slits.  The narrower the slit, the less residual component from the activating signal that remains, and the more spatially coherent the secondary signals from its edges.  Under appropriate conditions synchronized signals derived from individual macrons, contained in the primary source, are processed in sequence at each of the twin slits.  These synchronized pulsons generated and acting in pairs, two per slit, create the probabilistic patterns that account for the Young, two-slit experiment (Fig. 3). 

Under the carefully controlled conditions associated with the interference patterns from single and twin slits observed at the detection screen, entangled secondary pulsons are created and recombined with each other (Fig. 3 and Fig. 13-C) or with the activating, original signal (Fig. 9).  Each individual excitation of a macron at the screen represents a photon.  Under conditions where small numbers of diffuse pulson fronts per unit of time interact with the twin slits, the interference patterns associated with wave phenomena are observed to develop “one photon at a time”.  The excitation states of detector macrons exhibit finite existences that may overlap.  When the rate of arrival of pulsons at the screen reaches a critical intensity, the patterns appear to occur instantaneously.  The practice of utilizing relatively intense populations of pulsons under mostly Fraunhofer conditions potentially obscures the sequence of events that culminate in observations.  The sensitivity of the detection system under such conditions cannot account for sequence. 

Merging of pulson and photon models

Electromagnetic radiation involves the release and transmission of energy.  If the pulson model for transmitting energy is associated with the photon phenomenon, a structure to explain the photon emerges.  As a validity test for this position, observations from previously conducted experiments are examined and re-interpreted.  Although observations are supposedly neutral, their interpretations often are pondered from the perspective that certain existing theories and/or models are conceptually true.

The speed of light has been determined to be c in a vacuum.  This has been accepted as one of the universal constants.  Conceptually, superimposed on the emission and absorption of light are the apparent inter-conversion of matter and energy.  The criton swirls provide an explanation for a source of energy that has a velocity c relative to its measured point of apparent creation or emission.  Since the process occurs associated with an unrecognized particle, the criton (the carrier for energy) from the crossover zone that cannot be individually detected {zones}, it appears as if only energy is the byproduct. The detection process requires populations of particles (critons) working in concert.  (The apparent creation of electron-positron pairs from photons is addressed later.)

The second postulate of Special Relativity states “The speed of light is independent of the motion of the source.”  However, the true velocity of a pulson would be expected to be equal to the emission velocity plus or minus the velocity of the source macron relative to a designated measurement point.  In the laboratory the components of our experimental devices are essentially synchronized to the same inertial reference frame.  After interaction with an initial source pulson, subsequent interactions will “measure” a constant speed for the pulson, i.e. the speed of light would appear to be a constant as it travels among synchronized points within the inertial reference frame utilized as a laboratory such as the components of the Michelson-Morley experiment.  (See Cases II & III.)  Although frequencies shifts from different light sources that have velocities other than c are consistent with the pulson model, such measurements do not provide direct velocity determinations.  The direct measurement of the velocity of light between two non-synchronized inertial reference frames has not been achieved.

[As developed in COM, the gravitational force is a function of (crifor).  Since critons are mutually attracted by crifor, pulsons passing through an unbalanced gravitational field would be distorted from linear propagation.]  {U. components}

Another foundational property of light is that it represents the apparent speed limit to which matter can be accelerated relative to an energy source.  This property is consistent with an acceleration source derived from the release of critons from criton swirls at c in the form of pulsons.  When pulsons are emitted at low levels the ability to mediate a change in internal energy of a reference system is manifested as a dominant measurement parameter.

When the criton swirl is associated with an oscillator as its focal body, the transmission of energy is mediated as a frequency phenomenon in the form of pulsons (Fig. 1-D).  When the effects of the arrival of pulsons at a detector are observed, we measure the net effects of energy delivered to individual points as a function of time.  Such observational points, under specifically created experimental conditions, may be described as components in a population associated with wave phenomena (Cases VIII & IX).  If from the perspective of our oscillator-type detectors, the energy transfer is proportional to the frequency, the relationship E = (momentum per criton front) x (frequency) is obtained, the same relationship as E = hf. 

The observations at the detector are manifestations of the excitation of oscillators, not a direct measurement of the total energy content of incident pulsons.  Since electromagnetic radiation and/or pulsons occur in pulses, their utilization as measurement tools imposes limitations on how accurately position and momentum can be determined.  A higher frequency pulson, in theory, provides a better positioning parameter, but potentially imparts a greater change of momentum and/or excitation to the target macron.  Thus there exists an inherent uncertainty associated with the pulson as a measurement signal.

If it is assumed that when a macron undergoes a pulson emission its focal body recoils in the opposite direction in such manner that momentum is conserved, then for a system, equal components of kinetic energy are created such that the energy relationship ½ mv2 + ½ mv2 is expressed as E = mc2.  (This assumes that emitted criton pulses are proportional to a quantity of mass.) Without the concept of an ultimate unit of matter, the criton with its exchangeable energy component (velose) and the criton swirl (Fig. 1), the interpretation that matter has been converted into energy appears valid. (The accounting scheme for the inter conversions between matter and energy is analyzed later.)

Reflection and refraction

The velocity of the light signal is reduced when it is transmitted through a medium. The ratio of the velocity of light in a vacuum to that in a medium has been designated the refractive index (n).  As developed in Case II, pulson signals are transmitted through a medium as a series of time-dependent absorptions and re-emissions.  Therefore, the refractive index should be a function of the activation time and population density of transmitting macrons.  Each emission occurs at c, thus the signal emerges from the medium at c.  If the time intervals for excitations of macrons vary as a function of the frequencies of pulsons, the refractive indexes for different frequencies will vary.  When the signals emerging from the medium are the resultants of multi-macron-signal interactions, the synchronies among the populations of emitted pulsons dictate the signatures of the emerging signals. 

An example of a ray diagram illustrating light reflection and refraction at a surface separating air and water is shown in Fig. 14-A.  The laws of reflection and refraction represent empirical derivations and may be summarized as follows:

1.The incident ray, the normal, the reflected ray, and the refracted ray all lie in one plane.

2.The angle of incidence is equal to the angel of reflection.

3.For monochromatic light, the ratio of the sine of the angle of incidence to sine of the angle of refraction is a constant.

In the form of an equation the relationship governing refraction may be expressed as n1sini = n2sinr’ in which n1 is the refractive index of medium 1 (air) and n2 is the refractive index of medium 2 (water) for Fig. 14-A. This is Snell’s law.  [The observation that all rays are contained in the same plane is consistent with a planer structure for pulsons. (See Fig. 1-D.)]

The utilization of rays in the area of geometrical optics represents a useful descriptive tool.  Although a single ray of light is generally considered to be a geometrical abstraction, in the current discussion a ray is proposed to represent a path along which the information created at one point by an activated macron is transferred via pulsons to an observation point (Fig. 16). Presented in Fig. 14-B are pulson interactions that are proposed to account for the optical ray.  In free space the pulson signal is transmitted as expanding arcs of criton fronts.  Under this condition (Phase I of Fig. 14-B) a sector of the criton fronts between the point of origin and the detection site constitutes a ray.

Signal transfer within a medium is more complex.  When a sequence of planar criton fronts enters parallel to the surface of a medium, i.e. perpendicular to the direction of travel, composed of uniformly distributed macrons, their secondary emissions are synchronized relative to the primary signal along the approach path to the detection screen (Phase II of Fig. 14-B).  The loci for constructive interference points remain parallel to the direction of approach and the direction of the transmitted signal is the same as the incident signal.  Unlike the transmission of the signal in free space from a single activated macron that is mediated by migrating uniform criton fronts, within a medium, signal transmission involves sequences of secondary macron emissions and their interactions. 

The signal emitted from the medium (Phase III of Fig. 14-B) represents the negotiated interactions of pulson components from the modular, pulson-emitting units within the medium composing the exit surface.  A uniform segment of the signal that carries the “information” emitted by the originating macron represents a ray.  Rays possess variable, finite dimensions with the capacity to change directions.  (The relationship between the pulson signal and the utilization of the optical ray is considered in Fig. 16.) 

A change in direction occurs when the constructive interference points are uniformly changed.  When a criton front approaches from an acute angle, the signal portion making contact first has its transmission velocity retarded first (Fig. 15).  This leads to a shift in the reinforcement points for criton fronts and thus the direction of the signal transmission is changed, i.e. the signal is “bent”. The constructive interference signal is centered perpendicular to the midpoint of a line connecting the points of signal origins.  When the relative positions of the activated macrons at points A and B are shifted as occurs at points C and D, the constructive interference line is shifted accordingly.  The refractive process is controlled by the ratio of c1dt to c2dt.  Therefore if the “medium” were a monolayer of macrons the direction of the signal would remain unchanged, i.e. the angle of refraction would equal the angle of reflection.  A mechanism to explain Snell’s law very similar to explanations based on Huygens’s concept is presented in Fig. 15

Since different frequencies require different excitation times, dispersion occurs. Lenses represent media that are designed (shaped) to control these phenomena such that individual, secondary pulson signals are directed through a focal point. Unlike the aperture in a pinhole camera (Fig. 13-B) that selects narrow arc portions, the lens facilitates the convergence of signal components derived from individual pulsons via the mechanism presented in Fig. 14-B and Fig. 15.

For reflection, the reinforcement points for pulson fronts are uniformly shifted as a function of time of the occurrence of the reflection component that is a function of the angle of incidence.  Re-emission into the same medium eliminates the differential lag components associated with signal velocity exhibited within a different medium for refraction.  Since macrons are activated and thus pulsons are emitted in the order that the wave front contacts the surface, the reflective responses are analogous to Huygens generators (Fig. 11-A) uniformly distributed in the surface of a reflector that are activated in sequence and allowed to create back wavelets. The angle for constructive interference for reflection matches that of the angle of incidence.  When the reflecting points occur, the diversities of the secondary pulsons create an encoded reflection pattern.  The effect of these codes can be recorded with cameras and photographic emulsions. 

The exit of the signal from a medium of a higher refractive index to one of a lower refractive index is mechanistically similar to the reflection response.  The ray paths indicated in Fig.  14-A and Fig. 15 are considered to be reversible until a critical angle of incidence is reached.  The first pulson to be excited in the surface creates a pulson with an arc influence that is ahead of subsequent macron excitations in the wave front of the medium.  As the angle of approach to the exit surface increases the reinforcement centerline described in Fig. 14-B creates an angle that exceeds that formed between the approach path and the surface.  Associated with this geometry a critical angle is created beyond which the signal is reflected internally.

The laws of reflection and refraction relate only to the directions of the corresponding rays but reveal nothing about the fraction of the incident light that is reflected and the fraction that is refracted.  These components depend on the angle of incidence.  The fraction reflected is smallest at a normal incidence, where it is about 4% for an air-water surface, and it increases with increasing angle of incidence to almost 100% for an air-water surface at a grazing incidence, or where i = 90 degrees.

When the rays of light are directed from a medium of higher to lower index of refraction the same laws of reflection and refraction apply.  Thus the direction of passage for a ray of light in going from one medium to another is reversible.  When the incident ray is normal to the surface the same fraction of the incident light is reflected as when normal to surface from above (about 4% for a water-air and glass-air surfaces).  However, as the angle between the ray and the normal is increased, the fraction reflected increases according to a different schedule than that for when the ray enters from air.

A comprehensive mechanism for reflection and refraction should account for the differences in percentages of reflection and polarization as a function of the angle of incidence.  What is the physical entity that functions as the activated macron?  This is considered later.

The dual nature of light.

Of all the properties of light, its espoused wave and particulate nature (complementarity) is perhaps the most enigmatic.  However, is it sound to attempt to deduce the special properties of light waves or light particles from preconceived ideas about waves or particles in general?  If the pulson model for energy transfer is applied to the photon phenomenon, it provides comprehensible explanations for observations, and places in perspective the wave versus particulate properties.  Contemporary representations start with a presumed photon emitted from a source and then attempt to account for its journey to a detection location. 

       As described in Cases I - X, the emitted pulson is a frequency-transmitted energy module that, under appropriate conditions, creates responses in our detection devices that have been associated with what appear to be the mutually exclusive properties ascribed to rays, electromagnetic radiation (waves), and the photon (particle) as a function of experimental conditions. A single pulson cannot interfere with itself; however its entangled progeny can.  As an example for the narrow opaque barrier (Fig. 6), screen counts depicting interference result from the overlapping of in phase, secondary pulsons emitted from the opposite edges of the barrier that trace their respective origins back to a common source macron. Although the excitation status of specific source macrons from a population at low levels of emissions cannot be precisely predicted, they execute redundant excitation sequences in pairs at the barrier’s edges.  The collective enhancement effects of such populations of secondary pulsons from barrier edges conform to statistically predictable protocols. The localized oscillator-detectors register the “creations” of photons when a critical excitation level is exceeded. Such excited macrons exist in an excited state for a finite interval.  The wave analogy follows from the coordinated interactions of daughter pulsons originating from individual mother pulsons in which the population of mother pulsons is of sufficient size to create an immediate and continuous picture (Case VIII).  The particulate interpretation results from the same physical process, but originating with a very dilute population of randomly activated, source macrons, such that screen patterns develop in an apparent random sequence from localized excited oscillators over an extended interval (Case IX). (These are the photons of contemporary science.) A factor that needs to be accounted for is the removal of sensitive detector spots when photographic emulsions (silver bromide grains) are utilized, i.e. after certain levels of excitations, points within the film become insensitive to further illumination.  How much does this alter the accuracy of the counting process?  It should reduce the differences in the apparent illumination intensities of the constructive interferences fringes for twin-slit type protocols as exposure intervals are increased.  How closely do the sensitivities of our detection components correspond with the energy of the proposed excitable macrons that transmit signals?

      Under conditions created with the pinhole camera, zone plate, or the utilization of lenses or mirrors, the signals trace apparent ray paths, containing recognizable information, from the source points of their pulsons to the detector.  A key component in the utilization of rays is the identification of information patterns at the detection screen that may be associated with the source.  Whereas the pinhole reduces the overlapping of pulsons at the detection screen by the restriction of criton fronts to small arc segments along a narrow path, the lens recombines by refraction, i.e. the creation of patterned constructive interference points, some of the diverging energy in the arcs of expanding pulsons fronts to focal points that correspond to source points. That also creates conditions that may be represented by rays (Fig. 16).  Thus observations associated with reflection and refraction (Fig. 14), rays (Fig. 16), waves (Fig. 3), and photons (Case IX and Fig. 8) are manifestations of pulsons that have been managed under appropriate conditions.     

Experimental verification of pulsons.

A proposed experimental verification for the pulson structure is based on the postulation that invisible sectors of frequency-coherent pulsons can be utilized in combinations to create photons.  Illumination bandwidths into the geometrical shadow zone are determined utilizing illumination from a line source at a single straight edge.  Illumination bandwidths are functions of geometry, i.e. distance and angle from source to edge of the barrier and distance to the observation screen from the barrier.  It would also be of of interest to determine if bandwidth is a function of intensity, and/or type of source.  Experimental conditions similar to those suggested in Case VIII: Pulson interactions with a narrow barrier are utilized (Fig. 6).   An elongated barrier is created that is fabricated in a step-wise or graduated fashion to create opaque zones of different widths along the barrier’s length (Fig. 32).  When the barrier is illuminated with a centered, line source, as the sequences towards narrower sections are examined, the illumination bands created in the geometric shadow by edge excited macrons approach each other along the centerline.  Evidence in favor of the pulson model is obtained if centerline photon counts are detected before merging of illumination bands, as determined with a single, straight edge, would occur [COM-Fig. 10].  (This would eliminate explanations based on responses from preexisting photons, since the process of simultaneous access to both sides of a barrier would not be expected to extend the range of individual photons into the shadow zone.)  If a point in the band approaching or merging process is reached, where the rate of photon counts in the geometrical shadow zone increases above that for comparable areas illuminated by pairs of single bands, it suggests photons created from combinations of “invisible” pulson sectors. Such measurements would appear to compromise energy conservation based on numbers of visible photons.  It would also appear to be inconsistent with the Fresnel-Huygens model (Fig. 19-C) in which generators in the unobstructed wave front at the edge of the barrier produce wavelets that illuminate the geometric shadow zone, unless their peripheral sectors are invisible until combined with similar wavelets from the opposing side. Under idealized conditions a single, enhanced, illuminated line at the centerline should be manifested as bands first interface.  After bands overlap, as the barrier is made narrower or the distance from the barrier to the observation screen increased, the appearance of alternating dark zones are created that represent areas where photon creations have been sequestered.  Potentially out-out-of-phase combinations of (invisible + visible) and (visible + visible) pulsons could mute the excitation of detector macrons.  (Individual detectors become visible at critical energy levels that are manifestations of their internal oscillation patterns.  Such oscillation patterns possess intervals.)  The illumination emitted from the edges of the barrier creates essentially the same patterns as would be observed from two coherent pulson sources embedded in an opaque barrier (Fig. 3).  However in the zones illuminated by the primary signal, the secondary signals from the edges interact with the primary signal to create a series of bands bordering the geometrical shadow (Fig. 5 and Zones c of Fig. 6).   After the illumination arcs of the secondary pulsons become extended beyond the shadow zone of the opposite edges, both edge signals become involved with each other and the primary signal to create interference patterns on each side (Zones e of Fig. 6 and Fig. 7-A).

As a comparison, two narrow slits in an opaque barrier are created to match experimental dimensions for a narrow barrier (Fig. 32-A 4 & 6).  This arrangement is analogous to the apparatus utilized in the twin-slit, Young-type experiment.  The Huygens effects in the central geometrical shadow zone should develop in accordance with the protocols of Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 as transition from line sources (narrow slits) to wider slits occurs.  The barrier for this example may be considered as the area between the two slits.  The experimental protocol is essentially the same as that utilized by Fresnel (Fig. 18-A).  Although these types experiments have been conducted, the focus here is to arrange them so that they provide the most effective test for the pulson model  The mathematical analyses are based on the interactions of activating primary pulson signals with macrons in the edges of opaque barriers that produce secondary coherent puslons signals 1/2 wave length out of phase with the primary signal.  Protocols are applied to both Fresnel and Franhoffer conditions.

For the pulson model, when separation of two activated, coherent macrons is less than the wavelength, emissions (reflections) from the opposite sides of each slit, i.e. when slits are appropriately narrow, would be functionally incorporated into a single coherent source.  An expectation for the dual edges of a single slit, as compared to a single barrier edge, is an enhanced signal reaching the zone between the two slits and since the signals for edges of each slit are not absolutely superimposed the combined signal from a slit would be effectively wider than from a single edge.  The arcs from the two distal edges of the twin slits would possess an arc-exposure advantage relative to the inside edges within the geometric shadow.  (Compare Fig. 9 with Fig. 6.)  Thus the first indication of signal overlap at the centerline, as the distance to the screen is increased, should be manifested at a greater twin-slit separation for narrow apertures than that for the same barrier width between two single edges.  Subsequent interference patterns that occur within the geometrical shadow zone should be more intense between the two narrow slits, since the constructive fringes originate from four sources, than for comparable signals from exclusively barrier edges that would produce two pulson sources.  However, under the appropriate slit dimensions and geometry, the outside edge and inside edge pulsons should interfere destructively decreasing intensities below that of a single barrier (Fig. 18).

As two narrow slits, separated at a fixed distance, are made wider, the transition from interactions of two line sources as indicated in Fig. 3 to patterns as depicted in Fig. 9 for each slit occurs.  Under such conditions each slit edge becomes a line source on the borders of its primary signal.  This should create a pattern effectively derived from four line sources instead of two in the barrier (central diffraction) region.  Variations of the geometry associated with the dispositions of signal components create a test for the pulson model.

Photon counts at the center focal point in the geometric shadow should increase as the number of closest matched barrier points relative to the focal point at a given distance is increased. The excitation potential derived from barrier points of a disc is maximal since it has the same central balance point for any diametric combination of pulsons. A companion experiment to that for a narrow barrier, where dimensions are varied, is to utilize a circular disc and to systematically eliminate both total and diametrically matched edge pulsons  (Fig. 32-B).  Conditions are initially established such that the Poisson spot is just created.  A greater reduction in intensity per circumference unit of the disc should occur where conditions are adjusted such that systematically one pulson is eliminated from matched pairs, i.e. pulsons that lie on the opposite ends of individual diameters.   As the ratio of unmatched to matched sectors of a circular disc increases, the numbers of balanced pulsons from the edges are reduced relative to the center points for comparable circumference lengths. The secondary edge pulsons from a common primary pulson are temporally coherent.  However, as indicated in Fig. 2-E they are most likely to be created in diametrically opposed positions, i.e. in a planer zone.  Thus interference effects of a disc setup to demonstrate the Poisson pattern from secondary edge pulsons should essentially disappear as their edge domains are formatted into non-opposing sectors.  (A technique utilizing extended fender sectors positioned on the edge of the disc barrier is visualized.  See Fig. 32-B)

With a carefully fashioned and positioned circular slit of the appropriate dimensions (analogous to one opening of a zone plate), it should be possible to create a Poisson spot without the occurrence of circular interference bands in the shadow zone, i.e. when pulson overlap at the center of the geometrical shadow first becomes intense enough to create photons. The subsequent, predictable, interference bands within the area analogous to the geometrical shadow for a disc and outside the inscribed circle should be created as edge (slit) signals overlap as a function of distance.  However, band patterns that appear around the circumference of the circular line source would represent solely the mechanistic sequence associated with the twin slit arrangement since the edge interactions in the primary illumination zone as shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 would not exist.  A pattern comparable to that manifested by twin slits should be created; i.e. the Bessel beam (Fig. 7-B).  The peripheral interference patterns associated with the line source in the shape of a circle should mimic those of the Airy diffraction pattern rather than that observed for a disc that creates the Poisson spot (Fig. 7-A, B & E).  The double slit interference patterns are analogous to a diameter excised from such a circular slit where the illumination points are replicated in a linear, parallel array. 

Fresnel diffraction of a circular aperture in which a dark spot is obtained at the center point of the screen pattern represents a seemly complimentary example to the Poisson spot created with a circular disc (Fig. 7-A versus 7-C). The observations of central dark spots associated with an aperture are consistent with interference interactions of secondary edge pulsons with the activating, primary pulsons (Fig. 5, Fig. 9 and Fig. 10), whereas the Poisson spot is entirely dependent on secondary pulsons from the edge.  Therefore, mutually destructive interference for discs that create Poisson spots could not occur at the center point.  However, for an appropriately wide circular slit arrangement as that utilized to generate the Bessel beam, it should be possible to create a dark spot in the Fresnel zone as a result of the mutual interference created by pulsons from the outside edges of slits with the inside edges of the slits (Fig. 18 B).  

The size of the aperture and the distance from the detection screen control the ratio and phase relationship of secondary pulsons to primary source pulsons.   As the distance between the aperture and the screen is increased, the changes between the phases of the primary source and secondary edge pulsons occur more slowly. As the secondary pulsons move from their respective edges (points of origin) toward the detection screen their criton fronts become less dense and criton fronts approach planarity along the centerline of the primary signal.  As the distance to the detection screen is increased, in transition from the Fresnel to the Fraunhofer zone, the edge pulsons from opposite sides of the aperture create a series of minima and maxima beyond the domain of the primary signal. At large distances from the aperture the Airy diffraction patterns for illumination are observed (Fig. 7-E).  The central illumination disc represents interference between pulsons from the sides of the aperture with the mother pulsons; whereas the ring patterns surrounding the Airy disc are resultants associated with the phases of secondary pulsons from the aperture’s edges (Zones B of Fig. 9).  Thus the pattern beyond the domain of the primary signal is that for the appropriate portion of the twin slit or circular slit arrangement.  

In the case of a small circular aperture and point source, when a point on the centerline is considered, the illumination at the screen varies as the relative positions of experimental components are changed (Ditchburn, R. W. 1991. Light. Dover Publishers, New York. p. 204.).  Starting at large distances between the point of observation on a detection screen and the aperture, as the distance to the observation screen is decreased, the illumination gradually increases until it is greater than with the barrier removed.  This process serves to establish the positions where the single peaks created by constructive interference of both edge pulsons with the primary signal overlap at maxima for the centerline (Fig. 10-a).  As the distance is further reduced, illumination decreases until a central dark spot is obtained (Fig. 7 C). The dark spot would represent the out of phase interference between the secondary signals with the primary signal that creates a minimum as presented in (Fig. 10-b) at the centerline.  As the detection point is moved still nearer, the illumination goes through a series of maxima and minima.  The illumination reaches a constant value at points very near the opening.   The angle of ray paths of criton fronts from the edge approach the center of the detection screen at increasingly larger angles relative to the geometrical shadow and form an approximate perpendicular orientation with the direction of the primary criton fronts as the plane of aperture is approached.  Under such conditions the interactions of primary and secondary pulsons with the detection screen could be significantly separated temporally and the approach angles may dampen mutual excitation potentials.  Ditchburn contemplated that at the small wavelengths of visible radiation the expression of interference phenomena near the plane of the aperture may be compromised by small imperfections in the shape of the aperture (Ditchburn, R. W. 1991. Light. Dover Publishers, New York, p. 204.)

Hecht (Hecht, E. 2002. Optics, 4th ed. Addison-Wesley, San Francisco, pp. 490-493.), based on Fresnel zones, presents an analysis of a point source interacting with circular apertures in which the sizes of the apertures are increased for a fixed distance (Fig. 7-D).  The centerline illumination varies in a manner similar to that described by Dichtburn above where the aperture was held constant and the distance varied.  The relative changes in ray (pulson) interactions that create interference effects between the centerline points and circular arcs from the edges of the aperture would be the same; however, the relative dimensions of the primary signal fronts that pass through the aperture would vary according to aperture size.

Utilizing concentric twin circular slits of the appropriate diameters and constructed according to the Fresnel zone patterns, similar patterns, i.e. maxima versus minima, to that created for circular apertures, related to the phase differences at the centerline between slit edges should be expressed.  (See Fig. 18.)  However, at an appropriate close distance to the observation screen from the circular slit sources, the central spot would remain dark and become larger as pulsons can no longer reach the center point (COM-Fig. 10).

The above observations presented by Dichtburn and Hecht appear to be consistent with patterns for maxima and minima represented in Fig. 5-A as a function of distance from an edge.  The diffraction patterns of the aperture or slit are interference patterns derived from interactions of the mother pulsons (incident waves) and daughter pulson’s generated at the edges.  Young described the diffraction patterns of an aperture as an interference pattern between the geometrically propagated wave through the aperture and waves originating at the edge of the aperture.  Thus the pulson model establishes a mechanism that accounts for the conditions proposed by Young and overcomes the objection by Fresnel (Crew, H. 1900. Scientific Memoirs. The Wave Theory of Light.  American Book Company, New York. p. 93.) that the contours of barriers, i.e. sharp edges versus rounded edges, should affect the diffraction patterns.  It is a film of atoms that creates the outside boundary for the geometric shadow zone that contains the line of activated macrons whose pulsons have access to the shadow zone and are directed into the domain of the primary signals that traverse an aperture.  The mechanistic components of the process for single slit diffraction patterns are presented in Fig. 9.  Mechanistically the Huygens generators, represented by macrons, are located in the edges of the slit and not in the wave fronts.  As noted in Fig. 10 for the Fresnel zone, as the screen is moved closer to the aperture the centerline interference effects are diminished.  This is consistent with pulsons of limited lengths (durations) that interact with the detection screen before the secondary signals that have been induced, and a loss in interference potential of the secondary edge signals as a function of the angles of their “ray” paths to the centerline.  

Acknowledging Wood’s suggestion (Fig. 5-B) Andrews presented a model based on Young’s theory of diffraction that accounts for microwaves passing through a slit that corresponds more accurately with observed results than Fresnel’s empirical equations [Andrews, C. L. 1951. A correction to the treatment of Fresnel diffraction.  American Journal of Physics 19(5): 280-284].  He concluded in his utilization of microwaves that Fresnel’s assumption that intensity and phase are constant over the plane of the aperture was not valid.  Wood’s proposal accounts for maxima and minima that Andrew observed for microwaves in the plane of the aperture. 

An experiment analogous to that of Wood’s in which he utilized a long focus lens to show that the edges diffract light into the illuminated region could be utilized to verify the extent of the arc of the diffracted pulson (Wood, R. D. 1934.  Physical Optics.  The Macmillan Company, New York. p. 222).  If the pulson trains for lazar illumination are of sufficient length it might be possible to create interference effects between primary and secondary signals in front of a slit opening.  The activating pulson would need to have a presence in front of the opening after secondary pulson activation.  Perhaps long-duration primary pulsons were a factor in Andrew’s observations with microwaves.  (A mechanism for the long duration of electromagnetic waves in the microwave zone is presented in Blog 3-em waves.)

The production of wide-arc, secondary pulsons at edges as shown in Fig. 6 indicate that under appropriate conditions, in addition to the downstream Poisson pattern, a reflective Poisson pattern for a disc should be observed.  Consider the sequence of experiments illustrated in Fig. 17.  In Fig. 17-A an illumination source is created with the objective of obtaining coherent excitations of diametrically opposed edge macrons (x and y) in disc-1.  Points x and y are analogous to the pulson sources shown in Fig. 3.  A small circular aperture is inserted between the primary source and disc-1. Depending on the size and geometry of arrangement the aperture functions between a pinhole and a point source (Fig. 13-B&C).  A point source would be optimal.  Since pulsons in the visible range are of limited duration, a point source creates conditions for a cascade of sequential, redundant excitations.  As a point source is approximated, the signal from each individual pulson has equal probability to excite diametrically paired perimeter macrons of disc-1.  (See Fig. 2-E.)  When uniform distributions of such pairs are created the typical Poisson pattern within the geometric shadow and the annuli surrounding the geometric shadow as shown in Fig. 7-A may be demonstrated.  For a primary source of very low intensity, an extended interval would be associated with the development of distinct interference patterns.  Interactions are those presented for Case IX and Fig. 6.

In Fig. 17-B a second disc of the same size or smaller than disc-1 is inserted between disc-1 and the screen.  The screen is moved further downstream. The objective is to create an excitation profile for the edge macrons of disc-2 analogous to disc-1.  If the geometry is precise each edge point of disc-2 is positioned to reproduce the coherence pattern of comparable points of disc-1, i.e. point x would excite point a & b, and point y would also excite point a & b.  (The signal of disc-2 would be delayed phase wise relative to that of disc-1 because of activation time.)  Under these conditions the second disc should create a Poisson pattern on the screen similar to that indicated for Fig. 17-A while the front of disc-2 should also exhibit a Poisson spot.  In addition the “reflective” portion of the arc should create a Poisson pattern on the back of disc-1.  A condition that reduced or eliminated reflection from all but the edge of the front of the second disc may enhance the definition of the reflective Poisson spot.  However, the interference pattern of the primary Poisson pattern would be arranged in an manner equivalent to Fresnel zones.  The objective would be to position the edge of disc 2 into a constructive interference zone associated with the Poisson pattern.  The demonstration of a reflective Poisson pattern would appear to be difficult to explain utilizing Huygens’ principle.  Since the secondary signals of disc-1 are mutually interacting with disc-2, the delay and coherence factors that exist between primary and secondary signals of disc-1 would be modified for disc-2 relative to the primary signal.  An alternative method to obtain a reflective Poisson spot or at least the advance of the reflected signal into the geometric shadow of disc-1 would be to adjust the diameter of disc-1 such that the primary signal could activate the edge macrons of disc-2.  In order to accommodate the geometry associated with the demonstration of a reflected Poisson pattern, under these circumstances, lenses may be necessary.

Various manipulations are available to demonstrate multiple Poisson patterns.  The replacement of disc-2 of Fig. 17-B with a large, opaque barrier containing a partially silvered mirror in the shape of a narrow ring should allow the creation of primary, reflective, and downstream Poisson patterns.  The type annuli surrounding the geometric shadow as shown in Fig. 7-A would not be present for the downstream pattern since the primary signal would be eliminated at the circular, partially silvered mirror.  In this situation the ring patterns would develop in accordance with the Young-type interference protocol over the entire range of the images (Fig. 7-B).  The reflective secondary signal from disc-2 would spread into the domain of the primary signal not obscured by disc-1.

If a circular aperture, along the centerline, of appropriate dimension were created in a greatly expanded disc-2, the secondary pulson pattern reported by Kelley et al (Kelly, W. R., Shirley, E. L., Migdall, A. L., Polyakov, S. V., and Hendrix, K. American Journal of Physics 77(8):  713-720.) should be created at the screen (Fig. 17-C) as a companion to a reflective Poisson spot.  The edges of the aperture are mechanistically functioning in a similar manner to the edges of the disc-1 and the enlarged disc-2 as an opaque barrier that sequesters all but the aperture signals at the screen and back of disc 1.

Research and analyses by Kelly et al (Kelly , W. R., Shirley, E. L., Migdall, A. L. Polyakov, S. V., and Hendrix, K. American Journal of Physics 77(8): 713-720.) support Fresnel’s theory for diffraction; whereas, Wood (Wood, R. D. 1934. Physical Optics. The Macmillan Company, New York.) and Andrews (Andrews, C. L. 1951. A correction to the treatment of Fresnel diffraction.  American Journal of Physics 19(5): 280-284) express an inclination towards Young’s interpretations. In his book on optics (Andrews, C. L.  1960. Optics of the Electromagnetic SpectrumPrentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.  p. 300.) Andrews states Young’s theory of diffraction as follows:

“A diffraction pattern is the resultant of the unperturbed incident beam and reradiated Huygen’s wavelets from points on the edge of the aperture.”

He presents empirical equations that contain the physical ideas of Young. 

Fresnel initially supported Young’s theory of diffraction, but rejected it after experimental results that he obtained by illuminating a copper mask of the design shown in Fig. 18-A.  Fresnel reasoned that based on Young’s theory it would be expected that the diffraction fringes from slits should be brighter and have wider fringes than those created by the barrier of the upper half.  The lower fringes should be brighter because they would be caused by light scattered by four edges, whereas the upper diffraction responses would be caused by only two edges.  According to Fresnel’s interpretation Young’s theory also predicts that the lower fringes would be wider because the narrow slits have nonzero width so that the light scattered by the inner and outer edges would not have exactly the same phases.  However, Fresnel observed that fringes produced by the lower half are narrower than the fringes produced by the upper half and when the detection plane is close to the mask, the fringes produced by the lower half are brighter than those produced by the upper half.  As the detection screen is moved farther away from the mask, the intensity of the fringes produced by the lower the half of the mask decreases until it is dimmer than the intensity of the fringes produce by the upper half.   These observations led Fresnel to conclude that Young’s theory of diffraction was fundamentally flawed and he developed an enhanced version of Huygens’ principle.  (See Fig. 19-C.)  Whereas the Fresnel-Huygens model may be used to account for diffraction patterns in the forward direction, it does not account for the enhanced illumination arcs observed by Wood at the edges of boundaries (Wood, R. D. 1934.  The Macmillan Company, New York. p. 222).

In reconciling Fresnel’s observations with the pulson model, it is noted that the central barrier of the mask (ABCD of Fig. 18-A) is analogous to the barrier of Fig. 6, whereas; the slits for the lower portion, CEC’E’ and DFD’F’, are individually analogous to edges of the aperture as shown in Fig. 9.  The geometry associated with fringe generation relative to the centerline of the mask may be represented by the triangles of Fig. 18-B.   In accordance with the pulson model, although x (distance from the inside edge) is always less than y (distance from the outside edge), the slits (bottom portion of Fig. 18-A) would possess an arc exposure advantage relative to the centerline of the geometrical shadow as a function of the outside edges of the slits.  (Compare the edges of the aperture of Fig. 9 relative to the location of the geometrical shadow under the experimental conditions indicated in Fig. 18-A.)  Thus starting at zero separation between the detection screen and mask, as the distance is increased, the outside edges of the slits, C’E’ and D’F’, should exhibit constructive interference at the centerline of the geometrical shadow at a shorter distance than the edges, ACE and BDF, of the central barrier.  After illumination from the four edges initiates overlap at the centerline, the interference effects should shift as a function of distance to the screen.  The relative differences between the distances x and y of Fig. 18-B continually decreases as the distance of separation of the mask and screen increases.  As this shift occurs the different generations of criton fronts from coherent pulsons emitted at inside and outside edges pass through cycles of interference effects as a function of slit width.  If the geometry is such that as the distance between the screen and mask gets very large, the degree of constructive interference between twin slits is increasing, the illumination intensity at an appropriately great distance should exceed that of the single barrier, i.e. the top of the mask.  This contrast with the observations of Fresnel (Crew, H. 1900. The Wave Theory of Light. American Book Company. pp. 94-95) that would be expected if destructive interferences were increasing.  Utilizing an experimental design analogous to that of Fig. 18, a series of experiments varying the geometry should provide an evaluation of the pulson concept.

Pulsons emitted by an extended original source act as a population of independent, micro sources of very short, finite durations (Fig. 13-A).  Frequency, orientation (polarization), and coherence among the primary pulsons may vary in a random manner.  Although two pulson sources may interfere under appropriate conditions, the observations of interference, because of the short durations of pulsons and the relative limited sensitivity of detectors, requires a redundant pattern from a population of emitted pulsons. (See Fig. 13.)

If pulsons approach the mask (Fig. 18-A) in a planer fashion (Fig. 2-E) with parallel criton fronts, the possibility exist for the creation of coherent secondary pulson sources.  For the upper portion of the mask, ABCD, the coherent sources would be produced in pairs, whereas; in the lower portion, C’D’E’F’, the sets would occur in groups of four in linear arrays.  Each set operates non-entangled of other sets.  The interactions for two coherent sources are indicated in Fig, 3 as would be the scenario for coherent pulsons originating between the edges AC and BD of the middle barrier.

In considering the lower portions of the mask, i.e. the slits, there would be four entangled edge pulsons with six combinations for pairs (Fig. 18-A) that individually would provide the patterns of Fig. 3.  However, when distances to the screen are in the appropriate ranges the constructive interference among the four entangled pulsons from the slits edges is maximized and exceeds that from two-edge combinations.  The combinations of arcs of pulsons from the outside edges and the outside with inside edges of opposite slits for coherent quartets form more acute angles with the centerline than those from the inside edges (Fig. 18-C).  This geometry creates narrow, bright zones for the center of the constructive interference fringes whose width should be a function of distance of the mask from the observation screen.  Narrower signal widths should occur when the observation screen is closer to the plane of the slits.

An approach orientation also occurs that produces entangled secondary pulsons in sets of three when the plane (polarization) of the pulsons occurs across the diagonals AC’ versus D’F and BD’ versus C’E. 

Kelly et al noted that Young’s theory predicts the existence of the Poisson spot, but also predicts that the intensity of the spot would change with the radius of the obstruction because a larger circumference would allow more light to be deflected toward the center, creating a brighter spot (Fig. 19-A & B).  However, for individual pulsons confined to a planes from a point source, centered on the disc, the number of diametric, secondary coherent pulsons created at the edges of a disc from a point source should remain constant as the size is increased (Fig 2-E and Fig. 32-B).  The intensity of the Poission spot remains constant if the radius of the disc is sufficiently small that the deflection angles are small (Kelly, W. R., Shirley, E. L., Migdall, A. L., Polyakov, S. V., and Hendrix, K. American Journal of Physics 77(8) p. 715).

In summary, diffraction effects for barriers and apertures within the pulson model, posses components from secondary pulsons that are induced in the barrier edges by a primary signal.  Such secondary pulsons are produced in circular arcs.  Thus the diffraction pattern of a slit upon which a plane wave is incident normally is an interference pattern between three waves, a plane wave through the slit and two, phase-delayed, cylindrical waves from the edges (Fig. 9 and Fig. 10).  When a wide barrier is utilized the activated edge pulson creates an illumination band extending from the edge into the geometrical shadow and an interference pattern outside the geometrical shadow by interactions of primary and secondary signals (Fig. 4-B and Fig. 5).  If the dimensions of the barrier are sufficiently narrow, mutually created coherent pulsons at opposite edges by the primary signal interfere in the shadow zone with each other and individually or mutually outside the shadow zone with the primary signal as a function of the separation distance between the barrier and the detection screen (Fig. 6).

Hecht (Hecht, E. 2002. Optics, 4th ed. Addison-Wesley, San Francisco, p. 512) notes that the superposition of a boundary diffraction wave and the primary wave create conditions that should yield the observed diffraction patterns as originally proposed by Young.  He supposes a situation in which oscillating electrons create essentially the same radiation patterns as those proposed for the edge-activated macrons that emit pulsons.  Hecht also presents a brief historical review of the development of mathematical analyses that support the concept of boundary diffraction waves, i.e. Young’s model.   Hecht’s proposal is consistent with Andrews’ conclusion (Andrews, C. L. 1951. A correction to the treatment of Fresnel diffraction.  American Journal of Physics 19(5): p. 280.) that by utilizing Young’s theory, i.e. the diffraction pattern of the aperture is derived from an interference pattern between the incident wave and secondary waves from the edge of the aperture, the positions of maxima and minima intensities may be predicted not only in the Fresnel region but also behind the aperture and in the plane of the aperture itself.  The pulson model provides a physical basis for the origins of the secondary waves and reconciles Fresnel’s objections to Young’s theory based on diffraction effects observed with the diffraction mask show in Fig. 18.  The pulson model also accounts for a specific phase relationship between the primary and secondary pulsons (Fig. 4 B) that is consistent with interference patterns observed with Lloyd’s mirror.



While contemporary science is able to account for most optical phenomena, it is not because we have a finished theory as much as that we better understand the limitations of our current views.  As noted earlier laws and theories are not logical necessities but empirical associations derived from observations in the distributions of matter.  A motivation undergirding the discussion presented herein is to seek a common structure within which the functionally of contemporary laws and theories related to the nature of light can be understood. This approach is somewhat different from seeking to directly support or disprove a theory

At a focal position in our physical laws is the mediation of energy.  Lurking within granular matter there exist a source of energy designated “rest energy”.  In contemporary physics, electromagnetic radiation appears to emanate from expression points for the apparent inter conversion of matter and energy.  This constitutes the domain of a crucial pivotal concept. Within the theory, The Criton Oscillator Model (COM), from which portions of this article have been extracted, matter and energy have been separated into distinct, different entities [U. components]. An argument is presented that our ignorance of the crossover zone [zones] has allowed the development of the mass-energy-inter-conversion concept.

The pulson concept provides a structure within which the pivotal concepts indicated below [1*-6*], that when first considered seem to possess internal inconsistencies, can be understood. (References to segments within the text that help to reconcile apparent contradictions are identified.)

Pivotal Concepts (*) and underpinnings

1* - Matter and energy are inter-convertible, i.e. E0 = m0c2.

2* - The speed of light c is independent of the motion of the source or observer.

3* - Light is both a wave and a particle – the dual nature of light.

4* - A light signal traveling in a vacuum at c undergoes a reduction in speed when it enters a transparent medium, but resumes the speed c upon exit back into the vacuum.

5* - Regardless of the intensity of a source, the velocity of energy released never exceeds c, and the emission of the electromagnetic radiation component from a source only occurs at c.

6* - In the area of optics, signal transmissions may be represented by rays, which may change directions, be divided, and recombined.

The excited macron composed of a criton swirl and an oscillating focal body has been proposed as a source of pulsons (energy) that accounts for apparent rest energy (Fig. 1)-[1* & 5*], the velocity and physical structure of light (Fig. 1), its apparent constant value, c, to all observers (Cases II – IV coupled with the fact that the speed of light has not been determined between two non-synchronized reference frames.  See next paragraph.)-[2* & 5*], the wave nature of light (Fig. 3)-[3*], rays utilized in geometric optics (Fig. 14, Fig. 15 and Fig. 16)-[6*], the photon phenomenon (Case IX, Fig. 6 and Fig. 8)-[3*], complementarity (Case IX and Fig. 8)-[3*], an explanation for reflection, refraction, and Snell’s law (Fig. 2 andFig. 14 and Fig. 15)-[4*], and the apparent conversion of matter into energy (illusion created by the unrecognized crossover zone)-[1*].  (zones)

  The measurements of Romer and Bradley (Andrews, C. L. 1960.  Optics of the Electromagnetic spectrum.  Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. p. 76-81.)  provided evidence that the velocity of light is finite.  In studying the periods of Jupiter’s satellites, Romer discovered that the measured periods were dependent on the velocities of the earth toward and from Jupiter.  Bradley while measuring the positions of “fixed” stars identified an effect he called aberration, related to the relative movement of his telescope as a function of the earth’s orbit.  He noted that the positions of the observed stars appeared to move in a small circles related to the orbit of the earth.  These types of experiments, if conducted with the sensitivity of modern equipment in a “vacuum”, should provide the potential to measure changes in the relative velocity of light between a source and an observer located on non synchronized reference frames.  However, once the light signal enters a medium, it acquires a velocity dependent on the medium’s refractive index with a frequency related to the relative velocity of the medium and source.  Upon exit to a vacuum the velocity, c, is manifested relative to to the medium from which it exited at the frequency that existed within the medium (Fig. 2).  Thus there should be an expressed difference in frequencies for the incoming signals of light that corresponds  to the relative movement between the earth and a celestial body.

Although an explanation based on the pulson model has been presented to account for observations interpreted to indicate that the photon phenomenon possesses both wave and particulate properties, the apparent wave nature of electrons and larger particles has not been addressed.  Prior to such an endeavor, structures for the electron and proton are proposed.  It would seem in principle that the frequencies expressed by electrons should be possible from an appropriately excited macron (Fig. 1).

  Can the hypothetical macron be connected with an identifiable physical structure that connects it with previously conducted experiments? Otherwise it occupies a nebulous zone not unlike that of the Huygens generator.  How do the criton swirls of macrons get recharged?  It would seem that the structure and properties of pulsons should be directly related to their sources. The fields associated with the conceptual development of electrostatic and magnetic forces appear to emanate from charges and to pervade the space that surrounds them; whereas the production of electromagnetic radiation is a byproduct of excited or “disturbed” charges.  That is an anticipated location for supporting evidence for the criton swirl and the crossover zone, and it is the subject for PC Blog 2-charges.