Re: Narrow-mindedness and insolence of "Optics Connumications" editors

The geometric representation of spin for an elliptic polarized wave

_____________________________________________________

A very general form of electromagnetic waves is the so called elliptic
polarized light.
The electrical field of the propagating beam or plane wave rotates around
the propagation direction
on an ellipse. This is called the real valued interpretation of light
according to Maxwell theory.

In order to visualize the spin of an elliptic polarized wave we draw an
ellipse onto an paper in a
x - y coordinate system. The center of the ellipse we locate at the origin.
The big semiaxis of the the
ellipse we call a1 and rotate the ellipse so that a1 is oriented in y
direction.. The small semiaxis we call
a2 and it looks in x direction.
The field of this light beam rotates with contsant angular velocity around
this ellipse ether clockwise or
counterclockwise. The electric field vector at any time is a vector from the
origin to a point on the ellipse.
(The wave propagates in z direction).


The energyflux of this plane wase is given by the formula

S = a abs(E)**2 and is pointing in propagation direction.. In the following
we set a = 1.

Then

S = abs(E)**2 = a1**2 + a2**2

According to pythagoras a1'**2 + a2**2 = a3**2 where a3 is the hypothenuse
of the rectangle.

Thus we have S = a3**2 is the energy flux.

What is spin now ? As i said any elliptic polarized wave carries spin. In
our simple picture
the spin simply is the area of rectangle a1 * a2.

The correct formula is:

L = sgn * a1 * a2 / w

w = 2 Pi v and v the frequency of rotation of the field.
a1 * a2 is the area of the rectangle between big and small semiaxis of the
ellipse.

L shows in direction of propagation or the opposite. For clockwise rotation
of the electric field
L shows in direction of propagation. Hence here the sign sgn = +1.
For counterclockwise rotation of the electric field the Spin L shows
oppostite to the direction of
propagation. Hence here the sidn sgn = - 1.

If you set the rotation angular frequency w = 1 and only view clockwise
rotating light beam, then
you have simply

L = a1*a2

The spin simply is the area of the rectangle of big and small semiaxis of
the ellipse. Thats the
geometric representation of spin of an elliptic electromagnetic wave.

In the special case of linear polarized light a2 = 0. Therefore linear
polarized light carries no spin.


Best regards

Josef Matz

josefmatz@xxxxxxxx



<khrapko_ri@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1152934238.411073.246380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Narrow-mindedness and insolence of OC editors are boundless. Dr. Kawata
could move forward through four lines of my paper only since March 22,
2006
Nevertheless he wrote:

"The paper under consideration is erroneous. The spin of an
electromagnetic field is a well known concept, but the ratio of energy
to spin is equal to angular frequency for the circular polarized plane
wave only. So the formula (1.2) of the R.I. Khrapko paper is wrong
because according to this formula E/L=\omega for the radiation of
rotating electric dipole, but this radiation is not the circular
polarized plane wave." And this is his message wholly.

Dr. Kawata ignored a common knowledge. A. Corney, for example, wrote:

"We have E/L=\omega. By introducing the factor h we are able to
interpret this classically-derived relation in terms of the quantum
theory. We see that each quantum h\omega of circularly-polarized light
emitted by an oscillating dipole moment transport a z-component of
angular momentum of h." (A. Corney, "Atomic and Laser Spectroscopy",
Oxford University Press, 1977, page 42).

I referred to the Corney's book. There is no objection against this
fact anywhere. Dr. Kawata could find this knowledge in Landau -
Lifshitz's "The Classical Theory of Fields" which was referred to as
well. Dr. Kawata could find the same information simply in R. A.
Meyers, "Encyclopedie of Physics Science and Technology", v. 2, p. 266
(N.Y., AP, 1987) which was referred to as well.

BTW, Dr. Kawata could know nothing because I calculated the energy and
the angular momentum emitted by a rotating dipole in detail in Sect. 2
of my paper, but Dr. Kawata could move forward through four lines of my
paper only.

No sense of my paper is accessible for Dr. Kawata.
Meanwhile, in the paper "A rotating electric dipole radiates spin and
orbital angular momentum" I show that, according to the standard
electrodynamics, a rotating electric dipole emits angular momentum
mainly into the equatorial part of space situated near the plane of the
rotation where polarization of the radiation is almost linear. Polar
regions situated near the axis of rotating are scanty by the angular
momentum, although they are intensively illuminated by the almost
circularly polarized radiation, which must carries spin angular
momentum. A conclusion is made that the electrodynamics sights orbital
angular momentum only and overlooks spin. This means that the
electrodynamics is not complete. I use a spin tensor and calculate the
whole angular momentum flux radiated by the dipole.

I think Dr. Kawata and Dr. Narducci represent dadaism in Physics.

I wrote on March, 23 2006:
"None is so blind as they who will not see.

I wrote to Prof. Kawata that a publication of referees' comments will
raise the responsibility of referees. I supposed he was afraid that I
should make a laughing-stock of his referees. He answered nothing

I wrote that Prof. Kawata received a description of a wonderful
phenomenon, a transmission of classical spin to a perfect mirror. He
answered nothing

I wrote, Prof. Kawata's statement that my paper does not address issues
that fall within the scope of our journal is a lie. I have no reply.

I wrote to Prof. Nardicci that his report blatantly contradicts a style
of referee reports because there are no objections in it. He presented
no objections.

In a paper "Inner incompleteness of the Maxwell electrodynamics"
D-3715 (submitted on 22 Sep 2002) I proved that a light beam, in
reality, carried the double angular momentum compared to standard
theory. Prof. Nardicci made no judgment on the correctness or technical
aspects of this paper.

I have no evidences that editors of OC can understand a physical text.
The maximum of their understanding is a sentence: "Your manuscript
contains too many controversial comments."
My resume is: my worse suspicions are confirmed. Editors of OC are not
interested in physics; they are interested in the stability of their
status among editors and referees only. And what is more, I think the
policies of Optics Communications not to publish official conclusions
of other journals means an existence of collusion for the sake of
corporate interests, which differ from interests of science.

The Editors of OC had a chance to understand and to support my work.
They missed this chance. They rejected my papers many times, and Prof.
Lorenzo Narducci rejected the papers as Associate Editor Physical
Review A as well. The number 351 is a disgrace of OC rather than my
pride.

Nevertheless, I continue my research of OC. I send a new paper, "A
rotating electric dipole radiates spin and orbital angular momentum" to
Prof. Rene Dandliker, Editor OC."

Unfortunately, my research of OC turned out to be sad.

Radi Khrapko

P.S. These papers are published at www.sciprint.org,
www.mai.ru/projects/mai_works/ and mp_arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 03-315



.