Author: Richard ClarkRichard Clark
Date: Mar 9, 2008 21:33
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:13:54 -0500, Mike Coslo
youknow.comcast.net> wrote:
> Coherent light is not the half of it!
>
>We are both more and less advanced than we might think.
Hi Mike,
Coherence has become a shallow rhyming proof rendered as
"SoThereIt's!" (a mumbled qed). It is a convenience of a special
solution which requires artificial constraints that over the course of
"debate" have become necessary correlatives to a general "law" of
optics. In fact, few have examined what "coherence" actually means,
but instead it has been Xeroxed by Cecil into the argument.
Both Mike and Tom have been able to disconnect this term as one of
necessity for monochromaticity (not required) and instantaneity (also
not required). This lack of requirement (that requirement having been
artificially injected into the discussion) is historically exhibited
in work going beyond 100 years old. The first work was with
sun/starlight that is neither pulsed nor monochromatic, and yet and
all, interference was clearly found which led us to this discussion.
| 
