Greatest mathematical holographic explanation ever?

[Din]

DE dependance on polarization,

Do you have a reference for this?

[BobH]

DE dependance on polarization,

Do you have a reference for this?

I posted it here before and you "hand-waved" it away saying you "didn't have that book". Look it up.

I posted pics of the pages of the book on the facebook holography forum page. Look it up.

Rich Rallison got it right and you just can't handle that.

[Din]

Do you have a reference from a peer reviewed paper in a recognised journal or a recognised (text)book?

The DE cannot be based on polarisation because the efficiency of any system in which an energy interchange takes place is based on the ratio of the energy out to energy in:

η = energy out/energy in.

It's a scalar quantity.
You wouldn't understand, but opinion by an uneducated person is simply that, an opinion. An opinion from stupid egocentric people is simply that - an opinion. If you want any parameter of a holographic system based on optical physics, you have to give a reference from a peer reviewed paper in a recognised journal or an established (text)book.

"One of the most important hologram characteristics is it's diffraction efficiency η. It is defined as the diffracted intensity E(i) of the wanted diffraction order of the hologram in relation to the incident intensity of the reconstruction beam: η = E(i)/E(r)"
"Silver-Halide Recording Materials", H. I. Bjelkhagen (author's italics), page 60. Part of the Springer Series in Optical Sciences

Notice, Hans only mentions intensities, polarisation is not mentioned.

Also, Hans expression for the DE of a thick volume hologram (below). Notice, polarisation is not mentioned. Personally, I think Hans Bjelkhagen's derivation of the DE is more acceptable than stupid people's opinions. There's nothing to do with being able to "handle" anything, it's physics and it's mathematics.To put it in another way, it's what science deniers cannot accept.

Hans.jpg (134.57 KiB) Viewed 505 times

[BobH]

I won't engage with you until you acknowledge my reference and can discuss only it.

You won't, because it proves you wrong and verifies Rich's and my direct observations and measurements.

[Din]

Stephen Benton's expressions for the DE of a hologram. Stephen Benton was a professor of holography at the Massachusett's Institute of Holography, you may have heard of it. It educates students in the physics of holography, not the ramblings of stupid people with opinions, nor the ramblings of science deniers. Notice, polarisation is not mentioned

Benton.jpg (145.3 KiB) Viewed 504 times

[Din]

P. Hariharan's (CSIRO Division of Applied Physics, Sydney, Australia) statement of DE. Notice, no mention of polarisation.

Hariharan.jpg (60.82 KiB) Viewed 504 times

[Din]

"Introduction to Holography" , Vincent Toal (Director of the Center for Industrial and Engineering Optics, Dublin Institute of Technology)

Notice, no mention of polarisation

Toal.jpg (120.51 KiB) Viewed 504 times

[Din]

I won't engage with you until you acknowledge my reference and can discuss only it.

You won't, because it proves you wrong and verifies Rich's and my direct observations and measurements.

Sure, if your source is from a peer reviewed paper in a recognised scientific journal, or a (text)book from an author who is from a faculty in physics or engineering in a recognised university. Stupid people can give any opinion they like, it doesn't make it valid.

[BobH]

None of what you just posted is from the reference I gave you., proving my point.