return to updates

Evanescent Waves

by Miles Mathis
First published August 24, 2013

From Wikipedia:
An evanescent wave is a near-field wave with an intensity that exhibits exponential decay without absorption as a
function of the distance from the boundary at which the wave was formed. Evanescent waves are a general
property of wave-equations, and can in principle occur in any context to which a wave-equation applies.
As usual, that is false. Although we will see that this is a phenomenon that takes place in the near field,
one problem the mainstream has is in its definition of the near field. We are told the near field is very
near currents and charge separations, but from my theory of charge channeling, we now know that the
near field is the field near the nucleus (or ion). It is near because the charge channeling out of the ion
or nucleus has not dissipated due to distance yet. Therefore, the near field is mainly defined by charge
density, not by the current interpretation of the wavefunction. We could say it is defined by
Schrodinger's old definition of the wavefunctionwhich was based on charge densitybut since the
mainstream never accepted that definition, the mainstream is lost here from the first word. When they
say an evanescent wave is a general property of wave-equations, they are diverting you into
quantum mechanical explanations which dodge mechanics entirely.
We have proof of that already, since they tell you that a wave can exhibit exponential decay without
absorption. The problem is that they are proposing an exponential decay without a physical cause.
Experiments seem (to them) to indicate exponential decay, so they propose it without providing you
with any cause. In fact, all logic (and thousands of other experiments) would indicate that light cannot
exhibit exponential decay unless it enters a field that increases exponentially, but that is not the claim
here. If you follow the theory closely, they never claim an exponential decay due to a field response
(or even due to spherical radiation). They claim an exponential decay because it is the only
mathematical solution they have to their equations, given their old assumptions:
We therefore conclude that the transmitted wave must be a non-vanishing solution to Maxwell's equations that is
not a traveling wave, and the only such solutions in a dielectric are those that decay exponentially: evanescent
waves.
But, as I will show below, you only need that mathematical solution when you fail to define your fields
properly and fail to define your problem properly. If you define your fields properly and understand

what is happening on a mechanical level, the solution here is simple. There are no evanescent waves,
no exponential decay of those waves, and therefore no need to push the old equations.
Before we get to that solution, I want to point out ways you should have known the current solution
could not have been right, even before I got here. Let's look at the biggest fudge in the math, for
starters. We are told,
Mathematically, evanescent waves can be characterized by a wave vector where one or more of the vector's
components has an imaginary value. Because the vector has imaginary components, it may have a magnitude
that is less than its real components. If the angle of incidence exceeds the critical angle, then the wave vector of
the transmitted wave has the form
k = kyy + kxx = iy + x
which represents an evanescent wave because the y component is imaginary. (Here and are real and i
represents the imaginary unit.)
That's a big fudge because 1) we have no indication from data that light has any imaginary sub-vector,
2) imaginary components don't imply smaller magnitudes, 3) I can explain this simply without
imaginary vectors (see below). These mathematicians are just assuming you don't know anything
about imaginary numbers, or their use in E/M field equations. They are assuming you will bite on this
it may have a magnitude less than its real exponents dodge. But if you read my paper on imaginary
numbers or study them in-depth yourself, you find that there is nothing imaginary about them at all.
Historically, the square root of negative one was used only to insert more degrees of freedom into the
equations, to make them match the degrees of freedom found in E/M field equations like Maxwell's
equations. But we are not in an imaginary field here at all, much less a negative field. Rigorously, we
aren't even talking about the square root of negative one, as in pure math. We are talking about the
square root of the ordered pair (-1,0). In the E/M field, neither i nor i2 is negative in any way: the
negative only indicates polarity. But it does not indicate a smaller magnitude, a virtual field, or
anything along those lines.
They should know this, and in fact they do know this, since we can put any sort of field meter
(electrical, magnetic) in the near field they are talking about. We can measure the field in the gap we
will find in this experiment, or we could just measure the field beyond any total internal reflection
surface. We know empirically that the light field is not exponentially decaying in any physical way
whatsoever. It is either being reflected or it isn't. We have a field boundary here, so we will find a
charge field transition, but we can manipulate that field transition to any extent we like, either by
current or pressure through that gap; so it makes no sense to talk about an exponential decay. In most
cases (where we have no substance beyond the substance that is reflecting), we will have a finite fall in
charge density. But in the experiments that led to evanescent waves, we find pressure creating a
greater charge density. In that case, we not only find no exponential decay, we find an increase.
You also have to differentiate between the light and the evanescent wave. They are telling you the
evanescent wave shows an exponential decay, but what happened to the original light? Did they ditch
it? Did they replace it with the evanescent ray? Did one create the other? What happened? What
happened is they ditched the photon and the light completely, replaced it with the evanescent wave in
the gap, and then let the evanescent ray replace the near field charge as well. You see, we wouldn't
expect the light to show exponential decay, but we would expect the charge to show limited exponential
decay (provided the first prism was emitting into an empty field). But since they don't want to talk

about charge being radiated into the gap, they replace both the light and the charge with the evanescent
wave, which they can manipulate any way they like. Neither light nor charge are strictly E/M waves
I have shown they are strictly sub-E/M waves caused by real spinning particlesbut the mainstream
theorists misdirect you into E/M because neither charge nor photons give them any field theory. You
can't get any mechanics from massless, sizeless particles with no real spin, so the best they can hope to
do here is propose a virtual wave that they can push any way they like. Fearing even that virtual wave
wouldn't be enough to misdirect you, they bring in an imaginary vector field as well.

But let us look at the actual experiment, to see what else these encyclopedia entries are hiding from
you. Evanescent waves were proposed to explain the coupling of two optical waveguides. What
are optical waveguides? In the most common experiments, they are simply something like prisms. Say
you put two prisms face to face and pass a beam through at a given angle. At that given angle, you
would find total internal reflection, and no light would pass through the gap into the second prism. But
if the two prisms are brought very close together (without touching), at a certain distance you find
coupling,which just means you find light on the same angle now passing the gap and moving on
through:

Given current theory, you can see why this might appear mysterious, and require extreme measures for
solution. But given my charge theory, you don't need any of that. Once we recognize the reality of the
charge field, we remember two things: 1) both prisms will not only contain a real charge field, they will
emit it, 2) even prior to this emission, there was charge in the ambient field. This experiment is not
done in vacuum, obviously, since we are given two large real objectswhich are admitted to be
electromagnetic elements. Electromagnetic elements are charge emitters. All objects are charge
emitters, but since they admit these objects are electromagnetic elements, both they and you should
know that the charge field is heavy here. You can call it blackbody radiation or charge, but it is the
same thing either way. You can't have a vacuum where you have large electromagnetic objects, since
even if you had a vacuum before inserting the objects, they will immediately pollute the space with
new charge. So we have charge in the gap regardless.
Now, if we bring the prisms together, we bring not only the bodies of the prisms together, we bring

their charge fields together. We also compress the charge field in the gap. If the charge emission from
the surfaces is constant and the ambient field is constant, a smaller gap necessarily indicates more
charge pressure and a higher charge density. What causes coupling is simply a combined or integrated
charge density that exceeds the charge density of either object alone. In other words, the charge density
in the gap actually becomes greater than the charge density on the surface of either prism.
How can that be? It happens because you have brought the near field of one prism into the near field of
the other. The surfaces are so close together that the atomic or molecular charge field hasn't even had
time to dissipate. If the fields are stacked that way, you have to integrate them. The mainstream admits
that coupling is strongest within 1/3 of a wavelength from the object, so they know this, in a way. And
their explanation matches mine here in many ways:
The evanescent wave coupling takes place in the non-radiative field near each medium and as such is always
associated with matter; i.e., with the induced currents and charges within a partially reflecting surface. This
coupling is directly analogous to the coupling between the primary and secondary coils of a transformer, or
between the two plates of a capacitor.
Notice they say what I say here: the near field is associated with matter. They also link this effect to
effects in transformers and capacitors, which is right. However, they say that this coupling takes place
in the non-radiative field near each medium. Why would they say that? Why non-radiative? Only
because they don't wish to use real charge to solve this. That would ruin their various maths and
theories, and simplify this problem so much that people would lose their jobs. If you let charge be a
real radiated field, you destroy the strong force, symmetry breaking, the quark models, virtual particles,
and a thousand other things. So although real radiated charge is the natural and logical assumption
here, they won't let you go there.
We see that in the subtext to the first illustration at Wikipedia (which I have borrowed under title),
which says
The charge density oscillations, when associated with electromagnetic fields, are called surface plasmon-polariton
waves.
Once you have charge as a real emission field (or recycled and channeled field), you don't need
plasmons or polaritons either, so all the guys coining these idiotic terms have to find something else to
do.
Now, if we have a boosted charge field in the gapdue to integrating the charge fields of the two
prismsthis will act to open up the atomic or molecular spacing on these two surfaces. If you change
the spacing, you have changed the angle of reflection. The photon can now get through!
Think of the reflection surface of the prism as a dashed line, where the black part of the line indicates a
real atom or molecule. In reality, what causes the photon to be reflected is neither the atom, the
nucleus, or the molecule, but it hardly matters here. What causes the reflection at the quantum level is
the effective width of the charge field emitted by the nucleus or molecule residing there, but since I
have covered that elsewhere, we can let it pass. All that matters is that we assign some spacing here,
and assign the cause of that spacing to the particular composition of the matter present. The white
between dashes then becomes space through which the photon may pass. Even there we find charge,
but it is charge with a density or direction that cannot turn our light photons.

If we have total reflection, it just means none of our photons can get through those gaps. The photon
with all its spins is simply too large to pass. Although the mainstream thinks the photon has no width,
and although even my photon has a central radius of something like 10-24m, the photon often acts like a
much larger particle, due to its linear speed and spin speed. To compute its effective size in
experiments like this, we have to scale up by c2, as I have done in many previous papers. This
physically and mathematically allows us to import both the linear speed c and the spin speed c into the
field size of the photon. And yes, this means that the individual photon expresses the wavelength, not
the wavefront or a collection of photons. One photon. We should have known that, since one visible
photon can have a magnificently large energy, one on the order of 3eV. At STP, that is around ten
times more energy than we currently give to a gas molecule.
As you know, for all practical purposes my theory dovetails with classical theory, and classical theory
in optics is still the current mechanical theory beneath quantum theoryalthough it is now used only as
a fallback position. Reflection and refraction are (roughly) caused by wavelengths in this way in
classical theory, except that of course they assign the wavelength to a wavefront, not a single photon. A
wavelength is a real size in the field, and in classical theory this wavelength interacts physically with
some structure in the field. So my theory is only a tweaking of and extension to classical theory. We
give the wavelength to one photon, scaling that length up from the real radius of the photon. We then
monitor how the angle of incidence affects the width of the gap in the medium.
What I mean by that is we notice that any gap will look smaller from an angle. Not only will it look
smaller, it will act smaller. Take a pencil and look at it right in front of you. It has an apparent width
that pretty much matches its real width. Now move that pencil two feet to one side of you, and look at
it out of the corner of your eye. It is now already almost half the apparent width it was before, and that
loss of apparent width is caused only by the angle. It is called perspective. Well, if instead of a pencil,
you make your pencil a gap, the same thing will happen: as you increase the angle you decrease the
apparent width of your gap. And if you had to go through that gap at that angle, it would not only
appear smaller, it would act smaller. If you could get through the gap in front of you, you couldn't get
through the gap at the angle. This is what is happening with light.
The photon can't get through the gap it could get through before, because the angle of incidence has
made the gap smaller. Nothing has changed in the material, only the angle has changed. The gap isn't
really smaller, it just has a smaller effective entry. If you play pool, you know all about that. It is much
easier to play a ball into a pocket if you are at no angle. If you come at it from an angle, the amount of
pocket open to the ball has shrunk.
You probably know all that, but if you don't, let it sink in before you continue. Go play a game of
pocket billiards and let the information go to your brain through your hands.
Now, once we have that in hand, we can look how the boosted charge field in the gap affects the
outcome. If we have an increase in charge density in the gap, what that means is that we have more
charge photons hitting everything in the area. This will cause an increase in charge pressure, which
will cause all gaps to increase. This is why heat tends to liquefy solids and turn liquids to gas. It
increases gaps. So the same light on the same angle that couldn't pass before can now pass. It travels
into the gap and proceeds on to the other prism.
But we still have two problems to solve. Why does the light flatten out its angle in the gap, and why
does it return to the old angle in the second prism? I hope you can see the answer is no longer difficult.
The light flattens out in the gap simply because the charge field in the gap doesn't have the same

structure as the charge field in the prisms. The prisms don't exist in the gap, so their molecular
structure doesn't determine the field structure. What does? The integrated charge field of the two
prisms, minus the molecular field. We have no molecular field in the gap, but we have an integrated
charge field that is stronger than either prism field. Since the prisms are affecting one another face to
facenot on any anglethis integration must physically and mathematically occur on a straight line
between them. In the absence of molecules in the gap, the light cannot help but follow the charge field
lines. Since light is charge and charge is light, the light cannot help but follow its own stream. The
only way it would not follow that stream is if the light were very much more energetic than the charge
field in the gap. But since we are following visible light in a boosted charge field stream, and since
charge peaks in the infrared (which is just below visible), the boosted infrared field will trump the
energy of the visible light, turning it.
You will say, Then why didn't the entry face of the prism turn the light? Isn't the charge field in the
prism stronger than the incoming light? Yes it is, and normally it will turn it. To get this angle of
reflection at the far surface requires aiming the incoming light and allowing for the turn at the first face.
Either that or aiming the incoming light so that it takes the path the prism wants it to take to start.
Now, what about the turn at the second prism, where the light returns to the original angle? That is due
to two things: 1) the second prism has the same structure and spacing as the first prism, 2) the second
prism will have an increased spacing only at its forward surface. Once you get past the integrated field,
the second prism will cool off, returning us to the characteristics of the first prism.
You will say, Yes, but what about the angle of entry? It can't be the same, can it? In this case, the
light must enter perpendicular to the second surface. Did it enter perpendicular to the first surface?
Actually, the angles do work out in this way, and this is known. This return to the original angle has
nothing to do with evanescent wave theory or my theory, and it can be done with the old classical
equations and logical postulates, so I do not need to rerun them for you. The charge field helps us
understand why the angle is the same, but it doesn't change the classical math. The angle has to do
only with the relative position of the two prisms, and it will not work if the prisms are different sizes or
different compositions. Coupling may occur in that case, but the angle will change.
Why is any of this important? Doesn't the mainstream get a lot of this right? Don't they theorize near
fields caused by the presence of matter? Don't they get the right answers at the end, numerically? Yes,
but we have seen they get a lot wrong. To explain near-field integration mechanically, you have to
have a radiated charge field. If you don't, your exponential decay takes place in a vacuum. If you
do, your exponential decay is just the decay of your spherical charge field, not of some manufactured
evanescent wave. Remember, the mainstream explanation is that,
In optics, evanescent-wave coupling is a process by which electromagnetic waves are transmitted from one
medium to another by means of the evanescent, exponentially decaying electromagnetic field.
See, no real charge field there at all. They aren't letting the charge field decay into the gap, because
they are telling you that matter is not radiating any field. As usual, they are assigning this to
electromagnetic waves in an electromagnetic field. But they are failing to distinguish between
photons and ions, or the charge field and the E/M field.
The thing is, we don't need ions in the gap here, and they know that. This is a photonic effect all the
way, with light traveling through a charge gap, so all this talk of the electromagnetic field is just

confusion or misdirection. Rigorously, this is not the E/M field, it is Maxwell's displacement field. We
can solve without E, M, B, or H here. All we need is D, as I have shown. That means that charge must
be in the gap, and that matter here must be radiating charge into the gap. That is the only way to
explain any of this mechanically.
In short, what the mainstream does is jettison both the charge field and the light ray in the gap,
replacing them with the evanescent ray, which they then back-engineer to fit math and data. As usual,
they jettison what we know is there and replace it with some abstract idea that we have no possible data
for. As we saw recently in the Drude-Sommerfeld model of electron transfer, they throw out
everything real and replace it with virtual particles in a virtual field. And they do this not only because
they cannot solve it with simple mechanics but because they wish to keep the virtual fields, for which a
lot of top guys have won Nobel Prizes. If the mainstream admitted the charge field is a real field of
real particles, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences would crumble and fall into the Baltic Sea.
Another problem is the way they desperately try to link this to tunneling, although nothing is tunneling
through anything here, and I have to think they know that. To this day, they need to link real
experiments to tunneling in order to give some ballast to the idea, and thereby to quantum mechanics as
a whole, but there has never been an experiment that indicated tunneling in any way. Every experiment
over eight decades that they have offered as an indication of tunneling indicated tunneling about as
strongly as this experiment: which is to say not at all. Tunneling has been the fudge you have been sold
as the solution, but it never made any physical sense from the time of Bohr. It should have been clear
way back then that particles going places the equations could not put them was indication the equations
were wrong, and needed to be fixed. But rather than do that, the old guys just pushed them in these
hamhanded ways, jettisoning the particles and fields we knew were there and replacing them with
manufactured particles, fields and math.
They say that these newer experiments with evanescent waves are equivalent to tunneling, except with
E/M waves doing the tunneling instead of quantum-mechanical wavefunctions.
But even this
sentence of theirs betrays their disconnection from real physics. Notice they have two non-physical
things tunneling. In the second instance they have math doing the tunneling. The wavefunction is a
piece of math. Are they really suggesting that a piece of math is tunneling? In the first instance, they
are suggesting that a wave is tunneling. Well, a wave is not just math, but it is just a shape on a
background, by definition. How is that shape tunneling? Shouldn't the wave have to be created by
something real, like a photon or electron? In which case they should say a photon or electron is
tunneling. They don't say that. Why not? Because they can't make it work without a radiated and real
charge field. They don't want a real radiated charge field, and they don't want to have to follow real
particles like photons and electrons. That is too hard and it limits their freedom to theorize wildly and
do fudgy math. So they stick with unassigned fields and poorly assigned maths, although far simpler
answers have long been available. And since I came along, they can no longer claim that mechanical
answers are impossible at the quantum level (as Bohr assured them). I have found the answers and
offered them to the mainstream on a silver platter, and they still prefer to look away. That is not
ignorance, that is just orneriness.