Jim Kelley wrote:
But my statement is nevertheless
honest, truthful, and factual. What part of it do you feel is
contradicted by physical laws?

I find it strange that Hecht's definition of "interference"
doesn't even mention your alleged cause of the interference,
i.e. superposition. From "Optics", by Hecht in his own
bold italics:

"Optical interference corresponds to the interaction of
two or more light waves yielding a resultant irradiance
that deviates from the sum of the component irradiances."

One might argue that "the interaction of two or more light
waves" is superposition but why didn't Hecht choose
"superposition" instead of "interaction"? And a
"correspondence" of interference to the interaction of
the waves certainly doesn't imply cause and effect. It
seems instead to imply an inseparability between the
interference and the interaction of the waves which
is of course obvious.

Hecht seems to treat the superposition principle as more
of a set of rules to be followed by the interfering waves
than an actual act. FYI, the definition of "superpose"
doesn't mention EM waves at all.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com