Science > Physics > Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Aleksandr Timofeev" |
| Date: |
17 Sep 2004 04:50:46 AM |
| Object: |
Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
I hardly perceive physical sense of the article written
in the "Nature" by Burke B.F.:
Burke B.F., Quantum Interference Paradox, Nature, 223, 389-390, 1969.
-------------------------------------------------------------
There is no direct physical process of addition "of waves / photons"
passing through "slots or telescopes" in VLBI!
-------------------------------------------------------------
The interference fringes (picture) in VLBI (interferometer) is pure
mathematical abstraction, since the construction of an interference
pattern is carried out in the computer.
Dear colleagues physicists!
Whether you can describe / solve in more detail problems
of a self-interference of a photon in VLBI:
1. "Detections" of signals? ;
2. "Recording" of signals? ;
3. "Additions" of signals? ;
....
and so on?
Dear colleagues, be sure and not hide in obscurity
"quantum Paradox of a self-interference of a photon in VLBI"
---
Best Regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev
.
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
17 Sep 2004 08:54:37 AM |
|
|
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409170150.20c7b82b@posting.google.com...
I hardly perceive physical sense of the article written
in the "Nature" by Burke B.F.:
Burke B.F., Quantum Interference Paradox, Nature, 223, 389-390, 1969.
-------------------------------------------------------------
There is no direct physical process of addition "of waves / photons"
passing through "slots or telescopes" in VLBI!
-------------------------------------------------------------
The interference fringes (picture) in VLBI (interferometer) is pure
mathematical abstraction, since the construction of an interference
pattern is carried out in the computer.
Dear colleagues physicists!
Whether you can describe / solve in more detail problems
of a self-interference of a photon in VLBI:
1. "Detections" of signals? ;
2. "Recording" of signals? ;
3. "Additions" of signals? ;
...
and so on?
Dear colleagues, be sure and not hide in obscurity
Rotate one of the polarizers and let us know if the signal is blocked.
You are playing the same song, let's see if you added a new stanza.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aleksandr Timofeev" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
21 Sep 2004 04:52:19 AM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<x0C2d.184803$4o.2674@fed1read01>...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409170150.20c7b82b@posting.google.com...
I hardly perceive physical sense of the article written
in the "Nature" by Burke B.F.:
Burke B.F., Quantum Interference Paradox, Nature, 223, 389-390, 1969.
-------------------------------------------------------------
There is no direct physical process of addition "of waves / photons"
passing through "slots or telescopes" in VLBI!
-------------------------------------------------------------
The interference fringes (picture) in VLBI (interferometer) is pure
mathematical abstraction, since the construction of an interference
pattern is carried out in the computer.
Dear colleagues physicists!
Whether you can describe / solve in more detail problems
of a self-interference of a photon in VLBI:
1. "Detections" of signals? ;
2. "Recording" of signals? ;
3. "Additions" of signals? ;
...
and so on?
Dear colleagues, be sure and not hide in obscurity
Rotate one of the polarizers and let us know if the signal is blocked.
You are playing the same song, let's see if you added a new stanza.
David A. Smith
Dear David A. Smith!
There are two theories of an interference phenomenon
of electromagnetic waves:
1. A wave point of view and
2. A photon point of view.
1. A wave point of view.
The problems does not exist for classic wave interpretation
of an interference phenomenon in VLBI an interferometer.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7FEB199721013402%40kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
2. A photon point of view.
From a photon point of view, the photon can be gripped by one
and only by one radio telescope from two radio telescopes of VLBI.
**********************************************
Now Dear David A. Smith
you should describe YOURS the physical mechanism
of a self-interference of a photon in VLBI.
**********************************************
From my point of view, you can not describe
the physical mechanism of a phenomenon of
a self-interference of a photon in VLBI,
since any your "interpretation" will be foregone
to contain logic and physical ERRORS of explanation
of the physical mechanism of a phenomenon of
a self-interference of a photon in VLBI.
---
Best Regards
Aleksandr Timofeev
=====================================================
P.S. ADDITIONAL INFO:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=77vg46%24mai%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (twa@alpha.dnttm.rssi.ru)
Subject: Re: Length of wavetrain of a single photon
View: Complete Thread (190 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
Date: 1999/01/18
In article <368a3615.14460797@kcbbs.gen.nz>,
(Ray Tomes) wrote:
I am wondering whether any attempt has ever been made to measure the
wave train length and amplitude profile of a single photon?
To explain what I mean by this, consider Young's two slit experiment and
the resulting interference for the case where the photon rate is very
low and we may consider that essentially all observed events are self
interference of single photons.
On my sight, for consideration of an offered problem from all points of
view; the most approaching measuring instrument is the microwave
interferometr with superlong basis - VLBI. I would name this type of an
interferometer as an interferometer with independent registration of signals
in shoulders. Fundamentally any other interferometer by nothing differs from
an interferometer considered below.
Principles of work VLBI
The microwave interferometr with superlong basis consists of two radio
telescopes were on a very large distance from each other. Before experiment
or after him, the nuclear hours are synchronized. Each radio telescope writes
on a videotape a transformed radiation accepted by an antenna. Simultaneously
with a signal, the scores of time received from the standard of frequency,
are written on a videotape.
After ending experiment we have two videotapes with entries of a signal
and scores of time. The "interference picture" is received after data
processing of these videotapes on the computer.
There are two graphic schemes illustrating the description:
The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 1.
Block scheme.
-> radio-telescope 1
->
-> parabolic antenna tape 1 clock 1
-> \
-> \ [ microwave ]
-> \ [ receiver + ] [videotape] [hydrogen ]
-> ) )--->[analog-to-digital]--->[recorder ]<---[frequency]
-> / [ converter ] ^ ^ [standard ]
-> / | |
-> / radio-signals time-marks
-> microwave
-> radiation
-> for synchronization of atomic clocks
-> [transportable caesium]
-> [ frequency standard ]
[snip] ====================================================================
-> radio-telescope 2
->
->
-> parabolic antenna 2 tape 2 clock 2
-> \
-> \ [ microwave ]
-> \ [ receiver + ] [videotape] [hydrogen ]
-> ) )--->[analog-to-digital]--->[recorder ]<---[frequency]
-> / [ converter ] ^ ^ [standard ]
-> / | |
-> / radio-signals time-marks
->
->
->
.. The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 2.
.. ----------------------------------------------------------
.. "Interference picture"
.. ^
.. |
.. [videotape 1] ------> [ COMPUTER ] <---------- [videotape 2]
.. ^ ^
.. | |
.. radio-telescope 1 <- synchronization clocks -> radio-telescope 2
.. Length of basis
.. |<----------------------------- {snip} ------------------------------->|
.. /^\ /^\
..^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ {snip} ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
..| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Noise microwave radiation
Flexible possibilities of a computer interference of signals.
1. Our interferometer has the right and left shoulders. The distance
between shoulders does not influence sensitivity of an interferometer. The
sensitivity of an interferometer to a signal is determined by the worse
receiver from both radio telescopes.
- The distance between shoulders of an interferometer can be no matter
how large. (This problem is reduced to a problem of transportation of clocks
of a synchronization).
2. The addition of signals is carried out in the computer, that allows
to apply no matter how complicated algorithms of addition of signals.
- In that specific case, we can arbitrary vary delay of signals in each
from a shoulders in any direction.
Conditionality of physical concept " an Interference picture ".
Here we shall be convinced of a celebration of a principle of a causality.
The events happening on slots of an interferometer have primary significance,
all other events happening in an interferometer have the status
secondary.
Let's analyze physical concept addition of signals in an interferometer.
The radiation incident on an input of an interferometer has the following
performances:
Wavefront; Frequency band; Spectral fluence of energy;
For each frequency:
Polarization; Amplitude; Phase; Stability.
The interferometer considered by us, is an interferometer with
independent registration of signals in shoulders and the process of addition
of signals is carried out in the computer. The phrase " process of addition
of signals is carried out in the computer " allows clearly to seize essence "
concepts of an interference picture " and source of an origin of this
concept. In the given type of an interferometer there is some arbitrariness
in choice by us of the law of addition of signals from the right and left
shoulders. In our case " the kind of an interference picture " depends on
the concrete law of addition of signals selected by us. In other kinds of
interferometers geometry (physical) construction of an interferometer
determines the law of addition of signals and " a kind of an interference
picture ".
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
21 Sep 2004 08:57:26 AM |
|
|
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409210152.5fe7ea15@posting.google.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:<x0C2d.184803$4o.2674@fed1read01>...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409170150.20c7b82b@posting.google.com...
I hardly perceive physical sense of the article written
in the "Nature" by Burke B.F.:
Burke B.F., Quantum Interference Paradox, Nature, 223, 389-390, 1969.
-------------------------------------------------------------
There is no direct physical process of addition "of waves / photons"
passing through "slots or telescopes" in VLBI!
-------------------------------------------------------------
The interference fringes (picture) in VLBI (interferometer) is pure
mathematical abstraction, since the construction of an interference
pattern is carried out in the computer.
Dear colleagues physicists!
Whether you can describe / solve in more detail problems
of a self-interference of a photon in VLBI:
1. "Detections" of signals? ;
2. "Recording" of signals? ;
3. "Additions" of signals? ;
...
and so on?
Dear colleagues, be sure and not hide in obscurity
Rotate one of the polarizers and let us know if the signal is blocked.
You are playing the same song, let's see if you added a new stanza.
David A. Smith
Dear David A. Smith!
There are two theories of an interference phenomenon
of electromagnetic waves:
1. A wave point of view and
2. A photon point of view.
1. A wave point of view.
The problems does not exist for classic wave interpretation
of an interference phenomenon in VLBI an interferometer.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7FEB199721013402%40kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
2. A photon point of view.
From a photon point of view, the photon can be gripped by one
and only by one radio telescope from two radio telescopes of VLBI.
**********************************************
Now Dear David A. Smith
you should describe YOURS the physical mechanism
of a self-interference of a photon in VLBI.
Self-interference is well documented, Alexsandr.
So you have not added a new stanza.
Good luck to you.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aleksandr Timofeev" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
22 Sep 2004 04:12:04 AM |
|
|
Dear David A. Smith!
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<9rW3d.212272$4o.63326@fed1read01>...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
[snip]
Dear colleagues physicists!
Whether you can describe / solve in more detail problems
of a self-interference of a photon in VLBI:
1. "Detections" of signals? ;
2. "Recording" of signals? ;
3. "Additions" of signals? ;
...
and so on?
Dear colleagues, be sure and not hide in obscurity
[snip]
You are playing the same song, let's see if you added a new stanza.
David A. Smith
Dear David A. Smith!
There are two theories of an interference phenomenon
of electromagnetic waves:
1. A wave point of view and
2. A photon point of view.
1. A wave point of view.
The problems does not exist for classic wave interpretation
of an interference phenomenon in VLBI an interferometer.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7FEB199721013402%40kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
2. A photon point of view.
From a photon point of view, the photon can be gripped by one
and only by one radio telescope from two radio telescopes of VLBI.
**********************************************
Now Dear David A. Smith
you should describe YOURS the physical mechanism
of a self-interference of a photon in VLBI.
Self-interference is well documented, Alexsandr.
Then, please Dear David A. Smith
quote any fragment of paper, which one yields exposition
of a phenomenon of a self-interference of "photon" in
VLBI an interferometer (Very Long Base Interferometr).
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=13JAN200023270117%40kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
So you have not added a new stanza.
Good luck to you.
David A. Smith
---
Good luck to you.
Aleksandr Timofeev
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
22 Sep 2004 08:47:30 AM |
|
|
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409220112.3b542cef@posting.google.com...
Dear David A. Smith!
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:<9rW3d.212272$4o.63326@fed1read01>...
....
From a photon point of view, the photon can be gripped by one
and only by one radio telescope from two radio telescopes of VLBI.
**********************************************
Now Dear David A. Smith
you should describe YOURS the physical mechanism
of a self-interference of a photon in VLBI.
Self-interference is well documented, Alexsandr.
Then, please Dear David A. Smith
quote any fragment of paper, which one yields exposition
of a phenomenon of a self-interference of "photon" in
VLBI an interferometer (Very Long Base Interferometr).
No. I have done what was asked. The turn is yours.
Rotate the polarizer, or explain why detectors with polarizers at roughly
90 deg for a given source still have signal. If these were waves-only, the
signal would be lost or severely degraded. It is not, so the wave model is
still relegated to the useful but WRONG bin. So the wave-only model of
photons should be the "dance of the chimera", don't you think?
Have a nice day!
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aleksandr Timofeev" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
23 Sep 2004 04:39:39 AM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<Rnf4d.221171$4o.106415@fed1read01>...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409220112.3b542cef@posting.google.com...
Dear David A. Smith!
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:<9rW3d.212272$4o.63326@fed1read01>...
...
From a photon point of view, the photon can be gripped by one
and only by one radio telescope from two radio telescopes of VLBI.
**********************************************
Now Dear David A. Smith
you should describe YOURS the physical mechanism
of a self-interference of a photon in VLBI.
Self-interference is well documented, Alexsandr.
Then, please Dear David A. Smith
quote any fragment of paper, which one yields exposition
of a phenomenon of a self-interference of "photon" in
VLBI an interferometer (Very Long Base Interferometr).
No. I have done what was asked. The turn is yours.
Rotate the polarizer, or explain why detectors with polarizers at roughly
90 deg for a given source still have signal. If these were waves-only, the
signal would be lost or severely degraded. It is not, so the wave model is
still relegated to the useful but WRONG bin. So the wave-only model of
photons should be the "dance of the chimera", don't you think?
"Rotate the polarizer, or explain why detectors with polarizers
at roughly 90 deg for a given source still have signal."
It is the insecure assertion. The signal disappears,
but the noise remain.
Really, in this case, as according to a classic wave theory
it should be, the correlation between signals of two radio
telescopes fades.
" Without a word of warning, the correlation of signals
(between signals of two radio telescopes VLBI) fades to nothing. "
In this Case signals of two radio telescopes consist only
of noise radiation, which one have not cross correlation.
Thus, at addition of these signals in the digital computer
on wave model " the virtual mathematical interference (VLBI)"
has not a place!
"Diffraction is a single photon interfering with
itself"
Whether indivisible "photon" can to be wrote simultaneously
on two magnetic tapes, which ones are disposed simultaneously
in opposite points of a globe? >;^)
The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes in the digital computer on wave model.
Have a very nice day!
Aleksandr Timofeev
P.S.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0311290209.2a942a5a%40posting.google.com
============================================================
Alexsandr's contention is that since the detectors are situated all over
the Earth, and their detectors are "absolutely" synchronized (by later
comparisons of data streams from each detector), that only a wave could
produce simultaneous detection in each data stream.
I have challenged Mr. Timofeev to ask permission of his boss (or whatever),
to alter the orientation of the polarizer at one detector for long enough
to assure a measured effect was recorded... say five minutes. The
orientation would be to place the polarizer at 90° to another polarizer on
a remote detector. Since crossed polarizers disallow anything except
helically polarized light from passing, then the two detectors with this
orientation should then both lose signal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
23 Sep 2004 09:02:35 AM |
|
|
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409230139.4fb4c621@posting.google.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:<Rnf4d.221171$4o.106415@fed1read01>...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409220112.3b542cef@posting.google.com...
Dear David A. Smith!
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote
in
message news:<9rW3d.212272$4o.63326@fed1read01>...
...
From a photon point of view, the photon can be gripped by one
and only by one radio telescope from two radio telescopes of VLBI.
**********************************************
Now Dear David A. Smith
you should describe YOURS the physical mechanism
of a self-interference of a photon in VLBI.
Self-interference is well documented, Alexsandr.
Then, please Dear David A. Smith
quote any fragment of paper, which one yields exposition
of a phenomenon of a self-interference of "photon" in
VLBI an interferometer (Very Long Base Interferometr).
No. I have done what was asked. The turn is yours.
Rotate the polarizer, or explain why detectors with polarizers at
roughly
90 deg for a given source still have signal. If these were waves-only,
the
signal would be lost or severely degraded. It is not, so the wave model
is
still relegated to the useful but WRONG bin. So the wave-only model of
photons should be the "dance of the chimera", don't you think?
"Rotate the polarizer, or explain why detectors with polarizers
at roughly 90 deg for a given source still have signal."
It is the insecure assertion. The signal disappears,
but the noise remain.
Really, in this case, as according to a classic wave theory
it should be, the correlation between signals of two radio
telescopes fades.
" Without a word of warning, the correlation of signals
(between signals of two radio telescopes VLBI) fades to nothing. "
In this Case signals of two radio telescopes consist only
of noise radiation, which one have not cross correlation.
Thus, at addition of these signals in the digital computer
on wave model " the virtual mathematical interference (VLBI)"
has not a place!
"Diffraction is a single photon interfering with
itself"
Whether indivisible "photon" can to be wrote simultaneously
on two magnetic tapes, which ones are disposed simultaneously
in opposite points of a globe? >;^)
The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes in the digital computer on wave model.
Have a very nice day!
So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront" of
particles. How nice.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aleksandr Timofeev" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
24 Sep 2004 03:51:47 AM |
|
|
Dear David A. Smith:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<_HA4d.226996$4o.30436@fed1read01>...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409230139.4fb4c621@posting.google.com...
[snip]
So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront" of
particles. How nice.
"wavefront"
It is your remarkable step forward in an exact direction
in the theoretical analysis " self-interferences of a photon "!
But please, David do not hurry with "absorption of particles"...
Now David A. Smith, you can theoretically consider "
a wavefront of an alone photon " on two antennas
of radio telescopes of VLBI.
What can you say about
the mechanism " of self-interference of a photon "
on two antennas of radio telescopes of VLBI
simultaneously now?
---
Have a very nice day!
Aleksandr Timofeev
P.S. The notes:
1. Two antennas of radio telescopes of VLBI with two magnetic tapes
are resided simultaneously in opposite points of a globe. >;^)
2. The radio telescopes are isolated from each other spatially
and electrically by vast distance between them.
3. In VLBI there is no physical addition of signals.
" The Abstract mathematical virtual interference " is generated
by correlation handling of the numeral information from magnetic
tapes in VLBI.
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
24 Sep 2004 08:43:02 AM |
|
|
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409240051.52ab35ed@posting.google.com...
Dear David A. Smith:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:<_HA4d.226996$4o.30436@fed1read01>...
....
So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront" of
particles. How nice.
"wavefront"
It is your remarkable step forward in an exact direction
in the theoretical analysis " self-interferences of a photon "!
But please, David do not hurry with "absorption of particles"...
Now David A. Smith, you can theoretically consider "
a wavefront of an alone photon " on two antennas
of radio telescopes of VLBI.
I can consider it. As soon as you show that two polarizers looking at a
portion of the sky to which they are 90 deg, return no signal. Since you
still continue to dodge this, I must conclude you cannot consider it.
What can you say about
the mechanism " of self-interference of a photon "
on two antennas of radio telescopes of VLBI
simultaneously now?
Since you cannot get past our old sticking point, then we need go no
further.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "vonroach" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
23 Sep 2004 06:42:55 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:02:35 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes in the digital computer on wave model.
Have a very nice day!
So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront" of
particles. How nice.
David A. Smith
Which universe are these single photons found in?
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
23 Sep 2004 06:51:26 PM |
|
|
Dear vonroach:
"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vnn6l0lh4554umerf40nm3jt3os576ltad@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:02:35 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes in the digital computer on wave model.
Have a very nice day!
So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront" of
particles. How nice.
Which universe are these single photons found in?
Which single photons would you be referring to? The detectors are
sensitive to a narrow bandwidth of received light. So only single photons
can be absorbed at a detector. Classical photoelectric effect.
And now Alexsandr will feel free to bloat his post back up and draw his
little ASCII diagrams, as he did for a full year on this topic. He had no
answer then, he ignored the fact that observations can be made from areas
of the sky where two poalrizers are ostensibly at 90 deg, and so it appears
he has no answer now.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aleksandr Timofeev" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
24 Sep 2004 05:08:16 AM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear vonroach:
"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vnn6l0lh4554umerf40nm3jt3os576ltad@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:02:35 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes in the digital computer on wave model.
Have a very nice day!
So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront" of
particles. How nice.
Which universe are these single photons found in?
Which single photons would you be referring to? The detectors are
sensitive to a narrow bandwidth of received light. So only single photons
can be absorbed at a detector. Classical photoelectric effect.
And now Alexsandr will feel free to bloat his post back up and draw his
little ASCII diagrams, as he did for a full year on this topic. He had no
answer then, he ignored the fact that observations can be made from areas
of the sky where two poalrizers are ostensibly at 90 deg, and so it appears
he has no answer now.
"two poalrizers are ostensibly at 90 deg"
It is very amusing idea.
Whether you can point optical analog of an interferometer
used in the practical applications, which one will utillize
a construction of the device of an interferometer offered by you?
The hint, it is usually, that the physical devices are constructed
with the purposes better "to see" and better "to hear", but you
want to kill radiation from a source with the purposes
" to not see " and " to not hear " ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
24 Sep 2004 08:50:16 AM |
|
|
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409240208.f72a2ce@posting.google.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear vonroach:
"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vnn6l0lh4554umerf40nm3jt3os576ltad@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:02:35 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes in the digital computer on wave model.
Have a very nice day!
So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront" of
particles. How nice.
Which universe are these single photons found in?
Which single photons would you be referring to? The detectors are
sensitive to a narrow bandwidth of received light. So only single
photons
can be absorbed at a detector. Classical photoelectric effect.
And now Alexsandr will feel free to bloat his post back up and draw his
little ASCII diagrams, as he did for a full year on this topic. He had
no
answer then, he ignored the fact that observations can be made from areas
of the sky where two poalrizers are ostensibly at 90 deg, and so it
appears
he has no answer now.
"two poalrizers are ostensibly at 90 deg"
It is very amusing idea.
Whether you can point optical analog of an interferometer
used in the practical applications, which one will utillize
a construction of the device of an interferometer offered by you?
The horizon of two distant observatories can be at 90 deg to each other, in
small portions of the sky. Therefore a single wave, and single wavelet
cannot pass through both parallel-to-horizon polarizers. A stream of such
wavelets would be seriously diminished in amplitude for orientations close
to 90 deg. Since this does not happen and is not seen, *your* chimera of a
single photon absorbed at two detectors, is your next object to explain.
The hint, it is usually, that the physical devices are constructed
with the purposes better "to see" and better "to hear", but you
want to kill radiation from a source with the purposes
" to not see " and " to not hear " ...
You have made the function quite clear. You have not addressed the fact
that they are "cross oriented" in large portions of the sky, where
*intensity unaffected* observations are made.
So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront" of
particles. How nice.
Now are we going to argue this single point again for another year?
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
25 Sep 2004 01:14:32 AM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:rCV4d.228480$4o.214266@fed1read01...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409240208.f72a2ce@posting.google.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear vonroach:
"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vnn6l0lh4554umerf40nm3jt3os576ltad@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:02:35 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes in the digital computer on wave model.
Have a very nice day!
So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront"
of
particles. How nice.
Which universe are these single photons found in?
Which single photons would you be referring to? The detectors are
sensitive to a narrow bandwidth of received light. So only single
photons
can be absorbed at a detector. Classical photoelectric effect.
And now Alexsandr will feel free to bloat his post back up and draw his
little ASCII diagrams, as he did for a full year on this topic. He had
no
answer then, he ignored the fact that observations can be made from
areas
of the sky where two poalrizers are ostensibly at 90 deg, and so it
appears
he has no answer now.
"two poalrizers are ostensibly at 90 deg"
It is very amusing idea.
Whether you can point optical analog of an interferometer
used in the practical applications, which one will utillize
a construction of the device of an interferometer offered by you?
The horizon of two distant observatories can be at 90 deg to each other,
in
small portions of the sky. Therefore a single wave, and single wavelet
cannot pass through both parallel-to-horizon polarizers. A stream of such
wavelets would be seriously diminished in amplitude for orientations close
to 90 deg. Since this does not happen and is not seen, *your* chimera of
a
single photon absorbed at two detectors, is your next object to explain.
The hint, it is usually, that the physical devices are constructed
with the purposes better "to see" and better "to hear", but you
want to kill radiation from a source with the purposes
" to not see " and " to not hear " ...
You have made the function quite clear. You have not addressed the fact
that they are "cross oriented" in large portions of the sky, where
*intensity unaffected* observations are made.
So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront" of
particles. How nice.
Now are we going to argue this single point again for another year?
David; as amusing as your discussions with this turkey are; it is
interesting to note the onus is on this idiots head. It is not enough to
note that experiments done with real VLBI arrays can be explained without
resort to the quantum hypotheses due to the how small such a quantum would
be (at least I am not aware of such experiments) but to show it is
inconsistent with the quantum hypothesis. As long as no experiment
contradicts a hypotheses then it is still valid. Many experiments have
demonstrated the existence of photons - none have contradicted it.
Thanks
Bill
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "vonroach" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
25 Sep 2004 04:07:05 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:14:32 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
wrote:
Many experiments have
demonstrated the existence of photons -
Beams of a single lone photon? Which is absorbed by two filters.
Sounds like only chicken stew made with the shadow of a chicken left
for the last absorber. The paradox seems to lie more in your fantasy
than in reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
25 Sep 2004 04:54:39 PM |
|
|
"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p6nbl0t3ujkpokljri5nv730drsva3kuoe@4ax.com...
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:14:32 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
wrote:
Many experiments have
demonstrated the existence of photons -
Beams of a single lone photon? Which is absorbed by two filters.
Then you do not understand what QM says. It says the wavefuntion of a
single photon - (which is what is meant by the beam of a single photon) will
be absorbed by one antenna - the antenna that absorbs it being determined
statistically by the square of the amplitude of its wavefuntion.
Sounds like only chicken stew made with the shadow of a chicken left
for the last absorber. The paradox seems to lie more in your fantasy
than in reality.
Sounds like a crank that refuses to think. Please make the effort to view
the following link.
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/SinglePhotonInterference.html
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aleksandr Timofeev" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
29 Sep 2004 05:08:55 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:<zOl5d.4341$5O5.2380@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p6nbl0t3ujkpokljri5nv730drsva3kuoe@4ax.com...
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:14:32 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
wrote:
Many experiments have
demonstrated the existence of photons -
Beams of a single lone photon? Which is absorbed by two filters.
Then you do not understand what QM says. It says the wavefuntion of a
single photon - (which is what is meant by the beam of a single photon) will
be absorbed by one antenna - the antenna that absorbs it being determined
statistically by the square of the amplitude of its wavefuntion.
It is exact idea, that " the chimerical photon " is absorbed only
by one and only by one radio telescope of VLBI.
For a self-interference " of a mythical photon " has not
great value by what concrete of two radio telescopes
of VLBI absorbs " a mythical photon ".
============================================================
According to Feynman, " the mythical photon " being absorbed
in any of radio telescopes VLBI IS OBLIGED to self-interfere.
============================================================
Now you should give a physical analog of the mechanism for a
self-interference " of a mythical photon " in spatially and
electrically
isolated radio telescopes, when the interference sample is gained
by abstract evaluations in the digital computer on the basis of data
from two magnetic tapes. >;^)))
NOTE especially for Bill Hobba:
In VLBI there is NO DIRECT physical addition of IRRADIATIONS
from miscellaneous parts of "wavefront".
Sounds like only chicken stew made with the shadow of a chicken left
for the last absorber. The paradox seems to lie more in your fantasy
than in reality.
Sounds like a crank that refuses to think. Please make the effort to view
the following link.
;^)))
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/SinglePhotonInterference.html
;^)))
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aleksandr Timofeev" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
06 Oct 2004 05:24:04 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:<zOl5d.4341$5O5.2380@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p6nbl0t3ujkpokljri5nv730drsva3kuoe@4ax.com...
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:14:32 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
wrote:
Many experiments have
demonstrated the existence of photons -
Beams of a single lone photon? Which is absorbed by two filters.
Then you do not understand what QM says. It says the wavefuntion of a
single photon - (which is what is meant by the beam of a single photon) will
be absorbed by one antenna - the antenna that absorbs it being determined
statistically by the square of the amplitude of its wavefuntion.
It is exact idea, that " the chimerical photon " is absorbed only
by one and only by one radio telescope of VLBI.
For a self-interference " of a mythical photon " has not
great value by what concrete of two radio telescopes
of VLBI absorbs " a mythical photon ".
============================================================
According to Feynman, " the mythical photon " being absorbed
in any of radio telescopes VLBI IS OBLIGED to self-interfere.
============================================================
Now you should give a physical analog of the mechanism for a
self-interference " of a mythical photon " in spatially and
electrically isolated radio telescopes, when the interference
sample is gained by abstract evaluations in the digital
computer on the basis of data from two magnetic tapes.>;^)))
NOTE especially for Bill Hobba:
In VLBI there is NO DIRECT physical addition of IRRADIATIONS
from miscellaneous parts of "wavefront".
Sounds like only chicken stew made with the shadow of a chicken left
for the last absorber. The paradox seems to lie more in your fantasy
than in reality.
Sounds like a crank that refuses to think. Please make the effort to view
the following link.
;^)))
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/SinglePhotonInterference.html
;^)))
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "vonroach" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
26 Sep 2004 09:23:11 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:54:39 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
wrote:
"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p6nbl0t3ujkpokljri5nv730drsva3kuoe@4ax.com...
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:14:32 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
wrote:
Many experiments have
demonstrated the existence of photons -
Beams of a single lone photon? Which is absorbed by two filters.
Then you do not understand what QM says. It says the wavefuntion of a
single photon - (which is what is meant by the beam of a single photon) will
be absorbed by one antenna - the antenna that absorbs it being determined
statistically by the square of the amplitude of its wavefuntion.
Sounds like only chicken stew made with the shadow of a chicken left
for the last absorber. The paradox seems to lie more in your fantasy
than in reality.
Sounds like a crank that refuses to think. Please make the effort to view
the following link.
Most quantum concepts use statistics. But the statistics of a single
photon sound a trifle boring, either as a wave or particle. After
absorption it only gets worse.
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
28 Sep 2004 06:08:12 PM |
|
|
"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sujdl094o16ora18u12mtqd0fskrmqppgt@4ax.com...
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:54:39 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
wrote:
"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p6nbl0t3ujkpokljri5nv730drsva3kuoe@4ax.com...
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:14:32 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
wrote:
Many experiments have
demonstrated the existence of photons -
Beams of a single lone photon? Which is absorbed by two filters.
Then you do not understand what QM says. It says the wavefuntion of a
single photon - (which is what is meant by the beam of a single photon)
will
be absorbed by one antenna - the antenna that absorbs it being determined
statistically by the square of the amplitude of its wavefuntion.
Sounds like only chicken stew made with the shadow of a chicken left
for the last absorber. The paradox seems to lie more in your fantasy
than in reality.
Sounds like a crank that refuses to think. Please make the effort to
view
the following link.
Most quantum concepts use statistics. But the statistics of a single
photon sound a trifle boring, either as a wave or particle. After
absorption it only gets worse.
So the validity of a scientific theory is determined by your emotional
response to it. Got it.
Bill
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
25 Sep 2004 05:30:59 PM |
|
|
"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p6nbl0t3ujkpokljri5nv730drsva3kuoe@4ax.com...
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:14:32 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
wrote:
Many experiments have
demonstrated the existence of photons -
Beams of a single lone photon? Which is absorbed by two filters.
Sounds like only chicken stew made with the shadow of a chicken left
for the last absorber. The paradox seems to lie more in your fantasy
than in reality.
That's a vonroach fantasy. A photon can't be absorbed
by more than one antenna. QM predicts the probability
for absorption by one antenna or the other, but not for both.
vonroach displays delusions of competence for all to see. To
be unaware of such requires that ignorance be compounded
by stupidity.
[Old Man]
.
|
|
|
| User: "vonroach" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
26 Sep 2004 09:26:43 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:30:59 -0500, "Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net>
wrote:
"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p6nbl0t3ujkpokljri5nv730drsva3kuoe@4ax.com...
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:14:32 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
wrote:
Many experiments have
demonstrated the existence of photons -
Beams of a single lone photon? Which is absorbed by two filters.
Sounds like only chicken stew made with the shadow of a chicken left
for the last absorber. The paradox seems to lie more in your fantasy
than in reality.
That's a vonroach fantasy. A photon can't be absorbed
by more than one antenna. QM predicts the probability
for absorption by one antenna or the other, but not for both.
vonroach displays delusions of competence for all to see. To
be unaware of such requires that ignorance be compounded
by stupidity.
[Old Man]
Goodness old fellow, I just wanted to be sure to attach the proper
antenna to my set, to record this non existent absorbed photon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aleksandr Timofeev" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
29 Sep 2004 11:07:37 AM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<rCV4d.228480$4o.214266@fed1read01>...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409240208.f72a2ce@posting.google.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear vonroach:
"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vnn6l0lh4554umerf40nm3jt3os576ltad@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:02:35 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes in the digital computer on wave model.
Have a very nice day!
So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront" of
particles. How nice.
Which universe are these single photons found in?
Which single photons would you be referring to? The detectors are
sensitive to a narrow bandwidth of received light. So only single
photons
can be absorbed at a detector. Classical photoelectric effect.
And now Alexsandr will feel free to bloat his post back up and draw his
little ASCII diagrams, as he did for a full year on this topic. He had
no
answer then, he ignored the fact that observations can be made from areas
of the sky where two poalrizers are ostensibly at 90 deg, and so it
appears
he has no answer now.
"two poalrizers are ostensibly at 90 deg"
It is very amusing idea.
Whether you can point optical analog of an interferometer
used in the practical applications, which one will utillize
a construction of the device of an interferometer offered by you?
The horizon of two distant observatories can be at 90 deg to each other, in
small portions of the sky.
The astronomers always realize preliminary planning of joint
experiments for VLBI. They evaluate coordinates of a studied source
for each radio telescope on given interval of time. The telescopes
continuously accompany with a studied source on given interval of time
with continuous compensation (neutralization) of proper motion and
gyration of the Earth in space.
For these reasons the Polarizers always have coaxial orientation.
For these reasons the Polarizers always have coaxial orientation
for reaching maximum energy effect for VLBI an interference.
Therefore a single wave, and single wavelet
cannot pass through both parallel-to-horizon polarizers. A stream of such
wavelets would be seriously diminished in amplitude for orientations close
to 90 deg. Since this does not happen and is not seen, *your* chimera of a
single photon absorbed at two detectors, is your next object to explain.
The hint, it is usually, that the physical devices are constructed
with the purposes better "to see" and better "to hear", but you
want to kill radiation from a source with the purposes
" to not see " and " to not hear " ...
You have made the function quite clear. You have not addressed the fact
that they are "cross oriented" in large portions of the sky, where
*intensity unaffected* observations are made.
So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront" of
particles. How nice.
Now are we going to argue this single point again for another year?
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
29 Sep 2004 06:51:30 PM |
|
|
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409290807.65cd451e@posting.google.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:<rCV4d.228480$4o.214266@fed1read01>...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409240208.f72a2ce@posting.google.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear vonroach:
"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vnn6l0lh4554umerf40nm3jt3os576ltad@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:02:35 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
<N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously
both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes in the digital computer on wave model.
Have a very nice day!
So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront"
of
particles. How nice.
Which universe are these single photons found in?
Which single photons would you be referring to? The detectors are
sensitive to a narrow bandwidth of received light. So only single
photons
can be absorbed at a detector. Classical photoelectric effect.
And now Alexsandr will feel free to bloat his post back up and draw
his
little ASCII diagrams, as he did for a full year on this topic. He
had
no
answer then, he ignored the fact that observations can be made from
areas
of the sky where two poalrizers are ostensibly at 90 deg, and so it
appears
he has no answer now.
"two poalrizers are ostensibly at 90 deg"
It is very amusing idea.
Whether you can point optical analog of an interferometer
used in the practical applications, which one will utillize
a construction of the device of an interferometer offered by you?
The horizon of two distant observatories can be at 90 deg to each other,
in
small portions of the sky.
The astronomers always realize preliminary planning of joint
experiments for VLBI. They evaluate coordinates of a studied source
for each radio telescope on given interval of time. The telescopes
continuously accompany with a studied source on given interval of time
with continuous compensation (neutralization) of proper motion and
gyration of the Earth in space.
For these reasons the Polarizers always have coaxial orientation.
For these reasons the Polarizers always have coaxial orientation
for reaching maximum energy effect for VLBI an interference.
Citation please. This will effectively place nearly half of the Unvierse
out-of-reach at a particular time of the year, and I find this hard to
believe.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aleksandr Timofeev" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
30 Sep 2004 09:46:25 AM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409300540.7110ebe2@posting.google.com...
Dear David A. Smith:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:<6UH6d.261582$4o.233150@fed1read01>...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409290807.65cd451e@posting.google.com...
[snip]
Citation please. This will effectively place nearly half of the
Unvierse
out-of-reach at a particular time of the year, and I find this hard to
believe.
You can find almost all answers to problems, tormenting you,
concerning to VLBI here:
http://www.merlin.ac.uk/user_guide/OnlineMUG/
*I* am only tormented by one who believes that photons are not particles.
Even though he cannot also explain the photoelectric effect, using
resonance or anything else he has brought up. So I provide you with
conundra that your obsession will need to face.
Dear David A. Smith :
Please, Look at Subject:
"Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI"
David A. Smith evaded the real issues in his report.
Citation please, David about a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI...
Do not evade
EM as wave-only is a chimera. ;>)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=on7k2tz3uo.fsf%40cow.physics.wisc.edu
============================================================
From: Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Date: 25 Oct 2003 10:20:15 -0600
Organization: U. Wisc. Madison Physics -- Compact Objects
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:20:16 +0000 (UTC)
"dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> writes:
No detectable consequences. Determination of self-interference of a single
photon is not possible. Only for a population of photons is a statistical
distribution measureable.
Taken at its face value, this statement is not correct. The very
clever experiment by Grangier et al [ref. 1], first devised a
mechanism to select for single photons using a pair of calcium
transitions and a coincidence window. These "single" photons were
then passed, one at a time, through a Michelson interferometer, and
fringes were produced! I.e., the photon interfered with itself.
The point is that addition of the interferometer introduces
uncertainty over which arm the photon passed through, and is thus
quantum probabilistic arguments play a role.
CM
1. Grangier, P., Roger, G. & Aspect, A. 1986, Europhys. Lett., 4, 173
============================================================
Comment please, David A. Smith about a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI...
Do not evade
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
30 Sep 2004 07:01:28 PM |
|
|
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409300646.7363d008@posting.google.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409300540.7110ebe2@posting.google.com...
Dear David A. Smith:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote
in
message news:<6UH6d.261582$4o.233150@fed1read01>...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0409290807.65cd451e@posting.google.com...
[snip]
Citation please. This will effectively place nearly half of the
Unvierse
out-of-reach at a particular time of the year, and I find this hard to
believe.
You can find almost all answers to problems, tormenting you,
concerning to VLBI here:
http://www.merlin.ac.uk/user_guide/OnlineMUG/
*I* am only tormented by one who believes that photons are not particles.
Even though he cannot also explain the photoelectric effect, using
resonance or anything else he has brought up. So I provide you with
conundra that your obsession will need to face.
Dear David A. Smith :
Please, Look at Subject:
"Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI"
David A. Smith evaded the real issues in his report.
Citation please, David about a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI...
You have stopped at recorded detections from antennae that have polarizers
that are at 90 deg to each other. You are still on the hook. Your song
has still not changed. Nor your tactics.
Do not evade
Ditto.
EM as wave-only is a chimera. ;>)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=on7k2tz3uo.fsf%40cow.physics.wisc.edu
============================================================
From: Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS
Date: 25 Oct 2003 10:20:15 -0600
Organization: U. Wisc. Madison Physics -- Compact Objects
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:20:16 +0000 (UTC)
"dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> writes:
No detectable consequences. Determination of self-interference of a
single
photon is not possible. Only for a population of photons is a
statistical
distribution measureable.
Taken at its face value, this statement is not correct. The very
clever experiment by Grangier et al [ref. 1], first devised a
mechanism to select for single photons using a pair of calcium
transitions and a coincidence window. These "single" photons were
then passed, one at a time, through a Michelson interferometer, and
fringes were produced! I.e., the photon interfered with itself.
The point is that addition of the interferometer introduces
uncertainty over which arm the photon passed through, and is thus
quantum probabilistic arguments play a role.
CM
1. Grangier, P., Roger, G. & Aspect, A. 1986, Europhys. Lett., 4, 173
============================================================
Comment please, David A. Smith about a Self-Interference of a Photon in
VLBI...
Do not evade detection of signals with polarizers at (or very close to) 90
deg. Your recited post is not pertinent to the subject at hand. Plane
polarized photons cannot pass through polarizers at 90 deg to each other,
and provide a very reduced intensity for angles near 90 deg. Yet this is
not observed from those portions of the sky.
Therefore the data are consistent with a stream of photons, some of which
end up in two separate locations.
Do not evade. As usual.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aleksandr Timofeev" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
01 Oct 2004 05:23:32 AM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<r717d.277883$4o.75150@fed1read01>...
[snip]
"dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> writes:
No detectable consequences. Determination of self-interference of a
single
photon is not possible. Only for a population of photons is a
statistical
distribution measureable.
Taken at its face value, this statement is not correct. The very
clever experiment by Grangier et al [ref. 1], first devised a
mechanism to select for single photons using a pair of calcium
transitions and a coincidence window. These "single" photons were
then passed, one at a time, through a Michelson interferometer, and
fringes were produced! I.e., the photon interfered with itself.
The point is that addition of the interferometer introduces
uncertainty over which arm the photon passed through, and is thus
quantum probabilistic arguments play a role.
CM
1. Grangier, P., Roger, G. & Aspect, A. 1986, Europhys. Lett., 4, 173
============================================================
Comment please, David A. Smith about a Self-Interference of a Photon in
VLBI...
Do not evade detection of signals with polarizers at (or very close to) 90
deg. Your recited post is not pertinent to the subject at hand. Plane
polarized photons cannot pass through polarizers at 90 deg to each other,
and provide a very reduced intensity for angles near 90 deg. Yet this is
not observed from those portions of the sky.
Therefore the data are consistent with a stream of photons, some of which
end up in two separate locations.
It is exact idea, that " the sci-fi chimerical photon " is absorbed
only by one and only by one radio telescope of VLBI.
For a self-interference " of a mythical photon " has not
great value by what concrete of two radio telescopes
of VLBI absorbs " a sci-fi mythical photon ".
============================================================
According to Feynman, " the mythical photon " being absorbed
in any of radio telescopes VLBI IS OBLIGED to self-interfere.
============================================================
Now you should give a physical analog of the mechanism for
a self-interference " of a sci-fi mythical photon "
in spatially and electrically isolated radio telescopes,
when the interference sample is gained
by abstract evaluations in the digital computer
on the basis of data from two magnetic tapes. >;^)))
NEXT NOTE
" "dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> writes:
Determination of self-interference of a single
photon is not possible. "
It is remarkable recovery of natural physical sight.
==============================================
The "Sci-fi PHOTON" loss is past recovery!
Now there has occurred time to do deductions
about fundamental conceptual fallacies in QM and QED.
The most Famous Prize in a physics "IS WON" ERRONEOUS SOME TIMES!
They are obliged to return money and GLORY!!!
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
01 Oct 2004 08:30:35 AM |
|
|
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0410010223.69f3a226@posting.google.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:<r717d.277883$4o.75150@fed1read01>...
[snip]
"dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> writes:
No detectable consequences. Determination of self-interference of a
single
photon is not possible. Only for a population of photons is a
statistical
distribution measureable.
Taken at its face value, this statement is not correct. The very
clever experiment by Grangier et al [ref. 1], first devised a
mechanism to select for single photons using a pair of calcium
transitions and a coincidence window. These "single" photons were
then passed, one at a time, through a Michelson interferometer, and
fringes were produced! I.e., the photon interfered with itself.
The point is that addition of the interferometer introduces
uncertainty over which arm the photon passed through, and is thus
quantum probabilistic arguments play a role.
CM
1. Grangier, P., Roger, G. & Aspect, A. 1986, Europhys. Lett., 4, 173
============================================================
Comment please, David A. Smith about a Self-Interference of a Photon
in
VLBI...
Do not evade detection of signals with polarizers at (or very close to)
90
deg. Your recited post is not pertinent to the subject at hand. Plane
polarized photons cannot pass through polarizers at 90 deg to each
other,
and provide a very reduced intensity for angles near 90 deg. Yet this
is
not observed from those portions of the sky.
Therefore the data are consistent with a stream of photons, some of
which
end up in two separate locations.
It is exact idea, that " the sci-fi chimerical photon " is absorbed
only by one and only by one radio telescope of VLBI.
For a self-interference " of a mythical photon " has not
great value by what concrete of two radio telescopes
of VLBI absorbs " a sci-fi mythical photon ".
============================================================
According to Feynman, " the mythical photon " being absorbed
in any of radio telescopes VLBI IS OBLIGED to self-interfere.
============================================================
Now you should give a physical analog of the mechanism for
a self-interference " of a sci-fi mythical photon "
in spatially and electrically isolated radio telescopes,
when the interference sample is gained
by abstract evaluations in the digital computer
on the basis of data from two magnetic tapes. >;^)))
NEXT NOTE
" "dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> writes:
Determination of self-interference of a single
photon is not possible. "
It is remarkable recovery of natural physical sight.
==============================================
The "Sci-fi PHOTON" loss is past recovery!
Now there has occurred time to do deductions
about fundamental conceptual fallacies in QM and QED.
The most Famous Prize in a physics "IS WON" ERRONEOUS SOME TIMES!
They are obliged to return money and GLORY!!!
Since you have evaded the near-90 degree polarization issue, I will let you
words be the last on this subject. I will not participate in another year
long debate with you, only to end up back here.
Good luck to you.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aleksandr Timofeev" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI |
06 Oct 2004 10:34:08 AM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0410060309.16b3f5d4@posting.google.com...
Dear David A. Smith:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:<%Zc7d.281665$4o.51128@fed1read01>...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0410010223.69f3a226@posting.google.com...
[snip]
It is exact idea, that " the sci-fi chimerical photon " is absorbed
only by one and only by one radio telescope of VLBI.
For a self-interference " of a mythical photon " has not
great value by what concrete of two radio telescopes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
