The end of Bohr's complementarity principle?
Quantum Mirror
on the Bohr complementarity principle.Coherent laser light is passed
through a dual pinhole and allowed to go through a converging lens,
which forms well resolved images of the respective pinholes, providing
complete path knowledge. A series of thin wires are then placed at
previously measured positions corresponding to the dark fringes of the
interference pattern upstream of the lens. No reduction in the
resolution and total radiant flux of either image is found in direct
disagreement with the predictions of the principle of complementarity.
He also has made this offer: I would award a $1000 prize to the first
person who can show that the wavfunction of EACH image in the image
plane in the case that both pinholes are open, and the wires are
present, is a 50/50 mixture of the two wavefucntions emerging from
EACH pinhole. I claim that it is impossible to achieve this feat using
QM formalism.
At last there is a preprint ! The preprint is PDF
Somebody
It's not clear that philosophies or interpretations can be tested.
Complementarity was a stick Bohr put forward to help people get their
minds around the fact that really small things don't follow the same rules
as bigger things. If however one observes an outcome of an experiment that
is measureably different than the prediction of QM then one really has
something. There is 0 chance this experiment will yield such a result.
Anthony Cerrato
"Somebody" <m...@youmustbejoking.spam> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.10.20....@youmustbejoking.spam...
I believe that Afshar claims that his experimental results
are fully consistent with QM as far as all calculations go.
and every other way; it is, however, a rather revolutionary
change in differentiating different interprations of
QM--which I, even with my scanty knowledge, believe is
highly significant. If he truly has falsified the CI and MWI
interpretations of QM, while allowing others, it is truly a
landmark piece of work. (It is great that a preprint is
finally available for review.) ...tonyC
Old Man
"Quantum Mirror" <jun...@pgrb.com> wrote in message
news:7b043f08.04101...@posting.google.com...
Contrary to "Quantum Mirror's" provocative claim, Afshar
explicitly demonstrates that his experimental results are in
quantitative accord with those of QM.
From a reading of the paper, Old Man could find no fault
with Afshar's experimental method nor with his quantum
mechanical calculations. However, the light source was
that of coherent laser light, whereof no attempt was made to
distinguish between the results of coherent photon-photon
interference and that of photon self-interference.
This is a serious flaw
because the Principle of Complementarily, whereof wave
and particle natures are said to be mutually exclusive in
photon self interference, clearly doesn't apply to coherent
photon-photon interference.
[Old Man]
zigoteau
Hi, Quantum,
As you say, at last there is a preprint! It's quite detailed, so I
don't want to make a definitive judgement until I have thought
thoroughly about what he has written. However, I do have a few
preliminary comments.
Firstly, contrary to various media statements, the incorporation of
the wire grid definitely does make a difference to the scan of Fig. 7,
where the edges of each of the pinholes have a distinctly different
shape to that in the grid-free scan of Fig 2. The fact that the
centres of the pinhole images in Fig 2 has the same asymmetric blip is
perhaps due to the detector characteristics, or to some irregularity
in the setup not shown in the diagrams, e.g. supporting arms, etc.
Secondly, the striations apparent in Figs 8b and 8c are too highly
correlated to be measurement noise, and are perhaps due to
irregularities in the wire grid. It is a pity that these Figures are
not accompanied by a 1D intensity scan. The edges of the image do not
seem to be as sharp as in Fig 2, indicative of some loss of numerical
aperture. The mirrors apparent in Figure 8 are in fact probably quite
small.
He has given the dimensions of the experimental setup in the text. It
is a pity that the dimensions are not shown together in a figure to
give some sort of an overview. I will have to do this myself. I would
be surprised if there were departures from the predictions of QM, so
that the Everett Multiple Worlds interpretation is certainly not ruled
out. I will have to ponder, but I would also be surprised if the
Copenhagen Interpretation is ruled out.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Quantum Mirror
Yes but from this "stick" and many years of pounding students over the
head with it, has come some idiotic ideas. Grown, logical, intelligent
men of science believing that trillions of universes are created every
second! I don't think this experiment is even questioning QM. It just
takes us back to the drawing board to find out how QM really works. I
don't think philosophies is a word that should even be used in a
science forum.
Somebody
So if, as Afshar expects, the experimental outcome is
exactly what the standard QM formalism predicts what
have we learned that was not already know? Answer:
nothing. If one may differentiate interpretations with
this experiment then one interpretation is not consistent
with the formalism and is therefore not an interpretation
but rather wrong theory.
Somebody
I view the "stick" less as a weapon and more as a crutch. People of
that time just couldn't accept that objects the size of atoms obey
a different set of rules. They conflict with ones internal sense
of they way things work and after years of being beaten over the
head by Newton, it was hard to accept. So, if this experiment somehow
helps you come to grips with the way things really work I'm happy
for you. Beyond that the thing is kind of pointless.
Anthony Cerrato
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:HoydnTpPgJV...@prairiewave.com...
OK, this poor schmuck's ignorance is showing. Why doesn't
the Principle of Complementarily apply to coherent
photon-photon interference. I never heard of this (not that
that means anything.) BTW, I have read somewhere that Afshar
had now completed single photon experiments (?!) and gets
"the same results." Would this satisfy your doubts?
...tonyC
Simon Hopkins
to say is probably going to sound quite dumb. Surely Afshar's experiment is
simply measuring properties of different photons at each stage of the
experiment - those that pass prior to the lens, those after the lens and
those ejected from atoms in the mirror. So in this sense Afshar is not
really measuring complementarity of the same "object". Only if probability
functions on the same photon pass though the lens can true complementarity
be assured.
I have a crude thought experiment to answer this question. We place a lens
between the slits and the detector and pass photons one at a time through
the experiment. The closer the lens is placed to the slits the smaller will
be the overlap of the two wavefunctions. If the probability functions are
truely refracted then we would expect an interference pattern no matter how
close to the slits we place the lens. However, I expect that the photon
would be we absorbed by an atom in the lens. At this stage the multiple path
info would be lost (wavefunctions collapse and new ones are created). Thus a
photon emerging from the lens would not"know" about the slit arrangement so
no intereference pattern would be seen (instead we see two clusters).
Simon.
"Quantum Mirror" <jun...@pgrb.com> wrote in message
news:7b043f08.04101...@posting.google.com...
Old Man
news:Divdd.29363$YM4.8...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Old Man is satisfied that Afshar hasn't falsified QM and isn't
claiming to have done such. That various interpretations get
hung-up isn't of concern. That others make the claim that
Afshar's work falsifies QM is of concern.
If the same results accrue from single photo counting, then
it would appear that Afshar has placed the CP on firmer
mathematical grounds. WRT the CP, that the amplitude of
an interference pattern is modulated by a diffraction pattern
has always been troublesome to Old Man.
In order to channel the direction of radio transmissions, it's
common practice for radio stations to employ the interference
of coherently phased signals from two or more closely spaced
transmitting antennas. The antennas are fed from a common
transmitter. There would be no resulting interference pattern
if the emissions of photons from each antenna were random
WRT time.
[Old Man]
Jim Black
Some quick comments:
1) Afshar claims that knowing the intensity is zero at the minimum of
an interference pattern constitutes complete knowledge of the
interference pattern. This is clearly wrong; there is more to an
interference pattern than just a minimum and a maximum. This gives
you complete information if you assume that the intensity will vary in
an approximately sinusoidal fashion. But that's just what theory
predicts would be measured; you haven't actually measured it. If you
do try to measure the interference pattern in more detail than simply
knowing that there's a zero here, and a zero there, etc., you will
lose more which-way information.
2) Afshar claims that since no light is absorbed by the wire grid, the
grid cannot diffract photons from one pinhole over to the image of the
other pinhole, which would cause loss of which-way information. But
just because the probability that a photon is absorbed by the grid is
zero does not mean that the probability amplitude for a photon to be
diffracted by the grid is zero. It is easy to split the state of the
photon into the two components that go through each hole, and trace
the state forward through time until the time the photon is detected,
and show that there is indeed a probability amplitude for the photon
to be diffracted over to the other image. There is also a probability
amplitude that the grid will absorb a photon that went through a
particular hole, but when the amplitudes for photons from each hole
are added together, they cancel out.
Here's a very quick calculation intended to show what happens to the
state of a photon as it passes the wire grid. Here, |A> and |Z> are
the state of the photon before and after passing the wire grid, |1>
and |2> are states coming from holes 1 and 2, and |1'> and |2'> are
states going to the corresponding images, and state |abs> is the state
of a photon just absorbed.
|A> = [ 1/sqr(2) (|1'> + |2'>) 1/sqr(2) (<1| + <2|)
+ 1/sqr(2) (|1'> - |2'>) sqr(1-p) 1/sqr(2) (<1| - <2|)
+ 1/sqr(2) |abs> sqr(p) 1/sqr(2) (<1| - <2|) ] |Z>
|A> = [ 1/2 (|1'> + |2'>) (<1| + <2|)
+ sqr(1-p)/2 (|1'> - |2'>) (<1| - <2|)
+ sqr(p)/2 |abs> (<1| - <2|) ] |Z>
|A> = [ 1/2 (|1'><1| + |1'><2| + |2'><1| + |2'><2|)
+ sqr(1-p)/2 (|1'><1| - |1'><2| - |2'><1| + |2'><2|)
+ sqr(p)/2 (|abs><1| - |abs><2|) ] |Z>
|A> = [ (1+sqr(1-p))/2 |1'><1|
+ (1-sqr(1-p))/2 |1'><2|
+ (1-sqr(1-p))/2 |2'><1|
+ (1+sqr(1-p))/2 |2'><2|
+ sqr(p)/2 |abs><1|
- sqr(p)/2 |abs><2| ] |Z>
If |Z> = 1/sqr(2) (|1> + |2>),
|A> = (1+sqr(1-p))/2 |1'> 1/sqr(2)
+ (1-sqr(1-p))/2 |1'> 1/sqr(2)
+ (1-sqr(1-p))/2 |2'> 1/sqr(2)
+ (1+sqr(1-p))/2 |2'> 1/sqr(2)
+ sqr(p)/2 |abs> 1/sqr(2)
- sqr(p)/2 |abs> 1/sqr(2)
|A> = |1'> 1/sqr(2)
+ |2'> 1/sqr(2)
3) The $1000 prize is of no account, because it is clearly directed at
a straw man. While it is true that each image is formed by a mixture
of the wavefunctions from each hole, and this is easy to prove, the
mixture is obviously not 50/50.
4) Afshar should wait until after peer review before he goes taking
this claims about complementarity being disproven to the unwary
public.
--
Jim Black
"Jim Black is a stupid, lying, ignorant troll." -- Androcles
Quantum Mirror
Yes He has completed single photon experiments. Here is a link to further info:
Quantum Mirror
You can ask him questions on his blog:
http://irims.org/blog/index.php/2004/09/25/questions_welcome
ZZBunker
But the consistentcy interperation of QM is a morons
interprtation of QM. Since consistsncy has nothing
with it. Consistency only concerns idiots can
who can't read Goedel proofs, not QM. Since QM
is a complex theory of retardness, not a wave
theory of anything.
zigoteau
Hi, Quantum,
> You can ask him questions on his blog:
> http://irims.org/blog/index.php/2004/09/25/questions_welcome
Thanks for the tip.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Aleksandr Timofeev
> > Hi, Quantum,
> >
> > > Shahriar S. Afshar has found a experiment that will open a discussion
> > > on the Bohr complementarity principle.Coherent laser light is passed
> > > through a dual pinhole and allowed to go through a converging lens,
> > > which forms well resolved images of the respective pinholes, providing
> > > complete path knowledge. A series of thin wires are then placed at
> > > previously measured positions corresponding to the dark fringes of the
> > > interference pattern upstream of the lens. No reduction in the
> > > resolution and total radiant flux of either image is found in direct
> > > disagreement with the predictions of the principle of complementarity.
> > >
> You can ask him questions on his blog:
> http://irims.org/blog/index.php/2004/09/25/questions_welcome
Can I ask you questions?:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0410150149.29a4b6f2%40posting.google.com
========================================================
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (a_n_ti...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: Is light a wave or a particle?
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 2004-10-15 02:49:02 PST
Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.50.0410150850100.30358-100000@localhost>...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
>
> > Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > Have you been able to come up with any quantitative relations for
> > > photon energy, frequency, momentum, wavelength and speed in your theory? I
> > > would have expected that you would be eager to provide such, so as to
> > > facilitate comparison between your theory and experiment. Are you scared
> > > your theory might fail experimental test?
> >
> > In regard to your request
> >
> > "any quantitative relations for photon energy, frequency,
> > momentum, wavelength and speed "
> >
> > , no decision has been made officially by John Baez:
> [cut]
>
> Disregarding quantum theory, if one defines a classical photon in
> classical electromagnetic theory as (hbar * omega) of energy in a
> time-harmonic EM field (or as an almost-time-harmonic wavepacket with that
> amount of energy), one has all of the answers:
>
> E = hbar * omega (by definition)
> p = hbar * k
>
> with the free-space speed being c.
>
> These are reasonably well verified experimentally, and have the same
> relationship between energy and momentum predicted for zero-rest-mass
> particles in SR.
"if one defines a classical photon"
It is abstract mathematical definition of mathematical object.
The photon is mathematical abstraction, which in the implicit
(latent) form reflects existence of discrete power levels in
microsystems and as a corollary a capability of exchange by
electromagnetic energy between microsystems systems only
by discrete portions.
I suppose, that there is no necessity to assign simultaneously
quantum properties both light and quantum microsystems (which either
absorb or radiate light). I suppose, that it is a widespread logic
error in the base of physics.
> Treating photons as classical Newtonian point particles, one comes up with
> a different set of answers. Thus, experimental evidence argues otherwise.
The VLBI experimental evidence argues the logical proofs of
a non-existence of a photon:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0409210207.2c8d0f34%40posting.google.com
Main ideas of VLBI are:
1. A simultaneous independent recording of signals on each
separate antenna ("slot") on magnetic tapes;
2. " The interference pattern " is received in the computer
as an outcome _ mathematical _ addings of signals recorded on
magnetic tapes;
3. The distance between antennas ("slots ") of a radio (VLBI)
interferometer can exceed diameter of the Earth. (For definit
wave length limiting distances between antennas, at which the
interference pattern disappears, is not known until now!)
There are no problems for explanation of a principle of operation
of the radio interferometer with simultaneous independent writing
of signals from a wave point of view.
There are problems for explanation of a principle of operation
of the radio interferometer with simultaneous independent writing
of signals from a PHOTON point of view.
---------------------
Here for the first time clearly emerges, that for a hypothetical
particle of a photon there is no necessity to pass simultaneously
through both slots (antennas), since the virtual interference
abstractly or mathematically will be realized in the computer at
any convenient time hereafter. !!! It is the experimental fact!!!
I only deny existence of EM waves (light) as particles of photons.
>
> Jim Greenfield appears to propose a Newtonian particle model of a photon,
> apparently an extended particle since it can also carry angular momentum,
> possibly with other internal degrees of freedom. If the experimental
> evidence already available falsifies Greenfield's theory, then he might be
> able to direct his energies in more useful directions. Unfortunately, he
> appears to be most unwilling to provide any quantitative details that
> would allow comparison with experiment.
"Jim Greenfield appears to propose a Newtonian particle model
of a photon"
Look at:
"Atoms and light" by John N. Dodd (Plenum Press, New York, 1991).
Abstract of the book
"The approach is somewhat unusual in that it stresses the
quasi-classical picture, with quantized interactions, rather
than photons per se, but in the end it's a very nice treatment -
quite well written and totally non-controversial."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3BA9FE56.C591E941%40fnal.gov
AT
Anthony Cerrato
"zigoteau" <zigo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a836cacf.04102...@posting.google.com...
Yes, and the story continues... For even more discussion,
take a look at Kathryn Cramer's site (daughter of John
Cramer--John seems to support Afshar...of course, he has a
vested interest with his Transactional Interpretation of QM,
which is claimed non-falsified by Ashfar's expt.) Lotsa good
discussion at:
http://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/archives/000674.html
even though most was prior to the preprint. Makes one think
quite a bit...'taint over 'till it's over. :)) ...tonyC
Somebody
Well, that's clear.
Mike
[snip]
>
> In order to channel the direction of radio transmissions, it's
> common practice for radio stations to employ the interference
> of coherently phased signals from two or more closely spaced
> transmitting antennas. The antennas are fed from a common
> transmitter. There would be no resulting interference pattern
> if the emissions of photons from each antenna were random
> WRT time.
>
> [Old Man]
Old Man seems not to understand CP.
Mike
Quantum Mirror
He finished this paper in mid 2003 and I assure you, because if the
very controversial nature of the paper, has spent a year talking with
advisors and carefully considering every aspect of this paper. He is
not a rich man and the $1000 to him would be a billion to Bill Gates.
No straw here!!! I don't think you will find flaws with the paper in
a few minutes of reflection!!
zigoteau
Hi, Tony,
> > > You can ask him questions on his blog:
> > >
> http://irims.org/blog/index.php/2004/09/25/questions_welcome
> >
> > Thanks for the tip.
> >
> Yes,
Did you see the long contribution to that blog by Aurelien Drezet? I
read it, and decided that I really didn't need to add anything else.
I've had another look at Afshar's reprint, and can't see that it
addresses the "which way" question at all. There is only one
experiment where no lens is used, shown in Figure 1, and there a
classical diffraction pattern is reported. In all the other Figures, a
lens is used, and the intensity distribution is measured in the plane
of the pinhole images. While oscillatory behavior of the transfer
function is suggested by the shoulders of the pinhole images
(indicative of the presence of sharp edges), there is no out-and-out
interference pattern, nor would one be expected.
Just as Aurelien Drezet says, all the experimental results are in
agreement with QM, which in this particularly simple case are quite
clearcut. Afshar provides no support for any of the current
interpretations, all of which are consistent with the accepted math.
> and the story continues... For even more discussion,
> take a look at Kathryn Cramer's site (daughter of John
> Cramer--John seems to support Afshar...of course, he has a
> vested interest with his Transactional Interpretation of QM,
> which is claimed non-falsified by Ashfar's expt.) Lotsa good
> discussion at:
> http://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/archives/000674.html
> even though most was prior to the preprint. Makes one think
> quite a bit...'taint over 'till it's over. :))
Yes, I found out about Cramer as a result of Afshar's work. However I
don't think that Cramer is any improvement on Wheeler and Feynman's
original work, and I certainly don't like the way he describes things.
It's not a "transaction", or a "handshaking procedure" where the past
puts out tender feelers which the future is free to accept or reject,
followed by a mopping up operation which removes all traces of the
retrocausality conspiracy. What it *is* is a system of linear
equations involving terms from the past and the future: what is
observed is the solution to this set of equations.
Although all post-Bell papers on the subject say that retrocausality
invalidates the Bell inequality and hence allows the existence of
local acausal realistic theories as well as nonlocal causal realistic
theories, I have yet to see a detailed analysis of the EPR experiment
showing this explicitly. Cramer and Atkinson just make hand-waving
assertions. Do you or does anyone know of such an analysis?
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Mike
[snip]
>
> He finished this paper in mid 2003 and I assure you, because if the
> very controversial nature of the paper, has spent a year talking with
> advisors and carefully considering every aspect of this paper. He is
> not a rich man and the $1000 to him would be a billion to Bill Gates.
> No straw here!!! I don't think you will find flaws with the paper in
> a few minutes of reflection!!
The flaw is so basic one must be brave to notice it. The error makes
the whole thing a circus. I think Old Man (although he does not
understand CP) has almost got it because he has good intuition it
seems.
Mike
Quantum Mirror
What a statement! You must have studied every aspect of the paper and
the source material to come up with such a well referenced and
complete description of the failures in this paper. If all reviews
were as simple as this one, there would be much less confusion in
Physics. It would be simple for everyone!
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Ok I'm an amateur just beginning to train myself in QMs so what I am about
> to say is probably going to sound quite dumb. Surely Afshar's experiment is
> simply measuring properties of different photons at each stage of the
> experiment - those that pass prior to the lens, those after the lens and
> those ejected from atoms in the mirror. So in this sense Afshar is not
> really measuring complementarity of the same "object". Only if probability
> functions on the same photon pass though the lens can true complementarity
> be assured.
>
> I have a crude thought experiment to answer this question. We place a lens
> between the slits and the detector and pass photons one at a time through
> the experiment. The closer the lens is placed to the slits the smaller will
> be the overlap of the two wavefunctions. If the probability functions are
> truely refracted then we would expect an interference pattern no matter how
> close to the slits we place the lens. However, I expect that the photon
> would be we absorbed by an atom in the lens. At this stage the multiple path
> info would be lost (wavefunctions collapse and new ones are created). Thus a
> photon emerging from the lens would not"know" about the slit arrangement so
> no intereference pattern would be seen (instead we see two clusters).
> Simon.
Contrary to stereotyped physical interpretation of an interference
phenomenon of a light on two slots:
The experimental fact of existence of a "virtual interference"
in VLBI basically excludes ANY POSSIBILITY of simultaneous
passing of a photon through both slots (separate magnetic tape
for each antenna/slot). There is no ANY POSSIBILITY
in VLBI for a photon to pass simultaneously through both
slots/antennas at all!!!
============
The events happening on _slots of an interferometer have
primary significance, all _other _events happening in an
interferometer have the status secondary.
============
In a case of VLBI an interferometer, we have:
The absence of influence of a state of an electromagnetic field
in space of one slot (antenna) on a state in other one becomes
perfect obvious, since a limit of a distance between slots
(antennas) experimentally is not reached, and this distance can be
made _physically vast_ on a comparison with a wavelength.
(Earth diametr or many more)
See additional INFO:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0409210207.2c8d0f34%40posting.google.com
The events happening on _slots of an interferometer have
primary significance, all _other _events happening in an
interferometer have the status secondary.
The experimental fact of existence of a "virtual interference"
in VLBI refutes physical interpretation of an interference on two
slots of "particle - photon", which one you have described ABOVE!!!
The experimental fact of existence of a "virtual interference"
in VLBI basically excludes ANY POSSIBILITY of simultaneous
passing of a photon through both slots (separate magnetic tape
for each antenna/slot). There is no ANY POSSIBILITY
in VLBI for a photon to pass simultaneously through both
slots/antennas at all!!!
The VLBI interferometer is an interferometer
with independent registration of signals in shoulders and the
process of summation of signals is carried out in the computer.
The phrase " process of summation of signals is carried out in
the computer " allows clearly to seize essence " concepts of an
interference pattern " 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 summation of signals
from the right and left shoulders.
Then in any time, convenient for us, we input the information from
these macroscopic magnetic tapes in the computer and mathematically
on any required (demanded) algorithm (which can be changed at any
time) we obtain an interference in representation, necessary for us,
it is so called "virtual interference".
At use of the given method the "interference pattern" represents the
pure abstract information, then this information the macroscopic
computer can transform to the form accessible for the analysis by
a macroscopic system - by the person:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0204040251.53e4b391%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0410150149.29a4b6f2%40posting.google.com
Anthony Cerrato
"zigoteau" <zigo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a836cacf.04102...@posting.google.com...
> "Anthony Cerrato" <tcer...@optonline.net> wrote in
message
news:<zWNdd.35528$YM4.11...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>
> Hi, Tony,
>
>
> > > > You can ask him questions on his blog:
> > > >
> >
http://irims.org/blog/index.php/2004/09/25/questions_welcome
> > >
> > > Thanks for the tip.
> > >
>
> > Yes,
>
> Did you see the long contribution to that blog by Aurelien
Drezet? I
> read it, and decided that I really didn't need to add
anything else.
Yes, but I really haven't had any time to read all on that
page, let alone think about it. :)
I haven't gotten too far in understanding all of the
preprint and other references either, due to both time and
eyesight problems (particularly with small text and the
figures.) Fig. 8 seems to be the key but I must confess I
had hoped the paper would be a lot clearer as to
assumptions, and consequent conclusions--of course my lack
of QM knowledge is a big hindrance too. :)
I think it's important that: (1) Afshar admits that his work
does not falsify QM or its calculations in any way. That is
not his intention. and (2) he is not intending to _support_
any particular QM interpretation, but is claiming some
interpretations are indeed falsified because the traditional
CP, inherent to these interpretations, is falsified. I
haven't totally grasped his argument yet, but that doesn't
mean it's wrong.
I don't believe that, just because QM isn't falsified, all
the interpretations that are _consistent_ with QM are
automatically correct--there's no connection, in this sense,
between theories and their interpretations. In fact, it is
obvious that several, quite
different, interpretations of QM, consistent with
calculations exist, and it is illogical to think of them
_all_ as correct views.
Sure--Cramer is using a lot of terms and metaphors simply
for pedagogical purposes (he's also a great sci-fi author
which explains some of his more outré and poetic language.)
That's why he is a great teacher though. The handwaving has
nothing to do with the hard theory you describe though--we
are free to use our own metaphors here if desired without
affecting the rest.
As for the analysis you're looking for, I don't know of
any--but that doesn't mean much coming from me. Regards,
...tonyC
> Cheers,
>
> Zigoteau.
Mike
> ele...@yahoo.gr (Mike) wrote in message news:<9c1b39be.04102...@posting.google.com>...
> > jun...@pgrb.com (Quantum Mirror) wrote in message news:<7b043f08.0410...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >
> > the whole thing a circus. I think Old Man (although he does not
> > understand CP) has almost got it because he has good intuition it
> > seems.
> >
> > Mike
>
> What a statement! You must have studied every aspect of the paper and
> the source material to come up with such a well referenced and
> complete description of the failures in this paper. If all reviews
> were as simple as this one, there would be much less confusion in
> Physics. It would be simple for everyone!
Wait for the peer review. You must respect that.
The statement is clear. Refer to the post by Old Man if you can read
and understand.
Mike
Old Man
Old Man is grounded because of poor eyesight (legally
blind x 2; it's not all bad ... tax wise). A big screen and
Windows Magnifier (under Accessories / Accessibility)
helps a lot.
[Old Man]
Anthony Cerrato
Thanks Old man, sorry to hear you have eye problems too--I
still have a bit to go before claiming a tax break but it's
good to know something helps. I've tried the magnifier and
have a lotta trouble getting used to it; it's kinda clunky.
Have a 17'' monitor but changing resolution adds other
problems, like constant horiz. scrolling. I s'pose I can get
used to it all when the time comes. What really pisses me
off is it seems all websites are using smaller and smaller
fixed typesize...with cost of memory storage being so cheap,
there seems no reason for this--I'm sure it turns away more
sight limited people than any small savings that are
incurred. Ah, well...[rant over] ...tonyC
Old Man
>
> "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:TvadnbPSdph...@prairiewave.com...
> >
> > "Anthony Cerrato" <tcer...@optonline.net> wrote in
> message
> > news:tF6ed.44323$YM4.15...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > > Hi Zig,
> > >
> > > "zigoteau" <zigo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:a836cacf.04102...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Anthony Cerrato" <tcer...@optonline.net> wrote in
> > > message
> news:<zWNdd.35528$YM4.11...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> >
> > > preprint and other references either, due to both time
> > > and
> > > eyesight problems (particularly with small text and the
> > > figures.)
> >
> > Old Man is grounded because of poor eyesight (legally
> > blind x 2; it's not all bad ... tax wise). A big screen
> >and
> > Windows Magnifier (under Accessories / Accessibility)
> > helps a lot.
> >
> > [Old Man]
>
> Thanks Old man, sorry to hear you have eye problems too--I
> still have a bit to go before claiming a tax break but it's
> good to know something helps. I've tried the magnifier and
> have a lotta trouble getting used to it; it's kinda clunky.
> Have a 17'' monitor but changing resolution adds other
> problems, like constant horiz. scrolling. I s'pose I can get
> used to it all when the time comes. What really pisses me
> off is it seems all websites are using smaller and smaller
> fixed typesize...with cost of memory storage being so cheap,
> there seems no reason for this--I'm sure it turns away more
> sight limited people than any small savings that are
> incurred. Ah, well...[rant over] ...tonyC
Another Fix:
My notebook computer (hp 17" wide screen), has a
XVGA output that I hook to a 19" LCD display. It
acts as a right or left extension to the notebook screen.
One can drag a window from one display screen to the
other and run a separate application in a window on
each screen at the same time. I drag the Magnifier
window over to the extension and stretch it to fill the
entire 19" screen.
[Old Man]
hanson
> > > Old Man is grounded because of poor eyesight (legally
> > > blind x 2; it's not all bad ... tax wise). A big screen
> > >and Windows Magnifier (under Accessories / Accessibility)
> > > helps a lot.
> > >
Awe.........Yo, Old Man, I am sure sorry to hear that!
"Gifts of the golden years" some newspaper asshole called it.
So, as long as you still can see, let me bestow great praise on
you for your informative and highly entertaining participation.
You and me, we had some great cyber battles........ahahaha...
It was terrific, dude.... Thanks a millions for you playing along.
You shall remain in my memory forever. Take care, Old Man.
I love you, and I wish you all the Best,
hanson
zigoteau
Hi, Tony,
> > I've had another look at Afshar's reprint, and can't
> > see that it addresses the "which way" question at all.
> > <snip>
> I haven't gotten too far in understanding all of the
> preprint and other references either, due to both time and
> eyesight problems (particularly with small text and the
> figures.) Fig. 8 seems to be the key but I must confess I
> had hoped the paper would be a lot clearer as to
> assumptions, and consequent conclusions--of course my lack
> of QM knowledge is a big hindrance too. :)
I think all of us are in the same boat here. I'm delighted that you,
unlike many, are honest about it.
> I think it's important that: (1) Afshar admits that his work
> does not falsify QM or its calculations in any way. That is
> not his intention. and (2) he is not intending to _support_
> any particular QM interpretation, but is claiming some
> interpretations are indeed falsified because the traditional
> CP, inherent to these interpretations, is falsified.
I'm slightly reassured by that, but if that is the case, I am not
totally sure what his paper is about.
> I don't believe that, just because QM isn't falsified, all
> the interpretations that are _consistent_ with QM are
> automatically correct--there's no connection, in this sense,
> between theories and their interpretations. In fact, it is
> obvious that several, quite different, interpretations
> of QM, consistent with calculations exist, and it is
> illogical to think of them _all_ as correct views.
The problem is that QM, as it stands, clearly does not describe the
results of individual experiments. The various interpretations are
ways of relating the two. I would certainly like to hear your slant on
the Afshar experiments when you have grasped what he is trying to do.
> > and I certainly don't like the way [Cramer] describes things.
<snip>
> > Although all post-Bell papers on the subject say that
> > retrocausality invalidates the Bell inequality and hence
> > allows the existence of local acausal realistic theories
> > as well as nonlocal causal realistic theories, I have yet
> > to see a detailed analysis of the EPR experiment showing
> > this explicitly. Cramer and Atkinson just make hand-waving
> > assertions. Do you or does anyone know of such an
> > analysis?
>
> Sure--Cramer is using a lot of terms and metaphors simply
> for pedagogical purposes (he's also a great sci-fi author
> which explains some of his more outré and poetic language.)
Historically, there have been many snake-oil and used-car salesmen,
leaders of new religious cults, etc., etc., demonstrating that it is
quite possible to convince people of dubious propositions. It's just
part of the rich tapestry of life. Cramer's metaphor implies that his
handshaking process happens in a series of steps over a period of
time. I know that there are many people out there who find it
charming, but it just doesn't make sense. I suspect that these people
will never manage to analyze a specific configuration within the
retrocausal formalism.
What I did like about Cramer's paper was his demonstration that
retrocausality is not just a useful concept for dealing with the
electromagnetic field, but also for the Dirac field of electrons, etc.
I have now managed to follow through the various analyses in the first
Wheeler-Feynman paper and am fairly comfortable with the paper as a
whole. What I would now like to see is the analysis of a system with
three collinear atoms inside a cavity in an infinite absorbing medium.
I hesitate to try by myself because I fear that the integrals will
become horrendously complicated. Perhaps the cavity should not be
spherical but should be bounded by planes normal to the line joining
the atoms, but even this will not avoid a large amount of mathematical
pain.
There is something I would like to see even more than an analysis of
this system. Bell's inequality shows that it is not possible to
demonstrate a local causal hidden-variable theory, consistent with QM,
of the sort advocated by EPR. The de Broglie-Bohm theory is an example
of a nonlocal causal hidden-variable theory. While dBB theory is
absolutely consistent with Schrödinger nonrelativistic QM, it is
nonlocal, and so cannot be made Lorentz-invariant (except for the
rather pointless case of a single isolated particle). I would very
much like to see an example of a local retrocausal hidden-variable
theory. I can't even begin to imagine how it might work.
> That's why he is a great teacher though.
They say that the Ayatollah Khomeini was also a great teacher, with
enormous charisma. There are many things that can be taught besides
the truth.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Quantum Mirror
Single photon experiment was a success. You have never stated what you
think the failure is in this experiment. If I were a mind reader I
would go and claim my million dollar prize from the Amazing Randi.
http://www.irims.org/
Anthony Cerrato
Ah, I see. That's a great idea--didn't even think of doing
it that way. Thanks, again Old Man. Regards, ...tonyC
Maleki
Why..., are you going to hang yourslef?
--
gar dAyereye kuzeh ze gohar sAzand
az kuzeh borun hamAn tarAvad ke dar 'ust
Anthony Cerrato
LOL. To me, it seems like an attempt to distinguish the
various interpretations using experimental
techniques--sorta, putting them on more physical
(realistic?) grounds rather than just the
mystical mathematical formalism and metaphysical mumbo-jumbo
of the QM founders, in particular, the CI. In the process,
falsifying one or more of the various interpretations is
just gravy. Now I see in answer to one of the questions on
his site, he does not specifically claim the MWI is directly
falsified by his experiments, though he thinks others are
free to draw that conclusion (he does believe MWI is wrong
on another basis and has brought this up with Deutch (sp)
several times, presumably with no adequate response.) Cramer
seems to be one of those who believe Afshar falsifies MWI
but that is to further advance his own Transactional
interpretation.
> > I don't believe that, just because QM isn't falsified,
all
> > the interpretations that are _consistent_ with QM are
> > automatically correct--there's no connection, in this
sense,
> > between theories and their interpretations. In fact, it
is
> > obvious that several, quite different, interpretations
> > of QM, consistent with calculations exist, and it is
> > illogical to think of them _all_ as correct views.
>
> The problem is that QM, as it stands, clearly does not
describe the
> results of individual experiments. The various
interpretations are
> ways of relating the two. I would certainly like to hear
your slant on
> the Afshar experiments when you have grasped what he is
trying to do.
I definitely agree that QM is a rather muddy amalgam of many
experiments and thought problems which make an overall clear
and indisputable theory difficult to codify in a realistic
way. I think Afshar is trying to clarify that relation of
thy and interpretation based on experiment. Is it
possible--I dunno yet, but if I ever figure it out, you'll
be the first to know. :)
> > > and I certainly don't like the way [Cramer] describes
things.
> <snip>
>
> > > Although all post-Bell papers on the subject say that
> > > retrocausality invalidates the Bell inequality and
hence
> > > allows the existence of local acausal realistic
theories
> > > as well as nonlocal causal realistic theories, I have
yet
> > > to see a detailed analysis of the EPR experiment
showing
> > > this explicitly. Cramer and Atkinson just make
hand-waving
> > > assertions. Do you or does anyone know of such an
> > > analysis?
OK, and no I don't know of any.
ROTFL! I still hafta learn more about Bohmian Mechanics,
particularly as espoused today. I am still not very clear on
what real local restrictions are in the Bohm/EPR Paradox --
are there any concrete examples of a problem with anything
except where, at some point, information is necessarily
required to be delivered at equal or less than lightspeed to
translate a message? Is there really still a paradox here?
Regards, ...tonyC
> Cheers,
>
> Zigoteau.
zigoteau
Addendum:
> There is something I would like to see even more than an analysis of
> this system. Bell's inequality shows that it is not possible to
> demonstrate a local causal hidden-variable theory, consistent with QM,
> of the sort advocated by EPR. The de Broglie-Bohm theory is an example
> of a nonlocal causal hidden-variable theory. While dBB theory is
> absolutely consistent with Schrödinger nonrelativistic QM, it is
> nonlocal, and so cannot be made Lorentz-invariant (except for the
> rather pointless case of a single isolated particle). I would very
> much like to see an example of a local retrocausal hidden-variable
> theory. I can't even begin to imagine how it might work.
I've just come across what might prove to be an answer to my question,
at:
http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/TEWchap1.pdf
Only time will tell.
Cheers,
Zigoteau
hanson
news:1hywojhy3pn87.1...@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 04:53:13 GMT, hanson wrote:
> > "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> > news:e72dnUafSof...@prairiewave.com...
> >>> > Old Man is grounded because of poor eyesight (legally
> >>> > blind x 2; it's not all bad ... tax wise). A big screen
> >>> >and Windows Magnifier (under Accessories / Accessibility)
> >>> > helps a lot.
> >>> >
> > [hanson]
> > Awe.........Yo, Old Man, I am sure sorry to hear that!
> > "Gifts of the golden years" some newspaper asshole called it.
> > So, as long as you still can see, let me bestow great praise on
> > you for your informative and highly entertaining participation.
> > You and me, we had some great cyber battles........ahahaha...
> > It was terrific, dude.... Thanks a millions for you playing along.
> > You shall remain in my memory forever. Take care, Old Man.
> > I love you, and I wish you all the Best,
> > hanson
>
> Why..., are you going to hang yourslef?
> --
>
Why..., just because you have swollen from a Maleki to being Malekel?
YOU should perhaps give yourself such hanging considerations
for already having the French term "Mal" in your name and even
more so now over the German word "Ekel" ...Your name reflects
your character, Malekel, where Maleki was simply the diminutive.
.......AHAHAHAHA........ahahahahanson
Anthony Cerrato
Hmmm...looks interesting--I will try to read and understand.
Anything that begins with Einstein's famous quote will
always get my attention...(I still think, somehow, against
all odds, he will turn out to be right--the only question is
how? :)) ) Later, ...tonyC
> Cheers,
>
> Zigoteau
ZZBunker
> Shahriar S. Afshar has found a experiment that will open a discussion
> on the Bohr complementarity principle.Coherent laser light is passed
> through a dual pinhole and allowed to go through a converging lens,
> which forms well resolved images of the respective pinholes, providing
> complete path knowledge. A series of thin wires are then placed at
> previously measured positions corresponding to the dark fringes of the
> interference pattern upstream of the lens. No reduction in the
> resolution and total radiant flux of either image is found in direct
> disagreement with the predictions of the principle of complementarity.
>
> He also has made this offer: I would award a $1000 prize to the first
> person who can show that the wavfunction of EACH image in the image
> plane in the case that both pinholes are open, and the wires are
> present, is a 50/50 mixture of the two wavefucntions emerging from
> EACH pinhole. I claim that it is impossible to achieve this feat using
> QM formalism.
Bohr's interpertation never actually existed,
so there is in reality no end to it.
Since history quite simply reveals,
Bohr's interpertation of Quantum Mechanics is in
reality isomorophic to Newton's interpreation of Newtonian
Mechanics, and Einstone's interpretration of
Einstonian Mechanics, and Goedel's interpretation
of Goedel Mechancis.
All of which are as mere philosophic coincidence
and fate would have it are isomorophic to
the science drivel called Plato Mechanics.
The only interpretation of QM which is even in
any minor way any different at all from Classical Physics,
is Bohm's Interpretation of Probabilty.
Since the many-minds interprepation of QM is a mathematical
fictional stupidy that even makes politics look intelligent.
Since Bohr's theory of "observation" is exactly
the as Galileo's theory of "observation",
and Einstein's theory of "observation",
and they are all experiments, not observations.
And observational theory of physics has to
have an interactive theory of *matter*,
not a theory of light.
Which is still the leading reason that the
only observable difference on Earth between the years
2000 BC and 2000 AD, is robots, not math, science,
or philosophy pyramid drivel.
Maleki
Your own name is not that funny if you consider that's how
your tongue could manage to pronounce the Arabic name
"Hassan". Hanson, one way or another, you'll find your ass
tied to those you despise :-)
--
Freemasons = Zionists V2.35
"lAmassab"
mitch perkins
Oh say hanson - I think you give the sour little pill too much
consideration by even replying, but that's just my opinion.
Sweet post to Old Man, old man, but is he really leaving the ol' sp
behind? I couldn't find where he said good-bye, just the eyesight
thing.
Also, I still go back now & then and re-read your Dirac post, to
which Old Man replies that you blow him (Dirac) to bits. Nice. I
should have a full understanding by about 2014.
See ya,
Mitch
Gregory L. Hansen
http://www.last-names.net/surname.asp?surname=Hanson
--
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is
poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck
Old Man
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:Zsled.4763$KJ6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Thanks for the kind words, but Old Man isn't going anywhere.
Right now, Old Man's eyesight works better than the hardware
on his computer. Whilst upgrading the memory, Old Man
stupidly used a magnet (to pick-up a screw) in the proximity of
the hard drive. Can't even do a system restore or even re-format
the hard drive. Using my notebook computer right now (17" wide
screen with Windows Magnifier dragged onto a 19" XVGA LCD
extension display to the side). It's expensive, but does a good
job in compensating for the poor eyesight (20 / 400 with correction).
Never did like driving an auto, mow I can't. Never liked working
for others, now I can't. Don't miss it much either, except for the
money. Doesn't do any good to get a tax break when you don't
earn enough to pay taxes.
Sci.physics helps Old Man to keep an interest in life. Some times,
hanson makes sci.physics more interesting. Keep-up the good
work, hanson !!!
[Old Man]
Maleki
wrote:
http://www.ivillage.com/pets/petnames/meaning/?name=hans
Note that the "Hebrew"'s equivalent in Arabic is Hassan. So
"Hanson" means son of Hassan. Or Bin Hassan :-)
--
div guyad "bengarid in khAm rA"
"sarborid in morghe bihengAm rA"
'u khoruse AsmAn budeh ze pish
na'rehAye 'u hameh dar vaghte khish
"Mowlana"
hanson
Thanks for the plug. I assume it's this one here:news:OOudnXoJ7_p...@prairiewave.com...> news:SwLYc.2925$w%6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I wish I could see more and deeper, but these fucken things
have a habit to reveal themselves at their own pace.
However, I am glad to see that a few deep thinkers like you,
to take interest in that particular
line of inquiry.
Thanks again, dude
hanson
(see end of post)
"mitch perkins" <mitchs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64dddc3d.04102...@posting.google.com...
[Maleki]
> > YOU should perhaps give yourself such hanging considerations
> > for already having the French term "Mal" in your name and even
> > more so now over the German word "Ekel" ...Your name reflects
> > your character, Malekel, where Maleki was simply the diminutive.
> > .......AHAHAHAHA........ahahahahanson
>
[Perkins]
> Oh say hanson - I think you give the sour little pill [Maleki] too
> much consideration by even replying, but that's just my opinion.
[hanson]
nahw....Mehram is fun......he is trying....tooooo hard.....ahahahaha
[Perkins]
> Sweet post to Old Man, old man, but is he really leaving the ol' sp
> behind? I couldn't find where he said good-bye, just the eyesight
> thing.
>
[hanson]
I like the feisty old guy. I hope that he be able to stick around.
[Perkins]
> Also, I still go back now & then and re-read your Dirac post, to
> which Old Man replies that you blow him (Dirac) to bits. Nice. I
> should have a full understanding by about 2014.
> See ya,
> Mitch
>
[hanson]
Thanks for the plug. I assume it's this one here:
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:OOudnXoJ7_p...@prairiewave.com...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:SwLYc.2925$w%6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I wish I could see more and deeper, but these fucken things
have a habit to reveal themselves at their own pace.
However, I am glad to see that a few deep thinkers like you,
to take interest in that particular
line of inquiry.
Thanks, dude
hanson
hanson
news:clhjq6$ne6$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <16oanh38hsnjs.j...@40tude.net>,
> Maleki <male...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:31:47 GMT, hanson wrote:
> >> "Maleki" <male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1hywojhy3pn87.1...@40tude.net...
> >>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 04:53:13 GMT, hanson wrote:
> >>>> "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:e72dnUafSof...@prairiewave.com...
> >>>>>> > Old Man is grounded because of poor eyesight (legally
> >>>>>> > blind x 2; it's not all bad ... tax wise). A big screen
> >>>>>> >and Windows Magnifier (under Accessories / Accessibility)
> >>>>>> > helps a lot.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>> [hanson]
> >>>> Awe.........Yo, Old Man, I am sure sorry to hear that!
> >>>> "Gifts of the golden years" some newspaper asshole called it.
> >>>> So, as long as you still can see, let me bestow great praise on
> >>>> you for your informative and highly entertaining participation.
> >>>> You and me, we had some great cyber battles........ahahaha...
> >>>> It was terrific, dude.... Thanks a millions for you playing along.
> >>>> You shall remain in my memory forever. Take care, Old Man.
> >>>> I love you, and I wish you all the Best,
> >>>> hanson
> >>>
> >> [Maleki]
> >>> Why..., are you going to hang yourslef?
> >>>
> >> Why..., just because you have swollen from a Maleki to being Malekel?
> >> YOU should perhaps give yourself such hanging considerations
> >> for already having the French term "Mal" in your name and even
> >> more so now over the German word "Ekel" ...Your name reflects
> >> your character, Malekel, where Maleki was simply the diminutive.
> >> .......AHAHAHAHA........ahahahahanson
> >
> >Your own name is not that funny if you consider that's how
> >your tongue could manage to pronounce the Arabic name
> >"Hassan". Hanson, one way or another, you'll find your ass
> >tied to those you despise :-)
>
> http://www.last-names.net/surname.asp?surname=Hanson
>
[hanson]
Thanks, Greg. But Malekel told us in his posts a while ago
that he deeply despises Arabs as second rate citizens amongst
the "noble" Persian Iranis, one of which he claimed to be.
Then he bean to fraternize with the Israelis for the second time
about which I remained him of and it blew his cyber cover showing
that he, now Malachi, is nothing but an inept Israeli agent provocateur.
So, Malchi now being exposed as a Jews got nasty and mean, using
Old Man as the tool to paint me as an Arab Hassan who he, as
a Jew, hates with a green passion....IOW I was the lucky recepient
Malkis great double hatred.......ahahaha. They have a name for Maleki's
peculiar projection......but, we will let this one ride.......ahahaha..
AHAHAHAHA....great cyber game...ahahahaha.....ahahaha...
Thanks for the Help. Greg. Now, I gotta check out how many of my
ancestors came over on the Mayflower....another great tale
....ahahahaha........Perhaps Malachi was on it too.....ahahaha..
ahahaha....ahahanson
hanson
hanson
Ken S. Tucker
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:Zsled.4763$KJ6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Sci.physics helps Old Man to keep an interest in life. Some times,
> hanson makes sci.physics more interesting. Keep-up the good
> work, hanson !!!
> [Old Man]
Well you are not alone Old Man, awhile back
Bilge asked me to keep my sentences short,
so if you push the CTRL & + at the same time
(it works on my computer) the image becomes
quite large, so I abbreviate the RHS of my
columns, to fit an expanded text, for the
visually impaired. Does it help to reduce
the right margin or do you care?
I think, a number of posters to this group
have some vision impairment (in one way or
another).
Best Wishes
Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:Zsled.4763$KJ6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Sci.physics helps Old Man to keep an interest in life. Some times,
> hanson makes sci.physics more interesting. Keep-up the good
> work, hanson !!!
> [Old Man]
Well you are not alone Old Man, awhile back
zigoteau
Hi, Tony,
> > I've just come across what might prove to be an answer to
> my question,
> > at:
> >
> > http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/TEWchap1.pdf
> >
> > Only time will tell.
>
> Hmmm...looks interesting--I will try to read and understand.
> Anything that begins with Einstein's famous quote will
> always get my attention...(I still think, somehow, against
> all odds, he will turn out to be right--the only question is
> how?
I've now read Little's first chapter, where he says that the analysis
I want is in Chapter 2. Unfortunately (or is it Catch 22? Murphy's
law?) Chapter 2 is not yet written.
I have finally made a contribution to Afshar's blog on
http://irims.org/blog/index.php/2004/09/25/questions_welcome, and had
a reply. I'm glad that I honed my thoughts with you and others on
sci.physics first, so that I did not go in immediately with guns
blazing. I see now where he is coming from. His targets are rigid
thinkers teaching a version of the Copenhagen interpretation which I
had thought had completely disappeared. He has certainly not
completely demolished the Copenhagen interpretation. There are many
aspects of it, and indeed of the Everett and Cramer interpretations,
which have been left intact.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
zigoteau
Hi, Quantum,
> >
> > Wait for the peer review. You must respect that.
> >
> > The statement is clear. Refer to the post by Old Man if you can read
> > and understand.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Single photon experiment was a success. You have never stated what you
> think the failure is in this experiment. If I were a mind reader I
> would go and claim my million dollar prize from the Amazing Randi.
> http://www.irims.org/
Sorry to butt in on your exchange with Mike, but what I have to say is
perhaps not irrelevant.
Thanks for your tip about Afshar's blog on
http://irims.org/blog/index.php/2004/09/25/questions_welcome. I have
finally made a contribution to it, and had a reply. I'm glad that I
honed my thoughts with you and others on sci.physics first, so that I
did not go in immediately with guns blazing. I see now where he is
coming from. His targets are rigid thinkers teaching a version of the
Copenhagen interpretation which I had thought had completely
disappeared. He has certainly not demolished the Copenhagen
interpretation in its entirety. There are many aspects of it, and
indeed of the Everett and Cramer interpretations, which have been left
intact.
So certainly, whether Afshar has succeeded depends on exactly what you
interpret his aims to have been. As is always the danger with the
media, the press reports of his paper hyped it up and made its aims
seem much more all-encompassing than they are. I can now see his
logic. He has demolished one of Bohr's more foolish teachings. I had
thought that no-one believed that bit any more, but Afshar credibly
assures me that they do. There's nowt so strange as folks.
If I may now address the next bit to Old Man, whose statements you and
Mike are debating. I am not sure where you are coming from, Old Man,
but I suspect you are not up to speed with QFT. I don't think there is
any problem with self-interference of a photon. One of the aspects of
Bohr's complementarity principle is the idea that the classical
particle is always there with a shadowy existence, even though you
don't know where it is or where it's going. It can turn up suddenly on
the other side of the room. However if you just "shut up and
calculate", there is nothing in the math with the individuality
suggested by the word "photon". There is only the electromagnetic
field. So it is meaningless to worry about whether a photon can
interfere with itself. The word "photon" is just a synonym for the
electromagnetic field. In any case the problem of self-interaction was
only ever to do with the electromagnetic self-interaction of a point
charge. The first Wheeler-Feynman absorber paper (1945), which has
been mentioned in this group quite a bit recently, demonstrates a
quite satisfactory method of renormalization. The second
Wheeler-Feynman paper (1949) worried about self-interaction, and tried
to eliminate the concept of the field existing independently of the
particle giving rise to it, but Feynman appears subsequently to have
back-tracked. Various well-documented phenomena absolutely require an
electron to interact with its own field.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Anthony Cerrato
"zigoteau" <zigo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a836cacf.04102...@posting.google.com...
> "Anthony Cerrato" <tcer...@optonline.net> wrote in
message
news:<9QRed.818$3_5.3...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>
> Hi, Tony,
>
> > > I've just come across what might prove to be an answer
to
> > my question,
> > > at:
> > >
> > > http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/TEWchap1.pdf
> > >
> > > Only time will tell.
> >
> > Hmmm...looks interesting--I will try to read and
understand.
> > Anything that begins with Einstein's famous quote will
> > always get my attention...(I still think, somehow,
against
> > all odds, he will turn out to be right--the only
question is
> > how?
>
> I've now read Little's first chapter, where he says that
the analysis
> I want is in Chapter 2. Unfortunately (or is it Catch 22?
Murphy's
> law?) Chapter 2 is not yet written.
LOL! Now that is the way do teach physics--the old fashioned
way! :))
> I have finally made a contribution to Afshar's blog on
>
http://irims.org/blog/index.php/2004/09/25/questions_welcome,
and had
> a reply. I'm glad that I honed my thoughts with you and
others on
> sci.physics first, so that I did not go in immediately
with guns
> blazing. I see now where he is coming from. His targets
are rigid
> thinkers teaching a version of the Copenhagen
interpretation which I
> had thought had completely disappeared. He has certainly
not
> completely demolished the Copenhagen interpretation. There
are many
> aspects of it, and indeed of the Everett and Cramer
interpretations,
> which have been left intact.
Congratulations! Getting to the man himself is maybe the
only way to understand all this. He seems to answer
questions there very quickly--I'm impressed with that at
least. Cheers, ...tonyC
> Cheers,
>
> Zigoteau.
Quantum Mirror
>
> Hi, Tony,
>
> > > I've just come across what might prove to be an answer to
> my question,
> > > at:
> > >
> > > http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/TEWchap1.pdf
> > >
> > > Only time will tell.
> >
> > Hmmm...looks interesting--I will try to read and understand.
> > Anything that begins with Einstein's famous quote will
> > always get my attention...(I still think, somehow, against
> > all odds, he will turn out to be right--the only question is
> > how?
>
> I've now read Little's first chapter, where he says that the analysis
> I want is in Chapter 2. Unfortunately (or is it Catch 22? Murphy's
> law?) Chapter 2 is not yet written.
>
You can't be serious about this? Reverse waves? According to this
there are billions of reverse waves coming from my eyes to meet the
photons from my monitor. They come from every surface. Why can't we
detect these reverse waves? Where does the energy come from to
constantly produce these waves? Where is conservation of energy? This
has so many problems I can't name them all. You can easily find the
energy that is producing photons!
Quantum Mirror
I think his reply to you is a more accurate description:
It was essential that an experiment like mine clearly demonstrate that
Complementarity is not a part of the QM formalism and is in fact
incorrect. My experiment validates the QM formalism and invalidates
Bohr's Complementarity.
Ken S. Tucker
...
>Whilst upgrading the memory, Old Man
> stupidly used a magnet (to pick-up a screw) in the proximity of
> the hard drive. Can't even do a system restore or even re-format
> the hard drive.
...
Degaussing might help that hard drive, you
know about those coils used for color TV's
after the local brat sticks a magnet to a
screen (dad was mad at me).
I once repaired color TV's and I wouldn't
even charge for that, in the shop.
Ken
hanson
news:2202379a.04102...@posting.google.com...[Old Man]
> > Whilst upgrading the memory, Old Man stupidly used
> > a magnet (to pick-up a screw) in the proximity of the
> > hard drive. Can't even do a system restore or even
> > re-format the hard drive.
> > [Old Man]
>
Obviously you are back on line, but for the next time
wouldn't the old DOS thing help from the floppy drive
command line prompt a:\> with
== "Fdisk c:" (low level reformatting/partitioning)
and then following this with
== "Format c: /s" to restore the hard drive....
hanson
>
[Ken]
Thomas Trotter
> There is something I would like to see even more than an analysis of
> this system. Bell's inequality shows that it is not possible to
> demonstrate a local causal hidden-variable theory, consistent with QM,
> of the sort advocated by EPR. The de Broglie-Bohm theory is an example
> of a nonlocal causal hidden-variable theory. While dBB theory is
> absolutely consistent with Schrödinger nonrelativistic QM, it is
> nonlocal, and so cannot be made Lorentz-invariant (except for the
> rather pointless case of a single isolated particle). I would very
> much like to see an example of a local retrocausal hidden-variable
> theory. I can't even begin to imagine how it might work.
It seems to me that this would take us even further away
from what is really happening. QM isn't a causal theory,
so it isn't in conflict with the assumption of locality.
The correlation curves predicted by QM and supposedly
observed in Bell tests do require that it is a common
property of opposite moving light beams that's being analyzed
via the angular difference of the polarizers. But, not enough
is known about polarization, and the emission and detection
processes to talk about it in a non-contradictory way.
As you say:
> There are many things that can be taught besides the truth.
By the way, I've enjoyed reading your discussion of
Afshar's experiment.
zigoteau
Hi, Quantum.
> > I've now read Little's first chapter, where he says that the analysis
> > I want is in Chapter 2. Unfortunately (or is it Catch 22? Murphy's
> > law?) Chapter 2 is not yet written.
> >
> > I have finally made a contribution to Afshar's blog on
> > http://irims.org/blog/index.php/2004/09/25/questions_welcome, and had
> > a reply. I'm glad that I honed my thoughts with you and others on
> > sci.physics first, so that I did not go in immediately with guns
> > blazing. I see now where he is coming from. His targets are rigid
> > thinkers teaching a version of the Copenhagen interpretation which I
> > had thought had completely disappeared. He has certainly not
> > completely demolished the Copenhagen interpretation. There are many
> > aspects of it, and indeed of the Everett and Cramer interpretations,
> > which have been left intact.
> I think his reply to you is a more accurate description:
> It was essential that an experiment like mine clearly demonstrate that
> Complementarity is not a part of the QM formalism and is in fact
> incorrect. My experiment validates the QM formalism and invalidates
> Bohr's Complementarity.
I don't agree that Afshar's experiment completely disproves the idea
of complementarity between waves and particles, although it certainly
disproves one particular aspect of it. Surely you're not going to
haggle over the fact that gamma rays look a lot like classical
particles, while radio waves look a lot like classical waves? It's
some of Bohr's detailed claims that Afshar has disproved.
Cheers,
Zigoteau
zigoteau
Hi, Quantum,
> > I've now read Little's first chapter, where he says that the analysis
> > I want is in Chapter 2. Unfortunately (or is it Catch 22? Murphy's
> > law?) Chapter 2 is not yet written.
> You can't be serious about this? Reverse waves? According to this
> there are billions of reverse waves coming from my eyes to meet the
> photons from my monitor. They come from every surface.
I fully agree that retrocausality is an unconventional solution. I
would not consider it except that there is something wrong with
essentially all the other options.
Have you read the 1945 paper by Wheeler and Feynman in Rep. Prog.
Phys. 17 (1945) 157-181? I can email it to you if you are interested.
I hope that you accept that Maxwell's equations are invariant when you
change the sign of t (and make the other appropriate sign changes).
Mathematically, the solution of the advanced wave is just as valid as
the solution of the retarded wave. The only difference is in the
boundary conditions.
I don't personally like the way Cramer, Little et al. describe the
concept as a process. What it is is a way of writing down a system of
linear equations describing the interactions of a large number of
point charges. In many ways it is more complicated than the usual
procedure, but at all points not occupied by particles, it eventually
arrives at exactly the same value of the field as the latter. At the
positions of the charges themselves, it is better conditioned than the
usual procedure,
> Why can't we detect these reverse waves?
But we do. The sum of all terms is exactly equal to the value observed
experimentally using e.g. a test charge . Moreover the procedure gives
a sensible result for the radiative energy loss of particles
accelerated by non-electromagnetic forces.
> Where does the energy come from to
> constantly produce these waves?
From whatever is forcing the acceleration of the source particle(s).
> Where is conservation of energy?
Energy is of course conserved, as it must be. I assure you that it is
a perfectly valid method for producing a solution to Maxwell's
equations for a system of charges.
> This has so many problems I can't name them all.
I am afraid that you have misunderstood the procedure, which is most
clearly laid out in the original paper by Wheeler and Feynman.
> You can easily find the
> energy that is producing photons!
Absolutely. Energy is conserved. The only differences in the solution
produced using this method and that using the usual procedure are at
the positions of the point particles. At those positions, the
retrocausal calculation gives the experimentally observed value.
I repeat my offer to email you the original paper. Forget the hype,
don't knock it until you have seen the details of the math.
Best regards,
Zigoteau.
mitch perkins
> news:64dddc3d.04102...@posting.google.com...
> > Also, I still go back now & then and re-read your Dirac post, to
> > which Old Man replies that you blow him (Dirac) to bits. Nice. I
> > should have a full understanding by about 2014.
> > See ya,
> > Mitch
> >
> [hanson]
> Thanks for the plug. I assume it's this one here:
> "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:OOudnXoJ7_p...@prairiewave.com...
> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> > news:SwLYc.2925$w%6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Yipper, that's the one...so lazy of me not to have brought forward
the message ID; what's the point if others can't benefit from the
exchange...but you did it so thanks and all is well.
>
> I wish I could see more and deeper, but these fucken things
> have a habit to reveal themselves at their own pace.
Said pace perhaps being proportional to the rate of our collective
ability to perceive? Ooops, hat has fallen in front of mouth again!
> However, I am glad to see that a few deep thinkers like you,
> to take interest in that particular
> line of inquiry.
Interest in my case may far outstrip ability to grasp, hence the
re-reads of your post. So far it seems you are refering to a repeating
cyclical type of thingy, at shrinking/growing orders of magnitude,
like fractals.
Is "size" a "direction"?
Can "gravity" be "scaled"?
Does it seem like I "know" what I'm "talking about"?
I do not. However, I do not bowl, and TV is pretty dumb, so here I
am.
> Thanks, dude
> hanson
And you,
Mitch
Old Man
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:2202379a.04102...@posting.google.com...
Short lines do indeed reduce difficulties in scrolling with Windows
Magnifier. Thanks for your consideration.
Type set makes a big difference. Times New Roman is, by far,
the most readable. Ariel and Courier are the worst.
Old Man's peripheral vision is more acute than that of his central
vision. However, word recognition seems to be reduced in the
peripheral area. Like having to choose between a rock and a hard
place. Makes one "shifty eyed".
[Old Man]
Old Man
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:pBbfd.6959$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:2202379a.04102...@posting.google.com...
> > "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:<uZGdndQ6tv7...@prairiewave.com>...
> > ...
> [Old Man]
> > > Whilst upgrading the memory, Old Man stupidly used
> > > a magnet (to pick-up a screw) in the proximity of the
> > > hard drive. Can't even do a system restore or even
> > > re-format the hard drive.
> > > [Old Man]
> >
> [hanson]
> Obviously you are back on line, but for the next time
> wouldn't the old DOS thing help from the floppy drive
> command line prompt a:\> with
> == "Fdisk c:" (low level reformatting/partitioning)
> and then following this with
> == "Format c: /s" to restore the hard drive....
> hanson
Thanks for the advice.
In the meantime, I'm using my notebook computer.
I can boot with DOS 6.2 from the floppy drive, but DOS 6.2
can't cope with a 120 GB hard drive.
I have booted with Windows XP from a backup DVD, but
it fails while attempting to re-format the HD.
Replacement of the HD seems inevitable. After loading
Windows XP from the bootable backup DVD, I can update
with the most recent full backup (`~ 2 weeks ago) that
resides on my external (Fire Wire) HD.
[Old Man]
Timo Nieminen
> I have booted with Windows XP from a backup DVD, but
> it fails while attempting to re-format the HD.
>
> Replacement of the HD seems inevitable. After loading
> Windows XP from the bootable backup DVD, I can update
> with the most recent full backup (`~ 2 weeks ago) that
> resides on my external (Fire Wire) HD.
You could/should try a low-level format from the BIOS. Hit <del> for setup
when the startup messages say. At best, it saves you the expense and
effort of replacing the HDD, at worst, you lose a little time.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
zigoteau
Hi, Thomas,
> > There is something I would like to see even more than an analysis of
> > this system. <snip> an example of a local retrocausal hidden-variable
> > theory. I can't even begin to imagine how it might work.
>
> It seems to me that this would take us even further away
> from what is really happening. QM isn't a causal theory,
> so it isn't in conflict with the assumption of locality.
I fully agree. Hence in seeking an extension capable of describing the
results of individual experiments rather than just the statistics of
repeated series, we need not restrict ourselves too much.
> The correlation curves predicted by QM and supposedly
> observed in Bell tests do require that it is a common
> property of opposite moving light beams that's being analyzed
> via the angular difference of the polarizers. But, not enough
> is known about polarization, and the emission and detection
> processes to talk about it in a non-contradictory way.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. Quite a lot is known about the
polarization of EM waves and of electrons.
> As you say:
>
> > There are many things that can be taught besides the truth.
>
> By the way, I've enjoyed reading your discussion of
> Afshar's experiment.
Thanks. I've thought a lot about quantum mechanics and its
interpretation over the years. It's a pity that Afshar has felt it
necessary to bring in the media at this stage: as in the case of cold
fusion, things can so very easily go pear-shaped, and orthodoxy may
end up being strengthened rather than undermined. When I read the
article in New Scientist, I got completely the wrong end of the stick.
What Afshar needs is neither unquestioning support nor unquestioning
opposition, but reasoned debate.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Aleksandr Timofeev
VLBI is the direct experimental proof of the following assertions:
1.
> However if you just "shut up and
> calculate", there is nothing in the math with the individuality
> suggested by the word "photon".
2.
> There is only the electromagnetic
> field.
3.
> So it is meaningless to worry about whether a photon can
> interfere with itself.
4.
> The word "photon" is just a synonym for the
> electromagnetic field.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0410220032.92b6c92%40posting.google.com
Only the events happening on _slots of an interferometer have
primary significance, all _other _events happening in any kind
interferometer have the status secondary.
=================================================================
The experimental fact of existence of a "virtual interference"
in VLBI
refutes "orthodox physical interpretation" of self-interference
on two slots of "particle - photon".
=================================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0409210207.2c8d0f34%40posting.google.com
So far as References:
1. Grangier, P., Roger, G. & Aspect, A. 1986, Europhys. Lett., 4, 173
2. Aspect, A., Grangier, P. & Roger, G. 1981, Phys. Rev. Lett.,47,460
3. Aspect, A., Imbert, C. & Roger, G. 1980, Optics Comm., 34, 46
are grounded on a purest pseudo-scientific scheesophrenia:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=onlm27kqa8.fsf%40cow.physics.wisc.edu
*********************************************************
*********************************************************
THE PHOTON DOES NOT EXIST IN THE NATURE!!!
*********************************************************
*********************************************************
> In any case the problem of self-interaction was
> only ever to do with the electromagnetic self-interaction of a point
> charge. The first Wheeler-Feynman absorber paper (1945), which has
> been mentioned in this group quite a bit recently, demonstrates a
> quite satisfactory method of renormalization. The second
> Wheeler-Feynman paper (1949) worried about self-interaction, and tried
> to eliminate the concept of the field existing independently of the
> particle giving rise to it, but Feynman appears subsequently to have
> back-tracked. Various well-documented phenomena absolutely require an
> electron to interact with its own field.
We are agreed on this.
Cheers,
Aleksandr Timofeev
Quantum Mirror
Sorry, I did'nt see any names like Wheeler or Feynman. I just saw Dr
Little and had pictures in my head: Rays coming out of my eyes and
skys falling! lol
zigoteau
Hi, Quantum,
First, apologies for a typographical error: the reference should read
Rev. Mod. Phys. 17 (1945) 157. The file is 2 MB.
> > I am afraid that you have misunderstood the procedure, which is most
> > clearly laid out in the original paper by Wheeler and Feynman.
>
> Sorry, I did'nt see any names like Wheeler or Feynman. I just saw Dr
> Little and had pictures in my head: Rays coming out of my eyes and
> skys falling! lol
Shame on you! So you are willing to accept the opinion of authority on
such a fundamental question? Would you accept the opinion of a clerk
in the Swiss patent office? Would you rather believe Lord Kelvin that
the Sun cannot be more than a few thousand years old?
I am just psyching myself up to repeat Wheeler and Feynman's
calculation but using a boundary condition consisting of two
semi-infinite parallel slabs of absorbing material rather than their
infinite lump with a spherical cavity. I think that it will be easier
to extend a Cartesian rather than polar coordinates to analyze the
Alain Aspect experiment.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Maleki
> I can boot with DOS 6.2 from the floppy drive, but DOS 6.2
> can't cope with a 120 GB hard drive.
You have a 120 GB hard drive? How many porn movies did you
intend to store on it? Don't tell me scientific computing
and programs would fill it.
I did a lot of science using an XT IBM with a 20 Meg HD.
Actually I always suffered by the thought of how the
computer's features and resources were still going to waste.
--
AghelAn rA yek eshArat bas bovad
"Mowlana"
hanson
news:64dddc3d.04102...@posting.google.com...
> > "mitch perkins" <mitchs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:64dddc3d.04102...@posting.google.com...
> > > which Old Man replies that you blow him (Dirac) to bits. Nice. I
> > >
> > [hanson]
> > Thanks for the plug. I assume it's this one here:
> > "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> > news:OOudnXoJ7_p...@prairiewave.com...
> > > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> > > news:SwLYc.2925$w%6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Yipper, that's the one...so lazy of me not to have brought forward
> the message ID; what's the point if others can't benefit from the
> exchange...but you did it so thanks and all is well.
> >
> > I wish I could see more and deeper, but these fucken things
> > have a habit to reveal themselves at their own pace.
>
> Said pace perhaps being proportional to the rate of our collective
> ability to perceive? Ooops, hat has fallen in front of mouth again!
>
I don't know, much less whether it is proportional....ahahahaha...
I often ask my self where-from and when does new knowledge
appear.......ahahaha.... Some swear, it appears the moment you
take a shit and pay concentrated attention, others insist that it
comes when you pray and meditate in a state of being "one with
the universe"...but neither one, nor its combo with all its variations
has done it for me.....I can't even remember how it happened,
except that it may have occurred after a great, exhaustive fuck,
day dreaming...and giving a shit about everything....ahahahahah....
>
[hanson]
> > However, I am glad to see that a few deep thinkers like you,
> > to take interest in that particular line of inquiry.
>
> Interest in my case may far outstrip ability to grasp, hence the
> re-reads of your post.
>
Yeah, most of us are like that. But consider if the interest, our
nosiness, wouldn't be there as the prime motivator then why go
thru the pain of grasping. I think the joy and excitement in trying
to grasp is generating a feed back to/of/for interest & once one
gets into that cycle one becomes manic about it. And that to me
is the payoff. Whether it will produce result is a secondary issue.
You have seen such manic behavior posted by Al in his Eotvoes
gig.....ahahaha.... but, I am mindful of the fact that the millions
of professionals before me have belabored the same issue and
chances that I stumble onto something really novel is certainly
close to nil...ahahaha...but the fun derived from it is worth it.
>
[Mitch]
> So far it seems you are refering to a repeating cyclical type
> of thingy, at shrinking/growing orders of magnitude, like fractals.
>
Yeah, looking at nature in a way wherein a self-similar, not "like",
repetition of events/processes or items.... differing in more or less
regular intervals on a larger/or smaller scale, the scale step being
the mole, Avogadro's constant with its strange dimensional attribute
of "subunits/unit" or "marbles/bag".... appears to offer beckoning
possibilities to model nature in a way that may allow us to probe
deeper by many magnitudes, while incorporating all empiricals and
still make integrated use of all current theories........ahahahaha..
>
[Mitch]
> Is "size" a "direction"?
>
Yes, it may be, but it doesn't need to be so, because you can twist
anything into any form as long as it produces an internally coherent
picture, in a pix that accepts all knows laws and fits with existing
empiricals. One of the intriguing ways here is to get topology
involved and one wonders furthermore whether the models of the
"chance dominated" QM and the "geometry ruled" Relativity are
easily connectable via the notion dubbed as "GeoCombs" using math.
formalities offered by the solutions of contour integrals & combinatorial
math, demonstrated by/with the simple guide post in the Gamma function
( - 1/2)! = sqrt (pi), or Green's function, or etc.......
>
[Mitch]
> Can "gravity" be "scaled"?
>
I dunno. But the question is intriguing. This has bugged me for
a long time. I have posted my notions about that too before.
There are still so many questions and possibilities open at the
POSTULATE LEVEL......ahahahaha......that's where the fun is.
But it's hard, lonely...and fucken iffy big time.... ahahaha......
>
[Mitch]
> Does it seem like I "know" what I'm "talking about"?
> I do not. However, I do not bowl, and TV is pretty dumb,
> so here I am.
>
ahahaha........Well, here I am too, and I don't know neither.
Mexican stand off, dude.......ahahahaha....... Listen, don't take
me too serious in all this. I do all this for recreation and out of
boredom. Mostly on them long fucking flights or on contract like
right now, where I am sitting alone, in some dimly lit darkness,
with fucking nightvision gear, at 134227 ft, freezing my ass off,
checking the Questar type attached pattern recognition gismo that
buzzes when some fuckers do move 10K feet below & 8 miles way,
and me using the posting and e-mails from here to check and insure
that all the relay stations are operative.....Hey, the money is good...
but not so the suffering ........ahahaha...... Anyway, Mitch:
If you are really interested in reading what I have done with this
issue then just google my archive for "han...@quck.net + term"
term = gravity, self similarity, scale, Avogadro, Planck, Dirac.... or
whatever turns you on. Now, I don't want to discourage you or make
you angry. But, what I know about all these flights of fancy is in my
google archive. I don't know anything more. And since hanson travels
alone, most of the time, I have found that "discussions" at this level
do NOT produce anything........ahahahaha... it would be a discussion
where everybody knows something about something producing nothing...
So, Mitch, I thank you for your interest ....and well... stay tuned....
and always remember: hanson says a lot of things when the days
and nights are long......AHAHAHAHAHA........don't take me serious!
ahahahaha......ahahahanson
ahahahaha.......shit!, re-reading this, makes me realize that I begin
to sound like Jack Sarfatti........ahahahaha......but, my excuse is
that it may be due to the thin air here.......ahahahahaha....
operator jay
That's all there is? Science and porn? I wish.
Old Man
>
> > I can boot with DOS 6.2 from the floppy drive, but DOS 6.2
> > can't cope with a 120 GB hard drive.
>
> You have a 120 GB hard drive? How many porn movies did you
> intend to store on it? Don't tell me scientific computing
> and programs would fill it.
At present, the 120 GB HD has a 20 GB partition (Drive D:)
to store Windows XP back-up recovery (now useless), and a
100 GB partition (drive C:), of which 60 GB is free.
Sure, of that 40 GB, there's some porn, but since that's
downloaded via 56 kbs phone modem, which takes online
time from sci.physics, it occupies an insignificant amount
of space.
The music library (~ 60 CD copies) consists of about 5 GB
of WMA files. The ebook library holds > 300 books.
4 GB of digital camera JPGs (not porn); Scanned images
of text books and financial records; 7 years of "sent"
sci.physics messages; Fine Art .images downloaded from
the Louvre; Then there's Physical Review, "The First 100
Years"; Encyclopedia Britannica; World Atlas; Dictionary;
all self contained, without the need to insert CDs or DVDs.
The external (Fire Wire) HD is 160 GB, and holds uncompressed
backups for 3 different computers. It's near full (30 GB free).
> I did a lot of science using an XT IBM with a 20 Meg HD.
> Actually I always suffered by the thought of how the
> computer's features and resources were still going to waste.
MS EXCEL files holding raw data files, data analysis, and
publication quality color graphics can get really big.
> AghelAn rA yek eshArat bas bovad
>
> "Mowlana"
[Old Man]
mitch perkins
> > >
> [hanson]
> > > I wish I could see more and deeper, but these fucken things
> > > have a habit to reveal themselves at their own pace.
> >
> [Mitch]
> > Said pace perhaps being proportional to the rate of our collective
> > ability to perceive? Ooops, hat has fallen in front of mouth again!
> >
> [hanson]
> I don't know, much less whether it is proportional....ahahahaha...
> I often ask my self where-from and when does new knowledge
> appear.......ahahaha.... Some swear, it appears the moment you
> take a shit and pay concentrated attention, others insist that it
> comes when you pray and meditate in a state of being "one with
> the universe"...but neither one, nor its combo with all its variations
> has done it for me.....I can't even remember how it happened,
> except that it may have occurred after a great, exhaustive fuck,
> day dreaming...and giving a shit about everything....ahahahahah....
Anthropically speaking, and as a devout Tautologist, I propose that
new knowledge appears at the exact moment when all required
combinations of events have been satisfied for a particular piece of
new knowledge to appear. You can't argue with that, or you can.
> >
> [hanson]
> > > However, I am glad to see that a few deep thinkers like you,
> > > to take interest in that particular line of inquiry.
> >
> [Mitch]
> > Interest in my case may far outstrip ability to grasp, hence the
> > re-reads of your post.
> >
> [hanson]
> Yeah, most of us are like that. But consider if the interest, our
> nosiness, wouldn't be there as the prime motivator then why go
> thru the pain of grasping. I think the joy and excitement in trying
> to grasp is generating a feed back to/of/for interest & once one
> gets into that cycle one becomes manic about it. And that to me
> is the payoff. Whether it will produce result is a secondary issue.
> You have seen such manic behavior posted by Al in his Eotvoes
> gig.....ahahaha.... but, I am mindful of the fact that the millions
> of professionals before me have belabored the same issue and
> chances that I stumble onto something really novel is certainly
> close to nil...ahahaha...but the fun derived from it is worth it.
Amen - especially to the last part about the chances being close to
nil. And yet...all odds are 50/50...in a tightly enclosed local frame
of reference; I will win or lose the lottery with equal probability
for each case - other ticket holders? What other ticket holders?
Straight-jacket a little tight here...
> >
> [Mitch]
> > So far it seems you are refering to a repeating cyclical type
> > of thingy, at shrinking/growing orders of magnitude, like fractals.
> >
> [hanson]
> Yeah, looking at nature in a way wherein a self-similar, not "like",
> repetition of events/processes or items.... differing in more or less
> regular intervals on a larger/or smaller scale, the scale step being
> the mole, Avogadro's constant with its strange dimensional attribute
> of "subunits/unit" or "marbles/bag".... appears to offer beckoning
> possibilities to model nature in a way that may allow us to probe
> deeper by many magnitudes, while incorporating all empiricals and
> still make integrated use of all current theories........ahahahaha..
By assuming our so-called macro scale or level is but one stop on an
infinite bus route? If infinite, there are no orders of magnitude,
just as there is no fixed point/center of the universe?
> >
> [Mitch]
> > Is "size" a "direction"?
> >
> [hanson]
> Yes, it may be, but it doesn't need to be so, because you can twist
> anything into any form as long as it produces an internally coherent
> picture, in a pix that accepts all knows laws and fits with existing
> empiricals. One of the intriguing ways here is to get topology
> involved and one wonders furthermore whether the models of the
> "chance dominated" QM and the "geometry ruled" Relativity are
> easily connectable via the notion dubbed as "GeoCombs" using math.
> formalities offered by the solutions of contour integrals & combinatorial
> math, demonstrated by/with the simple guide post in the Gamma function
> ( - 1/2)! = sqrt (pi), or Green's function, or etc.......
I will Google these terms, but know that I am only a layman, and a
very silly one at that.
> >
> [Mitch]
> > Can "gravity" be "scaled"?
> >
> [hanson]
> I dunno. But the question is intriguing. This has bugged me for
> a long time. I have posted my notions about that too before.
> There are still so many questions and possibilities open at the
> POSTULATE LEVEL......ahahahaha......that's where the fun is.
> But it's hard, lonely...and fucken iffy big time.... ahahaha......
> >
> [Mitch]
> > Does it seem like I "know" what I'm "talking about"?
> > I do not. However, I do not bowl, and TV is pretty dumb,
> > so here I am.
> >
> [hanson]
> ahahaha........Well, here I am too, and I don't know neither.
> Mexican stand off, dude.......ahahahaha....... Listen, don't take
> me too serious in all this.
Nor you me!
> I do all this for recreation and out of
> boredom. Mostly on them long fucking flights or on contract like
> right now, where I am sitting alone, in some dimly lit darkness,
> with fucking nightvision gear, at 134227 ft, freezing my ass off,
> checking the Questar type attached pattern recognition gismo that
> buzzes when some fuckers do move 10K feet below & 8 miles way,
> and me using the posting and e-mails from here to check and insure
> that all the relay stations are operative.....Hey, the money is good...
> but not so the suffering ........ahahaha......
So you work at WalMart?
> Anyway, Mitch:
>
> If you are really interested in reading what I have done with this
> issue then just google my archive for "han...@quck.net + term"
> term = gravity, self similarity, scale, Avogadro, Planck, Dirac.... or
> whatever turns you on.
OK but not right now; I am tired and my computer smells of
mayonaise.
> Now, I don't want to discourage you or make
> you angry.
I am *enraged*. OK I'm better now.
Wait!... Pissed off again...
> But, what I know about all these flights of fancy is in my
> google archive. I don't know anything more. And since hanson travels
> alone, most of the time, I have found that "discussions" at this level
> do NOT produce anything....
I don't get the connection between [your being alone] and
[discussions at this level producing nothing], though I certainly
agree with the latter (except some laughs, eh?)
>....ahahahaha... it would be a discussion
> where everybody knows something about something producing
> nothing
Now I get it.
> So, Mitch, I thank you for your interest ....and well... stay tuned....
> and always remember: hanson says a lot of things when the days
> and nights are long......AHAHAHAHAHA........don't take me serious!
> ahahahaha......ahahahanson
>
> ahahahaha.......shit!, re-reading this, makes me realize that I begin
> to sound like Jack Sarfatti........ahahahaha......but, my excuse is
> that it may be due to the thin air here.......ahahahahaha....
Except Jack never admits that he sounds like himself...or does he? I
always skip those posts. Am I missing out?
BTW, if you're *truly* bored, here's something stupid to think
about:
Say you're insane, and you want to prove that -
"Things exist simply to validate, as it were,the fact that they
don't."
Yin & Yang Y'know. So you design a ridiculously complex machine that
does *nothing*, but you don't build it.
Well, now the machine doesn't exist, so it *has to exist*,
somewhere. But in order to prove it exists, you have to find it.
Even just on this planet in this universe, you won't live long
enough to look *everywhere*, so you need to enlist the help of others.
But you can't do that, because you could never be *certain* that
someone wouldn't build the damn thing just to fuck with your mind and
mess up the "experiment".
You could never know if the machine really did physically exist
somewhere, and it would drive you insane, which you already were, and
that's *really bad*.
See ya,
Mitch
Quantum Mirror
> jun...@pgrb.com (Quantum Mirror) wrote in message news:<7b043f08.0410...@posting.google.com>...> [snip]
<Snip>
> Main ideas of VLBI are:
> 1. A simultaneous independent recording of signals on each
> separate antenna ("slot") on magnetic tapes;
> 2. " The interference pattern " is received in the computer
> as an outcome _ mathematical _ addings of signals recorded on
> magnetic tapes;
The whole purpose is to produce interference!
> 3. The distance between antennas ("slots ") of a radio (VLBI)
> interferometer can exceed diameter of the Earth. (For definit
> wave length limiting distances between antennas, at which the
> interference pattern disappears, is not known until now!)
The importance of the distance between antennas is "resolution"!!! The
greater the distance the more detail you resolve!
> There are no problems for explanation of a principle of operation
> of the radio interferometer with simultaneous independent writing
> of signals from a wave point of view.
>
> There are problems for explanation of a principle of operation
> of the radio interferometer with simultaneous independent writing
> of signals from a PHOTON point of view.
>
> ---------------------
> Here for the first time clearly emerges, that for a hypothetical
> particle of a photon there is no necessity to pass simultaneously
> through both slots (antennas), since the virtual interference
> abstractly or mathematically will be realized in the computer at
> any convenient time hereafter. !!! It is the experimental fact!!!
They only create the interference "to" produce spatial resolution!!
> I only deny existence of EM waves (light) as particles of photons.
I think you have long misunderstood the use of interferometry in
optical and radio astronomy!! Please find another subject to discuss.
You have worn this one out. All on a misguided assumption of the use
of interference. It is only to produce spatial resolution!! Which is
very important in astronomy for detail!!
<snip>
Quantum Mirror
You may try downloading the utility that is provided by the
manufacturer of the hard drive. You can usually find it at their web
page.
Maleki
>
> At present, the 120 GB HD has a 20 GB partition (Drive D:)
> to store Windows XP back-up recovery (now useless), and a
> 100 GB partition (drive C:), of which 60 GB is free.
>
> Sure, of that 40 GB, there's some porn, but since that's
> downloaded via 56 kbs phone modem, which takes online
> time from sci.physics, it occupies an insignificant amount
> of space.
>
> The music library (~ 60 CD copies) consists of about 5 GB
> of WMA files. The ebook library holds > 300 books.
> 4 GB of digital camera JPGs (not porn); Scanned images
> of text books and financial records; 7 years of "sent"
> sci.physics messages; Fine Art .images downloaded from
> the Louvre; Then there's Physical Review, "The First 100
> Years"; Encyclopedia Britannica; World Atlas; Dictionary;
> all self contained, without the need to insert CDs or DVDs.
>
> The external (Fire Wire) HD is 160 GB, and holds uncompressed
> backups for 3 different computers. It's near full (30 GB free).
>
I know that of course, I mean you've filled it with typical
stuff, and I say you're still not using your computer for
something more than a storage place. I only get to feel what
I've got when it runs my programs to compute answers for me.
That's something that even the most fanciful software
available cannot do. And that particular use, what a PC is
really about, doesn't need much hardware resources, and as I
said even an XT did great for me. On my present PC I can get
results of computations faster than I could in school using
VAX minicomputers (in the 80s). The idea of reshuffling
previously existing methods of storage, communication, and
publishing into a "personal computer" is not original, while
the idea of any person being able to program and run them at
home _is_.
Of course for some type of problems hardware resources
(especially speed) become an issue. But there is distributed
computing one may attempt. I remember some guy about ten
years back computed the paths of the object that fell into
Jupiter using a single 386 pc. It took the PC 2.5 months of
computation to get it accurately enough. That of course is
not much fun. He did show, nevertheless, that the object
will fall into Jupiter and posted the results and what he'd
done on the net.
--
nafahmidim nazr dAsht yA kaffAreh.
Aleksandr Timofeev
>a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message news:<e16a4a22.0410...@posting.google.com>...
>> jun...@pgrb.com (Quantum Mirror) wrote in message news:<7b043f08.0410...@posting.google.com>...
>> > zigo...@yahoo.com (zigoteau) wrote in message news:<a836cacf.04102...@posting.google.com>...
>> [snip]
><Snip>
>> Main ideas of VLBI are:
>> 1. A simultaneous independent recording of signals on each
>> separate antenna ("slot") on magnetic tapes;
>> 2. " The interference pattern " is received in the computer
>> as an outcome _ mathematical _ addings of signals recorded on
>> magnetic tapes;
>
>The whole purpose is to produce interference!
It is naturally for an INTERFEROMETER to create
INTERFERENCE FRINGES. >;^)
All comprehension of a problem depends on different points of view
on Essence of principles of an Interference. I attempted to attract
your PRECIOUS ATTENTION in an absolutely New MATHEMATICAL PRINCIPLE
of CREATION of INTERFERENCE FRINGES in VLBI instead of actual
PHYSICAL CREATION of INTERFERENCE FRINGES in any other types
of interferometers:
1. In any types of interferometers except for VLBI we have ACTUAL
Physical CREATION of INTERFERENCE FRINGES
or ACTUAL PHYSICAL INTERFERENCE.
2. In VLBI we have ONLY Abstract MATHEMATICAL INTERFERENCE FRINGES
or Abstract MATHEMATICAL VIRTUAL INTERFERENCE.
Whether you can understand essence of distinctions(differences)
between " ONLY Abstract MATHEMATICAL INTERFERENCE FRINGES " and
" ACTUAL Physical INTERFERENCE FRINGES "?
>> 3. The distance between antennas ("slots ") of a radio (VLBI)
>> interferometer can exceed diameter of the Earth. (For definit
>> wave length limiting distances between antennas, at which the
>> interference pattern disappears, is not known until now!)
>
>The importance of the distance between antennas is "resolution"!!! The
>greater the distance the more detail you resolve!
>
>> There are no problems for explanation of a principle of operation
>> of the radio interferometer with simultaneous independent writing
>> of signals from a wave point of view.
>>
>> There are problems for explanation of a principle of operation
>> of the radio interferometer with simultaneous independent writing
>> of signals from a PHOTON point of view.
>>
>> ---------------------
>> Here for the first time clearly emerges, that for a hypothetical
>> particle of a photon there is no necessity to pass simultaneously
>> through both slots (antennas), since the virtual interference
>> abstractly or mathematically will be realized in the computer at
>> any convenient time hereafter. !!! It is the experimental fact!!!
>
>They only create the interference "to" produce spatial resolution!!
In that case how can you interprete a following phrase?:
"The radio interferometer (VLBI) with simultaneous independent
writing of signals from antennas ("slots ").
Here STILL there are no " INTERFERENCE FRINGES ". >;^)
>> I only deny existence of EM waves (light) as particles of photons.
>
>I think you have long misunderstood the use of interferometry in
>optical and radio astronomy!! Please find another subject to discuss.
>You have worn this one out. All on a misguided assumption of the use
>of interference. It is only to produce spatial resolution!! Which is
>very important in astronomy for detail!!
Sometimes it is meaningful to reflect above physical essence of
a problem, when you criticize the opponent. Sometimes opponent
can be MORE QUALIFIED in the given problem than you in the given
instant.
Whether you can understand essence of distinctions(differences)
between " ONLY Abstract MATHEMATICAL INTERFERENCE FRINGES " and
" ACTUAL Physical INTERFERENCE FRINGES "?
Old Man
"Maleki" <male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1c6bs3fcrfcbn.n...@40tude.net...
Old Man still does stuff like that. Here's a link to graphics
output for classical electron orbits in magnetic monopole fields.
http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/DMMpole_09.jpg
Had a lot of fun with that.
Also, here's graphics output for orbits in a gravitational
quadruple field.
http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/QUADRU1.jpeg
That one contains some surprises. The orbit inclination
oscillates periodically between + pi / 4 and - pi / 4. As
expected, the orbit also precesses.
Here's Earth being captured by a rogue star
http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/capture03.jpeg
"hanson" inspired that one.
[Old Man]
Aleksandr Timofeev
>a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message news:<e16a4a22.0410...@posting.google.com>...
>> jun...@pgrb.com (Quantum Mirror) wrote in message news:<7b043f08.0410...@posting.google.com>...
>> > zigo...@yahoo.com (zigoteau) wrote in message news:<a836cacf.04102...@posting.google.com>...
>> [snip]
><Snip>
>> Main ideas of VLBI are:
>> 1. A simultaneous independent recording of signals on each
>> separate antenna ("slot") on magnetic tapes;
>> 2. " The interference pattern " is received in the computer
>> as an outcome _ mathematical _ addings of signals recorded on
>> magnetic tapes;
>
>The whole purpose is to produce interference!
It is naturally for an INTERFEROMETER to create
INTERFERENCE FRINGES. >;^)
All comprehension of a problem depends on different points of view
on Essence of principles of an Interference. I attempted to attract
your PRECIOUS ATTENTION in an absolutely New MATHEMATICAL PRINCIPLE
of CREATION of INTERFERENCE FRINGES in VLBI instead of actual
PHYSICAL CREATION of INTERFERENCE FRINGES in any other types
of interferometers:
1. In any types of interferometers except for VLBI we have ACTUAL
Physical CREATION of INTERFERENCE FRINGES
or ACTUAL PHYSICAL INTERFERENCE.
2. In VLBI we have ONLY Abstract MATHEMATICAL INTERFERENCE FRINGES
or Abstract MATHEMATICAL VIRTUAL INTERFERENCE.
Whether you can understand essence of distinctions(differences)
between " ONLY Abstract MATHEMATICAL INTERFERENCE FRINGES " and
" ACTUAL Physical INTERFERENCE FRINGES "?
>> 3. The distance between antennas ("slots ") of a radio (VLBI)
>> interferometer can exceed diameter of the Earth. (For definit
>> wave length limiting distances between antennas, at which the
>> interference pattern disappears, is not known until now!)
>
>The importance of the distance between antennas is "resolution"!!!
The
>greater the distance the more detail you resolve!
>
>> There are no problems for explanation of a principle of operation
>> of the radio interferometer with simultaneous independent writing
>> of signals from a wave point of view.
>>
>> There are problems for explanation of a principle of operation
>> of the radio interferometer with simultaneous independent writing
>> of signals from a PHOTON point of view.
>>
>> ---------------------
>> Here for the first time clearly emerges, that for a hypothetical
>> particle of a photon there is no necessity to pass simultaneously
>> through both slots (antennas), since the virtual interference
>> abstractly or mathematically will be realized in the computer at
>> any convenient time hereafter. !!! It is the experimental fact!!!
>
>They only create the interference "to" produce spatial resolution!!
In that case how can you interprete a following phrase?:
"The radio interferometer (VLBI) with simultaneous independent
writing of signals from antennas ("slots ") on separate magnetic
tapes for each of VLBI antenna.
Here STILL there are no " INTERFERENCE FRINGES ". >;^)
>> I only deny existence of EM waves (light) as particles of photons.
>
>I think you have long misunderstood the use of interferometry in
>optical and radio astronomy!! Please find another subject to discuss.
>You have worn this one out. All on a misguided assumption of the use
>of interference. It is only to produce spatial resolution!! Which is
>very important in astronomy for detail!!
Sometimes it is meaningful to reflect above physical essence of
a problem, when you criticize the opponent. Sometimes opponent
can be MORE QUALIFIED in the given problem than you in the given
instant.
Whether you can understand essence of distinctions(differences)
between " ONLY Abstract MATHEMATICAL INTERFERENCE FRINGES " and
" ACTUAL Physical INTERFERENCE FRINGES "?
Explanation of distinctions(differences) between
" mathematical (virtual) interference " in VLBI and
" real (actual) physical interference " in any other type
of an interferometer:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0203280158.1689e86a%40posting.google.com
===========================================================
In all ORTHODOX physics text-books the photon passing
through both slot simultaneously is circumscribed.
Similar scientifically fancy fairy tale about an interference
of photons on two slots is adduced in the book:
Richard Feynman "THE CHARACTER OF PHISICAL LAW";
A series of lectures recorded by the BBC at Cornell University USA;
Cox and Wynman LTD, London, 1965
this fairy tale is refuted by experimental existence of a virtual
interference. ;o)
The purpose of the given article is the proof of an
inaccuracy of representation about the classical
interpretation of a phenomenon of an interference
and explanation principles of virtual interference.
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Duality Light (X...@MailAndNews.com)
Subject: Debunking Duality Of Light
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 2001-05-07 07:39:52 PST
Foton or Logic error
in the classical interpretation of a phenomenon
of an interference of electromagnetic waves in an interferometer
The gnoseological scheme: the person - natural phenomenon
A. Person. The person and human brain are macroscopic systems.
With the help of of sense organs the brain can analyze the
information recorded on macroscopic structures. The limitations
of sense organs are overcome with the help of of macroscopic
devices.
B. The remote source emits electromagnetic radiation - natural
phenomenon.
C. The interferometer is the device transforming energy of
electromagnetic radiation in a macroscopic image of an
interference picture.
-------------------------------
Let's analyze principles of operation of an interferometer with
the help of of maximum simplified basic gnoseological scheme.
I select the constituents of an interferometer:
1. Screen with two slots (antenna of receivers);
2. Device transforming two flows of electromagnetic radiation from
two slots (antennas of receivers) in a macroscopic image of an
interference picture;
3. Macroscopic image of an interference picture.
Here I shall specify a source (radical) of a logic error of the
interpretation of a phenomenon of an interference on the basis of an
error hypothesis (chimera) of a light photon.
-------------------------------
We shall begin from 3 item:
The macroscopic image of an interference picture can be created
only by
quantum processes of transformations
_ inside _ of quantum microsystems making a mosaic record of a
macroscopic image. The quantum microsystems can exchange (absorb
and emit) energy only by quantum portions. This energy is absorbed and
is emited as electromagnetic waves. Creations of a macroscopic image
do
not need a hypothesis of a light photon, but just in this place this
hypothesis occurs ostensibly for explanation of a phenomenon of an
interference, though in her there is no necessity absolutely.
The logic error is done just in this place, the further discuss of
a problem will remove all doupts in that one.
-------------------------------
Let's consider item 1.
Screen with two slots or two antennas of receivers.
Now there are two kinds of interferometers. For understanding
distinctions (differences) between them let's play by terms -
an interference in real time and virtual interference:
a) Everyone know about existence of a phenomenon of an
interference in real time is there is a classical phenomenon
of an interference.
b) Presently there is a new kind of an interference - so-called
postponed in time or virtual interference, i.e. abstractly or
mathematically realizabled interference in the computer.
---------------------
In this place we can and should clearly understand main idea, that
for a phenomenon of an interference the state information of an
electromagnetic field in space of slots of a screen (or on antennas
of receivers) interferometer is important only, all further
processes are causal corollaries of this information.
It is the experimental fact confirmed by existence of a virtual
interference.
---------------------
Here for the first time clearly emerges, that for a hypothetical
particle of a photon there is no necessity to pass simultaneously
through both slots (antennas), since the virtual interference
abstractly or mathematically will be realized in the computer at
any convenient time hereafter. !!! It is the experimental fact!!!
How the admirers of a hypothesis of photons now will explain
an interference?
---------------------
We can simultaneously record the information reflecting a state
of an electromagnetic field in space of each slot (from the
antenna) on a magnetic tape, it is natural that for each slot
(antenna) we use a separate magnetic tape. Then in any time,
convenient for us, we input the information from these macroscopic
magnetic tapes in the computer and mathematically on any required
(demanded) algorithm (which can be changed at any time) we obtain
an interference in representation, necessary for us.
At use of the given method the interference picture represents the
pure abstract information, then this information the macroscopic
computer can transform to the form accessible for the analysis by
a macroscopic system - by the person.
The absence of influence of a state of an electromagnetic field
in space of one slot (antenna) on a state in other one becomes
perfect obvious, since a limit of a distance between slots
(antennas) experimentally is not reached, and this distance can be
made _physically vast_ on a comparison with a wavelength.
This circumstance makes completely inconsistent a hypothesis of
a photon, since the photon should have physically absurd vast sizes
for a simultaneous contact to both slots.
Further, the experimental fact of existence of a virtual
interference basically excludes necessity of simultaneous passing
of a photon through both slots. There is no necessity to pass
through both slots/antennas or one slot/antenna at all!!!
-------------------------------
Now we shall consider item 2.
The device transforming in real time a part of energy of flows
of electromagnetic radiation from two slots (antennas of receivers)
into a macroscopic image of an interference picture - this is a
classical phenomenon of an interference. In a classical optical
interferometer the image of an interference picture can be either
on a photo or on diffusely dispersing a screen or can be project
immediately on a retina of an eye.
The macroscopic image of an interference picture can be created
only by quantum processes of transformation(conversion) _ inside _
of quantum microsystems making a mosaic record of a macroscopic image
at the expense of energy of flows of electromagnetic radiation from
two slots.
The quantum microsystems can absorb energy only by quantum
portions. This energy is absorbed as electromagnetic waves by
quantum microsystems at random coincidence of orientation of a
spatial dynamic configuration of a quantum microsystem with
orientation of an electromagnetic wave. Analogy between a quantum
microsystem and directional antenna here is conducted in an
obvious kind. These random coincidences are improbable, therefore
for obtaining an image are required or enough strong flows of
energy of electromagnetic radiation or large periods for
accumulation of an image.
Briefly, constructions of a macroscopic image need certain
quantity of energy, also it is necessary to take into account and
efficiency of transformation. Creations of a macroscopic image do
not need a hypothesis of a light photon, but just in this place of
explanation of a phenomenon of an interference this hypothesis is
introduced, though in this hypothesis absolutely there is no
necessity. The hypothesis of a light photon theoretically is
excessive, since the virtual interference abstractly or
mathematically is realized in the computer.
The logic error of introduction of a hypothesis of a light
photon in _ classical _ explanation of creation of a macroscopic
image of an interference picture is hidden in error understanding
of the gear of conversion of energy of an electromagnetic wave
during an absorption of this energy by quantum microsystems.
Once again, the quantum microsystems absorb energy of
electromagnetic waves at random coincidence of orientation of a
spatial dynamic configuration of a quantum microsystem with
orientation of an electromagnetic wave.
-------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
The purpose of the given article was the proof of an
inaccuracy of representation about a duality of physical
properties of light.
Light is wave process always and in all cases.
The nature, ambient us, consists of quantum microsystems,
therefore any phenomenon can be explain from a point of Plank's
view - quantum microsystems can exchange energy only by quantum
portions. This energy is absorbed and is emited only as
electromagnetic waves.
Photoeffect, Raman and Compton effects and all other phenomena
have physically correct explanation only from the point of Plank's
view.
The classical interpretations of a photoeffect and Compton
effect are error.
These interpretations were offered when there was no quantum
mechanics and radio physics. In that time the principles of operation
of transmitting and receiving devices were poorly clear and known
in detailses. The processes in solid bodies and structure of solid
bodies in that time were unintelligible. The quantum theory of a
structure of substance (physical chemistry) was not in that time.
But the pceudo-scientific imaginations as the classical
interpretations of a photoeffect and Compton effect on the
basis of a hypothesis of a photon are alive until now. Why?
======= end of mesage ==========================================
Maleki
> I am sitting alone, in some dimly lit darkness,
> with fucking nightvision gear, at 134227 ft, freezing my ass off,
This can't be altitude, unless you're in some space-lab.
Where the hell are you?
--
ba'd az haft korreh edde'Aye bekArat.
Maleki
> Yeah, looking at nature in a way wherein a self-similar, not "like",
> repetition of events/processes or items.... differing in more or less
> regular intervals on a larger/or smaller scale, the scale step being
> the mole, Avogadro's constant with its strange dimensional attribute
> of "subunits/unit" or "marbles/bag".... appears to offer beckoning
> possibilities to model nature
If by "Avogadro's constant" you mean "Avogadro's Number",
then it offers no deeper meaning than the arbitrary lumb of
1kg mass in Paris. If that mass was different A's number
would be different.
--
kharvAr namakeh mesghAl ham namakeh.
hanson
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:45:47 GMT, hanson wrote:
> > I am sitting alone, in some dimly lit darkness, with
> > fucking nightvision gear, at 134227 ft, freezing my ass off,
>
> This can't be altitude, unless you're in some space-lab.
>
the definition. They left me here with a whole bunch
of huge battery crates, after they stacked'em up
against/behind the ridge-top to give me some kinda
shelter and connected them to the gear that scans the
valley on the other side.
> Where the hell are you?
In a hell that is beginning to freeze over. It's about 900-1100
miles in direction 4 o'clock from where your Maleki character
claims to reside at.
BTW, I am surprised that they let the previous post go
thru. I wonder whether this one is going to make it. But
maybe they have to fry bigger fish right now....ahahaha..
Yesterday is was so cold , that when I pissed off a rock
outcropping the piss drops got frozen and danced off
like diamond shards from the impact stone, some 60 ft
below. That and posting is about my only entertainment in
this otherwise absolutely outstandingly beautiful scenery.
My replacement is supposed to arrive ??, and if not then
I'll be climbing down myself. In any event in another few
days I'll be thawing & sunning my ass on the black monazite
sand beaches with Pretty woman down in Kerala and then
we'll take off to Raratonga and blow the money I am suffering
here for...........ahahahaha........AHAHAHA.........
ahahaha.....ahahanson
hanson
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:45:47 GMT, hanson wrote:
> > Yeah, looking at nature in a way wherein a self-similar, not "like",
> > repetition of events/processes or items.... differing in more or less
> > regular intervals on a larger/or smaller scale, the scale step being
> > the mole, Avogadro's constant with its strange dimensional attribute
> > of "subunits/unit" or "marbles/bag".... appears to offer beckoning
> > possibilities to model nature
>
> If by "Avogadro's constant" you mean "Avogadro's Number",
> then it offers no deeper meaning than the arbitrary lumb of
> 1kg mass in Paris. If that mass was different A's number
> would be different.
>
Of course to you, a physicophile, who believes that the Paris
kilo is hollow and 39 cm in diameter, the kg, N_A & most other
things do have no deeper meaning anyway. So, stay happy with
your shallow life as prescribed to you by your Koran or Torah,
depending...........ahahahaha.......ahahahaha..
In the remote event that you decide to dig deeper then tell
us which of the following "numbers" ought to change too in
sqrt(hbar*c/G) = m_e * a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3).
Tell Perrin and Einstein that you disagree.....ahahaha...
ahahaha......ahahahahanson
Quantum Mirror
> jun...@pgrb.com (Quantum Mirror) wrote:
> >a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message news:<e16a4a22.0410...@posting.google.com>...
> >> jun...@pgrb.com (Quantum Mirror) wrote in message news:<7b043f08.0410...@posting.google.com>...
> >> > zigo...@yahoo.com (zigoteau) wrote in message news:<a836cacf.04102...@posting.google.com>...
> >> [snip]
I don't think you understand english worth a dam!
I will try to make this plain!!!
Please stop spamming Afshar's Bog!!!!!
If you only knew what a idiot your posts made of you!!
everyone! I mean everyone has got your point!!!
It is stupid, You are stupid! Go get a new idea and a new life!!!!
mitch perkins
> "Maleki" <male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1swrkbw9unqxs.tzzem97xa1pj$.dlg@40tude.net...
> > On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:45:47 GMT, hanson wrote:
> > > I am sitting alone, in some dimly lit darkness, with
> > > fucking nightvision gear, at 134227 ft, freezing my ass off,
> >
> > This can't be altitude, unless you're in some space-lab.
> >
> Very observant. One 2 too many. Lab?....depends on
> the definition. They left me here with a whole bunch
> of huge battery crates, after they stacked'em up
> against/behind the ridge-top to give me some kinda
> shelter and connected them to the gear that scans the
> valley on the other side.
I'm not very observant; I still haven't a clue where you are or what
you're doing.
If you're out there in danger somewhere, please accept my apology
for the Wal Mart joke, though you don't seem the type to take offence
too easily...
Been checkin out your Google archives a bit - Avogadro's number
doesn't strike me as meaningless or trivial (Maleki)...but it's all
way above my head, like I said. Still, it's fun to try to get a
handle...
Mitch
hanson
> > > hanson wrote on Tue, 26 Oct 2004:
> > > > I am sitting alone, in some dimly lit darkness, with
> > > > fucking nightvision gear, at 134227 ft, freezing my ass off,
> > >
> > > This can't be altitude, unless you're in some space-lab.
> > >
> > Very observant. One 2 too many. ...13427 ft...OK?
> > Lab?....depends on the definition. They left me here with
> > a whole bunch of huge battery crates, after they stacked'em
> > up against/behind the ridge-top to give me some kinda
> > shelter and connected them to the gear that scans the
> > valley on the other side.
>
> I'm not very observant; I still haven't a clue where you are
> or what you're doing.
>
Go onto Pentagon or Mercenary websites or ask any Global
Corporation for issues/problems to solve that none for their
employees or regular contractors do attempt to tackle. You'll be
amazed what they'll want. They always have and do offer such
special assignments. If you wanna take a short term personal risk
its worth the money and the Adrenaline rush....and occasionally
the joy of being still here after you shit and piss uncontrollably
in "Todesangst". Makes you appreciate life so much more....
I was recently, till a few days ago, up at station "Gleaner9".
Maybe Maleki will tell you where it's at. But I won't, because
others are/may be up there and I'm not gonna expose them.
>
[Mitch]
> If you're out there in danger somewhere, please accept my
> apology for the Wal Mart joke, though you don't seem the type
> to take offence too easily...
[hanson]
AHAHAHAHA...ahahaha...Thanks for the joke. I always make
fun of others...because cranking is fun....dishing it out is of
course far more enjoyable then taking it.........ahahaha........
Danger is of course relative and only subjectively measurable.
Few days ago up there I got the living motherfuck + shit
scared outa me. I was pissing off the rock ledge and saw a
doz or so turbanos coming up one of the mountain ridges. Out
of the sea of the early morning clouds. Armed. In single file
they walked up to a ridge junction some 1500 ft below and
~1/2 mile away from me....then they took a turn and climbed
over the saddle/pass junction out of my sight. I was in their line
of sight for about 20 minutes. My condition got from 75/124/68
to probably 95/180/120... ahahaha... Got lucky!... because my
only friend, my Walther PPK with 2 magazines, would not have
been a match........ahahahaha.......
>
[Mitch]
> Been checkin out your Google archives a bit - Avogadro's number
> N_A doesn't strike me as meaningless or trivial (Maleki)...but it's
> all way above my head, like I said. Still, it's fun to try to get a
> handle... Mitch
>
[hanson]
I have noticed that N_A is excruciatingly hard to explain to MOST
physicists, beyond its 12gr C = N_A C-atoms/mol usage, even if it
is obvious that, since the late 1800's, N_A connects to the atomic
realm via e.g. N_A = R(gas)/Boltzmann's k, or via N_A = Faraday/e,
[e] being the electrical charge which can be expressed in terms
of Heisenberg's hbar as [e] = sqrt (hbar*a*c), hence it folllows
that since the Planck mass is defined as m_pl = sqrt(hbar*c/G), &
e^2 = m_e*c^2*a^2*r_H you can make the connections like:
::: *** m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) **** (1)
which says that: 1 mole of electron masses = 1 Planck mass
Furthermore, per definition, the Planck domain units are
uniting mass, space (length) and time in an elementay way:
=== m_pl = l_pl *( c^2/G) = t_pl * (c^3/G) ===
which therefore shows also when written in fashion (1) that
::: *** tau / t_pl = a^(-1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
1 mole of Planck time units = 1 atomic time unit, ... and that
::: *** r_H / l_pl = a^(0) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
1 mole of Planck length units = 1 H-Bohr radius, ... or that
::: *** r_e / l_pl = a ^(2) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
1 mole of Plank length units = 1 classical el-radius
BTW, on an other physics note. I chose this gig too for another reason
then offered. I have heard for years from my "prospector" friends
that there were reports of a "shining mountain at night" in this area.
I indeed lucked out. Because the Saint Elmo's flares/fires, those
atmospheric el discharges on and along a mountain ridge there were
spectacular. I was looking in particular for the chance to see an event
of ball lightning to brake loose from the jagged stones and float off
the ridge away into the air. I wanted to see and measure whether
there was a signature/erosion left on the stones by the discharges.
-- Stay tuned..... maybe, maybe....I'll post about....maybe
AHAHAHAHA.........ahahaha.......ahahahanson
Aleksandr Timofeev
Subject: Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in
VLBI
Date: 12 Nov 2004 07:01:03 -0800
From: a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message news:<e16a4a22.0411...@posting.google.com>...
> self...@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.04110...@posting.google.com>...
> > Dear Aleksandr, my search have led me to your discussion. As far as I
> > can understand, you are discussing, whether the photon can interfere
> > with itself in your VLBI. Why so complicated.
>
> Please Sergey participate in Prof. Shahriar S. Afshar's
> controversy:
> http://irims.org/blog/index.php/2004/09/25/questions_welcome?template=popup
Below my coomment to excellent John Murphy's Comment in
Shahriar's blog:
------------- start of Comment ---------------------------------
Comment from: Aleksandr Timofeev [Visitor]
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0411090329.7627a19b%40posting.google.com
> Comment from: John Murphy [Visitor] ·
http://www.hotquanta.com 11/11/04 @ 01:08
> Dear Aleksandr Timofeev
> I have been working in the field of GPS interferometry,
I am working in the field of VLBI interferometry at VLBI laboratory
> which works by mixing signals from two separated antenna into a correlator.
> The signal from one antenna is fed through a (periodic) phase shifter and
> the "signal" is the variation in the intensity of the correlator output.
> In a sense, the interference that is measured is the interference between
> the modulated signals rather than that between the underlying photons.
In case VLBI , the interference that is measured is the interference
between the signals of two remote and electrical isolated telescopes.
> The GPS signals are below the noise threshold and are indistinguishable
> from noise without the "magic" of the correlator.
The VLBI signals also are many more then below the noise threshold and
are indistinguishable from noise without the "magic" of the
correlator.
> The raw summed signals that come out of the mixer appear to be just "noise".
> The amplitude of the correlator output varies in step with the cycles of the
> phase shifter.
The same STORY and methodology in VLBI.
> This is quite different from the Young's type of photon experiments
> because it requires a signal modulated onto a stream of coherent photons.
There are no differences in VLBI from the Young's type of experiments,
except for presence of a DIGITAL (numeral) _correlator_ instead
of _physical_ _addition_ of signals in the Young's interferometer.
Just FOREGONE overlapping(adjustment) of TWO devices in OPTICAL
INTERFEROMETERS:
a) device of partitioning of streams of signals
and
b) device - a DIGITAL correlator of streams of signals;
gives in theoretical errors in physical interpretation of principles
of operation of an interferometer and experimental effects(results)
of operation of an interferometer, that will be demonstrated below.
1. Now in optical interference experiments the OPPORTUNITY of
separating of these devices from each other absolutely misses.
2. Now in optical interference experiments the recording CAPABILITY
of the information numerically on media misses.
3. Now in optical interference experiments the POSSIBILITY of
USING of a COMPUTER CORRELATOR for an information handling about
the noted signals misses.
Why usage of a computer (digital,numeral) _correlator_
...............^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in interference experiments is important?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Because the DIGITAL CORRELATOR in VLBI is SIMULTANEOUSLY
both CORPUSCULAR and WAVE MEASURING DEVICE!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In VLBI INTERFEROMETERS:
As opposed to optical interference experiments, in VLBI:
a) the device parting streams of a signal and recording
streams of a signal on magnetic tapes;
and
b) a computer (digital) correlator of signals;
PHYSICALLY ARE PARTED.
That will be demonstrated below.
Presence of a DIGITAL (numeral) correlator instead of physical
addition of signals in the Young's interferometer allows
strictly to state:
============
ONLY the events happening on _slots of an interferometer have
primary significance, all _other _events happening in an
interferometer have the status secondary.
============
"It is fundamental to understanding the concept
of generalizing the observant variables in theoretical physics.
Timofeev is conceptualizing the basis for the Copenhagen
Interpretation. His point is revolutionary. Why does Minkowski
Space Exist? It is answered by the posting, explaining INFORMATION
reconstruction in an interference system where the causality ENDED
at the SLOTS.
Douglas Eagleson
ll...@lycos.com "
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B2834CE.12A292B0%40lycos.com
In VLBI a _correlator_ of streams of signals is a DIGITAL (numeral)
_correlator_ instead of physical addition of signals in the Young's
interferometer, i.e. a DIGITAL _correlator_ instead of physical
correlator!!!
There are NO _physical_ interference!!!
There are ONLY MATHEMATICAL interference!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Below I DISCUSS connection of The Bohr's complementarity principle
with Fourier transforms for stationary quantum systems
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
.. The microwave interferometer with superlong basis (VLBI). Part 2.
.. ----------------------------------------------------------
VLBI EXPERIMENT - STEP ONE
data acquisition
.. [videotape 1] [videotape
2]
.. ^ ^
.. | |
.. [Detector 1] <- synchronized clocks -> [Detector
2]
.. | |
.. | |
.. radio-telescope 1
radio-telescope 2
.. Length of basis
.. |<-------------------------- {snip} ------------------------>|
.. /^\ /^\
..^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ {snip} ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
..| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
.. Noise microwave radiation
VLBI EXPERIMENT - SECOND STEP
Data processing
.. "Interference fringes"
.. ^
.. |
.. See MATLAB Function Reference: fft
.. [frequency domaine]
.. [ COMPUTER FFT ] Fourier transform
.. ^
.. |
.. [time domaine]
.. [videotape 1] ------> [ CORRELATOR ] <------- [videotape 2]
From a physical point of view, for us will be MAIN comparison:
[time domaine] <---> [frequency domane]
[ a PARTICLE ] <---> [ a WAVE ]
See MATLAB Function Reference: fft
[time domaine] <---> [frequency domane]
"Examples
A common use of Fourier transforms is to find the frequency
components of a signal buried in a noisy time domain signal."
"Duality between the time domain and the frequency domain makes
it possible to perform any operation in either domain. Usually
one domain or the other is more convenient for a particular
operation, but you can always accomplish a given operation in
either domain."
Wavelet Toolbox: Wavelets: A New Tool for Signal Analysis: Fourier
Analysis
"Wavelet Toolbox
Fourier Analysis
Signal analysts already have at their disposal an impressive
arsenal of tools.
Perhaps the most well-known of these is Fourier analysis, which
breaks down a signal into constituent sinusoids of different
frequencies.
Another way to think of Fourier analysis is as a mathematical
technique for transforming our view of the signal from time-based
to frequency-based.
Fourier analysis has a serious drawback. In transforming to the
frequency domain, time information is lost. When looking at a
Fourier transform of a signal, it is impossible to tell when a
particular event took place.
If the signal properties do not change much over time -- that is,
if it is what is called a stationary signal -- this drawback
isn't very important.
However, most interesting signals contain numerous
nonstationary or transitory characteristics: drift, trends,
abrupt changes, and beginnings and ends of events.
These characteristics are often the most important part
of the signal, and Fourier analysis is not
suited to detecting them."
Now I shall set up new physical interpretation of
The Bohr's complementarity principle:
=============================================
Fourier transforms in DIGITAL correlator
the transform and inverse transform pair are:
[VLBI time domaine] <---> [VLBI frequency domane]
[ a PARTICLE ] <---> [ a WAVE ]
It is connection of The Bohr's complementarity principle
with Fourier transforms for stationary quantum systems
See:
"Fourier analysis has a serious drawback. In transforming to the
frequency domain, time information is lost. When looking at a
Fourier transform of a signal, it is impossible to tell when a
particular event took place."
=============================================
> GPS correlators work by correlating
> a received signal with a local signal using a-priori information.
> My concept of correlation is that it is a statistical measure
> of the temporal similarity of two signals, autocorrelation
> refers to a signal's temporal variation with itself and can be
> used to distinguish information from noise. I'm not sure if this
> helps, but most descriptions of GPS systems will give you a pretty
> good idea about correlation and it's applications.
>
> I'm not quite sure about your questions, but here goes...
>
> 1) correlations between "streams" of radiation looks at the temporal
> relationship between the patterns of received signal, often modulated
> onto the streams.
>
> 2) Mathematically it is done by convolving signals (sets of
> successive measurements) and if done in real-time is usuually over
> a fixed time apeture.
------------- End of Comment ---------------------------------
---
Regards
Aleksandr Timofeev
Quantum Mirror
> jun...@pgrb.com (Quantum Mirror) wrote in message news:<7b043f08.04102...@posting.google.com>...
> > a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message news:<e16a4a22.04102...@posting.google.com>...
> > > jun...@pgrb.com (Quantum Mirror) wrote:
> > > >a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message news:<e16a4a22.0410...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >> jun...@pgrb.com (Quantum Mirror) wrote in message news:<7b043f08.0410...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >> > zigo...@yahoo.com (zigoteau) wrote in message news:<a836cacf.04102...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >> [snip]
> >
> > I don't think you understand english worth a dam!
> > I will try to make this plain!!!
> >
> > Please stop spamming Afshar's Bog!!!!!
> >
> > If you only knew what a idiot your posts made of you!!
> >
> > everyone! I mean everyone has got your point!!!
> > It is stupid, You are stupid! Go get a new idea and a new life!!!!
>
Poor little Aleksandr Timofeev. He can't understand the big bad interferomoter.
He is a moron and can not see the truth.
zigoteau
Hi, Quantum,
This is not actually a response to your post, but I thought I'd tag it
on here because I can't find the post I was looking for. Someone
recently made the pertinent comment to the effect that most of the
people commenting on the Afshar experiment were thinking in terms of
Maxwellian electromagnetism, i.e. not the QFT treatment at all. Now of
course I am guilty of that too, although I could wave hands madly and
justify my approach:
Rationalization 1:
Photons are bosons and AFAIK do not interact with each other except in
the presence of electrons. Hence Maxwellian electrodynamics gives the
correct result in all experiments where e.g. Compton scattering is
known to be negligible.
Rationalization 2:
The behavior of even strongly-interacting fermions can be analyzed
using the single-particle Schrödinger equation. Phase-contrast
electron microscopy of ultrathin specimens, where you slightly defocus
the lens, is the electron analog of the Afshar experiment, and
Schrödinger analysis explains what you see.
One way I have seen for analyzing photons in QFT, say in a cavity, is,
firstly, work out the Maxwellian modes. Then for each mode you have
(postulate?) creation and annihilation operators a† and a. This has
funny consequences like e.g you cannot define the phase of eigenmodes
of the photon occupation operator. I presume this has something to do
with the fact that that the photons have been bouncing around in their
cavity for ever, so in a HeisenbergUP-ish sort of way you don't know
where they've got to in their perpetual cycle.
I'm not sure how you go about this sort of treatment for Afshar's
experiment, where there is no cavity and no bound modes.
However you can also analyze a system using Feynman diagrams, which
are graphical symbols for Green's functions. In Afshar's experiment
there is no Compton scattering, so I think it is justified to bundle
all the electrons into the propagator of an effective medium. The
Green's function then does not couple states with different photon
occupation numbers and is AFAIK then the solution to Maxwell's
equations.
Would the person who made that comment before, or anyone else, care to
comment? I would particularly like to know how you get those two
descriptions, the first one with the creation and annibilation
operators, and the second one with Green's functions, to tie up.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Aleksandr Timofeev
[snip]
> > >
> > > I don't think you understand english worth a dam!
> > > I will try to make this plain!!!
> > >
> > > Please stop spamming Afshar's Bog!!!!!
> > >
> > > If you only knew what a idiot your posts made of you!!
> > >
> > > everyone! I mean everyone has got your point!!!
> > > It is stupid, You are stupid! Go get a new idea and a new life!!!!
> >
>
> Poor little Aleksandr Timofeev. He can't understand the big bad
> interferomoter.
> He is a moron and can not see the truth.
Who can not see the truth...? Who have one's garret unfurnished...?
http://irims.org/blog/index.php/2004/09/25/questions_welcome?template=popup
" Comment from: afshar [Member]
Dear Aleksandr,
There really is such a thing called a two-photon interference, and it
is a second-order (or higher) effect, so all interference effects are
not single photon self-interference.
While there is still some controversy over the interpretations of
correlated flux measurements in VLBI within the context of QM
[snip]
Best regards.
11/11/04 @ 06:46 "
Best regards.
PS
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-experiment/index.html#return-app5
"Experiment in Physics
Physics, and natural science in general, is a reasonable enterprise
based on valid experimental evidence, criticism, and rational
discussion.
It provides us with knowledge of the physical world, and
it is experiment that provides the evidence that grounds this
knowledge.
Experiment plays many roles in science.
One of its important roles is to test theories and to provide
the basis for scientific knowledge.[1]
It can also call for a new theory, either by showing that
an accepted theory is incorrect,
or by exhibiting a new phenomenon that is in need of explanation.
Experiment can provide hints toward the structure or mathematical
form of a theory and it can provide evidence for the existence of
the entities involved in our theories.
Finally, it may also have a life of its own, independent of
theory.
Scientists may investigate a phenomenon just because it looks
interesting. Such experiments may provide evidence for a future theory
to explain. [Examples of these different roles will be presented
below.]
As we shall see below, a single experiment may play several of
these roles at once.
"
Franklin, Allan, "Experiment in Physics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Summer 2003 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2003/entries/physics-experiment/>.
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Would the person who made that comment before, or anyone else, care to
> comment? I would particularly like to know how you get those two
> descriptions, the first one with the creation and annibilation
> operators, and the second one with Green's functions, to tie up.
"Now you're right, it's a bit of a pity that they chose a *photon* as
the particle to ask about in this question. Massless particles are a
nuisance because the Newton-Wigner localization breaks down. Gauge
bosons are a nuisance because it's harder to separate out the physical
degrees of freedom in a gauge theory. So even *ignoring* the extra
subtleties when we take interactions into account and drop the pleasant
fictions of free field theory and Fock space, we have some serious
issues to deal with in a complete answer to this question!
But if someone asks the question "what's the shape of the wavefunction
of a photon of a given energy?" and you start talking to them about
Newton-Wigner localization, gauge-invariance, and Fock space, their
brain is going to turn to jelly! They're going to walk away in a daze
having learned nothing. They'll probably be shocked that such a simple
question elicited such a complicated bunch of mumbo-jumbo. They may
become politicians and cut funding for physics."
"Thus I'm reluctant to talk about the issues you're raising now. They're
too fancy for this conversation. I'll just whisper to you the approach
I'm implicitly taking towards this question:
>What, then, is a photon's wave-function?
I'm taking it to be a solution of Maxwell's equations, either described
using the vector potential in some fixed gauge, or perhaps even better
for the present purposes, using the electric and magnetic fields. I bet
people who do quantum optics do something like this when they talk about
the wavefunction of a photon, and I don't think it's so bad, despite the
objections you note."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=78g1c2%24vfe%241%40pravda.ucr.edu
>
> Cheers,
>
> Zigoteau.
Cheers,
>;^)))
zigoteau
Zdravstvuytye, Alesha,
> > Would the person who made that comment before, or anyone else, care to
> > comment? I would particularly like to know how you get those two
> > descriptions, the first one with the creation and annibilation
> > operators, and the second one with Green's functions, to tie up.
> "Now you're right, it's a bit of a pity that they chose a *photon* as
> the particle to ask about in this question.
Thanks for your response, which made a bit more sense after I followed
your link to John Baez's post.
> Massless particles are a
> nuisance because the Newton-Wigner localization breaks down.
I do not know anything about Newton-Wigner localization and would
appreciate (approachable) references.
> Gauge
> bosons are a nuisance because it's harder to separate out the physical
> degrees of freedom in a gauge theory. So even *ignoring* the extra
> subtleties when we take interactions into account and drop the pleasant
> fictions of free field theory and Fock space, we have some serious
> issues to deal with in a complete answer to this question!
> But if someone asks the question "what's the shape of the wavefunction
> of a photon of a given energy?" and you start talking to them about
> Newton-Wigner localization, gauge-invariance, and Fock space, their
> brain is going to turn to jelly!
I do understand a bit about gauge theories and how the gauge degrees
of freedom are unobservable. However bringing this into the discussion
is perhaps a deliberate attempt to confuse. What is Fock space? Is it
the space of all Slater determinants, or perhaps its extension to a
delta-function basis set?
> They're going to walk away in a daze
> having learned nothing. They'll probably be shocked that such a simple
> question elicited such a complicated bunch of mumbo-jumbo. They may
> become politicians and cut funding for physics."
Well, you must admit, an answer like that is inappropriate in many
circumstances, and is often made when the respondee wishes to disguise
his lack of true understanding of the subject: "blinding with
science".
> "Thus I'm reluctant to talk about the issues you're raising now. They're
> too fancy for this conversation. I'll just whisper to you the approach
> I'm implicitly taking towards this question:
>
> >What, then, is a photon's wave-function?
>
> I'm taking it to be a solution of Maxwell's equations, either described
> using the vector potential in some fixed gauge, or perhaps even better
> for the present purposes, using the electric and magnetic fields. I bet
> people who do quantum optics do something like this when they talk about
> the wavefunction of a photon, and I don't think it's so bad, despite the
> objections you note."
(a) I bet they do. Some bases of the space of statevectors just cannot
be visualized, and the practitioners of such arcana blind themselves
with science as well as others..
(b) I think that the approach can be made logically watertight by
expressing it in terms of Feynman diagrams.
Cheers,
Zigoteau
zigoteau
Hi, Aleksandr,
> "Now you're right, it's a bit of a pity that they chose a *photon* as
> the particle to ask about in this question. Massless particles are a
> nuisance because the Newton-Wigner localization breaks down. Gauge
> bosons are a nuisance because it's harder to separate out the physical
> degrees of freedom in a gauge theory. So even *ignoring* the extra
> subtleties when we take interactions into account and drop the pleasant
> fictions of free field theory and Fock space, we have some serious
> issues to deal with in a complete answer to this question!
I've done a bit of homework on Newton-Wigner localization, and I don't
get it. Why does it matter if the position operator does not commute
with electron-ness? Surely we're used by now to uncertainty wherever
we look in the quantum world, and to operators not commuting left,
right and center? Surely there is no crying need for a particle to
have a well-defined position? Another operator may well have similar
formal properties, but surely (x, y, z) *is* the position operator,
and just as much for photons as for electrons.
I would appreciate hearing your slant on/justification for
Newton-Wigner (or that of John Baez).
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Aleksandr Timofeev
zigo...@yahoo.com (zigoteau) wrote in message news:<a836cacf.04112...@posting.google.com>...
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10o1rd9ppnl2e92%40corp.supernews.com
"Since the photon emission is triggered by the external laser pulse, the
researchers could create the photon at the push of a button. But not only
the emission time, the shape of the single-photon pulse is also linked to
the shape of the excitation pulse. But how can a single-photon pulse shape
be measured? In the experiment, a single photon reveals itself by producing
a click in a detector at a certain time. At this moment, all other
information about the photon is irretrievably lost. However, at the Max
Planck Institute, the researchers took advantage of the fact that their
control over the initial preparation of the ion is so good, that every
photon emitted from the apparatus has identical properties. This allows them
to probe the pulse shape by performing repeated measurements on subsequent
photons. By statistically evaluating the arrival times of the photons, which
are spread out over 2 microseconds, an image of the shape of the photon
pulse is obtained. Two examples of measured pulse shapes are shown in Fig.
2. The blue trace represents the measured photon arrival times, to be
compared with the superimposed red trace, obtained from a quantum mechanical
calculation. The precise coincidence between the two curves illustrates the
degree of control that was achieved in the experiment. Note that the pulse
shape in Fig. 2b belongs to just a single photon, which was cast in a shape
with two maxima by a corresponding pump pulse.
"
Please, look at:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0409170152.427fa424%40posting.google.com
I am sincerely admired with your approach to physical problems.
Please, your comment.
---
Cheers,
Aleksandr
PS Aleksandr is Sasha, not Alexy.
I am sincerely pleasantly surprised and admired with your knowledge
of Russian.
zigoteau
Hi, Aleksandr,
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10o1rd9ppnl2e92%40corp.supernews.com
> Please, look at:
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0409170152.427fa424%40posting.google.com
The setup for the Keller et al. experiment is obviously very
high-tech, precise, and expensive. Very much in the tradition of
German science. It is impressive that they can keep an ion trapped at
a precise position for many hours. The graph of detection events vs
time in the range 0 to 6 microseconds is very nice, although just to
be bitchy, 6e-6 s is an eternity on the atomic scale: on the order of
a billion cycles of the emitted radiation. The double-humped graph,
with the second hump a little bit smaller than the first, suggests
that the probability of photon emission per optical pulse is a lot
less than 100%, although I haven't read the paper and I might have
misinterpreted it.
> I am sincerely admired with your approach to physical problems.
I'm delighted we think along the same lines.
I take your point about VLBI, but I don't think that you should push
it too far. Yes, I think the world we live in is real, but it is also
well-described at a certain level by quantum field theory. QFT
describes the statistics of VLBI, the Afshar experiment, and, I'm
sure, the Keller et al. results. I am sure Afshar is right that there
are many physicists with limited imagination but strong conformist
instincts, who continue to defend the Copenhagen interpretation, but I
think also that the best physicists are aware of its limitations (by
the best physicists, I do not necessarily mean those who get more than
their share of the funding). What we need desperately is a new
synthesis with transparent links to the current theory.
I very much like many features of Hasselmann's metron theory, but the
link to current quantum theory is not at all obvious. What do you
think of it, and how good is your mathematics?
> PS Aleksandr is Sasha, not Alexy.
Sorry for the mistake.
> I am sincerely pleasantly surprised and admired with your knowledge
> of Russian.
Just the odd word here and there. I visited Moscow during the
Gorbachev era. All the Russian scientists I got to know on that trip
are now living elsewhere.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Aleksandr Timofeev
>
> Zdravstvuytye, Alesha,
Hi Zigoteau,
I am sincerely pleasantly surprised and admired with your knowledge
of Russian.
Aleksandr is Sasha, Aleksey is Alesha.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Below I DISCUSS connection of The Bohr's complementarity principle
with Fourier transforms for stationary quantum systems
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0411120846.67a53224%40posting.google.com
Once again - Fourier transform!!!
"the Planck's constant h is really just the Fourier transform of the
Boltzmann constant k"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=aaf50104.0411050321.1d4d746b%40posting.google.com
" The first, completely _classical_ derivation of Planck's law, replete
with the perspective of the thermodynamics of computation pioneered by
Landauer and Bennett at the IBM Watson lab where I had the honour of
working for some years, is at
http://www.columbia.edu/~vg96/papers/planck.pdf.
It establishes that
the Planck's constant h is really just the Fourier transform of the
Boltzmann constant k - to be precise, it serves the same role for the
spectral domain as k does for the ordinary (un-Fourier transformed)
time domain. About the only part I'm not totally happy about is the
derivation of the Boltzmann distribution (in appendix), but this does
not diminish the main contention of the paper in sections IV (the
derivation) and V (applications to boson statistics, zero-point
energy/field and entanglement)."
V. Guruprasad
Cheers,
Aleksandr or Sasha
Aleksandr Timofeev
"Poor little Quantum Mirror. He can't understand the big bad
optical telescope.":
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0411250649.7f90628a%40posting.google.com
===========================================
jun...@pgrb.com (Quantum Mirror) wrote in message news:<7b043f08.04111...@posting.google.com>...
> a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message news:<e16a4a22.04111...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:<mHbld.33933$K7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:e16a4a22.04110...@posting.google.com...
> > > > jun...@pgrb.com (Quantum Mirror) wrote in message
> > > news:<7b043f08.04110...@posting.google.com>...
> > [snip]
>
> There is no self interference in a telescope.
What physical sense has ratio:
lambda / D
for any telescope?
>
> They are not, and never claimed to be a twin slit experiment.
>
> They are only using two or more slots to produce angular resolution!
>
> You have confused Physics and astronomy.
===========================================
"Poor little Quantum Mirror. He can't understand the big bad
optical telescope."
Sergey Karavashkin
I always had a great patience but never tried to be involved in
senseless businesses. I mean, it is senseless to debate the existence
of photons, as this conception has been multiply proven absurd with
all its basic principles. Don't you see, these so to say chatters long
ago lost their sense and became mutual blames and demonstration of
full ignorance of supporters of photon conception. They already long
time defend not the scientific truth, and don't seek the truth. They
are interesting in their feeding-trough and political orders of those
who pay. For this sake they are ready to think out any silliness, tell
any slander at opponents and ignore any arguments. Is there a sense to
spend time and arguments? They need not our proof. They will turn over
and make an appearance that nothing happened. Boresome play for me,
and perhaps for you too. ;-)
And with VLBI duality, it is very simple. Digital transformation of
analogue information has no concern to quanta. Dependently on detected
discreteness of transformation, so-called quanta will be different,
right? Interference in no case is a mathematical fiction, as it is
observed in nature independently of digital either analogue means of
study, and whether do we study it or not. It is known to be a
consequence of phase addition of signals, and in limiting case of
parallel beams the intensity of total beam will vary in proportion to
phase difference of E-field of beams. Now we can register it by way of
separating the light beam and then merging it on a semi-transparent
mirror (in limits of coherent length), after beams pass different
distances. And mathematics serves to quantitatively describe the
natural processes, it is unable to substitute the nature itself. ;-)
In the opposite case we could sequentially recognise virtual all
physical phenomena only because they are described mathematically,
right? ;-)
Best,
Sergey
Aleksandr Timofeev
Hi Sergey,
The arranged below text prolongs your argumentation:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8a137ae2a9eca097?dmode=source
======================================================
From: a_n_timof...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The end of Bohr's complementarity principle?
Date: 27 Nov 2004 06:02:00 -0800
zigot...@yahoo.com (zigoteau) wrote in message
news:<a836cacf.04111...@posting.google.com>...
> a_n_timof...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message
news:<e16a4a22.04111...@posting.google.com>...
>
> Zdravstvuytye, Alesha,
Hi Zigoteau,
[snip]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Below I DISCUSS connection of The Bohr's complementarity principle
with Fourier transforms for stationary quantum systems
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0411120846.67a53224%40posting.google.com
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<e16a4a22.04111...@posting.google.com>...
Dear V. Guruprasad,
[v. guruprasad (earth...@gmail.com)]
I am sincerely pleasantly surprised and admired with your article:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=aaf50104.0411050321.1d4d746b%40posting.google.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Below I DISCUSS connection of The Bohr's complementarity principle
with Fourier transforms for stationary quantum systems
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0411120846.67a53224%40posting.google.com
I have made discovery of fundamental importance FFT in VLBI completely
irrespective of your paper. I completely incidentally have seen your
paper later. Your paper has fundamental value for all subsequent
development of physical science, as well as my discovery of fundamental
importance FFT in VLBI.
>From our papers the immediate corollary follows, that "the PARTICLE
PHOTON " does not exist in the NATURE.
Once again - Fourier transform!!!
"the Planck's constant h is really just the Fourier transform of the
Boltzmann constant k"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=aaf50104.0411050321.1d4d746b%40posting.google.com
" The first, completely _classical_ derivation of Planck's law, replete
with the perspective of the thermodynamics of computation pioneered by
Landauer and Bennett at the IBM Watson lab where I had the honour of
working for some years, is at
http://www.columbia.edu/~vg96/papers/planck.pdf.
It establishes that
the Planck's constant h is really just the Fourier transform of the
Boltzmann constant k - to be precise, it serves the same role for the
spectral domain as k does for the ordinary (un-Fourier transformed)
time domain. About the only part I'm not totally happy about is the
derivation of the Boltzmann distribution (in appendix), but this does
not diminish the main contention of the paper in sections IV (the
derivation) and V (applications to boson statistics, zero-point
energy/field and entanglement)."
V. Guruprasad
Dear V. Guruprasad
Please YOUR COMMENTS
Cheers,
Aleksandr Timofeev