A Snapshot of a Photon
Yzut20
By H.E. Retic ONLY E-mail address:- Einste...@AOL.com
The photon has been viewed as a somewhat mysterious entity which sometimes
has the properties of a particle and sometimes has the properties oaf a wave.
It would seem interesting to see, therefore, whether we can determine what a
photon would look like if we had a "godlike" ability to "see" it without the
restrictions imposed by our limits of observation.
Since the photon is electromagnetic in nature, perhaps the best place to
start is by examining the nature of an electromagnetic wave emitted by a
dipole, such as the antenna of a radio transmitter. There is no question that
this radiation consists of crossed electric and magnetic fields having a 90
degree phase relationship to each other. These fields are readily observed and
allow us to use them for communication over distance. (See
http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/cf131.gif ). We also know by
observation that this wave is actually composed of discrete "lumps" of energy
called photons because it is noisy. The noise energy of the wave varies in
proportion to the square root of its total energy. As a result, the signal
(energy in the wave) to noise (energy in the wave components) ratio of the wave
itself varies inversely with the square root of the waves strength. The effect
is well described in handbooks on electromagnetic communication and seems
beyond challenge.
If we attenuate the wave sufficiently, it becomes a parade of the
individual particles (photons) appearing as separate entities which may be
detected separately.
The question to be answered is what the nature of these particles must be so
that in the aggregate they can form a smooth continuous wave. To meet this
requirement, the photons in the wave must be coherent. This means that they
must have the same polarization and be appropriately phased so that they can
add properly. (In lasers this coherency is defined as the distance of millions
of cycles over which the phase and polarization match is maintained.)
The question to be answered is what form does the photon have to be in
order to be capable of combining with other wavelets to form the coherent wave.
The answer is probably provided by the "Impulse Function", 1/(e*x^2).
Multiplying the continuous wave by this function provides, for the photons
which compose the wave. a shape shown by
http://www.members.aol.com.einsteinhoax/cf133.gif. One only need to imagine the
electric and magnetic components of this construction propagating along its
axis at the velocity of light to envision what a photon "looks like".
When one combines this shape with the quantum coupling between photons
which has been demonstrated by the work of Quantum Physicists, one finds that
he describes the kind of entity that has the dual wave an particle properties
we associate with a photon. The only question left is why the nature of the
photon is considered to be mysterious.
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm .
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a
regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as
they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please
do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at
the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:- einste...@aol.com
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
.
Sam Wormley
>
> A Snapshot of a Photon
>
Did you ever wonder "What the heck is a photon, anyway?"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/schmoton.htm
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretic
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher1
Robert Kolker
Yzut20 wrote:
> If we attenuate the wave sufficiently, it becomes a parade of the
> individual particles (photons) appearing as separate entities which may be
> detected separately.
So why do photons sent through a double slit singly and separately show
interference?
Bob Kolker
Uncle Al
>
> A Snapshot of a Photon
Psychotic ineducable moron retiche,
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
> The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
> "The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
> Relativity (1999)
[snip]
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
Experimental constraints on General relativity.
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Aleksandr Timofeev
Dear Robert Kolker
You read too much physical and mathematical modern marasmus, and
for this reason you live in the fancy world of physical chimeras.
I assert with absolute confidence, that you have not own
experience in the field of experimental physics:
1. Show us a real interferometer, which can register a sole photon.
2. Estimate a level of own noise of the best modern VLBI receiver
of microwave radiation.
3. How do you estimate a methodological role in a physics
of the Mach's concepts?
>
> Bob Kolker
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0204230333.7e750f46%40posting.google.com
==================================================================
Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3CC4692F...@attbi.com>...
> Stonelock wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't this make sense?
> >
> > Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the
> > same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is
> > conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so
> > together.
> >
> > Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not inter-photon
> > dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time
> > give the same result?
>
> Unless the photon went through both slits at once.
>
> Or perhaps there is a Pilot Wave, as Bohm supposes.
It is delirium in the pure unconscious state.
Bob be kind explain to us by what method the photon went through
both slits at once:
================================================================
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (a_n_ti...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: The detection of "photons" in Bell tests
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Date: 2002-04-03 01:14:10 PST
Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
news:<3CA9DC6A...@fnal.gov>...
> Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > Eric's analysis C H Thompson papers is logically error, since Eric's
> > > > analysis leans on existence of a particle "photon",
> > >
> > > In fact, my analysis leaned on simple statistics and scientific
> > > method.
> >
> > It is only public declaration with respect to the dispute,
> > solemn declaration, Declaration of Indulgence.
> >
> > > We never even got as far as discussing photons.
> >
> > No, you "never even got as far as discussing photons."
> >
> > You always cowardly escape from detail and honour discuss of the
> > given subject. Now I will give you a bully dinner. I shall throw
> > you on both shoulder-blades.
> >
> > > > photon, which does not
> > > > exist in a nature. I proved to you an inaccuracy of the concept
> > > > of a "photon" many times, but you constantly ignore discuss of this
> > > > problem.
> > > > [snip]
> > Please, specify physical errors in my analysis of a considered
> > phenomenon.
> >
> > The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
> > VLBI interferometer is possible only from the wave point of view.
> > The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
> > VLBI interferometer is _impossible in a support on a hypothetical
> > particle - "photon".
> >
>
> You are under the erroneous assumption that photons do
> not exibit interference patterns.
Dear Eric Prebys, be kind, please, give us description of your
physical gear of transiting of "photon" simultaneously through
two antennas of a VLBI interferometer, and then show us by what
method "photon" (passing simultaneously through two antennas of
a VLBI interferometer, which one are on distance of a terrestrial
globe from each other) hits on a particular videotape from two
videotapes. :-)
:o]
:-)
There are two graphic schemes illustrating the description:
The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 1.
Block scheme.
-> radio-telescope 1
->
-> parabolic antenna 1 tape 1 clock 1
-> \
-> \ [ microwave ]
-> \ [ receiver + ] [videotape] [hydrogen ]
-> ) )--->[analog-to-digital]--->[recorder ]<---[frequency]
-> / [ converter ] ^ ^ [standard ]
-> / | |
-> / radio-signals time-marks
-> microwave
-> radiation
-> for synchronization of atomic clocks
-> [transportable caesium]
-> [ frequency standard ]
[snip] ============================================================
^
| Length of VLBI basis >= Earth diametr
+
[snip] ============================================================
-> radio-telescope 2
->
->
-> parabolic antenna 2 tape 2 clock 2
-> \
-> \ [ microwave ]
-> \ [ receiver + ] [videotape] [hydrogen ]
-> ) )--->[analog-to-digital]--->[recorder ]<---[frequency]
-> / [ converter ] ^ ^ [standard ]
-> / | |
-> / radio-signals time-marks
->
->
->
. The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 2.
. ----------------------------------------------------------
. "Interference picture"
. ^
. |
. [videotape 1] ------> [ COMPUTER ] <---------- [videotape 2]
. ^ ^
. | |
. radio-telescope 1 <- synchronization clocks -> radio-telescope 2
. Length of basis
. |<------------------------ {snip} ---------------------------->|
. /^\ /^\
.^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ {snip} ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
.| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
. Noise microwave radiation
VLBI interferometer 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How about an arguments to go with that?
> As I have *repeatedly* pointed
> out to you, this is based on your extremely naive concept
> of quantum mechanics. Wavelike propagation and interference
> is at the heart of quantum mechanics. ALL particles can exibit
> wavelike interference at the quantum level.
Dear Eric Prebys, be kind, please, give us description of your
physical gear of transiting of "photon" simultaneously through
two antennas of a VLBI interferometer, and then show us by what
method ("the heart of quantum mechanics and/or other ) "photon"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(passing simultaneously through two antennas of
a VLBI interferometer, which one are on distance of a terrestrial
globe from each other) hits on a particular videotape from two
videotapes. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :-)
>
> I suggest you calculate the quantum energy of microwaves and
> check the experimental sensitivity of your system, and I'm
> confident you'll find that you are nowhere near the sensitivity
> to see quantum effects.
We need description of your physical gear of transiting
of "photon" simultaneously through two antennas of a VLBI
interferometer
We need spiritual and physical need of your description
of physical gear for VLBI.
>
> > (...snip lots of stuff that everybody already knows...)
Dear Eric Prebys, be kind, please, read my texts up to the moment
of creation and invention of your critical notes in my address.
:-)
================================================================
================================================================
Regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev