Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Aleksandr Timofeev
which create the epistemological base of any physical theory.
The epistemological base is deep-seated under deceptive, sparkling
and blinding specular surface of shaky and ephemeral " human Knowledge
of a Nature ", it extends in gloomy depths of our "Ignorance".
Thus both fundamental physical constants and any reasonings concerning
them are purest METAPHYSICS. Eternally magic and the eternal uncertain
boundary flickers between Physics and METAPHYSICS.
METAPHYSICS
" Metaphysical substance of concept of velocity of gravitation "
Tom Van Flandern carried out very useful and effective METAPHYSICAL
PUBLIC DEBATE. ABSOLUTELY ALL participants of this informal
metaphysical public debate do not understand physical substance
of natural phenomena of GRAVITATION. It is natural, that the fanatical
religious participants, standing on protection of pseudo-scientific
ideological metaphysical and political interests, here are switched on
too; so-called METAPHYSICAL RELATIVISTS.
All participants of the controversy consider central and key
" METAPHYSICAL concept of velocity of gravitation ".
1. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance is isolated local
process.
2. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance has character
spatially of concentrated central interaction.
3. The relativists can not convincingly prove, that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance in gravitational
system is not plurality of spatially - distributed and of
mutual - bound processes.
4. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance has not
character character of the off-center interaction, dispersed
in space.
5. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance has mixed
character of central and off-center interactions.
Without the experimental solution of problems of local
and non-local gravitational interaction, the scientific argment
regarding the "metaphysical concept " of "gravitation velocity "
is absolutely senseless.
Absurdity and inaccuracy of the logic structure GR.
Tom Van Flandern has yielded some valuable and convincing
experimental examples refuting "relativity" in the politely
latent shape, and as a corollary he has proven the conceptual
physical absurdity and inaccuracy of all logical structure of GR.
Van Flandern convincingly has shown, that in the solar system
the arrangement of celestial bodies is determined by STATIONARY
spatially distributed interdependent gravitational processes,
i.e. the dynamic STATIONARY behaviour of bodies in solar system
does not submit to a principle of a locality of gravitational
interaction, but it submits to a principle of a distributed
nonlocal gravitational interaction.
( The Newton's principle of long-range action follows from here!
The well known physical planetary analog for solar system,
the quantum mechanical description of the model of the atom gives
a relativity principle in complete disarray.)
It is senseless to apply the term " velocity of gravitational
interaction " to a mixed central and non-central gravitational
interaction in stationary gravitational systems making _steady-state
natural gravitational oscillations_ , since the character of the
shape of "standing" gravitational oscillations is defined by
natural system properties of a concrete gravitational system and
does not depend at all on " velocity of gravitational interaction ".
"PROPER" or "NATURAL" SPACE
The electrodynamics figures phenomena in " ANOTHER'S SPACES "
Look at natural oscillations of a string with anchored ends .
The shape of natural standing oscillations of a string does not
depend on the velocity rate of propagation of waves of elasticity
in the material of a string, for any string the shape of standing
waves is same. You instantaneously will claim that you can
calculate the velocity of waves of elasticity utillizing the
oscillation frequency of the string or elastic plate. I propose
the opposite; we have considered waves in "another's" spaces,
and these waves do not have energy sufficient for fracture of
"another's" space. Any electromagnetic waves are always spread
in "another's" spaces, i.e. in "spaces" which are generated by
nonelectromagnetic interaction of substance.
Maxwell's electrodynamics are not applicable for the
description of physical processes inside master cells, which
pluralities create "another's" space in which Maxwell
electrodynamics already becomes applicable. Fundamental
physical principle is that the Maxwell electrodynamics is
applicable only in "another's" spaces, since the Maxwell
electrodynamics demands the assignment of boundary CONDITIONS.
THE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are a latent electrodynamic postulate
about physical existence " of ANOTHER'S SPACE " in which the
electromagnetic phenomena are carried out.
The concept of boundary CONDITIONS cannot be eliminated
from electrodynamics.
Maxwell's electrodynamics is a theory about dynamic processes
in " ANOTHER'S SPACES ".
"PROPER" or "NATURAL" SPACE of gravitational systems
The physical gravitational analog of the electrodynamic
concept of boundary CONDITIONS does not exist for Solar system.
From my point of view just this physical fact ruins any
theoretical attempts at proof of the steadiness and stability
of the Solar system undertaken by physicists until now.
On the other hand, there are phenomenological proofs of
steadiness and stability of the Solar system. This fact yields
the basis for the assumption, that the terms of the Solar
system are a collective source of self-consistent dynamic
INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS for themselves as single unit.
In electrodynamics, the EXTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are
applied. In the gravitational dynamic theory of planetary
systems in latent shape the INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are
applied, therefore the Solar system creates a " PROPER
(NATURAL) GRAVITATIONAL SPACE " and the volume " of
gravitational space " is determined by the gravitational
interaction of bodies of the Solar system. The character
of "standing" gravitational oscillations is defined by
the proper system properties of a concrete gravitational
system and does not depend on the metaphysical concept
of the "velocity of gravitational interaction ".
Who can now calculate the " velocity of gravitational
interaction "on measurings positions of planets if he
can not point out INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS in
an explicit way for solar or any other concrete
gravitational system?
Demise of an individualistic relativity
The terms of natural gravitational systems are
collectives of a stationary self-consistent collective
dynamic motion with sad consequences for an individualistic
relativity.
" The experimental time constants " of many processes
of sluggish changes in the motions of the planets are known
now uncertainly or unreliablly. The main difficulty in the
study of "natural" gravitational systems similar to the
solar system is the absence of an opportunity to perform
violent experiments to arbitrarily change the positions
of bodies of the system.
All terrestrial laboratory gravitational experiments have
a local character and are carried out in "another's
gravitational space", therefore, distribution of theresults
of these experiments on astronomical spatial gauges has
a hypothetical character.
" We're talking apples and oranges. ... if the speed of gravity were
the same as the speed of light."
I am very grateful to my friend from Canada
Walter Babin ( http://www3.sympatico.ca/wbabin/paper/ )
for rectifying of my English text of the message:
I feel deep respect to Tom Van Flandern for scientific courage,
" the standard theory of gravitation " is converted into ideological
dogma, which basic purpose is the upkeep of political metaphysical
interests..."
Comments.
---
Regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev
"Latent gravitational chiral symmetry for an actual
gravitational phenomenon of the Nature - the Solar system"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B368678%40MailAndNews.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0304100111.256ae098%40posting.google.com
Robert Kolker
Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> METAPHYSICS
>
> " Metaphysical substance of concept of velocity of gravitation "
>
> Tom Van Flandern carried out very useful and effective METAPHYSICAL
> PUBLIC DEBATE. ABSOLUTELY ALL participants of this informal
> metaphysical public debate do not understand physical substance
> of natural phenomena of GRAVITATION. It is natural, that the fanatical
> religious participants, standing on protection of pseudo-scientific
> ideological metaphysical and political interests, here are switched on
> too; so-called METAPHYSICAL RELATIVISTS.
Metaphysics is ka ka. It is the swamp gas of the human intellect. The
universe cannot be deduced from a priori principles by human beings.
Bob Kolker
Uncle Al
>
> The fundamental physical constants are " corner granite stones ",
> which create the epistemological base of any physical theory.
> The epistemological base is deep-seated under deceptive, sparkling
> and blinding specular surface of shaky and ephemeral " human Knowledge
> of a Nature ", it extends in gloomy depths of our "Ignorance".
> Thus both fundamental physical constants and any reasonings concerning
> them are purest METAPHYSICS. Eternally magic and the eternal uncertain
> boundary flickers between Physics and METAPHYSICS.
>
> METAPHYSICS
>
> " Metaphysical substance of concept of velocity of gravitation "
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
Those who can, write equations. Those who cannot, spew.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> >
> > The fundamental physical constants are " corner granite stones ",
> > which create the epistemological base of any physical theory.
> > The epistemological base is deep-seated under deceptive, sparkling
> > and blinding specular surface of shaky and ephemeral " human Knowledge
> > of a Nature ", it extends in gloomy depths of our "Ignorance".
> > Thus both fundamental physical constants and any reasonings concerning
> > them are purest METAPHYSICS. Eternally magic and the eternal uncertain
> > boundary flickers between Physics and METAPHYSICS.
> >
> > METAPHYSICS
> >
> > " Metaphysical substance of concept of velocity of gravitation "
The physical chemist, the aged (marasmic ?) Uncle Al
> http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
So, I am forced to repeat again,
The physical chemist, the aged Dr. Uncle Al
are the man easily to spinnable programming by exterior
manipulators of own consciousness.
The physical chemist Uncle Al's thinking is supersaturated
by trash of error pseudo-plausible stereotypes of thinking,
such as the metaphysical relativist Bilge has written a
following remarkable passage:
===============================================================
" Someone should do a psycological study on
why some folks are so insistent upon" equality
of THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT and of THE VELOCITY OF THE GRAVITATION.
---------------------------------------------------------------
" turning a simple problem into something overly complex to
the point of being insoluable due to the proliferation of "what ifs"
scenarios which are forbidden by any known physics in the first place,
forcing them to speculate on possible answers, and then getting the
wrong answer for all of their effort speculating, because the physics
was wrong.
Surely there must be some phsycological explanation for this.
Bizarre."
Metaphysical Relativist Bilge
===============================================================
> Those who can, write equations. Those who cannot, spew.
Please, Dear the physical chemist Dr. Uncle Al do comments to:
" The work of eastern physicists seems not to have been distorted
by the irrational philosophy of the Copenhagen school of thought
that has pervaded the whole fundamental physics field in the west."
My old Canadian friend sent to me very interesting letter:
===============================================================
"I have received with great pleasure the Landau and Lifshitz book
that you have sent me.
I have just begun to read it and already have confirmation that
they are the true successors of Maxwell.
The work of eastern physicists seems not to have been distorted
by the irrational philosophy of the Copenhagen school of thought
that has pervaded the whole fundamental physics field in the west.
I was specifically interested in what they had to say about
constants epsilon_zero and mu_zero pertaining to the definition
of electromagnetic energy in total vacuum (Almost nothing is ever
said on the subject in physics books) which is the aspect of
electromagnetic energy that has always drawn my attention, as
you must have surmised ... <...>
What was of interest to me is the fact that Lev Landau names the
permittivity constant " the electrostatic dielectric permittivity
constant", and that he names the permeability constant of vacuum
"magnetic permittivity constant"([25]).
It seems that in Russian, the word "permeability" is not used,
at least by Landau and Lifshitz, and that the word "permittivity"
is applied to both constants, which emphasizes an interesting
kinship between them; a possible direct link that I have always
suspected and that is unfortunately lost in the French and
English translations of their works and papers."
===============================================================
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> > METAPHYSICS
> >
> > " Metaphysical substance of concept of velocity of gravitation "
> >
> > Tom Van Flandern carried out very useful and effective METAPHYSICAL
> > PUBLIC DEBATE. ABSOLUTELY ALL participants of this informal
> > metaphysical public debate do not understand physical substance
> > of natural phenomena of GRAVITATION. It is natural, that the fanatical
> > religious participants, standing on protection of pseudo-scientific
> > ideological metaphysical and political interests, here are switched on
> > too; so-called METAPHYSICAL RELATIVISTS.
>
> Metaphysics is ka ka. It is the swamp gas of the human intellect.
Then you should give the answer to a problem: " Why all papers
in the academic physical magazines contain verbal interpretations
of mathematical evaluations?
According to your logic, all papers in the academic physical
magazines should contain only mathematical evaluations without
verbal interpretations, even the titles of papers should contain
only mathematical evaluations in the academic physical magazines!
> The universe cannot be deduced from a priori principles by human
> beings.
>
> Bob Kolker
There is example of "a priori principle by human beings":
" THE VELOCITY OF THE GRAVITATION
is equal to
THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT."
Orbital
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03041...@posting.google.com...
What do you mean by "velocity of Gravitation"? Velocity of gravitational
force or velocity of potential changes?
And what is your point anyway? I'm reading your post and I can't understand
what you want to say? Do you have an alternative theory or experimental
evidence contrary to Poteikin's? (I hope I spelled his name right)
Expose yourself by putting you metaphysical interpretation on the table.
Robert Kolker
Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> There is example of "a priori principle by human beings":
>
> " THE VELOCITY OF THE GRAVITATION
> is equal to
> THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT."
Wrong, tavarishch. It is a testable hypothesis. Experiment will tell.
Particularly if it is falsified.
A priori necessary propositions live in the prefrontal lobes of demented
folk.
Bob Kolker
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> > There is example of "a priori principle by human beings":
> >
> > " THE VELOCITY OF THE GRAVITATION
> > is equal to
> > THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT."
> Wrong, tavarishch. It is a tasteful or taste-able hypothesis. ;0)
What epistemological distinction or difference do you see
between a priori hypothesis and a hypothetical principle?
> It is a testable hypothesis.
If it is a testable hypothesis, then specify actual experiment,
which one confirms that " THE VELOCITY OF THE GRAVITATION is
equal to THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT." ;-))
> Experiment will tell.
Till now, all experiments on definition " the velocity of
a gravitation " have fatal and catastrophic outcome.
> Particularly if it is falsified.
Therefore we have the right to the statement, that " velocity
of a gravitation " in GTR "is falsified". :-(
> A priori necessary propositions live in the prefrontal lobes
> of demented folk.
I agree with your statement with pleasure.
This "demented folk" could be only remarkable mathematician,
the remarkable physicist could not devise such "schizophrenic"
idea. This "demented folk" was the remarkable gentile, French
mathematician Henry Poincare. Here there is a very interesting
complementary little-known information:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/wbabin/paper/comments/timo1.htm
For the first time in a history, Henry Poincare, deducing
from the Maxwell - Lorentz's equations, has formulated a
principle of relativity for electromagnetic phenomena as
strict mathematical truth, and also has opened of Lorentz's
group time-space conversions to all forces of a nature,
irrespective of their origin, including gravitational.
For the first time in a history, Henry Poincare has
lectured about the concepts of a General Theory of
Relativity at " World's commercial and industrial
exhibition in Louisville USA in 1904."
=====================================================
> Bob Kolker
Orbital
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03041...@posting.google.com...
news:<3EA000C9...@attbi.com>...
> > Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> > > There is example of "a priori principle by human beings":
> > >
> > > " THE VELOCITY OF THE GRAVITATION
> > > is equal to
> > > THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT."
>
> > Wrong, tavarishch. It is a tasteful or taste-able hypothesis. ;0)
>
> What epistemological distinction or difference do you see
> between a priori hypothesis and a hypothetical principle?
>
There is no such a thing as a "hypothetical principle". Principles are just
that, principles. Principles are not subject to verification. Principles are
premises in a deductive system from which conclusions arise. In this
context, relativity and the equivalence principles lead to conclusions that
are testable hypotheses in GR. You seem to confuse principles with the
conclusions arising from such principles.
You must get your act straight, I can only recommend that much to you
Comerad.
Robert Kolker
Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
>
>>Wrong, tavarishch. It is a tasteful or taste-able hypothesis. ;0)
>
>
> What epistemological distinction or difference do you see
> between a priori hypothesis and a hypothetical principle?
A hypothesis is a guess and a supposition but an a priori hypothesis has
a metaphysical claim to certainty. Which proves metaphysics is bullshit
from m to s.
Bob Kolker
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> >
> >>Wrong, tavarishch. It is a tasteful or taste-able hypothesis. ;0)
> >
> >
> > What epistemological distinction or difference do you see
> > between a priori hypothesis and a hypothetical principle?
>
> A hypothesis is a guess and a supposition but an a priori hypothesis has
> a metaphysical claim to certainty.
Well. What philosophical category (subject) posesses the physical term
"photon" from an epistemological point of view?
1. Is "Photon" "a guess and a supposition"?
2. Is "Photon" " an a priori principle, that one has a metaphysical
claim to certainty."
3. Whether is the "photon" something else?
From my point of view, 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 only by
discrete portions.
So, From my point of view, the modern sense of the physical term
"photon" is is "bullshit" chimera since 1927.
I have proved this fact with the help VLBI even to such
" relativity metaphysical religious fanatic " as Steve Carlip
<car...@dirac.ucdavis.edu>:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0105300456.3f908a72%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=anhtpa%243r4%242%40woodrow.ucdavis.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ankvpm%24lq1%243%40woodrow.ucdavis.edu
> Which proves metaphysics is bullshit from m to s.
=================================================================
" Which proves standard physics (or metaphysics) is "numerology
from p to s." ;-):
=================================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0205180434.2dcadbfc%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0203020730.54694ebd%40posting.google.com
Agree wholeheartedly. It is Absolute True. The human abstract thinking
functions on the basis of the subjective _human_ approach to the
analysis of _subjective_ _sensations_ accessible to perception of the
man. The world is given to the man in sensations and extremely
speculative reasonings of the man on sensations or reasoning from
the facts.
=================================================================
In the Nature there is no Nature's law, which binds the Nature to
submit to the language of mathematics.
=================================================================
All science is a numerology. Long live numerology.
=================================================================
Whether you believe to me?
If you do not trust me, then read further ...
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0203020730.54694ebd%40posting.google.com
>
> Bob Kolker
Aleksandr Timofeev
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:e16a4a22.03041...@posting.google.com...
> > Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:<3EA000C9...@attbi.com>...
> > > Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> > > > There is example of "a priori principle by human beings":
> > > >
> > > > " THE VELOCITY OF THE GRAVITATION
> > > > is equal to
> > > > THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT."
>
> > > Wrong, tavarishch. It is a tasteful or taste-able hypothesis. ;0)
> >
> > What epistemological distinction or difference do you see
> > between a priori hypothesis and a hypothetical principle?
> >
>
> There is no such a thing as a "hypothetical principle". Principles are just
> that, principles. Principles are not subject to verification. Principles are
> premises in a deductive system from which conclusions arise. In this
> context, relativity and the equivalence principles lead to conclusions that
> are testable hypotheses in GR.
In the analysis you base on a logic principle of an INDUCTION.
Now I offer you, prove reliability of physical principles,
offered by you, lying in the basis GR and GR as a whole,
leaning on a logic principle of DEDUCTION for a following
experimental phenomenon:
"Latent gravitational chiral symmetry for an actual
gravitational phenomenon of the Nature - the Solar system"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B368678%40MailAndNews.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0304100111.256ae098%40posting.google.com
> You seem to confuse principles with the
> conclusions arising from such principles.
You should rigidly know, that the system of postulates and logic
corollaries of any theory has property of an arbitrary choice.
You can arbitrary pick a part of logic corollaries of the aged
theory as new postulates, then you can supplement " new postulates "
by a part of aged postulates, and now you have " the new theory "
equivalent to " of the aged theory ".
> You must get your act straight, I can only recommend that much to you
> Comerad.
Have fun.
Aleksandr Timofeev
I discuss problems of a natural phenomenon of
a gravitational interaction of celestial bodies.
I wanted to show, that the clear theoretical
understanding of physical substance of the mechanism
of a natural phenomenon of a gravitational
interaction of celestial bodies does not exist.
Without the experimental solution of problems of local
and non-local gravitational interaction, or mixed local
and non-local gravitational interaction, the scientific
arguments regarding the "metaphysical concept " of
" gravitational interaction velocity " or " gravitation
velocity " is absolutely senseless.
It is absolutely senseless both for " Velocity of
gravitational force or velocity of potential changes, "
since there is an opportunity for alternate mechanisms:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-6/Grav-pub.htm
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0201100552.6b7f6374%40posting.google.com
>
> And what is your point anyway? I'm reading your post and
> I can't understand what you want to say? Do you have an
> alternative theory or experimental evidence contrary to
> Poteikin's? (I hope I spelled his name right)
2003/01/08
Meta Research Press Release: Kopeikin and "the speed of gravity"
http://www.metaresearch.org/media%20and%20links/press/SOG-Kopeikin.asp
Kopeikin and the Speed of Gravity
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad
judgment.
Meta Research Press Release
"The speed of gravity"
Abstract. New findings were announced on 2003/01/08 by S. Kopeikin,
claiming to have measured the "speed of gravity" and finding it
essentially equal to the speed of light. These findings are invalid
by both experimental and theoretical standards because the quantity
measured was already known to propagate at the speed of light. The
hyped claims therefore do a disservice to science in general and the
advancement of physics in particular because the announced findings
do not represent the meaning of the actual experimental results and
cannot possibly represent the physical quantity heretofore called
"the speed of gravity", which has already been proved by six
experiments to propagate much faster than light, perhaps billions of
times faster. Several mainstream relativists have also stated their
disagreement that the experiment really measured what it claimed to
measure.
>Expose yourself by putting you metaphysical interpretation on the
table.
There are " my metaphysical interpretation on the table ":
"Latent gravitational chiral symmetry for an actual
gravitational phenomenon of the Nature - the Solar system"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B368678%40MailAndNews.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0304100111.256ae098%40posting.google.com
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4d2b.html
A.5. BENJAMIN PIERCE, LOUIS AGASSIZ, FIBONACCI, AND THE SOLAR SYSTEM
Nevertheless, the linking of natural growth to the structure
of planetary systems was undoubtedly a bold and momentous step
even though it also reflects the second part of the quotation from
Ovid: "Nor did we ourselves discover this number, but rather
natures teaches it to us." At least this seems applicable in
the case of Benjamin Peirce, 26 who integrated both to successfully
apply the Fibonacci series to the structure of the Solar System.
The latter's work was originally published in the Proceedings
of the AAAS in 1850 and given additional permanence with a further
airing in Louis Agassiz's Essay on Classification in 1857 27.
All to little or no avail, it would seem, for in spite of the
details and the implications the work it still remains in relative
obscurity to the present day. In some respects this may be
understandable, though the subsequent lack of attention or
acceptance can hardly be blamed on the quality of the work or the
means of presentation. All too easily dismissed as "speculative
biology" (Lurie 1962:128) 28 it would seem, it is likely that
it was also one of the first victims of "Bode's "Law" which first
=================================================================
surfaced less than a decade later (1866-1871) despite its fatal
mathematical flaws and ad hoc origins. Indeed, if longevity and
popularity alone provide the guidelines, then "Bode's Law" would
win hands-down in any comparison between the two planetary
frameworks. If, however, the standard by which such matters are
judged depends not on popularity or elementary mathematics, but
on human progress and increased understanding, then one can only
wonder what else might have been accomplished since Agassiz's
time and sadly lament the loss.
The complete description of Benjamin Pierce's application of
the Fibonacci series to the structure of the Solar System as
published by Louis Aggassiz is provided below; perhaps
significantly, the words "Fibonacci" and/or the "Golden Section"
(and the like) are noticeably absent--such words perhaps already
unacceptable to the powers that be and also a perceived threat
to the status quo. Nevertheless, there can be no mistaking the
sequence applied or the major premise, called here perhaps
fittingly enough (for the moderns, at least) "the law
of phyllotaxis". One may also note that Peirce had already
considered the practical differences between his theoretical
treatment and the Solar System itself and subsequently considered
not only the position of Earth, but also discepancies encountered
for the positions of Mars, Uranus and Neptune. Initially Pierce
also applied a double form of Fibonacci series but subsequently
reduced the set to arrive are a situation similar to that
involving the synodic difference cycle between adjacent planets.
ESSAY ON CLASSIFICATION
Louis Agassiz 1857
FUNDAMENTAL RELATIONS OF ANIMALS
SECTION XXXI
COMBINATIONS IN TIME AND SPACE OF VARIOUS KINDS OF RELATIONS
AMONG ANIMALS
[snip]
27.Pierce, Benjamin. "Mathematical Investigations of the Fractions
Which Occur in Phyllotaxis,"Proceedings,
AAAS, II 1850: 444-447.
28.Agassiz, Louis. ESSAY ON CLASSIFICATION, Ed. E. Lurie, Belknap
Press, Cambridge 1962:127-128.
29.Lurie, E. Ed. ESSAY ON CLASSIFICATION, Belknap Press, Cambridge,
1962.
30.Agassiz, op. cit., p. 128.
31.Lurie, E. Ed., Agassiz, ESSAY ON CLASSIFICATION, Belknap Press,
Cambridge, 1962.
PART III. EXPONENTIAL ORDER IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4c.html
PART IV. SPIRA SOLARIS ARCHYTAS-MIRABILIS
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4d.html
Comments.
Regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev
Robert Kolker
Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> 1. Is "Photon" "a guess and a supposition"?
Stop right there. It was a -very good- guess. Science is really a form
of telling Just-So stories. It is the power of the intelligent wild
smart ass guess unleased on the world.
What God did not give us in the way of sharp senses, He gave us, in
compensation, a very vivid imagination.
Bob Kolker
Pmb
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3EA1586B...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> > 1. Is "Photon" "a guess and a supposition"?
>
> Stop right there. It was a -very good- guess. Science is really a form
> of telling Just-So stories. It is the power of the intelligent wild
> smart ass guess unleased on the world.
Actually it was what the "guess" evolved into that was 'very good'. Not the
original 'guess' that turned out to be very true.
An historical note: The first use of the word "photon" in physics was in the
Dec. 18, 1926 issue of Nature in a "Letter to the Editor" by Gilbert N.
Lewis. For those who don't know who Lewis was - From MS Encarta
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis, Gilbert Newton (1875-1946), American chemist best known for his
theory of electron sharing in covalent bonds. Lewis was born in Weymouth,
Massachusetts, and educated at the universities of Nebraska, Harvard,
Leipzig, and Göttingen. He taught chemistry at Harvard from 1899 to 1900 and
from 1901 to 1906, and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from
1907 to 1912. From 1912 until his death he was professor of physical
chemistry at the University of California at Berkeley, also serving as the
dean of the school of chemistry.1
------------------------------------------------------------------
The article in Nature is called "The Conservation of Photons". The following
are the postulates of the properties of the photon stated by Lewis
(1) In any isolated system the total number of photons is constant
(2) All radiant energy is carried by photons, the only difference being the
radiation from a wireless station and the X-ray tube being that the former
emits a vastly greater number of photons, each carrying a very much smaller
amount of energy
(3) All photons are intrinsically identical
As for the "modern" idea that it has evolved into, that's a different story.
And one of the main characters in that play is Willis E. Lamb, Nobel
Laureate ( He won his Nobel Prize for his discoveries concerning the
structure of the hydrogen spectrum and his work on QED. --
http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1955/index.html)
However consider what Lamb has to say about photons. From "Anti-Photon,"
W.E. Lamb, Appl. Phys. B 60, 77-84 (1995)
"Abstract: It should be apparent from the title of this paper that the
author does not like the use of the word "photon," which dates from 1926. In
his view, there is no such thing as a photon. Only a comedy of errors and
historical accidents led to this popularity among physicists and optical
scientists. [...]"
He goes on to explain why. Lamb basically explains that all experimental
observations can be explained without the concept.
E.g. "The photon concepts as used in by a high percentage of the laser
community have no scientific justification. It is now thirty-five years
after the making of the first laser. The sooner an appropriate reformulation
of our educational processes can be made the better."
Pmb
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03041...@posting.google.com...
...
> 1. Is "Photon" "a guess and a supposition"?
> 2. Is "Photon" " an a priori principle, that one has a metaphysical
> claim to certainty."
> 3. Whether is the "photon" something else?
>
> From my point of view, 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 only by
> discrete portions.
>
> So, From my point of view, the modern sense of the physical term
> "photon" is is "bullshit" chimera since 1927.
Consider the following:
- two photons have been made to collide,
- photons carry enough energy for pair creation,
- photons are affected by the intervening matter,
- photons, like all particles can be made to self-interfere.
They may be "chimera" in your opinion, but then apparently so is the rest
of creation.
David A. Smith
Aleksandr Timofeev
Only three fundamental physical ideas are necessary and
are sufficient for correct explanation of physical phenomena
of an exchange and transformation of electromagnetic energy:
1). Electromagnetic waves;
2). Medium of a nonelectromagnetic origin or " another's
space ";
3). Possession of skill of mathematical description of
nonlinear electromagnetic processes.
==============================================================
The hypothesis " of a phlogiston - photon " is excessive
both error from an epistemological and physical point of view.
==============================================================
Please explain a phenomenon:
> - two photons have been made to collide,
from a "photon" point of view. ;-)))
Look inside the message:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=df6db65f.0209240653.cfb3165%40posting.google.com
You can read:
=========
> Thank you very much. You've just told me you haven't
> the faintest idea how even classical E&M works.
Thank you very much.
At last, You've just told me you have even the faintest idea how
classical E&M works.
"classical E&M", "classical E&M", ... , "classical E&M"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
At last you have got in a trap, set by me.
Well here, you have started talking about a classical
electrodynamics at last.
In this trap are caught:
Steve Carlip, Eric Prebys, John Baez also you the untrained
or badtrained young - David Bilge.
=========
> They may be "chimera" in your opinion, but then apparently so is the rest
> of creation.
==============================================================
The hypothesis of a " phlogiston - photon " is excessive
both error from an epistemological and physical point of view.
==============================================================
Please explain any from phenomenons:
> - two photons have been made to collide,
> - photons carry enough energy for pair creation,
> - photons are affected by the intervening matter,
> - photons, like all particles can be made to self-interfere.
from a " phlogiston - photon" point of view. ;-)))
>
> David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03042...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<kVdoa.3067$kj.2325@fed1read05>...
...
> > Consider the following:
> > - two photons have been made to collide,
> > - photons carry enough energy for pair creation,
> > - photons are affected by the intervening matter,
> > - photons, like all particles can be made to self-interfere.
>
>
> Only three fundamental physical ideas are necessary and
> are sufficient for correct explanation of physical phenomena
> of an exchange and transformation of electromagnetic energy:
> 1). Electromagnetic waves;
> 2). Medium of a nonelectromagnetic origin or " another's
> space ";
> 3). Possession of skill of mathematical description of
> nonlinear electromagnetic processes.
Not sufficient for the photoelectric effect. The intensity of a wave
decreases the "energy per transfer" below what is observed. But you know
this...
==============================================================
> The hypothesis " of a phlogiston - photon " is excessive
> both error from an epistemological and physical point of view.
> ==============================================================
>
> Please explain a phenomenon:
>
> > - two photons have been made to collide,
>
> from a "photon" point of view. ;-)))
From the photon's point of view, the most that can be said is "shit
happens". It certainly doesn't spread, as "wave behaviour" would have it
do. At least based on taking the limit of LT as v->c...
...
> > They may be "chimera" in your opinion, but then apparently so is the
rest
> > of creation.
>
>
> ==============================================================
> The hypothesis of a " phlogiston - photon " is excessive
> both error from an epistemological and physical point of view.
> ==============================================================
>
> Please explain any from phenomenons:
>
> > - two photons have been made to collide,
> > - photons carry enough energy for pair creation,
> > - photons are affected by the intervening matter,
> > - photons, like all particles can be made to self-interfere.
>
> from a " phlogiston - photon" point of view. ;-)))
I don't know where you came up with phlogiston. Please describe how a
wave-only model describes all we know about a neutron, specifically in
terms of self-interference. Don't want to make it too hard! ;>}
David A. Smith
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
>
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:e16a4a22.03042...@posting.google.com...
> > "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<kVdoa.3067$kj.2325@fed1read05>...
> ...
> > > Consider the following:
> > > - two photons have been made to collide,
> > > - photons carry enough energy for pair creation,
> > > - photons are affected by the intervening matter,
> > > - photons, like all particles can be made to self-interfere.
> >
> >
> > Only three fundamental physical ideas are necessary and
> > are sufficient for correct explanation of physical phenomena
> > of an exchange and transformation of electromagnetic energy:
> > 1). Electromagnetic waves;
> > 2). Medium of a nonelectromagnetic origin or " another's
> > space ";
> > 3). Possession of skill of mathematical description of
> > nonlinear electromagnetic processes.
>
> Not sufficient for the photoelectric effect.
Dear David A. Smith
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0205250416.498d8c74%40posting.google.com
> The intensity of a wave decreases the "energy per transfer"
> below what is observed. But you know this...
Please, show places in my reasons, where I am mistaken.
In a photoeffect of an appearances happening on the boundary
vacuum - metal, are considered at a falling of light on a
surface of metal:
First, we have light spreaded in vacuo in direction to a
surface of metal.
Second, we have a flat surface of metal.
Third, we have electrons taking off (emitted) in vacuum
from a surface of metal, if the wavelength of incident light
is less than some boundary (critical) wavelength of light.
There are three logically possible paths (if we shall
eliminate vacuum) for theoretical explanation of existence
of a critical wavelength of light:
1.Light is spreaded in space as particles. These particles
have a particle - wave properties and just they are responsible
for a photoeffect.
2. Light is spreaded in space as EM waves.
The Vacuum - metal boundary has frequency - selective
properties and just this transition is responsible for
a photoeffect.
3. Simultaneously light and Vacuum - metal the transition
are responsible for a photoeffect.
First logic path an explaining phenomenon of a critical wavelength.
======================================= =====================
The equation for a photoeffect was published by J. J. Thomson
in the Sallivan's lectures for the first time in 1903. You consider
classical explanation of a photoeffect, which was given Mileva _Marich
(wife) and A. Binstein in 1905. From my point of view this explanation
physically is erroneous. In 1905 even the structure of atom was not
known. In that time was indifferent to what of two objects (light or
rigid body) to assign quantum properties.
Second logic path an explaining phenomenon of a critical
wavelength.
======================================= =====================
Let's consider the supposition that this phenomenon is
explained by properties of substance which illuminates light.
For the beginning we shall consider explanation on
" on fingers ". Any receiver consists of an antenna and
resonator.
Mental experiment 1. An antenna.
We shall show, that the surface stratum of metal represents
a good antenna for reception of electromagnetic waves, which length
exceeds in ~10^4 times a phase of a crystalline lattice.
A) Let light illuminates a flat screen with a round orifice, which
has a diameter D. What lengths of light waves we can observe behind
of a screen? - Behind of a screen we can observe waves of light,
which length does not exceed D. Therefore screen is a bandpass filter,
if it has an orifice. This filter effectively passes light with
lengths of waves from 0 up to equal D (boundary maxima of value for
a light wave).
Would be erroneous to think, that the waves have length ~10^4*D
cannot be observed behind of a screen.
Near to an orifice longer (on a comparison with D) the light
waves damp under the exponential law. These waves have noticeable
amplitude behind of a screen.
B) Let light illuminates a flat grid (have the incorrect form of an
orifice) or lattice. What lengths of light waves we can observe behind
of a flat grid? - Behind Of a flat grid we can observe light waves
without damping, which length does not exceed D. Where D is equal to
a maximum distance(span) between edges of an orifice of a grid. The
grid is a bandpass filter. This filter passes without damping light
with lengths of waves from 0 up to equal D (boundary maxima of value
for a light wave).
Remarkable advantage of a lattice used as a filter, in a
comparison with a unique orifice, is the essential prize in value of
a power stream. Exceeding boundary value D, the longer light waves
(~ 10 ^ 4*D) damp under the exponential law in direction a
perpendicular surface of a lattice. These waves have noticeable
amplitude behind of a lattice.
C) What the flat surface of metal for electromagnetic waves
represents? We can represent a flat surface of metal as a lattice.
The characteristic size of a mesh of this lattice is approximately
equal D = 2*10^-10 cm. This lattice is a bandpass filter also. This
filter passes without damping light with lengths of waves from 0 up
to equal D (boundary maxima of value for a light wave). Exceeding
boundary value D, the longer electromagnetic waves (penetrating
through a geometric surface of metal) damp under the exponential
law in direction a perpendicular surface of a lattice. These waves
have noticeable amplitude inside a surface stratum of metal. Thus
for electromagnetic waves of a light range (~ 2*10^-10 * 10^4)
surface stratums of metal are represented by some analog of a
multi-element antenna.
Mental experiment 2. Quantum multimode resonator.
Let's consider properties of a rigid body (substance) which
illuminates light. Our crystal is a quantum system. In our crystal
many millions atoms are connected together, and as a result the
huge number of power levels hardly remote from each other inside
power zone is received. The power zones are divided by a significant
distance on a comparison with a distance between power levels inside
power zone. The boundary of last power zone (or last completed
level), in which the electrons are, is separated by a significant
distance from power zone of ionization of crystal. The breadth of a
forbidden region is equal to a minimum energy necessary for an exit
of an electron outside of the boundary of crystal. The expansion
(wave) cumulative distribution function circumscribing an electron
of an exterior envelope of atom, exceeds a distance between atoms.
When the atoms are connected one another, some exterior electrons
should be shared all atoms of crystal. For this reason we have given
a lot of attentions to exposition of disrtibuted "antenna" of our
"receiver". For electromagnetic waves of a light range
(~2*10^-10 * 10^4) surface stratums of metal are represented by some
analog of a multi-element antenna.
Mental experiment 3. Our "receiver" consists of an antenna and
quantum multimode resonator.
Our "receiver" is the quantum multiresonance machine, which
has a property of a reversibility. In the full correspondence by
Plank's principle, our "receiver" accepts and radiates an
electromagnetic energy by quantum portions, which value is determined
by an extremely interior device of "receiver". I repeat once again,
this property is a corollary of an interior device of the given
machine and does not require for the explanation of any additional
hypothesises. The property of a reversibility of this machine allows
to minimize an amount of used principles of physical exposition of a
considered phenomenon. We do not have necessity to assign quantum
properties to electromagnetic radiation. For this reason minimum value
of frequency in the J. J. Thomson's equation corresponds to fixed own
resonance frequency of ionization of our "receiver". We set up
frequency of a radiation under our "receiver" to receive a
photoeffect.
Now there is very great many of diverse quantum electronic
devices. For explanation of principles of their work in
electrical circuits there is no necessity to apply a term
a quantized radiation, for these purposes there are enough
of terms of the theory of an electrodynamics.
The detailses of mechanisms of a radiation and absorption of an
electromagnetic field are not known to us. On my sight the photon is
simply other title for mechanisms of a radiation and absorption of an
electromagnetic field. For this reason the PHOTONS DO NOT EXIST IN A
NATURE or, if it is pleasant more to you, in a medium of an
electromagnetic field the photons will be generated as virtual
particles.
From the point of view of the Henry Poincare, we shall come to
a conclusion:
The photons are particles - ghosts, the photons are mathematical
abstraction, which allow us to calculate probability of interaction
of an electromagnetic field and substance.
Corrections welcome.
Conclusion:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=mvdoa.2391%24vs2.509%40nwrdny01.gnilink.net
===================
However consider what Lamb has to say about photons. From
"Anti-Photon,"
W.E. Lamb, Appl. Phys. B 60, 77-84 (1995)
"Abstract: It should be apparent from the title of this paper
that the author does not like the use of the word "photon,"
which dates from 1926. In his view, there is no such thing
as a photon. Only a comedy of errors and historical accidents
led to this popularity among physicists and optical
scientists. [...]"
He goes on to explain why. Lamb basically explains that
all experimental observations can be explained without
the concept.
E.g. "The photon concepts as used in by a high percentage
of the laser community have no scientific justification.
It is now thirty-five years after the making of the first
laser. The sooner an appropriate reformulation of our
educational processes can be made the better."
Pmb
===================
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0205250416.498d8c74%40posting.google.com
No, it is "sufficient to provide an explanation for the
photoelectric effect."
> ==============================================================
> > The hypothesis " of a phlogiston - photon " is excessive
> > both error from an epistemological and physical point of view.
> > ==============================================================
> >
> > Please explain a phenomenon:
> >
> > > - two photons have been made to collide,
> >
> > from a "photon" point of view. ;-)))
>
> From the photon's point of view, the most that can be said is "shit
> happens". It certainly doesn't spread, as "wave behaviour" would have it
> do. At least based on taking the limit of LT as v->c...
I do not see rational explanation from your post,
how "- two photons have been made to collide" ;-)))
> ...
> > > They may be "chimera" in your opinion, but then apparently so
> > > is the rest of creation.
> >
> >
> > ==============================================================
> > The hypothesis of a " phlogiston - photon " is excessive
> > both error from an epistemological and physical point of view.
> > ==============================================================
> >
> > Please explain any from phenomenons:
> >
> > > - two photons have been made to collide,
> > > - photons carry enough energy for pair creation,
> > > - photons are affected by the intervening matter,
> > > - photons, like all particles can be made to self-interfere.
> >
> > from a " phlogiston - photon" point of view. ;-)))
>
> I don't know where you came up with phlogiston.
I do not see difference "between the devil and the deep sea"
or "between hay and grass" or "between times, between whiles"
or "between this and then" or "between wind and water"
or "between phlogiston and photon"
> Please describe how a
> wave-only model describes all we know about a neutron,
I don't know where you came up with "a neutron".
Really and truly we discass a " photon - phlogiston chimera. " or
if you prefer a " photon chimera. "
> specifically in
> terms of self-interference. Don't want to make it too hard! ;>}
Ideological marasmus " self-interferences of a photon " ;0)))
I repeatedly refuted with the help experimentally of
proved existence of a virtual interference in VLBI.
>
> David A. Smith
The friendly glow of the fire.
Friendly regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
1) Electromagnetic waves;
> In a photoeffect of an appearances happening on the boundary
> vacuum - metal, are considered at a falling of light on a
> surface of metal:
>
> First, we have light spreaded in vacuo in direction to a
> surface of metal.
> Second, we have a flat surface of metal.
> Third, we have electrons taking off (emitted) in vacuum
> from a surface of metal, if the wavelength of incident light
> is less than some boundary (critical) wavelength of light.
>
> There are three logically possible paths (if we shall
> eliminate vacuum) for theoretical explanation of existence
> of a critical wavelength of light:
> 1.Light is spreaded in space as particles. These particles
> have a particle - wave properties and just they are responsible
> for a photoeffect.
> 2. Light is spreaded in space as EM waves.
> The Vacuum - metal boundary has frequency - selective
> properties and just this transition is responsible for
> a photoeffect.
Not possible, and not complete. Displace to 10 ly, note that EM as a wave
has dispersed, but the quanta of light is still "sufficient". The
intensities of the two models agree, per unit area.
> 3. Simultaneously light and Vacuum - metal the transition
> are responsible for a photoeffect.
Too many conditions.
> First logic path an explaining phenomenon of a critical wavelength.
> ======================================= =====================
> The equation for a photoeffect was published by J. J. Thomson
> in the Sallivan's lectures for the first time in 1903. You consider
> classical explanation of a photoeffect, which was given Mileva _Marich
> (wife) and A. Binstein in 1905. From my point of view this explanation
> physically is erroneous. In 1905 even the structure of atom was not
> known. In that time was indifferent to what of two objects (light or
> rigid body) to assign quantum properties.
It is the most mathematically pure and simplest, however. IMHO.
It is not, in that a wave will disperse. This behaviour is not observed.
Self-interference is observed in all particles. Therefore, the photon is a
particle, like any other particle
==============================================================
> > > The hypothesis " of a phlogiston - photon " is excessive
> > > both error from an epistemological and physical point of view.
> > > ==============================================================
> > >
> > > Please explain a phenomenon:
> > >
> > > > - two photons have been made to collide,
> > >
> > > from a "photon" point of view. ;-)))
> >
> > From the photon's point of view, the most that can be said is "shit
> > happens". It certainly doesn't spread, as "wave behaviour" would have
it
> > do. At least based on taking the limit of LT as v->c...
>
> I do not see rational explanation from your post,
> how "- two photons have been made to collide" ;-)))
Franz Heymann provided citations referencing collision experiments of
photons (estabishing their "size"). I could not find them at my lame
college library, perhaps you will have better luck.
"Photon Structure and Gamma Ray Physics",
D.J. Miller. Proceedings of the XVIII conference "Physics in
Collaboration", Frascati June 1998.
"Questions on Two-Photon physics at LEP2; Including Data - Monte Carlo
Comparison", D.J. Miller.
J. Phys. G. Nucl. Part. Phys. 24 (1998) pp 317-324.
>
> > ...
> > > > They may be "chimera" in your opinion, but then apparently so
> > > > is the rest of creation.
> > >
> > >
> > > ==============================================================
> > > The hypothesis of a " phlogiston - photon " is excessive
> > > both error from an epistemological and physical point of view.
> > > ==============================================================
> > >
> > > Please explain any from phenomenons:
> > >
> > > > - two photons have been made to collide,
> > > > - photons carry enough energy for pair creation,
> > > > - photons are affected by the intervening matter,
> > > > - photons, like all particles can be made to self-interfere.
> > >
> > > from a " phlogiston - photon" point of view. ;-)))
> >
> > I don't know where you came up with phlogiston.
>
> I do not see difference "between the devil and the deep sea"
> or "between hay and grass" or "between times, between whiles"
> or "between this and then" or "between wind and water"
> or "between phlogiston and photon"
phlogiston was a continuous substance with the property of "heat", that was
given up because no one could figure out how it could radiate between
surfaces, apparently without affecting anything in between.
> > Please describe how a
> > wave-only model describes all we know about a neutron,
>
> I don't know where you came up with "a neutron".
> Really and truly we discass a " photon - phlogiston chimera. " or
> if you prefer a " photon chimera. "
The "wave model" can only describe self-interference correctly. Neutrons
also self-interfere. So whatever you propose to describe the photon will
have to be big enough to describe the same behaviour in neutrons,
electrons, and bucky balls.
Are you up to it? ;>}
> > specifically in
> > terms of self-interference. Don't want to make it too hard! ;>}
>
> Ideological marasmus " self-interferences of a photon " ;0)))
> I repeatedly refuted with the help experimentally of
> proved existence of a virtual interference in VLBI.
Sorry, I did not participate in that. Your model must describe the
photon-electric effect, and now (apparently) the self-interference of all
quantum particles.
"Boundary effect" will not work, since photons are emitted and absorbed
(potentially) at all points in the Universe. From the photon's frame (God
help me), the beginning and end of its existance are coincident, and the
width (transverse) of the Universe is *unaffected*. Not what you'd expect
of what the Universe would perceive as a "wave".
> The friendly glow of the fire.
I would warm myself by the fire, but you are a long way from where I must
be *now*. Keep dreaming, no theory will ever wrap itself around the whole
Universe.
David A. Smith
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
[snip]
> > Really and truly we discass a " photon - phlogiston chimera. " or
> > if you prefer a " photon chimera. "
>
> The "wave model" can only describe self-interference correctly. Neutrons
> also self-interfere. So whatever you propose to describe the photon will
> have to be big enough to describe the same behaviour in neutrons,
> electrons, and bucky balls.
>
> Are you up to it? ;>}
>
> > > specifically in
> > > terms of self-interference. Don't want to make it too hard! ;>}
> >
> > Ideological marasmus " self-interferences of a photon " ;0)))
> > I repeatedly refuted with the help experimentally of
> > proved existence of a virtual interference in VLBI.
>
> Sorry, I did not participate in that. Your model must describe the
> photon-electric effect, and now (apparently) the self-interference of all
> quantum particles.
Dear David A. Smith
"> > Ideological marasmus " self-interferences of a photon " ;0)))"
Dear David A. Smith, 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?
Eric Prebys wrote:
> 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 David A. Smith, 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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :-)
Eric Prebys wrote:
> 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.
Dear Eric Prebys,
We need description of your physical gear of transiting
of "photon" simultaneously through two antennas of a VLBI
interferometer
Dear Eric Prebys,
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.
:-)
================================================================
Dear David A. Smith, please, show as a photon interferes
with itself in VLBI.
> "Boundary effect" will not work, since photons are emitted and absorbed
> (potentially) at all points in the Universe. From the photon's frame (God
> help me), the beginning and end of its existance are coincident, and the
> width (transverse) of the Universe is *unaffected*. Not what you'd expect
> of what the Universe would perceive as a "wave".
>
> > The friendly glow of the fire.
>
> I would warm myself by the fire, but you are a long way from where I must
> be *now*. Keep dreaming, no theory will ever wrap itself around the whole
> Universe.
Dear David A. Smith, please, debunk " Ideological marasmus
" self-interferences of a photon " ;0)))"
> David A. Smith
Regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0304220055.62ae80a3%40posting.google.com
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03042...@posting.google.com...
No problem. Width of any particle = infinity*. Experimental evidence.
Any classical diffraction formula. Includes photons, neutrons, and bucky
balls. Presumably you could get those to travel down two legs of a VLBI,
properly constructed. And they still manage to not be diffused, and to
deliver the momentum they were endowed with.
* By infinity I mean the geometry that provides an identically zero
deflection from self-interference for a finite momentum.
> How about an arguments to go with that?
Ball is in your court.
> Dear David A. Smith, 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"
Done. Please describe how a wave can be not diffused, and deliver the
momentum a single "crest", "wavelet", whatever you want to call it, was
endowed with. "Real" waves can't do these things.
> Dear David A. Smith, please, show as a photon interferes
> with itself in VLBI.
Provided. Your turn to make the coffee.
> > "Boundary effect" will not work, since photons are emitted and absorbed
> > (potentially) at all points in the Universe. From the photon's frame
(God
> > help me), the beginning and end of its existance are coincident, and
the
> > width (transverse) of the Universe is *unaffected*. Not what you'd
expect
> > of what the Universe would perceive as a "wave".
> >
> > > The friendly glow of the fire.
> >
> > I would warm myself by the fire, but you are a long way from where I
must
> > be *now*. Keep dreaming, no theory will ever wrap itself around the
whole
> > Universe.
>
> Dear David A. Smith, please, debunk " Ideological marasmus
> " self-interferences of a photon " ;0)))"
And bring a couple of danish to go with that coffee. I prefer a blonde.
David A. Smith
Bilge
You're repeating the same crap you've posted for at least a year.
It's still crap. Stop crossposting this crap to sci.physics.relativity
you imbecile.
Aleksandr Timofeev
???????????????????????????????????
> > How about an arguments to go with that?
>
> Ball is in your court.
???????????????????????????????????
> > Dear David A. Smith, 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"
>
> Done. Please describe how a wave can be not diffused, and deliver the
> momentum a single "crest", "wavelet", whatever you want to call it, was
> endowed with. "Real" waves can't do these things.
???????????????????????????????????
Look at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=anhtpa%243r4%242%40woodrow.ucdavis.edu
Aleksandr Timofeev:
> I lean on the experimental proved existence of a phenomenon
> " of a virtual interference " in VLBI, which one has not
> an explanation from the "photon" point of view.
The more surprising situation exists for the disagreement between you
" hypothesis " and Steve Carlip's judgement (the Last Judgement,
Judgement of God): :-(
Steve Carlip:
Right. You have an experiment that shows that light has wavelike
properties.
Ball is in your court.
> > Dear David A. Smith, please, show as a photon interferes
> > with itself in VLBI.
>
> Provided. Your turn to make the coffee.
Wait a minute, Do not minute the movements of the soul...
I with my own hand minuted an edict for universal tolerance:
Steve Carlip:
Right. You have an experiment that shows that light has wavelike
properties.
Ball is in your court.
Aleksandr Timofeev:
> I lean on the experimental proved existence of a phenomenon
> " of a virtual interference " in VLBI, which one has not
> an explanation from the "photon" point of view.
Ball is in your court.
>
> > > "Boundary effect" will not work, since photons are emitted and absorbed
> > > (potentially) at all points in the Universe. From the photon's frame
> (God
> > > help me), the beginning and end of its existance are coincident, and
> the
> > > width (transverse) of the Universe is *unaffected*. Not what you'd
> expect
> > > of what the Universe would perceive as a "wave".
> > >
> > > > The friendly glow of the fire.
> > >
> > > I would warm myself by the fire, but you are a long way from where I
> must
> > > be *now*. Keep dreaming, no theory will ever wrap itself around the
> whole
> > > Universe.
> >
> > Dear David A. Smith, please, debunk " Ideological marasmus
> > " self-interferences of a photon " ;0)))"
>
> And bring a couple of danish to go with that coffee. I prefer a blonde.
Ball is in your court.
???????????????????????????????????
I am win upon, I am win out, I am win over, I am win through...
> David A. Smith
Aleksandr Timofeev
Aleksandr Timofeev
What ???????????????????????????????????
Look at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=anhtpa%243r4%242%40woodrow.ucdavis.edu
Aleksandr Timofeev:
> I lean on the experimental proved existence of a phenomenon
> " of a virtual interference " in VLBI, which one has not
> an explanation from the "photon" point of view.
The more surprising situation exists for the disagreement between
David Bilge's " fantastic (... imbecile? ...) hypothesis about VLBI "
and Steve Carlip's judgement (the Last Judgement,
Judgement of God): :-(
Steve Carlip:
Right. You have an experiment that shows that light has wavelike
properties.
Ball is in your court.
>
> It's still crap.
The Middle Ages extremely speculative reasonings are not valid proofs.
Wait a minute, Do not minute the movements of the soul...
I with my own hand minuted an edict for universal tolerance:
I disagree with your position concerning velocity
of a gravitation, but I agree with experimental quantity
of speed of light. STR not is GTR, GTR not is STR.
Whether you know actual experiments, which experimentally
have proved what the velocity of a gravitation is
equivalent to speed of light?
Please quote. ;-))) 666 (:-((((((((((
> Stop crossposting this crap to sci.physics.relativity
> you imbecile.
Wait a minute, Do not minute the movements of the soul...
I with my own hand minuted an edict for universal tolerance:
Steve Carlip:
Right. You have an experiment that shows that light has wavelike
properties.
Ball is in your court.
Aleksandr Timofeev:
> I lean on the experimental proved existence of a phenomenon
> " of a virtual interference " in VLBI, which one has not
> an explanation from the "photon" point of view.
Steve Carlip have had agreed with my scientyfic position...
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=anhtpa%243r4%242%40woodrow.ucdavis.edu
but you ?????????????????????????????????? :-(((( 666 (((
Ball is in your court. ;-)))
David Bilge's " pop-art " style of thinking predominates
among modern American youth since sixtieth, when the healthy
educational system was " liberalized " or more
precisely, the healthy educational system was
transformed into a demoralize state and was destroyed.
Ball is in your court. ;-)))
Bilge
crossposted more of the same pop art crap.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03042...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<2ZFpa.6917$kj.2122@fed1read05>...
...
> > No problem. Width of any particle = infinity*. Experimental evidence.
> > Any classical diffraction formula. Includes photons, neutrons, and
bucky
> > balls. Presumably you could get those to travel down two legs of a
VLBI,
> > properly constructed. And they still manage to not be diffused, and to
> > deliver the momentum they were endowed with.
> >
> > * By infinity I mean the geometry that provides an identically zero
> > deflection from self-interference for a finite momentum.
>
> ???????????????????????????????????
Particles, including-but-not-limited-to the photon can be made to
self-interfere.
The formula that describes the patterns formed when a sufficient number of
particles has self-interfered, is classical diffraction. Here is a single
slit classical diffraction formula:
a sin(theta) = lambda
lambda is equivalent to a particle's momentum, so lets's say:
sin(theta) = 1/( |momentum| * a )
a is the distance between the two edges of the slit.
Note that theta is identically zero for only three cirumstances:
- |momentum| is "infinitely large",
- a is "infinitely large",
- both |momentum| and a are "infinitely large".
Therefore, for *any* particle with finite momentum can easily be as "wide"
as the VLBI.
> I am win upon, I am win out, I am win over, I am win through...
I think a series of question marks is not a response worthy of being
considered a "win". I have removed sci.physics.relativity for the
distribution list, by request.
Ball is in your court.
David A. Smith
Aleksandr Timofeev
Dear David A. Smith:
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:e16a4a22.03042...@posting.google.com...
> > "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<2ZFpa.6917$kj.2122@fed1read05>...
> ...
> > > No problem. Width of any particle = infinity*. Experimental evidence.
> > > Any classical diffraction formula. Includes photons, neutrons, and
> bucky
> > > balls. Presumably you could get those to travel down two legs of a
> VLBI,
> > > properly constructed. And they still manage to not be diffused, and to
> > > deliver the momentum they were endowed with.
> > >
> > > * By infinity I mean the geometry that provides an identically zero
> > > deflection from self-interference for a finite momentum.
> >
> > ???????????????????????????????????
>
> Particles, including-but-not-limited-to the photon can be made to
> self-interfere.
> The formula that describes the patterns formed when a sufficient number of
> particles has self-interfered, is classical diffraction.
Stay immediately right here.
THE FATAL ERROR of CLASSICAL INTERPRETATION
of a PHENOMENON of an INTERFERENCE is made
JUST in this place.
> "classical diffraction"
The physical principles of operation
VLBI eliminate CLASSICAL DIFFRACTION PROCESS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
from " of a VIRTUAL INTERFERENCE " in a VLBI INTERFEROMETER!
The VLBI INTERFEROMETER operates as " a VIRTUAL INTERFEROMETER ",
OR as " a VIRTUAL MATHEMATICAL INTERFEROMETER "
============================================
VLBI eliminate CLASSICAL DIFFRACTION PROCESS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
============================================
DEBUNKING CLASSICAL INTERPRETATION of a INTERFERENCE PHENOMENON
============================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0105300456.3f908a72%40posting.google.com
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (a_n_ti...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: Photon Wave-Particle Duality
View: Complete Thread (123 articles)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 2001-05-30 05:56:24 PST
"franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
news:<3b0ff3b5$0$15026$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
[snip]
> Fourthly, a macroscopic radio wave is the wavefunction of an
> extremely large assembly of photons, all coherently sharing the
> same wave function.
This your error concept John Baez already has refuted very
convincingly.
> Detecting one photon at one of the antennae
> simultaneously with the detection of another (coherent) photon at
> another antenna is then possible.
[snip all]
Here you introduce an artificial additional (auxiliary)
hypothesis of simultaneous passing through two slots of two
photons.
----------------------------------------------------
This hypothesis is a weird heresy from a point of view
orthodox physics.
----------------------------------------------------
In all text-books physicists 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?
------------------------------------------------------------
> Here is a single
> slit classical diffraction formula:
I promise to return to arguing a role of boundary
CONDITIONS for a CLASSICAL DIFFRACTION later.
> a sin(theta) = lambda
> lambda is equivalent to a particle's momentum, so lets's say:
> sin(theta) = 1/( |momentum| * a )
>
> a is the distance between the two edges of the slit.
> Note that theta is identically zero for only three cirumstances:
> - |momentum| is "infinitely large",
> - a is "infinitely large",
> - both |momentum| and a are "infinitely large".
>
> Therefore, for *any* particle with finite momentum can easily be as "wide"
> as the VLBI.
>
> > I am win upon, I am win out, I am win over, I am win through...
>
> I think a series of question marks is not a response worthy of being
> considered a "win". I have removed sci.physics.relativity for the
> distribution list, by request.
I shall give you very good advice: " Filtrate or skip the information
in the David Bilge's messages. " David Bilge has the only political
reasons to hide an original name. David Bilge does not see difference
between the Talmud and theoretical Physics books.
> Ball is in your court.
No, it isn't.
Ball is in your court.
Once again, I am win upon, I am win out, I am win over, I am win
through...
> David A. Smith
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Aleksandr Timofeev:
>
> crossposted more of the same pop art crap.
1.
========================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=df6db65f.0304080020.321e9e3%40posting.google.com
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (t_...@mail.ru)
Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity Controversy
View: Complete Thread (119 articles)
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity
Date: 2003-04-08 03:18:14 PST
[snip]
"PROPER" or "NATURAL" SPACE
The electrodynamics figures phenomena in " ANOTHER'S SPACES "
Look at natural oscillations of a string with anchored ends .
The shape of natural standing oscillations of a string does not
depend on the velocity rate of propagation of waves of elasticity
in the material of a string, for any string the shape of standing
waves is same. You instantaneously will claim that you can
calculate the velocity of waves of elasticity utillizing the
oscillation frequency of the string or elastic plate. I propose
the opposite; we have considered waves in "another's" spaces,
and these waves do not have energy sufficient for fracture of
"another's" space. Any electromagnetic waves are always spread
in "another's" spaces, i.e. in "spaces" which are generated by
nonelectromagnetic interaction of substance.
Maxwell's electrodynamics are not applicable for the
description of physical processes inside master cells, which
pluralities create "another's" space in which Maxwell
electrodynamics already becomes applicable. Fundamental
physical principle is that the Maxwell electrodynamics is
applicable only in "another's" spaces, since the Maxwell
electrodynamics demands the assignment of boundary CONDITIONS.
THE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are a latent electrodynamic postulate
about physical existence " of ANOTHER'S SPACE " in which the
electromagnetic phenomena are carried out.
The concept of boundary CONDITIONS cannot be eliminated
from electrodynamics.
Maxwell's electrodynamics is a theory about dynamic processes
in " ANOTHER'S SPACES ".
[snip]
========================================================
2.
========================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a98beaaa.0304091903.752ecbf3%40posting.google.com
From: John Schoenfeld (j.scho...@programmer.net)
Subject: Maxwell's theory and it's assumptions.
View: Complete Thread (142 articles)
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity
Date: 2003-04-09 20:03:31 PST
After reading somewhat on Maxwell's equations, they seem to be based
of several assumptions.
[snip]
========================================================
1.
Date: 2003-04-08 03:18:14 PST
Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity Controversy
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (t_...@mail.ru)
2.
Date: 2003-04-09 20:03:31 PST
Subject: Maxwell's theory and it's assumptions.
From: John Schoenfeld (j.scho...@programmer.net)
> dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge)
Dear "Dubious" David Bilge:
Whether you can find interrelation "pop art crap" between 1. And 2.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
Since you have posted to where we have been requested to *not* post, you
are not having discussion with me. You are shouting to everyone in the
"bar".
Have a nice day.
David A. Smith
Bilge
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
Again, removing sci.physcis.relativity as requested.
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0304...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<8Y_pa.8263$kj.715@fed1read05>...
...
> > Particles, including-but-not-limited-to the photon can be made to
> > self-interfere.
> > The formula that describes the patterns formed when a sufficient number
of
> > particles has self-interfered, is classical diffraction.
>
>
> Stay immediately right here.
>
> THE FATAL ERROR of CLASSICAL INTERPRETATION
> of a PHENOMENON of an INTERFERENCE is made
> JUST in this place.
You have presented no case, only that you do not listen.
...
> > "classical diffraction"
>
> The physical principles of operation
> VLBI eliminate CLASSICAL DIFFRACTION PROCESS
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> from " of a VIRTUAL INTERFERENCE " in a VLBI INTERFEROMETER!
I am using the mathematics of the diffraction formula to direct you to the
point that a particle is not localizeable, even to the size of the
Universe. I am not accusing the VLBI of producing diffraction.
...
> > Here is a single
> > slit classical diffraction formula:
>
> I promise to return to arguing a role of boundary
> CONDITIONS for a CLASSICAL DIFFRACTION later.
>
> > a sin(theta) = lambda
> > lambda is equivalent to a particle's momentum, so lets's say:
> > sin(theta) = 1/( |momentum| * a )
> >
> > a is the distance between the two edges of the slit.
> > Note that theta is identically zero for only three cirumstances:
> > - |momentum| is "infinitely large",
> > - a is "infinitely large",
> > - both |momentum| and a are "infinitely large".
> >
> > Therefore, for *any* particle with finite momentum can easily be as
"wide"
> > as the VLBI.
> >
> > > I am win upon, I am win out, I am win over, I am win through...
> >
> > I think a series of question marks is not a response worthy of being
> > considered a "win". I have removed sci.physics.relativity for the
> > distribution list, by request.
>
> I shall give you very good advice: " Filtrate or skip the information
> in the David Bilge's messages. " David Bilge has the only political
> reasons to hide an original name. David Bilge does not see difference
> between the Talmud and theoretical Physics books.
Bilge has his reasons for "hiding" his name. I'm sure the lack of desire
to wade through spam is one of them. Bilge is not the issue at hand.
> > Ball is in your court.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> Ball is in your court.
>
> Once again, I am win upon, I am win out, I am win over, I am win
> through...
Whatever you feel you need to do. Seems you missed the point. Maybe if we
were in the same field of play, and not trying to score off each other?
David A. Smith
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Aleksandr Timofeev:
>
> > crossposted more of the same pop art crap.
I make humble apologies to David Bilge.
Whether I can assume, what David Bilge have an amnesia?
You'll find yourself mistaken in your judgement.
In VLBI, the physical connections absolutely misses between
two antennas, excepting synchronization of time.
The signals really spatially are isolated.
By the way, for more in-depth analysis of the given
problems, please, find out deliberate physical errors
in the test for David Bilge:
*************************************
* Physical test for David Bilge *
*************************************
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0209070722.73d46ea4%40posting.google.com
You didn't abswer my Physical test & questions till now...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
David Bilge can assume that I've decided you can't answer
the question. ;-)
Dear David Bilge, please, remember:
Without concrete binding to a physical reality,
your "expressions" are intellectual chimeras only.
David,unfortunately, you couldn't hold up your end
of the conversation.
Answer my question and quit posting these irrelevant
digressions to avoid it. :-(
Have a nice day.
Kind, kindest, sincere regards,
Your humble lifelong friend
Aleksadr Timofeev
"The Physical Theories are Daughters of the Past,
Mothers of the Future
and always Bondmaids of the Present."
Gustave Le Bon
"A person is not religious solely when he worships a divinity,"
wrote Gustave Le Bon in The Crowd, "but when he puts all the
resources of his mind, the complete submission of his will, and
the whole-souled ardor of his fanaticism at the service of a cause
or an individual who becomes the goal and guide of his thoughts
and actions."
All scientific theories represent the special specific religious
systems, among the competing scientific theories win most effective,
with flow of time...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Have great fun:
Albert E. warned:
"Most mistakes in philosophy and logic occur because
the human mind is apt to take the symbol for reality".
Not every horny devil is a Maxwell's Demon.
Here we consider a Albert's Demon - "Particle - Photon".
Unhappy, but the imaginary Demons do not exist in the Nature.
Unfortunate joke for this Sacred place:
The chimeras are prohibited to the laws of the Nature.
Nothing is sacred to them.
***
" The Nature's Children seek out regularities and rules in
acquiring Nature's Language. " Aleksandr Timofeev
***
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in
higher
esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
--Friedrich
Nietzsche
***
Aleksandr Timofeev
Dear David A. Smith:
> Again, removing sci.physcis.relativity as requested.
We consider fundamental electrodynamic problems.
In my modest judgement the fundamental electrodynamic
problems are the integral part of SR. Sluggish step
by step I plan conduct dialogue in a direction of
arguing of a relativity. The title of the thread
"Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS" is germane for controversies in SR.
There are only three threds:
sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
I do not see any crossposting there.
I do not understand logic of your "removing" absolutely.
Besides this circumstance complicates problems
of searching of your titles for the answer.
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:e16a4a22.0304...@posting.google.com...
> > "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<8Y_pa.8263$kj.715@fed1read05>...
> ...
> > > Particles, including-but-not-limited-to the photon can be made to
> > > self-interfere.
> > > The formula that describes the patterns formed when a sufficient
> > > number of particles has self-interfered, is classical diffraction.
> >
> >
> > Stay immediately right here.
> >
> > THE FATAL ERROR of CLASSICAL INTERPRETATION
> > of a PHENOMENON of an INTERFERENCE is made
> > JUST in this place.
>
> You have presented no case, only that you do not listen.
????
> ...
> > > "classical diffraction"
> >
> > The physical principles of operation
> > VLBI eliminate CLASSICAL DIFFRACTION PROCESS
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > from " of a VIRTUAL INTERFERENCE " in a VLBI INTERFEROMETER!
>
> I am using the mathematics of the diffraction formula to direct you
> to the point that a particle is not localizeable, even to the size
> of the Universe.
In VLBI, the physical connections absolutely misses
between two antennas, excepting synchronization of time.
In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector
of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
The signals really spatially are isolated.
Look at:
. The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 2.
. ----------------------------------------------------------
. "Interference fringes or pattern"
. ^
. |
. [videotape 1] ------> [ COMPUTER ] <---------- [videotape 2]
. ^ ^
. | |
. radio-telescope 1 <- synchronization clocks -> radio-telescope 2
. Length of VLBI basis >= Earth's diameter
. |<------------------------ {snip} ---------------------------->|
. /^\ /^\
.^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ {snip} ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
.| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
. Noise microwave radiation
VLBI interferometer simultaneously record the information
reflecting a state of an electromagnetic field in space of each
antenna (from the "slot") on a magnetic tape, it is natural that
for each antenna/"slot" we use a separate magnetic tape.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector
of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
The microwave radiometer for VLBI. 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 ]
In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector
of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
Once again:
In VLBI, the physical connections absolutely misses
between two antennas, excepting synchronization of time.
The signals really spatially are isolated.
In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector
of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
1. David give me description of your physical gear of transiting
of "photon" simultaneously through two antennas of a VLBI
interferometer, and then show me 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 only in one and only one particular
detector of the microwave receiver of a radiometer from two
microwave receivers.
2.
> > > Particles, including-but-not-limited-to the photon
> > > can be made to self-interfere.
Please David, give me description of your physical gear of
"self-interference" for this particular "photon", which one
are on distance of a terrestrial globe from each other)
hits only in one and only one particular detector of the
microwave receiver of a radiometer from two microwave receivers
(radiometers).
> I am not accusing the VLBI of producing diffraction.
>
> ...
> > > Here is a single
> > > slit classical diffraction formula:
> >
> > I promise to return to arguing a role of boundary
> > CONDITIONS for a CLASSICAL DIFFRACTION later.
> >
> > > a sin(theta) = lambda
> > > lambda is equivalent to a particle's momentum, so lets's say:
> > > sin(theta) = 1/( |momentum| * a )
> > >
> > > a is the distance between the two edges of the slit.
> > > Note that theta is identically zero for only three cirumstances:
> > > - |momentum| is "infinitely large",
> > > - a is "infinitely large",
> > > - both |momentum| and a are "infinitely large".
> > >
> > > Therefore, for *any* particle with finite momentum can easily be as
> > > "wide" as the VLBI.
> > >
[snip]
>
> Whatever you feel you need to do. Seems you missed the point. Maybe if we
> were in the same field of play, and not trying to score off each other?
I agree. I understand complexity of problems very well, which ones we
consider together. I appreciate your bravery and unrelenting perseverance.
I am a research scientist of VLBI laboratory at Space research institute,
I am engaged in these problems enough for a long time...
> David A. Smith
Friendly regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
Alexandr, as I have been saying ANY particle is not localizeable at the
quantum level. The diffraction formula is the most simple I could find to
show that SOME PART OF ANY QUANTUM PARTICLE spans the Universe. The two
legs of your VLBI are separated by less than the Universe, no?
...
> 1. David give me description of your physical gear of transiting
> of "photon" simultaneously through two antennas of a VLBI
> interferometer, and then show me 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 only in one and only one particular
> detector of the microwave receiver of a radiometer from two
> microwave receivers.
Because a quantum particle is not any "where" in particular. As I tried to
get you to see with the simple formula I presented (not for the purpose of
diffraction, but for the purpose of revealing geometry) the Universe is the
path of a quantum particle between emission and detection. The distance
between only says something about the duration of the trip.
> 2.
> > > > Particles, including-but-not-limited-to the photon
> > > > can be made to self-interfere.
>
> Please David, give me description of your physical gear of
> "self-interference" for this particular "photon", which one
> are on distance of a terrestrial globe from each other)
> hits only in one and only one particular detector of the
> microwave receiver of a radiometer from two microwave receivers
> (radiometers).
Done.
...
> > Whatever you feel you need to do. Seems you missed the point. Maybe
if we
> > were in the same field of play, and not trying to score off each other?
>
> I agree. I understand complexity of problems very well, which ones we
> consider together. I appreciate your bravery and unrelenting
perseverance.
> I am a research scientist of VLBI laboratory at Space research institute,
> I am engaged in these problems enough for a long time...
Alexandr, it must be clear to you that I am mathematically challenged. I
do not work on such fancy equipment, and I do not have your experience. I
am here to learn. I learned about the "size" of particles in high school.
I have not seen anything that makes me think that I was mistaken then. I
understand that you see a great conundrum with a particle simultaneously
travelling two paths, so it must be a wave. Yet compare the photoelectric
effect, and *it* requires a particle. So if the only way to resolve the
issue is to delocalize a particle, then so be it. I'm OK with that,
because I do not have to describe this concept with mathematics... yet.
If it easier to model the photon as a wave, do so. Just remember this is
your choice of tool, and not something you can expect Mother Nature to
respect in other experiments. And I would bet that a properly constructed
VLBI could find the same behaviours in bucky balls. ;>}
David A. Smith
Bilge
sean
I dont understand what Alexandre says although I do agree with him, or
is it with you that both GR, QT and metaphysics are one and the same.
Regarding photons I can show you a mathematical model of wave only
Classical emr propogation that does give the same results as grangiers
famous experiment. In other words it gives alpha <1 for a classical
model which grangier (misguidedly )thought was not possible. Not only
that but his interpretation and presentation of results is incorrect .
If one looks at his results he has far less than a photon at each
event where QT claims that light only comes in photon sized packets. I
offered this to you before but you didnt respond.I assume you arent
familiar with grangiers experiment?
Regards
Sean
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"sean" <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f80aa1.03042...@posting.google.com...
I don't think that is what either of us is saying. GR and QT are based on
science, which ultimately rely on observation. Metaphysics never has to
"get real".
> Regarding photons I can show you a mathematical model of wave only
> Classical emr propogation that does give the same results as grangiers
> famous experiment. In other words it gives alpha <1 for a classical
> model which grangier (misguidedly )thought was not possible. Not only
> that but his interpretation and presentation of results is incorrect .
> If one looks at his results he has far less than a photon at each
> event where QT claims that light only comes in photon sized packets. I
> offered this to you before but you didnt respond.I assume you arent
> familiar with grangiers experiment?
I would guess that Alexsandr is on top of this, but I am not. If you
haven't posted to one of these newsgroups on this topic already, why don't
you "deliver the goods"?
David A. Smith
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Aleksandr Timofeev:
>
> > crossposted more of the same pop art crap.
This message has disappeared from GOOGLE's archive,
therefore I send it again.
========================================================
Subject: Re: Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS
Date: 26 Apr 2003 01:48:48 -0700
From: a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
news:<slrnbaik6n....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
> Aleksandr Timofeev:
>
> > crossposted more of the same pop art crap.
I make humble apologies to David Bilge.
Whether I can assume, what David Bilge have an amnesia?
You'll find yourself mistaken in your judgement.
In VLBI, the physical connections absolutely misses between
two antennas, excepting synchronization of time.
The signals really spatially are isolated.
By the way, for more in-depth analysis of the given
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0209070722.73d46ea4%40posting.google.com
Have a nice day.
Kind, kindest, sincere regards,
Gustave Le Bon
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Have great fun:
Alby E. warned:
"Most mistakes in philosophy and logic occur because
the human mind is apt to take the symbol for reality".
Not every horny devil is a Maxwell's Demon.
Here we consider a Alby's Demon - "Particle - Photon".
Aleksandr Timofeev
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<8Y_pa.8263$kj.715@fed1read05>...
>
These messages has disappeared from GOOGLE's archive,
therefore I send them again.
The answer to this message is below of this message:
===============================================================
Subject: Re: Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 21:23:41 -0700
From: "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
Again, removing sci.physcis.relativity as requested.
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0304...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<8Y_pa.8263$kj.715@fed1read05>...
....
> > Particles, including-but-not-limited-to the photon can be made to
> > self-interfere.
> > The formula that describes the patterns formed when a sufficient
> > number of particles has self-interfered, is classical diffraction.
>
>
> Stay immediately right here.
>
> THE FATAL ERROR of CLASSICAL INTERPRETATION
> of a PHENOMENON of an INTERFERENCE is made
> JUST in this place.
You have presented no case, only that you do not listen.
....
> > "classical diffraction"
>
> The physical principles of operation
> VLBI eliminate CLASSICAL DIFFRACTION PROCESS
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> from " of a VIRTUAL INTERFERENCE " in a VLBI INTERFEROMETER!
I am using the mathematics of the diffraction formula to direct
you to the point that a particle is not localizeable, even to
the size of the Universe. I am not accusing the VLBI of
producing diffraction.
....
> > Here is a single
> > slit classical diffraction formula:
>
> I promise to return to arguing a role of boundary
> CONDITIONS for a CLASSICAL DIFFRACTION later.
>
> > a sin(theta) = lambda
> > lambda is equivalent to a particle's momentum, so lets's say:
> > sin(theta) = 1/( |momentum| * a )
> >
> > a is the distance between the two edges of the slit.
> > Note that theta is identically zero for only three cirumstances:
> > - |momentum| is "infinitely large",
> > - a is "infinitely large",
> > - both |momentum| and a are "infinitely large".
> >
> > Therefore, for *any* particle with finite momentum can easily be as
> > "wide" as the VLBI.
> >
> > > I am win upon, I am win out, I am win over, I am win through...
> >
> > I think a series of question marks is not a response worthy of being
> > considered a "win". I have removed sci.physics.relativity for the
> > distribution list, by request.
>
> I shall give you very good advice: " Filtrate or skip the information
> in the David Bilge's messages. " David Bilge has the only political
> reasons to hide an original name. David Bilge does not see difference
> between the Talmud and theoretical Physics books.
Bilge has his reasons for "hiding" his name. I'm sure the lack
of desire to wade through spam is one of them. Bilge is not the
issue at hand.
> > Ball is in your court.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> Ball is in your court.
>
> Once again, I am win upon, I am win out, I am win over, I am win
> through...
Whatever you feel you need to do. Seems you missed the point.
Maybe if we were in the same field of play, and not trying to
score off each other?
David A. Smith
=================================================================
The answer to this message is below:
This message has disappeared from GOOGLE's archive,
therefore I send it again.
=================================================================
Subject: Re: Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Date: 26 Apr 2003 06:35:29 -0700
From: a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro
"dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<HRnqa.67$pJ6.33@fed1read05>...
Dear David A. Smith:
> Again, removing sci.physcis.relativity as requested.
We consider fundamental electrodynamic problems.
In my modest judgement the fundamental electrodynamic
problems are the integral part of SR. Sluggish step
by step I plan conduct dialogue in a direction of
arguing of a relativity. The title of the thread
"Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS" is germane for controversies in SR.
There are only three threds:
sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
I do not see any crossposting there.
I do not understand logic of your "removing" absolutely.
Besides this circumstance complicates problems
of searching of your titles for the answer.
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:e16a4a22.0304...@posting.google.com...
> > "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<8Y_pa.8263$kj.715@fed1read05>...
> ...
> > > Particles, including-but-not-limited-to the photon can be made to
> > > self-interfere.
> > > The formula that describes the patterns formed when a sufficient
> > > number of particles has self-interfered, is classical diffraction.
> >
> >
> > Stay immediately right here.
> >
> > THE FATAL ERROR of CLASSICAL INTERPRETATION
> > of a PHENOMENON of an INTERFERENCE is made
> > JUST in this place.
>
> You have presented no case, only that you do not listen.
????
> ...
> > > "classical diffraction"
> >
> > The physical principles of operation
> > VLBI eliminate CLASSICAL DIFFRACTION PROCESS
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > from " of a VIRTUAL INTERFERENCE " in a VLBI INTERFEROMETER!
>
> I am using the mathematics of the diffraction formula to direct you
> to the point that a particle is not localizeable, even to the size
> of the Universe.
In VLBI, the physical connections absolutely misses
between two antennas, excepting synchronization of time.
In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector
of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
The signals really spatially are isolated.
Look at:
.. The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 2.
.. ----------------------------------------------------------
.. "Interference fringes or pattern"
.. ^
.. |
.. [videotape 1] ------> [ COMPUTER ] <---------- [videotape 2]
.. ^ ^
.. | |
.. radio-telescope 1 <- synchronization clocks -> radio-telescope 2
.. Length of VLBI basis >= Earth's diameter
.. |<------------------------ {snip} ---------------------------->|
.. /^\ /^\
..^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ {snip} ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
..| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
.. Noise microwave radiation
VLBI interferometer simultaneously record the information
reflecting a state of an electromagnetic field in space of each
antenna (from the "slot") on a magnetic tape, it is natural that
for each antenna/"slot" we use a separate magnetic tape.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector
of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
The microwave radiometer for VLBI. 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 ]
In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector
of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
Once again:
In VLBI, the physical connections absolutely misses
between two antennas, excepting synchronization of time.
The signals really spatially are isolated.
In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector
of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
1. David give me description of your physical gear of transiting
of "photon" simultaneously through two antennas of a VLBI
interferometer, and then show me 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 only in one and only one particular
detector of the microwave receiver of a radiometer from two
microwave receivers.
2.
> > > Particles, including-but-not-limited-to the photon
> > > can be made to self-interfere.
Please David, give me description of your physical gear of
"self-interference" for this particular "photon", which one
are on distance of a terrestrial globe from each other)
hits only in one and only one particular detector of the
microwave receiver of a radiometer from two microwave receivers
(radiometers).
> I am not accusing the VLBI of producing diffraction.
>
> ...
> > > Here is a single
> > > slit classical diffraction formula:
> >
> > I promise to return to arguing a role of boundary
> > CONDITIONS for a CLASSICAL DIFFRACTION later.
> >
> > > a sin(theta) = lambda
> > > lambda is equivalent to a particle's momentum, so lets's say:
> > > sin(theta) = 1/( |momentum| * a )
> > >
> > > a is the distance between the two edges of the slit.
> > > Note that theta is identically zero for only three cirumstances:
> > > - |momentum| is "infinitely large",
> > > - a is "infinitely large",
> > > - both |momentum| and a are "infinitely large".
> > >
> > > Therefore, for *any* particle with finite momentum can easily be as
> > > "wide" as the VLBI.
> > >
[snip]
>
> Whatever you feel you need to do. Seems you missed the point. Maybe if we
> were in the same field of play, and not trying to score off each other?
I agree. I understand complexity of problems very well, which ones we
consider together. I appreciate your bravery and unrelenting perseverance.
I am a research scientist of VLBI laboratory at Space research institute,
I am engaged in these problems enough for a long time...
> David A. Smith
Friendly regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev
=================================================================
The answer to this message is below:
This message has disappeared from GOOGLE's archive,
therefore I send it again.
=================================================================
Subject: Re: Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 07:52:00 -0700
From: "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03042...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<HRnqa.67$pJ6.33@fed1read05>...
>
> Dear David A. Smith:
>
> > Again, removing sci.physcis.relativity as requested.
>
> We consider fundamental electrodynamic problems.
> In my modest judgement the fundamental electrodynamic
> problems are the integral part of SR. Sluggish step
> by step I plan conduct dialogue in a direction of
> arguing of a relativity. The title of the thread
> "Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY
> CONDITIONS" is germane for controversies in SR.
>
> There are only three threds:
> sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
> I do not see any crossposting there.
>
> I do not understand logic of your "removing" absolutely.
> Besides this circumstance complicates problems
> of searching of your titles for the answer.
>
> > "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:e16a4a22.0304...@posting.google.com...
> > > "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:<8Y_pa.8263$kj.715@fed1read05>...
> > ...
> > > > Particles, including-but-not-limited-to the photon can be made to
> > > > self-interfere.
> > > > The formula that describes the patterns formed when a sufficient
> > > > number of particles has self-interfered, is classical diffraction.
> > >
> > >
> > > Stay immediately right here.
> > >
> > > THE FATAL ERROR of CLASSICAL INTERPRETATION
> > > of a PHENOMENON of an INTERFERENCE is made
> > > JUST in this place.
> >
> > You have presented no case, only that you do not listen.
>
> ????
>
> > ...
> > > > "classical diffraction"
> > >
> > > The physical principles of operation
> > > VLBI eliminate CLASSICAL DIFFRACTION PROCESS
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > from " of a VIRTUAL INTERFERENCE " in a VLBI INTERFEROMETER!
> >
> > I am using the mathematics of the diffraction formula to direct you
> > to the point that a particle is not localizeable, even to the size
> > of the Universe.
>
> In VLBI, the physical connections absolutely misses
> between two antennas, excepting synchronization of time.
>
> In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector
> of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
>
> The signals really spatially are isolated.
Alexandr, as I have been saying ANY particle is not localizeable at the
quantum level. The diffraction formula is the most simple I could find to
show that SOME PART OF ANY QUANTUM PARTICLE spans the Universe. The two
legs of your VLBI are separated by less than the Universe, no?
....
> 1. David give me description of your physical gear of transiting
> of "photon" simultaneously through two antennas of a VLBI
> interferometer, and then show me 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 only in one and only one particular
> detector of the microwave receiver of a radiometer from two
> microwave receivers.
Because a quantum particle is not any "where" in particular. As I tried to
get you to see with the simple formula I presented (not for the purpose of
diffraction, but for the purpose of revealing geometry) the Universe is the
path of a quantum particle between emission and detection. The distance
between only says something about the duration of the trip.
> 2.
> > > > Particles, including-but-not-limited-to the photon
> > > > can be made to self-interfere.
>
> Please David, give me description of your physical gear of
> "self-interference" for this particular "photon", which one
> are on distance of a terrestrial globe from each other)
> hits only in one and only one particular detector of the
> microwave receiver of a radiometer from two microwave receivers
> (radiometers).
Done.
....
Aleksandr Timofeev
=======================================================
Subject: Re: Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Date: 28 Apr 2003 05:04:08 -0700
From: jaymo...@hotmail.com (sean)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
"dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<kVdoa.3067$kj.2325@fed1read05>...
I dont understand what Alexandre says although I do agree with him,
or is it with you that both GR, QT and metaphysics are one and the
same. Regarding photons I can show you a mathematical model of
wave only Classical emr propogation that does give the same results
as grangiers famous experiment. In other words it gives alpha < 1
for a classical model which grangier (misguidedly )thought was not
possible. Not only that but his interpretation and presentation of
results is incorrect. If one looks at his results he has far less
than a photon at each event where QT claims that light only comes
in photon sized packets. I offered this to you before but you didnt
respond. I assume you arent familiar with grangiers experiment?
Regards
Sean
sean
Hi Dave
Its odd that my pc doesnt show any of my posts to sci physics . The
only way I could find your reply was to get one of your posts and
click on your posting history and find this thread again. I have
delivered the goods but you havent read them ? Why not ,? Cant think
of a good response maybe?
To start with you havent said whether you are familiar with Grangiers
experiment?
If you are then maybe you could tell me why Grangier applied a value
of a>1 for classical yet he fails to take into account that classical
cannot explain the photoelectric effect. So classical theory should
not give any `photons ` detected at a detector yet Grangier ignores
this and somehow fakes a result and says that classical theory can
explain the photoelectric effect.
My question to you is: can classical theory account for the
photoelectric effect? If your answer is yes then explain the mechanism
by which wave radiation is absorbed by the detector. And if your
answer is no, then explain why Grangier asssumes it produces photons
at the detector and how he gets a value of a>1.Because if classical
cant produce a photoelectruic effect then its alpha value should be
a=0 which is the same as QT predicts and the conclusion is that
Grangiers experiment proves nothing at all. Looking forward to hearing
how you get out of answering my questions. Can YOU deliver the goods?
Sean
Penna Elabi
> This message has disappeared from GOOGLE's archive,
> therefore I resend it again.
Yep, messages posted with Google Groups have been disappearing again:
Aleksandr Timofeev
>Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
>"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:e16a4a22.03042...@posting.google.com...
>> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Dear David A. Smith:
>>
>> > Again, removing sci.physcis.relativity as requested.
>>
>> We consider fundamental electrodynamic problems.
>> In my modest judgement the fundamental electrodynamic
>> problems are the integral part of SR. Sluggish step
>> by step I plan conduct dialogue in a direction of
>> arguing of a relativity. The title of the thread
>>
>> There are only three threds:
>> sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
>> I do not see any crossposting there.
>>
>> I do not understand logic of your "removing" absolutely.
>> Besides this circumstance complicates problems
>> of searching of your titles for the answer.
>>
>> > news:e16a4a22.0304...@posting.google.com...
>> > > "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> > news:<8Y_pa.8263$kj.715@fed1read05>...
>> > > > Particles, including-but-not-limited-to the photon
>> > > > can be made to self-interfere.
>> > > > The formula that describes the patterns formed when a
sufficient
>> > > > number of particles has self-interfered, is classical
diffraction.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Stay immediately right here.
>> > >
>> > > of a PHENOMENON of an INTERFERENCE is made
>> > > JUST in this place.
>> >
>>
>> ????
>>
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > The physical principles of operation
>> > > VLBI eliminate CLASSICAL DIFFRACTION PROCESS
>> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > > from " of a VIRTUAL INTERFERENCE " in a VLBI INTERFEROMETER!
>> >
you
>> > to the point that a particle is not localizeable, even to the
size
>> > of the Universe.
>>
>> In VLBI, the physical connections absolutely misses
>> between two antennas, excepting synchronization of time.
>>
>> In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector
>> of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
>>
>> The signals really spatially are isolated.
>
>Alexandr, as I have been saying ANY particle is not localizeable
>at the quantum level.
The " Particle - photon " is localized inside a quantum microsystem
at the moment of absorption of electromagnetic radiation.
>The diffraction formula is the most simple I could find to
>show that SOME PART OF ANY QUANTUM PARTICLE spans the Universe.
The size of HYPOTHETICAL " particles - photon " has not any value
absolutely for a case VLBI, since " a particle - the photon "
is localized inside a quantum microsystem at the moment of
absorption of electromagnetic radiation.
>The two legs of your VLBI are separated by less than the Universe,
>no?
In VLBI, the physical connections absolutely misses
between two antennas.
In any case
"photon" should hit only in one and only one detector/leg
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of the microwave receiver of a radiometer, since
" the particle - the photon " is localized inside
a quantum microsystem (inside of detector) at the moment
of absorption of electromagnetic radiation.
.. The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 2.
.. ----------------------------------------------------------
.. "Interference fringes or pattern"
.. ^
.. |
.. [videotape 1] ------> [ COMPUTER ] <---------- [videotape 2]
.. ^ ^
.. | |
.. radio-telescope 1 <- synchronization clocks -> radio-telescope 2
.. Length of VLBI basis >= Earth's diameter
.. |<------------------------ {snip} ---------------------------->|
.. /^\ /^\
.. ^
.. |
.. |
.. 0 <-- " the particle - the photon "
..^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ {snip} ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
..| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
.. Noise microwave radiation
In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector/leg
of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
This fact follows from a principle of indivisibility (nonfissionable)
of "photon".
>
>....
>> 1. David give me description of your physical gear of transiting
>> of "photon" simultaneously through two antennas of a VLBI
>> interferometer, and then show me 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 only in one and only one particular
>> detector of the microwave receiver of a radiometer from two
>> microwave receivers.
>
>Because a quantum particle is not any "where" in particular.
In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector/leg
of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
This fact follows from a principle of indivisibility (nonfissionable)
of "photon".
>As I tried to
>get you to see with the simple formula I presented (not for the
>purpose of diffraction, but for the purpose of revealing
>geometry) the Universe is the path of a quantum particle between
>emission and detection. The distance
>between only says something about the duration of the trip.
But we speak about final point of traveling HYPOTHETICAL
" PARTICLES - photon ".
The size of HYPOTHETICAL " particles - photon " has not any value
absolutely for a case VLBI, since " a particle - the photon "
is localized inside a quantum microsystem at the moment of
absorption of electromagnetic radiation.
In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one
detector/leg of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
This fact follows from a principle of indivisibility
(nonfissionable) of "photon".
>
>> 2.
>> > > > Particles, including-but-not-limited-to the photon
>> > > > can be made to self-interfere.
>>
>> Please David, give me description of your physical gear of
>> "self-interference" for this particular "photon", which one
>> are on distance of a terrestrial globe from each other)
>> hits only in one and only one particular detector of the
>> microwave receiver of a radiometer from two microwave
>> receivers(radiometers).
>
>Done.
You are very self-confident.
You should carefully think over details of the mechanism of
absorption HYPOTHETICAL " Particles - photon " by the
antenna/slot for a case of VLBI.
In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one
detector/leg of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
This fact follows from a principle of indivisibility
(nonfissionable) of "photon".
In a case VLBI, HYPOTHETICAL " a Particle - the photon "
has not an opportunity for a self-interference absolutely.
> "classical diffraction"
The physical principles of operation
VLBI eliminate CLASSICAL DIFFRACTION PROCESS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
from " of a VIRTUAL INTERFERENCE " in a VLBI INTERFEROMETER!
The VLBI INTERFEROMETER operates as " a VIRTUAL INTERFEROMETER ",
OR as " a VIRTUAL MATHEMATICAL INTERFEROMETER "
============================================
VLBI eliminate CLASSICAL DIFFRACTION PROCESS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
============================================
DEBUNKING CLASSICAL INTERPRETATION of a INTERFERENCE PHENOMENON
============================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0105300456.3f908a72%40posting.google.com
>
You are very self-confident.
You should carefully think over details of the mechanism of
absorption HYPOTHETICAL " Particles - photon " by the antenna/slot
for a case of VLBI.
===================================================================
" As for the "modern" idea that it has evolved into,
that's a different story.
And one of the main characters in that play is Willis E. Lamb, Nobel
Laureate ( He won his Nobel Prize for his discoveries concerning the
structure of the hydrogen spectrum and his work on QED. --
http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1955/index.html)
However consider what Lamb has to say about photons. From
"Anti-Photon,"
W.E. Lamb, Appl. Phys. B 60, 77-84 (1995)
"Abstract: It should be apparent from the title of this paper that the
author does not like the use of the word "photon," which dates from
1926.
In his view, there is no such thing as a photon. Only a comedy of
errors
and historical accidents led to this popularity among physicists and
optical
scientists. [...]"
He goes on to explain why. Lamb basically explains that all
experimental
observations can be explained without the concept.
E.g. "The photon concepts as used in by a high percentage of the laser
community have no scientific justification. It is now thirty-five
years
after the making of the first laser. The sooner an appropriate
reformulation
of our educational processes can be made the better."
Pmb "
===================================================================
>
>David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"sean" <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f80aa1.03042...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<Nijra.3618$pJ6.1783@fed1read05>...
...
> > I would guess that Alexsandr is on top of this, but I am not. If you
> > haven't posted to one of these newsgroups on this topic already, why
don't
> > you "deliver the goods"?
>
> Its odd that my pc doesnt show any of my posts to sci physics . The
> only way I could find your reply was to get one of your posts and
> click on your posting history and find this thread again. I have
> delivered the goods but you havent read them ? Why not ,? Cant think
> of a good response maybe?
I do not have a link, nor your interpretation of Grainger's work. Google
had a meltdown, but even my server did not pick up any other response from
you.
> To start with you havent said whether you are familiar with Grangiers
> experiment?
No.
> If you are then maybe you could tell me why Grangier applied a value
> of a>1 for classical yet he fails to take into account that classical
> cannot explain the photoelectric effect. So classical theory should
> not give any `photons ` detected at a detector yet Grangier ignores
> this and somehow fakes a result and says that classical theory can
> explain the photoelectric effect.
> My question to you is: can classical theory account for the
> photoelectric effect?
As a particle yes. As a wave no.
> If your answer is yes then explain the mechanism
> by which wave radiation is absorbed by the detector. And if your
> answer is no, then explain why Grangier asssumes it produces photons
> at the detector and how he gets a value of a>1.Because if classical
> cant produce a photoelectruic effect then its alpha value should be
> a=0 which is the same as QT predicts and the conclusion is that
> Grangiers experiment proves nothing at all. Looking forward to hearing
> how you get out of answering my questions. Can YOU deliver the goods?
No, I cannot. Since I do not know to what you refer. AltaVista finds 34
hits for "Grangier near photon". From what I glean, Grangier is treating
quanta. Neither wave nor particle, but elements of both.
What is your take on it? By deliver the goods, I meant "tell me what you
are talking about".
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03042...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> >Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
...
> >Alexandr, as I have been saying ANY particle is not localizeable
> >at the quantum level.
>
> The " Particle - photon " is localized inside a quantum microsystem
> at the moment of absorption of electromagnetic radiation.
You were raising a question about the *propagation* of a single
photon/packet/phonon/chimera along two different paths, Aleksandr.
Emission and absorption are localizeable (as much as any particle can be),
and are not part of our discussion. Do you wish to make it so?
> >The diffraction formula is the most simple I could find to
> >show that SOME PART OF ANY QUANTUM PARTICLE spans the Universe.
>
> The size of HYPOTHETICAL " particles - photon " has not any value
> absolutely for a case VLBI, since " a particle - the photon "
> is localized inside a quantum microsystem at the moment of
> absorption of electromagnetic radiation.
Emission and absorption to not add to the condundrum you raised about
*propagation* of light down two paths. Do you want to extend the
discussion?
> >The two legs of your VLBI are separated by less than the Universe,
> >no?
>
> In VLBI, the physical connections absolutely misses
> between two antennas.
>
> In any case
> "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector/leg
And does, but this was not the nature of our discussion. You were
concerned about a particle apparently travelling two different paths.
...
> In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector/leg
> of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
>
> This fact follows from a principle of indivisibility (nonfissionable)
> of "photon".
Agreed. No issues here.
...
> >Because a quantum particle is not any "where" in particular.
>
> In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector/leg
> of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
>
> This fact follows from a principle of indivisibility (nonfissionable)
> of "photon".
Again I have no issues with emission and absorption being localized. You
had an issue with light-as-a-particle travelling two different paths at the
same time.
> >As I tried to
> >get you to see with the simple formula I presented (not for the
> >purpose of diffraction, but for the purpose of revealing
> >geometry) the Universe is the path of a quantum particle between
> >emission and detection. The distance
> >between only says something about the duration of the trip.
>
> But we speak about final point of traveling HYPOTHETICAL
> " PARTICLES - photon ".
>
> The size of HYPOTHETICAL " particles - photon " has not any value
> absolutely for a case VLBI, since " a particle - the photon "
> is localized inside a quantum microsystem at the moment of
> absorption of electromagnetic radiation.
>
> In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one
> detector/leg of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
> This fact follows from a principle of indivisibility
> (nonfissionable) of "photon".
I'll say it one last time. The photon is the width of the Universe, IMHO.
The photon-as-particle has no issues in travelling a large finite number of
paths between its "point" of emission and its "point" of absorption. I am
also reminded that the absorption of a photon takes on the order of some
milliseconds, though I may not be understanding the concept entirely. And
keep in mind, that *any* particles (such as the VLBI path minutae, the
detectors) are also the width of the Universe, since they all have finite
momentum.
> >> Please David, give me description of your physical gear of
> >> "self-interference" for this particular "photon", which one
> >> are on distance of a terrestrial globe from each other)
> >> hits only in one and only one particular detector of the
> >> microwave receiver of a radiometer from two microwave
> >> receivers(radiometers).
> >
> >Done.
>
> You are very self-confident.
>
> You should carefully think over details of the mechanism of
> absorption HYPOTHETICAL " Particles - photon " by the
> antenna/slot for a case of VLBI.
>
> In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one
> detector/leg of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
> This fact follows from a principle of indivisibility
> (nonfissionable) of "photon".
>
> In a case VLBI, HYPOTHETICAL " a Particle - the photon "
> has not an opportunity for a self-interference absolutely.
I am confident that you have changed from a conundrum relating to the
propagation of light, to one relating to the absorption (and by inference
emission) of photons.
> > "classical diffraction"
>
> The physical principles of operation
> VLBI eliminate CLASSICAL DIFFRACTION PROCESS
I understand what you are saying. You have not shown that you understand
what I am saying. I am not claiming that the VLBI uses diffraction or
self-interference in any way. I am saying that self-interference shows
that a particle with finite momentum in any finite geometry is affected by
said geometry. The VLBI is finite in size, therefore I see no issues with
a particle following two paths simultaneously.
We had not been discussing absorption, except for "it follows two paths at
the same time, but is only absorbed once". Part of your conundrum. What
you have failed to do is describe how a wave can describe the photoelectric
effect. Something the VLBI also yields... characteristic spectra.
Thank you.
David A. Smith
sean
Hi Dave
By the way thanks Alexandr for reposting my message!
Try Grangier et al Aspect 1978
Basically he bases his experiment on the incorrect assumption that
classical theory would predict more photons detected than was observed
in his experiment and that his calculated prediction for coincidences
between two detectors gives an alpha value of a>1. I argue that he
cannot say that classical theory would give more photons per event if
at the same time QT supporters say that classical cannot even account
for the photoelectric effect. In other words he should have said that
classical predicts no photons or an alpha value of a=0. And that is
exactly what QT predicts a=0
THerefore Grangiers experiment is flawed and one of the supposed
greatest tests of QT and proofs that classical cannot explain observed
results is invalid. Ie Grangier et al Aspect experiment of 1978
Sean
Aleksandr Timofeev
Thanks Penna Elabi for detailed information.
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<vzEra.5060$pJ6.323@fed1read05>...
Dear David A. Smith:
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:e16a4a22.03042...@posting.google.com...
> > "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
> ...
> > >Alexandr, as I have been saying ANY particle is not localizeable
> > >at the quantum level.
> >
> > The " Particle - photon " is localized inside a quantum microsystem
> > at the moment of absorption of electromagnetic radiation.
>
> You were raising a question about the *propagation* of a single
> photon/packet/phonon/chimera along two different paths, Aleksandr.
It is contortion of the essence of a problem given by me.
I ask you a question:
Dear David A. Smith, 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/shoulders/legs/slits
of a VLBI interferometer, which one are on distance of a terrestrial
globe from each other) hits on a particular videotape from two
videotapes or hits on a particular detector/leg of the microwave
receiver of a radiometer.
> Emission and absorption are localizeable (as much as any particle can be),
> and are not part of our discussion.
The absorption and analysis of electromagnetic radiation is the
MAIN PURPOSE of any device for deriving the INFORMATION transferred
by electromagnetic radiation.
All types of interferometers are for deriving and analysis of
the INFORMATION transferred electromagnetic radiation.
So (emission and) absorption are MAIN part of our discussion.
> Do you wish to make it so?
Yes, I do. I wish to analyze spatial trajectories of passage
of electromagnetic radiation in VLBI an interferometer up to
a point of absorption and amplification of input
electromagnetic radiation.
.. The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 2.
.. ----------------------------------------------------------
.. "Interference fringes or pattern"
.. ^
.. |
.. [videotape 1] ------> [ COMPUTER ] <---------- [videotape 2]
.. ^ ^
.. | |
.. radio-telescope 1 <- synchronization clocks -> radio-telescope 2
.. | |
.. | Length of VLBI basis >= Earth's diameter |
.. |<------------------------ {snip} ---------------------------->|
.. /^\ /^\
.. ^
.. |
.. |
.. 0 <-- " the particle - photon "
..^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ {snip} ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
..| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
.. Noise microwave radiation
In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector/leg
of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
This fact follows from a principle of indivisibility (nonfissionable)
of "photon".
> > >The diffraction formula is the most simple I could find to
> > >show that SOME PART OF ANY QUANTUM PARTICLE spans the Universe.
> >
> > The size of HYPOTHETICAL " particles - photon " has not any value
> > absolutely for a case VLBI, since " a particle - the photon "
> > is localized inside a quantum microsystem at the moment of
> > absorption of electromagnetic radiation.
>
> Emission and absorption to not add to the condundrum you raised about
> *propagation* of light down two paths. Do you want to extend the
> discussion?
Yes, I do. I wish to analyze spatial trajectories of passage
of electromagnetic radiation in VLBI an interferometer up to
a point of absorption and amplification of input
electromagnetic radiation.
Dear David A. Smith, please, show as a photon interferes
with itself in VLBI, or please, debunk " Ideological marasmus
" self-interferences of a photon in VLBI" ;0)))"
>
> > >The two legs of your VLBI are separated by less than the Universe,
> > >no?
> >
> > In VLBI, the physical connections absolutely misses
> > between two antennas.
> >
> > In any case
> > "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector/leg
>
> And does, but this was not the nature of our discussion. You were
> concerned about a particle apparently travelling two different paths.
> ...
In all text-books physicists 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
Richard Feynman were concerned about a particle "photon" apparently
and " simultaneously " travelling two different paths.
Richard Feynman were given us description of " science fiction "
physical gear of transiting of "photon" simultaneously through
two slots of a interferometer. Richard Feynman show us
" science fiction " method - "photon" passing simultaneously
through two antennas/shoulders/legs/slits of a interferometer.
This fairy tale is refuted easily by experimental existence
of a virtual interference in VLBI. ;o)
Then
Dear David A. Smith, please, show as a photon interferes
with itself in VLBI, or please, debunk " Ideological marasmus
" self-interferences of a photon in VLBI" ;0)))"
> > In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector/leg
> > of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
> >
> > This fact follows from a principle of indivisibility (nonfissionable)
> > of "photon".
>
> Agreed. No issues here.
>
> ...
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
Richard Feynman were concerned about a particle "photon" apparently
and " simultaneously " travelling two different paths.
=============================================================
This fairy tale is refuted easily by experimental existence
of a virtual interference in VLBI. ;o)
=============================================================
> > >Because a quantum particle is not any "where" in particular.
> >
> > In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector/leg
> > of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
> >
> > This fact follows from a principle of indivisibility (nonfissionable)
> > of "photon".
>
> Again I have no issues with emission and absorption being localized. You
> had an issue with light-as-a-particle travelling two different paths at the
> same time.
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
Richard Feynman were concerned about a particle "photon" apparently
and " simultaneously " travelling two different paths.
=============================================================
This fairy tale is refuted easily by experimental existence
of a virtual interference in VLBI. ;o)
=============================================================
http://www.google.com.ru/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0304250125.f8c02fb%40posting.google.com
Not every horny devil is a Maxwell's Demon.
Here we consider a Light's Demon - "Particle - Photon".
Unhappy, but the imaginary Demons do not exist in the Nature.
From my point of view, 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 only by
discrete portions.
So, From my point of view, the modern sense of the physical term
"photon" is is "bullshit" chimera since 1927.
> > >As I tried to
> > >get you to see with the simple formula I presented (not for the
> > >purpose of diffraction, but for the purpose of revealing
> > >geometry) the Universe is the path of a quantum particle between
> > >emission and detection. The distance
> > >between only says something about the duration of the trip.
> >
> > But we speak about final point of traveling HYPOTHETICAL
> > " PARTICLES - photon ".
> >
> > The size of HYPOTHETICAL " particles - photon " has not any value
> > absolutely for a case VLBI, since " a particle - the photon "
> > is localized inside a quantum microsystem at the moment of
> > absorption of electromagnetic radiation.
> >
> > In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one
> > detector/leg of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
> > This fact follows from a principle of indivisibility
> > (nonfissionable) of "photon".
>
> I'll say it one last time. The photon is the width of the Universe, IMHO.
> The photon-as-particle has no issues in travelling a large finite number of
> paths between its "point" of emission and its "point" of absorption. I am
> also reminded that the absorption of a photon takes on the order of some
> milliseconds,
(Length of VLBI basis >= Earth's diameter) / (light speed) = ????
;-) ???
.. radio-telescope 1 <- synchronization clocks -> radio-telescope 2
.. | |
.. | Length of VLBI basis >= Earth's diameter |
.. |<------------------------ {snip} ---------------------------->|
.. /^\ /^\
.. ^
.. |
.. |
.. 0 <-- " the particle - photon "
..^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ {snip} ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
..| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
.. Noise microwave radiation
In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector/leg
of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
This fact follows from a principle of indivisibility (nonfissionable)
of "photon".
> though I may not be understanding the concept entirely. And
> keep in mind, that *any* particles (such as the VLBI path minutae, the
> detectors) are also the width of the Universe,
" I am also reminded that the absorption of a photon takes on
the order of some milliseconds, "
(Length of VLBI basis >= Earth's diameter) / (light speed) = ????
;-) ???
> since they all have finite momentum.
[snip]
> >
> > You should carefully think over details of the mechanism of
> > absorption HYPOTHETICAL " Particles - photon " by the
> > antenna/slot for a case of VLBI.
> >
> > In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one
> > detector/leg of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
> > This fact follows from a principle of indivisibility
> > (nonfissionable) of "photon".
[snip]
================================================================
> > In a case VLBI, HYPOTHETICAL " a Particle - the photon "
> > has not an opportunity for a self-interference absolutely.
================================================================
>
> I am confident that you have changed from a conundrum relating to the
> propagation of light, to one relating to the absorption (and by inference
> emission) of photons.
>
> > > "classical diffraction"
> >
> > The physical principles of operation
> > VLBI eliminate CLASSICAL DIFFRACTION PROCESS
>
> I understand what you are saying. You have not shown that you understand
> what I am saying. I am not claiming that the VLBI uses diffraction or
> self-interference in any way. I am saying that self-interference shows
> that a particle with finite momentum in any finite geometry is affected by
> said geometry. The VLBI is finite in size, therefore I see no issues with
> a particle following two paths simultaneously.
" I am also reminded that the absorption of a photon takes on
the order of some milliseconds, "
(Length of VLBI basis >= Earth's diameter) / (light speed) = ????
;-) ???
[snip]
> > You should carefully think over details of the mechanism of
> > absorption HYPOTHETICAL " Particles - photon " by the antenna/slot
> > for a case of VLBI.
>
> We had not been discussing absorption, except for "it follows two paths at
> the same time, but is only absorbed once". Part of your conundrum. What
> you have failed to do is describe how a wave can describe the photoelectric
> effect.
I have had did wave description of the photoelectric effect for you:
http://www.google.com.ru/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0304220208.4541a85c%40posting.google.com
> Something the VLBI also yields... characteristic spectra.
[snip]
Thank you.
Aleksandr Timofeev
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0304...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<vzEra.5060$pJ6.323@fed1read05>...
>
> Dear David A. Smith:
>
> > "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:e16a4a22.03042...@posting.google.com...
> > > "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > >Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
> > ...
> > > >Alexandr, as I have been saying ANY particle is not localizeable
> > > >at the quantum level.
> > >
> > > The " Particle - photon " is localized inside a quantum microsystem
> > > at the moment of absorption of electromagnetic radiation.
> >
> > You were raising a question about the *propagation* of a single
> > photon/packet/phonon/chimera along two different paths, Aleksandr.
>
> It is contortion of the essence of a problem given by me.
Sorry. I thought it was an appropriate observation. You asked, in a
sense, how can a particle travel two different paths, yet end up at a
single point.
<QUOTE 2003 Apr 19>
From my point of view, 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 only by
discrete portions.
So, From my point of view, the modern sense of the physical term
"photon" is is "bullshit" chimera since 1927.
I have proved this fact with the help VLBI even to such
" relativity metaphysical religious fanatic " as Steve Carlip
<car...@dirac.ucdavis.edu>:
<END QUOTE>
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to your point, then if this is an
appropriate quote.
> I ask you a question:
>
> Dear David A. Smith, 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/shoulders/legs/slits
>
> of a VLBI interferometer, which one are on distance of a terrestrial
> globe from each other) hits on a particular videotape from two
> videotapes or hits on a particular detector/leg of the microwave
> receiver of a radiometer.
I cannot, as you well know. I do not have access to a VLBI. I have access
to only your ASCII diagrams of one. I only have the *belief* that a
particle is not constrained to be anywhere in particular between an
emission/lauch and an absorption/landing. More correctly, it might be said
that such a particle is constrained to be *everywhere* transverse to any
particluar path, but such would only be accurate for a very large number of
particles.
> > Emission and absorption are localizeable (as much as any particle can
be),
> > and are not part of our discussion.
>
> The absorption and analysis of electromagnetic radiation is the
> MAIN PURPOSE of any device for deriving the INFORMATION transferred
> by electromagnetic radiation.
>
> All types of interferometers are for deriving and analysis of
> the INFORMATION transferred electromagnetic radiation.
>
> So (emission and) absorption are MAIN part of our discussion.
Yet it seems to me you keep pointing out how it travels down two differnet
paths...
Based on my revealing the classical evidence that a photon is the width of
the Universe, how can you say "should hit only in one and only one
detector/leg". Note this evidence predates 1927...
> This fact follows from a principle of indivisibility (nonfissionable)
> of "photon".
No argument about indivisibility.
> > > The size of HYPOTHETICAL " particles - photon " has not any value
> > > absolutely for a case VLBI, since " a particle - the photon "
> > > is localized inside a quantum microsystem at the moment of
> > > absorption of electromagnetic radiation.
> >
> > Emission and absorption to not add to the condundrum you raised about
> > *propagation* of light down two paths. Do you want to extend the
> > discussion?
>
> Yes, I do. I wish to analyze spatial trajectories of passage
> of electromagnetic radiation in VLBI an interferometer up to
> a point of absorption and amplification of input
> electromagnetic radiation.
A trajectory for a single particle is a non-sequitur. Can we extend it to
a "statistical collection", so that I don't irritate those that know that I
should know better?
> Dear David A. Smith, please, show as a photon interferes
> with itself in VLBI, or please, debunk " Ideological marasmus
> " self-interferences of a photon in VLBI" ;0)))"
I don't feel this is my requirement, but yours. The evidence of
self-interference has been around for moire than 200 years. The
mathematics revealing the size of a particle has been aroudn nearly as
long. I believe it is for you to show how you can be so innocent that you
can expect it "should hit only in one and only one detector/leg".
Oh, so you are willing to show how the VLBI refutes it? I am willing to
see this. Arguing that a particle "should hit only in one and only one
detector/leg", is not a proof.
> Then
> Dear David A. Smith, please, show as a photon interferes
> with itself in VLBI, or please, debunk " Ideological marasmus
> " self-interferences of a photon in VLBI" ;0)))"
Right after you show how a particle "should hit only in one and only one
detector/leg", when 200 years of evidence disagree with you.
> > > In any case "photon" should hit only in one and only one detector/leg
> > > of the microwave receiver of a radiometer.
> > >
> > > This fact follows from a principle of indivisibility (nonfissionable)
> > > of "photon".
> >
> > Agreed. No issues here.
> >
> > ...
>
> 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
>
> Richard Feynman were concerned about a particle "photon" apparently
> and " simultaneously " travelling two different paths.
>
> =============================================================
> This fairy tale is refuted easily by experimental existence
> of a virtual interference in VLBI. ;o)
> =============================================================
So you say. Your premise is flawed.
Then our next discussion will be about how you will explain the
photoelectric effect. I can hardly wait.
Still an innocent opinion on your part. You should know better.
> > though I may not be understanding the concept entirely. And
> > keep in mind, that *any* particles (such as the VLBI path minutae, the
> > detectors) are also the width of the Universe,
>
> " I am also reminded that the absorption of a photon takes on
> the order of some milliseconds, "
>
> (Length of VLBI basis >= Earth's diameter) / (light speed) = ????
>
> ;-) ???
The point being that a photon-as-a-wave does not handle absorption of a
photon over some long time in some very localized domain. The charge is
not propagating at c during these milliseconds, it is "deciding" which
orbital to be in. A photon-as-a-particle has a little giref with this as
well, since it is not propagating at c. Presumably this is where "real
photons are really a series of virtual photons" kicks in and saves the day.
...
> > > You should carefully think over details of the mechanism of
> > > absorption HYPOTHETICAL " Particles - photon " by the antenna/slot
> > > for a case of VLBI.
> >
> > We had not been discussing absorption, except for "it follows two paths
at
> > the same time, but is only absorbed once". Part of your conundrum.
What
> > you have failed to do is describe how a wave can describe the
photoelectric
> > effect.
>
> I have had did wave description of the photoelectric effect for you:
>
>
http://www.google.com.ru/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0304220208.4541a85c%40posting
.google.com
I also responded to this, and your "boundary" conditions are, IMHO,
unacceptable in indefensible. As you will find in the next post after
yours. (and your post after that... ad nauseum)
> > Something the VLBI also yields... characteristic spectra.
>
> [snip]
>
> Thank you.
Thank you. I hope to learn something here. You are persistent. Perhaps I
shall.
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"sean" <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f80aa1.03042...@posting.google.com...
> >
> By the way thanks Alexandr for reposting my message!
He *is* a good guy.
> Try Grangier et al Aspect 1978
>
> Basically he bases his experiment on the incorrect assumption that
> classical theory would predict more photons detected than was observed
> in his experiment and that his calculated prediction for coincidences
> between two detectors gives an alpha value of a>1. I argue that he
> cannot say that classical theory would give more photons per event if
> at the same time QT supporters say that classical cannot even account
> for the photoelectric effect. In other words he should have said that
> classical predicts no photons or an alpha value of a=0. And that is
> exactly what QT predicts a=0
> THerefore Grangiers experiment is flawed and one of the supposed
> greatest tests of QT and proofs that classical cannot explain observed
> results is invalid. Ie Grangier et al Aspect experiment of 1978
I cannot comment on QT. I kind of have to stop in the macroscopic world
where the rules apply to statistical systems. Mechanical engineers are
like that.
I also do not access to his paper, to see if I can make sense of it. I've
got some research to do soon, so perhaps I can find it at my local college
library.
David A. Smith
sean
Hi
Yes its a complex experimnt and I was fortunate to have some kind soul
forward the paper to me . Essentially the experiment is.A low level
light source is emitted onto a beam splitter by means of a gate that
opens and closes rapidly to let in small amounts , much less than a
photon per event.About 80,000events are recorded This light is split
to two detectors and the detection rates at each are measured by
counters. Also they are able to measure when a photon is detected at
both in the same event.These are called coincidences .About 10 in a
80,000. THen taking the event rate , the detection at each detector
rate and the coincidence rate 10/80,000 a alpha value of a=0.18 is
calculated. This is then matched to a predicted QT rate of a=0 but
then QT is allowed to accomadate the additional .18 by saying that
accidentals occur. Classical is then put to the test and Grangier
calculates that Classical wave only theory would give a higher
coincidence rate and thus a higher alpa value of a>1? My argument is
that far from giving a high detection and coincidence rate to
classical just so he can show that his classical prediction is way off
the observed 0.18. Grangier should admit that according to the
photoelectric effect classical should not be giving any photons
detected because as we have all been told incessently classical cannot
explain the photons detected at detectors!So how then does he explain
cklassical giving this high detection rate? Thats a rhetorical
question not aimed at you but to any QT supporters who use Grangiers
experiment and the photoelectric effect to attack classical theory. My
argument is that the two contradict each other
Regards
Sean
Bilge
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Aleksandr Timofeev:
>
> crossposted more of the same pop art crap.
" You're repeating the same crap you've posted for
at least a year. It's still crap. Stop crossposting
this crap to sci.physics.relativity you imbecile. "
David Bilge
========================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrnbafnhh.tn.dubious%40radioactivex.lebesque-al.net
From: Bilge (dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Subject: Re: Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS
Aleksandr Timofeev:
========================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrnbaik6n.2i8.dubious%40radioactivex.lebesque-al.net
From: Bilge (dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Subject: Re: Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS
Aleksandr Timofeev:
========================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrnbamuj6.f9.dubious%40radioactivex.lebesque-al.net
From: Bilge (dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Subject: Re: Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS
Aleksandr Timofeev:
========================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrnbb3mfk.3k1.dubious%40radioactivex.lebesque-al.net
From: Bilge (dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Subject: Re: Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS
Aleksandr Timofeev:
========================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrnbaf5sp.5n.dubious%40radioactivex.lebesque-al.net
These messages has disappeared from GOOGLE's archive,
therefore I send it again:
========================================================
Subject: Re: Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS
Date: 26 Apr 2003 01:48:48 -0700
From: a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
news:<slrnbaik6n....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
> Aleksandr Timofeev:
>
> > crossposted more of the same pop art crap.
I make humble apologies to David Bilge.
Whether I can assume, what David Bilge have an amnesia?
You'll find yourself mistaken in your judgement.
In VLBI, the physical connections absolutely misses between
two antennas, excepting synchronization of time.
The signals really spatially are isolated.
By the way, for more in-depth analysis of the given
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0209070722.73d46ea4%40posting.google.com
Have a nice day.
Kind, kindest, sincere regards,
Gustave Le Bon
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Have great fun:
Not every horny devil is a Maxwell's Demon.
Here we consider a Alby's Demon - "Particle - Photon".
Unhappy, but the imaginary Demons do not exist in the Nature.
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
[snip]
> I only have the *belief* that a particle is not
> constrained to be anywhere in particular between
> an emission/lauch and an absorption/landing.
> More correctly, it might be said that such a
> particle is constrained to be *everywhere*
> transverse to any particluar path, but such
> would only be accurate for a very large number of
> particles.
Now I shall try to approach to the given problem
on the other hand.
_ aspheric lens
|
| |<-------------- polarizer
| |
V | |<-photomultiplier
|. |-| |F| |-|
| . |P| |i| |P|
| . |o| |l| |M|
O---------->| |-|l|--|t|-| |
\ | . | | | | |1|
\ | . |1| |1| | |
\ |. |-| | | |-|
\ |
\ |<------------ filter
\
\_Photonic beam
Fig. 2. Part of schematic diagram of apparatus
============================================
" Typical <...> <sourse> rates without
polarizers are ...."
" The photomultipliers have dark rates (less
than 200 counts per second at 20 C, no
coolling was used) negligible compared with the
typical singles counting rates (40000 and
120000 counts per second). "
" With 40 mW from <...> <sourse>, a
typical cascade rate is 4*10^7 per second. We
thus have an efficient source, with a small size
facilitating the design of the optics in the
detection channels.
The fluorescent light is collected by large -
aperture aspheric lenses (f=40 mm, dimeter=50
mm), followed by set of lenses for proper
collimation. All the optical elements are
antireflection coated. The stray light from the
<...> beams is reduced to negligible level by
various buffles. A colored-glass filter absorbs
" the wrong wavelength " in front of each
interference filter and prevents reflections of
photons back towards the source and other
channel. "
============================================
" The photomultiplier have the typical
singles counting rate 40000 or
120000 counts per second. "
Now I shall try to approach to the given problem
on the other hand.
I need in your understanding of physical
principles of operation of the photomultiplier.
Please, David A. Smith make the elementary
description of physical principles of operation
of the photomultiplier.
[snip]
> Thank you. I hope to learn something here.
> You are persistent. Perhaps I shall.
>
> David A. Smith
Thank you for your persistence.
Aleksandr Timofeev
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03050...@posting.google.com...
And how many Earth diameters separate the aspheric lens, polarizer, and
photomultiplier from each other?
The lens diverts individual photons based on their propagation from a high
speed medium into a low speed medium. This usually is a phenomenon
associated with a collection of matter close to the "photon's path". And
can only be correctly described by *me* if we confine ourselves to
statistical collections. I know that it works for other particles as well
(bending towards the normal).
The polarizer only blocks photons with a counter-polarization. Others make
it through to some extent, depending on their orientation. Polarization
occurs for other kinds of particles, but only as associated with their
spin, and I know nothing substantive about this.
The photomultiplier has electrons in a state such that the slightest "tap"
of photons will send an avalanche of electrons to the detector. I have
this oversimplified, and hope I am not thinking of something else.
So what conundrum do you wish to raise here?
David A. Smith
Aleksandr Timofeev
>
>"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:e16a4a22.03050...@posting.google.com...
>> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:<p9_ra.6912$pJ6.2436@fed1read05>...
[snip]
>>
>> > I only have the *belief* that a particle is not
>> > constrained to be anywhere in particular between
>> > an emission/lauch and an absorption/landing.
>> > More correctly, it might be said that such a
>> > particle is constrained to be *everywhere*
>> > transverse to any particluar path, but such
>> > would only be accurate for a very large number of
>> > particles.
>>
>> Now I shall try to approach to the given problem
>> on the other hand.
>>
>>
>> _ aspheric lens
>> |
>> | |<-------------- polarizer
>> | |
>> V | |<-photomultiplier
>> |. |-| |F| |-|
>> | . |P| |i| |P|
>> | . |o| |l| |M|
>> O---------->| |-|l|--|t|-| |
>> \ | . | | | | |1|
>> \ | . |1| |1| | |
>> \ |. |-| | | |-|
>> \ |
>> \ |<------------ filter
>> \
>> \_Photonic beam
>>
>> Fig. 2. Part of schematic diagram of apparatus
>>
[snip]
>> " The photomultiplier have the typical
>> singles counting rate 40000 or
>> 120000 counts per second. "
>>
>>
>> Now I shall try to approach to the given problem
>> on the other hand.
>>
>> I need in your understanding of physical
>> principles of operation of the photomultiplier.
>>
>> Please, David A. Smith make the elementary
>> description of physical principles of operation
>> of the photomultiplier.
>
>And how many Earth diameters separate the aspheric lens,
>polarizer, and photomultiplier from each other?
>
>The lens diverts individual photons based on their
>propagation from a high speed medium into a low
>speed medium. This usually is a phenomenon
>associated with a collection of matter close
>to the "photon's path".
_Photonic beam 2
O /
\/ _ aspheric lens
\ |
\ | |<-------------- polarizer
\ | |
\ V | |<-photomultiplier
\ |. |-| |F| |-|
\ | . |P| |i| |P|
\| . |o| |l| |M|
O---------->| |-|l|--|t|-| |
\ | . | | | | |1|
\ | . |1| |1| | |
\ |. |-| | | |-|
\ |
\ |<------------ filter
\
\_Photonic beam 1
The lens (antenna) serves for gathering a radiation
flow. If the surface of a lens has more considerable
quantity of a surface area (S ~ D ^ 2), a lens
concentrates more considerable quantity of radiation.
The radiation always has a direction of propagation.
How depends on an angle between optic axis of
a lens (antenna) and direction of propagation
of radiation the resulting response of
the photomultiplier?
rate Photonic beam 1 < rate Photonic beam 2 ???
or
rate Photonic beam 1 > rate Photonic beam 2 ???
if Photonic beam 1 = Photonic beam 2
What is termed as an antenna polar pattern?
What is termed as an optic axis of a lens?
>And can only be correctly described by *me* if we
>confine ourselves to statistical collections.
>I know that it works for other particles as well
>(bending towards the normal).
>
>The polarizer only blocks photons with a
> counter-polarization. Others make it through to
>some extent, depending on their orientation.
>Polarization occurs for other kinds of particles,
>but only as associated with their spin, and I
>know nothing substantive about this.
What can you tell about a transmission band of
frequencies of system as whole?
>The photomultiplier has electrons in a state such
>that the slightest "tap" of photons will send an
>avalanche of electrons to the detector. I have
>this oversimplified, and hope I am not thinking
>of something else.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0210250121.f28b56d%40posting.google.com
>So what conundrum do you wish to raise here?
I want to specify distinctions and correspondences
between methodologies of counters of concurrences
of events of detection of particles and VLBI.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
You are asking questions, to my questions. *I* do not use PMTs. *I* have
not been shown where you feel the problem is below. You may have to rub my
face in it. OK?
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03050...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
> >
> >"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:e16a4a22.03050...@posting.google.com...
> >> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:<p9_ra.6912$pJ6.2436@fed1read05>...
> >And how many Earth diameters separate the aspheric lens,
Agreed.
> How depends on an angle between optic axis of
> a lens (antenna) and direction of propagation
> of radiation the resulting response of
> the photomultiplier?
I would expect no detectable off-axis variation, up to say 30°. But my
experience is nill.
> rate Photonic beam 1 < rate Photonic beam 2 ???
> or
> rate Photonic beam 1 > rate Photonic beam 2 ???
> if Photonic beam 1 = Photonic beam 2
>
> What is termed as an antenna polar pattern?
> What is termed as an optic axis of a lens?
As I said at the top, you are asking questions of my questions. I do not
know, and I cannot therefore give an answer. What issues are you trying to
raise here?
> >And can only be correctly described by *me* if we
> >confine ourselves to statistical collections.
> >I know that it works for other particles as well
> >(bending towards the normal).
> >
> >The polarizer only blocks photons with a
> > counter-polarization. Others make it through to
> >some extent, depending on their orientation.
> >Polarization occurs for other kinds of particles,
> >but only as associated with their spin, and I
> >know nothing substantive about this.
>
> What can you tell about a transmission band of
> frequencies of system as whole?
I cannot. The lens transmits over a narrow band, and that nonuniformly,
unless you've got expensive stuff. I expect the polarizer will be
frequency sensitive as well. You stated in the link you provided below
that PMTs are frequency sensitive, which I question, but I have no reason
to discount what you say out of hand.
> >The photomultiplier has electrons in a state such
> >that the slightest "tap" of photons will send an
> >avalanche of electrons to the detector. I have
> >this oversimplified, and hope I am not thinking
> >of something else.
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0210250121.f28b56d%40posting.
google.com
>
>
> >So what conundrum do you wish to raise here?
>
> I want to specify distinctions and correspondences
> between methodologies of counters of concurrences
> of events of detection of particles and VLBI.
Okay. If you rotate the polarizer in front of the detector on one side of
the planet, does it alter the number or frequency of the photons received
by the detector on the other side of the planet?
David A. Smith
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
>
> You are asking questions, to my questions. *I* do not use PMTs. *I* have
> not been shown where you feel the problem is below. You may have to rub my
> face in it. OK?
PMT construction:
http://usa.hamamatsu.com/hcpdf/catsandguides/PMTCAT_construction.pdf
2002_Catalog_Excerpts_title.pdf:
http://usa.hamamatsu.com/hcpdf/catsandguides/
Photomultiplier Tubes (Main Catalog) ===> :
Photomultiplier Tube Accessories ===> :
Photomultiplier Tubes for High Energy ===> :
http://usa.hamamatsu.com/hcpdf/
Get a FREE CD copy of the PMT Handbook:
http://usa.hamamatsu.com/
[snip]
There is a technical term an antenna gain.
For directional antennas of the large sizes it is
possible to neglect radiation, if the radiation source
does not lie on an axis of a directional antenna.
You would expect no detectable off-axis variation, up to say 0.1°
or more less.
=============================================================
Thus you should forget for ever about existence of all parts of
the Universe, which one do not lie near to an axis of a directional
antenna or large optical lens. ;-)
=============================================================
You should reflect only on radiation lying on a straight line
joining a source (star) and "focus" of the antenna or lens of
your receiver.
=============================================================
> > rate Photonic beam 1 < rate Photonic beam 2 ???
> > or
> > rate Photonic beam 1 > rate Photonic beam 2 ???
> > if Photonic beam 1 = Photonic beam 2
> >
> > What is termed as an antenna polar pattern?
> > What is termed as an optic axis of a lens?
>
> As I said at the top, you are asking questions of my questions. I do not
> know, and I cannot therefore give an answer. What issues are you trying to
> raise here?
Thus you should forget for ever about existence of all parts of
the Universe, which one do not lie near to an axis of a directional
antenna or large optical lens. ;-)
> > >And can only be correctly described by *me* if we
> > >confine ourselves to statistical collections.
> > >I know that it works for other particles as well
> > >(bending towards the normal).
> > >
> > >The polarizer only blocks photons with a
> > > counter-polarization. Others make it through to
> > >some extent, depending on their orientation.
> > >Polarization occurs for other kinds of particles,
> > >but only as associated with their spin, and I
> > >know nothing substantive about this.
> >
> > What can you tell about a transmission band of
> > frequencies of system as whole?
>
> I cannot. The lens transmits over a narrow band, and that nonuniformly,
> unless you've got expensive stuff. I expect the polarizer will be
> frequency sensitive as well. You stated in the link you provided below
> that PMTs are frequency sensitive, which I question, but I have no reason
> to discount what you say out of hand.
Thus you should forget for ever about existence of all
parts of the Universe and all radiations existing in
the Universe, which one do not lie near to an axis of
a directional antenna or large optical lens and which
one do not lie in boundaries of a frequency band of your
receiver.
> > >The photomultiplier has electrons in a state such
> > >that the slightest "tap" of photons will send an
> > >avalanche of electrons to the detector. I have
> > >this oversimplified, and hope I am not thinking
> > >of something else.
> >
> >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0210250121.f28b56d%40posting.google.com
> >
> >
> > >So what conundrum do you wish to raise here?
> >
> > I want to specify distinctions and correspondences
> > between methodologies of counters of concurrences
> > of events of detection of particles and VLBI.
>
> Okay. If you rotate the polarizer in front of the detector on one side of
> the planet, does it alter the number or frequency of the photons received
> by the detector on the other side of the planet?
The planets are a very feeble source of
electromagnetic radiation, therefore it is contensive
meaningful to reflect on radiation of remote stars.
Thus you should forget for ever about existence of all
parts of the Universe and all radiations existing in
the Universe, which one do not lie near to an axis of
a directional antenna or large optical lens and which
one do not lie in boundaries of a frequency band of your
receiver.
=============================================================
1. You should reflect only on radiation lying on a straight
line joining a source (star) and "focus" of the antenna or
lens of your receiver.
2. You should reflect only on radiation lying in boundaries
of a frequency band of your receiver.
3. You should reflect only on electromagnetic radiation,
which one the power of a stream is more than a "threshold"
level of sensitivity of your receiver.
=============================================================
=============================================================
=============================================================
Now we compare fundamental physical principles underlying
operations of devices of a coincidence circuit ( gate circuit,
match circuit) and VLBI.
1. An apparatus of a coincidence circuit
--------------------------------------------------------
_ aspheric lens
|
| |<-------------- polarizer
| |
V | |<-photomultiplier
|. |-| |F| |-|
| . |P| |i| |P|
| . |o| |l| |M|
O---------->| |-|l|--|t|-| |
\ | . | | | | |1|
\ | . |1| |1| | |
\ |. |-| | | |-|
\ |
\ |<------------ filter
\
\_Photonic beam
Fig. 2. Part of schematic diagram of apparatus of a coincidence
circuit
2. VLBI radio-telescope
--------------------------------------------------------
-> 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 ]
1. aspheric lens <===> parabolic antenna
They are to perform a role of BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
for incident radiation
2. A polarizer and waveguide <===> polarizer and filter
. of VLBI microwave receiver of an apparatus of
. a coincidence circuit
3. A VLBI microwave receiver <===> photomultiplier
. We shall name photons, in a stream incident on an antenna, " as free
photons ". Let's name photons absorbed by an antenna, " as bound photons ".
Whether we know a structure " of bound photons "? To me it is not clear. I
definitely know, that the structure of an electromagnetic field is determined
by boundary conditions. For this reason the structure " of free photons
" should differ from a structure " of bound photons ". The detailses of
mechanisms of a radiation and absorption of an electromagnetic field are not
known to us. On my sight the photon is simply other title for mechanisms of
a radiation and absorption of an electromagnetic field. For this reason the
PHOTONS DO NOT EXIST IN A NATURE or, if it is pleasant more to you, in
a medium of an electromagnetic field the photons will be generated as virtual
particles.
From the point of view of the Henry Poincare, we shall come to a
conclusion:
========================================================================
The photons are particles - ghosts, the photons are mathematical
abstraction, which allow us to calculate probability of interaction of an
electromagnetic field and substance.
========================================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=77vg46%24mai%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com
Aleksandr Timofeev
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<HPkua.11249$hd6.6209@fed1read05>...
> > Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
> >
> > You are asking questions, to my questions. *I* do not use PMTs. *I*
have
> > not been shown where you feel the problem is below. You may have to
rub my
> > face in it. OK?
>
> PMT construction:
> http://usa.hamamatsu.com/hcpdf/catsandguides/PMTCAT_construction.pdf
>
> 2002_Catalog_Excerpts_title.pdf:
> http://usa.hamamatsu.com/hcpdf/catsandguides/
>
> Photomultiplier Tubes (Main Catalog) ===> :
> Photomultiplier Tube Accessories ===> :
> Photomultiplier Tubes for High Energy ===> :
> http://usa.hamamatsu.com/hcpdf/
>
> Get a FREE CD copy of the PMT Handbook:
> http://usa.hamamatsu.com/
Thank you for your efforts here.
...
> > > How depends on an angle between optic axis of
> > > a lens (antenna) and direction of propagation
> > > of radiation the resulting response of
> > > the photomultiplier?
> >
> > I would expect no detectable off-axis variation, up to say 30°. But my
> > experience is nill.
>
> There is a technical term an antenna gain.
>
> For directional antennas of the large sizes it is
> possible to neglect radiation, if the radiation source
> does not lie on an axis of a directional antenna.
>
> You would expect no detectable off-axis variation, up to say 0.1°
> or more less.
Good. Does this off-axis variation express itself more as a function of
wavelength, a function of the antenna geometry, a function of source
distance, or none of the above? In other words, if the frequency doubles,
does the 0.1° change at all? If the source is 1 Gly further away, is it
still a 0.1° cutoff? If the antennae are 1 km, 12756 km, 1 ly apart, does
the 0.1° alter in any way?
=============================================================
>
> Thus you should forget for ever about existence of all parts of
> the Universe, which one do not lie near to an axis of a directional
> antenna or large optical lens. ;-)
>
> =============================================================
> You should reflect only on radiation lying on a straight line
> joining a source (star) and "focus" of the antenna or lens of
> your receiver.
> =============================================================
Let's call this "line" the optical axis, OK?
Note that your two detectors lie along a line (or plane) transverse to the
optical axis. And you have indicated that it does not matter how far apart
they are, together they make an antenna. Would they do so if one was here
and the other were located in Alpha Centauri? Other than limiting the
observable Universe by this instrument to a ring, of course...
So, how can you say: "Thus you should forget for ever about existence of
all parts of the Universe, which one do not lie near to an axis of a
directional antenna or large optical lens."
The detectors do not lie along the optical axis by 0.1° for close sources
either. Close being 3500 / tan(0.1) = 2 million miles. Can you
conceivably detect sources this close?
...
> > > I want to specify distinctions and correspondences
> > > between methodologies of counters of concurrences
> > > of events of detection of particles and VLBI.
> >
> > Okay. If you rotate the polarizer in front of the detector on one side
of
> > the planet, does it alter the number or frequency of the photons
received
> > by the detector on the other side of the planet?
>
> The planets are a very feeble source of
> electromagnetic radiation, therefore it is contensive
> meaningful to reflect on radiation of remote stars.
So the purpose of the polarizer to to block out noise. Seems like it would
be a "simple" test though. If one of them were out of whack, and was
letting in some more noise, the noise should show up on both. Of course
you would potentially lose the signal...
> Thus you should forget for ever about existence of all
> parts of the Universe and all radiations existing in
> the Universe, which one do not lie near to an axis of
> a directional antenna or large optical lens and which
> one do not lie in boundaries of a frequency band of your
> receiver.
Yes, you have said this.
=============================================================
> 1. You should reflect only on radiation lying on a straight
> line joining a source (star) and "focus" of the antenna or
> lens of your receiver.
> 2. You should reflect only on radiation lying in boundaries
> of a frequency band of your receiver.
> 3. You should reflect only on electromagnetic radiation,
> which one the power of a stream is more than a "threshold"
> level of sensitivity of your receiver.
> =============================================================
And yet you are not providing anything to counter what I have said before
about the apparent "width" of the photon.
> 1. aspheric lens <===> parabolic antenna
> They are to perform a role of BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
> for incident radiation
Then so is the "glass" at the front of the photo-multiplier tube. So is
every so many millimeters of air (some function of the extinction
coefficient). You can reduce the entire problem to infinitessimals, and
you end up with real photons being a series virtual ones. QM likes this
anyway (I cannot understand why). You have reduced a problem in continuity
to a problem in finite elements. It is still a *method* and not much of an
improvement.
> 2. A polarizer and waveguide <===> polarizer and filter
> . of VLBI microwave receiver of an apparatus of
> . a coincidence circuit
>
> 3. A VLBI microwave receiver <===> photomultiplier
>
>
> . We shall name photons, in a stream incident on an antenna, " as free
> photons ". Let's name photons absorbed by an antenna, " as bound photons
".
> Whether we know a structure " of bound photons "? To me it is not clear.
I
> definitely know, that the structure of an electromagnetic field is
determined
> by boundary conditions. For this reason the structure " of free photons
> " should differ from a structure " of bound photons ". The detailses of
> mechanisms of a radiation and absorption of an electromagnetic field are
not
> known to us. On my sight the photon is simply other title for mechanisms
of
> a radiation and absorption of an electromagnetic field.
There are a great number of papers on the structure of both real ("free")
and virtual ("bound") photons in the archives. You may find the following
papers there. They may shed some light for you: 9708006, 9807017, 9908315,
9912049, 0010012, 0012132, 0102019, 0111052, 0112020, 0205301, 0207181,
0210059
I have not yet started reading them, but I have them in pdfs now.
> For this reason the
> PHOTONS DO NOT EXIST IN A NATURE or, if it is pleasant more to you, in
> a medium of an electromagnetic field the photons will be generated as
virtual
> particles.
> From the point of view of the Henry Poincare, we shall come to a
> conclusion:
> ========================================================================
> The photons are particles - ghosts, the photons are mathematical
> abstraction, which allow us to calculate probability of interaction of an
> electromagnetic field and substance.
> ========================================================================
So in the spirit of "Henry Poincare", describe the photo electric effect.
I would submit that you have not yet advanced your cause of photons being a
"ghost". You have not differentiated them from being like any other
particle.
Lenses can be constructed to focus or defocus matter streams. Structures
can be assembled to polarize matter streams (in some sense). Detectors can
be made to detect matter streams. So perhaps all of reality is a "ghost"?
David A. Smith
sean
>
> > For this reason the
> > PHOTONS DO NOT EXIST IN A NATURE or, if it is pleasant more to you, in
> > a medium of an electromagnetic field the photons will be generated as
> virtual
> > particles.
> > From the point of view of the Henry Poincare, we shall come to a
> > conclusion:
> > ========================================================================
> > The photons are particles - ghosts, the photons are mathematical
> > abstraction, which allow us to calculate probability of interaction of an
> > electromagnetic field and substance.
> > ========================================================================
>
> So in the spirit of "Henry Poincare", describe the photo electric effect.
> I would submit that you have not yet advanced your cause of photons being a
> "ghost". You have not differentiated them from being like any other
> particle.
>
> Lenses can be constructed to focus or defocus matter streams. Structures
> can be assembled to polarize matter streams (in some sense). Detectors can
> be made to detect matter streams. So perhaps all of reality is a "ghost"?
>
> David A. Smith
Hi David
I`m not sure if this fits with Alexandrs argument but I *have* offered
a model of how the photoelectric effect can be described in wave only
terms previously in the thread `What evidence Photons?`
Essentially the model treats each atom in the detector plate of the
PMT as a seperate `detector` and each atom is able to absorb radiation
and release it in quantised packages to the electron cascade which in
turn produces the Photoelectron or electric current. Each atom is
essentially acting as a capacitor does in an electric circuit.
If each atom in the detector ` fills` with energy in a sense and
releases it in quantized packets to the cascade then at any one point
if one were to `snapshot ` the detector all the atoms would be at
seperate randomly filled states from 0-100% full.
I then did a mathematical test where I reproduced the model with a
small number of atoms, in different randomly filled states:
ie/1/100 7/100 15/100 etc up to 99/100 with 0/100 being empty and
100/100 being full.
I then took each incident `photon` of light and assuming the classical
model that it was wave only radiation I could split up that photon
evenly amongst all the atoms in my detectors. I used 32 atoms. that
meant that in my mathematical test I could give each atom 1/32 of the
incident photons energy.
If I assumed that the photon was 100 units of energy.That meant that
each atom in the detector got 1/32 of a `photon` every time one
`photon` hits the detector. That worked out to about 3.125/100 units
per atom per photon event .
So if you run the experiment mathematically you find that on average
at *every* photon event, one atom (which in itself only recieves about
3/100 of a photon per photon event) reaches the filled level of
100/100 and releases one photons worth of `energy` to the electron
cascade.
In other words a classical non-particle model using the atom as a
capacitor which absorbs wave only light energy can...describe the
particle like detections at a PMT!
Furthermore when I applied this classical model to 2 detectors
recieving 1 `photons ` worth of light I found that a coincidence rate
between the two was less than what was predicted by Grangier in the
famous much trumpeted Aspect experiment. Furthermore when I reduced
the amount of energy per event as Grangier did , I could reproduce the
lower coincidence rate just as observed in Grangiers experiment
So two points . First That there *is* a classical model that can
describe the photo electric effect and secondly it produces results
that are verified by experiment, and not only that it matches the
observed results better than the QT predictions!
I recomend that anyone who diputes this should reproduce the
mathematical experiment outlined above before you reply . You will
find that if you follow the instructions you will get the same results
I have which are that classical wave only light can produce particle
like events that match observed rates.
Regards Sean
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"sean" <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f80aa1.03051...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8Tbva.13937$hd6.10583@fed1read05...
...
> > So in the spirit of "Henry Poincare", describe the photo electric
effect.
> > I would submit that you have not yet advanced your cause of photons
being a
> > "ghost". You have not differentiated them from being like any other
> > particle.
> >
> > Lenses can be constructed to focus or defocus matter streams.
Structures
> > can be assembled to polarize matter streams (in some sense). Detectors
can
> > be made to detect matter streams. So perhaps all of reality is a
"ghost"?
>
>
Actually no. You have not described why a *single* electron responds to a
*single* photon, and the energy of the photons in a stream (within limits)
have nothing to do with how many electrons are released *initially*.
He wants to talk about "boundary conditions" and then he talks about a
detector that completely hides information about the collision at the
boundary. The output of the detector corresponds only to the energy
received. And an observer hopes the intensity is low enough (number of
photons per second) that the PMT does saturate. They appear to be very
similar to GM tubes this way.
> Furthermore when I applied this classical model to 2 detectors
> recieving 1 `photons ` worth of light I found that a coincidence rate
> between the two was less than what was predicted by Grangier in the
> famous much trumpeted Aspect experiment. Furthermore when I reduced
> the amount of energy per event as Grangier did , I could reproduce the
> lower coincidence rate just as observed in Grangiers experiment
>
> So two points . First That there *is* a classical model that can
> describe the photo electric effect and secondly it produces results
> that are verified by experiment, and not only that it matches the
> observed results better than the QT predictions!
I won't argue this, but I will argue that you have not presented a model in
which a wave packet (aka particle) propagates a long distance without
losing energy, and arrives at a charge and delivers a specific momentum
which is *equal* to the momentum lost by the emitter (note that lenses
alter a photon's momentum, so have a sense of humor).
Classical waves don't do this, and you have presented nothing here to
adress this shortcoming. Waves become diffuse with distance, which is a
red shift (since amplitude correspond to energy). And waves depend on
their shape to deliver momentum. An oncoming wave can move a "mote"
forward *or* backward as a net transfer.
> I recomend that anyone who diputes this should reproduce the
> mathematical experiment outlined above before you reply . You will
> find that if you follow the instructions you will get the same results
> I have which are that classical wave only light can produce particle
> like events that match observed rates.
Sorry. It is not described well enough that I could do this. And since it
is a numerical simulation, apparently without any theoretical model (other
than numbers without a model), I don't see how it addresses my objection to
Mr. Timofeev.
Also, remember that the phenomenon you are modelling will be required to
describe the *same* behaviours for electron, neutrons, and bucky balls.
David A. Smith
sean
I`m sorry but thats exactly what I have described. You obviusly havent
understood the model. I could help by explaining any part you dont
understand although it seems so simple to me.Incoming wave energy can
build up in the atom and when it reaches a certain level the atom
releases an electron to the cascade. The same can be said if a stream
of `photons` hit the pmt.
It is so simple wave energy hits atom>>>> energy stored up like
capacitor>>>>energy released by atom in packets rather than as stream
of waves. Think water waves lapping over the top of a barrier into a
smaller empty pool. Eventually pool behind barrier fills and at
certain level the pool reaches critical volume and a sluice gate opens
and releases all of pool in one go to a further system of pipes etc.
What you get there is incremental waves being translated to one burst
of stored water. Waves ---electrons
> He wants to talk about "boundary conditions" and then he talks about a
> detector that completely hides information about the collision at the
> boundary. The output of the detector corresponds only to the energy
> received. And an observer hopes the intensity is low enough (number of
> photons per second) that the PMT does saturate. They appear to be very
> similar to GM tubes this way.
>
I admit I am unsure as to the exact details of Alaxandrs argument and
it was only on the point you made that I responded to regarding
whether or not a particle like observation at a PMT could be explained
by a classical model.
> > Furthermore when I applied this classical model to 2 detectors
> > recieving 1 `photons ` worth of light I found that a coincidence rate
> > between the two was less than what was predicted by Grangier in the
> > famous much trumpeted Aspect experiment. Furthermore when I reduced
> > the amount of energy per event as Grangier did , I could reproduce the
> > lower coincidence rate just as observed in Grangiers experiment
> >
> > So two points . First That there *is* a classical model that can
> > describe the photo electric effect and secondly it produces results
> > that are verified by experiment, and not only that it matches the
> > observed results better than the QT predictions!
>
> I won't argue this, but I will argue that you have not presented a model in
> which a wave packet (aka particle) propagates a long distance without
> losing energy, and arrives at a charge and delivers a specific momentum
> which is *equal* to the momentum lost by the emitter (note that lenses
> alter a photon's momentum, so have a sense of humor).
>
This is an interesting point you make. First of all you assume that I
argue there is a wave packet somehow travelling through space. It is
important to realize I am dispensing with the wave packet photon
concept and saying that energy is spreading out from source in waves ,
just like ripples on a pond but in 3-d. I argue that the appearance of
photons is created* at the detector* and they dont actually ever exist
as particles travelling through space. Thats what Classical theory
means to me. Wave propogation without the need for a photon . So if
waves ripple out from source they lose energy simply because the wave
spreads as it travels outwards. If dust or gases etc are intervening
they will take energy or absorb and reemit it . So yes, energy
decreases with distance and whatever blocks its path. I never said it
doesnt lose energy over distance
> Classical waves don't do this, and you have presented nothing here to
> adress this shortcoming. Waves become diffuse with distance, which is a
> red shift (since amplitude correspond to energy). And waves depend on
> their shape to deliver momentum. An oncoming wave can move a "mote"
> forward *or* backward as a net transfer.
>
This confuses me. Are you suggesting that red shift is caused by a
decrease in Amplitude? I have never heard that one before. I thought
QT supporters attributed red shift to a doppler effect.
Furthermore as a wave travels out from source like a ripple on a pond
it keeps its shape in the sense that its wavelength is maintained. It
is the amplitude that decreases as a square over distance which only
means that the farther away the source is from the PMT the longer the
exposure is needed to deliver the necessary `amplitude ` to produce a
electron at the atom in the detector. So wave theory isnt hampered by
loss of energy over distance. And observations of all sorts support
this. A photographer will need a longer exposure for a more distant
light source to appear the same intensity as if it were closer.
The incoming wave in wave theory would still move the `mote` back and
forth at the same wavelength but at a less amplitude relative to the
distance travelled from source.
> > I recomend that anyone who diputes this should reproduce the
> > mathematical experiment outlined above before you reply . You will
> > find that if you follow the instructions you will get the same results
> > I have which are that classical wave only light can produce particle
> > like events that match observed rates.
>
> Sorry. It is not described well enough that I could do this. And since it
> is a numerical simulation, apparently without any theoretical model (other
> than numbers without a model), I don't see how it addresses my objection to
> Mr. Timofeev.
>
I stress that my point wasnt neccesarily supporting Alex`s argument as
alot of it is quite difficult to understand. I am only addressing one
point seperately on whether wave theory can describe PMT detections.
Although I do believe Alexander and I both are arguing against a
photon concept of light.
Also I object to your point that there is no theoretical model!! Of
course there is . The model is that put forward by so many for so long
That light is propogated by wave only transfer of energy in a aether
like medium. And specifically regarding PMT`s the model is that the
atom is ejecting electrons (just like QT ) by absorbing incoming wave
only radiation and releasing it in quantized packets . The model uses
as reference the capacitor in the electrical circuit as a template for
how the atom detects even incoming energy radiation and passes it on
in pulses. To `prove` the model I then have to put numbers to it
within the parameters like randomness and different states of filled.
These numbers are then run through in an experiment that yeilds
results exactly as observed in experiment.
The model is so simple and powerful that I beleive it could be used to
show how sound and water waves can produce particle like events that
equal in mathematical terms the incoming sound or wave energy. In
other words `measure ` it.
But you say you dont understand the model . It is so very simple . The
atom acts as a capacitor . In other words it recieves incoming energy
and when a certain amount of energy is recieved ( this will occur
relatively faster if the waves amplitude is greater) the atom reaches
capacity and discharges all the stored energy as a pulse or whats
called a photoelectron to the cascade . That is the model of the atom
and the model of the light propogation is that of a wave propogating
through an aether medium
Graphically something like this below is occurring at atomic level in
a pmt atom in a wave only lighty propogation model
atoms in
detector plane
incoming wave radiation X
>> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | X || || ||- electrons>>
X
> Also, remember that the phenomenon you are modelling will be required to
> describe the *same* behaviours for electron, neutrons, and bucky balls.
>
> David A. Smith
Ah yes , but remember your initial request was for a classical model
that describes the particle like detection at PMT`s. Now instead of
pointing out where my model doesnt work (which I dont believe you can
do :) , theres a challenge)you change the subject and ask me to
explain something else. It isnt a theory of everything and in a wave
only universe atoms presumably are only wave like in nature , a vortex
of overlapping frequencies. That I havent yet come to grips with. Then
again QT cant explain 90% of the missing matter in the universe nor
the appearance of stars 200,000 years after the BB. I will continue if
you would like and try to explain bucky balls but need a bit more
study time on those.
Nonetheless my model , though simple and easy to understand does work
better than QT in explaining Grangiers results. THat is called
verification of theory in science. Is it not? Model predicts outcome,
verified by observation. THat is what I have done. You say it cant
explain buckyballs and therefore is invalid. In that case QT cant
explain the missing 90% of the universe and therefore isnt valid . It
doesnt work like that. There are many models developed for specific
phenomena. Some theories like QT can only answer some questions. That
doesnt mean that QT or classsical are invalid because they dont answer
everything. Its up to us to come up with as many descriptions of
different phenomena for each of our pet theories. The more things
Classical can explain the stronger the theory and likewise for any
other theory. What you seem to propose is only one theory ( QT ) is
allowed regardless of its imperfections. Why not try to show where my
PMT model is wrong rather than say it cant explain something else. I`m
not saying QT is wrong about PMT particle detections because it cant
explain the missing 90 % of the universe. I am saying that it is wrong
because it doesnt explain PMT detections as well as classical.
regards
Sean
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
Read it through, then respond, OK?
"sean" <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f80aa1.03051...@posting.google.com...
...
> > Actually no. You have not described why a *single* electron responds
to a
> > *single* photon, and the energy of the photons in a stream (within
limits)
> > have nothing to do with how many electrons are released *initially*.
>
> I`m sorry but thats exactly what I have described. You obviusly havent
> understood the model. I could help by explaining any part you dont
> understand although it seems so simple to me.Incoming wave energy can
> build up in the atom and when it reaches a certain level the atom
> releases an electron to the cascade. The same can be said if a stream
> of `photons` hit the pmt.
I would be interested in the "structure" that would allow "buildup", and
how it can differentiate between lots of low energy waves and a single high
energy wave.
> It is so simple wave energy hits atom>>>> energy stored up like
> capacitor>>>>energy released by atom in packets rather than as stream
> of waves. Think water waves lapping over the top of a barrier into a
> smaller empty pool. Eventually pool behind barrier fills and at
> certain level the pool reaches critical volume and a sluice gate opens
> and releases all of pool in one go to a further system of pipes etc.
> What you get there is incremental waves being translated to one burst
> of stored water. Waves ---electrons
Okay, but this "mechanism" would allow lots of little waves to accumulate
and be equal to one large wave. There are few if any mechanisms that
display this ability in nature. Pretty much nothing happens until the
right energy photon (or higher) arrives.
> > He wants to talk about "boundary conditions" and then he talks about a
> > detector that completely hides information about the collision at the
> > boundary. The output of the detector corresponds only to the energy
> > received. And an observer hopes the intensity is low enough (number of
> > photons per second) that the PMT does saturate. They appear to be very
> > similar to GM tubes this way.
> >
> I admit I am unsure as to the exact details of Alaxandrs argument and
> it was only on the point you made that I responded to regarding
> whether or not a particle like observation at a PMT could be explained
> by a classical model.
And your argument is suitably presented, but does not describe why little
waves don't add up to one big one. Another problem with wave theory to
describe the photoelectric effect is some insist that wave resonance is the
cause. (This is not what you have claimed, but others with whom I have
"tilted" have tried to hide there.) In classical wave theory, resonance
occurs for a narrow range of frequencies, and higher frequencies have
little or no effect. So electrons should be liberated with a narrow band
of KE, and then cutoff as the energy of the photons is increased further.
This also is not observed.
...
> > I won't argue this, but I will argue that you have not presented a
model in
> > which a wave packet (aka particle) propagates a long distance without
> > losing energy, and arrives at a charge and delivers a specific momentum
> > which is *equal* to the momentum lost by the emitter (note that lenses
> > alter a photon's momentum, so have a sense of humor).
> >
> This is an interesting point you make. First of all you assume that I
> argue there is a wave packet somehow travelling through space. It is
> important to realize I am dispensing with the wave packet photon
> concept and saying that energy is spreading out from source in waves ,
> just like ripples on a pond but in 3-d. I argue that the appearance of
> photons is created* at the detector* and they dont actually ever exist
> as particles travelling through space. Thats what Classical theory
> means to me. Wave propogation without the need for a photon . So if
> waves ripple out from source they lose energy simply because the wave
> spreads as it travels outwards.
But this is not observed. A photon arrives from a distant source (in this
galaxy, say) with the same energy as one generated by our own Sun. The
1/r^2 is much smaller for the distant source, but the energy packet is a
constant. The intensity is in the number of photons that arrive.
> If dust or gases etc are intervening
> they will take energy or absorb and reemit it . So yes, energy
> decreases with distance and whatever blocks its path. I never said it
> doesnt lose energy over distance
But it in fact doesn't lose energy. The number of photons does decrease...
> > Classical waves don't do this, and you have presented nothing here to
> > adress this shortcoming. Waves become diffuse with distance, which is
a
> > red shift (since amplitude correspond to energy). And waves depend on
> > their shape to deliver momentum. An oncoming wave can move a "mote"
> > forward *or* backward as a net transfer.
> >
> This confuses me. Are you suggesting that red shift is caused by a
> decrease in Amplitude? I have never heard that one before. I thought
> QT supporters attributed red shift to a doppler effect.
Classical waves transmit energy by amplitude, by frequency, and by wave
shape. QT delivers energy by packet energy (frequency), and the number of
packets. An ocean wave loses amplitude with distance. I'm not sure about
the frequency, but I don't think it changes much.
> Furthermore as a wave travels out from source like a ripple on a pond
> it keeps its shape in the sense that its wavelength is maintained.
Wavelength is a function of the c of the material, for a classical wave. A
wave approaching a beach "crashes" because the front of the wave is slowing
down as it enters shallower water. Better to say frequency is maintained,
I think.
> It
> is the amplitude that decreases as a square over distance which only
> means that the farther away the source is from the PMT the longer the
> exposure is needed to deliver the necessary `amplitude ` to produce a
> electron at the atom in the detector. So wave theory isnt hampered by
> loss of energy over distance.
Yes it is. There is not enough energy at any one point to liberate
electrons, but it seems to happen anyway. So either an electron can
"gather" energy from surrounding space, or waves don't work.
> And observations of all sorts support
> this. A photographer will need a longer exposure for a more distant
> light source to appear the same intensity as if it were closer.
More photons required. Note that the recorded color doesn't change, near
vs. far. Either model explains this, to some extent. But not if amplitude
represents energy in your model.
> The incoming wave in wave theory would still move the `mote` back and
> forth at the same wavelength but at a less amplitude relative to the
> distance travelled from source.
And it is the "amplitude" that liberates the electrons?
> > > I recomend that anyone who diputes this should reproduce the
> > > mathematical experiment outlined above before you reply . You will
> > > find that if you follow the instructions you will get the same
results
> > > I have which are that classical wave only light can produce particle
> > > like events that match observed rates.
> >
> > Sorry. It is not described well enough that I could do this. And
since it
> > is a numerical simulation, apparently without any theoretical model
(other
> > than numbers without a model), I don't see how it addresses my
objection to
> > Mr. Timofeev.
> >
> I stress that my point wasnt neccesarily supporting Alex`s argument as
> alot of it is quite difficult to understand. I am only addressing one
> point seperately on whether wave theory can describe PMT detections.
> Although I do believe Alexander and I both are arguing against a
> photon concept of light.
I believe you both are as well.
> Also I object to your point that there is no theoretical model!! Of
> course there is . The model is that put forward by so many for so long
> That light is propogated by wave only transfer of energy in a aether
> like medium. And specifically regarding PMT`s the model is that the
> atom is ejecting electrons (just like QT ) by absorbing incoming wave
> only radiation and releasing it in quantized packets . The model uses
> as reference the capacitor in the electrical circuit as a template for
> how the atom detects even incoming energy radiation and passes it on
> in pulses. To `prove` the model I then have to put numbers to it
> within the parameters like randomness and different states of filled.
> These numbers are then run through in an experiment that yeilds
> results exactly as observed in experiment.
Only if you neglect amplitudes insufficent to yield electrons, or
mechanisms that allow many small waves adding to one large one. The
electrons are released in the former, and not released in the latter.
> The model is so simple and powerful that I beleive it could be used to
> show how sound and water waves can produce particle like events that
> equal in mathematical terms the incoming sound or wave energy. In
> other words `measure ` it.
> But you say you dont understand the model . It is so very simple . The
> atom acts as a capacitor . In other words it recieves incoming energy
> and when a certain amount of energy is recieved ( this will occur
> relatively faster if the waves amplitude is greater) the atom reaches
> capacity and discharges all the stored energy as a pulse or whats
> called a photoelectron to the cascade . That is the model of the atom
> and the model of the light propogation is that of a wave propogating
> through an aether medium
We'll wait until you respond the observations above.
> Graphically something like this below is occurring at atomic level in
> a pmt atom in a wave only lighty propogation model
>
> atoms in
> detector plane
> incoming wave radiation X
> >> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | X || || ||- electrons>>
> X
> > Also, remember that the phenomenon you are modelling will be required
to
> > describe the *same* behaviours for electron, neutrons, and bucky balls.
>
>
> Ah yes , but remember your initial request was for a classical model
> that describes the particle like detection at PMT`s. Now instead of
> pointing out where my model doesnt work (which I dont believe you can
> do :) , theres a challenge)
Answered.
>you change the subject and ask me to
> explain something else. It isnt a theory of everything and in a wave
> only universe atoms presumably are only wave like in nature , a vortex
> of overlapping frequencies. That I havent yet come to grips with. Then
> again QT cant explain 90% of the missing matter in the universe nor
> the appearance of stars 200,000 years after the BB. I will continue if
> you would like and try to explain bucky balls but need a bit more
> study time on those.
> Nonetheless my model , though simple and easy to understand does work
> better than QT in explaining Grangiers results. THat is called
> verification of theory in science. Is it not? Model predicts outcome,
> verified by observation. THat is what I have done. You say it cant
> explain buckyballs and therefore is invalid.
No. What I say is that the only behaviours that waves are required to
explain, must do so for all particles... not just photons. So "waving your
hands" at photons and saying they are waves, does nothing for the major
argument. There is no unique behaviour for photons that is not expressed
by other particles (other than transmitting finite energy and momentum at
c). At least as far as I know (which isn't far).
> In that case QT cant
> explain the missing 90% of the universe and therefore isnt valid.
If you don't need all the Dark Matter, then most of the requirement for
Dark Energy goes away too. Is this whereof you speak?
> It
> doesnt work like that. There are many models developed for specific
> phenomena. Some theories like QT can only answer some questions. That
> doesnt mean that QT or classsical are invalid because they dont answer
> everything. Its up to us to come up with as many descriptions of
> different phenomena for each of our pet theories. The more things
> Classical can explain the stronger the theory and likewise for any
> other theory. What you seem to propose is only one theory ( QT ) is
> allowed regardless of its imperfections. Why not try to show where my
> PMT model is wrong rather than say it cant explain something else. I`m
> not saying QT is wrong about PMT particle detections because it cant
> explain the missing 90 % of the universe. I am saying that it is wrong
> because it doesnt explain PMT detections as well as classical.
Where your PMT model is "wrong" is that it seeks to envelop a single type
of particle (out of a host of particles with similar behaviours) in a
mystery "continuum". You have had to create some sort of mystical
"accumulator" that can gather wave energy and store it until enough energy
is received to bounce an electron. And the "accumulator" has to be smart
enough to not so the same with lots of little waves. And it has to be able
to gather energy from great distances away...
I see you spending a lot of time and energy defending a model that no
longer fits the problem. This effort is beneath your talents, IMHO.
> regards
And to you.
David A. Smith
PS: Leave the attribution to "dlzc" at the top of the post... I almost
didn't see this post of yours.
sean
> Dear sean:
>
> Read it through, then respond, OK?
>
Will do, as I see there are lots of points you make.I will respond to
your arguments in a seperate post later .
But I thought this up since the last post so I will add this as a
seperate point in the attempt to answer the buckyball problem...
I have looked at a few google references on Buckyballs in the last
fewhours and can offer one possible explanation for the interfernce of
buckys balls observed in experiment.
As I mentioned in the last post a atom in a classical wave only model
would also have to be modeled as a standing wave or overlapping
frequencies of waves. Standing not travelling at lightspeed and
manipulatable. An atom then is a smeared out wave or `object` if it
were possible to view it . This representation I believe does match a
lot of recent observations of the atom. Furthermore it is possible
then to give it a wavelength if one could calculate what the
combination of all its overlapping frequencies were.
A group of atoms like buckyballs would be larger but still have a
overall wavelength or shape but no distinct borders. I dont think this
picture varies too far from that already accepted by the QT comunity
as one way of viewing the atomic world.
This model can then , because it is a wavelike entity then also be
subject to difraction and it is this which I believe can explain how a
classical wave only model can explain the interfernce seen in
buckyball experiments.
Simply that if the grating opening were as below with the buckyball
withits wavelength diameter as a circle travelling through upwards in
the illustration
^
^
. .
. .
. .
-------------- . . --------------------
. .
. .
Then if it were to pass through the middleof the grating it would
travel straight on , but closer to the edges it would overlap the edge
and difract right or left , moreso the more it overlapped until when
its centre was past the edge a reflection back could occur
The plot of intensity/location through the one opening would be the
classic hump and through two one should get the overlap and consequent
classic interfernce pattern seen in the slit screen experiment.
Through a diffraction grating the results would also be of a
interfernce pattern nortmally associated with diffraction gratings.
This can then be used to describe how buckyballs, atoms and even
molecules could produce interfernce patterns. Not because they take
many paths at once but rather because the atom although point like is
also wave like and therefore can diffract at a grating and produce
classic interfernce patterns
regards
Sean
Aleksandr Timofeev
Let for a while we shall overlook "photons".
aperture angle, beam angle, beamwidth, beam width
of an antenna pattern on half power in radians:
Theta ~ lambda/Diameter
lambda - wave lenght
Diameter - diameter of Radio Telescope antenna
. .
. | .
. | .
. | .
. | .
. Theta | .
. | .
. | .
. | .
. | .
.\
\_ half power
http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro11/L15.html
http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro11/L14.html
Look at:
http://www.radio.gov.uk/topics/research/topics/archive/antenna/antennas.htm
http://www.radio.gov.uk/topics/research/topics/archive/antenna/antennas.htm#_Toc380311615
A word "photon" is not used here: ;0)
Study of Modelling Methods for Large Reflector Antennas
" 2.2 Analytical and Numerical Methods
The following analytical and numerical methods are reviewed in this
section
Method of Moments
Aperture field method
Scalar radiation integral/projected aperture method
Physical Optics
Geometrical Theory of Diffraction
Hybrid techniques
Gaussian Beam Mode expansion
These cover all the various techniques normally used,
although minor variants exist."
=============================================================
Thus you should forget for ever about existence of all parts of
the Universe, which one do not lie near to an axis of a directional
antenna or large optical lens. ;-)
=============================================================
You should reflect only on radiation lying on a straight line
joining a source (star) and "focus" of the antenna or lens of
your receiver.
=============================================================
>
> Let's call this "line" the optical axis, OK?
OK.
> Note that your two detectors lie along a line (or plane) transverse to the
> optical axis. And you have indicated that it does not matter how far apart
> they are, together they make an antenna. Would they do so if one was here
> and the other were located in Alpha Centauri? Other than limiting the
> observable Universe by this instrument to a ring, of course...
>
> So, how can you say: "Thus you should forget for ever about existence of
> all parts of the Universe, which one do not lie near to an axis of a
> directional antenna or large optical lens."
>
> The detectors do not lie along the optical axis by 0.1° for close sources
> either. Close being 3500 / tan(0.1) = 2 million miles. Can you
> conceivably detect sources this close?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=llisux48tg.fsf%40adams.patriot.net
Subject: F.06 How far away could we detect radio transmissions?
Author: Al Aburto, David Woolley [2000-07-19]
I quote extracts from,
"(1) Detection of broadband signals from Earth such as AM radio, FM
radio, and television picture and sound would be extremely
difficult even at a fraction of a light-year distant from the
Sun. For example, a TV picture having 5 MHz of bandwidth and 5
MWatts of power could not be detected beyond the solar system
even with a radio telescope with 100 times the sensitivity of the
305 meter diameter Arecibo telescope.
(2) Detection of narrowband signals is more resonable out to
thousands of light-years distance from the Sun depending on the
transmitter's transmitting power and the receiving antenna size.
(3) Instruments such as the Arecibo radio telescope could detect
narrowband signals originating thousands of light-years from the
Sun. "
"Pt * Gt is called the Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) in
the transmitted signal of bandwidth Bt. So:
EIRP = Pt * Gt, and
snr = EIRP * Aer * twc / (4 * pi * R^2 * Br * k * Tsys)
This is a basic equation that one can use to estimate <...> detection
ranges.
#######################################################################
# If Rl is the number of meters in a light year (9.46E+15 [m/LY]),
#
# then the detection range in light years is given by
#
#
#
# R = sqrt[ EIRP * Aer * twc / (4 * pi * snr * Br * k * Tsys) ] / Rl
#
#
#
# If we wanted the range in Astronomical Units then replace Rl
#
# with Ra = 1.496E+11 (m/AU).
#
#######################################################################
Note that for maximum detection range (R) one would want the transmit
power (EIRP), the area of the receive antenna (Aer), and the time
bandwidth product (twp) to be as big as possible. In addition one
would want the snr, the receiver bandwidth (Br), and thus transmit
signal bandwidth (Bt), and the receive system temperature (Tsys) to be
as small as possible."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=32971%40nntpd.lkg.dec.com
Read From Page 73 to Page 93
1. The Green Bank telescope :
http://www.gb.nrao.edu/gbt/GBTMANUAL/node1.html
http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/vlba/html/vlbahome/genpublic.html
http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/vlba/html/vlbahome/overview.html
...
Let's snip for a while this part of message, OK?
> David A. Smith
Aleksandr Timofeev
> jaymo...@hotmail.com (sean) wrote in message news:<40f80aa1.03051...@posting.google.com>...
>
> [most snipped]
>
> > Classical can explain the stronger the theory and likewise for any
> > other theory. What you seem to propose is only one theory ( QT ) is
> > allowed regardless of its imperfections. Why not try to show where my
> > PMT model is wrong rather than say it cant explain something else. I`m
> > not saying QT is wrong about PMT particle detections because it cant
> > explain the missing 90 % of the universe. I am saying that it is wrong
> > because it doesnt explain PMT detections as well as classical.
> > regards
> > Sean
>
> understanding that matter is interactive with the same aether that
> carries the em wave. Then boundary layers take on new meaning. Not
> only is the photo-electric effect understandable in classic terms, but
> also the compton effect. You should review the aether/matter model of
> Steven Rado's known as Aethro-Kinematics. There is a study group with
> the same name at yahoogroups.
>
> Vern
###################################################################
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/research/Photon/photon_quantum_mechanics.htm
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/research/Photon/five_experiments.htm
"The most basic experiment <CAN NOT to> exhibit<s> the existence
of the "photon".
####################################################################
#"Many experiments that purport to do this are vitiated by the #
#fact that the observed effects can also be explained classically."#
####################################################################
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=df6db65f.0210040506.364acde1%40posting.google.com
###################################################################
From: t_...@mail.ru (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics
Subject: Re: What evidence for photons?
Date: 4 Oct 2002 06:06:12 -0700
Steve Carlip <car...@dirac.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:<anhtpa$3r4$2...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
> In sci.astro Aleksandr Timofeev <t_...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > Steve Carlip <car...@dirac.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message news:
> > <anfqce$5m4$2...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
> >> The experiment of Grangier et al. used a shutter. Are you
> >> claiming that the experimenter can't know that the emission
> >> took place after the shutter was open and before the shutter
> >> was closed?
> > Whether I can assume, that you state what the shutter passes
> > one "photon" during one cycle of a transparence?
>
> It's irrelevant to the experiment at hand.
I disagree with you.
You were frightened by my question.
Originally you have given attention to "shutter" from key
reasons for the actual experiment of Grangier et al.
You have given attention to "shutter", since you guessed
that "shutter" allows correctly to identify the portion of
radiation radiated by the source with the portion of
radiation absorbed by the detector.
The experiment of Grangier et al. is based on the guess,
that two "photons" are simultaneously radiated by a source
and that same two "photons" are simultaneously absorbed by
two or three detectors on a coincidence circuit.
The paradox of an inaccuracy of a methodology of the
experiment of Grangier et al. consists of key impossibility
correctly to identify the portion of radiation radiated by
the source with the portion of radiation absorbed by the
detector.
Prove, that I am wrong.
> You can treat the input as a black box---the question is
> whether you can find any wave interpretation for the
> results, with *any* hypothesis about the input.
I agree that there are no problems for me to find wave
interpretation for the results, since this wave
interpretation was made by Plank already for a long time:
" the electromagnetic radiation is radiated and is
absorbed by quantum portions. "
I do not see here associations with the term "photon",
which one was invented later in 1926.
I see here association with ensembles of quantum systems,
which have not other opportunity of an exchange of
electromagnetic energy with each other. But we do not
know the detail mechanism of this process till now.
> >> I notice that for all your ``parables,'' you've never gotten around
> >> to addressing the actual experiment of Grangier et al. Perhaps
> >> you would care to do that?
Now, I have put under doubt interpretation " of the actual experiment
of Grangier et al." See, it is higher.
>
> > I lean on the experimental proved existence of a phenomenon
> > " of a virtual interference " in VLBI, which one has not
> > an explanation from the "photon" point of view.
>
> Right. You have an experiment that shows that light has wavelike
> properties.
Stop. You wrote:
" You can treat the input as a black box---the question is
whether you can find any wave interpretation for the
results, with *any* hypothesis about the input. "
I have made wave interpretation for the actual experiment
of Grangier et al, which one conjugates to Grangier's et al
"photon" interpretation of the same experiment.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now you are obliged to make "photon" interpretation of VLBI,
which conjugates to wave interpretation VLBI.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you can not make "photon" interpretation of principles of
operation of VLBI, then it will mean, that I have made a "wave"
counterexample, which one has not symmetric analog for the
"photon" point of view, and therefore :
this "wave" counterexample automatically refutes
the "photon" theory!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> I have an experiment that shows that light has particle-
> like properties.
Now, I have put under doubt interpretation " of the actual experiment
of Grangier et al." See, it is higher.
Prove, that I am wrong.
> Neither experiment is wrong.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you can not make "photon" interpretation of principles of
operation of VLBI, then it will mean, that I have made a "wave"
counterexample, which one has not symmetric analog for the
"photon" point of view, and therefore :
this "wave" counterexample automatically refutes
the "photon" theory!
VLBI are vitiated by the fact that the observed effects
can NOT also be explained FROM a "photon" point of view,
VLBI can be explained ONLY from the "wave" point of view.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From:
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/research/Photon/photon_quantum_mechanics.htm
We can get:
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/research/Photon/five_experiments.htm
and then we can see:
=================================================================
Five experiments
1. Proof of the existence of the photon
The most basic experiment exhibits the existence of the photon.
Many experiments that purport to do this are vitiated by the
fact that the observed effects can also be explained classically.
Two-photon nonclassical light sources and coincidence detection
allow the production of single-photon states with high certainty.
[snip]
=================================================================
" Two-photon nonclassical light sources "
The two-photon source implicitly means, that two photons are
emitted simultaneously.
Whether there are physical substantiations for this guess?
" coincidence detection allow the production of single-photon
states with high certainty "
If you can not prove that two photons are emitted simultaneously,
then all construction of the proof is scattered.
What then means " coincidence detection "?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1986EL......1..173G&db_key=PHY&high=3d9d8f69f320979
Title: Experimental evidence for a photon anticorrelation
effect on a beam splitter: a new light on single-photon
interferences
Authors: Grangier, P.; Roger, G.; Aspect, A.
Journal: Europhysics Letters, Vol. 1, p.173
Publication
Date: 02/1986
Abstract Not Available
> Therefore light has both wavelike and particle-like properties.
>
> Is that so hard?
" 1. Proof of the existence of the photon
The most basic experiment exhibits the existence of the photon.
Many experiments that purport to do this are vitiated by the
fact that the observed effects can also be explained classically. "
?????
> Steve Carlip
###################################################################
Aleksandr Timofeev
Aleksandr Timofeev
[snip]
VLBI interferometer allows "to drag" a signal from "noise"
due to a coherence of a signal and incoherence of "noise",
the signal level can be less level of "noise" in thousands
times!
For these reasons,
the INTERFERENCE is a MAGIC PHYSICAL PHENOMENON.
In VLBI, the physical connections absolutely misses between
two antennas, excepting synchronization of time.
The signals really spatially are isolated.
For more in-depth analysis of the given
problems, please, find out deliberate physical errors
in the test:
*************************************
* Physical test for David Bilge *
*************************************
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0209070722.73d46ea4%40posting.google.com
David Bilge didn't answer my Physical test & questions till now...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:-/
> David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"sean" <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f80aa1.03051...@posting.google.com...
...
> lot of recent observations of the atom. Furthermore it is possible
> then to give it a wavelength if one could calculate what the
> combination of all its overlapping frequencies were.
This is simple. The wavelength is proportional to the "particle's"
momentum.
I agree with where you are going. But the "Not because they take many
paths", is in reality a "statistical population takes *all* paths."
Nothing can be said about the path of a single entity.
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03051...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<8Tbva.13937$hd6.10583@fed1read05>...
...
A signal is a structure of a host of temporally related photons. It is a
lot easier to refer to the host, rather that the individual members.
> Study of Modelling Methods for Large Reflector Antennas
>
> " 2.2 Analytical and Numerical Methods
>
> The following analytical and numerical methods are reviewed in this
> section
>
> Method of Moments
> Aperture field method
> Scalar radiation integral/projected aperture method
> Physical Optics
> Geometrical Theory of Diffraction
> Hybrid techniques
> Gaussian Beam Mode expansion
> These cover all the various techniques normally used,
> although minor variants exist."
>
>
>
> =============================================================
>
> Thus you should forget for ever about existence of all parts of
> the Universe, which one do not lie near to an axis of a directional
> antenna or large optical lens. ;-)
>
> =============================================================
> You should reflect only on radiation lying on a straight line
> joining a source (star) and "focus" of the antenna or lens of
> your receiver.
> =============================================================
You have provided a host of links, but no reason for me to drop my belief
that a particle is a photon like any other particle. They all have "hair"
that extends the width of the Universe.
Thanks. Basically having something closer makes it easier to resolve...
all other thing being equal.
Okay. Ready for the next round when you are...
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03051...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<8Tbva.13937$hd6.10583@fed1read05>...
...
Hardly magic. You indicated that the output of two detectors are recorded,
and the recordings are synchronized. They *make* the pattern appear. This
could simply be that there are enough photons emitted to be recorded at
both detectors. You could even hide an offset of the detectors along the
optical axis this way.
> In VLBI, the physical connections absolutely misses between
> two antennas, excepting synchronization of time.
> The signals really spatially are isolated.
>
> For more in-depth analysis of the given
> problems, please, find out deliberate physical errors
> in the test:
>
> *************************************
> * Physical test for David Bilge *
> *************************************
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0209070722.73d46ea4%40posting
.google.com
>
> David Bilge didn't answer my Physical test & questions till now...
You did not ask a question in that post, by the way. There were a couple
of questions I could not decipher by *someone* several posts earlier. I
recognize them because the "?" is at the end of the sentence.
But I know how you feel. I have asked you to explain how a wave model can
explain the photoelectric effect. Or how all particles can be made to
perform similarly to the photon. Perhaps I will have to wait a year also?
I submit that *all* particles are "chimera" and not just the photon. In
that they all display wave behaviour. Because a certain set of equations
(aka. "a model") describes one set of behaviours, doesn't mean it covers
all the behaviours a particle expresses.
David A. Smith
sean
> Dear sean:
>
> Read it through, then respond, OK?
>
your latest responses to shorten the length
>
> I would be interested in the "structure" that would allow "buildup", and
> how it can differentiate between lots of low energy waves and a single high
> energy wave.
>
> and be equal to one large wave. There are few if any mechanisms that
> display this ability in nature. Pretty much nothing happens until the
> right energy photon (or higher) arrives.
>
Initially I treat the atom as a `black box` somewhat like electrical
circuits are thought of as . Inside the black box the process isnt
neccesarily known or understood, yet it is a known that that box has
and displays that function. One can say the same for the QT particle
model of the atom , why does the electron never lose energy
spontaneously except for maybe in radioactive elements, what is inside
the proton? what is inside the black hole , or what was the
singularity made of back at the very begining of time in the BB. What
mechanism allows the photon to switch to a wave in wave particle
duality? What mechanism causes gravity in QT ? What mechanism allows
photons that are connected that have travelled in opposite directions
for billions of years?etc etc. And .. wherte in nature is the QT atom
particle model seen ?? Nowhere.
.None of these mechanisms are known and may never be yet it doesnt
stop QT supporters from claiming that their theories are the only
correct one. Why should I be able to explain exactly how the atom is
constructed when QT cannot answer the same questions regarding the
mechanism behind their models?
Not that I wont try .
In nature where does this mechanism occur naturally? Capacitors
display this fuction although man made. And can I say that would it be
possible for the capacitor function to be found naturally in
neural/brain cells or even plant cells. ? Arguably a sonic boom is
similar in the sense that many waves accumulate to form one very large
amplitude one. How about when two or more frequencies overlap and
occilate at a lower frequency in sound waves? (I`ve already used this
to explain `quantum beats ` in classical terms in a previuos thread)
Pulsars? Why do they repeat regularly? It may not be a wave so to
speak but a rainstorm or the conncept of a dew point and precipitation
where a certain threshold triggers a sudden deluge or change.
The capacitor maybe isnt natural but it works in our real world and
thats a good enough example . If it wasnt `natural ` then it wouldnt
work . At least there is a man made equivelent for the wave atom but
unfortunately the QT model has no natural equivelent. It is
essentially, pure magic and mysticism.
>
> And your argument is suitably presented, but does not describe why little
> waves don't add up to one big one. Another problem with wave theory to
> describe the photoelectric effect is some insist that wave resonance is the
> cause. (This is not what you have claimed, but others with whom I have
> "tilted" have tried to hide there.) In classical wave theory, resonance
> occurs for a narrow range of frequencies, and higher frequencies have
> little or no effect. So electrons should be liberated with a narrow band
> of KE, and then cutoff as the energy of the photons is increased further.
> This also is not observed.
>
I have to admit I cant find a understandable available description
referring to this wave resonance but I am very sceptical of others
claims as to what classical should do. Take for instance Grangier
himself. He figured classical theory should give an alpha value of >1
I worked out this to be an incorrect calculation based on flawed
reasoning as he forgets to mention that classical theory ,according to
QT, is unable to even produce photons and if it were to it is not only
a contradiction for QT , he never explains how a atom could detect
wave energy in a classical model seeing as classical cannot use the
concept of photons. I have the same problem with QT version of the
M-M experiment. Supposedly an aether wind would be detected or
something like that in the experiment ,yet how do they know that
aether would have a aether wind if nobody has yet described what
aether is? Pure contradiction and flawed reasoning to support a
dogmatic idea. Assigning properties to an as yet unobservable medium
is like someone saying that ghosts are real or using superstition to
explain a phenomena.
If I can find out a understandable reference to this wave resonance I
am sure there is a classical explanation.
> ...
>
> But this is not observed. A photon arrives from a distant source (in this
> galaxy, say) with the same energy as one generated by our own Sun. The
> 1/r^2 is much smaller for the distant source, but the energy packet is a
> constant. The intensity is in the number of photons that arrive.
>
I cant understand the reasoning behind this. A photon is *detected*
arriving from a distant source. QT says that a photon travelled the
whole distance unchanged.Fair enough but in a classical description
remember there are no photons in the model . So when a `photon ` is
detected the reasoning is that light in waves with an amplitude
diminished proportional to distance arrives and is absorbed by the
atom . Because the amplitude is lower the energy input is lower and
it needs more waves to reach the filled capacitance . A closer light
source is brighter has greater energy flux/ amplitude and therefore
the atom fills sooner or more correctly the rate of atoms reaching
threshold is faster in the PMT and more pulses /electrons are sent to
the PMT cascade. Hence more `photons`are detected . THe end result is
indistinguishable from that predicted by QT and observed
> > If dust or gases etc are intervening
> > they will take energy or absorb and reemit it . So yes, energy
> > decreases with distance and whatever blocks its path. I never said it
> > doesnt lose energy over distance
>
> But it in fact doesn't lose energy. The number of photons does decrease...
>
Maybe the QT explanation is that the number of photons decreases but
that is because over distance they are more spread out so at a
detector less per second arrive. In classical it is the same result
with a different explanation . The greater distance means that the
light is more spread out so at a PMT the energy recieved is less,
proportional to distance, so then less energy flux per second falls on
the detector and the rate of pulses /electrons from the atoms in the
detector is also less per second. And furthermore that pulse /photon
to the cascade is still the same energy The misconception is that
classical has photons which would decrease in energy. Yes , if
classical had photons travelling through space maybe they would but
classical doesnt use photons , ituses waves. They do decrease in
amplitude over distance but at the detector all that happens is that
the pulse/photon rate decreases due to less input energy per second
but the energy of the electron spit out by the detector atoms remain
the same.
>
> Classical waves transmit energy by amplitude, by frequency, and by wave
> shape. QT delivers energy by packet energy (frequency), and the number of
> packets. An ocean wave loses amplitude with distance. I'm not sure about
> the frequency, but I don't think it changes much.
>
Sounds about right as far as I can see. If Ocean waves *did* lose
frequency over distance that might actually be a good explanation for
how red shift in light over distance could be explained by classical.
>
> Yes it is. There is not enough energy at any one point to liberate
> electrons, but it seems to happen anyway. So either an electron can
> "gather" energy from surrounding space, or waves don't work.
>
As I mentioned earlier its QT that has photons liberating electrons
but in my classical wave model its an accumulation of energy that
triggers the electron discharge from the atom so it doesnt matter how
low the amplitude is it will still allow the capacitor model to
function. It just takes longer or more accurately the electron rate
decreasesper second. We are going over the same point again and again
essentially.
You have to accept that even though you dont agree with it you must at
least understand that a model that uses a capacitor /fill mechanism
can detect waves with no lower amplitude threshold. Its so simple and
even if you dont agree with clasical I dont see how you cant
understand the mechanism I describe. Thats why I used the wave analogy
just to show how a mechanism like that works regardless of whether its
light or water
> > And observations of all sorts support
> > this. A photographer will need a longer exposure for a more distant
> > light source to appear the same intensity as if it were closer.
>
> More photons required. Note that the recorded color doesn't change, near
> vs. far. Either model explains this, to some extent. But not if amplitude
> represents energy in your model.
>
The amplitude change would effect the detection rate but the
wavelength doesnt change. If the PMT is set to detect a certain range
it will detect more or less `pulses`/photons. I speak of energy as
amplitude as detection rate in this context whereas you I believe are
peaking of energy at any particular wavelength. I`m not too sure what
you then could call 2 photons per second as compared to 4 /second? Is
that not also more energy per second? Its an interesting part of the
argument as I had this a long time ago and my adversarties couldnt
seem to agree on whether PMT can or cannot detect wavelength. My
argument was that the enrgy per pulse was a measure of the wavelength
and that the photon count rate per second was a measure of the
amplitude. Seems logical to me yet it was verging on sacrilege for
them when I suggested it.Thats a seperate argument which I could also
take up but I would like to resolve this first.
> > The incoming wave in wave theory would still move the `mote` back and
> > forth at the same wavelength but at a less amplitude relative to the
> > distance travelled from source.
>
> And it is the "amplitude" that liberates the electrons?
>
Almost I suppose, it is the amplitude that dictates the rate at which
the atom fills and therefore a lower amplitude can still release the
same energy electron but at a slower rate per second
> > I stress that my point wasnt neccesarily supporting Alex`s argument as
> > alot of it is quite difficult to understand. I am only addressing one
> > point seperately on whether wave theory can describe PMT detections.
> > Although I do believe Alexander and I both are arguing against a
> > photon concept of light.
>
> I believe you both are as well.
>
>
> Only if you neglect amplitudes insufficent to yield electrons, or
> mechanisms that allow many small waves adding to one large one. The
> electrons are released in the former, and not released in the latter.
>
Well as I have argued earlier yes I * may* not (yet)be able to explain
the atoms inner workings but it is the same critism that can be put to
the QT model of the atom so I dont think that is a fair critism that
negates my classical wave model. And there is still the man made
capacitor which can duplicate it which means that an entity of a
certain complexity can perform this function of `filling` and both
atoms and man made capacitors are of a certain complexity, they do
seem to perform similar functions so it is possible that both are
similar in certain ways. Why not? Surely it is worth some
consideration even from a sceptic. And as I have mentioned already the
analogy of the two can be backed up because I have applied that
analogy to the atom, created a mathematical experiment that unbiased ,
resmebles as cosely as possible mathematically what actually `happens`
and the results fort my mpdel fot perfectly!. Isnt that called `a
priori` prediction that is supposed ly indisputable proof of theory in
the
> No. What I say is that the only behaviours that waves are required to
> explain, must do so for all particles... not just photons. So "waving your
> hands" at photons and saying they are waves, does nothing for the major
> argument. There is no unique behaviour for photons that is not expressed
> by other particles (other than transmitting finite energy and momentum at
> c). At least as far as I know (which isn't far).
>
But all theory only answers specific phenomena. Photoelectric theory
doesnt answer how gravity works yet supposedly they bare both paticles
in QT? Why should QT be allowed a multiplicity of models and
variations on particles with each particle with differnt properties
doing different things needing different theories? So I am doing the
same . I say that light is waves doing one particular task so to
speak, moving at c. And I explain how the photoelectric effect can be
accounted for assuming the atom can act as a capacitor.. I still have
to have a seperate theory or theories to explain how waves doing
different things to travelling at c appear to have different
properties. Hence a standing wave analogy for atoms. It is still a
wave structure but the function is different. Because I cant explain
the atom doesnt mean I cant explain a simpler effect like
photoelectricity. The same goes for QT all its host of little
theories. And we both wave our hands. You waved your hands and support
the QT versionof the photoelectric theory yet you are unfamiliar with
Grangiers experiment which is supposedly one of its greatest proofs.
You unreservedly accepted a flawed incorrect experiment as correct.
> > In that case QT cant
> > explain the missing 90% of the universe and therefore isnt valid.
>
> If you don't need all the Dark Matter, then most of the requirement for
> Dark Energy goes away too. Is this whereof you speak?
>
> > It
> > doesnt work like that. There are many models developed for specific
> > phenomena. Some theories like QT can only answer some questions. That
> > doesnt mean that QT or classsical are invalid because they dont answer
> > everything. Its up to us to come up with as many descriptions of
> > different phenomena for each of our pet theories. The more things
> > Classical can explain the stronger the theory and likewise for any
> > other theory. What you seem to propose is only one theory ( QT ) is
> > allowed regardless of its imperfections. Why not try to show where my
> > PMT model is wrong rather than say it cant explain something else. I`m
> > not saying QT is wrong about PMT particle detections because it cant
> > explain the missing 90 % of the universe. I am saying that it is wrong
> > because it doesnt explain PMT detections as well as classical.
>
> Where your PMT model is "wrong" is that it seeks to envelop a single type
> of particle (out of a host of particles with similar behaviours) in a
> mystery "continuum". You have had to create some sort of mystical
> "accumulator" that can gather wave energy and store it until enough energy
> is received to bounce an electron. And the "accumulator" has to be smart
> enough to not so the same with lots of little waves. And it has to be able
> to gather energy from great distances away...
>
Im not familiar with the term IMHO although I have seen it before?
You havent yet offered any viable argument that persuades me to change
my opinion so I still think this worthy of my talents. You have only
really said it cant be done , yet not why it cant.
THis mystery continuum I suppose you are reffering to is the Aether?
And I suppose then you are suggesting that you know exactly what the
QT vacuum is made of? Please tell me.
I think you have it wrong . I seek to envelop all emr as wave only.
And if you mean all the different types of emr particles remebner that
in wave theory its not replaced by just one type of wave but an
infinite mix of frequencies and wavelengths and amplitudes. And
furtyhermore all these phenomena are seen in nature whereas all the
particle analogies are not and in essence it is QT which relies most
heavily on mystical particles with magical powers. Unknown mystical
wave particle dualities with unexplained mechanisms. Unknown early
moments of B and unexeplained relationshiophs between mystical particl
tied togther by a unexplained mechanism of causality.The magical
powers of QT range far and wide and it is a bit like the pot calling
the kettle black to say wave theory has unexplained properties even
when they are actually seen in nature.
regards
Sean
Aleksandr Timofeev
I wanted to make the indicating on the physical methodological fact,
that the theories of designing of antennas base on a WAVE THEORY and
electromagnetic nature of electromagnetic radiation.
#########################################################
# In the theories of designing of antennas, #
# the Hypothesis of "photon" IS NOT APPLIED ABSOLUTELY. #
#########################################################
Now, please, explain to me
further " destiny of electromagnetic radiation ",
which one the antenna has collected in "focus". :-)
So aperture angle, beam angle, beamwidth, beam width
of an antenna pattern on half power in radians:
Theta ~ lambda/Diameter
lambda - wave lenght
Diameter - diameter of Radio Telescope antenna
. .
. | .
. | .
. | .
. | .
(. Theta | .
. | .
. | .
. | .
. | .
.\
\_ half power
> that a particle is a photon like any other particle.
> They all have "hair" that extends the width of the Universe.
Whether you saw these particles's "hairs" in a reality? ;-)
If your answer is "YES",
then, >;-) ------->
how many "hairs" ("devils") "photon" ("end of a needle") can have?
sean
Hi David
The path isnt measured in the experiment but that is irrelevent. The
description which I made,that you seem to at least understand ,shows
that I dont need to *use * wave particle duality to describe the the
interference pattern. Thats the important bit. Because as you ask alex
earlier all the theory needs to do is succesfully or not describe the
phenomena.I offer a succesful description in wave only terms and if it
works it doesnt matter whether the path is measured or not:... It can
still be explained and modeled using a wave only theory. And I am sure
if an ion detector that was location specific that could measure the
interference fring was made the experimenters could locate each
particle AND watch a pattern build up. THe experimenters havent proved
that both are not possible simultaneously just because the technology
isnt available.
Regards Sean
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"sean" <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f80aa1.03051...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<aGXva.18483$hd6.12620@fed1read05>...
...
> > Dear sean:
> >
> > Read it through, then respond, OK?
> >
> I hope you dont mind. I have tried to delete most of the posts except
> your latest responses to shorten the length
Good.
You are being unfair with your claims above about QT. QT does not yet
cover gravity (as you know), and your wave model doesn't cover it either.
> In nature where does this mechanism occur naturally? Capacitors
> display this fuction although man made. And can I say that would it be
> possible for the capacitor function to be found naturally in
> neural/brain cells or even plant cells. ? Arguably a sonic boom is
> similar in the sense that many waves accumulate to form one very large
> amplitude one.
You don't get a sonic boom from the combination of two waves. Capacitors
can build up a charge and flash over at some voltage. May only happen
once...
> How about when two or more frequencies overlap and
> occilate at a lower frequency in sound waves? (I`ve already used this
> to explain `quantum beats ` in classical terms in a previuos thread)
Insufficient to describe the photoelectric effect. Requires resonance.
> Pulsars? Why do they repeat regularly? It may not be a wave so to
> speak but a rainstorm or the conncept of a dew point and precipitation
> where a certain threshold triggers a sudden deluge or change.
> The capacitor maybe isnt natural but it works in our real world and
> thats a good enough example . If it wasnt `natural ` then it wouldnt
> work . At least there is a man made equivelent for the wave atom but
> unfortunately the QT model has no natural equivelent. It is
> essentially, pure magic and mysticism.
As is the wave model when describing the reality of the photoelectric
effect.
There have been hundreds of great minds looking for one. As I have said
before, spending your efforts is a waste of your talent. Only a particle
model can describe it.
> > But this is not observed. A photon arrives from a distant source (in
this
> > galaxy, say) with the same energy as one generated by our own Sun. The
> > 1/r^2 is much smaller for the distant source, but the energy packet is
a
> > constant. The intensity is in the number of photons that arrive.
> >
> I cant understand the reasoning behind this. A photon is *detected*
> arriving from a distant source. QT says that a photon travelled the
> whole distance unchanged.Fair enough but in a classical description
> remember there are no photons in the model . So when a `photon ` is
> detected the reasoning is that light in waves with an amplitude
> diminished proportional to distance arrives and is absorbed by the
> atom .
So? This is why the classical model fails. How it wouldn't fail is if the
wave were planar, not spherical. But how do you generate a localized
planar wave... with less than an infinite amount of energy.
> Because the amplitude is lower the energy input is lower and
> it needs more waves to reach the filled capacitance . A closer light
> source is brighter has greater energy flux/ amplitude and therefore
> the atom fills sooner or more correctly the rate of atoms reaching
> threshold is faster in the PMT and more pulses /electrons are sent to
> the PMT cascade. Hence more `photons`are detected . THe end result is
> indistinguishable from that predicted by QT and observed
But the classical model doesn't do what you would have it do. Only the
particle model does this.
> > > If dust or gases etc are intervening
> > > they will take energy or absorb and reemit it . So yes, energy
> > > decreases with distance and whatever blocks its path. I never said it
> > > doesnt lose energy over distance
> >
> > But it in fact doesn't lose energy. The number of photons does
decrease...
> >
> Maybe the QT explanation is that the number of photons decreases but
> that is because over distance they are more spread out so at a
> detector less per second arrive. In classical it is the same result
> with a different explanation . The greater distance means that the
> light is more spread out so at a PMT the energy recieved is less,
> proportional to distance, so then less energy flux per second falls on
> the detector and the rate of pulses /electrons from the atoms in the
> detector is also less per second. And furthermore that pulse /photon
> to the cascade is still the same energy The misconception is that
> classical has photons which would decrease in energy. Yes , if
> classical had photons travelling through space maybe they would but
> classical doesnt use photons , ituses waves. They do decrease in
> amplitude over distance but at the detector all that happens is that
> the pulse/photon rate decreases due to less input energy per second
> but the energy of the electron spit out by the detector atoms remain
> the same.
And still the wave model fails. There are so many places it fails, and so
many places it works. Because the only tool you are comfortable with is a
hammer, does that make all problems into nails? Each model has its
applicable domain. Can you live with this?
Try describing the function of a transistor without "hole current". ;>}
Holes don't move, electrons do. But, you sure can't describe the behaviour
without moving holes...
Snipped due to lack of response time.
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03051...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<57gwa.20165$hd6.12611@fed1read05>...
...
> > You have provided a host of links, but no reason for me to drop my
belief
> > that a particle is a photon ...
>
> I wanted to make the indicating on the physical methodological fact,
> that the theories of designing of antennas base on a WAVE THEORY and
> electromagnetic nature of electromagnetic radiation.
>
> #########################################################
> # In the theories of designing of antennas, #
> # the Hypothesis of "photon" IS NOT APPLIED ABSOLUTELY. #
> #########################################################
>
> Now, please, explain to me
>
> further " destiny of electromagnetic radiation ",
> which one the antenna has collected in "focus". :-)
This is no challenge. Use the model that is simplest for the behaviour you
are trying to describe. I can create a mirror or a lens for material
particles. An antenna is not far from this. It is made simpler if the
particle has a charge (or can affect a charge).
The wave behaviour you seek to limit the photon to only applies to a host
of photons. The photoelectric effect (you ignore answering) is a single
particle phenomenon.
> > that a particle is a photon like any other particle.
> > They all have "hair" that extends the width of the Universe.
>
> Whether you saw these particles's "hairs" in a reality? ;-)
>
> If your answer is "YES",
> then, >;-) ------->
> how many "hairs" ("devils") "photon" ("end of a needle") can have?
I cannot see a bucky ball. I cannot see a particle's hair (much as I
cannot see my own ;>} ). I see that all particles act like they have hair.
It makes as much sense as saying that photons are only waves.
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"sean" <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f80aa1.0305...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<fVfwa.20163$hd6.6192@fed1read05>...
...
> The path isnt measured in the experiment but that is irrelevent.
The path is not measured, but all the particles together clearly describe
the width of the opening, and the distance from the opening to the
detector. As a gestalt.
> The
> description which I made,that you seem to at least understand ,shows
> that I dont need to *use * wave particle duality to describe the the
> interference pattern. Thats the important bit. Because as you ask alex
> earlier all the theory needs to do is succesfully or not describe the
> phenomena.I offer a succesful description in wave only terms and if it
> works it doesnt matter whether the path is measured or not:... It can
> still be explained and modeled using a wave only theory. And I am sure
> if an ion detector that was location specific that could measure the
> interference fring was made the experimenters could locate each
> particle AND watch a pattern build up. THe experimenters havent proved
> that both are not possible simultaneously just because the technology
> isnt available.
Not only is the technology not available, but is not possible. A photon is
born and dies as a particle, but lives as a wave (if you will). In other
words, a discrete or quantum process is the beginning and end of the
photon. In flight, only a wave model seems to work. It is the wave model
that works equally well for all sorts of particles though.
I don't see how you boys can insist that the photon is only a wave, when
clearly defining it as a wave only works for large statistical populations,
and ignores Aleksandr's "boundary conditions" (aka the photelectric
effect).
David A. Smith
Aleksandr Timofeev
"dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
>
>"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:e16a4a22.03051...@posting.google.com...
>> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:<57gwa.20165$hd6.12611@fed1read05>...
>....
>> > You have provided a host of links, but no reason for me to drop my
>> > belief that a particle is a photon ...
>>
>> I wanted to make the indicating on the physical methodological fact,
>> that the theories of designing of antennas base on a WAVE THEORY and
>> electromagnetic nature of electromagnetic radiation.
>>
>> #########################################################
>> # In the theories of designing of antennas, #
>> # the Hypothesis of "photon" IS NOT APPLIED ABSOLUTELY. #
>> #########################################################
>>
>> Now, please, explain to me
>>
>> further " destiny of electromagnetic radiation ",
>> which one the antenna has collected in "focus". :-)
>
>This is no challenge.
>Use the model that is simplest for the behaviour you
>are trying to describe. I can create a mirror or a lens for material
>particles. An antenna is not far from this. It is made simpler if the
>particle has a charge (or can affect a charge).
>
>The wave behaviour you seek to limit the photon to only applies to a host
>of photons.
I. =========================
" This is no challenge. "
No, it is a challenge just to survive for confirmation
of a hypothesis of "photon".
II. =========================
" Use the model that is simplest for the behaviour you
are trying to describe. "
It is the only empirical approach to the solution
of a concrete problem, i.e. The Babylon approach.
That in practice means uncountable set of concrete
methods of the solutions for uncountable set of concrete
problems. For each concrete problem, the natural concrete
method of the solution should be found.
The physics is science reducing uncountable set
of concrete problems to restricted universal set
of concrete methods of the solutions.
III.=========================
" I can create a mirror or a lens for material
particles. An antenna is not far from this. "
1. It is valid for approach of geometrical optics,
but if you use a ray approximation, you can not
explain resolving ability of your instrument.
2. You implicitly mean "linearity" of your instrument.
If in your instrument are applied the nonlinear processes,
then the property of "indivisibility" of your particles
leads up to crash yours " the theory of particles ".
IV.=========================
"The wave behaviour you seek to limit the photon to only
applies to a host of photons. "
"a host of photons"
1. Whether I dare to assume, that you state as a matter of fact,
what only "a host of photons" has apparent wave properties basically
in VLBI experiments?
2. Whether I dare to assume, that you state as a matter of fact,
what a single "photon" is unobservable basically in VLBI experiments?
3. Whether I dare to assume, that you state as a matter of fact,
what a single "photon" is unobservable basically in any experiments?
>The photoelectric effect (you ignore answering) is a single
>particle phenomenon.
You have missed from attention Compton effect. The Compton effect
has error explanation on the basis of a hypothesis
" of particle of a photon " also.
At first we should finish up to the logical end a controversy
about VLBI, then we can discuss Compton effect and photoeffect.
>> > that a particle is a photon like any other particle.
>> > They all have "hair" that extends the width of the Universe.
>>
>> Whether you saw these particles's "hairs" in a reality? ;-)
>>
>> If your answer is "YES",
>> then, >;-) ------->
>> how many "hairs" ("devils") "photon" ("end of a needle") can have?
>
>I cannot see a bucky ball. I cannot see a particle's hair (much as I
>cannot see my own ;>} ). I see that all particles act like they have hair.
>It makes as much sense as saying that photons are only waves.
So We miss any attempt to explain existence of single "photon" in VLBI.
Now, I explain to you
further " destiny of electromagnetic radiation ",
which one the antenna has collected in "focus". :-)
2. VLBI radio-telescope
--------------------------------------------------------
-> 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 ]
In any case the electromagnetic radiation absorbs by the receiver.
If the part of electromagnetic radiation does not absorb by the
receiver, then this one is radiated by the antenna in the opposite
direction in the consent with a principle of reversibility of
the antenna.
Further "photon" "theory" of electromagnetic radiation is refuted
by irrefutable arguments.
1. The receiver is the quantum device consisting of substance.
[Steve Carlip]
> You can treat the input as a black box---the question is
> whether you can find any wave interpretation for the
> results, with *any* hypothesis about the input.
I agree that there are no problems for me to find
wave interpretation for operation of the receiver,
since this wave interpretation for radiation and
absorbtion of the electromagnetic radiation was
made by Plank already for a very long time ago:
" the electromagnetic radiation is radiated and is
absorbed by Plank quantum electromagnetic wave
portions by quantum systems. "
######################################################
I do not see here associations with the term "photon",
which one was invented later in 1926.
I see here associations only with the term
"electromagnetic waves".
######################################################
I see here association with ensembles of quantum systems,
which have not other opportunity of an exchange of
electromagnetic energy with each other. But we do not
know the detail mechanism of this process till now.
The receiver is ensembles of quantum micro systems,
which have not other opportunity of an exchange of
electromagnetic energy with electromagnetic radiation
as by Plank quantum electromagnetic wave portions.
2. The more terrible shock for "photon" "theory"
of electromagnetic radiation does existence in the
receiver of the transformer of a frequency band,
i.e. heterodyne.
2a. Actual " the interference " is carried out in
some aged types of radio interferometers in a under
frequency band essentially distinguished from
a received frequency band.
2b. In modern of VLBI interferometers the nonlinear
transformations of an electromagnetic signal to
a digital form are fulfilled which maintain one
the information only about a phase and frequency
of an initial electromagnetic signal.
######################################################
Where is here self-interference " of a photon "? >;^\
I do not see here associations with the term "photon",
which one was invented later in 1926.
I see here associations only with the term
"electromagnetic waves and oscillations".
######################################################
###################################################################
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/research/Photon/photon_quantum_mechanics.htm
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/research/Photon/five_experiments.htm
"The most basic experiment <CAN NOT to> exhibit<s> the existence
of the "photon".
######################################################################
# "Many experiments that purport to do this are vitiated by the #
# fact that the observed effects can also be explained classically." #
######################################################################
>David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03051...@posting.google.com...
> Sorry, I do not see the David A. Smith's message in GOOGLE' Archives
I put the concept of using vegetable oil to concentrate ozone for
industrial uses in the public domain, and they conveniently lost that one
too.
It is no challenge, and I cited why. Your "optical elements" can be
constructed to do the same things for particles they do for "waves".
>
> II. =========================
>
> " Use the model that is simplest for the behaviour you
> are trying to describe. "
>
> It is the only empirical approach to the solution
> of a concrete problem, i.e. The Babylon approach.
Okay. Describe the photoelectric effect using the wave model.
...
> III.=========================
>
> " I can create a mirror or a lens for material
> particles. An antenna is not far from this. "
>
> 1. It is valid for approach of geometrical optics,
> but if you use a ray approximation, you can not
> explain resolving ability of your instrument.
>
> 2. You implicitly mean "linearity" of your instrument.
> If in your instrument are applied the nonlinear processes,
> then the property of "indivisibility" of your particles
> leads up to crash yours " the theory of particles ".
To each task is a suitable tool. Yet they are *tools* and therby only an
indication of the underlying truth.
> IV.=========================
> "The wave behaviour you seek to limit the photon to only
> applies to a host of photons. "
>
> "a host of photons"
>
> 1. Whether I dare to assume, that you state as a matter of fact,
> what only "a host of photons" has apparent wave properties basically
> in VLBI experiments?
The arrival of a "signal" at two different detectors, such that the two
recordings can be synchronized. "Host of photons" with a specific temporal
"signature".
> 2. Whether I dare to assume, that you state as a matter of fact,
> what a single "photon" is unobservable basically in VLBI experiments?
You remove noise. You count electrons that could come from multiple lower
energy photons (waves) that happen to arrive simultaneously.
> 3. Whether I dare to assume, that you state as a matter of fact,
> what a single "photon" is unobservable basically in any experiments?
Your detectors don't think so.
> >The photoelectric effect (you ignore answering) is a single
> >particle phenomenon.
>
> You have missed from attention Compton effect. The Compton effect
> has error explanation on the basis of a hypothesis
> " of particle of a photon " also.
I was only looking for a single example. I could imagine waves being
scattered by an object, in agreement with the observation of Compton
scattering. Compton is after all two applications of your "boundary
conditions".
Your detector does you the disservice of hiding any quantum information.
You do not know the energy of any particular "wave packet", and you do not
know its time of arrival. All you can do is count the number of electrons
that are received, to infer intensity. Your tools make you blind to the
quantum level. Of course you don't have an answer to the photoelectric
effect.
> 2. The more terrible shock for "photon" "theory"
> of electromagnetic radiation does existence in the
> receiver of the transformer of a frequency band,
> i.e. heterodyne.
Not a propagating photon, now is it?
> 2a. Actual " the interference " is carried out in
> some aged types of radio interferometers in a under
> frequency band essentially distinguished from
> a received frequency band.
>
>
> 2b. In modern of VLBI interferometers the nonlinear
> transformations of an electromagnetic signal to
> a digital form are fulfilled which maintain one
> the information only about a phase and frequency
> of an initial electromagnetic signal.
So your instrument blinds you to some information, for which you do not
care. It is a choice one makes when one selects tools, Aleksandr. Because
your tools do not reveal quantum behaviour, does this say anything about
using this tool to infer properly about "boundary conditions"? I think
not.
>
> ######################################################
> Where is here self-interference " of a photon "? >;^\
>
> I do not see here associations with the term "photon",
> which one was invented later in 1926.
> I see here associations only with the term
> "electromagnetic waves and oscillations".
> ######################################################
>
>
> ###################################################################
>
>
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/research/Photon/photon_quantum_mecha
nics.htm
>
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/research/Photon/five_experiments.htm
>
>
> "The most basic experiment <CAN NOT to> exhibit<s> the existence
> of the "photon".
The photoelectric effect. Why do you look elsewhere for proof of the
discrete nature of the particles called photons?
######################################################################
> # "Many experiments that purport to do this are vitiated by the #
> # fact that the observed effects can also be explained classically." #
> ######################################################################
Photoelectric effect. And other particles also behave according to
classical theory, in all respects (except travelling at c). So the
inability to differentiate the photon as a particle also fails for any
other particle.
I submit again, your tools both enable and cripple. You choose tools that
are stewed in wave mechanics, and they give you abilites beyond mortal man,
but disguised as waves. You choose tools that treat photons as particles,
and you get back discrete information.
As far as your boundary conditions go, whatever floats your boat. As long
as you realize that it is only a model, and your tools cannot surprise you,
proceed with your fortress made of sugar. The rain will come.
David A. Smith
sean
> > The path isnt measured in the experiment but that is irrelevent.
>
> The path is not measured, but all the particles together clearly describe
> the width of the opening, and the distance from the opening to the
> detector. As a gestalt.
>
out wave constituted from many standing waves or frequencies. The
atom is point like but indistinct due to its having to constituted
from waves (seeing as this is a wave only model) When it goes through
the opening in the mifddle its path is unchanged , to either side
closer to the edges the particle /wave overlaps , is diffracted and
the resulting image area where it is prtojected against is wider and
defined like QT by the opening and the width of the wave /particle and
the distance to the detector. THe flux density plot is classic hump as
follows. Two openings would give two overlapping humps and the plot
would , if you care to add them yourself as its difficult here with
type, you get .. Interfernce fringes!!!!
. .
. .
. .
>
> Not only is the technology not available, but is not possible. A photon is
> born and dies as a particle, but lives as a wave (if you will). In other
> words, a discrete or quantum process is the beginning and end of the
> photon. In flight, only a wave model seems to work. It is the wave model
> that works equally well for all sorts of particles though.
>
> I don't see how you boys can insist that the photon is only a wave, when
> clearly defining it as a wave only works for large statistical populations,
> and ignores Aleksandr's "boundary conditions" (aka the photelectric
> effect).
I have clearly described how classical can describe the photoelectric
effect with experimental proof. You have yet to come up with a point
by point disproof but rather instead generalized and said "it doesnt
work" Thats not good enough . You have to show where my model doesnt
work specifically and why. And finally regarding about classical
having to work for large statistical populations , you are hung up
with the misconception like Grangier that wave theory uses photons.
Show me where in any relevent classical theory how a wave only model
uses photons. ? It doesnt use photons, Wave theory can explain even
one `photon` detected at PMT.
Regards Sean
>
> David A. Smith
sean
> >
> > .None of these mechanisms are known and may never be yet it doesnt
> > stop QT supporters from claiming that their theories are the only
> > correct one. Why should I be able to explain exactly how the atom is
> > constructed when QT cannot answer the same questions regarding the
> > mechanism behind their models?
> > Not that I wont try .
>
> You are being unfair with your claims above about QT. QT does not yet
> cover gravity (as you know), and your wave model doesn't cover it either.
>
gravity and possibly the extra speed in rotating galaxies , but for
another thread
> > In nature where does this mechanism occur naturally? Capacitors
> > display this fuction although man made. And can I say that would it be
> > possible for the capacitor function to be found naturally in
> > neural/brain cells or even plant cells. ? Arguably a sonic boom is
> > similar in the sense that many waves accumulate to form one very large
> > amplitude one.
>
> You don't get a sonic boom from the combination of two waves.
I wasnt suggesting one did. I presume it is many waves.
Capacitors
> can build up a charge and flash over at some voltage. May only happen
> once...
>
> > How about when two or more frequencies overlap and
> > occilate at a lower frequency in sound waves? (I`ve already used this
> > to explain `quantum beats ` in classical terms in a previuos thread)
>
> Insufficient to describe the photoelectric effect. Requires resonance.
Maybe that is insufficent but I have already described the
photoelectric effect using capacitors as part of the model. What in
particular is this resonance you refer to that classical needs?
At least there is a man made equivelent for the wave atom but
> > unfortunately the QT model has no natural equivelent. It is
> > essentially, pure magic and mysticism.
>
> As is the wave model when describing the reality of the photoelectric
> effect.
No actually my description doesnt use magic. Which part of it
specifically is magic?
> > If I can find out a understandable reference to this wave resonance I
> > am sure there is a classical explanation.
>
> There have been hundreds of great minds looking for one. As I have said
> before, spending your efforts is a waste of your talent. Only a particle
> model can describe it.
No actually my wave model does it but you have`nt yet come up with a
specific critism except for "it doesnt work" Thats not very
scientific, more dogmatic I would suggest
>
> > > But this is not observed. A photon arrives from a distant source (in
> this
> > > galaxy, say) with the same energy as one generated by our own Sun. The
> > > 1/r^2 is much smaller for the distant source, but the energy packet is
> a
> > > constant. The intensity is in the number of photons that arrive.
> > >
> > I cant understand the reasoning behind this. A photon is *detected*
> > arriving from a distant source. QT says that a photon travelled the
> > whole distance unchanged.Fair enough but in a classical description
> > remember there are no photons in the model . So when a `photon ` is
> > detected the reasoning is that light in waves with an amplitude
> > diminished proportional to distance arrives and is absorbed by the
> > atom .
>
> So? This is why the classical model fails. How it wouldn't fail is if the
> wave were planar, not spherical. But how do you generate a localized
> planar wave... with less than an infinite amount of energy.
>
This makes no sense . When is starlight planar? What is your
distinction between planar and spheroid? You will have to elaborate on
this point
> > Because the amplitude is lower the energy input is lower and
> > it needs more waves to reach the filled capacitance . A closer light
> > source is brighter has greater energy flux/ amplitude and therefore
> > the atom fills sooner or more correctly the rate of atoms reaching
> > threshold is faster in the PMT and more pulses /electrons are sent to
> > the PMT cascade. Hence more `photons`are detected . THe end result is
> > indistinguishable from that predicted by QT and observed
>
> But the classical model doesn't do what you would have it do. Only the
> particle model does this.
Still saying "It doesnt work" and except for a obscure reference now
to planar and spheroid light you still havent specified where exactly
the model is incorrect. If you explain planar and spheroid in context
I will respond on that point
> And still the wave model fails. There are so many places it fails,
And where are these places that it fails . I cant read your mind you
have to put it down in print.
and so
> many places it works. Because the only tool you are comfortable with is a
> hammer, does that make all problems into nails? Each model has its
> applicable domain. Can you live with this?
If you have a hammer the only problems it solves are nails if thats
what you mean Can I live with both models , yes but I dont think you
can .You keep on saying classical doesnt work.
>
> Try describing the function of a transistor without "hole current". ;>}
> Holes don't move, electrons do. But, you sure can't describe the behaviour
> without moving holes...
A reference description of capacitance is one that can store electric
charge.
If you want to discusshow transistors work in wave theory shall I
start a seperate thread? I can explain it purely in wave terms and it
unfortunately doesnt use electrons or holes so I can eassily describe
it without using holes .
regards
Sean
Aleksandr Timofeev
>
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:e16a4a22.03051...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> Photoelectric effect. And other particles also behave according to
> classical theory, in all respects (except travelling at c). So the
> inability to differentiate the photon as a particle also fails for any
> other particle.
Thus we come to the inference, THAT the THEORIES of fundamental
PARTICLES ARE the METAPHYSICAL EXTREMELY SPECULATIVE THEORIES.
They operate with *unobservable* physical properties of a substance
and these theories utilize large number of the SPECULATIVE GUESSES.
The same METAPHYSICAL EXTREMELY SPECULATIVE THEORIES are GR and SR,
since the metaphysical velocity of a gravitation is not fathomed
experimentally till now.
> I submit again, your tools both enable and cripple. You choose tools that
> are stewed in wave mechanics, and they give you abilites beyond mortal man,
> but disguised as waves. You choose tools that treat photons as particles,
> and you get back discrete information.
Perhaps you have forgotten that quantum mechanics is _not_ correct.
QM is the very feeble intermediate theory abounding by error physical
representations. See below.
> As far as your boundary conditions go, whatever floats your boat. As long
> as you realize that it is only a model, and your tools cannot surprise you,
> proceed with your fortress made of sugar. The rain will come.
>
> David A. Smith
As long as you realize that it is only METAPHYSICAL EXTREMELY
SPECULATIVE THEORIES (a mythic(al) model reality), and your
tools cannot surprise you, proceed with your fortress made of
the SPECULATIVE GUESSES(sugar). The rain come now: >;^)
You try to escape from reality to a virtual reality...
You came into collision with Reality:
Presently there is a new kind of an interference - so-called
postponed in time or virtual interference (VLBI), 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.
---------------------
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
" 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."
##########################################
#################################################################
From: t_...@mail.ru (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics
Subject: Re: What evidence for photons?
Date: 9 Nov 2002 08:00:05 -0800
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=df6db65f.0211090800.f986fba%40posting.google.com
Perhaps you have forgotten that quantum mechanics is _not_ correct.
QM is the very feeble intermediate theory abounding by error physical
representations.
In message:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0105300456.3f908a72%40posting.google.com
I wrote:
Presently there is a new kind of an interference - so-called
postponed in time or virtual interference (VLBI), 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?
---------------------
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!!!
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.
-------------------------------------------------
In message:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B27AE8D.A6C9361B%40lycos.com
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
Quantum Mechanics has a problem with the interaction
probability of a photon with the Free-Particle.
Why, did the photon bother to interact with the
particle? Most people think it is because of a
natural probability, characteristic of the
particle.
What is the problem here with the Free-Particle?
Mathematically it is not possible to have a less
than one probability in this system. For some
reason it is always One when you see it occur?
Particles that do not interact are assumed to have
no photon of sufficient characteristic to interact
with.
What can you say about this? 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.
##########################################
#################################################################
Aleksandr Timofeev
>
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:e16a4a22.03051...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
Dear David A. Smith
> > >The photoelectric effect (you ignore answering) is a single
> > >particle phenomenon.
> >
> > You have missed from attention Compton effect. The Compton effect
> > has error explanation on the basis of a hypothesis
> > " of particle of a photon " also.
>
> I was only looking for a single example. I could imagine waves being
> scattered by an object, in agreement with the observation of Compton
> scattering. Compton is after all two applications of your "boundary
> conditions".
The logic error of introduction of a hypothesis of a light
photon in *_ classical _ explanation _* of a Compton effect
is hidden in error understanding of the gear of scattering and
conversion of energy of an electromagnetic wave by quantum
microsystems.
=============================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0208310730.5ac441b%40posting.google.com
From: a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics
Subject: Re: What evidence for photons?
Date: 31 Aug 2002 08:30:29 -0700
ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
news:<slrnan0to...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
> Bill Nelson said some stuff about
> Re: What evidence for photons? to usenet:
> >In sci.astro Courtney Mewton <uqcm...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> >> Single photon diffraction. No wave can do that. A "wave" with energy hf
> >> would spread out, unable to get absorbed by any atom. A single photon
> >> will get absorped by a single atom.
> >
> >That is not a valid comparison. Can a single atom of water be defracted?
> >Yet put a bunch of water atoms together any you can form waves.
> >
> >I don't think that anyone has intentionally stated that single photons
> >exhibit wave behavior. They have stated that light waves exhibit some of
> >the characteristics of both particles and waves.
>
> Not only does quantum mechanics say that, but it goes a lot further.
> Photons only interfere with themselves. That is stated explicitly in
> the uncertainty relations for the phases and photon number, which
> states that both the phase and number of photons cannot be measured
> simultaneously.
>
> [\phi, N] = -i
>
> If the number of quanta can be determined, the phases are completely
> undetermined and vice-versa. If the phase _difference_ for two photons
> is given it is not possible to determine which photon belongs with
> which source, so your "photons" are a single quantum state.
Sean writes:
"I had a discussion of this already with George Dishman and I think
one
can also explain those discrete events as being a particle like
detection as coming from the atom of the detector detecting wave like
radiation and ree-emitting it to the detector `cascade` as a discrete
amount of energy. In other woerds its not a photon or particle that
hits the detector and creates the discreet event but rather a point
like atom on the detector surface absorbing small increments of wave
radiation and like a capacitor releasing it as a point like discharge
of energy to the detector screen. The `point ` we see isnt the
photon/particle but a photons worth of energy being re -emitted by
the
atom on the detector."
Aleksandr Timofeev:
I slightly shall change the Sean's quantum mechanism of absorption of
electromagnetic energy by substance of the detector, in view of
quantum structure of substance of the detector.
The principle 1.
The substance of the detector is dynamic quantum multiresonant
structure.
The principle 2.
Resonant absorption of energy of an electromagnetic wave by the
quantum detector.
The principle 3.
The quantum detector terminates process of resonant absorption of a
quantum portion of electromagnetic energy (Plank's principle) making
transition in a metastable state with redundant energy.
The principle 4.
Spontaneous multialternative transition from a metastable state with
redundant energy in stable (more inconvertible) state.
================================================================
Now I shall describe process of interaction of an electromagnetic
wave with the detector on the basis of these principles.
1. Since the substance of the detector is dynamic quantum
multiresonant structure, at an accidental coincidence of a resonant
frequency and spatial orientation dynamic spatially - time
configurations of some area (volume) of the quantum detector with
a direction and frequency of an electromagnetic wave happens
" stable (inconvertible) spatially - time entrapment " of this area
(volume) of the detector in a resonance to an electromagnetic wave.
2. The state " stable (inconvertible) spatially - time of resonance
capture " of some area (volume) of the detector is maintained until
the Plank's quantum amount (portion) of energy of an electromagnetic
wave will be absorbed by this dynamic resonant quantum area of the
quantum detector.
Once again, the time duration " stable spatially - time of
resonance capture " of some quantum area of the quantum detector and
electromagnetic wave is determined by a Plank's principle.
3. Now quantum area of a resonance capture of the detector terminates
process of resonant absorption of a quantum portion of electromagnetic
energy (Plank's principle) and makes transition in a metastable state
with redundant energy.
In a metastable state the processes of redistribution of
"redundant" energy " of a Plank's quantum " between elements
of quantum area of a resonance capture of the detector are fulfilled.
4. The processes of redistribution of "redundant" energy can go by
different " roads " and these one create physically various effects
and results after terminating a metastable state.
Terminatings of a metastable state with " redundant " energy
happens spontaneously:
- It can be disperse electromagnetic radiation - there is no nonlinear
transformation of frequency in this case, the quantum system maintains
the structure.
- It can be disperse electromagnetic radiation and a " free "
electron - there is nonlinear transformation of frequency and partial
fracture of system in this case (Compton effect).
- It can be a blackening of a grain of a photoplate - there is
a nonreversible transformation of structure of the detector
( classical interference ).
- It can be disperse electromagnetic radiation with decreasing or
increasing of frequency (Raman's effect) - there is nonlinear
transformation of frequency.
- Etc. etc.
Note 1. The value of mass of quantum resonant structure area
of the detector ("trigger") should exceed value of mass
of a " photon " of electromagnetic radiation in tens
thousand and more times.
Note 2. The processes of redistribution of "redundant" energy
can go by different " roads " and these one create physically
various effects and results after terminating a metastable state.
---
Aleksandr Timofeev
The "photon" is mathematical abstraction (physical chimera),
which in the implicit (latent) form reflects existence of discrete
power levels in quantum systems and as a corollary a capability of
exchange by electromagnetic energy between quantum systems only by
discrete portions.
VLBI is the direct experimental proof glaring inaccuracy
of a hypothesis
about existence of "photon" as a particle.
In case VLBI 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.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0105300456.3f908a72%40posting.google.com
----------------------------
All stable fundamental particles have particular hard fixed physical
properties. Only for different grades of photons the elimination is
made, there can be a uncountable and continuous set of different
grades of photons:
E = h*f
The Plank's curve is continuous. Other physical curves for phenomena
of a nature with participation of "particles - photons" are continuous
curves also. Where there are quantum springs?
=============================================================
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.
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.
-------------------------------------------------
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"sean" <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f80aa1.0305...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<cLCwa.20904
...
> > Not only is the technology not available, but is not possible. A
photon is
> > born and dies as a particle, but lives as a wave (if you will). In
other
> > words, a discrete or quantum process is the beginning and end of the
> > photon. In flight, only a wave model seems to work. It is the wave
model
> > that works equally well for all sorts of particles though.
> >
> > I don't see how you boys can insist that the photon is only a wave,
when
> > clearly defining it as a wave only works for large statistical
populations,
> > and ignores Aleksandr's "boundary conditions" (aka the photelectric
> > effect).
>
> I have clearly described how classical can describe the photoelectric
> effect with experimental proof.
You have described no experimental proof. You claim an accumlator is the
mechanism by which waves are collected, and an electron is released. An
accumulator will respond equally well to lots of small waves. Since the
photoelectric effect does *not* occur with lots of low energy photons, only
with individual high energy photons, your accumulator concept is dead on
the delivery table. I'm sorry.
> You have yet to come up with a point
> by point disproof but rather instead generalized and said "it doesnt
> work" Thats not good enough .
One point. It is good enough. I'm sorry if you don't agree.
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"sean" <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f80aa1.03051...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<x%Bwa.20898
...
> > You are being unfair with your claims above about QT. QT does not yet
> > cover gravity (as you know), and your wave model doesn't cover it
either.
> >
> Actually I have a explnation for a wave only theory that can explain
> gravity and possibly the extra speed in rotating galaxies , but for
> another thread
Don't invite me to participate. I have my own onerous theory.
> > > In nature where does this mechanism occur naturally? Capacitors
> > > display this fuction although man made. And can I say that would it
be
> > > possible for the capacitor function to be found naturally in
> > > neural/brain cells or even plant cells. ? Arguably a sonic boom is
> > > similar in the sense that many waves accumulate to form one very
large
> > > amplitude one.
> >
> > You don't get a sonic boom from the combination of two waves.
>
> I wasnt suggesting one did. I presume it is many waves.
It isn't "many" waves. It also doesn't lend itself well to being modelled
with the usual equations of fluid mechanics. The fluid properties change
across the shock cone, which allows the air the temporary ability to get
out of the way of the "aircraft" that causes it. Of course each successive
chunk of air has to get out the way of the chunk just before it... and the
result is a shock cone.
...
> > There have been hundreds of great minds looking for one. As I have
said
> > before, spending your efforts is a waste of your talent. Only a
particle
> > model can describe it.
> No actually my wave model does it but you have`nt yet come up with a
> specific critism except for "it doesnt work" Thats not very
> scientific, more dogmatic I would suggest
I have come up with a criticism, and not the first time. You didn't
respond. Let's follow that in the other thread. I will tire of this topic,
since you are insisting on following a line of reasoning that experiment
does not support.
> > So? This is why the classical model fails. How it wouldn't fail is if
the
> > wave were planar, not spherical. But how do you generate a localized
> > planar wave... with less than an infinite amount of energy.
> >
> This makes no sense . When is starlight planar? What is your
> distinction between planar and spheroid? You will have to elaborate on
> this point
This is my point. A spherical wave loses intensity with 1/r^2. A planar
wave does not. If you insist that light is a wave that does not lose
energy with distance, which is in agreement with experiment, then it must
be planar.
> > > Because the amplitude is lower the energy input is lower and
> > > it needs more waves to reach the filled capacitance . A closer light
> > > source is brighter has greater energy flux/ amplitude and therefore
> > > the atom fills sooner or more correctly the rate of atoms reaching
> > > threshold is faster in the PMT and more pulses /electrons are sent to
> > > the PMT cascade. Hence more `photons`are detected . THe end result is
> > > indistinguishable from that predicted by QT and observed
> >
> > But the classical model doesn't do what you would have it do. Only the
> > particle model does this.
>
> Still saying "It doesnt work" and except for a obscure reference now
> to planar and spheroid light you still havent specified where exactly
> the model is incorrect. If you explain planar and spheroid in context
> I will respond on that point
Noted above.
>
>
> > And still the wave model fails. There are so many places it fails,
>
> And where are these places that it fails . I cant read your mind you
> have to put it down in print.
Done, but no doubt we will discuss this further.
> > and so
> > many places it works. Because the only tool you are comfortable with
is a
> > hammer, does that make all problems into nails? Each model has its
> > applicable domain. Can you live with this?
>
> If you have a hammer the only problems it solves are nails if thats
> what you mean Can I live with both models , yes but I dont think you
> can .You keep on saying classical doesnt work.
Classical *does* work, if classical behaviour is what you are looking for.
I have this silly desire to see what lies beneath the wave a model . And I
have a foolish desire to have a single-but-more-complex-model to handle
both types of behaviours. I have a feeling that what lies between a
particle and a wave will provide some surprises.
> > Try describing the function of a transistor without "hole current".
;>}
> > Holes don't move, electrons do. But, you sure can't describe the
behaviour
> > without moving holes...
>
> A reference description of capacitance is one that can store electric
> charge.
> If you want to discusshow transistors work in wave theory shall I
> start a seperate thread? I can explain it purely in wave terms and it
> unfortunately doesnt use electrons or holes so I can eassily describe
> it without using holes .
Not necessary. Again, the choice of tools.
I am done here, unless you have more.
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.0305...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<SfXwa.21466$hd6.17176@fed1read05>...
> >
> > "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:e16a4a22.03051...@posting.google.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > Photoelectric effect. And other particles also behave according to
> > classical theory, in all respects (except travelling at c). So the
> > inability to differentiate the photon as a particle also fails for any
> > other particle.
>
> Thus we come to the inference, THAT the THEORIES of fundamental
> PARTICLES ARE the METAPHYSICAL EXTREMELY SPECULATIVE THEORIES.
As you are now shouting in the bar again, I guess we are done with this
topic. You do not have the answer you sought from me, and I do not have
the answer I sought from you.
It has been a pleasure.
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03051...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<SfXwa.21466$hd6.17176@fed1read05>...
...
> > I was only looking for a single example. I could imagine waves being
> > scattered by an object, in agreement with the observation of Compton
> > scattering. Compton is after all two applications of your "boundary
> > conditions".
>
>
> The logic error of introduction of a hypothesis of a light
> photon in *_ classical _ explanation _* of a Compton effect
> is hidden in error understanding of the gear of scattering and
> conversion of energy of an electromagnetic wave by quantum
> microsystems.
...
> The principle 1.
> The substance of the detector is dynamic quantum multiresonant
> structure.
I disagree. The detector you have described (previously) reduces an analog
photon to a series of known (or assumed) electrons of specific energy.
Resonance only comes in to play with the lens material and the polarization
material. You only then require photons of sufficient energy to release
one electron. But the is so little I know about PMTs...
> The principle 2.
> Resonant absorption of energy of an electromagnetic wave by the
> quantum detector.
I don't see that resonance is required. Just light with enough energy.
Resonance doesn't play a part, since the first electron "blasts off" with
all the energy of the photon (wave packet). The resulting avalanche ends
up with an even, "known" amount of energy.
> The principle 3.
> The quantum detector terminates process of resonant absorption of a
> quantum portion of electromagnetic energy (Plank's principle) making
> transition in a metastable state with redundant energy.
>
> The principle 4.
> Spontaneous multialternative transition from a metastable state with
> redundant energy in stable (more inconvertible) state.
>
> ================================================================
>
> Now I shall describe process of interaction of an electromagnetic
> wave with the detector on the basis of these principles.
>
> 1. Since the substance of the detector is dynamic quantum
> multiresonant structure, at an accidental coincidence of a resonant
> frequency and spatial orientation dynamic spatially - time
> configurations of some area (volume) of the quantum detector with
> a direction and frequency of an electromagnetic wave happens
> " stable (inconvertible) spatially - time entrapment " of this area
> (volume) of the detector in a resonance to an electromagnetic wave.
Since a *wave* will have dispersed to the point that it cannot liberate a
single electron, your model fails to satisfy me. Because this alternative
is that "n" electrons move 100/"n" percent out of their respective
orbitals, and you are able to detect this mass migration, by "counting" the
net resultant electrons.
...
> 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.
Aleksandr, please terminate this thread as you see fit. I do not wish to
continue asking you to describe the photoelectric effect using your
"boundary conditions", and I have never denied the validity of your choice
of equations for describing statistical systems. We will continue to
disagree, apparently.
David A. Smith
sean
At least that was short and to the point .
You must be blind as I *have * described experimental proof a few
posts ago and will be willing to answer any questions on detail. OK
so your argument is that a atom wont recieve energy below a certain
wavelength. Can you be so sure of that? After all the compton effect
is almost negligible at lower energies and in some cases undetectable
but still there,so it could be said that the photoelectric effect does
occur but is not detected at lower energies. If the compton effect
shows a drop off of sensitivity I could argue that the photoelectric
effect is similar.But all PMT `s are range specific anyways which I
have already *said* is attributable to the specific atoms/elements or
molecules used . What you want is a seperate theory from me now as to
how a wave only atom works.THat still doesnt effect the validity of my
photoelectric model as I never claimed that it could explain every
thing in the universe. I will describe atoms in wave terms seperately
if you explain how the QT model explains dark energy . If you cant
then, QT is dead in the water according to your logic
Regards
Sean
sean
> Dear sean:
>
> "sean" <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:40f80aa1.03051...@posting.google.com...
> > "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<x%Bwa.20898
> ...
> > > You are being unfair with your claims above about QT. QT does not yet
> > > cover gravity (as you know), and your wave model doesn't cover it
> either.
> > >
> > Actually I have a explnation for a wave only theory that can explain
> > gravity and possibly the extra speed in rotating galaxies , but for
> > another thread
>
> Don't invite me to participate. I have my own onerous theory.
Come on try me I am open to discussion maybe its a great idea.
>
> > > > In nature where does this mechanism occur naturally? Capacitors
> > > > display this fuction although man made. And can I say that would it
> be
> > > > possible for the capacitor function to be found naturally in
> > > > neural/brain cells or even plant cells. ? Arguably a sonic boom is
> > > > similar in the sense that many waves accumulate to form one very
> large
> > > > amplitude one.
> > >
> > > You don't get a sonic boom from the combination of two waves.
> >
> > I wasnt suggesting one did. I presume it is many waves.
>
> It isn't "many" waves. It also doesn't lend itself well to being modelled
> with the usual equations of fluid mechanics. The fluid properties change
> across the shock cone, which allows the air the temporary ability to get
> out of the way of the "aircraft" that causes it. Of course each successive
> chunk of air has to get out the way of the chunk just before it... and the
> result is a shock cone.
Thats the first time I have heard that a sonic boom has nothing to do
with sound waves.
>
> ...
> > > There have been hundreds of great minds looking for one. As I have
> said
> > > before, spending your efforts is a waste of your talent. Only a
> particle
> > > model can describe it.
>
> > No actually my wave model does it but you have`nt yet come up with a
> > specific critism except for "it doesnt work" Thats not very
> > scientific, more dogmatic I would suggest
>
> I have come up with a criticism, and not the first time. You didn't
> respond. Let's follow that in the other thread. I will tire of this topic,
> since you are insisting on following a line of reasoning that experiment
> does not support.
I`m not sure what critism you refer to but I think I have responded to
all your points. In most cases you say that wave only theory has to
act like wave particle which isnt a critism as it ignores that the two
are different theories.
>
> > > So? This is why the classical model fails. How it wouldn't fail is if
> the
> > > wave were planar, not spherical. But how do you generate a localized
> > > planar wave... with less than an infinite amount of energy.
> > >
> > This makes no sense . When is starlight planar? What is your
> > distinction between planar and spheroid? You will have to elaborate on
> > this point
>
> This is my point. A spherical wave loses intensity with 1/r^2. A planar
> wave does not. If you insist that light is a wave that does not lose
> energy with distance, which is in agreement with experiment, then it must
> be planar.
Two things first what does spherical or planar have to do with how a
atom can or cannot detect it?
And second I dont say that waves dont lose energy over distance. I say
the opposite . I say it *does* lose energy over distance. The point
you dont understand is that when it does what happens is it takes more
waves of less amplitude to trigger an apparent particle detection in
wave only theory at the PMT
>
> > > > Because the amplitude is lower the energy input is lower and
> > > > it needs more waves to reach the filled capacitance . A closer light
> > > > source is brighter has greater energy flux/ amplitude and therefore
> > > > the atom fills sooner or more correctly the rate of atoms reaching
> > > > threshold is faster in the PMT and more pulses /electrons are sent to
> > > > the PMT cascade. Hence more `photons`are detected . THe end result is
> > > > indistinguishable from that predicted by QT and observed
> > >
> > > But the classical model doesn't do what you would have it do. Only the
> > > particle model does this.
> >
> > Still saying "It doesnt work" and except for a obscure reference now
> > to planar and spheroid light you still havent specified where exactly
> > the model is incorrect. If you explain planar and spheroid in context
> > I will respond on that point
>
> Noted above.
>
> >
> >
> > > And still the wave model fails. There are so many places it fails,
> >
> > And where are these places that it fails . I cant read your mind you
> > have to put it down in print.
>
> Done, but no doubt we will discuss this further.
THe only thing you have done is suggest that *I think* that
lightwaves* do not* lose energy over distance.I say the exact opposite
, in that they do . So that point of yours is irrelevent. You are
trying to put words in my mouth
>
> > > and so
> > > many places it works. Because the only tool you are comfortable with
> is a
> > > hammer, does that make all problems into nails? Each model has its
> > > applicable domain. Can you live with this?
> >
> > If you have a hammer the only problems it solves are nails if thats
> > what you mean Can I live with both models , yes but I dont think you
> > can .You keep on saying classical doesnt work.
>
> Classical *does* work, if classical behaviour is what you are looking for.
> I have this silly desire to see what lies beneath the wave a model . And I
> have a foolish desire to have a single-but-more-complex-model to handle
> both types of behaviours. I have a feeling that what lies between a
> particle and a wave will provide some surprises.
In other words you only like to think about the same old wave particle
duality. Why argue with wave only supporters if you dont want to
listen to there arguments?
>
> > > Try describing the function of a transistor without "hole current".
> ;>}
> > > Holes don't move, electrons do. But, you sure can't describe the
> behaviour
> > > without moving holes...
> >
> > A reference description of capacitance is one that can store electric
> > charge.
> > If you want to discusshow transistors work in wave theory shall I
> > start a seperate thread? I can explain it purely in wave terms and it
> > unfortunately doesnt use electrons or holes so I can eassily describe
> > it without using holes .
>
> Not necessary. Again, the choice of tools.
>
> I am done here, unless you have more.
I suppose I have `done` too as you appear to offer nothing
regards
Sean
Aleksandr Timofeev
Dear David A. Smith
> Not only is the technology not available, but is not possible.
> A photon is born and dies as a particle,
"A photon is born and dies as a particle"
1. Please, make the proofs of the statement,
that " the photon is born as a particle ".
2. Please, make the proofs of the statement,
that " the photon is dies as a particle ".
The quantum system has not necessity in
" a quantum particle of radiation ".
The quantum system radiates or absorbs
" quantum quantity of a radiation energy ".
The quantum mechanics bases on *energy exposition* of phenomena,
since the actual detail processes in microsystems
to a quantum mechanics are not known.
The coffee cup has fixed volume, but from this fact does not
follow, that the coffee represents a quantum particle. >;o|
> but lives as a wave (if you will).
What is physical interpretation (meaning) of "but lives as a wave" ???
> In other words, a discrete or quantum process
> is the beginning and end of the photon.
1. Please, make the proofs of the statement,
that " a discrete or quantum process
is the beginning and end of the photon. ".
> In flight, only a wave model seems to work.
What is sound physical interpretation (meaning)
of "In flight, only a wave model seems to work." ???
It sounds very sophisticated.
> It is the wave model that works equally well for all
> sorts of particles though.
I disagree. You are inconsistent in EM testimony.
1. The existence of Electromagnetic Waves is the fact
proved experimentally.
The electromagnetic waves are material.
2. From your statements, conclusion implicitly follows,
that between
electromagnetic waves and statistical wave functions
there is no key distinction.
The electromagnetic waves are material.
Statistical wave functions are immaterial.
So whether it is actually?
( Demons, ghosts, witches, and other >;^)
mathematical immaterial and supernatural agents. )
> I don't see how you boys can insist that the photon is only a wave,
What kind of wave is "the photon"?
> when clearly defining it as a wave only works for large
> statistical populations,
So, I see, that you eliminate an opportunity
of a self-interference of "photon".
> and ignores Aleksandr's "boundary conditions" (aka the photelectric
> effect).
Whether you can give quantum mechanical explanation
to bands of forbidden conductance in semiconductors?
=================
" and ignores Aleksandr's "boundary conditions" "
Please, Specify experimental examples of a wave function
for an isolated fundamental particle.
> David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"sean" <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f80aa1.03051...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<GVgxa.23308$hd6.7789@fed1read05>...
> > Dear sean:
> >
> > "sean" <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:40f80aa1.03051...@posting.google.com...
> > > "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:<x%Bwa.20898
> > ...
> > > > You are being unfair with your claims above about QT. QT does not
yet
> > > > cover gravity (as you know), and your wave model doesn't cover it
> > either.
> > > >
> > > Actually I have a explnation for a wave only theory that can explain
> > > gravity and possibly the extra speed in rotating galaxies , but for
> > > another thread
> >
> > Don't invite me to participate. I have my own onerous theory.
>
> Come on try me I am open to discussion maybe its a great idea.
Magnetic moment is closely related to mass. If c is decreasing, however
slightly (say 5-10% in 13 billion years), this would leave a net increase
in photon energy in the "volume" between two particles. This increase in
energy can be offset by the particles moving closer. Result, gravity.
> > > > You don't get a sonic boom from the combination of two waves.
> > >
> > > I wasnt suggesting one did. I presume it is many waves.
> >
> > It isn't "many" waves. It also doesn't lend itself well to being
modelled
> > with the usual equations of fluid mechanics. The fluid properties
change
> > across the shock cone, which allows the air the temporary ability to
get
> > out of the way of the "aircraft" that causes it. Of course each
successive
> > chunk of air has to get out the way of the chunk just before it... and
the
> > result is a shock cone.
>
> Thats the first time I have heard that a sonic boom has nothing to do
> with sound waves.
I didn't say "nothing to do with". I said 'It isn't "many" waves.'
Obviously our posting has decayed... perhaps it should end.
> > > > There have been hundreds of great minds looking for one. As I have
> > said
> > > > before, spending your efforts is a waste of your talent. Only a
> > particle
> > > > model can describe it.
> >
> > > No actually my wave model does it but you have`nt yet come up with a
> > > specific critism except for "it doesnt work" Thats not very
> > > scientific, more dogmatic I would suggest
> >
> > I have come up with a criticism, and not the first time. You didn't
> > respond. Let's follow that in the other thread. I will tire of this
topic,
> > since you are insisting on following a line of reasoning that
experiment
> > does not support.
>
> I`m not sure what critism you refer to but I think I have responded to
> all your points. In most cases you say that wave only theory has to
> act like wave particle which isnt a critism as it ignores that the two
> are different theories.
Then respond to the other thread. Don't "whine" here.
> > > > So? This is why the classical model fails. How it wouldn't fail
is if
> > the
> > > > wave were planar, not spherical. But how do you generate a
localized
> > > > planar wave... with less than an infinite amount of energy.
> > > >
> > > This makes no sense . When is starlight planar? What is your
> > > distinction between planar and spheroid? You will have to elaborate
on
> > > this point
> >
> > This is my point. A spherical wave loses intensity with 1/r^2. A
planar
> > wave does not. If you insist that light is a wave that does not lose
> > energy with distance, which is in agreement with experiment, then it
must
> > be planar.
> Two things first what does spherical or planar have to do with how a
> atom can or cannot detect it?
Nothing. It has to do with how a wave loses energy over a distance. A
plane wave does not lose energy over distance (as long as the "medium" is
not lossy). I am giving you a hint how you can explain the photoelectric
effect using waves.
> And second I dont say that waves dont lose energy over distance. I say
> the opposite . I say it *does* lose energy over distance. The point
> you dont understand is that when it does what happens is it takes more
> waves of less amplitude to trigger an apparent particle detection in
> wave only theory at the PMT
Then please respond to the other thread. More waves of less energy *don't*
in the photoelectric effect.
> > > > And still the wave model fails. There are so many places it fails,
> > >
> > > And where are these places that it fails . I cant read your mind you
> > > have to put it down in print.
> >
> > Done, but no doubt we will discuss this further.
>
> THe only thing you have done is suggest that *I think* that
> lightwaves* do not* lose energy over distance.I say the exact opposite
> , in that they do . So that point of yours is irrelevent. You are
> trying to put words in my mouth
I am trying to get you to see that the energy received in a single wave
packet (or photon) is the same, regardless of distance. Neglecting the
"expansion" redshift, of course. The spectra are clear whether the star is
our own Sun, or a member of the Andromeda galaxy. Therefore the intensity
of the wave is not decreased.
> > > If you have a hammer the only problems it solves are nails if thats
> > > what you mean Can I live with both models , yes but I dont think you
> > > can .You keep on saying classical doesnt work.
> >
> > Classical *does* work, if classical behaviour is what you are looking
for.
> > I have this silly desire to see what lies beneath the wave a model .
And I
> > have a foolish desire to have a single-but-more-complex-model to handle
> > both types of behaviours. I have a feeling that what lies between a
> > particle and a wave will provide some surprises.
>
> In other words you only like to think about the same old wave particle
> duality. Why argue with wave only supporters if you dont want to
> listen to there arguments?
I thought we were having a discussion. I have presented my opinion of what
light is. Why do you argue with me? I don't believe I know enough about
the underlying reality to believe in a dual nature for light. I do believe
that treating light as a wave is like treating a population as a single
"organism". And treating light as particles is like treating the
population as individuals. The dualism is the result of our models, our
understanding of reality. "Light" could give a sh*t.
> > > > Try describing the function of a transistor without "hole current".
> > ;>}
> > > > Holes don't move, electrons do. But, you sure can't describe the
> > behaviour
> > > > without moving holes...
> > >
> > > A reference description of capacitance is one that can store electric
> > > charge.
> > > If you want to discusshow transistors work in wave theory shall I
> > > start a seperate thread? I can explain it purely in wave terms and it
> > > unfortunately doesnt use electrons or holes so I can eassily describe
> > > it without using holes .
> >
> > Not necessary. Again, the choice of tools.
> >
> > I am done here, unless you have more.
>
> I suppose I have `done` too as you appear to offer nothing
Try the other branch of this thread then. Sorry if I have seemed to have
p*ssed you off. It was not my intention.
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03051...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<cLCwa.20904$hd6.15022@fed1read05>...
...
> > Not only is the technology not available, but is not possible.
> > A photon is born and dies as a particle,
>
> "A photon is born and dies as a particle"
>
> 1. Please, make the proofs of the statement,
> that " the photon is born as a particle ".
Compton scattering. Thermal emission. Radioactive decay.
> 2. Please, make the proofs of the statement,
> that " the photon is dies as a particle ".
Photoelectric effect.
>
> The quantum system has not necessity in
> " a quantum particle of radiation ".
> The quantum system radiates or absorbs
> " quantum quantity of a radiation energy ".
Yes, your opinion about boundary conditions has been made clear.
> The quantum mechanics bases on *energy exposition* of phenomena,
> since the actual detail processes in microsystems
> to a quantum mechanics are not known.
>
> The coffee cup has fixed volume, but from this fact does not
> follow, that the coffee represents a quantum particle. >;o|
The coffee has particles in it. In know how to filter them out. If you
use tools that can only resolve coffee as a continuum, this is your choice.
> > but lives as a wave (if you will).
>
> What is physical interpretation (meaning) of "but lives as a wave" ???
The effects that the wave model excells in is in describing the propagation
of light. In other words the wave model well describes the entire lifetime
of light, except birth and death.
> > In other words, a discrete or quantum process
> > is the beginning and end of the photon.
>
> 1. Please, make the proofs of the statement,
> that " a discrete or quantum process
> is the beginning and end of the photon. ".
Done. Perhaps not to your satisfaction.
> > In flight, only a wave model seems to work.
>
> What is sound physical interpretation (meaning)
> of "In flight, only a wave model seems to work." ???
>
> It sounds very sophisticated.
I can think of no propagation model of light as a particle that works well
for lenses, etc. I know particles can be made to do the things that light
as a wave does, but the math is beyond me.
> > It is the wave model that works equally well for all
> > sorts of particles though.
>
> I disagree. You are inconsistent in EM testimony.
>
> 1. The existence of Electromagnetic Waves is the fact
> proved experimentally.
> The electromagnetic waves are material.
>
> 2. From your statements, conclusion implicitly follows,
> that between
> electromagnetic waves and statistical wave functions
> there is no key distinction.
> The electromagnetic waves are material.
> Statistical wave functions are immaterial.
>
> So whether it is actually?
>
> ( Demons, ghosts, witches, and other >;^)
> mathematical immaterial and supernatural agents. )
Alexsandr, describe the photoelectric effect using a wave model. Quite
posturing.
> > I don't see how you boys can insist that the photon is only a wave,
>
> What kind of wave is "the photon"?
It is the hair of the photon you describe.
> > when clearly defining it as a wave only works for large
> > statistical populations,
>
> So, I see, that you eliminate an opportunity
> of a self-interference of "photon".
When self-interference is only evident when a sufficiently large population
have so intefered to see the pattern? I see no issues. The arrival of an
individual member is random, and its arrival point only a statistical
abstraction.
> > and ignores Aleksandr's "boundary conditions" (aka the photelectric
> > effect).
>
> Whether you can give quantum mechanical explanation
> to bands of forbidden conductance in semiconductors?
I did not do well in that class. It is a good thing I am a mechanical
engineer. ;>}
>
> =================
>
> " and ignores Aleksandr's "boundary conditions" "
>
> Please, Specify experimental examples of a wave function
> for an isolated fundamental particle.
Please describe the photoelectric effect using the wave model.
David A. Smith
Aleksandr Timofeev
>Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
>
>"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:e16a4a22.03051...@posting.google.com...
>news:<cLCwa.20904$hd6.15022@fed1read05>...
>> > Not only is the technology not available, but is not possible.
>> > A photon is born and dies as a particle,
>>
>> "A photon is born and dies as a particle"
>>
>> 1. Please, make the proofs of the statement,
>> that " the photon is born as a particle ".
>
>
>> that " the photon is dies as a particle ".
>
>
>>
>> The quantum system has not necessity in
>> " a quantum particle of radiation ".
>> The quantum system radiates or absorbs
>> " quantum quantity of a radiation energy ".
>
>
>> since the actual detail processes in microsystems
>> to a quantum mechanics are not known.
>>
>> The coffee cup has fixed volume, but from this fact does not
>> follow, that the coffee represents a quantum particle. >;o|
>
>use tools that can only resolve coffee as a continuum, this is your choice.
>
>>
>> What is physical interpretation (meaning) of "but lives as a wave" ???
>
>of light. In other words the wave model well describes the entire lifetime
>of light, except birth and death.
>
>> > is the beginning and end of the photon.
>>
>> 1. Please, make the proofs of the statement,
>> that " a discrete or quantum process
>> is the beginning and end of the photon. ".
>
>
>>
>> What is sound physical interpretation (meaning)
>> of "In flight, only a wave model seems to work." ???
>>
>> It sounds very sophisticated.
>
>for lenses, etc. I know particles can be made to do the things that light
>as a wave does, but the math is beyond me.
>
>> > sorts of particles though.
>>
>> I disagree. You are inconsistent in EM testimony.
>>
>> 1. The existence of Electromagnetic Waves is the fact
>> proved experimentally.
>> The electromagnetic waves are material.
>>
>> 2. From your statements, conclusion implicitly follows,
>> that between
>> electromagnetic waves and statistical wave functions
>> there is no key distinction.
>> The electromagnetic waves are material.
>> Statistical wave functions are immaterial.
Please, do not shirk. Give the direct answer:
Are the electromagnetic waves by quantum statistical waves?
>> So whether it is actually?
>>
>> ( Demons, ghosts, witches, and other >;^)
>> mathematical immaterial and supernatural agents. )
>
>Alexsandr, describe the photoelectric effect using a wave model. Quite
>posturing.
The photoeffect very easily is explained on a basis
of quantum mechanical explanation for bands of forbidden
conductance in semiconductors.
Please, David give quantum mechanical explanation
for bands of forbidden conductance in semiconductors.
Please, do not shirk.
You gave as an example in the arguments a quantum theory
of conductance for "sean".
Then I shall formulate for you interpretation of a Photoeffect
from a quantum mechanical point of view.
>> > I don't see how you boys can insist that the photon is only a wave,
>>
>> What kind of wave is "the photon"?
>
>It is the hair of the photon you describe.
>
>> > when clearly defining it as a wave only works for large
>> > statistical populations,
>>
>> So, I see, that you eliminate an opportunity
>> of a self-interference of "photon".
>
>When self-interference is only evident when a sufficiently large population
>have so intefered to see the pattern? I see no issues. The arrival of an
>individual member is random, and its arrival point only a statistical
>abstraction.
>
>> > and ignores Aleksandr's "boundary conditions" (aka the photelectric
>> > effect).
>>
>> Whether you can give quantum mechanical explanation
>> to bands of forbidden conductance in semiconductors?
>
>I did not do well in that class. It is a good thing I am a mechanical
>engineer. ;>}
>
>>
>> =================
>>
>> " and ignores Aleksandr's "boundary conditions" "
>>
>> Please, Specify experimental examples of a wave function
>> for an isolated fundamental particle.
>
>Please describe the photoelectric effect using the wave model.
The photoeffect very easily is explained on a basis
of quantum mechanical explanation for bands of forbidden
conductance in semiconductors.
Please, David give quantum mechanical explanation
for bands of forbidden conductance in semiconductors.
Please, do not shirk.
You gave as an example in the arguments a quantum theory
of conductance for "sean".
Then I shall formulate for you interpretation of a Photoeffect
" using the wave model ".
>
>David A. Smith
Bilge
>I`m not sure if this fits with Alexandrs argument but I *have* offered
>a model of how the photoelectric effect can be described in wave only
>terms previously in the thread `What evidence Photons?`
You don't have such a model, sean. If you can divide up the light
absobed by an atom into units smaller than a photon, then the angular
momentum of the atom is not quantized, the atomic groundstate cannot
be stable and the electron will spiral into the nucleus in about a
microsecond.
>Essentially the model treats each atom in the detector plate of the
>PMT as a seperate `detector` and each atom is able to absorb radiation
>and release it in quantised packages
What exactly do you think those "quantised packages" are?
>to the electron cascade which in
>turn produces the Photoelectron or electric current. Each atom is
>essentially acting as a capacitor does in an electric circuit.
>If each atom in the detector ` fills` with energy in a sense and
>releases it in quantized packets to the cascade then at any one point
>if one were to `snapshot ` the detector all the atoms would be at
>seperate randomly filled states from 0-100% full.
> I then did a mathematical test where I reproduced the model with a
>small number of atoms, in different randomly filled states:
>ie/1/100 7/100 15/100 etc up to 99/100 with 0/100 being empty and
>100/100 being full.
Congratulations. You've discovered an extremely convoluted way to
describe the ionization probability.
>I then took each incident `photon` of light and assuming the classical
>model that it was wave only radiation I could split up that photon
>evenly amongst all the atoms in my detectors. I used 32 atoms. that
>meant that in my mathematical test I could give each atom 1/32 of the
>incident photons energy.
>If I assumed that the photon was 100 units of energy.That meant that
>each atom in the detector got 1/32 of a `photon` every time one
>`photon` hits the detector. That worked out to about 3.125/100 units
>per atom per photon event .
Gee. Why don't you assume the photon is _one_ unit of energy? Anybody
can divide a hundred photons into multiples of one photon.
>So if you run the experiment mathematically you find that on average
>at *every* photon event, one atom (which in itself only recieves about
>3/100 of a photon per photon event) reaches the filled level of
>100/100 and releases one photons worth of `energy` to the electron
>cascade.
>In other words a classical non-particle model using the atom as a
>capacitor which absorbs wave only light energy can...describe the
>particle like detections at a PMT!
>Furthermore when I applied this classical model to 2 detectors
>recieving 1 `photons ` worth of light I found that a coincidence rate
>between the two was less than what was predicted by Grangier in the
>famous much trumpeted Aspect experiment. Furthermore when I reduced
>the amount of energy per event as Grangier did , I could reproduce the
>lower coincidence rate just as observed in Grangiers experiment
What you've done is nothing more than manipulating your so-called
model to describe a single aspect of E&M. For every one you think you
can describe, I give you two more you can't.
>So two points . First That there *is* a classical model that can
>describe the photo electric effect and secondly it produces results
>that are verified by experiment, and not only that it matches the
>observed results better than the QT predictions!
>
>I recomend that anyone who diputes this should reproduce the
>mathematical experiment outlined above before you reply . You will
>find that if you follow the instructions you will get the same results
>I have which are that classical wave only light can produce particle
>like events that match observed rates.
Explain the 2s -> 1s transition in hydrogen. Explain the lamb shift.
Explain the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. All of those require
a quantized radiation field.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03051...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.BUTTERFLYnet> wrote:
...
> >> > It is the wave model that works equally well for all
> >> > sorts of particles though.
> >>
> >> I disagree. You are inconsistent in EM testimony.
> >>
> >> 1. The existence of Electromagnetic Waves is the fact
> >> proved experimentally.
> >> The electromagnetic waves are material.
> >>
> >> 2. From your statements, conclusion implicitly follows,
> >> that between
> >> electromagnetic waves and statistical wave functions
> >> there is no key distinction.
> >> The electromagnetic waves are material.
> >> Statistical wave functions are immaterial.
>
> Please, do not shirk. Give the direct answer:
> Are the electromagnetic waves by quantum statistical waves?
Then I must disappoint you. I do not know what "quantum statistical waves"
mean to you. If you are asking if EM (aka waves, wavelets, or photons)
follows the same rules as particles (electrons, neutrons, nucleii, or bucky
balls) all *I* know about them says yes. But I don't know a whole lot yet.
> >> So whether it is actually?
> >>
> >> ( Demons, ghosts, witches, and other >;^)
> >> mathematical immaterial and supernatural agents. )
> >
> >Alexsandr, describe the photoelectric effect using a wave model. Quite
> >posturing.
>
> The photoeffect very easily is explained on a basis
> of quantum mechanical explanation for bands of forbidden
> conductance in semiconductors.
>
> Please, David give quantum mechanical explanation
> for bands of forbidden conductance in semiconductors.
It seems like you are asking me to provide your answer for you. I cannot
do this either. And unless you are talking about photodiodes, I don't see
how this applies.
> Please, do not shirk.
> You gave as an example in the arguments a quantum theory
> of conductance for "sean".
It was a flat statement that you cannot describe a transistor without
discussing "holes" as a moving carrier. I did not indicate that I was up
to the task of describing it then either. There is a little puzzle that is
5 x 5 and has 24 tiles. Moving the hole is something I cannot do there
either, to my satisfaction.
> Then I shall formulate for you interpretation of a Photoeffect
> from a quantum mechanical point of view.
Sorry. I can describe the photoelectric effect to *my* satisfaction. You
started this thread with the position that light is just a wave, and the
endpoints (emission and absorption) are merely boundary conditions. The
tools with which you insulate yourself from reality, to allow you to walk
the stars, hide any disagreement from your sight.
I have reminded you of what you cannot describe with waves. My entire
purpose was to remind you of this. Beyond this, we are wasting bandwidth.
Please just call me an idiot, and move on.
David A. Smith
Village Idiot
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"sean" <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f80aa1.03051...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<0Jgxa.23283$hd6.21013@fed1read05>...
...
> > > You have yet to come up with a point
> > > by point disproof but rather instead generalized and said "it doesnt
> > > work" Thats not good enough .
> >
> > One point. It is good enough. I'm sorry if you don't agree.
> At least that was short and to the point .
> You must be blind as I *have * described experimental proof a few
> posts ago and will be willing to answer any questions on detail. OK
> so your argument is that a atom wont recieve energy below a certain
> wavelength. Can you be so sure of that?
Yes. The photoelectric effect shows, for example, that any intensity of
infrared light, short of vaporizing metal, will not release free electrons.
Yet visible light in the smallest quantities, releases a proportional
number of free electrons. The cutoff is *very* sharp. The electrons
produced continue to be proportional in *number* to the intensity of the
incoming light. The number of electrons produced does not vary with a
decrease in wavelength, up until the light has enough energy to liberate
two or more electrons.
> After all the compton effect
> is almost negligible at lower energies and in some cases undetectable
> but still there,so it could be said that the photoelectric effect does
> occur but is not detected at lower energies.
Liberated electrons can be detected in very nearly unitary quantities. So
it can be said that it doesn't happen.
> If the compton effect
> shows a drop off of sensitivity I could argue that the photoelectric
> effect is similar.But all PMT `s are range specific anyways which I
> have already *said* is attributable to the specific atoms/elements or
> molecules used . What you want is a seperate theory from me now as to
> how a wave only atom works.THat still doesnt effect the validity of my
> photoelectric model as I never claimed that it could explain every
> thing in the universe. I will describe atoms in wave terms seperately
> if you explain how the QT model explains dark energy . If you cant
> then, QT is dead in the water according to your logic
Dark Energy is easily explained as the further wet dream of whomever
invented Dark Matter. But this is only my opinion.
David A. Smith
sean
> Dear sean:
>
> "sean" <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:40f80aa1.03051...@posting.google.com...
> > "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<GVgxa.23308$hd6.7789@fed1read05>...
> > > Dear sean:
> > >
> > > "sean" <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:40f80aa1.03051...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > news:<x%Bwa.20898
> > > ...
> > > > > You are being unfair with your claims above about QT. QT does not
> yet
> > > > > cover gravity (as you know), and your wave model doesn't cover it
> either.
> > > > >
> > > > Actually I have a explnation for a wave only theory that can explain
> > > > gravity and possibly the extra speed in rotating galaxies , but for
> > > > another thread
> > >
> > > Don't invite me to participate. I have my own onerous theory.
> >
> > Come on try me I am open to discussion maybe its a great idea.
>
> Magnetic moment is closely related to mass. If c is decreasing, however
> slightly (say 5-10% in 13 billion years), this would leave a net increase
> in photon energy in the "volume" between two particles. This increase in
> energy can be offset by the particles moving closer. Result, gravity.
>
Let me try and interpret this . You say that gravity is the result of
a change in c over time. This change results in an increase of energy
in the vacuum of space between all particles. And that the result is
that all particles are continuously over time drawn to each other by
this energy.I think I sort of understand but how about things like
conservation of energy . Where does the energy go after it gravitates
together the two particles. Does it go into the particles and make
them progressively heavier? In a sense also maybe you tie together the
expanding universe and this increase of energy between the particles.
Maybe the idea is that as the universe expands c increases and the
space that is between particles has to remain the same so the energy
increases? Is it that gravity is a very micro magnetic force in a
sense ?
THose questions are just me trying to interpret the idea .
I wonder if you mean energy as wavelength. I refer to a loss of energy
as a decrease in the amplitude of the wavelength over distance. That
m,easn that waves are scalar in your terms.
>
> > And second I dont say that waves dont lose energy over distance. I say
> > the opposite . I say it *does* lose energy over distance. The point
> > you dont understand is that when it does what happens is it takes more
> > waves of less amplitude to trigger an apparent particle detection in
> > wave only theory at the PMT
>
> Then please respond to the other thread. More waves of less energy *don't*
> in the photoelectric effect.
WEll what I am saying is that more waves of less energy can give the
photoelectric effect. THis can be shown mathematically and the results
give a closer match to observation than QT does so by verification in
experimenty I am proven right. Ifyou dont agree than Iassume you
reject Grangiers experiment?
I also think we may be talking at cross purposes here. I mean energy
loss as a lower amplitude at the same wavelength.
>
> > > > > And still the wave model fails. There are so many places it fails,
> > > >
> > > > And where are these places that it fails . I cant read your mind you
> > > > have to put it down in print.
> > >
> > > Done, but no doubt we will discuss this further.
> >
> > THe only thing you have done is suggest that *I think* that
> > lightwaves* do not* lose energy over distance.I say the exact opposite
> > , in that they do . So that point of yours is irrelevent. You are
> > trying to put words in my mouth
>
> I am trying to get you to see that the energy received in a single wave
> packet (or photon) is the same, regardless of distance. Neglecting the
> "expansion" redshift, of course. The spectra are clear whether the star is
> our own Sun, or a member of the Andromeda galaxy. Therefore the intensity
> of the wave is not decreased.
>
Yes In Qt which has wave packets or photons you have to follow that
line of reasoning .But in wave theory you dont have photons or
wavepackets and it is just waves like water. And as shown in water
waves theuy keep there wavelength over distance and lose there
amplitude. THe same with light. I dont pluck this idea out of space
,its seen in nature. You cant deny that this happens in nature
And to show how these wave s can produce a particle like event at a
detector I have shown mathematically and mechanically how this is done
.You have yet to show where and which part of my point is incorrect.
The only thing you suggest is that atoms cant absorb light by filling.
But essentially all wave atoms do is what QT says particle atoms do.
They absorb specific amounts of energy in both theories. In QT it is
instantaneous and in wave theory there is a small time factor. Over
time though the same amount gets absorbed in either theory so whats
the problem with wave atoms absorbing energy incrementally when it is
almost essentially the same as QT?
> > > > If you have a hammer the only problems it solves are nails if thats
> > > > what you mean Can I live with both models , yes but I dont think you
> > > > can .You keep on saying classical doesnt work.
> > >
> > > Classical *does* work, if classical behaviour is what you are looking
> for.
> > > I have this silly desire to see what lies beneath the wave a model .
> And I
> > > have a foolish desire to have a single-but-more-complex-model to handle
> > > both types of behaviours. I have a feeling that what lies between a
> > > particle and a wave will provide some surprises.
> >
> > In other words you only like to think about the same old wave particle
> > duality. Why argue with wave only supporters if you dont want to
> > listen to there arguments?
>
> I thought we were having a discussion. I have presented my opinion of what
> light is. Why do you argue with me? I don't believe I know enough about
> the underlying reality to believe in a dual nature for light. I do believe
> that treating light as a wave is like treating a population as a single
> "organism". And treating light as particles is like treating the
> population as individuals. The dualism is the result of our models, our
> understanding of reality. "Light" could give a sh*t.
Yes and I understand you side of the argument. I just dont agree with
it and responded to your request to show how a PMT could absorb light
in wave only terms . I gave it and you refuse to accept it unless it
explains everything else in the universe. THats an unfair approach.
You dont ask the QT photoelectric effect to explain how atoms work do
you?
>
> > > > > Try describing the function of a transistor without "hole current".
> ;>}
> > > > > Holes don't move, electrons do. But, you sure can't describe the
> behaviour
> > > > > without moving holes...
> > > >
> > > > A reference description of capacitance is one that can store electric
> > > > charge.
> > > > If you want to discusshow transistors work in wave theory shall I
> > > > start a seperate thread? I can explain it purely in wave terms and it
> > > > unfortunately doesnt use electrons or holes so I can eassily describe
> > > > it without using holes .
> > >
> > > Not necessary. Again, the choice of tools.
> > >
> > > I am done here, unless you have more.
> >
> > I suppose I have `done` too as you appear to offer nothing
>
> Try the other branch of this thread then. Sorry if I have seemed to have
> p*ssed you off. It was not my intention.
When you use the words whine , hand waving and nothing to offer in
reference to me they are clearly intended as insults so dont pretend
that they werent and if they werent then you should be quite happy
with being called a whining handwaving person with nothing to offer .
Is that what you want? I dont know. I am quite happy just to talk
straight theory without the emotive bits.
Regards
Sean
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
I wish I could offer mathematical formalism. As it is, you'll just have to
watch my hands waving in the air. ;>}
The energy is not really destined to terminate in this space (between
particles). The action is in fact powered by the photon's hair (perhaps
aka ZPE) of all the light travelling transverse to this particular space.
But the energy is an "irritant" to the magnetic moments of the particles.
The action would be distantly similar to diamagnetism, only at the
(presumably) subatomic level.
It took me a long time to see how inertia might be written on the same
fabric (or flimsy hypothesis). I assumed that mass was only "effective"
magnetic moment. So can you imagine how a constant volume (from any
particular frame) would hold a constant quantity of "hair". As a "pair of
particles" is moved faster, the space between them distorts, becoming a
flattened ellipse (in some sense). The energy added then becomes
"irritating" energy removed. Apparently then time is a scalar function of
the amount of "irritating" energy contained is a space.
My arms are tired. It is not quite as silly as it could be. There is
little evidence either way that c is changing *now*. The amount I am
proposing is not disallowd by the supernova data (as noisy as that is), but
assumes then the nature of the unfolding of a SNE does not *ever* change
secularly. I burn all the available wiggle room for my particular "model".
...
> > > Two things first what does spherical or planar have to do with how a
> > > atom can or cannot detect it?
> >
> > Nothing. It has to do with how a wave loses energy over a distance. A
> > plane wave does not lose energy over distance (as long as the "medium"
is
> > not lossy). I am giving you a hint how you can explain the
photoelectric
> > effect using waves.
> I wonder if you mean energy as wavelength. I refer to a loss of energy
> as a decrease in the amplitude of the wavelength over distance. That
> m,easn that waves are scalar in your terms.
Amplitude in a classical wave model *is* the only way to carry energy.
There are no "number of photons" intensity. Wavelength is also
proportional to energy... at least as far as tsunamis are concerned. But
the number of waves per second of a certain amplitude is also energy.
There are so many problems with wave models, that I don't want to argue
them with you much longer. Suffice it to say that a plane wave does not
lose amplitude with distance (which is in agreement with a Local Cluster
full of evidence). The photoelectric effect is akin to a wave of a certain
amplitude "touching" a contact held at some height above the mean free
surface. Then comes the problem of removing all the energy of that "wave"
if the contact is made... not just down to below threshold, but flat
*gone*.
> > > And second I dont say that waves dont lose energy over distance. I
say
> > > the opposite . I say it *does* lose energy over distance. The point
> > > you dont understand is that when it does what happens is it takes
more
> > > waves of less amplitude to trigger an apparent particle detection in
> > > wave only theory at the PMT
> >
> > Then please respond to the other thread. More waves of less energy
*don't*
> > in the photoelectric effect.
> WEll what I am saying is that more waves of less energy can give the
> photoelectric effect. THis can be shown mathematically and the results
> give a closer match to observation than QT does so by verification in
> experimenty I am proven right. Ifyou dont agree than Iassume you
> reject Grangiers experiment?
I don't know about Grainger's experiment. What you are claiming is flatly
refuted by the photoelectric effect alone. If I look at a field of molten
lava with my binoculars reversed, so that all the visible red and near
infrared are concentrated to a single "spot", I do not see green or blue
light. I only see red (and so does a diffraction grating only display
red). So lots of longer wavelengths only do what lots of longer
wavelengths can do, and not what fewer shorter wavelengths can do. Physics
doesn't describe a "democracy" when it comes to light.
> I also think we may be talking at cross purposes here. I mean energy
> loss as a lower amplitude at the same wavelength.
I know what you are saying, and it you think about what you have said, I
don't think you mean that.
As I have said, I don't think you want "amplitude" varying if you have a
prayer of handling the photoelectric effect with a wave model. A host of
superimposed planar wavelets can be made to serve the purpose of a grand
"spherical" wave. The problem is then to remove a single wavelet by a
single electron.
...
> > > In other words you only like to think about the same old wave
particle
> > > duality. Why argue with wave only supporters if you dont want to
> > > listen to there arguments?
> >
> > I thought we were having a discussion. I have presented my opinion of
what
> > light is. Why do you argue with me? I don't believe I know enough
about
> > the underlying reality to believe in a dual nature for light. I do
believe
> > that treating light as a wave is like treating a population as a single
> > "organism". And treating light as particles is like treating the
> > population as individuals. The dualism is the result of our models,
our
> > understanding of reality. "Light" could give a sh*t.
> Yes and I understand you side of the argument. I just dont agree with
> it and responded to your request to show how a PMT could absorb light
> in wave only terms . I gave it and you refuse to accept it unless it
> explains everything else in the universe. THats an unfair approach.
> You dont ask the QT photoelectric effect to explain how atoms work do
> you?
Yes, eventually I expect a single model. No, I do not expect you to trot
it out. But a wave only model will not be all of the solution, just as a
particle only model will not be all of the solution. I suspect the
solution will be some sort of emergent behaviour and particles and waves
will only be the "left and right feet" of the final model.
...
> > > I suppose I have `done` too as you appear to offer nothing
> >
> > Try the other branch of this thread then. Sorry if I have seemed to
have
> > p*ssed you off. It was not my intention.
> When you use the words whine , hand waving and nothing to offer in
> reference to me they are clearly intended as insults so dont pretend
> that they werent and if they werent then you should be quite happy
> with being called a whining handwaving person with nothing to offer .
> Is that what you want? I dont know. I am quite happy just to talk
> straight theory without the emotive bits.
I did request we discuss the answer I provided to another thread in that
thread, but you didn't care to do that.
I tell my *friends* not to whine. I tell my *friends* they are waving
their hands. I don't recall telling you you had "nothing to offer", but I
do recall telling you that you were wasting your talents on a wave only
model. I say those things because only true friends and enemies can share
honesty. It is only a matter of when the honesty is delivered that sets
them apart.
I know what I think. I know now what you think. I see problems with
trying to force a wave only solution on all of creation, and I have pointed
those problems that I see out to you. I have tried to not do this like I
was sticking in a knife, but like I was trying to point out the loose
threads on your garment prior to entering a public occasion.
> Regards
You too sean. You decide whether I am friend or foe, and how you want to
respond.
David A. Smith
sean
>.change
>secularly. I burn all the available wiggle room for my particular
>"model".
OK I think I sort of get it in that it could be similar to
diamagnetism and that it increases with speed but I m not too sure how
the extra energy with speed gets dissapated as gravity. I mean where
does it go to from the `elipse` of excess energy ? Does it react
magnetically with the two atoms and pull them together? Still though
as a particle or field it still should have to go somewhere. Does it
maybe by pulling the two atoms together conserve the energy because
that is in a sense a higher plateau energy level by being
gravitationally bound. I mean by that as because this energy as
gravity pulls things together , as they are being torn apart by
inflation therefore objects that are many atoms `together` like
planets and stars actually have that energy stored there by gravity.
That would fit conservation I suppose in A BB world. But what happens
then during deflation becuase that energy would disappear or be
compromised by things coming back together. Its interesting. I think
that even if the energy is stored by pulling the two atoms together in
a particle world wouldnt you have to have a new particle that stores
this energy and have that particle able to somehow coexist with the
atoms electrons etc?
As much as I dont agree with QT and the BB I am still able I think ,
to appreciate the possibilities of your idea within those theories. In
fact it seems to fit if I understand you correctly in that not only
does it explain gravity it also can explain how large objects held
together by gravity are in a sense resorvoirs of energy and you need
to also expend energy to get away from a large object
>There are no "number of photons" intensity. Wavelength is also
>proportional to energy... at least as far as tsunamis are concerned.
>But
>the number of waves per second of a certain amplitude is also energy.
>There are so many problems with wave models, that I don't want to
>argue
>them with you much longer. Suffice it to say that a plane wave does
>not
>lose amplitude with distance (which is in agreement with a Local
>Cluster
>full of evidence). The photoelectric effect is akin to a wave of a
>certain
>amplitude "touching" a contact held at some height above the mean
free
>surface. Then comes the problem of removing all the energy of that
>"wave"
>if the contact is made... not just down to below threshold, but flat
>*gone*.
>I don't know about Grainger's experiment. What you are claiming is
>flatly
>refuted by the photoelectric effect alone. If I look at a field of
>molten
>lava with my binoculars reversed, so that all the visible red and
near
>infrared are concentrated to a single "spot", I do not see green or
>blue
>light. I only see red (and so does a diffraction grating only
display
>red). So lots of longer wavelengths only do what lots of longer
>wavelengths can do, and not what fewer shorter wavelengths can do.
>Physics
>doesn't describe a "democracy" when it comes to light.
>> I also think we may be talking at cross purposes here. I mean
energy
>> loss as a lower amplitude at the same wavelength.
>I know what you are saying, and it you think about what you have
said, >I
>don't think you mean that.
>As I have said, I don't think you want "amplitude" varying if you
have >a
>prayer of handling the photoelectric effect with a wave model. A
host >of
>superimposed planar wavelets can be made to serve the purpose of a
>grand
>"spherical" wave. The problem is then to remove a single wavelet by
a
>single electron.
...
>Yes, eventually I expect a single model. No, I do not expect you to
>trot
>it out. But a wave only model will not be all of the solution, just
>as a
>particle only model will not be all of the solution. I suspect the
>solution will be some sort of emergent behaviour and particles and
>waves
>will only be the "left and right feet" of the final model.
If I can condense all your points into one answer it seems the gulf is
too wide too meet even half way .
The only thing I can think to say is that it seems an odd claim to
make that a wavelength`s amplitude does not decrease over distance as
the light spreads out from source. So forgetting for a moment our
argument on waves -particles etc and assuming we are agreed on QT
.What you suggest is that a light source , lets say a lightbulb, at
1000 metres will give the same power to a photoelectric cell as if it
were only 1cm away. If as you say amplitude does not decrease in
distance and as the wavelength doesnt then you could extract power for
1000 light bulbs using thousands of photoelectric cells placed in a
huge 1000 meter radius sphere around 1 - 60 watt lightbulb. So how
does a wavelength keep its amplitude the farther it travels from
source when it is also spreading out? It seems like you wish to
contradict the conservation of energy and draw out energy from
nothing.
I apologize for repeating some points at the end of this next section
but I want to try and get you to answer specifically why my experimnt
*does* seem to work (for a change rather then why it cant work as you
have concentrated on up till now) After all it DOES seem to work by
giving accurate predictions .
Also you mention another thread we should concentrate on but I not
sure what you mean . This is the only thread I have communicated with
you for at least a month or two?
Below is a simple 16 atom detector . In QT a photon per second would
give a photon detected every second at one of the below atoms. In
classical if the atom was able to fill it would trigger a fill/photon
at 64 units ( so an atom at 62 would get 4 units a second and the next
step it goes is to 64 then tyriggers a photon deetction and also still
has 2 units left so it ends up at 2 units after having detected a
photon). If a photon was then 64 units of energy in classical and each
second 1 `photon ` is detected then it follows that each atom of the
16 below gets exactly 4 units per second. So in a classicalmodel the
experiment would run as follows.
0seconds
62 3 55 17
9 38 27 1
23 11 58 47
4 25 41 33
1seconds * 1 photon detected
2* 7 59 21
13 42 32 5
27 15 62 51
8 29 45 37
2seconds * 1 photon detected
6 11 63 25
17 46 36 9
31 19 2* 55
12 33 49 41
3seconds *1 photon detected
10 15 3* 29
21 50 40 13
35 23 6 59
12 33 49 41
4seconds no photon detected !!
14 19 7 33
25 54 44 17
39 27 10 63
16 37 53 45
4seconds * photon detected
18 23 11 37
29 58 48 21
43 31 14 3*
20 41 57 49
etc etc etc. Notice that at 3 seconds no photon is detected but if one
continues the experiment at 5 seconds also no photon is detected but
that at about 8-11 seconds one gets 2 photons detected per second two
seconds running so the average always ends up being 1 per second
detected even in classical.
This according to your argument is impossible , so please tell me how
it is able to match QT.
Also I have tried this with 24 32 & 64 atom detectors and the double
and no detection incidences happen less often the higher the atom
amount per detector . So I assume that this high double and nothing
rate is due to the unrealistically low number of atoms per detector in
my above test. Normally a PMT would have millions of atoms per
detector
And let me remind you that actually in Grangiers experiment there
*are* incidences of no or double detections observed
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
These if you were to study the literature are not predicted by QT but
*ARE* predicted by classical.
So how then does a theory that cannot work (according to you)give
better results than QT despite the fact that you say that atoms cannot
detect waves. You said it was impossible? Please explain how a theory
that is incorrect( your words ) and that uses a capacitor atom model
that supposedly( according to you) would never give correct
predictions, predict more accurately than QT the experimental results
observed in the lab?
You have offered proof that my theory shouldnt and cant work. Yet
contrary to your claim that it cant I have shown clearly above how it
does `work`. So why is your prediction that my theory cant work
incorrect . Why Does it work when you say it cant.?
regards Sean
Aleksandr Timofeev
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.BUTTERFLYnet> wrote:
> >Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
> >
> >"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:e16a4a22.03051...@posting.google.com...
> >> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:<cLCwa.20904$hd6.15022@fed1read05>...
> >....
> >> > Not only is the technology not available, but is not possible.
> >> > A photon is born and dies as a particle,
> >>
> >> "A photon is born and dies as a particle"
> >>
> >> 1. Please, make the proofs of the statement,
> >> that " the photon is born as a particle ".
> >
> >Compton scattering. Thermal emission. Radioactive decay.
The titles of phenomena are given here only. I do not see detail
physical interpretation even for one of phenomena, from which one
follows an indisputable deduction about existence of "photon".
> >> 2. Please, make the proofs of the statement,
> >> that " the photon is dies as a particle ".
> >
> >Photoelectric effect.
I do not see yours detail physical interpretation for
the "Photoelectric effect" phenomena, from which one
follows an indisputable deduction about existence of "photon".
> >> The quantum system has not necessity in
> >> " a quantum particle of radiation ".
> >> The quantum system radiates or absorbs
> >> " quantum quantity of a radiation energy ".
> >
> >Yes, your opinion about boundary conditions has been made clear.
> >
> >> The quantum mechanics bases on *energy exposition* of phenomena,
> >> since the actual detail processes in microsystems
> >> to a quantum mechanics are not known.
> >>
> >> The coffee cup has fixed volume, but from this fact does not
> >> follow, that the coffee represents a quantum particle. >;o|
> >
> >The coffee has particles in it. In know how to filter them out. If you
> >use tools that can only resolve coffee as a continuum, this is your choice.
Why do you consider "photon" as a fundamental particle
(" by atom of structure ")?
The coffee really has " molecular atoms of structure ",
but "photon" has not " atom of structure ".
All stable fundamental particles have particular hard fixed physical
properties. Only for different grades of photons the elimination is
made, there can be a uncountable and continuous set of different
grades of photons:
E = h*f
The Plank's curve is continuous. Other physical curves for phenomena
of a nature with participation of "particles - photons" are continuous
curves also.
Where are there quantum springs?
Where are there particular hard fixed physical properties?
> >> > but lives as a wave (if you will).
...
> >David A. Smith