The detection of "photons" in Bell tests
c.h.thompson
Bilge <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrna98dc...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Bilge said some stuff about how discriminators work.
I bow to his superior knowledge in some respects (the spelling of "dynode"
and some technical matters) but he evidently has not understood my point:
Aspect devotes several pages of his thesis to describing how his
photodetectors work -- see translation available from my web site
(unfortunately only in postscript, but I expect I could provide the raw
Latex if requested). It is clear from the information that he gives -- from
his admission that the graph of counts against discriminator threshold does
not have a perfectly horizontal plateau -- that the decision as to which
pulses to count as "photons" and which to dismiss as noise has a
considerable element of subjectivity.
> No kidding. And that's "dynode". I really don't know
> why you and everyone else that finds modern physics too hard,
I don't find it "hard", just "wrong"!
> ... What you are suggesting as having been
> "overlooked" is ridiculous. Did you also know that biasing
> the phototube with the the photocathode at ground and
> the dynodes at positive high voltage is different than biasing
> the photocathode at negative high voltage and running the
> voltage divider to ground? Do you know which is
> preferable here and why?
No, but I am talking about Aspect's experiments. I've read his thesis.
> In addition, if all you are doing is obtaining a yes/no, then
> the noise is irrelavent unless it produces a false trigger,
That't the whole problem: quantum mechanics assumes that what we are
measuring is a yes/no effect, but in order to explain the Bell test results
I (and others) have found it necessary to go into a little finer detail.
Although the values output by the discriminator and hence the statistics
analysed are integers, it is necessary to take account of the fact that the
actual input to the photomultiplier (and also, especially when using the
particular brands of detector that Aspect used, the raw output pulses) is
analogue.
Forgetting about the "photon" idea and treating the light as a classical
wave, the function of the polariser in Aspect-type Bell tests is to reduce
the intensity according to Malus' Law. The "detector" is required to
interpret this variable intensity as a yes/no signal, and in order to do so
with approximately the required probability (proportional to the input
intensity) it adds noise and applies a threshold (deduction by CHT and other
realists). There is no a priori reason why this process should actually be
perfect! The achieved relationship between output and input need not be the
linear one that QM assumes, and indeed it is known to differ from linearity
in practice. At low intensities there is "dark count", and at high ones
there is saturation.
It so happens that the above is critical. The standard classical model
agrees with QM in assuming that detectors respond linearly to input
intensity. Modify it, though, to allow for the likely behaviour of real
instruments and you will find that this same model now predicts violations
of certain Bell inequalities, thereby proving them to be useless for their
purpose. Violation means nothing.
This is at the heart of the known "detection loophole", but only a few
people seem to have actually studied the matter. A single statement made
by Aspect to the effect that his data showed this did not happen (his total
counts were almost constant) is taken as conclusive! What he actually said
was that the variations in total count showed small variations that were not
statistically significant. Considering the enormous implications, could he
not have increased replication? Could he not also have published
information as to where the max and min totals occurred?
> is of dubious concern, unless you believe that random noise
> knows how to conspire against you and favor some results
> over others
Please look at my papers, such as:
Thompson. C H: "Subtraction of ``accidentals'' and the validity of Bell
tests", http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903066
There is no question of conspiracy or anything like that. It's just that
when the functions concerned are not restricted to being exact sine curves
you have other options. Some options lead to increased "correlation" which,
when measured in the standard (rather absurd) way, can violate certain Bell
tests.
> >>
> >> The polarizations are not hidden variables. The
> > > polarizations are the observables.
> >
> >You will not be able to explain the experiments rationally
> > if this is what you believe. Your funeral, Bilge!
>
> Since I can measure a polarization, by definition, it's an
> observable.
If you say so. You can define quantum-mechanical terms as you wish -- they
are irrelevant. What I'm concerned with is explaining what happens within
the framework of "local realism", and in this context it is necessary to
treat polarisation as a "hidden variable". It is, after all, partly hidden,
in that you can only measure its projection in the two orthogonal
directions, and you can't, using photomultipliers set in "Geiger mode" (as
discussed above), get a true idea of its "magnitude".
> That's where the term originates. Hidden variables are things
> you can't measure or don't know exist (hence the term,
> hidden), that one postulates affects the things you do know
> exist and plan to measure (the observables).
OK, but the observables are detection rates and coincidence rates, but these
are not the values of the individual polarisations, the "hidden" variables.
> Your choice. Either polarizations are observables, or else
> you can explain what stokes parameters are doing in books
> about E&M. From what I can tell, polarizations were not
> hidden variables even in the 19th century.
It was the quantum theorists who invented the term, not me or any other
"realist". They seem to have persuaded themselves that the 19th century
successes were ALL due to statistical effects of whole ensembles of
"photons". They have banned themselve from considering that the intensity
of a "photon" (of fixed frequency) could ever vary, but in point of fact
there has never been any conclusive reason to treat light as anything other
than a classical wave. Stokes parameters etc can be assumed to exist for
any light pulse, however short and/or weak.
All the same, the polarisation of an individual pulse as small as those
Aspect was looking at is NOT quite "observable"! Classical physicists would
say that this is simply because of the way our instruments work, though, not
because it did not exist or, as QM claims, is in a superposition of states
until after the measurement.
Caroline
Bilge
The detection of "photons" in Bell tests to usenet:
--
franz heymann
c.h.thompson <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote in message
news:3c946...@news1.vip.uk.com...
>
[Snip]
> Please look at my papers, such as:
> Thompson. C H: "Subtraction of ``accidentals'' and the validity of
Bell
> tests", http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903066
I am not familiar with that journal. What is its refereeing policy?
[Snip]
Franz Heymann
David McAnally
On the assumption that this question is serious, the answer is that there
is none. No papers are refereed. A good indication of this is the fact
that all submitted papers are available by the night (US time) of the next
working day, at the latest. On the other hand, most of the papers on
arXiv.org are also submitted to refereed journals for official
publication. arXiv.org provides a simple and efficient means of making
the contents of a paper available as quickly as possible without the
necessity of publication (or even submission). This is not to say that
the quality of papers on arXiv.org is poor as a rule - many, possibly even
the majority, are good quality - but, OTOH, there is nothing to stop a
poor paper getting through. I have a few papers on arXiv.org, all of which
have been published, except for one, which I submitted to J. Phys. A, and
for which I am at present awaiting a response. I have no idea whether
Caroline has submitted her contribution to any journals, but I get the
feeling that she equates getting it onto arXiv.org with official
publication.
David McAnally
----------
George Jones
It is not a refereed journal, it is an eprint archive. There is some
type of filtering process, but it is not refereeing. Many of the papers
there have been published or will be published, but some will never
appear in any respectable journal. The papers that aren't published
fall into 2 (or more) categories:
1) papers that don't meet the standards of refereed journals;
2) papers by senior scientists who have nothing to gain by publishing
in refereed journals.
A paper could be in 1) because it's just not up to snuff, or because
a respected scientist has decided to write something that is a bit too
speculative, or because ...
Because some physicists (choose) to fall into 2), refereed journals are
now used for the purposes of tenure, promotion, etc.
Refereed journals have always played this role, but now their role in
diseminating new results in physics has been greatly diminished.
Many physicists check this eprint archive more religiously than they do
the refereed journals relevant to their field. The archive makes papers
*immediately* available worldwide for *free*, which is a far cry from
what is done by refereed journals.
Finally, the archive has a number of different classifications. Examples
include Quantum Physics, High Energy Physics - Theory, High Energy
Physics - Experiment, Condensed Matter, ...
Regards,
George
franz heymann
David McAnally <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
news:a77anr$dbs$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
Thanks, David. Actually I was aware of that. My purpose in asking
the question was to get the poster to admit that what she
euphemistically referred to as a paper was in fact what I call a
preprint. The salient fact is, of course, that that preprint dates
from March 1999 and it has not yet appeared in a learned journal.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
George Jones <george_l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3C9732D8...@yahoo.com...
[Snip
> Many physicists check this eprint archive more religiously than they
do
> the refereed journals relevant to their field. The archive makes
papers
> *immediately* available worldwide for *free*, which is a far cry
from
> what is done by refereed journals.
In the days before I achieved my senility, eprints were not yet an
important method of disseminating new ideas. The ordinary snail mail
preprints served that purpose. I, too, read the incoming preprints
(selectively) in order to be reasonably up-to-date. But the
expectation was nevertheless that the preprint would at some stage be
subjected to peer review and be published in a learned journal.
Franz Heymann
George Jones
You seem to have a very non-standard definition of senility.
I had the suspicion that you knew about the eprint archive, and that you
were trying make a certain point, but I decided to play it straight. ;-)
Regards,
George
franz heymann
> franz heymann wrote:
>
> > George Jones <george_l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C9732D8...@yahoo.com...
> > [Snip
> >
> > > Many physicists check this eprint archive more religiously than
they
> > do
> > > the refereed journals relevant to their field. The archive makes
> > papers
> > > *immediately* available worldwide for *free*, which is a far cry
> > from
> > > what is done by refereed journals.
> >
> > In the days before I achieved my senility, eprints were not yet an
> > important method of disseminating new ideas. The ordinary snail
> > preprints served that purpose. I, too, read the incoming
preprints
> > (selectively) in order to be reasonably up-to-date. But the
> > expectation was nevertheless that the preprint would at some stage
be
> > subjected to peer review and be published in a learned journal.
>
> You seem to have a very non-standard definition of senility.
I know the state of my mind better than you do. :-)
Five minutes after I have taken my bloody pills I cannot remember
whether I have taken them or not.
> I had the suspicion that you knew about the eprint archive, and that
you
> were trying make a certain point, but I decided to play it straight.
;-)
Yes :-)
Franz Heymann
c.h.thompson
Dennis McCarthy <djm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020319093138...@mb-mq.aol.com...
> Or do you use the question above in order to determine the validity or
> strength of arguments in a paper?
Thanks, Dennis! Some recent responses to my postings have been verging on
"ad hominem attacks", irrelevant to the argument.
Bilge
The detection of "photons" in Bell tests to usenet:
>
>news:slrna98dc...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>Bilge said some stuff about how discriminators work.
>
>I bow to his superior knowledge in some respects (the spelling of "dynode"
>and some technical matters) but he evidently has not understood my point:
>
>Aspect devotes several pages of his thesis to describing how his
>photodetectors work -- see translation available from my web site
>(unfortunately only in postscript, but I expect I could provide the raw
>Latex if requested). It is clear from the information that he gives -- from
>his admission that the graph of counts against discriminator threshold does
>not have a perfectly horizontal plateau -- that the decision as to which
>pulses to count as "photons" and which to dismiss as noise has a
>considerable element of subjectivity.
did you listen to what I said about the statistics. Describe exactly
why you would expect the statistics to favor only the result you believe
the "establishment" wanted? Noise is random.
>> No kidding. And that's "dynode". I really don't know
>> why you and everyone else that finds modern physics too hard,
>
> I don't find it "hard", just "wrong"!
what the difference is and why.
[...]
>
>No, but I am talking about Aspect's experiments. I've read his thesis.
I was trying to assess your ability to judge the experiment. You seem to
have missed the part where they do mention comparing constant fraction
discriminators to the ones they used and that they elected not to use
them. Also, had you read his thesis carefully you would have noted that
the polarity was noted. Not that it's discussed, but it was noted and it
does affect the data and I caught it only just now having read it. If
you are going to criticize the performance of the system, it would seem
that you would know how all of these details affect the system.
>> In addition, if all you are doing is obtaining a yes/no, then
>> the noise is irrelavent unless it produces a false trigger,
>
>That't the whole problem: quantum mechanics assumes that what we are
>measuring is a yes/no effect, but in order to explain the Bell test
>results I (and others) have found it necessary to go into a little
>finer detail.
I don't think you understand the experiment. Or quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics can "assume" anything. The detectors will see what they
see and the experiment didn't rule out anything that could bias a
correlation, except perhaps in a way that would favor your argument.
Setting a threshhold affects the overall results in a way that depends
on each detector individually, not in a correlated way. Show me that
the thresholds cause more false correlated events rather than fewer.
>Although the values output by the discriminator and hence the statistics
>analysed are integers, it is necessary to take account of the fact that the
>actual input to the photomultiplier (and also, especially when using the
>particular brands of detector that Aspect used, the raw output pulses) is
>analogue.
So what? In case you didn't read too carefully, the entire system
was checked with an LED and the time spectrum behaved as one would
have expected. Why should the LED not suffer the same problem?
>Forgetting about the "photon" idea and treating the light as a classical
>wave, the function of the polariser in Aspect-type Bell tests is to
>reduce the intensity according to Malus' Law.
So, in other words, the combinations of polarisation states which
adversely affect the outcome you'd prefer are preferentially enhanced
in someway while the polarizations you'd prefer are diminished by the
polariser?
>The "detector" is required to interpret this variable intensity as
>a yes/no signal, and in order to do so with approximately the required
>probability (proportional to the input intensity) it adds noise and
The detector is not "required" to do any such thing. It's required
to act like a bialkalai (or MgF or whatever) photocathode acts when
light is incident on it. It happens that if you look at the output
of a phototube on an oscilloscope, it looks like a very large spike
when struck by a photon and if there are a lot of photons, the trace
reflects the photon statistics associated with whatever is producing
them. You've obviously never actually used a phototube or seen what
the output looks like.
> applies a threshold (deduction by CHT and other realists).
Then you can explain just why the decay energy in the transitions
used to produce the correlated pair shouldn't appear in the phototubes.
There is no a priori reason why this process should actually be perfect!
It isn't. If you had read the paper more carefully, you would have
noticed all of the details. Do you know what the dead time correction
is for? It's to compare the total decays to the ones actually measured
_and_ correct for the time the system can't count due to being busy.
Your non-sense about efficiencies not being considered in detail and
an expectation you think they had of perfection is totally invalid.
>The achieved relationship between output and input need not be the
>linear one that QM assumes, and indeed it is known to differ from
>linearity in practice.
In that case, the experiment should have only helped your argument,
since what it did show was that whatever quantum mechanics assumed and
whatever various aspects of quantum mechanics had to do with the
detection process, quantum mechanics predicted the outcome. Unless you
want to provide a (mathematical) argument of how an experiment that
is so "flawed" because of it's dependence on quantum mechanics, just
happens to have all of the flaws conspire to hide the flaws.
>At low intensities there is "dark count", and at high ones
>there is saturation.
So? That's life in the real world of physics. That's why aspect
went to a lot of trouble to quantify those effects, explain how
they relate to the experimental data and quote uncertainties (using
mathematical arguments).
>It so happens that the above is critical. The standard classical model
>agrees with QM in assuming that detectors respond linearly to input
>intensity. Modify it, though, to allow for the likely behaviour of real
>instruments and you will find that this same model now predicts violations
>of certain Bell inequalities, thereby proving them to be useless for their
>purpose. Violation means nothing.
You've apparently never seen what the (raw, analog) output of a
phototube or any other detector looks like. Furthermore, if that is
a big deal, just ask, and I'll diagram the NIM electronics to not only
fix that, but to let you use any detector you want, take linear data
to obtain energy spectra (for whatever it's worth), and set criteria
for gating events later in software.
>This is at the heart of the known "detection loophole", but only a few
>people seem to have actually studied the matter. A single statement made
From reading the details, I can see why it hasn't been considered a
a very likely "loophole".
>by Aspect to the effect that his data showed this did not happen (his
>total counts were almost constant) is taken as conclusive! What he
>actually said was that the variations in total count showed small
>variations that were not statistically significant. Considering the
That's what the result of any conclusive experiment will be. An
outcome with errors that are statistically significant, will be
inconclusive.
>enormous implications, could he not have increased replication?
You can. If the experiment is so important, and so many people are
chomping at the bit, so-to-speak, to perform a more conclusive one,
then I don't see why you and the rest of these people haven't performed
a better one. The cost is not all that great, considering the number
of people you imply find problems with the original. Of course, if
it's only you, then the cost will be prohibitive unless you have a
spare US $30k or so handy and a lot of electronics and machine shop
skills. (which is the way most experimental groups defray costs).
You can look in NIM for electronics to build. You can buy multichannel
analyzers on boards that plug into a slot in your pc that are much
better than you need. Linux is available with a real-time kernel for
just such applications.
You seem to think that physicists spend their time pontificating
theories and speculating about how to perform experiments. Not quite.
Any moron can speculate about the big-picture and tell other people
to go do some calculations based upon the big-picture narrative and
perform an impossible-to-perform experiment to go with it. Sorry
to shatter the illusion, but nobody has a bunch of slaves to do
their thinking for them. Perhaps your "theories" would get more
attention if they actually contained something but idle speculation
in the form of novel. With real mathematics that pins down specific
quantities along with suggestions as to how to measure them using
equipment found on this planet at the present time.
The policy of the "natural philosophy alliance" of hoping to tear
down modern physics without having anything to offer as a replacement
by trying to convince academics that there's still time to salvage their
professional reputations, is optimistic if not grandiose. (As I posted
with the url, in another thread where the url to the site was given).
>Could he not also have published information as to where the max and
>min totals occurred?
You should probably concentrate on what you have, first. I
really don't think you know what the data were.
>> is of dubious concern, unless you believe that random noise
>> knows how to conspire against you and favor some results
>> over others
>
>Please look at my papers, such as:
I've done so on other occasions, but found that (1) there was never
anything that gave any quantitative arguments, (2) you've never been
able to support anything in any of them when I've asked about dubious
assertions, (3) you've never once read a single reference I've provided
and attempted to explain what you thought were errors, (4) I've never
seen any indication that you have anything but canned replies to
anything. I don't find it very productive to be doing all of the reading
simply to find errors that will result in being told to read more
nonsense without ever being given a reason that I'm wrong in the first
place.
Assuming that I have never read any references based upon the fact that
the "alternative physics contingent" never does, isn't sound logic.
However, it is safe to assume that, here since I don't need to pretend
that I have when I have no intention of doing so. If the issue is
important to you and the rest of the "dissident" faction, then you should
take the time to read the references you've been given before asking
someone to keep wasting their time with an endless list of yours. I
have nothing to lose or gain either way, other than the ease of faulting
your arguments.
>There is no question of conspiracy or anything like that. It's just that
>when the functions concerned are not restricted to being exact sine curves
>you have other options.
Nothing is "restricted to exact sine functions". In the first place,
there are no pure sine waves. That's why one writes things in a
series expansion. If you object to using sine functions in a series,
use something else - like bessel functions, or legendre polynomials,
or just a power series. It's all the same.
>Some options lead to increased "correlation" which, when measured in
>the standard (rather absurd) way, can violate certain Bell tests.
Only if you do the math poorly in the first place or have no idea
what physics you are trying to represent. The math can't affect the
physics. Only applying the math poorly or having no idea what the
underlying physics is can make a difference. A pulse shape can be
expanded in any set of orthogonal functions one wishes and you had
better get the same physics regardless.
It's funny how the biggest complaints that modern physics is all
math comes from people that really treat physics as if it were math
and first try to find the math they think applies and then shoe-horn
the physics in to make it fit.
[...]
>If you say so. You can define quantum-mechanical terms as you wish -- they
>are irrelevant.
Not if you plan to converse with someone that uses the standard
terminology that goes with the subject. If you plan to debunk quantum
mechanics, you should first at least understand what you are debunking,
or else you aren't likely to even know if you succeeded.
> What I'm concerned with is explaining what happens within the
>framework of "local realism",
No, you're concerned with explaining things in terms of what
"realism" is when biased by the limited perspective of something
15 orders of magnitude larger than what you are trying to explain,
rather than nature's idea of realism. The latter requires being
able to conceive of what nature did, not what what you wish nature
did.
> and in this context it is necessary to treat polarisation as a "hidden
>variable". It is, after all, partly hidden, in that you can only measure
>its projection in the two orthogonal directions, and you can't, using
>photomultipliers set in "Geiger mode" (as discussed above), get a true
>idea of its "magnitude".
You need to spend some time with the instruments you think you are
explaining. Build a phototube base, a high-voltage supply, light-tight
box, buy a cheap hamamatsu phototube and borrow an oscilloscope. After
you get some idea of just how sensitive they are and know what the
pulses look like, get back to me. Or else, find a suitable detector
and do the same.
[...]
>
>OK, but the observables are detection rates and coincidence rates,
>but these are not the values of the individual polarisations, the
>"hidden" variables.
Call them whatever. You're still stuck measuring things you can
observe. You don't get to guess the values of things you would like
to have measured if you had instruments that did so.
>
>> Your choice. Either polarizations are observables, or else
>> you can explain what stokes parameters are doing in books
>> about E&M. From what I can tell, polarizations were not
>> hidden variables even in the 19th century.
>
>It was the quantum theorists who invented the term, not me or any other
>"realist".
(1) you are discussing quantum mechanics (loosely speaking). The
terminology should at least not cause you difficulty, (2) It's hard
to get more realistic than referring to observables as the observable
quantities that appear in real detectors.
> They seem to have persuaded themselves that the 19th century successes
>were ALL due to statistical effects of whole ensembles of "photons".
>They have banned themselve from considering that the intensity of a
>"photon" (of fixed frequency) could ever vary, but in point of fact
>there has never been any conclusive reason to treat light as anything
>other than a classical wave.
Only because you've never looked at much physics. It's extremely easy to
see the energy of a gamma ray _and_ differentiate it from any energy
deposited in multiple scatters. The compton edge and compton drool
associated with a gamma peak is unmistakable.
>Stokes parameters etc can be assumed to exist for any light pulse,
>however short and/or weak.
And in a beam, one does so with a density matrix. However, aspect's
experiment counted them individually.
>All the same, the polarisation of an individual pulse as small as
>those Aspect was looking at is NOT quite "observable"! Classical
What aspect determined was a joint probability by measuring polarizations.
>physicists would say that this is simply because of the way our instruments
>work, though, not because it did not exist
No, classical physicists wouldn't. History say that the didn't. In fact,
the single reason that quantum mechanics went from zilch to a working,
mostly complete theory in only 10 years, was because the physicists of
that time were very good at classical mechanics. I'd suggest looking up
poisson brackets and other classical concepts, but you wouldn't find that
very "physical" either. Your problem is not quantum mechanics; it's the
math associated with all physics. You just haven't seen enough old physics
to realize that classical mechanics is often less intuitive than quantum
mechanics. Try classical perturbation theory/ celestial mechanics
(newtonian style). I seriously doubt you have ever looked at a classical
mechanics text like goldstein or fetter&walecka.
> or, as QM claims, is in a superposition of states until after the
> measurement.
Or perhaps it's just your classical bias about the way the universe has
to do things. From reading the material at the "natural philosophy
alliance", I think it takes a lot of gall and is extremely hypocritical to
refer to anyone as "closed minded". The difference between your
objectives and the objectives of a physicist in an experiment are easy to
summarize. Physicists perform experiments, take data and perform a
statistical analysis and see what results (I know, I've done it and could
not possibly have known ahead of time how to "fix" the experiment, since I
had to have the statistics to go with the numbers which would have been
more effort to fake than not. On the other hand, what you want to do is to
obtain a _specific_ result, which you don't care how you obtain, so long
as it satisfies your objective to use to convince someone to believe
modern physics is wrong, in spite of having no alternative that can
explain the myriad of it's successes. (Or else, the "natual philosophy
alliance" just said all of that stuff in jest and the author isn't as
bitter as his list of suggestions makes him appear).
James Hunter
Bilge wrote:
> c.h.thompson said some stuff about
> The detection of "photons" in Bell tests to usenet:
> >
>
>
> Only if you do the math poorly in the first place or have no idea
> what physics you are trying to represent. The math can't affect the
> physics. Only applying the math poorly or having no idea what the
> underlying physics is can make a difference. A pulse shape can be
> expanded in any set of orthogonal functions one wishes and you had
> better get the same physics regardless.
>
> It's funny how the biggest complaints that modern physics is all
> math comes from people that really treat physics as if it were math
> and first try to find the math they think applies and then shoe-horn
> the physics in to make it fit.
Well that's not really funny since it's not true.
The biggest complaint that modern physics is all math
comes from the same people who complained about
classical physics being all math, who never really complained that
physics is all math, but rather that physics is all mathemamorons.
Bilge
Re: The detection of "photons" in Bell tests to usenet:
when trying to force the physics to fit. In most cases it isn't.
> physics is all math, but rather that physics is all mathemamorons.
It's a tough job, but if left up to you, the world would still
be struggling with how to keep the fire lit between lightning
strikes.
Charles Francis
<c.h.th...@pgen.net> writes
>
>It was the quantum theorists who invented the term, not me or any other
>"realist". They seem to have persuaded themselves that the 19th century
>successes were ALL due to statistical effects of whole ensembles of
>"photons". They have banned themselve from considering that the intensity
>of a "photon" (of fixed frequency) could ever vary, but in point of fact
>there has never been any conclusive reason to treat light as anything other
>than a classical wave.
You really should go back and study the photoelectric effect and black
body radiation before you make such claims. These predate qm, and are
usually studied at high school level, so it shouldn't tax you as much as
qm.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
c.h.thompson
Bilge <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> said some stuff in message
news:slrnaa302...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> c.h.thompson wrote
> >> > The outcome if ALL loopholes were closed simultaneously
> >> >would be, I confidently predict, that no Bell test would be violated.
> >>
> >> That means, as long as only all but one loopholes are closed we see
> >> exactly what QM predicts, but if all loopholes are closed we see
> >> something completely different?
> >>
> >> Logically possible, but sounds like a strange conspiracy.
> >
> >You seem to be forgetting that the local realist situation in which
> >no Belltest is violated is the natural one that we ought to be expecting
> I don't suppose that it has ever occured to you that your approach and
> that of your comrades (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Deneb/mem_pgs.htm)
> at the npa has a real negative impact on your own agenda?
I work on my own, not with anyone else at all. I do not think anyone else
in the NPA shares my views on light, the aether, or the Bell tests.
> >what Bell and, as far as I can tell, just about all the people involved
in
> >the modification of his tests and in the early experiments were both
> >hoping for and expecting to observe.
>
> Then you should be clued in that quantum mechanics faced considerable
> opposition, but survived because it makes the correct predictions.
But they ignored the anomalies! Aspect found a few, and they could be
critical. I do not know why he did not increase his replication so as to
check them out. The most important one is probably the observation that the
total number of coincidences in his second "4-channel" experiment (Physical
Review Letters 49, 91-94, 1982) was not quite constant.
> >doing an experiment designed to produce a curve that you think is an
> >interference pattern, is it not natural to try and organise things so as
to
>
> That kind of thinking is why you are not a physicist. How much exper-
> ience do you have in a laboratory? Working with people that behave as you
> suggest? The majority of time spent on any experiment is tracking down and
> quantifying possible sources of systematic error (ground loops, for
> example).
Yes indeed, but human nature is devious. Try reading BryanWallace's "The
Farce of Physics". I hope it is still available at:
http://www.europa.com/~rsc/physics/wallace/farce.txt
> >in favour of the one that produces the most "interesting" (and
publishable)
> >result.
>
> That's called sour grapes. Just because phys rev rejects your papers,
> correspondence and commentary doesn't mean that phys rev and the authors
> that contribute are at fault.
That's your opinion. Mine is that the referees have been trained in quantum
theory. They are preconditioned against local realism. Also as far as I
can tell they are mainly theorists. Despite my lack of actual laboratory
experience, my training as a statistician puts me in a better position than
them, perhaps, to judge the merits of the experiments.
> Well, it would be extremely difficult to live up to your standards of
> "objectivity", since that requires obtaining the data you expect.
Not at all, if it's merely data that do not violate a Bell test! It is the
quantum-mechanical result that is hard to achieve.
> Since I explained to you exactly what parametric down
> conversion is (a purely quantum mechanical effect), don't
> you think that using it to argue against quantum mechanics
> suggests you have some sort of a logical flaw in
> your argument?
No, you have totally misunderstood my point. Recent Bell test experiments
virtually all use PDC sources. A pump laser induces the production of the
pairs of signals that are used as the A and B "particles". This system can
be, if carefully controlled, almost deterministic, which makes it easier to
obtain high visibility curves. See quant-ph/9912082.
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Aleksandr Timofeev said some stuff about
>
> >
> >Eric's analysis C H Thompson papers is logically error, since Eric's
> >analysis leans on existence of a particle "photon", which does not
> >exist in a nature. I proved to you an inaccuracy of the concept
> >of a "photon" many times, but you constantly ignore discuss of this
> >problem.
>
> The bell test involves the concept of a photon. Technically, it's
> c h thompson's (or your) responsibility to provide any description of
> the bell test in terms which quantify it in any other way if you
> plan to discuss how applies to some other concept in order to discuss
> a violation.
Well, I agree with you. Below I do the first step in this direction,
I prove an inaccuracy of classical interpretation of an interference
of light on two slots on the basis of a hypothetical chimera of a
particle of light - photon.
I need in your active participation in this process, which one
can have the form ruthless critics in any shape. A critic of the
physical concepts is one of most valuable tools of process of
knowledge for development of physical science.
Please, specify physical errors in my analysis of a considered
phenomenon.
I convincingly ask to join a controversy Eric Prebys. I hope
this message demonstrates my sincere feelings to Eric Prebys.
How can I demonstrate to Eric Prebys that my story is true?
THE FIST STEP
THE FIST STEP
===========================================================
The classical physical interpretation interference of light
on two slots is "science fiction".
===========================================================
INTRODUCTION
Falsity of classical physical interpretation of an interference of
light on two slots is easily refuted by experimental existence
of a virtual interference in VLBI (Very Long Base Interferometry)
interferometer.
(For details see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=VLBI+group:sci.*&hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=13JAN200023270117%40kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov&rnum=2
)
The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
VLBI interferometer is possible only from the wave point of view.
The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
VLBI interferometer is _impossible in a support on a hypothetical
particle - "photon".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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 systems only by discrete portions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
We do not understand the _gear of conversion of energy of
an electromagnetic wave during an absorption of this energy by
quantum microsystems.
Just in this place are generated and there are all troubles of
modern orthodox theoretical interpretations of physical phenomena.
Here we have only science fictions.
You never can prove, that the microsystem absorbs or radiates
electromagnetic energy as particles of photons. This problem is
similar to a problem of a proof of existence of a God.
For this reason it is a problem of a Religious physical faith.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0105300456.3f908a72%40posting.google.com&oe=ISO-8859-1&output=gplain
======= start of mesage ==========================================
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (a_n_ti...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: Photon Wave-Particle Duality
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 physics text-books the photon passing
through both slot simultaneously is circumscribed.
Similar scientifically fancy fairy tale about an interference
of photons on two slots is adduced in the book:
Richard Feynman "THE CHARACTER OF PHISICAL LAW";
A series of lectures recorded by the BBC at Cornell University USA;
Cox and Wynman LTD, London, 1965
this fairy tale is refuted by experimental existence of a virtual
interference. ;o)
The purpose of the given article is the proof of an
inaccuracy of representation about the classical
interpretation of a phenomenon of an interference
and explanation principles of virtual interference.
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Duality Light (X...@MailAndNews.com)
Subject: Debunking Duality Of Light
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 2001-05-07 07:39:52 PST
Foton or Logic error
in the classical interpretation of a phenomenon
of an interference of electromagnetic waves in an interferometer
The gnoseological scheme: the person - natural phenomenon
A. Person. The person and human brain are macroscopic systems.
With the help of of sense organs the brain can analyze the
information recorded on macroscopic structures. The limitations
of sense organs are overcome with the help of of macroscopic
devices.
B. The remote source emits electromagnetic radiation - natural
phenomenon.
C. The interferometer is the device transforming energy of
electromagnetic radiation in a macroscopic image of an
interference picture.
-------------------------------
Let's analyze principles of operation of an interferometer with
the help of of maximum simplified basic gnoseological scheme.
I select the constituents of an interferometer:
1. Screen with two slots (antenna of receivers);
2. Device transforming two flows of electromagnetic radiation from
two slots (antennas of receivers) in a macroscopic image of an
interference picture;
3. Macroscopic image of an interference picture.
Here I shall specify a source (radical) of a logic error of the
interpretation of a phenomenon of an interference on the basis of an
error hypothesis (chimera) of a light photon.
-------------------------------
We shall begin from 3 item:
The macroscopic image of an interference picture can be created
only by
quantum processes of transformations
_ inside _ of quantum microsystems making a mosaic record of a
macroscopic image. The quantum microsystems can exchange (absorb
and emit) energy only by quantum portions. This energy is absorbed and
is emited as electromagnetic waves. Creations of a macroscopic image
do
not need a hypothesis of a light photon, but just in this place this
hypothesis occurs ostensibly for explanation of a phenomenon of an
interference, though in her there is no necessity absolutely.
The logic error is done just in this place, the further discuss of
a problem will remove all doupts in that one.
-------------------------------
Let's consider item 1.
Screen with two slots or two antennas of receivers.
Now there are two kinds of interferometers. For understanding
distinctions (differences) between them let's play by terms -
an interference in real time and virtual interference:
a) Everyone know about existence of a phenomenon of an
interference in real time is there is a classical phenomenon
of an interference.
b) Presently there is a new kind of an interference - so-called
postponed in time or virtual interference, i.e. abstractly or
mathematically realizabled interference in the computer.
---------------------
In this place we can and should clearly understand main idea, that
for a phenomenon of an interference the state information of an
electromagnetic field in space of slots of a screen (or on antennas
of receivers) interferometer is important only, all further
processes are causal corollaries of this information.
It is the experimental fact confirmed by existence of a virtual
interference.
---------------------
Here for the first time clearly emerges, that for a hypothetical
particle of a photon there is no necessity to pass simultaneously
through both slots (antennas), since the virtual interference
abstractly or mathematically will be realized in the computer at
any convenient time hereafter. !!! It is the experimental fact!!!
How the admirers of a hypothesis of photons now will explain
an interference?
---------------------
We can simultaneously record the information reflecting a state
of an electromagnetic field in space of each slot (from the
antenna) on a magnetic tape, it is natural that for each slot
(antenna) we use a separate magnetic tape. Then in any time,
convenient for us, we input the information from these macroscopic
magnetic tapes in the computer and mathematically on any required
(demanded) algorithm (which can be changed at any time) we obtain
an interference in representation, necessary for us.
At use of the given method the interference picture represents the
pure abstract information, then this information the macroscopic
computer can transform to the form accessible for the analysis by
a macroscopic system - by the person.
The absence of influence of a state of an electromagnetic field
in space of one slot (antenna) on a state in other one becomes
perfect obvious, since a limit of a distance between slots
(antennas) experimentally is not reached, and this distance can be
made _physically vast_ on a comparison with a wavelength.
This circumstance makes completely inconsistent a hypothesis of
a photon, since the photon should have physically absurd vast sizes
for a simultaneous contact to both slots.
Further, the experimental fact of existence of a virtual
interference basically excludes necessity of simultaneous passing
of a photon through both slots. There is no necessity to pass
through both slots/antennas or one slot/antenna at all!!!
-------------------------------
Now we shall consider item 2.
The device transforming in real time a part of energy of flows
of electromagnetic radiation from two slots (antennas of receivers)
into a macroscopic image of an interference picture - this is a
classical phenomenon of an interference. In a classical optical
interferometer the image of an interference picture can be either
on a photo or on diffusely dispersing a screen or can be project
immediately on a retina of an eye.
The macroscopic image of an interference picture can be created
only by quantum processes of transformation(conversion) _ inside _
of quantum microsystems making a mosaic record of a macroscopic image
at the expense of energy of flows of electromagnetic radiation from
two slots.
The quantum microsystems can absorb energy only by quantum
portions. This energy is absorbed as electromagnetic waves by
quantum microsystems at random coincidence of orientation of a
spatial dynamic configuration of a quantum microsystem with
orientation of an electromagnetic wave. Analogy between a quantum
microsystem and directional antenna here is conducted in an
obvious kind. These random coincidences are improbable, therefore
for obtaining an image are required or enough strong flows of
energy of electromagnetic radiation or large periods for
accumulation of an image.
Briefly, constructions of a macroscopic image need certain
quantity of energy, also it is necessary to take into account and
efficiency of transformation. Creations of a macroscopic image do
not need a hypothesis of a light photon, but just in this place of
explanation of a phenomenon of an interference this hypothesis is
introduced, though in this hypothesis absolutely there is no
necessity. The hypothesis of a light photon theoretically is
excessive, since the virtual interference abstractly or
mathematically is realized in the computer.
The logic error of introduction of a hypothesis of a light
photon in _ classical _ explanation of creation of a macroscopic
image of an interference picture is hidden in error understanding
of the gear of conversion of energy of an electromagnetic wave
during an absorption of this energy by quantum microsystems.
Once again, the quantum microsystems absorb energy of
electromagnetic waves at random coincidence of orientation of a
spatial dynamic configuration of a quantum microsystem with
orientation of an electromagnetic wave.
-------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
The purpose of the given article was the proof of an
inaccuracy of representation about a duality of physical
properties of light.
Light is wave process always and in all cases.
The nature, ambient us, consists of quantum microsystems,
therefore any phenomenon can be explain from a point of Plank's
view - quantum microsystems can exchange energy only by quantum
portions. This energy is absorbed and is emited only as
electromagnetic waves.
Photoeffect, Raman and Compton effects and all other phenomena
have physically correct explanation only from the point of Plank's
view.
The classical interpretations of a photoeffect and Compton
effect are error.
These interpretations were offered when there was no quantum
mechanics and radio physics. In that time the principles of operation
of transmitting and receiving devices were poorly clear and known
in detailses. The processes in solid bodies and structure of solid
bodies in that time were unintelligible. The quantum theory of a
structure of substance (physical chemistry) was not in that time.
But the pceudo-scientific imaginations as the classical
interpretations of a photoeffect and Compton effect on the
basis of a hypothesis of a photon are alive until now. Why?
======= end of mesage ==========================================
I can to explain satisfactorily. ;o)
Martin Gradwell
..
> human nature is devious. Try reading BryanWallace's "The
> Farce of Physics". I hope it is still available at:
> http://www.europa.com/~rsc/physics/wallace/farce.txt
I couldn't find it there, but a google search located a copy at
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_toc.html
Martin Gradwell, mtgra...@btinternet.com
http://www.btinternet.com/~mtgradwell/
Bilge
>No, you have totally misunderstood my point. Recent Bell test experiments
No, I haven't. The mere existence of the phenomena is quantum
mechanics at work. You are simply fixated on 1 single experiment
since you can't find another one that leaves you a shot, even
if the chances of this one going your way are slim to non-existent.
>virtually all use PDC sources. A pump laser induces the production of the
>pairs of signals that are used as the A and B "particles". This system can
In this one paragraph of _yours_ alone, I see you mention "laser"
and "parametric down conversion", both quantum mechanical phenomena,
as real functional pieces of an experiment you hope will prove these
devices have no explanation known to science. What's wrong with this
picture?
Just to reinforce the notion of hopelessness in your endeavor, if 1
experiment disagrees with 1 zillion others, the first thing that will
happen is _not_ an immediate declaration that quantum mechanics is a
fraud. In view of the fact that neither you nor anyone else has a solution
that wouldn't reverse that ratio, it's more likely a long time will be
spent trying to understand what it means. So, your only chance is to have
a complete solution ready and waiting on the infinitessimal chance some
experiment convices someone that bell's inequatily isn't violated and
others go along with it.
c.h.thompson
Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:r8QjeTMj...@clef.demon.co.uk...
> You really should go back and study the photoelectric effect and black
> body radiation before you make such claims. These predate qm, and are
> usually studied at high school level, so it shouldn't tax you as much as
> qm.
You really ought to go back and study some of the references from my
Forgotten History section! Combine these with a look at, for instance,
Grangier, P, G Roger and A Aspect, "Experimental Evidence for a photon
anticorrelation effect on a beam splitter: a new light on single-photon
interferences", Europhysics Letters 1, 173-179(1986),
and
Marshall and Santos' comments on the paper in Europhysics Letters, 3, 293-6
(1987)
and there is a chance that you might understand my position. It is not
(only!) a matter of finding the orthodox theory too difficult, but of
knowing that it is wrong!
A study of Hendry, John, "The Creation of Quantum Mechanics and the
Bohr-Pauli Dialogue", D Reidel Publishing Company 1984 would not go amiss
either! The theory was intended as a realistic one, with a physical basis.
They were unable to find a satisfactory one, and the debate has continued
ever since.
Meantime, the real world has continued its own sweet way, logical, real,
devoid of conceptual problems. The problems all came from trying to make
the world fit some maths that they had stumbled upon almost by chance and
which happened (though of course with just a little input of logic and
physical insight) to give good predictions of selected atomic spectra.
c.h.thompson
Martin Gradwell <mtgra...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a7usql$icj$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
> c.h.thompson <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote
> > human nature is devious. Try reading BryanWallace's "The
> > Farce of Physics". I hope it is still available at:
> > http://www.europa.com/~rsc/physics/wallace/farce.txt
>
> I couldn't find it there, but a google search located a copy at
> http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_toc.html
Thanks! I must update my web site (if I can find where I reference it!) and
while I'm about it add it to my list of recommended books. It's a bit heavy
going in places but is based on first-hand experience. Experimenters do not
always play fair, and are as adept as the rest of us at justifying our
actions.
Cheers
c.h.thompson
> c.h.thompson said some stuff about
>
> >No, you have totally misunderstood my point.
> Recent Bell test experiments
> spent trying to understand what it means. So, your only chance
> is to have a complete solution ready and waiting on the infinitessimal
> chance some experiment convices someone that bell's inequatily
> isn't violated and others go along with it.
Fortunately for the future of science, your opinion counts for nothing.
Some day physics will return to trying to model the world, instead of trying
to make the world fit some models that a few academic eccentrics devised in
the early part of the twentieth century.
How many times do I have to tell you the historical facts? Lasers, for
instance, in no way depend on quantum theory! Allow me to quote a paragraph
from Carver Mead's interview for the Spectator, September / October 2001
(See http://www.gilder.com/americanspectatorarticles/carver.htm ):
------
Central to Mead's rescue project are a series of discoveries inconsistent
with the prevailing conceptions of quantum mechanics. One was the laser.
As late as 1956, Bohr and Von Neumann, the paragons of quantum theory,
arrived at the Columbia laboratories of Charles Townes, who was in the
process of describing his invention. With the transistor, the laser is
one of the most important inventions of the twentieth century. Designed
into every CD player and long distance telephone connection, lasers today
are manufactured by the billions. At the heart of laser action is perfect
alignment of the crests and troughs of myriad waves of light. Their
location and momentum must be theoretically knowable. But this violates
the holiest canon of Copenhagen theory: Heisenberg Uncertainty. Bohr and
Von Neumann proved to be true believers in Heisenberg's rule. Both denied
that the laser was possible. When Townes showed them one in operation,
they retreated artfully.
-------
Dirk Van de moortel
"c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote in message news:3ca37f90$1...@news2.vip.uk.com...
Obviously Zappa was right:
http://www.science.uva.nl/~robbert/zappa/albums/Sheik_Yerbouti/03.html
Extract:
"...
You say you can't live with what you been through
Well, ladies you can be an asshole too
You might pretend you ain't got one on the bottom of you,
But don't fool yerself girl
It's lookin' at you
Don't fool yerself girl
It's winkin' at you
Don't fool yerself girl
It's blinkin' at you
That's why I say
I'm gonna ram it, ram it, ram it
Ram it up yer poop chute
..."
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Bruere
>
> > > human nature is devious. Try reading BryanWallace's "The
> > > Farce of Physics". I hope it is still available at:
> > > http://www.europa.com/~rsc/physics/wallace/farce.txt
> >
> > I couldn't find it there, but a google search located a copy at
> > http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_toc.html
>
> Thanks! I must update my web site (if I can find where I reference it!)
and
> while I'm about it add it to my list of recommended books. It's a bit
heavy
> going in places but is based on first-hand experience. Experimenters do
not
> always play fair, and are as adept as the rest of us at justifying our
> actions.
Something I've mentioned before, but got no answer.
How do you account for non demolition measurement and imaging without QM?
Dirk
Stephen Speicher
>
> "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote in message
> news:3ca37...@news2.vip.uk.com...
> > Experimenters do
> > not
> > always play fair, and are as adept as the rest of us at justifying our
> > actions.
>
> Something I've mentioned before, but got no answer.
> How do you account for non demolition measurement and imaging without QM?
>
That's a great question, Dirk. I have been meaning to bring up
quantum nondemolition in other posts for some time, but never got
around to it. I think I may take Caroline off of my automatic
delete list for a little while, just to see the response to this
question.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Bilge
>How many times do I have to tell you the historical facts?
Until you get it correct.
>Lasers, for instance, in no way depend on quantum theory!
Then explain how they otherwise work.
>------
>Central to Mead's rescue project are a series of discoveries inconsistent
> with the prevailing conceptions of quantum mechanics. One was the laser.
There is no inconsistency. If you believe that, show me the inconsistency.
> alignment of the crests and troughs of myriad waves of light. Their
> location and momentum must be theoretically knowable. But this violates
> the holiest canon of Copenhagen theory: Heisenberg Uncertainty.
That is patently false. Both statements. Show me where one measures
these things and violates the uncertainty principle.
Aleksandr Timofeev
"You really should go back and < re > study the photoelectric effect
<, Raman and Compton effects, interpretation of light interference, >
and black body radiation before you make such claims."
Falsity of "classical physical interpretation" of an interference of
light on two slots is easily refuted by experimental existence
of a virtual interference in VLBI (Very Long Base Interferometry)
interferometer.
(For details see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=VLBI+group:sci.*&hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=13JAN200023270117%40kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov&rnum=2
)
The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
VLBI interferometer is possible only from the wave point of view.
The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
VLBI interferometer is _impossible in a support on a hypothetical
particle - "photon".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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 systems only by discrete portions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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 empirical
modeling, in error mathematical modeling and error understanding,
of the gear of conversion of energy of an electromagnetic wave
during an absorption of this energy by quantum microsystems.
You never can prove, that the microsystem absorbs or radiates
electromagnetic energy as particles of photons. This problem is
similar to a problem of a proof of existence of a God.
For this reason it is a problem of a Religious physical faith.
Just in this place are generated and there are all troubles of
modern orthodox theoretical interpretations of physical phenomena
of interaction between the light and substance.
Here we have only science fictions.
Light is wave process always and in all cases.
The nature, ambient us, consists of quantum microsystems,
therefore any phenomenon can be explain from a point of Plank's
view - quantum microsystems can exchange energy only by quantum
portions. This energy is absorbed and is emited only as
electromagnetic waves.
Photoeffect, Raman and Compton effects and all other phenomena
have physically correct explanation only from the point of Plank's
view.
The classical interpretations of a photoeffect and Compton
effect are error.
These interpretations were offered when there was no quantum
mechanics and radio physics. In that time the principles of operation
of transmitting and receiving devices were poorly clear and known
in detailses. The processes in solid bodies and structure of solid
bodies in that time were unintelligible. The quantum theory of a
structure of substance (physical chemistry) was not in that time.
But the pceudo-scientific imaginations as the classical
interpretations of a photoeffect and Compton effect on the
basis of a hypothesis of a photon are alive until now. Why?
======= end of mesage ==========================================
I can to explain satisfactorily. ;o)
Regards
c.h.thompson
> c.h.thompson said some stuff about
>
> >How many times do I have to tell you the historical facts?
>
> Until you get it correct.
I hearby close this debate. You keep snipping the references I give.
Aleksandr Timofeev
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
> >
> > "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote in message
> > news:3ca37...@news2.vip.uk.com...
> > > Experimenters do
> > > not
> > > always play fair, and are as adept as the rest of us at justifying our
> > > actions.
> >
> > Something I've mentioned before, but got no answer.
> > How do you account for non demolition measurement
> > and imaging without QM?
>
> That's a great question, Dirk.
You both really should go back and restudy the photoelectric effect,
Raman and Compton effects, interpretation of light interference,
and black body radiation before you make such claims.
Falsity of "classical physical interpretation" of an interference of
light on two slots is easily refuted by experimental existence
of a virtual interference in VLBI (Very Long Base Interferometry)
interferometer.
(For details see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=VLBI+group:sci.*&hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=13JAN200023270117%40kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov&rnum=2
)
The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
VLBI interferometer is possible only from the wave point of view.
The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
VLBI interferometer is _impossible in a support on a hypothetical
particle - "photon".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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 systems only by discrete portions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (t...@alpha.dnttm.rssi.ru)
Subject: Re: Length of wavetrain of a single photon
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
Date: 1999/01/18
In article <368a3615...@kcbbs.gen.nz>,
rto...@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes) wrote:
> I am wondering whether any attempt has ever been made to measure the
> wave train length and amplitude profile of a single photon?
>
> To explain what I mean by this, consider Young's two slit experiment and
> the resulting interference for the case where the photon rate is very
> low and we may consider that essentially all observed events are self
> interference of single photons.
>
On my sight, for consideration of an offered problem from all points
of view, the most approaching measuring instrument is the microwave
interferometr with superlong basis.
I would name this type of an interferometer as an interferometer
with independent registration of signals in shoulders.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Fundamentally any other interferometer by nothing differs from
an interferometer considered below.
Principles of work.
The microwave interferometr with superlong basis consists of
two radio telescopes were on a very large distance from each other.
Before experiment or after him, the nuclear clocks are synchronized.
Each radio telescope writes on a separate videotape a transformed
radiation accepted by an antenna. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Simultaneously with a signal, the scores of time received from the
standard of frequency, are written on a videotape.
After ending experiment we have two videotapes with records of a
signal and scores of time.
The "interference picture" is received after data processing of
these videotapes on the computer.
There are two graphic schemes illustrating the description:
The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 1.
Block scheme.
-> radio-telescope 1
->
-> parabolic antenna 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] ============================================================
-> radio-telescope 2
->
->
-> parabolic antenna 2 tape 2 clock 2
-> \
-> \ [ microwave ]
-> \ [ receiver + ] [videotape] [hydrogen ]
-> ) )--->[analog-to-digital]--->[recorder ]<---[frequency]
-> / [ converter ] ^ ^ [standard ]
-> / | |
-> / radio-signals time-marks
->
->
->
. The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 2.
. ----------------------------------------------------------
. "Interference picture"
. ^
. |
. [videotape 1] ------> [ COMPUTER ] <---------- [videotape 2]
. ^ ^
. | |
. radio-telescope 1 <- synchronization clocks -> radio-telescope 2
. Length of basis
. |<------------------------ {snip} ---------------------------->|
. /^\ /^\
.^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ {snip} ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
.| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
. Noise microwave radiation
Flexible possibilities of a computer interference of signals.
1. Our interferometer has the right and left shoulders. The
distance between shoulders does not influence sensitivity of an
interferometer.
The sensitivity of an interferometer to a signal is determined by
the worse receiver from both radio telescopes.
- The distance between shoulders of an interferometer can be
no matter how large. (This problem is reduced to a problem of
transportation and a synchronization of clocks).
2. The addition of signals is carried out in the computer,
that allows to apply no matter how complicated algorithms of
summation of signals.
- In that specific case, we can arbitrary vary delay of
signals in each from a shoulders in any direction.
Conditionality of physical concept " an Interference picture ".
Here we shall be convinced of a celebration of a principle of a
causality. The events happening on slots of an interferometer have
primary significance, all other events happening in an
interferometer have the status secondary.
Let's analyze physical concept summation of signals in an
interferometer.
The radiation incident on an input of an interferometer has the
following properties:
Wavefront; Frequency band; Spectral fluence of energy;
For each frequency:
Polarization; Amplitude; Phase; Stability.
====================================================
The interferometer considered by us, is an interferometer
with independent registration of signals in shoulders and the
process of summation of signals is carried out in the computer.
The phrase " process of summation of signals is carried out in
the computer " allows clearly to seize essence " concepts of an
interference picture " and source of an origin of this concept.
In the given type of an interferometer there is some
arbitrariness in choice by us of the law of summation of signals
from the right and left shoulders.
In our case " the kind of an interference picture " depends on
the concrete law of summation of signals selected by us. In other
kinds of interferometers geometry (physical) construction of an
interferometer determines the law of summation of signals and
" a kind of an interference picture ". (Virtual interference picture)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Conclusion 1. For existence of the phenomenon of an interference
the first necessary condition is the registration of a signal for two
sites (two orifices) of a wavefront, which are located on some
distance from each other.
Conclusion 2. For existence of the phenomenon of an interference
the second necessary condition is the filtration of frequency band
of accepted signals. The band of a signal should decrease with a
diminution of a distance between two sites (radiation flux) of a
wavefront and on the contrary. The stability of a source of a signal
plays the role also.
Conclusion 3. For existence of the phenomenon of an interference
the third necessary condition is the sufficient total energy of an
accepted signal or it is necessary to accumulate a signal.
Conclusion 4. For existence of the phenomenon of an interference
the fourth necessary condition is the existence of the adder of
signals from the right and left shoulders.
Major parameters of an interferometer.
Give is summable stated above. Major parameters of an
interferometer are:
Distance between antennas (slots);
Frequency band of registered signals;
Sensitivity of an interferometer.
Sensitivity of an interferometer.
The interferometer represents the macroscopic system.
What determines sensitivity of an interferometer? The effective
square of an antenna determines a stream of energy of a signal, than
more square of an antenna by that the greater stream of energy acts
on an input of the amplifier of a signal. The first cascade of the
amplifier of a signal determines quality of the amplifier.
It represents the macroscopic system. If the macroscopic system is
in a thermodynamic equilibrium, it's the state is characterized in
temperature.
This temperature characterizes own noise of the amplifier.
Energia of a signal should exceed energy of own noise of the
amplifier,
therefore own noise of the amplifier set threshold energy of a signal,
which determines sensitivity of an interferometer.
The minimum energy stream discovered by an interferometer is
close
to 3*10 ^ -21 wt/m ^ 2, that is equivalent to several tens photons on
a square meter per one second (this value requires multiplication on
square of an antenna).
Conclusions.
1. In a considered microwave interferometer, the properties of a
rather sparse stream of absorbed photons are registered. (What is the
time of life of "photon" absorbed by an antenna?). Interferometer has
"a very large mass".
2. Varying delay of time of a signal in the certain shoulder of
an interferometer, we define stability of frequency of a source in a
direction of a falling stream. The similar experiments frequently were
carried out in optics.
3. A new information we could receive increasing a distance
between radio telescopes. We could clarify on what distance on a
wavefront the correlation disappears (if disappears). The similar
experience are not known to me. For basis equal to the Earth's
diameter, the correlation reliably exists. The resolving power of the
radio interferometer approximately in 100 - 1000 times is exceeded
with a resolving power of an optical telescope.
4. 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
more pleasant 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.
Aleksandr Timofeev
---
http://solar.cini.utk.edu/~russeds/unknown/astrochem/
PS Who has invented VLBI ( very long base interferometer )?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==------
======= end of mesage ==========================================
You never can prove, that the microsystem absorbs or radiates
electromagnetic energy as particles of photons. This problem is
similar to a problem of a proof of existence of God.
I can to explain satisfactorily. ;o)
Regards
Aleksandr
Eric Prebys
"c.h.thompson" wrote:
>
> Bilge <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnaa6gc...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> > c.h.thompson said some stuff about
> >
> > >No, you have totally misunderstood my point.
> [snip]
> > Recent Bell test experiments
> > spent trying to understand what it means. So, your only chance
> > is to have a complete solution ready and waiting on the infinitessimal
> > chance some experiment convices someone that bell's inequatily
> > isn't violated and others go along with it.
>
> Fortunately for the future of science, your opinion counts for nothing.
> Some day physics will return to trying to model the world, instead of trying
> to make the world fit some models that a few academic eccentrics devised in
> the early part of the twentieth century.
>
> How many times do I have to tell you the historical facts? Lasers, for
> instance, in no way depend on quantum theory!
When you say things that stupid, you shouldn't get offended when
people make fun of you!
Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to us how lasers *do*
work?
-Eric
Dirk Bruere
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.02032...@posting.google.com...
> > > Something I've mentioned before, but got no answer.
> > > How do you account for non demolition measurement
> > > and imaging without QM?
> >
> > That's a great question, Dirk.
> You both really should go back and restudy the photoelectric effect,
> Raman and Compton effects, interpretation of light interference,
> and black body radiation before you make such claims.
It is an *experimental fact* not a theoretical claim.
Dirk
Bilge
>
>news:slrnaa81c...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> c.h.thompson said some stuff about
>>
>> >How many times do I have to tell you the historical facts?
>>
>> Until you get it correct.
>
>I hearby close this debate. You keep snipping the references I give.
What took you so long? I told you I was going to do so a number of
posts ago. It keeps your digressions to a minimum. Oh. I forgot. You
never _read_ the posts to which you respond.
franz heymann
about current quantum theory except at a very superficial level. That
does not put you in a position of knowing that it is wrong. In
addition you have on numerous occasions made it plain that you don't
have much understanding of modern equipment and experimental
techniques.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
>
> Bilge <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnaa81c...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> > c.h.thompson said some stuff about
> >
> > >How many times do I have to tell you the historical facts?
> >
> > Until you get it correct.
>
> I hearby close this debate. You keep snipping the references I
give.
>
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.102032...@photon.compbio.caltech.e
du...
Aleksandr Timofeev
Everyone knows that there is a prejudice in science,
but that has always been true, you know.
That does not stop any serious investigator.
On my sight, here I give a perfect physical example for a
refutation of your presentations about
*experimental fact*
operation of mystical (empirical !!!) gears of a gravitation ;o)
inside the Solar system:
"BALMER'S FORMULA" FOR THE SOLAR SYSTEM
http://www3.sympatico.ca/wbabin/paper/timo.htm
===================================================================
Some more information on ( lucid/rational/satisfactory/simple/&
unsatisfactory ) explanation of the Dirk's term *experimental fact*
===================================================================
http://www.gilder.com/americanspectatorarticles/carver.htm
< Do you have any thoughts about gravitation?
<
< Yes, I've been working on it quite actively. It's funny—the most
< common force, everyone experiences it, and we just have no clue. It's
< fascinating when you think about it. The two long-range forces that we
< have in nature are the electromagnetic force and the gravitational
< force. The first we understand better than anything in physics, and yet
< gravity—we basically have no clue what it is. It doesn't fit with any of
< the other theories. It just gets pasted on. It's really an acute
< embarrassment.
<
< So there are still lots of mysteries in nature.
<
< We are all just struggling our way in this wonderful realm of nature
< that we know really very little about. Feynman has this wonderful
< quote about how the "theory of gravity" once was that the planets were
< being carried along by a whole flock of invisible angels. Then we
< ended up with a theory that it is this force between two masses that
< pulls at right angles to the motion. So he said what we have done is we
< have gone back to the invisible angels except now they are pushing at a
< 90-degree angle to the motion.
<
< Not angels but angles...
<
< Once angels were the explanation, but now, for us, it is a "force," or
< "field." But these are all constructs of the human mind to help us to
< work with and visualize the regularities of nature. When we grasp onto
< some regularity, we give it a name, and the temptation is always to
< think that we really understand it. But the truth is that we're still not
< even close. Isn't it wonderful that nature is like that? It would be so
< dreadful if nature were so dull that we, with our pathetic little
< prejudices, had it all figured out already.
If to be serious, I work above the theory of a gravitation persistently
and hard. I know completely surprising things about this matter.
The global " scientific policy of a "scientific elite" " in the field of
science about a gravitation gives me large advantage in relation to the
intellectual contenders.
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_toc.html
Dirk Bruere, your comments?
--
Sincerely,
Aleksandr Timofeev
Dirk Bruere
> > > > > Something I've mentioned before, but got no answer.
> > > > > How do you account for non demolition measurement
> > > > > and imaging without QM?
> > > >
> > > > That's a great question, Dirk.
> >
> > > You both really should go back and restudy the photoelectric effect,
> > > Raman and Compton effects, interpretation of light interference,
> > > and black body radiation before you make such claims.
> >
> > It is an *experimental fact* not a theoretical claim.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Everyone knows that there is a prejudice in science,
> but that has always been true, you know.
>
> That does not stop any serious investigator.
>
> On my sight, here I give a perfect physical example for a
> refutation of your presentations about
> *experimental fact*
>
> operation of mystical (empirical !!!) gears of a gravitation ;o)
> inside the Solar system:
Totally irrelevent.
Answer the question - how do you explain the experimental fact of
non-demolition measurement? And if you cannot, and QM can, which should we
listen to?
Dirk
Bilge
>news:<slrnaa4ch...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
> Please, specify physical errors in my analysis of a considered
>phenomenon.
>
> The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
>VLBI interferometer is possible only from the wave point of view.
> The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
>VLBI interferometer is _impossible in a support on a hypothetical
>particle - "photon".
How about an argument to go with that? [not a usenet reference]
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 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 systems only by discrete portions.
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is incorrect. Photons involve the transfer of discrete angular
momentum in units of 1 hbar. This is observed in every electromagnetic
interaction. It can't be a discrete energy, since the energy may be
shifted by a lorentz transform in a continuous fashion. However, you
_really_ went off base and said _power_. I mean, either stick to
what quantum mechanics really has to say, or don't claim anything
but your interpretation is incorrect.
[...]
> You never can prove, that the microsystem absorbs or radiates
>electromagnetic energy as particles of photons. This problem is
To that extent, you can never prove a billiard ball is a billiard
ball. In real life, things which act like billiard balls such that
those things are indistinguishable from the description of a billiard
ball, we call billiard balls and leave the metaphysics elsewhere.
[...]
>
> In all physics text-books the photon passing
>through both slot simultaneously is circumscribed.
That's because interference phenomena may be described by a single
object interfereing with itself. In this case, a photon.
[...]
>I can to explain satisfactorily. ;o)
Let's see if you can.
I have two light sources. The mixture of the light classically
at a point (x,t) is:
E = E1 exp(-i[kx -wt]) + E2 exp(-i[k'x - w't])
Assume each light source is coherent, e.g., a laser, but make
no assumption about the relationship of the two sources. Is there
an interefernce pattern? Why or why not?
Aleksandr Timofeev
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=timofeev+john++Baez+group:sci.*&hl=en&newwindow=1&scoring=d&selm=3b1547e4_1%40news2.vip.uk.com&rnum=5
================= start of message
====================================
From: c.h.thompson (c.h.th...@newscientist.net)
Subject: Re: Photon Wave-Particle Duality
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 2001-05-30 12:21:28 PST
franz heymann <franz....@care4free.net>
>
> Good luck to you. If you had said what you wanted
> to say in a tenth of the number of words you used,
> I might have read it.
> Life is too short to cope with that amount of verbiage.
You, Franz, if you remember, had given us an enlightening description
of
long baseline interference, including the passages:
> Fourthly, a macroscopic radio wave is the wavefunction
> of an extremely large assembly of photons, all coherently
> sharing the same wave function. Detecting one photon
> at one of the antennae simultaneously with the detection
> of another (coherent) photon at
> another antenna is then possible.
>
> Fifthly, in the classical limit, the behaviour of such a
> coherent assembly of photons has been proven to
> tend to just the behaviour one would expect from
> an application of Maxwell's equations.
Aleksandr Timofeev had pointed out that:
"All by you written here is attempt of introduction of
artificial additional hypothesises for saving an absolutely
excessive hypothesis of a photon."
which is absolutely true.
He had also quoted a posting from John Baez. It included such
illuminating passages as:
"Education is a process of telling a carefully chosen sequence
of lies in which the amount of deliberate deception gradually
tends towards zero. There is a limit to how much truth someone
can absorb all at once without their brain turning to jelly!"
Couldn't you just admit that waves are what there is -- that
the wave function is totally redundant? Why do you have to
carry on attempting to turn our minds to jelly?
At age 58 I think I'm safely out of the danger zone: I know what
I know. It is the young that you and your friends are damaging.
Caroline
--
c.h.th...@newscientist.net
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat
===================== end of message ============================
Everyone knows that there is a prejudice in science,
but that has always been true, you know.
That does not stop any serious investigator.
On my sight, here I give a perfect physical example for a
refutation of your presentations about
*fooling*
operation of mystical (empirical !!!) gears of a gravitation ;o)
inside the Solar system:
"BALMER'S FORMULA" FOR THE SOLAR SYSTEM
http://www3.sympatico.ca/wbabin/paper/timo.htm
===================================================================
Some more information on ( lucid/rational/satisfactory/simple/&
unsatisfactory ) explanation of the Franz Heymann's term *fooling*
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Aleksandr Timofeev said some stuff about
> Re: The detection of "photons" in Bell tests to usenet:
> >ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
> >news:<slrnaa4ch...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
>
> > Please, specify physical errors in my analysis of a considered
> >phenomenon.
> >
> > The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
> >VLBI interferometer is possible only from the wave point of view.
> > The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
> >VLBI interferometer is _impossible in a support on a hypothetical
> >particle - "photon".
>
> How about an argument to go with that?
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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
============ note ================
The experimental fact of existence of a "virtual interference"
in VLBI basically excludes ANY POSSIBILITY of simultaneous
passing of a photon through both slots (separate magnetic tape
for each antenna/slot). There is no ANY POSSIBILITY
in VLBI for a photon to pass simultaneously through both
slots/antennas at all!!!
============ note ================
Then in any time, convenient for us, we input the information from
these macroscopic magnetic tapes in the computer and mathematically
on any required (demanded) algorithm (which can be changed at any
time) we obtain an interference in representation, necessary for us,
it is so called "virtual interference".
At use of the given method the interference 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.
(Earth diametr or many more)
==============================================================
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 (in VLBI) basically excludes ANY POSSIBILITY of
simultaneous passing of a photon through both slots. There is no
ANY POSSIBILITY in VLBI of a photon to pass simultaneously
through both slots/antennas at all!!!
==============================================================
Principles of work.
>
> >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 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 systems only by discrete portions.
> >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> That is incorrect. Photons involve the transfer of discrete angular
> momentum in units of 1 hbar.
Here I had quoted a posting from John Baez. It included such
illuminating passages as:
"Education is a process of telling a carefully chosen sequence of lies
in which the amount of deliberate deception gradually tends towards
zero.
There is a limit to how much truth someone can absorb all at once
without
their brain turning to jelly!"
> This is observed in every electromagnetic
> interaction. It can't be a discrete energy, since the energy may be
> shifted by a lorentz transform in a continuous fashion. However, you
> _really_ went off base and said _power_. I mean, either stick to
> what quantum mechanics really has to say, or don't claim anything
> but your interpretation is incorrect.
>
> [...]
=========== start of message =======================================
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (t...@alpha.dnttm.rssi.ru)
Subject: Re: Length of wavetrain of a single photon
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
Date: 1999/01/27
In article <36ABDE8A...@lucent.com>,
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
[snip]
> The difficulty, as John Baez pointed out, is in the preparation of
> the light beams, not in the beams themselves. In your statement you
> are comparing two light beams which are prepared differently -- why
> shouldn't they differ? In making your claim you are implicitly
> assuming that all photons of a given wavelength are identical...
>
> But really all you can do is compare the _light_beams_
> (not the photons). The _beams_ can have different energy and
> momentum spreads, and this directly affects their correlation length.
>
> A major lesson of quantum mechanics is that one should not try
> to discuss things which are not measured. In this case it is the
> correlation length of the _beam_ which is measured, and only that.
> Trying to turn that into properties of "individual" "photons"
> is unjustified, IMHO.
> [snip]
>
> The point is: Electron _beams_ can differ in their energy and
> momentum spreads, and this directly affects their correlation
> length. That is analogous to what happens for photons in beams
> prepared differently. You can really only compare _beams_, not
> individual photons. This remains true even if you crank the
> intensity down so that on average less than one photon
> is in the apparatus at a time....
> [snip]
>
> How do you propose to obtain these "isolated 'free' photons"?
> The conditions under which you obtain them are important....
>
> That's another hard lesson of quantum mechanics: _everything_
> matters, and you can't even look without disturbing the system
> you look at.
If I have understood uncorrectly you, I bring deep apologies.
The essence of your reasons is reduced to refusaling a possibility
of observation of photons and therefore to refusaling of their
existence. Is not it so?
AT
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----
=========== end of message ==================================
>
> > You never can prove, that the microsystem absorbs or radiates
> >electromagnetic energy as particles of photons. This problem is
>
> To that extent, you can never prove a billiard ball is a billiard
> ball. In real life, things which act like billiard balls such that
> those things are indistinguishable from the description of a billiard
> ball, we call billiard balls and leave the metaphysics elsewhere.
>
> [...]
I can ...
============== start of message =================================
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (a_n_ti...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: Photon Wave-Particle Duality
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.particle, sci.physics.electromag
Date: 2001-10-05 09:11:06
PST
j...@dirac.csit.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote in message
news:<9pj9l3$15n$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
> In article <e16a4a22.01092...@posting.google.com>
> a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:
> >
> >Proofs of existence of a photon in all cases leans on interaction of
> >electromagnetic waves with substance.
>
> Sort of. It leans on the utter inability of Maxwell's
> description of electromagnetic waves and their interaction
> with an electron to describe the observed angular distribution
> seen in Compton scattering.
Let's approach to this problem on the other hand.
Let's assume, that the process of scattering of electromagnetic
radiation consists of three stages:
1. The first stage will represent process of an absorption of
electromagnetic radiation by a quantum microsystem. It is important
to mark, that at this stage the quantum portion of electromagnetic
radiation will be absorbed, since absorber is the quantum microsystem
(the Plank postulate).
2. The second stage will represent a metastable state.
3. The third stage will represent spontaneous process of
simultaneous emitting by a quantum microsystem of electromagnetic
radiation and electron. It is important to mark, that at this stage
a quantum portion of electromagnetic radiation also will be radiated,
since the radiator is the quantum microsystem (the Plank postulate).
Here we have the non-linear gear of transformation of frequency
of initial radiation by a quantum microsystem.
It is natural, that all participants interacting at the third
stage are subject to conservation laws, i.e. we have almost same
law of angular distribution, which you have indicated, but this
law of angular distribution should be updated with allowance for
of third very massive component representing a quantum microsystem.
> This falsification of an E+M wave
> description of a physical phenomenon involving light leaves
> the photon-based models as the only viable alternative.
>
Just in this place, the logic error in the orthodox interpretation
of interaction of electromagnetic radiation and substance in the
given individual considered case of the non-linear gear of
transformation of frequency of initial radiation by a quantum
microsystem is hidden.
I shall strengthen my position by adding in this model
of Raman effect.
In a nature completely other gear of scattering is realized
which differs from offered you and refuted in the same moment
by you of inconsistent model of interaction of an electromagnetic
wave and electron.
> >In this place we have a vicious circle.
>
> No. You seem to think that, by describing the internal
> self-consistency of the photon model as a "vicious circle", you
> can use semantics as a substitute for experiment or theory.
> Similarly, you seem to wish to pretend that the lack of
> self-consistency in a wave model of light interacting with matter
> is a good thing rather than bad as most others seem to realize.
The hypothesis of a photon is necessary only for explanation
of transmission of E/M energy without existence of medium.
Well now I assume the problem " of free electrons " will arise.
Eric Prebys <pre...@Princeton.EDU> has run away from a field
of this battle.
He is a good official opponent since he is the expert in the
field of non-linear transformations of frequency of electromagnetic
oscillations. ;o]
=========== end of message ========================================
> >
> > In all physics text-books the photon passing
> >through both slot simultaneously is circumscribed.
>
> That's because interference phenomena may be described by
> a single object interfereing with itself. In this case, a photon.
The experimental fact of existence of a virtual
interference in VLBI basically excludes ANY POSSIBILITY of
simultaneous passing for a photon through both slots. There is no
ANY POSSIBILITY in VLBI for a photon to pass simultaneously
through both slots/antennas at all!!!
==============================================================
>
> [...]
>
> >I can to explain satisfactorily. ;o)
>
> Let's see if you can.
>
> I have two light sources. The mixture of the light classically
> at a point (x,t) is:
>
> E = E1 exp(-i[kx -wt]) + E2 exp(-i[k'x - w't])
>
> Assume each light source is coherent, e.g., a laser, but make
> no assumption about the relationship of the two sources. Is there
> an interefernce pattern? Why or why not?
It is classicall description interference of waves.
There absent any particles. "Let's see it if you can"
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 low probable, therefore
Aleksandr Timofeev
It is absolutely untrue.
Please, specify physical errors in my analysis of a VLBI
interferometer.
The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
VLBI interferometer is possible only from the wave point of view.
The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
VLBI interferometer is _impossible in a support on a hypothetical
particle - "photon".
VLBI interferometer simultaneously record the information
sizes for a simultaneous contact to both slots (Eath diametr or
no limit absolutely).
Further, the experimental fact of existence of a virtual
interference (in VLBI) basically excludes ANY POSSIBILITY of
simultaneous passing of a photon through both slots. There is no
ANY POSSIBILITY in VLBI of a photon to pass simultaneously
through both slots/antennas at all!!!
==============================================================
How about an arguments to go with that?
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<3CA208A2...@fnal.gov>...
> Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> >
> > Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
> > news:<3C98BD2D...@fnal.gov>...
> > > Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
> news:<3C97C294...@fnal.gov>...
> > > > > Dennis McCarthy wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >c.h.thompson <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >[Snip]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Please look at my papers, such as:
> > > > > > >> Thompson. C H: "Subtraction of ``accidentals'' and the
> > > > > > >> validity of Bell tests", http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903066
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I am not familiar with that journal. What is its refereeing
> > > > > > >policy?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dennis: ? She said to look at the paper.
> > > > > > Or do you use the question above in order to determine the
> > > > > > validity or strength of arguments in a paper?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, I read the paper - or rather tried to. It basically manages
> > > > > to display a total ignorance of electronics, statistics, and
> > > > > physics all in one place.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Can you specify only one or better three particular errors?
> > > >
> > >
> > > See my other thread.
> > >
> > > > 2. Please, make in-depth study of this errors.
> > >
> > > Please, come over and wash my car.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. If you do not execute points 1. and 2., then all written by you
> > > > is ill-intentioned slander.
> > >
> > > It's not slander if it's true.
> > >
> > > -Eric
> >
> > Eric's analysis C H Thompson papers is logically error, since Eric's
> > analysis leans on existence of a particle "photon",
>
> method.
It is only public declaration with respect to the dispute,
solemn declaration, Declaration of Indulgence.
> We never even got as far as discussing photons.
No, you "never even got as far as discussing photons."
You always cowardly escape from detail and honour discuss of the
given subject. Now I will give you a bully dinner. I shall throw
you on both shoulder-blades.
> > photon, which does not
> > exist in a nature. I proved to you an inaccuracy of the concept
> > of a "photon" many times, but you constantly ignore discuss of this
> > problem.
> >
>
> In fact, I believe that the record will show I wasted a lot of
> my time "discussing" this point with you, but since your views:
> (1) Are based on an extremely naive grasp of the topic.
You have made the absolutely error statement.
I am the scientific researcher in VLBI laboratory.
> (2) Are not backed up by any personal experimental experience.
Once again.
You have made the absolutely error statement.
I am the scientific researcher in VLBI laboratory.
Please, specify physical errors in my analysis of a considered
phenomenon.
The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
VLBI interferometer is possible only from the wave point of view.
The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
VLBI interferometer is _impossible in a support on a hypothetical
particle - "photon".
How about an arguments to go with that?
VLBI interferometer simultaneously record the information
sizes for a simultaneous contact to both slots.
Further, the experimental fact of existence of a virtual
interference (in VLBI) basically excludes ANY POSSIBILITY of
simultaneous passing of a photon through both slots. There is no
ANY POSSIBILITY in VLBI of a photon to pass simultaneously
through both slots/antennas at all!!!
==============================================================
A VLBI interferometer
Principles of work.
> (3) Are held with religious zeal.
> I eventually gave up, as I am doing now.
Your "religious zeal" is mathematical abstraction:
"The deity, divinity Photon". ;-)
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_toc.html
How about an argument to go with that?
--
Sincerely yours,
"religious zealing" Aleksandr
In his zeal to impress others, he made many blunders.
Does he have enough zeal to finish the project?
Physical folklore:
The Photon is not mathematical abstraction,
but it is purest chimera... :o]
[Aleksandr :-] is motivated by orthodox
[conventional, approved, common, generally accepted,
generally used, generally adopted]
religious zeal, pure and simple.
Eric Prebys
...which I take to mean you are the technician who turns the knobs.
> > (2) Are not backed up by any personal experimental experience.
>
> Once again.
> You have made the absolutely error statement.
> I am the scientific researcher in VLBI laboratory.
>
...which I take to mean you are the technician who turns the knobs.
> Please, specify physical errors in my analysis of a considered
> phenomenon.
>
> The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
> VLBI interferometer is possible only from the wave point of view.
> The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
> VLBI interferometer is _impossible in a support on a hypothetical
> particle - "photon".
>
You are under the erroneous assumption that photons do
not exibit interference patterns. 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.
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.
> (...snip lots of stuff that everybody already knows...)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Speicher
>
> Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> >
> > You have made the absolutely error statement.
> > I am the scientific researcher in VLBI laboratory.
> >
>
> ...which I take to mean you are the technician who turns the knobs.
>
You never know. There is an A. V. Timofeev who works at the
Russian Research Center at the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow.
This Timofeev has done a lot of work in a few related areas, and
his credentials appear to be substantial.
There is no doubt that most of what Timofeev has posted here is,
to say the least, bizarre, but there have been many cases of
scientists who separate their professional work from their own
private thoughts.
Timofeev seems to have read a number of books of historical
interest which most physicists do not much bother with. Though in
itself that is not a measure, it is interesting to me that he
simultaneously is aware of a lot, and yet is unable to see the
bizarre nature of his own ideas.
Perhaps Timofeev might tell you some details of his work.
Eric Prebys
Stephen Speicher wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Eric Prebys wrote:
> >
> > Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> > >
> > > You have made the absolutely error statement.
> > > I am the scientific researcher in VLBI laboratory.
> > >
> >
> > ...which I take to mean you are the technician who turns the knobs.
> >
>
> You never know. There is an A. V. Timofeev who works at the
> Russian Research Center at the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow.
> This Timofeev has done a lot of work in a few related areas, and
> his credentials appear to be substantial.
>
I seriously doubt if it's the same guy. First of all, his handle
is "ant", and he used to post under "a_n_ti...@my-deja.com",
so I assume his middle initial is "N", not "V".
Secondly, a while back he sent a bunch of stuff to me offline
which he thought backed his case. In particular, he referred
me to a textbook called "Atoms and Light", by James Todd, which
he claimed derived Compton scattering using a completely
classical technique. Being reasonably certain that this was
impossible, I looked up the book. It's actually a pretty good
book, in which the author scrupulously avoids the *term* photon,
in favor of focusing on the quantized interactions. In many
ways, it's a much more accurate picture of what's going on -
at least compared to the simplistic notions that have given
rise to a myriad of kook threads.
The ensuing discussion made it clear that Mr. Timofeev had not
- and could not - follow the derivation in the book, but had merely
fixated on the absense of the word "photon", in spite
of the fact that the author was quite explicit (both in the
text *and* in the preface) that you could not fit the
experimental data without quantizing the interaction. Indeed,
that was one of the larger points of the book.
I think Mr. Timofeev falls into that somewhat strange category
of people who approach physics from a *literary* standpoint;
That is, they somehow feel that key to understanding physics
is to focus on the *wording* of historical papers.
-Eric
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> >
[snip]
> > > > Eric's analysis C H Thompson papers is logically error, since Eric's
> > > > analysis leans on existence of a particle "photon",
> > >
> > > In fact, my analysis leaned on simple statistics and scientific
> > > method.
> >
> > It is only public declaration with respect to the dispute,
> > solemn declaration, Declaration of Indulgence.
> >
> > > We never even got as far as discussing photons.
> >
> > No, you "never even got as far as discussing photons."
> >
> > You always cowardly escape from detail and honour discuss of the
> > given subject. Now I will give you a bully dinner. I shall throw
> > you on both shoulder-blades.
> >
> > > > photon, which does not
> > > > exist in a nature. I proved to you an inaccuracy of the concept
> > > > of a "photon" many times, but you constantly ignore discuss of this
> > > > problem.
> > > >
>
> > Please, specify physical errors in my analysis of a considered
> > phenomenon.
> >
> > The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
> > VLBI interferometer is possible only from the wave point of view.
> > The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
> > VLBI interferometer is _impossible in a support on a hypothetical
> > particle - "photon".
> >
>
> You are under the erroneous assumption that photons do
> not exibit interference patterns.
Dear Eric Prebys, be kind, please, give us description of your
physical gear of transiting of "photon" simultaneously through
two antennas of a VLBI interferometer, and then show us by what
method "photon" (passing simultaneously through two antennas of
a VLBI interferometer, which one are on distance of a terrestrial
globe from each other) hits on a particular videotape from two
videotapes. :-)
:o]
:-)
There are two graphic schemes illustrating the description:
The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 1.
Block scheme.
-> radio-telescope 1
->
-> parabolic antenna 1 tape 1 clock 1
-> \
-> \ [ microwave ]
-> \ [ receiver + ] [videotape] [hydrogen ]
-> ) )--->[analog-to-digital]--->[recorder ]<---[frequency]
-> / [ converter ] ^ ^ [standard ]
-> / | |
-> / radio-signals time-marks
-> microwave
-> radiation
-> for synchronization of atomic clocks
-> [transportable caesium]
-> [ frequency standard ]
[snip] ============================================================
^
| Length of VLBI basis >= Earth diametr
+
VLBI interferometer simultaneously record the information
reflecting a state of an electromagnetic field in space of each
slot (from the antenna) on a magnetic tape, it is natural that
for each slot/antenna we use a separate magnetic tape.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How about an arguments to go with that?
> As I have *repeatedly* pointed
> out to you, this is based on your extremely naive concept
> of quantum mechanics. Wavelike propagation and interference
> is at the heart of quantum mechanics. ALL particles can exibit
> wavelike interference at the quantum level.
Dear Eric Prebys, be kind, please, give us description of your
physical gear of transiting of "photon" simultaneously through
two antennas of a VLBI interferometer, and then show us by what
method ("the heart of quantum mechanics and/or other ) "photon"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(passing simultaneously through two antennas of
a VLBI interferometer, which one are on distance of a terrestrial
globe from each other) hits on a particular videotape from two
videotapes. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :-)
>
> I suggest you calculate the quantum energy of microwaves and
> check the experimental sensitivity of your system, and I'm
> confident you'll find that you are nowhere near the sensitivity
> to see quantum effects.
We need description of your physical gear of transiting
of "photon" simultaneously through two antennas of a VLBI
interferometer
We need spiritual and physical need of your description
of physical gear for VLBI.
>
> > (...snip lots of stuff that everybody already knows...)
Dear Eric Prebys, be kind, please, read my texts up to the moment
of creation and invention of your critical notes in my address.
:-)
Eric Prebys
I've already explained it to you many times. It's also explained
in physics textbooks and presumably those fine Russian physics
courses that you apparently never took. Nevertheless, I'll attempt
one more time.
EM radiation *propagates* more or less like a completely classical
wave; it satisfies Maxwell's Equations, it can interfere with
itself, etc. The effects of quantization come in in the
interaction with other particles (e.g. those that make up
your detector). The classical intensity (including any interference
effects) corresponds to the *probability* of an interaction.
It the intensity is low enough, then you'll observe individual
interactions. If the intensity is higher than the number
of individual interactions becomes so large that statistical
fluctuations are negligible.
Since you are unwilling to plug in numbers, I'll plug in s
some for you. A 1cm microwave has a frequency of 30E9 Hz.
This means that the quantum energy is hf=2E-23 J. Let's
say your amplifiers are fairly sensitive, say 1 nWatt.
This means that your detection threshold would be 5E13
"photons"/sec. Even if you used a 1ns sample time, this
would still be 5E4 interactions per sample, so quantum
effects would be totally washed out and the wave
would appear completely classical. Write it to two
tapes or twenty.
-Eric
Martin Gradwell
>
>
> Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
...
> > Dear Eric Prebys, be kind, please, give us description of your
> > physical gear of transiting of "photon" simultaneously through
> > two antennas of a VLBI interferometer, and then show us by what
> > method "photon" (passing simultaneously through two antennas of
> > a VLBI interferometer, which one are on distance of a terrestrial
> > globe from each other) hits on a particular videotape from two
> > videotapes.
>
>
> I've already explained it to you many times. It's also explained
> in physics textbooks and presumably those fine Russian physics
> courses that you apparently never took. Nevertheless, I'll attempt
> one more time.
>
> EM radiation *propagates* more or less like a completely classical
> wave; it satisfies Maxwell's Equations, it can interfere with
> itself, etc.
In other words,
"Light is wave process always and in all cases"
(Which is what Alexander Timofeev said)
> The effects of quantization come in in the
> interaction with other particles (e.g. those that make up
> your detector).
In other words,
"the photon is simply other title for mechanisms of a
radiation and absorption of an electromagnetic field."
or
"in a medium of an electromagnetic field the
photons will be generated as virtual particles"
(Which are what Alexander Timofeev said).
>The classical intensity (including any interference
> effects) corresponds to the *probability* of an interaction.
In other words,
"the photons are mathematical abstraction, which allow us to
calculate probability of interaction of an electromagnetic field
and substance."
(Which is what Alexander Timofeev said)
..
> Since you are unwilling to plug in numbers, I'll plug in s
> some for you.
Do you mean Timofeev didn't say
"The minimum energy stream discovered by an interferometer
is close to 3*10 ^ -21 wt/m ^ 2, that is equivalent to several
tens photons on a square meter per one second"?
That's funny, I could have sworn he did.
Alexander Timofeev says that photons are artefacts
arising from the interaction of a continuous field with
matter. You say no, photons are artefacts arising from
the interaction of a continuous field with matter.
And you lard your responses with ad hominems and
insults, presumably because if you didn't do that then
they wouldn't be proper sci.physics.relativity responses.
If you want to argue about the nature of photons,
why not argue with somebody who thinks they do
behave like real particles (like me, for instance)?
I don't agree with Alexander Timofeev or Caroline
Thompson about the nature of photons, but I'll
stand up for them and against you any time. That is
because I'm sick of seeing people with interesting
points of view, people with whom it might be possible
to have a sensible discussion, being driven away by
the baying of intolerant idiot who can't even be
bothered to look at the points being raised. I'm
sick of knee-jerk conformists thinking that it's clever
to misrepresent, jeer at, drown out and otherwise
negate the efforts of anybody who actually has a
brain.
Martin Gradwell, mtgra...@btinternet.com
Aleksandr Timofeev
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Eric Prebys wrote:
> >
> > Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> > >
> > > You have made the absolutely error statement.
> > > I am the scientific researcher in VLBI laboratory.
> > >
> >
> > ...which I take to mean you are the technician who turns the knobs.
> >
>
> You never know. There is an A. V. Timofeev who works at the
> Russian Research Center at the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow.
> This Timofeev has done a lot of work in a few related areas, and
> his credentials appear to be substantial.
I'm a stranger, I don't belong here.
I am belong here: http://www.iki.rssi.ru/
> There is no doubt that most of what Timofeev has posted here is,
> to say the least, bizarre, but there have been many cases of
> scientists who separate their professional work from their own
> private thoughts.
I am grateful to you for familiarity and tolerance.
> Timofeev seems to have read a number of books of historical
> interest which most physicists do not much bother with. Though in
> itself that is not a measure, it is interesting to me that he
> simultaneously is aware of a lot, and yet is unable to see the
> bizarre nature of his own ideas.
Stephen, please excuse me, but I can state the same idea in
your address.
It is interesting to me that you simultaneously is aware of a lot,
and yet is unable to see the "bizarre" nature of your own ideas.
The experimental fact of existence of a "virtual interference"
in VLBI basically excludes ANY POSSIBILITY of simultaneous
passing of a photon through both slots (separate magnetic tape
for each antenna/slot). There is no ANY POSSIBILITY
in VLBI for a photon to pass simultaneously through both
slots/antennas at all!!!
Then in any time, convenient for us, we input the information from
these macroscopic magnetic tapes in the computer and mathematically
on any required (demanded) algorithm (which can be changed at any
time) we obtain an interference in representation, necessary for us,
it is so called "virtual interference".
At use of the given method the interference 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 VLBI interferometer is an interferometer
with independent registration of signals in shoulders and the
process of summation of signals is carried out in the computer.
The phrase " process of summation of signals is carried out in
the computer " allows clearly to seize essence " concepts of an
interference picture " and source of an origin of this concept.
In the given type of an interferometer there is some
arbitrariness in choice by us of the law of summation of signals
from the right and left shoulders.
==============================================================
Here we shall be convinced of a conditionality of physical
concept of " an Interference picture ".
1. Virtual "Interference picture" can be obtained in the computer.
2. Real "Interference picture" can be obtained in real time in
the real physical installation.
There is no basic distinction between a real and virtual
interference!!!
==============================================================
Here we shall be convinced of a celebration of a principle of a
causality.
============
The events happening on _slots of an interferometer have
primary significance, all _other _events happening in an
interferometer have the status secondary.
============
The absence of influence of a state of an electromagnetic field
in space of one slot (antenna) on a state in other one becomes
perfect obvious, since a limit of a distance between slots
(antennas) experimentally is not reached, and this distance can be
made _physically vast_ on a comparison with a wavelength.
(Earth diametr or many more)
The events happening on _slots of an interferometer have
primary significance, all _other _events happening in an
interferometer have the status secondary.
The experimental fact of existence of a "virtual interference"
in VLBI refutes physical interpretation of an interference on two
slots of "particle - photon", which one you have described here:
http://photon.compbio.caltech.edu/~sjs/tew1.html
THE THEORY OF ELEMENTARY WAVES - PART 1
"Now we can look back at the quantum double-slit experiment and
try to make sense of the experiment using TEW as a guide. We
understand that there are elementary waves, which correspond to
all possible quantum states, that exist as real objects filling
the space around us. Further, think of coherence as a certain
likeness of waves which can then combine by one rule, and
incoherence a certain dissimilarity in waves which can then
combine by another rule. When the target, or detector, is placed
in position, the particles of which the detector consists impose
an 'organization' or coherence upon the existing waves. From
every point on the detector flows a complete set of waves that
uniquely reflect the state of the particle which imposed the
organization on the wave and they are all coherent with each
other; but they are incoherent with the waves flowing from other
points. So for any given point on the detector, the reverse
waves travel back towards the wall with the two slits, through
the slits and continue onwards to the particle source. These are
real waves which will interfere with each other; so, in some
cases there will be constructive interference and in others
destructive interference. The resulting intensity of the wave,
after interference, determines, at the particle source, the
likelihood of inducing the emission of a particle. The particle
then follows the path of the wave back to the detector.
Therefore, the pattern we see at the detector _is_ a consequence
of the interference of waves and the transmission of particles;
but, these are real waves and real particles and the pattern
occurs due to real processes. It is the intensity of the
elementary wave as seen at the source that determines the number
of particles that are induced. The pattern at the detector, then,
is due to the particles that follow the path of each wave back
from the source. In addition, all of the usual quantum mechanical
mathematics remains essentially the same - this new theory,
however, explains _why_ the mathematics works.
To see the dramatic contrast between the standard theory and the
TEW, we can summarize as follows: The standard theory creates a
wave-particle (or particle-wave) out of thin air. It is a
nebulous concept without referents in reality. In opposition to
the standard theory, the TEW identifies the existence of
elementary waves, which are real, primary, fundamental
constituents of reality, and it logically asserts, also in
opposition to the standard theory, the existence of real,
fundamental particles. These real, elementary waves are what
interfere with each other, accounting for the observed
interference pattern on the detector. While standard theory is
unable to state that particles go through either one of the
slits, the TEW unequivocally does so state and gives the
mechanism by which it is accomplished - the particle following
the path of the reverse wave. While standard theory has
ghost-like objects that disappear with 'wave collapse' in order
to give birth, so to speak, to a 'real' object, the TEW always
deals with real objects that do not 'disappear' when the
experiment is done. So, unlike the standard theory, the TEW
establishes a causal basis for the actions of real entities,
and completely contravenes the theory of the existence of matter
in some indeterminate state. This is why I stated above: For the
first time, the TEW has established, a rational basis for quantum
mechanics."
----------------------------------------------------
In all modern physics text-books the photon passing
through both slot simultaneously is circumscribed.
Similar scientifically fancy fairy tale about an interference
of photons on two slots is adduced in the book:
Richard Feynman "THE CHARACTER OF PHISICAL LAW";
A series of lectures recorded by the BBC at Cornell University USA;
Cox and Wynman LTD, London, 1965
This fairy tale is refuted by experimental existence of "a virtual
interference". ;o)
--
Sincerely yours,
Aleksandr
Bilge
Re: The detection of "photons" in Bell tests to usenet:
>ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
>> > The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
>> >VLBI interferometer is possible only from the wave point of view.
>> > The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
>> >VLBI interferometer is _impossible in a support on a hypothetical
>> >particle - "photon".
>>
>> How about an argument to go with that?
>
> VLBI interferometer simultaneously record the information
I asked for your argument, not a repeat of your erroneous post.
>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.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So what? How many times do I have to ask you explain why that
has anything to do with your argument. Ever hear of holograms?
[*snip mindless repeated posts*]
>>
>> That is incorrect. Photons involve the transfer of discrete angular
>> momentum in units of 1 hbar.
>
>Here I had quoted a posting from John Baez. It included such
>illuminating passages as:
You should have read it, not quoted it.
[*snip rest of mindless repeated posts*]
Bilge
Re: The detection of "photons" in Bell tests to usenet:
>
>news:3CAB2554...@fnal.gov...
>> Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
>> > a VLBI interferometer, which one are on distance of a terrestrial
>> > globe from each other) hits on a particular videotape from two
>> > videotapes.
>>
>> I've already explained it to you many times. It's also explained
>> in physics textbooks and presumably those fine Russian physics
>> courses that you apparently never took. Nevertheless, I'll attempt
>> one more time.
>>
>> EM radiation *propagates* more or less like a completely classical
>> wave; it satisfies Maxwell's Equations, it can interfere with
>> itself, etc.
>
>In other words, "Light is wave process always and in all cases"
>(Which is what Alexander Timofeev said)
>> The effects of quantization come in in the interaction with other
>> particles (e.g. those that make up your detector).
>
> In other words, "the photon is simply other title for mechanisms of a
> radiation and absorption of an electromagnetic field." or "in a medium
> of an electromagnetic field the photons will be generated as virtual
> particles" (Which are what Alexander Timofeev said).
In other words, not.
>> The classical intensity (including any interference effects)
>> corresponds to the *probability* of an interaction.
>
> In other words, "the photons are mathematical abstraction, which allow
> us to calculate probability of interaction of an electromagnetic field
> and substance."
So long as you consider bowling balls mathematical abstractions that
allow you to calculate the probability of interacting with the mathematical
abstraction called "bowling pins", after traversing the mathematical
abstraction know as a "bowling lane", sure, you can say that. It's a bit
harder to obtain an interference pattern, given the parameters that go
with those particular abstractions, though, so you won't have to worry
about the ball rolling down both gutters.
>(Which is what Alexander Timofeev said)
Which is why he's wrong.
[...]
> If you want to argue about the nature of photons, why not argue with
> somebody who thinks they do behave like real particles (like me, for
> instance)?
They do behave like real particles, just not like bowling balls.
Timofeev deserves the responses he gets because he never addresses
the underlying problem, which is justifying the distinction between,
|E|^2 = |E1|^2 + |E2|^2
and
|E|^2 = |E1 + E2|^2
Timofeev is wrong about the interferometer. If the intensity of the
source were small enough and the noise was small enough, to allow
a single photon to be detected, do you think the pattern after a large
number of photons, striking m antenntas would be:
|E|^2 = |E1|^2 + |E2|^2 + ... + |Em|^2 (1)
or
|E|^2 = |E1 + E2 + ... + Em|^2 ? (2)
Quantum mechanics requires the second to be true, while classical
mechanics cannot justify this if the photon is an indivisible object. You
can derive the spin more or less classically, [cf jackson, 2nd ed., chapt7
exers 7.19, 7.20, 7.21], which puts a kink in this divisibility argument,
since no radiative process known occurs unless at least 1 hbar of angular
momentum is carried off by the radiation.
My first question to ms. thompson is, "why is expression (2)
correct, if the radiation is divisible, since according to youm
the intensity at _each_ antenna shouldn't depend on the other
antennas?
I'll go ahead and assume for the sake of mr. timofeev's argument
that (2) is _classically_ correct without justification, since he is
not likely to be able to do so and I'm not interested in reading the
same multi-hundred line post for the n_th time. Let's assume there
are _two_ sources, Ea and Eb. We now have the possibilities:
|E|^2 = |Ea1|^2 + |Ea2|^2 + ... + |Eam|^2
+ |Eb1|^2 + |Eb2|^2 + ... + |Ebm|^2 (1)
|E|^2 = |Ea1 + Eb1|^2 + |Ea2 + Eb2|^2 (2)
+ ... + |Eam + Ebm|^2
|E|^2 = |Ea1 + Ea2 + ... + Eam|^2 (3)
+ |Eb1 + Eb2 + ... + Ebm|^2
|E|^2 = |Ea1 + Ea2 + ... + Eam (4)
+ Eb1 + Eb2 + ... + Ebm|^2
I would like mr timofeev, ms thompson and youself to explain
under which conditions each of these will be the correct result
and justify each case.
> I don't agree with Alexander Timofeev or Caroline Thompson about the
> nature of photons, but I'll stand up for them and against you any time.
> That is because I'm sick of seeing people with interesting points of
> view, people with whom it might be possible to have a sensible
> discussion, being driven away by the baying of intolerant idiot who
> can't even be bothered to look at the points being raised. I'm sick
> of knee-jerk conformists thinking that it's clever to misrepresent,
> jeer at, drown out and otherwise negate the efforts of anybody who
> actually has a brain.
In other words, you just can't accept the fact that one actually has
to study something to understand it. Are you also sick of seeing people
with interesting ideas about how to fly planes and space shuttles
dismissed as pilots due to an intolerance for those with better ideas of
how to operate those craft gleened from a few evenings pondering a show or
two about lighter-than-aircraft seen on the discovery channel? In case it
hasn't occured to you, the same people you think "actually have a brain",
for the reason that they reject modern physics, with the claim of it being
to "abstract" or "mathematical", also couldn't do classical mechanics or
newtonian physics any better. You and they just like to believe all of
that was simpler and more obvious. If you really want to challenge that
statement, go ahead, and I'll provide a classical mechanics excercise for
you to work, which requires no math that wasn't around at the turn of the
20th century, and for which, I doubt you could even picture the relevant
physics any better than you can field theory, relativity or quantum
mechanics. In fact, special relativity would be pretty transparant
compared to a lot of "real newtonian physics".
The facts are, that neither your nor any of the people you consider to
"actually have a brain", have enough of one to ever read the references
given to them _THE FIRST 10 or 20 TIMES THEY POST THE SAME MISTAKEN
IDEAS_. Presumably, this is because after looking at one, the material
appears to require more effort than you or they wish to concede might be
needed, thus destroying your idea of playing arm_chair einstein, the
undiscovered, lone genius. I'm sorry, but many of those comments are
warranted and in my opinion probably less caustic than they should be.
There really are people that are interested in learning something and the
repetitious nonsense posts from people that expect everyone else to do
their work for them, only clutters up the newsgroup.
I have no idea what you expect when you or whomever you consider to
"actually have a brain", can't be bothered to even learn enough to
understand what is wrong with their arguments and why it disagrees with
data. It is rather frustrating to explain something in detail, only to
find out the person is not even interested in learning enough to
understand the argument and then merely repeats what was just pointed out
as erroneous. What you do not wish to acknowledge, is that the people to
whom you refer, have earned the derision by responding to any suggestion
that they might be mistaken, with abuse.
The mere fact that you refer to physicists as "knee jerk conformists"
shows the hypocrisy of your comments. I find it rather hard to see how
you justify saying that while you also claim that modern physics is too
bizarre to be true. Conformists do not generate bizarre theories much
less agree with them. What is being rejected here is physics which trys
to conform to that which was known to be wrong a century ago. I'm sorry,
but conforming to that which is widely known to be wrong, is not the
mark of an original thinker. Thought experiments don't overrule real ones
even if it would "be really cool" if...
Now, if you or mr. timofeev or ms thompson, find an error in what
I've said above, and can address it _in detail_, then do so. So far,
I've given _several_ _experimental_ examples of why the photon is
not a divisible object along with the basic theory in terms of a
density matrix earlier in this thread, and NOT ONE PERSON has even
tried to address a single piece of it, but have simply snipped
the material and changed the subject or said something like "is not".
You want an itelligent discussion on the topic -- then start
with that post and tell me why the data doesn't support what I
say it does. Otherwise, don't complain when you are on the receiving
end. Comprende?
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >
> > You never know. There is an A. V. Timofeev who works at the
> > Russian Research Center at the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow.
> > This Timofeev has done a lot of work in a few related areas, and
> > his credentials appear to be substantial.
>
> I'm a stranger, I don't belong here.
> I am belong here: http://www.iki.rssi.ru/
>
A very nice place in which to belong.
Did you ever meet A. M. Galper, S. A. Voronov, and their group?
The MARIYA-2 magnetic spectrometer-telescope on-board MIR
discovered some structure to high-energy particle bursts which it
observed. There were several different interpretations made,
including one by Vladimir Mikhailov who you probably know, but
the most interesting one was by Galper's group who connected the
particle flux to forerunners of earthquakes. A bold hypothesis.
The head of the Cosmic Physics Division, I can't recall his name
offhand, dropped off some papers for me on this work when he came
to visit at Caltech. Really facinating stuff.
What specifically do you do at IKI?
Aleksandr Timofeev
The physical nonsense of your logic construction just here begins.
You read too much physical and mathematical modern marasmus, and
for this reason you live in the fancy world of physical chimeras.
I assert with absolute confidence, that you have not own
experience in the field of experimental physics:
1. Show us a real interferometer, which can register a sole photon.
2. Estimate a level of own noise of the best modern VLBI receiver
of microwave radiation.
3. How do you estimate a methodological role in a physics
of the Mach's concepts?
[snip the fancy world of physical chimeras...]
Stephen Speicher
>
> 1. Show us a real interferometer, which can register a sole photon.
>
The first registration of a single photon was done with a
photodetector in:
"Experimental realization of a localized one-photon state," C. K.
Hong and L. Mandel, _Physical Review Letters_, 56, pp. 58-60
(1986).
As far as I know, the first observation at a single photon level
using an interferometer was in:
"Observation of a Nonclassical Berry Phase for the Photon," P. G.
Kwiat and R. Y. Chiao, _Physical Review Letters_, 66 (5): pp.
588-591 Feb 4 1991.
There have been dozens of such single-photon interferometer
experiments reported since then. For instance:
"Single-Photon Michelson Interference Experiments Using
Pulsed-Light," S. Kinoshita and T. Kushida, _Journal of the
Physical Society of Japan_, 60 (9): pp. 2932-2941, Sep 1991.
"The Geometric Phase Observations at the Single-Photon Level," P.
Hariharan et al., _Journal of Modern Optics_, 40 (5): pp.
871-877, May 1993.
A more recent experiment, using a Mach-Zehnder single-photon
interferometer, is
"The phase state revisited: the Heisenberg limit in a quantum
nondemolition measurement and the nonclassical depth of the
state," L. A. de Souza et al., _Physics Letters A_, 286 (4): pp.
236-240, Jul 30 2001.
There are many, many more.
Randy Poe
> I assert with absolute confidence, that you have not own
> experience in the field of experimental physics:
>
> 1. Show us a real interferometer, which can register a sole photon.
http://rleweb.mit.edu/ifm/pubs/AAMOP/AAMOP-B-6.html (theory)
http://rleweb.mit.edu/ifm/pubs/AAMOP/AAMOP-C-5.html (experiment)
This research group lists "single-photon intererometry"
as one of their research pursuits:
http://www.qubit.org/research/Photons/research.html
N. Imoto and M. Koashi, "Quantum cryptography based on photon
interferometry", 4th International Conference on Quantum Communication
Measurement and Computing, Chicago, U.S.A. (1998, August)
From my web search, single-photon interferometry appears
to be at the heart of quantum cryptography.
Single-photon *detectors* have been around a very long
time. Every photosynthetic cell contains such a detector,
and much observation is done at those intensity levels
(for instance, laser ranging of the moon).
- Randy
Bilge
>>
>> They do behave like real particles, just not like bowling balls.
>> Timofeev deserves the responses he gets because he never addresses
>> the underlying problem, which is justifying the distinction between,
>>
>>
>> |E|^2 = |E1|^2 + |E2|^2
>>
>> and
>>
>> |E|^2 = |E1 + E2|^2
>>
>> Timofeev is wrong about the interferometer. If the intensity of the
>> source were small enough and the noise was small enough, to allow
>> a single photon to be detected,
>
>
> The physical nonsense of your logic construction just here begins.
Then why can't you answer the question? I see neither your nor
anyone else jumping up to give a completely classical answer to a
classically formulated question. The reason is that you are wrong.
Bilge
> I assert with absolute confidence, that you have not own
>experience in the field of experimental physics:
So much for your assertions. Here's a couple to check: Nucl. Inst.
and Meth. A349 118 (1994), Phys. Rev. C48 2085 (1993). Would you care
for others? Now, since you place such an emphasis on experimental
experience, please cite several of your own experimental articles.
>1. Show us a real interferometer, which can register a sole photon.
I believe stephen speicher provided a very good list for you.
>2. Estimate a level of own noise of the best modern VLBI receiver
>of microwave radiation.
>
>3. How do you estimate a methodological role in a physics of the
>Mach's concepts?
Please answer my question regarding the superposition of the
fields before I answer any more of your non-sensical drivel.
Unless of course, you cannot provide the answers to questions upon
which vlbi is based.
Aleksandr Timofeev
>
> > Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > You never know. There is an A. V. Timofeev who works at the
> > > Russian Research Center at the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow.
> > > This Timofeev has done a lot of work in a few related areas, and
> > > his credentials appear to be substantial.
> >
> > I'm a stranger, I don't belong here.
> > I am belong here: http://www.iki.rssi.ru/
> >
>
> A very nice place in which to belong.
I have the explicit chiefs and hidden chiefs..., you know.
If I shall adhere to my own "bizarre" ideas in controversies
here as before, then I shall have a minimum of problems...
[snip]
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<Pine.LNX.4.10.102040...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>...
>
> >
> > 1. Show us a real interferometer, which can register a sole photon.
> >
>
> The first registration of a single photon was done with a
> photodetector in:
>
> "Experimental realization of a localized one-photon state," C. K.
> Hong and L. Mandel, _Physical Review Letters_, 56, pp. 58-60
> (1986).
>
> As far as I know, the first observation at a single photon level
> using an interferometer was in:
>
> "Observation of a Nonclassical Berry Phase for the Photon," P. G.
> Kwiat and R. Y. Chiao, _Physical Review Letters_, 66 (5): pp.
> 588-591 Feb 4 1991.
>
> There have been dozens of such single-photon interferometer
> experiments reported since then. For instance:
>
> "Single-Photon Michelson Interference Experiments Using
> Pulsed-Light," S. Kinoshita and T. Kushida, _Journal of the
> Physical Society of Japan_, 60 (9): pp. 2932-2941, Sep 1991.
Stephen, physical interpretation of "single-photon interferometer"
is a unintentional or deliberate hoax.
I shall ask you some problems:
1. If somebody will tell you, what he sees structure of sole
atom through a magnifying glass, whether you will believe him?
What amount of photons should hit on a retina of your eye for
shaping any of the image?
Whether it is one photon?
Whether it is two or three photons?
Please, estimate a necessary amount of photons.
a) Here we have a problem of detecting of a very weak signal.
b) Here we have a problem of an amplification of a signal.
c) Here we have problems of transformations and filtrations
of a signal.
d) Here we have a problem of accumulation of the information
and suppression of noise.
2. Michelson interferometer works with streams of an energy.
Please, look at the term "Pulsed-Light" in title of paper.
"Pulsed-Light" is a discontinuous stream of an electromagnetic
energy, where do you see here lonely photon?
3. The VLBI interferometer with independent filing of signals in
shoulders can decide the given problem, since the indivisible
photon is obliged to hit in one and only one of two shoulders of
a VLBI interferometer.
If the virtual interference in a computer will not exist, then
the indivisible photon really exists in a nature.
If the virtual interference in the computer will exist, then
the indivisible photon really does not exist in a nature.
[snip]
I repeat again, physical interpretation of the term
"single-photon interferometer" is a unintentional
or deliberate hoax.
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 5 Apr 2002, Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 1. Show us a real interferometer, which can register a sole photon.
> > >
> >
> > The first registration of a single photon was done with a
> > photodetector in:
> >
> > "Experimental realization of a localized one-photon state," C. K.
> > Hong and L. Mandel, _Physical Review Letters_, 56, pp. 58-60
> > (1986).
> >
> > As far as I know, the first observation at a single photon level
> > using an interferometer was in:
> >
> > "Observation of a Nonclassical Berry Phase for the Photon," P. G.
> > Kwiat and R. Y. Chiao, _Physical Review Letters_, 66 (5): pp.
> > 588-591 Feb 4 1991.
> >
> > There have been dozens of such single-photon interferometer
> > experiments reported since then. For instance:
> >
> > "Single-Photon Michelson Interference Experiments Using
> > Pulsed-Light," S. Kinoshita and T. Kushida, _Journal of the
> > Physical Society of Japan_, 60 (9): pp. 2932-2941, Sep 1991.
>
> Stephen, physical interpretation of "single-photon interferometer"
> is a unintentional or deliberate hoax.
>
Aleksandr, your repeated protests of "hoax" and "fraud" are
tiresome, and vacuous. Such verbiage is more appropriate to the
conspiracy theorists.
> I shall ask you some problems:
>
Sorry, I do not have time to untangle your questions. I'll answer
the first, and then move on.
> 1. If somebody will tell you, what he sees structure of sole
> atom through a magnifying glass, whether you will believe him?
>
> What amount of photons should hit on a retina of your eye for
> shaping any of the image?
> Whether it is one photon?
> Whether it is two or three photons?
> Please, estimate a necessary amount of photons.
>
If you understood the physiology of the eye, and the transducton
and signaling of the retina, you would not be attempting to
misuse this as if it implied some failure in physical detectors
which we build. The absorption of light by the rod pigment
rhodopsin has been well-studied using both biochemical and
molecular techniques, and a single photon is capable of
activation. Once a photon is absorbed by rhodopsin, retinal (a
chromophore, 11-cis vitamin A aldehyde) undergoes
photoisomerization and transitions quite rapidly, on the order of
10^-12 s. The transformational protein changes which then ensue
are quite complex -- but well-understood -- and take an extended
period of time. The eventual retinal signal requires
approximately 150 photons, and the pupil a tenth of that.
That a single photon can give rise to sensation is an
unquestionable scientific fact. See, for instance, in a popular
form which is easily accessible, the classic experiments in J. L.
Schnapf and D. A. Baylor, "How Photoreceptor Cells Respond to
Light," _Sci. Am_, 256 (4): p. 40, Apr 1987. You can search the
journal literature for more technical details. One particularly
nice journal reference can be found in D. M. Schneeweis and J. L.
Schnapf, " Noise and light adaptation in rods of the macaque
monkey," _Visual Neuroscience_, 17 (5): pp. 659-666 Sep-Oct 2000.
We make daily use of fluorescence microscopy using devices such
as 2-photon lasers and the digital imaging has a higher quantum
efficiency than our eyes. Indeed, the signal-to-noise ratio is,
in many cases, exceeded.
I'm afraid, Aleksandr, that your various protestations are
rapidly becoming quite vacuous. I would be more interested in
hearing about the work that you actually do for IKI, rather than
these personal aberrations.
Aleksandr Timofeev
Thank you very much for citing. It is very interestingly.
Who can specify of a similar type of Internet sites with
the in-depth information on these problems?
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<Pine.LNX.4.10.102040...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>...
> I would be more interested in hearing about the work
> that you actually do <...>
Only study of the nonclassical (empirical) dynamic laws of real
fixed gravitational systems has scientific interest for me.
In this context, I am engaged in study of extra-solar planetary
systems, etc., etc.. Exact definition of area of my scientific
interests is the unorthodox term " physical gravitational chemistry ".
Here there is an elementary example of the nonclassical (empirical)
dynamic laws for the solar system in a popular account (Publication
even of this example is confidentially prohibited):
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=3B36EEFB%40MailAndNews.com
I know other completely surprising nonclassical (empirical) dynamic
laws for the solar system, but I can not publish even the previous
example. You well understand and know reasons of the given problem,
which are accessible to understanding of the initiated GR persons.
I assume now, that the information in these phrases suffices for
you, that you could give me good advice to go on reception to the
psychiatrist...
--
Sincerely yours,
Aleksandr
http://www.friends-partners.org/~russeds/unknown/astrochem/
franz heymann
[Snip]
> Here there is an elementary example of the nonclassical (empirical)
> dynamic laws for the solar system in a popular account (Publication
> even of this example is confidentially prohibited):
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=3B36EEFB%40MailAn
dNews.com
I would like to congratulate you on producing such a magnificent screed
with a truly amazing concentration of horseshit.
Franz Heymann
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote in message news:<3CADC3D1...@atl.lmco.com>...
> > Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> > > I assert with absolute confidence, that you have not own
> > > experience in the field of experimental physics:
> > >
> > > 1. Show us a real interferometer, which can register a sole photon.
[snip my web search]
>
> Thank you very much for citing. It is very interestingly.
> Who can specify of a similar type of Internet sites with
> the in-depth information on these problems?
I'm curious why when Stephen Speicher produced an
even more detailed citation search, you dismissed his
search out of hand.
Is it because his citations were on paper? Do you believe
URLs more than journal papers?
- Randy
Stephen Speicher
>
> Here there is an elementary example of the nonclassical
> (empirical) dynamic laws for the solar system in a popular
> account (Publication even of this example is confidentially
> prohibited):
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=3B36EEFB%40MailAndNews.com
>
In a reference you express gratitude to Braginsky for "deep and
valuable remarks." I have the greatest respect for Vladimir B.
Braginsky and I find it incomprehensible that he would take this
work seriously. Can you provide the substance of Braginsky's
"deep and valuable remarks"?
>
> I assume now, that the information in these phrases suffices
> for you, that you could give me good advice to go on reception
> to the psychiatrist...
>
Perhaps. It might be cheaper to invest in buying and reading some
really good physics books.
Aleksandr Timofeev
[snip]
>
> I'm curious why when Stephen Speicher produced an
> even more detailed citation search, you dismissed his
> search out of hand.
Stephen Speicher has made very useful citation, but the access
to these papers requires expenditures of time.
I can look at these papers later.
> Is it because his citations were on paper?
Yes, I prefer to work with papers in the computer form.
> Do you believe URLs more than journal papers?
Yes, the papers in the computer form enable uses of more
productive modern process engineerings for operation with
the information.
The principal prize is vast economies of time.
--
Aleksandr
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<Pine.LNX.4.10.102040...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>...
>
> >
> > Here there is an elementary example of the nonclassical
> > (empirical) dynamic laws for the solar system in a popular
> > account (Publication even of this example is confidentially
> > prohibited):
> >
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=3B36EEFB%40MailAndNews.com
> >
>
> In a reference you express gratitude to Braginsky for "deep and
> valuable remarks." I have the greatest respect for Vladimir B.
> Braginsky and I find it incomprehensible that he would take this
> work seriously. Can you provide the substance of Braginsky's
> "deep and valuable remarks"?
I have the greatest respect for Vladimir B. Braginsky.
Vladimir B. Braginsky is the honour and rare man.
He deeply understands an essence of problems of a modern gravitation.
He has valuable experimental experience in this area.
Due to him, I have found reliance in myself.
In December 1996 Vladimir B. Braginsky has predicted my destiny,
I did not trust him that moment. But now, after years, I was
convinced of reliability of his prophetical predictions.
Why you do not ask about A. M. Freedman's judgement or
V. L. Ginsburg's judgement on this subject?
The future of a gravitation will be triumph of my discoveries.
> >
> > I assume now, that the information in these phrases suffices
> > for you, that you could give me good advice to go on reception
> > to the psychiatrist...
> >
>
> Perhaps. It might be cheaper to invest in buying and reading some
> really good physics books.
"Own is predetermined to Everyone."
The physical science is not scholastic theology.
As against a religious dogmatism, the physical theories have
the inherent gear to self-development.
The physical theories are mortal.
The physical theories are born, live and then die similarly to
any events in a nature.
The argumentation look in a history of human civilizations.
"The physical theories are the Daughters of the Past and Mothers
of the Future." Le Bone
--
Aleksandr
Aleksandr Timofeev
Franz Heymann"
Franz Heymann is the refined intellectual with refined manners.
franz heymann
Thanks for the compliment. I have never claimed to be either.
I have just had a second look at that URL, and would confirm that my
initial reaction was correct. It does consist primarily of horseshit.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >
> > In a reference you express gratitude to Braginsky for "deep
> > and valuable remarks." I have the greatest respect for
> > Vladimir B. Braginsky and I find it incomprehensible that he
> > would take this work seriously. Can you provide the substance
> > of Braginsky's "deep and valuable remarks"?
>
> I have the greatest respect for Vladimir B. Braginsky.
> Vladimir B. Braginsky is the honour and rare man. He deeply
> understands an essence of problems of a modern gravitation. He
> has valuable experimental experience in this area.
>
Yes, indeed, all of this is true.
> Due to him, I have found reliance in myself.
>
> In December 1996 Vladimir B. Braginsky has predicted my
> destiny, I did not trust him that moment. But now, after years,
> I was convinced of reliability of his prophetical predictions.
>
I do not know anything about Braginsky having predicted your
destiny, but I am interested in any "deep and valuable remarks"
he made in reference to the technical aspects of your paper. I
repeat again: Based on everything I know of Vladimir B.
Braginsky, I find it incomprehensible that he would take the
paper seriously.
> Why you do not ask about A. M. Freedman's judgement or V. L.
> Ginsburg's judgement on this subject?
>
Braginsky has collaborated with Kip Thorne, and I am more aware
of the intimacies of his thoughts and ideas than the others.
>
> The future of a gravitation will be triumph of my discoveries.
>
Can you provide a single physical prediction about gravitation,
based on your "discoveries," which differs from what general
relativity predicts? I must say, even before you do, that I do
hope your grasp of general relativity is better than your
mistaken notions in regard to photons and interferometers.
>
> "The physical theories are the Daughters of the Past and
> Mothers of the Future." Le Bone
>
A lovely quote. (Do you have the reference?)
However, the first path to the future is in understanding the
past, and based on what you have written so far I see a greater
literary depth than a technical one.
Aleksandr Timofeev
Franz Heymann is the amazing and outstanding intellectual
representative of a scientific elite of modern Western civilization.
Aleksandr Timofeev
> On 10 Apr 2002, Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
>
> > Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > In a reference you express gratitude to Braginsky for "deep
> > > and valuable remarks." I have the greatest respect for
> > > Vladimir B. Braginsky and I find it incomprehensible that he
> > > would take this work seriously. Can you provide the substance
> > > of Braginsky's "deep and valuable remarks"?
> >
> > I have the greatest respect for Vladimir B. Braginsky.
> > Vladimir B. Braginsky is the honour and rare man. He deeply
> > understands an essence of problems of a modern gravitation. He
> > has valuable experimental experience in this area.
> >
>
> Yes, indeed, all of this is true.
>
> > Due to him, I have found reliance in myself.
> >
> > In December 1996 Vladimir B. Braginsky has predicted my
> > destiny, I did not trust him that moment. But now, after years,
> > I was convinced of reliability of his prophetical predictions.
> >
>
> I do not know anything about Braginsky having predicted your
> destiny, but I am interested in any "deep and valuable remarks"
> he made in reference to the technical aspects of your paper. I
> repeat again: Based on everything I know of Vladimir B.
> Braginsky, I find it incomprehensible that he would take the
> paper seriously.
-----------------
Short note.
You force me to consider problems connected with " the modern
scientific policy in the field of a gravitation ".
It is a very dangerous subject, since this " scientific policy "
excludes a category of higher moral criteria from the practical
activity. " The Scientific policy " is extremely dirty matter.
I shall bring one particular example from a history of my discovery.
In 1996 the academician A.G. Sokol'sky (the director of Institute of
a theoretical astronomy - ITA in St. Petersburg) has rendered me the
invaluable help in struggle for preservation of my priority on my
discovery. Year after, the director ITA academician A.G. Sokol'sky
has lost an appointment. The formal aspects of discharge from a
post have not a significance in the particular case.
-----------------
I gave to V. B. Braginsky for the review only kernel of paper:
http://www.friends-partners.org/~russeds/unknown/astrochem/oldeng.htm
V. B. Braginsky has not required from me confidentiality of our
discussion, therefore I have the moral right to give an account of
his some sights on the given subject.
V. B. Braginsky has apprehended paper absolutely seriously and he
has asked of my consent to show paper to other experts.
Braginsky has shown on this table:
Table I
Planetary masses and Ratios of linear combinations of masses
Planet Symbol Mass | Ratio Exact Rounded
used for value | considered value ratio
each planet Earth=1 | of the ratio
. |
Jupiter MJU or 1 317.735 |(MJU+MSA)/(MUR+MNE) = 12.9959 ~ 13
Saturn MSA or 2 95.147 | MJU/(MUR+MNE) = 10.0010 ~ 10
Neptune MNE or 3 17.23 | MSA/(MUR+MNE) = 2.9948 ~ 3
Uranus MUR or 4 14.54 | (MJU+MSA)/MNE = 23.9630 ~ 24
Earth MTE or 5 1.000 | MUR/(MTE+MVE) = 8.0110 ~ 8
Venus MVE or 6 0.815 | (MNE+MUR)/MVE = 38.9816 ~ 39
Mars MMA or 7 0.108 | (MTE+MVE)/MME = 33.0000 ~ 33
Mercury MME or 8 0.055 | MVE/(MMA+MME) = 5.0000 ~ 5
and then he has told: " It impresses deeply ".
After that he has told a parable.
==================================================================
Parable First told by V. B. Braginsky.
==================================================================
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/Mathematicians/Balmer.html
Below I have made a quotations of
Article by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson
" Johann Jakob Balmer
Born: 1 May 1825 in Lausen, Basel-Land, Switzerland
Died: 12 March 1898 in Basel, Switzerland
Balmer taught in Basel all his life.
From 1859 until his death in 1898 Balmer was a school teacher
of mathematics at a secondary school for girls in the city.
From 1865 until 1890 he was also a university lecturer in mathematics
at the University of Basel where his main field of interest was
geometry.
However, despite being a mathematics teacher and lecturer all his
life, Balmer is best remembered for his work on spectral series
and his formula, given in 1885, for the wavelengths of the spectral
lines of the hydrogen atom.
This was set out in one of only two papers which he wrote on
spectra of the elements, the second being in 1897.
The major contribution which Balmer made, however, depended much
more on his mathematical skills than on his understanding of physics,
for his produced a formula which gave the wavelengths of the observed
lines produced by the hydrogen atom
without giving any physical explanation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Previous attempts had looked for formulas of quite different types
and had failed to come up with anything which matched the experimental
evidence. Putting m = 7 gave Balmer a predicted value for the next
line and indeed a colleague at the University of Basel was able to
tell Balmer that this line had been observed and the wavelength agreed
with a high level of accuracy with the one Balmer's formula predicted.
In his paper of 1885 Balmer suggested that giving n other small
integer values would give the wavelengths of other series produced
by the hydrogen atom. Indeed this prediction turned out to be correct
and these series of lines were later observed.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The reason why the formula holds was not understood in Balmer's lifetime
and had to wait until the theoretical work of Niels Bohr in 1913.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Balmer's formula led to more general formulas for the spectral lines
of other atoms. Others who, basing their ideas on those of Balmer,
were able to achieve such results included Rydberg, Kayser and Runge. "
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/Mathematicians/Bohr_Niels.html
Below I have made a quotations of
Article by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson
Niels Henrik David Bohr
"On 24 July 1912, Bohr left Rutherford's group in Manchester and
returned to Copenhagen to continue to develop his new theory of
the atom, completing the work in 1913. The same year he published
three papers of fundamental importance on the theory of the atom.
The first paper was on the hydrogen atom, the next two on the
structure of atoms heavier than hydrogen. "
V. B. Braginsky has made a following inference:
"The reason why the Balmer's formula holds was not understood
in Balmer's lifetime and had to wait until the theoretical work
of Niels Bohr in 1913.
Niels Bohr has won the Nobel prize, unfortunately Johann Balmer
the Nobel prize has not won, though he had all legal grounds for
this purpose."
==================================================================
End of Parable First told by V. B. Braginsky.
==================================================================
The report here is given about an insignificant part of dialogue
between V. B. Braginsky and me.
I tried to be extreme politically correct, see Short note up.
>
> > Why you do not ask about A. M. Fridman's judgement or V. L.
> > Ginzburg's judgement on this subject?
> >
>
> Braginsky has collaborated with Kip Thorne, and I am more aware
> of the intimacies of his thoughts and ideas than the others.
>
> >
> > The future of a gravitation will be triumph of my discoveries.
> >
>
> Can you provide a single physical prediction about gravitation,
> based on your "discoveries," which differs from what general
> relativity predicts?
I have made a prediction for existence of group of
four unknown planets in solar system outside orbit Neptune:
THE SYMMETRY INSIDE THE SOLAR SYSTEM
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3B36EEFB%40MailAndNews.com
In May 2000, I have sent this paper on the review to David C Jewitt
(Institute for Astronomy http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/jewitt/ ),
but I have not received the answer from him. After one year in the
magazine "Nature" I have seen his paper with the co-authors with
a prediction for existence of group of unknown planets in a solar
system!!! :-( Do you understand the situation? ;-)
I must add:
General relativity is absolutely powerless to make such
predictions in boundaries of the solar system.
In boundaries of the solar system the reached precision of
gravitational measurements excludes a possibility of extremely
speculative reasonings...
> I must say, even before you do, that I do
> hope your grasp of general relativity is better than your
> mistaken notions in regard to photons and interferometers.
I shall do a refutation of your statements.
You are mistaken in your conclusions, if you want I shall tell to
you an instructive history about difficult destiny of the Ohm law.
And as frequently happens, lonely in the troubles Ohm was right but
all dear scientific community trusted in the absolutely error
theories on the given problem. Validity of the physical theories
cannot be established by voting even very important bigwigs.
Aleksandr
Stephen Speicher
[big snip]
Aleksandr, I do not know for sure if a difference of language is
the cause, but everything I snipped seemed to just be rambling
rather than answering my question. I say again -- and this for
the last time -- I find it incomprehensible that Vladimir B.
Braginsky, the one in _this_ universe, could take that "paper"
seriously.
> >
> > Can you provide a single physical prediction about
> > gravitation, based on your "discoveries," which differs from
> > what general relativity predicts?
>
> I have made a prediction for existence of group of four
> unknown planets in solar system outside orbit Neptune: THE
> SYMMETRY INSIDE THE SOLAR SYSTEM
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3B36EEFB%40MailAndNews.com
>
> In May 2000, I have sent this paper on the review to David C
> Jewitt (Institute for Astronomy
> http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/jewitt/ ), but I have not
> received the answer from him. After one year in the magazine
> "Nature" I have seen his paper with the co-authors with a
> prediction for existence of group of unknown planets in a
> solar system!!! :-( Do you understand the situation? ;-)
>
Yes, I think I am beginning to understand -- you are mentally
disturbed.
You are publicly accusing astronomer David C. Jewitt of having
plagiarized your work. The only paper by Jewitt in _Nature_ after
May 2000 is "The size and albedo of the Kuiper-belt object
(20000) Varuna," _Nature_, 411 (6836): pp. 446-447, May 24 2001.
I just read the paper and the subject under discussion is just
like the title says: Jewitt et al. "report simultaneous
measurements of the thermal emission and the reflected optical
light of the bright KBO (20000) Varuna, which allow us to
determine independently both the size and the albedo."
I think you really do need some professional help, and I do not
mean just in regard to physics.
> > I must say, even before you do, that I do hope your grasp of
> > general relativity is better than your mistaken notions in
> > regard to photons and interferometers.
>
> I shall do a refutation of your statements.
>
Please do not bother. Unless you are able to substantiate your
libelous comments in regard to Jewitt, I will no longer read
whatever you write.
p.s. I am forwarding a copy of this posting to David C. Jewitt so
that he may become aware of what you publicly accuse him of.
Aleksandr Timofeev
Earlier, I have asked you the following question:
Why you do not ask about the academician V. L. Ginzburg's judgement
or the academician A. M. Fridman's judgement on this subject?
The list (having the nature of an ultimatum) from fifteen surnames
(Moscow) was offered to me in 1996. I should choose one surname from
this list.
This surname together with mine should be present at the published
paper with my discovery.
I knew about existence of the given situation for a long time
("very very strange history" with maser!!!).
For this reason, I simultaneously have become to ask
the help of the St. Petersburg scientists. I have received the help
of the St. Petersburg scientists, but the academician A.G. Sokol'sky
has become a victim in this game of forces. A.G. Sokol'sky was the
director of Institute of a theoretical astronomy - ITA at
St. Petersburg.
Scientific Moscow don't like strange people coming into scientific
Moscow's house.
Scientific Moscow (from Leninsky street) went down in history as a
Scientific Tyrant.
So V. B. Braginsky is not "the one in _this_ universe," who
"could take that "paper" seriously."
--
Aleksandr
PS All this is an extremely dangerous history for me.
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<Pine.LNX.4.10.102041...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>...
[big snip]
> > >
> > > Can you provide a single physical prediction about
> > > gravitation, based on your "discoveries," which differs from
> > > what general relativity predicts?
> >
> > I have made a prediction for existence of group of four
> > unknown planets in solar system outside orbit Neptune: THE
> > SYMMETRY INSIDE THE SOLAR SYSTEM
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3B36EEFB%40MailAndNews.com
> >
> > In May 2000, I have sent this paper on the review to David C
> > Jewitt (Institute for Astronomy
> > http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/jewitt/ ), but I have not
> > received the answer from him. After one year in the magazine
> > "Nature" I have seen his paper with the co-authors with a
> > prediction for existence of group of unknown planets in a
> > solar system!!! :-( Do you understand the situation? ;-)
> >
Yes, indeed, all of this is true.
>
> Yes, I think I am beginning to understand -- you are mentally
> disturbed.
New "KGB" can deny this statement very easily. :-)
> You are publicly accusing astronomer David C. Jewitt of having
> plagiarized your work. The only paper by Jewitt in _Nature_ after
> May 2000 is "The size and albedo of the Kuiper-belt object
> (20000) Varuna," _Nature_, 411 (6836): pp. 446-447, May 24 2001.
> I just read the paper and the subject under discussion is just
> like the title says: Jewitt et al. "report simultaneous
> measurements of the thermal emission and the reflected optical
> light of the bright KBO (20000) Varuna, which allow us to
> determine independently both the size and the albedo."
I repeat again, I saw paper titled somehow "~~~ predictions on
trans-pluto planets ~~~" by my own eyes on a site of the magazine
"Nature" in the past summer.
> I think you really do need some professional help, and I do not
> mean just in regard to physics.
> > > I must say, even before you do, that I do hope your grasp of
> > > general relativity is better than your mistaken notions in
> > > regard to photons and interferometers.
> >
> > I shall do a refutation of your statements.
> >
>
> Please do not bother. Unless you are able to substantiate your
> libelous comments in regard to Jewitt, I will no longer read
> whatever you write.
Let's to wait Jewitt's response.
But I doubt strongly, that we ever shall receive the Jewitt's answer.
> p.s. I am forwarding a copy of this posting to David C. Jewitt so
> that he may become aware of what you publicly accuse him of.
Stephen, I am very grateful to you.
Here additional information:
==============================================================
From: "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-Deja.com>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 09:30:17 -0700
To: jew...@ifa.hawaii.edu
Reply-To: a_n_ti...@my-Deja.com
Subject: The symmetry iside the Solar System, Predictions on
trans-pluto planets
Dear Dave C. Jewitt
[snip]
==============================================================
Sincerely yours,
Aleksandr
Aleksandr Timofeev
[big snip]
> Can you provide a single physical prediction about gravitation,
> based on your "discoveries," which differs from what general
> relativity predicts? I must say, even before you do, that I do
> hope your grasp of general relativity is better than your
> mistaken notions in regard to photons and interferometers.
>
> >
> > "The physical theories are the Daughters of the Past and
> > Mothers of the Future." Le Bone
> >
>
> A lovely quote. (Do you have the reference?)
"The Ideas are the Daughters of the Past, Mothers of the Future and
always Slaves (Bondmaids) of the Present."
Le Bon, "Psychology of races and peoples", 1895, Paris
This book is written by a genious intellectual.
His book makes stunning impression.
I have made substitution " the physical theories " instead of "idea".
=====================================================
"The Physical Theories are the Daughters of the Past,
Mothers of the Future and
always Bondmaids of the Present."
=====================================================
I am not sure in a regularity of translation of a surname
of the author and title of the book.