Question: interference patterns.
Mike Hanson
themselves, so to speak, and not with other photons. The interference
pattern in a stellar interferometer disappears when the mirrors are
moved outside the width of the arriving photons' proxy wave.
Can light from two separate but identical (emit the same frequency)
lasers be brought together in a manner such that, classically, an
interference pattern ought to be (but will fail to be) observed? Has
this been done? It would seem to be a nice, simple demonstration of
the particle nature of light, unless the absence of an interference
pattern can be explained in classical terms.
Mike.
Old Man
news:11d49fef.02051...@posting.google.com...
Lasers aside, the interference of coherent radio waves from
spatially separated antenna, fed from one transmitter, are
routinely used to shape the transmission direction pattern.
[Old Man]
Charles Francis
<nom...@nomail.net> writes
>Mike Hanson <hanso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:11d49fef.02051...@posting.google.com...
>> Unless I have greatly misunderstood, photons interfere with
>> themselves, so to speak, and not with other photons. The interference
>> pattern in a stellar interferometer disappears when the mirrors are
>> moved outside the width of the arriving photons' proxy wave.
>>
>> Can light from two separate but identical (emit the same frequency)
>> lasers be brought together in a manner such that, classically, an
>> interference pattern ought to be (but will fail to be) observed? Has
>> this been done? It would seem to be a nice, simple demonstration of
>> the particle nature of light, unless the absence of an interference
>> pattern can be explained in classical terms.
>>
>Lasers aside, the interference of coherent radio waves from
>spatially separated antenna, fed from one transmitter, are
>routinely used to shape the transmission direction pattern.
>[Old Man]
>
Trouble is that is that the antenna are fed from the one transmitter, so
that when each photon in the radio wave is emitted you cannot say which
antenna it is emitted from, any more than you can say which slit a
photon passes through in a Young's slits experiment.
I should like to at least partially answer Mike's question, but I am
pretty hesitant as to whether I know any of the answer. I don't know
whether it has been done, I find it almost inconceivable that it hasn't
been done. In a laser it is impossible to say when, during the entire
emission, each photon is emitted. I think the answer is that if you have
two lasers set up in such a way that the beams combine it becomes
impossible to say from which laser each photon is emitted, and as a
result you do get the interference patterns. But if you don't get an
authoritative answer here, ask the question on s.p.r.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Jan Panteltje
<cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in <qCMHnUGj$J58...@clef.demon.co.uk>:
>In article <akWE8.13$Y73....@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Old Man
><nom...@nomail.net> writes
>>Mike Hanson <hanso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:11d49fef.02051...@posting.google.com...
>>> Unless I have greatly misunderstood, photons interfere with
>>> themselves, so to speak, and not with other photons. The interference
>>> pattern in a stellar interferometer disappears when the mirrors are
>>> moved outside the width of the arriving photons' proxy wave.
>>>
>>> Can light from two separate but identical (emit the same frequency)
>>> lasers be brought together in a manner such that, classically, an
>>> interference pattern ought to be (but will fail to be) observed? Has
>>> this been done? It would seem to be a nice, simple demonstration of
>>> the particle nature of light, unless the absence of an interference
>>> pattern can be explained in classical terms.
>>>
>
>>Lasers aside, the interference of coherent radio waves from
>>spatially separated antenna, fed from one transmitter, are
>>routinely used to shape the transmission direction pattern.
>>[Old Man]
>>
>Trouble is that is that the antenna are fed from the one transmitter, so
>that when each photon in the radio wave is emitted you cannot say which
>antenna it is emitted from, any more than you can say which slit a
>photon passes through in a Young's slits experiment.
Not compely always, two phase locked transmitters is common practice.
Regards Jan
Gordon D. Pusch
> In article <akWE8.13$Y73....@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Old Man
> <nom...@nomail.net> writes
>>Mike Hanson <hanso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:11d49fef.02051...@posting.google.com...
>>> Unless I have greatly misunderstood, photons interfere with
>>> themselves, so to speak, and not with other photons. The interference
>>> pattern in a stellar interferometer disappears when the mirrors are
>>> moved outside the width of the arriving photons' proxy wave.
>>>
>>> Can light from two separate but identical (emit the same frequency)
>>> lasers be brought together in a manner such that, classically, an
>>> interference pattern ought to be (but will fail to be) observed? Has
>>> this been done? It would seem to be a nice, simple demonstration of
>>> the particle nature of light, unless the absence of an interference
>>> pattern can be explained in classical terms.
>>
>> Lasers aside, the interference of coherent radio waves from
>> spatially separated antenna, fed from one transmitter, are
>> routinely used to shape the transmission direction pattern.
>> [Old Man]
>
> Trouble is that is that the antenna are fed from the one transmitter, so
> that when each photon in the radio wave is emitted you cannot say which
> antenna it is emitted from, any more than you can say which slit a
> photon passes through in a Young's slits experiment.
Yes, yes, now try to explain away how LORAN and SHORAN radio navigation
systems work. LORAN and SHORAN installations use two independent, highly
stable phase-locked transmitters separated by many wavelengths, but they
produce RF interference fringes just fine! And if one of the transmitters
loses its phase lock, the maxima and minima of the fringes don't disappear;
they simply drift in space as the relative phase of the transmitters drift
--- exactly as classical wave theory predicts!
> I should like to at least partially answer Mike's question, but I am
> pretty hesitant as to whether I know any of the answer. I don't know
> whether it has been done, I find it almost inconceivable that it hasn't
> been done.
It was performed in 1968 by Leonard Mandel.
<http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-8/p62.html>.
One notable aspect of this paper is that its publication was delayed for
many months because the referees believed that it was physically impossible
to observe interference effects between two independent free-running lasers
--- since after all, Dirac has told us that ``a photon can only interfere
with itself.'' (Apparently the referees had never bothered to think about
how LORAN and SHORAN work, either!)
> In a laser it is impossible to say when, during the entire emission, each
> photon is emitted. I think the answer is that if you have two lasers set
> up in such a way that the beams combine it becomes impossible to say from
> which laser each photon is emitted, and as a result you do get the
> interference patterns.
Yes, yes, that's the usual handwaving argument: Invoke the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle to argue that you can't determine which laser the
photon came from, so it must have somehow come from ``both of them.''
Now go try to use the HUP explain how the Hanbury-Brown Twiss effect works,
where one is clearly and unequivocally observing an interference effect
between =TWO= photons !!!
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Mike Hanson
> In article <akWE8.13$Y73....@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Old Man
> <nom...@nomail.net> writes
> >Mike Hanson <hanso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:11d49fef.02051...@posting.google.com...
> >> Can light from two separate but identical (emit the same frequency)
> >> lasers be brought together in a manner such that, classically, an
> >> interference pattern ought to be (but will fail to be) observed? Has
> >> this been done? It would seem to be a nice, simple demonstration of
> >> the particle nature of light, unless the absence of an interference
> >> pattern can be explained in classical terms.
> > Lasers aside, the interference of coherent radio waves from
> > spatially separated antenna, fed from one transmitter, are
> > routinely used to shape the transmission direction pattern.
> Trouble is that is that the antenna are fed from the one transmitter, so
> that when each photon in the radio wave is emitted you cannot say which
> antenna it is emitted from, any more than you can say which slit a
> photon passes through in a Young's slits experiment.
> I should like to at least partially answer Mike's question, but I am
> pretty hesitant as to whether I know any of the answer. I don't know
> whether it has been done, I find it almost inconceivable that it hasn't
> been done. In a laser it is impossible to say when, during the entire
> emission, each photon is emitted. I think the answer is that if you have
> two lasers set up in such a way that the beams combine it becomes
> impossible to say from which laser each photon is emitted, and as a
> result you do get the interference patterns.
There's a difference between this and the radio arrangement as
described by Old Man. Surely the radio signal from the single
transmitter, considered as the action of many particles, acquires a
superposition of possibilities at the point at which the signal
splits? This superposition would reach all the way up the antennae and
into photon emission, hence interference. In the case of the two
lasers, no such superposition occurs: photons from each laser travel
down separate channels that do not split. Each photon definitely comes
from one laser or the other.
Using radio interference instead of lasers would be a great
improvement in clarity here: radio waves are nice and big and
'see-able'. You could display the signals from two separate
transmitters on oscilloscopes, verify their identical frequencies,
send them to the two antennae, and fail to get interference. Then you
could switch to one transmitter with the signal split to feed both
antennae, and observe the return of interference.
Is this what would happen? And if it is, then does the absence of
interference from two transmitters find an explanation in classical
physics, or would it be a demonstration of the particle nature of
radio waves?
Mike.
Gordon D. Pusch
> Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> In article <akWE8.13$Y73....@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Old Man
>> <nom...@nomail.net> writes
>>>Mike Hanson <hanso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:11d49fef.02051...@posting.google.com...
>>>> Unless I have greatly misunderstood, photons interfere with
>>>> themselves, so to speak, and not with other photons. The interference
>>>> pattern in a stellar interferometer disappears when the mirrors are
>>>> moved outside the width of the arriving photons' proxy wave.
>>>>
>>>> Can light from two separate but identical (emit the same frequency)
>>>> lasers be brought together in a manner such that, classically, an
>>>> interference pattern ought to be (but will fail to be) observed? Has
>>>> this been done? It would seem to be a nice, simple demonstration of
>>>> the particle nature of light, unless the absence of an interference
>>>> pattern can be explained in classical terms.
>>>
>>> Lasers aside, the interference of coherent radio waves from
>>> spatially separated antenna, fed from one transmitter, are
>>> routinely used to shape the transmission direction pattern.
>>> [Old Man]
[...]
>> I should like to at least partially answer Mike's question, but I am
>> pretty hesitant as to whether I know any of the answer. I don't know
>> whether it has been done, I find it almost inconceivable that it hasn't
>> been done.
>
> It was performed in 1968 by Leonard Mandel.
> <http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-8/p62.html>.
Correction: This was a later experiment. The original experiment observing
interference between two independent free-running lasers was published as
R.L. Pfleegor and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. v.159, p.1084 (1967).
Ed Keane III
> themselves, so to speak, and not with other photons.
Yes.
> The interference pattern in a stellar interferometer disappears when the
mirrors are
> moved outside the width of the arriving photons' proxy wave.
No. The photon can be thought of as an expanding
sphere and your measuring apparatus as independent
of scale. There is no theoretical limit to the distance
of the mirrors.
> Can light from two separate but identical (emit the same frequency)
> lasers be brought together in a manner such that, classically, an
> interference pattern ought to be (but will fail to be) observed?
No interference would be observed. Otherwise you
would be wrong in your first statement.You can get
phase cancellation effects from separate sources
such as radio, obviously, but this is only the
cancellation of coherent output from the antenna.
The photons are still absorbed.
larry shultis
Would this be equivalent? Use the two lasers to send light separately
through closely spaced slits so that no light from one laser gets through
the other slit and vice versa, perhaps with some kind of separating
barrier. There will be a diffraction pattern for each slit due to light
interfering with itself while passing through the slit. But will the light
coming through the two slits from separate lasers interfer and make
the same pattern as made by a single laser illuminating both slits? Or
will the two patters just add and produce a different pattern which
is not similar to the single laser experiment, i.e., light from one slit
not interfering with light from the other slit.
It is not possible to have no diffraction/interference as light passes
through a slit due to interaction of the photons with the matter which
makes up the edges of the slit, i.e., the photons act like waves when
passing edges.
Larry
>
> Mike.
Ed Keane III
> >spatially separated antenna, fed from one transmitter, are
> >routinely used to shape the transmission direction pattern.
> >[Old Man]
> >
> Trouble is that is that the antenna are fed from the one transmitter, so
> that when each photon in the radio wave is emitted you cannot say which
> antenna it is emitted from, any more than you can say which slit a
> photon passes through in a Young's slits experiment.
>
You are confusing electricity and light. Opposite electrical charges
cancel out, charge being the direction that the current is moving.
An alternating current of a certain frequency coherently oscillates
electrons in an antenna and they then produce light that can
interfere with itself to cause absorption interference.
RF interference is when an electrical signal cancels out in the
receiving antenna from lack of coherent absorption, not from lack
of absorption. The antenna still *sees* the photons.
Mike Hanson
> Is this what would happen? And if it is, then does the absence of
> interference from two transmitters find an explanation in classical
> physics, or would it be a demonstration of the particle nature of
> radio waves?
Lots of answers received in crossed posts; replying to Gordon above.
Charles Francis
In article <giwuu2h...@pusch.xnet.com>, Gordon D. Pusch
<gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> writes
>Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> In article <akWE8.13$Y73....@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Old Man
>> <nom...@nomail.net> writes
>>>Mike Hanson <hanso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:11d49fef.02051...@posting.google.com...
>>>> Unless I have greatly misunderstood, photons interfere with
>>>> themselves, so to speak, and not with other photons. The interference
>>>> pattern in a stellar interferometer disappears when the mirrors are
>>>> moved outside the width of the arriving photons' proxy wave.
>>>>
>>>> Can light from two separate but identical (emit the same frequency)
>>>> lasers be brought together in a manner such that, classically, an
>>>> interference pattern ought to be (but will fail to be) observed? H
I attempted one answer to this question, but I was completely wrong as
pointed out by Gordon Pusch. Having thought about it a little more
clearly I have realised that the problem confuses the photon wave
function with the classical electromagnetic field. They are not the same
thing at all.
Given the state |f> of a photon, the photon wave function is <x|f>. This
is a complex valued function, and is such that phase is unobservable.
There is no physical oscillation here.
On the other hand the classical electromagnetic field is not a wave
function but is the expectation of the photon field <A(x)>. This is a
real valued quantity, and its derivatives give the classical field in
terms of E and B. The transmission of electromagnetic radiation is a
real wave solution of the classical Maxwell's equations for <A(x)>, so
is an actual oscillation of the classical fields, so that the
interference is a classical wave effect, not a quantum effect.
>>> Lasers aside, the interference of coherent radio waves from
>>> spatially separated antenna, fed from one transmitter, are
>>> routinely used to shape the transmission direction pattern.
>>> [Old Man]
>>
>> Trouble is that is that the antenna are fed from the one transmitter, so
>> that when each photon in the radio wave is emitted you cannot say which
>> antenna it is emitted from, any more than you can say which slit a
>> photon passes through in a Young's slits experiment.
>
>Yes, yes, now try to explain away how LORAN and SHORAN radio navigation
>systems work.
I hope the explanation above satisfies you.
>One notable aspect of this paper is that its publication was delayed for
>many months because the referees believed that it was physically impossible
>to observe interference effects between two independent free-running lasers
>--- since after all, Dirac has told us that ``a photon can only interfere
>with itself.'' (Apparently the referees had never bothered to think about
>how LORAN and SHORAN work, either!)
>
At least I was in good company!
One further remark about the explanation above; The interference does
not apply to individual photons but to the expectation <A(x)> in which
it is implicit that there are indefinitely large numbers of (possibly
"virtual") photons. To do the experiment in such a way as to test for
interference between wave functions one would have to arrange for the
photons to be emitted singly. I don't know if the experiment could be
done like this (presumably not with a laser), but if it were then there
would be no interference.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Mike Hanson
<Gordon follows up:>
> Correction: This was a later experiment. The original experiment observing
> interference between two independent free-running lasers was published as
> R.L. Pfleegor and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. v.159, p.1084 (1967).
<Continuing>
> One notable aspect of this paper is that its publication was delayed for
> many months because the referees believed that it was physically impossible
> to observe interference effects between two independent free-running lasers
> --- since after all, Dirac has told us that ``a photon can only interfere
> with itself.'' (Apparently the referees had never bothered to think about
> how LORAN and SHORAN work, either!)
>
>
> > In a laser it is impossible to say when, during the entire emission, each
> > photon is emitted. I think the answer is that if you have two lasers set
> > up in such a way that the beams combine it becomes impossible to say from
> > which laser each photon is emitted, and as a result you do get the
> > interference patterns.
>
> Yes, yes, that's the usual handwaving argument: Invoke the Heisenberg
> Uncertainty Principle to argue that you can't determine which laser the
> photon came from, so it must have somehow come from ``both of them.''
> Now go try to use the HUP explain how the Hanbury-Brown Twiss effect works,
> where one is clearly and unequivocally observing an interference effect
> between =TWO= photons !!!
Is that the Robert Hanbury Brown who built the world's first stellar
interferometer in 1965?
I now find myself confused - although glad to have identified a hole
in my understanding. Ah, the mixed blessings of being certain of one's
ignorance!
So... Dirac's statement is experimentally falsified. I assume:
a) that certain conditions need to be met for interference effects to
be observed between two photons, such as identical (or merely
similar?) frequencies, else stellar interferometers would not work;
b) that if you put two photons in, you get two photons out - the
effect affects their position, rather than 'cancelling photons' and
destroying energy!
c) that, mathematically, each photon at the interference site would be
represented by the same wave function, obtained by adding their
formerly separate wave functions together;
d) that the Hanbury-Brown twiss effect works for massive particles of
the same (or very similar?) momenta.
How am I doing?
Mike.
Charles Francis
<cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> writes
>The interference does not apply to individual photons but to the
>expectation <A(x)> in which it is implicit that there are indefinitely
>large numbers of (possibly "virtual") photons.
Correction. It is frequently the case that there are an indefinitely
large number of photons, but this is not implicit. It is quite possible
to write down the expectation of the field (i.e. the classical e.m.
field) for a state containing only one photon.
>To do the experiment in such a way as to test for interference between
>wave functions one would have to arrange for the photons to be emitted
>singly. I don't know if the experiment could be done like this
>(presumably not with a laser), but if it were then there would be no
>interference.
There would in fact still be interference for the expectation of the
field, even if you had single photons.
I note that the experiment is done with a laser in such a way that the
rate of photon emission is large compared to the time taken for the
photons to pass through the system. However this makes no real
difference to the analysis, since the wave function takes account that
we do not know when the emission takes place, and therefore the
expectation of the photon field is continuous, not discrete.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Charles Francis
In article <11d49fef.0205...@posting.google.com>, Mike Hanson
<hanso...@hotmail.com> writes
>I now find myself confused - although glad to have identified a hole
>in my understanding. Ah, the mixed blessings of being certain of one's
>ignorance!
>
>So... Dirac's statement is experimentally falsified.
It is a question of applying it correctly, to photon wave functions as
distinct from classical radiation, being an expectation of many photons.
>I assume:
>
>a) that certain conditions need to be met for interference effects to
>be observed between two photons, such as identical (or merely
>similar?) frequencies, else stellar interferometers would not work;
>
No. Classical interference effects occur for the e.m. field, being the
expectation of the field operator of (typically) many photons. This is a
distinct interference effect from that of the wave function of an
individual photon.
>b) that if you put two photons in, you get two photons out
Yes. But there is no reason to suppose there is interference between
their wave functions. There is interference between the expectation of
the e.m. field due to the photons.
>c) that, mathematically, each photon at the interference site would be
>represented by the same wave function, obtained by adding their
>formerly separate wave functions together;
>
>d) that the Hanbury-Brown twiss effect works for massive particles of
>the same (or very similar?) momenta.
The Hanbury-Brown-Twiss effect applies to light from distant stars,
treated as classical e.m. radiation.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Nicolaas Vroom
news:3ce51f08$1...@news.teranews.com...
>
> Mike Hanson <hanso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11d49fef.02051...@posting.google.com...
> > Unless I have greatly misunderstood, photons interfere with
> > themselves, so to speak, and not with other photons.
>
> Yes.
Yes only in the sense that a photon interferes with itself.
This is demonstrated by the double slit experiment
when "a train of" single photons is used.
You finally get an interference pattern.
A single photon is a photon such that when you place
a grid of CCD's infront of your double slit only one CCD
is activated/hit.
As such each single photon goes "through" boths slits
In the classical Fresnel and Young experiment where
laser light (many photons) of a single frequency is used
the interpretation is that
the photons which go through one slit are supposed
to interfere with the photons which go through the other
slit.
In the Fresnel and Young experiment each slit
is considered a light source.
> > The interference pattern in a stellar interferometer
> > disappears when the mirrors are moved
> > outside the width of the arriving photons' proxy wave.
>
> No. The photon can be thought of as an expanding
> sphere and your measuring apparatus as independent
> of scale. There is no theoretical limit to the distance
> of the mirrors.
A Light pulse (multiple photons) propagates as an
expanding sphere.
A single photon does not propagate as an expanding
sphere.
IMO when you make the distance between the two slits
with single photons
larger and larger the interference pattern will disappear,
assuming that there are still single photons detected
behind the screen with the two slits.
With a large distance in that case you will then get
a normal distribution (as which a single slit).
> > Can light from two separate but identical (emit the same frequency)
> > lasers be brought together in a manner such that, classically, an
> > interference pattern ought to be (but will fail to be) observed?
See above IMO the Fresnel and Young experiment indicates: yes.
> No interference would be observed. Otherwise you
> would be wrong in your first statement.You can get
> phase cancellation effects from separate sources
> such as radio, obviously, but this is only the
> cancellation of coherent output from the antenna.
> The photons are still absorbed.
Nick
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> writes:
[snip]
> Yes, yes, now try to explain away how LORAN and SHORAN radio navigation
> systems work. LORAN and SHORAN installations use two independent, highly
> stable phase-locked transmitters separated by many wavelengths, but they
> produce RF interference fringes just fine! And if one of the transmitters
> loses its phase lock, the maxima and minima of the fringes don't disappear;
> they simply drift in space as the relative phase of the transmitters drift
> --- exactly as classical wave theory predicts!
>
>
> > I should like to at least partially answer Mike's question, but I am
> > pretty hesitant as to whether I know any of the answer. I don't know
> > whether it has been done, I find it almost inconceivable that it hasn't
> > been done.
>
>
> It was performed in 1968 by Leonard Mandel.
> <http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-8/p62.html>.
>
> One notable aspect of this paper is that its publication was delayed for
> many months because the referees believed that it was physically impossible
> to observe interference effects between two independent free-running lasers
> --- since after all, Dirac has told us that ``a photon can only interfere
> with itself.''
In VLBI (an interferometer) there is no physical connection
between signals in arms, that proves a glaring logic inaccuracy
of a hypothesis about "photon" as about a particle, as about a
particle basically existing in a Nature.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3973363099d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&selm=e16a4a22.0204030114.17e2e469%40posting.google.com
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (a_n_ti...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: The detection of "photons" in Bell tests
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Date: 2002-04-03 01:14:10
[AT]
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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :-)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> (Apparently the referees had never bothered to think about
> how LORAN and SHORAN work, either!)
"Apparently the referees had never bothered to think about
how" VLBI (interferometer) work:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3973363099d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&selm=3CAB2554.78425CE0%40fnal.gov
From: Eric Prebys (pre...@fnal.gov)
Subject: Re: The detection of "photons" in Bell tests
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Date: 2002-04-03 07:52:55
[AT]
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. ;-)
[EP]
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.
[EP]
... so quantum effects would be totally washed out
and the wave would appear completely classical.
Write it to two tapes or twenty.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In this place Eric Prebys makes the absolutely error statement,
since in VLBI (an interferometer) there is no physical connection
between signals in arms,
=============================================================
that proves a glaring logic inaccuracy of a hypothesis about
"photon" as about a particle,
the interference picture is received in the computer during
abstract mathematical addition of signals, which are registered
on videotapes earlier.
The mathematical chimera a "photon" has not a physical
possibility to pass simultaneously through two slots and to
be "swallowed up" by one tape.
=============================================================
> > In a laser it is impossible to say when, during the entire emission, each
> > photon is emitted. I think the answer is that if you have two lasers set
> > up in such a way that the beams combine it becomes impossible to say from
> > which laser each photon is emitted, and as a result you do get the
> > interference patterns.
>
> Yes, yes, that's the usual handwaving argument: Invoke the Heisenberg
> Uncertainty Principle to argue that you can't determine which laser the
> photon came from, so it must have somehow come from ``both of them.''
> Now go try to use the HUP explain how the Hanbury-Brown Twiss effect works,
> where one is clearly and unequivocally observing an interference effect
> between =TWO= photons !!!
The mathematical chimera "photon" does not exist in a nature,
the virtual mathematical chimera "photon" exists only in heads
of the theorists.
The marasmus strenuously blossoms in heads
of the marasmic theorists. :-)
This fact experimentally is proved by existence of a VLBI
interference picture obtained in the computer during abstract
mathematical addition of signals, which are registered on
videotapes earlier.
Gordon D. Pusch
> In article <7mXDeWKM...@clef.demon.co.uk>, Charles Francis
> <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> writes
>> The interference does not apply to individual photons but to the
>> expectation <A(x)> in which it is implicit that there are indefinitely
>> large numbers of (possibly "virtual") photons.
>
> Correction. It is frequently the case that there are an indefinitely
> large number of photons, but this is not implicit. It is quite possible
> to write down the expectation of the field (i.e. the classical e.m.
> field) for a state containing only one photon.
>
>> To do the experiment in such a way as to test for interference between
>> wave functions one would have to arrange for the photons to be emitted
>> singly. I don't know if the experiment could be done like this
>> (presumably not with a laser), but if it were then there would be no
>> interference.
>
> There would in fact still be interference for the expectation of the
> field, even if you had single photons.
...And Mandel obsorved exactly this in his second 1968 experiment described
in the APS bio, <http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-8/p62.html>,
wherein interference was still observed between two lasers, even though the
intensity of both lasers was stopped down so low than less than one photon
from _either_ laser would be expected to be in the apparatus at any given time.
> I note that the experiment is done with a laser in such a way that the
> rate of photon emission is large compared to the time taken for the
> photons to pass through the system. However this makes no real
> difference to the analysis, since the wave function takes account that
> we do not know when the emission takes place, and therefore the
> expectation of the photon field is continuous, not discrete.
Vern
> In VLBI's an interferometer there is no physical connection
> of a hypothesis about "photon" as about a particle, as about a
> particle basically existing in a Nature.
From this excerpt, the rest of this post and other posts of yours, am
I correct in assuming you don't think there are photons? Are you
aware of Steven Rado's aether model, "Aethro-kinematics," as an
alternative to the photon? Please find out more about it at the web
site www.aethro-kinematics.com and join us in a study group by the
same name. The link to the study group is in the "aether sites"
section of the web site.
Vern
ca314159
Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
>
> Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<vscmsYYj...@clef.demon.co.uk>...
> > In article <11d49fef.0205...@posting.google.com>, Mike Hanson
> > <hanso...@hotmail.com> writes
> > >I now find myself confused - although glad to have identified a hole
> > >in my understanding. Ah, the mixed blessings of being certain of one's
> > >ignorance!
> > >
> > >So... Dirac's statement is experimentally falsified.
>
> It is absolutely physically correct statement.
>
> > It is a question of applying it correctly, to photon wave functions as
> > distinct from classical radiation, being an expectation of many photons.
>
> It basically is absolutely physically highly irregular statement.
>
> > >I assume:
> > >
> > >a) that certain conditions need to be met for interference effects to
> > >be observed between two photons, such as identical (or merely
> > >similar?) frequencies, else stellar interferometers would not work;
> > >
> >
> > No. Classical interference effects occur for the e.m. field, being the
> > expectation of the field operator of (typically) many photons. This is a
> > distinct interference effect from that of the wave function of an
> > individual photon.
>
> It basically is absolutely physically highly irregular statement.
> The given physically irregular statement is refuted by principles of
> operation of a VLBI interferometer.
>
> > >b) that if you put two photons in, you get two photons out
> >
> > Yes. But there is no reason to suppose there is interference between
> > their wave functions. There is interference between the expectation of
> > the e.m. field due to the photons.
>
> Very Long Base Interferometry is VLBI.
> In VLBI's an interferometer there is no physical connection
> between signals in arms,
The video tapes are the physical connection. "Sneaker net".
> that proves a glaring logic inaccuracy
> of a hypothesis about "photon" as about a particle, as about a
> particle basically existing in a Nature.
>
> Charles, 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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :-)
> :o]
> :-)
> There are two graphic schemes illustrating the description:
>
> The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 1.
> Block scheme.
>
> -> radio-telescope 1
> ->
> -> parabolic antenna 1 tape 1 clock 1
> -> \
> -> \ [ microwave ]
> -> \ [ receiver + ] [videotape] [hydrogen ]
> -> ) )--->[analog-to-digital]--->[recorder ]<---[frequency]
> -> / [ converter ] ^ ^ [standard ]
> -> / | |
> -> / radio-signals time-marks
> -> microwave
> -> radiation
> -> for synchronization of atomic clocks
> -> [transportable caesium]
> -> [ frequency standard ]
> [snip] ============================================================
> ^
> | Length of VLBI basis >= Earth diametr
> +
> [snip] ============================================================
> -> radio-telescope 2
> ->
> ->
> -> parabolic antenna 2 tape 2 clock 2
> -> \
> -> \ [ microwave ]
> -> \ [ receiver + ] [videotape] [hydrogen ]
> -> ) )--->[analog-to-digital]--->[recorder ]<---[frequency]
> -> / [ converter ] ^ ^ [standard ]
> -> / | |
> -> / radio-signals time-marks
> ->
> ->
> ->
> . The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 2.
> . ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> . "Interference picture"
> . ^
> . |
> . [videotape 1] ------> [ COMPUTER ] <---------- [videotape 2]
> . ^ ^
> . | |
> . radio-telescope 1 <- synchronization clocks -> radio-telescope 2
> . Length of basis
> . |<------------------------ {snip} ---------------------------->|
> . /^\ /^\
>
> .^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ {snip} ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
> .| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> . Noise microwave radiation
>
> VLBI interferometer simultaneously record the information
> reflecting a state of an electromagnetic field in space of each
> slot (from the antenna) on a magnetic tape, it is natural that
> for each slot/antenna we use a separate magnetic tape.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> How about an arguments to go with that?
>
> In VLBI's an interferometer there is no physical connection
> between signals in arms, that proves a glaring logic inaccuracy
> of a hypothesis about "photon" as about a particle, as about a
> particle basically existing in a Nature.
>
> "So... Dirac's statement is experimentally falsified."
>
> > >c) that, mathematically, each photon at the interference site would be
> > >represented by the same wave function, obtained by adding their
> > >formerly separate wave functions together;
> > >
> > >d) that the Hanbury-Brown twiss effect works for massive particles of
> > >the same (or very similar?) momenta.
> >
> > The Hanbury-Brown-Twiss effect applies to light from distant stars,
> > treated as classical e.m. radiation.
>
> The given physically correct statement corresponds to principles of
> operation of a VLBI interferometer.
>
> Regards
Charles Francis
Timofeev <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> writes
>
>In VLBI (an interferometer) there is no physical connection
>between signals in arms, that proves a glaring logic inaccuracy
>of a hypothesis about "photon" as about a particle, as about a
>particle basically existing in a Nature.
.
The classical electromagnetic field is not a wave function but is the
expectation of the photon field <A(x)>. This is a real valued quantity,
and its derivatives give the classical field in terms of E and B. The
transmission of electromagnetic radiation is a real wave solution of the
classical Maxwell's equations for <A(x)>, so is an actual oscillation of
the classical fields, so that the interference is a classical wave
effect, not a quantum effect.
In short this sort of interference says nothing about the quantum
behaviour of photons, and certainly does not refute them.
>
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Aleksandr Timofeev
Now explain to us as leaning on a photon - particle a hypothesis
you can register a particular indivisible photon on two videotapes
simultaneously.
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<1521a84e.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message
news:<e16a4a22.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > In VLBI's an interferometer there is no physical connection
> > between signals in arms, that proves a glaring logic inaccuracy
> > of a hypothesis about "photon" as about a particle, as about a
> > particle basically existing in a Nature.
>
> From this excerpt, the rest of this post and other posts of yours, am
> I correct in assuming you don't think there are photons?
Vern. It is a very correct idea.
The hypothesis of a photon is necessary only for explanation
of transmission of E/M energy without existence of medium.
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 photon is mathematical abstraction, which allow us to calculate
probability of interaction of an electromagnetic field and substance.
You never can prove, that the microsystem absorbs or radiates
electromagnetic energy as particles-photons. This problem is
similar to a problem of a proof of existence of a God.
For this reason particles-photons are a problem of a Religious faith.
In all physicis 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)
====================================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3898973980d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&selm=e16a4a22.0105300456.3f908a72%40posting.google.com&rnum=30
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
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!!!
====================================================================
> Are you
> aware of Steven Rado's aether model, "Aethro-kinematics," as an
> alternative to the photon? Please find out more about it at the web
> site www.aethro-kinematics.com and join us in a study group by the
> same name. The link to the study group is in the "aether sites"
> section of the web site.
Warm thanks
ca314159
>
> ve...@bealenet.com (Vern) wrote in message
> news:<1521a84e.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message
> news:<e16a4a22.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > In VLBI's an interferometer there is no physical connection
> > > between signals in arms, that proves a glaring logic inaccuracy
> > > of a hypothesis about "photon" as about a particle, as about a
> > > particle basically existing in a Nature.
> >
> > From this excerpt, the rest of this post and other posts of yours, am
> > I correct in assuming you don't think there are photons?
>
> Vern. It is a very correct idea.
>
> The hypothesis of a photon is necessary only for explanation
> of transmission of E/M energy without existence of medium.
>
> 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 photon is mathematical abstraction, which allow us to calculate
> probability of interaction of an electromagnetic field and substance.
>
> You never can prove, that the microsystem absorbs or radiates
> electromagnetic energy as particles-photons.
Even ultra wide band wireless has to be quantized in order
to isolate the signal from multipath reflections, and
choppers were used with photomultiplier tubes to isolate
the signal from black current noise.
I can't pay my utility bills with infinite precision.
They just won't let me use fractional pennies.
The small round off errors probably contribute to
accounting overheads and global warming.
A photon saved is a photon earned.
Computational interference:
http://epubs.siam.org/sam-bin/dbq/article/29626
Aleksandr Timofeev
> In article <e16a4a22.02051...@posting.google.com>, Aleksandr
> Timofeev <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> writes
> >
> >In VLBI (an interferometer) there is no physical connection
> >between signals in arms, that proves a glaring logic inaccuracy
> >of a hypothesis about "photon" as about a particle, as about a
> >particle basically existing in a Nature.
>
> .
>
> The classical electromagnetic field is not a wave function but is the
> expectation of the photon field <A(x)>. This is a real valued quantity,
> and its derivatives give the classical field in terms of E and B. The
> transmission of electromagnetic radiation is a real wave solution of the
> classical Maxwell's equations for <A(x)>, so is an actual oscillation of
> the classical fields, so that the interference is a classical wave
> effect, not a quantum effect.
You have not the right to represent particles - photon as of " water
drops ", and to imagine " a population of photons " as a " liquid ",
in which the separate photons are indiscernible.
Your logic error consists just in this incorrect representation.
The interaction of E/M waves with substance always has a quantum
nature, you should remember of the Plank principle.
Mike Hanson wrote:
"Unless I have greatly misunderstood, photons interfere with
themselves, so to speak, and not with other photons."
It is Dirac's statement and Dirac's physical requirement.
Otherwise you should forget about a particle - photon and to
consider only classical E/M waves, that you and make really.
> In short this sort of interference says nothing about the quantum
> behaviour of photons, and certainly does not refute them.
If you imagine a E/M wave as a population of photons, you should
prove, that everyone separate indivisible on a parts the photon
passes simultaneously through two slots of an interferometer.
It is Dirac's statement and physical requirement.
You should prove this fact for everyone separate of a photon
indivisible on parts !!!
===============================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3898973980d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&selm=e16a4a22.0105300456.3f908a72%40posting.google.com&rnum=30
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 physicis 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?
------------------------------------------------------------
Regards
Charles Francis
>Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<oEtn2YDq...@clef.demon.co.uk>...
>> In article <e16a4a22.02051...@posting.google.com>, Aleksandr
>> Timofeev <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> writes
>> >
>> >In VLBI (an interferometer) there is no physical connection
>> >between signals in arms, that proves a glaring logic inaccuracy
>> >of a hypothesis about "photon" as about a particle, as about a
>> >particle basically existing in a Nature.
>>
>> .
>>
>> The classical electromagnetic field is not a wave function but is the
>> expectation of the photon field <A(x)>. This is a real valued quantity,
>> and its derivatives give the classical field in terms of E and B. The
>> transmission of electromagnetic radiation is a real wave solution of the
>> classical Maxwell's equations for <A(x)>, so is an actual oscillation of
>> the classical fields, so that the interference is a classical wave
>> effect, not a quantum effect.
>
>You have not the right to represent particles - photon as of " water
>drops ", and to imagine " a population of photons " as a " liquid ",
>in which the separate photons are indiscernible.
I don't.
>Your logic error consists just in this incorrect representation.
Look, before you start accusing me of being a complete dickhead who does
not know any quantum mechanics and has no logical capability allow the
thought to cross your mind that if you start lecturing on things which
you have clearly not studied it is because you are yourself a complete
dickhead and a moron. Console yourself with the thought that since you
reveal this so early in your ridiculous post no one is going to read a
word of it, certainly not me.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Aleksandr Timofeev
[snip]
> >> In article <e16a4a22.02051...@posting.google.com>, Aleksandr
> >> Timofeev <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> writes
> >> >
> >> >In VLBI (an interferometer) there is no physical connection
> >> >between signals in arms, that proves a glaring logic inaccuracy
> >> >of a hypothesis about "photon" as about a particle, as about a
> >> >particle basically existing in a Nature.
> >>
> >> The classical electromagnetic field is not a wave function but is the
> >> expectation of the photon field <A(x)>. This is a real valued quantity,
> >> and its derivatives give the classical field in terms of E and B. The
> >> transmission of electromagnetic radiation is a real wave solution of the
> >> classical Maxwell's equations for <A(x)>, so is an actual oscillation of
> >> the classical fields, so that the interference is a classical wave
> >> effect, not a quantum effect.
> >
> >You have not the right to represent particles - photon as of " water
> >drops ", and to imagine " a population of photons " as a " liquid ",
> >in which the separate photons are indiscernible.
>
> I don't.
>
[snip]
>
> Look, before you start accusing me of being a complete <...> if you
> start lecturing on things which you have clearly not studied ...
Dear Charles Francis, I had not intentions to offend you absolutely.
The controversy with you has large interest for me.
I share your point of view on a phenomenon of an interference as
an only classical electromagnetic wave phenomenon.
For me in your interpretation of a phenomenon of an interference
there is not clear logic passage (transition) from a population of
photons to an electromagnetic wave.
Let's imagine a sole particle - photon (...). Whether you can
explain to me in more detail how you represent process transiting
of a single photon through two slots of an interferometer
simultaneously?
Probably you have alternative ideas.
Regards
Mike Hanson
> In article <e16a4a22.02051...@posting.google.com>, Aleksandr
> Timofeev <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> writes
> >
> >In VLBI (an interferometer) there is no physical connection
> >between signals in arms, that proves a glaring logic inaccuracy
> >of a hypothesis about "photon" as about a particle, as about a
> >particle basically existing in a Nature.
>
> .
>
> The classical electromagnetic field is not a wave function but is the
> expectation of the photon field <A(x)>. This is a real valued quantity,
> and its derivatives give the classical field in terms of E and B. The
> transmission of electromagnetic radiation is a real wave solution of the
> classical Maxwell's equations for <A(x)>, so is an actual oscillation of
> the classical fields, so that the interference is a classical wave
> effect, not a quantum effect.
Had to chew on all of this for a while, Charles. This is a
'read-back', so to speak:
When calculating the wave function of, say, a photon going through a
tiny hole, the calculation takes account of the hole situation.
Pathetic pun, I know...
Similarly, when calculating the wave function of a photon involved in
classical E/M interference, the calculation takes account of the E/M
interference. In other words, the E/M interference is as much a part
of the 'landscape' through which the photon passes as a hole or a
double-slit would be, and is therefore quite distinct from wave
function interference.
Have I correctly understood?
Mike.
Aleksandr Timofeev
I assume, Charles Francis for the first time has seen a mystical
essence " of a phenomenon of a chimerical particle - photon ".
Mike, thanks for the help.
>
> Mike.
Charles Francis
Hanson <hanso...@hotmail.com> writes
Yes, I think that's right. The classical Young's slits experiment for
photons only shows a quantum effect when the photons pass through the
slits one by one and are detected individually at points on the screen,
because the wave function and classical radiation have the same
behaviour, not because they are the same thing.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Charles Francis
Sorry, I'm afraid take exception to being lectured on things which run
counter to established physics. Most of this stuff is actually very
difficult to understand, and it has been arrived at by the accumulated
efforts of some of the smartest guys in history through
>
> I share your point of view on a phenomenon of an interference as
>an only classical electromagnetic wave phenomenon.
That is not my view. Quantum interference effects also certainly take
place, and can be clearly detected for other particles which do not give
rise to an electromagnetic field. Also the explanation I gave of how
there is interference for classical e.m. radiation depends on
understanding that classical radiation is part of the expectation of the
quantum mechanical observable operators.
> For me in your interpretation of a phenomenon of an interference
>there is not clear logic passage (transition) from a population of
>photons to an electromagnetic wave.
Unfortunately you would have to understand qm quite well to see a clear
logical passage. The notation <A(x)> stands for the expectation of the
photon field operator applied to the photonic state |f>.
<A(x)>=<f|A(x)f>.
An expectation is not exactly the average value, and exists when there
is only one photon, but it is related to the average value and you could
think of it like that.
> Let's imagine a sole particle - photon (...). Whether you can
>explain to me in more detail how you represent process transiting
>of a single photon through two slots of an interferometer
>simultaneously?
I can try, but the most scientific answer is that we cannot describe the
process because it does not make sense to discuss particles in this way.
What I can add to that is a reason why it does not make sense.
The concept of "passing between two slits" is a geometric concept.
Geometry studies the measurements of distance and angle between objects.
We are surrounded by a geometric world because we actually measure it by
eye as we look at it. But for measurement to take place things must be
interacting, light must bounce off the objects whose position we want to
measure.
It is an important part of the Young's slit experiment that the
particle, photon or other, does not undergo any interactions with other
matter on its passage to the screen. Hence it does not have a geometric
position and we cannot say that it passes between the slits.
In qft we can discuss the creation and annihilation of photons. The
operator formulation allows us to describe a photon being created
anywhere and annihilated anywhere, but it does not allow us to describe
the photon as travelling on a unique path from creation to annihilation.
The photon goes from creation in one place to annihilation in another
without it being meaningful to say that it passes through the points
between. Depending on the given the overall configuration of matter you
can work out probabilities for where the annihilation takes place, and
this gives the interference pattern.
So what we have is that geometry depends on measurement, which in turn
depends on the behaviour of photons. Hence in the quantum domain we have
to describe the behaviour of photons in the absence of geometry.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Aleksandr Timofeev
The physical principles of operation of an VLBI interferometer
enable physically to divide two physical processes:
1. Process of transiting of electromagnetic radiation through
slots of an interferometer.
2. Process of shaping of an interference picture.
Note 1. The interference picture in VLBI interferometer is pure
mathematical abstraction, since the construction of an interference
picture is carried out in the computer.
Note 2. Here there is no direct physical process of addition "
of waves " passing through slots!
Here there is no possibility of addition
" of parts of a single photon " absolutely and in essence.
In the classical Young's slits experiment, considered by you,
1) process of transiting of electromagnetic radiation through slots
of an interferometer
and
2) process of shaping of an interference picture
are not separable from each other.
Just in this place the physical and logic mixing of these processes
has reduced in physically error interpretation of the classical
Young's slits experiment!!!
The classical Young's slits experiment is myth and that one did
unstinting support a myth about "elementary particle-photon".
The existence of a virtual interference in an VLBI interferometer
refutes interpretation of the classical Young's slits experiment.
Regards
Aleksandr Timofeev
Thanks for the exception.
I am the expert in the whole area of VLBI interferometers.
" The smartest guys in history " have made " classical quantum
interpretation " of a phenomenon of an interference long before
creation of VLBI interferometers.
Let's concentrate our attention only on "photons" and we shall forget
about other particles for the purposes of simplification.
> does not undergo any interactions with other
> matter on its passage to the screen. Hence it does not have a geometric
> position and we cannot say that it passes between the slits.
Sorry, But following to your logic, the number of slots can not
have influence on an interference picture in such case.
I agree, that " it does not have a geometric position" similarly
as _point_, but we must definitly to " say that it passes between
the slits. "
I should add, that "photon" " feels boundary conditions " of the
enclosing material world, and the behaviour of "photon" is determined
by boundary conditions.
> In qft we can discuss the creation and annihilation of photons. The
> operator formulation allows us to describe a photon being created
> anywhere and annihilated anywhere, but it does not allow us to describe
> the photon as travelling on a unique path from creation to annihilation.
> The photon goes from creation in one place to annihilation in another
> without it being meaningful to say that it passes through the points
> between. Depending on the given the overall configuration of matter you
> can work out probabilities for where the annihilation takes place, and
> this gives the interference pattern.
>
> So what we have is that geometry depends on measurement,
I disagree absolutely. In case of a phenomenon of an interference,
"photons" not "deform" slots ("geometry"), but in contrary the slots
(" geometry ") " deform " " paths " of "photons".
> which in turn depends on the behaviour of photons.
I come to the contrary conclusion.
Behaviour of photons depends on "geometry".
> Hence in the quantum domain we have to describe the behaviour
> of photons in the absence of geometry.
Well. Whether you can give physical interpretation of principles of
operation for an VLBI interferometer from the photon point of view?
There are two graphic schemes illustrating the description:
Step 1.
The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 1.
----------------------------------------------------------
Block scheme.
. [videotape 1] [videotape 2]
. ^ ^
. | |
. radio-receiver 1 radio-receiver 2
. | |
. | Length of VLBI basis >= Earth diametr |
. |<--------------------- {snip} ------------------>|
. /^\ antenna 1 antenna 2 /^\
.^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ {snip} ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
.| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
. Noise microwave radiation
VLBI interferometer simultaneously record the information
reflecting a state of an electromagnetic field in space of each
slot (from the antenna) on a magnetic tape, it is natural that
for each slot/antenna we use a separate magnetic tape.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Step 2.
. The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 2.
. ----------------------------------------------------------
. "Interference picture"
. ^
. |
. [videotape 1] ------> [ COMPUTER ] <---------- [videotape 2]
The VLBI interference 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 any time, convenient for us, we input the information from
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.
The physical principles of operation of an VLBI interferometer
enable physically to divide two physical processes:
Step 1. Process of transiting of electromagnetic radiation through
slots of an interferometer.
Step 2. Process of shaping of an interference picture.
Note 1. The interference picture in VLBI interferometer is pure
mathematical abstraction, since the construction of an interference
picture is carried out in the computer.
Note 2. Here there is no direct physical process of addition "
of waves " passing through slots!
How does the possibility of addition
" of parts of a single photon " from two magnetic tapes?
Is it possible? Or is it impossible?
Regards
Mike Hanson
QM does not say that this happens. So, yes, of course it's impossible,
but that doesn't contradict the notion of photons at all.
The layout of the VLBI interferometer, as you have illustrated it
above, is *not* equivalent to the Young's two-slit experiment. I
compare them here (calling them "Young's" and "VLBI" to keep the
writing brief).
With Young's, the photon delivers its energy to a point on a screen
*beyond* the slits. With VLBI, you have an antenna *in* each 'slit' -
not beyond. The photon delivers its energy to one of two antennae.
With Young's, once the photon has hit the screen, you cannot possibly
know which slit it passed through (or whether it went through both!).
With VLBI, the photon definitely hits either one antenna or the other,
and you could in principle discover which one.
With Young's, when the photon does hit, all you see is a brief dot of
light at some random place where the photon imparts its energy
(perhaps to a phosphor screen). The interference pattern is the
pattern of those dots - i.e. the pattern of *energy deposited over an
area*. With VLBI, when the photon hits, all you know is which antenna
it hit: you do not know *where* on that antenna it hit. The
interference pattern is not the pattern of *energy* deposited over an
*area*, but rather one of *E/M fields* at only two *points* (the
antennae).
Young's and VLBI therefore measure completely different phenomena:
Young's looks at energy, VLBI looks at fields. Certainly the two are
related, but they are not the same thing.
As to how a photon contrives (in Young's) to pass through two slits
whilst remaining a single entity, the answer is: nobody knows. Nobody
knows 'what a photon really is', or 'what it really looks like'. We do
know that they can bounce off electrons exactly like little billiard
balls (Compton scattering), and that they only ever show up at points,
not spread out like waves. They only seem to behave like waves when we
don't 'look at them' directly.
You have argued that photons cannot exist because they are unphysical.
However, this assumes that you know what is physical, and what is not.
How do you know? No physicist claims to know this. The universe is
what it is, and it behaves the way it does, not the way you think it
ought to. All you have succeeded in showing is that your 'picture' of
a photon is wrong, or that your 'picture' of what is physical is
wrong, or both.
Mental pictures like this only work for classical physics. They do not
work for quantum physics. Yet quanta are most definitely real, despite
the fact that their behaviour defies common sense. The best thing to
do is to try to avoid such mental pictures. You can't create these
pictures without making assumptions, and your assumptions will almost
certainly be wrong.
Mike.
ca314159
8=<----
An interesting experiment comes from the Laser Cookbook book:
_optically_ combine two fiber optic cables by binding together two
of their ends. Shoot laser light from the same source into both the
cables at this combined end.
On the other separate ends put two photo sensitive transisters and
_electrically_ combine their signals. Optical heterdyning produces an
audible sound because the difference in frequencies is in the audible range.
How is this different from the electro-optics in a CD player ?
Compare this to Young's original all optical experiment:
http://www.cavendishscience.org/phys/tyoung/tyoung.htm
Is this really the same as the two-slit experiment ?
How is it different from a Michelson or other interferometers ?
Problem:
Compare this method of optical heterodyning to photon entanglement by parametric downconversion.
Suggest an idea for a full blown "universal" quantum computer that uses entanglement,
as opposed to an all optical one (which is really just a see-through fishtank holographic memory):
http://www.google.com/search?q=ALL-OPTICAL+IMPLEMENTATION+OF+GROVER%27S+ALGORITHM
More distantly related problems:
Compare a qubit to the function of a ferrite toroid in old fashioned core memory.
How is this different from how individual particle spins are used in NMR quantum computers ?
Compare PC UPSs, to how neurons send their frequency dependant electrical messages
to each other via chemical Acetylcholine. How are these alike and how are they different ?
Perhaps a related problem:
Why do red and blue optical filters seem more "potent" than yellow or green ones ?
Aleksandr Timofeev
> a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message news:<e16a4a22.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<wcihAbFK...@clef.demon.co.uk>...
[snip]
I categorically disagree with these statements. These statements demand
the deep and detail proof.
> The layout of the VLBI interferometer, as you have illustrated it
> above, is *not* equivalent to the Young's two-slit experiment. I
> compare them here (calling them "Young's" and "VLBI" to keep the
> writing brief).
>
> With Young's, the photon delivers its energy to a point on a screen
> *beyond* the slits. With VLBI, you have an antenna *in* each 'slit' -
> not beyond. The photon delivers its energy to one of two antennae.
>
> With Young's, once the photon has hit the screen, you cannot possibly
> know which slit it passed through (or whether it went through both!).
> With VLBI, the photon definitely hits either one antenna or the other,
> and you could in principle discover which one.
>
> With Young's, when the photon does hit, all you see is a brief dot of
> light at some random place where the photon imparts its energy
> (perhaps to a phosphor screen). The interference pattern is the
> pattern of those dots - i.e. the pattern of *energy deposited over an
> area*. With VLBI, when the photon hits, all you know is which antenna
> it hit: you do not know *where* on that antenna it hit. The
> interference pattern is not the pattern of *energy* deposited over an
> *area*, but rather one of *E/M fields* at only two *points* (the
> antennae).
>
> Young's and VLBI therefore measure completely different phenomena:
It is not so. It definitely is not so.
The interferometers of both types (Young's and VLBI) produce
interference patterns.
You can orient two microwave interferometers of different types
(Young's and VLBI) on the same source of microwave radiation, for example
on the Sun. If these microwave interferometers of different types have
the same working microwave range, you receive absolutely equivalent
interference patterns!
> Young's looks at energy, VLBI looks at fields. Certainly the two are
> related, but they are not the same thing.
A basic innovation of a VLBI interferometer is the explicit and
obvious separation of two physical processes necessary for
construction of an interference pattern (for the first time in a
history physics my scientific chief has offered idea of VLBI method
in 1963).
The physical principles of operation of an VLBI interferometer
enable physically to divide two physical processes:
Step 1. Process of transiting of electromagnetic radiation through
slots of an interferometer.
Step 2. Process of shaping of an interference patterns.
Note 1. The interference picture in VLBI interferometer is pure
mathematical abstraction, since the construction of an interference
picture is carried out in the computer.
Note 2. Here there is no direct physical process of addition "
of waves " passing through slots!
===================================================================
All interferometers of other types (not VLBI) do not allow to
divide these two physical processes necessary for construction of
an interference pattern. Just the mixture(mixing) of these processes
in one " a heap " has reduced to historically error " of classical
interpretation of an interference " of "photon" on two slots.
===================================================================
> As to how a photon contrives (in Young's) to pass through two slits
> whilst remaining a single entity, the answer is: nobody knows. Nobody
> knows 'what a photon really is', or 'what it really looks like'.
In that the necessity is absent, since:
The photons are particles - ghosts, the photons are mathematical
abstraction, which allow us to calculate probability of interaction
of an electromagnetic field and substance.
> We do
> know that they can bounce off electrons exactly like little billiard
> balls (Compton scattering), and that they only ever show up at points,
> not spread out like waves. They only seem to behave like waves when we
> don't 'look at them' directly.
I shall do a refutation of this interpretation in the separate message.
> You have argued that photons cannot exist because they are unphysical.
> However, this assumes that you know what is physical, and what is not.
> How do you know? No physicist claims to know this. The universe is
> what it is, and it behaves the way it does, not the way you think it
> ought to. All you have succeeded in showing is that your 'picture' of
> a photon is wrong, or that your 'picture' of what is physical is
> wrong, or both.
I shall do a refutation of this interpretation in the separate message.
> Mental pictures like this only work for classical physics. They do not
> work for quantum physics. Yet quanta are most definitely real, despite
> the fact that their behaviour defies common sense. The best thing to
> do is to try to avoid such mental pictures. You can't create these
> pictures without making assumptions, and your assumptions will almost
> certainly be wrong.
I shall do a refutation of this interpretation in the separate message.
> Mike.
Mike wrote an intelligent and informative article.
Aleksandr Timofeev
You have given a perfect example of interference non-linear
addition of a coherent signal from the same source of a signal.
Below I shall do other perfect example of interference _linear_
addition of a coherent signal from the same source of a signal in a
VLBI interferometer.
Characteristic feature of all these phenomena is that
the Classical electrodynamics gives unified description of all
these phenomena from the uniform _wave_ point of view.
It serves the basic proof, that Methodologicalally useless
idea of a mathematical chimera of "photon" here and everywhere
generally is excessive.
==============================================================
The particle - photon does not exist in the Nature.
The hypothesis of a photon is necessary only for explanation
of transmission of E/M energy without existence of medium. :^0 ;o)
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.
A "photon" is mathematical abstraction,"Particle - photon" is a
mathematical trick, by that deceitful trick allow us to calculate
probability of interaction of an electromagnetic field
and substance.
>
> How is this different from the electro-optics in a CD player ?
>
> Compare this to Young's original all optical experiment:
> http://www.cavendishscience.org/phys/tyoung/tyoung.htm
> Is this really the same as the two-slit experiment ?
> How is it different from a Michelson or other interferometers ?
Well.
There are two graphic schemes illustrating the operation of a VLBI
interferometer
Step 1.
Step 2.
We can make physical tricks with magnetic tapes in a VLBI
interferometer.
In a VLBI interferometer we can receive an interference picture
for the same tape ([videotape 1] OR [videotape 2]) from the same
shoulder(arm) of an interferometer slightly by changing parameters
in the program of the computer.
Look the diagrams Step 2a & Step 2b:
Step 2a.
. The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 2.
. ----------------------------------------------------------
. "Interference picture"
. ^
. |
. [videotape 1] ------> [ COMPUTER ] <---------- [videotape 1]
Step 2b.
. The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 2.
. ----------------------------------------------------------
. "Interference picture"
. ^
. |
. [videotape 2] ------> [ COMPUTER ] <---------- [videotape 2]
These physical tricks with the same tape are very similar to a trick
considered by you:
"_optically_ combine two fiber optic cables by binding together two
of their ends. Shoot laser light from the same source into both the
..."
only these tricks can be both linear and non-linear, all depends on
the program functioning in the computer of a VLBI interferometer.
Note 1. The interference picture in VLBI interferometer is pure
mathematical abstraction, since the construction of an interference
picture is carried out in the computer.
Note 2. Here there is no direct physical process of addition "
of waves " passing through slots!
How does the possibility of addition
" of parts of a single photon " from two magnetic tapes?
Is it possible? Or is it impossible?
---------------------
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?
---------------------
Aleksandr Timofeev
> > Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<wcihAbFK...@clef.demon.co.uk>...
[snip]
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!!!
> As to how a photon contrives (in Young's) to pass through two slits
> whilst remaining a single entity, the answer is: nobody knows. Nobody
> knows 'what a photon really is', or 'what it really looks like'. We do
> know that they can bounce off electrons exactly like little billiard
> balls (Compton scattering),
I offer alternative interpretation of Compton scattering effect.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0110050811.259a247d%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
=======================================================================
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.
=======================================================================
The detailses of mechanisms of a radiation and absorption of an
electromagnetic field are not known to us. On my sight the photon is
simply other title for mechanisms of a radiation and absorption of an
electromagnetic field. For this reason the PHOTONS DO NOT EXIST IN A
NATURE or, if it is pleasant more to you, in a medium of an
electromagnetic field the photons will be generated as virtual
particles.
A "photon" is mathematical abstraction,"Particle - photon" is a
mathematical trick, by that deceitful trick allow us to calculate
probability of interaction of an electromagnetic field
and substance.
> and that they only ever show up at points,
> not spread out like waves. They only seem to behave like waves when we
> don't 'look at them' directly.
>
> You have argued that photons cannot exist because they are unphysical.
> However, this assumes that you know what is physical, and what is not.
> How do you know? No physicist claims to know this. The universe is
> what it is, and it behaves the way it does, not the way you think it
> ought to. All you have succeeded in showing is that your 'picture' of
> a photon is wrong, or that your 'picture' of what is physical is
> wrong, or both.
>
> Mental pictures like this only work for classical physics. They do not
> work for quantum physics.
I have put before myself a task to show fatal for QM an error in
interpretation of interaction of electromagnetic waves and
substance.
I well understand problems of psychological character originating
at a refutation of the fundamental bases of the standard theory.
Whether you are familiar with this book?:
Kuhn, Thomas S., "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
Kuhn's use of terms such as "paradigm shift" and "normal science,"
his ideas of how scientists move from disdain through doubt to
acceptance of a new theory, his stress on social and psychological
factors in science -- all have had profound effects on scientists
and the people of common sense.
ca314159
Excessive perhaps, but not useless.
People like to count things.
Particles are like integers,
classical waves seem more like real numbers,
classical wave-particles seem more like complex numbers,...
Would you throw away all the integers just to satisfy a wave theory without particles ?
> ==============================================================
>
> The particle - photon does not exist in the Nature.
>
> The hypothesis of a photon is necessary only for explanation
> of transmission of E/M energy without existence of medium. :^0 ;o)
>
Wouldn't you need "countable things" in a wave theory to satisfy a
conservation of energy law ? Otherwise, you would have to be satisfied
with only an analytical equation of that law; without any way of
experimentally validating it. In this sense you would be trading
virtual particles for virtual laws.
I don't see how anyone can "win", more than temporarily, when it comes to complementarity.
One only shifts the focus. A sort of convolution, which at times gets out of focus.
Consider point-line duality in geometry.
http://www.google.com/search?q=point-line+duality
There one can trade points for lines (or more generally waves), or vice versa.
> 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.
Photons are like numbers. Waves are like functions of numbers.
We could also send the two signals to the computer via fiber optic
cable encoded with the same information on the tapes.
>
> Step 2.
>
> . The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 2.
> . ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> . "Interference picture"
> . ^
> . |
> . [videotape 1] ------> [ COMPUTER ] <---------- [videotape 2]
>
> The VLBI interference 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.
It's not new. But it is true that it is not addressed as such
in many physics texts.
Here's a kind of interference pattern produced
on a computer using only pure mathematical functions without
any physical interpretation of them:
http://users.bestweb.net/~ca314159/TRIF2D.GIF
Which is further just a 2D projection of a more complicated 3D
surface intersections:
http://users.bestweb.net/~ca314159/TRIF3D.GIF
In this case the true natures of the interference pattern becomes
more evident in the higher dimensions.
Similar patterns can be made on computers simulating holography.
http://www.google.com/search?q=computer+generated+holograms
These can be "printed out" in 2D and used to generate actual physical 3D holograms.
Another, less computationally expensive technique for doing interference
uses the human brain itself to perceptually create the interference pattern:
http://www.google.com/search?q=SIRDS
In this case aren't the person's two eyes acting like the two VLBI antennas ?
And the brain itself acts like the computer connecting information from the two
optic nerves, which act like the two tapes ? There is no physically real 3D image
projected in this case.
Holograms do project physically real images that can be copied/cloned
but SIRDS cannot be copied in the 3D space, because that 3D space occurs
inside the brain where the interference takes place.
That sounds like a convolution or autocorrelation ?
>
> only these tricks can be both linear and non-linear, all depends on
> the program functioning in the computer of a VLBI interferometer.
That seems like a very important point.
>
> Note 1. The interference picture in VLBI interferometer is pure
> mathematical abstraction, since the construction of an interference
> picture is carried out in the computer.
> Note 2. Here there is no direct physical process of addition "
> of waves " passing through slots!
Color theory seems very tricky. There is additive color mixing
and subtractive color mixing. These are two different processes
resulting in different outcomes but they are complementary:
http://users.bestweb.net/~ca314159/XOR.GIF
These can be "simulated" on a computer screen,
but to physically produce these patterns requires two different processes.
Subtractive mixing is used in printing, but additive mixing
is used in projectors.
The difference between printing and projecting seems very important.
>
> How does the possibility of addition
> " of parts of a single photon " from two magnetic tapes?
>
> Is it possible? Or is it impossible?
I think you are confusing a photon with a particle.
This is alot like Zen's (chu'an) "the sound of one hand clapping" problem.
>
> ---------------------
> 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?
They will explain it statistically in terms of aliasing and/or in terms of
non-orthogonal basis projections. Or, they will explain it in terms
of certain mathematical properties which are mirrored in physical
properties, or in terms of numerical rounding or complex numbers, or
wavelets, or...
The photon might become more like a smart pixel:
http://www.google.com/search?q=smart+pixel
Afterall, isn't the photon really just a localized point on a photographic plate ?
Or, isn't it just a space-time (not just time, or just space) localized blip in an
electrical signal ? Or, they will explain the photon using higher dimensions...
There's a reason why digital computers became more common than analog computers.
It's a matter of scale, dimension, and limited resources.
To base all physical theory upon waves would require the use of analog and not
digital computers. The concept of photons are a product of digital/numerical computing.
This is why Fredkin and Wolfram are pushing "the universe is a digital computer" idea.
We used digital computers for mainly practical reasons but that is no reason
why one can't have a theory based on analog waves and analog computing.
The criteria for acceptance of physical theories is based on its practical nature.
So analog computing and wave theories are, at the moment, out of fashion because
we have not yet developed them to a more practical level.
Perhaps it cannot be done ? It is in this sense alot like the mind-body problem.
We develop a distinction between this physical world and the virtual world of the mind.
In this physical world we often use what is practical and the rest is left as matter for
virtual, spirtual, or analog (as opposed to numerical forms of communication).
In this sense, the wave and particle concepts are separated for the same
reasons as we try here in the US to separate the functions of church and state.
We acknowledge both, but they are often complementary. It is temporal and
problematic to take one side at the expense of the other.
This is why I doubt Fredkin and Wolfram will have any enduring success with
their discrete world. It is too "godless". Its value is wholely of a practical and
mechanical nature. They seem more like modern day Ahabs; charismatic control freaks
trying to convince everyone to help them kill Moby Dick (nature) with pointy sticks
(like photons and classical bits,...).
It seems the current trend to eliminate all non-progressive religions
off the face of the earth, for practical reasons:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/africa/04/16/congo.exploitation/index.html
Wave theories seem like non-progressive cults or indigenous native tribes
which were here long before the progressive invaders arrived and now we
confine them onto reservations like native americans and put the political
thumbscrews on them to get them to buy refrigerators and cable TVs and
get innoculated with and from our diseases instead of their maurading our
forts and stifling technical creativity. I'd give up a microwave oven
for a good old fashioned barbecue any day, but air conditioners and
refrigerators are really nice on a hot summer's day. I guess that depends
on where one lives. What would a barbecue in Antartica be like ?
Call me, Ishmael, but I encourage you to keep working on photon-less wave theories.
They have a certain aesthetic appeal, and not even pragmatism can take that away.
Theoretically, everything can be expressed in terms of more higher dimensional
entities than particles, points, bits, pennies, and integers...
Eventually, even the hardest nuts crack themselves open and grow.
"The Lathe of Heaven" or, turning infinity into eternity:
"Machine with Concrete"
http://www.arthurganson.com/pages/Sculptures.html
Aleksandr Timofeev
The particle - "photon" does not exist in the Nature.
The "phlogiston" does not exist in the Nature too.
The abstract concepts "Photon" and "Phlogiston" are the close
relatives, since these abstract concepts are physical chimeras.
Now everyone laugh at abstract physical concept "Phlogiston",
in the near future same sneers will be called by abstract
physical concept "Photon".
================================================================
The physical concept "Photon" is not harmless, for example,
due to this chimera we have not controlled thermonuclear process
till now etc. etc.
The harm strongly marked by a chimera of "Phlogiston" to
development physics is well known, the same history is
repeated with a chimera of "Photon".
================================================================
Whether you are familiar with book?:
ca314159
> Google Home - Advertise with Us - Search Solutions - News and Resources -
> Language Tools - Jobs, Press, Cool Stuff...
"Harmful chimeras", as you call them, seem to have been around for millenia.
They apparently once ruled the earth in prehistoric times, in what one might call:
that period of Nature's nightmarish combinatorics of biology and its
aesthetic preference for cute and cuddly deepsea anglerfish:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/hughes2001/acct/bmounmanivong/deep03b.jpg
Developing any working theories without using chimeras seems improbable.
Give me an example of a theory without a chimera.
"...and I cherish more than anything else the Analogies, my most
trustworthy masters. They know all the secrets of Nature..."
--Kepler
Analogies, similes, metaphors, paradoxes, hyphenation, morphisms,... are all chimeras.
How often do they lead to "eureka!" ?
One must draw a line somewhere. If some people find the idea of
photons convenient, then "let them eat cake".
They want and desire the sugar-coated complication because it has caloric content
and does work for them. "More power to them." And they have no desire to eat
something more blandly nutritional like plain ordinary bread even though it
may be healthier.
Every paradigm is a candle, burning from both ends.
Kuhn:
"The proponents of different theories are like the members of different
language-culture communities."
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm
Similarly, "linguistic relativity":
http://www.google.com/search?q=linguistic+relativity
and these seem to naturally lead to ideas of the "Global Village":
that expanding universe of sensors/information/communication,
and preceived responsibility,
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/bas9401.html
McLuhan's notion of "reversal" is of the inevitable demise of a paradigm
as it reverts into something destructive. This is similar to Paracelsus'
ideas on the dose relationship between cures and poisons.
So, they also claim, not only are we, the average citizens,
now responsible for our households, our neighborhoods, our cities,
our nations,... but the whole world. And not only the world,
but anything you can perceive with these new enhanced sensors like:
atoms, photons, stars, galaxies, killer asteroids...
"Excuse me while I kiss the sky"
- Jimi Hendrix - Purple Haze
We're all expected now to be infinitely "nosey",
minding each others' business.
So how much responsibility do you want to take on ?
Or, how much responsibility are you willing to let others lay on you ?
Are you willing to go into the rain forests and tell the
stone age natives there, that you must now regulate their
lives, because it's your responsibility since you saw them
before they saw you ?
This of course creates alot of paranoia. Some people don't seem to
like the idea of their being held responsible for some anonymous nerd
on the other side of the planet mucking around with dangerous
combinations of over-the-counter chemicals, desktop black holes,
phlogiston, and DNA. Others get over-zealous, and want to control
everyone in microscopic detail like big brother.
Dune, Star Wars propaganda ensues followed by the more humorous
"all your base are belong to us" phenomena:
http://www.sirlinksalot.net/ayb.html
And thus too was born the whole idea of "The Borg" in Star Trek,
those interconnected cyborgs with no individual personality.
The "resistance is futile" ultimatum of these
prefection-seeking Borg is reflected in other prophetic propaganda:
Ursula Leguin wrote in "The Lathe of Heaven" of how the universe
is inevitably destroyed by some anonymous hyperdimensional alien engineer
tinkering with a new kind of space drive. The protagonist is told
that this cannot be avoided. Destruction is as inevitable as existance.
A similar stoic notion of our tragic and inevitable demise is presented
in "Dr. Strangelove".
Life is short. I think I'll go out and buy a Gadsden flag:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/stories/gadsden.html#story
rather than worry about whether science is being corrupted by
the concept of photons. One might as well complain that music
was about continuous waves, and not about individual discrete notes;
but I don't think that would go very far.
"It is rare to find learned men who are clean, do not stink and have a sense of humour."
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Leibniz.html
Aleksandr Timofeev
[snip]
By "photon" bad character and ill-looking appearance,
like the Devil with his tail cut off. ;-)
The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
" The Devil is the Liar and He is the Father of Lie. "
The schizophrenia is inadequate perception of the real.
The purpose of the given article is 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?:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0105300456.3f908a72%40posting.google.com
Step First Debunking Photon Wave-Particle Duality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0110050811.259a247d%40posting.google.com
=========================================================================
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (a_n_ti...@my-deja.com)
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.
=========================================================================