|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#201
October 29th 03, 03:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
Aleksandr Timofeev wrote: I ask about destiny of alone/single "photon". Bill Hobba wrote: What makes you think that is a measurable property of a photon? Ralph Sansbury A photon was hypothesized as an alternative to the supposed wave at least at higher frequencies because the kinetic energies of electrons ejected by the radiation was just as strong with faint as with more intense radiation and that the energy required at the small surface area of the photoemissive surface(eg sodium) to produce the observed energy of the ejected particle would have taken a hundred days but the observed time lag was 3 nanoseconds. Thus photoemission is a measureable property of a photon but it is also a measuremable property of the cumulative effect of an instantaneous force at a distance produced by the radiation source. This hypothesis, that light is neither a wave or a photon or a probabilistic photon, but rather the result of a rapid sequence of electrostatic forces of the source on the receiver produces also electrostatic changes inside the atomic nuclei and loosely bound electrons in the receiver. These latter forces in the receving surface may produce rapid ejection of an electron from sodium exposed to uv eg 1ns if is about a foot from the radiation source which is what was observed Has the proposal actually been written up? Also one would need to explain other things - such as blackbody radiation. That is the problem I see with anti QM advocates - they have a handwavy explanation of some phenomena - not actually codified in a detailed explanation. Also, even if their explanation is correct it does not explain the other evidence we have. My understanding is that the classic two slit experiment as discussed by Feynman with conceptual light sources being made so faint they can only have one photon in the apparatus at one time has actually been carried out. In that case we shall be delighted to read your interpretation of an interference in a VLBI interferometer from a "photon" point of view. So to me the existence of photons that obey QM is almost beyond question. Freedom of religious conscience is a private affair of the believer. Thanks AT 
|
|
#202
October 29th 03, 11:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Aleksandr Timofeev wrote: I ask about destiny of alone/single "photon". Bill Hobba wrote: What makes you think that is a measurable property of a photon? Aleksandr Timofeev In that case we shall be delighted to read your interpretation of an interference in a VLBI interferometer from a "photon" point of view. I will go over it again then. Photons are neither particles or waves - they are quantum stuff. Quantum stuff does not have objective properties like position, momentum etc independent of how you observe it. All we know about quantum stuff is its state. Quantum stuff behaves non deterministically when you observe it by instantaneously jumping to another state - the state it jumps to being indeterminate - we can only predict probabilities. This is weird - against common sense - but is how experiment shows nature behaves. Thus destiny of the photon is not a meaningful question. When the photon is emitted its state can be considered as a wave and you get all the interference effects of waves. However the moment you observe its position using your telescopes it immediately changes state to a particle with a fixed position. The probability depends on the strength of the wave at that point when it was in a state that it could be considered a wave. Now I ask you again - why do you think destiny is a meaningful concept for a photon? No evasion. You asked about destiny - I now ask you to prove to me it has one - such proof being experimentally verifiable. Thanks Bill
|
|
#203
October 30th 03, 09:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
|
|
#204
October 30th 03, 10:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
Aleksandr Timofeev wrote: I ask about destiny of alone/single "photon". Bill Hobba wrote: What makes you think that is a measurable property of a photon? Aleksandr Timofeev In that case we shall be delighted to read your interpretation of an interference in a VLBI interferometer from a "photon" point of view. I will go over it again then. Photons are neither particles or waves - they are quantum stuff. Quantum stuff does not have objective properties like position, momentum etc independent of how you observe it. All we know about quantum stuff is its state. Quantum stuff behaves non deterministically when you observe it by instantaneously jumping to another state - the state it jumps to being indeterminate - we can only predict probabilities. This is weird - against common sense - but is how experiment shows nature behaves. Thus destiny of the photon is not a meaningful question. When the photon is emitted its state can be considered as a wave and you get all the interference effects of waves. However the moment you observe its position using your telescopes it immediately changes state to a particle with a fixed position. The probability depends on the strength of the wave at that point when it was in a state that it could be considered a wave. 1. Thus we have fixed experimentally established fact, that you can not give explanation of a self-interference of a "photon" in a VLBI interferometer. 2. Further we have fixed experimentally established fact, that you can not give explanation physical principles put in a basis of operation VLBI of an interferometer. 3. Moreover, we have fixed experimentally established fact of a glaring ( scandalous ) inaccuracy vivid description by R. P. Feynman of " a imaginary interference experiment ". Now I ask you again - why do you think destiny is a meaningful concept for a photon? No evasion. You asked about destiny - I now ask you to prove to me it has one - such proof being experimentally verifiable. Yes, no evasion: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com Excerption: physical interpretation of "single-photon interferometer" is a unintentional or deliberate hoax. I shall ask you some problems: 1. If somebody will tell you, what he sees structure of sole atom through a magnifying glass, whether you will believe him? What amount of photons should hit on a retina of your eye for shaping any of the image? Whether it is one photon? Whether it is two or three photons? Please, estimate a necessary amount of photons. a) Here we have a problem of detecting of a very weak signal. b) Here we have a problem of an amplification of a signal. c) Here we have problems of transformations and filtrations of a signal. d) Here we have a problem of accumulation of the information and suppression of noise. 2. Michelson interferometer works with streams of an energy. Please, look at the term "Pulsed-Light" in title of paper. "Pulsed-Light" is a discontinuous stream of an electromagnetic energy, where do you see here lonely photon? 3. The VLBI interferometer with independent filing of signals in shoulders can decide the given problem, since the indivisible photon is obliged to hit in one and only one of two shoulders of a VLBI interferometer. If the virtual interference in a computer will not exist, then the indivisible photon really exists in a nature. If the virtual interference in the computer will exist, then the indivisible photon really does not exist in a nature. [snip] I repeat again, physical interpretation of the term "single-photon interferometer" is a unintentional or deliberate hoax. ---------------------------------------------------------- Thanks AT
|
|
#205
October 30th 03, 10:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
Sergey, sorry for not responding sooner. I'm going to trim a lot since I agree with most and I have too little time to get involved in this. I only intended to send one post and that was weeks ago :-( George, I also was terribly busy, but funny, I tried to write you in most details, thinking, you are involved in vibrations and it is very important for you to be aware of some things I wrote you. Well, let it. In a week I'm intending to publish on our web site a paper on cosmology that might be of your interest. There are some more lines for you bottom. "Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message To call resonance the independent phenomenon is the same as to try hearing the sound of guitar when it's absent here. If you heard it before, you can imagine this sound, but if your opposite person never heard guitar but knows how banjo sounds, he will associate your attempts to explain how guitar sounds with the sound of banjo. ;-) Any vibration system has very versatile kinds of vibrations which scientists at due time have classified by their features and revelations, but all these kinds are realised only at different conditions and are inseparable from the system in which they arise. We considered the channel and saw how one forms of vibrations transit to another and that there is no difference between vibrations and wave processes. All these are vibrations, and the kind of vibrations can be different. So it is fully ignorant to assert as David does that atom is non-resonant system (the starting point of this discussion on resonance). Atom is quite resonant system, and the fact that Niels Bohr's resonance calculations have fully coincided with the experiment only corroborates this. Yes, I agree, I also pointed that out to Sean. Where I disagreed was when you described the child as a "wave phenomenon" which means that the child is produced by the waves. The child is part of the system that oscillates as a result of the waves but obviously the child would still exist if there were no waves. Here I didn't understand you. It is second time now when you are attributing to me what I didn't say, I think that has been the key to this for some time. I have explained what I meant in my reply several times but you keep misunderstanding me, and I think I misunderstood you in the first place. I'll leave it at that. More importantly, you have to take into account that it seems that the parameters can only have discrete values. We have no necessity in it. Just this reveals your affection for QM dogmata which permanently comes to light and confuses your logic. ;-) No, I was careful to say "it seems that". It may well be that they can take other values but they always exhibit discrete levels in our experiments. Using that to simplify our analysis is pragmatic and can always be revised if it fails in any conditions not yet tested. So far I don't see a need for that. ... Thus, E and H components affect so that if the period of pulses coincides with the period of external field, these pulses will increase. Is this resonance or not? That depends. If it is resonance, the orbit should be able to gradually change from one energy level to another as it absorbs energy over many cycles. Here again 'hoofs' are seen. ;-) In this case you are proceeding not from the process but from Planck's postulate which supporters of QM have dogmatised. No i start with conclusions I drew from experiments I did many years ago in the physics lab. I have never seen anything to cause me to doubt those results or conclusions but if someone comes up with an experiment that shows them to be wrong, I will take hard evidence before dogma every time. The results have to be reproducible though ;-) Simulator is a very good thing, indeed, but no one simulator is able to match the phase-dependent boundary. You can yield it only having the problem solved. And in the vibration theory you never know finally, which condition at the boundary is actually the most important for you. Vibrations like much to 'punish' us by summing the phases and multiple reflections from interior heterogeneities. ;-) My biggest problem is that the stuff was built over forty years ago and the springs are air-filled rubber tyres with lots of patches! Nobody knows how they behave now. In many ways Sergey I think we are entirely in agreement. The few places we have disagreed, I could put down to differences in language, not differences in our physics. Undoubtedly, and perhaps we would finely complement each other in research. And there is nothing unsolvable in language, as it said Carlson that lives on the roof. I think, if you knew more of technique on which I base my analysis, you would less entrust to dogmas that appeared just because the scientists of that time have run into a strong difficulty. They constructed a temporary building of postulates; now today scientists are guided just as the tourists along this "Great Chinese Wall". ;-) As long as the results work, it will do for now. Show you get better results or can analyse something beyond our present abilities and your methods will be added to the body of knowledge. best regards George Is it little what we have already done?! Take any problem from our papers, http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...ver/cover.html Neither you nor any other colleague can solve any with the help of conventional methods. ;-) This is another knowledge. I already suggested to many colleagues in the newsgroups to replicate these solutions. Now they all are running along exterior orbits. ;-) I can notice also, our method automatically adds to the new massive of knowledge, do you acknowledge it or not, as it improves the existing knowledge, broadens the calculation scope and is in perfect agreement with the experiment. Does one want to notice it or not - this is one's matter. One can shut his eyes to anything, only not everyone will appear in the darkness. ;-) And this is far from all ability of our method. Soon you will see our new solutions in cosmology (I think, you have already read our paper "On the nature of red shift of Metagalaxy" http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...s3.html#hubble ). These solutions will some push aside your, colleagues, beloved Einstein's g-theory (of course, not at once, but firmly). ;-) As I showed in previous posts when cited Einstein, factually he had created no new theory. He only confused Newton's gravity theory created for STATIONARY motions. Einstein has introduced a priori the time variable but retained the main Newton's postulates and added to them Poisson's conservation law for stationary fields. While actual theory has (1) to improve the concept of gravitation (phenomenologically!), and (2) to base on the conservation laws for DYNAMICAL fields. However, relativists many years simply ignore the dynamical conservation laws which we have proved, "Transformation of divergence theorem in dynamical fields" http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...chive.html#div and "Theorem of curl of a potential vector in dynamical fields" http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...ents.html#curl Of course, one can disregard this all, this is the right of each researcher, and I cannot put my eyes in to every colleague. ;-) If they apply correct conservation laws, their entire theory will tear. Good luck! Sergey Karavashkin.
|
|
#207
October 31st 03, 11:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
(Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message . com...
(Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message . com... [snip] Dear Aleksandr, I understand your adherence to the theory of integers. I only would notice, the physics surely cannot be put into that theory. The more that in the decimal system integers will be one thing, and in any other - other. For example, if you calculate the angles in radians, the ratios of pi will be integers. ;-) Sergey you should know, that at transitions between miscellaneous number systems with COMMENSURABLE UNITIES of GAUGES, the INTEGER RATIOES ARE INVARIANT for the GIVEN CLASS of TRANSITIONS between miscellaneous number systems, i.e. the INTEGER RATIOES in a concrete number system remain INTEGER RATIOES in other number system also. 1. If you look narrowly closer at my ratioes, you will see, that my ratioes do not depend on a choice of a number system. In any number system my ratioes will be close to integers of the chosen number system. 2. The quantities of planetary masses in my ratioes are dimensionless quantities, i.e. my ratioes do not depend on a choice of units of measurement. DEDUCTIONS: 1. My ratioes do not depend on a choice of a number system. 2. My ratioes do not depend on a choice of units of measurement. 3.In any number system my ratioes will be close to integers of the chosen number system. ================================================== ========= My RATIOES of QUANTITIES of PLANETARY MASSES ARE INVARIANT and DO NOT DEPEND on a CHOICE of a number SYSTEM. ================================================== ========= Sprouts of New Gravitation Without Mathematical Chimeras of XX Century: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ailAndNews.com .. THE SYMMETRY INSIDE THE SOLAR SYSTEM Abstract. The empirical law connecting values of planetary masses in the Solar system is demonstrated and is analyzed. A characteristic property of this law is the existence of groups consisting from four planets. The law allows to predict existence and properties of three unknown planets inside the Solar system. This law can serve the useful tool for a research of extra-solar planetary systems. 1. Empirical gravitational regularities of a symmetry in the Solar System 1.1. Magic ratios of linear combinations of planetary masses Table I Planetary masses and Ratios of linear combinations of masses Planet Symbol Mass | Ratio Exact Rounded used for value | considered value ratio each planet Earth=1 | of the ratio .. | Jupiter MJU or 1 317.735 |(MJU+MSA)/(MUR+MNE) = 12.9959 ~ 13 Saturn MSA or 2 95.147 | MJU/(MUR+MNE) = 10.0010 ~ 10 Neptune MNE or 3 17.23 | MSA/(MUR+MNE) = 2.9948 ~ 3 Uranus MUR or 4 14.54 | (MJU+MSA)/MNE = 23.9630 ~ 24 Earth MTE or 5 1.000 | MUR/(MTE+MVE) = 8.0110 ~ 8 Venus MVE or 6 0.815 | (MNE+MUR)/MVE = 38.9816 ~ 39 Mars MMA or 7 0.108 | (MTE+MVE)/MME = 33.0000 ~ 33 Mercury MME or 8 0.055 | MVE/(MMA+MME) = 5.0000 ~ 5 The planetary masses are measured with some errors also. 1.2. Chiral symmetry ratios of linear combinations of the planetary masses When organised graphically, the ratios [2] of linear combinations of the planetary masses considered, reveal a chain of gravitational correlations between triples of planets possessing chiral symmetry: Table II Chiral symmetry ratios of linear combinations of the planetary masses 10 I-----------| I 13 | I==============I I | I ? 39 I | I |-----------------I 33 |----------------I 24 | I | |------------------I |-----------------I | | I ? | | I 5 | | I 8 | | I 3 | | I | | I====| | I====| | I====| | I====| | I | | I | | I | | I | | I | | I 10 9 I 8 7 I 6 5 I 4 3 I 2 1 I I | | I | | I | | I | | I I Mercury MarsI Venus EarthI Uran NepI Saturn JupiterI I I I I I 10+9 8+7 6+5 4+3 2+1 ln(mass) - - -------------------------------------------------------------- The following symbols here are used in this graphic: MSA + MJU - 2 + 1; MUR + MNE - 4 + 3; MVE + MTE - 6 + 5; MME + MMA - 8 + 7; MJU - 1; MSA - 2; MNE - 3; MUR - 4; MTE - 5; MVE - 6; MMA - 7; MME - 8; 5 Direct gravitational correlation - ====; 33 Reverse gravitational correlation - ---------- Note: Here it is necessary to understand exclusive importance of the numbers Fibonacci for gravitational regularities inside the Solar system in common case: If you look at direct gravitational connections than you will see the following numbers: 3, 5, 8, 13. For the third hypothetical quad there should be now following numbers accordingly: 21 and 34. 1.3. Formula for pairs of conjugate gravitational correlations. We shall name "pairs of conjugate gravitational correlations" the following pairs of values that can be identified on the previous graph: 33,5 39,8 24,3 10,13 We shall now consider relating of sums of those pairs of conjugate gravitational correlations with squares of natural numbers: 33+5=6^2+2 39+8=7^2-2 24+3=5^2+2 10+13=5^2-2 +2 -2 +2 -2 From these relations, a common formula for the sums of the pairs of conjugate direct and reverse gravitational correlations can be established: (value of reverse correlation)+(value of direct correlation)=n^2 +/- 2 To some extent, this formula is analog to Balmer's formula for spectral series of the Hydrogen atom. The analysis of the chained series of conjugate gravitational correlations clearly reveals here a periodic alternance of the sign before number 2. 1.4. Gravitational correlations for groups of four planets. For a long time astronomers have been aware of dynamic relations in celestial bodies in groups of four, in the stable gravitational system which the Solar System presents us with. On this specific criterion and on some other dynamic criterions stemming from celestial mechanics, we can select two groups of four planets in the Solar System. The planets of the Terrestrial group a Earth, Venus, Mars and Mercury. The planets of the Jovian group a Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus. The empirical facts discovered here indirectly confirm the existence of further relations. For the group of planets Earth, Venus, Mars and Mercury ((n^2 + 2);(n ^ 2 - 2)) the relationship is established in the following manner: ( 33 + 5) + (39 + 8) = 6 ^ 2 + 7 ^ 2 = 9 ^ 2 + 2 ^ 2 = 85 For the group of planets Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus ((n ^ 2 + 2); (n ^ 2 - 2)) the relationship is established in the following manner: ( 10 + 13) + (24 + 3) = 5 ^ 2 + 5 ^ 2 = 7 ^ 2 + 1 ^ 2 = 50 In each of the groups considered, there is a higher pair (n ^ 2-2) and lower pair of planets (m ^ 2 + 2). Therefore, a possibility seems to exist to derivate various combinations of these pairs to obtain mixed combinations from these two groups of four planets. In our particular case, only the combination of the two lower pairs ((n ^ 2 + 2); (m ^ 2 + 2)) Neptune, Uranus, Mars and Mercury, forming a mixed group, allows a correlation to be determined: ( 33 + 5) + (24 + 3) = 7 ^ 2 + 4 ^ 2 = 8 ^ 2 + 1 ^ 2 = 65 Some conclusions: The considered relations can be expressed as the following formula: (sum values of all correlations of the given group) = k^2+l^2=m^2+n^2 What is remarkable in these correlations by groups of four planets, is that the sum of the pairs of conjugate gravitationnal correlations are equal in each case to natural numbers (50, 65, 85) which are the first terms of a sequence of natural numbers, which are the sum of two pairs of squares of natural numbers. Please look Diophantus's theorem of a number theory (III, 19). Here is the beginning of this series: ! ! ! number 1 25 50 65 85 100 125 130 145 169 170 185 200 205 221 225 250 260 1 1 5 7 8 9 10 11 11 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16 pair 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 3 1 0 1 4 2 3 5 0 5 2 2 0 4 5 7 7 8 10 9 9 12 11 11 10 13 11 12 13 14 pair 1 3 5 4 6 6 5 7 8 5 7 8 10 6 10 9 9 8 1.5. Principles of ratio selection As we examine Table I, we might wonder why these specific ratios were selected, among the many combinations that are mathematically possible. Here are the principles that guided the choice of ratios. All these principles should be fulfilled simultaneously. From a mathematical point of view, the problem gravitational interaction between planets of the Solar System is the nonlinear n-body problem. Principles 1,2,3,4 and 5 are the physical restrictions superimposed on the mathematical formalism of ratioes of linear combinations of planetary masses. The given method has analogs in radiophysical, atomic and molecular spectral researches. The considered method is not statistical, it leans on properties nonlinear stationary systems. Principle 1. The ratios having the least difference in value from integers are chosen. Principle 2. The ratios containing only three bodies are chosen (there is one elemination stipulated by a Principle 4). Principle 2 leans on existence of the closed solution of the three-body problem. The three-body problem was solved by Karl Fritiof Sundman [3]. This solution has a very complicated structure and that one does not give direct tie between coordinates and time, i.e. there is a full analogy to the solution for the two-body problem. Principle 3. The ratios containing the planets, closest on masses are chosen. These ratios are the most essential and reliable from the physical point of view. The Principle 3 integrates in a ratio those planets which have the greatest potential energies of gravitational interaction. The Principle 3 take into account also that the absolute errors in masses of large planets can exceed masses of small planets. Principle 4. The ratios ensuring existence of a symmetry of a high level are chosen. For the first time in the world the French mathematician and physicist Henry Poincare has paid attention to a symmetry of the physical laws [4]. The fundamental physical laws have properties tightly connected with a symmetry [5]. In the given work the properties of a symmetry of the Solar System are studied. Principle 5. Only main terms of the ratios are chosen. When the significant ratioes satisfying to Principles 1,2,3 and 4 are sorted in ascending order, the following sequence of natural numbers are obtained: 3,5,7(*),8,10,13,24,33,39... Only these terms (except for number 7) are main in gravitational interaction between planets of the Solar System. These terms represent the main nonlinear process of the Solar System. The remaining ratioes are the causal corollary of the main terms, therefore they are excluded from the analysis in the given paper. Now we are finishing a new paper that will clear a little, why I'm so sceptic as to such theories. But you are right in many other things And I am right and in this case. :-) and I always try to support you, when possible. I think, these matters will gradually settle. Water will pass, and golden sand will sediment. ;-) Kind regards, AT
|
|
#208
October 31st 03, 12:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
[snip] Aleksandr Timofeev wrote: 1. Thus we have fixed experimentally established fact, that you can not give explanation of a self-interference of a "photon" in a VLBI interferometer. Assertions must be based on reasons. You have provided none. 2. Further we have fixed experimentally established fact, that you can not give explanation physical principles put in a basis of operation VLBI of an interferometer. Same as above.. 3. Moreover, we have fixed experimentally established fact of a glaring ( scandalous ) inaccuracy vivid description by R. P. Feynman of " a imaginary interference experiment ". You assertion is not based on any reasoning provided Aleksandr Timofeev 1. If somebody will tell you, what he sees structure of sole atom through a magnifying glass, whether you will believe him? What amount of photons should hit on a retina of your eye for shaping any of the image? Whether it is one photon? Whether it is two or three photons? Please, estimate a necessary amount of photons. No reasoning provided of why it is of any relevance to the problem at hand. Aleksandr Timofeev wrote: "Pulsed-Light" is a discontinuous stream of an electromagnetic energy, where do you see here lonely photon? You don't because each pulse contains a lot of photons. Remember E = hv and that h is quite small. Aleksandr Timofeev wrote: 3. The VLBI interferometer with independent filing of signals in shoulders can decide the given problem, since the indivisible photon is obliged to hit in one and only one of two shoulders of a VLBI interferometer. And it does hit one and only one - but not the same one. The one it hits is not determined uniquely by the experiment - remember the really weird property of quantum stuff - it is not deterministic - when you observe it it instantaneously jumps into another state that is not predetermined - all we can predict is probabilities. Assertions must be based on reasons. You have provided none. " And it does hit one and only one - but not the same one. " Whether you perceive, what you have written here? Aleksandr Timofeev I repeat again, physical interpretation of the term "single-photon interferometer" is a unintentional or deliberate hoax. And I say it is not for the reasons I stated above. Assertions must be based on reasons. You have provided none. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com ================================================== ================ EXCERPTION: "franz heymann" wrote in message m... [snip] 1. The structure factor of photons has been determined by more than one group of experimenters. It is consistent with zero radius. [snip] 2. But you froget that a whole century has passed in the mean time and that no prediction made by quantum mechanics has ever been proved wrong in any experimental test. Franz Heymann You can play with a virtual radio interferometer. If you will manage to explain a principle of operation of this type of interferometer from the photon point of view, then: I shall believe in existence of photons, and I shall eat my tie or hat. --------------------------------------- I think, that your navel will be untied, but you can not explain ---------------------------------------------------------------- a principle of operation of a virtual interferometer from a photon point of view! Give an evaluation to the size of a photon if the photon has a wavelength 3.5 cm. and if the distance between antennas is equal to diameter of globe. :O) ! Any attempts to explain the principle of operation of the given type of the radio interferometer from a photon point of view will suffer a fall. The radio interferometer with independent writing of signals on "slots" is a direct proof of a non-existence of photons in a nature. By my former scientific chief Matveenko Leonid Ivanovich (he works at the Space Research Institute RAS till now) in 1963 was invented the absolutely new kind of the radio interferometer. Main ideas of this type of the radio interferometer we 1. A simultaneous independent recording of signals on each separate antenna ("slot") on magnetic tapes; 2. " The interference picture " is received in the computer as an outcome _ mathematical _ addings of signals recorded on magnetic tapes; 3. The distance between antennas ("slots ") of a radio interferometer can exceed diameter of the Earth. (For definit wave length limiting distances between antennas, at which the interference picture disappears, is not known until now!) There are no problems for explanation of a principle of operation of the radio interferometer with simultaneous independent writing of signals from a wave point of view. --------------------- 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? --------------------- But any attempts to explain a principle of operation of the given type of the radio interferometer from a photon point of view will suffer a fall for the following reasons: 1. In this case there is no real physical process of an interference - interference will be realized abstractly mathematically in the computer; 2. Give an evaluation to the size of a photon if the photon has a wavelength 3.5 cm. and if the distance between antennas is equal to diameter of globe. Average on space density of energy impresses, the delay of time in all processes impress too. 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. ================================================== ================ Thanks AT
|
|
#209
October 31st 03, 02:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message m... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... Sergey, sorry for not responding sooner. I'm going to trim a lot since I agree with most and I have too little time to get involved in this. I only intended to send one post and that was weeks ago :-( George, I also was terribly busy, but funny, I tried to write you in most details, thinking, you are involved in vibrations and it is very important for you to be aware of some things I wrote you. The contract I am currently working on controls the motion of a vehicle and has an on-board accelerometer so resonances will have an effect on noise characteristics. However, the system is poorly characterised so there is no information to allow detailed modelling. I am aware of the subject but cannot make use of your work, that's all. As long as the results work, it will do for now. Show you get better results or can analyse something beyond our present abilities and your methods will be added to the body of knowledge. Is it little what we have already done?! Take any problem from our papers, http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...ver/cover.html Neither you nor any other colleague can solve any with the help of conventional methods. ;-) This is another knowledge. I already suggested to many colleagues in the newsgroups to replicate these solutions. Now they all are running along exterior orbits. ;-) I can notice also, our method automatically adds to the new massive of knowledge, do you acknowledge it or not, as it improves the existing knowledge, broadens the calculation scope and is in perfect agreement with the experiment. Does one want to notice it or not - this is one's matter. One can shut his eyes to anything, only not everyone will appear in the darkness. ;-) I don't have the time to read your paper so I can't say whether it is original or not. If it is, congratulations, but I am not in a position to judge either way. And this is far from all ability of our method. Soon you will see our new solutions in cosmology (I think, you have already read our paper "On the nature of red shift of Metagalaxy" http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...s3.html#hubble I avoid angelfire if possible because of banner-ads but I had a quick look. I haven't read it in detail yet but will when I get the chance. Best regards George
|
|
#210
November 1st 03, 10:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Let us look at what is going on here.
I explained the QM interpretation of the VLBI interferometer by carefully explaining that the world consists neither of particles or waves, just quantum stuff that indeterministically changes state when you observe it. In response to this Aleksandr Timofeev wrote: '1. Thus we have fixed experimentally established fact, that you can not give explanation of a self-interference of a "photon" in a VLBI interferometer.' Because no reasoning was attached to this assertion I replied: 'Assertions must be based on reasons. You have provided none.' Naturally I would expect Aleksandr to give the exact reasoning for his assertion. However he does no such thing. Instead of addressing that issue what does he do? In response to my statement: 'And it does hit one and only one - but not the same one. The one it hits is not determined uniquely by the experiment - remember the really weird property of quantum stuff - it is not deterministic - when you observe it it instantaneously jumps into another state that is not predetermined - all we can predict is probabilities.' He replies: 'Assertions must be based on reasons. You have provided none.' Now I have explained my reasoning carefully. It is that when quantum stuff is observed it jumps indeterministically into another state. It is this indeterminism and lack of a 'destiny' of a particular photon that resolves the self interference issue. Sometimes it will be found at one telescope, sometimes at another depending on the square of the wave function. These issues were examined in great detail at the birth of QM. They cumulated in the great Einstein - Bohr debates where, despite the fact that Einstein did not like the interpretation he was forced to admit it was consistent - and maintained that position forever afterward (eg see the forward he wrote to Bohms book on QM). Now when discussing an issue with someone who shows no interest in reasoning or discussing things properly you have no choice but to say - fine - it is obvious we will never agree. Thus I must stop this discourse. People have read what I wrote, people have read what you wrote and can form their own view. Having observed the way Aleksandr works I predict he will do one of 3 things: 1. Claim he has won because I was not able to meet his refutation - even though he provided none. 2. Claim I was the one with faulty reasoning - that is of course up to you the reader to decide. 3. Simply rant and rave with his silly statements like 'Already for a long time there is a classic wave explanation. All other interpretations are easily refuted chimaera' without any reasons. Of course now that I have stated what I think he will do he may do something completely different - it will be interesting to see exactly what he does. Stay tuned for a laugh. Thanks Bill
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
