|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Dear Franz Heymann:
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... (formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:8JKCb.7902$gN.226@fed1read05... Dear Aleksandr Timofeev: "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:jg0Ab.27670$Bk1.6608@fed1read05... ... Just " the virtual interference in the digital computer " makes possible to detect a SOURCE "hidden" under noise, if the SOURCE is living. If the SOURCE has died, we shall not have " a virtual interference in the digital computer ", the NOISE DOES NOT INTERFERE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I claim nothing about the noise. I claim about loss of signal. Since there is no loss of signal, the signal is two separate streams... and not some gestalt structure. Therefore a wave-only model is an approximation. In a such case What can you say NOW about a self-interference so-called of "photon" in VLBI? All particles self-interfere. Some case or cases, strictly in point to the problem at hand, must be produced. Yes. Wave-only model and the photoelectric effect are mutually exclusive. Not at all, if you accept that particles are de facto particles, in the sense that all of them, (including the photon) have small and well defined radial extents. It is their *dynamics* which are determined not by the classical equations of particle motion, but by the laws of quantum mechanics. Let me bring you up to date... Alexsandr has been posturing on this topic for over a year, and this is the third (or is it fourth) cycle around his attempts to avoid discussion of the photoelectric effect. Note the title of the thread. Alexsandr wishes to treat the interesting absorption and emission phenomenon as "boundary conditions". This is well and good, as wave mathematics allows one to do some very powerful things that descibe the behaviour of large populations of particles. Next, in typical bar room fashion, he claims that light is *not* comprised of particles, and photons are mere illusions. That light is truly not comprised of particles, but is completely wave only for its entire existance. And that this is the sum total of truth. He has been challenged to provide a wave-only observable phenomenon, and has failed. Self-interference is displayed by all particles, so that is a failing of particle-only models (more correctly particle-as-billiard-ball models). So now I ask you... What is it about "wave only" and "particle with radial extents" that you find similar, Franz? Welcome back to the fray, by the way... was it business or an upset stomach that took you away? David A. Smith |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:9O1Db.10727$gN.6084@fed1read05... Dear Franz Heymann: "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... (formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:8JKCb.7902$gN.226@fed1read05... Dear Aleksandr Timofeev: "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:jg0Ab.27670$Bk1.6608@fed1read05... ... Just " the virtual interference in the digital computer " makes possible to detect a SOURCE "hidden" under noise, if the SOURCE is living. If the SOURCE has died, we shall not have " a virtual interference in the digital computer ", the NOISE DOES NOT INTERFERE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I claim nothing about the noise. I claim about loss of signal. Since there is no loss of signal, the signal is two separate streams... and not some gestalt structure. Therefore a wave-only model is an approximation. In a such case What can you say NOW about a self-interference so-called of "photon" in VLBI? All particles self-interfere. Some case or cases, strictly in point to the problem at hand, must be produced. Yes. Wave-only model and the photoelectric effect are mutually exclusive. Not at all, if you accept that particles are de facto particles, in the sense that all of them, (including the photon) have small and well defined radial extents. It is their *dynamics* which are determined not by the classical equations of particle motion, but by the laws of quantum mechanics. Let me bring you up to date... Alexsandr has been posturing on this topic for over a year, and this is the third (or is it fourth) cycle around his attempts to avoid discussion of the photoelectric effect. Note the title of the thread. Alexsandr wishes to treat the interesting absorption and emission phenomenon as "boundary conditions". This is well and good, as wave mathematics allows one to do some very powerful things that descibe the behaviour of large populations of particles. Next, in typical bar room fashion, he claims that light is *not* comprised of particles, and photons are mere illusions. That light is truly not comprised of particles, but is completely wave only for its entire existance. And that this is the sum total of truth. He has been challenged to provide a wave-only observable phenomenon, and has failed. Self-interference is displayed by all particles, so that is a failing of particle-only models (more correctly particle-as-billiard-ball models). Thanks for the update. Ye gods, he was blethering about this a year ago when I decided to cease posting here. Has he really made no attempt to learn something in the intervening time? So now I ask you... What is it about "wave only" and "particle with radial extents" that you find similar, Franz? David, I genuinely don't understand your question. However, I am totally comfortable with the following collection of thoughts: The photon is a particle. Its evolution in space and time is governed, as are the evolutions of all other particles, by wave functions which obey the rules of quantum mechanics. Newton's laws are only approximations which are as near as dammit true in the macroscopic world. (I am not taking into account general relativistic effects in this) The statistical behaviour of vast assemblies of photons all sharing the same state is determined by Maxwell's theory of EM. Welcome back to the fray, by the way... was it business or an upset stomach that took you away? Neither, I just got sick and tired of hearing the same old nonsense spouted by people whose knowledge bases are not up to the job, and who are totally uninterested in learning anything. I feel rested, and aim to be quite boorish to one or two of the cranks. Franz Heymann |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Dear Franz Heymann:
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... (formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:9O1Db.10727$gN.6084@fed1read05... .... Let me bring you up to date... Alexsandr has been posturing on this topic for over a year, and this is the third (or is it fourth) cycle around his attempts to avoid discussion of the photoelectric effect. Note the title of the thread. Alexsandr wishes to treat the interesting absorption and emission phenomenon as "boundary conditions". This is well and good, as wave mathematics allows one to do some very powerful things that descibe the behaviour of large populations of particles. Next, in typical bar room fashion, he claims that light is *not* comprised of particles, and photons are mere illusions. That light is truly not comprised of particles, but is completely wave only for its entire existance. And that this is the sum total of truth. He has been challenged to provide a wave-only observable phenomenon, and has failed. Self-interference is displayed by all particles, so that is a failing of particle-only models (more correctly particle-as-billiard-ball models). Thanks for the update. Ye gods, he was blethering about this a year ago when I decided to cease posting here. Has he really made no attempt to learn something in the intervening time? He knows quite well that light is comprised of particles (whatever those are). At the first sign of trouble he runs for cover in quantum theory, which is not cover but acquiescence, but he doesn't realize it. So now I ask you... What is it about "wave only" and "particle with radial extents" that you find similar, Franz? David, I genuinely don't understand your question. I suspect he will claim your response as agreement with him, since you started out by disagreeing that "wave only" was exclusive of any sort of particle definition. However, I am totally comfortable with the following collection of thoughts: The photon is a particle. Its evolution in space and time is governed, as are the evolutions of all other particles, by wave functions which obey the rules of quantum mechanics. Newton's laws are only approximations which are as near as dammit true in the macroscopic world. (I am not taking into account general relativistic effects in this) The statistical behaviour of vast assemblies of photons all sharing the same state is determined by Maxwell's theory of EM. Welcome back to the fray, by the way... was it business or an upset stomach that took you away? Neither, I just got sick and tired of hearing the same old nonsense spouted by people whose knowledge bases are not up to the job, and who are totally uninterested in learning anything. I feel rested, and aim to be quite boorish to one or two of the cranks. That is what I meant by "upset stomach". And since I have been one of the cranks (from time to time) I also am warned. Again, welcome back. David A. Smith |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:9O1Db.10727$gN.6084@fed1read05... Dear Franz Heymann: "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... (formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:8JKCb.7902$gN.226@fed1read05... Dear Aleksandr Timofeev: "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:jg0Ab.27670$Bk1.6608@fed1read05... ... Just " the virtual interference in the digital computer " makes possible to detect a SOURCE "hidden" under noise, if the SOURCE is living. If the SOURCE has died, we shall not have " a virtual interference in the digital computer ", the NOISE DOES NOT INTERFERE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I claim nothing about the noise. I claim about loss of signal. Since there is no loss of signal, the signal is two separate streams... and not some gestalt structure. Therefore a wave-only model is an approximation. In a such case What can you say NOW about a self-interference so-called of "photon" in VLBI? All particles self-interfere. Some case or cases, strictly in point to the problem at hand, must be produced. Yes. Wave-only model and the photoelectric effect are mutually exclusive. Not at all, if you accept that particles are de facto particles, in the sense that all of them, (including the photon) have small and well defined radial extents. It is their *dynamics* which are determined not by the classical equations of particle motion, but by the laws of quantum mechanics. Let me bring you up to date... Alexsandr has been posturing on this topic for over a year, and this is the third (or is it fourth) cycle around his attempts to avoid discussion of the photoelectric effect. Note the title of the thread. Alexsandr wishes to treat the interesting absorption and emission phenomenon as "boundary conditions". This is well and good, as wave mathematics allows one to do some very powerful things that descibe the behaviour of large populations of particles. Next, in typical bar room fashion, he claims that light is *not* comprised of particles, and photons are mere illusions. That light is truly not comprised of particles, but is completely wave only for its entire existance. And that this is the sum total of truth. He has been challenged to provide a wave-only observable phenomenon, and has failed. Self-interference is displayed by all particles, so that is a failing of particle-only models (more correctly particle-as-billiard-ball models). Thanks for the update. Ye gods, he was blethering about this a year ago when I decided to cease posting here. In that case we shall be delighted to read your interpretation of an interference in a VLBI interferometer from a "photon" point of view. Has he really made no attempt to learn something in the intervening time? Freedom of religious conscience is a private affair of the believer. So now I ask you... What is it about "wave only" and "particle with radial extents" that you find similar, Franz? David, I genuinely don't understand your question. However, I am totally comfortable with the following collection of thoughts: The photon is a particle. Its evolution in space and time is governed, as are the evolutions of all other particles, by wave functions which obey the rules of quantum mechanics. Newton's laws are only approximations which are as near as dammit true in the macroscopic world. (I am not taking into account general relativistic effects in this) The statistical behaviour of vast assemblies of photons all sharing the same state is determined by Maxwell's theory of EM. Freedom of religious conscience is a private affair of the believer. In that case we shall be delighted to read your interpretation of an interference in a VLBI interferometer from a "photon" point of view. Welcome back to the fray, by the way... was it business or an upset stomach that took you away? Neither, I just got sick and tired of hearing the same old nonsense spouted by people whose knowledge bases are not up to the job, and who are totally uninterested in learning anything. I feel rested, and aim to be quite boorish to one or two of the cranks. "Herman Hankel, Richard Dedekind, and Karl Weierstrass all believed that mathematics is a human creation.... And Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951, a student of Russell and an authority in his own right, believed that the mathematician is an inventor not a discoverer... The Nobel prize-winning physicist Percy W. Bridgman, ================================================== = in The Logic of Modern Physics (1946), rejected flatly any objective world of mathematics. ( and AT must add "The Logic of Modern Physics " rejected flatly any objective world of NATURE, common sense and PHYSICAL intuition. ) Aleksandr T. ================================================== = "It is the merest truism, evident at once to unsophisticated observation, that mathematics is a human invention." Theoretical science is a game of mathematical make-believe. All these men contend that mathematics is not only man-made, but very much influenced by the cultures in which it is developed." From Morris Kline *, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty (Oxford University Press, 1980), pp 324-25 Kline gives the reader a survey of the four or so main approaches to modern mathematics, and the intuitionist position is one of them. The book is highly readable. It is also widely available at book stores (in paperback) such as at B.Dalton's. Please your comment Franz Heymann: " The Farce of Physics " http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/f...ce_5.html#SEC5 http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_toc.html |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:GW4Db.10762$gN.1161@fed1read05... [snip] That is what I meant by "upset stomach". And since I have been one of the cranks (from time to time) I also am warned. Again, welcome back. {:-)) Franz Heymann |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... (formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:9O1Db.10727$gN.6084@fed1read05... Dear Franz Heymann: "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... (formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:8JKCb.7902$gN.226@fed1read05... Dear Aleksandr Timofeev: "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:jg0Ab.27670$Bk1.6608@fed1read05... ... Just " the virtual interference in the digital computer " makes possible to detect a SOURCE "hidden" under noise, if the SOURCE is living. If the SOURCE has died, we shall not have " a virtual interference in the digital computer ", the NOISE DOES NOT INTERFERE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I claim nothing about the noise. I claim about loss of signal. Since there is no loss of signal, the signal is two separate streams... and not some gestalt structure. Therefore a wave-only model is an approximation. In a such case What can you say NOW about a self-interference so-called of "photon" in VLBI? All particles self-interfere. Some case or cases, strictly in point to the problem at hand, must be produced. Yes. Wave-only model and the photoelectric effect are mutually exclusive. Not at all, if you accept that particles are de facto particles, in the sense that all of them, (including the photon) have small and well defined radial extents. It is their *dynamics* which are determined not by the classical equations of particle motion, but by the laws of quantum mechanics. Let me bring you up to date... Alexsandr has been posturing on this topic for over a year, and this is the third (or is it fourth) cycle around his attempts to avoid discussion of the photoelectric effect. Note the title of the thread. Alexsandr wishes to treat the interesting absorption and emission phenomenon as "boundary conditions". This is well and good, as wave mathematics allows one to do some very powerful things that descibe the behaviour of large populations of particles. Next, in typical bar room fashion, he claims that light is *not* comprised of particles, and photons are mere illusions. That light is truly not comprised of particles, but is completely wave only for its entire existance. And that this is the sum total of truth. He has been challenged to provide a wave-only observable phenomenon, and has failed. Self-interference is displayed by all particles, so that is a failing of particle-only models (more correctly particle-as-billiard-ball models). Thanks for the update. Ye gods, he was blethering about this a year ago when I decided to cease posting here. In that case we shall be delighted to read your interpretation of an interference in a VLBI interferometer from a "photon" point of view. Has he really made no attempt to learn something in the intervening time? Freedom of religious conscience is a private affair of the believer. So now I ask you... What is it about "wave only" and "particle with radial extents" that you find similar, Franz? David, I genuinely don't understand your question. However, I am totally comfortable with the following collection of thoughts: The photon is a particle. Its evolution in space and time is governed, as are the evolutions of all other particles, by wave functions which obey the rules of quantum mechanics. Newton's laws are only approximations which are as near as dammit true in the macroscopic world. (I am not taking into account general relativistic effects in this) The statistical behaviour of vast assemblies of photons all sharing the same state is determined by Maxwell's theory of EM. Freedom of religious conscience is a private affair of the believer. In that case we shall be delighted to read your interpretation of an interference in a VLBI interferometer from a "photon" point of view. Have you ever heard of the correspondence principle? Well, apply it to the VLBI, since that instrument operates in the classical domain. Result: The behaviour of the VLBI may be analysed by the use of the classical equations, i.e.Maxwell's Equations. That is eminently more sensible than trying to model the simultaneous behaviour of unbelievably vast numbers of photons I will say no more on this topic for now, so you are welcome to a field day slating me if you wish. [snip the irrelevancies] Franz Heymann |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... [snip] Note the title of the thread. Alexsandr wishes to treat the interesting absorption and emission phenomenon as "boundary conditions". You has missed from attention the very relevant detail. "Enslaving" of electromagnetic waves by SUBSTANCE is possible only in quantum nonlinear processes of transformation of electromagnetic energy of electromagnetic waves. This is well and good, as wave mathematics allows one to do some very powerful things that descibe the behaviour of large populations of particles. Next, in typical bar room fashion, he claims that light is *not* comprised of particles, and photons are mere illusions. That light is truly not comprised of particles, but is completely wave only for its entire existance. And that this is the sum total of truth. He has been challenged to provide a wave-only observable phenomenon, and has failed. Self-interference is displayed by all particles, so that is a failing of particle-only models (more correctly particle-as-billiard-ball models). Thanks for the update. Ye gods, he was blethering about this a year ago when I decided to cease posting here. In that case we shall be delighted to read your interpretation of an interference in a VLBI interferometer from a "photon" point of view. Has he really made no attempt to learn something in the intervening time? Freedom of religious conscience is a private affair of the believer. So now I ask you... What is it about "wave only" and "particle with radial extents" that you find similar, Franz? David, I genuinely don't understand your question. However, I am totally comfortable with the following collection of thoughts: The photon is a particle. Its evolution in space and time is governed, as are the evolutions of all other particles, by wave functions which obey the rules of quantum mechanics. Newton's laws are only approximations which are as near as dammit true in the macroscopic world. (I am not taking into account general relativistic effects in this) The statistical behaviour of vast assemblies of photons all sharing the same state is determined by Maxwell's theory of EM. Freedom of religious conscience is a private affair of the believer. In that case we shall be delighted to read your interpretation of an interference in a VLBI interferometer from a "photon" point of view. Have you ever heard of the correspondence principle? Well, apply it to the VLBI, since that instrument operates in the classical domain. Result: The behaviour of the VLBI may be analysed by the use of the classical equations, i.e.Maxwell's Equations. That is eminently more sensible than trying to model the simultaneous behaviour of unbelievably vast numbers of photons I suppose, that in this place you, Franz Heymann, contradict yourselves: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...dial.pipex.com ================================================== ============== From: "franz heymann" Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Photon Wave-Particle Duality Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 19:19:17 +0100 Aleksandr Timofeev wrote in message om... "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. Main ideas of the VLBI radio interferometer a http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com 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. --------------------------------------- [Snip] You used too many words in a very repetitve way, so I snipped all of them I hope you have either a hat or a tie to eat, because here is the explanation to your problem :- Firstly, the wave has nothing to do with the size of a photon. The wave function allows one to calculate various probabilities associated with the detection of a photon. Secondly, it is an observable fact that the wave function of radio frequency photons emitted by an astronomical object can have a non zero amplitude at any of the detectors of a large baseline interferometer. In fact, it expands radially outwards from the source as a spherical wave. Thirdly, photons are bosons, which means that any number of them can share the same wavefunction. Fourthly, a macroscopic radio wave is the wavefunction of an extremely large assembly of photons, all coherently sharing the same wave function. Detecting one photon at one of the antennae simultaneously with the detection of another (coherent) photon at another antenna is then possible. Fifthly, in the classical limit, the behaviour of such a coherent assembly of photons has been proven to tend to just the behaviour one would expect from an application of Maxwell's equations. Now get the frying pan ready and prepare your tie or hat for eating. Bon appetit. Franz Heymann ================================================== ============== Now Franz Heymann, I want to listen to yours FAIRY TALES of connection between: 1. a WAVE FUNCTION ("of an extremely large assembly of photons") 2. and ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES (an application of Maxwell's equations). I will say no more on this topic for now, so you are welcome to a field day slating me if you wish. I "wish." [snip the irrelevancies] Franz Heymann |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... [snip] Note the title of the thread. Alexsandr wishes to treat the interesting absorption and emission phenomenon as "boundary conditions". You has missed from attention the very relevant detail. "Enslaving" of electromagnetic waves by SUBSTANCE is possible only in quantum nonlinear processes of transformation of electromagnetic energy of electromagnetic waves. This is well and good, as wave mathematics allows one to do some very powerful things that descibe the behaviour of large populations of particles. Next, in typical bar room fashion, he claims that light is *not* comprised of particles, and photons are mere illusions. That light is truly not comprised of particles, but is completely wave only for its entire existance. And that this is the sum total of truth. He has been challenged to provide a wave-only observable phenomenon, and has failed. Self-interference is displayed by all particles, so that is a failing of particle-only models (more correctly particle-as-billiard-ball models). Thanks for the update. Ye gods, he was blethering about this a year ago when I decided to cease posting here. In that case we shall be delighted to read your interpretation of an interference in a VLBI interferometer from a "photon" point of view. Has he really made no attempt to learn something in the intervening time? Freedom of religious conscience is a private affair of the believer. So now I ask you... What is it about "wave only" and "particle with radial extents" that you find similar, Franz? David, I genuinely don't understand your question. However, I am totally comfortable with the following collection of thoughts: The photon is a particle. Its evolution in space and time is governed, as are the evolutions of all other particles, by wave functions which obey the rules of quantum mechanics. Newton's laws are only approximations which are as near as dammit true in the macroscopic world. (I am not taking into account general relativistic effects in this) The statistical behaviour of vast assemblies of photons all sharing the same state is determined by Maxwell's theory of EM. Freedom of religious conscience is a private affair of the believer. In that case we shall be delighted to read your interpretation of an interference in a VLBI interferometer from a "photon" point of view. Have you ever heard of the correspondence principle? Well, apply it to the VLBI, since that instrument operates in the classical domain. Result: The behaviour of the VLBI may be analysed by the use of the classical equations, i.e.Maxwell's Equations. That is eminently more sensible than trying to model the simultaneous behaviour of unbelievably vast numbers of photons I suppose, that in this place you, Franz Heymann, contradict yourselves: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...dial.pipex.com ================================================== ============== From: "franz heymann" Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Photon Wave-Particle Duality Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 19:19:17 +0100 Aleksandr Timofeev wrote in message om... "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. Main ideas of the VLBI radio interferometer a http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com 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. --------------------------------------- [Snip] You used too many words in a very repetitve way, so I snipped all of them I hope you have either a hat or a tie to eat, because here is the explanation to your problem :- Firstly, the wave has nothing to do with the size of a photon. The wave function allows one to calculate various probabilities associated with the detection of a photon. Secondly, it is an observable fact that the wave function of radio frequency photons emitted by an astronomical object can have a non zero amplitude at any of the detectors of a large baseline interferometer. In fact, it expands radially outwards from the source as a spherical wave. Thirdly, photons are bosons, which means that any number of them can share the same wavefunction. Fourthly, a macroscopic radio wave is the wavefunction of an extremely large assembly of photons, all coherently sharing the same wave function. Detecting one photon at one of the antennae simultaneously with the detection of another (coherent) photon at another antenna is then possible. Fifthly, in the classical limit, the behaviour of such a coherent assembly of photons has been proven to tend to just the behaviour one would expect from an application of Maxwell's equations. Now get the frying pan ready and prepare your tie or hat for eating. Bon appetit. Franz Heymann ================================================== ============== Now Franz Heymann, I want to listen to yours FAIRY TALES of connection between: 1. a WAVE FUNCTION ("of an extremely large assembly of photons") 2. and ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES (an application of Maxwell's equations). They are essentially the same thing. I will say no more on this topic for now, so you are welcome to a field day slating me if you wish. I "wish." You did not succeed I have no further interest in bantering with you at present, since I have made myself clear as long ago as the time I produced those snippets which you quoted without understanding their content Franz Heymann |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:9O1Db.10727$gN.6084@fed1read05...
Dear Franz Heymann: "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... (formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:8JKCb.7902$gN.226@fed1read05... Dear Aleksandr Timofeev: "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:jg0Ab.27670$Bk1.6608@fed1read05... ... Just " the virtual interference in the digital computer " makes possible to detect a SOURCE "hidden" under noise, if the SOURCE is living. If the SOURCE has died, we shall not have " a virtual interference in the digital computer ", the NOISE DOES NOT INTERFERE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I claim nothing about the noise. I claim about loss of signal. Since there is no loss of signal, the signal is two separate streams... and not some gestalt structure. Therefore a wave-only model is an approximation. In a such case What can you say NOW about a self-interference so-called of "photon" in VLBI? All particles self-interfere. Some case or cases, strictly in point to the problem at hand, must be produced. Yes. Wave-only model and the photoelectric effect are mutually exclusive. Not at all, if you accept that particles are de facto particles, in the sense that all of them, (including the photon) have small and well defined radial extents. It is their *dynamics* which are determined not by the classical equations of particle motion, but by the laws of quantum mechanics. Let me bring you up to date... Alexsandr has been posturing on this topic for over a year, and this is the third (or is it fourth) cycle around his attempts to avoid discussion of the photoelectric effect. Note the title of the thread. Alexsandr wishes to treat the interesting absorption and emission phenomenon as "boundary conditions". You has missed from attention the very relevant detail. "Enslaving" of electromagnetic waves by SUBSTANCE is possible only in quantum nonlinear processes of transformation of electromagnetic energy of electromagnetic waves --- it is exact Plank's postulate. This is well and good, as wave mathematics allows one to do some very powerful things that descibe the behaviour of large populations of particles. ??????? !!!!!!! Next, in typical bar room fashion, he claims that light is *not* comprised of particles, and photons are mere illusions. That light is truly not comprised of particles, but is completely wave only for its entire existance. And that this is the sum total of truth. This is exact Plank's postulate. This "is completely wave only for its entire existance" is better than Alby's Demon "photon". Alby's Demon "photon" similar to Maxwell Demon does not exist in the Nature, it is an extremely speculative chimera. He has been challenged to provide a wave-only observable phenomenon, and has failed. Sorry, You "has failed", not me. Self-interference is displayed by all particles, Please David prove this for VLBI. " So now I ask you... What is it about " only Alby's Demon "photon" " for VLBI phenomenon? so that is a failing of particle-only models (more correctly particle-as-billiard-ball models). So now I ask you... What is it about "wave only" and "particle with radial extents" that you find similar, Franz? Welcome back to the fray, by the way... was it business or an upset stomach that took you away? David A. Smith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|