Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI

Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:02:35 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes in the digital computer on wave model.

Have a very nice day!

So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront" of
particles. How nice.

Which universe are these single photons found in?

Which single photons would you be referring to? The detectors are
sensitive to a narrow bandwidth of received light. So only single photons
can be absorbed at a detector. Classical photoelectric effect.

And now Alexsandr will feel free to bloat his post back up and draw his
little ASCII diagrams, as he did for a full year on this topic. He had no
answer then, he ignored the fact that observations can be made from areas
of the sky where two poalrizers are ostensibly at 90 deg, and so it appears
he has no answer now.

David A. Smith

Dear David A. Smith:

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:_HA4d.226996$4o.30436@fed1read01...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...

[snip]


So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront" of
particles. How nice.

"wavefront"

It is your remarkable step forward in an exact direction
in the theoretical analysis " self-interferences of a photon "!

But please, David do not hurry with "absorption of particles"...

Now David A. Smith, you can theoretically consider "
a wavefront of an alone photon " on two antennas
of radio telescopes of VLBI.


What can you say about

the mechanism " of self-interference of a photon "

on two antennas of radio telescopes of VLBI

simultaneously now?

---
Have a very nice day!

Aleksandr Timofeev

P.S. The notes:

1. Two antennas of radio telescopes of VLBI with two magnetic tapes
are resided simultaneously in opposite points of a globe. ;^)
2. The radio telescopes are isolated from each other spatially
and electrically by vast distance between them.
3. In VLBI there is no physical addition of signals.
" The Abstract mathematical virtual interference " is generated
by correlation handling of the numeral information from magnetic
tapes in VLBI.

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote:
Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:02:35 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes in the digital computer on wave model.

Have a very nice day!

So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront" of
particles. How nice.

Which universe are these single photons found in?

Which single photons would you be referring to? The detectors are
sensitive to a narrow bandwidth of received light. So only single photons
can be absorbed at a detector. Classical photoelectric effect.

And now Alexsandr will feel free to bloat his post back up and draw his
little ASCII diagrams, as he did for a full year on this topic. He had no
answer then, he ignored the fact that observations can be made from areas
of the sky where two poalrizers are ostensibly at 90 deg, and so it appears
he has no answer now.

"two poalrizers are ostensibly at 90 deg"

It is very amusing idea.

Whether you can point optical analog of an interferometer
used in the practical applications, which one will utillize
a construction of the device of an interferometer offered by you?

The hint, it is usually, that the physical devices are constructed
with the purposes better "to see" and better "to hear", but you
want to kill radiation from a source with the purposes
" to not see " and " to not hear " ...

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
Dear David A. Smith:

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:_HA4d.226996$4o.30436@fed1read01...
....

So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront" of
particles. How nice.

"wavefront"

It is your remarkable step forward in an exact direction
in the theoretical analysis " self-interferences of a photon "!

But please, David do not hurry with "absorption of particles"...

Now David A. Smith, you can theoretically consider "
a wavefront of an alone photon " on two antennas
of radio telescopes of VLBI.

I can consider it. As soon as you show that two polarizers looking at a
portion of the sky to which they are 90 deg, return no signal. Since you
still continue to dodge this, I must conclude you cannot consider it.

What can you say about

the mechanism " of self-interference of a photon "

on two antennas of radio telescopes of VLBI

simultaneously now?

Since you cannot get past our old sticking point, then we need go no
further.

David A. Smith

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
m...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote:
Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:02:35 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes in the digital computer on wave model.

Have a very nice day!

So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront" of
particles. How nice.

Which universe are these single photons found in?

Which single photons would you be referring to? The detectors are
sensitive to a narrow bandwidth of received light. So only single
photons
can be absorbed at a detector. Classical photoelectric effect.

And now Alexsandr will feel free to bloat his post back up and draw his
little ASCII diagrams, as he did for a full year on this topic. He had
no
answer then, he ignored the fact that observations can be made from areas
of the sky where two poalrizers are ostensibly at 90 deg, and so it
appears
he has no answer now.

"two poalrizers are ostensibly at 90 deg"

It is very amusing idea.

Whether you can point optical analog of an interferometer
used in the practical applications, which one will utillize
a construction of the device of an interferometer offered by you?

The horizon of two distant observatories can be at 90 deg to each other, in
small portions of the sky. Therefore a single wave, and single wavelet
cannot pass through both parallel-to-horizon polarizers. A stream of such
wavelets would be seriously diminished in amplitude for orientations close
to 90 deg. Since this does not happen and is not seen, *your* chimera of a
single photon absorbed at two detectors, is your next object to explain.

The hint, it is usually, that the physical devices are constructed
with the purposes better "to see" and better "to hear", but you
want to kill radiation from a source with the purposes
" to not see " and " to not hear " ...

You have made the function quite clear. You have not addressed the fact
that they are "cross oriented" in large portions of the sky, where
*intensity unaffected* observations are made.

So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront" of
particles. How nice.

Now are we going to argue this single point again for another year?

David A. Smith

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 06:50:16 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Now are we going to argue this single point again for another year?

Tut tut... a ray or beam of light usually is thought of a consisting
many photons. All I asked, was where is this universe where a beam of
light consists as a single photon?

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 06:50:16 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Now are we going to argue this single point again for another year?

Tut tut... a ray or beam of light usually is thought of a consisting
many photons. All I asked, was where is this universe where a beam of
light consists as a single photon?

Why not ? Actually, a bean of one photon at a time
is just fine. Light comes in wave trains anyway.
Lasers have very, very long wave trains. Regardless,
of wave train length, down to one photon, interference
takes place one photon at a time.

[Old Man]

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 06:50:16 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Now are we going to argue this single point again for another year?

Tut tut... a ray or beam of light usually is thought of a consisting
many photons. All I asked, was where is this universe where a beam of
light consists as a single photon?

Just hunt around a bit - see
http://ophelia.princeton.edu/~page/single_photon.html.

Bill

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:rCV4d.228480$4o.214266@fed1read01...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
m...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote:
Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:02:35 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes in the digital computer on wave model.

Have a very nice day!

So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront"
of
particles. How nice.

Which universe are these single photons found in?

Which single photons would you be referring to? The detectors are
sensitive to a narrow bandwidth of received light. So only single
photons
can be absorbed at a detector. Classical photoelectric effect.

And now Alexsandr will feel free to bloat his post back up and draw his
little ASCII diagrams, as he did for a full year on this topic. He had
no
answer then, he ignored the fact that observations can be made from
areas
of the sky where two poalrizers are ostensibly at 90 deg, and so it
appears
he has no answer now.

"two poalrizers are ostensibly at 90 deg"

It is very amusing idea.

Whether you can point optical analog of an interferometer
used in the practical applications, which one will utillize
a construction of the device of an interferometer offered by you?

The horizon of two distant observatories can be at 90 deg to each other,
in
small portions of the sky. Therefore a single wave, and single wavelet
cannot pass through both parallel-to-horizon polarizers. A stream of such
wavelets would be seriously diminished in amplitude for orientations close
to 90 deg. Since this does not happen and is not seen, *your* chimera of
a
single photon absorbed at two detectors, is your next object to explain.

The hint, it is usually, that the physical devices are constructed
with the purposes better "to see" and better "to hear", but you
want to kill radiation from a source with the purposes
" to not see " and " to not hear " ...

You have made the function quite clear. You have not addressed the fact
that they are "cross oriented" in large portions of the sky, where
*intensity unaffected* observations are made.

So absorption is indistinguishable from the arrival of a "wavefront" of
particles. How nice.

Now are we going to argue this single point again for another year?

David; as amusing as your discussions with this turkey are; it is
interesting to note the onus is on this idiots head. It is not enough to
note that experiments done with real VLBI arrays can be explained without
resort to the quantum hypotheses due to the how small such a quantum would
be (at least I am not aware of such experiments) but to show it is
inconsistent with the quantum hypothesis. As long as no experiment
contradicts a hypotheses then it is still valid. Many experiments have
demonstrated the existence of photons - none have contradicted it.

Thanks
Bill


David A. Smith

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:x0C2d.184803$4o.2674@fed1read01...

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
I hardly perceive physical sense of the article written
in the "Nature" by Burke B.F.:

Burke B.F., Quantum Interference Paradox, Nature, 223, 389-390, 1969.

-------------------------------------------------------------
There is no direct physical process of addition "of waves / photons"
passing through "slots or telescopes" in VLBI!
-------------------------------------------------------------

The interference fringes (picture) in VLBI (interferometer) is pure
mathematical abstraction, since the construction of an interference
pattern is carried out in the computer.

Dear colleagues physicists!

Whether you can describe / solve in more detail problems
of a self-interference of a photon in VLBI:

1. "Detections" of signals? ;
2. "Recording" of signals? ;
3. "Additions" of signals? ;

...

and so on?


Dear colleagues, be sure and not hide in obscurity

Rotate one of the polarizers and let us know if the signal is blocked.

You are playing the same song, let's see if you added a new stanza.

David A. Smith

Dear David A. Smith!

There are two theories of an interference phenomenon
of electromagnetic waves:

1. A wave point of view and
2. A photon point of view.

1. A wave point of view.

The problems does not exist for classic wave interpretation
of an interference phenomenon in VLBI an interferometer.


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...n.jpl.nasa.gov


2. A photon point of view.

From a photon point of view, the photon can be gripped by one
and only by one radio telescope from two radio telescopes of VLBI.

**********************************************
Now Dear David A. Smith

you should describe YOURS the physical mechanism
of a self-interference of a photon in VLBI.
**********************************************

From my point of view, you can not describe
the physical mechanism of a phenomenon of
a self-interference of a photon in VLBI,
since any your "interpretation" will be foregone
to contain logic and physical ERRORS of explanation
of the physical mechanism of a phenomenon of
a self-interference of a photon in VLBI.

You simply keep stating the standard statistical interpretation that nature
just works that way is illogical and keep reposting the same drivel. When
it is pointed out it is logical you just keep saying it is not. In the
final analysis each person must make up their own mind - and physicists have
long since come down in favor of QM. It is like I say 1 + 1 = 2 and you say
no it is 3. In the final analysis I can never force you to agree - all I
can do is say people have seen my arguments - they have seen yours and can
make up their own minds.

Bill


---
Best Regards
Aleksandr Timofeev


================================================== ===
P.S. ADDITIONAL INFO:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...1.dejanews.com

From: Aleksandr Timofeev )
Subject: Length of wavetrain of a single photon
View: Complete Thread (190 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
Date: 1999/01/18


In article ,
(Ray Tomes) wrote:
I am wondering whether any attempt has ever been made to measure the
wave train length and amplitude profile of a single photon?

To explain what I mean by this, consider Young's two slit experiment and
the resulting interference for the case where the photon rate is very
low and we may consider that essentially all observed events are self
interference of single photons.


On my sight, for consideration of an offered problem from all points of
view; the most approaching measuring instrument is the microwave
interferometr with superlong basis - VLBI. I would name this type of an
interferometer as an interferometer with independent registration of
signals
in shoulders. Fundamentally any other interferometer by nothing differs
from
an interferometer considered below.

Principles of work VLBI

The microwave interferometr with superlong basis consists of two
radio
telescopes were on a very large distance from each other. Before
experiment
or after him, the nuclear hours are synchronized. Each radio telescope
writes
on a videotape a transformed radiation accepted by an antenna.
Simultaneously
with a signal, the scores of time received from the standard of frequency,
are written on a videotape.
After ending experiment we have two videotapes with entries of a
signal
and scores of time. The "interference picture" is received after data
processing of these videotapes on the computer.

There are two graphic schemes illustrating the description:

The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 1.
Block scheme.

- radio-telescope 1
-
- parabolic antenna tape 1 clock 1
- \
- \ [ microwave ]
- \ [ receiver + ] [videotape]
[hydrogen ]
- ) )---[analog-to-digital]---[recorder ]---[frequenc
y]
- / [ converter ] ^ ^
[standard ]
- / | |
- / radio-signals time-marks
- microwave
- radiation
- for synchronization of atomic clocks
- [transportable caesium]
- [ frequency standard ]
[snip]
================================================== ==================
- radio-telescope 2
-
-
- parabolic antenna 2 tape 2 clock 2
- \
- \ [ microwave ]
- \ [ receiver + ] [videotape]
[hydrogen ]
- ) )---[analog-to-digital]---[recorder ]---[frequenc
y]
- / [ converter ] ^ ^
[standard ]
- / | |
- / radio-signals time-marks
-
-
-
. The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 2.
. ----------------------------------------------------------

. "Interference picture"
. ^
. |
. [videotape 1] ------ [ COMPUTER ] ---------- [videotape 2]
. ^ ^
. | |
. radio-telescope 1 - synchronization clocks - radio-telescope 2
. Length of basis
. |-----------------------------
{snip} -------------------------------|
. /^\
/^\



.^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ {snip} ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
.| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Noise microwave radiation

Flexible possibilities of a computer interference of signals.

1. Our interferometer has the right and left shoulders. The distance
between shoulders does not influence sensitivity of an interferometer. The
sensitivity of an interferometer to a signal is determined by the worse
receiver from both radio telescopes.
- The distance between shoulders of an interferometer can be no
matter
how large. (This problem is reduced to a problem of transportation of
clocks
of a synchronization).
2. The addition of signals is carried out in the computer, that allows
to apply no matter how complicated algorithms of addition of signals.
- In that specific case, we can arbitrary vary delay of signals in
each
from a shoulders in any direction.

Conditionality of physical concept " an Interference picture ".

Here we shall be convinced of a celebration of a principle of a
causality.
The events happening on slots of an interferometer have primary
significance,
all other events happening in an interferometer have the status
secondary.
Let's analyze physical concept addition of signals in an
interferometer.
The radiation incident on an input of an interferometer has the
following
performances:
Wavefront; Frequency band; Spectral fluence of energy;
For each frequency:
Polarization; Amplitude; Phase; Stability.
The interferometer considered by us, is an interferometer with
independent registration of signals in shoulders and the process of
addition
of signals is carried out in the computer. The phrase " process of
addition
of signals is carried out in the computer " allows clearly to seize
essence "
concepts of an interference picture " and source of an origin of this
concept. In the given type of an interferometer there is some
arbitrariness
in choice by us of the law of addition of signals from the right and left
shoulders. In our case " the kind of an interference picture " depends on
the concrete law of addition of signals selected by us. In other kinds of
interferometers geometry (physical) construction of an interferometer
determines the law of addition of signals and " a kind of an interference
picture ".