For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox
From: Sergey Karavashkin (selflab_at_go.com)
Date: 12/27/04
- Next message: Sergey Karavashkin: "To John Sefton on spirals"
- Previous message: Sam Wormley: "PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 713 December 27, 2004 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein"
- Next in thread: Y.Porat: "Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox"
- Reply: Y.Porat: "Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 27 Dec 2004 15:13:42 -0800
Dear Y.Porat, by some unknown reason, quite long time I cannot post my
reply to you on the thread where we began our talk. So I'm posting it
here where Google allows. You wrote me on the thread "Quantum Paradox
of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI"
From:Y.Porat (maporat@012.net.il)
Subject:Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI
Newsgroups:sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, sci.astro
Date:2004-12-03 02:39:54 PST
selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0412011441.6f996f1f@posting.google.com>...
> maporat@012.net.il (Y.Porat) wrote in message news:<4e35159f.0411100038.7dd7c24@posting.google.com>...
> > selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0411091357.78df7791@posting.google.com>...
Sergey Karavashkin to Aleksandr Timofeev:
> > > Dear Aleksandr, my search have led me to your discussion. As far as I
> > > can understand, you are discussing, whether the photon can interfere
> > > with itself in your VLBI. Why so complicated. I many times asked
> > > respectable supporters of photon conception to explain the
> > > interference of light at the edge of screen. There is no signal
> > > transformation which takes place in VLBI. There things are ultimately
> > > simple. We have a source of light, a screen and its edge. A laser can
> > > serve as a source of light. What can be simpler? Two photons cannot
> > > interfere at the edge of screen, but we have an interference; if
> > > someone doubts, I can refer to not one but several photos from
> > > different sources. Well, when Quantum Mirror explains you the
> > > phenomenology of this phenomenon, he will be allowed to oppose you in
> > > the rest issues. ;-)
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Sergey
> > ----------------
Y.Porat to Sergey Karavashkin:
> > the photon is known as a Boson right?
> > now bosons are able of acumulating right ?
> > so how about the notion thatt the photon in self interference
> > is actually:
> > *composed as a conglomeration of photons*
> > ie it is not a single entity but a conglomeration of entites
> > so
> > while passing throgh the slits it -- splits
> > into two subcomponents
> > now interfereence of the two is possible
> > since it is not 'one photon ' amymore it is two of them?
> > how about that
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > ------------------------
>
Sergey Karavashkin to Y.Porat:
> Dear Y.Porat,
>
> I understand, being a supporter of photon theory, you used to run
> along a rolled smooth path; but my question was of interference at the
> SCREEN EDGE where you have neither one nor two slits. ;-) Have you a
> difficulty? ;-)
----------------
Y.Porat to Sergey Karavashkin:
no more than others (:-)
att he end of your article you say
'it is basically unable'......
may be here is 'where the dog is burried'
some basic wrong assumptions!
so may be if photon that is aconglomeration of smaller parts- splits
*without a change of their fequencies?????*
ie at least at the double slit case, they do not change their
frequency?
or may be that while they combine again on or close to the screen
the original frequency is restored ????
----------------
Sergey Karavashkin to Y.Porat:
No, dear Y.Porat, no. If we admit that photons can be divided or
joined, quantification loses all its sense. Then, why not light beam
to combine emitted photons in propagation? Then we would observe usual
visible light turning into a strong X-ray radiation. If you were
confused with the screen, we can observe this process after reflection
from the mirror. And it should occur very fast, or we would not be
able to observe the interference at the edge of screen in the
finite-sized laboratories. I also have more substantial objections,
many of them I posted before in this NG. But in short this is so. ;-)
The more fantasies for salvage of the rotten theory the farther from
truth and nut of physical study. The point is very simple. There are
basic postulates of photon theory. They are well known. They mean
photons uncharged, non-interacting with each other in free space. We
have to adhere to the frames of these postulates. If we try to vary
these basically incapable things, this would be just like an attempt
to improve the taste of (slightly) burnt porridge.
Sergey Karavashkin to Y.Porat:
> Our devices, with all their
> imperfectness, would detect such considerable fall of frequency
> somewhere in 18th century. ;-)
>
> Don't invent.
------------
Y.Porat:
you admit that things are not finally settled so ????
Sergey Karavashkin:
Things are settled so as it is done in nature. We can understand the
meaning of phenomena only in case id we strongly follow the system of
proof worked out in centuries. The supporters of photon naturre of
light have neglected it. Crudely neglected. Now they yield the fruits
of their nihilism. ;-)
Y.Porat:
how can we get out of such a situation??
Sergey:
We need not fear. The wave theory always was developed in parallel
with photon theory. Both interference and diffraction have been
substantiated in it long ago and without any difficulty. The
wave-particle duality also is not a difficulty already, we will soon
publish its solution in classical physics. We simply have to return to
old good classical physics and to to break ourselves of the habit
invent the phenomena. Then everything will take proper place, without
any Martians either green humanoids from Sirius orbit. ;-)
Y.Porat:
have you ever heared about the strange claim that ....
advance of scince is done by a very strange system
that cam to us from the Mars planet
it is called :
TRIAL AND ERROR
have you ever heared about such funny system ???
imho :
do a thosand wrong guesses-
if No 1001 will be succesful- it was worth while all the thosand wrong
ones.
-----------
all the best
Y.Porat
-------------
Sergey:
I still did not know that this was attributed to Martians. ;-) But the
"trial and error" method was known long ago. Personally I estimate the
negative experiment more than that positive, though try to avoid
negative experiments, if not necessary. Here in Ukraine people say so:
<< What is the difference between clever and wise people? A clever
will find a way out of any difficult situation, but a wise will never
appear in this difficult situation >> ;-)
With best wishes,
Sergey
**************
> Photon theory has no answer to this and many other
> questions, it is basically unable in its basic postulates.
>
> Best,
>
> Sergey
- Next message: Sergey Karavashkin: "To John Sefton on spirals"
- Previous message: Sam Wormley: "PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 713 December 27, 2004 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein"
- Next in thread: Y.Porat: "Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox"
- Reply: Y.Porat: "Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
