For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox

From: Sergey Karavashkin (selftrans_at_yandex.ru)
Date: 01/08/05 

Date: 8 Jan 2005 14:28:18 -0800

From:Y.Porat (maporat@012.net.il)
Subject:Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox
Newsgroup:sci.physics
Date:2004-12-28 05:51:30 PST
 

Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> 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"
---------------
i suppose you coudn'answer because of the new Beta system

Or rather because of special 'inquisition' view on discussion by
supporters of Relativity and quantum conception. ;-)

now
Hi Sergei
it is a greate honuor to me
that you devoted a special thread to me
it seems that though your rejecting my suggestion
you feel intuitively that it is not something
completely 'dead by arival'
and i sill have that feeling so lets 'cook it abit more
see the folowing.....
--------------
>
> From:Y.Porat (maporat@012.net.il)
> Subject:Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in
VLBI
-----------
excuse my laziness and ignorance;

what is VLBI

Sergey Karavashkin:

Dear Y. Porat,

I am really glad that you responded to my post so substantially. Here
I will answer your question, and under your next post we will discuss
your conception of photons.

VLBI is an astronomical interferometer with a tremendous basis of
interference in whose development Aleksandr Timofeev is involved. The
distinct is, in this interferometer signals are added through a
computer; both past year and before Aleksandr had here stormy
discussions about validity of this method. Discussions were mainly
just about the photon representation of interference pattern, because,
first, so much spaced basis does not correlate with the quantum theory
supporters' idea of probability of photon hitting to some point of
screen in relation with their wave function. Second, there is no
screen as such in VLBI. The pattern on the display is formed not
according to the theory of stochastic processes of quantum physics but
by digital codes summation, which fully corroborates the wave theory
of EM waves. ;-) Just so Aleksandr has risen the problem, how can
photon divide when interfering, knowing that indivisible photon is one
of basic postulates of QM. So I came to his thread, as the
interference of light at the edge of screen is basically similar to
his question, only much more visually shows the absurdity of photon
conception, and the main, it lifts stupid questions of digital code;
someone who calls himself "Quantum Mirror" wearied Aleksandr with
these questions. You can ask Aleksandr to tell more. He will gladly
explain, even with diagrams. ;-)

-------------
> Newsgroups:sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, sci.astro
> Date:2004-12-03 02:39:54 PST
>
> > Sergey Karavashkin to Aleksandr Timofeev: 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.
----------------
lets find out about your general declaration:

may be i didnt explain exactly whats on my mind:
my suggestion is that a photon (in most commoncases
is not just a single 'creatre'
it is something like a procession of particles running one after the
other.
more specifically
the picture that is in my mind is very acurate
(unlike the very abstract common picture)
it is some basic particle lets call it the Circlon
that strange particle has a styrange feature:
it is moving *naturwlly* in a closed circle (if not disturbed on its
way)
now in the photon we have a double kind of movement
one of the 'ordinary circlon ie in a closed circle but ....
if it gets a push perpendicular to the plan of its circular movement
it starts to move as a *hellix* hope you got it untillnow.
now my suggestion is that not only a single one can move along that
hellix path but many of them ie
they are running one after the other exactly on the same
hellix path with the same radius and same forward 'step'
whch makes the 'frequency'
(actually may be the radius alone is determininf the foerards 'step'
as well)
so we have a long procession of particles running one after the other
now you mentioned rightly the 'qhantitive element
because we know that
E = h f
ie it is f dependant
now a question:

how it is quantitive and what is that quantitive mean??
supose the sun is emmiting a beam - a 'photon'
with frequency f1 (only)
now imagine two cases
1 it is emiting those f1 beam for one second

case 2
it is emiting the same f1 but now not only one second but
one hour

what is the energy of the 'photon in case one
and what is the energy in case 2 ??

both of them have the same 'energy' E1=h f1
so that is the quantitative difference in energy between them?? 

--
it seems to me that the energy of E= h f is of just one
quanta of that beam
and not at all to (as we are used to)  the *acumulation of energy
during a long time!!?? but just refering to some unit that is emitted
momentarily
if you examine the dimentions of that equation you realise
iirc that it is devided by the time unit !!!
so if we have a 'procession of Circlons' running one after the other
we are not measuring *all of them* but only some of them
in a short time
so
the quantity of Circlon that are runing one after the other
cannmot be detected by the equation E=h f
because it is not meant to make that difference
between one of them in a short time
or many of them in a longer time!
so i think that your 'quqntitative argument'
is not contradicting my suggestion.
am i right ??
lets examine it at this stage just untill this point
and we will see later.
-----------
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------
am i right?
Dear Y.Porat,
Let us consider. First of all I would like to mark, Cyrclon conception
is much like vortex paths conception which V.A. Atsukovsky developed
in his "General Etherodynamics", and the age of your and his
conceptions is about equal. Should you be able to read in Russian, I
would suggest you to read his book where he describes his conception
in short. In English, we briefly analysed it in pages 9 and 10 of our
paper
"Comparison of characteristics of propagation velocities of
transversal acoustic waves and transversal EM waves in the near field"
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v3_1/taew/taew09/taew09.html
To understand the heart of problem, we should return a century back
and analyse attentively the amount of problems which was under
consideration then, before Fermi created his quantum mechanics, and
the more, before QFT and Klein - Gordon.
In this connection I would mark, all problems still raised in this NG
are not new, they reflect the century-old claims. The only difference
is, I am more consistent in analysis of these contradictions. But the
amount of these problems is still the same, I intentionally do not
broaden it. This amount allowed to formulate a set of postulates; if
any of them was violated, it renews with new power the basic
discrepancies of photon conception. But the set of postulates also was
no more than gloss on broken shoes of photon conception. Just so the
supporters of this conception never agree to consider the whole
conception but jump from one effect to another and from one postulate
to another. In the limit case they call the opponent ignorant, as he
does not know some new, still unpublished development which as if
lifts these discrepancies. And QM supporters are not new in it. It was
Einstein who developed this methodology of discussion in order to
'prove' both his Relativity and quantum deadlock. And, both then and
now, they apply most dirty tricks and accuse opponents. They feel free
writing any nonsense, deny their words, juggle formulas. No limits, no
morality.
To understand the essence, we need to consider their postulates in
amount. Your Cyrclon conception just falls among two postulates. On
one hand there is the postulate that photons are emitted/absorbed
momentarily, and on the other we have the postulate of quantum size of
photons. True, photon supporters partially denied this first and
substituted momentary radiation by short time of radiation, lest to be
discrepant to the second postulate. And your conception is just
consistent with the second postulate. You are just suggesting a
two-cases problem of Sun radiating photons different time:
***********
Y. Porat:
now you mentioned rightly  the 'qhantitive element
because we know that
E = h f
ie it is f dependant
now a question:
how it is quantitive and what is that quantitive mean??
supose the sun is emmiting a beam - a 'photon'
with frequency f1 (only)
now imagine two cases
1 it is emiting those f1 beam for one second
case 2
it is emiting the same f1 but now not only one second but
one hour
what is the energy of the 'photon in case one
and what is the energy in case 2 ??
both of them have the same 'energy'  E1=h f1
so that is the quantitative difference in energy between them??
***********
Sergey:
The difference is, the light passes 300 000 km per second; if such
long duration of radiation, the photon will not be able to inscribe
into quantum size. Even the distance between you and me will be less
than this 'quantum size'. This means, classical physics will be
disabled in such photon sizes, with all consequences for photon
conception. Namely this is why Franz Heymann so much adheres the
quantum size of photon and is ready to give up that photon is
uncharged to retain the quantum size. Because otherwise this
automatically is the death of photon conception without any buts and
ifs. ;-)
One more postulate concerning your Cyrclon is, photon is radiated
during one act of orbital electron excitation. Just with this
supposition Niels Bohr had yielded his terrific results, and just this
principle, only transformed, has been moved onto QM. And photon is
indivisible! If it were divisible, it would contradict the experiment,
as in this case there would arise additional strips in the spectrum.
But your wave absorption occurs in time. Consequently, photon is
absorbed not at once but by portions, so to say, sequentially. But if
we switch the receiver off, we can interrupt the absorption. This
means, your photon is divisible? And if you are thinking, it can
interfere with itself at the edge of screen, it can also spontaneously
divide - this means, we will see additional lines in spectrum with
larger distance from the source. ;-)
In conclusion I would mark, in classical wave conception all these
discrepancies are absent. Well, what a need we have to salvage broken
shoes if we can afford a pleasure to have new, without all these
difficulties? This is what I would like you to think about before
going on salvaging.
ps at the end of your thread you reveal youself as a Ukrainian
if positive
good for you and your nerw leader!!
i dont know what was your vote
mime was to the elected one!!
one among the other easons is that he is *more'
eastern mimded ....
though just now even the Russians became more 'western minded'...
--------------------------
Thank you for your good wish. Well, no secret: I am Russian, was born
in Russia, all my life I live in Ukraine, see my CV
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/SELFlab/cv/CV.html 
I trice voted for Victor Yuschenko (western-minded), his site is 
http://razom.org.ua/
I make no secret of this all. This is Yanukovich, lost criminal
candidate who needs to hide. I was one of leaders of people movement
in my town Kharkov in the late 80th - early 90th, then my group was
the only who in full voice claimed, we are with Helsinki movement for
human rights and with Ukrainian National groups, then both underground
and strongly suppressed by Communist party and post-communists. Due to
this, all these years I also was (and am) suppressed by Securities of
just 'independent' Ukraine. Such a paradox. So I voted for Yuschenko
whose main trend is to revive just Ukraine.
I would mark, as opposite to many who voted for Yuschenko, I see not
only positive but also negative sides of his programme. I do not
expect milk and honey from him. Ukrainian economics has been fully
destroyed. Now here act such management teams formed by past power
that are 'cleaning' the documents of mills and factories to show them
not dead as they really are but profitable and attractive for Western
investors. These investors may want to know this lest to swallow the
bait prepared for them.
Another great problem is incredible disproportion between the
management, distributors and just the working people (one worker runs
among five machine-tools in an empty work-section). There is
tremendous unemployment and mainly concealed, but those who have a job
are also paid not fully and not always. Many my colleagues appeared
'in the street', as their institutes were turned into casino,
restaurants, banks; those who retained their positions all say, they
would like to follow my way and to leave official institutions for
free business. I can tell more, if the powers see someone trying to
manage his own business here avoiding their mafious paws, powers do
their utmost to make this business impossible. There in the country
exist many dozens of armed special detachments subordinated personally
to district leaders and up to President.
Then, with outwardly favourable tax system, there exist illegal right:
armed to the teeth policemen and tax policemen drive from company to
company and wring out the tribute. Once policemen stopped me in the
bright day in the centre of town, near the cathedral, and robbed.
Yuschenko hardly can stop this all during one year, neither during all
his term of power.
Finally, there exists one more economic cause inherent in all the
Western world, and in Yuschenko the same. Since English bourgeois
revolution (Cromwell, 17th century) the economic thought was targeted
to the permanently growing productivity of industry. Henry Ford in his
book "My life, my achievements" expressed it most short: "If the
factory did not develop, it falls". This formula contains the grounds
of all economic crises of overproduction and all wars (except
liberation) that shake the mankind all this time. To make the economic
development stable, they need another formula. We in co-authorship
formulated it in our economic study in the middle 90th. But to
implement it, the powers have to understand the advantage of balanced
development over their formula "snatch out today!" Hard task for
Yuschenko's is zero level of stable development, of adjusted structure
of power, and of stable working economics, as for example EU has. So
his and his team's formula "market will regulate everything" will
bring only price disbalance and worsening of situation. We wrote him
of this gently, and this is his right, to understand or not. It had no
effect on our decision to vote for him, since this what he intends to
do is essentially better than we could ever expect from old
post-communistic power. (You hardly know that Kuchma, the past
President, was the communist leader by his position, mind, and style
of work. Before him we had our first President Kravchuk - ideologist
of Ukrainian communist party, now the ideologist of post-communistic
oligarchs.)
Yuschenko will see the difficulties of disproportional development in
2-3 year, and then, at that edge, we all will see, who is he really.
By his inner potential, he is able to surmount. Time will show the
rest.
All the best to you,
Sergey

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why physicists should pay attention to the mind
    ... are physicists using quantum mechanics. ... As an example take a maximally entangled photon pair in the Bell state ... uncertainty about the polarization, i.e., setting a polarization filter ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Understanding SR - simultaneity
    ... momentum changes, two events. ... photon, and two simultaneous events absorb the photon. ... the electron won't be in the atom to fall into ... But they ARE quantum levels, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
    ... Quantum Gravity theorems are still extremely speculative eg Loop quantum ... randomness (or as I prefer to put it, the probability) is almost ... And the energy in each photon ... I don't see any way out of this other than intrinsic probability. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Schrodinger Aether vs Michelson-Morley
    ... > the flawed premise of quantum indeterminacy. ... > "spooky action at a distance" which according to the calcite paper can ... > I was reading up on Michelson-Morley, trying to see why its conclusions ... > really scale down to the quantum level of the photon. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox
    ... Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI ... Sergey Karavashkin to Aleksandr Timofeev: ... > 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 ...
    (sci.physics)