Re: Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

"[EMAIL PROTECTED] \(formerly\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>...
> Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
> 
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "[EMAIL PROTECTED] \(formerly\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> ...
> ...
> > > >     How does the possibility of addition
> > > > " of parts of a single photon " from two magnetic tapes?
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible? Or is it impossible?
> > >
> > > The photon is not captured on the tape.
> >
> > Probably in any case, it is a "photon" apparition,
> > which one is seized on a magnetic tape.   ;-)
> >
> > (Apparition of the " photon " angels to the QM apostles-physists
> > "is <hot> captured on the tape"? ) . Whether it is not true?
> >
> > Please, David do not evade.
> 
> Do not evade what, Alexsandr?  No, a photon is not captured on magnetic
> tape.

Why no?
>From your point of view: any electromagnetic oscillations 
in free space are "photons".

Thus oscillations of a field of a magnetic head are a stream
of "photons", which one are seized by a magnetic tape.

So "An avalanche of a photons is captured on magnetic tape." >;o)

> > > An avalanche of electrons is
> > > capured on a tape,
> >
> > Whether it is true?
> >  If "yes", it is VERY DANGEROUSLY to come nearer
> > to a magnetic tape, the ELECTRICAL SHOCK IS FOREGONE.  ;-)
> 
> Agreed.  A magnetic field is capture on tape.  

No, only changes of interior domain structure of a ferromagnetic
of a magnetic tape are "seized or captured" inside a magnetic tape.

> The magnetic field is
> created by the write head.  The write head is created by electrically
> powered equipment from a signal.  

>From your point of view: any electromagnetic oscillations are "photons".
Thus oscillations of a field of a magnetic head are a stream
of "photons", which one are seized by a magnetic tape.

So "An avalanche of a photons is captured on magnetic tape." >;o)


> The detected signal is derived from an
> electron avalanche.  

Our "Detector" is not PMT. ;-)

No. The signal, which one is gripped by the antenna,
amplifies by a quantum solid-state parametric amplifier.
A primal problem of a quantum solid-state parametric
amplifier is the MAINTENANCE of a PHASE of a Signal,
which one is gripped by the antenna!


> The electron avalanche is elicited by the arrival of
> one or more photons at a detector.  

There absent "The electron avalanches".
There are only electromagnetic oscillations.
The signal, which one is gripped by the antenna,
amplifies by a quantum solid-state parametric amplifier.


> The photon recorded and inferred as a
> signal was a member of a group of such photons, emitted from a distant
> source.

1. No. The signal, which one is gripped by the antenna,
amplifies by a quantum solid-state parametric amplifier.
A primal problem of a quantum solid-state parametric
amplifier is the MAINTENANCE of a PHASE of the initial Signal,
which one is gripped by the antenna!

2. The amplified by amplifier the signal is handled by several
nonlinear transformations.
A primal problem of nonlinear transformations of a signal is
the MAINTENANCE of a PHASE of the initial Signal!


> > > and synchronization occurs based on pattern matching.
> >
> >
> > The pure Newtonian time is recorded as Time Marks on a separate
> > sound track of a magnetic tape.
> > " The Electromagnetic Signal " is recorded on a separate the video
> > track of a magnetic tape.
> >
> > The synchronization of Pure Newtonian Time on concrete telescopes
> > is carried out preliminary synchronization of atomic Clocks!
> >
> > " The Abstract Interference " " of Electromagnetic Signals "
> > from two magnetic tapes is carried out in the digital Computer
> > according to the classic wave(undular) electromagnetic theory
> > and Pure Newtonian Time.
> >
> > Now David I have two concrete problems to you:
> >
> >  1. What concrete telescope seizes " a PHOTON "?
> 
> Both do.

Now David I have one concrete problem to you:

==================================================
1. What concrete telescope seizes " a PHOTON "?
==================================================


> >  2. If both telescopes seize parts of same "PHOTON",
> >     please David describe your model.
> 
> I had asked you a question here, and never received your answer.  So my
> answer will be too vague.  My answer is, it depends.


My answer will be too unplesant to you.

==================================================
In the complete consent with the Planck postulate,
always in material(matter) of a concrete telescope
happens change of a quantum state at absorption
of electromagnetic radiation,
which one has not the causal connection with a state
of other remote telescope (VLBI).
==================================================

The absorption of electromagnetic radiation has property
of a locality. 

 In VLBI it can be essential more than two radio telescopes, 
and the quantum events of absorption of electromagnetic 
waves in "detector" of one of several radio telescopes 
do not depend on quantum events of absorption in other 
radio telescopes.     >;-)))

Thus we come to a deduction:

the interference of a " particle photon " on two antennas (VLBI)
is a surrealistic pseudo-physics.



> 
> My question was, if there is polarization at both detectors, has the
> polarization filter ever been rotated 90° (however briefly)?  If it is the
> same photon, then absorbed photons at both detectors should stop.
> Certainly the signal should end.


There is identical polarization at both detectors.




> 
> > Please David do not evade.
> 
> Ah, this is what you do not wish me to evade!
> 
> > > There is no evidence that reveals how many photons were involved in the
> > > avalanche at either detector.
> >
> > The detector is very relevant in our controversy.
> > Please David describe principles of operation of "detector".
> >
> > Now David you on an exact trajectory to the classic wave(undular)
> > electromagnetic theory and Pure Newtonian time.

Our "Detector" is not PMT. ;-)

 
> A photon is absorbed by the detector surface.  The net result is that an
> electron is released with all the photon's energy/momentum (less work
> function plus bias).  The electron then dissipates its energy by scattering
> a number of other electrons; until a "cloud" of electrons with the net
> momentum, but more-or-less equal energies arrives at the input to the
> signal amplifier.  Any discrete information is lost at this point, as you
> and I have agreed.
> 
> > > There is no evidence that it was not two
> > > such photons from a single source, and no real argument against it.
> >
> >  It is very well.
> >
> > Now David you on an exact trajectory to the classic wave(undular)
> > electromagnetic theory and Pure Newtonian time.
> 
> You have no basis for making this statement.

Really?
Really and truly?

Look at fundamental proceedings in VLBI:

INTERFEROMETRY AND SYNTHESIS IN RADIO ASTRONOMY

        second edition

A. Richard Thompson National Radio Astronomy Observatory
James M. Moran Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astroohysics
George W. Swenson, Jr. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

ISBN 0-471-25492-4 INGLISH John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2001
ISBN 5-9221-0015-7 RUSSIAN FIZMATLIT, 2003, RUSSIAN

 
> ...
> > > >  Please David answer quantum "paradox" circumscribed by me.
> > > >
> > > > David do not evade.
> > >
> > > Hope I got the right paradox.  Searching through all the text is a bit
> > > like an easter egg hunt, with no candy at the end.
> >
> > Thanks David, I have received great pleasure from reading your message.
> 
> We are at exactly the same point we were just before your "summer
> vacation".  

No, " the river of time flows is nonreversible, 
we can travel in time never ".



> I hope we get to an ending point soon.

I suppose, that the PHYSICAL TRUTH is the most dear
(or the most expensive ;-)) to both of us, 
we should achieve the consent eventually.

We reveal PHYSICAL TRUTH & accept REALITY ;-)))


> David A. Smith