Re: Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

"Bill Hobba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Someone correctly wrote:
> > > > Diffraction is a single photon interfering with
> > > > itself, a whole host of them.
> > >
> 
> Aleksandr Timofeev in his typical style of not addressing the logic of an
> explanation and simply restating his totally erroneous view said
> > > 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.
> >
> 
> David A. Smith correctly wrote:
> > You have claimed this many, many times, and when challenged, you unable to
> > support your claim.
> >
> > Rotate the polarizer, and see how many "signals" are lost.
> 
> Do you honestly think your logic will have any impact on someone who is
> immune to it?
 
 Thanks, Bill, yes, I honestly think my logic will have any impact on 
someone who is listen to it...

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0207230631.624e39da%40posting.google.com

==============================================================
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Question: interference patterns.
Date: 23 Jul 2002 07:31:53 -0700

ca314159 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
[snip]

> "Harmful chimeras", as you call them, seem to have been around for millenia.
> They apparently once ruled the earth in prehistoric times, in what one might call:
> that period of Nature's nightmarish combinatorics of biology and its 
> aesthetic preference for cute and cuddly deepsea anglerfish:
>    http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/hughes2001/acct/bmounmanivong/deep03b.jpg
> 
> Developing any working theories without using chimeras seems improbable.
> Give me an example of a theory without a chimera. 
> 
> "...and I cherish more than anything else the Analogies, my most
>  trustworthy masters. They know all the secrets of Nature..."
>          --Kepler
> 
> Analogies, similes, metaphors, paradoxes, hyphenation, morphisms,... are all 
> chimeras.
> How often do they lead to "eureka!" ?
> 
> One must draw a line somewhere. If some people find the idea of 
> photons convenient, then "let them eat cake". 
> They want and desire the sugar-coated complication because it has caloric content
> and does work for them. "More power to them." And they have no desire to eat 
> something more blandly nutritional like plain ordinary bread even though it 
> may be healthier. 
> 
> Every paradigm is a candle, burning from both ends.
> 
> Kuhn:
> 
> "The proponents of different theories are like the members of different 
>  language-culture communities."
>     http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm
> 
> Similarly, "linguistic relativity":
>   http://www.google.com/search?q=linguistic+relativity
> 
> and these seem to naturally lead to ideas of the "Global Village": 
> that expanding universe of sensors/information/communication, 
> and preceived responsibility,
>   http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/bas9401.html
> 
> McLuhan's notion of "reversal" is of the inevitable demise of a paradigm
> as it reverts into something destructive. This is similar to Paracelsus'
> ideas on the dose relationship between cures and poisons.
> 
> So, they also claim, not only are we, the average citizens, 
> now responsible for our households, our neighborhoods, our cities, 
> our nations,... but the whole world. And not only the world, 
> but anything you can perceive with these new enhanced sensors like: 
> atoms, photons, stars, galaxies, killer asteroids... 
> 
> "Excuse me while I kiss the sky"
>    - Jimi Hendrix - Purple Haze
> 
> We're all expected now to be infinitely "nosey",
> minding each others' business. 
> So how much responsibility do you want to take on ?
> Or, how much responsibility are you willing to let others lay on you ?
> 
> Are you willing to go into the rain forests and tell the 
> stone age natives there, that you must now regulate their
> lives, because it's your responsibility since you saw them
> before they saw you ? 
> 
> This of course creates alot of paranoia. Some people don't seem to 
> like the idea of their being held responsible for some anonymous nerd 
> on the other side of the planet mucking around with dangerous 
> combinations of over-the-counter chemicals, desktop black holes,
> phlogiston, and DNA. Others get over-zealous, and want to control
> everyone in microscopic detail like big brother. 
> 
> Dune, Star Wars propaganda ensues followed by the more humorous
> "all your base are belong to us" phenomena:
>   http://www.sirlinksalot.net/ayb.html
> 
> And thus too was born the whole idea of "The Borg" in Star Trek, 
> those interconnected cyborgs with no individual personality. 
> The "resistance is futile" ultimatum of these 
> prefection-seeking Borg is reflected in other prophetic propaganda:
> 
> Ursula Leguin wrote in "The Lathe of Heaven" of how the universe 
> is inevitably destroyed by some anonymous hyperdimensional alien engineer 
> tinkering with a new kind of space drive. The protagonist is told
> that this cannot be avoided. Destruction is as inevitable as existance.
> A similar stoic notion of our tragic and inevitable demise is presented 
> in "Dr. Strangelove". 
> 
> Life is short. I think I'll go out and buy a Gadsden flag:
>   http://www.foundingfathers.info/stories/gadsden.html#story
> rather than worry about whether science is being corrupted by 
> the concept of photons.  One might as well complain that music 
> was about continuous waves, and not about individual discrete notes; 
> but I don't think that would go very far. 
> 
> "It is rare to find learned men who are clean, do not stink and have a sense of 
> humour."  
>   http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Leibniz.html



By "photon" bad character and ill-looking appearance, 
like the Devil with his tail cut off.    ;-)

The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. 
" The Devil is the Liar and He is the Father of Lie. "



The schizophrenia is inadequate perception of the real.



    The purpose of the given article is the proof of an 
inaccuracy of representation about a duality of physical 
properties of light.

    Light is wave process always and in all cases.

    The nature, ambient us, consists of quantum microsystems, 
therefore any phenomenon can be explain from a point of Plank's 
view - quantum microsystems can exchange energy only by quantum 
portions. This energy is absorbed and is emited only as 
electromagnetic waves.

   Photoeffect, Raman and Compton effects and all other phenomena 
have physically correct explanation only from the point of Plank's 
view.
    The classical interpretations of a photoeffect and Compton 
effect are error.
     These interpretations were offered when there was no quantum 
mechanics and radio physics. In that time the principles of operation 
of transmitting and receiving devices were poorly clear and known 
in detailses. The processes in solid bodies and structure of solid 
bodies in that time were unintelligible. The quantum theory of a 
structure of substance (physical chemistry) was not in that time.

But the pceudo-scientific imaginations as the classical 
interpretations of a photoeffect and Compton effect on the 
basis of a hypothesis of a photon are alive until now. Why?:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0105300456.3f908a72%40posting.google.com

Step First     Debunking Photon Wave-Particle Duality 

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0110050811.259a247d%40posting.google.com

=========================================================================
 From: Aleksandr Timofeev ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
 Subject: Re: Photon Wave-Particle Duality 
 Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.particle, sci.physics.electromag
 Date: 2001-10-05 09:11:06 PST 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Carr) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:
> > 
> >Proofs of existence of a photon in all cases leans on interaction of
> >electromagnetic waves with substance.
> 
>  Sort of.  It leans on the utter inability of Maxwell's 
>  description of electromagnetic waves and their interaction 
>  with an electron to describe the observed angular distribution 
>  seen in Compton scattering.  

    Let's approach to this problem on the other hand. 
Let's assume, that the process of scattering of electromagnetic 
radiation consists of three stages: 
    1. The first stage will represent process of an absorption of 
electromagnetic radiation by a quantum microsystem. It is important 
to mark, that at this stage the quantum portion of electromagnetic 
radiation will be absorbed, since absorber is the quantum microsystem 
(the Plank postulate). 
    2. The second stage will represent a metastable state. 
    3. The third stage will represent spontaneous process of 
simultaneous emitting by a quantum microsystem of electromagnetic 
radiation and electron. It is important to mark, that at this stage 
a quantum portion of electromagnetic radiation also will be radiated, 
since the radiator is the quantum microsystem (the Plank postulate). 

    Here we have the non-linear gear of transformation of frequency 
of initial radiation by a quantum microsystem. 

    It is natural, that all participants interacting at the third 
stage are subject to conservation laws, i.e. we have almost same 
law of angular distribution, which you have indicated, but this 
law of angular distribution should be updated with allowance for 
of third very massive component representing a quantum microsystem. 

>  This falsification of an E+M wave
>  description of a physical phenomenon involving light leaves 
>  the photon-based models as the only viable alternative.
> 

Just in this place, the logic error in the orthodox interpretation 
of interaction of electromagnetic radiation and substance in the 
given individual considered case of the non-linear gear of 
transformation of frequency of initial radiation by a quantum 
microsystem is hidden. 

 I shall strengthen my position by adding in this model 
of Raman effect. 

  In a nature completely other gear of scattering is realized 
which differs from offered you and refuted in the same moment 
by you of inconsistent model of interaction of an electromagnetic 
wave and electron. 

> >In this place we have a vicious circle. 
> 
>  No.  You seem to think that, by describing the internal self-consistency 
>  of the photon model as a "vicious circle", you can use semantics as a 
>  substitute for experiment or theory.  Similarly, you seem to wish to 
>  pretend that the lack of self-consistency in a wave model of light 
>  interacting with matter is a good thing rather than bad as most others 
>  seem to realize.
 
The hypothesis of a photon is necessary only for explanation 
of transmission of E/M energy without existence of medium.

Well now I assume the problem " of free electrons " will arise.

Eric Prebys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has run away from a field 
of this battle.
He is a good official opponent since he is the expert in the field of 
non-linear transformations of frequency of electromagnetic
oscillations.
=========================================================================