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]>...
> > > Dear Bill Hobba:
> > >
> > > "Bill Hobba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > David Smith wrote:
> > > > > > No detectable consequences.  Determination of self-interference
>  of a
>  single
> > > > > > photon is not possible.  Only for a population of photons is a
>  statistical
> > > > > > distribution measureable.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Craig Markwardt wrote:
> > > > > Taken at its face value, this statement is not correct.  The very
> > > > > clever experiment by Grangier et al [ref. 1], first devised a
> > > > > mechanism to select for single photons using a pair of calcium
> > > > > transitions and a coincidence window.  These "single" photons were
> > > > > then passed, one at a time, through a Michelson interferometer, and
> > > > > fringes were produced!  I.e., the photon interfered with itself.
> > > > >
> > > > > The point is that addition of the interferometer introduces
> > > > > uncertainty over which arm the photon passed through, and is thus
> > > > > quantum probabilistic arguments play a role.
> > > >
> > > > Interesting effect - thanks for the reference.  However I agree with
>  David -
> > > > the results of one photon prove nothing - you need to do the
>  experiment
> > > > several times (or equivalently with a number of different photons) to
> > > > determine that is taking place.
> > >
> > > The experiment he cited actually had a lot of photons emitted and
>  detected,
> > > I think you'll find.  But the rate at which they were emitted was such
>  that
> > > there was only "one" in the path at a time.  "One" being some number
>  less
> > > than one hundred, most likely.
> > >
> > > I think Mr. Markwardt just wanted to patch a hole he (rightly) felt I
>  had
> > > left in the discussion.
> >
> >
> > > Diffraction is a single photon interfering with
> > > itself, a whole host of them.
> >
> > 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.
> 
> 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.

The readers of the thread hardly perceive physical sense of a hint 
written here by you.  >;^))

Whether you can describe your problem in more detail?


> David A. Smith