Can a *single** physical entity- be* at the same time* - in two **separated* locations ??!!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Liquid Water has solid-like behaviour over long-distances andtime-frames
Next: Very cheap solar power
From: waldofj on 24 Jan 2010 17:05 On Jan 24, 6:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Can a *single** physical entity-** be** (exist ) **at the same time**- > in two **separated* locations ??!! > > that question was raised about the possibility of - > 'interference of a ***single photon** -with itself '... > > yet it can be asked about other physical phenomena as well > > TIA > Y.Porat http://www.hitachi.com/rd/research/em/doubleslit.html
From: Inertial on 24 Jan 2010 17:05 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:d4895862-ca42-4632-bbea-c8e483cd6b4b(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 24, 1:54 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:b776722c-3456-4240-bb23-cc6c966a61df(a)p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > Can a *single** physical entity-** be** (exist ) **at the same time**- >> > in two **separated* locations ??!! >> > >> An interesting question. > ------------------- > since ofr a change you talk physics I always do > i will try to goon with you... Lets see how long it lasts before you degenerate into insults and allegations again >> >> > that question was raised about the possibility of - >> > 'interference of a ***single photon** -with itself '... > > exactly... >> >> We observe individual photons passing thru the double-slit experiment >> over >> time will form an interference pattern. The only thing it can be >> interfering >> with is itself. > ----------------- > that is your declaration Yes .. experimenters are very careful about what happens, and test different scenarios to ensure there are no other effects. > and that is exactly the dispute > to be accepted or rejected > imhho Well .. that is what is observed .. you would have to explain why we get that result, if you reject the current explanation that physics offers > it is a very importand issue to nake clear > because as is it is far from being clear > **and not being clear The construction of the experiment and the results *are* very clear > is a very bad sign for that current paradigm > imho > in my question i *pushed the problem to a corner** Not really .. as the experiment does not rely on a photon 'particle' being in two places at once. Each one ends up at only one single location. > ie > no way to be ambiguous about it > it is either yes > or no > nothing in between > anyway lets see your further arguments > ------------ > > And if it existed in just one location, then that seems >> incongruent. > > that is waht i thought as well >> >> The problem is in thinking that a photon having an exact location. It is >> not necessarily a single little point . > > i am the last one to think about theelectron as a point particle (it > is heavily documented !!) > may be we got here as a by product > another prove that the > eelctron is not a [point particle !! It is when it needs to be .. if you do something that requires it to have a location. > . it is 'fuzzy', with only >> probabilities that it can be in certain locations. It is (as I >> understand) > > fuzzy makes me dizzy (:-) > and i dont like i t !! That's not my problem >> those probabilities 'clouds' that 'interfere' with each other, so the >> probabilities of the photon being at a location on the detector screen >> form >> an interference pattern. Hence when a photon must 'decide' on being in a >> certain location, those locations over time reflect that probability >> distribution. >> ---------------- > -anyway at the exact time that the photon is alleged to pass the slits > ''it is (alleged )exactly in two locations ' > please not the '' '' No .. it doesn't have a fixed location until it hits the detector. It only has probabilities of existing a ta location before that. Yes .. it is odd, but that's how nature works > -------------' >> Quantum physics is strange, and often counter-intuitive. > againm it i sa very bad sighn > for the existing situation!! No .. it is just how nature works. It has no requirement to make sense to everyone .. it does what it does. >> >> > yet it can be asked about other physical phenomena as well >> >> Indeed it can. Everything has wave/particle duality .. but whether the >> wave-like or particle-like behavior dominates depends on the mass (again, >> as >> I understand, I'm not as familiar with the details of quantum physics as >> I >> am with SR). > > ------------------- > -thanks > now lets se ehow other readers get away > with it > BTW > you can guess that i suggest a solution > and not just asking the question I'm sure that will be entertaining. Note that undetectable photons of must lower frequencies do not explain the results of the experiment.
From: Tom Roberts on 24 Jan 2010 18:37 John Kennaugh wrote: > The idea that a single photon interferes with itself is absurd if you > are talking about physical interference You ASSUME that your personal notions of how nature "ought to" behave actually describe nature. THAT IS ABSURD. Yes, objects have definite identities and locations at scales familiar to you -- this does NOT mean that this also applies at atomic and sub-atomic scales. Indeed, our best models at such scales do NOT obey your naive notions. And there are rather strong indications that your naivet� CAN NOT apply at these scales (look up the Bell inequalities and related experiments). > rather than a mathematical model > which simply mimics it. Anything that you can think about is a MODEL of nature. Ditto for anybody else. > "interference" in the physical sense involves [...] What God whispered in your ear and told you this? You act like you have special and CERTAIN knowledge of how nature works. That is absurd. Like the rest of us, you are limited to MODELS, and have no way to know whether or not your MODEL is valid without experimental tests (of which you have none). > A rethink is necessary. Yes. You need to learn humility, and realize that the world does not need to work the way you want it to. Indeed, current experiments indicate that it does not. You also need to "rethink" your entire approach. Sitting in your armchair dictating to nature how she should "work" is useless. You need to learn what science actually is, and then start practicing it. Tom Roberts
From: Y.Porat on 25 Jan 2010 02:29 On Jan 25, 1:37 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > John Kennaugh wrote: > > The idea that a single photon interferes with itself is absurd if you > > are talking about physical interference > > You ASSUME that your personal notions of how nature "ought to" behave actually > describe nature. THAT IS ABSURD. > > Yes, objects have definite identities and locations at scales familiar to you -- > this does NOT mean that this also applies at atomic and sub-atomic scales.. > Indeed, our best models at such scales do NOT obey your naive notions. And there > are rather strong indications that your naivet CAN NOT apply at these scales > (look up the Bell inequalities and related experiments). > > > rather than a mathematical model > > which simply mimics it. > > Anything that you can think about is a MODEL of nature. Ditto for anybody else. > > > "interference" in the physical sense involves [...] > > What God whispered in your ear and told you this? You act like you have special > and CERTAIN knowledge of how nature works. That is absurd. Like the rest of us, > you are limited to MODELS, and have no way to know whether or not your MODEL is > valid without experimental tests (of which you have none). > > > A rethink is necessary. > > Yes. You need to learn humility, and realize that the world does not need to > work the way you want it to. Indeed, current experiments indicate that it does not. > > You also need to "rethink" your entire approach. Sitting in your armchair > dictating to nature how she should "work" is useless. You need to learn what > science actually is, and then start practicing it. > > Tom Roberts ------------------ and how about YOU RETHINKING YOUR APPROACH ?? a real crook makes his ignorance an advantage!! and that insread of a behavior of an honest person who would say ::: YES INDEED IT IS NOT SATISFACROTY EXPLAINED AND IF SO FURTHER UNDERSTANDING IS BADLY NEEDED !! SO what you you said above is MATHEMATICAL PROVE THAT YOU ARE A shameless CROOK !! or at the good case an idiot parrot Y.Porat -------------------
From: Y.Porat on 25 Jan 2010 02:33
On Jan 24, 11:38 pm, tadchem <tadc...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jan 24, 6:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Can a *single** physical entity-** be** (exist ) **at the same time**- > > in two **separated* locations ??!! > > > that question was raised about the possibility of - > > 'interference of a ***single photon** -with itself '... > > > yet it can be asked about other physical phenomena as well > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > How do you define a "single physical entity"? If you do not require it > to be a 'point particle' then the December 26, 2004 tsunami was a > single physical entity. It struck several places around the Indian > ocean, including striking *simultaneously" ot two "separated" > locations - Sri Lanka and the east coast of India.http://upload.wikimedia..org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/2004_Indonesia_Tsu... > > Tom Davidson > Richmond, VA ---------------- a hint: one of the big problems about it is in that 'single photon' ....... anyway it is clear(as i see it) that the size or width of a single photon and even photon path- is less than the distance between the two slits!!!..... ATB Y.Porat ----------------- |