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: Y.Porat on 27 Jan 2010 01:43 On Jan 26, 7:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 26, 1:35 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 25, 9:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 24, 5:09 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 > > > > It's called quantum entanglement, if you want to do some further > > > reading. > > > And yes, it apparently can and does happen, as revealed in experiment.. > > > This may come as a surprise, because I'm sure you believe that certain > > > things just cannot happen. But nature tells us what can and cannot > > > happen, not our own minds. > > > ------------------- > > before you speak IN BEHALF OF NATURE: > > PD generally - not always -you can read my thoughts > > before i spill it clear cut > > so didnt you guess waht re > how about that > > > YOU DONT HAVE THERE JUST A SINGLE PHOTON > > BUT TWO OR MORE OF THEM ?? > > HOW ABOUT THAT YOUR DEFINITION OF A 'SINGLE PHOOTN--IS WRONG ?? > > Porat, Porat, Porat. > Let's back up a step and ask your questions not about photons but > about atoms. -------------------------------- PD easy easy easy !! (:-) > Suppose we have a chunk of graphite, pure carbon. > The claim is that this is made up of identical carbon atoms, and that > a single atom of carbon is the smallest thing that is identifiable as > carbon. > Chemistry has claimed for some time that it knows a lot about a single > carbon atom. > > Now, let's ask your question in this context: How do we know that it's > a single carbon atom that we're measuring the properties of? Why do we > believe that we're looking at the properties of ONE atom and not a > collection of much smaller things that better represent carbon atoms? > Why do we think the thing we call a carbon atom is the smallest unit > of carbon? > ---------------------------- you ofen use metaphors yet there is some problems with metaphors because a little difference between original and metaphor migth be misleading!! we can see today a single Carbon Atom with an elctronic microscopewhile we still cannt have atool to seethe smallest photon 2 the Carbon Atom is static the photon is superbly dynamic and ilusive because you cant catch iteven a fraction of second that it passed etc etc etc so nothing to compare !! (BTW i cant see in the current word processor of Google the cursor --- and it is terribly disturbing is it only my computer problem of every body s as well) now i hope you dont do it just to divert the issue sideways ??!!.. solets come back to our main issue withsome more concrete argumants lets goback to the HUP: btw you can see the HUP in two ways 1 as a product of uncertainties 2 quite reversly or invwersly as a product of knowledge or lack of know ledges now we know that the width of the slit is machsmaller than the **distance between** the slits (BTW whah is that distance commonly ????) it is surely muchmore than Angstrms we know as well the wave lenth of a photon or electron wave the eelctrton wave is i guess only a few Angstrom or evenless so obviously the the wave lenght is much smaller than the distance between slits so we have a good knowlwdge about disatnces ie the dx of the HUP so if we have a good knowledgwe we have a very poor about dP of the momentum b similarly in taking the dt dE aspect of HUP if dt is actually zero (in self interference ) because it is at rhe same timein both slits so our knowlege about dT is more than very good- ('infinity' ) than ----our knowledge about dE is ...............>. actually ---- ZERO !! an i right ??? TIA Y.Porat -------------------------------
From: PD on 27 Jan 2010 09:22 On Jan 27, 12:43 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 26, 7:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 26, 1:35 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 25, 9:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 24, 5:09 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 > > > > > It's called quantum entanglement, if you want to do some further > > > > reading. > > > > And yes, it apparently can and does happen, as revealed in experiment. > > > > This may come as a surprise, because I'm sure you believe that certain > > > > things just cannot happen. But nature tells us what can and cannot > > > > happen, not our own minds. > > > > ------------------- > > > before you speak IN BEHALF OF NATURE: > > > PD generally - not always -you can read my thoughts > > > before i spill it clear cut > > > so didnt you guess waht re > how about that > > > > YOU DONT HAVE THERE JUST A SINGLE PHOTON > > > BUT TWO OR MORE OF THEM ?? > > > HOW ABOUT THAT YOUR DEFINITION OF A 'SINGLE PHOOTN--IS WRONG ?? > > > Porat, Porat, Porat. > > Let's back up a step and ask your questions not about photons but > > about atoms. > > -------------------------------- > PD easy easy easy !! (:-) > > > Suppose we have a chunk of graphite, pure carbon. > > The claim is that this is made up of identical carbon atoms, and that > > a single atom of carbon is the smallest thing that is identifiable as > > carbon. > > Chemistry has claimed for some time that it knows a lot about a single > > carbon atom. > > > Now, let's ask your question in this context: How do we know that it's > > a single carbon atom that we're measuring the properties of? Why do we > > believe that we're looking at the properties of ONE atom and not a > > collection of much smaller things that better represent carbon atoms? > > Why do we think the thing we call a carbon atom is the smallest unit > > of carbon? > > ---------------------------- > > you ofen use metaphors > yet there is some problems with metaphors > because a little difference between original and metaphor migth be > misleading!! > > we can see today a single Carbon Atom > with an elctronic microscopewhile we still cannt > have atool to seethe smallest photon This misses my point, and please reread the above to recapture the point. We identified a carbon atom LONG before we had microscopes powerful enough to see atoms. We KNEW what a carbon atom was, and we could count them, including "one". Now ask yourself how it is we could know such things BEFORE we had a microscope to see them. If you don't know the answer, then read up on it. When you've done that, then you'll have a clue how we can count photons and know when there is just one of them present. > 2 > the Carbon Atom is static > the photon is superbly dynamic and ilusive > because you cant catch iteven a fraction of second that it passed > etc etc etc > so nothing to compare !! > > (BTW i cant see in the current word processor of Google > the cursor --- and it is terribly disturbing > is it only my computer problem of every body s as well) > > now i hope you dont do it just to divert the issue sideways ??!!.. > > solets come back to our main issue withsome more concrete argumants > lets goback to the HUP: > > btw you can see the HUP in two ways > 1 > as a product of uncertainties > 2 > quite reversly or invwersly > as a product of knowledge or lack of know ledges > now > we know that the width of the slit is machsmaller than the > **distance between** the slits > (BTW whah is that distance commonly ????) > it is surely muchmore than Angstrms > we know as well the wave lenth of a photon > or electron wave > the eelctrton wave is i guess only a few Angstrom > or evenless > so obviously the the wave lenght is much smaller than > the distance between slits > so we have a good knowlwdge > about disatnces ie the dx of the HUP > so > if we have a good knowledgwe > we have a very poor about dP of the momentum > b > similarly in taking the dt dE aspect of HUP > > if dt is actually zero (in self interference ) > because it is at rhe same timein both slits > so our knowlege about dT is more than very good- > ('infinity' ) > > than ----our knowledge about dE is ...............>. actually ---- > ZERO !! > > an i right ??? > > TIA > Y.Porat > -------------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 27 Jan 2010 12:32 On Jan 27, 4:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 27, 12:43 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 26, 7:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 26, 1:35 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 25, 9:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 24, 5:09 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 > > > > > > It's called quantum entanglement, if you want to do some further > > > > > reading. > > > > > And yes, it apparently can and does happen, as revealed in experiment. > > > > > This may come as a surprise, because I'm sure you believe that certain > > > > > things just cannot happen. But nature tells us what can and cannot > > > > > happen, not our own minds. > > > > > ------------------- > > > > before you speak IN BEHALF OF NATURE: > > > > PD generally - not always -you can read my thoughts > > > > before i spill it clear cut > > > > so didnt you guess waht re > how about that > > > > > YOU DONT HAVE THERE JUST A SINGLE PHOTON > > > > BUT TWO OR MORE OF THEM ?? > > > > HOW ABOUT THAT YOUR DEFINITION OF A 'SINGLE PHOOTN--IS WRONG ?? > > > > Porat, Porat, Porat. > > > Let's back up a step and ask your questions not about photons but > > > about atoms. > > > -------------------------------- > > PD easy easy easy !! (:-) > > > > Suppose we have a chunk of graphite, pure carbon. > > > The claim is that this is made up of identical carbon atoms, and that > > > a single atom of carbon is the smallest thing that is identifiable as > > > carbon. > > > Chemistry has claimed for some time that it knows a lot about a single > > > carbon atom. > > > > Now, let's ask your question in this context: How do we know that it's > > > a single carbon atom that we're measuring the properties of? Why do we > > > believe that we're looking at the properties of ONE atom and not a > > > collection of much smaller things that better represent carbon atoms? > > > Why do we think the thing we call a carbon atom is the smallest unit > > > of carbon? > > > ---------------------------- > > > you ofen use metaphors > > yet there is some problems with metaphors > > because a little difference between original and metaphor migth be > > misleading!! > > > we can see today a single Carbon Atom > > with an elctronic microscopewhile we still cannt > > have atool to seethe smallest photon > > This misses my point, and please reread the above to recapture the > point. > We identified a carbon atom LONG before we had microscopes powerful > enough to see atoms. > We KNEW what a carbon atom was, and we could count them, including > "one". > > Now ask yourself how it is we could know such things BEFORE we had a > microscope to see them. If you don't know the answer, then read up on > it. When you've done that, then you'll have a clue how we can count > photons and know when there is just one of them present. > > > 2 > > the Carbon Atom is static > > the photon is superbly dynamic and ilusive > > because you cant catch iteven a fraction of second that it passed > > etc etc etc > > so nothing to compare !! > > > (BTW i cant see in the current word processor of Google > > the cursor --- and it is terribly disturbing > > is it only my computer problem of every body s as well) > > > now i hope you dont do it just to divert the issue sideways ??!!.. > > > solets come back to our main issue withsome more concrete argumants > > lets goback to the HUP: > > > btw you can see the HUP in two ways > > 1 > > as a product of uncertainties > > 2 > > quite reversly or invwersly > > as a product of knowledge or lack of know ledges > > now > > we know that the width of the slit is machsmaller than the > > **distance between** the slits > > (BTW whah is that distance commonly ????) > > it is surely muchmore than Angstrms > > we know as well the wave lenth of a photon > > or electron wave > > the eelctrton wave is i guess only a few Angstrom > > or evenless > > so obviously the the wave lenght is much smaller than > > the distance between slits > > so we have a good knowlwdge > > about disatnces ie the dx of the HUP > > so > > if we have a good knowledgwe > > we have a very poor about dP of the momentum > > b > > similarly in taking the dt dE aspect of HUP > > > if dt is actually zero (in self interference ) > > because it is at rhe same timein both slits > > so our knowlege about dT is more than very good- > > ('infinity' ) > > > than ----our knowledge about dE is ...............>. actually ---- > > ZERO !! > > > an i right ??? > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------------- i told you that the photon and a carbon lattice are too different examples you can examine carbon by chemical experiments you can even test it in its Gas situation and use the Avigadro law you can test it even in its solution phase you can use such things in electrolysis since you have my book you can see my specific weight analysis .. if you reallyunderstandit you could see even that i could by that system tofind out whether a laticeunitis composed of one or two . ir even 5 Atoms!! i suggested there that the Diamond is composed of **5**!! atoms per lattice unit !!! and graphite from 3 Atoms per lattice unit so it seems that i am may be one of the last people that you can tell them about lattice structure ... there is even a huge diference of sizes the photon is much more illusive etc (it took me about one minute(even just while typing ..) to thing about all those last arguments and had i though more about it i coud find much more i am sure that other readrs from amny disciplins of science could add on it much more in short photons and Carbon Atoms *a completely different 'animals ' ----------------- i have better arguments than this metaphor : Please reffere to my HUP arguments as presented above TIA Y.Porat ----------------------
From: PD on 27 Jan 2010 12:51 On Jan 27, 11:32 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 27, 4:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 27, 12:43 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 26, 7:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 26, 1:35 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 25, 9:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 5:09 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 > > > > > > > It's called quantum entanglement, if you want to do some further > > > > > > reading. > > > > > > And yes, it apparently can and does happen, as revealed in experiment. > > > > > > This may come as a surprise, because I'm sure you believe that certain > > > > > > things just cannot happen. But nature tells us what can and cannot > > > > > > happen, not our own minds. > > > > > > ------------------- > > > > > before you speak IN BEHALF OF NATURE: > > > > > PD generally - not always -you can read my thoughts > > > > > before i spill it clear cut > > > > > so didnt you guess waht re > how about that > > > > > > YOU DONT HAVE THERE JUST A SINGLE PHOTON > > > > > BUT TWO OR MORE OF THEM ?? > > > > > HOW ABOUT THAT YOUR DEFINITION OF A 'SINGLE PHOOTN--IS WRONG ?? > > > > > Porat, Porat, Porat. > > > > Let's back up a step and ask your questions not about photons but > > > > about atoms. > > > > -------------------------------- > > > PD easy easy easy !! (:-) > > > > > Suppose we have a chunk of graphite, pure carbon. > > > > The claim is that this is made up of identical carbon atoms, and that > > > > a single atom of carbon is the smallest thing that is identifiable as > > > > carbon. > > > > Chemistry has claimed for some time that it knows a lot about a single > > > > carbon atom. > > > > > Now, let's ask your question in this context: How do we know that it's > > > > a single carbon atom that we're measuring the properties of? Why do we > > > > believe that we're looking at the properties of ONE atom and not a > > > > collection of much smaller things that better represent carbon atoms? > > > > Why do we think the thing we call a carbon atom is the smallest unit > > > > of carbon? > > > > ---------------------------- > > > > you ofen use metaphors > > > yet there is some problems with metaphors > > > because a little difference between original and metaphor migth be > > > misleading!! > > > > we can see today a single Carbon Atom > > > with an elctronic microscopewhile we still cannt > > > have atool to seethe smallest photon > > > This misses my point, and please reread the above to recapture the > > point. > > We identified a carbon atom LONG before we had microscopes powerful > > enough to see atoms. > > We KNEW what a carbon atom was, and we could count them, including > > "one". > > > Now ask yourself how it is we could know such things BEFORE we had a > > microscope to see them. If you don't know the answer, then read up on > > it. When you've done that, then you'll have a clue how we can count > > photons and know when there is just one of them present. > > > > 2 > > > the Carbon Atom is static > > > the photon is superbly dynamic and ilusive > > > because you cant catch iteven a fraction of second that it passed > > > etc etc etc > > > so nothing to compare !! > > > > (BTW i cant see in the current word processor of Google > > > the cursor --- and it is terribly disturbing > > > is it only my computer problem of every body s as well) > > > > now i hope you dont do it just to divert the issue sideways ??!!... > > > > solets come back to our main issue withsome more concrete argumants > > > lets goback to the HUP: > > > > btw you can see the HUP in two ways > > > 1 > > > as a product of uncertainties > > > 2 > > > quite reversly or invwersly > > > as a product of knowledge or lack of know ledges > > > now > > > we know that the width of the slit is machsmaller than the > > > **distance between** the slits > > > (BTW whah is that distance commonly ????) > > > it is surely muchmore than Angstrms > > > we know as well the wave lenth of a photon > > > or electron wave > > > the eelctrton wave is i guess only a few Angstrom > > > or evenless > > > so obviously the the wave lenght is much smaller than > > > the distance between slits > > > so we have a good knowlwdge > > > about disatnces ie the dx of the HUP > > > so > > > if we have a good knowledgwe > > > we have a very poor about dP of the momentum > > > b > > > similarly in taking the dt dE aspect of HUP > > > > if dt is actually zero (in self interference ) > > > because it is at rhe same timein both slits > > > so our knowlege about dT is more than very good- > > > ('infinity' ) > > > > than ----our knowledge about dE is ...............>. actually ---- > > > ZERO !! > > > > an i right ??? > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------------------- > > i told you that the photon and a carbon lattice > are too different examples > you can examine carbon by chemical experiments > you can even test it in its Gas situation > and use the Avigadro law > you can test it even in its solution phase > you can use such things in electrolysis > > since you have my book > you can see my specific weight analysis .. > if you reallyunderstandit > you could see even that i could by that system > tofind out whether a laticeunitis composed of > one or two . ir even 5 Atoms!! > i suggested there that the Diamond is composed of > **5**!! > atoms per lattice unit !!! > and graphite from 3 Atoms per lattice unit > so it seems that i am may be one of the last people > that you can tell them about lattice structure ... I didn't ask how YOU can count atoms, I asked how *science* was able to count atoms before detecting one in a microscope. How did SCIENTISTS know whether each atom counted as one or as several? When you can explain how each atom was known to count as one and not as several, then you'll have an idea how SCIENTISTS know each photon counts as one and not as several. The two are closer than you think. > > there is even a huge diference of sizes > the photon is much more illusive etc > (it took me about one minute(even just while typing ..) to thing > about > all those last arguments > and had i though more about it > i coud find much more > i am sure that other readrs from amny disciplins of science could > add on it much more > > in short > photons and Carbon Atoms > *a completely different 'animals ' > ----------------- > > i have better arguments than this metaphor : > > Please reffere to my HUP arguments > as presented above > > TIA > Y.Porat > ----------------------
From: mpc755 on 27 Jan 2010 13:30
On Jan 27, 12:32 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 27, 4:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 27, 12:43 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 26, 7:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 26, 1:35 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 25, 9:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 5:09 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 > > > > > > > It's called quantum entanglement, if you want to do some further > > > > > > reading. > > > > > > And yes, it apparently can and does happen, as revealed in experiment. > > > > > > This may come as a surprise, because I'm sure you believe that certain > > > > > > things just cannot happen. But nature tells us what can and cannot > > > > > > happen, not our own minds. > > > > > > ------------------- > > > > > before you speak IN BEHALF OF NATURE: > > > > > PD generally - not always -you can read my thoughts > > > > > before i spill it clear cut > > > > > so didnt you guess waht re > how about that > > > > > > YOU DONT HAVE THERE JUST A SINGLE PHOTON > > > > > BUT TWO OR MORE OF THEM ?? > > > > > HOW ABOUT THAT YOUR DEFINITION OF A 'SINGLE PHOOTN--IS WRONG ?? > > > > > Porat, Porat, Porat. > > > > Let's back up a step and ask your questions not about photons but > > > > about atoms. > > > > -------------------------------- > > > PD easy easy easy !! (:-) > > > > > Suppose we have a chunk of graphite, pure carbon. > > > > The claim is that this is made up of identical carbon atoms, and that > > > > a single atom of carbon is the smallest thing that is identifiable as > > > > carbon. > > > > Chemistry has claimed for some time that it knows a lot about a single > > > > carbon atom. > > > > > Now, let's ask your question in this context: How do we know that it's > > > > a single carbon atom that we're measuring the properties of? Why do we > > > > believe that we're looking at the properties of ONE atom and not a > > > > collection of much smaller things that better represent carbon atoms? > > > > Why do we think the thing we call a carbon atom is the smallest unit > > > > of carbon? > > > > ---------------------------- > > > > you ofen use metaphors > > > yet there is some problems with metaphors > > > because a little difference between original and metaphor migth be > > > misleading!! > > > > we can see today a single Carbon Atom > > > with an elctronic microscopewhile we still cannt > > > have atool to seethe smallest photon > > > This misses my point, and please reread the above to recapture the > > point. > > We identified a carbon atom LONG before we had microscopes powerful > > enough to see atoms. > > We KNEW what a carbon atom was, and we could count them, including > > "one". > > > Now ask yourself how it is we could know such things BEFORE we had a > > microscope to see them. If you don't know the answer, then read up on > > it. When you've done that, then you'll have a clue how we can count > > photons and know when there is just one of them present. > > > > 2 > > > the Carbon Atom is static > > > the photon is superbly dynamic and ilusive > > > because you cant catch iteven a fraction of second that it passed > > > etc etc etc > > > so nothing to compare !! > > > > (BTW i cant see in the current word processor of Google > > > the cursor --- and it is terribly disturbing > > > is it only my computer problem of every body s as well) > > > > now i hope you dont do it just to divert the issue sideways ??!!... > > > > solets come back to our main issue withsome more concrete argumants > > > lets goback to the HUP: > > > > btw you can see the HUP in two ways > > > 1 > > > as a product of uncertainties > > > 2 > > > quite reversly or invwersly > > > as a product of knowledge or lack of know ledges > > > now > > > we know that the width of the slit is machsmaller than the > > > **distance between** the slits > > > (BTW whah is that distance commonly ????) > > > it is surely muchmore than Angstrms > > > we know as well the wave lenth of a photon > > > or electron wave > > > the eelctrton wave is i guess only a few Angstrom > > > or evenless > > > so obviously the the wave lenght is much smaller than > > > the distance between slits > > > so we have a good knowlwdge > > > about disatnces ie the dx of the HUP > > > so > > > if we have a good knowledgwe > > > we have a very poor about dP of the momentum > > > b > > > similarly in taking the dt dE aspect of HUP > > > > if dt is actually zero (in self interference ) > > > because it is at rhe same timein both slits > > > so our knowlege about dT is more than very good- > > > ('infinity' ) > > > > than ----our knowledge about dE is ...............>. actually ---- > > > ZERO !! > > > > an i right ??? > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------------------- > > i told you that the photon and a carbon lattice > are too different examples > you can examine carbon by chemical experiments > you can even test it in its Gas situation > and use the Avigadro law > you can test it even in its solution phase > you can use such things in electrolysis > > since you have my book > you can see my specific weight analysis .. > if you reallyunderstandit > you could see even that i could by that system > tofind out whether a laticeunitis composed of > one or two . ir even 5 Atoms!! > i suggested there that the Diamond is composed of > **5**!! > atoms per lattice unit !!! > and graphite from 3 Atoms per lattice unit > so it seems that i am may be one of the last people > that you can tell them about lattice structure ... > > there is even a huge diference of sizes > the photon is much more illusive etc > (it took me about one minute(even just while typing ..) to thing > about > all those last arguments > and had i though more about it > i coud find much more > i am sure that other readrs from amny disciplins of science could > add on it much more > > in short > photons and Carbon Atoms > *a completely different 'animals ' > ----------------- > > i have better arguments than this metaphor : > > Please reffere to my HUP arguments > as presented above > > TIA > Y.Porat > ---------------------- Do you really think the C-60 molecule is 'interfering with itself' in a double slit experiment? Do you really think the C-60 molecule is able to enter multiple slits simultaneously? How is a C-60 molecule able to enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without releasing energy, requiring energy, or having a change in momentum? How is it if detectors are placed at the exits to the slits after the C-60 molecule has entered the slit(s) the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit? Because the C-60 molecule always enters a single slit and it is the wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether which enters multiple slits. The wave exits the slits and creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated wave and there is no interference and the direction the C-60 molecule travels is not altered. A moving particle has an associated wave. The particle travels a single path and the associated wave propagates available paths. In AD, a moving 'particle' has an associated aether wave. |