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: artful on 27 Jan 2010 17:19 On Jan 28, 6:19 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 27, 8:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > ---------------- > do you ask me Y.Porat?? > better ask PD > i said that a single **electron** cannt interfere withitself > so C 60 is of course out of question > > Y.P > ------------------------- Yet experimental evidence shows that over time the location of electrons forms the same pattern as you get with wave interference (just like with photons). It the electrons simply passed thru individual slits as particles, as in the macrocosm, there would be no such pattern. If only one electron passes thru the device at a time, what causes this to happen?
From: artful on 27 Jan 2010 17:20 On Jan 28, 6:15 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > you still dont answer my H U P claim > against > 'a single photon interfering with itself ' Why do you think that HUP says or implies anything against a photon interfering with itself?
From: mpc755 on 27 Jan 2010 17:36 On Jan 27, 5:19 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 28, 6:19 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 27, 8:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > ---------------- > > do you ask me Y.Porat?? > > better ask PD > > i said that a single **electron** cannt interfere withitself > > so C 60 is of course out of question > > > Y.P > > ------------------------- > > Yet experimental evidence shows that over time the location of > electrons forms the same pattern as you get with wave interference > (just like with photons). It the electrons simply passed thru > individual slits as particles, as in the macrocosm, there would be no > such pattern. If only one electron passes thru the device at a time, > what causes this to happen? The associated wave. de Broglie: A moving particle has an associated wave. The particle travels a single path and the wave propagates available paths. When the wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the 'particle' travels. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the associated wave and there is no interference. In Aether Displacement, the moving 'particle' has an associated aether wave.
From: Y.Porat on 28 Jan 2010 02:20 On Jan 27, 9:58 pm, PD <thed > > > > ----------------- > > > > > i have better arguments than this metaphor : > > > > > Please reffere to my HUP arguments > > > > as presented above > > > > > TIA > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ---------------------- > > > see for instance how Milican decided that > > the electron is a single elctron > > Yes, and how did he do that, exactly? Here's a good point to start > with. > ----------------------------- i just quote from far manyyears memory i ddin chek to refresh mymemory if wrong facts pleae correct me: Milican studied bt a microscop the behavior of charges tiny drops of oil (untill here right??) and he was looking for the smallest charge and found that the bigger charges are composed as a integer multiplication of that *smallest* charge sattic electric charge is it more or less right for jsut memory of about 60years ago ??(:-) untill now ( you are rigth i am too lazy now to look i Google even it is quite easy (:-)) now i can tell (fromold memory as well how Avogadro was deciding that allmolecules in gas state ocupy the same volume no matter if they are heavy or light gasses he found for instance that if you combine two volunes of H with one volume of O you get not 3 volumes of H2O but only two ??? it means that H2O has the same volume of H2!! later we take the molecular weight of H2O and the specific weight of water and the absolute weight of one liter of gass water and we can know the number of molecules in one liter without neglecting the knowledge abut the real inner structure of the SINGLE molecule and that is the fantastic Avogadro number (only a genious could do it in his time - not a mathematician (:-) and anothe4 bTW if you unjderstand my table 2 and 3 in my abstract that anyone on the net can see you can understand that i unprecedentedly **expanded** the Avogadro rule FROM THe gas state** to the solid and liquid state !! ** even in that case it is a bit more complicated than the gas state to find it out !! so went on and belive it or not proved that all electrons lengths of the Atom has more or less ALL OF THEM THE SAME LENGTH (NO MATTER IF IT IS A LIGTH aTOM OR A HEAVY ONE ) IE NO ELECTRONS IN MANY SHELLS FURTHER AND CLOSER TO THE NUC AND THEREFORE NO ONE ELECTRON TO ONE PROTON!! etc etc .... ---------------- and now how about the HUP and an elctron or photon interfering with itself ?? TIA Y.Porat --------------------------- -------------------------- so last line he found the smallest electric charge > > and define his mass > > (btw i claim thjat even the eelctron is sub constructed and it might > > be that i will prove it > > even in this thread !!!... > > > see how Avgadro could say that > > in H2 O there are two Atoms of hydrogen **and not one**( and just one > > atom of oxygen) > > He didn't. He said "proportion". He didn't say "atom". You may need to > get a better grip on this one. > > > moreover > > he coud say how many water molecules > > are in ine liter of gass ... > > and he or anyone else never found more than that number > > etc > > 2 > > you still dont answer my H U P claim > > against > > 'a single photon interfering with itself ' > > > later i have another question for you and others > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > -------------------
From: Y.Porat on 28 Jan 2010 02:21
On Jan 28, 12:20 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 28, 6:15 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > you still dont answer my H U P claim > > against > > 'a single photon interfering with itself ' > > Why do you think that HUP says or implies anything against a photon > interfering with itself? see later (can you have some guess ??) Y.P ---------- |