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: kenseto on 28 Jan 2010 09:35 On Jan 27, 11:56 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >John Kennaugh wrote: > >> Tom Roberts 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 naiveté CAN NOT apply at these scales (look up > >>>the Bell inequalities and related experiments). > >> Nothing you have written there bears any relevance to my point. > > >Not true. You made a point in the above statement, which is ABSURD. As I said. > > >You may THINK you made some other point, but the absurdity of your > >"argument" negates everything you said. That was MY point. (But I'll > >get around to your so-called "point" below.) > > >If I ignore that fundamental error on your part, and interpret the > >words you used in the usual way relating to the MODEL known as QED > > You seem to have science back to front. Nature is not a mathematical > model thought up by man. One starts with an assumption that there is a > physical reality in nature and that we are capable of improving our > understanding of it. Without that belief there is no point in trying. > One's starting point is not any model - which is completely secondary - > but the results of experiment. If Physics starts to believe in its > models rather than the existence of an underlying reality it is off the > rails and that, it seems to me is just what it has done. By the dogma > that "we cannot possibly understand nature only construct models" it has > elevated its models as the "only meaningful reality" even describing > them as "the laws of physics". This is the equivalent of saying "While > the portrait isn't the person it is the best we can do so we can forget > the person and accept the portrait." > The only criteria for acceptance of a model is now accurate prediction > which unlike other sciences dismisses the concept of understanding the > physical processes involved which is complimentary to mathematical > models in all other scientific and engineering disciplines. We may never > be able to understand nature's physical processes completely but we can > chip away at it and reduce the amount we don't understand. > > The starting point is experiment, experiment, experiment. The problem > then is how to interpret the observation. One must start by deciding > what is fact and what is interpretation. Models rely on interpretation > but they MUST be consistent with the facts. Today there is a tendency to > give little heed to a fact which is contrary to theory on the grounds > that it cannot be true as it is contrary to the laws of physics. Facts > which are contrary to theory are the lifeblood of science. > > >(not in the way you clearly intended to use them as applying to the > >physical world), your claim is still wrong: > > > In QED a "single photon" DOES "interfere with itself", in the > > following sense: in configuration space when computing a given > > diagram one must sum the amplitudes for all possible paths to > > obtain the total amplitude for a given process. > > This summing > > of amplitudes is called "interference". Note I must speak rather > > loosely in order to phrase this in terms of the words you use. > > In particular, this is really a diagram's AMPLITUDE "interfering > > with itself", not actually a photon; > > Your quote *says* it is not actually a photon which is interfering with > itself but a mathematical construct. It in no way conflicts with my > statement: The idea that a single photon interferes with itself is > absurd if you are talking about PHYSICAL process of interference. > > > but one can select diagrams > > in which the only path variation involves a single photon. > > Remember that at base a photon is a specific factor in an > > integral, represented by a squiggly line in a Feynman diagram; > > one can ascribe photons to the real world only via a complex > > and indirect process of applying the model to the observations > > of the world. > > Your quote makes my point for me. I am talking about a PHYSICAL photon. > A discreet lump of physical energy causing a physically measurable > change in a detector not a "...specific factor in an integral, > represented by a squiggly line in a Feynman diagram." Both *should* have > a place in physics. You may dismiss the concept of understanding the > physical processes involved. I do not. I do not accept that any > generation of physicists has any right to say that "physics is whatever > we say it is." - not, that is, if they want physics to be accepted as a > science in the wider scientific community. Mathematics is complimented > by physical understanding. As Dingle commented Maths has become the > master rather than the servant of physics. > > >>>> "interference" in the physical sense involves [...] > >> So when you DO get to the point you snip it. > > >YOU do not know ANYTHING about "the physical sense" -- why should I > >copy your nonsense? -- All you have is a MODEL of how YOU think the > >world works. But YOU do not realize that you are discussing your > >PERSONAL MODEL, and attribute your thoughts to the "physical world". > >THAT is what is absurd about your ENTIRE APPROACH. And why it is > >eminently reasonable to snip all such statements. > > As I say the starting point is experiment, experiment, experiment. The > problem then is how to interpret the observation. One must start by > deciding what is fact and what is interpretation. We could argue about > the nature of a photon but I think that we would both accept the > *existence* of photons is an established *fact*. I would say that in > the low light double slit experiment that photons arrive at the detector > one at a time is also a *fact*. It is also a *fact* that 'light and dark > 'fringes' build up in time. Those are the experimental *facts* without > any interpretation. This is not "My MODEL of how I think the world > works" but the *facts* on which models and interpretation must build. I > am looking for a physical model not, as you quote above, a mathematical > model. I am not interested in predicting the statistical distribution of > the final result built up over time which is what the mathematical model > will give but the physical process by which dark fringes are formed in > real time. The process not the result. One can suggest a few: > > 1) That while photons arrive at the dark fringe position they are in > some way cancelled by subsequent photons. That I would accept as > interference but it doesn't work as a concept. > > 2) That while photons arrive at the dark fringe position they have > acquired some property while passing through the double slits which > means they are not detected. (reflected perhaps). I have no evidence for > or against this idea. > > 3) That no (or few photons) arrive at the dark fringe position seems the > simplest interpretation but that is not an interference phenomena. > > You are welcome to suggest further alternatives of course. Never let it > be said that I am trying to prove a point by exhaustive enumeration :o). The proper physical interpretation of the double slit experiment is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008experiment.pdf Ken Seto > > > > > Picasso drew "Portrait of a Woman" and you are acting as if > > analyzing that drawing is the same as analyzing a real woman. > > No I am not but I am suggesting that a portrait of a woman - a very > primitive *physical* model, - will tell you some things which a > mathematical model of a woman would not. > > > That's ABSURD. And it remains absurd for the most faithful > > photographic portrait -- the accuracy of the portrait cannot > > affect the distinction between portrait and person. > > That is a better physical model. as I said "We may never be able to > understand nature's physical processes completely but we can chip away > at it and reduce the amount we don't understand". A better physical > model would be 3 dimensional. Adding internal structure to our model is > again chipping away..... It is not a particularly good analogy as I can > tell you with some certainty that no mathematical model will give > accurate predictions of how a woman will behave. At least a good > physical model, even a portrait would allow you to predict whether you > would fancy her :o) > > > portrait:person :: model:world. > > You are the one quoting models. > > > > >> You don't analyse it. > > >There is nothing to "analyze". > > >> You don't point out the weaknesses of the argument > > >Yes, I did. Your "argument" is ABSURD because you THINK you are > >discussing "physical sense" when you are actually discussing your > >PERSONAL MODEl of what you THINK is "physical sense". > > I have defined the *facts* which any explanation must be consistent > with. Do you disagree with those facts: > > a. that photons exist > b. that they arrive at the detector on at a time > c. that over time the arrivals produce a distribution of light and dark > areas. > > I have described 3 possible approaches, pointed out why I dismiss one > and why I think another is the simplest explanation. I have invited you > to put forward another suggestion as to what is physically going on. I > am quite willing to think about it but it must be consistent with the > facts. > > > > >Until you learn to distinguish model from world you will remain > >hopelessly befuddled. The map is NOT the territory. > > Absolutely! Neither is a photon "a specific factor in an integral, > represented by a squiggly line in a Feynman diagram." A map is useful, > so may be a Feynman diagram so long as one does not confuse a map with > the physical territory or a Feynman diagram with a lump of physical > energy. > > >The portrait is NOT the person. The model is NOT the world. And all > >your mind can process is a MODEL. > > A physical model compliments a mathematical model. > > > > > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Y.Porat on 28 Jan 2010 09:36 On Jan 28, 11:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 27, 9:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 27, 1:15 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 27, 7:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > 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. > > > > 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 > > > ------------------- > > Mr PD > i would like to make it crystal clear : > > is it right that the current understanding or paradigm is > that > A SINGLE ELECTRON CAN INTERFERE WITH ITSELF ??? > > TIA > Y.Porat > -------------------------- since noone is in a hurry to answer my questions i will shggest my answers lets tak the case of a single electron interfering with itself: that is as far as i know a calim of QM now lets take the HUP (uncertainty principle ) according to thaat principle if wwe atk ethe lectron in the aboveinterfering case or in other cases: you can detect the electron EITHER* BY ITS LOCATION **OR** BY ITS MOMENTUM **BUT YOU ***CANT**!! DETECT IT IN*** BOTH**: IE BY ITS LOCATION (PLUS) AND ** ITS MOMENTUM !! while in the alleged one elctron interfering with itself we caN detect it both: BY ITS LOCATION AND BY ITS MOMENTUM its momentum in that case can be determined (after leaving the slit) by its **wave lenth** or by other means so bottom line: do we find here a *and inner contradiction in QM?? btw we can do it similarly by using (analyzing) the product dt dE of the above case 2 or we find here a disprove of the paradigm (qm claim) that a single electron can interfere with itself!! am i right ??? TIA Y.Porat ----------------------- TIA Y.Porat
From: mpc755 on 28 Jan 2010 09:52 On Jan 28, 9:36 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > since noone is in a hurry to answer my questions > i will shggest my answers > > lets tak the case of a single electron interfering with itself: > > that is as far as i know a calim of QM > > now lets take the HUP (uncertainty principle ) > > according to thaat principle > if wwe atk ethe lectron in the aboveinterfering case > or in other cases: > you can detect the electron > EITHER* BY ITS LOCATION **OR** BY ITS > MOMENTUM > **BUT YOU ***CANT**!! DETECT IT IN*** BOTH**: > IE BY ITS LOCATION (PLUS) AND ** ITS MOMENTUM !! > > while in the alleged one elctron interfering with itself > we caN detect it both: > > BY ITS LOCATION AND BY ITS MOMENTUM > its momentum in that case > can be determined (after leaving the slit) > by its **wave lenth** > or by other means > > so > bottom line: > do we find here a *and inner contradiction in QM?? > > btw we can do it similarly by using (analyzing) the > product dt dE of the above case > > 2 > or we find here > a disprove of the paradigm (qm claim) > that a single electron can interfere with itself!! > am i right ??? > It is better to discuss the double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule because it consists of matter and, as far as I am concerned, exits as a self-contained entity always and travels a single path. If you agree with me the C-60 molecule is traveling a single path, then what exits both slits in order for there to be interference? The associated wave.
From: mpc755 on 28 Jan 2010 09:55 On Jan 28, 9:52 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 28, 9:36 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > since noone is in a hurry to answer my questions > > i will shggest my answers > > > lets tak the case of a single electron interfering with itself: > > > that is as far as i know a calim of QM > > > now lets take the HUP (uncertainty principle ) > > > according to thaat principle > > if wwe atk ethe lectron in the aboveinterfering case > > or in other cases: > > you can detect the electron > > EITHER* BY ITS LOCATION **OR** BY ITS > > MOMENTUM > > **BUT YOU ***CANT**!! DETECT IT IN*** BOTH**: > > IE BY ITS LOCATION (PLUS) AND ** ITS MOMENTUM !! > > > while in the alleged one elctron interfering with itself > > we caN detect it both: > > > BY ITS LOCATION AND BY ITS MOMENTUM > > its momentum in that case > > can be determined (after leaving the slit) > > by its **wave lenth** > > or by other means > > > so > > bottom line: > > do we find here a *and inner contradiction in QM?? > > > btw we can do it similarly by using (analyzing) the > > product dt dE of the above case > > > 2 > > or we find here > > a disprove of the paradigm (qm claim) > > that a single electron can interfere with itself!! > > am i right ??? > > It is better to discuss the double slit experiment with a C-60 > molecule because it consists of matter and, as far as I am concerned, > exits as a self-contained entity always and travels a single path. > > If you agree with me the C-60 molecule is traveling a single path, > then what exits both slits in order for there to be interference? > > The associated wave. Correction: '...exi[s]ts as a self-contained entity..."
From: Y.Porat on 28 Jan 2010 10:00
On Jan 28, 4:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 28, 9:52 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 28, 9:36 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > since noone is in a hurry to answer my questions > > > i will shggest my answers > > > > lets tak the case of a single electron interfering with itself: > > > > that is as far as i know a calim of QM > > > > now lets take the HUP (uncertainty principle ) > > > > according to thaat principle > > > if wwe atk ethe lectron in the aboveinterfering case > > > or in other cases: > > > you can detect the electron > > > EITHER* BY ITS LOCATION **OR** BY ITS > > > MOMENTUM > > > **BUT YOU ***CANT**!! DETECT IT IN*** BOTH**: > > > IE BY ITS LOCATION (PLUS) AND ** ITS MOMENTUM !! > > > > while in the alleged one elctron interfering with itself > > > we caN detect it both: > > > > BY ITS LOCATION AND BY ITS MOMENTUM > > > its momentum in that case > > > can be determined (after leaving the slit) > > > by its **wave lenth** > > > or by other means > > > > so > > > bottom line: > > > do we find here a *and inner contradiction in QM?? > > > > btw we can do it similarly by using (analyzing) the > > > product dt dE of the above case > > > > 2 > > > or we find here > > > a disprove of the paradigm (qm claim) > > > that a single electron can interfere with itself!! > > > am i right ??? > > > It is better to discuss the double slit experiment with a C-60 > > molecule because it consists of matter and, as far as I am concerned, > > exits as a self-contained entity always and travels a single path. > > > If you agree with me the C-60 molecule is traveling a single path, > > then what exits both slits in order for there to be interference? > > > The associated wave. > > Correction: > > '...exi[s]ts as a self-contained entity..." ----------------- what do you think about my above analysis (HUP and elf interference of a single photon) did i found by that an inner contradiction in QM?? TIA Y.Porat ----------------------- |