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: PD on 28 Jan 2010 10:28 On Jan 28, 3:21 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 ??? Yes. And this has been tested in experiment. > > TIA > Y.Porat > --------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 28 Jan 2010 11:13 On Jan 28, 5:28 pm, PD > > > 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 ??? > > Yes. And this has been tested in experiment. > > -------------------------------- so what do you think about the above inner contradiction that i found in QM between HUP and self interference of a single electton if you think i am wrong please explain TIA Y.Porat -------------------------
From: PD on 28 Jan 2010 11:44 On Jan 28, 8:36 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 !! No, this is not what the uncertainty principle says. The uncertainty principle applies to everything, not just to electrons and photons and other microscopic particles, and we can obviously measure the location and momentum of rolling balls and crawling bugs. So your understanding of the HUP is obviously incorrect. What the HUP says is that the product of an inherent uncertainty in the position and the inherent uncertainty in the momentum will exceed a certain (small) number. Nowhere does it say that either the position or the momentum will be unmeasurable. Check your facts. > > 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 12:23 On Jan 28, 10:00 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > ----------------------- There are multiple interpretations of QM. The most widely accepted on is the Copenhagen interpretation of QM where nothing really exists until after the particle hits the screen and then 'they' make up whatever is necessary for the 'particle' do perform its magic tricks. That is why it is important to stick with a discussion of the C-60 molecule in a double slit experiment. Everything that can be concluded about a single photon can be derived and expanded upon from a C-60 molecule in a double slit experiment. Since a C-60 molecule consists of matter, either the C-60 molecule itself enters and exits a single slit, or the matter which is the C-60 molecule enters and exits multiple slits. The issue with the C-60 molecule itself entering and exiting multiple slits is if you place detectors at the exits to the slits the instant prior to the C-60 molecule exiting the slits, the C-60 molecule will not be detected exiting a single slit. But the C-60 molecule, and any 'particle' for that matter in a double slit experiment, is always detected exiting a single slit. This is evidence the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit. This is what de Broglie was getting at with Wave Mechanics. de Broglie was saying the particle travels a single path and the associated wave travels the available paths and it is the interference created by the associated wave as it exits the slits which causes the particle to alter direction and be able to form an interference pattern. In AD, the associated wave is an aether wave. Whatever you think is occurring in a double slit experiment, you are much better off making sure your theory supports a C-60 molecule, which consists of matter, prior to applying your theory to a single photon. If your theory does not support a single C-60 molecule it certainly does not support a single photon. One of the main problems with the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is 'they' really do not care how nature works physically. That is why they make stuff up like the future determining the past and virtual particles that pop into existence from nothing. 'They' are more interested in believing in a fantasy than in what occurs physically in nature. The main point I am trying to make here is the C-60 molecule travels a single path and the associated wave propagates available paths and it is the associated wave which creates interference and alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Do you agree with the above definition of a C-60 molecule travels a single path and the associated wave propagates available paths?
From: PD on 28 Jan 2010 12:52
On Jan 27, 10:56 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > 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). > I agree with your sentiments about models being inferred from facts. I dispute your claim that the quantum mechanical model is not a physical one, though we clearly have a difference of opinion about what "physical" means. Be that as it may, it is your wish to see a model that DOES reflect YOUR notion of what "physical" means, and which accounts for the facts seen in experiment, including (but certainly not restricted to) low- light double-slit experiments. Have at it. The world is your oyster. Please do come up with a completely mechanical, deterministic, and material-based model that accounts for the observations made in these experiments, both qualitatively and quantitatively. When this is accomplished, then there will be a competitive model that *also* happens to satisfy your intuition about what "physical" means. PD |