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: Tom Roberts on 28 Jan 2010 14:49 John Kennaugh wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> 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. You REALLY need to learn how to read. OF COURSE nature is not a model thought up by man. But models thought up by man are all that men will every think about to describe and understand nature. > One's starting point is not any model - which is completely secondary - > but the results of experiment. Not true. It is absolutely impossible for you to THINK about nature or experiments without STARTING with a model. You cannot even phrase a question without some model implicitly behind your words. > If Physics starts to believe in its > models Only idiots like you who don't understand science could even suggest such a thing. The model is NOT the world. But the model is our (human) way of understanding the world. > 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. No. But YOU are off the rails. As is your perception of science. > [...] We are so far apart there is no point in continuing. You repeatedly show that you are unable to read anything I write. Or anything written by others, either. Tom Roberts
From: Y.Porat on 28 Jan 2010 17:04 On Jan 28, 6:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 28, 8:36 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. -------------------- wrong!! since the** h** factor is there it is obvious that it deals with single microcosm entities!! for a rolling big ball you can measure its location and momentum it is obvious that HUP is dealing with bvery highvelocities and very tiny masses or else ther was no problem to meaure and detect both momentum *and* location easily 2 it is obvious as well that it deals with aprticles and physical entities that you cant see them with any of our existing tools and you have to deel with them by indirect mesurments iow you can detect waht was ther action on other objects by collision with other ** sub** microscopic objects ------------- ------------- > So your understanding of the HUP is obviously incorrect. > ----------------------- see above !! ----------------- > 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. as i said before : you can see it in an inverse way ie to deal with certainties instead of uncertainties !!! it is mathematically and physically the same result!! soif you for instance know witha high accuracy th elocation (in our case ot is the location of two slits and you know the exact wave length you can zctually know nothing about its momentum of if you know exactly the TIME it happened **youcan know close to zero the ENERGY THAT WAS INVOLVED i caneven undertand why it is so: itis because we deal with tiny objects that move or even vibrate is a tremendous inner velocity so while you enter to that system one of your testing objects THE VERY FACT THAT YOU INSERTED TO IT AN EXTERNAL (foreign !! ) OBJECT IS DISTURBING THE ORIGINAL ORDER THAT WAS THEER and those tiny and super fast moving tested objects colllide with your foreign object and are shot out to unknown places and many direction and that is why you can detect only location and not momentum or only time and not Elergy involved !!! anyway the formula and its conditions are good enough evgn formally or just the 'dry mathematics are enough to ensure my claim even without entering to this or other mechanism there !! ------------ it says that if your certainty about one of them is very high the other factor will get a very small probability !! > > Check your facts. as you could see i checked the distances (dsitance between slits) wave lengths exact time in both slits etc > > > 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 > > ----------------------- anyway thnks for your remarks even i dint agree with it and lets hear other opinions about it anyway you must admit that my above insight and bottom line claim is unprecedented and ----oK as you say] needs more thinking and examining TIA for other comments as well Y.Porat ------------
From: PD on 28 Jan 2010 17:37 On Jan 28, 4:04 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 28, 6:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 28, 8:36 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > -------------------- > wrong!! > since the** h** factor is there > it is obvious that it deals with single microcosm entities!! Sorry, Porat, but that's not right, The same law with the same Planck's constant also applies to rolling balls and crawling bugs. > for a rolling big ball > you can measure its location and momentum To a point. See what I told you about what the HUP means. > it is obvious that HUP is dealing with > bvery highvelocities and very tiny masses I'm sorry, that's not right. It's a GENERAL law. > or else ther was no problem to meaure and detect both > momentum *and* location easily > 2 > it is obvious as well that it deals with aprticles and physical > entities > that you cant see them with any of our existing tools > and you have to deel with them by indirect mesurments > iow > you can detect waht was ther action on other objects > by collision with other ** sub** microscopic objects > ------------- > ------------- > > > So your understanding of the HUP is obviously incorrect. > > ----------------------- > > see above !! > ----------------- > > > 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. > > as i said before : > you can see it in an inverse way > ie to deal with certainties instead of uncertainties !!! > it is mathematically and physically the same result!! > soif you for instance know witha high accuracy > th elocation > (in our case ot is the location of two slits and you know the exact > wave length > you can zctually know nothing about its momentum > of > if you know exactly the TIME it happened > **youcan know close to zero the ENERGY THAT WAS INVOLVED > i caneven undertand why it is so: > itis because we deal with tiny objects that move or even vibrate > is a tremendous inner velocity > so while you enter to that system > one of your testing objects > THE VERY FACT THAT YOU INSERTED TO IT > AN EXTERNAL (foreign !! ) OBJECT IS DISTURBING THE > ORIGINAL ORDER THAT WAS THEER > and those tiny and super fast moving tested objects > colllide with your foreign object and are shot out > to unknown places and many direction > and that is why you can detect only > location and not momentum > or only time and not Elergy involved !!! > anyway > the formula and its conditions are good enough > evgn formally or just the 'dry mathematics are enough > to ensure my claim even without > entering to this or other mechanism there !! > ------------ > > it says that if your certainty about one of them > is very high > the other factor will get a very small probability !! > > > Check your facts. > > as you could see > i checked the > distances (dsitance between slits) wave lengths exact time in both > slits etc I'm sorry, Porat, but your understanding of the HUP is just wrong. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > ----------------------- > > anyway > thnks for your remarks even i dint agree with it > and lets hear other opinions about it > > anyway > you must admit that my above insight > and bottom line claim is unprecedented > and ----oK > as you say] > needs more thinking and examining > > TIA for other comments as well > Y.Porat > ------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Y.Porat on 29 Jan 2010 00:31 On Jan 29, 12:37 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 28, 4:04 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 6:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 28, 8:36 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > -------------------- > > wrong!! > > since the** h** factor is there > > it is obvious that it deals with single microcosm entities!! > > Sorry, Porat, but that's not right, The same law with the same > Planck's constant also applies to rolling balls and crawling bugs. > > > for a rolling big ball > > you can measure its location and momentum > > To a point. See what I told you about what the HUP means. > > > it is obvious that HUP is dealing with > > bvery highvelocities and very tiny masses > > I'm sorry, that's not right. It's a GENERAL law. > > > > > or else ther was no problem to meaure and detect both > > momentum *and* location easily > > 2 > > it is obvious as well that it deals with aprticles and physical > > entities > > that you cant see them with any of our existing tools > > and you have to deel with them by indirect mesurments > > iow > > you can detect waht was ther action on other objects > > by collision with other ** sub** microscopic objects > > ------------- > > ------------- > > > > So your understanding of the HUP is obviously incorrect. > > > ----------------------- > > > see above !! > > ----------------- > > > > 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. > > > as i said before : > > you can see it in an inverse way > > ie to deal with certainties instead of uncertainties !!! > > it is mathematically and physically the same result!! > > soif you for instance know witha high accuracy > > th elocation > > (in our case ot is the location of two slits and you know the exact > > wave length > > you can zctually know nothing about its momentum > > of > > if you know exactly the TIME it happened > > **youcan know close to zero the ENERGY THAT WAS INVOLVED > > i caneven undertand why it is so: > > itis because we deal with tiny objects that move or even vibrate > > is a tremendous inner velocity > > so while you enter to that system > > one of your testing objects > > THE VERY FACT THAT YOU INSERTED TO IT > > AN EXTERNAL (foreign !! ) OBJECT IS DISTURBING THE > > ORIGINAL ORDER THAT WAS THEER > > and those tiny and super fast moving tested objects > > colllide with your foreign object and are shot out > > to unknown places and many direction > > and that is why you can detect only > > location and not momentum > > or only time and not Elergy involved !!! > > anyway > > the formula and its conditions are good enough > > evgn formally or just the 'dry mathematics are enough > > to ensure my claim even without > > entering to this or other mechanism there !! > > ------------ > > > it says that if your certainty about one of them > > is very high > > the other factor will get a very small probability !! > > > > Check your facts. > > > as you could see > > i checked the > > distances (dsitance between slits) wave lengths exact time in both > > slits etc > > I'm sorry, Porat, but your understanding of the HUP is just wrong. > > > > > > > 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 > > > > ----------------------- > > > anyway > > thnks for your remarks even i dint agree with it > > and lets hear other opinions about it > > > anyway > > you must admit that my above insight > > and bottom line claim is unprecedented > > and ----oK > > as you say] > > needs more thinking and examining > > > TIA for other comments as well > > Y.Porat > > ------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - ---------------------------- 1 see waht Vilki is telling yoju and dont be sorry for me (:-) quote and there are many other like that quotes quote: Uncertainty principle From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For the Numb3rs episode, see Uncertainty Principle (Numb3rs). For the Portuguese film, see The Uncertainty Principle (film). Quantum mechanics Uncertainty principle Introduction · Mathematical formulation [show]Background Classical mechanics Old quantum theory Interference · Bra-ket notation Hamiltonian [hide]Fundamental concepts Quantum state · Wave function Superposition · Entanglement Measurement · Uncertainty Exclusion · Duality Decoherence · Ehrenfest theorem · Tunnelling [show]Experiments Double-slit experiment DavissonGermer experiment SternGerlach experiment Bell's inequality experiment Popper's experiment Schrödinger's cat Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-tester Quantum eraser [show]Formulations Schrödinger picture Heisenberg picture Interaction picture Matrix mechanics Sum over histories [show]Equations Schrödinger equation Pauli equation KleinGordon equation Dirac equation Rydberg formula [show]Interpretations de BroglieBohm · CCC · Consistent histories · Copenhagen · Ensemble · Hidden variable theory · Many-worlds · Pondicherry · Quantum logic · Relational · Stochastic · Transactional [show]Advanced topics Quantum information science Scattering theory Quantum field theory Quantum chaos [show]Scientists Planck · Einstein · Bohr · Sommerfeld · Bose · Kramers · Heisenberg· Born · Jordan · Pauli · Dirac · de Broglie ·Schrödinger · von Neumann · Wigner · Feynman · Candlin · Bohm · Everett · Bell · Wien This box: view talk edit In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. This statement has been interpreted in two different ways. According to Heisenberg its meaning is that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and velocity of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. According to others (for instance Ballentine)[1] this is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics. end of quote: please note we are dealing withthe double slit experiment and INVESTIGATION OF WAVES IT IS MANILY MICROCOSM!! they called it sort of a microscope rule !! A MICROSCOPE RULE !!! 2 even if you call it a general rule for macrocosm ***it is not in contradiction to use it in microcosm***!!!! it is actually much more meaning ful and useful for microcosm do you dent that double slit experimentis investication of microcosm ?? can a single radio wave with length of say 2 meters or 300 meter interfere with itself in the double slit device - separation as used in examining a wave with electron wave length !!! (so first of all dont be sorry for ME ....(:-) 3 please read again trhe above quote they mention as an example the measurment of electron wave and that is exactly what we are discussion now not a rolling ball... 4 just think for instance that we know exactly about the alleged self interference of a singe electron that we know eactly the TIMING IN WHICH THAT WAVE IS PASSING THE **TWO SLITS* IF IT IS AN EXACT KNWWLEGE OF TIME IT IS CLOSE TO ZERO KNOWLEDGE OF ITS ***ENERGY** !!! A bottom line ZERO PROVE FOR SELF INTERFERENCE !!! OF A** SINGLE ELECTRON** it is certainly not a roiling ball case !!!..... ie it waS done BUT ----- **zero prof that it was done by **a single** electron wave*** !!! and that is actually the essence of our *specific* discussion so please dont try to divert that issue to other irrelevant directions to our** current **issue i am talking** as for now** **only** about '''a single electron interfering with itself '' !!! and H U P in contradiction or not ( yet even if HUP is not the only argument !!) TIA (to PD and others ) Y.Porat ----------------------------------- TIA Y.porat ------------------- TIA Y.Porat -------------------------
From: ben6993 on 29 Jan 2010 18:30
On Jan 29, 3:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 29, 10:49 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "John Kennaugh" wrote: > > > (snip) > > > > OK but in a low light experiment what do you mean by the phase of > > > individual photons? According to Tom Roberts a photon is a point particle > > > with no internal structure. Waldron OTOH suggests it has a structure and > > > half of its energy is in the form of rotational energy and half kinetic. > > > In that case then clearly phase information is at least a possibility.. > > > (snip) > > > > -- > > > John Kennaugh > > > ================= > > > Imagine [something like] the 2-dimensional brane of string theory. A > > 2-dimensional single-sided only (ONE-SIDED ONLY!) photo-tissue. That is the > > closest you will ever get to picturing a photon. Single-sided only....a > > front only....no back, no integral particulate (no internal 3- or 4-d > > structure), nothing there at all to it from the back or side....NO OTHER > > SIDE EXISTING TO IT WHATSOEVER! > > > You probably can't freeze it in your mind's eye, circle it and envision it > > totally disappearing (having instantly become non-existant as if it had > > never been there in the first place) when you try to observe it from any > > side whatsoever but the one and only side existing to it, the front side. > > And you probably can't think of a single implication deriving from such a > > flat single-sided-only 2-dimensionality. Implications tied [at the very > > least] to light. And through light...... > > > GLB > > > ================= > > even if an electron wave is 3D helix > you get the same result: > > the moment you teat its location (by detecting it > somewhere !!..) > ***you exhausted your ability*** to get more information about > what remained of it in another location - and its energy > in another location !! *** > because of the very fact > you tested it !!!! > that is the main meaning and essence of HUP > in microcosm !!! > (and the same with the couple dx dP) > am i right ??? > but > we are not done yet: > > WHAT ABOUT > DRAWING **MORE IMPORTANT crucial INSIGHTS ABOUT IT ** (:-) > > TIA > Y.Porat > ---------------------- > > ATB > Y.Porat > --------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I am just trying to understand the problem better, and I am not a physicist. I am evidently in at least two places at the same time: my right hand and left hand are obviously in separate places. I am not sure, though, about what times my hands are occupying. If my right hand (I am right handed) is used more than my left, won't it have travelled faster than my left (it must have done as a one time fast bowler at cricket) and therefore be lagging behind time wrt my left hand (using the Twin Paradox)? As I am made up of many parts I can self-interfere. For example, a headache may affect my appetite for food. Only a point object can be thought to 'not be able' to self- interfere? And does not string/membrane theory do away with point objects? (Although I naively can only imagine a membrane as made up of lots of points!) If you erase the concept of a point object then do you not erase objections about self-interference and objections about occupying multiple points in space? Taking a single caesium atom for a random walk leads to the electron having a bimodal optimal location in 1D (http://www.physorg.com/ news166368043.html). To me that seems as though it is interfering with itself. But if the electron is not a point, then why shouldn't it self-interfere? This random walk experiment seems to show that a single atom interferes with itself. Does not that mean that it could pass through only one slit and still have an interference effect? After all. the random walk showed such an effect without any slits being present. Why does the random walk experiment show bimodal locations (without slits) whereas you need slits to show an interference pattern? Is this because the random walk effect is at a smaller order of magnitude than the slits effect? Ben |