Can a *single** physical entity- be* at the same time* - in two **separated* locations ??!!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Liquid Water has solid-like behaviour over long-distances andtime-frames
Next: Very cheap solar power
From: Y.Porat on 30 Jan 2010 02:59 On Jan 30, 1:30 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 ------------------- i am not sure i read you post inentively i tryedonly to get the mian important or releveant points in yuour post fisrt i must say you are a thinking person!! and that is the main feature for a real scientists **youdont stop to ask questions !! and that is good 9i forgot the famous scientists name (Rabbi ??) he told that while being a youngster his mother asked him every day while comming home: WHAT GOOD QUESTION DID YOU ASKED TODAY ??!! (:-) 2 i am afrqind that th emicrocosm world is not so familiar with you (i cant say i am familiar as well (:-) if you think about an electron or photon in terms you think about your body thas the starting wrong point those physical entities are ways more simple !! yet ahve some common properties as your body but not all along forinstance i see the photon as a point particle but not a static point!! and it makes a huge difference between being static or being dymamic a static point you can find even at trhe middle of nigh always at thesame point (THE SAME LOCATION !!) so at this oint you ahve to satrt thinking about the HUP and why iys says that once you detected a particle in its location *youwillnot find it again it the same location **!!! unlike your body in your body your left and right hands will be always left and right to your bnody 2 even if you get a strong hit **your left and right hand WILL NOT BE TORN FROM YOUR BODY!! and that is not the case with a photon or electron! if they are hit strongly - (strong enough for them is not strong anough for you ...) they will be broken and dispersed to --- God knows to were !! did you get my point ?? so that is were the HUIP gets in: if a physical entity is oroken or stringly dsitorted it wil not remain in its original situation now another aspect of HUP is THATTHE VERY DETECTION OF SUCH A MICROCOAM ENTITY IS BREAKING OR DISTORTING THEM !! sithatis why if you detect the time of the event you cant anymore detect safely its energy (after collision with the detector ) similarly if your detector (thatis inany case a massive object!!) is colliding with yiou tested objest (electron or photon) was locating its x location you exhausted by that very event of detecing it you lost your ability to detect properly its momentum (your miserable detected object was so badly ]'injured' he was shot to some other location or was slited and his hand or legs are scattered in the unknown locations that are far enough from each other and you cant folow it anymore that was my use of your TANGIBLE semaphores yet by that i tried to deliver toyou something of as i see or understand it tangibly it because i beleive thqt some even private methephore **heps aloy tounderstand andnot least **remember ** the issue yet the porblen is still to oick the proper releavnt metaphor and if you dont believe in amtaphors you can stick tothe dry mathematical formulation and say if i found that the electronwas alleged to leave tghe two slits AT THE SAME tIME I CANT ANYMORE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ITS ENERGY and if i still can know about its energy by the wave length at the second slitt it means tha iwas cheated (:) it is not rhe wave length of the orriginal electron it was done either by the elctronben broken to two pieces OR BY **ANOTRHE ELECTRON** or another photon !! THAT ''SMUGGLED IN'' ''UNDER MY NOSE'' !! so bottom line ONE OF THE QMPARADIGMS IS CONTRADICTING ANOTHER PARADIGM AND NEEDS BADLT TO BE DECIDED REPAIRED OR WAHT EVEN R BUT IT CANT REMAIN PEACEFULLY-- AS IT IS !! in case we want some real advance in physics !! if not lets go on living in the paradise of fools !! and witchdoctors or crooks ATB Y.Porat -----------------------
From: Inertial on 30 Jan 2010 03:26 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:beabce84-b030-40e0-8f26-10d71ac49768(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 30, 1:30 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> 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 > > ------------------- > i am not sure i read you post inentively > i tryedonly to get the mian important or releveant points in yuour > post > fisrt i must say you are a thinking person!! > and that is the main feature for a real scientists > **youdont stop to ask questions !! and that is good > 9i forgot the famous scientists name (Rabbi ??) > he told that while being a youngster > his mother asked him every day while comming home: > > WHAT GOOD QUESTION DID YOU ASKED TODAY ??!! (:-) > > 2 i am afrqind that th emicrocosm world is not so familiar with you > (i cant say i am familiar as well (:-) > if you think about an electron or photon > in terms you think about your body thas the starting wrong point > those physical entities are ways more simple !! > yet ahve some common properties as your body but not all along > > forinstance > i see the photon as a point particle You recently argued strongly that it was *not* a point particle, and there was no such thing as a point particle. > but not a static point!! Of course it is not. Photons move at c in all inertial frames of reference > and it makes a huge difference > between being static > or being dymamic > a static point you can find even at trhe middle of nigh > always at thesame point There is nothing truly static .. if it is static in one frame, of reference it is moving in another .. so it all depends on ones frame of reference. You CAN say something has uniform motion > (THE SAME LOCATION !!) > so at this oint you ahve to satrt thinking about the > HUP and why iys says that once you detected a particle in its location > *youwillnot find it again it the same location **!!! It doesn't say that > unlike your body > in your body your left and right hands will be always > left and right to your bnody > 2 > even if you get a strong hit > **your left and right hand WILL NOT BE TORN > FROM YOUR BODY!! > and that is not the case with a photon or electron! > if they are hit strongly - > (strong enough for them is not strong anough for you ...) > they will be broken and dispersed to --- God knows to were !! No .. they won't. You can't split photons or electrons .. they are elementary 'particles' > did you get my point ?? > so that is > were the HUIP gets in: > if a physical entity is oroken or stringly dsitorted > it wil not remain in its original situation That is NOT what the HUP says at all . Do you have ANY idea what it says? > now another aspect of HUP is > THATTHE VERY DETECTION OF SUCH A MICROCOAM ENTITY > IS BREAKING OR DISTORTING THEM !! No .. that is not an aspect of the HUP at all. > sithatis why > if you detect the time of the event > you cant anymore detect safely its energy (after > collision with the detector ) > similarly > if your detector (thatis inany case a massive object!!) > is colliding with yiou tested objest (electron or photon) > was locating its x location > you exhausted by that very event of detecing it > you lost your ability to detect properly its momentum > (your miserable detected object was so badly > ]'injured' he was shot to some other location > or was slited and his hand or legs are scattered > in the unknown locations that are far enough from each other and you > cant folow it anymore > > that was my use of your TANGIBLE semaphores > yet by that i tried to deliver toyou something of as i see or > understand it tangibly it > because i beleive thqt some even private methephore > **heps aloy tounderstand andnot least **remember ** > the issue > yet the porblen is still to oick the proper releavnt > metaphor > and if you dont believe in amtaphors > you can stick tothe dry mathematical formulation > and say > if i found that the electronwas alleged to leave tghe two slits AT THE > SAME tIME It isn't definitely in either of the two slits .. it just had a probability of being there. > I CANT ANYMORE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ITS ENERGY Until it hits the detector, you don't know anything accurately about it. > and if i still can know about its energy by the wave length at the > second slitt > it means tha iwas cheated (:) > > it is not rhe wave length of the orriginal electron > it was done > either by the elctronben broken to two pieces Electrons do not break into pieces > OR BY **ANOTRHE ELECTRON** > or another photon !! THAT ''SMUGGLED IN'' > ''UNDER MY NOSE'' !! Nope > so > bottom line > ONE OF THE QMPARADIGMS IS CONTRADICTING ANOTHER PARADIGM No .. nothing is contradicted > AND NEEDS BADLT TO BE DECIDED REPAIRED No .. because nothing is broken > OR WAHT EVEN > R > BUT IT CANT REMAIN PEACEFULLY-- AS IT IS !! Yes it can .. and perhaps you should learnwhat it actually says before making incorrect remarks about it > in case we want some real advance in physics !! If we listen to you we won't get any. > if not > lets go on living in the paradise of fools !! > and witchdoctors or crooks Like you
From: Y.Porat on 30 Jan 2010 06:44 On Jan 30, 10:26 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:beabce84-b030-40e0-8f26-10d71ac49768(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jan 30, 1:30 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > > ------------------- > > i am not sure i read you post inentively > > i tryedonly to get the mian important or releveant points in yuour > > post > > fisrt i must say you are a thinking person!! > > and that is the main feature for a real scientists > > **youdont stop to ask questions !! and that is good > > 9i forgot the famous scientists name (Rabbi ??) > > he told that while being a youngster > > his mother asked him every day while comming home: > > > WHAT GOOD QUESTION DID YOU ASKED TODAY ??!! (:-) > > > 2 i am afrqind that th emicrocosm world is not so familiar with you > > (i cant say i am familiar as well (:-) > > if you think about an electron or photon > > in terms you think about your body thas the starting wrong point > > those physical entities are ways more simple !! > > yet ahve some common properties as your body but not all along > > > forinstance > > i see the photon as a point particle > > You recently argued strongly that it was *not* a point particle, and there > was no such thing as a point particle. > > > but not a static point!! > > Of course it is not. Photons move at c in all inertial frames of reference > > > and it makes a huge difference > > between being static > > or being dymamic > > a static point you can find even at trhe middle of nigh > > always at thesame point > > There is nothing truly static .. if it is static in one frame, of reference > it is moving in another .. so it all depends on ones frame of reference. > You CAN say something has uniform motion > > > (THE SAME LOCATION !!) > > so at this oint you ahve to satrt thinking about the > > HUP and why iys says that once you detected a particle in its location > > *youwillnot find it again it the same location **!!! > > It doesn't say that > > > unlike your body > > in your body your left and right hands will be always > > left and right to your bnody > > 2 > > even if you get a strong hit > > **your left and right hand WILL NOT BE TORN > > FROM YOUR BODY!! > > and that is not the case with a photon or electron! > > if they are hit strongly - > > (strong enough for them is not strong anough for you ...) > > they will be broken and dispersed to --- God knows to were !! > > No .. they won't. You can't split photons or electrons .. they are > elementary 'particles' > > > did you get my point ?? > > so that is > > were the HUIP gets in: > > if a physical entity is oroken or stringly dsitorted > > it wil not remain in its original situation > > That is NOT what the HUP says at all . Do you have ANY idea what it says? > > > now another aspect of HUP is > > THATTHE VERY DETECTION OF SUCH A MICROCOAM ENTITY > > IS BREAKING OR DISTORTING THEM !! > > No .. that is not an aspect of the HUP at all. > > > > > sithatis why > > if you detect the time of the event > > you cant anymore detect safely its energy (after > > collision with the detector ) > > similarly > > if your detector (thatis inany case a massive object!!) > > is colliding with yiou tested objest (electron or photon) > > was locating its x location > > you exhausted by that very event of detecing it > > you lost your ability to detect properly its momentum > > (your miserable detected object was so badly > > ]'injured' he was shot to some other location > > or was slited and his hand or legs are scattered > > in the unknown locations that are far enough from each other and you > > cant folow it anymore > > > that was my use of your TANGIBLE semaphores > > yet by that i tried to deliver toyou something of as i see or > > understand it tangibly it > > because i beleive thqt some even private methephore > > **heps aloy tounderstand andnot least **remember ** > > the issue > > yet the porblen is still to oick the proper releavnt > > metaphor > > and if you dont believe in amtaphors > > you can stick tothe dry mathematical formulation > > and say > > if i found that the electronwas alleged to leave tghe two slits AT THE > > SAME tIME > > It isn't definitely in either of the two slits .. it just had a probability > of being there. > > > I CANT ANYMORE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ITS ENERGY > > Until it hits the detector, you don't know anything accurately about it. > > > and if i still can know about its energy by the wave length at the > > second slitt > > it means tha iwas cheated (:) > > > it is not rhe wave length of the orriginal electron > > it was done > > either by the elctronben broken to two pieces > > Electrons do not break into pieces > > > OR BY **ANOTRHE ELECTRON** > > or another photon !! THAT ''SMUGGLED IN'' > > ''UNDER MY NOSE'' !! > > Nope > > > so > > bottom line > > ONE OF THE QMPARADIGMS IS CONTRADICTING ANOTHER PARADIGM > > No .. nothing is contradicted > > > AND NEEDS BADLT TO BE DECIDED REPAIRED > > No .. because nothing is broken > > > OR WAHT EVEN > > R > > BUT IT CANT REMAIN PEACEFULLY-- AS IT IS !! > > Yes it can .. and perhaps you should learnwhat it actually says before > making incorrect remarks about it > > > in case we want some real advance in physics !! > > If we listen to you we won't get any. > > > if not > > lets go on living in the paradise of fools !! > > and witchdoctors or crooks > > Like you ----------------- parrot imbecile anonymous psychiatric Inertial go discuss with Josef Goebbels Y.P ---------------------------
From: mpc755 on 30 Jan 2010 07:02 On Jan 29, 6:30 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 A moving particle has an associated wave. When the caesium atom is pulled by the conveyor belt it winds up at the end of the wave on one of the conveyor belts. This stuff is ridiculously easy to understand using de Broglie Wave Mechanics. There is a physical moving particle, the caesium atom, and a physical wave. In Aether Displacement, the moving particle has an associated aether wave. In AD, if you know the particle consists of matter, such as a caesium atom, the moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. The caesium atom is moving with respect to the 'conveyor belts': "Using two conveyor belts made of laser beams, the Bonn physicists pulled their caesium atom in two opposite directions"
From: mpc755 on 30 Jan 2010 07:03
On Jan 30, 3:26 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > Of course it is not. Photons move at c in all inertial frames of reference > Of course not. Photons move at 'c' with respect to the aether. |