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 07:41 On Jan 30, 2:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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" -------------------- did anyone ever detected Aether?? on the other hand i heard rumors that elcrons were detected and their properties were defined and so about photons we can do physics only on detected entities the rest is guesses 2 i think that current physics can do well without Aether 3 if our Universe is expanding what happens to the **density* of Aether ??!! Y.Porat ------------------------- Y.P -------------------
From: mpc755 on 30 Jan 2010 07:47 On Jan 30, 7:41 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 2:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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" > > -------------------- > did anyone ever detected Aether?? > > on the other hand > i heard rumors that > elcrons were detected and their properties were defined > and so about photons > > we can do physics only on detected entities > the rest is guesses > 2 > i think that current physics > can do well without Aether > 3 It doesn't do well without aether. Just look at this thread. A photon is either a directed/pointed wave in the aether or it is a moving 'particle' with an associated aether wave. With this understanding of nature, you have the 'particle' traveling a single path and the associated wave propagating available paths. The 'particle' enters and exits a single slit and the associated wave propagates through the available slits. The wave exits the slits and creates interference and the direction the 'particle' travels is altered. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the associated wave and there is no interference. That is why I have on several occasions asked you what you think is occurring in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule. The C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The analogy is the bow wave a boat makes. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit and the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and exits multiple slits. When the aether wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether wave and there is no interference. With aether, de Broglie's statement of a moving particle has an associated wave becomes a moving 'particle' has an associated aether wave and if you know the particle consists of matter, the moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. With this understanding of nature, this thread is unnecessary. > if our Universe is expanding > what happens to the **density* of Aether ??!! > > Y.Porat > ------------------------- > > Y.P > -------------------
From: Y.Porat on 30 Jan 2010 10:40 On Jan 30, 2:47 pm, mpc755 < > > -------------------- > > did anyone ever detected Aether?? > > > on the other hand > > i heard rumors that > > elcrons were detected and their properties were defined > > and so about photons > > > we can do physics only on detected entities > > the rest is guesses > > 2 > > i think that current physics > > can do well without Aether > > 3 > > It doesn't do well without aether. Just look at this thread. A photon > is either a directed/pointed wave in the aether or it is a moving > 'particle' with an associated aether wave. > > With this understanding of nature, you have the 'particle' traveling a > single path and the associated wave propagating available paths. The > 'particle' enters and exits a single slit and the associated wave > propagates through the available slits. The wave exits the slits and > creates interference and the direction the 'particle' travels is > altered. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the associated > wave and there is no interference. > > That is why I have on several occasions asked you what you think is > occurring in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule. The C-60 > molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The analogy is > the bow wave a boat makes. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single > slit and the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and > exits multiple slits. When the aether wave exits the slits it creates > interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. > Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated > aether wave and there is no interference. > > With aether, de Broglie's statement of a moving particle has an > associated wave becomes a moving 'particle' has an associated aether > wave and if you know the particle consists of matter, the moving > particle has an associated aether displacement wave. > > With this understanding of nature, this thread is unnecessary. > > > if our Universe is expanding > > what happens to the **density* of Aether ??!! > > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------- you ddint answer my questions 1 did anyone ever detected Aether?? 2 if our Universe is expanding ... what happens to the **density** of you Aether ?? ATB Y.Porat ---------------------------------
From: mpc755 on 30 Jan 2010 11:00 On Jan 30, 10:40 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 2:47 pm, mpc755 < > > > > -------------------- > > > did anyone ever detected Aether?? > > > > on the other hand > > > i heard rumors that > > > elcrons were detected and their properties were defined > > > and so about photons > > > > we can do physics only on detected entities > > > the rest is guesses > > > 2 > > > i think that current physics > > > can do well without Aether > > > 3 > > > It doesn't do well without aether. Just look at this thread. A photon > > is either a directed/pointed wave in the aether or it is a moving > > 'particle' with an associated aether wave. > > > With this understanding of nature, you have the 'particle' traveling a > > single path and the associated wave propagating available paths. The > > 'particle' enters and exits a single slit and the associated wave > > propagates through the available slits. The wave exits the slits and > > creates interference and the direction the 'particle' travels is > > altered. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the associated > > wave and there is no interference. > > > That is why I have on several occasions asked you what you think is > > occurring in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule. The C-60 > > molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The analogy is > > the bow wave a boat makes. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single > > slit and the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and > > exits multiple slits. When the aether wave exits the slits it creates > > interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated > > aether wave and there is no interference. > > > With aether, de Broglie's statement of a moving particle has an > > associated wave becomes a moving 'particle' has an associated aether > > wave and if you know the particle consists of matter, the moving > > particle has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > With this understanding of nature, this thread is unnecessary. > > > > if our Universe is expanding > > > what happens to the **density* of Aether ??!! > > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------------- > > you ddint answer my questions > > 1 > did anyone ever detected Aether?? > Yes. The aether is detected in every double slit experiment. The observed behaviors in a double slit experiment are due to the 'particle' traveling a single path and the associated aether wave propagating available paths. The search for gravity waves is the search for aether displacement waves. The pressure associated with aether displaced by massive objects is gravity, so the fact that you are presently effected by gravity evidence of aether. The fact that light reaches the Earth is evidence of aether. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." > 2 > if our Universe is expanding ... > what happens to the **density** of you Aether ?? > The universe is not expanding. The matter which we see in our telescopes is moving away from us, but the universe as a whole is not expanding. The universe is, or the local universe is in, a jet stream. Now it is your turn. What is physically occurring in nature in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule?
From: Y.Porat on 30 Jan 2010 15:27
On Jan 30, 6:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 10:40 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 30, 2:47 pm, mpc755 < > > > > > -------------------- > > > > did anyone ever detected Aether?? > > > > > on the other hand > > > > i heard rumors that > > > > elcrons were detected and their properties were defined > > > > and so about photons > > > > > we can do physics only on detected entities > > > > the rest is guesses > > > > 2 > > > > i think that current physics > > > > can do well without Aether > > > > 3 > > > > It doesn't do well without aether. Just look at this thread. A photon > > > is either a directed/pointed wave in the aether or it is a moving > > > 'particle' with an associated aether wave. > > > > With this understanding of nature, you have the 'particle' traveling a > > > single path and the associated wave propagating available paths. The > > > 'particle' enters and exits a single slit and the associated wave > > > propagates through the available slits. The wave exits the slits and > > > creates interference and the direction the 'particle' travels is > > > altered. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the associated > > > wave and there is no interference. > > > > That is why I have on several occasions asked you what you think is > > > occurring in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule. The C-60 > > > molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The analogy is > > > the bow wave a boat makes. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single > > > slit and the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and > > > exits multiple slits. When the aether wave exits the slits it creates > > > interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > > Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated > > > aether wave and there is no interference. > > > > With aether, de Broglie's statement of a moving particle has an > > > associated wave becomes a moving 'particle' has an associated aether > > > wave and if you know the particle consists of matter, the moving > > > particle has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > With this understanding of nature, this thread is unnecessary. > > > > > if our Universe is expanding > > > > what happens to the **density* of Aether ??!! > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ------------------------- > > > you ddint answer my questions > > > 1 > > did anyone ever detected Aether?? > > Yes. The aether is detected in every double slit experiment. The > observed behaviors in a double slit experiment are due to the > 'particle' traveling a single path and the associated aether wave > propagating available paths. > > The search for gravity waves is the search for aether displacement > waves. > > The pressure associated with aether displaced by massive objects is > gravity, so the fact that you are presently effected by gravity > evidence of aether. > > The fact that light reaches the Earth is evidence of aether. > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is > unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation > of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space > and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time > intervals in the physical sense." > > > 2 > > if our Universe is expanding ... > > what happens to the **density** of you Aether ?? > > The universe is not expanding. The matter which we see in our > telescopes is moving away from us, but the universe as a whole is not > expanding. > > The universe is, or the local universe is in, a jet stream. > > Now it is your turn. What is physically occurring in nature in a > double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule? ---------------------- --1 does a single C-60 is inyefering with itself ?? i ddint check it please show me a link that proves that C 60 is interfering with itself even if yest it is not an atom it is a MOLECULE . and surely subdivided !! 2 if yess the C 60 has as you say 60 Atoms!! not a single one how do you know that it was passing and remained with 60 Atoms may be it got out with 30 of them may be with 59 ? may be it was two molecules 3 how do you knoe it was a single molecule of C60 and not two of them ?? two C 60 ?? ATB Y.Porat --------------------------- |