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 2 Feb 2010 03:50 On Jan 26, 5:23 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Rock Brentwood wrote: > > And by "identical" means: "the very same object in each and every one > > of those places at the same time". > > Nobody else would call a BUNCH of identical objects "the very same object". You > do violence to the language. They may be identical and indistinguishable, but > they are not the same one. > > In QM one must (anti-)symmetrize the amplitude over identical > objects. But this does not apply to a SINGLE such object, and > in (anti-)symmetrizing the amplitude for N of them one shows > that there are N of them, not a single one. Such PUNs on > "single" or "very same" are not useful. > > > A simple physical interpretation and visualization of this is as > > follows: the molecules (or, more fundamentally, the particles making > > them up) are each "bumps" on a universal ocean. In an actual ocean, if > > you have two bumps (say, A and B) on the surface of the same shape, > > then it's the EXACT same situation, if you have the bumps (B and A) in > > reversed locations. That's because the bumps have no individual > > identity, literally, but only define the contour of the ocean. > > Therefore, they are -- in effect -- the very same object at two places > > at once. > > No. Again, nobody else would use those words that way. This bump and that bump > CAN be distinguished by following them in time, or merely by pointing [#].. Bumps > in the ocean are NOT the same sort of identicalness/indistinguishability as > elementary particles, for the simple reason that one CAN distinguish them, and > one need not (anti-)symmetrize an amplitude over all such bumps. > > [#] one cannot do this for elementary particles. > > Tom Roberts -------------------- soyou agree withme that a single elctron fo r instance cannot interfere with itself and it is against the HUP so we have a more serious problem--- it is a contradiction in QM that has to be settled that or the other way ATB Y.Porat -----------------------
From: artful on 2 Feb 2010 05:24 On Feb 2, 7:50 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 26, 5:23 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Rock Brentwood wrote: > > > And by "identical" means: "the very same object in each and every one > > > of those places at the same time". > > > Nobody else would call a BUNCH of identical objects "the very same object". You > > do violence to the language. They may be identical and indistinguishable, but > > they are not the same one. > > > In QM one must (anti-)symmetrize the amplitude over identical > > objects. But this does not apply to a SINGLE such object, and > > in (anti-)symmetrizing the amplitude for N of them one shows > > that there are N of them, not a single one. Such PUNs on > > "single" or "very same" are not useful. > > > > A simple physical interpretation and visualization of this is as > > > follows: the molecules (or, more fundamentally, the particles making > > > them up) are each "bumps" on a universal ocean. In an actual ocean, if > > > you have two bumps (say, A and B) on the surface of the same shape, > > > then it's the EXACT same situation, if you have the bumps (B and A) in > > > reversed locations. That's because the bumps have no individual > > > identity, literally, but only define the contour of the ocean. > > > Therefore, they are -- in effect -- the very same object at two places > > > at once. > > > No. Again, nobody else would use those words that way. This bump and that bump > > CAN be distinguished by following them in time, or merely by pointing [#]. Bumps > > in the ocean are NOT the same sort of identicalness/indistinguishability as > > elementary particles, for the simple reason that one CAN distinguish them, and > > one need not (anti-)symmetrize an amplitude over all such bumps. > > > [#] one cannot do this for elementary particles. > > > Tom Roberts > > -------------------- > soyou agree withme that > a single elctron fo r instance cannot interfere with itself Just because a single electron can only be in one place at a time (when it hits the screen), doesn't mean that its waves doesn't interfere with itself > and it is against the HUP The HUP says nothing about that > so we have a more serious problem--- > it is a contradiction in QM There is no contradiction in QM > that has to be settled that or the other way There is nothing that needs to be settled, but there does appear to be quite a bit that you need to learn
From: mpc755 on 2 Feb 2010 09:46 On Feb 2, 5:24 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 2, 7:50 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 26, 5:23 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > Rock Brentwood wrote: > > > > And by "identical" means: "the very same object in each and every one > > > > of those places at the same time". > > > > Nobody else would call a BUNCH of identical objects "the very same object". You > > > do violence to the language. They may be identical and indistinguishable, but > > > they are not the same one. > > > > In QM one must (anti-)symmetrize the amplitude over identical > > > objects. But this does not apply to a SINGLE such object, and > > > in (anti-)symmetrizing the amplitude for N of them one shows > > > that there are N of them, not a single one. Such PUNs on > > > "single" or "very same" are not useful. > > > > > A simple physical interpretation and visualization of this is as > > > > follows: the molecules (or, more fundamentally, the particles making > > > > them up) are each "bumps" on a universal ocean. In an actual ocean, if > > > > you have two bumps (say, A and B) on the surface of the same shape, > > > > then it's the EXACT same situation, if you have the bumps (B and A) in > > > > reversed locations. That's because the bumps have no individual > > > > identity, literally, but only define the contour of the ocean. > > > > Therefore, they are -- in effect -- the very same object at two places > > > > at once. > > > > No. Again, nobody else would use those words that way. This bump and that bump > > > CAN be distinguished by following them in time, or merely by pointing [#]. Bumps > > > in the ocean are NOT the same sort of identicalness/indistinguishability as > > > elementary particles, for the simple reason that one CAN distinguish them, and > > > one need not (anti-)symmetrize an amplitude over all such bumps. > > > > [#] one cannot do this for elementary particles. > > > > Tom Roberts > > > -------------------- > > soyou agree withme that > > a single elctron fo r instance cannot interfere with itself > > Just because a single electron can only be in one place at a time > (when it hits the screen), doesn't mean that its waves doesn't > interfere with itself > > > and it is against the HUP > > The HUP says nothing about that > > > so we have a more serious problem--- > > it is a contradiction in QM > > There is no contradiction in QM > > > that has to be settled that or the other way > > There is nothing that needs to be settled, but there does appear to be > quite a bit that you need to learn A good place to start in order to understand nature is de Broglie's Wave Mechanics. 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf Editors Note: "But Louis de Broglie, as he explains in the first lines of his article, was a realist, and he could not believe observable physical phenomena to only follow from abstract mathematical wave-functions. Somehow, these latter had to be connected to real waves, at variance with the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation, and with his keen sense for physics, Louis de Broglie did find a way out of the maze ! So here is a realistic view of Wave Mechanics ... at the highest level, and by its very discoverer." de Broglie: "I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles." "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." 'L OUIS DE B ROGLIE The wave nature of the electron Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929' http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie-lecture.pdf "Is it even still possible to assume that at each moment the corpuscle occupies a well-defined position in the wave and that the wave in its propagation carries the corpuscle along in the same way as a wave would carry along a cork? These are difficult questions and to discuss them would take us too far and even to the confines of philosophy." If de Broglie has allowed himself to be more philosophical he might have figured out what the external field acting on the particle is in nature. Physics originally was, and should continue to be today, the philosophy of nature. In AD, a moving 'particle' has an associated aether wave. In AD, a moving particle of matter has an associated aether displacement wave.
From: PD on 2 Feb 2010 09:57 On Feb 2, 2:50 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 26, 5:23 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > Rock Brentwood wrote: > > > And by "identical" means: "the very same object in each and every one > > > of those places at the same time". > > > Nobody else would call a BUNCH of identical objects "the very same object". You > > do violence to the language. They may be identical and indistinguishable, but > > they are not the same one. > > > In QM one must (anti-)symmetrize the amplitude over identical > > objects. But this does not apply to a SINGLE such object, and > > in (anti-)symmetrizing the amplitude for N of them one shows > > that there are N of them, not a single one. Such PUNs on > > "single" or "very same" are not useful. > > > > A simple physical interpretation and visualization of this is as > > > follows: the molecules (or, more fundamentally, the particles making > > > them up) are each "bumps" on a universal ocean. In an actual ocean, if > > > you have two bumps (say, A and B) on the surface of the same shape, > > > then it's the EXACT same situation, if you have the bumps (B and A) in > > > reversed locations. That's because the bumps have no individual > > > identity, literally, but only define the contour of the ocean. > > > Therefore, they are -- in effect -- the very same object at two places > > > at once. > > > No. Again, nobody else would use those words that way. This bump and that bump > > CAN be distinguished by following them in time, or merely by pointing [#]. Bumps > > in the ocean are NOT the same sort of identicalness/indistinguishability as > > elementary particles, for the simple reason that one CAN distinguish them, and > > one need not (anti-)symmetrize an amplitude over all such bumps. > > > [#] one cannot do this for elementary particles. > > > Tom Roberts > > -------------------- > soyou agree withme that > a single elctron fo r instance cannot interfere with itself Where do you think he said that? > > and it is against the HUP > so we have a more serious problem--- > it is a contradiction in QM > > that has to be settled that or the other way > > ATB > Y.Porat > -----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 2 Feb 2010 12:23
On Feb 2, 4:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 2, 2:50 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 26, 5:23 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > Rock Brentwood wrote: > > > > And by "identical" means: "the very same object in each and every one > > > > of those places at the same time". > > > > Nobody else would call a BUNCH of identical objects "the very same object". You > > > do violence to the language. They may be identical and indistinguishable, but > > > they are not the same one. > > > > In QM one must (anti-)symmetrize the amplitude over identical > > > objects. But this does not apply to a SINGLE such object, and > > > in (anti-)symmetrizing the amplitude for N of them one shows > > > that there are N of them, not a single one. Such PUNs on > > > "single" or "very same" are not useful. > > > > > A simple physical interpretation and visualization of this is as > > > > follows: the molecules (or, more fundamentally, the particles making > > > > them up) are each "bumps" on a universal ocean. In an actual ocean, if > > > > you have two bumps (say, A and B) on the surface of the same shape, > > > > then it's the EXACT same situation, if you have the bumps (B and A) in > > > > reversed locations. That's because the bumps have no individual > > > > identity, literally, but only define the contour of the ocean. > > > > Therefore, they are -- in effect -- the very same object at two places > > > > at once. > > > > No. Again, nobody else would use those words that way. This bump and that bump > > > CAN be distinguished by following them in time, or merely by pointing [#]. Bumps > > > in the ocean are NOT the same sort of identicalness/indistinguishability as > > > elementary particles, for the simple reason that one CAN distinguish them, and > > > one need not (anti-)symmetrize an amplitude over all such bumps. > > > > [#] one cannot do this for elementary particles. > > > > Tom Roberts > > > -------------------- > > soyou agree withme that > > a single elctron fo r instance cannot interfere with itself > > Where do you think he said that? > > > > > and it is against the HUP > > so we have a more serious problem--- > > it is a contradiction in QM > > > that has to be settled that or the other way > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > ----------------------- he speaks about A and B A and B is not A and A th e moment he say *and* it means we have two oblects not one object they can be identical evenif two elctrons are identical yet it is not a single same individual object and please note the electron according to you is indivisible !! if it could be divisible we can get closer to each other by our understanding but as for now for you the electron is a point indivisible particle .... 2 are you in panic if someone agree with me ?? btw you could see above that he is not the only one that agree with me ... ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- |