Can a *single** physical entity- be* at the same time* - in two **separated* locations ??!!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Liquid Water has solid-like behaviour over long-distances andtime-frames
Next: Very cheap solar power
From: PD on 2 Feb 2010 14:35 On Feb 2, 11:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Neither are bumps in the ocean (what he was calling A and B) supposed to describe a single electron. You still did not understand a thing he said. > 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 > ----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 2 Feb 2010 15:38 On Feb 2, 9:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 2, 11:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > Neither are bumps in the ocean (what he was calling A and B) supposed > to describe a single electron. > You still did not understand a thing he said. > > > 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 > > ---------------------- A **and ** B describe a SINGLE electron (:-) i single electron is located in one place not in tow places places while we deal with a single entity **in a single place** we do not talk about any ocean!! an ocean is the opposite of individuality so it is th e last thing to describe a **single eelctron ** anyway we have much better metaphors do deal with ....... ATB Y.Porat ---------------------
From: jdawe on 2 Feb 2010 19:32 On Jan 24, 10:09 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Can a *single** physical entity-** be** (exist ) **at the same time**- > in two **separated* locations ??!! > > that question was raised about the possibility of - > 'interference of a ***single photon** -with itself '... > > yet it can be asked about other physical phenomena as well > > TIA > Y.Porat Unfortunately, no. There are only 2 possible locations energy\matter can ever be: Interior or Exterior The Opposing Law: "An operand is never the same as its opposing operand it is always the complete inverse." Therefore, at no stage can energy\matter be both the interior\exterior at the same time. It's easiest to understand just by looking at our solar system. We have our centrifugal sun which is the interior of our solar system and the orbiting planets\moons which are the exterior. If we take a step out we can see the solar system itself is the exterior of its centrifugal galaxtic centre which is the interior. Of course, as I have said before, at no stage is the sun ever the exterior - the sun never orbits anything - it is our solar system as a whole that orbits its galactic centre. Hope this helps. -Josh.
From: Tom Roberts on 2 Feb 2010 23:34 Y.Porat wrote: > On Jan 26, 5:23 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> [...] > soyou agree withme that > a single elctron fo r instance cannot interfere with itself Like so many people around here you have very basic difficulties with reading. Nowhere did I say anything at all like what you claim. I do NOT "agree with you". This is not a "contradiction in QM", this is a contradiction in your personal mental processes (or lack thereof). Learn how to read, and then STUDY physics. Or get a hobby more suited to your abilities. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 2 Feb 2010 23:40
artful wrote: > Just because a single electron can only be in one place at a time I would not say that at all! > (when it hits the screen), When an electron hits a fluorescent screen, one knows where it was when it generated the flash. That is ALL one knows. At THAT PARTICULAR TIME it was at exactly that one place; this says nothing at all about whether it was "in one place" at other times. Indeed, quantum mechanics implies that "in a place" is NOT an attribute of a quantum object, except when its position is measured. (Yes, that is even less definite than your "in one place" -- the difference between "a" and "one" is significant here). Tom Roberts |