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: mpc755 on 3 Feb 2010 01:12 On Feb 2, 11:40 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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 You really should qualify the nonsense you choose to believe in as the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles." "For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant" "It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." The external field being the moving 'particles' associated aether wave. "Quantum mechanics only gives statistical information, often correct, but in my opinion incomplete." 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE The wave nature of the electron Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929' http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie-lecture.pdf "The two mechanics, wave and quantum, are equivalent from the mathematical point of view." "To sum up the meaning of wave mechanics it can be stated that: "A wave must be associated with each corpuscle and only the study of the waves propagation will yield information to us on the successive positions of the corpuscle in space"." "But what happens if the wave does not propagate according to the laws of optical geometry, if, say, there are interferences and diffraction? Then it is no longer possible to assign to the corpuscle a motion complying with classical dynamics, that much is certain. 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." Yes, the associated aether wave carries the corpuscle along is similar to a water wave carrying along a cork except for the corpuscle and the aether wave act as one while a cork would be tossed around while carried by the water wave. Physics was originally defined as, and should continue to be defined as, the philosophy of nature.
From: Y.Porat on 3 Feb 2010 01:33 On Feb 3, 6:40 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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 -------------------------- Mr Roberts you for got that the alleged claim for interfering with tself .... is that it was IN **TWO PLACES** *** AT THE **** SAME**** TIME**!!! the two slits are in two different places remember ???!!!!! > exactly that one place; this says nothing at all about whether it was "in one > place" at other times. wrong!! it says exactly that it as in two definite places ----- noting can be more definite than those two places !!! so cant you see the contradiction to the H U P ??!!! ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- > > 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
From: artful on 3 Feb 2010 04:17 On Feb 3, 3:40 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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 That was what I was meaning .. when it does actually have a location (ie when you detect it at the screen) it has just a single location. As I had said previously, before that it can't be said to have a definite location .. only a 'cloud' of probabilities for being at various locations. I'm trying to put thins in (hopefully) simple terms for the other readers here. I've pretty sure we are agreeing in concept.
From: artful on 3 Feb 2010 04:19 On Feb 3, 5:33 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 3, 6:40 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:> 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 > > -------------------------- > Mr Roberts > you for got that the alleged claim > for interfering with tself .... It does > is > that it was > IN **TWO PLACES** > *** AT THE **** SAME**** TIME**!!! No .. that is not what was claimed. > the two slits are in two different places > remember ???!!!!! It doesn't have a 'location' until it is detected. It has a probability of being in each slit. > > exactly that one place; this says nothing at all about whether it was "in one > > place" at other times. > > wrong!! No .. you just don't understand what QM says > it says exactly that it as in two definite places ----- No .. it does not. You are asserting that QM is saying things it doesn't, and then claiming that misinterpretation is contradictory. > noting can be more definite than those two places !!! > so cant you see the contradiction to the > H U P ??!!! There is no contradiction
From: Y.Porat on 3 Feb 2010 04:35
On Feb 3, 11:17 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 3, 3:40 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > That was what I was meaning .. when it does actually have a location > (ie when you detect it at the screen) it has just a single location. ------------------ common you as well forgot that before the electron markedit ssingle poing on the sdcreen?? fiorst of all wjile it is interference it is not one poingon the screen!! and not least: JUST ****BEFORE*** IT WAS ON THE SCREEN 'AT ONE POINT' IT WAS IN **TWO ** AGAIN TWO ** POINTS IN TWO DISTANT LOCATION OF THE ***SLITS*** the slits dont forget them .. AGAIN DONT FORGET THAT IT PASSED (*allegedly* as a ****single*** physical entity !!! ) THROUGH **TWO POINTS* AT THE SAME EXACT TIME ! a complete contradiction to HUP because if you have a 100 percent certainty about location or time (ie zero uncertainty !!) the **other factor of HUP is --------> ZERO CERTAINTY !!! iow infinite** uncertainty* !! is it so difficult to understand ?? ATB Y.Porat ------------------ > As I had said previously, before that it can't be said to have a > definite location .. only a 'cloud' of probabilities for being at > various locations. I'm trying to put thins in (hopefully) simple > terms for the other readers here. > > I've pretty sure we are agreeing in concept. |