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 3 Feb 2010 04:44 On Jan 24, 1:09 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 ------------------------ and now i have another 'little question' HOW MANY WAVE - LENGTHS IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO DEFINE A **SINGLE *** (single !!) ELECTRON OR( more questionable) - PHOTON WAVE ??!! i hope you will not suggest the number in (during) one second !!! (:-) TIA Y.Porat ----------------------
From: artful on 3 Feb 2010 04:57 On Feb 3, 8:35 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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?? I did not forget that it made a single point on the screen .. That is what I *said* .. it has a single location on the screen. > fiorst of all wjile it is interference it is not one poingon the > screen!! As I explained before .. the interference pattern appears over time with multiple electrons (or whatever) forming a patter on the screen > and not least: > > JUST ****BEFORE*** IT WAS ON THE SCREEN > 'AT ONE POINT' > IT WAS IN **TWO ** AGAIN TWO ** POINTS No .. it was not at any particular point > 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 ! No .. it had a probability of being at each of those two points. Unless it was detected as being there, it wasn't really at either one of them. > a complete contradiction to HUP What YOU say is a contradiction .. but what you say is not what QM says happens. You are arguing that your own misinterpretation is contradictory .. and of course it is. > because > if you have a 100 percent certainty > about location or time > (ie zero uncertainty !!) > the **other factor of HUP is > --------> ZERO CERTAINTY !!! Why do you think that is somehow contradicted? > iow > infinite** uncertainty* !! > is it so difficult to understand ?? Yes .. it is not an easy subject to understand. And you are not alone in being confused about it. It is probably one of the most confusing areas of physics because it is so contrary to our every-day experience of reality.
From: artful on 3 Feb 2010 04:59 On Feb 3, 8:44 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 24, 1:09 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 > > ------------------------ > and now i have another 'little question' > > HOW MANY WAVE - LENGTHS > IS NEEDED > IN ORDER TO DEFINE > > A **SINGLE *** (single !!) > ELECTRON OR( more questionable) - PHOTON WAVE ??!! Wavelengths don't 'define' waves. They are measured frame-dependent 'properties' of the wave. The wave and observer frame define the wavelength (not the other way around). > i hope you will not suggest > the number in (during) one second !!! (:-) Why would one say something as silly as that?
From: mpc755 on 3 Feb 2010 09:19 On Feb 3, 7:00 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >John Kennaugh wrote: > >> Tom Roberts wrote: > >>> John Kennaugh wrote: > >>>> According to Tom Roberts a photon is a point particle with no > >>>>internal structure. > >>> You REALLY need to learn how to read. I have never said or implied > >>>anything like that. Indeed, I have repeatedly said that a photon is > >>>NOT a particle (point or otherwise). > >> Checking my facts - > >> Quote from thread GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY December 2007 > >>Tom Roberts wrote: > >>> "this is the common and well-established meaning of "photon": In > >>>the standard model, photons are elementary particles with no > >>>internal structure. > > >OK. I see I misspoke back then, and should have said "quantum object" > >instead of "particle". In THAT context I'm pretty sure there was no > >implication that "particle" meant the ordinary meaning. I of course > >used the technical meaning: an elementary particle is a quantum object > >that lacks many common aspects of an ordinary "particle" such as a > >definite location, a definite identity, a definite trajectory, a > >definite velocity or momentum or energy, etc. > > Isn't that just a rather complicated way of saying "we don't know what > we mean by the word photon" :o) > A photon is detected as a quantum of aether. > Are you saying Franz Heymann is wrong in describing it as a point > particle > > > > >Tom Roberts > > -- > John Kennaugh
From: Tom Roberts on 3 Feb 2010 10:30
mpc755 wrote: > On Feb 2, 11:40 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> 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). > > You really should qualify the nonsense you choose to believe in as the > Copenhagen interpretation of QM. I'm really thinking in terms of QED: in the configuration space of a diagram with a single photon, both ends of the photon are integrated over all spacetime. That is just about as strongly "no position applies" as one could imagine. This is an UNDERSTANDING, not a "belief", and it is not "nonsense", it's just that you, personally, do not understand it. Grow up -- there is no implication whatsoever that things YOU happen to not understand are "nonsense". Tom Roberts |