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 10:39 On Feb 3, 10:30 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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 It is not understanding of anything. It is nonsense to think a C-60 molecule is not traveling a single path. It is nonsense to think a C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern in and of itself. I understand exactly what occurs physically in nature. The C-60 molecule has an associated wave. The wave is physical. The physical wave enters the available slits and creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated physical wave and turns it into chop and the direction the C-60 molecule travels is not altered. To think you 'understand' what occurs in nature in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule and to think something other than the above occurs is absurd nonsense. The above description of what occurs physically in nature may be incorrect but it is the most correct concept to date. To think other than my description of what occurs in a double slit experiment is more correct is absurd nonsense. To think a C-60 molecule does not travel a single path in a double slit experiment is absurd nonsense. How is it the C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit if detectors are placed at the exits the instant prior to the C-60 molecule exiting the slit(s)? Because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. Duh!
From: mpc755 on 3 Feb 2010 10:43 On Feb 3, 10:30 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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 It is not understanding of anything. It is nonsense to think a C-60 molecule is not traveling a single path. It is nonsense to think a C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern in and of itself. I understand exactly what occurs physically in nature. The C-60 molecule has an associated wave. The wave is physical. The physical wave enters the available slits and creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated physical wave and turns it into chop and the direction the C-60 molecule travels is not altered. To think you 'understand' what occurs in nature in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule and to think something other than the above occurs is absurd nonsense. The above description of what occurs physically in nature is the most correct concept to date. To think a C-60 molecule does not travel a single path in a double slit experiment is absurd nonsense. How is it the C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit if detectors are placed at the exits the instant prior to the C-60 molecule exiting the slit(s)? Because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. Duh!
From: mpc755 on 3 Feb 2010 10:50 On Feb 3, 10:45 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > John Kennaugh wrote: > > Phase is a variable therefore something must be > > varying. If a photon has no internal structure it can have nothing which > > varies with time and distance as phase does. > > Once again you show your utter lack of understanding of the basic concepts of > modern physics, By modern physics do you mean the bullshit you are spewing like, "both ends of the photon are integrated over all spacetime"? > and your insistence that ordinary words and concepts must apply > to quantum objects. > > Even classically you are wrong: A pointlike object with no internal > structure still has many properties that vary with time and distance, > such as velocity, momentum, position, .... > > The phase of a photon is no evidence of internal structure. All of our models > that include photons ascribe no internal structure to them. > > Your naiveté is outrageous. You REALLY need to learn something about the subject > before attempting to write about it. > > Tom Roberts
From: PD on 3 Feb 2010 11:45 On Feb 3, 6:00 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) > > Are you saying Franz Heymann is wrong in describing it as a point > particle Yes, that was inaccurate. > > > > >Tom Roberts > > -- > John Kennaugh
From: PD on 3 Feb 2010 11:54
On Feb 3, 9:43 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 3, 10:30 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > It is not understanding of anything. It is nonsense to think a C-60 > molecule is not traveling a single path. It is nonsense to think a > C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern in and of itself. Because you say so.... > > I understand exactly what occurs physically in nature. The C-60 > molecule has an associated wave. The wave is physical. The physical > wave enters the available slits and creates interference which alters > the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule > causes decoherence of the associated physical wave and turns it into > chop and the direction the C-60 molecule travels is not altered. > > To think you 'understand' what occurs in nature in a double slit > experiment with a C-60 molecule and to think something other than the > above occurs is absurd nonsense. The above description of what occurs > physically in nature is the most correct concept to date. > > To think a C-60 molecule does not travel a single path in a double > slit experiment is absurd nonsense. > > How is it the C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit > if detectors are placed at the exits the instant prior to the C-60 > molecule exiting the slit(s)? > > Because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. Duh! |