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 12:01 On Feb 3, 11:59 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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). > -------------------- OK please anSwer my question about how many wave lengths or wave cycles or whatever you like IN OUR INERTIAL FRAME !!?? is nmeeded for a single photon tobe considered **a single photon* i can even help you in your previous post you said that the pass of the** single photon* ' lasts along time' so how much time it lasts (it is actually the same question as above in another 'dress' (you may consult all the current physicists in our Universe ) TIA Y.Porat --------------------------- TIA Y.Porat -------------------- > > i hope you will not suggest > > the number in (during) one second !!! (:-) > > Why would one say something as silly as that?
From: Y.Porat on 3 Feb 2010 12:10 On Feb 3, 2:00 pm, 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 > > > > >Tom Roberts > > -- > John Kennaugh ----------------------- BTW i remember the Late Franz Hyman supporting the idea of a photon frequency of one cycle per ... (listen carefully) per one billion years and alter even per 100 billion years and that is one of the reasons it was called the 'Fertz ' !!! and the Superfertz (:-) yet there are still some Fertz supporters here . so do you start to understand what i had to suffer here ?? (:-).. Y.Porat ----------------------
From: mpc755 on 3 Feb 2010 12:23 On Feb 3, 11:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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.... > Because the aether is space filling three dimensional stuff displaced by matter. The C-60 molecule is a particle matter and it has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > 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: Y.Porat on 3 Feb 2010 15:10 On Feb 3, 6:52 pm, PD long after the charges have been annihila > > > > Waldron's suggested model of a photon is equal and opposite charge > > rotating. ---------------------------- i suggested that for basic particle structure: see in my appendix the ''Circlon'' idea (and the 'chain of orbitals idea' for bigger particle structure ) as a force maker and!! a particle builder : http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract btw i suggested the photon model ans a Helli x !! ATB Y.Porat ---------------------
From: artful on 3 Feb 2010 17:39
On Feb 4, 4:01 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 3, 11:59 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 3, 8:44 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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). > > -------------------- > > OK please anSwer my question I have explained that your question doesn't make sense because wave lengths do not define waves .. waves (and observers) define wavelengths > about how many wave lengths > or wave cycles or whatever you like > IN OUR INERTIAL FRAME !!?? > is nmeeded for a single photon > tobe considered **a single photon* That question makes no sense. It doesn't matter how far a photon travels (which combined with the frequency is what gives you the number of wavelengths (or partial wavelengths)) > i can even help you > in your previous post you said that the pass of the** single > photon* ' lasts along time' I didn't say anything like that > so how much time it lasts A photon? It 'lasts' from the time it is created until the time it is destroyed .. obviously. That does not depend on wavelengths .. tho how many wavelengths there are between those events doesw depend on the time and the frequency of the photon. > (it is actually the same question as above > in another 'dress' > (you may consult all the current physicists in our > Universe ) No need. |