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: Tom Roberts on 3 Feb 2010 20:20 artful wrote: > That was what I was meaning .. [...] > As I had said previously, [...] OK. I missed your earlier remarks. In order to cope with the enormous volume of nonsense around here I generally only read articles responding to one of my own, introducing an interesting new thread, or written by somebody I recognize as usually having something useful to say. Tom Roberts
From: Y.Porat on 4 Feb 2010 01:23 On Feb 4, 3:20 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > artful wrote: > > That was what I was meaning .. [...] > > As I had said previously, [...] > > OK. I missed your earlier remarks. In order to cope with the enormous volume of > nonsense around here I generally only read articles responding to one of my own, > introducing an interesting new thread, or written by somebody I recognize as > usually having something useful to say. > > Tom Roberts ------------------- so did you found my thread interesting and useful ??(:-) Y.P ----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 4 Feb 2010 01:33 On Feb 4, 12:39 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 -------------- and i explained !!!:::: you are a master of evading problems i told you TAKE MY ABOVE QUESTION TO THE INERTIAL FRAME !! GOT IT in our tradition there is a say: if someone wants to cheat he drags the issue to some DISTANCE PLACE!! so forget about another frame our inertial frame is good enough and if you have no answer just say HONESTLY: I HAVE NO ANSWER FOR THAT so i ask you again how long DOES a **SINGLE PHOTON*** NEED (in our inertial frame ) IN ORDER TO PASS THE DOUBLE SLIT ??!!! TIA Y.Porat ------------------------ > > > 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.
From: artful on 4 Feb 2010 07:39 On Feb 4, 5:33 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 4, 12:39 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > -------------- > and i explained !!!:::: No .. you didn't > you are a master of evading problems You have not presented a valid problem > i told you > TAKE MY ABOVE QUESTION TO THE INERTIAL FRAME !! GOT IT It doesn't matter where you 'take' your question .. it is still nonsensical .. it is the photon and its frequency and the duration of its existence that defines the number of wavelengths of light it corresponds to. If you have a given number (or partial number) of wavelengths of light, and know its frequency, you can work out how far the light travelled and how long it took. > in our tradition there is a say: > if someone wants to cheat > he drags the issue to some DISTANCE PLACE!! That is not happening here > so forget about another frame I didn't talk about any other frames > our inertial frame is good enough > and if you have no answer just say HONESTLY: > I HAVE NO ANSWER FOR THAT It is a pointless and nonsensical question .. wavelengths do not define photons. > so i ask you again > > how long DOES a **SINGLE PHOTON*** > NEED (in our inertial frame ) IN ORDER TO PASS THE DOUBLE > SLIT ??!!! What do you mean "ask you again" ... that is the first time you have asked me that. It would help if you didn't keep changing the questions and then claim that I am the one using delaying tactics If you know the distance it travelled, then you can very easily work out the time it took because you know the speed is c (assuming we are talking in vacuo). Very simple calculation. Do you have some point you are trying to make here?
From: JT on 4 Feb 2010 08:12
On 24 Jan, 12:09, "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 I must ask it thoughts physicsal entities, are they really just neuron connections in our brain. I mean afterall a dream have much more 3D depth resolution instant object creation. The 3D engine running our mind seem so much more intricate then our computers and although it working just at a maximum of 1000 hz the framerate and the realworld projection far seem to pass our best computers. An advanced dream covering minutes take only a few seconds to visualize and project in our brain. So something strange really seem to be going on,either nonelocality of our minds, or a temporal nonelocality during sleep. JT |