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 25 Jan 2010 07:08 On Jan 25, 12:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 24, 6:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Can a *single** physical entity-** be** (exist ) **at the same time**- > > in two **separated* locations ??!! > > Yes, a wave. > > > that question was raised about the possibility of - > > 'interference of a ***single photon** -with itself '... > > The photon 'particle' does not 'interfere' with itself. The photon > wave exits the slits and creates interference which alters the > direction the photon 'particle' travels. > > If you want to consider that to be 'interfering' with itself then go > right ahead, but there is a physical wave propagating available paths > and a 'particle' traveling a single path. > > A 'particle' does not travel multiple paths. > > > yet it can be asked about other physical phenomena as well > > > TIA > > Y.Porat ---------------------- lets forgot for while about the photon and take a *single electron* you say that the electron is a wave as well right so how is the HUP (Heisengerg undertainty pronciple) compatible with ---- the your **single electron wave ** (SINGLE ELECTRON!! ) as it is explained by current theory -- claiming and explaining (as the experiment show ) that single photon is interfering with itself ???!!! in order that a particle will interfere with itself *it must be **at the same time ****!! --- in the two slits **!!! btw do you consider the electron as a *point particle ??* anyway we know for sure what is the size of a single electron even if is will be moving (in the Atom its size is about one Angstrom ....) it is ways less than the distance between the two slits ...????!! TIA Y.Porat ---------------------
From: Y.Porat on 25 Jan 2010 07:19 On Jan 25, 1:46 pm, Carlo Vitali <carlo.vit...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 24, 12:09 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 > > The fact is that we have to modify our perception of "single" entity > and of "separate" locations while collecting data at "the same time", > that's the core of the debate between Bohr and Einstein (disregarding > the "ultimate" character of their theories). The philosophiocal > speculation upon the "shape of reality" vs. the "alienity" of human > observations as related inevitably to it is by far more intriguing > than getting astonished for the presumed offense to "ortodoxy" of > science. Philosophy not Science is the true tool on the long and > troublesome road towards "trascendence" of the marginal limits of our > "rational" patterns. Our logic shall constantly "invent" new paradigms > suited to give "rationality" to our expanding capacity of > introspection upon the Reality! I've met physically both Bohr and > Heisenberg and guys such as Per Bak and Renè Thom and gave up to > devote my efforts to "experimental physics"! Most of the 1900 Nobel > awards have been delivered to "experimental" discoveries that were > mere "proof" of forecasted phenomena proposed by real scientists > decades before! The age of Galilei, Faraday, Einstein, Bohr, Prigogine > is still alive under the label "phylosophy" while "physics" is ate > best represented by guys like Lorentz, Fermi, Oppenheimer or .... God > Save .... Rubbia! > Carlo Vitali ----------------- right i was thinking about HUP before i saw your post ........see my response to MPC 2 one of the cheating riddls that went on and that are beyond my ability to understand how intelligent honest scientists could say and accept something like NATURE IS WEIRD AND THAT S IT ''THAT IS HOW NATURE WORKS'' and still people swallow it without blinking an eye !! and posing that this is a good enough science 'so we dont need any further thinking about it '' and no need to reexamining it !!! imho that lead us directly to parrot land ATB Y.Porat -------------------
From: Inertial on 25 Jan 2010 08:46 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:feafa821-0598-4ac4-b2b3-9345f3aee7db(a)g29g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 25, 12:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 24, 6:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Can a *single** physical entity-** be** (exist ) **at the same time**- >> > in two **separated* locations ??!! >> >> Yes, a wave. >> >> > that question was raised about the possibility of - >> > 'interference of a ***single photon** -with itself '... >> >> The photon 'particle' does not 'interfere' with itself. The photon >> wave exits the slits and creates interference which alters the >> direction the photon 'particle' travels. >> >> If you want to consider that to be 'interfering' with itself then go >> right ahead, but there is a physical wave propagating available paths >> and a 'particle' traveling a single path. >> >> A 'particle' does not travel multiple paths. >> >> > yet it can be asked about other physical phenomena as well >> >> > TIA >> > Y.Porat > ---------------------- > lets forgot for while about the photon > and take a *single electron* Fine .. its not any different really at the QM level. > you say that the electron is a wave as well > right NO .. MPC has no idea about how physics works. Like you he has an idea of how he'd LIKE it to work, and ignore common sense and valid physics that disagrees with it. To him, physics means finding a story that makes some sort of intuitive sense to him, regardless of whether it make any logical or physical sense .. its all just hand-waving. But (QM) physics says electonrs have wave/particle duality. > so > how is the HUP (Heisengerg undertainty pronciple) > compatible with ---- > the your **single electron wave ** (SINGLE ELECTRON!! ) as it is > explained by current theory -- > claiming and explaining (as the experiment show ) > that single photon is interfering with itself ???!!! > in order that a particle will interfere with itself > *it must be **at the same time ****!! --- > > in the two slits **!!! No .. it isn't. There is a probability of it being there. It is the probability 'waves' that interfere with each other and cause a distribution of probabilities the same as when waves interfere. And so over time you get the individual photons (or electrons, whatever) forming an 'interference pattern'. > btw > do you consider the electron as a *point particle ??* > anyway > we know for sure what is the size of a single electron even if is > will be moving > (in the Atom its size is about one Angstrom ....) > it is ways less than the distance between > the two slits ...????!! It doesn't really make sense to talk about THE size of an electron.
From: Inertial on 25 Jan 2010 09:11 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:19be9f7a-4c7e-4085-ad5a-c7ee7abe75b8(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 25, 1:37 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> John Kennaugh wrote: >> > The idea that a single photon interferes with itself is absurd if you >> > are talking about physical interference >> >> You ASSUME that your personal notions of how nature "ought to" behave >> actually >> describe nature. THAT IS ABSURD. >> >> Yes, objects have definite identities and locations at scales familiar to >> you -- >> this does NOT mean that this also applies at atomic and sub-atomic >> scales. >> Indeed, our best models at such scales do NOT obey your naive notions. >> And there >> are rather strong indications that your naivet CAN NOT apply at these >> scales >> (look up the Bell inequalities and related experiments). >> >> > rather than a mathematical model >> > which simply mimics it. >> >> Anything that you can think about is a MODEL of nature. Ditto for anybody >> else. >> >> > "interference" in the physical sense involves [...] >> >> What God whispered in your ear and told you this? You act like you have >> special >> and CERTAIN knowledge of how nature works. That is absurd. Like the rest >> of us, >> you are limited to MODELS, and have no way to know whether or not your >> MODEL is >> valid without experimental tests (of which you have none). >> >> > A rethink is necessary. >> >> Yes. You need to learn humility, and realize that the world does not need >> to >> work the way you want it to. Indeed, current experiments indicate that it >> does not. >> >> You also need to "rethink" your entire approach. Sitting in your armchair >> dictating to nature how she should "work" is useless. You need to learn >> what >> science actually is, and then start practicing it. >> >> Tom Roberts > > ------------------ > and how about YOU RETHINKING YOUR APPROACH ?? Tom's approach is fine. Probably better than mine .. I have the greatest respect for him. > a real crook > makes his ignorance an advantage!! > and that insread of a behavior of an honest person > who would say ::: > YES INDEED IT IS NOT SATISFACROTY EXPLAINED But it is explained. That you do not like it is your problem, and not that of the explanation. > AND IF SO > FURTHER UNDERSTANDING IS BADLY NEEDED !! There is. of course, nothing wrong with further understanding. But you cannot achieve that when you lack an INITIAL understanding .. which is why it has been suggested to you to read and learn > SO what you you said above is > MATHEMATICAL PROVE THAT YOU ARE A shameless CROOK !! > or at the good case > an idiot parrot And there we have the usual Porat answer to everything .. insults and false allegations.
From: Y.Porat on 25 Jan 2010 10:19
On Jan 25, 3:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:feafa821-0598-4ac4-b2b3-9345f3aee7db(a)g29g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jan 25, 12:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 24, 6:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > Can a *single** physical entity-** be** (exist ) **at the same time**- > >> > in two **separated* locations ??!! > > >> Yes, a wave. > > >> > that question was raised about the possibility of - > >> > 'interference of a ***single photon** -with itself '... > > >> The photon 'particle' does not 'interfere' with itself. The photon > >> wave exits the slits and creates interference which alters the > >> direction the photon 'particle' travels. > > >> If you want to consider that to be 'interfering' with itself then go > >> right ahead, but there is a physical wave propagating available paths > >> and a 'particle' traveling a single path. > > >> A 'particle' does not travel multiple paths. > > >> > yet it can be asked about other physical phenomena as well > > >> > TIA > >> > Y.Porat > > ---------------------- > > lets forgot for while about the photon > > and take a *single electron* > > Fine .. its not any different really at the QM level. > > > you say that the electron is a wave as well > > right > > NO .. MPC has no idea about how physics works. Like you he has an idea of > how he'd LIKE it to work, and ignore common sense and valid physics that > disagrees with it. To him, physics means finding a story that makes some > sort of intuitive sense to him, regardless of whether it make any logical or > physical sense .. its all just hand-waving. > > But (QM) physics says electonrs have wave/particle duality. > > > so > > how is the HUP (Heisengerg undertainty pronciple) > > compatible with ---- > > the your **single electron wave ** (SINGLE ELECTRON!! ) as it is > > explained by current theory -- > > claiming and explaining (as the experiment show ) > > that single photon is interfering with itself ???!!! > > in order that a particle will interfere with itself > > *it must be **at the same time ****!! --- > > > in the two slits **!!! > > No .. it isn't. There is a probability of it being there. It is the > probability 'waves' that interfere with each other and cause a distribution > of probabilities the same as when waves interfere. And so over time you get > the individual photons (or electrons, whatever) forming an 'interference > pattern'. > > > btw > > do you consider the electron as a *point particle ??* > > anyway > > we know for sure what is the size of a single electron even if is > > will be moving > > (in the Atom its size is about one Angstrom ....) > > it is ways less than the distance between > > the two slits ...????!! > > It doesn't really make sense to talk about THE size of an electron. ---------------------- (:-) Y.P -------------------- |