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: funkenstein on 4 Feb 2010 08:48 On Feb 3, 6:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > Displaced by matter? I thought that particular aether theory was in contradiction to observed aberration of stars. Grid theory should explain what mass is in terms of the grid, not leave matter as a separate entity.
From: mpc755 on 4 Feb 2010 09:05 On Feb 4, 8:48 am, funkenstein <luke.s...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 3, 6:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Displaced by matter? I thought that particular aether theory was in > contradiction to observed aberration of stars. Grid theory should > explain what mass is in terms of the grid, not leave matter as a > separate entity. I did not say the aether does, or does not, consist of particles, quanta of aether. Even if the aether is a one something it would still be displaced by matter. A nuclei is moving through three dimensional space. The space in front of the nuclei consists of aether. When the nuclei occupies the three dimensional space previously occupied by aether, the aether does not vanish. The aether is displaced by the nuclei. By stellar aberration do you mean: 'Aether drag hypothesis' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis "The primary reason the aether drag hypothesis is considered invalid is because of the occurrence of stellar aberration. In stellar aberration the position of a star when viewed with a telescope swings each side of a central position by about 20.5 seconds of arc every six months. This amount of swing is the amount expected when considering the speed of earth's travel in its orbit. In 1871 Airy demonstrated that stellar aberration occurs even when a telescope is filled with water. It seems that if the aether drag hypothesis were true then stellar aberration would not occur because the light would be travelling in the aether which would be moving along with the telescope." The thinking behind the above nonsense as far as I can tell is aether 'sticks' to liquids but not to air. This is more in line with what occurs in nature: "However, some modified versions of the hypothesis are still held by some dissidents who argue that aether drag may happen on a global (or larger) scale and the aberration is merely transferred into the entrained "bubble" around the earth which then faithfully carries the modified angle of incidence directly to the observer. This larger entrainment effect was believed by some scientists such as Dayton Miller who continued the search for aether many years after the widespread acceptance of relativity." I prefer Einstein's definition of the state of the aether: 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "The state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" The state of the aether's displacement is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places. What this means is it doesn't matter if a telescope is filled with water or not the light waves are propagating through the aether who's state is determined by its connections with the matter. The matter in this case is the Earth. The state of the aether in the telescope is the same regardless of it consisting of water, air, or a vacuum. Matter is not a separate entity from aether. Aether is uncompressed matter and matter is compressed aether. Aether and matter are different states of the same stuff.
From: Y.Porat on 4 Feb 2010 09:47 On Feb 4, 2:39 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. ---------------------- (:-) i dont know the distance it traveled if i knew i would not ask you and even you dont know it no one on earth knowes it are you so ....(save me thj einsult because until now you was polite ) so dont you se that my intention was to show that no one really knows what is a** single photon **??!!! thas]atis passing the two slits ?? because no one can defineit by terms of say hiow long it took it to pass the two slits so now i wil ask you th equestion for poeple why are not too quick in understanding a problem and dont intent to walk around th ebush: so take a SINGLE photon (ACCORDING TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING ABOUT A **SINGLE PHOTON** )-- with wave length say 2 CM now i ask you : how long in Time i t will take it to pass the two slits ?? (and later interfere with itself ) btw i guess you never found that question in your books you have to think about it with your own mind ....... i s the question clear now ?? btw dont tell me now that it is nonsensical because **you **cant answer it ...... if you cant answer it just say 'i cant answer it' it is not a shame because no one as is can answer it you are not alone !!! and that was exactly my point !!! TIA Y.Porat ---------------------- > > Do you have some point you are trying to make here?
From: Y.Porat on 4 Feb 2010 11:51 On Feb 4, 4:47 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 4, 2:39 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > ---------------------- > (:-) > > i dont know the distance it traveled > if i knew i would not ask you > > and even you dont know it > no one on earth knowes it > are you so ....(save me thj einsult > because until now you was polite ) > so > dont you se that my intention was to show > that > no one really knows what is a** single photon **??!!! thas]atis > passing the two slits ?? > because no one can defineit > by terms of say > hiow long it took it to pass the two slits > so now i wil ask you th equestion for > poeple why are not too quick in understanding a problem > and dont intent to walk around th ebush: > so > take a SINGLE photon (ACCORDING TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING ABOUT A > **SINGLE PHOTON** )-- > with wave length say 2 CM > > now i ask you : > how long in Time i t will take it to pass the two slits ?? (and > later interfere with itself ) > btw > i guess you never found that question in your books you have to > think about it > with your own mind ....... > i s the question clear now ?? > btw > dont tell me now that it is nonsensical > because **you **cant answer it ...... > if you cant answer it > just say > 'i cant answer it' > it is not a shame > because no one as is can answer it > you are not alone !!! > and that was exactly my point !!! > > TIA > Y.Porat > ---------------------- > > > > > Do you have some point you are trying to make here? ---------------------- now since you are not in a hurry to answer i will even sharpen my question: 1 take a photon with a wave legthy if one millimeter that its life time is one minute 2 now take a photon with the *same* wave length as above *but * ITS LIFE TIME IS one millimeter / 360000 Km ---per second both of them you call A SINGLE PHOTON right ??!! now my question is since you have here two 'single photons' qm claimes that both of them ""will interfere each one by itself "" YET YOU CANT DEFINE THEIR life TIME **UNEQUIVOCALLY* : so my question is : HOW CAN IT PASS THE H U P TEST ??!! (which is as well -- a QM principle right ??) TIA Y.Porat -------------------------
From: maxwell on 4 Feb 2010 11:55
On Jan 24, 3:09 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 ??!! > > 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 No, not at the same time. This is the key property defining ONE entity: one location in space at one time. The problem here is thinking of the photon as an entity. It is not - it is an interaction between TWO entities (electrons). Relationships do NOT have the same ontological grounding as the entities that define them - think of divorce occurring to breakup the marriage between two people. |