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 4 Feb 2010 12:02 On Feb 4, 6:51 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > ------------------------- sorry a little typo (though i think readers could understand it even with that litteltypo mistake the life time of the second photon (case 2 -) is not ''now take a photon with the *same* wave length as above *but * ITS LIFE TIME IS not one millimeter / 360000 Km ---per )second but it should be :(its life time is) one millimeter/36000 km *** OF A SECOND** (without that 'per') TIA Y.Porat ------------------------
From: maxwell on 4 Feb 2010 12:02 On Jan 24, 3:37 pm, 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 naiveté 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 Tom, I see you have been talking to the ghost of Plato again. There is no reason to believe that the micro world is different from the macro one we inhabit. There is just a failure of imagination by today's mathematicians (posing as physicists) to arrive at a suitable, universal model of nature. There is no 'infamous boundary ' defining two kinds of nature: ours & the magical quantum. Your attacks on iconoclasts like JK are typical of people who are really on the defensive.
From: maxwell on 4 Feb 2010 12:16 On Jan 31, 2:47 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> 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. > > Tom Roberts Please stop using words with your own private interpretation. The concept of particle has been well-established since Newton (although he sometimes used the word corpuscle). Particle in physics AND standard English DOES mean: "definite location and definite identity". If you want to invent a whole new world for the quantum go ahead, create your own definitions etc but don't be surprised if they don't match up to the reality that the rest of humanity inhabits.
From: Tom Roberts on 4 Feb 2010 13:46 maxwell wrote: > On Jan 24, 3:37 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> 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, I see you have been talking to the ghost of Plato again. Plato has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Nor any ghosts. > There is > no reason to believe that the micro world is different from the macro > one we inhabit. I see you have not even bothered to open your eyes, much less considered the relevant experiments. Flies _DO_ walk on the ceiling, but humans and elephants do not. And even though they behave so differently, those files are MUCH closer to our size than to the scales corresponding to atoms and most quantum phenomena. Certainly in the world we inhabit, size DOES matter. A lot. Any physical theories you might obtain from observations of the "macro world" are just plain wrong in the "micro world". > There is just a failure of imagination by YOU. And Kennaugh. You both also fail to understand what science actually is. > The > concept of particle has been well-established since Newton (although > he sometimes used the word corpuscle). Particle in physics AND > standard English DOES mean: "definite location and definite > identity". Such a meaning does NOT apply to electrons, other elementary particles, individual atoms, etc. Yet we commonly apply to the word "particle" to them (as well as to larger entities, up to and including the earth in an appropriate context). The problem is YOURS -- words do not have immutable meanings, and each technical field constructs its own technical vocabulary. Physics, TODAY, is not what it was in the time of Newton, and in physics TODAY, "particle" does not mean what you just claimed. > If you want to invent a whole new world for the quantum go > ahead, create your own definitions etc but don't be surprised if they > don't match up to the reality that the rest of humanity inhabits. It's not about "want" or about me. It's about what concepts are REQUIRED to describe and model the quantum world of microscopic and sub-microscopic objects. The "rest of humanity" does not "inhabit" the quantum world, so the vocabulary and concepts used outside of quantum physics is completely irrelevant. Tom Roberts
From: Y.Porat on 4 Feb 2010 13:55
On Feb 4, 6:55 pm, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > 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 ----------------------- th e process of which it is created is not our issue we deal with the photon as we detect it iow for me a physical entity is something that we can detect it than can be used etc - by our tools so you can cal it as you like ----------------------------- > between TWO entities (electrons) photons a created not by electrons it can be created by nuclear spontaneous reactions that we dont have much understanding how it is created etc etc .. 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. ------------------ i ddint invent for instance the idea that a single photon or electron is interfering with itsef and i am dealing with it as defined by current 'modern physics 'as a start point ** ie that is my start point from wichi go on if you claim that a single photon or electron can or cannot interfere with itself your dispute is not with me but with current paradigms 2 if you followed me all along --- my claim is that until now 'a single photon* has never been defined reasonable and interfering with itself-- is not logic and **is**as well in contradiction to HUP!! ATB Y.Porat ------------------- |