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: PD on 4 Feb 2010 14:08 On Feb 4, 11:02 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > 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. Yes, there is. There are *observed* behaviors that are systematically different than what we experience in the macro world. > 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. No, but there is the recognition that some of our laws that we've derived from the macro world are only *approximations* to more general laws that apply to both macro and micro. As you cross the spectrum, the divergence of the approximation becomes apparent. The correspondence principle tells you that the broader law has to mimic the approximation in the narrower application. > Your attacks on > iconoclasts like JK are typical of people who are really on the > defensive.
From: PD on 4 Feb 2010 14:12 On Feb 4, 11:16 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > 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". No, it doesn't. It did at one time, but not in the last 100 years. I realize that it's tough to keep up. > 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. The rest of humanity need not keep up with the continually evolving definitions of terms as used by physicists. This does not mean that usage common to the rest of humanity should be the one that is also used by physicists.
From: artful on 4 Feb 2010 16:22 On Feb 5, 1:47 am, "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 Then you look at the contstruction of the particular apparatus and measure it > 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 ) What do you mean 'until now'? Why do you find it so hard to restrain yourself from posting insults? > so > dont you se that my intention was to show > that > no one really knows what is a** single photon **??!!! No one really knows what ANYTHING is other than from what we measure about it, and the models we construct about it in our minds. > 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 We know how fast a photon travels .. we can measure the distances invovled and so know the time it would take. That's if we know the path it took. If we get the interference pattern, its because we do NOT know which of the two paths the photon actually took. I really don't see the point of you asking these questions. > 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 OK > now i ask you : > how long in Time i t will take it to pass the two slits ?? Well. get the apparatus and measure the distances involved. Use the speed of light to work out the times taken. I've told you all this before > (and > later interfere with itself ) The interference happens between the slits and the detector, so look at that distance. > btw > i guess you never found that question in your books you have to > think about it > with your own mind ....... I always think about things. Do you? > i s the question clear now ?? As clear as it was before, and I've answered it before. > btw > dont tell me now that it is nonsensical The question you ask NOW is not nosensical. Asking how many wavelengths define a photon WAS nonsesical. > because **you **cant answer it ...... > if you cant answer it > just say > 'i cant answer it' I've answered before and have answered again > it is not a shame > because no one as is can answer it > you are not alone !!! > and that was exactly my point !!! You have a point? What is it?
From: artful on 4 Feb 2010 17:12 On Feb 5, 3:51 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 4, 4:47 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 Gees .. give a person a chance to read the thread > i will even sharpen my question: > > 1 > take a photon with a wave legthy if one millimeter > that its life time is one minute Fine > 2 > now take a photon with the *same* wave length as above > *but * > ITS LIFE TIME IS > one millimeter / 360000 Km ---per second Fine > both of them you call > A SINGLE PHOTON right ??!! Yes .. as you said in both your descriptions "take a photon" .. so of course it is "a photon". > now my question is > since you have here two 'single photons' > > qm claimes that both of them > ""will interfere > each one by itself "" So now these photons are taking part in a double slit experiment then, are they? Your questions are very unclear and poorly formed > YET YOU CANT DEFINE THEIR life TIME > **UNEQUIVOCALLY* : You just did. You said it was 1 minute. That's a very large double- slit apparatus you have there. > so my question is : > > HOW CAN IT PASS THE H U P TEST ??!! What HUP test? > (which is as well -- a QM principle > right ??)
From: Y.Porat on 5 Feb 2010 02:47
On Feb 5, 12:12 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 5, 3:51 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 4, 4:47 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > Gees .. give a person a chance to read the thread > > > i will even sharpen my question: > > > 1 > > take a photon with a wave legthy if one millimeter > > that its life time is one minute > > Fine > > > 2 > > now take a photon with the *same* wave length as above > > *but * > > ITS LIFE TIME IS > > one millimeter / 360000 Km ---per second > > Fine > > > both of them you call > > A SINGLE PHOTON right ??!! > > Yes .. as you said in both your descriptions "take a photon" .. so of > course it is "a photon". > > > now my question is > > since you have here two 'single photons' > > > qm claimes that both of them > > ""will interfere > > each one by itself "" > > So now these photons are taking part in a double slit experiment then, > are they? Your questions are very unclear and poorly formed > > > YET YOU CANT DEFINE THEIR life TIME > > **UNEQUIVOCALLY* : > > You just did. You said it was 1 minute. That's a very large double- > slit apparatus you have there. > > > so my question is : > > > HOW CAN IT PASS THE H U P TEST ??!! > > What HUP test? > > > (which is as well -- a QM principle > > right ??) ------------------------ the H U P is The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ATB Y.Porat ------------------ |