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 5 Feb 2010 04:33 On Feb 4, 9:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. ----------------- we must be much more specific!! just abstrcat talking does not lead us much further advance in our current knwolwdge and understanding Y.P ----------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 5 Feb 2010 04:58 On Feb 4, 11:22 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. ----------------------- hey dummy (sorry the insult but you dont read? I DDINT ASK HOW MANY WAVEELNGTHS DEFINE A PHOTON** i asked how many wavelengths define a SINGLE *** AGAIN SINGLE AGAIN SINGLE** PHOTONS MY Artful the devil is IN THE* DETAILS !! * nd you ocerlooks myother claim that according to you a photon that lsts one microseond and a photon that lasts for ONE YEAR ** BOTH OF THEM ARE CONSIDERED AS A SINGLE PHOTON** ddi you understood your and others problem??!! YOUR SINGLE PHOTON IS NOT **UN AMBIGUOUSLY ** DEFINED IE YOUR DEFINITION OF A SINGLE PHOOTN IS AMBIGUOUS !! and we cant deal in physics with ambiguous definitions !!!! and moeover your definition about a 'single' phjoton is not only **two times** ambiguous !!!!---- IT IS MILLION OR MAY B BILLIONS OF TIMES AMBIGUOUS !!! got it i doubt .....!!. yet i am sure most other readers got it it is not too complicated unless you are locked on yourself Y.Porat ---------------- > > > 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 6 Feb 2010 01:48 On Feb 5, 8:58 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 4, 11:22 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > ----------------------- > hey dummy (sorry the insult but you dont read? I do read > I DDINT ASK HOW MANY WAVEELNGTHS > DEFINE A PHOTON** > i asked > how many wavelengths define a > SINGLE *** AGAIN SINGLE AGAIN SINGLE** > PHOTONS So .. as I said .. you ask how many wavelength define a photon. > MY Artful the devil is IN THE* DETAILS !! * The devil is in that you lied when you said you didn't ask .. and then you ask again. > nd you ocerlooks myother claim that > according to you > a photon that lsts one microseond > and a photon that lasts for > ONE YEAR ** > BOTH OF THEM ARE CONSIDERED AS > A SINGLE PHOTON** Now you are lying again. I *never* claimed that two photons are actually a single photon. They are not both just one single photon. There are each single photons > ddi you understood your and others problem??!! That we have to put up with your lies .. yes. > YOUR SINGLE PHOTON IS NOT > **UN AMBIGUOUSLY ** DEFINED > IE > YOUR DEFINITION OF A SINGLE PHOOTN > IS AMBIGUOUS !! What definition? > and we cant deal in physics > with ambiguous definitions !!!! What definition? > and moeover > your definition about a 'single' phjoton What definition? > is not only **two times** ambiguous !!!!---- > > IT IS MILLION OR MAY B BILLIONS OF TIMES > AMBIGUOUS !!! > got it > i doubt .....!!. You are talking lies and nonsense again > yet i am sure most other readers got it > it is not too complicated > unless you are locked on yourself Say what?
From: Y.Porat on 6 Feb 2010 08:49 On Feb 6, 8:48 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 5, 8:58 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 4, 11:22 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > ----------------------- > > hey dummy (sorry the insult but you dont read? > > I do read > > > I DDINT ASK HOW MANY WAVEELNGTHS > > DEFINE A PHOTON** > > i asked > > how many wavelengths define a > > SINGLE *** AGAIN SINGLE AGAIN SINGLE** > > PHOTONS > > So .. as I said .. you ask how many wavelength define a photon. > > > MY Artful the devil is IN THE* DETAILS !! * > > The devil is in that you lied when you said you didn't ask .. and then > you ask again. > > > nd you ocerlooks myother claim that > > according to you > > a photon that lsts one microseond > > and a photon that lasts for > > ONE YEAR ** > > BOTH OF THEM ARE CONSIDERED AS > > A SINGLE PHOTON** > > Now you are lying again. I *never* claimed that two photons are > actually a single photon. They are not both just one single photon. > There are each single photons > ----------------------- littl e crook idit you are looking from under the ground how to evade and divert my questions i didnt mean that a photon with a certain wave length**must be to gether with another one withthe same wave length i said tghat *for you * a photon with a cerain WL that lasts a naonosecond is** a single photon* and ** a photon with that above wave length that lasts for one year bot of them are defined as 'a single photon' is that your understanding abut what is defined as a single photon?? if not just tell us what is **your **definition about what is defined as a single photon !!! Y.P -----------------------
From: Y.y.Porat on 6 Feb 2010 13:19
On Feb 6, 3:49 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 6, 8:48 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 5, 8:58 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 4, 11:22 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > ----------------------- > > > hey dummy (sorry the insult but you dont read? > > > I do read > > > > I DDINT ASK HOW MANY WAVEELNGTHS > > > DEFINE A PHOTON** > > > i asked > > > how many wavelengths define a > > > SINGLE *** AGAIN SINGLE AGAIN SINGLE** > > > PHOTONS > > > So .. as I said .. you ask how many wavelength define a photon. > > > > MY Artful the devil is IN THE* DETAILS !! * > > > The devil is in that you lied when you said you didn't ask .. and then > > you ask again. > > > > nd you ocerlooks myother claim that > > > according to you > > > a photon that lsts one microseond > > > and a photon that lasts for > > > ONE YEAR ** > > > BOTH OF THEM ARE CONSIDERED AS > > > A SINGLE PHOTON** > > > Now you are lying again. I *never* claimed that two photons are > > actually a single photon. They are not both just one single photon. > > There are each single photons > > ----------------------- > > littl e crook idit > you are looking from under the ground how to evade and divert my > questions > i didnt mean that a photon with a certain > wave length**must be to gether with another one > withthe same wave length > > i said tghat *for you * > a photon with a cerain WL > that lasts a naonosecond > is** a single photon* > > and ** > a photon with that above wave length > that lasts for one year > bot of them are defined as > 'a single photon' > > is that your understanding > abut what is defined as a single photon?? > > if not just tell us what is **your **definition > about > what is defined as a single photon !!! > > Y.P > ----------------------- Now artful where has you disappeared now ?? were is you answer to my last post ?? Y.P ----------------------- |