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: artful on 6 Feb 2010 17:38 On Feb 7, 12:49 am, "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 I see you found it impossible not to resort to insults. > you are looking from under the ground how to evade and divert my > questions No. I have answered your questions. I am simply pointing out that you lied above, as the thread history clearly shows. > i didnt mean that a photon with a certain > wave length**must be to gether with another one > withthe same wave length I didn't say you did. What you think is actually happening is not at all clear, but you certainly seem very confused. > i said tghat *for you * > a photon with a cerain WL > that lasts a naonosecond > is** a single photon* Of source a photon is a photon. > and ** > a photon with that above wave length > that lasts for one year > bot of them are defined as > 'a single photon' Of source a photon is a photon How could it be anythin else. Just because it has been around for a few seconds or minutes or days or years doesn't mean suddenly it starts multiplying into more and more photons. That would be nonsense. Or do you think that a photon dies and is reborn every so often? So that the photon that is emitted is not the same photon that is receive when it gets wherever-it-get-to? Who knows *what* you mean. > is that your understanding > abut what is defined as a single photon?? A photon is a photon. It doesn't become more than one photon because it lasts for a long time. If it did, then that would be creating energy from nothing. (Or, as you think that photons have mass, it would mean creating mass from noting) > if not just tell us what is **your **definition > about > what is defined as a single photon !!! A photon is a quantum object that has certain properties and is associated with EM waves. Photons have no half-life (the don't decay) and are not composed of any smaller objects. Read any physics text and find out more if you are uncertain. Even the Wikipedia article on photons is fairly good. I have no reason to belief a photon is anything other than as described in those texts. If some evidence is presented that shows photons to be something else, then I'll evaluate that. How long a photon travels from where it is emitted to where it is absorbed/whatever doesn't change what the photon is.
From: artful on 6 Feb 2010 17:38 On Feb 7, 5:19 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > ----------------------- Have a little patience old man
From: Y.Porat on 7 Feb 2010 00:54 On Feb 7, 12:38 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 12:49 am, "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 > > I see you found it impossible not to resort to insults. > > > you are looking from under the ground how to evade and divert my > > questions > > No. I have answered your questions. I am simply pointing out that > you lied above, as the thread history clearly shows. > > > i didnt mean that a photon with a certain > > wave length**must be to gether with another one > > withthe same wave length > > I didn't say you did. What you think is actually happening is not at > all clear, but you certainly seem very confused. > > > i said tghat *for you * > > a photon with a cerain WL > > that lasts a naonosecond > > is** a single photon* > > Of source a photon is a photon. > > > and ** > > a photon with that above wave length > > that lasts for one year > > bot of them are defined as > > 'a single photon' > > Of source a photon is a photon > > How could it be anythin else. Just because it has been around for a > few seconds or minutes or days or years doesn't mean suddenly it > starts multiplying into more and more photons. That would be > nonsense. Or do you think that a photon dies and is reborn every so > often? So that the photon that is emitted is not the same photon that > is receive when it gets wherever-it-get-to? Who knows *what* you > mean. > > > is that your understanding > > abut what is defined as a single photon?? > > A photon is a photon. It doesn't become more than one photon because > it lasts for a long time. If it did, then that would be creating > energy from nothing. (Or, as you think that photons have mass, it > would mean creating mass from noting) > > > if not just tell us what is **your **definition > > about > > what is defined as a single photon !!! > > A photon is a quantum object that has certain properties and is > associated with EM waves. Photons have no half-life (the don't decay) > and are not composed of any smaller objects. Read any physics text > and find out more if you are uncertain. Even the Wikipedia article on > photons is fairly good. I have no reason to belief a photon is > anything other than as described in those texts. If some evidence is > presented that shows photons to be something else, then I'll evaluate > that. > > How long a photon travels from where it is emitted to where it is > absorbed/whatever doesn't change what the photon is. ----------------- fucen crook: i ask you again 1 what is the ***difference *** between a photon and A SINGLE PHOOTN ?? 2 does a *single photon* that lasts a nano second The same ** physical entity **as a single photon (WITH THE SAME WAVE LENGTH AS THE ABOVE ONE )----- -----that lasts one year ??? just a metaphoric hint for a mathematics idiot : is a single drop of water that is falling on your head the same as the whole Atlantic ocean of water falling on you read ??? Y.Porat ---------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 7 Feb 2010 01:19 On Feb 7, 7:54 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 12:38 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 7, 12:49 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > sking 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 a > > A photon is a photon. It doesn't become more than one photon because > > it lasts for a long time. If it did, then that would be creating > > energy from nothing. (Or, as you think that photons have mass, it > > would mean creating mass from noting) > > > > if not just tell us what is **your **definition > > > about > > > what is defined as a single photon !!! > > > A photon is a quantum object that has certain properties and is > > associated with EM waves. Photons have no half-life (the don't decay) > > and are not composed of any smaller objects. Read any physics text > > and find out more if you are uncertain. Even the Wikipedia article on > > photons is fairly good. I have no reason to belief a photon is > > anything other than as described in those texts. If some evidence is > > presented that shows photons to be something else, then I'll evaluate > > that. > > > How long a photon travels from where it is emitted to where it is > > absorbed/whatever doesn't change what the photon is. > > ----------------- > fucen crook: > i ask you again > > 1 > what is the ***difference *** ... > > read more » ------------------------ and in addition to my last question and metaphor (btw how old are you ??? do you consult your university people ??) it seems to me that what i have at the back of my mind you will not have in the coming 50 years ..) so let me give you another more relevant example: think about the photoelectric effect (by Einstein) take a photon that** last say one second** that can eject say n electrons from a metal : now take another photon **wiht the same wave length ** THAT LASTS ONE YEAR *** WILL IT EJECT THE SAME NUMBER n- of electrons as above case ) FROM THAT METAL TIA Y.Porat -----------------------
From: artful on 7 Feb 2010 06:03
On Feb 7, 4:54 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 12:38 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 12:49 am, "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 > > > I see you found it impossible not to resort to insults. > > > > you are looking from under the ground how to evade and divert my > > > questions > > > No. I have answered your questions. I am simply pointing out that > > you lied above, as the thread history clearly shows. > > > > i didnt mean that a photon with a certain > > > wave length**must be to gether with another one > > > withthe same wave length > > > I didn't say you did. What you think is actually happening is not at > > all clear, but you certainly seem very confused. > > > > i said tghat *for you * > > > a photon with a cerain WL > > > that lasts a naonosecond > > > is** a single photon* > > > Of source a photon is a photon. > > > > and ** > > > a photon with that above wave length > > > that lasts for one year > > > bot of them are defined as > > > 'a single photon' > > > Of source a photon is a photon > > > How could it be anythin else. Just because it has been around for a > > few seconds or minutes or days or years doesn't mean suddenly it > > starts multiplying into more and more photons. That would be > > nonsense. Or do you think that a photon dies and is reborn every so > > often? So that the photon that is emitted is not the same photon that > > is receive when it gets wherever-it-get-to? Who knows *what* you > > mean. > > > > is that your understanding > > > abut what is defined as a single photon?? > > > A photon is a photon. It doesn't become more than one photon because > > it lasts for a long time. If it did, then that would be creating > > energy from nothing. (Or, as you think that photons have mass, it > > would mean creating mass from noting) > > > > if not just tell us what is **your **definition > > > about > > > what is defined as a single photon !!! > > > A photon is a quantum object that has certain properties and is > > associated with EM waves. Photons have no half-life (the don't decay) > > and are not composed of any smaller objects. Read any physics text > > and find out more if you are uncertain. Even the Wikipedia article on > > photons is fairly good. I have no reason to belief a photon is > > anything other than as described in those texts. If some evidence is > > presented that shows photons to be something else, then I'll evaluate > > that. > > > How long a photon travels from where it is emitted to where it is > > absorbed/whatever doesn't change what the photon is. > > ----------------- > fucen crook: Again .. you cannot discuss anything civilly. You lie and you insult. > i ask you again > > 1 > what is the ***difference ***... What difference? Between what and what? |