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 7 Feb 2010 06:08 On Feb 7, 5:19 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 What question? "What is the difference" isn't a question one can answer unless you say difference between what things. And what metaphor? > (btw > how old are you ??? > do you consult your university people ??) I don't have any "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 ..) I've no idea what you're babbling about > so > let me give you another more relevant example: Something relevant would be a nice change > think about the photoelectric effect (by Einstein) Fine > take a photon that** last say one second** It doesn't matter how long it lasts > 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 Of course it would .. it doesn't matter how long it takes for the photon to get there. It just has to get there. The energy in it is directly proportional to its frequency ( E = hf ) and inversely proportional to its wavelength. And whether or not a given photon 'ejects' any electrons is dependent on that.
From: Y.Porat on 7 Feb 2010 07:19 On Feb 7, 1:03 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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: > > > > 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? -------------------- what is the differnce between a photonic process that takes say a nano second as compared the the process that takes say one second ??!! ( even while the two cases are with the same wave length !) dont you think that there is a difference between the work that can be done in one nano second and the work with the same wave legth that can be done in two seconds !!!!! IOW YOU DONT KNOW **HOW LONG** THAT PROCESS OF ''' A SINGLE PHOTON'' INTERFERING WITH ITSELF"-- TOOK PLACE !! (LASTED !!) Y.Porat -----------------------
From: artful on 7 Feb 2010 17:12 On Feb 7, 11:19 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 1:03 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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: > > > > 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? > > -------------------- > what is the differnce between a photonic process > that takes say a nano second > as compared the the process that takes say > one second ??!! The difference is in how long it takes :) Reminds me of a joke I read .. guy walks into a sandwich shop and orders a cheese sandwich .. the girl behind the counter asks if he wants the white cheese or the yellow cheese. He asks "what's the difference" and she says "Duh .. the color!". What processes do you have in mind? And note that this is the first you've asked a question on this subject .. yet you expected me to read your mind and answer "what is the difference" before without giving it any context. That's just plain silly. > ( even while the two cases are with the same wave length !) But very different numbers of photons involved, so difference in quantity of effect. > dont you think that there is a difference > between the work that can be done in one nano second > and the work with the same wave legth that can be done > in two seconds !!!!! Obviously when more photons hit over a longer period of time, then there is more energy/momentum transferred and so you'd get a larger result. That is totally unrelated to the questions you asked earlier, and the question you asked and then said that you didn't. > IOW In other words? What you asks next has NOTHING to do with what you said above. It is not a matter of expressing the same idea "in other words" .. its completely different !!! > YOU DONT KNOW **HOW LONG** THAT > PROCESS OF ''' > A SINGLE PHOTON'' INTERFERING WITH ITSELF"-- > TOOK PLACE !! (LASTED !!) Yes.. you do. You know the distance from slit to detector and the speed of light .. so you've got a very good idea of the time it took. That is a completely unrelated issue from what you just asked above. Your thought processes really are confused here. Either look at a) what happens with a single photon in a double-slit experiment, or b) look at what happens with millions of photons over two different durations some photo-electirc effect. You can't look at b) and then apply the answers to a)
From: Y.Porat on 8 Feb 2010 01:54 On Feb 8, 12:12 am, artful <art > you just asked above. > Your thought processes really are confused here. Either look at a) > what happens with a single photon in a double-slit experiment, or b) > look at what happens with millions of photons over two different > durations some photo-electirc effect. You can't look at b) and then > apply the answers to a) ------------------------ Nasty pig demagogue in our old cleaver old tradition there is a say (in free translation) ANY ONE WHO WANTS TO **CHEAT** TAKES THE ISSUE TO SOME DISTANT PLACE ' (Hamburgers and cheese ...) end of quote: now instead of 'i said you saied i said etc !! etc we want here to do some further understandings so now just answer the simplest question:: WHAT IS TH E TIME DURATION FOR A 'SINGLE PHOTON!! TO INTERFERE WITH ITSELF !!!??? if you like you can chose any wave length you like (if you think it is relevant !!) just answer that simple question and if you dont know just say (FOR A CHANGE) AS AN HONEST MAN --SHOULD DO ) just say :----- 'I DONT KNOW ""!!! (it is not only you who dont know no one -as for now- really knows it unless you bring eveicence that it was ever investigated) !! you dont deal here with little retarded children that cannot notice that you evade that question or else go discuss with JOSEF GOEBBELS !!! not with me Y.Porat ------------------------ just answer a simple question
From: Y.Porat on 8 Feb 2010 02:20
On Feb 8, 8:54 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 12:12 am, artful <art > you just asked above.> Your thought processes really are confused here. Either look at a) > > what happens with a single photon in a double-slit experiment, or b) > > look at what happens with millions of photons over two different > > durations some photo-electirc effect. You can't look at b) and then > > apply the answers to a) > > ------------------------ > Nasty pig demagogue > > in our old cleaver old tradition there is a say > (in free translation) > > ANY ONE WHO WANTS TO **CHEAT** > TAKES THE ISSUE TO SOME DISTANT PLACE ' > > (Hamburgers and cheese ...) > end of quote: > > now instead of > 'i said > you saied > i said etc !! etc > > we want here to do some further understandings > > so now just answer the simplest question:: > > WHAT IS TH E TIME DURATION FOR A > 'SINGLE PHOTON!! > TO INTERFERE WITH ITSELF !!!??? > if you like you can chose any wave length you like > (if you think it is relevant !!) > > just answer that simple question > and if you dont know just say > > (FOR A CHANGE) > AS AN HONEST MAN > --SHOULD DO ) > just say :----- > > 'I DONT KNOW ""!!! > (it is not only you who dont know > > no one -as for now- really knows it > unless you bring eveicence that it was ever investigated) > !! > > you dont deal here with little retarded children > that cannot notice that you evade that question > or else go discuss with > JOSEF GOEBBELS !!! not with me > > Y.Porat > ------------------------ > > just answer a simple question ----------------- Oh yes since i forgot about your idiotic understanding what is really (in reality) the definition of a single photon so i ask again more pointed : WAHT IS THE ***MINIMAL** (again MINIMAL) TIME DURATION (**MEASURED BY EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT*** not by abstraract mumblings ) for a single photon TO INTERFERE WITH ITSELF now JUST don t tell me that he answer to the aBove QUESTION is 'ONE SECOND '!!!! (the human arbitrary definition of a 'photon energy ' nature **processes* do not know and never ' heard' about ''one second'' !! Y.Porat ------------------ |