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 8 Feb 2010 05:43 On Feb 8, 5:54 pm, "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 Again. you show that you are incapable of answering physics questions without unjustified insults. Is this a psychological problem you suffer from? > 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 ' Then why do you lie and cheat? > (Hamburgers and cheese ...) > end of quote: End of what quote? > now instead of > 'i said > you saied > i said etc !! etc > > we want here to do some further understandings That would be nice. It would be helpful if you understood things better > so now just answer the simplest question:: > > WHAT IS TH E TIME DURATION FOR A > 'SINGLE PHOTON!! > TO INTERFERE WITH ITSELF !!!??? I've answered several times already very clearly. > if you like you can chose any wave length you like It doesn't make any difference > (if you think it is relevant !!) If isn't > just answer that simple question I already have, several times. You keep ignoring it > and if you dont know just say/ Why would I say that? > (FOR A CHANGE) > AS AN HONEST MAN > --SHOULD DO ) You are the one who has been blatantly lying. > just say :----- > > 'I DONT KNOW ""!!! Why would I say that? > (it is not only you who dont know > no one -as for now- really knows it Of course they do. YOU may not know it, but that is not a surprise. > unless you bring eveicence that it was ever investigated) > !! Its blatantly obvious, there is no need to investigate it. It would be like investigating how long it takes to drive 100 miles and 50 miles and hour .. you can just calculate it with basic physics. > you dont deal here with little retarded children You do a good impersonation of one. > that cannot notice that you evade that question No .. I've answered it multiple times already in a number of previous replies here. > or else go discuss with > JOSEF GOEBBELS !!! not with me Don't know the mane ... do you? > Y.Porat > ------------------------ > > just answer a simple question I have. Try READING my replies instead of thinking up more pointless insults.
From: artful on 8 Feb 2010 05:52 On Feb 8, 6:20 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 I gave you a reasonable definition and referred you to text and web sites that have some good information about it. What didn't you understand about it? > 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 Again .. you ask a completely different question as though you are asking the same thing. It depends on how you construct the double-slit apparatus wrt the distance from slits to detector. The speed of light is fixed, so the time is determined by the distance from the slit to the detector. It really doesn't matter how small it is .. though the smaller the distance, the smaller the interference pattern. So clearly you'd make it a large enough distance for the effect to be easily measurable. There is no point in making it small, nor any point in asking about a smallest size double-slit experiment. > now > JUST don t tell me that he answer to the above > QUESTION is > > 'ONE SECOND '!!!! One second would be a ridiculous answer .. do you know how far a light- second is? It would be an incredibly large and impractical double- slit experiment if the distance from the slits to the detector was a light second. > (the human arbitrary definition > of a 'photon energy ' > nature **processes* do not know > and never ' heard' about > ''one second'' !! Word soup ... try again. Though I think I know what you were trying to say, and if so its one of the few things you've said that is correct.
From: Y.Porat on 8 Feb 2010 06:33 On Feb 8, 12:52 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 6:20 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > I gave you a reasonable definition and referred you to text and web > sites that have some good information about it. What didn't you > understand about it? > > > 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 > > Again .. you ask a completely different question as though you are > asking the same thing. > > It depends on how you construct the double-slit apparatus wrt the > distance from slits to detector. The speed of light is fixed, so the > time is determined by the distance from the slit to the detector. It > really doesn't matter how small it is .. though the smaller the > distance, the smaller the interference pattern. So clearly you'd make > it a large enough distance for the effect to be easily measurable. > There is no point in making it small, nor any point in asking about a > smallest size double-slit experiment. > > > now > > JUST don t tell me that he answer to the above > > QUESTION is > > > 'ONE SECOND '!!!! > > One second would be a ridiculous answer .. do you know how far a light- > second is? It would be an incredibly large and impractical double- > slit experiment if the distance from the slits to the detector was a > light second. > > > (the human arbitrary definition > > of a 'photon energy ' > > nature **processes* do not know > > and never ' heard' about > > ''one second'' !! > > Word soup ... try again. Though I think I know what you were trying > to say, and if so its one of the few things you've said that is > correct. ----------------- cheating again it is not dependent on the distance of source to the screen if it a long aenogh distance from the screen than an intwrfererece wil occuere and MIND YOU: th edistance tothe screen COMPARED TO THE LIGHT VELOCITY AT ONE SECOND IS CLOZSE TO ZERO DISTANCE soit depends on how long you are creating that photon the distance between slits is another cheating trick of yourse toeavde tghe question so th equestion is again **did ony one ever ** intended and succeeded to measure th eelaps time (takingin account allthe condition youmentioned abouve and foud the e;aps of minimal time needed for a *single photon' was created 2 ddi you or anyone even saw or heard about such looking for an answer to my above 3 ddi anyone ever got the experimental answer to the above question 4 and what was that anaser ?? if non of it was ever done YOU ARE JUST MUMBLING AND HAND WAVING CHEATING PEOPLE TO THINK THAT MY ABOVE QUESTION IS PRECEDENTED AND *POINT LESS ** 5 thank you for after such a long agonizing discussion with you you (may be i should thank you for forcing me to explain it more clearly something that was clear only to me .....!!) so you agreed with me that there is no commitment of **natural processes**duration to 'count their existence in terms of the human definition that is called ' ONE SECOND* iow the **real minimal photon unit** has nothing to do with being lasting ONE SECOND !! 6 conclusion : (unless anyone will prove otherwise ) the real nature s 'SINGLE (minimal ) PHOTON* that will stil interfere with itself HAS NEVER BEEN DEFINED and FOUND UNEQUIVOCALLY !! therefore the claim of QM that a 'single photon' can interfere with itself is nonsense physics (cheating )claim !! copyright Y.Porat ---------------------
From: artful on 8 Feb 2010 07:15 On Feb 8, 10:33 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 12:52 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 6:20 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > I gave you a reasonable definition and referred you to text and web > > sites that have some good information about it. What didn't you > > understand about it? > > > > 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 > > > Again .. you ask a completely different question as though you are > > asking the same thing. > > > It depends on how you construct the double-slit apparatus wrt the > > distance from slits to detector. The speed of light is fixed, so the > > time is determined by the distance from the slit to the detector. It > > really doesn't matter how small it is .. though the smaller the > > distance, the smaller the interference pattern. So clearly you'd make > > it a large enough distance for the effect to be easily measurable. > > There is no point in making it small, nor any point in asking about a > > smallest size double-slit experiment. > > > > now > > > JUST don t tell me that he answer to the above > > > QUESTION is > > > > 'ONE SECOND '!!!! > > > One second would be a ridiculous answer .. do you know how far a light- > > second is? It would be an incredibly large and impractical double- > > slit experiment if the distance from the slits to the detector was a > > light second. > > > > (the human arbitrary definition > > > of a 'photon energy ' > > > nature **processes* do not know > > > and never ' heard' about > > > ''one second'' !! > > > Word soup ... try again. Though I think I know what you were trying > > to say, and if so its one of the few things you've said that is > > correct. > > ----------------- > cheating again Are you? You should stop. I haven't cheated at all, of course. > it is not dependent on the distance of source > to the screen Yes it is .. totally dependent on it. t = c / d where d = distance between the slits and the screen, and t = time takes for a photon to travel that distance. Pretty basic stuff. > if it a long aenogh distance from the screen > than an intwrfererece wil occuere It occurs regardless, just a smaller/tighter pattern. The longer the distance the wider the pattern. Thats what I said. > and > MIND YOU: > th edistance tothe screen COMPARED TO THE LIGHT VELOCITY AT ONE > SECOND > IS CLOZSE TO ZERO DISTANCE What?? "light velocity at one second" ??? Try again, you're not making sense. > soit depends on how long you are creating that > photon Nothing about the photon interfering with itself depends on how long it takes to 'create' the photon. What matters is what happens to it between the slits and the screen > the distance between slits is another > cheating trick of yourse toeavde tghe question I never mentioned the distance between the slits themselves. You are lying again. I mentioned only the distance from the slits to the screen. > so > th equestion is again > > **did ony one ever ** > intended and succeeded to measure > th eelaps time > (takingin account allthe condition youmentioned abouve > and foud the e;aps of minimal time needed for > a *single photon' was created And once more that is a different question to what you asked before, even though you say you are asking it "again". Stop cheating. Photons are created pretty much instantly (eg when an electron changes orbitals). Not that it makes any difference to what happens to the photon AFTER it is emitted, and in particular what happens to it between the slits and the detector. > 2 > ddi you or anyone even saw or heard about > such looking for an answer to my above Why would they? It doesn't make any difference. > 3 > ddi anyone ever got the experimental answer to the above question Why would they? It doesn't make any difference. > 4 > and what was that anaser ?? > if non of it was ever done > YOU ARE JUST MUMBLING AND > HAND WAVING > CHEATING PEOPLE The only one cheating here is you with your lies and insults. If you have valid points to make, thne there is no need for that. > TO THINK THAT > MY ABOVE QUESTION IS PRECEDENTED > AND *POINT LESS ** Of course it is pointless .. it has no bearing on the issues being addressed here. > 5 > thank you for after such a long agonizing > discussion with you you > > (may be i should thank you for forcing me > to explain it more clearly > something that was clear only to me .....!!) If something has been made clear to you, then it would help if you posted it, because you've not made anything very clear here so far. > so you agreed with me that there is no commitment > of **natural processes**duration > to 'count their existence in terms of the human > definition that is called ' ONE SECOND* If your word soup is saying what I think it is, then obviously nature has no idea about what a second is and doesn't care what units we use to measure things with. > iow > the **real minimal photon unit** has nothing to do > with being lasting ONE SECOND !! No-one ever claimed here that it did !!! Why are you making arguments against things that no-one has said? > 6 > conclusion : > (unless anyone will prove otherwise ) > > the real nature s 'SINGLE (minimal ) PHOTON* that will stil > interfere with itself > HAS NEVER BEEN DEFINED > and FOUND UNEQUIVOCALLY !! Of course it has.. the experiment has been done many times. WE can produce a source of individual photons and use them in a double slit experiment and get the interference pattern. > therefore > the claim of QM that a 'single photon' > can interfere with itself > is nonsense physics (cheating )claim !! No .. you simply don't understand anything about the subject. Your lack of understanding doesn't make it nonsense, and could be remedied if you actually bothered reading and learning about it, instead of lying and cheating as you have here. > copyright > Y.Porat > --------------------- You can copyright your ignorance all you want. If I were you it would not be something I would be proud of. It is something I would try to fix by reading and studying and asking questions with the intent of actually reading the answers.
From: Y.Porat on 8 Feb 2010 09:07
On Feb 8, 2:15 pm, artful <ar > (unless anyone will prove otherwise ) > > > the real nature s 'SINGLE (minimal ) PHOTON* that will stil > > interfere with itself > > HAS NEVER BEEN DEFINED > > and FOUND UNEQUIVOCALLY !! > > Of course it has.. the experiment has been done many times. WE can > produce a source of individual photons and use them in a double slit > experiment and get the interference pattern. > > > therefore > > the claim of QM that a 'single photon' > > can interfere with itself > > is nonsense physics (cheating )claim !! > > No .. you simply don't understand anything about the subject. Your > lack of understanding doesn't make it nonsense, and could be remedied > if you actually bothered reading and learning about it, instead of > lying and cheating as you have here. > > > copyright > > Y.Porat > > --------------------- > > You can copyright your ignorance all you want. If I were you it would > not be something I would be proud of. It is something I would try to > fix by reading and studying and asking questions with the intent of > actually reading the answers. ------------------------ last time: before i send you to Josef Goebbels .... actually for the other readers !! and dont tell me you answered that before COUNTING ON IT THAT NO ONE WILL BOTHER TO DIG DOZENS OF POSTS BACKWARDS just say ot again in this last post just lets make ot for the other resders without obfuscations can yopu fo r a change sunmerise our discussion and your answers to me IN SHORT !!!?? so it wil be clear and simple for any reader: ----------------- 1 what is your definition about what is a single photon that QM is claiming that it i s interfering with itself 2 you agreed with me alreay that natures physical processes and THE TIME IT LAST are not committed to our second ie to be lasting say 1.0000000 second fo r instance ie th e definition of a *single photon* has nothing to do with duration of one second 9that is an arbitrary humen definition of time ??!! 3 if not lasting one second how long it lasts ?? say for a certain wave length 4 did anyone ever tried to find out experimentally *the minimal time * a single photon interference take place TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------- |