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: Tom Roberts on 8 Feb 2010 13:04 John Kennaugh wrote: > I find it somewhat hypocritical of physicists to make such claims to > justify their belief system on the one hand and then apply laws way way > way beyond what has been tested in say the case of black holes and come > up with a 'singularity' which is then presented without a 'health > warning' as established fact. I find it extremely hypocritical of you to attempt to discuss things like this without studying them and understanding what is actually being said. And what is MEANT. Yes, GR has solutions called black holes. Yes, the conditions within those black holes are far beyond the regime in which GR has been tested directly. But the objects astronomers now call black holes are incredibly unusual objects, and the model of GR black holes is the only known model that fits the observations. Calling them "black holes" is THE WAY THE LANGUAGE IS USED. This does not mean "established fact", it means "that's the best model we have of them to date" -- ALL of science is like that, and if everyone included all of the qualifications ("health warnings") in every statement, nobody would be able to say anything. So scientists speak to other scientists, KNOWING they will understand such qualifications IMPLICITLY -- this is part of the CONTEXT. People like you, who don't share that context, invariably get it wrong (as do writers of TV shows who put words into actors' mouths about "scientific truth" or "scientific proof" and other oxymorons). THAT is why you really need to learn what science is -- so you can read scientific articles without such an utter failure to understand them. Either that, or find some other hobby more suited to your abilities. Science is the process of constructing models of the world we inhabit and then testing those models experimentally. The model known as "black hole" fits these astronomical objects far better than any other known model, and astronomers now call them "black holes". This is no different in principle from calling things you put on your feet "shoes" -- the MODEL you have in your head for "shoes" fits them better than any other model you have in there. Tom Roberts
From: Y.Porat on 8 Feb 2010 13:08 On Feb 8, 5:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 3:57 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > wrote: > > > > > PD 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. > > > I find it somewhat hypocritical of physicists to make such claims to > > justify their belief system on the one hand and then apply laws way way > > way beyond what has been tested in say the case of black holes and come > > up with a 'singularity' which is then presented without a 'health > > warning' as established fact. > > But black holes are not established fact, although in there is now > quite an assembly of evidence surrounding pretty solid black hole > candidates. > > The statement I made has been clearly established by a number of clear > experimental confirmations. Is it your belief that EVERY open question > needs to be closed before you would give the statement any > credibility? > > > > > >> Your attacks on > > >> iconoclasts like JK are typical of people who are really on the > > >> defensive. > > > -- > > John Kennaugh --------------------------- MR PD waht is your defintion og a single photon?? here is a defintion ifound in VIKI: quote : A method of computed tomography that uses radionuclides which emit *a single photon of a given energy. *The camera is rotated 180 or 360 degrees around the patient to capture images at multiple positions along the arc. The computer is etc end of quote: that single photon is emited all around the body of the patient soit is clearly not a photon as defined by nature but by the arbitarry humen defintion of ONE SECOND A SO IT IS ACTUALLY ---- so a single photon there is a photon that has a constant wave length ( per second ) so wHat do we know about a real single photon as a creation of nature you will not sugget that that single photon defined by nature is commited to the humen definition of one second for insatnce a singlephoton that is created by say a radiactive element does not know what is A SECOND dont you think so ?? sohow longit takes a rwdiactive element to emit a single photon or how long it takes for a particle like a NEUTRON to emit a single photon and and become a PROTON is it 1.000000 second ??? TIA Y.Porat ------------------------
From: PD on 8 Feb 2010 15:07 On Feb 8, 12:08 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 5:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 8, 3:57 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > > wrote: > > > > PD 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. > > > > I find it somewhat hypocritical of physicists to make such claims to > > > justify their belief system on the one hand and then apply laws way way > > > way beyond what has been tested in say the case of black holes and come > > > up with a 'singularity' which is then presented without a 'health > > > warning' as established fact. > > > But black holes are not established fact, although in there is now > > quite an assembly of evidence surrounding pretty solid black hole > > candidates. > > > The statement I made has been clearly established by a number of clear > > experimental confirmations. Is it your belief that EVERY open question > > needs to be closed before you would give the statement any > > credibility? > > > > >> Your attacks on > > > >> iconoclasts like JK are typical of people who are really on the > > > >> defensive. > > > > -- > > > John Kennaugh > > --------------------------- > MR PD > waht is your defintion og a single photon?? > > here is a defintion ifound in VIKI: > quote : > > A method of computed tomography that uses radionuclides which emit *a > single photon of a given energy. *The camera is rotated 180 or 360 > degrees around the patient to capture images at multiple positions > along the arc. The computer is > etc > end of quote: Oh, dear. You can't even look up "photon" in Wikipedia? > that single photon is emited all around the body of the patient > soit is clearly not a photon as defined by nature > but by the arbitarry humen defintion of ONE SECOND > A SO IT IS ACTUALLY ---- > > so a single photon there is > a photon that has a constant wave length > ( per second ) > > so wHat do we know about a real single photon > as a creation of nature > you will not sugget that that single photon defined by nature > is commited to the humen definition of > one second > for insatnce > a singlephoton that is created by say > a radiactive element > does not know what is A SECOND > dont you think so ?? > sohow longit takes a rwdiactive element > to emit a single photon > or how long it takes for a particle like a NEUTRON > to emit a single photon and and become > a PROTON > is it 1.000000 second ??? > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 8 Feb 2010 15:24 On Feb 8, 10:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 12:08 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 8, 5:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 8, 3:57 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > > > wrote: > > > > > PD 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. > > > > > I find it somewhat hypocritical of physicists to make such claims to > > > > justify their belief system on the one hand and then apply laws way way > > > > way beyond what has been tested in say the case of black holes and come > > > > up with a 'singularity' which is then presented without a 'health > > > > warning' as established fact. > > > > But black holes are not established fact, although in there is now > > > quite an assembly of evidence surrounding pretty solid black hole > > > candidates. > > > > The statement I made has been clearly established by a number of clear > > > experimental confirmations. Is it your belief that EVERY open question > > > needs to be closed before you would give the statement any > > > credibility? > > > > > >> Your attacks on > > > > >> iconoclasts like JK are typical of people who are really on the > > > > >> defensive. > > > > > -- > > > > John Kennaugh > > > --------------------------- > > MR PD > > waht is your defintion og a single photon?? > > > here is a defintion ifound in VIKI: > > quote : > > > A method of computed tomography that uses radionuclides which emit *a > > single photon of a given energy. *The camera is rotated 180 or 360 > > degrees around the patient to capture images at multiple positions > > along the arc. The computer is > > etc > > end of quote: > > Oh, dear. You can't even look up "photon" in Wikipedia? > > > that single photon is emited all around the body of the patient > > soit is clearly not a photon as defined by nature > > but by the arbitarry humen defintion of ONE SECOND > > A SO IT IS ACTUALLY ---- > > > so a single photon there is > > a photon that has a constant wave length > > ( per second ) > > > so wHat do we know about a real single photon > > as a creation of nature > > you will not sugget that that single photon defined by nature > > is commited to the humen definition of > > one second > > for insatnce > > a singlephoton that is created by say > > a radiactive element > > does not know what is A SECOND > > dont you think so ?? > > sohow longit takes a rwdiactive element > > to emit a single photon > > or how long it takes for a particle like a NEUTRON > > to emit a single photon and and become > > a PROTON > > is it 1.000000 second ??? > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------ so just help me what is a single photon according to you ?? TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------
From: PD on 8 Feb 2010 15:41
On Feb 8, 2:24 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 10:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 8, 12:08 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 8, 5:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 8, 3:57 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > PD 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. > > > > > > I find it somewhat hypocritical of physicists to make such claims to > > > > > justify their belief system on the one hand and then apply laws way way > > > > > way beyond what has been tested in say the case of black holes and come > > > > > up with a 'singularity' which is then presented without a 'health > > > > > warning' as established fact. > > > > > But black holes are not established fact, although in there is now > > > > quite an assembly of evidence surrounding pretty solid black hole > > > > candidates. > > > > > The statement I made has been clearly established by a number of clear > > > > experimental confirmations. Is it your belief that EVERY open question > > > > needs to be closed before you would give the statement any > > > > credibility? > > > > > > >> Your attacks on > > > > > >> iconoclasts like JK are typical of people who are really on the > > > > > >> defensive. > > > > > > -- > > > > > John Kennaugh > > > > --------------------------- > > > MR PD > > > waht is your defintion og a single photon?? > > > > here is a defintion ifound in VIKI: > > > quote : > > > > A method of computed tomography that uses radionuclides which emit *a > > > single photon of a given energy. *The camera is rotated 180 or 360 > > > degrees around the patient to capture images at multiple positions > > > along the arc. The computer is > > > etc > > > end of quote: > > > Oh, dear. You can't even look up "photon" in Wikipedia? > > > > that single photon is emited all around the body of the patient > > > soit is clearly not a photon as defined by nature > > > but by the arbitarry humen defintion of ONE SECOND > > > A SO IT IS ACTUALLY ---- > > > > so a single photon there is > > > a photon that has a constant wave length > > > ( per second ) > > > > so wHat do we know about a real single photon > > > as a creation of nature > > > you will not sugget that that single photon defined by nature > > > is commited to the humen definition of > > > one second > > > for insatnce > > > a singlephoton that is created by say > > > a radiactive element > > > does not know what is A SECOND > > > dont you think so ?? > > > sohow longit takes a rwdiactive element > > > to emit a single photon > > > or how long it takes for a particle like a NEUTRON > > > to emit a single photon and and become > > > a PROTON > > > is it 1.000000 second ??? > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------------ > > so just help me > what is a single photon according to you ?? A single photon is determined by the instantaneous delivery of energy and momentum to a charged particle, in an all-or-none fashion, and in a way that the energy and momentum transfer is strictly determined by the measurable wavelength (or frequency) of the light. That is, if the energy deposited is not all-or-nothing, or that amount is not in strict accord with that expected from the measured wavelength (or frequency) of that light, then the deposit is not due to a single photon. It is distinguished from other candidate quanta by the fact that it has no electric charge and no strong charge, by the fact that it carries a quantum number called "spin" (but which has no bearing on macroscopic rotation) of value 1 and a few other distinctive properties. It is certainly easy to detect single photons and to recognize them as single by the signature above. Please write the above down and put it next to your computer, so that I will not have to repeat it tomorrow when you've forgotten everything that happened today. > > TIA > Y.Porat > ---------------------------- |