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 15:59 On Feb 9, 1:07 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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: I have answered all your questions .. your implication that you have had to ask me over and over and I have not answered is totally wrong, as anyone reading would know.. > before i send you to Josef Goebbels .... Why .. is he a friend of yours? > actually for the other readers !! > and dont tell me you answered that before Why not? .. its the truth. Don't you like the truth? > COUNTING ON IT THAT NO ONE WILL BOTHER > TO DIG DOZENS OF POSTS BACKWARDS I know that *you* won't .. apparently you're too lazy to read them when I post them, let alone look in the thread history. > just say ot again in this last post I doubt this will be your last post > just lets make ot for the other resders > without obfuscations I have not obfuscated at all. > can yopu fo r a change > sunmerise our discussion and your answers to me What do you mean 'for a change'? > IN SHORT !!!?? > so it wil be clear and simple for any reader: Fine .. I have been clear all the time so far. Maybe this will give YOU a chance to make your points clearly. > ----------------- > > 1 > what is your definition about > what is a single photon that > QM is claiming that it i s interfering with itself I already answered that. My definition is what science defines for a photon. I have no reason to offer a different definition than that, as the definition used by science is supported by many years of theory and research. It is the quantum object that is associated with EMR (eg light). Please refer to any physics text, or even the Wikipedia article on photons (which is fairly good) for more information. > 2 > you agreed with me alreay that > natures physical processes > and THE TIME IT LAST > are not committed to our second Of course it isn't. Noone claimed it did > ie to be lasting say > 1.0000000 second fo r instance It can last for a second .. i lasts for as long as it lasts. > ie > th e definition of a *single photon* > has nothing to do with duration of one second Of course not > 9that is an arbitrary humen definition of time ??!! Of course it is. Why are you making points that are irrelevant to the discussion and arguing against things that have not been claimed? > 3 > if not lasting one second > how long it lasts ?? say for a certain wave length It lasts as long as it lasts .. from a tiny fraction of a second up to millions of years. Photons do not decay. It is created when emitted and destroyed when absorbed/whatever. > 4 > did anyone ever tried to find out experimentally > *the minimal time * a single photon interference take place It all depends on the scenario. Generally we don't make double-clip experiments very small, because then the results detected 'image' would be small. It is better to make them larger so that the image is larger (so can get finer resolution). There is no reason to find what you are askign for as it is not a particularly interesting question. That one does indeed get self-photon interference effects, as predicted theoretically, is what is interesting.
From: artful on 8 Feb 2010 16:08 On Feb 9, 5:08 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 That is NOT a definition of a single photon. Gees. Didn't you even look at the article on wikipedia on "photon". Here's a hint ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon > etc > end of quote: > that single photon is emited all around the body of the patient No .. LOTS of single photons are emitted, single photons (at a time) by each of the radionuclides You really need to learn to read. > soit is clearly not a photon as defined by nature > but by the arbitarry humen defintion of ONE SECOND There was no mention of a second. Photons are NOT defined by the second. > A SO IT IS ACTUALLY ---- > so a single photon there is > a photon that has a constant wave length > ( per second ) Where did you get that? What do you mean by "wave length (per second)" .. wavelength, frequency or velocity? > so wHat do we know about a real single photon > as a creation of nature Lots > you will not sugget that that single photon defined by nature > is commited to the humen definition of > one second There is NO physics definition of a photon that is based on a second. No matter how much you argue against this non-existent definition. > for insatnce > a singlephoton that is created by say > a radiactive element > does not know what is A SECOND > dont you think so ?? Noone says it does. You are deluded if you think science says it is > sohow longit takes a rwdiactive element > to emit a single photon It all depends on when you start your timing from for a start. And on the half-life of the element. Its random .. there is no single definite answer. > 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 ??? of course not. Where do you come up with this stuff?
From: Y.Porat on 9 Feb 2010 00:33 On Feb 8, 10:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 ----------------------- nice !!! but you still RIGHT AT YOUR BEGINNING ddint define that INSTANTANEOUS !!! ..... ---------------------- > and momentum to a charged particle, in an all-or-none fashion, ---------------------- nice a gain but... all or none fashion is very nice as well but abstract talking that does not tell us something specific ie looks better as legal words of a contract .... -------------- and in > a way that the energy and momentum transfer is strictly determined by > the measurable wavelength (or frequency) of the light. ------------------- agree about that ---------- 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. ------------------- ok though still very abstract iow some concrete examples would not hurt .... ------------------- It is distinguished from other candidate quanta by the fact > that it has no electric charge and no strong charge ---------------- ????? gamma photons cannot be single photons ??!! -------------------- , by the fact that > it carries a quantum number called "spin" (but which has no bearing on > macroscopic rotation) ---------------------- thatis your personal understanding!! and not proven iow even you dont **really* know wht is spin...!! and you must admit that it is* not enough * to know what it is not* but what it ***is*** iow a lot is still unknown !1 it is very important to assert it in order of not deluding say students of physics or Chemistry ------------------------------- -------------- 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. ------------------- not at alleasy!! because you still didnty tell us a specific definition about the TIME DURATION OF A SINGLE PHOTON and i am telling you: AS LONG AS YOU DONT DEFINE **NUMERICALLY** AND QUANTITATIVELY THE TIME DURATION THAT THIS PHOTON WAS 'WORKING* YOU DDINT TELL US ***WHAT IS A SINGLE PHOTON !!!** and in my humble opinion or knowledge you have to add on it an explanation that in order to define a single photon we must make sure that THERE ARE THERE NO MORE THAN ONE PHOTON IE NO ADDITIONAL PHOTONS THAT WORK PARALLEL TO THAT PHOTON!! 2 as far as i know while dealing witha single photon no one ever was detecting and defining the exact *duration* that that *single* photon was 'working' *(after all we are dealing with work as well... ) and beside that time duration criterion (that cant be committed !!)--- ------ i doubt if it was ever made sure that there are no parallel photons working!! unless it will be proven other wise !! > > 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. ------------------ thank you PD for( unlke other farthers here..) you gave a vast definition though not all along a complete definition so please in addition that i will remember your definition **you ** will add on it my additional indispensable remarks (:-) 3 it is only now if (not done before) that we can start to do the real single photon interfering with itself BUT STILL THERE IS ANOTHER CONDITION THAT WE MUST KEEP IN MIND: AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS NO SOME LOWER LIMIT OF(photon ) ENERGY THAT BELOW IT THERE IS NO MORE INTERFERENCE OF THOSE 'SINGLE PHOTONS !! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------- ATB Y.Porat ------------ > > > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ----------------------------
From: BURT on 9 Feb 2010 00:57 On Jan 24, 3:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Can a *single** physical entity-** be** (exist ) **at the same time**- > in two **separated* locations ??!! > > that question was raised about the possibility of - > 'interference of a ***single photon** -with itself '... > > yet it can be asked about other physical phenomena as well > > TIA > Y.Porat Everything in the universe is in the same instant all of the time regardless of proper time or rate. Now is always and everywhere. Can you ask yourself: have I ever went anywhere and it failed to be in the now? Mitch Raemsch
From: artful on 9 Feb 2010 00:59
On Feb 9, 4:33 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 10:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 8, 2:24 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > so just help me > > > what is a single photon according to you ?? > > > A single photon is determined by the instantaneous delivery of energy > > ----------------------- > nice !!! > but you still RIGHT AT YOUR BEGINNING ddint define that > INSTANTANEOUS !!! ..... You mean you don't know what it means? ... look up a dictionary. > ---------------------- > > > and momentum to a charged particle, in an all-or-none fashion, > > ---------------------- > nice a gain but... > all or none fashion > is very nice as well > but abstract talking that does not tell us > something specific Yes .. it does. It tells you either ALL of it is transferred, or none. > ie > looks better as legal words of a contract .... > -------------- > and in> a way that the energy and momentum transfer is strictly determined by > > the measurable wavelength (or frequency) of the light. > > ------------------- > agree about that > ---------- > > 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. > > ------------------- > ok > though still very abstract No .. its not abstract at all. > iow > some concrete examples would not hurt .... Gees > ------------------- > It is distinguished from other candidate quanta by the fact> that it has no electric charge and no strong charge > > ---------------- > ????? > gamma photons cannot be single photons ??!! Of course they are. What makes you ask such a silly question? > -------------------- > > , by the fact that> it carries a quantum number called "spin" (but which has no bearing on > > macroscopic rotation) > > ---------------------- > thatis your personal understanding!! > and not proven It is as proven as any 'facts' in physics. It is what we observe to happen. > iow > even you dont **really* know wht is spin...!! We don't know what any basic property is, other than it is what it is. Do you know what charge is (for example)? > and you must admit that it is* not enough * to know > what it is not* > but what it ***is*** We know all that we need to know in order to 'do physics'. > iow > a lot is still unknown !1 > it is very important to assert it > in order of not deluding say > students of physics or Chemistry There is no delusion going on. Enough is known to do the physics and chemistry that students do. That we do not know absolutely EVERYTHING does not mean that we cannot teach and use what we DO know. > ------------------------------- > -------------- > 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. > > ------------------- > not at alleasy!! No .. it is very easy > because you still didnty tell us > a specific definition about > the > TIME DURATION OF A SINGLE PHOTON Their duration is from when they are created to when they are destroyed. > and i am telling you: > AS LONG AS YOU DONT DEFINE **NUMERICALLY** > AND QUANTITATIVELY THE > TIME DURATION THAT THIS PHOTON WAS 'WORKING* > YOU DDINT TELL US > ***WHAT IS A SINGLE PHOTON !!!** It exists for as long as it exists. How long it exists makes no difference to what it is. > and > in my humble opinion or knowledge > you have to add on it > an explanation that > in order to define a single photon > we must make sure that > THERE ARE THERE NO MORE THAN ONE PHOTON > IE NO ADDITIONAL PHOTONS THAT WORK > PARALLEL TO THAT PHOTON!! All that was discussed was a single photon. WE can detect single photons quite easily experimentally. Multiple photons are just multiples of a single photon. What is this so confusing for you? > 2 > as far as i know > while dealing witha single photon > no one ever was detecting and defining the exact > *duration* that that *single* photon was 'working' > *(after all we are dealing with work as well... ) Of course they have. We know how long the photon exists in (say) a double-slit experiment because we know the distance it travels and the speed it travels. > and beside that time duration criterion > (that cant be committed !!)--- What? > ------ i doubt if it was ever made sure > that there are no parallel photons working!! > unless it will be proven other wise !! We can detect single photons. We KNOW they are single photons because they satify the definitino of a single photon. > > 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. > > ------------------ > thank you PD for( unlke other farthers here..) > you gave a vast definition Pretty much what I had said. > though not all along a complete definition I gave you a link to the wikipedia page that has quite a lot of good information and definitions of what a photon is. > so > please > in addition that i will remember your definition > **you ** will add on it > my additional indispensable remarks (:-) What? You didn't say anything relevant to the definition of a photon at all. > 3 > it is only now if (not done before) > that we can start to do the real > single photon interfering with itself > > BUT STILL THERE IS ANOTHER CONDITION THAT WE MUST KEEP IN MIND: > AND MAKE SURE THAT > THERE IS NO SOME LOWER LIMIT OF(photon ) ENERGY > THAT BELOW IT THERE IS NO MORE INTERFERENCE OF THOSE 'SINGLE > PHOTONS !! ... ATM you do not even accept that the photon interferes with itself. So it is pointless discussing with you the lower limits of photon energy at which such interference has been found experimentally. There is really no point in looking for such a limit as it is of no theoretical interest wrt that experiment. |