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: Y.Porat on 9 Feb 2010 01:57 On Feb 9, 7:59 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. --------------------- next (:-) Y.P ------------------
From: Y.Porat on 9 Feb 2010 02:08 On Feb 8, 11:08 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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? ------------------- imbecile the h factor is joules ** times* time !! did you notices that time ?? it means it is *time duration *dependent !! so what we defined until now (even with PD) IS NOT A SINGLE PHOTON it is the definition of an **endless number of DIFFERENT ** single photons** anyway i am fed up with discussions With you you are not an honest person !! BYE Y.P --------------
From: artful on 9 Feb 2010 03:34 On Feb 9, 5:57 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 9, 7:59 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > --------------------- > next (:-) > > Y.P > ------------------ I guess then you agree with what I said
From: artful on 9 Feb 2010 03:36 On Feb 9, 6:08 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 11:08 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > ------------------- > imbecile Again you cannot discuss physics without the pathetic name calling > the h factor is > joules ** times* time !! > did you notices that time ?? So what? The 'h' factor isn't a property of a photon, its a universal constant. > it means it is *time duration *dependent !! No .. it is not. E = hf says that the energy of the photon is dependent on the frequency. It doesn't matter about time duration. > so what we defined until now > (even with PD) > IS NOT A SINGLE PHOTON Yes .. it is. > it is the definition of an **endless number of DIFFERENT > ** single photons** No .. it is not. It is a SINGLE photon we have been discussing with you. Clearly you don't understand physics > anyway > i am fed up with discussions With you > you are not an honest person !! You are the one who continually lied. I did not. You are a cheat and a fraud
From: Y.Porat on 9 Feb 2010 05:05
On Feb 9, 10:36 am, a > > > ------------------- > > imbecile > > Again you cannot discuss physics without the pathetic name calling > > > the h factor is > > joules ** times* time !! > > did you notices that time ?? > > So what? The 'h' factor isn't a property of a photon, its a universal > constant. > > > it means it is *time duration *dependent !! > > No .. it is not. E = hf says that the energy of the photon is > dependent on the frequency. It doesn't matter about time duration. > > > so what we defined until now > > (even with PD) > > IS NOT A SINGLE PHOTON > > Yes .. it is. > > > it is the definition of an **endless number of DIFFERENT > > ** single photons** > > No .. it is not. It is a SINGLE photon we have been discussing with > you. > > Clearly you don't understand physics > > > anyway > > i am fed up with discussions With you > > you are not an honest person !! > > You are the one who continually lied. I did not. You are a cheat and > a fraud ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- you are not a partner for discussion i will explain it fo r the other readers the photon is time lasting dependent that dependence is defined by f/second now you have no way to find out how long that lasted it is mostly a fraction of a second now there is a difference between armchair physics and what is happening in rearlility your current tools are not sensitive enough (or no one bothered to check) even inside the detectable range if it was a continuously emmited phootn or may be it was a fraction of time of interval inside that emission (chain of waves) iow you have no way to verify for instance if it was emmited during 2 continuous nano secnds or **two **emissions of 1 nanop second (with a very short interval between them ) iow you have no way to show that a photon **as detected by your tools is not ***sub divided *** !! (by a very short fraction of time ) between the two parts if the emitting electron in the atom is not orbiting but ** VIBRATING!!** THAT IS MORE LIKELY TO BE THE CASE!! since a vibration process is composed of some amplitude of movement and later a short time of stand still while the vibration is changing direction backwards but that is to much for the anonymous Artful i explained it fore the other readers BYE Y.P ----------------------- |