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: mpc755 on 25 Jan 2010 11:15 On Jan 25, 7:08 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 25, 12:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 24, 6:09 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 ??!! > > > Yes, a wave. > > > > that question was raised about the possibility of - > > > 'interference of a ***single photon** -with itself '... > > > The photon 'particle' does not 'interfere' with itself. The photon > > wave exits the slits and creates interference which alters the > > direction the photon 'particle' travels. > > > If you want to consider that to be 'interfering' with itself then go > > right ahead, but there is a physical wave propagating available paths > > and a 'particle' traveling a single path. > > > A 'particle' does not travel multiple paths. > > > > yet it can be asked about other physical phenomena as well > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > ---------------------- > lets forgot for while about the photon > and take a *single electron* > > you say that the electron is a wave as well > right > so > how is the HUP (Heisengerg undertainty pronciple) > compatible with ---- > the your **single electron wave ** (SINGLE ELECTRON!! ) as it is > explained by current theory -- > claiming and explaining (as the experiment show ) > that single photon is interfering with itself ???!!! > in order that a particle will interfere with itself > *it must be **at the same time ****!! --- > The wave associated with the 'particle' propagates the available slits. The 'particle' travels a single slit. The wave creates interference upon exiting the slits. The interference alters the direction the 'particle' travels. > in the two slits **!!! > > btw > do you consider the electron as a *point particle ??* > anyway > we know for sure what is the size of a single electron even if is > will be moving > (in the Atom its size is about one Angstrom ....) > it is ways less than the distance between > the two slits ...????!! > > TIA > Y.Porat > --------------------- I do not 'know' what a photon is or what an electron is. That is why I continue to refer to a photon as a 'particle' which may be a directed/ pointed wave which when detected collapses and is detected as a quantum of aether. The same holds true for an electron. I do not 'know' if an electron is a directed/pointed wave which collapses and is able to be detected as a 'particle' or if it is a moving particle which has an associated wave. What is important is to understand the ability of the 'particle' to be detected as a particle travels a single path. The associated wave propagates the available paths. The associated wave exits the slits and creates interference. It is this interference which alters the direction the 'particle' travels. Let's start with the basics: - Waves propagate available paths. - 'Particles' travel a single path. - Waves create interference upon exiting multiple slits. - 'Particles' are 'acted upon' by this interference and change direction.
From: mpc755 on 25 Jan 2010 11:22 On Jan 25, 8:46 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:feafa821-0598-4ac4-b2b3-9345f3aee7db(a)g29g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jan 25, 12:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 24, 6:09 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 ??!! > > >> Yes, a wave. > > >> > that question was raised about the possibility of - > >> > 'interference of a ***single photon** -with itself '... > > >> The photon 'particle' does not 'interfere' with itself. The photon > >> wave exits the slits and creates interference which alters the > >> direction the photon 'particle' travels. > > >> If you want to consider that to be 'interfering' with itself then go > >> right ahead, but there is a physical wave propagating available paths > >> and a 'particle' traveling a single path. > > >> A 'particle' does not travel multiple paths. > > >> > yet it can be asked about other physical phenomena as well > > >> > TIA > >> > Y.Porat > > ---------------------- > > lets forgot for while about the photon > > and take a *single electron* > > Fine .. its not any different really at the QM level. > > > you say that the electron is a wave as well > > right > > NO .. MPC has no idea about how physics works. Like you he has an idea of > how he'd LIKE it to work, and ignore common sense and valid physics that > disagrees with it. To him, physics means finding a story that makes some > sort of intuitive sense to him, regardless of whether it make any logical or > physical sense .. its all just hand-waving. > > But (QM) physics says electonrs have wave/particle duality. > Y. Porat, What you have to understand is there are different interpretations of 'QM'. The is the nonsense of the Copenhagen where all you have to do is discuss nature as mathematical constructs like 'wave-functions' and 'probabilities' and the mathematical constructs are nature, which is obviously absurd. Of you can understand the de Broglie (Bhom, Einstein) definition of wave-particle duality and de Broglie's QM understanding of nature which discusses wave-particle duality as a physical wave and a physical 'particle' where the wave propagates available paths and the 'particle' travels a single path: de Broglie: "Any moving particle or object had an associated wave." "I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles." "In my view, the wave is a physical one..." "For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity." "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, the guidance formula. It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." The 'external field acting on the particle' is the interference created by the waves as they exit the slits. > > so > > how is the HUP (Heisengerg undertainty pronciple) > > compatible with ---- > > the your **single electron wave ** (SINGLE ELECTRON!! ) as it is > > explained by current theory -- > > claiming and explaining (as the experiment show ) > > that single photon is interfering with itself ???!!! > > in order that a particle will interfere with itself > > *it must be **at the same time ****!! --- > > > in the two slits **!!! > > No .. it isn't. There is a probability of it being there. It is the > probability 'waves' that interfere with each other and cause a distribution > of probabilities the same as when waves interfere. And so over time you get > the individual photons (or electrons, whatever) forming an 'interference > pattern'. > > > btw > > do you consider the electron as a *point particle ??* > > anyway > > we know for sure what is the size of a single electron even if is > > will be moving > > (in the Atom its size is about one Angstrom ....) > > it is ways less than the distance between > > the two slits ...????!! > > It doesn't really make sense to talk about THE size of an electron.
From: Tom Roberts on 25 Jan 2010 11:33 Y.Porat wrote: > Can a *single** physical entity-** be** (exist ) **at the same time**- > in two **separated* locations ??!! At atomic and sub-atomic scales, there are no unique objects or "single entities", there are only multiple instances of indistinguishable identical quantum objects. In some cases one can identify a single, unique instance of some quantum object, but even then one cannot localize it to any specific (exact) location, much less to two locations. Such quantum objects often (usually) have non-zero probabilities for being at many different places simultaneously, but they do not "exist" at ANY of them.... The underlying problem is your attempt to use words and concepts developed in your everyday life, applying them to situations at radically different scales where those words and concepts simply do not apply. Phenomena at atomic and sub-atomic scales are VERY different from phenomena at human scales. Live with it (you have no choice). LEARN from it (so far you have chosen to remain ignorant). For the traditional two-slit experiment performed with electrons, all one can say is that the individual electrons are detected at the screen, and the locations of a large number of electrons detected at the screen form a curiously structured pattern reminiscent of wave interference. In particular, one cannot say "electrons travel through both slits". And one most definitely cannot claim that electrons "exist" in "both slits" at "the same time" -- anyone who claims that is either a liar, highly self-delusional, or outrageously ignorant. For those who actually are interested, read Volume 3 of _The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics_. Tom Roberts
From: mpc755 on 25 Jan 2010 11:55 On Jan 25, 11:33 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Y.Porat wrote: > > Can a *single** physical entity-** be** (exist ) **at the same time**- > > in two **separated* locations ??!! > > At atomic and sub-atomic scales, there are no unique objects or "single > entities", there are only multiple instances of indistinguishable identical > quantum objects. In some cases one can identify a single, unique instance of > some quantum object, but even then one cannot localize it to any specific > (exact) location, much less to two locations. Such quantum objects often > (usually) have non-zero probabilities for being at many different places > simultaneously, but they do not "exist" at ANY of them.... > > The underlying problem is your attempt to use words and concepts developed in > your everyday life, applying them to situations at radically different scales > where those words and concepts simply do not apply. Phenomena at atomic and > sub-atomic scales are VERY different from phenomena at human scales. Live with > it (you have no choice). LEARN from it (so far you have chosen to remain ignorant). > > For the traditional two-slit experiment performed with electrons, all one can > say is that the individual electrons are detected at the screen, and the > locations of a large number of electrons detected at the screen form a curiously > structured pattern reminiscent of wave interference. In particular, one cannot > say "electrons travel through both slits". And one most definitely cannot claim > that electrons "exist" in "both slits" at "the same time" -- anyone who claims > that is either a liar, highly self-delusional, or outrageously ignorant. > > For those who actually are interested, read Volume 3 of > _The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics_. > > Tom Roberts For those not wanting to understand nature, read Volume 3 of _The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics_. For those interested in understanding nature: 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "Any moving particle or object had an associated wave." "I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles." "In my view, the wave is a physical one..." "For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity." "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, the guidance formula. It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." The 'external field acting on the particle' is the interference created by the waves as they exit the slits, altering the direction the particle travels. In AD, the moving 'particle' has an associated aether wave.
From: mpc755 on 25 Jan 2010 12:10
On Jan 25, 8:46 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:feafa821-0598-4ac4-b2b3-9345f3aee7db(a)g29g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jan 25, 12:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 24, 6:09 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 ??!! > > >> Yes, a wave. > > >> > that question was raised about the possibility of - > >> > 'interference of a ***single photon** -with itself '... > > >> The photon 'particle' does not 'interfere' with itself. The photon > >> wave exits the slits and creates interference which alters the > >> direction the photon 'particle' travels. > > >> If you want to consider that to be 'interfering' with itself then go > >> right ahead, but there is a physical wave propagating available paths > >> and a 'particle' traveling a single path. > > >> A 'particle' does not travel multiple paths. > > >> > yet it can be asked about other physical phenomena as well > > >> > TIA > >> > Y.Porat > > ---------------------- > > lets forgot for while about the photon > > and take a *single electron* > > Fine .. its not any different really at the QM level. > > > you say that the electron is a wave as well > > right > > NO .. MPC has no idea about how physics works. Like you he has an idea of > how he'd LIKE it to work, and ignore common sense and valid physics that > disagrees with it. To him, physics means finding a story that makes some > sort of intuitive sense to him, regardless of whether it make any logical or > physical sense .. its all just hand-waving. > > But (QM) physics says electonrs have wave/particle duality. > Y. Porat, What you have to understand is there are different interpretations of 'QM'. There is the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation where all you have to do is discuss nature as mathematical constructs like 'wave- functions' and 'probabilities' and the mathematical constructs are nature, which is obviously absurd. Or you can understand the de Broglie (Bhom, Einstein) definition of wave-particle duality and de Broglie's QM understanding of nature which discusses wave-particle duality as a physical wave and a physical 'particle' where the wave propagates available paths and the 'particle' travels a single path: de Broglie: "Any moving particle or object had an associated wave." "I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles." "In my view, the wave is a physical one..." "For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity." "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, the guidance formula. It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." The 'external field acting on the particle' is the interference created by the waves as they exit the slits which alters the direction the 'particle' travels. > > so > > how is the HUP (Heisengerg undertainty pronciple) > > compatible with ---- > > the your **single electron wave ** (SINGLE ELECTRON!! ) as it is > > explained by current theory -- > > claiming and explaining (as the experiment show ) > > that single photon is interfering with itself ???!!! > > in order that a particle will interfere with itself > > *it must be **at the same time ****!! --- > > > in the two slits **!!! > > No .. it isn't. There is a probability of it being there. It is the > probability 'waves' that interfere with each other and cause a distribution > of probabilities the same as when waves interfere. And so over time you get > the individual photons (or electrons, whatever) forming an 'interference > pattern'. > > > btw > > do you consider the electron as a *point particle ??* > > anyway > > we know for sure what is the size of a single electron even if is > > will be moving > > (in the Atom its size is about one Angstrom ....) > > it is ways less than the distance between > > the two slits ...????!! > > It doesn't really make sense to talk about THE size of an electron. |