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 09:35 On Feb 9, 7:33 am, "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: > > > > 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 ... > > read more » -------------------- and in addition to the above we dont have a paractical way to prove that our tested phootn that is composed of many wave lenghts is continuous !! you cant know if there are some short intervals separating those waves iow you have mo way to make sure that your 'single photon' because there is a limit of acuracy sensitive enough in our current experimental tools to notice ie NOT SUBDIVIDED !!! (even in short intervals !) ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- ----------------
From: maxwell on 9 Feb 2010 10:46 On Feb 4, 10:55 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 4, 6:55 pm, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > No, not at the same time. This is the key property defining ONE > > entity: one location in space at one time. The problem here is > > thinking of the photon as an entity. It is not - it is an interaction > > ----------------------- > th e process of which it is created > is not our issue > we deal with the photon as we detect it > iow for me a physical entity is something that we can > detect it > than can be used etc > - > by our tools > so you can cal it as you like > ----------------------------- > > > between TWO entities (electrons) > > photons a created not by electrons > it can be created by nuclear spontaneous reactions > that we dont have much understanding how it is created > etc etc > . Relationships do NOT have the same> ontological grounding > > ???? > > as the entities that define them - think of> divorce occurring to breakup the marriage between two people. > > ------------------ > i ddint invent for instance the idea > that a single photon or electron is interfering with itsef > and i am dealing with it as defined by current > 'modern physics 'as a start point ** > ie that is my start point from wichi go on > > if you claim that a single photon or electron > can or cannot interfere with itself > your dispute is not with me > but with current paradigms > 2 > if you followed me all along --- > my claim is that until now > 'a single photon* has never been defined reasonable > and interfering with itself-- > is not logic and **is**as well in contradiction to HUP!! > > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------- Photon? As LaPlace replied to Napoleon, when asked about God: "I have no need for that hypothesis."
From: Y.Porat on 9 Feb 2010 11:52
On Feb 9, 5:46 pm, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > On Feb 4, 10:55 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 6:55 pm, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > No, not at the same time. This is the key property defining ONE > > > entity: one location in space at one time. The problem here is > > > thinking of the photon as an entity. It is not - it is an interaction > > > ----------------------- > > th e process of which it is created > > is not our issue > > we deal with the photon as we detect it > > iow for me a physical entity is something that we can > > detect it > > than can be used etc > > - > > by our tools > > so you can cal it as you like > > ----------------------------- > > > > between TWO entities (electrons) > > > photons a created not by electrons > > it can be created by nuclear spontaneous reactions > > that we dont have much understanding how it is created > > etc etc > > . Relationships do NOT have the same> ontological grounding > > > ???? > > > as the entities that define them - think of> divorce occurring to breakup the marriage between two people. > > > ------------------ > > i ddint invent for instance the idea > > that a single photon or electron is interfering with itsef > > and i am dealing with it as defined by current > > 'modern physics 'as a start point ** > > ie that is my start point from wichi go on > > > if you claim that a single photon or electron > > can or cannot interfere with itself > > your dispute is not with me > > but with current paradigms > > 2 > > if you followed me all along --- > > my claim is that until now > > 'a single photon* has never been defined reasonable > > and interfering with itself-- > > is not logic and **is**as well in contradiction to HUP!! > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > ------------------- > > Photon? As LaPlace replied to Napoleon, when asked about God: "I have > no need for that hypothesis." ------------------ let me explain again the HUP itis not god and not a theory of mine: the HUP tells us that if you know and detect the EXACT location of say the electron *you cant tell anything anything sure about its MOMENTUM!! (bythe very fact that you detected its location you spoiled something in that photon momentum (or may be even the eelctron entity ??) in adition to it; while you intervene with your massive detector it collided with the electron and you dont kno what has that collision did to the collided electron either you destroyed it either you chaged its direction etc etc is it clear ?? do you understand its outcomes ?? had that so alleged electon wave interfering with itself you DO know th e momentum of the photon after passing the slits by knowing its wave length after passing the slits !! so if you dont want a contradiction to the HUP you must get the conclusion that it was not a **single** photon that was passing the two slits and sense came back to that effect !!!! ATB Y.Porat ------------------- ATB Y.Porat --------------------- |