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 25 Jan 2010 12:52 On Jan 25, 6:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. ------------------ acociated wave is IMHO not the particle travling on the right leane and the wave 'traveling on a neighboring lane ' (:-) or it is ** not* a particle that 'carries on its back a wave ' !!! the particle is a wave it is matter masive -sub particles that behaves as a wave because of the movement of those subparticles OTHA a photon might be even a point particle that moves as well in circular paths AND at that time moveng in a straight line ie a combined movement (a haeelix ??) anyway mostly in our practical lives we do not meet single photons they come in huge **'bundles** of single photons !! ATB Y.Porat --------------------- it is just one single lane !! ATB Y.Porat -------------
From: paparios on 25 Jan 2010 13:50 On 25 ene, 15:05, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > If the photon/electron is matter traveling a single lane, then the > analogy of the boat and its bow wave fits. > > The photon/electron as matter traveling a single lane has an associated > displacement wave in the aether which travels all available lanes. The > photon/electron as matter travels a single lane 'in the wave'. > > If a 'displacement wave in the aether' is too much for you to consider > at this stage as to what occurs physically in nature, then consider the > wave to be the 'external field acting on the particle'. > > de Broglie: > > "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. Feynman's introduction is quite revealing about what QM is: "QM is the description of the behavior of matter and light in all its details and, in particular, of the happenings on an atomic scale. Things on a very small scale behave like nothing that you have direct experience about. They do not behave like waves, they do not behave like particles, they do not behave like clouds, or billiard balls, or weights on springs, or like anything that you have ever seen". So we learn that neither particles nor waves are a correct model of nature at atomic scale. He then continues: "Newton thought that light was made of particles, but then it was discovered that it behaves like a wave. later, however (in the beginning of the 20th century), it was found that light did indeed sometimes behave like a particle. Historically, the electron, for example, was thought to behave like a particle, and then it was found that in many respects it behaved like a wave. So it really behaves like neither. Now we have given up. We say: "It is like neither".". So, the conclusion is that the electron is neither a particle nor a wave, but has some characteristics of both. He then continues: "There is one lucky break, however --electrons behave just like light. The quantum behavior of atomic objects (electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, and so on) is the same for all, they are all "particle waves" or whatever you want to call them". Thus, studying the properties of electrons, allow scientists to apply the same results to all the entities, including photons of light. Miguel Rios
From: mpc755 on 25 Jan 2010 13:59 On Jan 25, 1:50 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 ene, 15:05, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > If the photon/electron is matter traveling a single lane, then the > > analogy of the boat and its bow wave fits. > > > The photon/electron as matter traveling a single lane has an associated > > displacement wave in the aether which travels all available lanes. The > > photon/electron as matter travels a single lane 'in the wave'. > > > If a 'displacement wave in the aether' is too much for you to consider > > at this stage as to what occurs physically in nature, then consider the > > wave to be the 'external field acting on the particle'. > > > de Broglie: > > > "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. > > Feynman's introduction is quite revealing about what QM is: > > "QM is the description of the behavior of matter and light in all its > details and, in particular, of the happenings on an atomic scale. > Things on a very small scale behave like nothing that you have direct > experience about. They do not behave like waves, they do not behave > like particles, they do not behave like clouds, or billiard balls, or > weights on springs, or like anything that you have ever seen". > > So we learn that neither particles nor waves are a correct model of > nature at atomic scale. > > He then continues: > > "Newton thought that light was made of particles, but then it was > discovered that it behaves like a wave. later, however (in the > beginning of the 20th century), it was found that light did indeed > sometimes behave like a particle. Historically, the electron, for > example, was thought to behave like a particle, and then it was found > that in many respects it behaved like a wave. So it really behaves > like neither. Now we have given up. We say: "It is like neither".". > > So, the conclusion is that the electron is neither a particle nor a > wave, but has some characteristics of both. > > He then continues: > > "There is one lucky break, however --electrons behave just like light. > The quantum behavior of atomic objects (electrons, protons, neutrons, > photons, and so on) is the same for all, they are all "particle waves" > or whatever you want to call them". > > Thus, studying the properties of electrons, allow scientists to apply > the same results to all the entities, including photons of light. > > Miguel Rios Like I said, if you do not want to understand nature, study Feynman. If you want to understand nature, study 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, altering the direction the particle travels. de Broglie understanding of nature is simply the physical 'particle' traveling a single path and the associated physical wave propagating available paths. Just like we understand particles and waves to be.
From: PD on 25 Jan 2010 14:01 On Jan 24, 5:09 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 It's called quantum entanglement, if you want to do some further reading. And yes, it apparently can and does happen, as revealed in experiment. This may come as a surprise, because I'm sure you believe that certain things just cannot happen. But nature tells us what can and cannot happen, not our own minds.
From: paparios on 25 Jan 2010 14:19
On 25 ene, 15:59, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 25, 1:50 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Like I said, if you do not want to understand nature, study Feynman. > > If you want to understand nature, study 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, altering the direction > the particle travels. > > de Broglie understanding of nature is simply the physical 'particle' > traveling a single path and the associated physical wave propagating > available paths. Just like we understand particles and waves to be. Well he was just wrong while, on the other hand, QM is one of the most successful theories to date. Most of the gadgets you and I are using to write in this group are based on the results of QM. Miguel Rios |