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: PD on 25 Jan 2010 14:21 On Jan 25, 1:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In article <904c3d49-a5f8-4b48-bb1d-e61c24f6b6f9 > @a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > 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. > > Nature tells us what happens, not mathematical constructs. I know you > are unable to understand there is a difference between nature and a > mathematical construct, but you would be doing us all a favor if you > would stop preaching the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation of > QM as nature. If you want to preach QM as a mathematical interpretation > of nature, then so be it. But you should spare us the absurdity nature > is a mathematical construct. > > In nature, particles travel single paths and waves propagate available > paths. > > 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. You are now spending all your time just reiterating your previous statements to me, as though attempting to shout me down or have the last word is going to convince anybody of anything. You are now officially and pathologically obsessed, and it has crippled from doing what you YOURSELF said you were going to do -- which is set up and perform the experiment that shows AD is correct. Now that you are pathologically obsessed and incapacitated, at least admit to yourself that you have failed to make any progress.
From: kenseto on 25 Jan 2010 17:54 On Jan 24, 6:54 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b776722c-3456-4240-bb23-cc6c966a61df(a)p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > Can a *single** physical entity-** be** (exist ) **at the same time**- > > in two **separated* locations ??!! > > An interesting question. > > > that question was raised about the possibility of - > > 'interference of a ***single photon** -with itself '... > > We observe individual photons passing thru the double-slit experiment over > time will form an interference pattern. The only thing it can be interfering > with is itself. And if it existed in just one location, then that seems > incongruent. > > The problem is in thinking that a photon having an exact location. It is > not necessarily a single little point .. it is 'fuzzy', with only > probabilities that it can be in certain locations. It is (as I understand) > those probabilities 'clouds' that 'interfere' with each other, so the > probabilities of the photon being at a location on the detector screen form > an interference pattern. Hence when a photon must 'decide' on being in a > certain location, those locations over time reflect that probability > distribution. > > Quantum physics is strange, and often counter-intuitive. > > > yet it can be asked about other physical phenomena as well > > Indeed it can. Everything has wave/particle duality .. but whether the > wave-like or particle-like behavior dominates depends on the mass (again, as > I understand, I'm not as familiar with the details of quantum physics as I > am with SR). Apparently you don't understand SR neither....SR says that a photon will follow a straight line along the x-axis on its way to the target....that gives x=ct. Of course this assertion of SR violate the uncertainty principle of QM. Ken Seto
From: Rock Brentwood on 25 Jan 2010 18:11 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 ??!! Here's a way to DIRECTLY address the issue. Suppose you have not just two apparently identical entities, but an entire assemblage of them. Make a container with an impermeable divider separating two of its halves. Place half the entities in one end of the container and the other hand in the other end. I'm assuming here that there are sufficiently large numbers of these entities that we can treat the assembly as a gas. Open up the divider. If the entities are each and every one, the "very same object in all these places at once", then upon opening the container there will be no mixing involved because they will already be "mixed". Hence, there will be no increase in entropy and no heat absorption or turbulence. If they are all different objects, that just happen to appear the same, then upon opening the divider, there will be a thermal shock associated with the sudden increase in entropy arising from the mixing that ensues. Two are two examples to illustrate this: (1) the "container" is a room with an air-tight seal for a door separating two parts of it. One end contains ordinary air, the other contains a different mixture of air (e.g. with a larger concentration of CO2 or nitrogen, etc.) (2) the same as (1), except that both sides of the room start out with the same composition of air. When the seal is opened, in situation (1) there will be mixing, but not in (2). This shows that each type of molecule is IDENTICAL with all the other molecules of the same type everywhere else in the room. And by "identical" means: "the very same object in each and every one of those places at the same time". A simple physical interpretation and visualization of this is as follows: the molecules (or, more fundamentally, the particles making them up) are each "bumps" on a universal ocean. In an actual ocean, if you have two bumps (say, A and B) on the surface of the same shape, then it's the EXACT same situation, if you have the bumps (B and A) in reversed locations. That's because the bumps have no individual identity, literally, but only define the contour of the ocean. Therefore, they are -- in effect -- the very same object at two places at once.
From: tadchem on 25 Jan 2010 18:23 On Jan 25, 2:33 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 24, 11:38 pm, tadchem <tadc...(a)comcast.net> 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 ??!! > > > > 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 > > > How do you define a "single physical entity"? If you do not require it > > to be a 'point particle' then the December 26, 2004 tsunami was a > > single physical entity. It struck several places around the Indian > > ocean, including striking *simultaneously" ot two "separated" > > locations - Sri Lanka and the east coast of India.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/2004_Indonesia_Tsu... > > > Tom Davidson > > Richmond, VA > > ---------------- > a hint: > one of the big problems about it > is in that 'single photon' ....... > > anyway > it is clear(as i see it) that the size or width > of a single photon and even photon path- > is less than the distance between the two slits!!!..... > > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------ Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - HUP - Unbestimmtheit 'delta X times delta E is greater than or equal to h-bar' If you know the energy of the photon you *don't* know the position or size, and vice versa. If you 'know' the photon is smaller than the distance bvetween the two slits, you are correspondingly uncertain about its energy. Recall that the photon is NOT a particle and is NOT a wave, but is perhaps best modelled as a time-variant four-tensor in Minkowski space. The Schroedinger equation for a quantized EM field in four- space will tell you all you want to know, IF you know how to solve it. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA
From: Y.Porat on 26 Jan 2010 02:16
On Jan 25, 12:05 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> 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 ??!! > > > 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 > ------------------- wrong AFAIK it was allegedly* right* for a *single*'' electron wave --as well Y.P ----------------------- 11 > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > http://www.hitachi.com/rd/research/em/doubleslit.html |