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 26 Jan 2010 02:20 On Jan 25, 8:50 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 -------------------- seems mostly right but you still ddint answer the op question ..... do you suggest to just sit back and lift our hands up ??? TIA Y.Porat --------------------
From: Y.Porat on 26 Jan 2010 02:35 On Jan 25, 9:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. ------------------- before you speak IN BEHALF OF NATURE: PD generally - not always -you can read my thoughts before i spill it clear cut so didnt you guess waht really i was thinking as a solution ?? so for you i will spill it out loud and clear :: how about the possibility that some of your basic assumptions is wrong?? how about that YOU DONT HAVE THERE JUST A SINGLE PHOTON BUT TWO OR MORE OF THEM ?? HOW ABOUT THAT YOUR DEFINITION OF A 'SINGLE PHOOTN--IS WRONG ?? 2 how do you reconcile the HUP with a single photon interfering with itself by passing at the same time through two lits that are far more distance than the phootn or photon wave size (unless you are cheating about the SINGLE photn wave spread in space or may be you only* think* you know how it spreads ?? 3 if SINGLE (again SINGLE ) electron size is about one angstrom what is the spread in (in Angstroms) of its wave in all directions ?? ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- ATB Y.Porat --------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 26 Jan 2010 02:41 On Jan 26, 1:11 am, Rock Brentwood <markw...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. -------------------- if you whant totell us that we weredealing not actually with a single entity but a few or many ofthem i am withyou 2 if you suggest that the eelctron is divisible and not a final particle i am again with you !!! because i could add here the 3 letters Q.E..D (quandun est demonstrantum) speling (:-) ATB Y.Porat --------------------
From: Y.Porat on 26 Jan 2010 04:38 On Jan 26, 1:11 am, Rock Brentwood <markw...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. --------------------- now i read again your post more intentively: your example is not answering my question because i was asking a bout a single physical entity ie that you cant sub divide it !! if in that condition you agree with me that there is one answer to it than i am with you if we are dealing with a physical entity that canbe subdivided or not jsut one single enetity your answer will be THAT WE DIOSCOVWERED IT THQAT THE SINGLE ELECTRON IS SUBDIVIDED !!! 2 AT THE CASE OF A SINGLE PHOTON WE DISCOVER THAT IF IT CAN 'INTERFERE WITH ITSLF'' IT IS** NOT** A SINGLE PHOTON BUT AT LEAST Two OF THEM !! and we actually discovered here a problem with the definition of ''' A SINGLE PHOTON''' !!! if you agree with me than Q E D as above ATB Y.Porat --------------------- ATB Y.Porat --------------------
From: Tom Roberts on 26 Jan 2010 10:23
Rock Brentwood wrote: > And by "identical" means: "the very same object in each and every one > of those places at the same time". Nobody else would call a BUNCH of identical objects "the very same object". You do violence to the language. They may be identical and indistinguishable, but they are not the same one. In QM one must (anti-)symmetrize the amplitude over identical objects. But this does not apply to a SINGLE such object, and in (anti-)symmetrizing the amplitude for N of them one shows that there are N of them, not a single one. Such PUNs on "single" or "very same" are not useful. > 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. No. Again, nobody else would use those words that way. This bump and that bump CAN be distinguished by following them in time, or merely by pointing [#]. Bumps in the ocean are NOT the same sort of identicalness/indistinguishability as elementary particles, for the simple reason that one CAN distinguish them, and one need not (anti-)symmetrize an amplitude over all such bumps. [#] one cannot do this for elementary particles. Tom Roberts |