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: Tom Roberts on 26 Jan 2010 11:25 John Kennaugh wrote: > Tom Roberts 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 >> naivet� CAN NOT apply at these scales (look up the Bell inequalities >> and related experiments). > > Nothing you have written there bears > any relevance to my point. Not true. You made a point in the above statement, which is ABSURD. As I said. You may THINK you made some other point, but the absurdity of your "argument" negates everything you said. That was MY point. (But I'll get around to your so-called "point" below.) If I ignore that fundamental error on your part, and interpret the words you used in the usual way relating to the MODEL known as QED (not in the way you clearly intended to use them as applying to the physical world), your claim is still wrong: In QED a "single photon" DOES "interfere with itself", in the following sense: in configuration space when computing a given diagram one must sum the amplitudes for all possible paths to obtain the total amplitude for a given process. This summing of amplitudes is called "interference". Note I must speak rather loosely in order to phrase this in terms of the words you use. In particular, this is really a diagram's AMPLITUDE "interfering with itself", not actually a photon; but one can select diagrams in which the only path variation involves a single photon. Remember that at base a photon is a specific factor in an integral, represented by a squiggly line in a Feynman diagram; one can ascribe photons to the real world only via a complex and indirect process of applying the model to the observations of the world. >>> "interference" in the physical sense involves [...] > > So when you DO get to the point you snip it. YOU do not know ANYTHING about "the physical sense" -- why should I copy your nonsense? -- All you have is a MODEL of how YOU think the world works. But YOU do not realize that you are discussing your PERSONAL MODEL, and attribute your thoughts to the "physical world". THAT is what is absurd about your ENTIRE APPROACH. And why it is eminently reasonable to snip all such statements. Picasso drew "Portrait of a Woman" and you are acting as if analyzing that drawing is the same as analyzing a real woman. That's ABSURD. And it remains absurd for the most faithful photographic portrait -- the accuracy of the portrait cannot affect the distinction between portrait and person. portrait:person :: model:world. > You don't analyse it. There is nothing to "analyze". > You > don't point out the weaknesses of the argument Yes, I did. Your "argument" is ABSURD because you THINK you are discussing "physical sense" when you are actually discussing your PERSONAL MODEl of what you THINK is "physical sense". Until you learn to distinguish model from world you will remain hopelessly befuddled. The map is NOT the territory. The portrait is NOT the person. The model is NOT the world. And all your mind can process is a MODEL. > "Interference" means that two things "Interfere" with each other. No. There is no implication of either "two" or "thing". Indeed, in QED it is quite common for a "single photon" to interfere "with itself" (I must speak loosely here in order to frame this in the rather inappropriate words you used -- see above for a more accurate statement of this). YOU have no direct channel to God (or Nature, or nature, or "physical sense"). Live with it (you have no choice). You make grandiose claims about "physical sense", without being aware that you must TEST your personal MODEL experimentally -- what you are trying to do is not science, and is WORTHLESS. And once you recognize that it is a MODEL, and realize you must TEST it, and actually PERFORM such tests, you will find that it is wrong, and does not correspond to the world we inhabit. (I know this because unlike your model, QED has been extensively tested.) Tom Roberts
From: mpc755 on 26 Jan 2010 12:02 On Jan 26, 11:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 24, 2:59 pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > wrote: > > > Y.Porat 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 '... > > > The idea that a single photon interferes with itself is absurd if you > > are talking about physical interference rather than a mathematical model > > which simply mimics it. "interference" in the physical sense involves > > "light fringes" caused by two things reinforcing each other and "dark > > fringes" where two things cancel. > > This is really too specific. For example, in single-slit diffraction, > it simply isn't true that there are "two things" reinforcing or > canceling each other, and yet the interference is still there. It's > not even a integer number of things that are interfering, but a > continuum of things (and so an integral is needed). > > The correct statement about interference is as a sum that includes > phase, where that sum may well be an infinite sum of infinitesimal > contributions (i.e. calculable with an integral). > > > In low light experiments photons > > arrive one at a time. A Dark fringe is not where two things have > > cancelled but where none or few photons have arrived. A grey point half > > way between dark and light is not where photons have "interfered with > > themselves", partially cancelling and becoming a "half" photon. > > Only > > whole photons arrive at any particular point. No half photons or quarter > > photons. > > > When a photon exits the slits it appears that something determines what > > direction it travels in and that for some reason some directions have a > > higher priority than others which results in the pattern produced. If > > physics wishes to explain the phenomena rather than fall back on maths > > originating from inappropriate continuous field theory then it needs to > > start with what is actually happening. > > And that priority is due to the sum over available histories, > including phases, as I've described above. > Now, you may have it in your head that an object MUST HAVE only ONE > objective history. My question in response is, "How do you know that? > By what test would you determine that this is in fact the case?" > A photon consists of the ability to be detected as a particle, which travels a single path, and a wave, which propagates available paths. When the wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the 'particle' travels. Too bad that understanding of nature isn't as absurd as the future determining the past, 'virtual' nonsense, and the sum over all histories. > > > > A rethink is necessary. To start with the geometry of the slits is such > > that far more photons fail to get through then get through. Can we > > dismiss these "failed" photons as having no active role? Do they prime > > the slits in some way? If individual photons form themselves into a > > fringe pattern then why does non-coherent light fail to do so? It > > perhaps suggests the idea of priming being disrupted. An interesting > > field of study might be to investigate what, if anything, can disrupt > > the fringe pattern. Are photons which reach the detector photons which > > have passed through the slits or newly generated photons caused by the > > slits being excited by the photons arriving at the other side? > > > >yet it can be asked about other physical phenomena as well > > > >TIA > > >Y.Porat > > > -- > > John Kennaugh Things which do not accord with theory are what drives science > > forward. Today such things are dismissed because they are contrary to the laws > > of physics. > >
From: Y.Porat on 26 Jan 2010 12:26 On Jan 26, 9:35 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > ---------------------- Mr PD you still ddint answer my questions: how is a single photon interfering with itself compatible wit the HUP principle ??? th esize of the photon in Atoms is about one Angstrom if it will be in mobvemet its wave lenght will bwe much smaller take fior instance the wave length of which aN ELECTRONIC MICROSCOPE IS WORKING it is much less than one angsterom rigth?? now what is the distance between the slits in the above experiment will it be >>>> than one Angstrom??? so if the distance between slits is d (btw frankly -- i ddint bother to find out what is that usual - d ?? in our experiments can someone tell me)) and the wave length of a moving single electron is dx (the wave length is the way an wave is advancing forwards in one single cycle !!) what will be d/dx will it be big or small and as a result what will be its dp probability ??? its momentum probability ??? ATB Y.Porat -----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 26 Jan 2010 12:49 On Jan 26, 7:26 pm, "Y.Por > > > 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 > > ---------------------- > > Mr PD > you still ddint answer my questions: > how is a single photon interfering with itself > compatible wit the HUP principle ??? > > th esize of the photon in Atoms is about one Angstrom > if it will be in mobvemet its wave lenght will bwe much smaller > take fior instance the wave length of which > aN ELECTRONIC MICROSCOPE IS WORKING > > it is much less than one angsterom rigth?? > > now what is the distance between the slits > in the above experiment > will it be >>>> than one Angstrom??? > > so if the distance between slits is d > > (btw frankly -- i ddint bother to find out what is that > usual - d ?? > in our experiments can someone tell me)) > > and the wave length of a moving single electron is > dx > (the wave length is the way an wave is advancing forwards in one > single cycle !!) > > what will be d/dx will it be big or small > and as a result what will be its dp probability ??? > its momentum probability ??? > > ATB > Y.Porat > ----------------------- or may be another aspect of the HUP lets take the dt dE aspect: if a single photon is passing the** same time** trough the two slits dt is zero isnt that so ?? so if dt is zero dE the energy needed is ----- infinity !! so ??? is it possible ???!!!! TIA Y.Porat ---------------------
From: PD on 26 Jan 2010 12:52
On Jan 26, 1:35 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 ?? Porat, Porat, Porat. Let's back up a step and ask your questions not about photons but about atoms. Suppose we have a chunk of graphite, pure carbon. The claim is that this is made up of identical carbon atoms, and that a single atom of carbon is the smallest thing that is identifiable as carbon. Chemistry has claimed for some time that it knows a lot about a single carbon atom. Now, let's ask your question in this context: How do we know that it's a single carbon atom that we're measuring the properties of? Why do we believe that we're looking at the properties of ONE atom and not a collection of much smaller things that better represent carbon atoms? Why do we think the thing we call a carbon atom is the smallest unit of carbon? In answer these questions, it might serve you well to understand that no one had to SEE one atom in isolation to know that the carbon atom was the smallest unit of carbon. Keep in mind the dates where carbon atoms were claimed to be identified. So then you have to ask the question, how do scientists know that what they isolated is in fact the smallest unit of carbon, if they didn't isolate one and only one? What scientific handles did they use to determine that? > 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 > -------------------------- |