For the first time-an inner contradiction found in QM !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 11 Feb 2010 02:05 On Feb 10, 10:20 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > On Feb 10, 4:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > for the first time an inner contradiction was found > > by me regarding the > > 'single' electron interfering with itself > > in the 'double slit experiment' !! > > > first and most simple to prove was the > > contradiction to the H U P !! (of QM itself !!) > > (may be not simple for all .....) > > So where IS your proof? We're waiting. > ----------------------------- thank you Igor for your apposite questions (for a change not just abstract hostlehand wavings as some others here .... first we must understand deeply the H U P and not just mathematically: it sayes that (in microcosm!!) once you detect the say location in our case -of the electron BY THE VERY DETECTION OF ITS DEFINITE LOCATION YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF FROM KNOWING IN ADDITION TOIT ITS MOMENTUM because th every detection tha tneed some massive tool to collide with it you either destryed it or sent it to some unknown location and not only its location cannot beknown but it s momentum as well cannot be known just a littl eremark fir instance about momentum-- mometum is a vector with DIRECTION so how can you know about the direction of the electron if it was colliding with the slit ?? that is your delocatin: it is not enough to dsicuss abstractly we ahve here a very specific and acurately defined case: now against allthat our disability (according to H U P) to know location and momentum suddely and againt it you come and claim that you know all of it you know the location of the detected electron by finding it exactly at the 'second slit; moreover you claim that you know its momentum as well !!! (by The wavelength that is coming out from the SECOND SLIT !!!?? which is IMHO a contradiction totthe HUP our case is a very accurate specific case we cannot talk about it just by** abstract claims** as ''DE LOCATION'' w must know how much how far etc etc not to mension that the HUP** does not allow you **''to know about the momentum in the second slit -------------------- in our case he otrher location ** and**!! momentum is clearly known -------------------------- > > 2 > > it can be similarly be about the 'single photon' > > interfering with itself > > my claim in that last case is > > that > > SINGLE PHOTON WAS NEVER DEFINED > > PROPERLY AN UN AMBIGUOUS LY !! > > and in fact itis actually more than a single photon ! > > Well, if you have an output energy equal to the quantum energy as > given by Planck, how many photons do you have? --------------------- thats exactly the argunet against it:: NO ONEREALLY KNOW!! the current definition of a *single phootn* is highly AMBIGUOUS !! it ignors completely the exsct DURATION in which those photons are created a bifg or smalle photon is not a big or small ball it is waves running **linearly* one after the other!! in along ''procession'' so how long is that 'procession ' is defined by how long it was 'shot out ' iow there should be difference between a photon that was shot during one nano secd and another one that was shot during two nano secnds YET THAT DISTINCTION DOES NOT EXIST IN THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF A *SINGLE PHOTON * !! --------------------!! > > > a 'single photon' not as the current human definition > > but a closer definition to "" reality of photons** > > > anyway > > it is more obvious about the 'Single *electron'* !! > > How so? Planck's formula applies to all particles. > > > 3 > > the prove and explanations were given > > in my last thread here that was called: > > > 'Can a single physical entity be -at the > > *same time*- in two > > *separated locations* ???!!! "" > > The main problem is that the photon can be de-localized. as i sayed relocation (of yours ) is not specific and accurate enough !! our case is very accurate ---------- Your so- > called proof would only apply to localized particles. ------------------- our case is very localized !! ---------------- Feynman called > this the single mystery of QM since so many other elements of the > weirdness seem to stem from it. -------------------------- he was a cleaver man and sensed that there is something **FISHY** there he was not just a parrot ..... and imho i was putting my finger on specific **fishy * aspects !! In any case, you're howling up the > wrong tree on this one, Rex. ----------- that last remark was unjustified !!(:-) anyway thank you so far Igor !! ------------------
From: Inertial on 11 Feb 2010 02:26 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a7ab37cd-44b0-4b90-ae4d-f996416425ef(a)f34g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 10, 10:20 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: >> On Feb 10, 4:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > for the first time an inner contradiction was found >> > by me regarding the >> > 'single' electron interfering with itself >> > in the 'double slit experiment' !! >> >> > first and most simple to prove was the >> > contradiction to the H U P !! (of QM itself !!) >> > (may be not simple for all .....) >> >> So where IS your proof? We're waiting. He has none >> ----------------------------- > thank you Igor for your apposite questions > (for a change not just abstract hostlehand wavings > as some others here .... > first we must understand deeply the H U P > and not just mathematically: You don't understand anything deeply .. often not even at all. > it sayes that (in microcosm!!) > once you detect the say location in our case -of the electron > BY THE VERY DETECTION OF ITS DEFINITE LOCATION > YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF FROM KNOWING > IN ADDITION TOIT ITS MOMENTUM That's one aspect of it, yes. > because th every detection tha tneed some massive > tool to collide with it > you either destryed it or sent it to some unknown location > and not only its location cannot beknown but it s momentum as well > cannot be known Its not so much a matter of out tools not letting us measure it. For example, experiments are done with entangled particles, measuring a property of one affect the measurement of the other. > just a littl eremark fir instance about momentum-- > mometum is a vector with DIRECTION > so how can you know about the direction of the electron > if it was colliding with the slit ?? What slit? > that is your delocatin: > it is not enough to dsicuss abstractly > we ahve here a very specific and acurately defined case: What case? You've not presented anything. > now against allthat > our disability (according to H U P) to know location and > momentum > suddely and againt it > you come and claim that you know all of it Who is claiming this ?? > you know the location of the detected electron > by finding it exactly at the 'second slit; So you are talking about double-slit experiments again? You didn't mention that. We usually detect the electron at a detector, some distance from the slits. > moreover > you claim that you know its momentum as well !!! Who is claiming this ?? > (by The wavelength Wavelength isn't momentum, though like frequency, it is related to momentum and energy. > that is coming out from the > SECOND SLIT !!!?? What? > which is IMHO a contradiction totthe HUP Your humble opinion is not worth much ,due to your misunderstanding of both the experiment an the theory. > our case is a very accurate specific case > we cannot talk about it just by** abstract claims** as > ''DE LOCATION'' > w must know how much how far etc etc > > not to mension that the HUP** does not allow you **''to know > about the momentum in the second slit What have the slits go to do with anything? Is what you think is a contradiction that the interference pattern from objects in a double-clit experiment gives you the wavelength, and that it hit the detector gives you the location? > -------------------- > > in our case he otrher location ** and**!! momentum is clearly known > -------------------------- >> > 2 >> > it can be similarly be about the 'single photon' >> > interfering with itself >> > my claim in that last case is >> > that >> > SINGLE PHOTON WAS NEVER DEFINED >> > PROPERLY AN UN AMBIGUOUS LY !! >> > and in fact itis actually more than a single photon ! >> >> Well, if you have an output energy equal to the quantum energy as >> given by Planck, how many photons do you have? > --------------------- > thats exactly the argunet against it:: > NO ONEREALLY KNOW!! > the current definition of a > *single phootn* is highly AMBIGUOUS !! No .. it is not. You may not understand it or like it .. but that doesn't make it ambiguous. > it ignors completely the exsct DURATION > in which those photons are created Because that makes NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL to what a photon is > a bifg or smalle photon They don't have size. > is not a big or small ball > it is waves running **linearly* one after the other!! > in along ''procession'' > so > how long is that 'procession ' is defined by > how long it was 'shot out ' You are confusing a photon with a beam of light. > iow > there should be difference between a photon that was shot ??
From: Y.Porat on 11 Feb 2010 03:58 On Feb 11, 9:26 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:a7ab37cd-44b0-4b90-ae4d-f996416425ef(a)f34g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > On Feb 10, 10:20 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 10, 4:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > for the first time an inner contradiction was found > >> > by me regarding the > >> > 'single' electron interfering with itself > >> > in the 'double slit experiment' !! > > >> > first and most simple to prove was the > >> > contradiction to the H U P !! (of QM itself !!) > >> > (may be not simple for all .....) > > >> So where IS your proof? We're waiting. > > He has none > > >> ----------------------------- > > thank you Igor for your apposite questions > > (for a change not just abstract hostlehand wavings > > as some others here .... > > first we must understand deeply the H U P > > and not just mathematically: > > You don't understand anything deeply .. often not even at all. > > > it sayes that (in microcosm!!) > > once you detect the say location in our case -of the electron > > BY THE VERY DETECTION OF ITS DEFINITE LOCATION > > YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF FROM KNOWING > > IN ADDITION TOIT ITS MOMENTUM > > That's one aspect of it, yes. > > > because th every detection tha tneed some massive > > tool to collide with it > > you either destryed it or sent it to some unknown location > > and not only its location cannot beknown but it s momentum as well > > cannot be known > > Its not so much a matter of out tools not letting us measure it. For > example, experiments are done with entangled particles, measuring a property > of one affect the measurement of the other. > > > just a littl eremark fir instance about momentum-- > > mometum is a vector with DIRECTION > > so how can you know about the direction of the electron > > if it was colliding with the slit ?? > > What slit? > > > that is your delocatin: > > it is not enough to dsicuss abstractly > > we ahve here a very specific and acurately defined case: > > What case? You've not presented anything. > > > now against allthat > > our disability (according to H U P) to know location and > > momentum > > suddely and againt it > > you come and claim that you know all of it > > Who is claiming this ?? > > > you know the location of the detected electron > > by finding it exactly at the 'second slit; > > So you are talking about double-slit experiments again? You didn't mention > that. > > We usually detect the electron at a detector, some distance from the slits. > > > moreover > > you claim that you know its momentum as well !!! > > Who is claiming this ?? > > > (by The wavelength > > Wavelength isn't momentum, though like frequency, it is related to momentum > and energy. > > > that is coming out from the > > SECOND SLIT !!!?? > > What? > > > which is IMHO a contradiction totthe HUP > > Your humble opinion is not worth much ,due to your misunderstanding of both > the experiment an the theory. > > > our case is a very accurate specific case > > we cannot talk about it just by** abstract claims** as > > ''DE LOCATION'' > > w must know how much how far etc etc > > > not to mension that the HUP** does not allow you **''to know > > about the momentum in the second slit > > What have the slits go to do with anything? > > Is what you think is a contradiction that the interference pattern from > objects in a double-clit experiment gives you the wavelength, and that it > hit the detector gives you the location? > > > > > -------------------- > > > in our case he otrher location ** and**!! momentum is clearly known > > -------------------------- > >> > 2 > >> > it can be similarly be about the 'single photon' > >> > interfering with itself > >> > my claim in that last case is > >> > that > >> > SINGLE PHOTON WAS NEVER DEFINED > >> > PROPERLY AN UN AMBIGUOUS LY !! > >> > and in fact itis actually more than a single photon ! > > >> Well, if you have an output energy equal to the quantum energy as > >> given by Planck, how many photons do you have? > > --------------------- > > thats exactly the argunet against it:: > > NO ONEREALLY KNOW!! > > the current definition of a > > *single phootn* is highly AMBIGUOUS !! > > No .. it is not. You may not understand it or like it .. but that doesn't > make it ambiguous. > > > it ignors completely the exsct DURATION > > in which those photons are created > > Because that makes NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL to what a photon is > > > a bifg or smalle photon > > They don't have size. > > > is not a big or small ball > > it is waves running **linearly* one after the other!! > > in along ''procession'' > > so > > how long is that 'procession ' is defined by > > how long it was 'shot out ' > > You are confusing a photon with a beam of light. > > > iow > > there should be difference between a photon that was shot > > ?? -------------------- Next ..... you jump with questions before reading while the answeris just after your question so i dont like to discuss with personal enemies ?? next Y.P ---------------- Y.P -----------------
From: Y.Porat on 11 Feb 2010 04:08 On Feb 11, 6:49 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 10, 3:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:b34bb5df-7f5b-4ec1-b298-8a1364cb92c0(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com.... > > > > for the first time an inner contradiction was found > > > by me regarding the > > > 'single' electron interfering with itself > > > in the 'double slit experiment' !! > > > No .. you just don't understand QM. > > > > first and most simple to prove was the > > > contradiction to the H U P !! (of QM itself !!) > > > There is no contradiction to the HUP > > > > (may be not simple for all .....) > > > 2 > > > it can be similarly be about the 'single photon' > > > interfering with itself > > > my claim in that last case is > > > that > > > SINGLE PHOTON WAS NEVER DEFINED > > > PROPERLY AN UN AMBIGUOUS LY !! > > > Yes .. it is > > > > and in fact itis actually more than a single photon ! > > > No .. it is not. A single photon is a single photon. If it was more than > > one, then each of THOSE would be a single photon. Regardless, you have > > single photons > > > > a 'single photon' not as the current human definition > > > but a closer definition to "" reality of photons** > > > Our definition of photons is based on reality and hundreds of years of > > observations. > > > > anyway > > > it is more obvious about the 'Single *electron'* !! > > > Both are obvious, both a individually detectable > > > > 3 > > > the prove and explanations were given > > > in my last thread here that was called: > > > > 'Can a single physical entity be -at the > > > *same time*- in two > > > *separated locations* ???!!! "" > > > There is no proof of anything there, other than your complete ignorance of > > physics > > > > (now let me ques who will be the first one > > > to jump in against it like....a ...) > > > > if it is 'for it'---- > > > welcome (:-) > > > You really are deluded. > > Can you tell me the only valid wave function? > > Collapsing the sine wave is what is happening. > > Mitch Raemsch ------------------- yes indeed !!! in to many cases QM is a 'supermarket of possibilities' if you want it to be a cat it will be a cat..... if you want it to be a mouse it will be a mouse !!! iow the ''trick'' is to be abstract as much as possible BUT !!! the *more * you are abstract ---- the **less useful and realistic- you become !!! ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- 'God ddint play the dice ''!!.......!! Y.P -------------------
From: Inertial on 11 Feb 2010 04:56
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6bf38c0f-0045-4f51-905e-e6ff8f18c48a(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 11, 9:26 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:a7ab37cd-44b0-4b90-ae4d-f996416425ef(a)f34g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Feb 10, 10:20 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: >> >> On Feb 10, 4:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > for the first time an inner contradiction was found >> >> > by me regarding the >> >> > 'single' electron interfering with itself >> >> > in the 'double slit experiment' !! >> >> >> > first and most simple to prove was the >> >> > contradiction to the H U P !! (of QM itself !!) >> >> > (may be not simple for all .....) >> >> >> So where IS your proof? We're waiting. >> >> He has none >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> > thank you Igor for your apposite questions >> > (for a change not just abstract hostlehand wavings >> > as some others here .... >> > first we must understand deeply the H U P >> > and not just mathematically: >> >> You don't understand anything deeply .. often not even at all. >> >> > it sayes that (in microcosm!!) >> > once you detect the say location in our case -of the electron >> > BY THE VERY DETECTION OF ITS DEFINITE LOCATION >> > YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF FROM KNOWING >> > IN ADDITION TOIT ITS MOMENTUM >> >> That's one aspect of it, yes. >> >> > because th every detection tha tneed some massive >> > tool to collide with it >> > you either destryed it or sent it to some unknown location >> > and not only its location cannot beknown but it s momentum as well >> > cannot be known >> >> Its not so much a matter of out tools not letting us measure it. For >> example, experiments are done with entangled particles, measuring a >> property >> of one affect the measurement of the other. >> >> > just a littl eremark fir instance about momentum-- >> > mometum is a vector with DIRECTION >> > so how can you know about the direction of the electron >> > if it was colliding with the slit ?? >> >> What slit? >> >> > that is your delocatin: >> > it is not enough to dsicuss abstractly >> > we ahve here a very specific and acurately defined case: >> >> What case? You've not presented anything. >> >> > now against allthat >> > our disability (according to H U P) to know location and >> > momentum >> > suddely and againt it >> > you come and claim that you know all of it >> >> Who is claiming this ?? >> >> > you know the location of the detected electron >> > by finding it exactly at the 'second slit; >> >> So you are talking about double-slit experiments again? You didn't >> mention >> that. >> >> We usually detect the electron at a detector, some distance from the >> slits. >> >> > moreover >> > you claim that you know its momentum as well !!! >> >> Who is claiming this ?? >> >> > (by The wavelength >> >> Wavelength isn't momentum, though like frequency, it is related to >> momentum >> and energy. >> >> > that is coming out from the >> > SECOND SLIT !!!?? >> >> What? >> >> > which is IMHO a contradiction totthe HUP >> >> Your humble opinion is not worth much ,due to your misunderstanding of >> both >> the experiment an the theory. >> >> > our case is a very accurate specific case >> > we cannot talk about it just by** abstract claims** as >> > ''DE LOCATION'' >> > w must know how much how far etc etc >> >> > not to mension that the HUP** does not allow you **''to know >> > about the momentum in the second slit >> >> What have the slits go to do with anything? >> >> Is what you think is a contradiction that the interference pattern from >> objects in a double-clit experiment gives you the wavelength, and that it >> hit the detector gives you the location? >> >> >> >> > -------------------- >> >> > in our case he otrher location ** and**!! momentum is clearly known >> > -------------------------- >> >> > 2 >> >> > it can be similarly be about the 'single photon' >> >> > interfering with itself >> >> > my claim in that last case is >> >> > that >> >> > SINGLE PHOTON WAS NEVER DEFINED >> >> > PROPERLY AN UN AMBIGUOUS LY !! >> >> > and in fact itis actually more than a single photon ! >> >> >> Well, if you have an output energy equal to the quantum energy as >> >> given by Planck, how many photons do you have? >> > --------------------- >> > thats exactly the argunet against it:: >> > NO ONEREALLY KNOW!! >> > the current definition of a >> > *single phootn* is highly AMBIGUOUS !! >> >> No .. it is not. You may not understand it or like it .. but that >> doesn't >> make it ambiguous. >> >> > it ignors completely the exsct DURATION >> > in which those photons are created >> >> Because that makes NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL to what a photon is >> >> > a bifg or smalle photon >> >> They don't have size. >> >> > is not a big or small ball >> > it is waves running **linearly* one after the other!! >> > in along ''procession'' >> > so >> > how long is that 'procession ' is defined by >> > how long it was 'shot out ' >> >> You are confusing a photon with a beam of light. >> >> > iow >> > there should be difference between a photon that was shot >> >> ?? > > -------------------- > Next ..... > you jump with questions before reading Nope > while the answeris just after your question You provided no answers at all. > so > i dont like to discuss with personal enemies ?? You are the one who makes enemies of people. So I guess you can't answer my questions then. Typical .. you never do. |