For the first time-an inner contradiction found in QM !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 15 Feb 2010 10:02 On Feb 14, 12:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 10:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:30 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 13, 9:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 1:00 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 13, 8:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > ght delivers 1 kW/m^2, you can > > > > > > *calculate* how many photons are delivered in one minute in sunlight. > > > > > > The number of photons delivered in one hour is 60 times as many.. > > > > > >----------------------- > > > > > > so ?? > > > > > th e **number of photons** that ar delivered > > > > > IS TIME DEPENDENT ??!! > > > > > Yes, of course. The energy that is delivered by a photon is a fixed > > > > amount for a certain wavelength, but the amount of energy that is > > > > delivered by light at the same wavelength accumulates with time. That > > > > accumulated energy comes from the accumulated number of photons that > > > > have landed. > > > > > > isnt it so ?? > > > > > and can we say that > > > > > t enumber of *single * photons > > > > > that were delivered in one second > > > > > is DIFFERNT from the number of single > > > > > ohotons that were delivered during > > > you have me > > > > believe that a coin that falls from my pocket doesn't accelerate at > > > > 9.8 m/s^2 if it doesn't fall for precisely 1 second? > > > > > > ie > > > > > case 1 > > > > > f during one second ?? > > > > > > case 2 > > > > > f during one hour one hour ?? > > > > > > for your **current definition of a single photon**'' > > > > > there is no difference between > > > > > case NO 1 > > > > > > and case No 2 !!! ??? > > > > > ow come ?? > > > > > Because it's not a single photon that's delivered in EITHER 1 second > > > > or 1 hour. I already told you you can CALCULATE how many photons fall > > > > on your car in one second and in one hour. > > > > --------------------------- > > > > youcant calculate how many single phjotons are delivered on my car > > > if i dont know what is the definition of a single photon > > > I've already told you what the definition is. > > -------------------- > common PD > if you decided to end that ** important dsicussion by > *i told you' > and i will say > i told you > that willbe the endof this discussion !! > it will be ended by ego wrath and thats all > may be you use that tacics > because you realize that you was pushed to a corner?? > > i told you and thr readers wil agree with me > that your definition of a single photon that is based on > THE*SINGLE* PHOTON IS CREATED 'INSTANTLY' > IS NOT A PHYSICS DEFINTION!! Yes, it is. Whether you think it makes sense to you or not is irrelevant. You have certain ideas about what a "physics definition" must entail, none of which are shared by physicists. You might want to consider why that is so. > it is nice poetry and nothing else !!! > we agreed that the number of photns emmited > is > **TIME DEPENDED* > now to say that this time dependence of yourse is > INSTANTANEOUS > is void > becasue > > NOPHYSICAL PROCESS IS OCCURING 'IIN ZERO TIME !! > do you deny that ? > just answer clearly about it !! > or else we dont have a comon base for dsicussion > 2 > you gave nme the 'advice' to calculatehow many singlephotons are > emmited per second by telling me that > the sun emmits x joules per seconds > again > joules per second !! on a square meter !! > > now my question is > loules on a square meter > is fine enough to define waht is the smallest photon ?? Yes, it is. We know the frequency spectrum from the sun. So we know how many photons arrive every second on every square meter, because it is *measured*. There is no definition needed when *measurement* does the job. > MR PD > you cant take some definitions that are good enough for certain > resolutions degree > and use tghem todescribe properly > A MUCH SMALLER RESOLUTION !! > for instance: > you can take the one liter definition > in or der todescribe the > number of whole liters that are in the > ATLANTIC OCEAN ! > > but that is not a good enough RESOLUTION LEVEL > to describe how many whole liters > are in A SINGLE MOLECULE OF WATER !!! > > iow > in order of defining properly the Atlantic ocean > you nee much LESS KNOWLEDGE --- > > than is needed to describe A SINGLE MOLECULE OF WATER !!! > IN ORDER OF DESCRIBING A SINGLE MOLECULE OF WAHTER > YOU MUST NEED as well > MUCH SMALLER SCALE units No you don't. If I want to find the mass of a bacterium, I can use grams. I do not need to use a mass unit that is smaller than the object being measured. Good heavens, Porat, you know NOTHING!?!? > all of us sane scientists understand that > there are in nature > much smaller magnitudes of photon energy than > the magnitude of > **number of joules** per meter PER SECOND !! > in short > your definition of a single photon > based on your claim that it is done INSTANTANEOUSLY > IS GOOD ENOUGH AS TO SAY THAT > THE ATLANTIC OCEAN > IS COMPOSED OF X LITERS OF WATER > and overlooking that > it is compsed of > single molecules of water thuat are > as well composed of > two Atoms of hydrogen and one atomof oxygen! > > if you dont agree on that > you *TACTICALLY AND DELIBERATELY* pushed this discussion TO A DEAD > END > may be( in the good )case you did t it just because > simply > lack of fine enough understanding of the issue !! > > anyway > thank you for the interesting discussion -- > untl this dead end (if you still dont agre with me ) > > btw > let me make short and clear enough > about my claim: > > MY CLAIM IS THAT > NO ONE -UNTIL NOW - HAS HAS EVER DEFINED PROPERLY > THE REAL (NATURES) DEFINITION ABOUT > WHAT IS > THE SMALLEST **SINGLE *** PHOTON !! > (it must be dependent --- as well !!) > on * time definition of 'creation duration * > or something equivalent to it * > > may be creation duration or -- detection duration > that now - seems to me the same > > ATB > Y.Porat > ---------------------------
From: PD on 15 Feb 2010 10:04 On Feb 14, 11:03 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 4:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 12, 2:10 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 12, 8:28 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 12, 5:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 12, 2:13 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 8:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 10, 3:27 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 .....) > > > > > > > > 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 ! > > > > > > > > > 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'* !! > > > > > > > > > 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* ???!!! "" > > > > > > > > > (now let me ques who will be the first one > > > > > > > > to jump in against it like....a ...) > > > > > > > > > if it is 'for it'---- > > > > > > > > welcome (:-) > > > > > > > > > copyright > > > > > > > > Yehiel Porat Feb 2010 > > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > > > ------------------- > > > > > > > > > ' > > > > > > > > I'm not sure where the contradiction is, Porat. > > > > > > > A contradiction means two statements made by the same theory that say > > > > > > > opposite things. > > > > > > > ---------------- > > > > > > the same theory claimes that > > > > > > a single electron or photon can interfere with itself > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > (anyone icluding you admit that it looks weird > > > > > > right from the beginning > > > > > > now you try to > > > > > > glorify that weirdness to be sort of an 'advantage ' > > > > > > of super cleave people that can understand it > > > > > > while the undeprivilagged cannot understand it ... > > > > > > But they CAN understand it. I get that you don't. That doesn't mean > > > > > that it's impossible to understand. It only means YOU don't understand > > > > > it. Yet. > > > > > > But it certainly doesn't imply any contradiction. Remember what > > > > > "contradiction" means. > > > > > > > it remind the super magicians of old times > > > > > > that glorified themseves by 'supernatural understandings ' ....) > > > > > > > njow > > > > > > the same theory > > > > > > developed the H U P > > > > > > right ?? > > > > > > the4 HUP tells you that in microcosm > > > > > > you cant know **clearly** 2 properties thatyou > > > > > > **detect* for a physical entity!! > > > > > > I don't know what you mean by "clearly". You can certain *measure* > > > > > both momentum and position of a particle. It's done all the time. > > > > > If you thought that HUP says you can't, then you've misinformed > > > > > yourself. > > > > > > > the idea that seems to me vwery right is > > > > > > th emoemnt you detected say the location of a > > > > > > very tiny (and FRAGILE ) property like its location > > > > > > by inserting in your detrection device > > > > > > you 'disturbed the 'natural - 'peaceful ' > > > > > > situation of that entity in a way-- > > > > > > you 'spoiled' it !! > > > > > > > so > > > > > > if you detected th eexact location > > > > > > you deprived yourself from knowing ( at all or partially) > > > > > > the associated property n our case > > > > > > th e momentum of the elctron or photon > > > > > > yet > > > > > > if you goon and analyze waht doyouknow and dontknow at the double slit > > > > > > 'story' > > > > > > you find yourself astonished' > > > > > > you find that unlike the HUP perdiction > > > > > > you DO KNOW WHAT YOU ''SHOULD NOT KNOW '' > > > > > > you know both > > > > > > 1 > > > > > > th elocation of the 'single electron' > > > > > > No you don't. You have no idea which slit it went through. You see? > > > > > > > 2 > > > > > > its momentum !!how come ?? > > > > > > you know its momentum by knowing its* wave lengths* > > > > > > knowing the wave lenght is equivalent as knowing > > > > > > the momentum !! > > > > > > Again, the HUP principle does NOT say that if you know *something* > > > > > about one, you know *nothing* about the other. It simply does not say > > > > > that. > > > > > ----------------- > > > > we are going to see > > > > who understands and who does not understand > > > > > i am busy now > > > > just wait for my reply > > > > > Y.P > > > > -------------------- > > > > > > > so > > > > > > here IMHO lies the *dead dog * > > > > > > > and i will not hide form you > > > > > > waht is for me the real explanation for it : > > > > > > it is > > > > > > WE DO NOT REALLY DEAL WITH A SINGLE > > > > > > ELECTRON OR A SINGLE PHOTON > > > > > > and while you staert thinking about it > > > > > > you find that > > > > > > actually > > > > > > the definition of a SINGLE PHOTON' > > > > > > is actually not a **single* UNEQUIVOCAL physical entity > > > > > > if you define it by itsenergy or momentum > > > > > > hf wia specific f is not unequivocal definition > > > > > > because > > > > > > you can have hf > > > > > > that was active one nanosecond > > > > > > and another one that was active one year !!.... > > > > > > iow > > > > > > highly equivocal !!! > > > > > > now > > > > > > the HUP > > > > > > and self interference of single physical entities > > > > > > belong to the same QM isnt that so ???!! > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > What are the two statements made by QM that say opposite things and > > > > > > > are therefore contradictory? > > > > > > > ------------- > > > > > > se above > > > > > > it is not only statemnts > > > > > > it is **experimental phenomenon** --- > > > > > > 'explained'' by QM > > > > > > while it cant live togeter in the same theory > > > > > > and i even suggeted the right explanation- > > > > > > IT IS NOT AT All DONE BY SINGLE EELCTRON > > > > > > OR PHOTON > > > > > > in that case it becomes incredibly simple > > > > > > and not wierd anymore > > > > > > -------------- > > > > > > > > You seem to have a wholly separate complaint, that no one has defined > > > > > > > not separated at all > > > > > > it must be recomciled by a single theory > > > > > > because we have jsut one reality !! > > > > > > especially while we deal with ........ > > > > > > THE SAME PARTICLES !!! > > > > > > the same physical entities in two differnt aspects !!! > > > > > > > thank you PD fo r your apposite questions > > > > > > that help (even me) to explain better my > > > > > > thoughts > > > > > > (that start first intutitive to me > > > > > > from the back of my experience -- > > > > > > and later become more rational !! > > > > > > and 'explain -able' > > > > > > > am i completely wrong ?? > > > > > > (that is a question that anyone shell always ask himself !! ...... > > > > > > and that is why Google nG is for .......) > > > > > > > ATB > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > --------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > for you what a "single photon" means (although I did that for you > > > > > > > earlier) in a way that you can understand it. This, though, is not a > > > > > > > contradiction. It's just something you're missing. > > > > ------------------ > > > ok before i am going to sleep > > > (we ar elocated at two edges of the world) > > > i have a littl premptive question fo r you > > > lest take two cases : > > > 1 > > > we have a photon with a wavelength L1 > > > that you detect it along one second > > > You don't detect photons over a period of time. Please reread the > > definition of photons. They deposit their energy ALL AT ONCE, in an > > instant. > > > > (if you like take it for a microsecond ..) > > > > 2 > > > we have a photon with * the exact as above**--- wavelength L1 --- > > > > --but in that case you detect it along one minute > > > > my question is > > > > do you define the photons in case 1 > > > as a *single photon* > > > > and in case 2 -- > > > as the** SAME ** single photon** (as > > > in case 1 ) ???!! > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------------ > > > -------------------------- > > ------------------- > nothing in physics is done > 'at once' > ie zero time > > in a real zero time you get --- > a Zero process > zero change ! That is only true in the macroscopic world, whether everything appears smooth and continuous. In the microscopic world, this assumption does not work. > zero time is as if it was never done !! > any process is **by definition ** > time dependent !! *(time consumer ) > not only in physics !! > so better start looking what is wrong > in current 'single photon;' definition > and in > a single photon interfering with itself > and all the associated issues > > and the sooner the better !! > for some real advance !! > its more than time for some real advance . > > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------------ > > ATB > Y.Porat
From: Y.Porat on 15 Feb 2010 12:18 On Feb 15, 5:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 14, 12:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 10:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 13, 2:30 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 9:09 pm, PD <t > > > > ght delivers 1 kW/m^2, you can > > > > > > > *calculate* how many photons are delivered in one minute in sunlight. > > > > > > > The number of photons delivered in one hour is 60 times as many. > > > > > > >----------------------- > > > > > > > so ?? > > > > > > th e **number of photons** that ar delivered > > > > > > IS TIME DEPENDENT ??!! > > > > > > Yes, of course. The energy that is delivered by a photon is a fixed > > > > > amount for a certain wavelength, but the amount of energy that is > > > > > delivered by light at the same wavelength accumulates with time. That > > > > > accumulated energy comes from the accumulated number of photons that > > > > > have landed. > > > > > > > isnt it so ?? > > > > > > and can we say that > > > > > > t enumber of *single * photons > > > > > > that were delivered in one second > > > > > > is DIFFERNT from the number of single > > > > > > ohotons that were delivered during > > > > you have me > > > > > believe that a coin that falls from my pocket doesn't accelerate at > > > > > 9.8 m/s^2 if it doesn't fall for precisely 1 second? > > > > > > > ie > > > > > > case 1 > > > > > > f during one second ?? > > > > > > > case 2 > > > > > > f during one hour one hour ?? > > > > > > > for your **current definition of a single photon**'' > > > > > > there is no difference between > > > > > > case NO 1 > > > > > > on your car in one second and in one hour. > > > > > --------------------------- > > > > > youcant calculate how many single phjotons are delivered on my car > > > > if i dont know what is the definition of a single photon > > > > I've already told you what the definition is. > > > -------------------- > > common PD > > if you decided to end that ** important dsicussion by > > *i told you' > > and i will say > > i told you > > that willbe the endof this discussion !! > > it will be ended by ego wrath and thats all > > may be you use that tacics > > because you realize that you was pushed to a corner?? > > > i told you and thr readers wil agree with me > > that your definition of a single photon that is based on > > THE*SINGLE* PHOTON IS CREATED 'INSTANTLY' > > IS NOT A PHYSICS DEFINTION!! > > Yes, it is. Whether you think it makes sense to you or not is > irrelevant. > You have certain ideas about what a "physics definition" must entail, > none of which are shared by physicists. You might want to consider why > that is so. > ------------------ please dontnominate youself a a spoksman of all physicists WE WERE DEALING WITH THE DEFINITION OF THE SINGLE PHOTON INTERFERING WITH ITSELF!! IE it is not only how it is defined but what can it do or not do !!! if your HUMAN ARBITRARY DEFINED single photon is found out to be actually composed of smaller photons then its ability is differnt from the ability of a real single photon!! IT IS NOT ONLY A PROBLEM OF QUANTITY! IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE FOR ITS ABILITY TO DO INTERFERENCE WITH ITSELF for example : one liter of wahter can wash you it can be splited to many glasses of water it can make a lake of water OTHA a single molecule of H2O cannot wash you cannot be splited to two molecules of water etc etc so you see that differnt quantities can in some cases become DIFFERNT QUALITIES OR ADDITIONAL ABILITIES !! a single molecule of water cannot collide with itself! OTHA **many water molecules** CAN collide with themselves !! so pleas think about the big principal differce between defining a **casual**definition of big quantities of something and defining the**smallest single one** of them !! ----------------- it is not as your g example that can do only the same thing beside that your example of g of its gravitons - does not interfere with itself etc etc ----------- > > > it is nice poetry and nothing else !!! Mr PD try to be apposite and refrain from trying being insultive demagogically !! (as a politician ... ) because as you know me I CAN BE NOT MUCH LESS INSULTIVE THAN YOU!! not to mention even this current issue in which i am in a bit stronger position than you !!.. we are not appearing before litle children tha can be influenced by demagogic tricks ----------------------- > > we agreed that the number of photns emmited > > is > > **TIME DEPENDED* !! and as long that no one ever defined the smallest single photon iow how long it is created we can speak about a single photon interfering with itself th edefinition of E=hf is not good enough for our dsicussion E=hf if a photon that is lasting for one second now we know about photons that last a nanosecond or half a second WILL YOU SAY THAT A PHOTON THAT LASTS FOR **HALF A SECOND** IS---- A ***HALF SINGLE PHOTON ***???!!! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 15 Feb 2010 12:44 On Feb 15, 7:18 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 5:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 14, 12:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 13, 10:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:30 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 13, 9:09 pm, PD <t > > > > > ght delivers 1 kW/m^2, you can > > > > > > > > *calculate* how many photons are delivered in one minute in sunlight. > > > > > > > > The number of photons delivered in one hour is 60 times as many. > > > > > > > >----------------------- > > > > > > > > so ?? > > > > > > > th e **number of photons** that ar delivered > > > > > > > IS TIME DEPENDENT ??!! > > > > > > > Yes, of course. The energy that is delivered by a photon is a fixed > > > > > > amount for a certain wavelength, but the amount of energy that is > > > > > > delivered by light at the same wavelength accumulates with time.. That > > > > > > accumulated energy comes from the accumulated number of photons that > > > > > > have landed. > > > > > > > > isnt it so ?? > > > > > > > and can we say that > > > > > > > t enumber of *single * photons > > > > > > > that were delivered in one second > > > > > > > is DIFFERNT from the number of single > > > > > > > ohotons that were delivered during > > > > > you have me > > > > > > believe that a coin that falls from my pocket doesn't accelerate at > > > > > > 9.8 m/s^2 if it doesn't fall for precisely 1 second? > > > > > > > > ie > > > > > > > case 1 > > > > > > > f during one second ?? > > > > > > > > case 2 > > > > > > > f during one hour one hour ?? > > > > > > > > for your **current definition of a single photon**'' > > > > > > > there is no difference between > > > > > > > case NO 1 > > > > > > > on your car in one second and in one hour. > > > > > > --------------------------- > > > > > > youcant calculate how many single phjotons are delivered on my car > > > > > if i dont know what is the definition of a single photon > > > > > I've already told you what the definition is. > > > > -------------------- > > > common PD > > > if you decided to end that ** important dsicussion by > > > *i told you' > > > and i will say > > > i told you > > > that willbe the endof this discussion !! > > > it will be ended by ego wrath and thats all > > > may be you use that tacics > > > because you realize that you was pushed to a corner?? > > > > i told you and thr readers wil agree with me > > > that your definition of a single photon that is based on > > > THE*SINGLE* PHOTON IS CREATED 'INSTANTLY' > > > IS NOT A PHYSICS DEFINTION!! > > > Yes, it is. Whether you think it makes sense to you or not is > > irrelevant. > > You have certain ideas about what a "physics definition" must entail, > > none of which are shared by physicists. You might want to consider why > > that is so. > > ------------------ > > please dontnominate youself a a spoksman of all physicists > > WE WERE DEALING WITH THE DEFINITION OF THE > SINGLE PHOTON INTERFERING WITH ITSELF!! > IE > it is not only how it is defined > but > what can it do or not do !!! > > if your HUMAN ARBITRARY DEFINED single photon is found out to be > actually > composed of smaller photons > then its ability is differnt from the ability of a real single > photon!! > IT IS NOT ONLY A PROBLEM OF QUANTITY! > IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE FOR ITS > ABILITY TO DO INTERFERENCE WITH ITSELF > > for example : > > one liter of wahter can wash you > it can be splited to many glasses of water > it can make a lake of water > > OTHA > a single molecule of H2O > cannot wash you > cannot be splited to two molecules of water > etc etc > so you see that > differnt quantities can in some cases become > DIFFERNT QUALITIES > OR ADDITIONAL ABILITIES !! > > a single molecule of water cannot collide with itself! > > OTHA > **many water molecules** CAN collide with themselves !! > > so pleas think about the big > principal differce between defining a > **casual**definition of big quantities > of something > > and defining the**smallest single one** of them !! > ----------------- > > it is not as your g example > that can do only the same thing > beside that your example of g > of its gravitons - does not interfere > with itself etc etc > ----------- > > > > > > it is nice poetry and nothing else !!! > > Mr PD > try to be apposite and refrain from trying being insultive > demagogically !! (as a politician ... ) > because as you know me > I CAN BE NOT MUCH LESS INSULTIVE THAN YOU!! > not to mention even this current issue > in which i am in a bit stronger position than you !!.. > > we are not appearing before litle children > tha can be influenced by > demagogic tricks > ----------------------- > > > > we agreed that the number of photns emmited > > > is > > > **TIME DEPENDED* !! > > and as long that > no one ever > defined the smallest single photon > iow > how long it is created > we can speak about > a single photon interfering with itself > th edefinition of > E=hf > is not good enough for our dsicussion > E=hf > if a photon that is lasting for one second > now > we know about photons that last a nanosecond > or half a second > WILL YOU SAY THAT A PHOTON THAT LASTS FOR > **HALF A SECOND** IS---- > > A ***HALF SINGLE PHOTON ***???!!! > > ATB > Y.Porat > ---------------------- in addition to the above: i said that in this *current issue* i a bit stronger position .. in (this issue !!) there are many issues that you know much better than me ! and a few issues that i specialised much more than you for instance nuclear structure etc so lets keep on our mutual self respect that i find very constructive for this ng and BTW i still consider you one of the very Few* *real Gentleman* that are in this ng !! (beside knowledge !!) ATB Y.Porat ------------------
From: BURT on 15 Feb 2010 15:51
On Feb 10, 1:27 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 .....) > 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 ! > > 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'* !! > > 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* ???!!! "" > > (now let me ques who will be the first one > to jump in against it like....a ...) > > if it is 'for it'---- > welcome (:-) > > copyright > Yehiel Porat Feb 2010 > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------- > > ' Einstein knew that QM is incomplete. I say it is wrong at the fundamental level but passes statistically which can't be tolerated. Science had to judge Einstein and Einstein was right. Mitch Raemsch |