For the first time-an inner contradiction found in QM !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 15 Feb 2010 22:11 On Feb 15, 4:29 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 12:52 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 15, 2:09 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 10:43 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > becomes independent on the other links > > > > ----------------------- > > > > which would by then be> 186000 miles away? Unless you mean that a photon can be spread out > > > > > like that in distance and time? > > > > > see above > > > > > Again, this looks like you are> disputing the quantum nature of light? > > > > > not at all > > > > if you accept my vision as described above > > > > i would say here > > > > that the realssingle photon > > > > createde by nature > > > > is that section of the long chain > > > > but is disconnected to the next link > > > > they just run one after the other > > > > without being connected > > > > if you like > > > > another methaphore > > > > it is like (the same !!) -- bullets of a machine gun running one > > > > after the other !!! > > > > in a constant specific rate ... > > > > > now what i suggest to find out here > > > > is > > > > WHAT ARE THOSE ''BULLETS''' !!! (:-) > > > > because it was never done before !!! > > > > ATB > > > > Y.Porat > > > > -------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Yes, you are right, I wasn't being precise: I am happy with electrons > > > vibrating rather than orbiting, as I didn't mean the latter too > > > literally. > > > > Photons=Bullets analogy: if I were to think of each bullet as a > > > single photon emitted from the same single atom as a quantum process, > > > then that atom needed to produce a lot of quick-fire bullets for the > > > bullets to make a linked chain (an analogy). > > > ------------------ > > actually i pref-fer now the concept > > a procession of photons ie > > not necessarily linked to each other > > ----- > > > Can one atom produce so> many photons so rapidly? (A very demanding task?) > > > ------------------- > > just think abou tthe size of the Atom > > the smaller it is th quicker it can complete > > a 'cycle' of vibration > > (an orbiting electron could make you > > more 'happy' (:-)) > > BTW we are now in a process that is called > > if i remember the word in Englifh ?? mind storming' ?? > > ie letting our imagination 'go wild ' > > (actually it is not so baseless as it should look like it is sort > > of summing up all your > > previous experience about the issue ) > > ----------- > > > And how would we> know that the stream of photons is inter-linked? > > > see above i just changed it > > ----------- > > > > Also, does sub-dividing the original photon into many separate > > > 'bullets' really help? > > > i think so > > ----------- > > As, as you do not like the idea of the> original photon being a single entity > > > i ddint like the current definition of a single photon > > as that one that is ... > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > As you have dropped the linking of photons / bullets in a stream of > photons in your analogy, that removes my worries about how the atom > produces the stream of co-ordinated photons. Ie it doesn't produce > such a stream. Unless there is at the same time a coordinated input > of energy into the atom. As in a laser. I wasn't so much worried > about the atom(or atoms) not being able to fire quick enough (as it is > supposed to happen instantaneously anyway) but about it running out of > all its own vibrational energy and not being able to continue with > making a stream of photons as it is exhausted. > > But does that mean you are no longer arguing for a production of a > photon over a finite time period? > ----------------------------------- yes a finite period of time anyway NOT ZERO TIME !! NOTHING IS DONE IN AERO TIME !! ----------------------------- > As I am not a physicist I cannot comment reliably on the definition of > a photon. ---------------- it seems that you are over modest (:-) you have a creative and curious mind !! ------------- > But it must be composed of energy (but what isn't)? And has no rest > mass. ------------------ energy for me is always mass in motion!! ----------------- > It forms in two types, where two photons of the same type cannot > entangle with one another. Is the type of photon produced determined > at random or because of the particular energy it has? --------------------- because of a particular energy and a particular 'machine' that created it ------------- Assuming that > photons are not always produced in complementary pairs. ----------------- may be ..but i amnot sure about that ''always '' ---------------- > From its own viewpoint is resides in one quantum of time, and one > quantum of space in the x-direction of its travel. If it could > observe where it was, it would think that it lived in a 2-D plane > (x,y)? Although it might have no way of knowing about the y, z > dimensions and instead feel trapped in a 2-D unit Planck square (x,t)? ???? ----------- > From our point of view observing it destroys it, or causes it to > transfer its energy, but we can imagine it as only occupying one > quantum of space in its direction of travel, but presumably it could > have thickness in the y,z plane. And it could only occupy one quantum > of time. interesting !! for me ----as i suggest it to myself --a photon is : it is some basic tiny mass that is moving in a hellix path ------- > Each photon has an energy. If a photon occupied only one unit Planck > cube (?), could it have any number of possible energy levels? > Or, if it occupied a bigger volume space (in the y, z directions?) > would it have less energy? That is by analogy with strings where the > shortest strings can have the most energy? ---------------- it think that you mingle a few things fo r me the electron that creates the photon is a chin of sub particles that vibrates as a string or cantilever now while it vibrates it is loosing some of its own sub - constituents that are photons suppose very very abstract wild metaphor as you shake some rug strongly and it Emmit the - dust that is in it ---- as photons that move in a hellix path btw have you seen my Abstract on the net ??? -------------------- ATB Y.Porat ---------------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 15 Feb 2010 22:23 On Feb 15, 5:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > -------------------------------- nothing is done **in zero time!!**!! (not only is physics!!) zero time means that what was before it is exactly wat is 'after it; IOW NO CHANGE AT ALL nothing new born !!! i think that this should be one of the basics of physics !! (and not only physics !!!) if you claim that in microcosm things are done in zero time ---- ----THE BURDEN OF PROF IS ON YOU !! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------- > > 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 16 Feb 2010 22:59 On Feb 16, 10:17 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 16, 12:38 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > i would like to 'test on you ' > > something i am goint to suggest > > a riddle for the readers > > and would like to test it on you > > (btw if others whould like to solve it welcome ) > > thatis how my'riddle ' goes: > > > we know and found here > > that phootn energy emmition is > > ( specific !!)TIME DEPENDENT !! > > now > > if you test the formula > > > E=hf > > you finsd that it seems **not to be* time dependent > > ie > > energy is Meter ^ > > second ^2 > > so ?? > > there is no specific time dependence there!!!??? > > somy questin is > > > were is that specific time IS HIDING THERE !!!?? > > I don't know the answer but have some questions comparing a spaceship > with a photon. > > If we were to continuously push a spaceship we could increase its > energy and maybe, though far fetched, have it approach but not quite > reach c. > (or push a particle around an accelerator.) > I.e. we can create, over a finite non-zero time, a mass moving at near > speed c. > > But a photon can only move at speed c. We cannot slowly accelerate it > until it reaches speed c. It must jump from non-existence to moving > at speed c instantaneously. > Assume that this were not the case. We run into trouble as the device > or process creating the photon in an assumed interval of (say) one > second has to catch up with the photon moving at speed c in order to > complete the creation. If the process was not completed after 1/2 > second, the creator could not catch up with the half formed photon as > it would have to catch up with something travelling at speed c. Which > is impossible. So it must be created in the first instant. (I would > say created in or within a single planck length time in which it > occurred, rather than in zero time) > > E=hf does not mention time, I presume, because the energy of a photon > is constant over time. Its energy cannot be increased or decreased > over time as it cannot travel at anything other than speed c. > > I agree that there are peculiarites with respect to photons and time. > Possibly this involves extra dimensions, but that is just a > speculation. There is a limit to how much we can understand through > common sense analogy, though I feel we have to try. But it is not > enough on its own. The trouble is that common sense is very > misleadingly simple. 3-D is only common sense because it seems natural > to our everyday lives. But the trouble is once you start creating > dimensions, when do you stop? Why stop at 3, or 4 or 8 or 16 or at > anything short of infinity? What is so special about 3? Once the > universe starts creating dimensions, I don't see how it can logically > stop at any finite value. > > > 3 > > my abstract is in > > > http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://sites.google.com/site/theypor... > > I have found it and will look at it closer soon. > > Ben Smith --------------------- good for you Ben! you seem to me a very cleaver person with a thinking head !! your above question about how can a photon reach the speed of light is a very good question!! one answer i can think is **it is always in that speed !! but moving at a small volume !! just remember E=mc^2 it means that even rest mass is always some mass -- moving at c !! so waht is the process of emmiting it outwards ? i would think that the peocess is just *to deviate the inner circular movement in a small volume to outside of that volume metaphorically: you hold a stone tied to a string rotate it rapidly and suddenly just leave the srting of your hand !!.. btw even the process of leaving your hold on that string **takes time * iti is not 'instantaneously' because if it was instantaneous ( flat zero time'')-----the string BY DEFINITION - would remain in your hand !!! in that case instantaneously would paractically be an enormously short time!! so enourmously short that 'it is not written in our 'dictionary ' !! (:-) now in addition to that if there is a physical process in which we need **for a series of such tiny time** (connected linearily on the Time 'scalla' ) it might ** acumulate** to some considerably longer time !! btw that might be some explanation to my dispute with PD as well anyway i am quite sure we are touching here an issue that is not written in any existing book .. unless proven otherwise !! and that is whyi like to discuss with you Ben ... you have an open creative mind !! ATB Y.Porat ------------------- .. so youmight a ask how can it be
From: ben6993 on 16 Feb 2010 05:17 > > > > On Feb 15, 10:43 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > have you seen my Abstract on the net ??? No. I found your geocities site URL but yahoo deleted all geocities sites last year. You have others? > it seems that you are over modest (:-) Modest, I hope. But not over modest, as I am nowhere near being a physicist. I am a mathematician if anything. I think I need to speculate, as on these pages, to know and have ideas about what interests me, but to be able to call myself a physicist I would need to express it all in mathematics as well. Though the maths on its own isn't enough. Although I did study physics up to university, but only as a subsidiary subject at university. I won't feel entitled to think of myself as a physicist for years yet. And even that is if I were 100% dedicated and there were no other diversions ... and of course there are!
From: Y.Porat on 16 Feb 2010 07:38
On Feb 16, 12:17 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 10:43 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > have you seen my Abstract on the net ??? > > No. I found your geocities site URL but yahoo deleted all geocities > sites last year. You have others? > > > it seems that you are over modest (:-) > > Modest, I hope. But not over modest, as I am nowhere near being a > physicist. I am a mathematician if anything. I think I need to > speculate, as on these pages, to know and have ideas about what > interests me, but to be able to call myself a physicist I would need > to express it all in mathematics as well. Though the maths on its > own isn't enough. Although I did study physics up to university, but > only as a subsidiary subject at university. I won't feel entitled to > think of myself as a physicist for years yet. And even that is if I > were 100% dedicated and there were no other diversions ... and of > course there are! ---------------------- ok bTW Ben ???? waht is your real neme?? btw as you can rea me again and again i always say that physics must stsrt with physice thinkg not with mathematics thinking and it seems to me that you get it nicely ! ------- 2 i would like to 'test on you ' something i am goint to suggest a riddle for the readers and would like to test it on you (btw if others whould like to solve it welcome ) thatis how my'riddle ' goes: we know and found here that phootn energy emmition is ( specific !!)TIME DEPENDENT !! now if you test the formula E=hf you finsd that it seems **not to be* time dependent ie energy is Meter ^ second ^2 so ?? there is no specific time dependence there!!!??? somy questin is were is that specific time IS HIDING THERE !!!?? ---------------- 3 my abstract is in http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstact (you have to click the 'view' link there you will find there very little mathematics so you can see that some adavance in physics can be done in some arithmetic's as well !!! (:) (provided i didnt misspell the link -- as usual .....) ATB Y.Porat ------------------- |