For the first time-an inner contradiction found in QM !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 16 Feb 2010 07:42 On Feb 16, 2:38 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > ------------------- of course i misspelled it (:-) so i will try again that dammed unforgiving system: http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract my be now .... y.P ----------------
From: Inertial on 16 Feb 2010 07:48 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e8f59340-a586-409f-bb7a-76b18709e205(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > 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 !! Nope .. a photon is created instantaneously and imparts its energy instantaneously. A photon doesn't have a finite maximum lifetime .. it lasts as long is it lasts. There is nothing time-dependent about a photon. > now > if you test the formula > > E=hf The formula for the energy of a single photon of frequency f. > you finsd that it seems **not to be* time dependent It isn't .. its a simple static relationship between the photon energy and its frequency. > ie > energy is Meter ^ > second ^2 > so ?? > there is no specific time dependence there!!!??? None > somy questin is > > were is that specific time IS HIDING THERE !!!?? There is no specific time in there at all
From: Y.Porat on 16 Feb 2010 07:59 On Feb 16, 2:42 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 16, 2:38 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ------------------- > > of course i misspelled it (:-) > so i will try again that dammed unforgiving system: > > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > my be now .... > y.P > ---------------- and another typo: i said that the bottom line ofphotonenergy is meter ^2/second ^2 but it should of course be: KILOGRAM meter ^2/second ^2 == Enegy so were is that specific timje hiding (the question is not for the imbeciles parrots like Inertial ... that jump in fools jump in ..) TIA Y.P -----------------
From: PD on 16 Feb 2010 09:38 On Feb 15, 9:23 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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: > > > 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; No, it does not. That assumes that everything in the universe is smooth and continuous. This turns out not to be the case. There are sudden jumps and discontinuities that are not visible in the macroscopic world. Your assumption of continuity is simply mistaken. > > IOW > NO CHANGE AT ALL nothing new born !!! > > i think that this should be one of the basics of physics !! > (and not only physics !!!) What you think nature SHOULD be is irrelevant, Porat. We have to go ASK nature via experiment what it is. We don't get to say what it SHOULD be. You think nature SHOULD be smooth and continuous, but nature doesn't care, and it isn't. > > if you claim that in microcosm > things are done in zero time ---- > > ----THE BURDEN OF PROF IS ON YOU !! The proof is available in ample literature. No one owes you a force- feeding in a free newsgroup. I'd be happy to point you to places where you can find all the evidence you need that your assumption is mistaken. > 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 12:42
On Feb 16, 4:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 9:23 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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: > > > > 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; > > No, it does not. That assumes that everything in the universe is > smooth and continuous. This turns out not to be the case. -------------------- -nothing to do with continuous or not continuous!! even a quantum effect takes time there are intervals of time but something must be going on ie the time goes on there are some under process preparatory processes that make the physicsl act fir instance in order that a photon will be emmited say by heating the Atom it takes time to the head to be acumulated up !! till the right needed level according to you] a quantum effect is by intervals of time right now you have to ask youself WHY ARE THOSE INTERVALS NEEDED FOR THAT EFFECT?? iti s not some waited time for it thatis exactly the time neded for it to occure the fsct that this interval is constant means that something must be 'cooked there' and that cooking takes time youcannotice theemmition exactly at the time it occures but you can fall ' into an interval in which it does not occure but if you willwait enough time you will get it EXACTLY AT THE SAME INTERVAL BEFORE ONE AND ANOTHER EMMITION WILL ALWAYS BE THE SAME no matet what was the point of time you entered in to see it so bottom line the time dependence is un evitable and obvious even experimentally (the fact that you entered in a 'rest' point of time does not make it not time dependent ! the ***intervals** between one emmission and another one remains consatant and that interval is --- ----TIME ELAPSE BY DEFINITION !! it is the time **needed **for the effect to occur !! bedsides: AND THAT IS WHY PHOTONS HAVE constant **FREQUENCY *!!! a constant frequency frequency is action per an amount of TIME !! if her was no pause between one emmission and another one you would notbe able to ntice it thje 'paue' (if there is any at all ???!!) is a part and parcel of the needed time to do it any action is change and a change is by some movement the fact that*** you** again you ** couldnot see ALL TH E POSSIBLE MOVEMENTS (AGAIN ALL THE POSSIBLE MOVENETS) does not mean that there was no movement at all there and movement is a** time consumer * 2 even if you dont see at this point an ejctin of a photon THE WHOLE ENVIRONMENT AROUND IT DES NOT STOP ITS MOVENET AND TIME FLOWING ALL AROUND YOUR EMMITING ELECTRON!1 3 you cant make lack of knowledge or mysticism to your benefit !! 4 inside the Atom ther is a nonstop motion E=mc^2 !! no matter 'rest' ot potential the very fact that it can pop out so quicly cannot be from all rest situation! something muzt be in a constant movement AND THER IS NO REASON WHY IT SHOUL BE IN REST AND SUDDENLY OUT OF THE BLUE START MOViNG 5 we saw in the example of the heatede car by the sun that PHOTON energy emission - is time dependent what else do you want to prove that energy emission (''instantaneous'' or not) -- is time dependent !!!???!! 6 you cant say that a photon that was emitted during say a half of a second is A HALF **SINGLE* PHOTON !! conclusion the ** real **single photon --- was never done properly ps you ar einvited to find out my riddle ie where in the E=hf the specific 'personal 'time' duration for emitting photon energy during more than a second is hidden?? though it seems that by that question i am undermining myself !!!.. you could guess that really had i was thinking that it is undermining myself i would not be in a hurry to publish that question ..!! (it needs some innovative understanding of that formula !! that is not written in any book !!) ATB Y.Porat ------------- ATB Y.Porat --------------------- btw i beleive it or not i am thinkig about these arguments during printing !! (:-) because those questions are not discussed in any of your books unless you show other wise (and now will come you famous obfusction tactics ie 's o go to a liberarry' but PD you cant delude everybody that *you saw it in a library !!! there are no littel children or admiring students here --------------------------- !! -------------------- in a certian point of time is a techincal pr ----------------- There are > sudden jumps and discontinuities that are not visible in the > macroscopic world. > > Your assumption of continuity is simply mistaken. > > > > > IOW > > NO CHANGE AT ALL nothing new born !!! > > > i think that this should be one of the basics of physics !! > > (and not only physics !!!) > > What you think nature SHOULD be is irrelevant, Porat. We have to go > ASK nature via experiment what it is. We don't get to say what it > SHOULD be. > You think nature SHOULD be smooth and continuous, but nature doesn't > care, and it isn't. > > > > > if you claim that in microcosm > > things are done in zero time ---- > > > ----THE BURDEN OF PROF IS ON YOU !! > > The proof is available in ample literature. No one owes you a force- > feeding in a free newsgroup. > I'd be happy to point you to places where you can find all the > evidence you need that your assumption is mistaken. > > > 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 |