For the first time-an inner contradiction found in QM !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 16 Feb 2010 14:46 On Feb 16, 8:55 pm, PD nd 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 ----------------- spoon feed Eh ?? lets try and make it shorter: 1 why should any one believe you or anyone that emission of a photon is not time dependent ?? ie where is your **experimental prove for it ?? 2 we ** proved** that photon energy emission - is **time dependent** you yourself quoted the experiential knowledge that he sun emits x joules ***per second !!!** (if it is two seconds it is 2x joules ) on a square meter ) right :: ?? now if photon *energy** emission* is time dependent can the emission of ** photons that carried that energy** be **not *** ----> **time depended* ?? ?? ------------------- TIA Y.P --------------------
From: ben6993 on 16 Feb 2010 15:17 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/theyporatmodel/an-abstract&usg=AFQjCNFTvin3DZBasiMyWO4uOJxzQM0T1w I have found it and will look at it closer soon. Ben Smith
From: ben6993 on 17 Feb 2010 08:03 On Feb 17, 3:59 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I think that some of our problems with instantaneous are philosophical and others are a consequence of the way out universe is. Putting aside quanta for a moment and instead assuming that space and time are infinitely divisible into pieces as small as you like. Then how can we observe smaller and smaller pieces? Using light microscopes takes us so far. Blue light should enable us to resolve finer details because it is more energetic than red light. Using E=hf for a 'blue' photon gives (say) twice the value for f that it does for a 'red' one. (Though colour is not a property of the photon.) The reciprocal of f is the wavelength, so the wavelength for blue light is half that of red light, so I think that explains why blue light gives a clearer understanding of details (hence Blu-ray?). Beyond that you need an electron microscope. But the ultimate instrument is the universe itself? First estimate E for the universe from mcc with a guess at the mass of the universe (wiki gives estimates). Then use E=hf to estimate f for the universe. The reciprocal of the f should be the wavelength of the universe (that sounds odd to me!). As E is very big, the wavelength will be very small. As I understand it, the calculation of that wavelength should equal the Planck length? Since there is nothing available to us which bigger than the universe, then we have to stop there. We cannot observe details smaller than that. Not necessarily because there are no smaller details, but because we have no way of measuring them. So now we are saddled with the quanta again. Also, the Planck time should be able to be derived from c = planck length / Planck time, I think. If our universe had been ten times bigger than it is, then we should be able to see ten times clearer than now? But I don't think that would help with queasiness about the idea of instantaneous events. I don't like the idea of instantaneous events either, but there is no alternative I fear. But I rationalise it for myself by thinking that it can take place within the space of one quantum label of time. And there are unknowable depths within one quantum of time. Whether or not a single quantum in our universe is in fact bigger than one that could have arisen in a bigger universe may, I suppose, be disputed, but we cannot measure within it with this universe.
From: Y.Porat on 17 Feb 2010 10:14 On Feb 17, 3:03 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 3:59 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I think that some of our problems with instantaneous are philosophical > and others are a consequence of the way out universe is. > > Putting aside quanta for a moment and instead assuming that space and > time are infinitely divisible into pieces as small as you like. ---------------- for me space is nothing!! what matters and what we should focus our interest is MASS and MATER iow all tha dealing with space hoping that it will magically solve our unsolved problems is a wast of time!! we have instead concentrate of properties of matter ------------- ---------- > > Then how can we observe smaller and smaller pieces? Using light > microscopes takes us so far. Blue light should enable us to resolve > finer details because it is more energetic than red light. -------------- btw you should know that there are even simpler and more 'primitive' physical entities than photons!! it is "gravitons ' or neutrinos etc !! while no one even expect to 'see' them -------------- > > Using E=hf for a 'blue' photon gives (say) twice the value for f that > it does for a 'red' one. (Though colour is not a property of the > photon.) > The reciprocal of f is the wavelength, so the wavelength for blue > light is half that of red light, so I think that explains why blue > light gives a clearer understanding of details (hence Blu-ray?). > Beyond that you need an electron microscope. > > But the ultimate instrument is the universe itself? ????ultimate for what ?? i doubt it .. -------------- First estimate E > for the universe from mcc sorry i dont knoe what is mcc ?? --------- with a guess at the mass of the universe -------- who can know the mass of the universe ?? it sound fantastic ! > (wiki gives estimates). Then use E=hf to estimate f for the > universe. The reciprocal of the f should be the wavelength of the > universe (that sounds odd to me!). As E is very big, the wavelength but not all masses are defined by E=hf there are the gravitns' black matter etc that we know very little about them --------- > will be very small. As I understand it, the calculation of that > wavelength should equal the Planck length? Since there is nothing > available to us which bigger than the universe, then we have to stop > there. We cannot observe details smaller than that. Not necessarily > because there are no smaller details, but because we have no way of > measuring them. So now we are saddled with the quanta again. Also, > the Planck time should be able to be derived from c = planck length / > Planck time, I think. ---------------- ?? --------- > > If our universe had been ten times bigger than it is, then we should > be able to see ten times clearer than now? But I don't think that > would help with queasiness about the idea of instantaneous events. -------------- we dont have to go so far for understanding instantaneous or not ------------- > > I don't like the idea of instantaneous events either, but there is no > alternative I fear. and you cant that anything is happening instantaneously yoiu have no experiental tool even to detect it and say it was instananeous on the other hand we canknow that time is actually motion dependent !! and that is good to tell yus that no motion no time- nothing happened -------------- ---------- But I rationalise it for myself by thinking that > it can take place within the space of one quantum label of time. And > there are unknowable depths within one quantum of time. ------------------ i told you my opinion better concentrate on what is occuring with mass and motion ------------ Whether or > not a single quantum in our universe is in fact bigger than one that > could have arisen in a bigger universe may, I suppose, be disputed, > but we cannot measure within it with this universe. ATB Y.Porat ---------------------
From: ben6993 on 17 Feb 2010 11:27
> ---------------- > for me space is nothing!! > what matters and what we should focus our > interest is MASS and MATER > iow > all tha dealing with space hoping that it will magically solve our > unsolved problems > is a wast of time!! > we have instead concentrate of properties of matter I think that I glimpse what you mean about space. But an analogy is Pythagorus's attitude to irrational numbers. You can build a mathematical line out of an infinite number of fractions, yet even though you define the line in fractions, non-fractions arise from seemingly nowhere. But, most of the numbers that are useful have labels. It is easy to label fractions, but not so easy to label all the non-fractions, though there are some special ones with labels, eg pi. But by all means, yes, concentrate on the matter/mass. > btw > you should know that there are even simpler > and more 'primitive' physical entities than photons!! > it is "gravitons ' or neutrinos etc !! > while no one even expect to 'see' them Agreed, I was not being complete in listing all known possibilities. > > Using E=hf for a 'blue' photon gives (say) twice the value for f that > > it does for a 'red' one. (Though colour is not a property of the > > photon.) > > The reciprocal of f is the wavelength, so the wavelength for blue > > light is half that of red light, so I think that explains why blue > > light gives a clearer understanding of details (hence Blu-ray?). > > Beyond that you need an electron microscope. > > > But the ultimate instrument is the universe itself? > > ????ultimate for what ?? > i doubt it .. Again, true. I nearly added a extra idea to that statement as to where the universe in the equation begins and ends. E.g. Is it just the observable universe? The BB? The part of the universe which can interact with us? What? > First estimate E> for the universe from mcc > > sorry i dont knoe what is mcc ?? > --------- > with a guess at the mass of the universe > -------- > who can know the mass of the universe ?? > it sound fantastic ! Apologies, I just meant E = m c squared. The basic word editor over- taxed me. > but not all masses are defined by > E=hf > there are the gravitns' black matter etc > that we know very little about them I don't know enough about that to try to include them all. And I was using E=hf regardless of legitimacy and maybe out of context. It would probably be OK to include dark energy which is supposed to be quite a sizeable chunk of the total energy? I also said that I was putting aside quanta for a while but then went straight on to use a quantum equation E=hf. Oops! > we dont have to go so far for understanding > instantaneous or not I am not at all sure about this. Either, assuming quantum effects, how do you get from quantum 1 to adjoining quantum 2? It has to be instantaneous? Or, dropping quantum effects, how do you get from any point 1 to a point 2, when there are an infinite number of points intervening? This is the paradox raised by Zeno. I don't understand it perfectly. The maths answer is, I believe, to say that you can take an infinite number of steps in a finite time. For example, the infinite series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 etc etc adds to a finite total = 1. But that is only OK as long as you are not labelling all the terms of the series as you add, as you cannot stick separate labels on an infinite number of terms. I don't really like either of the options. > and you cant that anything is happening instantaneously > yoiu have no experiental tool even to detect > it and say > it was instananeous > on the other hand > we canknow that time is actually > motion dependent !! > and that is good to tell yus that > no motion no time- nothing happened Not clear about this last point? |