For the first time-an inner contradiction found in QM !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 11 Feb 2010 07:03 On Feb 11, 11:56 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:6bf38c0f-0045-4f51-905e-e6ff8f18c48a(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Feb 11, 9:26 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:a7ab37cd-44b0-4b90-ae4d-f996416425ef(a)f34g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Feb 10, 10:20 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 10, 4:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > for the first time an inner contradiction was found > >> >> > by me regarding the > >> >> > 'single' electron interfering with itself > >> >> > in the 'double slit experiment' !! > > >> >> > first and most simple to prove was the > >> >> > contradiction to the H U P !! (of QM itself !!) > >> >> > (may be not simple for all .....) > > >> >> So where IS your proof? We're waiting. > > >> He has none > > >> >> ----------------------------- > >> > thank you Igor for your apposite questions > >> > (for a change not just abstract hostlehand wavings > >> > as some others here .... > >> > first we must understand deeply the H U P > >> > and not just mathematically: > > >> You don't understand anything deeply .. often not even at all. > > >> > it sayes that (in microcosm!!) > >> > once you detect the say location in our case -of the electron > >> > BY THE VERY DETECTION OF ITS DEFINITE LOCATION > >> > YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF FROM KNOWING > >> > IN ADDITION TOIT ITS MOMENTUM > > >> That's one aspect of it, yes. > > >> > because th every detection tha tneed some massive > >> > tool to collide with it > >> > you either destryed it or sent it to some unknown location > >> > and not only its location cannot beknown but it s momentum as well > >> > cannot be known > > >> Its not so much a matter of out tools not letting us measure it. For > >> example, experiments are done with entangled particles, measuring a > >> property > >> of one affect the measurement of the other. > > >> > just a littl eremark fir instance about momentum-- > >> > mometum is a vector with DIRECTION > >> > so how can you know about the direction of the electron > >> > if it was colliding with the slit ?? > > >> What slit? > > >> > that is your delocatin: > >> > it is not enough to dsicuss abstractly > >> > we ahve here a very specific and acurately defined case: > > >> What case? You've not presented anything. > > >> > now against allthat > >> > our disability (according to H U P) to know location and > >> > momentum > >> > suddely and againt it > >> > you come and claim that you know all of it > > >> Who is claiming this ?? > > >> > you know the location of the detected electron > >> > by finding it exactly at the 'second slit; > > >> So you are talking about double-slit experiments again? You didn't > >> mention > >> that. > > >> We usually detect the electron at a detector, some distance from the > >> slits. > > >> > moreover > >> > you claim that you know its momentum as well !!! > > >> Who is claiming this ?? > > >> > (by The wavelength > > >> Wavelength isn't momentum, though like frequency, it is related to > >> momentum > >> and energy. > > >> > that is coming out from the > >> > SECOND SLIT !!!?? > > >> What? > > >> > which is IMHO a contradiction totthe HUP > > >> Your humble opinion is not worth much ,due to your misunderstanding of > >> both > >> the experiment an the theory. > > >> > our case is a very accurate specific case > >> > we cannot talk about it just by** abstract claims** as > >> > ''DE LOCATION'' > >> > w must know how much how far etc etc > > >> > not to mension that the HUP** does not allow you **''to know > >> > about the momentum in the second slit > > >> What have the slits go to do with anything? > > >> Is what you think is a contradiction that the interference pattern from > >> objects in a double-clit experiment gives you the wavelength, and that it > >> hit the detector gives you the location? > > >> > -------------------- > > >> > in our case he otrher location ** and**!! momentum is clearly known > >> > -------------------------- > >> >> > 2 > >> >> > it can be similarly be about the 'single photon' > >> >> > interfering with itself > >> >> > my claim in that last case is > >> >> > that > >> >> > SINGLE PHOTON WAS NEVER DEFINED > >> >> > PROPERLY AN UN AMBIGUOUS LY !! > >> >> > and in fact itis actually more than a single photon ! > > >> >> Well, if you have an output energy equal to the quantum energy as > >> >> given by Planck, how many photons do you have? > >> > --------------------- > >> > thats exactly the argunet against it:: > >> > NO ONEREALLY KNOW!! > >> > the current definition of a > >> > *single phootn* is highly AMBIGUOUS !! > > >> No .. it is not. You may not understand it or like it .. but that > >> doesn't > >> make it ambiguous. > > >> > it ignors completely the exsct DURATION > >> > in which those photons are created > > >> Because that makes NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL to what a photon is > > >> > a bifg or smalle photon > > >> They don't have size. > > >> > is not a big or small ball > >> > it is waves running **linearly* one after the other!! > >> > in along ''procession'' > >> > so > >> > how long is that 'procession ' is defined by > >> > how long it was 'shot out ' > > >> You are confusing a photon with a beam of light. > > >> > iow > >> > there should be difference between a photon that was shot > > >> ?? > > > -------------------- > > Next ..... > > you jump with questions before reading > > Nope > > > while the answeris just after your question > > You provided no answers at all. > > > so > > i dont like to discuss with personal enemies ?? > > You are the one who makes enemies of people. > > So I guess you can't answer my questions then. Typical .. you never do.. --------------------- (:-) next Y.P -------------------
From: Y.Porat on 11 Feb 2010 07:08 On Feb 11, 2:03 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 11:56 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:6bf38c0f-0045-4f51-905e-e6ff8f18c48a(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On Feb 11, 9:26 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:a7ab37cd-44b0-4b90-ae4d-f996416425ef(a)f34g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > On Feb 10, 10:20 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > >> >> On Feb 10, 4:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > for the first time an inner contradiction was found > > >> >> > by me regarding the > > >> >> > 'single' electron interfering with itself > > >> >> > in the 'double slit experiment' !! > > > >> >> > first and most simple to prove was the > > >> >> > contradiction to the H U P !! (of QM itself !!) > > >> >> > (may be not simple for all .....) > > > >> >> So where IS your proof? We're waiting. > > > >> He has none > > > >> >> ----------------------------- > > >> > thank you Igor for your apposite questions > > >> > (for a change not just abstract hostlehand wavings > > >> > as some others here .... > > >> > first we must understand deeply the H U P > > >> > and not just mathematically: > > > >> You don't understand anything deeply .. often not even at all. > > > >> > it sayes that (in microcosm!!) > > >> > once you detect the say location in our case -of the electron > > >> > BY THE VERY DETECTION OF ITS DEFINITE LOCATION > > >> > YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF FROM KNOWING > > >> > IN ADDITION TOIT ITS MOMENTUM > > > >> That's one aspect of it, yes. > > > >> > because th every detection tha tneed some massive > > >> > tool to collide with it > > >> > you either destryed it or sent it to some unknown location > > >> > and not only its location cannot beknown but it s momentum as well > > >> > cannot be known > > > >> Its not so much a matter of out tools not letting us measure it. For > > >> example, experiments are done with entangled particles, measuring a > > >> property > > >> of one affect the measurement of the other. > > > >> > just a littl eremark fir instance about momentum-- > > >> > mometum is a vector with DIRECTION > > >> > so how can you know about the direction of the electron > > >> > if it was colliding with the slit ?? > > > >> What slit? > > > >> > that is your delocatin: > > >> > it is not enough to dsicuss abstractly > > >> > we ahve here a very specific and acurately defined case: > > > >> What case? You've not presented anything. > > > >> > now against allthat > > >> > our disability (according to H U P) to know location and > > >> > momentum > > >> > suddely and againt it > > >> > you come and claim that you know all of it > > > >> Who is claiming this ?? > > > >> > you know the location of the detected electron > > >> > by finding it exactly at the 'second slit; > > > >> So you are talking about double-slit experiments again? You didn't > > >> mention > > >> that. > > > >> We usually detect the electron at a detector, some distance from the > > >> slits. > > > >> > moreover > > >> > you claim that you know its momentum as well !!! > > > >> Who is claiming this ?? > > > >> > (by The wavelength > > > >> Wavelength isn't momentum, though like frequency, it is related to > > >> momentum > > >> and energy. > > > >> > that is coming out from the > > >> > SECOND SLIT !!!?? > > > >> What? > > > >> > which is IMHO a contradiction totthe HUP > > > >> Your humble opinion is not worth much ,due to your misunderstanding of > > >> both > > >> the experiment an the theory. > > > >> > our case is a very accurate specific case > > >> > we cannot talk about it just by** abstract claims** as > > >> > ''DE LOCATION'' > > >> > w must know how much how far etc etc > > > >> > not to mension that the HUP** does not allow you **''to know > > >> > about the momentum in the second slit > > > >> What have the slits go to do with anything? > > > >> Is what you think is a contradiction that the interference pattern from > > >> objects in a double-clit experiment gives you the wavelength, and that it > > >> hit the detector gives you the location? > > > >> > -------------------- > > > >> > in our case he otrher location ** and**!! momentum is clearly known > > >> > -------------------------- > > >> >> > 2 > > >> >> > it can be similarly be about the 'single photon' > > >> >> > interfering with itself > > >> >> > my claim in that last case is > > >> >> > that > > >> >> > SINGLE PHOTON WAS NEVER DEFINED > > >> >> > PROPERLY AN UN AMBIGUOUS LY !! > > >> >> > and in fact itis actually more than a single photon ! > > > >> >> Well, if you have an output energy equal to the quantum energy as > > >> >> given by Planck, how many photons do you have? > > >> > --------------------- > > >> > thats exactly the argunet against it:: > > >> > NO ONEREALLY KNOW!! > > >> > the current definition of a > > >> > *single phootn* is highly AMBIGUOUS !! > > > >> No .. it is not. You may not understand it or like it .. but that > > >> doesn't > > >> make it ambiguous. > > > >> > it ignors completely the exsct DURATION > > >> > in which those photons are created > > > >> Because that makes NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL to what a photon is > > > >> > a bifg or smalle photon > > > >> They don't have size. > > > >> > is not a big or small ball > > >> > it is waves running **linearly* one after the other!! > > >> > in along ''procession'' > > >> > so > > >> > how long is that 'procession ' is defined by > > >> > how long it was 'shot out ' > > > >> You are confusing a photon with a beam of light. > > > >> > iow > > >> > there should be difference between a photon that was shot > > > >> ?? > > > > -------------------- > > > Next ..... > > > you jump with questions before reading > > > Nope > > > > while the answeris just after your question > > > You provided no answers at all. > > > > so > > > i dont like to discuss with personal enemies ?? > > > You are the one who makes enemies of people. > > > So I guess you can't answer my questions then. Typical .. you never do. > > --------------------- > (:-) > > next > Y.P > ------------------- crooky just tell us WHAT IS YOU REAL NAME ??! and only then --i will see if you are worth wasting time and energy on you y.p ------------------
From: Inertial on 11 Feb 2010 07:30 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c368336a-121e-4066-9f1a-c85cef645414(a)c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 11, 2:03 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Feb 11, 11:56 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:6bf38c0f-0045-4f51-905e-e6ff8f18c48a(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > On Feb 11, 9:26 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > >>news:a7ab37cd-44b0-4b90-ae4d-f996416425ef(a)f34g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> > >> > On Feb 10, 10:20 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Feb 10, 4:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > for the first time an inner contradiction was found >> > >> >> > by me regarding the >> > >> >> > 'single' electron interfering with itself >> > >> >> > in the 'double slit experiment' !! >> >> > >> >> > first and most simple to prove was the >> > >> >> > contradiction to the H U P !! (of QM itself !!) >> > >> >> > (may be not simple for all .....) >> >> > >> >> So where IS your proof? We're waiting. >> >> > >> He has none >> >> > >> >> ----------------------------- >> > >> > thank you Igor for your apposite questions >> > >> > (for a change not just abstract hostlehand wavings >> > >> > as some others here .... >> > >> > first we must understand deeply the H U P >> > >> > and not just mathematically: >> >> > >> You don't understand anything deeply .. often not even at all. >> >> > >> > it sayes that (in microcosm!!) >> > >> > once you detect the say location in our case -of the electron >> > >> > BY THE VERY DETECTION OF ITS DEFINITE LOCATION >> > >> > YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF FROM KNOWING >> > >> > IN ADDITION TOIT ITS MOMENTUM >> >> > >> That's one aspect of it, yes. >> >> > >> > because th every detection tha tneed some massive >> > >> > tool to collide with it >> > >> > you either destryed it or sent it to some unknown location >> > >> > and not only its location cannot beknown but it s momentum as >> > >> > well >> > >> > cannot be known >> >> > >> Its not so much a matter of out tools not letting us measure it. >> > >> For >> > >> example, experiments are done with entangled particles, measuring a >> > >> property >> > >> of one affect the measurement of the other. >> >> > >> > just a littl eremark fir instance about momentum-- >> > >> > mometum is a vector with DIRECTION >> > >> > so how can you know about the direction of the electron >> > >> > if it was colliding with the slit ?? >> >> > >> What slit? >> >> > >> > that is your delocatin: >> > >> > it is not enough to dsicuss abstractly >> > >> > we ahve here a very specific and acurately defined case: >> >> > >> What case? You've not presented anything. >> >> > >> > now against allthat >> > >> > our disability (according to H U P) to know location and >> > >> > momentum >> > >> > suddely and againt it >> > >> > you come and claim that you know all of it >> >> > >> Who is claiming this ?? >> >> > >> > you know the location of the detected electron >> > >> > by finding it exactly at the 'second slit; >> >> > >> So you are talking about double-slit experiments again? You didn't >> > >> mention >> > >> that. >> >> > >> We usually detect the electron at a detector, some distance from the >> > >> slits. >> >> > >> > moreover >> > >> > you claim that you know its momentum as well !!! >> >> > >> Who is claiming this ?? >> >> > >> > (by The wavelength >> >> > >> Wavelength isn't momentum, though like frequency, it is related to >> > >> momentum >> > >> and energy. >> >> > >> > that is coming out from the >> > >> > SECOND SLIT !!!?? >> >> > >> What? >> >> > >> > which is IMHO a contradiction totthe HUP >> >> > >> Your humble opinion is not worth much ,due to your misunderstanding >> > >> of >> > >> both >> > >> the experiment an the theory. >> >> > >> > our case is a very accurate specific case >> > >> > we cannot talk about it just by** abstract claims** as >> > >> > ''DE LOCATION'' >> > >> > w must know how much how far etc etc >> >> > >> > not to mension that the HUP** does not allow you **''to know >> > >> > about the momentum in the second slit >> >> > >> What have the slits go to do with anything? >> >> > >> Is what you think is a contradiction that the interference pattern >> > >> from >> > >> objects in a double-clit experiment gives you the wavelength, and >> > >> that it >> > >> hit the detector gives you the location? >> >> > >> > -------------------- >> >> > >> > in our case he otrher location ** and**!! momentum is clearly >> > >> > known >> > >> > -------------------------- >> > >> >> > 2 >> > >> >> > it can be similarly be about the 'single photon' >> > >> >> > interfering with itself >> > >> >> > my claim in that last case is >> > >> >> > that >> > >> >> > SINGLE PHOTON WAS NEVER DEFINED >> > >> >> > PROPERLY AN UN AMBIGUOUS LY !! >> > >> >> > and in fact itis actually more than a single photon ! >> >> > >> >> Well, if you have an output energy equal to the quantum energy as >> > >> >> given by Planck, how many photons do you have? >> > >> > --------------------- >> > >> > thats exactly the argunet against it:: >> > >> > NO ONEREALLY KNOW!! >> > >> > the current definition of a >> > >> > *single phootn* is highly AMBIGUOUS !! >> >> > >> No .. it is not. You may not understand it or like it .. but that >> > >> doesn't >> > >> make it ambiguous. >> >> > >> > it ignors completely the exsct DURATION >> > >> > in which those photons are created >> >> > >> Because that makes NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL to what a photon is >> >> > >> > a bifg or smalle photon >> >> > >> They don't have size. >> >> > >> > is not a big or small ball >> > >> > it is waves running **linearly* one after the other!! >> > >> > in along ''procession'' >> > >> > so >> > >> > how long is that 'procession ' is defined by >> > >> > how long it was 'shot out ' >> >> > >> You are confusing a photon with a beam of light. >> >> > >> > iow >> > >> > there should be difference between a photon that was shot >> >> > >> ?? >> >> > > -------------------- >> > > Next ..... >> > > you jump with questions before reading >> >> > Nope >> >> > > while the answeris just after your question >> >> > You provided no answers at all. >> >> > > so >> > > i dont like to discuss with personal enemies ?? >> >> > You are the one who makes enemies of people. >> >> > So I guess you can't answer my questions then. Typical .. you never >> > do. >> >> --------------------- >> (:-) >> >> next >> Y.P >> ------------------- > > crooky > just tell us > WHAT IS YOU REAL NAME ??! You wouldn't believe me if I told you .. you are suffering from this delusion that I'm some guy from Heidelberg. > and only then --i will see > if you are worth wasting time and energy on you I've wasted enough on you already.
From: Y.Porat on 11 Feb 2010 08:28 On Feb 11, 2:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:c368336a-121e-4066-9f1a-c85cef645414(a)c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Feb 11, 2:03 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 11, 11:56 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >news:6bf38c0f-0045-4f51-905e-e6ff8f18c48a(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > >> > > On Feb 11, 9:26 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> > >>news:a7ab37cd-44b0-4b90-ae4d-f996416425ef(a)f34g2000yqc.googlegroups..com... > > >> > >> > On Feb 10, 10:20 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> On Feb 10, 4:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > >> >> > for the first time an inner contradiction was found > >> > >> >> > by me regarding the > >> > >> >> > 'single' electron interfering with itself > >> > >> >> > in the 'double slit experiment' !! > > >> > >> >> > first and most simple to prove was the > >> > >> >> > contradiction to the H U P !! (of QM itself !!) > >> > >> >> > (may be not simple for all .....) > > >> > >> >> So where IS your proof? We're waiting. > > >> > >> He has none > > >> > >> >> ----------------------------- > >> > >> > thank you Igor for your apposite questions > >> > >> > (for a change not just abstract hostlehand wavings > >> > >> > as some others here .... > >> > >> > first we must understand deeply the H U P > >> > >> > and not just mathematically: > > >> > >> You don't understand anything deeply .. often not even at all. > > >> > >> > it sayes that (in microcosm!!) > >> > >> > once you detect the say location in our case -of the electron > >> > >> > BY THE VERY DETECTION OF ITS DEFINITE LOCATION > >> > >> > YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF FROM KNOWING > >> > >> > IN ADDITION TOIT ITS MOMENTUM > > >> > >> That's one aspect of it, yes. > > >> > >> > because th every detection tha tneed some massive > >> > >> > tool to collide with it > >> > >> > you either destryed it or sent it to some unknown location > >> > >> > and not only its location cannot beknown but it s momentum as > >> > >> > well > >> > >> > cannot be known > > >> > >> Its not so much a matter of out tools not letting us measure it. > >> > >> For > >> > >> example, experiments are done with entangled particles, measuring a > >> > >> property > >> > >> of one affect the measurement of the other. > > >> > >> > just a littl eremark fir instance about momentum-- > >> > >> > mometum is a vector with DIRECTION > >> > >> > so how can you know about the direction of the electron > >> > >> > if it was colliding with the slit ?? > > >> > >> What slit? > > >> > >> > that is your delocatin: > >> > >> > it is not enough to dsicuss abstractly > >> > >> > we ahve here a very specific and acurately defined case: > > >> > >> What case? You've not presented anything. > > >> > >> > now against allthat > >> > >> > our disability (according to H U P) to know location and > >> > >> > momentum > >> > >> > suddely and againt it > >> > >> > you come and claim that you know all of it > > >> > >> Who is claiming this ?? > > >> > >> > you know the location of the detected electron > >> > >> > by finding it exactly at the 'second slit; > > >> > >> So you are talking about double-slit experiments again? You didn't > >> > >> mention > >> > >> that. > > >> > >> We usually detect the electron at a detector, some distance from the > >> > >> slits. > > >> > >> > moreover > >> > >> > you claim that you know its momentum as well !!! > > >> > >> Who is claiming this ?? > > >> > >> > (by The wavelength > > >> > >> Wavelength isn't momentum, though like frequency, it is related to > >> > >> momentum > >> > >> and energy. > > >> > >> > that is coming out from the > >> > >> > SECOND SLIT !!!?? > > >> > >> What? > > >> > >> > which is IMHO a contradiction totthe HUP > > >> > >> Your humble opinion is not worth much ,due to your misunderstanding > >> > >> of > >> > >> both > >> > >> the experiment an the theory. > > >> > >> > our case is a very accurate specific case > >> > >> > we cannot talk about it just by** abstract claims** as > >> > >> > ''DE LOCATION'' > >> > >> > w must know how much how far etc etc > > >> > >> > not to mension that the HUP** does not allow you **''to know > >> > >> > about the momentum in the second slit > > >> > >> What have the slits go to do with anything? > > >> > >> Is what you think is a contradiction that the interference pattern > >> > >> from > >> > >> objects in a double-clit experiment gives you the wavelength, and > >> > >> that it > >> > >> hit the detector gives you the location? > > >> > >> > -------------------- > > >> > >> > in our case he otrher location ** and**!! momentum is clearly > >> > >> > known > >> > >> > -------------------------- > >> > >> >> > 2 > >> > >> >> > it can be similarly be about the 'single photon' > >> > >> >> > interfering with itself > >> > >> >> > my claim in that last case is > >> > >> >> > that > >> > >> >> > SINGLE PHOTON WAS NEVER DEFINED > >> > >> >> > PROPERLY AN UN AMBIGUOUS LY !! > >> > >> >> > and in fact itis actually more than a single photon ! > > >> > >> >> Well, if you have an output energy equal to the quantum energy as > >> > >> >> given by Planck, how many photons do you have? > >> > >> > --------------------- > >> > >> > thats exactly the argunet against it:: > >> > >> > NO ONEREALLY KNOW!! > >> > >> > the current definition of a > >> > >> > *single phootn* is highly AMBIGUOUS !! > > >> > >> No .. it is not. You may not understand it or like it .. but that > >> > >> doesn't > >> > >> make it ambiguous. > > >> > >> > it ignors completely the exsct DURATION > >> > >> > in which those photons are created > > >> > >> Because that makes NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL to what a photon is > > >> > >> > a bifg or smalle photon > > >> > >> They don't have size. > > >> > >> > is not a big or small ball > >> > >> > it is waves running **linearly* one after the other!! > >> > >> > in along ''procession'' > >> > >> > so > >> > >> > how long is that 'procession ' is defined by > >> > >> > how long it was 'shot out ' > > >> > >> You are confusing a photon with a beam of light. > > >> > >> > iow > >> > >> > there should be difference between a photon that was shot > > >> > >> ?? > > >> > > -------------------- > >> > > Next ..... > >> > > you jump with questions before reading > > >> > Nope > > >> > > while the answeris just after your question > > >> > You provided no answers at all. > > >> > > so > >> > > i dont like to discuss with personal enemies ?? > > >> > You are the one who makes enemies of people. > > >> > So I guess you can't answer my questions then. Typical .. you never > >> > do. > > >> --------------------- > >> (:-) > > >> next > >> Y.P > >> ------------------- > > > crooky > > just tell us > > WHAT IS YOU REAL NAME ??! > > You wouldn't believe me if I told you .. you are suffering from this > delusion that I'm some guy from Heidelberg. > > > and only then --i will see > > if you are worth wasting time and energy on you > > I've wasted enough on you already. ------------------- Heidelberg not Heidelberg why should you hide behind a 'Berg' what is you real name ??!! coming here with a false name is the first sign of dishonesty iow you have some thing to hide !!! 2 i can hardly remember a case (or even never!!) that you initiated a thread !! or coming with something new or original !! always the same old PARROTING !! 3 it seems to me that you are unemployed !! and suffer from too much free time (:-) not too typical for a young man ..... BYE Y.P ----------------
From: PD on 11 Feb 2010 13:11
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. What are the two statements made by QM that say opposite things and are therefore contradictory? You seem to have a wholly separate complaint, that no one has defined 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. |