For the first time-an inner contradiction found in QM !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 11 Feb 2010 16:50 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f61e28f2-cb6c-414a-ba98-15ed41a637b5(a)r33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > 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 Eh? > why should you hide behind a 'Berg' Eh? > what is you real name ??!! None of your business > coming here with a false name > is the first sign of dishonesty Nope .. its a sign of common sense > iow > you have some thing to hide !!! Nope > 2 > i can hardly remember a case (or even never!!) > that you initiated a thread !! Irrelevant > or coming with something new or original !! There are enough crackpots doing that .. tho very little is new or original > always the same old PARROTING !! There is nothing wrong with stating the truth. Do you think it is better to be a liar like you and state falsehoods and nonsense? > 3 > it seems to me that you are unemployed !! Nope > and suffer from too much free time (:-) Nope > not too typical for a young man ..... Eh? Again .. you show you are will not just discuss physics .. everything boils down to insults and irrelevance such as what someone's real name is. Sad .. but not unexpected, as you're simply not capable of discussing physics rationally.
From: BURT on 11 Feb 2010 21:50 On Feb 11, 1:50 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f61e28f2-cb6c-414a-ba98-15ed41a637b5(a)r33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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 > > Eh? > > > why should you hide behind a 'Berg' > > Eh? > > > what is you real name ??!! > > None of your business > > > coming here with a false name > > is the first sign of dishonesty > > Nope .. its a sign of common sense > > > iow > > you have some thing to hide !!! > > Nope > > > 2 > > i can hardly remember a case (or even never!!) > > that you initiated a thread !! > > Irrelevant > > > or coming with something new or original !! > > There are enough crackpots doing that .. tho very little is new or original > > > always the same old PARROTING !! > > There is nothing wrong with stating the truth. Do you think it is better to > be a liar like you and state falsehoods and nonsense? > > > 3 > > it seems to me that you are unemployed !! > > Nope > > > and suffer from too much free time (:-) > > Nope > > > not too typical for a young man ..... > > Eh? > > Again .. you show you are will not just discuss physics .. everything boils > down to insults and irrelevance such as what someone's real name is. Sad .. > but not unexpected, as you're simply not capable of discussing physics > rationally.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is only one kind of wave that can be used. Mitch Raemsch
From: Y.Porat on 12 Feb 2010 02:28 On Feb 11, 11:50 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f61e28f2-cb6c-414a-ba98-15ed41a637b5(a)r33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > 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 > > Eh? > > > why should you hide behind a 'Berg' > > Eh? > > > what is you real name ??!! > > None of your business > > > coming here with a false name > > is the first sign of dishonesty > > Nope .. its a sign of common sense > > > iow > > you have some thing to hide !!! > > Nope > > > 2 > > i can hardly remember a case (or even never!!) > > that you initiated a thread !! > > Irrelevant > > > or coming with something new or original !! > > There are enough crackpots doing that .. tho very little is new or original > > > always the same old PARROTING !! > > There is nothing wrong with stating the truth. Do you think it is better to > be a liar like you and state falsehoods and nonsense? > > > 3 > > it seems to me that you are unemployed !! > > Nope > > > and suffer from too much free time (:-) > > Nope > > > not too typical for a young man ..... > > Eh? > > Again .. you show you are will not just discuss physics .. everything boils > down to insults and irrelevance such as what someone's real name is. Sad .. > but not unexpected, as you're simply not capable of discussing physics > rationally. -------------------- the nasty crook that i called Inertial does not deny that he is here much longer than a half a year yet that masty pig changed his name only 6 months ago -(anyone can see itin his profile) now why should that pig change his name again and again ?? dont answer- disturbed pig-- it is obvious !! Y.P -----------------
From: Inertial on 12 Feb 2010 02:53 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:01b04ef0-6177-488a-9d39-5155bc42d211(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 11, 11:50 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:f61e28f2-cb6c-414a-ba98-15ed41a637b5(a)r33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > 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 >> >> Eh? >> >> > why should you hide behind a 'Berg' >> >> Eh? >> >> > what is you real name ??!! >> >> None of your business >> >> > coming here with a false name >> > is the first sign of dishonesty >> >> Nope .. its a sign of common sense >> >> > iow >> > you have some thing to hide !!! >> >> Nope >> >> > 2 >> > i can hardly remember a case (or even never!!) >> > that you initiated a thread !! >> >> Irrelevant >> >> > or coming with something new or original !! >> >> There are enough crackpots doing that .. tho very little is new or >> original >> >> > always the same old PARROTING !! >> >> There is nothing wrong with stating the truth. Do you think it is better >> to >> be a liar like you and state falsehoods and nonsense? >> >> > 3 >> > it seems to me that you are unemployed !! >> >> Nope >> >> > and suffer from too much free time (:-) >> >> Nope >> >> > not too typical for a young man ..... >> >> Eh? >> >> Again .. you show you are will not just discuss physics .. everything >> boils >> down to insults and irrelevance such as what someone's real name is. Sad >> .. >> but not unexpected, as you're simply not capable of discussing physics >> rationally. > > -------------------- > the nasty crook that i called Inertial Bah .. you call everyone a crook if they start discussing physics with you. You can't handle it > does not deny that he is here much longer than a half a year I have been online for much longer than that > yet that masty pig changed his name > only 6 months ago -(anyone can see itin his profile) What profile? > now > why should that pig change his name again and again ?? Because I like my new nickname better. > dont answer- disturbed pig-- it is obvious !! You're the senile old lying fool here .. as your posts clearly show. You won't have a rational discussion .. you feel compelled to lie and insult instead. You have major issues. Get help before you die .. actually, whichever you do first just hurry up and do it, for your own sake and those with the misfortune to deal with an evil piece of work like yourself.
From: Y.Porat on 12 Feb 2010 03:13
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 (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 ... 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!! 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' 2 its momentum !!how come ?? you know its momentum by knowing its* wave lengths* knowing the wave lenght is equivalent as knowing the momentum !! 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. |