For the first time-an inner contradiction found in QM !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 12 Feb 2010 04:45 On Feb 12, 10:13 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 8:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 10, 3:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > for the first time an inner contradiction was found > > > by me regarding the > > > 'single' electron interfering with itself > > > in the 'double slit experiment' !! > > > > first and most simple to prove was the > > > contradiction to the H U P !! (of QM itself !!) > > > (may be not simple for all .....) > > > 2 > > > it can be similarly be about the 'single photon' > > > interfering with itself > > > my claim in that last case is > > > that > > > SINGLE PHOTON WAS NEVER DEFINED > > > PROPERLY AN UN AMBIGUOUS LY !! > > > and in fact itis actually more than a single photon ! > > > > a 'single photon' not as the current human definition > > > but a closer definition to "" reality of photons** > > > > anyway > > > it is more obvious about the 'Single *electron'* !! > > > > 3 > > > the prove and explanations were given > > > in my last thread here that was called: > > > > 'Can a single physical entity be -at the > > > *same time*- in two > > > *separated locations* ???!!! "" > > > > (now let me ques who will be the first one > > > to jump in against it like....a ...) > > > > if it is 'for it'---- > > > welcome (:-) > > > > copyright > > > Yehiel Porat Feb 2010 > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------- > > > > ' > > > I'm not sure where the contradiction is, Porat. > > A contradiction means two statements made by the same theory that say > > opposite things. > > ---------------- > the same theory claimes that > a single electron or photon can interfere with itself > (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. ------------------------ some clarification about yor claim that we are dealing about two differnet cases tha ttrhere is no connection between them: (self interference of a single ohotonor electron-- and HUP ) i say we clearly deal with the ** two aspects ** of **THE SAME PHYSICAL ENTITIES ** (SINGLE**** ELECTRON OR PHOTON INTERFERING WITH THEMSELVES !! ) MOREOVER BY THE SAME QM THEORY !! there should be no inner contradiction about those two aspects !! iow it must be somehow reconciled and the simplest way to do it is to understand that it is not *a single photon *and not a 'single' electron but rather - more than a single one of them !!! ATB Y.Porat ------------------------- ATB Y.Porat -----------------
From: PD on 12 Feb 2010 10:57 On Feb 12, 2:13 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 8:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 10, 3:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > for the first time an inner contradiction was found > > > by me regarding the > > > 'single' electron interfering with itself > > > in the 'double slit experiment' !! > > > > first and most simple to prove was the > > > contradiction to the H U P !! (of QM itself !!) > > > (may be not simple for all .....) > > > 2 > > > it can be similarly be about the 'single photon' > > > interfering with itself > > > my claim in that last case is > > > that > > > SINGLE PHOTON WAS NEVER DEFINED > > > PROPERLY AN UN AMBIGUOUS LY !! > > > and in fact itis actually more than a single photon ! > > > > a 'single photon' not as the current human definition > > > but a closer definition to "" reality of photons** > > > > anyway > > > it is more obvious about the 'Single *electron'* !! > > > > 3 > > > the prove and explanations were given > > > in my last thread here that was called: > > > > 'Can a single physical entity be -at the > > > *same time*- in two > > > *separated locations* ???!!! "" > > > > (now let me ques who will be the first one > > > to jump in against it like....a ...) > > > > if it is 'for it'---- > > > welcome (:-) > > > > copyright > > > Yehiel Porat Feb 2010 > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------- > > > > ' > > > I'm not sure where the contradiction is, Porat. > > A contradiction means two statements made by the same theory that say > > opposite things. > > ---------------- > the same theory claimes that > a single electron or photon can interfere with itself Yes. > (anyone icluding you admit that it looks weird > right from the beginning > now you try to > glorify that weirdness to be sort of an 'advantage ' > of super cleave people that can understand it > while the undeprivilagged cannot understand it ... But they CAN understand it. I get that you don't. That doesn't mean that it's impossible to understand. It only means YOU don't understand it. Yet. But it certainly doesn't imply any contradiction. Remember what "contradiction" means. > it remind the super magicians of old times > that glorified themseves by 'supernatural understandings ' ....) > > njow > the same theory > developed the H U P > right ?? > the4 HUP tells you that in microcosm > you cant know **clearly** 2 properties thatyou > **detect* for a physical entity!! I don't know what you mean by "clearly". You can certain *measure* both momentum and position of a particle. It's done all the time. If you thought that HUP says you can't, then you've misinformed yourself. > the idea that seems to me vwery right is > th emoemnt you detected say the location of a > very tiny (and FRAGILE ) property like its location > by inserting in your detrection device > you 'disturbed the 'natural - 'peaceful ' > situation of that entity in a way-- > you 'spoiled' it !! > > so > if you detected th eexact location > you deprived yourself from knowing ( at all or partially) > the associated property n our case > th e momentum of the elctron or photon > yet > if you goon and analyze waht doyouknow and dontknow at the double slit > 'story' > you find yourself astonished' > you find that unlike the HUP perdiction > you DO KNOW WHAT YOU ''SHOULD NOT KNOW '' > you know both > 1 > th elocation of the 'single electron' No you don't. You have no idea which slit it went through. You see? > 2 > its momentum !!how come ?? > you know its momentum by knowing its* wave lengths* > knowing the wave lenght is equivalent as knowing > the momentum !! Again, the HUP principle does NOT say that if you know *something* about one, you know *nothing* about the other. It simply does not say that. > 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.
From: Y.Porat on 12 Feb 2010 13:28 On Feb 12, 5:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 12, 2:13 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 11, 8:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 10, 3:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > for the first time an inner contradiction was found > > > > by me regarding the > > > > 'single' electron interfering with itself > > > > in the 'double slit experiment' !! > > > > > first and most simple to prove was the > > > > contradiction to the H U P !! (of QM itself !!) > > > > (may be not simple for all .....) > > > > 2 > > > > it can be similarly be about the 'single photon' > > > > interfering with itself > > > > my claim in that last case is > > > > that > > > > SINGLE PHOTON WAS NEVER DEFINED > > > > PROPERLY AN UN AMBIGUOUS LY !! > > > > and in fact itis actually more than a single photon ! > > > > > a 'single photon' not as the current human definition > > > > but a closer definition to "" reality of photons** > > > > > anyway > > > > it is more obvious about the 'Single *electron'* !! > > > > > 3 > > > > the prove and explanations were given > > > > in my last thread here that was called: > > > > > 'Can a single physical entity be -at the > > > > *same time*- in two > > > > *separated locations* ???!!! "" > > > > > (now let me ques who will be the first one > > > > to jump in against it like....a ...) > > > > > if it is 'for it'---- > > > > welcome (:-) > > > > > copyright > > > > Yehiel Porat Feb 2010 > > > > > TIA > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ------------------- > > > > > ' > > > > I'm not sure where the contradiction is, Porat. > > > A contradiction means two statements made by the same theory that say > > > opposite things. > > > ---------------- > > the same theory claimes that > > a single electron or photon can interfere with itself > > Yes. > > > (anyone icluding you admit that it looks weird > > right from the beginning > > now you try to > > glorify that weirdness to be sort of an 'advantage ' > > of super cleave people that can understand it > > while the undeprivilagged cannot understand it ... > > But they CAN understand it. I get that you don't. That doesn't mean > that it's impossible to understand. It only means YOU don't understand > it. Yet. > > But it certainly doesn't imply any contradiction. Remember what > "contradiction" means. > > > it remind the super magicians of old times > > that glorified themseves by 'supernatural understandings ' ....) > > > njow > > the same theory > > developed the H U P > > right ?? > > the4 HUP tells you that in microcosm > > you cant know **clearly** 2 properties thatyou > > **detect* for a physical entity!! > > I don't know what you mean by "clearly". You can certain *measure* > both momentum and position of a particle. It's done all the time. > If you thought that HUP says you can't, then you've misinformed > yourself. > > > > > the idea that seems to me vwery right is > > th emoemnt you detected say the location of a > > very tiny (and FRAGILE ) property like its location > > by inserting in your detrection device > > you 'disturbed the 'natural - 'peaceful ' > > situation of that entity in a way-- > > you 'spoiled' it !! > > > so > > if you detected th eexact location > > you deprived yourself from knowing ( at all or partially) > > the associated property n our case > > th e momentum of the elctron or photon > > yet > > if you goon and analyze waht doyouknow and dontknow at the double slit > > 'story' > > you find yourself astonished' > > you find that unlike the HUP perdiction > > you DO KNOW WHAT YOU ''SHOULD NOT KNOW '' > > you know both > > 1 > > th elocation of the 'single electron' > > No you don't. You have no idea which slit it went through. You see? > > > 2 > > its momentum !!how come ?? > > you know its momentum by knowing its* wave lengths* > > knowing the wave lenght is equivalent as knowing > > the momentum !! > > Again, the HUP principle does NOT say that if you know *something* > about one, you know *nothing* about the other. It simply does not say > that. ----------------- we are going to see who understands and who does not understand i am busy now just wait for my reply Y.P -------------------- > > > so > > here IMHO lies the *dead dog * > > > and i will not hide form you > > waht is for me the real explanation for it : > > it is > > WE DO NOT REALLY DEAL WITH A SINGLE > > ELECTRON OR A SINGLE PHOTON > > and while you staert thinking about it > > you find that > > actually > > the definition of a SINGLE PHOTON' > > is actually not a **single* UNEQUIVOCAL physical entity > > if you define it by itsenergy or momentum > > hf wia specific f is not unequivocal definition > > because > > you can have hf > > that was active one nanosecond > > and another one that was active one year !!.... > > iow > > highly equivocal !!! > > now > > the HUP > > and self interference of single physical entities > > belong to the same QM isnt that so ???!! > > ------------------ > > > > What are the two statements made by QM that say opposite things and > > > are therefore contradictory? > > > ------------- > > se above > > it is not only statemnts > > it is **experimental phenomenon** --- > > 'explained'' by QM > > while it cant live togeter in the same theory > > and i even suggeted the right explanation- > > IT IS NOT AT All DONE BY SINGLE EELCTRON > > OR PHOTON > > in that case it becomes incredibly simple > > and not wierd anymore > > -------------- > > > > You seem to have a wholly separate complaint, that no one has defined > > > not separated at all > > it must be recomciled by a single theory > > because we have jsut one reality !! > > especially while we deal with ........ > > THE SAME PARTICLES !!! > > the same physical entities in two differnt aspects !!! > > > thank you PD fo r your apposite questions > > that help (even me) to explain better my > > thoughts > > (that start first intutitive to me > > from the back of my experience -- > > and later become more rational !! > > and 'explain -able' > > > am i completely wrong ?? > > (that is a question that anyone shell always ask himself !! ....... > > and that is why Google nG is for .......) > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > --------------------------------------------- > > > > for you what a "single photon" means (although I did that for you > > > earlier) in a way that you can understand it. This, though, is not a > > > contradiction. It's just something you're missing.
From: Y.Porat on 12 Feb 2010 15:10 On Feb 12, 8:28 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 12, 5:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 12, 2:13 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 11, 8:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 10, 3:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > for the first time an inner contradiction was found > > > > > by me regarding the > > > > > 'single' electron interfering with itself > > > > > in the 'double slit experiment' !! > > > > > > first and most simple to prove was the > > > > > contradiction to the H U P !! (of QM itself !!) > > > > > (may be not simple for all .....) > > > > > 2 > > > > > it can be similarly be about the 'single photon' > > > > > interfering with itself > > > > > my claim in that last case is > > > > > that > > > > > SINGLE PHOTON WAS NEVER DEFINED > > > > > PROPERLY AN UN AMBIGUOUS LY !! > > > > > and in fact itis actually more than a single photon ! > > > > > > a 'single photon' not as the current human definition > > > > > but a closer definition to "" reality of photons** > > > > > > anyway > > > > > it is more obvious about the 'Single *electron'* !! > > > > > > 3 > > > > > the prove and explanations were given > > > > > in my last thread here that was called: > > > > > > 'Can a single physical entity be -at the > > > > > *same time*- in two > > > > > *separated locations* ???!!! "" > > > > > > (now let me ques who will be the first one > > > > > to jump in against it like....a ...) > > > > > > if it is 'for it'---- > > > > > welcome (:-) > > > > > > copyright > > > > > Yehiel Porat Feb 2010 > > > > > > TIA > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > ------------------- > > > > > > ' > > > > > I'm not sure where the contradiction is, Porat. > > > > A contradiction means two statements made by the same theory that say > > > > opposite things. > > > > ---------------- > > > the same theory claimes that > > > a single electron or photon can interfere with itself > > > Yes. > > > > (anyone icluding you admit that it looks weird > > > right from the beginning > > > now you try to > > > glorify that weirdness to be sort of an 'advantage ' > > > of super cleave people that can understand it > > > while the undeprivilagged cannot understand it ... > > > But they CAN understand it. I get that you don't. That doesn't mean > > that it's impossible to understand. It only means YOU don't understand > > it. Yet. > > > But it certainly doesn't imply any contradiction. Remember what > > "contradiction" means. > > > > it remind the super magicians of old times > > > that glorified themseves by 'supernatural understandings ' ....) > > > > njow > > > the same theory > > > developed the H U P > > > right ?? > > > the4 HUP tells you that in microcosm > > > you cant know **clearly** 2 properties thatyou > > > **detect* for a physical entity!! > > > I don't know what you mean by "clearly". You can certain *measure* > > both momentum and position of a particle. It's done all the time. > > If you thought that HUP says you can't, then you've misinformed > > yourself. > > > > the idea that seems to me vwery right is > > > th emoemnt you detected say the location of a > > > very tiny (and FRAGILE ) property like its location > > > by inserting in your detrection device > > > you 'disturbed the 'natural - 'peaceful ' > > > situation of that entity in a way-- > > > you 'spoiled' it !! > > > > so > > > if you detected th eexact location > > > you deprived yourself from knowing ( at all or partially) > > > the associated property n our case > > > th e momentum of the elctron or photon > > > yet > > > if you goon and analyze waht doyouknow and dontknow at the double slit > > > 'story' > > > you find yourself astonished' > > > you find that unlike the HUP perdiction > > > you DO KNOW WHAT YOU ''SHOULD NOT KNOW '' > > > you know both > > > 1 > > > th elocation of the 'single electron' > > > No you don't. You have no idea which slit it went through. You see? > > > > 2 > > > its momentum !!how come ?? > > > you know its momentum by knowing its* wave lengths* > > > knowing the wave lenght is equivalent as knowing > > > the momentum !! > > > Again, the HUP principle does NOT say that if you know *something* > > about one, you know *nothing* about the other. It simply does not say > > that. > > ----------------- > we are going to see > who understands and who does not understand > > i am busy now > just wait for my reply > > Y.P > -------------------- > > > > > > so > > > here IMHO lies the *dead dog * > > > > and i will not hide form you > > > waht is for me the real explanation for it : > > > it is > > > WE DO NOT REALLY DEAL WITH A SINGLE > > > ELECTRON OR A SINGLE PHOTON > > > and while you staert thinking about it > > > you find that > > > actually > > > the definition of a SINGLE PHOTON' > > > is actually not a **single* UNEQUIVOCAL physical entity > > > if you define it by itsenergy or momentum > > > hf wia specific f is not unequivocal definition > > > because > > > you can have hf > > > that was active one nanosecond > > > and another one that was active one year !!.... > > > iow > > > highly equivocal !!! > > > now > > > the HUP > > > and self interference of single physical entities > > > belong to the same QM isnt that so ???!! > > > ------------------ > > > > > What are the two statements made by QM that say opposite things and > > > > are therefore contradictory? > > > > ------------- > > > se above > > > it is not only statemnts > > > it is **experimental phenomenon** --- > > > 'explained'' by QM > > > while it cant live togeter in the same theory > > > and i even suggeted the right explanation- > > > IT IS NOT AT All DONE BY SINGLE EELCTRON > > > OR PHOTON > > > in that case it becomes incredibly simple > > > and not wierd anymore > > > -------------- > > > > > You seem to have a wholly separate complaint, that no one has defined > > > > not separated at all > > > it must be recomciled by a single theory > > > because we have jsut one reality !! > > > especially while we deal with ........ > > > THE SAME PARTICLES !!! > > > the same physical entities in two differnt aspects !!! > > > > thank you PD fo r your apposite questions > > > that help (even me) to explain better my > > > thoughts > > > (that start first intutitive to me > > > from the back of my experience -- > > > and later become more rational !! > > > and 'explain -able' > > > > am i completely wrong ?? > > > (that is a question that anyone shell always ask himself !! ...... > > > and that is why Google nG is for .......) > > > > ATB > > > Y.Porat > > > --------------------------------------------- > > > > > for you what a "single photon" means (although I did that for you > > > > earlier) in a way that you can understand it. This, though, is not a > > > > contradiction. It's just something you're missing. ------------------ ok before i am going to sleep (we ar elocated at two edges of the world) i have a littl premptive question fo r you lest take two cases : 1 we have a photon with a wavelength L1 that you detect it along one second (if you like take it for a microsecond ..) 2 we have a photon with * the exact as above**--- wavelength L1 --- --but in that case you detect it along one minute my question is do you define the photons in case 1 as a *single photon* and in case 2 -- as the** SAME ** single photon** (as in case 1 ) ???!! TIA Y.Porat ------------------------ --------------------------
From: BURT on 12 Feb 2010 19:26
On Feb 12, 12:10 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 12, 8:28 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 5:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 12, 2:13 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 11, 8:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 10, 3:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > for the first time an inner contradiction was found > > > > > > by me regarding the > > > > > > 'single' electron interfering with itself > > > > > > in the 'double slit experiment' !! > > > > > > > first and most simple to prove was the > > > > > > contradiction to the H U P !! (of QM itself !!) > > > > > > (may be not simple for all .....) > > > > > > 2 > > > > > > it can be similarly be about the 'single photon' > > > > > > interfering with itself > > > > > > my claim in that last case is > > > > > > that > > > > > > SINGLE PHOTON WAS NEVER DEFINED > > > > > > PROPERLY AN UN AMBIGUOUS LY !! > > > > > > and in fact itis actually more than a single photon ! > > > > > > > a 'single photon' not as the current human definition > > > > > > but a closer definition to "" reality of photons** > > > > > > > anyway > > > > > > it is more obvious about the 'Single *electron'* !! > > > > > > > 3 > > > > > > the prove and explanations were given > > > > > > in my last thread here that was called: > > > > > > > 'Can a single physical entity be -at the > > > > > > *same time*- in two > > > > > > *separated locations* ???!!! "" > > > > > > > (now let me ques who will be the first one > > > > > > to jump in against it like....a ...) > > > > > > > if it is 'for it'---- > > > > > > welcome (:-) > > > > > > > copyright > > > > > > Yehiel Porat Feb 2010 > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > ------------------- > > > > > > > ' > > > > > > I'm not sure where the contradiction is, Porat. > > > > > A contradiction means two statements made by the same theory that say > > > > > opposite things. > > > > > ---------------- > > > > the same theory claimes that > > > > a single electron or photon can interfere with itself > > > > Yes. > > > > > (anyone icluding you admit that it looks weird > > > > right from the beginning > > > > now you try to > > > > glorify that weirdness to be sort of an 'advantage ' > > > > of super cleave people that can understand it > > > > while the undeprivilagged cannot understand it ... > > > > But they CAN understand it. I get that you don't. That doesn't mean > > > that it's impossible to understand. It only means YOU don't understand > > > it. Yet. > > > > But it certainly doesn't imply any contradiction. Remember what > > > "contradiction" means. > > > > > it remind the super magicians of old times > > > > that glorified themseves by 'supernatural understandings ' ....) > > > > > njow > > > > the same theory > > > > developed the H U P > > > > right ?? > > > > the4 HUP tells you that in microcosm > > > > you cant know **clearly** 2 properties thatyou > > > > **detect* for a physical entity!! > > > > I don't know what you mean by "clearly". You can certain *measure* > > > both momentum and position of a particle. It's done all the time. > > > If you thought that HUP says you can't, then you've misinformed > > > yourself. > > > > > the idea that seems to me vwery right is > > > > th emoemnt you detected say the location of a > > > > very tiny (and FRAGILE ) property like its location > > > > by inserting in your detrection device > > > > you 'disturbed the 'natural - 'peaceful ' > > > > situation of that entity in a way-- > > > > you 'spoiled' it !! > > > > > so > > > > if you detected th eexact location > > > > you deprived yourself from knowing ( at all or partially) > > > > the associated property n our case > > > > th e momentum of the elctron or photon > > > > yet > > > > if you goon and analyze waht doyouknow and dontknow at the double slit > > > > 'story' > > > > you find yourself astonished' > > > > you find that unlike the HUP perdiction > > > > you DO KNOW WHAT YOU ''SHOULD NOT KNOW '' > > > > you know both > > > > 1 > > > > th elocation of the 'single electron' > > > > No you don't. You have no idea which slit it went through. You see? > > > > > 2 > > > > its momentum !!how come ?? > > > > you know its momentum by knowing its* wave lengths* > > > > knowing the wave lenght is equivalent as knowing > > > > the momentum !! > > > > Again, the HUP principle does NOT say that if you know *something* > > > about one, you know *nothing* about the other. It simply does not say > > > that. > > > ----------------- > > we are going to see > > who understands and who does not understand > > > i am busy now > > just wait for my reply > > > Y.P > > -------------------- > > > > > so > > > > here IMHO lies the *dead dog * > > > > > and i will not hide form you > > > > waht is for me the real explanation for it : > > > > it is > > > > WE DO NOT REALLY DEAL WITH A SINGLE > > > > ELECTRON OR A SINGLE PHOTON > > > > and while you staert thinking about it > > > > you find that > > > > actually > > > > the definition of a SINGLE PHOTON' > > > > is actually not a **single* UNEQUIVOCAL physical entity > > > > if you define it by itsenergy or momentum > > > > hf wia specific f is not unequivocal definition > > > > because > > > > you can have hf > > > > that was active one nanosecond > > > > and another one that was active one year !!.... > > > > iow > > > > highly equivocal !!! > > > > now > > > > the HUP > > > > and self interference of single physical entities > > > > belong to the same QM isnt that so ???!! > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > What are the two statements made by QM that say opposite things and > > > > > are therefore contradictory? > > > > > ------------- > > > > se above > > > > it is not only statemnts > > > > it is **experimental phenomenon** --- > > > > 'explained'' by QM > > > > while it cant live togeter in the same theory > > > > and i even suggeted the right explanation- > > > > IT IS NOT AT All DONE BY SINGLE EELCTRON > > > > OR PHOTON > > > > in that case it becomes incredibly simple > > > > and not wierd anymore > > > > -------------- > > > > > > You seem to have a wholly separate complaint, that no one has defined > > > > > not separated at all > > > > it must be recomciled by a single theory > > > > because we have jsut one reality !! > > > > especially while we deal with ........ > > > > THE SAME PARTICLES !!! > > > > the same physical entities in two differnt aspects !!! > > > > > thank you PD fo r your apposite questions > > > > that help (even me) to explain better my > > > > thoughts > > > > (that start first intutitive to me > > > > from the back of my experience -- > > > > and later become more rational !! > > > > and 'explain -able' > > > > > am i completely wrong ?? > > > > (that is a question that anyone shell always ask himself !! ...... > > > > and that is why Google nG is for .......) > > > > > ATB > > > > Y.Porat > > > > --------------------------------------------- > > > > > > for you what a "single photon" means (although I did that for you > > > > > earlier) in a way that you can understand it. This, though, is not a > > > > > contradiction. It's just something you're missing. > > ------------------ > ok before i am going to sleep > (we ar elocated at two edges of the world) > i have a littl premptive question fo r you > lest take two cases : > 1 > we have a photon with a wavelength L1 > that you detect it along one second > (if you like take it for a microsecond ..) > > 2 > we have a photon with * the exact as above**--- wavelength L1 --- > > --but in that case you detect it along one minute > > my question is > > do you define the photons in case 1 > as a *single photon* > > and in case 2 -- > as the** SAME ** single photon** (as > in case 1 ) ???!! > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------ > --------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Collapsing the sin wave causes particle pile up behind each of the two holes. Mitch Raemsch |