For the first time-an inner contradiction found in QM !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Igor on 12 Feb 2010 21:35 On Feb 11, 2:05 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > ----------------------------- > > 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: > 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 > 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 > 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 ?? > > that is your delocatin: > it is not enough to dsicuss abstractly > we ahve here a very specific and acurately defined case: > 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 > you know the location of the detected electron > by finding it exactly at the 'second slit; > moreover > you claim that you know its momentum as well !!! > (by The wavelength that is coming out from the > SECOND SLIT !!!?? > which is IMHO a contradiction totthe HUP > > 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 > -------------------- > > 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 !! > > it ignors completely the exsct DURATION > in which those photons are created > a bifg or smalle photon > 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 ' > iow > there should be difference between a photon that was shot > during one nano secd > and another one that was shot during two nano secnds > > YET THAT DISTINCTION DOES NOT EXIST IN THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF 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'* !! > > > How so? Planck's formula applies to all particles. > > > > 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* ???!!! "" > > > The main problem is that the photon can be de-localized. > > as i sayed > relocation (of yours ) is not specific > and accurate enough !! our case is very accurate > ---------- > > Your so-> called proof would only apply to localized particles. > > ------------------- > our case is very localized !! > ---------------- > Feynman called> this the single mystery of QM since so many other elements of the > > weirdness seem to stem from it. > > -------------------------- > he was a cleaver man > and sensed that there is something **FISHY** there > he was not just a parrot ..... > > and imho > i was putting my finger on specific **fishy * aspects !! > > In any case, you're howling up the> wrong tree on this one, Rex. > > ----------- > that last remark was unjustified !!(:-) > > anyway > thank you so far Igor !! I just have one comment about your response: Ughhh!!! Find some coherence, fella!
From: Y.Porat on 12 Feb 2010 22:50 On Feb 13, 4:35 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 2:05 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > ----------------------------- > > > 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: > > 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 > > 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 > > 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 ?? > > > that is your delocatin: > > it is not enough to dsicuss abstractly > > we ahve here a very specific and acurately defined case: > > 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 > > you know the location of the detected electron > > by finding it exactly at the 'second slit; > > moreover > > you claim that you know its momentum as well !!! > > (by The wavelength that is coming out from the > > SECOND SLIT !!!?? > > which is IMHO a contradiction totthe HUP > > > 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 > > -------------------- > > > 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 !! > > > it ignors completely the exsct DURATION > > in which those photons are created > > a bifg or smalle photon > > 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 ' > > iow > > there should be difference between a photon that was shot > > during one nano secd > > and another one that was shot during two nano secnds > > > YET THAT DISTINCTION DOES NOT EXIST IN THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF 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'* !! > > > > How so? Planck's formula applies to all particles. > > > > > 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* ???!!! "" > > > > The main problem is that the photon can be de-localized. > > > as i sayed > > relocation (of yours ) is not specific > > and accurate enough !! our case is very accurate > > ---------- > > > Your so-> called proof would only apply to localized particles. > > > ------------------- > > our case is very localized !! > > ---------------- > > Feynman called> this the single mystery of QM since so many other elements of the > > > weirdness seem to stem from it. > > > -------------------------- > > he was a cleaver man > > and sensed that there is something **FISHY** there > > he was not just a parrot ..... > > > and imho > > i was putting my finger on specific **fishy * aspects !! > > > In any case, you're howling up the> wrong tree on this one, Rex. > > > ----------- > > that last remark was unjustified !!(:-) > > > anyway > > thank you so far Igor !! > > I just have one comment about your response: Ughhh!!! > > Find some coherence, fella! ------------------- since you are a more politician than a scientist i will ask you (and PD is invited as well) a simple question: case 1 suppose you expose your car to the sun for ** one minute** and as a result - its temperature raises up inside your car to the T1( temperature) case 2 you expose your car to the 'same (in any aspect ) sun light' but in that case (the only difference will be ) not for one minute **but for ONE HOUR ** my question is will the temperature rise inside your car will be in case 2 exactly as in case 1 ?? TIA Y.Porat -------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 13 Feb 2010 02:40 On Feb 13, 5:50 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 4:35 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 11, 2:05 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > ----------------------------- > > > > 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: > > > 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 > > > 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 > > > 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 ?? > > > > that is your delocatin: > > > it is not enough to dsicuss abstractly > > > we ahve here a very specific and acurately defined case: > > > 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 > > > you know the location of the detected electron > > > by finding it exactly at the 'second slit; > > > moreover > > > you claim that you know its momentum as well !!! > > > (by The wavelength that is coming out from the > > > SECOND SLIT !!!?? > > > which is IMHO a contradiction totthe HUP > > > > 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 > > > -------------------- > > > > 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 !! > > > > it ignors completely the exsct DURATION > > > in which those photons are created > > > a bifg or smalle photon > > > 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 ' > > > iow > > > there should be difference between a photon that was shot > > > during one nano secd > > > and another one that was shot during two nano secnds > > > > YET THAT DISTINCTION DOES NOT EXIST IN THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF 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'* !! > > > > > How so? Planck's formula applies to all particles. > > > > > > 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* ???!!! "" > > > > > The main problem is that the photon can be de-localized. > > > > as i sayed > > > relocation (of yours ) is not specific > > > and accurate enough !! our case is very accurate > > > ---------- > > > > Your so-> called proof would only apply to localized particles. > > > > ------------------- > > > our case is very localized !! > > > ---------------- > > > Feynman called> this the single mystery of QM since so many other elements of the > > > > weirdness seem to stem from it. > > > > -------------------------- > > > he was a cleaver man > > > and sensed that there is something **FISHY** there > > > he was not just a parrot ..... > > > > and imho > > > i was putting my finger on specific **fishy * aspects !! > > > > In any case, you're howling up the> wrong tree on this one, Rex.. > > > > ----------- > > > that last remark was unjustified !!(:-) > > > > anyway > > > thank you so far Igor !! > > > I just have one comment about your response: Ughhh!!! > > > Find some coherence, fella! > > ------------------- > since you are a more politician than a scientist > i will ask you (and PD is invited as well) > a simple question: > > case 1 > suppose you expose your car to the sun > for ** one minute** > and as a result - > its temperature raises up inside your car > to the T1( temperature) > > case 2 > you expose your car to the 'same > (in any aspect ) sun light' > but in that case (the only difference > will be ) > not for one minute > **but for ONE HOUR ** > > my question is > will the temperature rise inside your car > will be in case 2 > exactly as in case 1 ?? > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------- is it so difficult to answer the (just above) trivial answer ??? it is trivial BUT REVOLUTIONARY !!!! TIA Y.Porat --------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 13 Feb 2010 08:42 On Feb 12, 5:57 pm, PD > > th elocation of the 'single electron' > ----------------------- (in addition to my *unanswered question** about the CAR HEATED IN THE SUN' -----> NO as far as i know it is no problem to direct the orrriginal phootn to one slit !!!! AND THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO DIRECT IT TO A SPECIFIC SLIT !!! you are trying to obfuscate thew issue !! > > > 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. >---------------------- in addition to my answered question about 'THE CAR HEATED ON THE SUN" you are obfuscation again: ONE YOU KNOW THE WAVE LEGTH THATIS COMMING OUT OFTH ESLIT--- **YOU HAVE AN 100 PERCENT KNOWLWDGE OF MOMENTUM********!!! AND IT LEADS TO ZERO AGAIN ZERO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT LOCATION !!! you cant have them bothin our specific 'double slit interference o a SUNGLE photon THAT I SHOWED BY MY CAR HEATED IN SUN (THAT NO ONE EVER REALLY DEFINED WHAT IS REALLY A *SINGLE PHOTON **!!! not only PD didnt do it but NO ONE EVER !!! did it !! it is only me that is going to start only now the a beginning of a real definition of it hint IT IS HIDDEN (and disguised) DEEPLY IN THE h factor !!! yet i am not in a hurry to spoon feed (:-)!! but first i am waiting for an answer about my question about the **car heated in the sun' ** TIA Y.Porat -----------------------
From: PD on 13 Feb 2010 09:27
On Feb 13, 7:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 12, 5:57 pm, PD > > th elocation of the 'single electron' > > > > ----------------------- > (in addition to my *unanswered question** about the > CAR HEATED IN THE SUN' -----> > > NO > as far as i know > it is no problem to direct the orrriginal phootn > to one slit !!!! > AND THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO DIRECT IT > TO A SPECIFIC SLIT !!! > you are trying to obfuscate thew issue !! Not at all. But this is precisely the point. If you KNEW which slit the photon were going to pass through, or arranged things so that this were so, then the interference pattern disappears in the experiment. It's only when you DON'T know that the interference pattern appears. > > > > > > 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. > >---------------------- > > in addition to my answered question > about > 'THE CAR HEATED ON THE SUN" > > you are obfuscation again: > > ONE YOU KNOW THE WAVE LEGTH THATIS COMMING OUT OFTH ESLIT--- > > **YOU HAVE AN 100 PERCENT KNOWLWDGE > OF MOMENTUM********!!! No you don't. You have a measurement of the wavelength, but with a limit on the precision. And there's a *physical* limit on the precision, not just an instrumental one. > AND IT LEADS TO > ZERO AGAIN ZERO KNOWLEDGE > ABOUT LOCATION !!! > you cant have them bothin our specific > 'double slit interference o a SUNGLE photon > > THAT I SHOWED BY MY > CAR HEATED IN SUN > (THAT NO ONE EVER REALLY DEFINED > WHAT IS REALLY A *SINGLE PHOTON **!!! > > not only PD didnt do it > but NO ONE EVER !!! did it !! > > it is only me that is going to start only now > the a beginning of a real definition of it > hint > IT IS HIDDEN (and disguised) DEEPLY IN THE h factor !!! > yet i am not in a hurry to spoon feed > (:-)!! > > but first > i am waiting for an answer about my question about > the > **car heated in the sun' ** > TIA > Y.Porat > ----------------------- |