For the first time-an inner contradiction found in QM !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 13 Feb 2010 09:28 On Feb 12, 2:10 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 You don't detect photons over a period of time. Please reread the definition of photons. They deposit their energy ALL AT ONCE, in an instant. > (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: Y.Porat on 13 Feb 2010 11:48 On Feb 13, 4:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > ----------------------- you ddint answer my question about the car heated in the sun: is the 'single photons' are those that heated you car during one minuted?? or those in case No2 --- those ones that heated your car during one hour ??? TIA Y.Porat ----------------------
From: PD on 13 Feb 2010 13:09 On Feb 12, 9:50 pm, "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 ?? No, of course not. There's been more energy delivered (more photons, if you like) over the course of one hour than there has been for one minute. By the way, since you know that sunlight delivers 1 kW/m^2, you can *calculate* how many photons are delivered in one minute in sunlight. The number of photons delivered in one hour is 60 times as many. > > TIA > Y.Porat > -------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 13 Feb 2010 14:00 On Feb 13, 8:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 12, 9:50 pm, "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 ?? > > No, of course not. There's been more energy delivered (more photons, > if you like) over the course of one hour than there has been for one > minute. > > By the way, since you know that sunlight delivers 1 kW/m^2, you can > *calculate* how many photons are delivered in one minute in sunlight. > The number of photons delivered in one hour is 60 times as many. >----------------------- so ?? th e **number of photons** that ar delivered IS TIME DEPENDENT ??!! isnt it so ?? and can we say that t enumber of *single * photons that were delivered in one second is DIFFERNT from the number of single ohotons that were delivered during one hour !! and shell we gofurther and say that TH EDEFINITION OF THE WAVE LENGTH IS **NOT ENOUGH** IN ORDER TO DEFINE A SINGLELPHOTON now how you define according to th e current mathematical definition a single photon ?? can you say the E=hf is enough to define a single photon energy ?? energy is mass times meter ^2/second ^2 but still you dint know from it how many seconds to put inthat formula !!!?? ie case 1 f during one second ?? case 2 f during one hour one hour ?? for your **current definition of a single photon**'' there is no difference between case NO 1 and case No 2 !!! ??? ow come ?? and your 'instantaneous '' suggestion' becomes meaningless it is just an ABSTRACT !! word without practical numeric meaning FOR helping us to solve the ambiguity of definition we found in the **'car in the sun '** example !! TIA Y.Porat -------------------------- (were is the time aspect that we detected by the 'car in the sun' example ??)??!! > > > > > > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > -------------------------
From: PD on 13 Feb 2010 14:09
On Feb 13, 1:00 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 8:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 12, 9:50 pm, "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 ?? > > > No, of course not. There's been more energy delivered (more photons, > > if you like) over the course of one hour than there has been for one > > minute. > > > By the way, since you know that sunlight delivers 1 kW/m^2, you can > > *calculate* how many photons are delivered in one minute in sunlight. > > The number of photons delivered in one hour is 60 times as many. > >----------------------- > > so ?? > th e **number of photons** that ar delivered > IS TIME DEPENDENT ??!! Yes, of course. The energy that is delivered by a photon is a fixed amount for a certain wavelength, but the amount of energy that is delivered by light at the same wavelength accumulates with time. That accumulated energy comes from the accumulated number of photons that have landed. > isnt it so ?? > and can we say that > t enumber of *single * photons > that were delivered in one second > is DIFFERNT from the number of single > ohotons that were delivered during > one hour !! Yes, of course. This is not new. > and > shell we gofurther and say that > > TH EDEFINITION OF THE WAVE LENGTH > IS **NOT ENOUGH** > IN ORDER TO DEFINE A SINGLELPHOTON I already told you what the definition of a photon is. Have you forgotten already? > > now > how you define according to th e current mathematical definition > a single photon ?? > > can you say the > E=hf is enough to define > a single photon energy ?? > energy is > mass times meter ^2/second ^2 > > but still you dint know from it > how many seconds to put inthat formula !!!?? Oh, come on, Porat, your use of units is ABYSMAL. The acceleration of gravity for objects falling near the surface of the earth is 9.8 m/s^2. You don't know how many seconds to put in that expression either. Please, please, please don't try to tell me that this number only applies for objects that fall for exactly 1 second. Would you have me believe that a coin that falls from my pocket doesn't accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 if it doesn't fall for precisely 1 second? > > ie > case 1 > f during one second ?? > > case 2 > f during one hour one hour ?? > > for your **current definition of a single photon**'' > there is no difference between > case NO 1 > > and case No 2 !!! ??? > ow come ?? Because it's not a single photon that's delivered in EITHER 1 second or 1 hour. I already told you you can CALCULATE how many photons fall on your car in one second and in one hour. > > and your > 'instantaneous '' suggestion' > becomes meaningless > it is just an ABSTRACT !! word > without practical numeric meaning > FOR helping us to solve the ambiguity > of definition > we found in the **'car in the sun '** example !! > > TIA > Y.Porat > -------------------------- > > (were is the time aspect > that we detected by the 'car in the sun' > example ??)??!! > > > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------------- |