For the first time-an inner contradiction found in QM !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 13 Feb 2010 15:30 On Feb 13, 9:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > --------------------------- youcant calculate how many single phjotons are delivered on my car if i dont know what is the definition of a single photon i cant know how many of them did it !! you yourself admitted above that th e numer of photons delivered in one second is leaas than that number in one hour iow the definition of a single photon is TIME DEPENDENT AND YOUR 'INSTANTANEOUS ' WORD A IS MEANINGLESS WHILE WE ARE GOING TO CALCULATE HOW MANY OF THEM we can find the total amount of energy we got but we dont know by how many single photon it was done because yuou still didnt tell us how long it takes to detect or create ** a single one )) do you agree with me thjat to "detect" and to "create" a single photon is connected it cannot be zero time!! even if i will accept your 'zero time to creat a photon (which is physics nonsense it is equivalqnt to say 'i have no green idea about how long is that instantaneous' the car in the sun proves that it is not zero time for creating a photon until now YOU DIDNT TEELLUHOW LONG IT TAKES TOCREATE A SINGLE PHOTON **your instantaneous claim is UNACCEPTABLE ** because it is not a definite definition and not real physics because ***there is no physical process** that is done in zero time !! **that should be one of the basic principles of physics!! while it is an *unknown short time* you can say *instantaneous' but that is exactly as to say we dont know how much time !!! while in our case HOW MUCH TIME IS CRUCIAL - THAT IS THE CORE OF OUR DISCUSSION ! (beause the real single photon is indeed created in a very short time (certainly not one second !!) we know it from** experience* by detecting photons that have an extremely shot life time of **being detected** and therefore accordingly **being created as well * !! there is some definite time duration!! for crating a real single photon THAT WAS NEVER BEEN DEFINED !! (you can talk about a total amount of energy that was carried by all of them but you cant say how many of them did that mission the arbitrarily human definition hf does not show any time dependence in time duratinfor a single natural photon the humen defined photon using the one second migh tbe huseful for many purposes but not for all of them but not for the single photon interference with itself -- understanding btw you g constant story does not tell us how many gravitons did it as well !! so your g examppel is not relevant here because no one on earth even claimed that 'a single graviton is interfering with itself!! INTERFERING WITH ITSELF IS AMUCH MORE COMPLICATED AND SPECIAL PHENOMENON THAN (A single ????!!) GRAVITON MAKING GRAVITATION FORCE in simper words ( excuse me)- obfuscations !! btw PD why dont you admit in order to make your discussion shorter that -- a real single photon as (defined by nature )was never defined or discovered experimentally !!?? and the current definition is highly ambiguous (and dont take it personally --- it is not your fault nor my fault ....) TIA Y.Porat ------------------- THAN TIA Y.Porat ------------------- but you still didnt tell me wahtis the exact numeric differnce that will tell me how many of them the current definition > > > > 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 15:45 On Feb 13, 2:30 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 9:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > --------------------------- > > youcant calculate how many single phjotons are delivered on my car > if i dont know what is the definition of a single photon I've already told you what the definition is. > i cant know > how many of them did it !! > you yourself admitted above that > th e numer of photons delivered in one second > is leaas than that number in one hour Yes, because there are more photons delivered in an hour than in a second. Why is this hard? > > iow > the definition of a single photon is > TIME DEPENDENT No, it's not. The amount of energy delivered by light in a period of time is time-dependent, but not the amount of energy delivered in a photon. Look at it this way, Porat. Suppose you had a bank account, and into it you deposited one penny an hour. The amount of money deposited in one month would be different than the amount of money deposited in one year, because more pennies get delivered in a year than in a month. But this does not mean that the amount of money in a penny is time- dependent. The amount of money in the penny is fixed. > AND YOUR 'INSTANTANEOUS ' WORD > A IS MEANINGLESS WHILE WE ARE GOING TO > CALCULATE HOW MANY OF THEM > we can find the total amount of energy we got > but we dont know by how many single photon it was done > because yuou still didnt tell us how long it takes > to detect or create ** a single one )) It's *instantaneous*. There's no time needed to soak up a whole photon. > do you agree with me thjat > to "detect" and to "create" a single photon > is connected > it cannot be zero time!! There is no minimum time. > even if i will accept your 'zero time to creat a photon > (which is physics nonsense Not at all. > it is equivalqnt to say > 'i have no green idea about how long is that > instantaneous' > the car in the sun proves that it is not zero time > for creating a photon > until now > YOU DIDNT TEELLUHOW LONG IT TAKES > TOCREATE A SINGLE PHOTON > **your instantaneous claim is > UNACCEPTABLE ** I don't care what you think is unacceptable. > because it is not a definite definition > and not real physics > because ***there is no physical process** > that is done > in zero time !! > **that should be one of the basic principles of physics!! And that's where you're wrong. You make this assumption because everything you know from MACROSCOPIC world is that way and so you believe that the whole universe must be the SAME WAY. This is a bad assumption. A person raised in Europe will know that all mammals in Europe give live birth to their young. But it would be a mistake to think that because it is so in Europe that it is also so in the whole world. Anybody in Australia would know this is not the case. > > while it is an *unknown short time* you can say > *instantaneous' but that is exactly as to say > we dont know how much time !!! > while in our case > HOW MUCH TIME IS CRUCIAL - > THAT IS THE CORE OF OUR DISCUSSION ! > (beause the real single photon is indeed created > in a very short time > (certainly not one second !!) > we know it from** experience* > by detecting photons that have an extremely shot life time of > **being detected** > and therefore > accordingly **being created as well * !! > > there is some definite time duration!! > for crating a real single photon > THAT WAS NEVER BEEN DEFINED !! > (you can talk about a total amount of energy that was carried by > all of them > but you cant say how many of them did that mission > > the arbitrarily human definition hf > does not show any time dependence in time duratinfor a single > natural photon > > the humen defined photon using the one second No, it does NOT. I've already pointed out the foolishness of this. The acceleration of gravity for falling objects is 9.8 m/s^2. This does not mean that this acceleration only applies to objects that fall for exactly 1 second, or that we measure the acceleration for exactly 1 second. That is not what that number means at all! > migh tbe huseful for many purposes > but not for all of them > > but not for the single photon interference > with itself -- understanding > > btw > you g constant story > does not tell us how many gravitons did it as well !! > so > your g examppel is not relevant here > because no one on earth even claimed that > 'a single graviton is interfering with itself!! > > INTERFERING WITH ITSELF > IS AMUCH MORE COMPLICATED > AND SPECIAL PHENOMENON THAN > (A single ????!!) GRAVITON MAKING GRAVITATION FORCE > > in simper words ( excuse me)- > obfuscations !! > > btw PD > why dont you admit in order to make your discussion > shorter that -- > a real single photon as (defined by nature )was never defined or > discovered experimentally !!?? Because it would be stupid to admit that. The photons have both been perfectly well described AND observed experimentally. > and the current definition is highly ambiguous > > (and dont take it personally --- > it is not your fault nor my fault ....) > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------- > > THAN > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------- > > but you still didnt tell me > wahtis the exact numeric differnce that will tell me > how many of them > the current definition > > > > 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: ben6993 on 13 Feb 2010 15:57 On Feb 13, 4:48 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > ----------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Questions about the instantaneous absorption of the energy in a photon: some questions may be irrelevant or inadmissable when applied to photons, so please excuse that if I get it wrong. I have read that photons travel through space and not through time (at least from their reference frame, were we able to be aware of their perspective). Whereas we, viewed from our reference frame, cannot stop travelling through time. So it seems to fit in that photon interactions must be instantaneous in the photon's frame of reference. But is it obvious that the photon interactions must be instantaneous in our frame of reference? (Note that I am not disagreeing with you, just trying to understand why interactions are instantaneous.) If a spaceship were travelling past a lab at near the speed of light it would tend to appear to us to be almost of zero length or thickness (like a flying saucer that had got it all wrong and not was using its aerodynamics properly). If it did not stop but instead tore through our welcome banner on the roof of the lab, it would almost instantaneously transfer some of its energy to the banner. Almost instantaneously because it is not quite travelling at the speed of light. But it could not be a long drawn-out measurement process because of the high speed of the spaceship? Blink and it has gone. Does a photon have to react instantaneously with matter only because of its speed? Or is is because the photon in its own frame is not travelling through time? For the spaceship, the people on board can be expected to experience time passing for themselves at what probably seems to them as their normal rate, but for a photon no time ever elapses. It always seems odd to me that we experience a photon travelling through time, which the photon in its own frame never experiences. Is it comparable to us being observed, from without, travelling through an extra dimension we did not know existed?
From: Y.Porat on 14 Feb 2010 01:23 On Feb 13, 10:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 2:30 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 13, 9:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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: > > > > ght 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 > > > 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. > > > --------------------------- > > > youcant calculate how many single phjotons are delivered on my car > > if i dont know what is the definition of a single photon > > I've already told you what the definition is. -------------------- common PD if you decided to end that ** important dsicussion by *i told you' and i will say i told you that willbe the endof this discussion !! it will be ended by ego wrath and thats all may be you use that tacics because you realize that you was pushed to a corner?? i told you and thr readers wil agree with me that your definition of a single photon that is based on THE*SINGLE* PHOTON IS CREATED 'INSTANTLY' IS NOT A PHYSICS DEFINTION!! it is nice poetry and nothing else !!! we agreed that the number of photns emmited is **TIME DEPENDED* now to say that this time dependence of yourse is INSTANTANEOUS is void becasue NOPHYSICAL PROCESS IS OCCURING 'IIN ZERO TIME !! do you deny that ? just answer clearly about it !! or else we dont have a comon base for dsicussion 2 you gave nme the 'advice' to calculatehow many singlephotons are emmited per second by telling me that the sun emmits x joules per seconds again joules per second !! on a square meter !! now my question is loules on a square meter is fine enough to define waht is the smallest photon ?? MR PD you cant take some definitions that are good enough for certain resolutions degree and use tghem todescribe properly A MUCH SMALLER RESOLUTION !! for instance: you can take the one liter definition in or der todescribe the number of whole liters that are in the ATLANTIC OCEAN ! but that is not a good enough RESOLUTION LEVEL to describe how many whole liters are in A SINGLE MOLECULE OF WATER !!! iow in order of defining properly the Atlantic ocean you nee much LESS KNOWLEDGE --- than is needed to describe A SINGLE MOLECULE OF WATER !!! IN ORDER OF DESCRIBING A SINGLE MOLECULE OF WAHTER YOU MUST NEED as well MUCH SMALLER SCALE units all of us sane scientists understand that there are in nature much smaller magnitudes of photon energy than the magnitude of **number of joules** per meter PER SECOND !! in short your definition of a single photon based on your claim that it is done INSTANTANEOUSLY IS GOOD ENOUGH AS TO SAY THAT THE ATLANTIC OCEAN IS COMPOSED OF X LITERS OF WATER and overlooking that it is compsed of single molecules of water thuat are as well composed of two Atoms of hydrogen and one atomof oxygen! if you dont agree on that you *TACTICALLY AND DELIBERATELY* pushed this discussion TO A DEAD END may be( in the good )case you did t it just because simply lack of fine enough understanding of the issue !! anyway thank you for the interesting discussion -- untl this dead end (if you still dont agre with me ) btw let me make short and clear enough about my claim: MY CLAIM IS THAT NO ONE -UNTIL NOW - HAS HAS EVER DEFINED PROPERLY THE REAL (NATURES) DEFINITION ABOUT WHAT IS THE SMALLEST **SINGLE *** PHOTON !! (it must be dependent --- as well !!) on * time definition of 'creation duration * or something equivalent to it * may be creation duration or -- detection duration that now - seems to me the same ATB Y.Porat ---------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 14 Feb 2010 04:06
On Feb 13, 10:57 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 4:48 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ----------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Questions about the instantaneous absorption of the energy in a > photon: > some questions may be irrelevant or inadmissable when applied to > photons, so please excuse that if I get it wrong. > > I have read that photons travel through space and not through time (at > least from their reference frame, were we able to be aware of their > perspective). Whereas we, viewed from our reference frame, cannot > stop travelling through time. So it seems to fit in that photon > interactions must be instantaneous in the photon's frame of > reference. But is it obvious that the photon interactions must be > instantaneous in our frame of reference? (Note that I am not > disagreeing with you, just trying to understand why interactions are > instantaneous.) > > If a spaceship were travelling past a lab at near the speed of light > it would tend to appear to us to be almost of zero length or thickness > (like a flying saucer that had got it all wrong and not was using its > aerodynamics properly). If it did not stop but instead tore through > our welcome banner on the roof of the lab, it would almost > instantaneously transfer some of its energy to the banner. Almost > instantaneously because it is not quite travelling at the speed of > light. But it could not be a long drawn-out measurement process > because of the high speed of the spaceship? Blink and it has gone. > > Does a photon have to react instantaneously with matter only because > of its speed? Or is is because the photon in its own frame is not > travelling through time? For the spaceship, the people on board can > be expected to experience time passing for themselves at what probably > seems to them as their normal rate, but for a photon no time ever > elapses. It always seems odd to me that we experience a photon > travelling through time, which the photon in its own frame never > experiences. Is it comparable to us being observed, from without, > travelling through an extra dimension we did not know existed? ----------------------- HI anonymous you see how crooky phycists succeeded to boggle your mind it all generally starts with mathematicians that call themselves physicists !! there ar esome basic of physics that must be clear to anyone !! THERE IS NO PROCESS (no natter if in physics or whatever else that NEEDS NO TIME!! you see th every term PROCESS is by definition SOMETHING THAT NEED **TIME ** is it clear until now ? and if you keep it in mind you save youself a lot of ball boiling 9excuse the blant term but it must be said boldly in order of being enshrined in memory ) !!) even microcosm cannot evade that iron rule !! (until proven other wise !! he burden of prof in that case is on the ball bogglers !!...) people use to say instantaneous'' in cases that it is indeed A VERY SHORT TIME' AND IN CASES THAT **SOMEONE THINKS **THAT THE REAL ELAPSE OF TIME IS NOT RELEVANT FOR *A SPECIFIC CASE* but there are issues as our current issue that the real elapse of time is a 'to be or not to be issue !! because in some issues as our curent one a very itny elapse of time (especially a basic conceptual principal error) can tern the cat into a mouse and vice versa !! in cases that the real elapse of time is extremely short the real elapse of time knowledge is 'to be or not to be case !! so to conclude: if you think that in physics there is something that cures 'instantaneously THAN FORGET about IT AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE and the sooner the better it will save you a lot of your** precious** time and energy !! btw you can understand it in another way: if one says that process happened instantaneously it means in other words that -- WHAT WAS BEFORE THAT PROCESS IS *EXACTLY* THE SAME AS IT IS AFTER THAT 'PROCESS ' OR !! IE IN OTHER MORE SANE simple WORDS: IT NEVER HAPPENED !! (:-) (to happen means as well -time consumption ..!!) and to our case the real definition of a 'single photon' was never done satisfactory to for all cases including the single photon interfering with itself because a single photon was never properly (and FINE ENOUGH ) WAS defined and if not defines you cant talk about A SINGLE PHOTON' interfering with itself !! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------- |