For the first time-an inner contradiction found in QM !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Michael Helland on 14 Feb 2010 04:11 On Feb 10, 1:27 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' !! In my opinion, that's not a contradiction, that's a defining feature of QM. How many models of QM have you made? For example, what Quantum Chromodynamic models have you come up with that would be in the slightest bit noteworthy to anyone that reads your posts?
From: Y.Porat on 14 Feb 2010 05:08 On Feb 14, 11:06 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > ----------------------- BTW what i said above does not mean that that two **different* processes cannot occur simultaneously that is another Opera ATB Y.Porat ----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 14 Feb 2010 05:31 On Feb 14, 11:11 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 10, 1:27 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' !! > > In my opinion, that's not a contradiction, that's a defining feature > of QM. ------------------------------ so for you anything that is sayed in QM is sacred ?? is the magic words QM make any nonsens to be a non nonsense ?? ddi you fou follow all along my previous posts ?? for instance my claim that a real ** single photon definition was never done properly ?? do you accept the notion that asingle photon is created 'instantaneously ??!! ----------------- 2 about a single photon interfering with itself my claime is that it is in contradiction to HUP do you can prove differnt? ie if we know exactly (100 % knowlwdge) the momentum of it after passing the slits by testing their wave length -- lets us know about their exact* * location before passing the slits ?? (we know the exact location in which the single electron was passing )!! can we know both of the above exactly as we do know - according to the HUP ?? (if it was done by a single electron of course and not more than one ---as i guess ) 3 if you ddi a lot of innovative models than good for you !! but if it involves single photons to interdere with themselves ' better dont let anyone like me to check your models (:-) > > How many models of QM have you made? > > For example, what Quantum Chromodynamic models have you come up with > that would be in the slightest bit noteworthy to anyone that reads > your posts? ------------------------ so why do your read my posts ?? (i have another 1000 readers ....) ATB Y.Porat -------------------
From: Inertial on 14 Feb 2010 06:34 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4a314b26-aadb-4ccb-a2de-023ab807ee31(a)j31g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > 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. I think you said that a little ambiguously. What I think you meant was You don't detect A SINGLE PHOTON over a period of time. They EACH deposit their energy ALL AT ONCE, in an instant. However, you can detect multiple photons over time. In particular, the interference patterns of a double slit experiment is formed by the detection of multiple photons over a period of time NOTE: Explaining anything to Porat is a waste of time. He is mentally and intellectually incapable of understanding.
From: Y.Porat on 14 Feb 2010 09:29
On Feb 14, 1:34 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:4a314b26-aadb-4ccb-a2de-023ab807ee31(a)j31g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > 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. > > I think you said that a little ambiguously. What I think you meant was > > You don't detect A SINGLE PHOTON over a period of time. They EACH deposit > their energy ALL AT ONCE, in an instant. > However, you can detect multiple photons over time. > > In particular, the interference patterns of a double slit experiment is > formed by the detection of multiple photons over a period of time > > NOTE: Explaining anything to Porat is a waste of time. He is mentally and > intellectually incapable of understanding. ---------------- (:-) the idiot psychopath anonymous crook Inertial only **started**(at last) to understand what ia am talking about .. Y.P ---------------------- ------------------------- what i am talkngf about .... --------------------- |