For the first time-an inner contradiction found in QM !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 14 Feb 2010 12:03 On Feb 13, 4:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > ------------------------ > > -------------------------- ------------------- nothing in physics is done 'at once' ie zero time in a real zero time you get --- a Zero process zero change ! zero time is as if it was never done !! any process is **by definition ** time dependent !! *(time consumer ) not only in physics !! so better start looking what is wrong in current 'single photon;' definition and in a single photon interfering with itself and all the associated issues and the sooner the better !! for some real advance !! its more than time for some real advance . ATB Y.Porat ------------------------ ATB Y.Porat
From: BURT on 14 Feb 2010 14:24 On Feb 14, 9:03 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 4:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > ------------------------ > > > -------------------------- > > ------------------- > nothing in physics is done > 'at once' > ie zero time > > in a real zero time you get --- > a Zero process > zero change ! > zero time is as if it was never done !! > any process is **by definition ** > time dependent !! *(time consumer ) > not only in physics !! > so better start looking what is wrong > in current 'single photon;' definition > and in > a single photon interfering with itself > and all the associated issues > > and the sooner the better !! > for some real advance !! > its more than time for some real advance . > > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------------ > > ATB > Y.Porat- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The collapsing of the sine wave is when time aether flow does not flow over the point particle. Mitch Raemsch
From: Igor on 14 Feb 2010 19:56 On Feb 12, 10:50 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 ?? > > TIA > Y.Porat No, they won't be the same, but then what does the price of raisins in China have to do with your original post? Again, you really need to find some coherence. Till then, you'll just be posting more silliness.
From: Y.Porat on 15 Feb 2010 05:08 On Feb 14, 9:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 14, 9:03 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 4:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > ------------------------ > > > > -------------------------- > > > ------------------- > > nothing in physics is done > > 'at once' > > ie zero time > > > in a real zero time you get --- > > a Zero process > > zero change ! > > zero time is as if it was never done !! > > any process is **by definition ** > > time dependent !! *(time consumer ) > > not only in physics !! > > so better start looking what is wrong > > in current 'single photon;' definition > > and in > > a single photon interfering with itself > > and all the associated issues > > > and the sooner the better !! > > for some real advance !! > > its more than time for some real advance . > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------ > > > ATB > > Y.Porat- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > The collapsing of the sine wave is when time aether flow does not flow > over the point particle. > > Mitch Raemsch --------------------- thank you Mitch because just now you gave me another interesting guess : (one of a million of my guess justify themselves ):: (:-) so it goes like this: (first a disclaimer: i have never dealt with wave function) anyway: while people deal with wave functions and talk about a wave function 'collapsing' into a or b it is actually **not a wave function of a SINGLE PARTICLE!!! but **practically (in reality) **it is not a single one but TWO OR MORE OF THEM !!!??? how about that ?? and if i am wrong please explain TIA Y.Porat --------------------
From: Inertial on 15 Feb 2010 08:12
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:d74a14d1-4ca8-4666-a24f-769f7eb5940f(a)q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com... > i ddint like the current definition of a single photon > as that one that is emitted during one second > > because i dont think that nature even heard about the rumor' > about(one second ) (:-) I have to step in and comment on that lie, and not leave it unchallenged. The current definition of a single photon has *nothing to do* with one being emitted during one second. I don't know where you get your nonsense about what you think physics says .. but it certainly isn't a valid physics text or reference. That's all .. I'll leave you to your crack-pottery again. |