For the first time-an inner contradiction found in QM !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 10 Feb 2010 04:27 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 ------------------- '
From: BURT on 10 Feb 2010 13:53 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' !! > > 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 > ------------------- > > ' QM is energy vibrating slow then faster then fasest then goes fastest in the other direction then slower then slow then is at rest in the center of the wave. Vibration is outward then inward.. The cycle is repeating stochastically in direction. Where it is slow it is found more often than where it is fast. This gives the same result as the Max Born interpretation. Mitch Raemsch
From: Igor on 10 Feb 2010 15:20 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. > 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? > 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. Your so- called proof would only apply to localized particles. Feynman called this the single mystery of QM since so many other elements of the weirdness seem to stem from it. In any case, you're howling up the wrong tree on this one, Rex.
From: Inertial on 10 Feb 2010 18:28 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:b34bb5df-7f5b-4ec1-b298-8a1364cb92c0(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > for the first time an inner contradiction was found > by me regarding the > 'single' electron interfering with itself > in the 'double slit experiment' !! No .. you just don't understand QM. > first and most simple to prove was the > contradiction to the H U P !! (of QM itself !!) There is no contradiction to the HUP > (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 !! Yes .. it is > and in fact itis actually more than a single photon ! No .. it is not. A single photon is a single photon. If it was more than one, then each of THOSE would be a single photon. Regardless, you have single photons > a 'single photon' not as the current human definition > but a closer definition to "" reality of photons** Our definition of photons is based on reality and hundreds of years of observations. > anyway > it is more obvious about the 'Single *electron'* !! Both are obvious, both a individually detectable > 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* ???!!! "" There is no proof of anything there, other than your complete ignorance of physics > (now let me ques who will be the first one > to jump in against it like....a ...) > > if it is 'for it'---- > welcome (:-) You really are deluded.
From: BURT on 10 Feb 2010 23:49
On Feb 10, 3:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b34bb5df-7f5b-4ec1-b298-8a1364cb92c0(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > for the first time an inner contradiction was found > > by me regarding the > > 'single' electron interfering with itself > > in the 'double slit experiment' !! > > No .. you just don't understand QM. > > > first and most simple to prove was the > > contradiction to the H U P !! (of QM itself !!) > > There is no contradiction to the HUP > > > (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 !! > > Yes .. it is > > > and in fact itis actually more than a single photon ! > > No .. it is not. A single photon is a single photon. If it was more than > one, then each of THOSE would be a single photon. Regardless, you have > single photons > > > a 'single photon' not as the current human definition > > but a closer definition to "" reality of photons** > > Our definition of photons is based on reality and hundreds of years of > observations. > > > anyway > > it is more obvious about the 'Single *electron'* !! > > Both are obvious, both a individually detectable > > > 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* ???!!! "" > > There is no proof of anything there, other than your complete ignorance of > physics > > > (now let me ques who will be the first one > > to jump in against it like....a ...) > > > if it is 'for it'---- > > welcome (:-) > > You really are deluded. Can you tell me the only valid wave function? Collapsing the sine wave is what is happening. Mitch Raemsch |