Two slit experiment is FALSE
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 29 Jun 2010 02:43 On Jun 28, 6:19 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f4100867-4f6a-45da-a787-1b6a9a4d5b77(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 27, 7:17 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Same as Einstein's postulates came "after" certain approved > >> discoveries. Likewise everyone's been too busy, to reformulate old > >> experiments. > > >> Science now recognizes that charges interact by emitting virtual > >> photons, likewise charges emit real photons as when the electron moves > >> to a lower orbit. > > >> Thus the two slit experiment proves nothing other than the opposite > >> slits may have discharged their own light. > > >> Likewise situation for quantum tunneling. Both experiments very > >> possibly Newton's Cradle effects, meaning not the same particle/photon > >> being emitted as that received. > > >> 2010: Before Einstein, GUSKZ. > > > -------------------- > > The trouble in that > > two slits experiment is no in a wave that is > > composed of a huge nymver of photons > > It is BOTH a wave (or wave-like) AND a large number of photon particles (or > particle-like). > > > THE TROUBLE IS ABOUT THE **STOTY'' > > Stoty? > > > THAT A '''SINGLE PHOTON CAN INTERFERE WITH ITSELF-- > > But it does > > > WHICH IS **PHYSICS NONSENSE !!! > > Reality isn't physics nonsense > > > BECAUSE .... > > THE DENINITION OF A 'SINGLE PHOTON > > IS WRONG !!! > > No .. its not. You've just been using the energy of a photon being hf in > your last round of posts. > > You very happily argued that the momentum of a photon is P = E/c = hf/c ... > so E = hf > > > i showed that the real single photon > > is emitted duRing one PLANK TIME!! > > No .. you just claimed it did .. after myself and other posters told that a > phoont must be created within an instant (a single quantum of time, if time > is quantised) > > > and not during > > one second > > NOONE says it is in a second. This is just one of your nonsense statments > that you pretend other people are saying so you can argue against it > > > iow > > hf isnotthe real definition of the real single photon!! > > But you've just been using it that way. And EXPERIMENT shows that it is > > > a real single photon > > cannot interfere with itself > > But it does > > > (in a similar way that > > ***you cannot interfere with yourself *** (:-) > > I'm sure you do a lot of that > > > that is going to be > > **the Porat rule*** > > BAHAHAHAHA > > > in addition (and similar) to the > > Pauli rule !!!! > > But he was a scientist and intelligent .. you are barely human and no > nothing of science. How dare you compare yourself to Pauli. -------------------- NO 'you are not '' (full stop) (:-) (No is a great physics arguments only for infantile anonymous retarded crooks parasitic creeps ) Y.P -------------------------
From: Inertial on 29 Jun 2010 02:51 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:455c9022-5570-4d95-8a5f-c9375cdcb848(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 28, 6:19 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:f4100867-4f6a-45da-a787-1b6a9a4d5b77(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 27, 7:17 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Same as Einstein's postulates came "after" certain approved >> >> discoveries. Likewise everyone's been too busy, to reformulate old >> >> experiments. >> >> >> Science now recognizes that charges interact by emitting virtual >> >> photons, likewise charges emit real photons as when the electron moves >> >> to a lower orbit. >> >> >> Thus the two slit experiment proves nothing other than the opposite >> >> slits may have discharged their own light. >> >> >> Likewise situation for quantum tunneling. Both experiments very >> >> possibly Newton's Cradle effects, meaning not the same particle/photon >> >> being emitted as that received. >> >> >> 2010: Before Einstein, GUSKZ. >> >> > -------------------- >> > The trouble in that >> > two slits experiment is no in a wave that is >> > composed of a huge nymver of photons >> >> It is BOTH a wave (or wave-like) AND a large number of photon particles >> (or >> particle-like). >> >> > THE TROUBLE IS ABOUT THE **STOTY'' >> >> Stoty? >> >> > THAT A '''SINGLE PHOTON CAN INTERFERE WITH ITSELF-- >> >> But it does >> >> > WHICH IS **PHYSICS NONSENSE !!! >> >> Reality isn't physics nonsense >> >> > BECAUSE .... >> > THE DENINITION OF A 'SINGLE PHOTON >> > IS WRONG !!! >> >> No .. its not. You've just been using the energy of a photon being hf in >> your last round of posts. >> >> You very happily argued that the momentum of a photon is P = E/c = hf/c >> ... >> so E = hf >> >> > i showed that the real single photon >> > is emitted duRing one PLANK TIME!! >> >> No .. you just claimed it did .. after myself and other posters told that >> a >> phoont must be created within an instant (a single quantum of time, if >> time >> is quantised) >> >> > and not during >> > one second >> >> NOONE says it is in a second. This is just one of your nonsense >> statments >> that you pretend other people are saying so you can argue against it >> >> > iow >> > hf isnotthe real definition of the real single photon!! >> >> But you've just been using it that way. And EXPERIMENT shows that it is >> >> > a real single photon >> > cannot interfere with itself >> >> But it does >> >> > (in a similar way that >> > ***you cannot interfere with yourself *** (:-) >> >> I'm sure you do a lot of that >> >> > that is going to be >> > **the Porat rule*** >> >> BAHAHAHAHA >> >> > in addition (and similar) to the >> > Pauli rule !!!! >> >> But he was a scientist and intelligent .. you are barely human and no >> nothing of science. How dare you compare yourself to Pauli. > > -------------------- > NO Ooop. I should have said 'know nothing' instead of 'no nothing' > 'you are not '' (full stop) (:-) Not what? Not a full stop? I certainly didn't think I was one. > (No is a great physics arguments only > for infantile anonymous retarded crooks parasitic creeps ) Not really. But you wouldn't know about physics arguments .. you don't use them. So .. if the photon momentum P = hf/c or not. You were just recently saying it was, and now you're saying its wrong. Do you have ANY clear idea what you're talking about?
From: Y.Porat on 29 Jun 2010 03:38 On Jun 29, 8:51 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:455c9022-5570-4d95-8a5f-c9375cdcb848(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 28, 6:19 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:f4100867-4f6a-45da-a787-1b6a9a4d5b77(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jun 27, 7:17 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Same as Einstein's postulates came "after" certain approved > >> >> discoveries. Likewise everyone's been too busy, to reformulate old > >> >> experiments. > > >> >> Science now recognizes that charges interact by emitting virtual > >> >> photons, likewise charges emit real photons as when the electron moves > >> >> to a lower orbit. > > >> >> Thus the two slit experiment proves nothing other than the opposite > >> >> slits may have discharged their own light. > > >> >> Likewise situation for quantum tunneling. Both experiments very > >> >> possibly Newton's Cradle effects, meaning not the same particle/photon > >> >> being emitted as that received. > > >> >> 2010: Before Einstein, GUSKZ. > > >> > -------------------- > >> > The trouble in that > >> > two slits experiment is no in a wave that is > >> > composed of a huge nymver of photons > > >> It is BOTH a wave (or wave-like) AND a large number of photon particles > >> (or > >> particle-like). > > >> > THE TROUBLE IS ABOUT THE **STOTY'' > > >> Stoty? > > >> > THAT A '''SINGLE PHOTON CAN INTERFERE WITH ITSELF-- > > >> But it does > > >> > WHICH IS **PHYSICS NONSENSE !!! > > >> Reality isn't physics nonsense > > >> > BECAUSE .... > >> > THE DENINITION OF A 'SINGLE PHOTON > >> > IS WRONG !!! > > >> No .. its not. You've just been using the energy of a photon being hf in > >> your last round of posts. > > >> You very happily argued that the momentum of a photon is P = E/c = hf/c > >> ... > >> so E = hf > > >> > i showed that the real single photon > >> > is emitted duRing one PLANK TIME!! > > >> No .. you just claimed it did .. after myself and other posters told that > >> a > >> phoont must be created within an instant (a single quantum of time, if > >> time > >> is quantised) > > >> > and not during > >> > one second > > >> NOONE says it is in a second. This is just one of your nonsense > >> statments > >> that you pretend other people are saying so you can argue against it > > >> > iow > >> > hf isnotthe real definition of the real single photon!! > > >> But you've just been using it that way. And EXPERIMENT shows that it is > > >> > a real single photon > >> > cannot interfere with itself > > >> But it does > > >> > (in a similar way that > >> > ***you cannot interfere with yourself *** (:-) > > >> I'm sure you do a lot of that > > >> > that is going to be > >> > **the Porat rule*** > > >> BAHAHAHAHA > > >> > in addition (and similar) to the > >> > Pauli rule !!!! > > >> But he was a scientist and intelligent .. you are barely human and no > >> nothing of science. How dare you compare yourself to Pauli. > > > -------------------- > > NO > > Ooop. I should have said 'know nothing' instead of 'no nothing' > > > 'you are not '' (full stop) (:-) > > Not what? Not a full stop? I certainly didn't think I was one. > > > (No is a great physics arguments only > > for infantile anonymous retarded crooks parasitic creeps ) > > Not really. But you wouldn't know about physics arguments .. you don't use > them. > > So .. if the photon momentum P = hf/c or not. You were just recently saying > it was, and now you're saying its wrong. Do you have ANY clear idea what > you're talking about? ------------------ of course i was the first onehere to present it that way but listen carfull idiot IT IS MOMENTUM NOT ENERGY THEY ARE TWO DIFFERNT PHYSICAL ENTITIES!! so why doyou try again and again todeag me to your crooked Enegy arguments !??? just analize the hf /c as one emntity toits sub components including the dimensionless figures that are the entities that make the 'skeleton alive' and tell me WHICH ONE OF THEM IS ZERO AND WHICH ONE OF THEM IS RELATIVISTIC WHILE KEEPING IN MIND THAT NON OF THE M K S DIMENSIONS IS RELATIVISTIC BECAUSE LISTEN CRAFULLY IDIOT M K S ARE BASIC UNEQUIVOCAL DIMENSIONS AND FULL STOP youcant ''deerss'' on them other meanings than the orriginal meanings AS YOU LIKE IT !! like you say that M is relativistic and while i ask you waht is your base to say that you say 'because it is known' known to whom ?? were did yoy see written in any place that the basic KIlogram diemstion is relativistic again the basic Kilogram!! in that formula you have just the net KILOGRAM only isd there is some figure or factor to multiply it by something relativistic] it could be 'allegedly' be relativistic i showed long ago that even F= Gamam m a is not the right presentation to stick the gamma to the mass you could better as well stick it to the Force !!! ie ====================== F /Gamma = m a ======================= ***and m remains constant as it should be *** (PD used it once without mentioning my name as the originator of that insight !!) yet in that hf /c you have not even that Gamma !!! surprisingly enough that simple analysis that o brought at the op post is unprecedented and you will not find it an any parroting book !! but that does not mean it is not right ! and that is why it is a copyright of mime (just one of many !!!) iow it is not my fault that no one did it before !!!..... got it parrot that want to teach me physics ?? so bottom- enormously useful -bottom line NO MASS (THE ONLY MASS!!) NO REAL PHYSICS !! one day it is going to enter to the history of physics !! (history is done just under your silly nose ) Y.Porat ----------------------------------------
From: Michael Moroney on 29 Jun 2010 11:51 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> writes: >"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:455c9022-5570-4d95-8a5f-c9375cdcb848(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> On Jun 28, 6:19 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> But he was a scientist and intelligent .. you are barely human and no >>> nothing of science. How dare you compare yourself to Pauli. >> >> -------------------- >> NO >Ooop. I should have said 'know nothing' instead of 'no nothing' Getting caught in a spelling error by Porat. Shame on you! :-)
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 Prev: Scientific American: Light losing energy! Next: The REAL Pauli Particle Principle |