Two slit experiment
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory
Next: Misconceptions from bad use of language was Re: Two slit experiment
From: whoever on 2 Jun 2010 05:24 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8c07640f-82c6-4c46-9d87-cf9d851c79be(a)l6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 2, 4:13 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On May 29, 9:26 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On May 30, 1:11 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On 5/29/10 10:00 AM, rick_s wrote: >> >> > > > So has anyone figured out the faulty logic yet wrt the two slit >> > > > experiment? >> >> > > Faulty Logic? >> >> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment >> >> > > "In quantum mechanics, the double-slit experiment (often referred to >> > > as >> > > Young's experiment) demonstrates the inseparability of the wave and >> > > particle natures of light and other quantum particles. A coherent >> > > light >> > > source (e.g., a laser) illuminates a thin plate with two parallel >> > > slits >> > > cut in it, and the light passing through the slits strikes a screen >> > > behind them. The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing >> > > through both slits to interfere, creating an interference pattern of >> > > bright and dark bands on the screen. However, at the screen, the >> > > light >> > > is always found to be absorbed as though it were made of discrete >> > > particles, called photons". >> >> > ------------------- >> > yest Mr parrot Wormley >> > you ddint tell the whole 'story'!! >> > the other story about itis >> > listen carefully >> >> > that even a **single photon' >> > 'can interfere with himself "!!!! >> > and a single photon is defined by >> > your fucken QM as >> > E=hf >> > while i showed and proved that >> > E=hf >> > IS NOT THE REAL FORMULA >> > FOR THE REAL PHYSICAL SINGLE PHOTON!!!! >> > got it fucken potato head parrot ???!! >> > the real single photon energy is >> > hf times * 'Planck time'* >> > which gives about (quote from my own week memory) >> > about exp -77 Joule !! >> > so from now on Mr Parrot W >> > just remember it and tell it to your >> > new young readers >> > and tell them that there are some new innovations after 100 years of >> > fucken >> > crippled QM !! >> >> > ATB >> > Y.Porat >> > ----------------------------- Hide quoted text - >> >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> Does light flow through two holes at the same time porat and then come >> back together. I think what you are saying is invalid. >> >> MItch Raemsch > > ------------------ > i was not asking and talking about 'light' > > i am much more specific:!! > > CAN A SINGLE PHOTON INTERFERE WITH ITSELF?? > > (AS FUCKEN (ing) -- QM CLAIM ???) > Y.Porat Physics answer: Do an experiment and find out. Such experiments have been performed and the answer is "yes". Whether or not you like or understand the results doesn't alter them. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Y.Porat on 2 Jun 2010 05:35 On Jun 2, 11:24 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:8c07640f-82c6-4c46-9d87-cf9d851c79be(a)l6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 2, 4:13 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 29, 9:26 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On May 30, 1:11 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > On 5/29/10 10:00 AM, rick_s wrote: > > >> > > > So has anyone figured out the faulty logic yet wrt the two slit > >> > > > experiment? > > >> > > Faulty Logic? > > >> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment > > >> > > "In quantum mechanics, the double-slit experiment (often referred to > >> > > as > >> > > Young's experiment) demonstrates the inseparability of the wave and > >> > > particle natures of light and other quantum particles. A coherent > >> > > light > >> > > source (e.g., a laser) illuminates a thin plate with two parallel > >> > > slits > >> > > cut in it, and the light passing through the slits strikes a screen > >> > > behind them. The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing > >> > > through both slits to interfere, creating an interference pattern of > >> > > bright and dark bands on the screen. However, at the screen, the > >> > > light > >> > > is always found to be absorbed as though it were made of discrete > >> > > particles, called photons". > > >> > ------------------- > >> > yest Mr parrot Wormley > >> > you ddint tell the whole 'story'!! > >> > the other story about itis > >> > listen carefully > > >> > that even a **single photon' > >> > 'can interfere with himself "!!!! > >> > and a single photon is defined by > >> > your fucken QM as > >> > E=hf > >> > while i showed and proved that > >> > E=hf > >> > IS NOT THE REAL FORMULA > >> > FOR THE REAL PHYSICAL SINGLE PHOTON!!!! > >> > got it fucken potato head parrot ???!! > >> > the real single photon energy is > >> > hf times * 'Planck time'* > >> > which gives about (quote from my own week memory) > >> > about exp -77 Joule !! > >> > so from now on Mr Parrot W > >> > just remember it and tell it to your > >> > new young readers > >> > and tell them that there are some new innovations after 100 years of > >> > fucken > >> > crippled QM !! > > >> > ATB > >> > Y.Porat > >> > ----------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > >> > - Show quoted text - > > >> Does light flow through two holes at the same time porat and then come > >> back together. I think what you are saying is invalid. > > >> MItch Raemsch > > > ------------------ > > i was not asking and talking about 'light' > > > i am much more specific:!! > > > CAN A SINGLE PHOTON INTERFERE WITH ITSELF?? > > > (AS FUCKEN (ing) -- QM CLAIM ???) > > Y.Porat > > Physics answer: Do an experiment and find out. Such experiments have been > performed and the answer is "yes". Whether or not you like or understand > the results doesn't alter them. > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- ---------------------- Hi imbecile potato head anonymous crook parrot!! Y.P ---------------------
From: Huang on 2 Jun 2010 10:48 > I do not blame anyone for being angry here, it is quite natural that > the root causes of such controversies would force such arguments to > ensue. Nature is playing a trick on us and it is quite natural that > many decades of misunderstandings would result from that. Imagine for > one moment all of the discord which this has caused for the past 100 > years, even driving an "academic" wedge between such great men as > Einstein and Bohr. This problem should be resolved once and for all. > It is a tar pit for scientists who get stuck and then become fossils. > > I do not think that we should run from this thing, it should be > tackled. But this also demands that we take up the ultimate test our > mettle as negotiators and thinkers. > > I blame mathematics.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - What is quite clear to me is that the generalized random variable can be reworded into a different form which will accomplish the same thing and with equal precision. Instead of using outcome spaces with elements which exist, you can reconstruct the random variable using existential indeterminacy and conservation of existential potential. Key word >> "conservation". If you resort to this methodology, you are no longer doing mathematics. But - who cares. You are still using a tool which produces the right answers and so it must be equivalent to mathematics. Key word >> "equivalence". But, as stated above, paradox is self referential in my opinion, and western philosophy is slow to adopt a comprehension of such an amazing thing. Physics starts to sound like confucianism and men in suits are not always monks. We'll all just have to deal with the fact that physics will remain fractured and non-unified for as long as it takes until we are collectively capable of embracing this riddle for what it is.
From: Y.Porat on 2 Jun 2010 11:10 On Jun 2, 4:48 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > I do not blame anyone for being angry here, it is quite natural > that > > > the root causes of such controversies would force such arguments to > > ensue. Nature is playing a trick on us and it is quite natural that > > many decades of misunderstandings would result from that. Imagine for > > one moment all of the discord which this has caused for the past 100 > > years, even driving an "academic" wedge between such great men as > > Einstein and Bohr. This problem should be resolved once and for all. > > It is a tar pit for scientists who get stuck and then become fossils. > > > I do not think that we should run from this thing, it should be > > tackled. But this also demands that we take up the ultimate test our > > mettle as negotiators and thinkers. > > > I blame mathematics.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > What is quite clear to me is that the generalized random variable can > be reworded into a different form which will accomplish the same thing > and with equal precision. > > Instead of using outcome spaces with elements which exist, you can > reconstruct the random variable using existential indeterminacy and > conservation of existential potential. Key word >> "conservation". > > If you resort to this methodology, you are no longer doing > mathematics. But - who cares. You are still using a tool which > produces the right answers and so it must be equivalent to > mathematics. Key word >> "equivalence". > > But, as stated above, paradox is self referential in my opinion, and > western philosophy is slow to adopt a comprehension of such an amazing > thing. Physics starts to sound like confucianism and men in suits are > not always monks. We'll all just have to deal with the fact that > physics will remain fractured and non-unified for as long as it takes > until we are collectively capable of embracing this riddle for what it > is. -------------------- Mr Huang beside the abstract philosophy we have to be practical and earn our bread and butter soi ask you a simple question: did you followed my surprisingly (unprecedented !!) *** simple** mathematical prove that the photon has mass just **mass**! no many kinds of it but just one kind of mass that is denoted by the dimension m (kilograms ) *it is not a variable random component it is a basic unambiguous dimension that we can t have any common physics language or physics discussion unless it is unambiguous as it is !! so did you understood how i proved it through the Momentum of the photon that is a testable and nonzero physical entity ??!! TIA Y.Porat -----------------------------
From: Huang on 2 Jun 2010 11:42
On Jun 2, 10:10 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 4:48 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I do not blame anyone for being angry here, it is quite natural > > that > > > > the root causes of such controversies would force such arguments to > > > ensue. Nature is playing a trick on us and it is quite natural that > > > many decades of misunderstandings would result from that. Imagine for > > > one moment all of the discord which this has caused for the past 100 > > > years, even driving an "academic" wedge between such great men as > > > Einstein and Bohr. This problem should be resolved once and for all. > > > It is a tar pit for scientists who get stuck and then become fossils. > > > > I do not think that we should run from this thing, it should be > > > tackled. But this also demands that we take up the ultimate test our > > > mettle as negotiators and thinkers. > > > > I blame mathematics.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > What is quite clear to me is that the generalized random variable can > > be reworded into a different form which will accomplish the same thing > > and with equal precision. > > > Instead of using outcome spaces with elements which exist, you can > > reconstruct the random variable using existential indeterminacy and > > conservation of existential potential. Key word >> "conservation". > > > If you resort to this methodology, you are no longer doing > > mathematics. But - who cares. You are still using a tool which > > produces the right answers and so it must be equivalent to > > mathematics. Key word >> "equivalence". > > > But, as stated above, paradox is self referential in my opinion, and > > western philosophy is slow to adopt a comprehension of such an amazing > > thing. Physics starts to sound like confucianism and men in suits are > > not always monks. We'll all just have to deal with the fact that > > physics will remain fractured and non-unified for as long as it takes > > until we are collectively capable of embracing this riddle for what it > > is. > > -------------------- > Mr Huang > beside the abstract philosophy > we have to be practical and earn our bread > and butter > soi ask you a simple question: > > did you followed my surprisingly > (unprecedented !!) *** simple** mathematical prove > that the photon has mass just **mass**! > > no many kinds of it but just one kind of mass > that is denoted by the dimension m (kilograms ) > *it is not a variable random component > it is a basic unambiguous dimension > that we can t have any common physics language or physics > discussion unless it is unambiguous as it is !! > so did you understood how i proved it > through the Momentum of the photon > that is a testable and nonzero physical entity ??!! > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------------ Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I'll answer you this way. GR shows that whether mass exists or not can be equivalent. The presence of a gravitational field due to a massive planet is equivalent to accelerating in a rocket or an elevator. These things are equivalent. There are probably many perfectly valid derivations which would show that a photon has mass, just as there are many other derivations to show that it does not. The challenge here, in my opinion, is to show that these things are equivalent - no different than the rocket ship example. I'm not questioning your proof, and Im more of a mathematician than a physicist. But I do see a biger picture emerging, and you could change this whole argument to whether or not gravity even exists if it is equivalent to an acceleration, all of these things are really the same. Equivalence is at the root of all of this controversy in my opinion. Equivalence is fine in GR, but physics has also failed to implement it in so many other areas where it is relevant and applicable. |