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: Y.Porat on 2 Jun 2010 12:33 On Jun 2, 5:42 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. ----------------------- no need to complicate it with GR!! it is ways simpler if you describe youself as a amrthematician and not as a physicist than waht are you doing in a physics ng ??!! let me try and analize it for you Momentum of the photon is h /Lambda == 6.6 times kg meter ^2/sec times f/c and it gives scalars times m c which is obvious from knowing that Momentum is energy divided by c !! plus the scalars that are not relevant to the nonzero mass analysis while m is kilograms and c is velocity of light (please correct if i missed something i ddint ivest time now to check it ) so non of the above scalars is zero and non of them is a gamma factor !!! so nothing to multiply the mass(of photon momentum ) with zero !! nothing to make it relativistic !! ATB Y.Porat --------------------------------------
From: Huang on 2 Jun 2010 13:33 On Jun 2, 11:33 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 5:42 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > ----------------------- > no need to complicate it with GR!! > it is ways simpler > if you describe youself as a amrthematician and not as a physicist > than waht are you doing in a physics ng ??!! > > let me try and analize it for you > > Momentum of the photon is > h /Lambda == > > 6.6 times kg meter ^2/sec times f/c > and it gives > scalars times m c > which is obvious from knowing that > Momentum is energy divided by c !! > plus the scalars that are not relevant to the > nonzero mass analysis > > while m is kilograms > and c is velocity of light > > (please correct if i missed something > i ddint ivest time now to check it ) > so > non of the above scalars is zero > and non of them is a gamma factor !!! > so > nothing to multiply the mass(of photon momentum ) with zero !! > nothing to make it relativistic !! > > ATB > Y.Porat > --------------------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I'm not saying you are wrong. All I am saying is that "having mass" is equivelant to "not having mass", and that is a direct result of GR. So, apply that to your photon example and I believe you would be making progress.
From: Inertial on 2 Jun 2010 20:20 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:952c5ca3-fc6e-4874-a0c8-dbe8ac15b9a2(a)w3g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... > 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**! You have never presented such a 'proof'
From: Inertial on 2 Jun 2010 20:21 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5549e805-0ba6-44ab-ba3b-cebe1fb12810(a)z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 2, 5:42 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> 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. > ----------------------- > no need to complicate it with GR!! > it is ways simpler > if you describe youself as a amrthematician and not as a physicist > than waht are you doing in a physics ng ??!! > > let me try and analize it for you > > Momentum of the photon is > h /Lambda == So it depends on the frequency and wavelength > 6.6 times kg meter ^2/sec times f/c > and it gives > scalars times m c No ,.. it doesn't .. it gives scalar divided by wavelength. There is no 'mc' in that formula Your 'proof' falls apart at that step
From: Y.Porat on 2 Jun 2010 22:21
On Jun 2, 7:33 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 11:33 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 2, 5:42 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > ----------------------- > > no need to complicate it with GR!! > > it is ways simpler > > if you describe youself as a amrthematician and not as a physicist > > than waht are you doing in a physics ng ??!! > > > let me try and analize it for you > > > Momentum of the photon is > > h /Lambda == > > > 6.6 times kg meter ^2/sec times f/c > > and it gives > > scalars times m c > > which is obvious from knowing that > > Momentum is energy divided by c !! > > plus the scalars that are not relevant to the > > nonzero mass analysis > > > while m is kilograms > > and c is velocity of light > > > (please correct if i missed something > > i ddint ivest time now to check it ) > > so > > non of the above scalars is zero > > and non of them is a gamma factor !!! > > so > > nothing to multiply the mass(of photon momentum ) with zero !! > > nothing to make it relativistic !! > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > --------------------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I'm not saying you are wrong. All I am saying is that "having mass" is > equivelant to "not having mass", ------------------ only a mathematician that is not a physicist could say such a thing !!! why dont you say that ::--- having length is equivalent to NOT having length !!!?? physics is not just philosophy !! in order of having physics you must have: mass length Time (M K S ) !!! ATB Y.Porat ---------------------------- and that is a direct result of GR. > So, apply that to your photon example and I believe you would be > making progress. |