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: Huang on 3 Jun 2010 16:05 > > 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 > ---------------------------- In fact, I did indeed say something which is very similar to what you mentioned, but slightly different. I am not saying that "having length is equivalent to not having length". That's not the proper way to say it. Here's what I would say: [1] One can construct physics using mathematics which treats length as being either existent or nonexistent, but not both, and there is no "in-between". and, that [2] One can construct physics using existential indeterminacy, where all length is existentially indeterminate with "potential to exist x", 0<x<1, but never x=0, or x=1. Now, my claim is that [1] and [2] are equivalent because they would produce the same exact quantitative results. The only difference between unsing orthodox mathematics and conjectural modelling is the fundamental, foundational, philosophical underpinnings. A deterministic universe is equivalent to one which is completely non- deterministic. This line of reason does explain the WP duality very nicely, regardless of the fact that it will never be accepted by mainstream science, and Im not really trippin' about it. It is what it is.
From: rick_s on 3 Jun 2010 14:34 In article <77830c83-75ea-469e-ae89-770fad9d7939(a)k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>, huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com says... > > > >> ---------------------- >> Mr genius >> can a single photon interfere with itself >> as QM claim � ?? >> >> TIA >> Y.Porat >> ------------------------- > > >Yes, experiments have shown that a single photon will interfere with >itself. A photon is not a little piece of dust. It is a wave packet. It has some length to it. It is a wave. A short wave. So? Cut it in half and you have two waves. Make a small enough effect and it will interfere with itself. People are sure stuck on this notion that matter is like little pieces of rock. It has never ever been shown to exist in that way. In fact experiments ever done, have shown that E=mc2 where E is kinetic energy, andothger term for momentum type of energy. Physical force. Not electricity. rolling eyes.
From: Inertial on 3 Jun 2010 23:02 "rick_s" <me(a)my.com> wrote in message news:pDZNn.90985$rE4.80918(a)newsfe15.iad... > In article > <77830c83-75ea-469e-ae89-770fad9d7939(a)k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>, > huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com says... >> >> >> >>> ---------------------- >>> Mr genius >>> can a single photon interfere with itself >>> as QM claim ?? >>> >>> TIA >>> Y.Porat >>> ------------------------- >> >> >>Yes, experiments have shown that a single photon will interfere with >>itself. > > > > A photon is not a little piece of dust. It is a wave packet. It has some > length to it. It is a wave. A short wave. So? Cut it in half and you have > two waves. Make a small enough effect and it will interfere with itself. Except a photon is a quantum .. you can't split it into two. Calling a photon a particle is misleading. Calling it a wave is misleading. It has some particle-like and wave-like properties/behaviours. Trying to visualise things in the quantum microcosm in terms of our everyday experience is almost always misleading, if not plain wrong.
From: Y.Porat on 4 Jun 2010 02:14 On Jun 3, 8:34 pm, rick_s <m...(a)my.com> wrote: > In article > <77830c83-75ea-469e-ae89-770fad9d7...(a)k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>, > huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com says... > > > > >> ---------------------- > >> Mr genius > >> can a single photon interfere with itself > >> as QM claim ?? > > >> TIA > >> Y.Porat > >> ------------------------- > > >Yes, experiments have shown that a single photon will interfere with > >itself. > > A photon is not a little piece of dust. It is a wave packet. It has some > length to it. It is a wave. A short wave. So? Cut it in half and you have > two waves. Make a small enough effect and it will interfere with itself. -------------- while you say to cut it in half you are only hardly on the right way!! there is another truth about it that even you still didnt get !!! E=hf is not the right definition of the *real single photon* it is just a human arbitrary definition !! nature doe snot know what is that 'one second' of yours that defines f !!!........ see my thread 'a better new new definition of the real single photon energy' ATB Y.Porat ----------------------- ATB Y.Porat ----------------------------------- > > People are sure stuck on this notion that matter is like little pieces of > rock. It has never ever been shown to exist in that way. > In fact experiments ever done, have shown that E=mc2 where E is kinetic > energy, andothger term for momentum type of energy. Physical force. > Not electricity. rolling eyes.
From: Sam Wormley on 4 Jun 2010 10:32
On 6/3/10 1:42 PM, rick_s wrote: > I have 40 years of schooling in physics. Doesn't show at all. In fact, your posting record on USENET tells a different story. |