The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle
Stonelock
Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the
same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is
conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so
together.
Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not inter-photon
dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time
give the same result?
StoneLock
Bob Kolker
Unless the photon went through both slits at once.
Or perhaps there is a Pilot Wave, as Bohm supposes.
Bob Kolker
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>
>Stonelock wrote:
>>
>> Doesn't this make sense?
>>
>> Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the
>> same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is
>> conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so
>> together.
>>
>> Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not inter-photon
>> dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time
>> give the same result?
>
>Unless the photon went through both slits at once.
>
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Neverend
Stonelock <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:64f2b1e9.02042...@posting.google.com...
Correct, this suggests that a photon doesn't have to interact with another
photon in order to produce the pattern. This doesn't, however, prove that
the photon is a particle. In fact, this suggests that it is indeed a wave.
The pattern on the screen is produced by the wave constructively and
destructively interfering with itself (heh, heh). There is no satisfactory
explanation for this effect in only particle terms.
Turns out all particles can also behave as waves. Cool eh?
Nev.
Uncle Al
>
> Doesn't this make sense?
Single photon counting proves light is particle, so does the
photoelectric effect and Compton scattering.
Classical arguments aren't binding in quantum mechanics. One doesn't
argue over whether a mule is really a horse or a donkey.
It doesn't mean diddlysquat. How do you interpret quantum erasers and
double quantum erasers? It's a dessert topping! It's a floor wax!
Wait, it's both!
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Alexander Avtanski
Stonelock wrote:
> Doesn't this make sense?
>
> Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the
> same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is
> conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so
> together.
This "self-interference" speaks for a wave, so?
- Alex
Old Man
The two slit experiment and the wave nature of light are
adequately explained by classical electrodynamics. The
particle nature of light or photons are demonstrated by
phenomena such as the photoelectric effect and Compton
scattering. [Old Man]
Mike Varney
"Bob Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CC4692F...@attbi.com...
Or perhaps an interaction with photons in parallel universes, or because the
math works.
Bob Kolker
Mike Varney wrote:
>
>
> Or perhaps an interaction with photons in parallel universes, or because the
> math works.
That is Deutch's contention, he being the Bird Man of Otherwhen.
With G-D all things are possible. Without G-D we are better off.
Bob Kolker
tj Frazir
Y.Porat
> >
> > Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not inter-photon
> > dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time
> > give the same result?
>
> Correct, this suggests that a photon doesn't have to interact with another
> photon in order to produce the pattern. This doesn't, however, prove that
> the photon is a particle. In fact, this suggests that it is indeed a wave.
> The pattern on the screen is produced by the wave constructively and
> destructively interfering with itself (heh, heh). There is no satisfactory
> explanation for this effect in only particle terms.
>
> Turns out all particles can also behave as waves. Cool eh?
>
> Nev.
i would like to ask about some technicalities that make our
conclutions there:
about the screen that detects constructiion and destruction:
what is that screen made of, what ,matter
does that matter can have some interactions with the photon
that might somehow confuse and complicate the results and conclutions
i can guess that with electron experiments (not light)
my question might be more understandable, since we know
that an electron being shot at a target has influence-
on the target, that might be detected as a 'shoch' and 'after shock'
that must have some delay in time, that may complicate simple conclutions
---------------
TIA
Y.Porat
greysky
The electron in transit is a complex wave. The determination of whether the
electron goes through a slit or not is solely determined by probability.
Once the electron collapses, an imaginary probability wave is left over,
along with a detected event ( a particle). Imaginary probabilities can self
interact to produce virtual electrons which mimic the information in the
complex wave. Since it's the probability of the electron passing through
either slit that interacts, there is no need for a pilot wave - and this is
just as valid for a single electron as for many particles.
Greysky
Aleksandr Timofeev
It is delirium in the pure unconscious state.
Bob be kind explain to us by what method the photon went through
both slits at once:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3973363099d&dq=&hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=e16a4a22.0204030114.17e2e469%40posting.google.com&rnum=26
================================================================
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (a_n_ti...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: The detection of "photons" in Bell tests
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Date: 2002-04-03 01:14:10 PST
Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
news:<3CA9DC6A...@fnal.gov>...
> Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > Eric's analysis C H Thompson papers is logically error, since Eric's
> > > > analysis leans on existence of a particle "photon",
> > >
> > > In fact, my analysis leaned on simple statistics and scientific
> > > method.
> >
> > It is only public declaration with respect to the dispute,
> > solemn declaration, Declaration of Indulgence.
> >
> > > We never even got as far as discussing photons.
> >
> > No, you "never even got as far as discussing photons."
> >
> > You always cowardly escape from detail and honour discuss of the
> > given subject. Now I will give you a bully dinner. I shall throw
> > you on both shoulder-blades.
> >
> > > > photon, which does not
> > > > exist in a nature. I proved to you an inaccuracy of the concept
> > > > of a "photon" many times, but you constantly ignore discuss of this
> > > > problem.
> > > > [snip]
> > Please, specify physical errors in my analysis of a considered
> > phenomenon.
> >
> > The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
> > VLBI interferometer is possible only from the wave point of view.
> > The physical interpretation of a principle of operation of
> > VLBI interferometer is _impossible in a support on a hypothetical
> > particle - "photon".
> >
>
> You are under the erroneous assumption that photons do
> not exibit interference patterns.
Dear Eric Prebys, be kind, please, give us description of your
physical gear of transiting of "photon" simultaneously through
two antennas of a VLBI interferometer, and then show us by what
method "photon" (passing simultaneously through two antennas of
a VLBI interferometer, which one are on distance of a terrestrial
globe from each other) hits on a particular videotape from two
videotapes. :-)
:o]
:-)
There are two graphic schemes illustrating the description:
The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 1.
Block scheme.
-> radio-telescope 1
->
-> parabolic antenna 1 tape 1 clock 1
-> \
-> \ [ microwave ]
-> \ [ receiver + ] [videotape] [hydrogen ]
-> ) )--->[analog-to-digital]--->[recorder ]<---[frequency]
-> / [ converter ] ^ ^ [standard ]
-> / | |
-> / radio-signals time-marks
-> microwave
-> radiation
-> for synchronization of atomic clocks
-> [transportable caesium]
-> [ frequency standard ]
[snip] ============================================================
^
| Length of VLBI basis >= Earth diametr
+
[snip] ============================================================
-> radio-telescope 2
->
->
-> parabolic antenna 2 tape 2 clock 2
-> \
-> \ [ microwave ]
-> \ [ receiver + ] [videotape] [hydrogen ]
-> ) )--->[analog-to-digital]--->[recorder ]<---[frequency]
-> / [ converter ] ^ ^ [standard ]
-> / | |
-> / radio-signals time-marks
->
->
->
. The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 2.
. ----------------------------------------------------------
. "Interference picture"
. ^
. |
. [videotape 1] ------> [ COMPUTER ] <---------- [videotape 2]
. ^ ^
. | |
. radio-telescope 1 <- synchronization clocks -> radio-telescope 2
. Length of basis
. |<------------------------ {snip} ---------------------------->|
. /^\ /^\
.^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ {snip} ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
.| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
. Noise microwave radiation
VLBI interferometer simultaneously record the information
reflecting a state of an electromagnetic field in space of each
slot (from the antenna) on a magnetic tape, it is natural that
for each slot/antenna we use a separate magnetic tape.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How about an arguments to go with that?
> As I have *repeatedly* pointed
> out to you, this is based on your extremely naive concept
> of quantum mechanics. Wavelike propagation and interference
> is at the heart of quantum mechanics. ALL particles can exibit
> wavelike interference at the quantum level.
Dear Eric Prebys, be kind, please, give us description of your
physical gear of transiting of "photon" simultaneously through
two antennas of a VLBI interferometer, and then show us by what
method ("the heart of quantum mechanics and/or other ) "photon"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(passing simultaneously through two antennas of
a VLBI interferometer, which one are on distance of a terrestrial
globe from each other) hits on a particular videotape from two
videotapes. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :-)
>
> I suggest you calculate the quantum energy of microwaves and
> check the experimental sensitivity of your system, and I'm
> confident you'll find that you are nowhere near the sensitivity
> to see quantum effects.
We need description of your physical gear of transiting
of "photon" simultaneously through two antennas of a VLBI
interferometer
We need spiritual and physical need of your description
of physical gear for VLBI.
>
> > (...snip lots of stuff that everybody already knows...)
Dear Eric Prebys, be kind, please, read my texts up to the moment
of creation and invention of your critical notes in my address.
:-)
================================================================
Ed Keane III
It does make some sense to attach such a meaning to the apparent
fact that photons interfere with themselves and not each other. If I
understand your question. If you are not bothered by the idea of
the interference pattern implying an effect involving both slits have
you thought about the need for the effect to be extended in time as
well as space in order to cause off center interference?
The photoelectric effect and Compton scattering are usually
considered to be the best support of the particle definition.
Uncle Al
Stonelock
> Stonelock <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:64f2b1e9.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > Doesn't this make sense?
> >
> > Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the
> > same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is
> > conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so
> > together.
> >
> > Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not inter-photon
> > dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time
> > give the same result?
> >
>
> It does make some sense to attach such a meaning to the apparent
> fact that photons interfere with themselves and not each other.
Actually, I meant that they do not interact with other photons nor
with themselves but are simply particles (double particles) deflected
at different angles according to the proximity of the slits (if we
consider the infinitessimal distance at which the slits are from one
another). Considering also that matter strongly interacts with photons
at close proximity, I see a 'gap' in the 'uniform surface' right next
to the slit by which the photon passes through as a very important
disturbance factor that allows for the photons to be deviated only at
specific angles depending on where the photon passes in the slit.
If I
> understand your question. If you are not bothered by the idea of
> the interference pattern implying an effect involving both slits have
> you thought about the need for the effect to be extended in time as
> well as space in order to cause off center interference?
Why complicate matters when it can be explained simply though? dots
are observed over a period of time on the collision surface, not
interference patterns. What happens is that the whole process
eventually ends up producing the "interference" patterns when the
myriad of luminescent dots seem to have merged, lost in the multitude
of dots.
StoneLock
Ed Keane III
Stonelock <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:64f2b1e9.02042...@posting.google.com...
> "Ed Keane III" <ke...@northweb.com> wrote in message
news:<3cc57522$1...@news.nntpserver.com>...
> > Stonelock <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:64f2b1e9.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > Doesn't this make sense?
> > >>
> with themselves but are simply particles (double particles) deflected
> at different angles according to the proximity of the slits (if we
> consider the infinitessimal distance at which the slits are from one
> another).
Your analysis could be correct except for this point. The width of the
slits needs to be as small as the wavelength. It makes no difference how
far apart the slits are.
Considering also that matter strongly interacts with photons
> at close proximity, I see a 'gap' in the 'uniform surface' right next
> to the slit by which the photon passes through as a very important
> disturbance factor that allows for the photons to be deviated only at
> specific angles depending on where the photon passes in the slit.
>
Besides the point that the gap need not be right next to the slit matter
does not interact with photons, except of course for scattering or
absorbing.
> > If you are not bothered by the idea of
> > the interference pattern implying an effect involving both slits have
> > you thought about the need for the effect to be extended in time as
> > well as space in order to cause off center interference?
>
> Why complicate matters when it can be explained simply though? dots
> are observed over a period of time on the collision surface, not
> interference patterns. What happens is that the whole process
> eventually ends up producing the "interference" patterns when the
> myriad of luminescent dots seem to have merged, lost in the multitude
> of dots.
Are you saying that if you shine the light bright enough to see it only
looks like an interference pattern? Sorry just kidding. I think that
what you are saying is that an effect other than interference is
responsible for the pattern.
The mystery of this experiment usually ends up with questions about
how the photon/electron or emitter could *know* whether the slit
that it is not going through is either open or closed. That is *if* you
assume that it can only go through one.
The point that I tried to make earlier is that if one wanted to think of
the photon as two particles going through two slits (that are far
enough apart for the following to be meaningful) that somehow
recombine you must explain the difference of the distances that they
travel in order to produce any off center pattern.
Nicolaas Vroom
"Bob Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> schreef in bericht
news:3CC4692F...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Stonelock wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't this make sense?
> >
> > Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the
> > same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is
> > conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so
> > together.
> >
> > Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not inter-photon
> > dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time
> > give the same result?
>
> Unless the photon went through both slits at once.
The most sensible answer is that each single photon
(assuming there is an interference pattern)
goes through both slits.
A single photon is nothing more than a packet of energy.
The fact that you can count photons (packets) is not in
conflict with that interpretation, because that is in reality
the only thing that you can do with single photons.
The following url: "Particle or wave" contains a very nice
demonstration about the two slit experiment.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C005775/Theory/particle_or_wave.html
Select : See the two slit experiment.
This demonstration shows what is observed when resp.:
balls, light (many photons) and single electrons go through
a single or double slit.
Unfortunate it does not contain a demonstration what is
observed (how) when single photons go through a double slit.
> Or perhaps there is a Pilot Wave, as Bohm supposes.
>
> Bob Kolker
Stonelock
> Stonelock <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:64f2b1e9.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > "Ed Keane III" <ke...@northweb.com> wrote in message
> news:<3cc57522$1...@news.nntpserver.com>...
> > > Stonelock <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:64f2b1e9.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Doesn't this make sense?
> > > >>
> > Actually, I meant that they do not interact with other photons nor
> > with themselves but are simply particles (double particles) deflected
> > at different angles according to the proximity of the slits (if we
> > consider the infinitessimal distance at which the slits are from one
> > another).
>
> Your analysis could be correct except for this point. The width of the
> slits needs to be as small as the wavelength.
Yes, but that is a given.
It makes no difference how
> far apart the slits are.
So what you are telling me is that the interference pattern aren't
differen't weather the slits a a few nanometers, inches, or meters
apart?
> Considering also that matter strongly interacts with photons
> > at close proximity, I see a 'gap' in the 'uniform surface' right next
> > to the slit by which the photon passes through as a very important
> > disturbance factor that allows for the photons to be deviated only at
> > specific angles depending on where the photon passes in the slit.
> >
>
> Besides the point that the gap need not be right next to the slit matter
> does not interact with photons, except of course for scattering or
> absorbing.
Why should it not? If it is considered a particles (double particle),
and since all particles in this universe are charged, why shouldnt it
interact with matter?
> > > If you are not bothered by the idea of
> > > the interference pattern implying an effect involving both slits have
> > > you thought about the need for the effect to be extended in time as
> > > well as space in order to cause off center interference?
> >
> > Why complicate matters when it can be explained simply though? dots
> > are observed over a period of time on the collision surface, not
> > interference patterns. What happens is that the whole process
> > eventually ends up producing the "interference" patterns when the
> > myriad of luminescent dots seem to have merged, lost in the multitude
> > of dots.
>
> Are you saying that if you shine the light bright enough to see it only
> looks like an interference pattern? Sorry just kidding.
Wah!! Horrible :).
I think that
> what you are saying is that an effect other than interference is
> responsible for the pattern.
Yes, exactly
> The mystery of this experiment usually ends up with questions about
> how the photon/electron or emitter could *know* whether the slit
> that it is not going through is either open or closed. That is *if* you
> assume that it can only go through one.
But the idea is that nothing is known, but as I said, a 'gap' (the
slit) that is right next to the slit in which the photon goes through
MUST have an influence on the behavior of the photon, causing it to
very specifically deviate according to certain angles only.
> The point that I tried to make earlier is that if one wanted to think of
> the photon as two particles going through two slits (that are far
> enough apart for the following to be meaningful) that somehow
> recombine you must explain the difference of the distances that they
> travel in order to produce any off center pattern.
Not 2 particles(photons) passing through 2 slits, but 1 pulsating
structure constituted of 2 particles passing through 1 slit, and the
explanation is right above :).
StoneLock
Spaceman
this particle wave thing is sad still.
particles and waves.
particles make waves.
If you have no particles .. you have no wave.
got wave?
then you have particles making it..
you can't have a wave without something waving.
all waves are consisted of particles.
or you have "nothing" waving.
stop this silly stuff,
all waves are made of particles.
and...
all particles can produce waves if "pushed" correctly.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
http://www.realspaceman.com
news://realspaceman.net/spacemans.space
Ed Keane III
Stonelock <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:64f2b1e9.02042...@posting.google.com...
> "Ed Keane III" <ke...@northweb.com> wrote in message
news:<3cc6cf47$1...@news.nntpserver.com>...
> > Stonelock <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:64f2b1e9.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Ed Keane III" <ke...@northweb.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3cc57522$1...@news.nntpserver.com>...
> > > > Stonelock <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:64f2b1e9.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > Doesn't this make sense?
> > > > >>
> > far apart the slits are.
>
> So what you are telling me is that the interference pattern aren't
> differen't weather the slits a a few nanometers, inches, or meters
> apart?
>
You can put them far enough apart and only open both at the same time for
such a brief moment that the information that there is or isn't another slit
would have to travel at faster than the speed of light.
> > Considering also that matter strongly interacts with photons
> > > at close proximity, I see a 'gap' in the 'uniform surface' right next
> > > to the slit by which the photon passes through as a very important
> > > disturbance factor that allows for the photons to be deviated only at
> > > specific angles depending on where the photon passes in the slit.
> > >
> >
The double slit can be replaced by a beam splitter, which is basically an
angled mirror with 50% transparency. You get a photon at either one output
or the other if you look at them individually and an interference pattern if
you combine them.
> > Besides the point that the gap need not be right next to the slit matter
> > does not interact with photons, except of course for scattering or
> > absorbing.
>
> Why should it not? If it is considered a particles (double particle),
> and since all particles in this universe are charged, why shouldnt it
> interact with matter?
A lot of particle mass, neutrons, is not charged. I don't know if that
matters to your idea. Photons are definitly not charged.
> But the idea is that nothing is known, but as I said, a 'gap' (the
> slit) that is right next to the slit in which the photon goes through
> MUST have an influence on the behavior of the photon, causing it to
> very specifically deviate according to certain angles only.
>
But for that to be the case it has been demonstrated that such an influence
must be exerted from the one gap to the other at faster than the speed of
light.
Richard
The photon is a wave, get over it and move on.
--
Richard Perry
Electromagnetism: First Principles
(A correct variation of the Weber/Gauss synthesis,
derived from what else? First Principles, i.e. from the empirical
evidence.)
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
htm. and pdf. versions
Stonelock
> Stonelock <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:64f2b1e9.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > "Ed Keane III" <ke...@northweb.com> wrote in message
> news:<3cc6cf47$1...@news.nntpserver.com>...
> > > Stonelock <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:64f2b1e9.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Ed Keane III" <ke...@northweb.com> wrote in message
> news:<3cc57522$1...@news.nntpserver.com>...
> > > > > Stonelock <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:64f2b1e9.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > Doesn't this make sense?
> > > > > >>
> It makes no difference how
> > > far apart the slits are.
> >
> > So what you are telling me is that the interference pattern aren't
> > differen't weather the slits a a few nanometers, inches, or meters
> > apart?
> >
>
> You can put them far enough apart and only open both at the same time for
> such a brief moment that the information that there is or isn't another slit
> would have to travel at faster than the speed of light.
Seriously though, are the interference patterns the same, say if the
slits are a few inches a part, when compared to the interference
patterns when the slits are say a nanometer appart?
> > > Considering also that matter strongly interacts with photons
> > > > at close proximity, I see a 'gap' in the 'uniform surface' right next
> > > > to the slit by which the photon passes through as a very important
> > > > disturbance factor that allows for the photons to be deviated only at
> > > > specific angles depending on where the photon passes in the slit.
> > > >
> > >
>
> The double slit can be replaced by a beam splitter, which is basically an
> angled mirror with 50% transparency. You get a photon at either one output
> or the other if you look at them individually and an interference pattern if
> you combine them.
>
> > > Besides the point that the gap need not be right next to the slit matter
> > > does not interact with photons, except of course for scattering or
> > > absorbing.
> >
> > Why should it not? If it is considered a particles (double particle),
> > and since all particles in this universe are charged, why shouldnt it
> > interact with matter?
>
> A lot of particle mass, neutrons,
Oww oww oww. Neutrons's resulting charge is neutral, but they ARE
constituted of charged particles, right?
is not charged. I don't know if that
> matters to your idea. Photons are definitly not charged.
Isn't it the same for the photon? Them being constituted of dual
particles and their resulting charge being neutral. They would still
be constituted of charged particles.
> > But the idea is that nothing is known, but as I said, a 'gap' (the
> > slit) that is right next to the slit in which the photon goes through
> > MUST have an influence on the behavior of the photon, causing it to
> > very specifically deviate according to certain angles only.
> >
>
> But for that to be the case it has been demonstrated that such an influence
> must be exerted from the one gap to the other at faster than the speed of
> light.
Why is that a problem? The influence of a very wide magnetic field is
instantaneous. Wouldn't the same would apply to interaction between
charged particles, even though the interaction is infinitessimal.
StoneLock
Stonelock
My dear Richard, some of us are not satisfied with the 'flying pig'
explanation.
If this one view of photons suits your intellect then everything is
good in the best of worlds; in yours anyways. Because you have stopped
thinking to instead take a leap of faith doesn't mean other's have
also.
StoneLock
Spaceman
Richard,
the Photon,
is a wave of particles.
without the particle,
you have nothing to wave.
the particles are actually composed of subparts
and there is no end to "smallest thing"
particles create waves.
waves are made of particles.
BOTH are needed for EITHER to exist at all.
No particle.
No Wave
No wave
no particles in motion to produce waves.
Waves are not made of magic.
They are made of particles and subparticle and even smaller stuff.
There is no "smallest thing"
so even your "smallest wave"
is made of smaller parts WAVING known as particles
or you have no wave at all.
Orl Korrect for ya?
I hope.
for it's no lie.
<G>
.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stonelock" <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:64f2b1e9.0204...@posting.google.com...
Have you got any experimental data to back this up?
Have you got a quantitative theory about this?
What exactly do you mean with "width of a magnetic field"?
How do you define and measure it?
How wide must the magnetic field be to have an instantaneous influence?
When it is not wide enough, and thus having a retarded influence,
what is the relation between the width of the field and the ratardation?
> Wouldn't the same would apply to interaction between
> charged particles, even though the interaction is infinitessimal.
Is that is an ill-formed question or an ill-formed statement.
> StoneLock
Dirk Vdm
Ed Keane III
>
Of course it is. Any idiot can prove that.
Ed Keane III
Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:LjUy8.44078$Ze....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>
> "Stonelock" <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:64f2b1e9.0204...@posting.google.com...
> > "Ed Keane III" <ke...@northweb.com> wrote in message
news:<3ccb55f6$2...@news.nntpserver.com>...
> > > Stonelock <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:64f2b1e9.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Ed Keane III" <ke...@northweb.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<3cc6cf47$1...@news.nntpserver.com>...
> > > > > Stonelock <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:64f2b1e9.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > "Ed Keane III" <ke...@northweb.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<3cc57522$1...@news.nntpserver.com>...
> > > > > > > Stonelock <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:64f2b1e9.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > > Doesn't this make sense?
> > > > > > > >>
>
> Have you got a quantitative theory about this?
> What exactly do you mean with "width of a magnetic field"?
> How do you define and measure it?
> How wide must the magnetic field be to have an instantaneous influence?
> When it is not wide enough, and thus having a retarded influence,
> what is the relation between the width of the field and the ratardation?
>
Not to be dink, Dirk, but aren't those all retorical questions?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Ed Keane III" <ke...@northweb.com> wrote in message news:3ccc5415$1...@news.nntpserver.com...
De facto ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Richard
I admire your tenacity, but your view of an infinitely regressive
structure leads back to a homogeneity, i.e. to no particles.
The buck stops at the electron. It is electrons doing the waving.
Stonelock
> > > Have you got a quantitative theory about this?
> > > What exactly do you mean with "width of a magnetic field"?
> > > How do you define and measure it?
> > > How wide must the magnetic field be to have an instantaneous influence?
The stronger the field, the more important the influence (1/d^3).
Listen, this is all known, I don't want to waste my time with basic
goo. If you don't want to answer the questions I asked, fine, but
don't have me waste my time thinking about useless crap just because
you feel like a goofball today.
> > > When it is not wide enough, and thus having a retarded influence,
> > > what is the relation between the width of the field and the ratardation?
There is no retardation.
> >
> > Not to be dink, Dirk, but aren't those all retorical questions?
>
> De facto ;-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
StoneLock
Spaceman
>
> I admire your tenacity, but your view of an infinitely regressive
> structure leads back to a homogeneity, i.e. to no particles.
> The buck stops at the electron. It is electrons doing the waving.
No,
the buck never stops.
What is the smallest size possible for an electron?
What happens if you get that smallest electron
and CUT IT IN HALF.
no end.
wake up.
Richard
The electron is a spatial component of the universe, a constituent layer
if you will, and it is infinite in size, or at least "potentially"
infinite. It can only claim existence when it is influencing other
electrons and therefore exists only in the regions occupied by other
electrons, where location is just the origin of each space. Wake up.
Electron scattering: Ever heard of it?
Richard
The electron is a spatial component of the universe, a constituent layer
if you will, and it is infinite in size, or at least "potentially"
infinite. It can only claim existence when it is influencing other
electrons and therefoe exists only in the regions occupied by other
electrons, where location is just the origin of each space. Wake up.
Electron scattering: Ever heard of it?
--
Spaceman
> The electron is a spatial component of the universe, a constituent layer
> if you will, and it is infinite in size, or at least "potentially"
> infinite.
<ROFLOL>
too funny!
nevermind Richard.
BTW:
D oyou think light travels along nothingness in outerspace?
(In other words it needs no medium?)
Dirk Van de moortel
Apparently he hasn't
> > > > Have you got a quantitative theory about this?
Apparently he hasn't
> > > > What exactly do you mean with "width of a magnetic field"?
Apparently nothing specific.
> > > > How do you define and measure it?
Apparently he can't
> > > > How wide must the magnetic field be to have an instantaneous influence?
Apparently no idea.
> The stronger the field, the more important the influence (1/d^3).
You were talking about "wide" fields, not about "strong"
fields.
> Listen, this is all known, I don't want to waste my time with basic
> goo.
Shut up then.
> If you don't want to answer the questions I asked, fine,
You didn't ask a question. You said
"The influence of a very wide magnetic field is instantaneous."
.
> but
> don't have me waste my time thinking about useless crap just because
> you feel like a goofball today.
I'm not wasting your time. Obviously I'm wasting mine.
>
> > > > When it is not wide enough, and thus having a retarded influence,
> > > > what is the relation between the width of the field and the ratardation?
>
> There is no retardation.
Why then your statement
"The influence of a very wide magnetic field is instantaneous."
?
What about "not very wide magnetic fields"?
Not so instantaneous?
Slightly less instantaneous?
How slightly?
Dirk Vdm
Richard
The origin of the elliptical/hperbolic space that we call the electron,
is what you consider to "be" the electron. (Electron scattering
evidence) Waves are the change in the superposed curvature at any point
in the Universe, which is in turn due to a change in the relative
positions of the electrons, i.e. of their origins. It's not really that
complicated, and believe it or not, also deduced by the big E. himself.
Not my fault that you don't follow the argument, nor my fault that E.
didn't emphasize it more than he did, or develop laws governing the
particle/particle interaction, which negates his macroscopic assessment
of gravity, even makes it quite ridiculous.
greysky
>
> same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is
> conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so
> together.
>
> Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not inter-photon
> dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time
> give the same result?
>
The reason an individual photon can create an interference pattern in the
double slit experiment is because the photon has a certain probability of
going through either slit. The probability interferes with itself.
Now, you can't see this interference pattern with only a single photon, but
the pattern does emerge when enough photons are used. If you close off one
slit, you loose the pattern because the photon has a 100% certainty of going
through just one slit, unless it hits the slit material. Same can be said
with matter waves. It's all in the probabilities .
tj Frazir
speed ,conservation will not allow it .
is it a wave is it a part ,,,shit.
Light is a sound in energy .
LAW ,,,anything that can be done with ligt can be done with sound
,,reflected conducted and obsorbed ...# 3 things at the SAME time .
EMF magnets make waves not light but its at C allso . ANY thing you
can do with magnets you can do with waves in water .
Coliding waves from two rocking boats will push the boats apart. If
you rock the boats so the waves mesh the boats will move together twards
each other. Spin a ball in water and the waves make the exsact shape
the magnet filings do . Poles included .
as the universe expands and matter dont a low energy presure forms
around mass = gravity.
I am getting over 120 e mails a day !
Want to see the atom up close for real ?
want to watch a real atom make waves in space ? Want to see the nucleus
stoped and the size of a basket ball so you can see it up close.
Im excelorating the prosses of the unified field
in your minds . You know what the fuck Im talking about .
Physics is the door saten gaurds and I the keyholder has unlocked the
door no man can close up again . Out of my deapest darkest mind I stand
by the hot coals if the intelect and ster with a crocked stick called
reality physics.
Spaceman
> Not my fault that you don't follow the argument,
Not my fault you have no clue what a Wave MUST be made of.
or..
no wave.
particles make waves.
magic does not!
Not my fault you are brainwashed either.
Nicolaas Vroom
"greysky" <gre...@wac.com> schreef in bericht
news:ucrt007...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Stonelock" <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:64f2b1e9.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > Doesn't this make sense?
> >
> > Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the
> > same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is
> > conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so
> > together.
> >
> > Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not inter-photon
> > dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time
> > give the same result?
> >
>
> The reason an individual photon can create an interference pattern in the
> double slit experiment is because the photon has a certain probability of
> going through either slit.
How do you know that each single photon only goes through either the left
or the right slit ? ie only goes through one particular slit ?
To answer that question you have to describe the experiment that you perform
in great detail.
To perform an experiment with individual photons you start with a single
photon generator, no screen with slits
and a matrix of for example 100*100 CCD's
A single photon generator is a laser which generates single photons
such that each small time period only one CCD is activated.
For example you can have a single photon generator which creates
60 photons per minute which means that all the CCD's together are hit 60
times, the CCD's in the centre more often and CCD at the border not.
Next you place a screen with two slits in front of your matrix, you open
one slit (the left) and you count the number of hits in one minute.
This number can be 60.
When that is the case you know that each single photon goes through
the left slit.
Next you open the right slit only and you count the number of hits in 1 min.
This number can be 60.
When that is the case you know that each single photon goes through
the right slit.
Next you open both slits and you count the number of hits in 1 min.
This number will be 60.
When that is the case you know that each single photon goes through
both slits "in some way" because you observe an interference pattern
(dark light bands) compared with a normal distribution in the previous case.
The number of hits with a single slit can be less than zero.
When you place a slit opposite the border of your matrix the number
of hits will be zero.
> The probability interferes with itself.
Probablities can not interfere with itself.
Photons can interfere with each other.
Single photons can interfere with itself
(A single photon is a package of energy that is observed/registerd
as one separate hit/count at one CCD)
> Now, you can't see this interference pattern with only a single
> photon, but the pattern does emerge when enough photons are used.
Correct
> If you close off one slit, you loose the pattern because the photon
> has a 100% certainty of going through just one slit, unless it hits the
slit
> material.
When only one slit is open each photon can only go through one slit
but when you know that on average there are 60 photons generated
it does not mean that all 60 actual go through this slit.
There can be less than 60. Some will hit the screen.
What you should do is to make a screen with many slits
and open each slit one by one (and close all the others)
and count the hits per minute for each slit.
(if you have 100 slits than you should do it 100 times)
My prediction is that the total number of hits for
all the slits together is more than 60.
> Same can be said with matter waves.
> It's all in the probabilities .
The physical reality is not controlled by probabilities.
Probabilities are part of the tools that describe
the physical reality. The same with laws.
Stonelock
>
> You didn't ask a question. You said
> "The influence of a very wide magnetic field is instantaneous."
A.
>
> > but
> > don't have me waste my time thinking about useless crap just because
> > you feel like a goofball today.
>
> I'm not wasting your time. Obviously I'm wasting mine.
A. again.
> > > > > When it is not wide enough, and thus having a retarded influence,
> > > > > what is the relation between the width of the field and the ratardation?
> >
> > There is no retardation.
>
> Why then your statement
> "The influence of a very wide magnetic field is instantaneous."
> ?
> What about "not very wide magnetic fields"?
> Not so instantaneous?
> Slightly less instantaneous?
> How slightly?
Alright, I will explain for little you. I don't have much hope that
you little you will understand but I will try for the sake of the
conversation. Here, grab my hand. Any magnetic field has instantaneous
effects Throughout the universe but the influence rapidly becomes
infinitessimally weak as you get farther from the source of the field.
The effect of wide (strong) magnetic fields is more directly
noticeable by us(the sun's turmoils causing magnetic storms).
Now, I doubt you can understand, but I really hope you try :).
StoneLock
Richard
Brainwashed! LOL:-) I doubt that you would find much agreement with that
statement if you asked around. I don't subscribe to classical
electrodynamics, SR, GR, quantum theory, string theory, black holes,
worm holes, free fucking energy, FTL "useful" information exchange, E=hf
(except on average, and when an "atom" is the source), higgs particles,
monopoles, gravitons (unless it is another name for em wave), let's
see....hmmm.....aether as a "substance" (that is, other than the matter
in the universe that can readily be observed to exist), or even
"infinity" for christs fucking sake. What the hell would you say that am
I brainwashed about then?
Did I not state that particles are doing the waving? Are you on the rag
or what?
TB
No, his bot's poorly tuned (either that or always programmed to attack
unless he adds specific poster's to his "friend's" list -- like tjfrazir
-- in which case it blindly agrees, back-pats, and <LOL>s no matter what
is said ;-)
-- TB
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stonelock" <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:64f2b1e9.02043...@posting.google.com...
> > > If you don't want to answer the questions I asked, fine,
> >
> > You didn't ask a question. You said
> > "The influence of a very wide magnetic field is instantaneous."
>
> A.
>
> >
> > > but
> > > don't have me waste my time thinking about useless crap just because
> > > you feel like a goofball today.
> >
> > I'm not wasting your time. Obviously I'm wasting mine.
>
> A. again.
>
> > > > > > When it is not wide enough, and thus having a retarded influence,
> > > > > > what is the relation between the width of the field and the ratardation?
> > >
> > > There is no retardation.
> >
> > Why then your statement
> > "The influence of a very wide magnetic field is instantaneous."
> > ?
> > What about "not very wide magnetic fields"?
> > Not so instantaneous?
> > Slightly less instantaneous?
> > How slightly?
>
> Alright, I will explain for little you. I don't have much hope that
> you little you will understand but I will try for the sake of the
> conversation. Here, grab my hand. Any magnetic field has instantaneous
You are confusing the strings "to be instananeous"
and "to have infinite range".
> effects Throughout the universe but the influence rapidly becomes
> infinitessimally weak as you get farther from the source of the field.
> The effect of wide (strong) magnetic fields is more directly
> noticeable by us(the sun's turmoils causing magnetic storms).
> Now, I doubt you can understand, but I really hope you try :).
When you turn on a magnet, the influence travels through the
universe with speed c. If the effects of the magnet throughout
the universe would be instantaneous, the influence would travel
at infinite speed. That's not what we observe. We observe c.
So I hope that next time you will declare:
"The influence of a very wide magnetic field has infinite range."
in stead of
"The influence of a very wide magnetic field is instantaneous."
And you can leave out the string "very wide" too.
Now, I doubt you can understand, but I really hope you try.
Dirk Vdm
greysky
"Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaa...@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:2dwz8.46986$Ze....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>
> "greysky" <gre...@wac.com> schreef in bericht
> news:ucrt007...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Stonelock" <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:64f2b1e9.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > Doesn't this make sense?
> > >
> > > Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the
> > > same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is
> > > conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so
> > > together.
> > >
> > > Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not inter-photon
> > > dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time
> > > give the same result?
> > >
> >
> > The reason an individual photon can create an interference pattern in
the
> > double slit experiment is because the photon has a certain probability
of
> > going through either slit.
> How do you know that ?
> How do you know that each single photon only goes through either the left
> or the right slit ? ie only goes through one particular slit ?
In a slit experiment, no matter how many slits you have open, the total
probability of the electron passing through a slit and being detected
equals 100% *if* there has beeen a detected event at the CCD. Sticking to
only 2 slits makes it easier to visualize, and the researcher can modify the
probability by placing his photon emmitter on a perpindicular moving track.
But say there is a 60% probability that the electron will pass through slit
A, and a 40% probability it will pass through slit B, I am saying there is
always going to be a 100% probability of the electron going through one of
the slits if your detector has registered an event. It will always be 100%.
If your electron hits the slit, say slit A, this information says nothing
about the electron passing through slit B - the probability is still 40%
even after the event. As far as the probability is concerned, it must always
add up to 100% otherwise particles would not be stable. The 40% simply does
not go away. In this regard, the electron will go through both slits at the
same time whether an event is recorded or not. If the apparatus you are
using is not disturbed, an interference pattern, determined by the
probabilitiy you have set up for the photon, will develop after many hits
are recorded.
Even though the set up you describe is nice, it has nothing to do with the
mechanics of moving particles.
Physical reality is layer after layer of quantum probabilities made
manifest. Our experience, what we call reality, is nothing more than this
concept seen through our gross senses. Mathematical tools allow exploration
of this fact, but probability itself is what it is exploring, not the other
way around.
Greysky
Nicolaas Vroom
Please answer the following questions.
All the questions have a time period per minute
The two slits are of equal size.
1. Question with no screen in front of CCD matrix.
How many single photons does your photon emitter generates per minute ?
ie. How many counts (hits) are there in total.
2. Question with screen and only A slit open.
How many hits are counted ?
3. Question with screen and only B slit open.
How many hits are counted ?
4. Question with both A and B slit open:
How many hits are counted
1) The following sequence of answers is possible:
1: 100 2: 100 3: 100 4: 100
That means that in this case "you" have measured always 100
counts / minute (in reality each value plus or minus 2)
2) The following sequence of answers is possible:
1: 100 2: 40 3: 40 4: 40
That means when one slit is open you measure less hits
but when you open two slits the total number does not increase.
3) The following sequence of answers is possible:
1: 100 2: 60 3: 40 4: 100
That means the number of hits when two slits is open
is equal to the sum of the single slits.
4) The following sequence of answers is possible:
1: 400 2: 60 3: 40 4: 100
Slight modification of reply #3
What is your reply ?
What are the true results of the experiment.
What are the facts.
Next we will calculate the probabilities,
but those probabilities are not the bare facts.
I do not know the answers because I have never performed those
experiments, but in order to understand I want to hear them
from someone who as actual done them.
My quess is something like answer #2.
> I am saying there is
> always going to be a 100% probability of the electron going through one
of
> the slits if your detector has registered an event.
> It will always be 100%.
> If your electron hits the slit, say slit A, this information says nothing
> about the electron passing through slit B - the probability is still 40%
> even after the event. As far as the probability is concerned, it must
always
> add up to 100% otherwise particles would not be stable. The 40% simply
does
> not go away. In this regard, the electron will go through both slits at
the
> same time whether an event is recorded or not. If the apparatus you are
> using is not disturbed, an interference pattern, determined by the
> probabilitiy you have set up for the photon, will develop after many hits
> are recorded.
The only thing what is true is that the interference pattern is a function
(assuming both slits are open)
of the size of the two slits
and of the distance between the two slits
The same for the number of hits.
> Even though the set up you describe is nice, it has nothing to do with
the
> mechanics of moving particles.
>
<SNIP>
> > The physical reality is not controlled by probabilities.
> > Probabilities are part of the tools that describe
> > the physical reality. The same with laws.
> >
> Physical reality is layer after layer of quantum probabilities made
> manifest.
The problem is when you perform any experiment
you modify the present/past reality
and you create a new reality.
Based on this new reality (ie the bare results of your experiments)
you can make a model of the past (undisturbed) reality.
Only by performing different experiments you have a chance
to improve your model.
> Our experience, what we call reality, is nothing more than this
> concept seen through our gross senses.
> Mathematical tools allow exploration of this fact,
With Mathematical tools you can do two things:
1. Define your model.
(your model in principle can include probabilities)
2. Post process the measurements ie calculate averages
and probabilities.
(But those two probabilities do not reflect the same)
> but probability itself is what it is exploring, not the other
> way around.
> Greysky
Nick
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
Spaceman
> Did I not state that particles are doing the waving? Are you on the rag
> or what?
Are you an asshole or what?
Do you believe in time changing rate from speed?
Do you believe in mass gaining mass as speed increases?
Do you believe lightwaves can travel along nothingness? (need no medium in
other words)
Well,?
any of the above would mean you agree with the incorrect crap GR and SR
have built up.
So,
any of the above?
or none?
Richard
Pull the wax out of your ears. Now try to actually pay attention this
time: Electrons, and by this it is understood that this is a generic
term for both positive and negative varieties, interact instantaneously
with one another. However they have inertia and so a change in the
position of one wrt to the other does not produce a maximum change in
the other immediately, again due to the second electron's inertia. Given
a source, such as a dipole antenna, the electrons are accelerating up
and down the antenna, in doing so they induce a reaction in the
surrounding medium, that medium being any and all quanta in the
surrounding space. The wave is mechanical, just as is a sound wave, and
differs only in that the "collisions" between its particles occur over
any distance, and in the fact that the interaction is purely magnetic,
i.e. polarized, whereas the sound wave relies upon near field incoherent
interactions only. What about transmission through empty space? Two
things to say about this, 1) what empty space? and 2) doesn't matter if
there were empty space, the interaction between electrons is not
distance restricted. For the rest, just read the last section of my
paper.
greysky
This is correct, the CCD will detect all electrons because there is nothing
impeding them. The probability is 100. This is your control setup.
>
> 2) The following sequence of answers is possible:
> 1: 100 2: 40 3: 40 4: 40
> That means when one slit is open you measure less hits
> but when you open two slits the total number does not increase.
With only one slit open, and the photon emmitter off axes (which doesn't
help), for the photons going through the slit, the numbers are undefined
because you have no way of knowing whether the photon is going to go through
the slit to hit the detector. But, the probability is still 100. The photon
will either hit the slit, or detector.
> 3) The following sequence of answers is possible:
> 1: 100 2: 60 3: 40 4: 100
> That means the number of hits when two slits is open
> is equal to the sum of the single slits.
4 doesn't have to be 100 necessairly. The probability of hits at the
detector depends on just how many photons impact the slit material. This is
random - it is undefined until the event is detected. But, even in the case
where 4 = 0, #2 & #3 will still add up to 100 (in this case, all electrons
have impacted the slit). In a time averaged system, the net probability of
slit impact will yield values close to 60 for slit 1 and 40 for slit 2.
Further, you can't really say more about the system unless you also include
detectors at the slits themselves.
>
> 4) The following sequence of answers is possible:
> 1: 400 2: 60 3: 40 4: 100
> Slight modification of reply #3
See above. BTW, where did #1 come from?
You can't extrapolate back from any of the results you obtain. HUP doesn't
allow this. The models you will develop will be classical in nature. All you
can speak about is the results of your detection event for particles. Yes,
you can set up the probability for photons passing through the slits, but it
is dynamical, and not predictable in advance or retroactivly. This is why I
limited myself to only discussing the probabilities,and not the actual
outcome of the experiment.
>
> > Our experience, what we call reality, is nothing more than this
> > concept seen through our gross senses.
> > Mathematical tools allow exploration of this fact,
>
> With Mathematical tools you can do two things:
> 1. Define your model.
> (your model in principle can include probabilities)
> 2. Post process the measurements ie calculate averages
> and probabilities.
> (But those two probabilities do not reflect the same)
>
> > but probability itself is what it is exploring, not the other
> > way around.
As I said, it is probability that will eventually create your interference
pattern, not the photons themselves - they just provide the dot on your
CCD, or photographic paper.
>
> > Greysky
>
> Nick
> http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
>
>
Greysky
Stonelock
Do you also consider an electron to interact at c electrically with
other electrons and positrons in the rest of the universe also?
StoneLock
Nicolaas Vroom
>
> "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaa...@pandora.be> wrote in message
> news:7BOz8.49217$Ze....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > All the questions have a time period per minute
> > The two slits are of equal size.
> > 1. Question with no screen in front of CCD matrix.
> > How many single photons does your photon emitter generates per minute ?
> > ie. How many counts (hits) are there in total.
> > 2. Question with screen and only A slit open.
> > How many hits are counted ?
> > 3. Question with screen and only B slit open.
> > How many hits are counted ?
> > 4. Question with both A and B slit open:
> > How many hits are counted
> >
> > 1) The following sequence of answers is possible:
> > 1: 100 2: 100 3: 100 4: 100
> > That means that in this case "you" have measured always 100
> > counts / minute (in reality each value plus or minus 2)
>
> This is correct, the CCD will detect all electrons because there is
nothing
> impeding them. The probability is 100. This is your control setup.
>
> >
>
> > 1: 100 2: 60 3: 40 4: 100
> > That means the number of hits when two slits is open
> > is equal to the sum of the single slits.
>
> 4 doesn't have to be 100 necessairly.
>
> >
> > 1: 400 2: 60 3: 40 4: 100
> > Slight modification of reply #3
>
> See above. BTW, where did #1 come from?
Because of this comment apparently my whole text
is not clear.
I tried to explain an experiment consisting of
4 parts (cases).
First no screen, screen with A slit, screen with B slit
screen with two slits.
In each of those cases for 1 minute single photons
are generated, emitted.
The question is how many hits are detected in each of
those cases.
I supllied 4 different possible scenarios.
They can all be wrong.
or maximum only one can right.
For example
you can say:
#1 is right but then #2, 3 and 4 are wrong.
You can not say:
#1 is right but #2 is also right when you make
the following assumptions.
You can say
All are wrong:
This is the answer: 1 ? 2 ? 3 ? 4 ?
My answer is #2 and #1,3 and 4 are wrong.
Remember all the values I used you should not
take absolute but plus or minus 2.
For example possibilty 3 is also
> > 1: 100 2: 60 3: 40 4: 100
> > 1: 101 2: 59 3: 41 4: 101
> > 1: 99 2: 61 3: 39 4: 98
> >
> > What is your reply ?
Please answer my previous posting again.
Either select one possible answer
or make your scenario of counts.
Nick
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stonelock" <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:64f2b1e9.02050...@posting.google.com...
Yes, don't you?
Dirk Vdm
greysky
I meant, for the case in question, where did you come up with a count of
400? Do you mean that 400 photons were emitted, but only 100 of them were
detected, even though 60 of them passed through slit A and 40 of them passed
through slit B? If so, this is most certainly not right. As far as the other
scenarios go, all you can talk about is not the individual photon, but only
the probability of which slit they passed through. If you start with 100
photons, then you must account for 100 photons, no matter where they wind
up. So for 1 & 4 you get the same number 1: 100 2: 60 3:40 4: extrapolation
back from the detection event to the slit is not possible as you would know
2 values absolutely for the same photon, and HUP will not allow this. If you
see a dot appear on the photographic plate, you can't say "this photon came
from slit A" Running the experiment in reverse will not give the same
results for the same photon. All you can say is that all photons have been
accounted for, not how they got where they are. Only the probabilities will
add up, in which case #4 will be the same as #1.
Greysky
Nicolaas Vroom
> As far as the other scenarios go,
> all you can talk about is not the individual photon,
> but only the probability of which slit they passed through.
I do not agree with you
and or I do not understand your meaning of probability
The same with this previous posting you wrote:
> As I said, it is probability that will eventually create your
> interference pattern, not the photons themselves -
> they just provide the dot on your CCD, or photographic paper.
so lets start again.
First we do the experiment with no screen.
Suppose we run our single photon emitter for 5 min.
and we count 500 hits.
We clear all the CCD's
and we repeat this whole sequence again for 5 min.
now we get 502 hits.
The next time 498 hits.
Do you agree that such an outcome is feasible ?
Second we place in front of the CCD's a screen we two
slits but only the A slit is open.
Again we do the same as above for 5 minutes and count
the number of hits.
There is no change in the photon emitter.
The maximum number of hits that you can get is 500
(plus minus 5)
But IMO you get less because some photons will
not go through the A slit.
IMO the number is for example 300 (roughly)
We can repeat the whole and then IMO the following
outcome is feasible: 298, 302, 300, 299 etc.
What is your selection ?
Third we close both slits.
The number of hits is zero.
Agreed ?
Fourth we open only the B slit
IMO the number of hits is again roughly 300
What is your selection ?
Is it approx. the same as in step 2 ?
If not please explain.
Fifth now we open both slits A and B
How many hits are there ?
Based on my selection there are roughly
4 posiblities:
300, 305, 400 and 500
500 is highly unlikely because that means
that all of a sudden all photons go through
the two slits which are very close together.
400 IMO is also unlikely.
My selection is 305 ie slightly more
as when only A or B is open.
If you assume
that when only A is open you get 500 hits
and when only B is open you get 500 hits
than when both are open the only possibility is 500 hits.
What is your selection ?
As soon as when I know what your selection is
(specific for the last question) we can discuss
(in case both slits are open) if we can say something
through which slit each photon goes
and or if this a matter of probabilty.
Nick.
Ed Keane III
>
> Please answer the following questions.
> All the questions have a time period per minute.
That's your problem. You are thinking about statistical mechanics. The
length of time that it takes for an excited particle to emit a photon varies
and can only be predicted with a certain probability. It was Einstein's
application of the probabilistic half life used to calculate nuclear decay
to photon emission that was the beginning of quantum mechanics. It is not
possible to emit single photons at any exact time or rate.
Stonelock
> > > You are confusing the strings "to be instananeous"
> > > and "to have infinite range".
> > >
> > > > effects Throughout the universe but the influence rapidly becomes
> > > > infinitessimally weak as you get farther from the source of the field.
> > > > The effect of wide (strong) magnetic fields is more directly
> > > > noticeable by us(the sun's turmoils causing magnetic storms).
> > > > Now, I doubt you can understand, but I really hope you try :).
> > >
> > > When you turn on a magnet, the influence travels through the
> > > universe with speed c. If the effects of the magnet throughout
> > > the universe would be instantaneous, the influence would travel
> > > at infinite speed. That's not what we observe. We observe c.
> > >
> > > So I hope that next time you will declare:
> > > "The influence of a very wide magnetic field has infinite range."
> > > in stead of
> > > "The influence of a very wide magnetic field is instantaneous."
> > > And you can leave out the string "very wide" too.
> >
> > Do you also consider an electron to interact at c electrically with
> > other electrons and positrons in the rest of the universe also?
>
> Yes, don't you?
No. Doesn't the scientific community recognize that the coulombian
interaction is instantaneous though?
StoneLock
Nicolaas Vroom
"Ed Keane III" <ke...@northweb.com> schreef in bericht
news:3cd2b...@news.teranews.com...
>
> Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaa...@pandora.be> wrote in message
> news:7BOz8.49217$Ze....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >
>
> > Please answer the following questions.
> > All the questions have a time period per minute.
>
> That's your problem. You are thinking about statistical mechanics.
>The length of time that it takes for an excited particle to emit a
> photon varies and can only be predicted with a certain probability.
Exactly it varies.
But how do you know that ?
IMO: By performing experiments.
Suppose you measure in 1 minute with no screen (slit) 120 hits.
Does that mean that in the next minute you also get 120 hits ?
We will both most probably say: no
A sequence like: 115, 123, 119, 121, 124 is more likely.
The same when if only slit A is open.
Suppose you answered on my 4 questions.
120, 120, 120, 120
Than my interpretation is:
It does not matter which slit is open, A, B or both,
on the average you will get 120 hits in one minute.
(that's why I wrote plus or minus 2)
My next question would be:
Do you agree: that in case of no screen,
only slit A is open and only slit B is open
that the hits form a normal distrubition ?
Do you agree: that when both slits are open
that the hits form an interference pattern ?
My next question would be:
Which statement is true:
When two slits are open (and you observe
an interference pattern) each single photon
1. goes through either slit A or slit B.
2. goes through both slits.
3. goes through slit A but not true slit B.
4. ? (explain)
> It was Einstein's application
> of the probabilistic half life used to calculate nuclear decay
> to photon emission that was the beginning of quantum mechanics.
I doubt if you can calculate half life of nuclear decay.
Half life of nuclear decay can only be established by observations
and or experiments.
Suppose that you have a certain quantity of a radio active element
with a half life of 1 year
I agree that you can not say which particular atom will decay
and which one will not within 1 year.
The only thing is, that you can predict, that 50% will decay
within 1 year.
> It is not
> possible to emit single photons at any exact time or rate.
I fully agree.
Nick
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stonelock" <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:64f2b1e9.02050...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
The scientific community recognizes that when a charge is moved,
it takes slightly more than no time before the other nearby charges
will be influenced.
Dirk Vdm
Stonelock
> > > > > "The influence of a very wide magnetic field has infinite range."
> > > > > in stead of
> > > > > "The influence of a very wide magnetic field is instantaneous."
> > > > > And you can leave out the string "very wide" too.
> > > >
> > > > Do you also consider an electron to interact at c electrically with
> > > > other electrons and positrons in the rest of the universe also?
> > >
> > > Yes, don't you?
> >
> > No. Doesn't the scientific community recognize that the coulombian
> > interaction is instantaneous though?
>
> The scientific community recognizes that when a charge is moved,
> it takes slightly more than no time before the other nearby charges
> will be influenced.
What about thought experiment that involve particles that are
infinitely far from one another. The coulombian interaction is a
force, not a movement, why should it have the same restrictions as
movement?
StoneLock
Dirk Van de moortel
Do you know the difference between electrostatics and
electrodynamics?
Have you ever heard about Maxwell's equations?
How old are you?
Dirk Vdm
Alfred Einstead
> Doesn't this make sense?
>
> Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the
> same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is
> conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so
> together.
Its bears pointing out that photons are not particles ... except when
Physicists say they're particles. Because when ordinary people
say "particle" they mean a tiny, individual, ball-like object
travelling through space, each time at a specific location.
When a physicist says "particle", it means a mode of energization
in a universal quantum field.
Photons are modes of energization in the free electromagnetic field.
They have no location. They have no more individuality than
waves on an ocean. And that's meant literally: there's only one
way to put two photons in two states, one in each state. In
contrast, there's two ways to put 2 balls in 2 boxes, one in
each box.
The difference in counting has drastic EMPIRICAL consequences.
In fact, it's been known since the 19th century that particles
can't possibly have individual identity, since the counting
that proceeds from that assumption leads directly to
contradiction (Gibbs' paradox).
franz heymann
Alfred Einstead <whop...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:e58d56ae.02050...@posting.google.com...
> crypto_s...@hotmail.com (Stonelock) wrote:
> > Doesn't this make sense?
> >
> > Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but
the
> > same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is
> > conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so
> > together.
>
> Its bears pointing out that photons are not particles ... except when
> Physicists say they're particles. Because when ordinary people
> say "particle" they mean a tiny, individual, ball-like object
> travelling through space, each time at a specific location.
>
> When a physicist says "particle", it means a mode of energization
> in a universal quantum field.
>
> Photons are modes of energization in the free electromagnetic field.
> They have no location. They have no more individuality than
> waves on an ocean. And that's meant literally: there's only one
> way to put two photons in two states, one in each state. In
> contrast, there's two ways to put 2 balls in 2 boxes, one in
> each box.
Alfred would do well to familiarise himself with some of the experiments
at LEP. It has been established that the photon is a point-like object
to the best resolution available.
>
> The difference in counting has drastic EMPIRICAL consequences.
> In fact, it's been known since the 19th century that particles
> can't possibly have individual identity, since the counting
> that proceeds from that assumption leads directly to
> contradiction (Gibbs' paradox).
Franz Heymann
Stonelock
> > > > interaction is instantaneous though?
> > >
> > > The scientific community recognizes that when a charge is moved,
> > > it takes slightly more than no time before the other nearby charges
> > > will be influenced.
> >
> > What about thought experiment that involve particles that are
> > infinitely far from one another. The coulombian interaction is a
> > force, not a movement, why should it have the same restrictions as
> > movement?
>
> Do you know the difference between electrostatics and
> electrodynamics?
What we are discussing right now is electrostatic interactions
> Have you ever heard about Maxwell's equations?
And yes I have
> How old are you?
I don't think my age is relevant to the discussion.
StoneLock
Randy Poe
> > The scientific community recognizes that when a charge is moved,
> > it takes slightly more than no time before the other nearby charges
> > will be influenced.
>
> What about thought experiment that involve particles that are
> infinitely far from one another. The coulombian interaction is a
> force, not a movement, why should it have the same restrictions as
> movement?
Why? We don't know why. All we know is that we don't
know any experiment that can break the speed of light
barrier. The effects of moving particle A reach particle
B at the speed of light, not instantaneously. That's
observation.
- Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
> > > > > interaction is instantaneous though?
> > > >
> > > > The scientific community recognizes that when a charge is moved,
> > > > it takes slightly more than no time before the other nearby charges
> > > > will be influenced.
> > >
> > > What about thought experiment that involve particles that are
> > > infinitely far from one another. The coulombian interaction is a
> > > force, not a movement, why should it have the same restrictions as
> > > movement?
> >
> > Do you know the difference between electrostatics and
> > electrodynamics?
>
> What we are discussing right now is electrostatic interactions
In your thought experiment the influence between particles
that are infinitely far from each other, is zero (limiting case).
End of experiment. But that's besides the point of course ;-)
The electrostatic force is poorly described by the Coulomb
force. What happens is better described by QED.
The force is mediated through virtual photons:
Read some on
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html
http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/qmbeynd.html
No need for instantaneous influences. Not in theory and
not in practice.
>
> > Have you ever heard about Maxwell's equations?
>
> And yes I have
Ever treated them formally? Solved them? Found the
wave equations? Discovered c? Retarded potentials?
>
> > How old are you?
>
> I don't think my age is relevant to the discussion.
It might be relevant. I estimate your age between 14 or 16.
But never mind. If you want to keep it a secret, fine with me.
Dirk Vdm
Stonelock
> "Stonelock" <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:64f2b1e9.02050...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > No. Doesn't the scientific community recognize that the coulombian
> > > > > > interaction is instantaneous though?
> > > > >
> > > > > The scientific community recognizes that when a charge is moved,
> > > > > it takes slightly more than no time before the other nearby charges
> > > > > will be influenced.
> > > >
> > > > What about thought experiment that involve particles that are
> > > > infinitely far from one another. The coulombian interaction is a
> > > > force, not a movement, why should it have the same restrictions as
> > > > movement?
> > >
> > > Do you know the difference between electrostatics and
> > > electrodynamics?
> >
> > What we are discussing right now is electrostatic interactions
>
> In your thought experiment the influence between particles
> that are infinitely far from each other, is zero (limiting case).
> End of experiment. But that's besides the point of course ;-)
Then why are they usually considered to interact in litterature in
general?
> The electrostatic force is poorly described by the Coulomb
> force. What happens is better described by QED.
> The force is mediated through virtual photons:
virtual photons which are not real by definition since they are
virtual. QED is a mathematical theory, underling of QM, based on
irrational premisses, It is not based on reality or observations. I
don't think they are an appropriate model. General relativity has been
on the ass for awhile also but nobody is replacing it. It doesn't
explain AT all the abnormal acceleration of space probes in outer
space.
> Read some on
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html
> http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/qmbeynd.html
> No need for instantaneous influences. Not in theory and
> not in practice.
>
> >
> > > Have you ever heard about Maxwell's equations?
> >
> > And yes I have
>
> Ever treated them formally? Solved them? Found the
> wave equations? Discovered c? Retarded potentials?
I played with them a bit, but didn't go into details.
StoneLock
Stonelock
Then again, I didn't mention movement, I mentioned Coulombian
interaction, which is a force, not a movement. Also, in which
experiment does this specific effect you are mentioning has been
observed?
StoneLock
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stonelock" <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:64f2b1e9.02050...@posting.google.com...
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<JozB8.61416$Ze....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
> > "Stonelock" <crypto_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:64f2b1e9.02050...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > No. Doesn't the scientific community recognize that the coulombian
> > > > > > > interaction is instantaneous though?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The scientific community recognizes that when a charge is moved,
> > > > > > it takes slightly more than no time before the other nearby charges
> > > > > > will be influenced.
> > > > >
> > > > > What about thought experiment that involve particles that are
> > > > > infinitely far from one another. The coulombian interaction is a
> > > > > force, not a movement, why should it have the same restrictions as
> > > > > movement?
> > > >
> > > > Do you know the difference between electrostatics and
> > > > electrodynamics?
> > >
> > > What we are discussing right now is electrostatic interactions
> >
> > In your thought experiment the influence between particles
> > that are infinitely far from each other, is zero (limiting case).
> > End of experiment. But that's besides the point of course ;-)
>
> Then why are they usually considered to interact in litterature in
> general?
At infinity the influence is zero.
> > The electrostatic force is poorly described by the Coulomb
> > force. What happens is better described by QED.
> > The force is mediated through virtual photons:
>
> virtual photons which are not real by definition since they are
> virtual. QED is a mathematical theory, underling of QM, based on
> irrational premisses, It is not based on reality or observations.
It is.
> I don't think they are an appropriate model.
They are much more appropriate than Coulomb's law.
> General relativity has been
> on the ass for awhile also but nobody is replacing it. It doesn't
> explain AT all the abnormal acceleration of space probes in outer
> space.
You have been reading not enough and too much.
>
> > Read some on
> > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html
> > http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/qmbeynd.html
> > No need for instantaneous influences. Not in theory and
> > not in practice.
> >
> > >
> > > > Have you ever heard about Maxwell's equations?
> > >
> > > And yes I have
> >
> > Ever treated them formally? Solved them? Found the
> > wave equations? Discovered c? Retarded potentials?
>
> I played with them a bit, but didn't go into details.
Indeed.
Dirk Vdm
Julian Streicher
> Doesn't this make sense?
>
> Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the
> same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is
> conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so
> together.
>
> Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not inter-photon
> dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time
> give the same result?
>
> StoneLock
If the process were ergodic(which it is) then your experiment makes
sense. As long as one keeps believing in a deterministic path for the
photon, then there is no way that the above "inconsistensy" can be
resolved.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
franz heymann
It does not look as if you understand what is meant by a virtual
particle.
> QED is a mathematical theory, underling of QM, based on
> irrational premisses,
Please give a list of the postulates of QED and show us where the
irrationality resides.
> It is not based on reality or observations. I
> don't think they are an appropriate model.
Every prediction made by QED which has ever been tested experimentally
has resulted in a vindication of QED. In some cases the agreement
between experiment and theory is better than one part in 10^7.
> General relativity has been
> on the ass for awhile also but nobody is replacing it. It doesn't
> explain AT all the abnormal acceleration of space probes in outer
> space.
>
> > Read some on
> >
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html
> > http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/qmbeynd.html
> > No need for instantaneous influences. Not in theory and
> > not in practice.
> >
> > >
> > > > Have you ever heard about Maxwell's equations?
> > >
> > > And yes I have
> >
> > Ever treated them formally? Solved them? Found the
> > wave equations? Discovered c? Retarded potentials?
>
> I played with them a bit, but didn't go into details.
Is there some part of physics in which you have "gone into details"?
You obviously know even less about QED than you know about CED.
Franz Heymann
Stonelock
What i do understand is that they are used to describe phonomena that
are not explained otherwise. The only problem is that virtual
particles don't exist :).
1 irrationality point for QM.
> > QED is a mathematical theory, underling of QM, based on
> > irrational premisses,
>
> Please give a list of the postulates of QED and show us where the
> irrationality resides.
When we are not observing something, it is in all the states it can be
in at the same time. What a crock of shit. This is not causal and in
this Universe, if something isn't causal, it is irrational. second
irrationality point for QM.
Since only 1 irrational premisse is necessary for a whole model to be
worth crap, we have more than enough to dump it in the garbage and
look for better. Understand me, it does yield good statistical results
but it is not a complete model. A new one needs to take it's place.
> > It is not based on reality or observations. I
> > don't think they are an appropriate model.
>
> Every prediction made by QED which has ever been tested experimentally
> has resulted in a vindication of QED. In some cases the agreement
> between experiment and theory is better than one part in 10^7.
>
> > General relativity has been
> > on the ass for awhile also but nobody is replacing it. It doesn't
> > explain AT all the abnormal acceleration of space probes in outer
> > space.
Why did you avoid this baby? ^. It scares you?
> > > Read some on
> > >
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html
> > > http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/qmbeynd.html
> > > No need for instantaneous influences. Not in theory and
> > > not in practice.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Have you ever heard about Maxwell's equations?
> > > >
> > > > And yes I have
> > >
> > > Ever treated them formally? Solved them? Found the
> > > wave equations? Discovered c? Retarded potentials?
> >
> > I played with them a bit, but didn't go into details.
>
> Is there some part of physics in which you have "gone into details"?
> You obviously know even less about QED than you know about CED.
I know sufficiently to see that you guys have been swimming in jello
for some time.
StoneLock
Dirk Van de moortel
Prove that they don't exist.
Until then, 1 irrationality point for Stonelock.
>
> > > QED is a mathematical theory, underling of QM, based on
> > > irrational premisses,
> >
> > Please give a list of the postulates of QED and show us where the
> > irrationality resides.
>
> When we are not observing something, it is in all the states it can be
> in at the same time. What a crock of shit.
You don't know what a state is.
When we are not observing anything, the only thing we can
say about it, is expressed in terms of probabilities. A state is
not a probability. It is a mathematical concept from which a
probability can be calculated. When compared with all the
experimental data, these calculations are astonishingly
precise. Period.
> This is not causal and in
> this Universe, if something isn't causal, it is irrational. second
> irrationality point for QM.
If something isn't causal, then either it isn't causal, or we don't
know the causal relationship (yet). Period.
Second irrationality point for Stonelock
>
> Since only 1 irrational premisse is necessary for a whole model to be
> worth crap, we have more than enough to dump it in the garbage and
> look for better. Understand me, it does yield good statistical results
> but it is not a complete model. A new one needs to take it's place.
We will patiently wait for Stonelock to come up with something
new and better. Meanwhile we will label everything we know
as crap.
>
> > > It is not based on reality or observations. I
> > > don't think they are an appropriate model.
> >
> > Every prediction made by QED which has ever been tested experimentally
> > has resulted in a vindication of QED. In some cases the agreement
> > between experiment and theory is better than one part in 10^7.
> >
> > > General relativity has been
> > > on the ass for awhile also but nobody is replacing it. It doesn't
> > > explain AT all the abnormal acceleration of space probes in outer
> > > space.
>
> Why did you avoid this baby? ^. It scares you?
You have been reading a newspaper article and some crackpot sites.
The original article scares no one with enough education to understand
it. You can pick it up on
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064
But don't. You won't understand what they are talking about.
>
> > > > Read some on
> > > >
> > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html
> > > > http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/qmbeynd.html
> > > > No need for instantaneous influences. Not in theory and
> > > > not in practice.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Have you ever heard about Maxwell's equations?
> > > > >
> > > > > And yes I have
> > > >
> > > > Ever treated them formally? Solved them? Found the
> > > > wave equations? Discovered c? Retarded potentials?
> > >
> > > I played with them a bit, but didn't go into details.
> >
> > Is there some part of physics in which you have "gone into details"?
> > You obviously know even less about QED than you know about CED.
>
> I know sufficiently to see that you guys have been swimming in jello
> for some time.
You know shit.
You haven't been reading enough and you have been
reading too much.
Dirk Vdm
EL
> Then again, I didn't mention movement, I mentioned Coulombian
> interaction, which is a force, not a movement. Also, in which
> experiment does this specific effect you are mentioning has been
> observed?
>
> StoneLock
[EL]
How can a bullet change its course as a result of its proximity from a
wall?
How can a thousand photons interacting with another thousand photons
destructively cancel each other to end up with zero photons?
Waves diffract and interfere, particles do not.
Why don't you have a third thought? :-)
EL
franz heymann
As I thought. You know nothing about virtual particles. You have some
reading to do. Come back after a year.
>
> > > QED is a mathematical theory, underling of QM, based on
> > > irrational premisses,
> >
> > Please give a list of the postulates of QED and show us where the
> > irrationality resides.
>
> When we are not observing something, it is in all the states it can be
> in at the same time. What a crock of shit. This is not causal and in
> this Universe, if something isn't causal, it is irrational. second
> irrationality point for QM.
You are talking crap. You have some reading to do. My previous
estimate of one year was too low. Come back in 3 years.
>
> Since only 1 irrational premisse is necessary for a whole model to be
> worth crap, we have more than enough to dump it in the garbage and
> look for better. Understand me,
I do understand you well. You are unqualified to spout about QM. You
may have heard the bell ring but you don't have a clua as to where the
clapper is hanging.
> it does yield good statistical results
> but it is not a complete model. A new one needs to take it's place.
Mere waffle.
> > > It is not based on reality or observations. I
> > > don't think they are an appropriate model.
> >
> > Every prediction made by QED which has ever been tested
experimentally
> > has resulted in a vindication of QED. In some cases the agreement
> > between experiment and theory is better than one part in 10^7.
> >
> > > General relativity has been
> > > on the ass for awhile also but nobody is replacing it. It doesn't
> > > explain AT all the abnormal acceleration of space probes in outer
> > > space.
>
> Why did you avoid this baby? ^. It scares you?
Unlike you, There *are* subjects on which I am competent to comment. GR
is not one of them.
[Snip]
Franz Heymann
G=EMC^2 Glazier
ball can show a double interference. A single virus the same. They now
are coming up with the idea that all things go in pairs. They say if you
made a million holes a single photon can go through them all. They now
tell us the what we think of as a single photon is that it has about a
million photons moving in its quanta. They refer to all those other
photons as phantom photons. Well if a trillion photons can sit on the
head of a pin,what does that make to one or a million. It is not worth
counting. However I would like it if they said virtual photons rather
than phantom. I think virtual photons can show their shadow
in the two slit experiment,but don't ask me why??? Best regards Herb
greysky
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbert...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9130-3CD...@storefull-2356.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Nice idea, a single photon describable as a practically infinite series of
related virtual quanta. What's going through the slits represents the
probability of how these virtual quanta are split. Problem as I see it is
that they have to re-combine after they pass through the slit in order to
become real photons again, and this would also involve keeping the phase
space of all those virtual photons the same both before and after the event.
Since this can't happen, quantum alignment of phase would be scrambled, the
photon you get after slit passage and recombination, isn't the same photon
before it passes through the slits..... same would go for the virus.
Greysky
Stonelock
Oh really? You are telling me, and all of the world that virtual
particles are real? You can certify it in front of everybody here that
they do physically exist in the real world outside of us? If you can,
then you qualify as a demented baboon and should be institutionalised
because they DO NOT exist in the real world.
> >
> > > > QED is a mathematical theory, underling of QM, based on
> > > > irrational premisses,
> > >
> > > Please give a list of the postulates of QED and show us where the
> > > irrationality resides.
> >
> > When we are not observing something, it is in all the states it can be
> > in at the same time. What a crock of shit. This is not causal and in
> > this Universe, if something isn't causal, it is irrational. second
> > irrationality point for QM.
>
> You are talking crap. You have some reading to do. My previous
> estimate of one year was too low. Come back in 3 years.
Hmmm. So you consider that a photon knows it has to split into 2 to go
through 2 slits and interact with itself to form interference a causal
relation? DING DING. HELLO???????? It is scaringly empty in this brain
of yours. Would you care to turn the light on, you might bump into...a
no wait, nevermind, there's nothing to bump into anyways.
> >
> > Since only 1 irrational premisse is necessary for a whole model to be
> > worth crap, we have more than enough to dump it in the garbage and
> > look for better. Understand me,
>
> I do understand you well. You are unqualified to spout about QM. You
> may have heard the bell ring but you don't have a clua as to where the
> clapper is hanging.
Blah.
> > it does yield good statistical results
> > but it is not a complete model. A new one needs to take it's place.
>
> Mere waffle.
Blah.
> > > > It is not based on reality or observations. I
> > > > don't think they are an appropriate model.
> > >
> > > Every prediction made by QED which has ever been tested
> experimentally
> > > has resulted in a vindication of QED. In some cases the agreement
> > > between experiment and theory is better than one part in 10^7.
> > >
> > > > General relativity has been
> > > > on the ass for awhile also but nobody is replacing it. It doesn't
> > > > explain AT all the abnormal acceleration of space probes in outer
> > > > space.
> >
> > Why did you avoid this baby? ^. It scares you?
>
> Unlike you, There *are* subjects on which I am competent to comment. GR
> is not one of them.
Hahaha, how convenient, yet another "qualified" person avoids the
subject because they simply can't explain it. *tears* If only you
knew, I feel so guilty for bringing it up *tears*.
StoneLock
Stonelock
> crypto_s...@hotmail.com (Stonelock) wrote:
> > Doesn't this make sense?
> >
> > Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the
> > same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is
> > conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so
> > together.
>
> Its bears pointing out that photons are not particles ... except when
> Physicists say they're particles. Because when ordinary people
> say "particle" they mean a tiny, individual, ball-like object
> travelling through space, each time at a specific location.
>
> When a physicist says "particle", it means a mode of energization
> in a universal quantum field.
>
> Photons are modes of energization in the free electromagnetic field.
> They have no location. They have no more individuality than
> waves on an ocean. And that's meant literally: there's only one
> way to put two photons in two states, one in each state. In
> contrast, there's two ways to put 2 balls in 2 boxes, one in
> each box.
Nice, except that in the void of space, far from massive objects,
there is not much of a field to travel into.
De Brogli's double particle oscillating makes much more sense than all
this.
> The difference in counting has drastic EMPIRICAL consequences.
> In fact, it's been known since the 19th century that particles
> can't possibly have individual identity, since the counting
> that proceeds from that assumption leads directly to
> contradiction (Gibbs' paradox).
What is Gibb's paradox?
StoneLock
Stonelock
But what i bring up as explanation IS deterministic. And one photon
would be only in one place in space at any given time.
StoneLock
G=EMC^2 Glazier
Forget about the real macroscopic world,and the way it works QM
is so weird no one understands it.The crazy part is in the microscopic
world it works,and has never been proven wrong(go figure) Feynman said
when a photon or electron leaves it knows where it is going.
Einstein and Rosen tried to prove QM was wrong with particle pairs that
spin in different directions and when separated over a vast distance
knowing the spin of one does not tell you the spin of the other(they
said). He was proven wrong,and again by QM would show the spin
of the other over any distance. Could QM be trying to tell us that
distance (separation of particles does not enter into it) Feynman had
his theory on the two slit.That is worth studying Best regards to
all Herb