Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI

From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 11/18/04 

Date: 18 Nov 2004 02:35:05 -0800

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<6_Imd.64288$SW3.46488@fed1read01>...
> Dear Y. Porat:
> -------------
snipping the old stuff
-------------
> > >> > yet that is exactly the question i challenge!!
> >> > my asumption (suggestion) is that it is not 'one photon'
> >> > what is 'one photon'????!!!!
> >>
> >> The smallest energy/momentum packet that can deliver the color "blue"
> >> (or
> >> any other discernable energy level).
> >
> > -------------
> > thats nice
> > yet how can you know that the wave with the blue colour that you use
> > is not composed of a few basic particles *that move exactly
> > on the same path of movement*?
>
> Apply this same logic to the electron. Why should the rules be different
> for the photon?

Bimgo !!!
thats exactly what ia am going to do ......
if i use a logic way i have to be persistant with it .....

now how about that the electron is not as just a single entity but ....
a conglomeration of subparticles??
i use the fact that 'a single electron can interfere with itself for ..
showing the posibility that it is not a point particle
nor a ;final particle' ie it is divisible!
-----------------
>
> > the photon is a Boson
> > now one of the fetures of the boson if i remember corectly
> > is that it can hold many particles at the same 'location'
> > location is not of course that one is stuffed into the other
>
> Actually no, if you refer to pair creation. The photon contains *nothing*,
> since its energy is entirely a function of how much energy it has wrt a
> seed particle.

wait wait wait ... please dont rush.
do you say that the photon containes nothing??
is energy nothing' ???
how about that energy is just:
mass in motion?? as in the macro world ???
thst exactly the point in which we have differences
while i say that the photon is composed of subparticles
i do not mean particles like eelctrons or alike
it is much more basic particles .... undiscovered yet!!
(Circlons etc )
a photon is those unknown particles in motion
i hope evn you do not agree, at least you start to understand better
what i mean by saing that the photon is a conglomeration of smaller things.
---------
 Light has to strike something (charged) to create a pair.
> If that something is travelling with similar momentum (in some frame), you
> will likely only end up with Compton scattering.
--------------
just to remind you -- see the title of that thread:
we are not dealing with the photoelectric phenomena
we are dealing wit ... self interference
what makes you think that those are the same ???

actually unwilling you raised an interesting point .....
which actually occured to me in past about the nature of
self interference:
the notion is that
the photon that is hitting the double split screen
is somehow *interacting whith the screen material !!!!
for instance - 'your' photoelectric phenomena is somehow involved
and maybe in addition (alternatively !)
if is reacting not only with the double slit material
but with the target screen material ???
anyway
self interference is not exactly and solely 'the photoelectric phenonena'
it is something different.
--------------------
>
> > because they actually move in some orbit ot path-
> > all of them move at the same path (the 'path' has enough length
> > to contain them at diffeent locations *of that very path*
> > and that 'lenght' is not a straight line it is a spiral
> > a hellix or whatever
> > i am trying to get ridd of the chains of just abstract matemathical
> > thinking and think about some geometric concepts that are certainly
> > involved.
>
> I disagree. Geometry is the *result* of what is really happening.
> Understanding a fever, will not help you understand the disease (so to
> speak).
our sispute is what is the heat' and what is the desease! (;)
i though tquite the opposite
that knowing the fact of self interference is the 'heat'
and the real desease is actually unknown !
making a qm model(repeat - just A matemathical MODEL!!)
 that explaines the above interference
does not mean that it knows why and how it happense.
and it is just that how and why that i am looking for .
>
> >> > can anyone prove it is just one ?? and not a conglomeration
> >> > of some of them??
> >>
> >> When photographing, it takes two photons to get the emulsion to accept
> >> the
> >> color change.
> > ----------
> > nice argument but still you cant make sure about that is that
> > 'two photons' or one photon
> > i suspect that we still do not know enough whast is a 'single photon'
>
> We know that only a single packet of energy (photon) can make the necessary
> change (or one of the two steps). It is a well known phenomenon, and
> related to the photoelectric effect. Energy packets below threshold (such
> as tiny 'photonlettes' (R) ) will not have the necessary effect to produce
> change. Even increasing intensity will not make the change. Only one
> photon of sufficient energy will boost the electron, to arrive at a
> recorded color.
a packet is right and i never sayed something else
yet
1 we are dealing not with the photoelectric as i sayed above
2 waht is it in that 'packet' we still do not know
so pleaee i suggest to use less the words 'well known'
---------------
>
> >> Why is this known, if the process of recording color has not
> >> been studied? Specific color recorded requires a specific energy packet
> >> to
> >> arrive.
> > we still do not know what is in that 'packet'
> > btw please note your semsntics ..... 'packet' ........ (:-)
>
> Yes, note that packet includes concept of "contained", "integral",
> "localizeable", which is also more than can really be said of a photon (or
> any particle).
so you agree with me that we actually not realy know all
or to my taste not enough about it .
and it needs further examination.and thinking.
>
> up"
> to pass through slits, how does it merge back together to follow the
> exactly correct path? Each must have the same wavelength (and therefore
> energy) to arrive at the correct position behind a diffraction grating.
> And each must have identical momentum (the vector part is important here),
> or the image seen would be not intense enough (many photonlettes (R) woudl
> diffuse away)
if we speak about many of them than it becomes possible
their avrage ie the action of many of them with some spread
might do the job ???
>
> This requires:
> - extra energy,
> - unusual coincidence
--------
??????
--------
>
> >> but in
> >> 2. The process of detection is inherently discrete. One may argue that
> >> photons travel two paths, but they do appear to arrive as unity.
> > ---------------
> > are your tolls sensitve enough to say that they apeare 'as unity'?
>
> "tolls"?
sorry tools .(you could guess my sloppiness)
>
> > may be your resolusion is not sensitive enough?
> > i refuse to accept that any physical object can be
> > 'in two locations at the same time'
>
> Why? What about "entwined pairs"? What about the quantum world cares one
> whit about distance? You are a flatlander (as am I), you cannot see all
> that there is to see, but you can use your mind. "Cannot accept" is the
> closing of the mind. Don't do this to yourself.
--------------
i think you give too much credit to scintists and how they
create new ideas and 'objective scince'
it starts always by intuition guesses personal understanding of things
and then trail and error tels if they are right or wrong.
-------
>
> > if it behave like being in two locations
> > tha natural suggestion should be - it is not one ... but more than one
> > more than one makes it much reasonable and simpler
> > and less 'mysterious'.
>
> It creates far too many problems. More complex "protect my beliefs at any
> cost because I cannot accept" rules are required.
please indicate the 'more problems'
>
> I believe it is better to take Nature as she is, and wrap your mind around
> the concept that what you can see of the crib you surround yourself with,
> is your imagination, and not Nature.
as it is Eh .... thats exactly our dispute and discussion
actually non of us pretends to know exactly 'how it is '
---------
> ??
> > >> >
> >> > (smallest photon mass = h/C^2 * 1/time unit)
> >> > but anyway what makes one sure that he was using in the slit
> >> > experiment
> >> > 'the smallest photon'???
> >> > my suggestion is right the oposite:
> >> > it is *not the smallest*
> >> > anothe btw
> >> > the smallest posible phton mass if you calculate the above formula
> >> > is something like (quote from memory)
> >> > 3 * 10exp-51 kilograms ......!!
> >>
> >> The smallest photon is a non-sequitur, since it would have the largest
> >> wavelength. And could have its energy divided in half.
> >>----------------
> > in half but not get two times *larger*!!
>
> If not two times larger (for a pair of slits), then where did the necessary
> energy come from? E=h/lambda... Then consider a diffraction grating where
> the photons must pass through 100,000 slits...
????????
-----------
>
>
> > now if you ever heared about my 'Circlon'??
> > it is a Verry very basic particle that moves naturally (naturally!)
> > in a closed circle (or a part of a circle if disturbed)
> >
> > yet that circle can be as large as the macrocosm
> > and in another case as small as less than a nuclei.......
> > in all those cases .... the same circlon unit!!
> >
> > the difference is only in the path that it got
> > we are not dealing now about how that path (curved) is *created*
>
> Similar to some of the strings, from the sound of it. Gravitons
> specifically, if I am remembering.

i know nothing about the string theory
anyway i supose it never suggested a basic particl
*that moves naturally in a closed circle**
fo rsuch a suggestion one needs real cheek (:-)
----------
all the best
Y.Porat
-------------
>
> David A. Smith

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI
    ... showing the posibility that it is not a point particle ... >> the photon is a Boson ... > since its energy is entirely a function of how much energy it has wrt a ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI
    ... showing the posibility that it is not a point particle ... >> the photon is a Boson ... > since its energy is entirely a function of how much energy it has wrt a ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity
    ... > energy, expressed as virtual particles, is a non-zero amount, ... So it is likely that just having a gamma photon ... No particle there has any other ... > energy (which is what virtual-particle interactions ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity
    ... > energy, expressed as virtual particles, is a non-zero amount, ... >> I see that they DO interact less easily as the photon energy ... > I understand what you are saying about matter. ... >> Principle ensures that no particle can ever really be ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Virtual Particle confusion
    ... > environment will tend to match any other sampling of the environment ... > the nature and direction of each individual particle. ... > be able to catch and use the energy from each individual particle ... and they're using statistics to patch ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
Loading