XPost: sci.physics.relativity, alt.atheism, sci.physics   
   From: starmaker@ix.netcom.com   
      
   On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 18:50:47 -0800, The Starmaker   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 02:10:29 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>Dawn Flood wrote:   
   >>> On 12/13/2025 4:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:   
   >>>> JTEM wrote:   
   >>>>> For example, and I've already pointed this out a   
   >>>>> number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,   
   >>>>> there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> We simply do not know that.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> While it is correct to say that zero proper time elapses along lightlike   
   >>>> geodesics (ds^2 = +- c^2 (d tau)^2 = 0 ==> (d tau) = 0 ==> Delta tau = 0),   
   >>>> we also know that *a photon has no inertial rest frame* as that would   
   >>>> contradict the postulate of the constancy of c, one of two postulates   
   which   
   >>>> make up the special principle of relativity which special relativity is   
   >>>> based on, *and* the Planck--Einstein relation E = p c = h f.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Curiously, special relativity fails to describe *completely* a motion at   
   the   
   >>>> speed c that it is based on.   
   >>>   
   >>> Thank you so very much for your post!!  It's always great to have a   
   >>> physicist among us!!!   
   >>   
   >>Thank you.  I am not a physicist (yet), but I do have studied Physics for   
   >>many years (at a university), including special relativity and quantum   
   >>theories (currently I am studying quantum field theories in an MSc course).   
   >>   
   >>There was a time not so long ago when I also subscribed to this naive   
   >>pop-sci interpretation until it was pointed out to me by someone else (I   
   >>think it was on Quora, and it may have been a physicist, too) that the   
   >>existence of a such a rest frame is a contradiction (to the special   
   >>principle of relativity, to begin with).   
   >>   
   >>It would be great if it could be resolved, but I have no particular idea   
   >>how.  One possibility would be that the mass of a photon is not actually   
   >>exactly zero; then it(s rest frame) would not be moving at c, but slightly   
   >>less than that, and it could exist.   
   >>   
   >>On the other hand, in quantum electrodynamics a photon cannot be understood   
   >>as a point particle with a position (not even an uncertain one) in the first   
   >>place, but must be understood as a non-local excitation state of the   
   >>quantum-electromagnetic field.  It therefore exists everywhere (and at all   
   >>times) from the outset.  The semi-classical photon is merely where the peak   
   >>of that state, so to speak, is largest, where and when it has a high   
   >>probability to be found.  In Feynman's (path integral) interpretation, it   
   >>takes all paths between two points simultaneously.  Both correspond nicely   
   >>to the naive interpretation that a photon is everywhere at the same time as   
   >>for it the rest of the universe is infinitely length-contracted, and the   
   >>purely mathematical result that zero proper time elapses along its   
   >>worldline.  But I do not understand what that could mean.   
   >   
   >What " quantum electrodynamics a photon" means in your paragraph is   
   >...a Jewish Photon.   
   >   
   >sounds like you fell inside some Jewish basment and he was trying to   
   >convert you to his religion.   
   >   
   >Live Prosper and Long   
      
   In other words, worship a tree.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)