XPost: alt.atheism, sci.physics, sci.skeptic   
   From: starmaker@ix.netcom.com   
      
   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   
   --   
   The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,   
   to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,   
   and challenge the unchallengeable.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)