Time is Invariant. SR is wrong!

Yes. It results in measurable changes in the frame (i.e. clocks run slower in a gravity well) as well as deflection of the above-mentioned photons.

Gravity is a product of mass. Its effect diminishes with distance.

It sounds like you are asking to be able to observe a quantum phenomenon without affecting it - which is not possible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

exactly correct... well done... so does the photon exist as modeled or not?

and that is the question!!!

If a photon can not be evidenced as modeled then what does that say for the model?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Per the information we have when we DO observe it - yes.

That it obeys Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

can I ask?
Are you observing a photon or are you observing only an "effect" attributed to a photon?
The same question applies for gravity... are you seeing gravity or are you only observing the effect of gravity?

 

An effect. Everything you perceive is an effect that something has on something else, rather than the direct observation.

The effect.

 

with all due respect this only demonstrates the limitations of your understanding not that absolute rest is impossible or not.
Using the SRT paradigm means that absolute rest is in FACT impossible. I happen to agree with this statement as in a universe of substance, movement can never cease for that substance to exist. No movement = no time = absolute zero.
Absolute zero can not exist in a universe of substance... not that hard to get your head around really....
so the question is:
If absolute rest is impossible, at what rate/velocity, speed is substance obliged to move at? [It has to be > 0]
and as I mentioned earlier.. the only solution according to SRT is 'c' which I happen to also agree with.

 

So why does science claim to be observing the photon directly do you think?

 

Or more succinctly, an example of interpretative outcomes:

The wave particle duality that science has been trying to nut out for ages maybe only an issue if one subscribes to the reality of the photon as modeled. That photons have been deemed by science to have an unprovable reality that exceeds the evidence presented.
suggestion:
Perform the "double slit experiment" again but this time ignore the preconception of the photon model completely... and work only with the effect that you observe.

I can tell you now it is really hard to do because the notion of the photon model is simply so entrenched that the ability to perform this experiment with out a call to the model is almost impossible.

 

They don't.

 

so does the photon exist as modeled or not?
that it supposedly travels across a volume of vacc-umous space? [ as it is only by way of reflected impact upon objects of mass that the effect can be observed ]
the point is:
We only know what we observe. We observe an effect we call light occurring on objects of mass. We are not able to determine what is happening between light source and destination masses. We use a model to fill in the gaps, even though there is no evidence to support the model.
It is highlighting this lack of evidence that the "photon challenge" was all about.

That the Photon may very well be non existent as a "traveling across space at 'c' entity.

So the it beggars the following question:

How does EM energy transfer from source A to destination B if not by way of passing/transiting through the space between?

and that is where I believe Quantum Entanglement [which is an effect that has been evidenced] can provide a clue.

Basically you get Newton, Lorentz, Minkowski, Einstein and let us say Feynman, all together at a round table and get them to nut it out... [chuckle]

 

Quantum Quack

"Absolute Rest" is a meaningless phrase, as you left out the rest of the definition "in relation to ____". All motion is Relative, there is no such thing as motion EXCEPT in relation to another frame of reference. And a frame of reference is always at rest with itself, but that tells you nothing about movement/rate/velocity/speed. You must have a minimum of two points for motion to exist between them, it does not exist otherwise. And no point in the Universe is a reference point for determining the motion of all other particles EXCEPT your own frame of reference, which is at rest with you and an exceedingly small part of that Universe, everything else is in motion relative to you. "I am at Absolute Rest with myself" is about all you can say about Absolute Rest, even the rock next to your foot, if viewed from the perspective of a line between our galaxy and Andromeda, moves around you in a convoluted, twisted trajectory that to you appears to be absolute rest. The Earth rotates and orbits the sun which has an intrinsic velocity around our galaxy as well as a sinusoidal up and down motion through the galactic plane as our galaxy zooms toward the collision with Andromeda coming up in about 5 billion years. You look around you and see stillness, but the reality is the Universe sees you moving at several tens of thousands, if not millions of mph. So "Absolute Rest", on it's own, is a meaningless concept and it does not exist outside of very narrow definitions whose relationship must be defined. By the way, all particles are at rest with themselves, they have no velocity at all relative to themselves.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

well prove my point.... [chuckle]

The can be nothing at absolute rest....
this leads to an interesting point and one that is relative to this thread OP.
you state:

and I would say that this is in many ways a flawed statement as what I would say instead is that:
If I am at rest unto myself I am referring to myself as a reference frame. [ as I, my frame of reference consist of an effective infinite number of reference frames]
"I am at relative absolute rest to my self" and not at absolute rest to myself because nothing can be at absolute rest. In other words a paradox... "If I cease to exist only then can I say I am at absolute rest, but if I am no longer existent then I can not say anything"
A ball floating in space is not at absolute rest but at relative rest unto itself. I can say this simply because the ball is existent.

 

Do photons exist? Yes.

Is the model used for them accurate? To the limits of our ability to validate it, yes.

Correct - like all other forces.

There are centuries worth of evidence that support the standard model. I use such models in my job daily; they do indeed work.

True. Occam's Razor, however, applies.

?? That's what happens.

 

oh ...how so? what evidence do you have that they travel across a vacuum?

that doesn't make it correct...only that your capacity to test and come up with a better model is limited...

a photon is supposedly not a force but a carrier of a force, if I am not mistaken... but alas maybe context is missing...

so...uhm how does that address the obvious context of the statement you are responding to?

indeed it does so why use a photon carrier particle if you may not need to?

The question asked as you know was based on the approach that required the "dropping " of any preconceived notions of a photon or light effect model.

If you take the approach of "not knowing" and look again at the question...

How does EM energy transfer from source A to destination B?
and provide evidence to support your answer?
and this is what I claim no one can do...using the current model.
and it clearly shows that the scientific method has been ignored in this instance.

 

What happens in regions of gravitational time dilation then. If time is slowed will the length of the meter then always changing?

 

Robittybob1

Yes, the length of a meter in any frame will be measured the same, but those frames moving relative to your frame will be seen by you as having meters that are shorter than yours, the faster they move, the shorter their meter.

Quantum Quack

To have relativity you must have two separate frames to be relative to each other. In your own frame of reference there can be no relationship(by definition), you are always at rest in your own frame, period. Anything you compare your frame with is, by definition, NOT in your frame, it is in a separate frame from yours(even if it is the mote of dust floating by your nose). That is not relativity, it is definition. Absolute rest does exist, it just must be narrowly defined and it only applies within that narrow definition. Absolute rest applied between frames is what does not exist(except in very narrow and specific definitions), absolute rest with your own frame is specified in the definition of a frame. Rest and motion have no effect on whether something exists, it is not intrinsic to existence. That all things are in relative motion with everything else is a RESULT of existence, not it's CAUSE.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Absolute rest certainly does need to be narrowly defined. Because of quantum fluctuations it can't apply to very small objects.
A weight hanging 'motionlessly' isn't strictly at rest because all the particles it's made of are in motion. Your body is never "at rest" because parts of it are always moving--your heart, your lungs, etc.
You are in fact, a composite of systems in relative motion, even a single cell is.

 

But with Gravitational time dilation you don't have the relative motion; so are distances altered as well as time, with Gravitational time dilation, as it does if the same time dilation was a result of relative motion?

 

The relative time does not exist, but, the relative motion that produces a measure.

No one has seen the time, to say that it is relative.

All motion in the Solar system, is a measurement, not relative time.

Have you seen the time?. Tell me how is: is a line, it is a circle, color it is, how it is time, where is it heading time, is relative, is absolute.

You see, no one has seen the time.

 

and this is why absolute rest is impossible for something that exists.
So one can conclude that motion is essential to existing. No Motion = Non-existence.
the question is though:
If absolute rest is impossible and everything must be moving [delta t = > 0] what is the rate/velocity/speed of all substances at a fundamental level. I would surmise that it breaks down to what is the speed/velocity of energy at a fundamental level. And I feel that can only be 'c'. Hence E=mc^2 holds true regardless of reversing the equation.
If we assume that energy is the base fundamental of all mass and not that mass is a base fundamental of all energy then we can only conclude that the minimum and maximum rate of movement /change in all substances that exists right down to the qua-la is 'c'.

So a stationary ball floating in a vacuum is constantly moving at an invariant rate of 'c' with out having to be relative to anything else other than itself.
As all substances are moving at this rate then at any t=0 everything appears to be stationary [ v=0 ] relative to each other even though they are all moving at a rate of 'c'
[which axiomatically allows us to take a still photograph of a star scape and not witness movement of energetic substances with in that "still" photograph]