As I understand it, the distance between the two photons shrinks @ 2*c, but each photon only observes the other moving @ c vr = 2*c/2 = c My own interpretation of this apparent contradiction is that based on quantum mechanics quanta cannot regenerate at greater than c and thus any observed speed is translated to c. At faster than c the photon would disappear during quantum suspension. I do have an additional question. Is it possible that in this scenario, when their quantum state is synchronized and in suspension, neither particle is able to observe each other at all?
Not far of my interpretation. In my opinion and simplified, there is an expansion occuring permanently at the quantum scale at every position doing some "buffering". The expansion speed is equal to C/2. (simplified) So, if two "objets" are at the point of really crashing together (before.... it is only virtual), this very local expansion counteract the speed of the objects that are about to crash. This is a simplified proposition, but "the expansion/contraction at every scale proposition" added to quantum mecanismus (i dident talked about here) is a coherent proposition that permit to explain the anomaly of the energy of the universe. See below with the work of Bill Unruh and Qingdi Wang. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem https://science.ubc.ca/news/physicists-offer-new-accordion-theory-expansion-universe Yes, good point, this is also in my opinion a way to explain this.
The durations are equal, in the reference frame of the spaceship. The spaceship's speed relative to something else is irrelevant. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. Those laws predict that the speed of light has a particular value. Therefore, that value must be the same in all inertial frames. Things look different in the frame of the ship, compared to how they look in the frame of somebody watching the ship fly past. For the person watching the ship fly past, the light from the middle will take longer to reach the front of the ship than it takes to reach the back. That's the problem with not doing enough thinking (or experimenting). Nature doesn't work that way, even though it seems like it "should", according to "common sense".
In the frame that is watching them approach at c (impossible for any objects with mass, by the way), their "relative velocity" would indeed be 2c. In the frame of one of the objects, watching the other, the other would only be approaching at c. Short answer: relativity.
That's word salad. What does it mean for a "quantum" to "regenerate"? Why is "regeneration" measured as a speed? What do you mean by an observed speed being "translated"? Why do you speak of things travelling faster than c, when no such thing has ever been observed? What is "quantum suspension"? Are you just making stuff up? What's the point of just talking out of your arse about science? Why not try to learn something about the subject? It's not just you. A number of other people on this forum regularly do the same thing.
I know, that's why I used "photons" Perhaps, but I am pleased you asked me to explain what I meant by that narrative. AFAIK, quanta are distinct values which cannot occupy the same place at the same time. Therefore the realization of quanta requires time. (I named it regeneration) Or as time, take your pick. The speed/duration is @ c. translated into observable change. I did not say that. I said the space between the two particles shrinks @ 2*c. But each particle can only observe the other traveling @ c . i.e. vr = 2*c/2 = c If quanta are discreet and cannot realize at the same time, then there must be a transition period between the two states. Else you'd get a continuum and that contradicts quantum, no? I used the term quantum suspension to identify this transitional period. I believe it is also called "quantum limit". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_limit I believe I am very conservative in thought. You have never seen me spout spiritual woo. I will admit to being naive in the quantum world, but that is only a matter of degree. No one knows all the answers, including you. I am currently listening to this very interesting symposium Watch it. This is deep stuff. Are these "learned minds" talking out of their arse about science?
That's not actually true, at least not for quantum particles of certain types (e.g. bosons, specifically). I don't know what you mean by a "quantum value". You've invented two terms now: "realization" and "regeneration". What use is that? Why not learn some quantum physics isntead, if you're interested? Why make stuff up? I have no idea what "realize" means, in this context. It's not a term I saw in any quantum mechanics I studied. That's three terms you've "invented" in one post. Why not learn about the actual subject you're trying to discuss, instead? The term "quantum limit" can mean different things in different contexts. Linking to wikipedia doesn't give me any confidence you understand what a quantum limit is. And if you did, why would you want to invent a completely new term for the same thing? No, just pseudoscientific woo. And meaningless nonsense, on occasion, like now. Well, yes. But I'm careful to delineate what I know and what I don't know, when I post. If I post authoritatively about a topic like quantum mechanics, I use the standard terminology that's used in the field, that I learned when I studied the subject. I rarely make up my own terms for things and if I do I try to make sure they have clear definitions so that people can understand what I'm going on about. When I speculate, I try to make it clear I'm speculating. When I'm not certain about something, I often say so. See the difference?
A very small packet of energy with a value. Which is a human symbolized number. To the universe it's just a relational value. These terms are not made up by me. I use them because I believe they apply in a conversational way. What does realization mean? What does regenerate mean? [/quote]Regenerate, 1 : to become formed again. [/quote] I did not invent these terms, I used them in conversational narrative. Frankly I wouldn't know where to look for the correct terms. I must have read the terms I use somewhere in a similar context or I would not have used them. I do not make up the term, I may apply them in conversational way because of the inherent "common denominator" meaning. Again I did not invent the term. I used it because I believed it was sufficiently clear in a conversational discussion of a scientific subject. I used to be a proposal writer, but not in the arena of science. Well, no one chided Einstein for his "spooky action at a distance". Did he invent the term "spooky" or did he use it for illustrative purposes, even as it does not appear in any scientific paper? I am not offering a scientific paper for peer review. I am trying to discuss a scientific subject in a conversational manner. Now that I have explained the definitions of my use of these terms, and with stipulation that they are not strictly scientific, is the gist of my posit wrong? Because that's the important part. When I read a scientific paper, I seldom look at the maths. If I understand the accompanying narrative I am satisfied that I have a general understanding of the subject. As do I. And I often provide links to the terms I use in order to avoid the discussion about semantics we are having. I have been chided for using to many links to definitions of terminology I use. Yes I do, and perhaps I'm guilty of being obtuse on occasion. But I always offer to explain my thought processes and/or terminology. But now that I have defined my "conversational" terminology, is the content wrong, or just poorly presented?
For anyone moving at speed a toward an oncoming photon, they will measure the velocity of the photon as v=(b-a)/(1-ab)=(-1-a)/(1+a)=-1. The example is one of closing speed, the rate of change of a spatial separation, which are not subject to SR. In those cases, there is nothing material moving >c.
That is remarkable! The definition posits that they don't even touch! What troubles me is the question if certain particles create a spacetime coordinate, or if all spacetime coordinates are of the same size, i.e. a discrete point, instead of an area. Q1 Is there space between the two bosons in the same spacetime coordinate? Q2 Does that mean bosons are smaller than a spacetime coordinate? Q3 Does that mean a single spacetime coordinate has several possible dimensions? an energy packet with a very small mathematical value Q4 Do all quanta have the same value?
Write4U: It's hard to know what to say to you. In response to my post in which I suggested that you might like to learn something about quantum theory, you spent almost an entire post making excuses as to why your use of idiosyncratic terms and inaccurate descriptions doesn't matter. It's like you don't care whether what you say is right or wrong; as long as words are coming out of you and landing on the page, that's all that matters to you. This is not the first time that you have quoted regular dictionary definitions, wikipedia and similar sources back to me when I have pulled you up on a matter of how something is actually defined in science. You seem to think that it's enough to know how the Webster's dictionary defines "quantum", and you don't actually need to understand how scientists (physicists) define it, even when you're trying to talk about in-depth matters concerning its technical aspects. Also, I don't know what you think you're achieving by trying to "introduce" me to something like Planck's constant. If you're under the impression that anything like that is news to me, then you're most likely severely underestimating the person you're talking to. I am not one to trot out credentials and argue from authority, but please assume that I have some relevant credentials when it comes to physics. That should be obvious from my record of posts to this forum over the past 20 years. That said, let me turn to your questions. At the quantum level, the idea of things "touching" is problematic. At that level, there are only the basic forces of nature - only forces and fields. Particles are very much not like little billiard balls, when you look at them close up. Consider a laser beam, like you might find in a laser pointer or a CD player. That beam contains billions upon billions of photons every second. All of them have approximately the same wavelength and lots of them exist essentially in the "same place" at the same time. Specifically, nothing in physics prevents all of the photons from being in exactly the same place at the same time. In a quantum sense, we would say that all the photons are in the same "quantum state" (which includes all the information about the photons' position, among other things). This behaviour is not unique to photons, but nor is it always the case. If we take a bunch of electrons, say, then their behaviour is very different. Quantum rules actually prevent electrons from being in the "same place at the same time". And that is ultimately why we have chemistry at all, rather than having electrons in atoms all existing in a single lowest energy level in every atom. A coordinate is a mathematical abstraction, used as a convenient calculational device. We can't detect coordinates. Coordinates don't do anything, by themselves. They are ideas. Therefore, it is meaningless to talk about particles "creating" coordinates. Only people can create coordiates. No. That question is meaningless. Coordinates are numbers. They have no size. No. A single coordinate is a single number. Spatial coordinates use 3 numbers. Spacetime coordinates require 4 numbers. The word "dimension" can refer either to a spatial dimension or to a mathematical dimension. The two are similar but not identical. Is an electron the same as a photon? Both are quanta. Go figure.
It feels (at times, no pun), like time is completely objective (real) and also completely illusory. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Time follows a consistent set of rules, so it's real, but beyond physics, it takes on a subjective spin. (using a watch to ''tell us'' time, for example)
I did. I'm agreeing with your 1st two conclusions. What follows seems irrelevant. Positions/coordinates are not properties of particles, but relations used in the analysis of physics.
OK, do mathematical relationships in nature mean anything? If human analysis of natural physics is possible via mathematical symbolisms, does that suggest the mathematical nature of universal dynamical physics and therefore that positions/coordinates may not be properties of particles but they are very much properties of spacetime.
Isn't a spacetime coordinate a single non-dimensional point in 4 dimensional spacetime? Anything that is bigger than this single coordinate would still involve more than one single point of spacetime coordinate. I think the movement of the laser beam suggest that it they cannot occupy the exact same coordinate at the same time. Else we may as well drop that axiom altogether, no?
By itself the concept of time is meaningless. But as a property of the duration of chronological existence it acquires meaning. Yesterday occupied a different spacetime coordinate as today. Tomorrow will occupy a different spacetime coordinate as today. That is real and the difference can be measured.
But, isn’t it a human construct in that is how we observe the flow of events? Our perception can be a type of reality if that’s all we have ever known, though.
We have three kinds of time: 1- Time of duration (TD). 2- Time of sequential separation (TSS). 3- Time of consciousness (TC). 1 and 2 are objective. 3 is subjective.
The problem of time, altought it is not actualy solved, or better said, altought we have too many possible interpretations, show something about ourselves. We are trying to understand time as if it was some strange thing, but we think that space is totaly obvious. Is space not as much strange as time ? Does space exist ? Why do we think it is obvious that space exist but we are questioning time ? One answer i like for time explaination, the thermal time hypothesis (and what is amusing is that in french langage "le temps" mean time and "la temperature" mean temperature, so time and temperature have already similar origin) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time
