XPost: sci.physics.relativity, alt.atheism, sci.skeptic
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)