Re: On slits - Relativity and QED ...

Gidday Wah

WahTech2
wrote:

John King
wrote:

Gidday Kwik & Folks

What I find so fascinating is that it would take more energy than

there is available, if all the "matter" in the Universe were

converted into "energy", in order to accelerate the smallest particle

in the Universe from 0.9999...% of the speed of light (c) to the

speed of light ... How come the photon can switch back and forth (or

be simultaneously in both states) at the speed of light without this

energy input?

I actually meant to write " ... from 0.9999... of the speed of light ... " the percent sign was an error ...

I totally agree, this is fascinating stuff.

From talking to Kwik, as I understood it (please correct me if I’m

wrong), the “photon” may not be travelling at the speed of light, it

may not have travelled at all, we only perceived it because our

detector picked up some with just the right delay.

We seem to include to "system wide" "mistakes" in how we describe the Universe mathematically, and how we interpret it logically and practically, IMVHO.

One is the constant "i" = the square root of -1. No such thing; but we seem to be 'out' in our understanding by whatever factor or factors that this constant represents ...

Another is that we appear to misinterpret gravity as being a force. Since all forces are transmitted by particles; and we cannot find the slightest evidence for gravitons; and interpreting gravity as a force breaches everything else we know about the Universe from Relativity and QED (and more importantly, from direct observation ... ); and it conflicts with the plain evidence that we can and have observed about things that exist in the Universe (in other words, not some neat mathematical abstraction, but "reality" itself); I would suggest that gravity is not a force, but something else. I think that I have determined what that "something else" is, in physical, logical and mathematical terms, and the processes that determine how it is 'formed'; but I am not about to present it here ... I am trying to write it all down, as it changes both how QED and Relativity relate to each other, and also the basis of our most fundamental understanding of the nature of the Universe - IF I am right (a very big IF ... )!

I also have this sneaking suspicion that there is something wrong with the way we perceive numbers, and our way of using them. Just very much IMHO, I reckon that in any "sane" Universe, the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference ought to be an integer; not Pi ... a non-repeating and non-resolving ratio that appears to go on until it reaches infinity ... This also applies to the number representing the "simple" ratio described by the Golden Mean. Perhaps the two numbers are related (and similar numbers, of which there appear to be not very many), and if we can understand that relationship, it may just allow us to see other things more clearly.

Sorry for the OT thinking, folks. It is just the way my brain functions, whether I like it or not!

It’s like a Newton's cradle, when a ball hits one side, instantly the

ball on the other side fly’s up. Now the ball didn’t move instantly

from one end to another.

You can think of photons the same way, the photon isn’t travelling at

the speed of light, but it’s energy is propagating at the speed of

light.

It appears to be doing both, simultaneously ... !!!!

If you factor in probability theory as well, all sorts of strange things become possible. Douglas Adams expressed my thinking on this (at least in part) with his Heart of Gold spaceship and its Infinite Improbability Drive, lol. All just wonderful stuff (DA's writing, and the Universe, both ... ).

Perhaps we should be trying to describe the Universe mathematically using Linear Programming rather than mathematical Cosmology, QED and Relativity - rotflmho!! It does rather fit with my sense of the absurd ...