swansont

You could only determine this by interacting with the photon, which you don’t, as the scenario is described.

If you mean TW-year, then it’s 223380 TWh (8760 hours per year) What’s your source? They probably got the units correct. I think this refers to 2000 https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2003/data/papers/SS03_Panel1_Paper02.pdf 57.6 TWh Your number is a tad high.

TW and GW are units of power, not energy. TW per year is not a meaningful unit. Do you have a citation for your number?

I agree with MigL. It’s not something that has an opposite, as such. You’re either in one eigenstate, or in a superposition of them. (or in a situation where the concept doesn’t apply)

! Moderator Note Which is irrelevant to the discussion, so there can be no follow-up in this thread

An observer will see the beams separate at 2c. You can’t analyze this from the perspective of either light beam, since that does not represent a valid inertial frame if reference If these were objects traveling at an attainable speed (i.e. less than c), then you can do this with the velocity addition formula. Let’s say they move at u and v relative to the central frame (of the person tossing the objects). They will see the total distance between them increase at (u+v) (using scalar speeds) Each object will see the other recede at (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel2.html#c2

! Moderator Note From Rule 2.5: Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand.

! Moderator Note What we discuss here in posts like this are facts (and "I saw on youtube" is, at best, a dubious source) and not your beliefs. This is something where you could go research and gather facts and see if this is true, and not have to rely on belief. Your discussion should have been framed the same way. If you can do that, you can re-introduce the topic

! Moderator Note That has little to do with the question that was asked, and the rest of your post has even less. Please try to stay on-topic when you post.

If you hadn't truncated my post you would see that I said there are interactions that allow this. Reflection isn't one of them.

Photons don't split*, and they can't be half absorbed. You either have the photon or you don't. *You can create two photons from one in certain interactions, but these are not being described here. "This question has been answered by modeling photon emission by an atom in terms of classical radiation theory" You keep citing works that are using classical theory, and yet you and they use the term "photon" which is not classical.

What is suspect about someone on a science discussion site wanting to discuss science? Why is it suspect that I don't want to slog through a paper that is obviously wrong, seeing as you stated several conclusions that are in disagreement with GR? Even if I were inclined to find your mistakes, you have fought me at every turn when I have given criticism. What theory does it contradict? More importantly, how does it contradict that theory? They are both practical impossibilities. As is Newton's sphere. You provided a reference which is consistent with mgh being GR. Do you now disagree with your own reference? I have asked you to do this, and you have thus far declined. And I expect you will decline this invitation as well. How much error is introduced in the Pound-Rebka experiment by assuming a constant g? Convince me that it matters, with some real justification, rather than a hand-wave. And yes, you can use it for generalizations, as long as you aren't violating the assumptions you made in the approximation.

The short answer is that momentum is conserved. In the rocket frame, the exhaust has momentum in one direction, so the rocket recoils in the other. This works for any frame where the exhaust has a velocity opposite of the rocket’s In any other frame, the exhaust has less momentum than an equal amount of mass on the rocket, since it’s moving slower, so the rocket has to have gained momentum.

“Applying scattering theory and classical electrodynamics is the most reliable way to solve this problem.” I don’t see how this gives a QM result

! Moderator Note This is a discussion site, not a blog. What is it you wish to discuss?

Detecting by who or what is a detail that gives you information. Those are (largely) theory papers. The experimental results in the first one give summaries of some experiments, but the writing in the second one suggests the authors did not do any experiments. From my perspective there's a bit of a gap between a quoted observation and the conclusion they draw in most of their soliton section, which is in support of their own model, and not to be taken as a generally-accepted model of the photon.

Prof Reza Sanaye has been banned for continuing to hijack threads and argue in bad faith

(And now there’s more data on what is a civility rules violation and what is not)

I don’t think it was your post. I suspect it was the “crazy eyes” comment. Not the “derail” comment, because he did, in fact, derail the other thread

It would necessarily work exactly the same way. No, this is backwards. Experiments only give you 1 result. It’s whether the result is consistent with one theory or the other. Move clocks at some relative speed and/or at different gravitational potentials and they will disagree. You only have one result to compare with theory. Newtonian physics does not predict this, but relativity does. Newton is not a relativistic theory You don’t do this. You compare the theories with the experiment. Appeal to conspiracy isn’t a valid (or allowable) argument.

Entanglement is a quantum effect, but not all quantum effects are entanglement

I agree space is big and not a continuum of habitable or useful bodies is one part. And I agree the age of the universe is another. I think we discussed aspects of this before - without a couple of generations of stars you don’t get heavy elements, so even if life arose early on, it couldn’t exploit its environment in a way that would lead to industrialization and space. And then you have to have intelligent life arise at the right time. If there had been early intelligent life but no abundant, accessible coal or oil around, odds are against them getting into space.

Except 470 MeV is about 1/2mc^2 for a proton, and that’s what you get if you think that KE=1/2mv^2 is valid, and you apply the limiting speed of c. (refer also to the other remarks suggesting relativity is wrong). So I don’t think it was a slip of the pen.

You have to reports a post if you want to bring it to the attention of the moderators. Attacking what someone writes is not against the rules. Attacking them personally is. 1/2 mc^2 is not a limit from any valid physics Where is the link to an experiment that I had asked for?

You know that I have not read the paper, so it is an ill-advised leap to say I agree to anything about it. It would vary with position, because the gravitational potential varies with position. No, there is no disagreement. You can’t physically realize an actually constant g. My position is that this doesn’t matter, at all, because physics solutions to idealized conditions are legion. Working with models doesn’t require physical realization, just no out-and-out violation of the relevant laws of physics.