Graviphoton

Time is a universal invariant, in that it cannot ever be removed from space, so a change in space plays the exact same roles as it does with time. Time doesn't have a real speed at all... this would assume it has a flow, and time doesn't flow at all. However, and i don't want to complicate things, is if you are sitting still, you are moving off the spacetime map in such a way that the imaginary dimension of space [time] is in fact moving past you at the speed of light. But this doesn't mean time flows or moves. It can move in respect to an observer, but when an observer isn't present, time would need to move in respect to itself, and this isn't accepted in physics.

The main thing to know about when concerning measuerement (which is good for me to explain, since i thoroughly investigate psychophysics), is that the fundamental matter at the infinitesimal size of protino's and neutralino's, is that they ''act'' differently to larger matter. Some how, the matter at the fundamental size when not being observed takes the form of wavelike properties. Macroscopic matter however, can somehow escape the laws of the smaller statistics they are made of... in other words, a car moving on the road doesn't seem to take all the paths it could do if it where a single particle moving through space. Consider a photon hitting off a mirror at 90 degrees. That photon must take all possible routes. These routes are eignstates, and it isn't until an observer comes along and observes one of these states, does a single eigenstate becomes real. The similarities between macroscopic observation and measurement is so very diffrent to that of microsopic, i dare say there is no correlation. If you also try and pin down a particle by observing it, you are unaware that you are in fact making both its path and position more defined, so the result of the Uncertainty Principle, mentioned above, is that its trajectory will become more and more unstable, so the more you might try and pin down an electron with a photon, the more that photon will move away from being observed. Some things you might want to learn... such as the zeno-effect -- this is when a simple observation on an atom can suspend it from radiating any energies. Collapse of the wave function, is when a photon is observed and measured, so that its wavelike properties are reduced into a single value we ascribe as simply 1.

The photo in a box is certainly not wrong. First, lets get a few concepts out the way. Does the photon have mass? The short answer is no. Some people find it difficult to comprehend a photon as being massless because it can be deflected by the gravity of, let us say a star. One way to explain this is by saying light couples to gravity, because light also generates curvature and curvature is the equivalence of gravity. However, there is too little amount of light to have any major gravitational effects in our universe, except for perhaps 32 years after big bang, when the universe was flooded in light particles. For those who like math, here are some more reasons why the photon does not have mass. Some people like to say that the photon has mass because the photon has energy E=hf, where (h) is 'Planck’s constant' and (f) is the frequency of the photon. Thus, they tend to assume that because it has energy (E) it must have mass (M) because of Einstien’s mass-energy equivalence equation E=Mc^2... They also say that the photon has momentum, and momentum is related to mass p = Mv where (v) is velocity and (p) is for momentum. Yet, you cannot justify it having mass using this argument. This is actually 'relativistic mass' - which is nothing but the measure of energy which will change with velocity. It isn't actually mass, even though mass and energy are related. In physics jargon, the mass of an object is called its 'invariant mass,' and the photon has no invariant mass. Now, a massless particle can have energy and it can have momentum, simply because mass is related to these through the equation E^2 = M^2c^4 + p^2c^2, which is subsequently zero-mass for a photon because E = pc for massless radiation (remember, c means the speed of light). So yes, the photon has momenta and energy, and can deliver a punch out of it when it hits a surface, but it doesn't have mass. Now... a strange situation can arise if light is trapped inside a container. If light is trapped inside of a box with mirrors inside of it, so that it cannot escape, (now the mirrors would need to be cold enough so that the mirrors do not absorb the light-energy), the total momentum is said to be zero, but the energy is not - thus, the light can contribute a very small amount of mass to the box! Now, one can say that the light in the box must have mass to even add any mass to begin with - but actually, it is more accurate to say it contributes to the mass - but do not use this as some kind of justification that light indeed has mass. That is simply not true. A photon can decrease the invariant mass value of E/c^2 each time a system emits a photon... likewise, a system can increase its invariant mass by a value of E/c^2, if it absorbs a photon particle. Now, relativity can't be complete, also it is a classical system, so it doesn't take into account the uncertainty principle. But apart from that, relativity has worked quite well experiementally, even increasing the lifespan of little particles. Its best not to wave your hands in protest until you actually learn about the theory itself, which is a task in itself.