Strange

The question of whether things "really exist" is outside the scope of science. Physics uses things like space-time dimensions, electromagnetic fields, etc. because they are useful for producing models that "work" (produce useful results). Whether those things exist or not is a question for philosophy, not science.

! Moderator Note Title changed at OP's request

It can’t travel at more than c. Superposition doesn’t change that.

Currently they only exist in mathematical models like string theory.

So it is not a very useful model, is it?

No. Because we know it does.

True. But this seems to contradict your claim that gravity doesn't exist at the quantum level. Photons have momentum. Electrons have mass. Therefore they should curve spacetime and cause gravity. Yes. But it was your suggestion that QFT is a "conjecture" that I was objecting to. It is a very well-tested theory. Theoretical physics is part of science.

Where did you find that? It is not something I have heard before. How is relativistic momentum relevant to the topic? QFT is one of the most well-tested theories we have. If you were going to apply the word "proof" to any scientific theory, then it would be a good candidate.

They can't. No. What is the connection between space/time being relative and superposition and the observer effect? Throwing more things into the mix doesn't explain anything. It is not an "Einstein quote". It is physics. The limit of the speed of light comes from special relativity. Special relativity has been combined with quantum theory. (I assume Einstein would have been aware of the work on this, but that is hardly relevant.) And again you mention the observer effect but I can't see how it is relevant. Maybe you mean something else? You said: "then what we see as an instantaneous action that the photon travels from A to B" Citation needed. Again, I can't see any connection between the observer effect and time dilation. Despite your repeated assertion that there is one. Can you provide a reference to support this? This is a science forum. How, exactly? QED says nothing about the motion of the Earth or the Sun. That explains a lot. I really can recommend the videos, though, even if you don't read the book.

Can you provide a reference to support that claim?

That looks like (a rather garbled) equation for momentum. Where does it come from? What is the connection to stress? What is "relativistic stress"?

We know a lot about dark matter. The fact that we have not directly detected it is not the same as not knowing anything. Ah. I had no idea what you were talking about. I thought he had given up on a jigsaw puzzle, or something. Yes, he realised it was wrong to assume the universe was static. It was re-introduced later when it was thought that there were stars older than the age of the universe. It was then used again when accelerating expansion was discovered. It is not a Doppler shift. I don't think anyone has ever thought that. The very first calculation of the effect (before Hubble) was based on GR and a small number of red-shift measurements. (There is a proposal to rename it the Hubble-Lemaitre Law because of this.)

What generates this stress? And how would you calculate it?

Those interested in such things might find this interesting: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49205092

What generates this stress? And how would you calculate it?

How are you assuming they are arranged? Are you taking into account the shell structure? So one or two percent (of stable isotopes), then. I would need a lot more data to find this convincing.

That is talking about probabilities, not photons travelling to the edge of the universe. That is just repeating the same thing. Time and space are always relative. How is the observer effect relevant? There is no instantaneous travel from A to B. It is limited to the speed of light. A photon could travel for an infinite amount of time if it never interacted with anything (which becomes increasingly unlikely over longer periods of time). But, again, how is this related to the observer effect? And what does the rotation of the Earth, Sun or galaxy have to do with the path integral? It sounds like you are throwing around a lot of buzzwords without really understanding them. If you wants get a basic understanding of the path integral, then I recommend the QED lectures by Feynman; a layman's introduction to the concepts: http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 (Also available as a book, for those who prefer old skool formats.)

It doesn't travel to the edge of the universe. And how is related to the observer effect?

That is nonsense. He was a physicist and mathematician. (He did have to learn differential geometry, and worked with several friends and colleagues to do that. The fact he was able to master that difficult topic and use it so quickly is pretty remarkable.) And calculus is not "new"; it has been around for over 300 years. Citation needed.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations

Why do you think this is the case?

I find that pretty implausible. I don't even know what "watching" would mean in this context (it is all about what is measured or observed). Oh, so first of all we were "snobs" because we were too educated. Now my humble diploma (in loudspeaker design) is not good enough for you! But don't worry, there are some "real" scientists here.

The other approach would be to spread the powder out evenly in a line and measure 3/4 of it.

How many atoms and isotopes have you tested this with? Can you show us the data? ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Note the special rules for this forum, in particular the need to provide evidence

Same as it does on anything else! There is an experiment at CERN to measure the gravitational effect of antimatter and compare it with normal matter. As it is hard to make antimatter, the experiment generates small numbers of anti-hydrogen atoms and measures their properties. (They haven't got a definitive answer to the gravity yet, though.)