Quantum particles

[[serious]]

I will agree with you once you show me how the photon will calculate that everything is moving with speed c.

absolute blue/red shift along path of travel, length change, etc.

If you're watching an object, but you have non-inertial reference frame, say you are on accelerating space ship, then you will see the object as it is accelerating in opposite direction. Since momentum p=mv, and v is increasing, then p is also increasing. Therefore, there is no conservation of the momentum in non-inertial reference frame.

Sure there is. In order to accelerate, you have to push against something. What ever you are pushing against is accelerating opposite to you an in proportion tot he relative mass. As such, the momentum of you and the object you are pushing against remains constant.

The same example you can see if you drop an object. Its momentum will start to increase, if you stay firm on the floor of course, until the object hits the floor. Don't try it at your home with an expensive vase.

Gravity wells make the math harder, but still doable.

I agree that inertia is a property of the object. However, it is not momentum. What you can measure here is the inertial mass of the object: m.

which inertial mass are you refering to? the resting mass, or the mass calculated from the lorentz transformation? This too is relative.

That is Newton's first law, but with relativistic taste. You can always find an inertial reference frame with the object in rest in it, if the forces acting on the object are balanced. Therefore, you can always find an inertial reference frame and the object will have zero velocity and momentum in it. That is the reference frame of the object. I wonder why that is not valid for photons, as you assert? Shouldn't they have zero velocity and momentum in their reference frame?

They do, but things get squirrelly at the speed of light. They do not experience time or distance in the path of travel due to light speed travel. The emission and absorption are the same moment and same location for them.

That will assume that the "attempts" are being made amongst finite number of instants. One possible solution is that there is quantum of time. What is your possible solution?

That as the time looked at decreases, the probability of finding such a structure at that time also decreases. As such, for any period of time, there is a non zero chance of a unicorn suddenly appearing. If you look at half the time, there is half the chance of that unicorn appearing. As the time viewed approaches zero, the chance of finding a unicorn also approaches zero.

Also, at a certain point, you start running into the uncertainty principle.

Nope. You can't achieve probability of 1 this way. The best you can do is 0.9999999, with finite number of digits. So, there will be non-zero probability that they don't exist.

And with infinite moments, you would only approach the probability calculated from the eigenvalue.

Bad example. The astronaut may have rocket engine and that will not lead to paradox. He can't kill his grandfather this way.

Then assume an astronaut without a rocket. The point is, there are situations where we can't control our movement through traditional space as well.

That's what I said. They must have measurements about each other. And if you're third party, but you can't directly observe the arrow for some reasons, you must have information about observers to be able to interpret their data in your reference frame. Or, of course, they must have information about your reference frame, then do the calculations and send the prepared data to you.

You are modifying the requirements. You never specified the information of the moment in question was limited to a single point. If this is the case, nothing can be known about anything from a single point at a single point in time as that no information can be transmitted instantaneously.

If you were arguing from that, you would have to claim that not only did the arrow not have momentum, but no other property either (read, not exist). This would also apply to the rest of the universe.

 

[Upisoft]

absolute blue/red shift along path of travel, length change, etc.

Absolute blue/red shift? What is that?
Path of travel? When the starting, ending and all points of the path are the same point?
Length change, when length of everything is = 0 for the photon?
Change, when there is no time?

Sure there is. In order to accelerate, you have to push against something. What ever you are pushing against is accelerating opposite to you an in proportion tot he relative mass.

OK, but what will stop me meanwhile to measure speed of another, unrelated object? And the speed of that object will, in general case, change relative to me. Cause of that change is my acceleration.

which inertial mass are you refering to? the resting mass, or the mass calculated from the lorentz transformation? This too is relative.

Yes, it is relative, but there is reference frame where m is minimal in it. That's what you call resting mass.

They do, but things get squirrelly at the speed of light. They do not experience time or distance in the path of travel due to light speed travel. The emission and absorption are the same moment and same location for them.

So, photons do not move in their reference frame. Nor they're able to do so, because there is no time or space to do it.

That as the time looked at decreases, the probability of finding such a structure at that time also decreases.

You must first show that the probability is not 1 for any time slice. I've already shown that it is 1.

Then assume an astronaut without a rocket. The point is, there are situations where we can't control our movement through traditional space as well.

I will gladly assume astonaut without rocket if you asume quantum space-time.

You are modifying the requirements. You never specified the information of the moment in question was limited to a single point. If this is the case, nothing can be known about anything from a single point at a single point in time as that no information can be transmitted instantaneously.

If you were arguing from that, you would have to claim that not only did the arrow not have momentum, but no other property either (read, not exist). This would also apply to the rest of the universe.

You probably didn't understand me. To clarify my example I will suggest sci-fi scenario. In the future we develop sub-space communications that have unlimited speed. Suddenly we are in contact with another civilization and we don't know where are they. Can you calculate the momentum of, say Milky Way, relative to them? No. Because you don't know their speed relative to Milky Way. That will stay this way regardless how many Earth laboratories, satellites and cosmic apparatuses serve as observers of Milky Way.