swansont

You didn’t say re-check, you said confirm. The confirmation is with which instrument detects the photon. The photon no longer exists by the time you know this. I have to say that your line of inquiry smacks of bad faith and has gotten rather tiresome. People have sincerely engaged with you and given you good information. Their reward has been a bunch of attitude.

So go get your own data. There are a lot of national security possibilities for the military to not share their data; that just seems like a convenient scapegoat. I thought there was a TV show about some hotspot for UFO sightings. Where’s all the data from those sightings? (the obvious candidate answer is that it’s fiction, strictly for the suckers. Actual data would wreck the illusion)

I described this already.

How can one tell if a photon has passed through a lens? Does the lens itself indicate this? Nobody has claimed this happens.

You knew and yet you asked anyway As I stated previously, one method is spontaneous parametric down-conversion. It's a two-photon decay in an atom. Along specific paths the photons will be entangled (yes, the scientists know which paths; you can google this if you want more info) You couple the light into a fiber with a lens. News flash: any detection of a photon destroys it. You only "have" the photon for as long as it's bouncing around in your optics.

Good god you are being obtuse. The room lights are the extraneous photons. They don’t give you the entangled photons.

Oobermensch has been banned for being oober-insufferable

This assumes there are light sources, and that the scientists are so clueless as to not realize this. You don't even give them the benefit of doubt that they'd realize this and turn light sources off, even though I already told you that one would do this. (Plus the fact that if you're doing this with an optical fiber, it's really hard for extraneous light to get in) And possibly enclose the experiment, if needed. I've had setups that did this, so the room lights could be on. Light doesn't get into the box. So I will ask again, what light? I'm telling you there isn't any.

! Moderator Note Off-topic. This isn’t the place to whine about how you’ve been wronged.

You really should use a search engine for such basic inquiries https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/what-are-gw https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

You haven’t explained where these trillions of photons have been conjured from.

Fourth power of the temperature (Stefan-Boltzmann law), but the net power depends on what the reservoir is radiating back at the object. You can’t spontaneously transfer heat to a body at a higher temperature (there has to be work done), per the second law If you have an object at room temperature, it will not transfer heat to the room (regardless of the actual temperature of the room) because there must be a difference in temperature to transfer heat. True for radiation, conduction and convection.

Our physics descriptions are valid back to about 10^-43 sec. Not to zero.

Depends on the temperature difference. Which is why it becomes less efficient with each stage of trying to recover energy.

I used to teach the folks running the reactor. If you actually knew more your son would be in violation of national security laws for having divulged classified material to you, and he’d lose his clearance, and probably his job and pension. You don’t need to separate them; most are irrelevant. They would be thermal photons that don’t trigger the photodetectors. If these are near-visible or visible wavelength photons being entangled and you’re worried about contamination, there are wavelength filters and also the very technologically sophisticated step of turning the room lights off during the experiment. There’s also the coincidence measurement I mentioned, which is a filter in the time domain.

Why do you need to separate the photon? How does this relate to the scenario under discussion?

Yes, that was the revelation of Einstein’s relativity, back in 1905. We perceive length visually, geometrically. Time, not so much. There’s no physics that describes time standing still and contracting length to zero. The equations fail under that scenario. Before the big bang is another thing that physics can’t describe.

Again, your idea of what’s going on isn’t how the experiment is run. It’s done under controlled conditions so there’s virtually no other candidate photons, and you do coincidence measurement to screen out extraneous signals. If you do e.g. spontaneous parametric down-conversion, the entangled pairs are emitted in a particular direction. The bottom line is the folks doing these experiments understand what’s going on, as opposed to some hecklers in the peanut gallery. Declaring that “this can’t work” and the insinuation that you know more than the scientist who have performed the experiments isn’t a good look in light of the fact that this does work.

Length changes, too, under those circumstances

Or perhaps you just don’t know how any of this works. It doesn’t fit with your mental model of what’s going on, but it’s your model that’s wrong, not the experiment. (iow this is argument from incredulity, which is a fallacy; things aren’t wrong simply because you don’t undertand) The light passes through the cube. Straight through for one polarization, at 90 degrees for the other. Which path it takes tells you the polarization. All you have to do is put a photodetector at each path to tell you where the photon went.

So does USNO, via GPS. Time from USNO and NIST typically agree to better than 100ns (often much better); there’s a memorandum of understanding that dictates how well. How is this different from other base unit standards, like length, which is defined in terms of how far light travels in a second? They’re all conventions.

Directional charge? Charge is a scalar. ! Moderator Note Piling nonsense on top of nonsense, and repeating assertions instead of addressing issues. A hand-wave is not a model. We’re done here. Don’t bring this up again.

! Moderator Note The next step needs to be addressing the many problems that have been pointed out, rather than building on top of a flawed foundation

! Moderator Note Stock discussion is decidedly not quantum theory.

But without the BH, there is no appreciable gravity. Certainly not enough to do what you claim. And: a dipole? What would the electric dipole moment be?