swansont

This is sidestepping the issue. Most ideas are wrong, and consequently not worth stealing. Fame and/or fortune is not at stake here. What is at stake here is that we require a certain level of science discourse, even in speculations and you are falling short of that threshold. This is not the WAG section, or the 2AM dormitory discussion conjecture section. We spell out what we expect here. That's an exceedingly generous interpretation. Photons do not exist inside of things, and do not escape as was described in the OP.

! Moderator Note Regret this you may. Going violently off-topic in general is a signal that the original discussion is done, and going all the way to 9/11 and the towers conspiracy leaves no doubt that this should be closed. This is a science site, not a conspiracy site, and the illuminati like it that way.

If you are going to take the approach that this is someone else's fault and that you are not responsible for your actions, your stay here will be short indeed. Oh, baloney. It becomes science when you apply the process of science to the problem, make a model of the behavior, and accept or reject the idea based on the evidence. So the thing you need to immediately address is how you can test your idea to test whether it actually has merit, in such a way that the prevailing theory would fail. Or point everyone to experiments that already show this.

I gave an example with two, hoping it would make the situation simpler. The original problem said nothing about location. It's not a good quantum number. I'm not removing the energy states. If there are two energy states, the energy state is what differentiates the particles. But you keep going back to coordinates, which has no bearing. Switching the coordinates does not allow you to identify the particles. Again, Strange covered this concept already. Here, I'll quote it so you don't have to scroll back

It's more of a "clarify your gibberish" question. How does the absence of freefall cause an acceleration of g?

"the grid plotting its trajectory" is not the photon's frame of reference. Once again, you have sidestepped the issue.

Locally is an inertial frame, not that of a photon. I can do a transform between inertial frames. How would I transform into the frame of a photon? You are making that measurement in your frame. Irrelevant to the discussion, from what I see.

But how do you know which particle is at location 1 vs location 2? What is the measurable difference if they swapped positions?

There is no such thing. We don't have any physics to describe what's going on from the point of view of a photon. Our equations tend to diverge for v=c. AFAICT that was a request for the math, not a description of the process.

No, we haven't nailed down teleportation yet, nor are we likely to. However, you might want to do a search on 3D printing of food

As Strange points out, these are virtual particles, so "comprised" really isn't the proper notion here. The details of the quantum mechanics involved is pretty weird, if you're only used to classical physics, and classical descriptions don't really capture what's going on.

! Moderator Note Then it shouldn't be posted here. Science News means it's got to be news (with a link), and also science (which you haven't included)

Huh?

As Moreno has noted, these aren't planetary-like orbits. The QM solution shows that electrons spend some of their time in and around the nucleus — the probability of finding the electron there is not zero. They don't normally stay there, because that's not an allowed state of the system. The reaction where the electron combines with a proton can't proceed if it's not energetically allowed.

Th acceleration in both the vertical and horizontal directions is g/2

You need a means of amplification to "increase the photons" (assuming they are the same wavelength), which requires an energy input. A common means of storing and amplifying light is called a laser, though some of the light finds its way out of the device.

! Moderator Note Not even worth moving to speculation

Sure there is. Part of rule 2.1: "Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited."

And that is meaningful in what way?

Yes, adding a second energy state increases the number of configurations. Strange covered this earlier. Measuring the individual particle energy gains you nothing, since the particles are indistinguishable.

As EdEarl notes, photons are not charged, so it is likely you misread the article. Can you link to it? The electromagnetic interaction is mediated by an exchange of these these uncharged photons. Collisions are not an issue. Photons easily pass right through each other.

The context is that in delayed choice experiments, as well as the relativity-related experiment, is that there is a simultaneity issued that is not present in the original discussion. I had not anticipated that the conversation would go in that direction. Precede is a better term, yes, but then again, I never used "determine" in this context anyway. I used "undetermined" a number of times, but not in any way that I would think would be construed with causality. I thought I was clear that there was not a causal relationship involved (considering that this would require information having to exceed c) Did you ask about the statement that a single observer knows the spins of both particles as the result of the measurement of either one?

This, however, is not one of those times. Take vision: you have color perception and sensitivity to brightness as two items to consider. There's depth perception Sensitivity to polarization (unusual in humans, but some animals can detect this) You have the range of wavelengths — sensitivity to IR and UV. None of that is mentioned by the OP, and that's just one sense. And, as has been mentioned, how do you do a comparison with some other sense? How is detecting some level of light equivalent to some measure of a sense of touch? The thread getting criticized here is quite appropriate, and has been constructive. What's left to be seen is if the originator will learn anything from the exercise.

You have identical particles. One is at point A, the other at point B. You turn your back, and I may or may not switch them. How can you tell if I did?

Have you not been investigating details of the discussion at all? Bell tests using photons demonstrate that photons can have an undetermined polarization in flight. This just smacks of laziness on your part. Don't expect others to spoon-feed you the basics. If you wish to have a conversation at an advanced level such as entanglement, you absolutely have to put some effort into the endeavor. Physicists study this stuff for years. Don't expect that you can spend five minutes on it and think that you have a valid disagreement.