"Robert Karl Stonjek" wrote in message
...
Comment:
Approaching the speed of light, the distance between the emitter and
absorber
falls to zero and the interval of transit also falls to zero. So at the
instant of detection, the two photons are in physical contact and no
transmission of information over a distance occurs.

One might argue that there is no light frame. But there is a frame for,
say, an electron travelling at c-1/infinity. The distance two such
electrons travels (as in the above experiment) is 1/infinity and the
interval is 1/infinity seconds. Thus it is reasonable to extrapolate to
the
paired photons and assume that at the instant of detection, the two
photons
are separated by a zero distance and zero seconds have passed during the
'transit'.

The paradox is more fundamental. If two clocks A and B are separated by
some distance (let it be c meters) after synchronisation, then a photon
emitted by A and absorbed by the B will have travelled for 1 second over
a
distance of c. But in the light frame, the photon travelled zero meters
in
zero seconds (consider an electron or neutrino travelling at 1/infinity
less
than c if the light frame is too objectionable).

The difference in the time on the clocks will be one second ie if A was
at
12:00 noon at the time of the photon emission, then B will be at +1s at
the
time of the photon absorption. The problem is that in the light frame (or
the c-1/infinity frame), the two clocks were already showing difference
of
1
second with B ahead of A.

But if a photon is emitted by B and absorbed by A, all of the above clock
readings are reversed with A being 1s ahead of B at the time of the
emission
and absorption of the photon in the light-like frame.

So how can the two clocks both be 1s ahead of each other? The answer is
that both alternatives are true until a photon is absorbed (the function
describing both states ie A ahead or B and B ahead of A, collapses to
just
one solution when the photon is absorbed in the frame of clocks A and B).

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

There are many reasons this theory is not capable of explaining this
effect. Here are two:

1. This effect is also seen in massive particles at much slower
speeds, such as in electrons that may form the basis of quantum
communications.
2. Physics must hold in all inertial reference frames, so stating that
something works in just one special frame and no others is rubbish
(especially in the "rest frame of a photon.")


mk

RKS:
I never said that there were special conditions at c. The same physics
that
causes length contraction at any speed should also cause length
contraction
at c or at an infinitely small speed less than c, a speed attainable by
electrons and neutrinos, for instance.

It is the Relativists that want to exclude relativistic changes at light
speed, not me.

It is the relativists that want to INCLUDE relativistic changes at ANY
speed,
what do you want to INCLUDE?