@Me: "Hi Mark Palenik,  You mentioned,
" dx*dy doesn't even come out in the right units ".
I was just using x and y as variable names.
I called the standard deviation of the momentum dx,
  obviously.
dx * dy >= hbar is an  " uncertainty relation ".
  I was speaking loosely when I said:  " That's the HUP ".
  Nor am I interested in delving into the details
  of the data sets ...  Thank you very much.
You joked:
" Neither fairies,  nor the insides of photons exist,
  which is why those are both meaningless 
  and stupid questions. ".
Einstein created general relativity to help answer
  the question:  " What is gravity ? ".
If you don't know why he asked that question
  then you probably think:
    " the insides of photons don't exist ".
  So you are not a theorist ...  which is fine with me.
  But we truly have nothing in common.
Re:  Life expectancies,  You commented:
" the  ' inside '  of the probability distribution 
  is a meaningless term ".
Of course it is ...  to you,  not me.
Photon's from the Milky Way hitting a telescope
  are  " statistics "  to you,  but not to me ...
  And not to cosmologists or theorists.
" A photon is observed to be a dimensionless point,
    but matter is the only reality,
    so there is something there ... ".
You replied:  " Something infinitely small. ".
That depends on what your notion of scale is.
  A hypothetical being living on a photon
  would have a different view.
  His notion of time would seem very dense to us."
    @markpalenik: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
Well, at least now you recognize the validity of the constant hbar.  dx*dy
indicates the multiplication of two terms related to position.  I can't
think of a single convention where "x" is used to represent momentum.  You
should definitely write it dp*dx if you mean "uncertainty in momentum times
the uncertainty in position", or you're going to confuse a lot of people.
Do we need to go over things that do exist and things that don't, again?
Gravity - does exist.  Fairies and insides of dimensionless points - don't
exist.
He asked the question because he wanted to extend relativity to all
reference frames, including those with arbitrary accellerations.
Not when it comes to well established, well tested well standing theory with
no problems.
By your definition, all of the building blocks of matter are just as cold as
photons.
Thank you.
I didn't realize it was something we got to vote on.
If you knew half as much about special relativity as you seem to act like
you do, you would know that light-like geodesics are invalid reference
frames (and just so you don't get confused, light like geodesics are the
paths of things moving at the speed of light, not "near" the speed of
light").
But anyway-
Even if we take into account the length contractions of special relativity,
they're only in the direction of motion, which give the photon two other
directions in which to have size, if it weren't a point like particle to
begin with."
    @Me: "Hi Mark Palenik,  You mentioned,
" You should definitely write it  dp * dx  if you mean
  ' uncertainty in momentum 
    times the uncertainty in position ' ,
  or you're going to confuse a lot of people. ".
Although I defined what  delta x  and  delta y  were,
  I should've mentioned that  dx * dy >= hbar  
  is the generic  " uncertainty relationship ".
Re:  The insides of photons,  You repeated,
" Fairies and insides of dimensionless points -
  don't exist. ".
It's only the information that does not and can not exist.
  The underlying physicalism must exist,  of course.
Re:  GR coming from The question:  " What is gravity ",
You said Einstein created GR because,
" he wanted to extend relativity to all reference frames,
  including those with arbitrary accelerations. ".
Not really,  he created general relativity 
  to more tightly couple  ( positive )  mass-energy 
  with  ( negative )  gravitational energy
  and the cosmological constant  ( negative,  dark energy ).
And because of that:
  His cosmological constant is just now being validated
  using recent type Ia supernova and WMAP data.
Re:  The hypothetical and unobservable temperature
  inside a photon possessing 
  the notion of infinite coldness to us
  ( because it's observed to have no rest mass ),
You suggested that that implies that,
" all of the building blocks of matter 
  are just as cold as photons. ".
Wherever no mass is observed,
  there must also be no observed heat ...
  But a hypothetical being living on that photon
  must be using a different scale of heat,  time and space.
  i.e. Relative to us,
  his notions of time would seem very dense to us.
You mentioned, " light-like geodesics ".
In GR,  that's also called  " null-geodesics "
  because the temporal component
  is equal and opposite to the spatial components.
Null-geodesics outline the topology of GR's space-time.
  ( But world-lines are needed to outline free fall frames )
You said,
" Even if we take into account 
  the length contractions of special relativity,
  they're only in the direction of motion, 
  which give the photon two other directions 
  in which to have size,
  if it weren't a point like particle to begin with. ".
How could a photon be observed to have no x or t dimensions 
  and yet still have a y and a z dimension ?
  The standard model tell us the photon is observed to be 
  a dimensionless particle with no rest mass ...  observed."
    @markpalenik: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
You, quite frankly, don't know what you're talking about.  The cosmological
constant was developed as part of General Realitivity - in other words, he
didn't know about it until after he had created a description of space-time
geometry.  I haven't studied GR yet, but I know enough about the historical
aspects of Einstein's work in that period (mostly from Physics 319 and books
I've read - if you missed it before physics 319 was really a philosophy of
physics class that I took to satisfy my advanced composition requirement) to
know more or less how he derived/what inspired him to derive GR.  I don't
even think your statement about gravitiational enegy being negative is
valid.  All potential energy in a vector field is written as negative and
there's nothing really special about gravity in that sense.
His cosmological constant is something that came out of the GR equations (he
just assmued it wasn't zero to explain a universe that he didn't believe was
expanding or contracting, despite the fact there was no evidence at the time
to support a non-zero value).
You can't talk about the scale of a being living on a photon.  If you knew
anything about special relativity, you would know that travelling at C is
not a valid reference frame.
Very good, but apparently you only read those three words out of my
sentence- otherwise you would know the point of it was not to mention
"light-like geodesics" but to point out that you can't meaninfully talk
about the reference frame of something travelling at c.
Irrelavant to the josephmcclain@example.net.  I only brought that up to distinguish
between a valid and invalid reference frame.
The faster something goes the shorter it gets, but only in one direction.
An object travelling at c would be infinitely thin, so invisible from the
side, but when viewed from the front or the back would look like a normal
object.  It wouldn't appear to be very much different froma sheet of paper,
an object in which the thickness is insignificant compared to the width and
heidth.
BTW, your statement of "How could a photon be observed to have no x or t
dimensions" shows a complete misunderstanding of relativity.
I don't know what your point is there, but whatever it was, you're probably
getting caught up in your own semantics."
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 3, "forum_name": "sci.physics.relativity.20141206.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-sci.physics.parquet'}