"when some other photon interacts with an atom, and what makes you think anything occurs instantaneously?"
..............
"And how does one change a photon's spin state?"
...........
Look, my book said that the two electrons had spin 0, so if you measure one and it's .5, the other is automatically -.5, due to physics.
So if you force one to be .5, the other is automatically -.5, otherwise it's just random.
electrons that would otherwise be in the same state have opposite spins, yes--the Pauli exclusion principle. Two electrons having no relation to each other can have any spin state whatsoever in relation to each other. But bound (or free) electrons don't have anything to do with photons per se or anything else you were talking about.
did i say electrons? I meant photons.
anyways, you're dodging the issue..
face it, physics travels faster than light..
No offense, but it's not good practice to try and corner a guy who does this for a living... And "face it, i'm right" as an argument is more a resignation of your own willingness to further evidence your claim, which goes against a very supported theory in physics than it is any kind of a victory statement.
Glenn is just saying all the wrong things, and they don't make sense to me, you see? it looks to me like he just doesn't understand what exactly I'm saying..
you said "electrons" but meant "photons" but yet talked about what you meant as photons having to obey the Pauli exclusion principle (whether or not you realized you were referring to that principle) when in fact photons don't obey the Pauli exclusion principle. And now you make the observation that I don't understand what you're saying. The issue appears to be that *you* don't understand what you're saying. That tends to cause other people not to.
You might be better off trying to *learn* some physics instead of trying to reinvent it.
(And it would be irrelevant if photons *did* obey the Pauli exclusion principle. If two oppositely spinning photons were to both reverse their spins, the two states would be identical to each other. There would be no way to distinguish one from the other. No information would be generated or transmitted, or even involved. And again, no physical process occurs instantaneously. You're assuming at the outset what you're trying to prove.)
As another case of incoherent communications in point, "physics travels faster than light"???? If you want people to understand what you're saying, you've got to put a little effort into your wording. Just throwing words together doesn't constitute information.
Quote:Better one twist theories to suit facts, rather than twist facts to suit theories
Excellent words of wisdom to live by. Reading a single book on physics and then claiming to have discovered some revolutionary new theory that somehow nobody has though of before, implies that you either mis-interpreted the book or a single book hasn't given you enough grounding in physics to understand why the theory hasn't been though of before.
People who do come up with and prove theories like this, tend to spend large amounts of time researching facts and looking at other revolutionary works in the same area. Following that, one needs a well formed proof that adheres to current laws and knowledge within the target domain or a well formed proof that correctly disproves currently accepted knowledge.
BTW, Glenn, what is your actual area of expertise, your posts here are quite interesting to read.
Ah yes, tachyon particles. Star Trek absolutely *loves* em'.
My inane, personalityless physics teacher had some kind of love affair with star trek. We could distract him for entire days by saying something like "hey, they showed that episode of star trek where chewbacca dies... why did the transporter do that to him?" and get him all worked up. Sure, we only got through 8 of about 21 chapters in our physics book, but it wouldnt matter, as he didnt know a clue of what he was talking about.
Anyway, that's why i haven't made a valueble contribution to this discussion in case you're wondering
As for LooseCaboose's question (and I may have gotten some capitalization wrong there), I've tried to avoid a single area of expertise at the expense of knowledge in anything else. (To quote Robert Heinlein, AKA, Lazaus Long), "specialization is for insects.") I did my master's research in atomic spectroscopy and I've been working for the past 19+ years in various aspects of microwave/radio frequency/light propagation, transmission, reception, and related topics.