I know nothing? And you know everything?
I believe that is called the Dunning-Kruger effect.
This guy knows something and I agree with what he knows as far as virtual particles are concerned.
It may be of interest even to your superior mind…
Does anybody for sure it is not? Which physicists taught you that ? Are you right?
It would be perfectly logical if virtual particles were free from any physical limitations. We just don’t know one way or the other.
He doesn’t know that they are FTL. But you do. Which physicist taught you that? You . are . wrong .
That you are so wrong in something so basic and will not see it is very sad. I’m sorry for you. I thought there was hope for you when you accepted that the light curves in the elevator were real. But no. Parroting irrelevant science that you have not formally studied, in defense of non-science, is pseudoscience.
Ok, if it makes you happy. I don’t know for sure, but it sounds logical to me.
I always thought that “c” is the "lower" limit at which “quanta” can become manifest. And then “c” translates into the time quantum energy requires to become physical matter.
This is how it makes sense to me. Virtual particles can become physically manifest when slowed down to “c” and self-form into fundamental massive particles that may combine to form nuclei. If they don’t combine into massive particles and still slow down to “c”, they may become manifest (leave a trace) for an instant but then must shed their energy and decay immediately.
In virtual state they just don’t belong in this dimensional reality.
They dwell in a timeless chaotic “field”, but when they become physically manifest they also create a measurable worldline (duration) of physical existence. @ “c” or LTF speed.
The photon travelling @ “c” is just an arbitrary symbolic selection. Any massless (at rest) particle would do just as well. We can observe light easily for measurement.
p.s. You want to see a photon travel at SOL?
Interesting side-effect is that we can calculate both speed and location of the photon at the same time, something that has never been possible before.
In physics, a world line of an object (approximated as a point in space, e.g., a particle or observer) is the sequence of spacetime events corresponding to the history of the object . A world line is a special type of curve in spacetime. … If the worldline M is a line segment, then the particle is said to be in free fall.
This phenomenon has been observed at Cern with the Higgs boson for one. When the Higgs was created it immediately decayed and disappeared as a boson.
p.p.s. The OP identifies the paradoxical nature of relativity. Are you telling me that you have all the answers?
I can’t tell you how much. I’m moved mate. Thank you. You’re being objective and honest. There is hope in our continued relationship.
Our knowing is different, that’s OK. It has overlap. We’ll find a way. Not to change the other, that’s impossible, but we’ll find a way.
So Heisenberg doesn’t apply any more?
I don’t know. The video suggests that under controlled conditions like 9" in a coke bottle, we can in fact measure a photon’s location albeit without the exact location at an exact time.
The Heisenberg theory gets down to much finer measurements @ quantum and even as we can measure “c”, quantum dynamic seem to be still one step deeper at Planck scale.
It is the deBroglie-Bohm pilot-wave model that suggests both time and postion can be measured, because particles are not waves but matter that ride a universal “pilot wave”. The effect is the same as if particles have a dual nature, without the paradox.
> An experiment claims to have invalidated a decades-old criticism against pilot-wave theory, an alternative formulation of quantum mechanics that avoids the most baffling features of the subatomic universe.
the Copenhagen interpretation, asks us to believe that instead of the clear-cut positions and movements of Newtonian physics, we have a cloud of probabilities described by a mathematical structure known as a wave function. The wave function, meanwhile, evolves over time, its evolution governed by precise rules codified in something called the Schrödinger equation.
The mathematics are clear enough; the actual whereabouts of particles, less so. Until a particle is observed, an act that causes the wave function to “collapse,” we can say nothing about its location. Albert Einstein, among others, [objected to this idea]
(https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150910-einstein-insanity/).
But there’s another view — one that’s been around for almost a century — in which particles really do have precise positions at all times. This alternative view, known as pilot-wave theory or Bohmian mechanics, never became as popular as the Copenhagen view, in part because Bohmian mechanics implies that the world must be strange in other ways.
Nearly a quarter-century later, a group of scientists has carried out an experiment in a Toronto laboratory that aims to test this idea. And if their results, first reported earlier this year, hold up to scrutiny, the Bohmian view of quantum mechanics — less fuzzy but in some ways more strange than the traditional view — may be poised for a comeback.
more… New Support for Alternative Quantum View | Quanta Magazine
I thought you did know?
A trillion frames a second still only captures phenomena at the ends of the bottle in an environment with more than one photon. The speed of them will be varying with medium. If we can’t do ‘exact’ then Heisenberg stands.
How about 5 trillion fps? 10 trillion? At what point can we make a photon stand still?
Infinity as you know.
“c” is not infinity. It is an established measurement. AFAIK there is nothing that would prevent us from measuring “c”, unless quantum actually happens at that speed.; Then we might just not be able to measure anything because we might hit the quantum moment when in suspension
I have for a long time now wondered if what we see is only half of quantum mechanics.
Seems to me that if reality is quantized that 1/2 of reality is in suspension between states. I Never mentioned it to avoid creating heart attacks in physicists … 
I didn’t say it was. I said it’s the fps point at which we can make a photon stand still.
