Again, what constitutes “too high”? Accelerating charged particle emit electro-magnetic radiation. If you are aware of some “energy level” that would be ‘too low’ for that then it is up to you to present it and not just the EM spectrum and some boob-tube.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
Adding thermal Energy / kinetic energy is increasing the energy level, and as a result EMW are emitted.... yes. - And this we can call "too much energy" if we prefer ... yes.
No, the image was of a “probability density”, it is called a probability density and not “elastic space density…. Or elastic absorbed space density” because it specifically represents the former. That you assert to “Call it”… “whatever you want” and deliberately drop off the “probability” part of “probability density” to say “that particle spin have “density”” demonstrates that you know you are misrepresenting the image. Stop trying to steal the work of others. As I said dishonesty won’t help you.
A different interpretation is not stealing others work.
We don’t know that a photon does not experience time; the reference frame transform gives a result that is undefined. Also if time is quantified then it makes no sense to speak of time below some limit, like say the Planck time.
Undefined or no time is the same pipe of tobacco, and you can even add to all this, - that photons reality is beyond our imagination.
This is one of the reasons that it not always make any sense really to understand QM in a rational way.
Try to Google; “photons experiences no time” if you never hear about it.
Yes, ““too much energy” is first at all a relative concept” specifically relative to how much is enough energy. So again if you don’t know how much energy is enough you don’t know if there is “too much”?
“too much” is when EMW are emitted.
Two different perspectives is not a contradiction, especially when we have the transformations to turn the values from one perspective to that of another.
I don’t agree, because as I said, you cannot understand the photons reality, seen from its own perspective, - it’s as I said beyond the imagination.
Again frequency requires time, with no time per cycle there is no frequency.
Again I don’t know why you want to spilt the interaction process, into sequences of time?
Yes, ““too much energy” is first at all a relative concept” specifically relative to how much is enough energy. So again if you don’t know how much energy is enough you don’t know if there is “too much”?
“Enough” is just before EMW are emitted.
OK so now for you flat space “most likely not exists” which means your “space” must be curved.
I don’t like the expression “curved” – rather deformation, or stretched space, or space tension. I can’t imagine any unaffected places in the universe.
So all space is deformed by gravity...
Not by your assertion above, by that your “stretching space” must also curve.
Space itself is not “curved” – but only stretching.
How this affects for example light is a different story.
As nothing generally prevents people from using their imagination then nothing can particularly allow such. It is simply that in some situations using ones imagination, like say imagining the bus about to hit you at 50 MPH won’t hurt you, is not advisable.
And now, how can you tell grandmother about what “curvature space” really is ?
She would face 2 major problems...
Problem-1 is – it is impossible to imagine, - nobody ever did so in a proper way....
Problem 2 – impossible to prove, since as I said, because the sky is blue it is not sure it is because of oxygen is blue.
Rather you can say; imagine you are looking at a 10.000 pieces puzzle, one pieces is missing, - it’s easy to imagine how this last piece must look- , right?
Stretching - absorbing elastic space, - is the same story – these missing few pieces are easy to imagine, based on an overall picture of knowledge, - off course correct interpreted... – in contrast to the “curvature of space” concept , - which is rather always a “blind" and incoherent concept, - and therefore most likely only fantasy.
Within 2 years you will see that SR was based on 100% wrong interpretation.
So yes imagination is a good thing, because we began to understand that space and time was really strange subjects. But imagination can and will take us much further on that road.. And as I said the first place imagination will strike is a completely redefinition of SR and later also of GR..
You will see, in the meantime take it easy boy
!
!
?
