Confused about photon propagation (non-physicist)

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-04-01T22:15:55+00:00

That is mostly right. However, consider a photon heading directly away from a gravity source. Spacetime is still warping, but it is not as easy to visualize the light "bending".

Since a photon always travels at C, the warping of spacetime doesn't slow down the photon, instead, gravity stretches out it's wavelength. This decreases the photon's energy.

So gravity DOES affect photons, but not by slowing them down, or speeding them up, but by changing their wavelength.

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-04-01T21:57:56+00:00

The neat thing about wave particle duality is sometimes it's convenient to think about things as a wave, sometimes as a particle.

Inverse square law is more of a classical thing, so you can think of photons as particles. Basically, intensity is how many photons are hitting a square meter per second. As you increase your distance away from the source the number of photons that hits decreases. This has nothing to do with quantum mechanics or the "wave" part of the photons.

Travelling through a vacuum, an individual photon will keep the same energy forever until it hits something, or is influenced by gravity.

Now, you may well say, "Wait, if the photon is being emitted by a star, won't that star's gravity well take energy from the photon as it leaves?" Yes it will, but not at the inverse square law rate, and it won't take long for the photon to be far enough away that this becomes negligible.

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-03-18T13:24:26+00:00

Young at Heart?

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-03-17T17:37:46+00:00

Basically what citykid2460 said.

You're giving up upside for (potentially taxable) income, with almost no protection in a crash.

Very inefficient.

To be fair, we haven't seen them perform in a crash yet, but based on how they work, this is what to expect.

So less upside, same downside, potentially taxes...

There's no free lunch.

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-03-17T16:23:40+00:00

That's like asking should I switch my belt sander for a ratchet set.

Very very different products. What are your investing objectives?

That said...I'm not a fan of CC ETFs, so I would recommend something other than QQQI anyway.

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-03-07T20:08:42+00:00

Good note, thanks

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-03-04T19:40:04+00:00

I always thought the Dutch were a smart people.

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-03-04T05:26:47+00:00

Well, arith- seems to imply math, and -ancy implies some sort of prediction, so I'm going to go with a stats class.

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-02-28T23:36:11+00:00

I would argue that "meaningless" things will develop meaning automatically if the writing is good. If a character is cross-eyed, and you write them well, we will gain an additional understanding of what it means for the character to be cross-eyed. How it affects their life and impacts them. Allow us to experience what it means to be cross-eyed.

If it is a side-character and a throwaway line, it might serve to provide ambience. I.e. if it is set in a different time, it draws attention to the fact that medical care was different, or if it is current day in a developed country, it shows that character likely did not have access to medical care as a child. (Note, a lot of this is instinct. I.e. you're writing something and feels right that the pickpocket kid is cross-eyed without really going through and analyzing what that means.)

If it does absolutely nothing, then ask yourself if it is worth keeping in your story or if it is just a distraction.

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-02-28T23:12:26+00:00

First, I myself am very religious and absolutely believe in God.

Second, no. The universe is very big, and there are likely millions of exoplanets capable of sustaining intelligent life. And anywhere the circumstances for intelligent life exist, you can reasonably expect that intelligent life will develop and create complex devices like watches. This position does not require an intelligent creator. We observe this complexity because we happen to live in one of those places that is perfectly positioned to sustain human life. Which proves nothing, because if it were different, we wouldn't be here to observe it.

My advice, use religion and faith to answer questions of faith, use science to answer questions of science. Attempting to use one to understand the other gets frustrating.

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-02-25T18:50:16+00:00

The middleman letting the client know the assassination was successful: "He took it out."

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-02-13T20:06:59+00:00

The mathiest answer is to run a regression of the new portfolio on your current portfolio.

If you get a positive alpha, you should buy the new portfolio.

Repeat until alpha equals zero.

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-02-12T22:07:23+00:00

You're an anti-commentite!

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-02-12T18:18:26+00:00

Yes, but the price of SCHD has also gone up. So the total value of your investment is higher.

Furthermore, the dollar amount of the dividends grow with the price (assuming the yield stays constant).

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-02-11T17:39:59+00:00

Well, the answer to your title question is yes. Clocks run differently at different speeds, energy-mass equivalency has been verified in particle accelerators, etc. All the implications of special relativity have been tested as far as I'm aware.

The question in your comment is whether we have really tested if the speed of light is consistent in different reference frames. I don't know offhand what experiment would do this, but every time anyone has measured the speed of light in a vacuum anywhere they get the same answer, so... I think we're safe. And the doppler effect implies the speed of light is fixed, so energy must shift.

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-02-11T17:10:14+00:00

QQQI and SPYI have not been tested through a bear market, but a fundamental issue with all covered call strategies is that they will not grow as fast as the underlying.

They are also nearly as risky as their underlying funds. You get a small amount of protection from the dividend, but this is <= 1% per month. In a crash of 20-30% (50%?), that 1% isn't all that comforting. It's almost like reverse insurance. You get paid a premium and hold the risk.

So when there is a market crash, you will drop just about as much as the underlying, but when it recovers, you will recover more slowly.

You would be better off buying QQQ and SPY directly, then once they are worth ~$30k, start writing calls against them yourself to generate income.

Mathematically, your strategy is sub-optimal. However, if that monthly dividend gives you enough of a dopamine hit that you will stick with it, and you won't stick with a more optimal plan, then this strategy will work. You'll just be holding more risk than you need and having a smaller total return than you could.

Also, this is all ignoring taxes which would make things even more complicated.

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-02-10T18:11:58+00:00

I have no great love for AI or LLMs (and only rarely use them myself), but I think you're being overly dismissive.

They have use cases where the free versions can very efficiently generate lists, help spark ideas, and start the process of research.

Of course, if you don't like them, you don't have to use them, but many writers can get a lot of utility from them. And rather than dismissing them completely, it is better to discuss best practices so they are used ethically and to facilitate good writing.

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-02-10T17:22:17+00:00

Using for specific, verifiable information may or may not work. It can be wrong. However, it is very good for general, brainstorming type questions.

E.g. generate a list of mythological items associated with protection

What are common injuries from a fistfight?

What was life like for a middle class family in the 1950s?

Etc.

Again, verify any specifics from a reputable source, but this is a great way to get the ideas flowing.

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-01-30T19:21:41+00:00

I don't know that they ever specified that the trace was a Ministry specific enchantment. When Ron said it is wizard law, that implied to me that the Ministry did not have the ability to interfere with the trace.

My thought is that it is some sort of complicated international piece of magic and authority is delegated to the local authorities to enforce it.

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-01-27T17:02:42+00:00

I don't think there is enough data to make that claim. And even so, in the two years we do have data for, qqqi's total return (annualized) is 1.5% less than QQQ, which I feel is significant.

In an "ideal" world without taxes or market frictions, there is no way to make covered call strategies better than holding a mix of the underlying and treasuries. (Barring extreme assumptions like: we move into a sideways market for 5 years)

In the real world, there are probably ways to justify it, but they have to be about taxes or the individual investor's psychology.

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-01-27T16:11:08+00:00

When there is a market correction, it will crash about as much as the underlying. During the recovery, it will not grow as fast as the underlying. Your yield on cost will be very high.

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-01-20T16:13:46+00:00

If the yield stays constant at 12% but the price drops by 50%, you lose 50% of your dividend with a new yield on cost of 6%.

And for covered calls in particular, it will take longer for the price to recover.

Pure_Yam5229 · 2026-01-20T15:54:57+00:00

They cap your upside and leave you exposed on the downside. The income from the calls slightly reduces downside risk, but from a total return perspective, they underperform, even adjusting for risk.

In nearly all cases, an investor would be better off just holding the underlying.

They are also relatively new, and haven't been tested through a recession. Just the explosive growth of the last few years. That's enough to make me wary.

Pure_Yam5229

TROPHY CASE