The double slit experiment:
Wave interference observed - hey they're waves!
Placing a detector at one or both slits removes interference
- they act like particles? What kind of reasoning is that?
Obviously you disturbed the photon during detection and no
interference occurs as a result of a phase shift of some kind.
Have they tried repeating the experiment, replacing the
detector with other means of disturbing the photons to
discover what does/doesn't affect this phase?

<<Now, does not the prize to Einstein imply
that the Academy recognised the particle
nature of light? The Nobel Committee says
that Einstein had found that the energy exchange
between matter and ether occurs by atoms emitting
or absorbing a quantum of energy,hv .

As a consequence of the new concept of light quanta
(in modern terminology photons) Einstein proposed the
law that an electron emitted from a substance by
monochromatic light with the frequency [ ] has to have
a maximum energy of E=3Dhv-p, where p is the energy needed to
remove the electron from the substance. Robert Andrews
Millikan carried out a series of measurements over a
period of 10 years, finally confirming the validity of this
law in 1916 with great accuracy. Millikan had, however,
found the idea of light quanta to be unfamiliar and strange.

The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html

<< in 1961 Claus J=F6nsson of T=FCbingen, who had been
one of M=F6llenstedt's students, finally performed an actual
double-slit experiment with electrons for the first time >>
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/1

Time dilation:
Apparently an experiment was performed with atomic clocks
synchronized and one was flown around on a jet, to discover
they were no longer in sync - it must be because the jet was
approaching the speed of light!
What the?! Velocity is relative, whose to say the jet wasn't
moving slower compared to the surface of the earth? The
obvious difference between the two is that the jet traversed
the fields of the earth - gravitational, magnetic, or what
have you. Seems obvious the fields are interacting with the
atoms of the passing object and causing them to oscillate
slower or faster, in effect changing the rate that object
experiences time, or ages. I wonder if this has
implications on inertia within a reference frame of an object
that is far from any fields that could interact with it?

Abstract
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to
simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss
Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues
that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.

C. S. Unnikrishnan
Gravitation Group,
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

Sue...