Post by: MikeS on 30/04/2012 07:06:52
I believe I would be correct to say that mainstream would maintain that a photon does not experience time. Time for it does not exist.
There is I believe another explanation that looks the same.
A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.
It could be argued that anything traveling faster than c would travel backward in time. Therefore anything traveling at c is traveling backward in time at the rate that time is flowing forward.
The same logic explains why gravity may propagate faster than c. It propagates backwards in time.
Perhaps this can be extended to say that everything without mass travels backward in time at or faster than c.
added 08 May 2012
Time has certain features that make it time. It has an arrow that points from the past to the future. It ‘flows’ at a certain rate. If it did not flow then it would not be time as we know it. If it flowed at an infinite rate, the arrow of time would be double ended and there would be no causality. Again, this would not be time as we know it.
An object traveling at c does not experience the passage of time as time has effectively stopped. It does not experience space as distance has shrunk to zero. Either of the above is effectively the same as travelling at infinite speed.
However, light speed is finite not infinite.
Why is c finite and not infinite? Why is c the value that it is 299792458 m/s.
If light travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward then it explains why the speed of light is not infinite. The speed of light is not infinite because the passage of time is not infinite. Time flows at the speed of light.
A photon cannot be localized without being destroyed.
This makes sense if a photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward. Whilst traveling backward in time it remains in all senses invisible.
A photon is it's own antiparticle.
A photon travelling backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward looks the same as a photon travelling forward in time at the same rate that time flows backward.
A photon has no mass but does have momentum.
As the photon travels backward in time so any mass it may have is cancelled or hidden by time flowing forward at the same rate. Its mass and momentum only becomes apparent at the point and time of impact as it is destroyed. At the point and time of impact it is no longer travelling backward in time.
The concept of a photon travelling backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward should be viewed as a supplement to Relativity.
Post by: simplified on 30/04/2012 15:16:30
Post by: yor_on on 01/05/2012 17:10:18
Then we could assume 'c' to be a 'static constant', but what about everything we measure?
We do it through that same constant radiation, finding its outcomes/interactions to describe a arrow to us.
And you can assume gravity to propagate at 'c', if you want to assign it a 'speed', but not above.
Inertia on the other hand, and maybe that was what you thought of there Mike?
Depending on how you define it, inertia can be seen as instantaneous if described as some sort of 'interaction' between what experience it and SpaceTime, or seen as obeying 'c' if described as particles/positions in mass acting out their relations versus each other, or as a third possibility, possibly instantaneous there too.
But I'm guessing that if we define it to the particles themselves in that rod (expressing time dilations and Lorentz contractions relative each other/ relative any displacements/accelerations) we should be able to measure/calculate a tiny delay showing us that 'inertia' also will obey 'c'.
Post by: Pmb on 02/05/2012 20:22:38
Quote from: MikeS
I have put this in new theories, otherwise I might be banned but it's not so much meant as a new theory as a different interpretation. Unfortunately I have noticed that subjects in this section are far more likely to be ignored or not taken seriously.Unfortunately I believe that's true. The reason being that most of the crackpots post here so that what they're posting usually won't be used as a reason to ban people. I decided to post in here today because there is no room to place to fit the topic I was interested in posting.
Post by: butchmurray on 02/05/2012 22:02:13
Post by: MikeS on 03/05/2012 08:26:12
"anything traveling at c is traveling backward in time at the rate that time is flowing forward." sounds fun :)
Then we could assume 'c' to be a 'static constant', but what about everything we measure?
We do it through that same constant radiation, finding its outcomes/interactions to describe a arrow to us.
And you can assume gravity to propagate at 'c', if you want to assign it a 'speed', but not above.
Inertia on the other hand, and maybe that was what you thought of there Mike?
Depending on how you define it, inertia can be seen as instantaneous if described as some sort of 'interaction' between what experience it and SpaceTime, or seen as obeying 'c' if described as particles/positions in mass acting out their relations versus each other, or as a third possibility, possibly instantaneous there too.
But I'm guessing that if we define it to the particles themselves in that rod (expressing time dilations and Lorentz contractions relative each other/ relative any displacements/accelerations) we should be able to measure/calculate a tiny delay showing us that 'inertia' also will obey 'c'.
Yes, I guess it is a (the?) static constant. The only static constant and the one everything else is measured against.
There is nothing in Relativity to say that gravity (having no mass) cannot travel faster than c so long as it does not travel slower than c. (c is a barrier that cannot be crossed by the arrow of time.)
I wasn't considering inertia as gravity could theoretically travel faster than c. Does inertia have a speed? Not a question I have seriously considered as yet.
Post by: MikeS on 06/05/2012 08:56:15
This makes sense if a photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward. Whilst traveling backward in time it remains in all senses invisible.
A photon is it's own antiparticle.
A photon travelling backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward looks the same as a photon travelling forward in time at the same rate that time flows backward.
A photon has no mass.
As the photon travels backward in time so its mass is cancelled by time flowing forward at the same rate. Its mass only becomes apparent at the point and time of impact as it is destroyed.
Post by: Æthelwulf on 06/05/2012 09:42:51
I have put this in new theories, otherwise I might be banned but it's not so much meant as a new theory as a different interpretation. Unfortunately I have noticed that subjects in this section are far more likely to be ignored or not taken seriously.
I believe I would be correct to say that mainstream would maintain that a photon does not experience time. Time for it does not exist.
There is I believe another explanation that looks the same.
A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.
It could be argued that anything traveling faster than c would travel backward in time. Therefore anything traveling at c is traveling backward in time at the rate that time is flowing forward.
The same logic explains why gravity may propagate faster than c. It propagates backwards in time.
Perhaps this can be extended to say that everything without mass travels backward in time at or faster than c.
I believe this leaves the laws of physics intact?
No, photons can never experience Mike. You know this.
You're really reaching new levels of psuedoscience. The part where you have it could be used to explain how mass travels backwards in time at rates faster than c is a peach.
Post by: MikeS on 06/05/2012 12:36:04
I have put this in new theories, otherwise I might be banned but it's not so much meant as a new theory as a different interpretation. Unfortunately I have noticed that subjects in this section are far more likely to be ignored or not taken seriously.
I believe I would be correct to say that mainstream would maintain that a photon does not experience time. Time for it does not exist.
There is I believe another explanation that looks the same.
A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.
It could be argued that anything traveling faster than c would travel backward in time. Therefore anything traveling at c is traveling backward in time at the rate that time is flowing forward.
The same logic explains why gravity may propagate faster than c. It propagates backwards in time.
Perhaps this can be extended to say that everything without mass travels backward in time at or faster than c.
I believe this leaves the laws of physics intact?
No, photons can never experience Mike. You know this.
You're really reaching new levels of psuedoscience. The part where you have it could be used to explain how mass travels backwards in time at rates faster than c is a peach.
No, I don't know it.
That's a stong accusation. I have provided the logic behind what I have postulated. Perhaps you could provide evidence as to why I am wrong.
That's not exactly what I said. What I said was.
"A photon has no mass.
As the photon travels backward in time so its mass is cancelled by time flowing forward at the same rate. Its mass only becomes apparent at the point and time of impact as it is destroyed."
This idea does account for how a seemingly mass-less particle can impart energy or momentum upon contact.
" more specifically inertial mass, can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to the change of its speed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
Therefore, to define mass you need time. A photon may simply not experience time as is generally believed but that does not explain how it can impart energy or momentum upon obliteration.
If you think about it which is the most unlikely, 1) that a photon does not experience time, or 2) a photon does experience time as it travels backward in time but it appears to not experience time as it travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward. A photon may not seem to experience time but it does produce causality which relies upon time. In a sense time is based upon the speed of light or vice versa. Is it really impossible for a photon to travel backwards in time. A mass-less 'particle' is allowed by GR to travel faster than c so long as it does not travel slower than c.
Perhaps you could provide some evidence as to why I am wrong other than it's peachy?
Post by: Æthelwulf on 06/05/2012 12:47:53
I have put this in new theories, otherwise I might be banned but it's not so much meant as a new theory as a different interpretation. Unfortunately I have noticed that subjects in this section are far more likely to be ignored or not taken seriously.
I believe I would be correct to say that mainstream would maintain that a photon does not experience time. Time for it does not exist.
There is I believe another explanation that looks the same.
A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.
It could be argued that anything traveling faster than c would travel backward in time. Therefore anything traveling at c is traveling backward in time at the rate that time is flowing forward.
The same logic explains why gravity may propagate faster than c. It propagates backwards in time.
Perhaps this can be extended to say that everything without mass travels backward in time at or faster than c.
I believe this leaves the laws of physics intact?
No, photons can never experience Mike. You know this.
You're really reaching new levels of psuedoscience. The part where you have it could be used to explain how mass travels backwards in time at rates faster than c is a peach.
No, I don't know it.
That's a stong accusation. I have provided the logic behind what I have postulated. Perhaps you could provide evidence as to why I am wrong.
That's not exactly what I said. What I said was.
"A photon has no mass.
As the photon travels backward in time so its mass is cancelled by time flowing forward at the same rate. Its mass only becomes apparent at the point and time of impact as it is destroyed."
This idea does account for how a seemingly mass-less particle can impart energy or momentum upon contact.
" more specifically inertial mass, can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to the change of its speed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
Therefore, to define mass you need time. A photon may simply not experience time as is generally believed but that does not explain how it can impart energy or momentum upon obliteration.
If you think about it which is the most unlikely, 1) that a photon does not experience time, or 2) a photon does experience time as it travels backward in time but it appears to not experience time as it travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward. A photon may not seem to experience time but it does produce causality which relies upon time. In a sense time is based upon the speed of light or vice versa. Is it really impossible for a photon to travel backwards in time. A mass-less 'particle' is allowed by GR to travel faster than c so long as it does not travel slower than c.
Perhaps you could provide some evidence as to why I am wrong other than it's peachy?
Strange you would call that an accusation. See, I would have believed that you have read enough sci-pop books to tell you that a photon does not have a frame of reference and that time dilation is infinitely stretched for one of these things? You claim however that you are unaware of this? Most people who don't even read much relativity know of this...
''"A photon has no mass.
As the photon travels backward in time so its mass is cancelled by time flowing forward at the same rate. Its mass only becomes apparent at the point and time of impact as it is destroyed."
You know, recently you asked me about a model concerning the outdated theory that antiparticles where moving back in time. I take it that this is now your new fixated topic, systems moving back in time?
A photon does not have a mass, this is correct, but the psuedovector of a photon is stretched into infinity, provided by the subtle but correct equation
. Because time is stretched in this way, a photon actually takes no time to move anywhere... in fact a more accurate thing is to say, a photon's birth is the same as it's death. A photon moves nowhere in space because not a second passes for it.
This is why your theory/speculations is wrong.
''This idea does account for how a seemingly mass-less particle can impart energy or momentum upon contact.
" more specifically inertial mass, can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to the change of its speed.''
Which by default is incorrect as well because you assumption a photos experiences time (worse yet you want to see it move back in time) is faulty.
The reason why a photon imparts momentum on objects is simply because
It doesn't get simpler than that.
''Therefore, to define mass you need time.''
No you don't. In fact, it is the other way around. To define time, you require mass. Mass is not dependant on time and time is not a function of mass.
'' A photon may simply not experience time as is generally believed ''
A moment ago you said you did not know that a photon does not experience time. I said you knew this and then you accused me of strongly accusing you of things you did not know. Yet that part seems to indicate you did know this.
'' Perhaps you could provide some evidence as to why I am wrong other than it's peachy?''
The above should be enough to show you, you are wrong.
Post by: Pmb on 06/05/2012 22:16:16
A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.I might be wrong on this but I don't think so. I'm having this double checked with an expert that I know of just to be sure.
It seems to me that a particle which has zero proper mass and travels back in time is not a photon, it's a tachyon.
I'll post his results when I hear back from him,
Post by: Pmb on 07/05/2012 04:41:35
A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.I just got my questioin back and they confirmed that the sentance has no meaning.
Post by: MikeS on 07/05/2012 05:40:49
A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.I just got my questioin back and they confirmed that the sentance has no meaning.
Pete
What I am really looking for is evidence to either support or disprove the idea.
Of course the sentence has meaning. That's not the point. Presumably what they mean is if a photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward (c*) they cancel out, granted but that does not mean that the photon is not traveling backward in time at the same rate that time moves forward.
"A tachyon ( /ˈtæki.ɒn/) or tachyonic particle is a hypothetical particle that always moves faster than light. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
If photons travel c* then in one sense they do travel backward in time but overall they travel at c and so are not tachyons.
Post by: Pmb on 07/05/2012 06:37:56
What I am really looking for is evidence to either support or disprove the idea.Why?
Post by: MikeS on 07/05/2012 08:46:24
What I am really looking for is evidence to either support or disprove the idea.Why?
Why?
Because I want to know how the Universe works.
Post by: Pmb on 07/05/2012 15:54:06
Why?Okay. Now I'm curious. What led you to postulate the postulate what you did, i.e. why did you opostulatre photons traveling back in time?
Because I want to know how the Universe works.
Back to the original postulate as you stated it;
Quote
A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.What would this mean in reality?
1) What would we observe in nature in order to determine which direction in time a quantum particle particle travels?
2) How does the defining properties of a photon fit in to your postulate or do you need to create more postulates to save the first one? E.g. what is the proper mass of a photon traveling backwards in time?
3) Do a group of photons as you describe them have a total 4-momentum which is invariant?
4) For an electron to anihilate a positron, yielding two photons, what would the spacetime of this process look like?
5) Please describe the double slit experiment in terms of photons.
6) Please prove that causality wouldn't be violated if photons could travel bac in time.
Post by: MikeS on 08/05/2012 07:59:31
I postulated that photons travel backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward as the outcome of that seems to be more consistent with what we observe.
Quote
A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.
What would this mean in reality?
In reality a photon travelling backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward ‘appears’ to be exactly the same as a photon that does not experience time. However it does explain certain aspects of photons that the concept of a photon that does not experience time, does not.
1) What would we observe in nature in order to determine which direction in time a quantum particle travels?
Light travels at c. We can deduce from that, either photons do not experience time or they travel backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward. The second explanation seems to be the most likely as the first explanation would seem to imply that a photons speed is infinite which we know it is not. The second explanation does contain the arrow of time.
“If light travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward then it explains why the speed of light is not infinite. The speed of light is not infinite because the passage of time is not infinite. Time flows at the speed of light.”
Gravity travels at or above c. Gravity is a form of entropy and therefore carries the arrow of time.
2) How does the defining properties of a photon fit in to your postulate or do you need to create more postulates to save the first one? E.g. what is the proper mass of a photon traveling backwards in time?
I believe the postulate to be self-consistent and self-contained.
The proper mass of a photon travelling backward in time would be the negative of its proper mass travelling forward in time. That’s why the mass is cancelled or hidden.
3) Do a group of photons as you describe them have a total 4-momentum which is invariant?
I do not understand the math’s sufficiently to give a mathematical answer to this question.
Does this help?
“A photon has no mass but does have momentum.
As the photon travels backward in time so any mass it may have is cancelled or hidden by time flowing forward at the same rate. Its mass and momentum only become apparent at the point and time of impact as it is destroyed. At the point and time of impact it is no longer travelling backward in time.”
4) For an electron to anihilate a positron, yielding two photons, what would the spacetime of this process look like?
It would look like a Feynman diagram. Time reversible.
5) Please describe the double slit experiment in terms of photons.
Maybe this theory does not explain the double slit experiment any better than we already understand it.
A photon effectively does not experience time of travel or distance therefore it does not differentiate between the slits. In a sense it passes through both of them at the same time and can therefore interfere with itself.
6) Please prove that causality wouldn't be violated if photons could travel bac in time.
I don’t need to as I am suggesting that photons travel backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward. From our perspective they have not traveled back in time. As both ‘time’ and photons travel or progress forward at a finite ‘speed’ then causality is not violated. Causality would only be violated if photons traveled backward in time 'faster' than time flowed forward.
Post by: MikeS on 08/05/2012 10:15:29
Post by: Pmb on 08/05/2012 12:20:22
PeteThat's all meaningless until you define what the following means
I postulated that photons travel backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward as the outcome of that seems to be more consistent with what we observe.
1) The rate the time flows
2) A photon to travel backward in time
Yoiu can't just pout words on paper and expect people to take them as meaningful. That's very poor scientific philosophy.
It now appears that for every answer you give I have more than one question where I'm trying to get you to be precise in your pevious statement. In the even that this repeats itself then I'll bow out of this discussion.
Recommendation - Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.
So far I see nothing in your responses which is leading into testable laws and theories. Scientists don't just go around stating postulate and accept them because the are true, but only are true because their tautalogies, which your postulate appears to be.
Let me know when you can state some ways to test your postulate and demonstrate what this neans other than stringing words trogether into a provacative way:
Quote
A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forwardYou have yet to state a method for determining whether a particle travels backward in time. E.g. if a particle was located at P = P(0,0,0,0) at t = 0 how would you determine if it travels forward or backward in time? Note that "moving" means - "spatial relocation".
Mike - Please don't take my comments above to be provocative or insulting in any way. I am addressing your theory and trying to minimize how much of yourself is in the theory. It's both difficult and produces a headache. :-[ Buit please don't take this as me being jerk. I'm doing my best not to. Okay?
Post by: MikeS on 10/05/2012 07:01:20
I think you are being a little unfair as I have tried to answered all of your questions in a non ambiguous manner. Everything I have written is, I believe, consistent and fits in with what we know. I am not proposing anything that is not possible. It was not my intention here to write a scientific paper.
You have asked for clarity on two points.
"That's all meaningless until you define what the following means
1) The rate the time flows
2) A photon to travel backward in time"
1) The rate that time flows I agree is actually a meaningless term from the scientific point of view. However I am sure most people understand the principle. The length of a second is relative depending upon your frame of reference. The problem is one of language. When we talk about how fast something passes or flows we express that in terms of time. There is no suitable way of expressing the flow of time itself. I could and often do use the term time dilation. Unfortunately this can lead to yet more confusion as the whole concept of time dilation and time contraction are covered by the term time dilation.
If I re-write "a photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward" as "a photon travels backward in time with the same time dilation factor that time flows forward" I hope that makes it more acceptable.
2) In physics the idea of time reversal is an accepted idea (CPT). I take it you are not queering the principle of time reversal but what time reversal means to a photon?
"An object traveling at c does not experience the passage of time as time has effectively stopped. It does not experience space as distance has shrunk to zero. Either of the above is effectively the same as travelling at infinite speed.
However, light speed is finite not infinite."
If light speed were infinite then time reversal would be meaningless to a photon but light speed is not infinite therefore a photon, it would seem, can experience time reversal.
"a photon travels backward in time with the same time dilation factor that time flows forward"
For one plank unit of time the photon travels backward in time, time itself flows forward by one plank unit of time.
"Let me know when you can state some ways to test your postulate and demonstrate what this neans other than stringing words trogether into a provacative way:"
I don't really see why you regard this as a provocative idea? You do accept presumably that light travels at c and that relativity allows the existence of mass less particles that only travel faster than light. Traveling faster than light involves traveling backward in time.
All I am proposing is that a photon does not seem to experience time as it travels backward in time with the same time dilation factor that time flows forward. The two cancel with the result that a photon does not seem to experience time. Another way of looking at this is the arrow of time to a photon is double ended. A photon travels in both directions of time simultaneously. A photon that does not experience time and a photon travelling in both directions of time simultaneously are the same thing.
Does the theory make any predictions ? Yes, as mentioned in the original post.
"An object traveling at c does not experience the passage of time as time has effectively stopped. It does not experience space as distance has shrunk to zero. Either of the above is effectively the same as travelling at infinite speed.
However, light speed is finite not infinite.
Why is c finite and not infinite? Why is c the value that it is 299792458 m/s.
If light travels backward in time
It predicts that light should have a finite speed, when it appears that it should be infinite.
It predicts that "A photon cannot be localized without being destroyed.
This makes sense if a photon travels backward in time
It predicts that "A photon is it's own antiparticle.
A photon travelling backward in time
It predicts that "A photon has no mass but does have momentum.
As the photon travels backward in time so any mass it may have is cancelled or hidden by time flowing forward
It predicts "Photons travelling backwards in time
edit
added
"5) Please describe the double slit experiment in terms of photons.
A photon effectively does not experience time of travel or distance therefore it does not differentiate between the slits. In a sense it passes through both of them at the same time and can therefore interfere with itself."
If we place a detector to measure which slit the photon passes through then we destroy it. If we destroy it, we destroy one path and the interference pattern disappears.
"A photon cannot be localized without being destroyed.
This makes sense if a photon travels backward in time
end of edit
This postulate does explain why c is a finite value and not infinite. Saying simply that a photon does not experience time, does not.
Post by: MikeS on 11/05/2012 08:01:25
The electric field vector and the magnetic field vector are normally considered to be in phase. For every cycle there are two null points. Could it be that a photon is that part of the electro-magnetic wave between two null points? If so, there would be two of them per wavelength. Does this explain why light propagates in discreet packets and exhibits a wave like/point like duality?
The electric field vector and the magnetic field vector are normally considered to be in phase. There is a problem with this view of them being in phase. At the null points of the wave, energy would appear not to be conserved. To conserve energy the two components of the wave would need to be either 180 deg. out of phase, or, in some sense the wave needs to be travelling in both directions of time simultaneously.
If the two components of the wave are 180 deg. out of phase then it is difficult to explain why light comes in discrete packets and why it has a wavelike/point like duality.
The simplest explanation therefore is that photons propagate in both directions of time simultaneously. They do that by propagating backward in time with the same time dilation factor that time flows forward.
Light is an electro-magnetic wave. Electromagnetic waves can have any wavelength λ or frequency f as long as λf = c.
If you consider photons as not experiencing time or distance then both wavelength and frequency become meaningless.
If you consider photons as traveling backward in time with the same time dilation factor that time progresses forward then they (photons) have both frequency and wavelength.
Post by: Pmb on 11/05/2012 15:48:09
PeteI never expected that from you, or anyone else, nor was I requesting it. What I myself do is this - When someone asks me a question then the way I answer it is to be precise as possible while at the same time not talk over their heads - Talk to their knowledge base and be respectful about it. Take the current topic as an example: Someone says
I think you are being a little unfair as I have tried to answered all of your questions in a non ambiguous manner. Everything I have written is, I believe, consistent and fits in with what we know. I am not proposing anything that is not possible. It was not my intention here to write a scientific paper.
1) The rate the time flows
2) A photon to travel backward in time
These assertions are either wrong or they are meaningless. The first is meaningless because, in the context you used it, asking for the flow of a flow has no meaning. Rate is flow of time. So you used "what is the rate of time passage of the rate of time" which has no meaning. In many other contexts that exist it is meaninglful. This just isn't one.
It might be difficult to see because things which have absolutely no meaning are difficult to see what is wrong when them. Sorry I can't explain it better.
A photon cannot travel back in time. If a particle travels back in time it is a tachyon. The proper mass of a tachyon is non-zero while the proper mass of a photon is zero. We could debate this untill the end of time but I'm afraid that you'll have to find somone else. I'm just plain bored with it. Best wishes MikeS.
Post by: MikeS on 12/05/2012 08:54:44
Although you choose to ignore it I have already addressed those points.
Post by: Pmb on 12/05/2012 14:41:50
PeteOnly I am equipped to determine whether I know/ignore something or not and I didn't ignore anything you said. Worst case I may have missed it by accident but I never ignored it. At this point I have no interest in this thread. I thought I a;ready said that but I guess that got lost in the shuffle.
Although you choose to ignore it I have already addressed those points.
Post by: Pmb on 12/05/2012 17:14:49
You asserted that
It could be argued that anything traveling faster than c would travel backward in time.This means that you're claiming that all tachyons travel in time. One of the main reasons I've steared cleared of this thread because I prefer to stear clear of all subjects of which I don't have a strong background in the theory of the subject. Up until just now I was weak in Tachyon and I consider myself still to be weak on it. But I did find the following article located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
Quote
Reinterpretation Principle
The reinterpretation principle asserts that a tachyon sent back in time can always be reinterpreted as a tachyon traveling forward in time, because observers cannot distinguish between the emission and absorption of tachyons. The attempt to detect a tachyon from the future (and violate causality) would actually create the same tachyon and send it forward in time (which is causal).
However, this principle is not widely accepted as resolving the paradoxes. Instead, what would be required to avoid paradoxes is that unlike any known particle, tachyons do not interact in any way and can never be detected or observed, because otherwise a tachyon beam could be modulated and used to create an anti-telephone or a "logically pernicious self-inhibitor". All forms of energy are believed to interact at least gravitationally, and many authors state that superluminal propagation in Lorentz invariant theories always leads to causal paradoxes.
Post by: Phractality on 12/05/2012 20:05:27
Time depends on cycles, and photons don't cycle unless, as in my model, they are locked in orbit around one another. A particle consisting of a pair of orbiting photons experiences a cycle of time each time its photons make one circuit around their common center. That cycle is a constant from the particle's point of view, but it varies with relative speed of an outside observer. The photons move at the same speed to all observers, but they travel farther per cycle around a moving center than around a stationary center.
Post by: MikeS on 13/05/2012 08:27:50
I think the notion of FTL things going backwards in time is a misinterpretation of relativity. I think the equations yield imaginary clock speeds, not negative clock speeds.
Time depends on cycles, and photons don't cycle unless, as in my model, they are locked in orbit around one another. A particle consisting of a pair of orbiting photons experiences a cycle of time each time its photons make one circuit around their common center. That cycle is a constant from the particle's point of view, but it varies with relative speed of an outside observer. The photons move at the same speed to all observers, but they travel farther per cycle around a moving center than around a stationary center.
Light is an electro-magnetic wave. Waves have wavelength and frequency. Frequency is cycles per second.
Post by: MikeS on 13/05/2012 09:03:59
"A tachyon or tachyonic particle is a hypothetical particle that always moves faster than light."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
Light speed or the null point of time is a barrier. Nothing travelling sub-luminal can cross it, neither can anything travelling super-luminal. On its side of the barrier and from its perspective it is travelling forward in time at sub-luminal speed. If it were to cross the barrier then from our perspective it would be going super-luminal and backward in time. If it is going backward in time then we can not be aware of, or interact with it.
Post by: Phractality on 13/05/2012 20:35:44
Light doesn't cycle in its own reference frame. A photon has only one cycle, and that is only by theorizing that the electromagnetic field at a point in space cycles as the photon passes. In the reference frame of a particle, a photon only exists at the instant it is emitted or absorbed. The duration of that instant can only be assigned a duration with respect to cycles that occur within the particle.I think the notion of FTL things going backwards in time is a misinterpretation of relativity. I think the equations yield imaginary clock speeds, not negative clock speeds.
Time depends on cycles, and photons don't cycle unless, as in my model, they are locked in orbit around one another. A particle consisting of a pair of orbiting photons experiences a cycle of time each time its photons make one circuit around their common center. That cycle is a constant from the particle's point of view, but it varies with relative speed of an outside observer. The photons move at the same speed to all observers, but they travel farther per cycle around a moving center than around a stationary center.
Light is an electro-magnetic wave. Waves have wavelength and frequency. Frequency is cycles per second.
The situation is somewhat different if we're taking about a continuous radio wave radiating from an antenna. Yes; it has cycles in an inertial reference frame. An observer can count those cycles as they pass. A hypothetical observer traveling at the speed of light with the radio wave would not observe its cycles; to him, time could only be reckoned relative to something other than that wave. Of course, no observer can travel at the speed of light, so it is meaningless to say that such an observer would not experience time. That observer is purely imaginary, and for him time is imaginary. Likewise, for an imaginary FTL observer. His time is imaginary, not negative.
Post by: MikeS on 20/05/2012 07:44:07
Light doesn't cycle in its own reference frame. A photon has only one cycle, and that is only by theorizing that the electromagnetic field at a point in space cycles as the photon passes. In the reference frame of a particle, a photon only exists at the instant it is emitted or absorbed. The duration of that instant can only be assigned a duration with respect to cycles that occur within the particle.I think the notion of FTL things going backwards in time is a misinterpretation of relativity. I think the equations yield imaginary clock speeds, not negative clock speeds.
Time depends on cycles, and photons don't cycle unless, as in my model, they are locked in orbit around one another. A particle consisting of a pair of orbiting photons experiences a cycle of time each time its photons make one circuit around their common center. That cycle is a constant from the particle's point of view, but it varies with relative speed of an outside observer. The photons move at the same speed to all observers, but they travel farther per cycle around a moving center than around a stationary center.
Light is an electro-magnetic wave. Waves have wavelength and frequency. Frequency is cycles per second.
The situation is somewhat different if we're taking about a continuous radio wave radiating from an antenna. Yes; it has cycles in an inertial reference frame. An observer can count those cycles as they pass. A hypothetical observer traveling at the speed of light with the radio wave would not observe its cycles; to him, time could only be reckoned relative to something other than that wave. Of course, no observer can travel at the speed of light, so it is meaningless to say that such an observer would not experience time. That observer is purely imaginary, and for him time is imaginary. Likewise, for an imaginary FTL observer. His time is imaginary, not negative.
The mainstream view would be. Light does not have a reference frame. The concept of a reference frame relies on both time and length.
As the photon has no duration, how can it complete even one cycle?
By your definition, it does not cycle, therefore it has no duration.
Could you explain in more detail what you mean by a cycle of time?
If a photon travels backward in time with the same time dilation factor that time flows forward then a photon does experience both time and distance although it would appear not to as they are both cancelled. In this case it is probably fair to say that a photon does have a reference frame but appears not to.
Post by: bilijoe on 24/05/2012 21:13:47
Post by: MikeS on 25/05/2012 07:32:59
It is my understanding that anything traveling at the speed of light (e.g., a photon) does not experience the passage of time. Since "speed" is defined as 'distance / time', the term (speed) becomes indeterminate without time, or 'undefined' if time = 0. So, I have to wonder, if light, and everything else "traveling" at light speed (everything in the universe except for us and our tangible "reality") is not subject to the passage of time, might it be that those things are not "traveling" at all; that the speed of light is actually zero, and it is our frame of reference that is "traveling" at 299792458 m/s? Might that explain why, regardless of the relative motion of the source vs. the observer, the speed of light is always seen as the same (constant) value--because it is actually (some cosmic "value" for) zero, and zero = zero = zero? Additionally, if something does not experience the passage of time, is it possible for it to change (i.e., age, decay, evolve, etc.)?
Hi bilijoe and welcome to the forum.
Quite right.
I would agree with that, it’s what we call time. The passage of time flows at 299792458 m/s.
Presumably not.
As I understand it, that still leaves “a photon travels backward in time with the same time dilation factor that time flows forward” as a possibility.
Moreover, I believe, it explains quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment.
Post by: imatfaal on 25/05/2012 18:22:50
Bilijoe - no object with any mass can travel at the speed of light - there is no physics that can tell you how time passes for an object travelling at the speed of light because the very concept is against the theories of modern physics. If you break the rules to ask the question - you cannot use the rules to give an answer.
We cannot assume that we are travelling at c - if we do then we are no longer in a valid inertial frame of reference and our physics breaks down. we can assume we are travelling at a constant speed less than c and all our physics and calculations still work out fine - this is relativity; we can do the same sums for the asteroid heading toward the space ship or the space ship heading towards the asteroid or any combination of the two and get the same answers.
Frankly we do not know or claim to understand an object outside the passage of time - there are no situations in which we could observe this happening and that makes it difficult to create a scientific theory.
Post by: yor_on on 28/05/2012 23:50:23
We would still need 'frames of reference' though. Using those you define all other 'motion' relative your own wrist watch and ruler. I'm not sure how to define it from the idea of it being your frame of reference solely that travels at 'c' unless you mean that all you compare it too adapts, the same as in relativity?
Or maybe I'm just slow here?
Time seems to be a description of all sorts of 'changes' we observe, from interactions in matter to the 'motion' we can observe looking out in the universe. All of those are described by one and the same 'information carrier'. And that is bosons, as 'photons'. We expect those to be what communicates 'change' in matter as well as in descriptions of something 'moving' relative ourselves.
Now, if those 'photons' doesn't 'move', how would you describe an interaction between particles?
And how would you describe the moon circling our Earth?
But I'm not sure how to see the idea, in a way it's quite thought provoking.
Post by: simplified on 13/06/2012 16:27:13
Post by: loose_nukes on 03/07/2012 22:30:46
Because time is stretched in this way, a photon actually takes no time to move anywhere... in fact a more accurate thing is to say, a photon's birth is the same as it's death. A photon moves nowhere in space because not a second passes for it.
This is why your theory/speculations is wrong.
''This idea does account for how a seemingly mass-less particle can impart energy or momentum upon contact.
" more specifically inertial mass, can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to the change of its speed.''
Which by default is incorrect as well because you assumption a photos experiences time (worse yet you want to see it move back in time) is faulty.
The reason why a photon imparts momentum on objects is simply because
It doesn't get simpler than that.
''Therefore, to define mass you need time.''
No you don't. In fact, it is the other way around. To define time, you require mass. Mass is not dependant on time and time is not a function of mass.
'' A photon may simply not experience time as is generally believed ''
A moment ago you said you did not know that a photon does not experience time. I said you knew this and then you accused me of strongly accusing you of things you did not know. Yet that part seems to indicate you did know this.
'' Perhaps you could provide some evidence as to why I am wrong other than it's peachy?''
The above should be enough to show you, you are wrong.
[/quote]Excellent post wulf................
To which I would like to add;
Personally, I perceive time in this manner; Nothing exists but the present. Both the past and the future are only figments of our imagination. Time is an illusion with purpose. Where the photon has only it's origin and destination, with nothing betwixt, we have our origin and an infinite number of present circumstances between our beginning and end. The former things are only memories of those circumstances and the future will only be real when it's in our present..............
Post by: Robro on 06/07/2012 07:54:09
In my thinking, thanks to my dad, the entire infinite universe is comprised of electromagnetic phenomenon only. Nothing has ever been proven to exist otherwise. Since photons comprise all matter and are responsible for all of mass and gravity and reality, we would be in trouble if the photons went into the past.
Two photons were on a journey. They had only met an infinite number of times in the past, however this time they came so close in proximity to one another that each photons emitted field was strong enough to cause their saturation of maximum amplitude to be offset toward each other, in the direction of increasing field strength. This excited the photons and made them lock into their own fields in a half cycle. The photons were now in a phase locked loop and had "Popped" into existence as electrons from seemingly nothing. But their travels are not over, and the new electrons will meet again someday, maybe in a photonic state or as some other particle after they have sampled the endless, ageless, infinitely diverse...universe.
And, "Consciousness is merely the universe viewing itself through a microscope"...
R.L.Brown