[yor_on]

It becomes a sort of fractal, doesn't it? All those 'centers'? A 'center' in a 'center' in a 'center' in a **, add infinitum. What can confuse one thinking of it, is the fact that each measurement done is a 'outcome'. And the only ones we normally connect to measurements are ourselves. Conscious beings deciding and going through with a measurement, presenting us with a outcome. But if you look at it a little differently then all interactions and outcomes is the result of 'observers measuring' each other. and the proof of that is the 'outcomes'.

[yor_on]

But I don't think that is the best way to see it, to me it seems better to look at what the smallest 'bit' of a center can be. That makes it easier to test, than to consider all combinations of a infinite connection of 'centers', depending on definition, coexisting.
=

Can one photon present us with a 'gravity/mass'?
Not as I know. It's many photon 'interactions' creating it, theoretically.
Energy is expressions from transformations.

If we now assumed that photons under some restriction could present us with a rest mass, and if we assume a constant propagation since the Big Bang, and if we assume a expansion. Why don't we notice it change, the gravity? Because it is assumed to take itself out 'globally'? But even so we could assume 'patches' of space where the gravity might fluctuate, due to a uneven proportionality of directions of propagating light quanta. And what more is true? Change your coordinate system, and you will change gravity. But that is inertially measuring relative comoving with the preferred direction of gravity, isn't it? But the one about light quanta becomes extremely tricky to test I think.

But it is also so that a expansion must present us with a weaker gravity, the further away galaxies etc, becomes from each other. Although locally the same? That can't be true if gravity's reach is infinite.

And when it comes to gravity the view from locality, and measurements, state that what you measure is what you get. So changing your coordinate system is changing your reality. That, I think, was Einsteins take on it too.
=

Does a photon take up 'space'?
Not as I know.

A particle present us with both mass and gravity though.
=

But if you heat particles up they gains 'energy' and so a bigger rest mass, and that is testable. What about a sun? How much of its gravity is due to heat? The sum of its particles in a cold state would present us with what gravity?

If you could 'stop' the sun for a moment, the total sum of its mass should be the same in a cold as in a heated state (counting in the heat), if I'm thinking right? The energy it spends is internally produced, and what is produced as 'heat' is in fact mass being transformed into 'energy' (photons/waves). If we now define it so that photons under certain circumstances can present us with a rest mass, and so a gravity, where does gravity disappear as a sun 'burns up'? In the directionality of the photons?

[yor_on]

So what is a straight line?

That depends on where you live. There are several way to define it. Earth is big, you can draw a straight line on a paper and all you ask will call that line straight. But if you drew it between Canberra in Australia to let's say New York then. Would it still be a straight line? If you use the original paper to compare the line there with the one on the ground you would probably call it straight, but imagine being on the moon looking 'down' at earth studying that line. Does it curve? Can a curve be a straight line?

Space is curved (warped), but, space isn't there? Space is a classical negation of matter. Where matter isn't, is space. How can something not existing be curved? Turn that around, what makes you think that you can define any form to something not existing? Yeah, one way, experiments. And according to them, space is curved. how do you define a curvature then? You use world lines, and where they get together you find a center. All mass becomes a center, even though the curvature, or different world lines, not always meet in the perfect middle of that mass. It's also called geodesics, the paths of least resistance as I sometimes think of it, Alternatively the paths costing the least energy to traverse (free fall).

So what is a straight line? Why not define it as the path that costs the least energy? And if you use that definition you just should need to measure the path taken in a free fall to see what geometry defining that 'straight path'.

But a point like particle, can it exist? A particle taking so little, or none, place? If we can't measure it? How can it exist? again it becomes a matter of from where you stand looking at it. From close up it exist, from infinitely far away it disappear. So is that the definition? But if they take up no space at all, where is the place where they do 'take place'? they are also called 'bosons', but as we know already some 'bosons' do take a place whereas other, as photons, are able to exist super imposed upon each other, and still take no more place. you can in fact collect all photons there is, put them in one 'point' and still they won't take a place. We can verify that they exist due to the energy and momentum they express when interacting with matter, but that's the only time, and place, where we can verify a photon experimentally.

The recoil matter shows as a photon leaves does not let us see the photon, if we tried to measure it we would annihilate it at that same time. As there is a symmetry to the recoil and the annihilation, and as we know of motion from our observations of matter inside a space it becomes natural to connect the recoil we measure to the annihilation, and expect the same to be valid for photons, as we observe for matter moving inside a space.

But if we have more degrees of freedom existing then?
Than those we know how to measure?

Consider it from the ideas Einstein presented, and use 'locality'. Also look at what is measurable. If you accept that 'c' is a constant, no matter how you move relative the light speed measured. If you accept the equivalence principle between accelerations and gravity, not as a apparent 'gravity', but accept what the experiments tell you inside that black box. Then you have as much indirect evidence for us needing more degrees of freedom, as you have for the idea of propagation of photons, as I see it, or more.

The problem is defining what those degrees are. We have defined it as three 'space like' degrees of freedom with one 'time like' degree of freedom, having a 'arrow of time' pointing one way. And that is the only way it points experimentally as I know.

Can you rearrange that?

[yor_on]

It becomes a really crazy universe if you want to keep it 'indivisibly same' for us all, at the same time you find that each observer can be seen as having their own 'clock', and their own 'ruler' to measure all other 'frames of reference' with. I see no way to connect those, except by 'c'. Using a Lorentz transformation just tell you there is a equilibrium/symmetry to it. That i can translate my 'time and ruler' to yours, and yours to mine.

But using locality as your guide you find that if frames of reference becomes, let's call it 'super imposed', the 'time' and the ruler are equivalent. Exactly the same. Doesn't matter where you do that measurement as long as you share a same 'frame of reference'. And that is interesting, but there is a problem with it.

How large can a 'frame of reference' ideally be? And is there a limit to it? That's why I call it 'super imposing'.

[yor_on]

Super imposing because that must be the ideal definition of something sharing that exact same 'center', or local 'frame of reference'. Everything is in different motion, isn't it so. You can take two objects and define either one to be still. relative the other being in motion, assuming uniform motion here. Can you do the same with three uniformly moving objects, ten, a thousand? Of course you can, we do it each time we go out at night to look at the stars. They move, not us. But they're all in different motions relative each other, even though uniform all of them. From that we see that there is motion, not only relative but real differences in 'speed'. And we call that motion. What about light then? Also in motion you say, but with a difference, always at 'c', no matter your 'relative motion' except in a acceleration, which according to my way of looking at it also is a gravity.

What if light doesn't propagate?

Or expressed differently, what would be needed for a universe, such as ours, to have motion if the starting premise is that light is a 'static phenomena'. How would you define motion then, from what premises.

[yor_on]

That one is terribly weird, as what we're taking about is what we define as 'force carriers'. but it's about time too, or more specifically about its arrow.  But it doesn't explain anything really. And it's not that I doubt 'motion' per se, it's just that I don't know what it is. If you move in this universe really fast, then the universe contracts.

And that is your reality. Move close to the speed of light, expending energy in a acceleration. Then stop accelerate..
You now stopped spending energy, but your universe must keep its contraction relative your 'uniform motion'. And the 'new' distance you measure is the real one, for you.

Someone at another 'speed' relative yours will also find you time dilated. as well as finding another distance than yours, assuming you both travel in the same direction measuring the same way approximately. And it becomes two different universes. One that is his, one that is yours. And what changed due to your speed is not one thing, but the whole SpaceTime you measure. But as far as you can measure you're the exact same at that speed as you were at any other, and all experiments you do will give the same result, assuming uniform motion.

You might think of it this way, accelerate a particle as close to light speed that is humanly possible. What happens to its room, will it shrink? Assume it to accelerate a little more, will the room it define itself in shrink even more? Is there a limit to that? At what point is the 'future', as in the distance measured before your motion, that you might have left to travel in, in your face No room to move.

[yor_on]

And there is a even more interesting view you can make. If 'c' is a constant then it is a constant in your body too, as the 'force carriers', connecting particles, all are photons, as far as I understand. Exchange the particle above to yourself, assume yourself to now be in that situation that there is very little, to no, room for you left to move in, due to your overall relativistic speed. What happens to the force carries inside your body? Have they accelerated too? The geometry you find is changed, although you no longer expend energy, but everything is the same with you as before. As you now are in a uniform motion again. If it weren't so then we would be able to differ between uniform motions, if enclosed in that black box, without tidal references to track. But it is a premise we make there, that all uniform motions are the exact same, and so far it works experimentally. Everything moves at 'c', your body's photons, the ships photons, the photons creating the acceleration, the universe's photons too. All those are measurable, by anyone interested, to move at 'c' at all times. Doesn't matter what you do, speed up or not. So there you are, no forward room left to move in, and at no time did any changed 'speed' really happen, when it comes to you measuring photons, inside as well as outside yourself. Energy levels may change relative your measurement, but not the speed of those photons. So what 'speeds' in that motion?

[yor_on]

That is a theoretical, and what I think of as, 'static' frame. The 'photon frame' if I may, in where they are a constant, to all observers measuring them. And that frame seems to me more of a 'global' reality than us referring to a same distance, or clock beat, as a proof of a indivisible universe.

But using that idea we meet another universe than the one described by matter and space. Photons have no size, photons can be superimposed, photons don't exist until measured. The universe as a 'field' with 'excitations'? Then we too are 'excitations' in it, as we use force carriers to communicate between particles of rest mass (matter).

[yor_on]

And what does such reasoning do to 'dimensions'?
Is there a 'photonic dimension'?

on off on off.

[yor_on]

Matter is so weird. And, to me, the weirdest thing about it is its constituents, and spin. Spin is not anything rotating, instead it is something that somehow reminds us of rotating, without doing it. If I now assumed some proportionality in scale to photons, quarks, particles, and reasoned such as, it is when you add them up you get new effects, or 'emergences'?

Yeah, I really enjoy the simpler things in life:)
At the very least I like to simplify.

Then we have one timeless 'degree of freedom' aka 'dimension' that then would consist of photons/'bosons' that we then due to 'interactions' scale up to quarks, gluon's, particles and finally matter. And through the scaling up you get new emergences as temperatures, and, what more? Everything we measure?

How would a 'photonic dimension' behave if one assumed it?

Can you say it has a arrow? And what would a 'being' immersed in that think of our SpaceTime? A illusion, right
One thing is sure, we exist through outcomes.

[yor_on]

If it has no arrow, then it is wrong to expect it to intrinsically fit what we define as its properties, including a speed. Those properties are a effect of the limitations we meet, and how we measure, inside a arrow. When you measure a speed, you first define a way to measure a length and then a way to measure something moving that length, using a clock. The clock is arbitrarily defined into even chunks of 'time'.

But without a clock there can be no distance, you need both existing for you to be able to measure. If a photon is timeless intrinsically it will not propagate, as we define it, not from a local point of view. And that is what I wonder about, locality and measurements.
==

Assume it is a 'field'.
Why does it have excitations?
And what makes it ordered so that we experience our arrow of time?

Could you assume a constant excitation, with only those creating our 'room and arrow' perceivable by us?
(And that was presumably the weirdest thought I have today

Maybe a better way to put it is, how does something intrinsically timeless create a SpaceTime?

[yor_on]

There is a difference to photons versus waves if you think of it this way. A photon is a 'dot', a wave is something with a length, and heights/troughs. The first one is 'dimension less', but a wave needs our three degrees of freedom to be described (the room). Both though needs a arrow to become a 'outcome'.

[yor_on]

What would you call a wave, two dimensional? Then you have a charge moving, it creates a electric and a magnetic field, perpendicular to each other, as observed by some 'inertial observer', standing still relative its 'motion'. That field needs three dimensions to be described classically. Although there seem to be ideas and equations assuming it to be possible to describe with fewer dimensions, it's not what we see. The forces act out from the charge in a three dimensional way, it's two vectors, not a scalar and a vector, so although you can reduct it mathematically it then becomes a description of something 'not here' as I think of it.

(A two dimensional lattice is a lattice in where you can ignore the third dimension as it have no direct influence on your measurements, as I understands it. That does not state that the third dimension have disappeared. It's used to describe graphene lattices for example)

[yor_on]

We live in a three dimensional world, every time you hug someone you can get that confirmed but the dimensions, including the fourth (the arrow) are also the 'degrees of freedom' that things can 'move in'. It's from that world we find a photon to have a 'speed', and it's from that world we find its 'timelessness' experimentally, primary through astronomical observations as I think.

Its timelessness depends then from where we stand, looking at it. Or you can turn that one around, we are the ones finding time to play a part for defining it, as in our 'arrow of time'.

So is the arrow an illusion?
It can't be for us, it's part of evolution and entropy. Both assumes arrows.

[yor_on]

One nice way to define it would be to give time some imaginary magnitude, from null as in a photon, to ??
But that is not how we perceive time locally. You moving relativistically will still find your clock and ruler to 'behave as always'. And any experiment you can do will verify that you're 'locally correct' thinking so. Imagining 'densities' of different 'time clouds' depending on where you are, or do, is not correct. Not if you accept that the only way we can verify 'reality' is by repeatable experiments confirming, and joining, our observations into one reality.
==

There is another simple argument against it. Your (local) measurement of some other 'frame of references' time depends on velocity/speed. So you changing your speed must find the 'other persons' to age differently. You can assume three observers having three speeds, relative one earth they all measure, getting three definitions of the 'aging' involved there. All of them originating at that earth, all of them returning to it in their life times. For simplicity we can assume that they left together, and arrive back together.

Are all three right?

As far as I understands it they are
So how would one earth have three different 'agings', simultaneously?

Earth, loosely defined as being in one 'frame of reference' have only one 'aging' locally, same for all involved, instead the people returning will find themselves to have aged differently relative that. And relative each other.

But no one found their 'time' to change locally, as experimentally verified.

[yor_on]

And all of this comes from one fact, as I see it at least. That 'c' exist. Or better expressed, is a 'constant', defining what 'time' is. And you can split 'c' down to Plank scale, getting those smallest, physically imaginable, even chunks of 'time'. But can you pass that scale? The arrow should scaling-wise end there as I expect. I'm not sure about 'time' though. As a wave in a medium, the arrow seems split-able into smaller and smaller parts, just as you can magnify that wave into smaller and smaller parts, but I think it breaks down at Plank scale. From there it seems to become meaningless trying to define smaller 'bits' of a 'speed' physically.

If this is true then the arrow needs us to exist All of us, and the room we exist in.
And 'time'? Is nothing we can define, maybe we can call it 'timelessness', but there needs to be something from where the arrow can emerge. That very small place is in a way the very place the Big Bang might have came from too. And in Einsteins world the universe needs to be four-dimensional, you can't just pick out time and treat it as something not existing, because then you left SpaceTime.

[yor_on]

Okay, how about this

If I relate 'c' to the arrow, then define it such as becoming a unchanging value locally, able to superimpose all frames of reference into one single frame, all frames becoming equal locally.

Then I might imagine the arrow as a constant unchanging value, introducing relative motion, accelerations and 'forces'. To do that I imagine something otherwise static, also assuming some more degree of freedom allowing us different descriptions of forces and motion, as described from our local measurements.

We have one degree of freedom in 'c' being 'c', no matter where you measure it locally. And I'm including accelerations in this, assuming that they are explained through Einsteins equivalence principle. Because to make it work we need 'c' to be a constant as I expect.

Then 'c' is a description of a arrow that you can cut into slices, each slice defined from locality, and each slice static. But you need something more to make it work. Assume that each point in each slice have a theoretically same value. Meaning that although I may measure that point differently than you, its 'intrinsic' value is unchanging from some theoretical standpoint.

At the same time as all points will be found to be the same, if joined, they present us with different value(s) when comparing points, as measured from locally done experiments.

You need something explaining why. What would be 'motion' in such a scenario?

[yor_on]

Isn't that a really weird property?

'c' being 'c' everywhere?
Does that tell you that our classical descriptions of motion is correct.

[yor_on]

If you go out from a strictly local perspective the degree of freedom seems like a cone, widening as you compare your point of reference to others. Like cones beside cones, beside cones, making up one single 'frozen' slice of SpaceTime, or a multitude of SpaceTimes, all joined through the 'force carriers' light becomes. Cones are not a good description in that it assumes a arrow, but it still feels as a working description to me. Maybe you could assign it some other value though, or degree of freedom?

What would make a lot of SpaceTimes into one?
'c'?
=

You might think of those cones as having a temporal direction though, then also imagine that each instant still being 'frozen'. One way of defining it could be from a perspective in where everything that is, and ever will come to be, already in some way exist, outside our limitations. Then the arrow (constantly same locally) would describe our journey through that static reality.

What that seems to imply to me is then that, as we all define reality differently according to relativity (and so locality), the degrees of freedom needed for such a perspective is all points ever existing, through it all.

[yor_on]

heh, I keep on writing, some of it just plain wrong, most probably. A wave is one dimensional according to the 'paper definition' in where you can see a wave as only needing one dimension, even though it has troughs and heights. But to me that wave, if it has the freedom to move in any way dissimilar to 'point like' feels more as something two dimensional. and it all goes back to what a dimension or degree of freedom should be seen as. I would call one dimensionality 'point like' as a photon, and as wave is depicted as well, a wave? It has more degrees of freedom than our point particle. I would not use a paper to describe it, instead I would look at what we believe it can do.