[MikeS (OP)]

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.

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.

[simplified]

If you travel from present time to past,and I travel from present time to future.Then how can we meet?

[yor_on]

"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'.

[Pmb]

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.

[butchmurray]

Time absolutely exists for a photon. From the perspective of the photon something will change. If there is a before or after there is time.

[MikeS (OP)]

"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.

[MikeS (OP)]

A photon can not 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.
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.

[Æthelwulf]

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.

[MikeS (OP)]

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?

[Æthelwulf]

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.

[Pmb]

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,

[Pmb]

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.

[MikeS (OP)]

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.

[Pmb]

What I am really looking for is evidence to either support or disprove the idea. 

Why?

[MikeS (OP)]

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.

[Pmb]

Why?
Because I want to know how the Universe works.

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?

Back to the original postulate as you stated it;

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.

[MikeS (OP)]

Pete

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.

[MikeS (OP)]

Photons travelling backwards in time at the same rate that time flows forward may also explain 'spooky action at a distance' and what's wrong with Bell's Inequality.

[Pmb]

Pete

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.

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

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:

A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward

You 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?

[MikeS (OP)]

Pete

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 at the same rate with the same time dilation factor 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."
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 at the same ratewith the same time dilation factor that time flows forward.  Whilst traveling backward in time it remains in all senses invisible."

It predicts that "A photon is it's own antiparticle.
A photon travelling backward in time at the same rate with the same time dilation factor that time flows forward looks the same as a photon travelling forward in time at the same rate with the same time dilation factor that time flows backward."

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 at the same rate with the same time dilation factor. (+mass + -mass = 0.) Its mass and momentum only becomes apparent at the point and time of impact as it is destroyed.  As it is destroyed it has no mass but it has imparted momentum.   At the point and time of impact it is no longer travelling backward ( or both ways) in time."

It predicts "Photons travelling backwards in time at the same rate with the same time dilation factor that time flows forward may also explain 'spooky action at a distance' and what's wrong with Bell's Inequality."

edit
added
"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."
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 at the same rate with the same time dilation factor that time flows forward.  Whilst traveling backward in time it remains in all senses invisible."  When you measure it you destroy it.  Therefore, you can not know in which direction the photon passes through the slit as you cannot measure the same photon twice.
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.