Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • Quark

Gerry's Achievements


Quark (2/13)



  1. There indeed are many theories and laws pertaining to the fabric of our universe. I recently forward a thesis of my own ideas in this forum, in another thread. It is apparent, given some thoughtful feedback, that this first effort was, admittedly, rather poor from physics point of view. Embarrassed, but not discouraged! It has thus been rewritten, with arguments clearer, but also it remains a work in progress, and is still considered rough around some of the edges. Super thanks to all who contributed and to those who might still yet do so. Years ago, people placed the earth as the center of the universe and envisioned a sun that revolved around it. Indeed, what a stir it caused to find otherwise. These days, relativity promotes a lot of sophistication, leading to new views about the universe and our place in it. However, the general frame of reference, the center of the universe per say, still remains “our world”, namely, spacetime. I do ponder an alternate “center of the universe”, one which is non-inertial and traditionally atypical to physics. Physics prefers inertial things vs. non-inertial things which, at first glance, may well seem as backward or irrelevant. I am reminded of a college instructor who once stated “if you can’t seem to solve something, flip it upside down and have another look!” Specifically, I wish to look at what momentum and spacetime are by looking at their converse, that of “no momentum, and no spacetime”. Doing so quickly begs the questions “Does such a frame physically “exist”, and even if it does, is there something to be learned by defining and analyzing it?” These are indeed good questions, which have been asked of me before. My answers were and remain “yes”. Following is my rational. A universe without momentum or time is “somewhat known” to physics via relativity, not because this special universe can be observed directly, but because relativity hints, via mathematics, of the nature of certain things which “tend toward” having no momentum, geometry or duration, as in, a variable is valid so long as “…..” is not zero. Speculation about the nature of these end points remains a valid area of study. Understandably, philosophy creeps into this arena. My thesis has 4 parts, which is 11+ pages in MSWORD. Only PART 1, which provides a foundation for the remainder, is post here. Subsequent parts can also be post, upon request. PART 1 – PHOTONS REVEAL TO US A NON-INERTIAL, TIMELESS UNIVERSE PART 2 – A TIMELESS UNIVERSE IS A BASELINE UNIVERSE, FULL OF POTENTIAL ENERGY PART 3 – GRAVITONS COEXIST IN THIS TIMELESS UNIVERSE PART 4 – GOING FURTHER – A TIMELESS UNIVERSE AS A FOUNDATION FOR SPACETIME _________________________________ PART 1 – PHOTONS REVEAL TO US A NON-INERTIAL, TIMELESS UNIVERSE I wish to start with photons. What is known: Photons are predicted to be massless, to have zero electric charge and integer spin, and to have intertwined magnetic and electrostatic potentials. It is a quantized “packet” of energy with wave-particle duality. They travel at a constant speed in spacetime, c, regardless of the spacetime position ® or speed (v) of an observer. According to relativity, traveling at the speed of a moving photon, were v = c, is a purely hypothetical situation, unattainable due to the physical impossibility of accelerating mass to the speed of light. However, for sake of discussion, consider a frame wherein the photon is ‘at rest’; this is a non-inertial frame for the photon. The following arguments are speculative of what this frame represents with regard to the fabric of the universe, per my understanding of relativity. 1. As determined by special relativity, s^2 = dr^2 - c^2 x dt^2 represents a spacetime interval s with r being spacial, t being time and c being the speed of light. 2. A non-inertial photon (as particle) “tends toward” a zero time interval dt with a null spacetime path, hence it has a zero spacetime interval s. a. With ds approaching zero, a non-inertial photon particle tends to not have any geometric size and tends to not have a fixed path in spacetime. b. With dt approaching zero, the particle tends toward timeless duration, i. “in a vacuum, a photon experiences no passage of (proper) time between emission and absorption.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_photons . ii. There is also no time-like spacetime interval for this frame, traveling at the speed of light. c. “Events which occur to or by a photon along its path (i.e., while travelling at c, the speed of light) all have light-like separation.” Light like separation has S^2 = 0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime_interval . d. All told, a photon in this frame tends toward being a singularity, without geometry, separation or duration. e. In such a frame, this is clearly not a photon particle or wave as we observe it in spacetime; rather, it is a “potential photon particle/wave” – call it “photon potential”. 3. The energy of a photon in spacetime is entirely kinetic in nature – its definition and existence as “photon” is based on its having “momentum”, per Planck’s relation, relatively speaking. a. A photon’s energy state, due to momentum, tends toward zero in this non-inertial frame. b. Without momentum, a photon tends toward having ONLY kinetic “potential”; it is fully capable of moving but isn’t moving. c. With only potential, it exists in darkness; unlit, unfired. d. The kinetic energy of a photon in spacetime becomes potential kinetic energy in this non-inertial frame: i. It is as if the particle were “compressed” into a PURELY null state; no space, no time, no path, no momentum. ii. It exists only in a state of “pure photon potentiality”, as if “nothing”, yet it maintains the ‘energy stuff’ of a photon. “Nothing”, in this regard, is not a void or vacuum; rather, it represents a potential energy state without any momentum – a “nothing energy state”. That is, “a photon is a fundamental force of nature, nothing in spacetime except ‘photon potential’, a potential which expresses itself as a photon particle with a wave-like character in spacetime.” iii. This phenomenon agrees, in theory, with one of the principles associated with a Lorenzian manifold, whereby “Two observers (one in each reference frame) may describe the same event p but obtain different descriptions.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime_interval . We see “moving photons” whereas the reference frame sees “potential photons” – they are the same energy, only seen differently via different frames. Boundary conditions being equal, the two frames MUST contain the same energy as it is only the observer who is different, not the object of the observation. IT is reasonably assumed that this principle holds for comparisons between this particular non-inertial frame & any inertial frame, for photons specifically. iv. Without consideration of any energy losses, and given the law of conservation of energy, the magnitude of photon potential energy is deemed equivalent to the kinetic energy of a photon in spacetime, as determined by the Planck’s relation, (which is E = hf ; h = Planck’s constant and f is frequency of the associated electromagnetic wave). So that E = Ep where Ep = “one photon potential energy unit”. Ep cannot be observed in this frame. Ep has potential to become E with frequency f, in spacetime. e. The photon potential phenomenon seems linked to virtual photons: i. Virtual photons are a field which exists without excitations yet result in its carrying information from place to place. ii. “It is sometimes said that all photons are virtual photons. This is because the world-lines of photons always resemble the dotted line in the […] Feynman diagram: the photon was emitted somewhere (say, a distant star), and then is absorbed somewhere else (say a photoreceptor cell in the eyeball).” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_photons . iii. It is difficult to “distinguish between "real" and "virtual" particles as mathematically they are the same objects and it is only our definition of "reality" which is weak here.” (Reference repeated). iv. In practice, a clear distinction can be made: real photons are detected as individual particles in particle detectors, whereas virtual photons are not directly detected; only their average or side-effects may be noticed, in the form of forces or (in modern language) interactions between particles.” (Reference repeated again). I.e. there must be a relationship present (as in, an event occurs) so as to detect a virtual photon (necessity of this is further discussed, later). v. Some form of energy potential must exist for a particle, any particle, to “pop into existence”, however temporary that existence may be. It is speculated in this thesis that “photon potential” represents such a source. f. Photon potential is the “reality” of non-inertia with a photon being an “illusion” of spacetime. In a spacetime frame, the opposite is true – the photon seems the reality. g. Something needs to happen so as to be able to observe energy. “Pure photon potentiality” will not be known to any observer, anywhere in spacetime, until something happens to release (or reveal, as in deflection, refraction) the potential (which must occur in a spacetime frame). i. Wave characteristics tend to be more prominent over large duration and vast distances. Frequency defines photon energy via its spacetime nature, not as photon potential. Frequency seems to have no meaning in this frame. 4. Photons exist over wide frequency spectra, with varying energy levels. Photon potential is thus not a singular form of energy, but a spectrum of energy potentials. 5. The photon’s potential appears, to any spacetime observer, as moving: a. This non-inertial frame is independent from the photon potential; the frame is inertial relative to spacetime, and it has a spacetime path. Like for all inertial frames, the speed of light is seen as a constant, but this frame travels AT the speed of light, so the frame does not exist in practice; it becomes a construct for discussion only. b. The photon potential, in contrast, exists as a non-inertial energy state contained within this imaginary frame. c. The frame’s “container” : i. Is not a physical shell per say, and thus it has no mass or energy. ii. Is a hypothetical energy-containing frame only (which is problematic to study as such an analogy doesn’t fit well in physics). iii. The issue is that potential energy is not contained within a container, especially one that tends toward existing as a geometric singularity. iv. The non-inertial frame which contains only potential, has, and needs, no physical container. v. Hence, any sense of a container for this frame is an illusion. vi. Thus, and importantly, consideration of this special non-inertial reference frame does not introduce a “photon container”. d. The non-inertial frame moves through spacetime, carrying with it the photon potential (remember, photon potential is a singularity with no path or geometry). This is a conundrum, for the frame is imaginary. e. A photon in spacetime, which has momentum, is an illusion from this frame’s point of view. 6. Photon potential, existing in a timeless universe, will never decay in time. a. It exists as “the potential energy of a photon”, forever, until released into a spacetime frame by, for example, a “symmetry breaking” event. b. The laws of spacetime (defined within a duration) do not interfere with photon potential, so things like expansion of the universe, inconstancy of spacetime variables over extremely long time spans, etc. are speculated to not introduce errors or secondary energy effects to the potential, even though such effects may (confusingly) affect the (imaginary) frame – with this view, photon potential represents a constant of the universe. c. An event (resulting in observation) could take two forms: i. Originating from within the non-inertial frame (a differential influence). This type of event must occur at an energy level, not at a time or spacial level. Such an event would have to consequentially emerge into an inertial frame to be, relatively speaking, observable. If it does not so emerge, any observer in spacetime will never know it occurs. We don’t know anything about what is going on privately within this universe. Dark energy perhaps? ii. Originating via an intersection of the frame with a durational spacetime shell of some substantial nature (via diffusion, impact, reflection, absorption/emission from atoms, etc). These types of events occur due to interaction with spacetime, meaning the event imposes duration and separation effects which change the photon potential. The current study of physics does not compare these effects to this non inertial frame. The intrinsic value of doing so has yet to be proven, but given the above, doing so shows merit. 7. For an object at rest in spacetime, v = 0; a. This same object has a v = c relative to the non-inertial frame. b. Thus, mass at rest in a spacetime frame will appear to travel AT (not just near) the speed of light. c. The fastest spacetime speed (hypothetically) observable from the non-inertial frame will be 2v, which is a photon potential traveling in exactly the opposite direction as the non-inertial frame. Such event is observable by impacting two photons, rather, two photon potentials. d. E = mc*2 is not valid for this non-inertial frame, as c = 0 and the frame is not at rest. The physics of such things, from this frame, seem to have not been studied. e. With photon potential representing an “at rest” frame, the entire spacetime universe is apparently moving at (if at rest), faster than (if moving opposite) or slower than (if moving alongside) the speed of light, relatively speaking. Mass apparently moving faster than the speed of light! Imagine that! f. Viewed from the baseline universe, Einstein’s relativity showed us that EM radiation in a vacuum, and for all inertial frames, always travels at a constant speed regardless of the observer's velocity, which phenomenon is not valid for this frame, as an observer's varying velocity in spacetime is NOT seen as a constant relative to this non-inertial frame. 8. As with any energy, photon potential energy must be interrupted so as to observe it. Photon potential in its pure form, as non-inertial, can never be observed as potential directly in spacetime; it will forever appear kinetic to a spacetime observer, but only by illusion. 9. Consider what happens when a photon’s potential is released (destroyed), whereby it can no longer ”exist” (as potential) in the non-inertial frame. Releasing a photon’s potential implies: a. Any other reference frame MUST be inertial relative to a non-inertial frame. b. The physics of the frame shift must address energy conversion between a non inertial and an inertial frame. i. For photons, transformation of conditions between these frames seems to not break any ‘laws”; however, mathematical formations i.e. via transformations, are not necessarily satisfied given these conditions. ii. Photons do not appear to endure any secondary effects from the inertial change of the frame, like additional fictitious forces (which require mass). This is because neither the (illusionary) frame nor photon potential has mass. c. Geometry will appear to emerge. d. A time interval will appear to emerge. e. A frequency will appear to emerge. f. A defined spacetime path for the photon, as a particle, will appear to emerge. g. Momentum of a photon, as a particle, will appear to emerge (inertia is introduced inside the frame). i. The velocity of light is a constant of spacetime, in all inertial frames. 1. Thus, for photon potential to “enter” spacetime as “other than potential”, either v of the frame must become zero in spacetime, or something temporary must interfere with but not fundamentally change its existence, as with diffraction through different mediums, for example. 2. Diffraction does not change the energy state; the phenomenon of diffraction occurs only in a spacetime frame via geometry and duration, which conditions do not exist within a non-inertial frame, which has neither. ii. Stopping the non-inertial frame (changing it to an “at rest” spacetime frame) represents a major, catastrophic, instantaneous change of energy state, relatively speaking. These two frames can be compared by differential analysis. 1. By stopping the non-inertial frame, photon potential will appear to be entirely kinetic. It does not appear to a spacetime observer as photon potential simply because, in spacetime, the stationary frame moves relative to the non-inertial one. However, from the non inertial frame’s perspective, it is actually photon potential (which is a form of kinetic potential), not kinetic energy, which is converted upon impact of the frame in spacetime. 2. Referenced from the photon potential’s start frame, hitting a spacetime object causes it to immediately (extremely short duration) accelerate to the speed of light. 3. Thereafter impact, the photon’s dispersed energy is, essentially, entirely converted into another energy form and is then moving within spacetime at the speed of light, relative to the non-inertial frame. 4. Photon potentials, upon hitting spacetime objects, add ‘dispersed” energy to the spacetime universe, which process simultaneously removes energy from its non-inertial frame. iii. As known, the amplitude of the observation will express the number of “photon potential energy units” released from the non-inertial frame. THANKS FOR READING! Part two is next, upon request.
  2. consider a boundary around what you define as nothingness. what is inside this boundary? Is it possible, philosophically or scientifically, to contian nothing inside a boundary? I say not on both counts. It has something inside, that is, it has, at the very minimum, spacetime. Spacetime is not nothing, which, not irrelevantly, is not constant for different frames. Null space is not nothing, its null space. It seems improper to suggest that nothing in spacetime, whether in or out of the known universe, is nothing absolute, meaning nothing in all frames. Perhaps you could clarify your frame of reference; and, if there is one frame in your "argument", or many? Alternatelly, what about nothingness as another means to describe potential. Potential to become something. If it can become something, how can it be nothing? Are you suggesting you can get something out of nothing? Seems a universe full of nothing absolute could never become something. Can you experience nothingness? Is it within your grasp to encounter what is not there? Perception matters. This is philosophy, not science. However, if you can experience it, surely you can then measure it. And what if mathematics "shows" you nothingness exists, but you still dont "see" it, does that lack of experience then negate the analysis? It seems flawed to say that because one cannot see, via measurement or experience, what "nothing" is, to assume its nothing at all. More accurate to clarify what you seem intent to define is "nothing you can see, analyse, or recognize", rather than nothing absolute. The need to create a philosophy is great when one does not have any other means to understand. Is there a "nothing absolute"? I say not. There seems to be a universe full of energy, in multiple forms. Is nothing absolute opposite to this? Not in my way of thinking, for the absence of energy seems not to be nothingness.
  3. The next phase of this eneavour is to do just that. I have started with "hitting an object at rest" and "hitting another photon from opposite direction". Albeit my thinking may seem a bit upside down, it leads to interesting insights, especially at momentum boundary conditions. The most compelling issue in this thread, for me, is, that gravitons and photons seem to "coexist" at the speed of light. Where else in spacetime does this hold true? The elusive relationship between them may have an answer in this frame. SO, it seems reasonable to me as a scientist to look at this frame a bit more rigorously - that it isnt what relativity "likes" makes it that much more daunting because the frame seems invalid, at first glance, and of course it cannot easily be studied, inherently. Interestingly, the articles that surface in relation to choosing this frame tend to forward theories about things like timelessness and the illusion of spacetime. So, i know there are others who are also interested; I cant be so far off, I think. Ajb made a comment about fictitious forces, which quite got me thinking, also. I will endure, and for sure getting feedback matters.
  4. ok, this clarifies things a lot. THANKS! Does string theory postulate some insight to the question? Might I see strings and/or a brane in the box? If energy tends to zero, i would assume not, also.
  5. Choosing a non inertial frame does not violate anything. The math you are assuming may not work in that condition, which does not render the frame improper. Choose a massless box with imaginary boundaries is also not a violation of a physics approach to a problem. I can only glean from comments that this energy equation does not apply in this frame, but that prospect still doesnt render the question irrelevant.
  6. the box may have mass, but the contents have no mass, only a photon. And its hypothetical of course. Without internal energy, then per your comment, the described box has no energy inside of it. Consider if you will the box is imaginary, as is often done in evaluating energy systems.
  7. E(mass) = m c*2 is the energy with speed of light in a vacuum and “at rest” mass. The energy of a photon is E = hf. A photon has internal and kinetic energies…..what does this value of E express, exactly. For example, if I put a photon in a box and move this box at the speed of light in spacetime (a non inertial frame), what is the energy inside that box? Is it E? Is E expressing “at rest” energy of a mass-less particle?
  8. so many assumption, it all remains to be proven.
  9. ok, you again raise good points, gets me thinking. I, however, remain confused because I also read, elsewhere, about timelessness and photons which, apparently, draw similar conclusions to mine. I am not trying to prove this conclusion, i am merely trying to understand it as physics understands it. I am not trying to invent the wheel, again. For example, here is a quote from a responder in another forum about his own related theory: "My simple theory--Moving Dimensions Theory [MDT]--views time as a phenomenon that naturally emerges because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimenions..... .....Think about MDT as a simple *physical* unification of relativity and QM--both entanglement and nonlocality can be accounted for via the same principle that ensures a photon does not age, no matter how far it travels. A photon's timelessness, implied by relativity, represents a nonlocality in time. Both quantum entanglement and the agelessness of a photon descend from a common principle: dx4/dt = ic. A photon is matter that "surfs" the fourth expanding dimension, and thus it remains in one place in it, while traveling through the three spatial dimensions at c. Perhaps this is MDT's simplest proof: The only way to remain stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the three spatial dimensions: egro, the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions….. ……This fundamental invariance underlies the invariance of the speed of light--both the constant velocity of c meausred by all inertial observers and, the constancy of c that is independent of the source.” http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/237 per..... Dr. E wrote on Sep. 29, 2008 @ 21:08 GMT He refers to the nonlocality of time and verifies "the timeless nature of a photon", which is what I have been saying in this thread, is what makes "sense" to me, also. He refers to these concepts as if it were “fact”. I just don’t know well how to explain it. I surely need to source his article and study his premise. However, his is not the only article that makes reference to these concepts; it’s just a sample. So, is it a fact of physics, or not? My inference is that, if this is fact, there are additional implications (applications). I also looked at another interesting article: http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-conte...re_of_Time.pdf “ ….. the two fundamental problems of time that Poincare identified in 1898 [1]: the definitions of duration and of simultaneity at spatially separated points. Since then the first problem has been remarkably neglected, probably because Einstein's solution of the second in 1905 created such excitement.” The references to "duration" in this article seem in line with what i am trying to say when i refer to a ds not equal to zero. Time, interdependent with spacial motion, becomes an expression of motion only so long as a duration exists. IF ds is zero, at the speed of light, is a valid representation of a “no duration state”, and I believe this is a reasonable concept for physics to argue, then I believe my other arguments, notably those which pertain to the energy state in this frame, do have important merit. Surely what happens when ds is not zero becomes a complex problem, mathematically, when starting from the non inertial frame of a photon at rest. Yes, relatively in physics doesn’t like this choice of a frame, but it remain a valid frame. Your approach is, as is common in physics, to look at the problem as ds approaches zero, that is, as v approaches c. I say, why not start with ds at zero and v = c, which condition satisfies the timelessness nature of a photon so it has some credence as a concept, and then see what happens when the energy system changes to not zero as v drops below c. Maybe the problem needs to be looked at with a non-relative mind frame, so staying within relativity in the physics is the inherent limitation. Mathematics related to conversion from a non inertial to an inertial frame surely must be accounted for. Does a Lorentz representation of geometry account for such frame shifts as ds approaches zero? Not being able to verify the speed of light’s state of existence, separate from ANY spacetime frame with time or geometry, makes a non spacetime frame impossible to analyze as the basic premise showing existence of the non inertial frame then isn’t verified. Doesnt mean it doesnt exist or isnt a valid physics problem, worth illuminating. I was thinking much about these cones, and what happens at 45 degrees. Isn’t it more important to represent a photon relative to the Poincare group directly, as it (supposedly) applies sufficiently to all elementary particles, in all frames. You do note that a Lorentz representation seems to not apply under a timeless non-geometrical condition. Any non-application of Minkowski spacetime does not, in my mind, ultimately disprove anything. Surely geometric and time based things break down at the speed of light. What IS happening at this state is the question, not “how do we achieve (transfer too) this state” from some “at rest” position in a durational spacetime. The speed of light as zero in all directions seems not the issue; I see it as time (and spacetime) do not have an interval on any path around the photon. Fundamentally, the question arises “can there be time without geometry?" My own answer is “no” based on all of what I have written and read. All there is to exist via the universes frame of the speed of light, then, (as stated in a previous entry) is the energy state, not geometry and not duration. Without time, the energy state cannot decay, and conservation of energy holds it as an isolated, closed system. "....intervals of time do not pre-exist but are created by what the universe does." http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Barbour_The_Nature_of_Time.pdf This discussion further poses the question “can energy contained within this confine, still “do something” despite there being no spacetime influences?” Again, my own answer is "yes", and I have heard this proposition stated elsewhere also. “….the universe could do infinitely many different things without in any way changing that interval of time…. (same reference as just quoted) My first reference, above, accounts for photon behavior by suggesting a forth dimension, expanding. At (1+1) dimensional Minkowski spacetime, for any point on the cone along this line, the energy state becomes a point without dt. It has a null path. At each next point, the energy state doesn’t change because ds is zero for the point. The point is moving through geometry from our frame, which is the frame of looking at the cone, but this is not what the photon experiences. There is no cone, according to the photon. So, is this a valid representation of what a photon experiences…seems to me, not.
  10. your life is full of energy. Energy is constantly being converted as you live, irreversibly. Your life impacts the universe of energy because the energy states of life are changed by your interval of of interacting with these energies in spacetime. COnsciousness is but one of these energy states. Having a baby proves energy continues and also moves in the universe, beyond the life of our own organic bodies. It takes energy to produce a baby. And lots of energy to clean those dirty diapers too. Every relationship influences other things and people, thus changing those energies. When you teach someone, your consciousness effectively transfers in the process, which then lives on in those you teach. ENergy is transfered by teaching. The minimal effect is to live as a hermit, and even then its not absolutely fruitless cause you will still consume of the earth. COnsuming changes the energy of the universe. TO sum it up, energize your life by relating more so that, at the time of your death, the energy of the universe cannot avoid being different from when you first entered it. Irreversibly. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged[quote= Hat tip to Martin for drawing these to my attention a few months ago. thanks now for your posting of these references, they are very useful. I had been trying to express similar ideas via another threat "energy independent of time", but I didnt quite have the language and logic expressed right, so my presentation wasnt clear enough for a physics forum. I can rewrite a bit of it now with these articles.
  11. I am much less interested in the geometric aspects of a spacetime interval near ds = 0 than the time aspects. Not to ignore the geometry and spacial path intervals, which is why i continue to try to appreciate ds, but the energy effects seem related to time factors which I dont well understand. I have read that dt goes to zero at the speed of light, in all directions. TOK, hat is a null time path in spacetime. But what time frame is this, proper time? Clocks supposedly stop ticking at this speed. I am also reminded that a photo's energy is about frequency, not amplitude per E = hf. In a rest frame with photon Kinetic effects = 0, what happens to E and f? Is there such a thing as a rest frame energy of a photon? If one places a box around the photon such that the photon is non-inertial, what exactly is in this box as energy, and what exactly is happening with this energy according to time?
  12. If I am walking on a treadmill, i am not moving relative to the floor. I would be able to walk forever. There would be no wall stopping my walking, so in essence my walking would be infinite. At least, until i needed another donut to keep my legs going. Spacetime is expanding. So long as we walk behind the rate of that expansion, the universe will seem as infinite because we will never get to any end, even if one exists. Spactime expansion does suggest a sense of infinite space. Depends on the frame of reference used.
  13. a void in space is not created by converting matter into a vaccum. It is created by removing matter. Matter seems to me as not one of the primary elements, contrary to your thesis. There seems only one constant that could be onserved across differing "universe frames", and that is energy. Matter aka mass is merely one form of energy. a pure vacuum still has a spacetime interval even if it doesnt contain matter. I can put energy into a vacuum via heat for example, which changes its energy state without affecting matter in that spacetime interval. It seems to me you are ignoring such energy boundary effects. is there some body of evidence which you are drawing from that suggests different universes exist and if so, that they are simultaneously relating to each other, specifically to ours?
  14. Thanks for contributing ajb, it has been helpful. Regarding inertial frame of reference: “…the laws of physics in [A non-inertial reference frame] do not take on their most simple form, as required by the special principle of relativity.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_frame Furthermore, “measurements with respect to non-inertial reference frames can be transformed to an inertial frame, incorporating directly the acceleration of the non-inertial frame as that acceleration is seen from the inertial frame”. …In practical terms, the equivalence of inertial reference frames means that scientists within a box moving uniformly cannot determine their absolute velocity by any experiment. Transferring between frames seems acceptable, in general, but does it apply if the non inertial frame is moving at the speed of light? Regarding fictitious forces: Fictitious force is an apparent force that acts on mass in a non-inertial frame of reference, which is related to F = ma. “The [fictitious] force F does not arise from any physical interaction but rather from the acceleration a of the non-inertial frame of reference itself.…. …. Observers inside a closed box that is moving with a constant velocity cannot detect their own motion; however, observers within an accelerating reference frame can detect that they are in a non-inertial reference frame from the fictitious forces that arise.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force ). Inertial frames, surely, are preferred in science as the fictitious forces are zero for inertial frames, whereby the frames are comparable and the analysis simpler. However, for a photon there is no mass, so the above arguments using F = ma do not apply and the simplification of analysis argument somewhat falls to the wind. Seems to me there will be no fictitious forces found for photons in a non-inertial frame, and also no fictitious forces when a particle of light accelerates or decelerates from c, including any acceleration effects that might occur from internal momentum changes; in its spin for example. Again, I do not see where there is any other active energy in the photon at a frame with zero inertial state, other than its internal energy, which I note is independent of this energy…. so it should apply to photons across the full spectrum. Regarding Energy balance From an applied sciences point of view, it would seem to me that the total energy TE of the photon present in a non inertial frame is a reasonable baseline to work from so as to evaluate energy effects. With no event, ds = 0 for which all energy is unchanging, with regard to spacetime. When a destructive event occurs to a photon, it “enters” spacetime as it decelerates; it thereby shifts into an inertial frame. In this slowing process, energy conversion from potential P into negative kinetic NKE energy must occur, whereby ds will no longer be zero. Additionally, if the internal energy of the photon is released by the event, and external energy is added such as with impacting another particle, then these energies must also be addressed in the energy equations. It is apparent in such a process that “the amount of TE converted into NKE” will in some manner be proportional to “the scalar value of ds that emerges”. Stated another way, the energy released by a photon seems proportional to the ‘formation’ of a spacetime interval and associates with the value of that interval. Since ds is assumed to be scalar, how to reconcile its apparent direct association to TE and NKE? Such an energy transformation process would also be directly related to the reduction in baseline energy TS. Question….if all baseline energy is not converted for photons that “cease to be photons”, what happens to it? Specifically, when a photon can no longer exist as a photon, must it be destroyed and thus release all its energy to spacetime, or might it partially, simultaneously, convert to some other energy state NOT proportional to a spacetime interval? I need help here to assess the logic of all this. Is there some model that describes a direct energy relationship for ds, as in, mass is directly related to the speed of light? This relationship if it exists, along with ds =0 if it exists, gets to the core of the ideas I am proposing. Regarding Symmetry: Whew….. the Poincare group, Lorentz transformations, killing vector fields and trivial representations are beyond where my current head space is with mathematics related to speed of light conditions….I haven’t done this level of math for many yrs, and to ascertain how all of this applies to what happens at ds = 0 and for a non-inertial frame at the speed of light….is beyond my “applied scientist” abilities. I must rely on you, the community of those pure scientists/mathematicians who actively do this kind of thing. Isn’t that the very reason for this forum? My head hurts!
  15. In classical mechanics these processes still involve time. Changing an inertial state takes time, which process violates the premise of a rest state with ds = 0. The problem is not one of changing states from intertial to non intertial, rather it is one of merely picking the non inertial state as the frame. Otherwise, simply picking a frame of reference would imply the energy of a photon would change merely because of that pick. I do not suggest stopping the photon, rather to evaluate it under normal behavior in a different frame. If, in this line of reasoning, there is some non-inertial fictitious force, as you suggest, such force must exist and already be accounted for in all frames, due to equivalence. In my mind, amoungst the most profound of implication are that, on this premise, energy gains/looses ds whenever photons are created/destroyed, so for any photon event where ds changes from zero to not zero, meaningful energy information about the "unknown universe of energy" can be gleaned. In this frame, any energy event that impacts a photon/graviton (it changes ds), becomes a characteristic of spacetime's energy nature, by comparison. We would learn more about spacetime nature on an energy level, notably how that energy impacts spacial sense. The warping of spacetime may well be an example of this energy conversion process, in action. Secondly, being confined to spacetime, we can never directly observe the energy state at ds = 0, and I well agree that the coordinates for this state, relatively speaking, will be very weird. We can surely "know" that its there by means of observing photon/graviton enegy character via creation/destruction events; that is, destruction whenever ds becomes not zero (i.e. it enters an inertial frame from the photon's point of view). I will give this some attention! Thanks. IT seems not trivial that photons endure billions of spactime years. A ds of zero at the speed of light supports this fact, does it not? The frame's coordinates in a rest frame, per relativity, could well be a singularity, much like the center of a black hole, albeit for much different reasons. However, such "photon singularities' still exist as confined particles within the spacetime universe. Every photon has a 'start spacetime' in spactime - it is merely that the end spacetime is always the same spacetime as far as the photon is concerned. That a photon's existance is not about spacetime behavior, rather about energy, is the critical concept that is hard to wrap the mind around.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.