Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 Well I have suggested that light takes no time to reach Earth because it travels backwards in time. I have suggested that there is no speed of light, and that the speed is wrong. So I have already answered that question. Current theory without my example has no explenation that I know of that would answer your question. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 How does the light know that it's being watched, or when to arrive? (Sorry for the 20 Questions, but since I have a significant reading list at the moment this is a lot easier than getting hold of the book ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 When you drop a stone into water, you start a wave pattern. The stone would be the observer, the wave pattern would be the light. The only difference being that the wave pattern goes towards the stone, instead of away from it. Hence, back in time. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 What happens when the light is 'physically' separated from the observer by gravity or a mirror? Is there still an information exchange? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 Presuming that light travels as a wave then it can be bent off course. It's just that the wave is travelling the wrong way, and backwards through time. You get the same end result as travelling in the right direction, and forwards in time. There would be no observable difference, apart from the anomalies that are already known. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Yeah but did the planet Earth have any life at all when the light left these stars to reach us today. Well no. The point is not that LIFE is observing...the point is that in order for life to observe, something must "bump" the photon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Well, to be honest, I really shouldn't be replying. I don't know much about the physics behind the phenomenon. You might be interested in reading about the quantum eraser effect, wherein something that takes place AFTER a result has been measured changes the result (which has already been measured). Its wierd stuff. search for it on here, there was discussion in a recent thread about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 That sounds interesting. It has some relevance, I shall look for it. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Quantum superposition states certainly aren't a violation of c being the speed limit, in fact they're ultimately a consequence of it. What does appear to violate c however is quantum entanglement, or "spooky action at a distance" as Einstein called it. 2 atoms are locked into the same state. If you change one, the other one changes instantly regardless of the distance between them. It's been done with molecules over a kilometer apart (HUGE DISTANCE on the atomic scale!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 I like to think of time as the wave, and light as the photon particle that rides on the wave. These atoms could be causing ripples in the time wave, and the wave travels towards, and away from both of them at the same time. This results in no time loss at all between the spooky action at a distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 But the thing about it is, quantum entanglement has not been shown to happen to typical molecules, only ones that we purposely put into that state. But the point is information propagating to an outside observer at c+ speeds, which should be impossible regardless of space-time curvature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 Well maybe the time wave theory obeys the C rule but when it reaches its destination it bounces back. This causes time to travel backwards again resulting in no time loss. It would obey the C rule in both directions! Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VendingMenace Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 pincho, i think your ideas are interesting, however, i think the reason why they are not being so well recived here is that they seem to be untestable. I at least cannot think of anyway to unambiguously test whether or not light travels through time backwards. It is a result of this untestability that people here must reject your hypothesis. It is fine for phylosophy, but not for science. As an example, i could claim that everything happens becuase there are tiny invisible green men that live outside of time and the physical relm, that manupulate everything to happen the way we observe it. There is no way to show that is idea is inccorect, hoever, there is no way to support it in the framework of science. So, while it may have interesting philisophical ramifications, as far as the relm of science is concerned, it is meaningless. This is becuase science must reject ideas that are not testable. Furthermore, the value of a theory lies heavily in its predictive power. Out current theory of light and QM gives us a powerful predictive model. We are able to make certain predictions about experiements that we have not done, and when these experiemens are carried out, we find that our predictions are true. With your proposed thoery of timetraveling light, we find that its predictive power is quite limited. We have no way of really knowing what light will do, if it is outside the relm of time. THus, we are forced to accept the thoery that gives us greater predictive power, and reject that one that allows us less predictive power. I in no way wish to appear as if i am ridiculing you, i am merely trying to state the way in wich i see sicence approaching the world. It is the very nature of science that causes the people on this board to question and reject your idea. It is not that it is a stupid idea, it is just that is is neither testible nor does it provide predictive power. Just my two cents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 6, 2003 Author Share Posted November 6, 2003 But the big bang theory is based on perceivable after effects, and my theory is also based on the perceivable after effect of light being in two places at once, the wave made by individual photons, the observer theory of light, light reaching us from billions of light years away, atoms having instant changes, and other things. If your little green men left their pick axes behind, and their wheelbarrows, then you would at least have some evidence. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VendingMenace Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 however, there is a large difference between the big bang and phenomenon of light. That difference being that the big bang only occured once (at least as far as we could ever observe) whereas the properties of light can be observed many many times. As such the big bang is not repeatable, while experiments that test the properties of light are. Because of this, we do not expect a theory about the big bang to be predictive. That is, we do not expect it to tell us what will happen the next time we observe a big bang, nor what will happen under vairying conditions for these future big bangs. Becuase there does not exist a predictive model for the big bang, we are satisfied with non-predictive models. Light, however, i another story all together. We most ceratainly can repeat experiments with light. Thus, we hope for a model that has predictive properties. Such models are preferable over other models that do not give predictive properties. Furthermore, we find that in pysics predictive models that can be represented mathmatically are preferible over predictive models that are only qualitiative. This stems from the fact the more specific a theory is, the more prefered it is. A mathmatically rigorous treatment of something is inherintly more specific than a qualitative one. Therefore, even though your ideas may be intriguing, the scientific community will most likely not reject the current, quantitative predictive model, for a model that does not appear to have better predictive properties. I hope that makes sense. Your theory, it is true, can rationalize what we observe after the fact, but it cannot predict what will happen before the observation. Thus, it is not as appealing as a theory wich offers us predictions (ones that have been shown to be accurate) of waht will happen before the experiment is even carried out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 6, 2003 Author Share Posted November 6, 2003 Well, Ok that makes sense, but I'm sure that something can be predicted from my theory that couldn't be predicted without it. So I'll have to think of something that I can predict, that the normal rules of light can't. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebeldog Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 I have read both the books by John Gribben Schrodinger's cat and the kittens follow-up. They are both exellent books. In the case of the wave collapse it is crazy that when particles are observed that they suddenly decide where they are and their history. But it happens. Does anyone have any real idea how a photon can communicate as in the CERN experiment where this phenominum was recorded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Pinch Paxton said in post #41 : Well, Ok that makes sense, but I'm sure that something can be predicted from my theory that couldn't be predicted without it. So I'll have to think of something that I can predict, that the normal rules of light can't. Pincho. That would help, but don't forget that if there are effects your theory ought to predict or explain, and it can't, then it doesn't matter what "extra features" it has Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Does this have any thing to do with the two slot experiment. How light behaves as a wave and a partical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Wave-particle duality has nothing to do with the speed of propagation not being c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 I think the OP is getting too drawn up in the particle nature of light, and imagining it as a little particle that goes whizzing backwards and forwards, and this just is not true. things like photons have the property that they act in "quanta" or discrete chunks on interaction with something else, however for most of the rest of their little existances they exist as waves. Strictly speaking, a photon is a quantum excitement of the electric field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Good old EM exchange particles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt_f13 Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Aha! Light only travels when there are observers because the computer program we all reside in does not have access to the power needed to calculate all the light all the time. 0_o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted February 13, 2004 Author Share Posted February 13, 2004 A photon reacts like a wave because it travels on a wave. It travels like a surfer on a surfboard. It surfs on strings that push the wave along to its destination. The string that produces the wave is using the observer as a pulse, and the photon as the particle that will produce the final result. The information that travels along the string can breach the speed of time, but as a result of this extra speed that is greater than the speed of light, light will always remain constant. If light travels 5minutes faster than its constant, it will travel back in time 5 minutes. Therefore a test of its speed will be 5 minutes out of sync with our time. It will always appear to be a constant speed because of this enigma. Even pushed along as a headlight on a car will push it back in time, and will produce the same enigma. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 alt_f13 said in post # :Aha! Light only travels when there are observers because the computer program we all reside in does not have access to the power needed to calculate all the light all the time. 0_o If it's so realistic, then how can it not have the power? Don't let the word spread, or our creators will shut us down for fear of losing government funding. We don't want that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now