Jump to content

A non-inertial timeless universe full of potential


Recommended Posts

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.













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.”


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.


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.”
. 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).”


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.




Part two is next, upon request.

Edited by Gerry
formula didnt paste in, added manually
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 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.