energy independant of spacetime

[Gerry]

There indeed are many theories about the origin of the universe. Even though the world doesn’t need another one, I do have my own ideas, as an applied scientist, about it.

 

Via my own extended meditations, discussions and readings, I ponder if the reference frame of most scientific study (i.e. spacetime), could be reorganized such that things like velocity, spacial sense and time interval were secondary variables; a daunting prospect, in practice.

 

Gravitons and photons travel at a speed in spacetime which, according to relativity, associates with a zero time interval t and a zero spacetime interval s. A photon, from a reference frame of the photon, does not experience time. There seems good support for this phenomenon.

 

A novel idea strikes me from perspective of this phenomenon.

 

What if a normal universe existed at the speed of light, which state associated directly with timelessness? Energy at this state would become the universes baseline, devoid of time effects. Everything traveling slower than this, namely, everything that exists within spacetime at speeds slower than the speed of light, would be considered abnormal, and would become variables relative to the energy baseline.

 

What if I then should choose, as a primary scientific frame of reference, a photon (or graviton)?

 

Having no mass the photon has no rest energy and, traveling at the speed of light c, a photon also has no kinetic energy. The photon is confined in this frame to having only "internal energy" due to the strong interaction forces, which relate to its spin, vibrations, etc.

 

As a photon, it sees itself exist as a non relating and vibrant spinning patch of energy. Without relating to something, it will last "forever", meaning it shall exist as “the energy of a photon”, which is unchanged by time in its world; its energy state cannot decay, as decay takes time. That is, a photon’s internal energy state cannot and will not change until something external relates with it, such as when entering an energy field sufficient in density to influence its internal energy state, or perhaps if this external energy affected its speed through space time, such as if the particle hits something. I assume, of course, that if one changes enough of either the transverse kinetic or internal energies of a photon, it ceases to exist as a photon (which event will slow down the particle so as to cause its energy state to shift into the confines of spacetime).

 

If a non-relational photon looks "out" from its self-position, it will observe something 'else" which is very different from itself. It will “see” many things which, apparently, are passing by, each with a velocity at the kinetic space-time equivalent of the speed of light, which is variable, depending on each objects behavior in space time at that moment. Important to keep in mind is that the photon observes this "outer" effect while there exists no time interval in the photon's world. Even mass (at rest) would seem to travel at the speed of light, according to a photon. Unless an observed object in spacetime relates with the photon in some direct way, the photon will continue, unchanged. From an energy point of view, any such “observation event” is, thus, irrelevant.

 

A photon "exists" within the space time universe and can thus be potentially influenced by any relationship, with any energy, within spacetime. If a photon never relates with anything, then it remains a closed, isolated energy system and thus should, theoretically, never stop "existing" as photon energy.

 

Taking this point one step further, consider what happens when a photon is destroyed, whereby it can no longer exist in the baseline universe. That energy will enter spacetime. If true, energy is entering spacetime, constantly, as photons are destroyed. The converse is true also, as photons are constantly being generated within spacetime. It could be stated then, that energy is continuously entering and leaving time, via photons.

 

I wish to note at this point that it may require a bit of a stretch to wrap the mind around this concept. It has become a bit clearer in my own mind only after months of struggling with it.

 

I believe that what the photon experiences is not a time-based signature of any spacetime event, because the spacetime interval it lives within is zero; rather, it relates to the external energy signature as that energy exists outside any confinement within space time. For a photon to relate to anything in the spacetime universe, within this line of thinking, it MUST do so via an energy relationship, not via spacetime travel or intervals.

 

The fact that gravity and light travel at identical speeds prompts, in my mind, a significant level of credence in the fact of their sharing existences devoid of passing time . Two out of the four fundamental forces of our universe share a timelessness nature!

 

This ‘coincidence” prompts me, with some degree of conviction, to look at the universe differently, not from a reference limited by my own eyes, to thus be limited by the nature of the universe I experience and relate too; rather, through the eyes of energy as it exists within and as it experiences the universe of other energies, in its different "time independent" states. Any such reference must be both time and space independent, such as is achieved by photons (and gravitons?), else I believe the theory looses credence.

 

Indeed, it seems useful and prudent to analyze our human and universal natures from an energy-based reference frame. A "pure" nature of the energy of a photon (energy not confined by time) seems to have been revealed. Gravitons might well be better understood, also, from this viewpoint.

 

With the big bang, for example, we "assume" it associates with a moment of zero time, the start of time as it were. From an energy point of view, studied outside the confines of space and time (notably, to remove them as variables), I believe that much can be revealed of our universe, both at its beginnings and now. Indeed, from a photonic frame of reference, whereby no time elapses, the concept of a "start time" for the universe becomes redundant. Energy doesn’t have a start time.

 

Energy is conserved, whereas time and space are variables of the universe. It does seem relevant to me that using energy as a frame of reference, while eliminating space and time as variables, is valid and important as a scientific effort.

 

I envision something called "pure energy", which is energy that exists outside the confines of spacetime. I then envision learning about how it takes forms (i.e. how it cross-associates with the four fundamental forces, how it works to expand space, dilute time, etc.)

 

I am also picking away at some other "theories", notably a relations theory, but for today this is the one I choose to 'put out there".

 

I do not have enough scientific finesse or the resources to prove any of this stuff, and for some of you I am sure it "shows"....ha.... the laugh is on me for being the fool, but I do so enjoy being a fool when it comes to forming a theory of everything, so it’s ok for us both to laugh. Or, perhaps all of this pseudoscientific conjecture might "strike a chord" with someone out there, someone who can properly redirect my thinking, hmmm. Thanks.

[ajb]

Gravitons and photons travel at a speed in spacetime which, according to relativity, associates with a zero time interval t and a zero spacetime interval s. A photon, from a reference frame of the photon, does not experience time.

 

 

You mean the space time interval for the path of a photon/graviton through space-time is zero. That is [math]ds^{2} = dx^{A} dx^{B}g_{BA}=0[/math] along the path. Such paths are said to be null.

 

I am not happy with the notion of a photon experiencing no time. You cannot parametrise the path of a photon/graviton using "proper time". That only works for time-like paths.

 

You cannot think of a photon/graviton having a rest frame. Thus I am not sure what is meant buy a "photon sees itself...".

 

As such, I cannot get much sense out of the rest of the post.

Edited August 23, 2009 by ajb

[Gerry]

the notion of time at zero is not absolute time, rather, that there is no experienced time shift.

 

It is imperative to consider that spacetime equations are from a frame of reference of a stationary object looking at the photon....that very presumpition is removed in my discussion, its the flip perspective of the photon looking at us, which is why its difficult to wrap the mind around it.

 

The aspect of science that will help quantify this concept is the energy balance equation. The photon is not at rest, rather it is a closed, isolated system. A photon that i sdestroyed changes to become an open system, from an energy view.

 

We spend great effort to balance energy from our own frame of reference. WHat about creating an energy equation using energy states that is not influenced by time, ie there is no time interval.

 

Yes, ds is null, which is why the theory opens doors to what this means.....a null ds does NOT mean null energy.

[ajb]

Could you please present some mathematical formula here. That would make your ideas much clearer.

 

I am not sure what is meant by the "photon looking at us". You want to describe things form the photon's frame? The photon does not have a rest frame, so that is a complication.

 

A question I will have to think about is, although the "photon frame" is not that of an observer, i.e. cannot be reached via a Lorentz transformation by an observer with v<c, the fame might still be inertial. I am not sure and need to think about that.

 

I expect it is not as you would have "frozen light beams", which would violate the first postulate of special relativity. So, I would expect in this frame one would need to pick up fictitious forces and so the laws of physics would not reduce to their simplest form in special relativity.

 

Even if it is not, I see no reason why you cannot use any frame you like. You do have that option, but a big question would be if it is illuminating to consider such frames? Recall that special relativity gives us a preferred set of coordinates, the inertial ones.

 

 

null energy? What is that?

Edited August 23, 2009 by ajb

[Klaynos]

You cannot think of a photon/graviton having a rest frame. Thus I am not sure what is meant buy a "photon sees itself...".

 

As such, I cannot get much sense out of the rest of the post.

 

This is also my stumbling block.

[ajb]

This is also my stumbling block.

 

What I am sure of is that one can pass from an inertial frame to a non-inertial one, such as the frame in which the photon speed is <c. This is not in violation of special relativity.

 

However, in passing from an inertial frame to a non-inertial one the metric is no longer of the canonical form diag(-1,1,1,1), but it is still flat. (It is flat in any coordinate system).

 

What happens to the laws of physics?

 

Well, as you know the 2nd postulate of special relativity says that the laws of physics look the same in any inertial frame. This is not true in non-inertial frames. One will pick up fictitious forces, much like the centrifugal forces in rotating frame in classical mechanics.

 

Now these fictitious forces are not "gravity" as the metric is still flat. We are still on Minkowski space-time, but in weird coordinates.

 

So, you see that passing to non-inertial frames gets us like 90% of the way to general relativity. In general relativity we have the equivalence principle, which can be stated as the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames.

 

I think it could be possible to pass from an inertial frame to the "frozen light" frame, but this would not be an inertial frame and one would pick up extra fictitious forces. This would, presumably make the physical interpretation of things difficult. Remember, in special relativity we are most interested in Lorentz invariant things. This would become confusing working in non-inertial frames. But in principle it can be done.

 

But is it useful or illuminating?

[Gerry]

a photon/graviton having a rest frame - why not? The idea does not violate science, albeit proving it is another matter altogether.

 

Such a rest frame describes the nature of an energy state, not spacetime. This is why it seems a useful proposition to science.

 

If i study science and then draw a conclusions based on that science, then are these conclusions scientific in nature? Likely not unless i prove them, right? Again, i dont have such resources. Of course, it becomes crucial to evaluate if the study itself included flawed or incomplete science... that is a continuous effort.

 

And I do very much believe using a photon rest frame has huge implications to science.

 

If someone out there knows of specific science that addresses these notions, I would appreciate the reference, for little comes up on extensive searches about it. There is lots on time dilation, speed of gravity, photon behaviors, etc. There is much about ds being zero at the speed of light. However, there is little about the implications of a ds = 0 state, and nothing about the energy state in this reference frame. Indeed, it is impossible to be an observer that travels at the speed of light, but that doesnt limit the scientific study of such, does it? It seems particularly relevent to ask 'what does a photon experience?"

 

Despite, I will work on forwarding scientific articles which address related mathematics - again, I am not a pure scientist. My goal is to reapply what others are doing. My presented ideas are on that basis....that of new applications to existing science.

 

Null energy is merely refering to there being some existence of some energy state so that energy of that state is not zero.

 

I see no rationale for there being a need for fictitious forces at a rest state. Energy exists in this state already.

 

And one final note; in a photon's rest frame there is considerable potential energy available to spacetime. A photon is not devoid of time, just that as it exists in its own frame it apparently (per relativity) does not experience a spacetime interval. This potential energy, when released, will of course become (potentially) observable in spacetime. We well study the effects of photons as they hit, say, an x-ray plate...i say, why not "study" more about the source in its own frame. Why would doing such not be useful science?

[ajb]

Like I have said, a frame in which the photon is at rest is not inertial. This will be critical in any discussion. I think this would manifest itself in difficulties in interpreting what is going on. You are going to pick something up by passing from an inertial frame to an non-inertial frame. You see this in classical mechanics and I see no reason why something similar will not happen in special relativity.

 

You see this in general relativity, where the Killing vector fields do not in general have an obvious physical interpretation.

 

By "what does a photon see" you want to calculate something in this "frozen light frame". Then what? Transform it back into an inertial frame? Or would you like to attach meaning to something calculated in the "frozen light frame"?

 

I suggest you try a transformation of Minkwoski space time that is not in the Lorentz group. See what happens. I have never done this myself, so let us know what you find.

 

ds^{2} = anything, does not define a reference frame. At best it defines a class of frames, the inertial ones via it being an invariant under the Poincare transformations.

Edited August 23, 2009 by ajb

[timo]

Like I have said, a frame in which the photon is at rest is not inertial.

I'm not sure it is a frame. You cannot define a unit vector in time direction, for instance. I'd find it interesting to see how far one can get without that, though.

[ajb]

I'm not sure it is a frame. You cannot define a unit vector in time direction, for instance. I'd find it interesting to see how far one can get without that, though.

 

I think it is a frame, in the sense that one could pick coordinates (in the neighbourhood of a point) such that the speed of light in that coordinate system is measured to be zero. If such a choice exist that is. I have not show that it does, it is an assumption of Gerry who needs to provide an example of such coordinates.

 

But then Gerry's discussion so far lacks much mathematical frame work and as such it is difficult to understand exactly what he has in mind.

 

In such a frame (assuming it exists), I think special relativity is going to look pretty weird. The space time interval is not invariant under general transformations between frames. Then we are going to encounter troubles associated with this. But I think this will be troubles with a physical interpretation rather than a deep mathematical problem.

 

Maybe something does stop you picking such a frame, but for sure we can pick ones in which the speed of light is not c.

 

As an aside the "photon rest frame" reminds me of Penrose's twistors.

Edited August 23, 2009 by ajb

[Gerry]

You are going to pick something up by passing from an inertial frame to an non-inertial frame. You see this in classical mechanics and I see no reason why something similar will not happen in special relativity.

 

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.

 

By "what does a photon see" you want to calculate something in this "frozen light frame". Then what? Transform it back into an inertial frame? Or would you like to attach meaning to something calculated in the "frozen light frame"?

 

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 suggest you try a transformation of Minkwoski space time that is not in the Lorentz group. See what happens. I have never done this myself, so let us know what you find.

 

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.

[ajb]

You say "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".

 

equivalence of what?

 

Not all frames are equivalent in special relativity. Only inertial ones.

 

I'd hope it is possible to discuss much of this without the need for general relativity. Maybe not.

 

For a particle to change the nature of its spacetime interval, something drastic has happened. For physical particles they never change their nature like that, massive particles stay on time-like and massless particles on null paths. Now, if you are considering transformations between inertial and non-inertial frames I'd expect this might not hold.

Edited August 23, 2009 by ajb

[Gerry]

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!

[ajb]

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.

 

If you are really going to study special relativity in such "weird frames" then I expect you will need some background in geometry.

 

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?

 

All we can really do is help point you towards the material you need. It is your research and as such you will have to do most of the work yourself.

 

Anyway, glad to have been of some help.

 

Now for some of your questions.

 

Transferring between frames seems acceptable, in general, but does it apply if the non inertial frame is moving at the speed of light?

 

Unless there is something stopping you picking such coordinates (say, they are not smooth) then I see no reason why you can not transform back and fore.

 

More than this, as the group of diffeomorphisms acts transitively on a connected manifold. Then any set of (admissible) coordinates can be reached from another via a smooth change of coordinates. If we assume we are working on connected Minkwoski space, which is the usual assumption (i.e. that there is "no where" outside our world) then you should be able to find a change of coordinates from an inertial frame to your "frozen light frame". (Again, assuming it exists).

 

 

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.

 

Maybe, but what bout the motion of a massive particle as "viewed" in this frame. I expect something weird to be going on, something akin to a constant acceleration to "cancel out" the speed of light. (You can out run light by constantly accelerating, draw a Minkowski diagram, also look up Unruh radiation though this is semiclassical).

 

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.

 

There is the mass-shell condition

 

[math]E^{2}- p^{2}c^{2} = m^{2}c^{4}[/math],

 

that holds for physical particles, that is particles that are either massive and following time-like paths or massless and following null paths. It may not hold for "unphysical particles" (needed in quantum field theory for example). (Similar things hold for tachyons).

 

I think you are a little confused about what ds is. Really, it is a measurement of "length" of a path between two points in spacetime. ds = 0 etc is not really a property of the spacetime but a path in the spacetime. What I think you are trying to do is set up a coordinate system "adjusted" to a null curve.

 

The metric, which is used to build ds, is a property of spacetime, ie.it is defined at every point on spacetime (it is a "geometric object"). (We can talk a lot more about geometric objects another time)

Edited August 24, 2009 by ajb

[Gerry]

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?

[ajb]

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.

 

People sometimes say that "time stands still at the speed of light".

 

By this they mean in the limit v-> c. As the Lorentz group is non-compact, one cannot apply a Lorentz transformation at v=c and rotate an inertial frame into another inertial frame comoving at c.

 

Now, you cannot talk about the proper time of a photon. As [math]ds^{2}=0[/math] you cannot [math]s[/math] as the affine parameter for the null path. Thus, we have no proper time. Proper time can only be defined for time-like paths.

 

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?

 

These are the questions you need to think about.

 

Consider (1+1) dimensional Minkowski spacetime. In standard euclidean "inertial" coordinates you have light moving along straight lines at 45 degrees. What happens under a coordinate change that is not in the Lorentz group? Can you find a transformation that gives the speed of light as zero?

 

The closest thing that jumps to my mind is special relativity in light cone coordinates, that it do a 45 degree rotation of the (1+1) dimensional Minkowski spacetime. However, the speed of light is zero and infinity depending on its direction! So this is not quite what you want. So, we are not looking for a Lorentz transformation or a simple orthogonal rotation.

 

Just rotating the ct axis to ct' such that ct' lies on the 45 degree line makes the speed of light zero in one direction only. In the other it is [math]1/\sqrt{2}[/math]. I now think you cannot have a frame in which the speed of light in all directions is zero.

Edited August 25, 2009 by ajb

[Gerry]

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.

[ajb]

I think you could mathematically study paths with ds =0, ie. null and then consider a "perturbation" around this to time and space -like curves. I don't know what sort of process physically that would require such an analysis, and I am not sure what kind of statements you would be looking for.

 

Either way, the time for thinking is over it is time to do some mathematics.

[Mr Skeptic]

When studying what a photon "experiences" perhaps some other things should be looked at rather than light just moving along minding its own business. For example, what does a photon experience from emission to absorption. Or, when being reflected, refracted, diffracted, or gravitationally lensed.

[Gerry]

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.