opposite of a photon

[Philosaur]

Some years ago I read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, and in that book he laid out a way of thinking about relativity that made things click for me like no other explanation had before.

Professor Greene wrote that any object, particle, or photon, is always moving at the speed of light through space-time. A particle's total speed (lightspeed) through space-time is split between the three spatial dimensions and single time dimension. The faster a particle moves through space, the slower it moves through time, and vice versa.

So a photon, with zero mass, "uses up" its total available speed moving through space, with nothing left over to move through time.

Would it make sense to think of the protean point mass which underwent the Big Bang as the other end of the spectrum? That is, an object with infinite mass, traveling at light speed through time, and not moving through space at all?

I'm not leading to any "gotcha" point here. I'm not plumping for some alternative theory. I'm not trolling. I'm just curious as to whether this conjecture makes sense, is useful, is patently absurd, etc. If the thread dies in one or two posts, then so be it.

 

[Giggywig]

I don't think it's meaningful to think of a particle with infinite mass.

 

[Singularitarian]

Some years ago I read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, and in that book he laid out a way of thinking about relativity that made things click for me like no other explanation had before.

Professor Greene wrote that any object, particle, or photon, is always moving at the speed of light through space-time. A particle's total speed (lightspeed) through space-time is split between the three spatial dimensions and single time dimension. The faster a particle moves through space, the slower it moves through time, and vice versa.

So a photon, with zero mass, "uses up" its total available speed moving through space, with nothing left over to move through time.

Would it make sense to think of the protean point mass which underwent the Big Bang as the other end of the spectrum? That is, an object with infinite mass, traveling at light speed through time, and not moving through space at all?

I'm not leading to any "gotcha" point here. I'm not plumping for some alternative theory. I'm not trolling. I'm just curious as to whether this conjecture makes sense, is useful, is patently absurd, etc. If the thread dies in one or two posts, then so be it.

No.

 

[Philosaur]

No.

Right, because you think the Big Bang theory is incorrect.

Was it really necessary to quote my whole post to give a one word answer?

 

[BTMO]

Opposite of a photon?

A darkon.

The fundamental unit of the shadow.

Look it up...

 

[BenBurch]

Opposite of a photon?

A darkon.

The fundamental unit of the shadow.

Look it up...

Its what the Dark Emitting Diode emits.

To make a Dark Emitting Diode, you start with a regular Light Emitting Diode and put it in circuit without the usual limiting resistor, then apply current. After a very brief interval during which all of the residual photons are driven off, it is DED forever.

 

[Singularitarian]

Right, because you think the Big Bang theory is incorrect.

Was it really necessary to quote my whole post to give a one word answer?

There are simply far too many inconsistencies and errors in the OP. It has nothing to do with my contentions on the big bang theory.

 

[sol invictus]

Professor Greene wrote that any object, particle, or photon, is always moving at the speed of light through space-time. A particle's total speed (lightspeed) through space-time is split between the three spatial dimensions and single time dimension. The faster a particle moves through space, the slower it moves through time, and vice versa.

So a photon, with zero mass, "uses up" its total available speed moving through space, with nothing left over to move through time.

Would it make sense to think of the protean point mass which underwent the Big Bang as the other end of the spectrum? That is, an object with infinite mass, traveling at light speed through time, and not moving through space at all?

You don't need to think about the big bang or infinite mass. Just take any ordinary massive particle at rest. That's "moving" through time as fast as anything can.

 

[Molinaro]

There are simply far too many inconsistencies and errors in the OP. It has nothing to do with my contentions on the big bang theory.

No.

The OP makes a sequence of correct statements and then asks a question.

If you think otherwise, explain.

 

[Singularitarian]

No.

The OP makes a sequence of correct statements and then asks a question.

If you think otherwise, explain.

well for starters:

''That is, an object with infinite mass, traveling at light speed through time, and not moving through space at all?''

How can an object with infinite mass travel through a single dimension? When something moves through space, there is a corrolative time as well. Time and space are actually vectors of the same manifold. If the OP is addressing the possibility that when a mass reaches lightspeed, it requires an infinite amount of mass, then that would last long either, as it would require more energy than what is in the observable universe.

 

[Singularitarian]

You don't need to think about the big bang or infinite mass. Just take any ordinary massive particle at rest. That's "moving" through time as fast as anything can.

Sol, i think this is the second time i've had to tell you that the ''linearity'' of time is an illusion. Physics today does not believe in any ''flow'' of time.

 

[Molinaro]

well for starters:

''That is, an object with infinite mass, traveling at light speed through time, and not moving through space at all?''

How can an object with infinite mass travel through a single dimension? When something moves through space, there is a corrolative time as well. Time and space are actually vectors of the same manifold. If the OP is addressing the possibility that when a mass reaches lightspeed, it requires an infinite amount of mass, then that would last long either, as it would require more energy than what is in the observable universe.

So for starters, you ignore all his correct statements, and quote his question! And you call that a demonstration of:

There are simply far too many inconsistencies and errors in the OP.

 

[BTMO]

Its what the Dark Emitting Diode emits.

To make a Dark Emitting Diode, you start with a regular Light Emitting Diode and put it in circuit without the usual limiting resistor, then apply current. After a very brief interval during which all of the residual photons are driven off, it is DED forever.

Correct! Also, the reason you can see in shadows, is that photons have higher energy densities than darkons.

When a photon and a darkon collide, they mutually annihilate, but it is not quite even. Some residual light is left over, and that is why you can see in shadows.

Incidentally, this also explains why moonlanding deniers are nothing more than braying jackasses.

Darkon-photon interaction mathematics PROVES that you can take photos in shadow!

 

[Singularitarian]

So for starters, you ignore all his correct statements, and quote his question! And you call that a demonstration of:

Yeh, correct statements which he was itterating from a scientist.

 

[sol invictus]

Sol, i think this is the second time i've had to tell you that the ''linearity'' of time is an illusion. Physics today does not believe in any ''flow'' of time.

Are you looking for a response?

"The ''linearity'' of time is an illusion": no idea what you're talking about.

"Physics today does not believe in any ''flow'' of time": I didn't say anything about the "flow of time". But anyway you're wrong; or rather, your statement is simply too vague to be evaluated. You're not even wrong.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Correction to the OP: Photons are not of infinite mass, because if they were they would also be infinitely energetic via E=mc². Linky.

 

[Molinaro]

Yeh, correct statements which he was itterating from a scientist.

The you must certainly retract your first comment in this thread. What you described simply did not take place in the OP.

He made correct statements, as you agree right here.

He then asked a question.

Since when is asking a question, you know looking to find out if something is right or wrong, equal to:

There are simply far too many inconsistencies and errors in the OP.

 

[Singularitarian]

Are you looking for a response?

"The ''linearity'' of time is an illusion": no idea what you're talking about.

"Physics today does not believe in any ''flow'' of time": I didn't say anything about the "flow of time". But anyway you're wrong; or rather, your statement is simply too vague to be evaluated. You're not even wrong.

Well, you talk about time from a stationary position as if time continues to flow forward. Being stationary has nothing to do with the increase of time, or the perception of any linearity. Instead, time does not have a true directionality, and is just fleeting flashes of momentary events, starts and stops. Time - or atleast, the psychological arrow time is completely an illusion. Time is made of tiny fragments.

 

[sol invictus]

Time is made of tiny fragments.

Let's focus on that, since it's at least vaguely comprehensible.

Earlier you asserted (I think) that physics today says it's the case. You're wrong: no such idea is established or anywhere near widely accepted. Since it's your assertion, you provide the evidence. A statement to that effect in a textbook would do nicely (something in a speculative paper or crank website will not).

 

[ponderingturtle]

Correct! Also, the reason you can see in shadows, is that photons have higher energy densities than darkons.

When a photon and a darkon collide, they mutually annihilate, but it is not quite even. Some residual light is left over, and that is why you can see in shadows.

Incidentally, this also explains why moonlanding deniers are nothing more than braying jackasses.

Darkon-photon interaction mathematics PROVES that you can take photos in shadow!

And remember that the speed of dark if faster than the speed of light, because no matter how fast the light moves, the dark always gets there first.