opposite of a photon

[Singularitarian]

And this one, has a title which hints at the ''Frozen Time'' theory found in relativity, Greene himself wrote a book on this called ''the Frozen River.''

Flowing with a Frozen River
By Cristinel Stoica


Essay Abstract
For discussing foundational questions, like the nature of time, we need a framework. Ideally, this would be provided by a Theory of Everything. Until the discovery of TOE, I propose a mathematical structure that can be used to represent theories of Physics in a unitary framework, similarly to the way in which the group actions represent various geometries in the Erlangen program. This construction extracts essential aspects of various theories, concerning the space, time, physical law, and causality. I introduce a causal structure and apply it to models of time and time travel. I propose an argument, based on causality, for the initial singularity of the Universe, and for the physical reality of gauge potentials (all three related in an unexpected way). Then, I discuss a new version of Quantum Mechanics, that replaces the discontinuous wavefunction collapse with delayed initial conditions, and has significant implications on time and causality. After presenting the arrows of time as emergent phenomena, I discuss the mind and its perception of time as flowing, in the context of the block spacetime. Then, I apply the previous observations to analyze the possibility of free-will. I propose a hypothesis about the free-will, and a crucial experiment that can confirm or reject it.

Author Bio
Cristi Stoica has a master's degree in Differential Geometry with applications in Physics, and is enrolled in a doctoral program on the Fiber Bundle Geometry. He works as a computer programmer in the field of Computational Geometry. The present essay is based on the author's independent research.

download essay • discuss essay back to top

 

[The Man]

I know that time is made of starts and stops, but i can't find the paper yet which explains this. For now, it will not need to matter, because time does not have a flow, which is more specific to the arguement, i think you will agree.

How does “starts and stops” preclude the concept of flow?

Water can be dispersed in “starts and stops”, yet flow can still be measured.

Traffic moves trough an intersection in “starts and stops”, yet traffic still flows through that intersection.

You seem to be depending upon a false dichotomy.

For symmetry with respect to time inversion you may want to see Wheeler Feynman absorber theory, but that still does not help your claim to “know that time is made of starts and stops”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–Feynman_absorber_theory

 

[CanadaGlass]

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.

It sounds very much like what I have been trying to talk about in the thread I started. I should read that book.

As to your question, if time and space are not differentiated, does the idea of a big bang even make any sense? If all of space existed as a singularity, time is within that singularity as well. I am going to copy a little of what I posted there.

I think there is an error in methodology when a four dimensional universe is mapped as three dimensional, and then a start extrapolated. Time is not a straight line through the universe. If time really is no different than space on a fundamental level, any attempt to deal with the history of the universe is an exercise in futility. It starts with an arbitrary direction for time, namely our own, and assigns this to the whole universe. It then maps the universe, and extrapolates "back" in time to the point where it appears everything exploded out of an infinitely small point at faster than the speed of light.

This is exactly the kind of vanishing point you would expect if you were to map a four dimensional object as three dimensional, and extrapolate along the ignored dimension. Same idea as mapping the cross section of a sphere (a circle), and then extrapolating along the third dimension. The circle gets smaller at an exponential rate.

The idea of expanding space stems from the Doppler effect, or wave frequency, not speed. Instead of thinking of space as expanding, think of it as exponentially (a full dimension) bigger than we give it credit for in the first place.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I never ever justified a photon with a infinite mass. You have me mixed up with someone else.

Whoops. Sorry about that - I got you confused with the OP

 

[Dr. Trintignant]

But it's obvious that this guy's views on physics are not accepted by physicists.

Physicists: no. Physicist: yes. Roger Penrose has worked with the guy and the two together developed their theory of consciousness, called Orch-OR^WP.

Of course this in no way legitimizes Hameroff's ideas. Nevertheless, Penrose does give him a smidge of street cred.

- Dr. Trintignant

 

[CanadaGlass]

Physicists: no. Physicist: yes. Roger Penrose has worked with the guy and the two together developed their theory of consciousness, called Orch-OR^WP.

Of course this in no way legitimizes Hameroff's ideas. Nevertheless, Penrose does give him a smidge of street cred.

- Dr. Trintignant

After watching a lecture by Roger Penrose, I think of him as a crank. So what if he has been Knighted. Just like Paris Hilton is proof that you don't need to be poor to be white trash, Penrose is proof of something.

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/in...t&task=view&id=551&Itemid=568&lecture_id=7276

 

[sol invictus]

Physicists: no. Physicist: yes. Roger Penrose has worked with the guy and the two together developed their theory of consciousness, called Orch-OR^WP.

Of course this in no way legitimizes Hameroff's ideas. Nevertheless, Penrose does give him a smidge of street cred.

This http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5023066 post and the ones before and after discuss Penrose.

After watching a lecture by Roger Penrose, I think of him as a crank.

I think you're right (although it wasn't always that way).

 

[Dr. Trintignant]

This http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5023066 post and the ones before and after discuss Penrose.

Yes, I didn't mean to imply that Penrose wasn't a crank as well. He has as much credibility about consciousness as Pauling did about vitamin C. It's sad that this kind of nonsense tarnishes the legitimately good work they did in the past.

- Dr. Trintignant

 

[sol invictus]

Sol, i've linked you to a mathematical paper which explains that the flow of time is an illusion. This has **** all to do with stuart. You've been shown to be wrong, whether or not time itself is cut up into fragments, time does not have a flow.

And this relates to "Time is made of tiny fragments"... how?

Time can be thought of as being frozen, that's true. But it can also be thought of as having a flow. Both points of view make sense - they're just words describing a mathematical and physical fact.

Let me make an analogy. You're floating down a river. To you, it appears that the river bank is flowing by. But is it "really" flowing, or is it just your experience of it that makes it seem so? Another, more exact analogy: a diagonal line on a piece of paper. Take another piece of blank paper and cover it, then slide it smoothly so it uncovers the line. Is the line moving and lengthening, or was it already there and it's just what you see that makes it seem so?

You can describe these things either way, and both descriptions are valid. It's really not a very interesting discussion, because it changes nothing and one learns very little from it.

 

[Jimbo07]

It's almost like one could write a piece about the wacky things Professors Emeriti say!

 

[The Man]

I think you're right (although it wasn't always that way).

Indeed, history is replete with major scientific accomplishments by people whom apparently become cranks later in life. Certainly goes to the perceived direction of time. Perhaps we could formulate increasing entropy / increasing crankiness relationship?

ETA:
I might postulate that as ones randomness and disorder in thinking and reasoning increases (T_E) that ones crank factor (CF) increases exponentially as in CF^T_E

 

[Philosaur]

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

Whoops. Sorry about that - I got you confused with the OP

Mattus, I said no such thing:

So a photon, with zero mass...

 

[Philosaur]

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.

This may underscore some misunderstanding I have about physics, but isn't it established that nothing can ever be truly at rest? Isn't every object in motion with respect to at least some other object? Otherwise, we could point to the center of the universe--the thing (or place) about which everything else moves.

The only thing I can conceive of as not being in motion through space would be the point mass that underwent the big bang.

This means that any ordinary particle is actually not moving as fast as it could through time, since part of its total lightspeed velocity is "used up" moving through space.

 

[sol invictus]

This may underscore some misunderstanding I have about physics, but isn't it established that nothing can ever be truly at rest?

No.

Isn't every object in motion with respect to at least some other object?

In the real world? Sure, since things are always moving in all sorts of directions. In a thought-universe governed by the same laws of physics we have in ours? No. For example you might only have one object.

Otherwise, we could point to the center of the universe--the thing (or place) about which everything else moves.

How does that follow? You see, it's not true that nothing can ever be at rest. But what is true is that there's no meaning to saying something is at rest or not at rest, except relative to something else. In other words given two objects moving with respect to each other, you'd be perfectly justified in calling either "at rest" (just not both at the same time). More formally, you can always choose a frame - known as the "rest frame" - in which any give object is at rest. But you can also choose a frame in which no object is at rest, if you like.

 

[Philosaur]

It sounds very much like what I have been trying to talk about in the thread I started. I should read that book.

As to your question, if time and space are not differentiated, does the idea of a big bang even make any sense? If all of space existed as a singularity, time is within that singularity as well. I am going to copy a little of what I posted there.

If four-dimensional space-time is giving you a hard time (no pun intended), then you'll most likely dislike the book, which is all about string theory, a version of which says there should be eleven dimensions.

 

[CanadaGlass]

If four-dimensional space-time is giving you a hard time (no pun intended), then you'll most likely dislike the book, which is all about string theory, a version of which says there should be eleven dimensions.

I am fine with four dimensions. I find 11 a little hard to swallow.

 

[Philosaur]

More formally, you can always choose a frame - known as the "rest frame" - in which any give object is at rest. But you can also choose a frame in which no object is at rest, if you like.

Let me see if I've got this straight:

A photon bounces off of me. From my rest frame, the photon is traveling at c, and so the photon is not moving through time at all. From the photon's rest frame, I'm traveling away at c, and so I'm not traveling through time at all (but only from the photon's "point of view").

Is this correct? I feel like I'm mangling some concepts here.

 

[sol invictus]

Let me see if I've got this straight:

A photon bounces off of me. From my rest frame, the photon is traveling at c, and so the photon is not moving through time at all.

More or less.

From the photon's rest frame, I'm traveling away at c, and so I'm not traveling through time at all (but only from the photon's "point of view").

There is no "photon rest frame". I probably should have added that as a caveat - every massive object has a rest frame, but massless particles moving at the speed of light do not.*


*The truth is there is a kind of infinitely boosted frame which is like a rest frame for massless particles, but it has lots of bizarre properties, isn't well known to most physicists, and I'd prefer not to get into it.

 

[Philosaur]

There is no "photon rest frame". I probably should have added that as a caveat - every massive object has a rest frame, but massless particles moving at the speed of light do not.*

*The truth is there is a kind of infinitely boosted frame which is like a rest frame for massless particles, but it has lots of bizarre properties, isn't well known to most physicists, and I'd prefer not to get into it.

No problem. Thanks for helping me understand this!