[General] Light, relativity, space and time.

[John Williamson]

Hello Chip,

Good you are getting to grips with this. You are (at least very nearly) right, in my view, of "what the photon sees". Indeed the photon is "redshifted to oblivion". As one rides with the photon one sees nothing changing. One rides with the phase front at a fixed phase. At this limit, though, the photon energy has gone to virtually zero (precisely zero if the photon is "on mass shell" i.e. has zero rest mass). Just as you reach the limit the photon seems not there at all, energy wise. This is what the meaning of a "null vector" is - a 4-vector where one can find a frame where beginning and end are at the same point in some space-time frame. This needs a rest-massless (and hence chargeless) pure field object. Just the sort of thing described by the Maxwell equations.

The reason I say "very nearly right" and not "completely right" is that real photons are always, even if only slightly, just off mass-shell. If one looks at this from the point of view of the simple properties of waves, the limit is approached more closely as the length of the photon wave train becomes longer and longer. Real photons are not infinitely long (although they would not "mind" this as the whole train is anyway, for them, at (very nearly) the same space-time point (that is the point!). The photon is , even in this limit, not really not there - even if it now has zero energy. It is defiend by the "box" of its emission and absorption. Suddenly - clunk - it meets its absorber (which it sees as sweeping towards it at (very nearly) lightspeed, as far as it is concerned. It then gains the energy consistent with that relative velocity - a (very important) fraction off lightspeed. That is, indeed, off and not of!

What the absorber (observer) sees is "the light". You can do this yourself on a nice starry night! It always brings the hairs upon the back of my neck to feel that wonderful connection with the rest of the universe!

Hope this helps!

Cheers, John.

P.S more comments below on John's comments I did not have time to finish in yesterdays (18 hour!) workday .. in green.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 1:52 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Black holes

Hi All

Regarding the photon exchange conjecture.

I have taken some time to read, understand the concept, and run the math.

Let’s do a thought experiment to try to establish what is possible.

If we are instantly accelerated to the speed of light, what can we see?

With the proper equipment to compensate for redshift, if we are just below the speed of light, we could see our past.
We could see back to the point of acceleration, and we would view it as principally being now. But the rest of the universe does not see it this way.
However when we reach the speed of light we could not see our past any longer.  This is simply because there is no energy available for us to see our past when we are at the speed of light.  All information has been redshifted to oblivion. Zero frequency is zero energy.  At this point all “fields” from our past have become static. Due to our velocity we are inhibited from sensing what the rest of the universe can sense.

Time has become infinitely slow. So that time is not changing for us. But for an observer that is of course not the case.  An observer could sense our velocity and measure it in his time frame.  The fact that time has stopped for us does not mean we can see everything at once from the observer’s point of view. Nor does it mean that we can sense the future and choose our destination from the start of our journey. Even though time has stopped for us, it has not stopped for the rest of the universe.

If we view a photon, as an observer, we can therefore understand that the photon is incapable of “looking into its future”.  We can also see, from discussion like the above, that the photon cannot “see its past”.  At the speed of light there is no longer any energy to sense from its past.

I feel we have “toyed” with the math of relativity, to try to extract from it a reason for the observable, experimental results, we have obtained. But we have not really uncovered the reason for the phenomena.  I have now run the math and, when viewed in its entirety, cannot find a viable solution using the current photon exchange thinking. In my view, it is warping and misapplying the math, which even makes it seem to be a possible explanation, under the current approach.

Velocity limits our perception of time and of other fields in the universe, as viewed from a “stationary” observer.

I am thinking that there is an answer which actually and accurately describes these experiments, running the math on that one now.  It will take some time.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 2:56 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Black holes

Hello everyone,

In relativity BOTH space and time change. Look at the equations!  One man's time transforms to anothers space and vice versa. Now (special) relativity may not be the complete theory of everything (and I do not think it is) ... but, whatever it is, it is simply not so that space is constant in it where time varies. You want relativity ... you have space changing to time and time to space (with the speed of light being the point (for tachyonic matter) where time crosses completely into space and vice-versa. At least that is what the maths tells you - but that is mere maths of course.

In fact the problem (of the hypnotic box and the two glasses of wine (good idea by the way!) is even worse that you think it is.  The diagram shows two boxes of the same length , but with different velocities. This is not what particles do. The (energy) frequency goes up, the size goes down. The upper box has not been transformed - but the effect for what you have drawn is anyway is the wrong way - it should be smaller ... making the frequency discrepancy even bigger if you allow the velocity variation. The clocks would only agree if you made the top box bigger. This is the point. It is far more complicated that just velocity and frequency. What it means is that the clock thing is not fixed by ONLY changing the speed of light- as in the two boxes picture.

The problem is anyway that this isn' t really the problem. Even if we were to agree on whether the speed of light is constant or not or whether time is motion the real problem will remain: what is light and what are particles and how do we make up a theory to describe them and understand them? If I throw out time in the differential equations I use to describe the dynamics of nature (in the Maxwell or Schroedinger equations for example) .. the d/dt part - what, practically, do I replace it with? In fact, is not most people simple concept of dynamics that which changes in time. Have a go- just try thinking of dynamics without any notion of time .... Take out time and what does it gain you. One is left with nothing more to say. With, as the dutch would say, a mouthful of teeth.

I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "motion" here. Lets call it m anyway and try to write a theory for d/dm. While something like this is possible - one can formulate quantum mechanics in either the set of space and time or energy and momentum d/dt d/dx d/dy and d/dz OR d/DE d/dpx d/dpy d/dpz -- those p thingys are momentum - not "motion". We need to define just what it is we are talking about. Otherwise (at Wittgenstein, Godels mentor would have said) its not worth talking about.

Also E and t and p and x have the little quantum problem of not being simultaneosly measureable. Now there lies the real underlying problem... and that is what I should be looking at not arguing about the speed of light!

I am not saying myself that motion is not fundamental - it is!

What I am saying (and have been saying all along) is precisely that it is fundamental. Things that do not have (at least internal) motion do not exist. It is a John-Martin module that what you see is the less fundamental stuff... that which is left over after whatever is strong has satisfied itself. This is why you do not see magnetic monopoles. What I am saying is that, to a good first approximation, one can take this motion to be constant. If you do.  That is exactly what a non-variable speed of light means. Light is motion. The motion is constant.

Where that gets you is, at least somewhere. Let m = c - some universal constant (the speed of light say). Now one could write (allowing time to exist for a moment just for the sake of argument) dc/dt = 0 and dc/ds = 0. At this point we are at the simple point I have been talking about all along. If you like we have set dm = 0. We have a speed of light, constant in any frame in which it is measured locally. As is measured experimentally.

Extend this (therefore!) to be true in each and every Lorentz frame with local measure of space s and measure of time t. One has a theory which has some measures in common now with relativity. To make it exactly match relativity one need only put in a proper, invariant, measure of length -agreed upon by all observers of each others frames. This is ct^2-x^2-y^2-z^2. There you go. Bob is your uncle.

Comments below ... (in Red)
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 7:34 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Black holes

________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 7:57 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Black holes
John:
I think this speed of light thing is crucial because one thing leads onto another. Ideally I would like a weekend with you to hammer this out, because it is so very important. But here we are, with email. And this is a big one. You are blue. Bear with me:
I would like us to agree to make the simple postulate that time is what clocks measure.
This is where it goes wrong, right at the very beginning. This is what A World Without Time<http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942> is all about. Take a look inside a clock. Can you see time flowing through it like it’s some kind of chronological gas meter? No. You see springs and rockers and cogs, moving. And/or a vibrating crystal. And/or a pendulum*. And so on. It’s always something moving, usually in some regular cyclical fashion. Hence the inner mechanism of a clock is called a movement. What clocks do, is “clock up” some kind of regular cyclical motion and show you some cumulative result that you call the time**.  Clocks don’t measure time, they measure motion. When some guy in some SciFi movie has a gizmo that stops time, what it actually stops is motion. Really they equally display length : how far the little wheely things have gone round. If they displayed motion the motion would just be a constant. Clocks are designed precisely to maintain a constant motion. Then the length the hands have moved is proportional to the time that has passed (presuming motion = distance/time) Anyway clocks do not matter.. what matters are elemetary particles. These go round an sound (constituting a kind of clock) and have a certain size (constituting a kind of ruler. These are the ruler-clocks (the rocks) that Martin mentioned.
You are kind of assuming that there is an absolute clock reference - and that is not what relativity is about.
I’m not. I’m pointing to the empirical evidence, and to what Einstein said.

Good enough -- an absolute ruler then
You are ascribing changes in the velocity to (quite proper) changes in the clock. One can do this but it has consequences and can lead to confusion in thinking - as we observe here.
Nope - motion constant - clock and ruler variable.
There is no confusion. But there is a consequence, and it is this: when the clock goes slower, it’s because that motion goes slower. There is no time flowing through the clock. There is motion occurring in the clock. Even when it’s an optical clock.
I think we need to look at proper changes in ruler as well.
We define the second using the motion of light. When the light goes slower the second is bigger. When we then use the slower light and the bigger second to define the metre, they cancel each other out.
Within the narrow context here we have an equation relating space, time and velocity. We can choose to keep any one fixed , and allow the variation the other two to match experiment -for this set of 3. This would be ok if it did not have consequences elsewhere - in such things as the definition of Energy and momentum for example - whose definition in a wave-function is with respect to time and space. We could fix this by developing a (pre) canonical quantisation with respect to velocity - and people (Im thinking about Kanatchikow) have tried this.  We have to look at the whole of physics - all at once - and get something self-consistent.
Indeed -experimentally -clocks slow down as you enter a gravitational potential
That they do. And there is no time flowing through any of them. Whether it’s a mechanical clock or a quartz wristwatch or an atomic clock, they all go slower when you’re lower. Because the motion inside them goes slower. Everything goes slower, and we say time goes slower. But that’s just a figure of speech. There is no actual thing called time going anywhere.
Equivalently, light reduces its frequency (in step) as one goes up, to overcome the work done against gravity.
Cross my heart and hope to die: this is a fallacy. Your clock goes faster when you go up, so you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn’t changed a jot. In similar vein if you move fast through space away from the light source, you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn’t changed a jot. Conservation of energy applies.
That is the point. Light energy must go down, otherwise light energy in a box would not make it heavier (see Martin paper).
Conversely if one climbs a hill one has to do work.
True. You do work on a brick if you throw it up in the air. The kinetic energy you give it is converted into potential energy, the brick reaches its maximum height, and then it falls back down. This doesn’t happen to a photon, because a photon is all kinetic energy. It doesn’t slow down. And nor does the descending photon speed up.
It, indeed, does not go slower. It remains at the speed of light. It does, however, lose energy (and momentum) in going up, and gains it on going down. If it did not it would violate the mass-energy equivalence of light energy injected into a perfectly reflecting box. The momentum gain means our little friend hits the bottom of the box a little harder than the top, precisely accounting for the increase of the total weight of the box as indicated by a (sensitive) balance.
The work done goes into winding all the little oscillators inside your body up
Agreed.
if I use an absolute standard clock at some level of gravitational potential as "the" absolute clock, then clocks lower go slower
Agreed. But let’s make them light clocks. They go slower because the light goes slower.
That is one view, but not the only one.
However this is not what the initial postulate relating to the speed of light says or means. It says that the speed of light, experimentally in vacuo, is a constant.
When you measure a change, it’s either because the thing you measured changed, or because you changed, along with your measuring devices. When you don’t measure a change, it might be because nothing changed. But it might be because the thing you measured changed and you changed too.
That is the point. Your measure of space AND your measure of time have changed.   ... gota go
Now if time is what clocks measure, then what is space.
Space is empirical. Hold your hands up a foot apart. See that gap between them? That’s a space. That’s what space is. Now waggle your hands. That’s motion. That’s empirical too. I can show you space and motion. Now you try showing me time.
Yes - but the space between your hands is not much space. It is about three nano-seconds worth of space. At this length (time) scale you cannot see the motion of your hands. They do not wiggle much over three nanoseconds, so you do not see your fingers apparently bend as you would do if they were a lot longer. THis is because we are not only very small compared to human-perceptable time (about a tenth of a second - equivalent to roughly 3 times ten the four kilometer- about the size of planet earth), but also very slow when it comes to the frequencies of the ruler-clock particles of which we are composed.
Actually you can see both space and time. You cannot see much (ruler-measureable) space though, because it is very big. When you look up into the night sky you can seen (back) thousands of years worth of (clock) time. With the help of the Hubble telescope, billions of years worth. This is also (kind of) looking at a lot of space. You are limited in which bits of space or time you can see in that they are all at ct^2-r^2= 0 interval from your precise present moment. That precise present is ,for you, at the cutting point of time at the absolute centre of your universe. Scary stuff!
Let’s make a further postulate - that rulers are what measure space.
We use the motion of light through space in light clocks to measure time, and then we use radar, the motion of light through space, along with those light clocks, to measure space. Motion is king. And electrons are made of it. And rulers are made of electrons. And other things too, but you get the gist.
Yep -and you do have a very good point!
That means taking a standard ruler, dividing it by a standard time IN THAT FRAME gives a standard velocity. It is indeed a tautology that the speed of light is then a constant - in vacuo.
It’s a tautology because we use the motion of light to define the second and the metre, and then use them to measure the motion of light.
Exactly.
I believe that that is the current status of all of experiment. Am I wrong?
No. You aren’t wrong. But the clockwork man using his clockwork clock to measure the speed of clockwork will say the same.
Too true!
Now. What a velocity (or speed) is- its distance divided by time. Time is not motion, space is not motion. Motion is motion.
Motion is motion, but without motion there is no time. Imagine I sit you at a desk with a big red button. I tell you that if you press the button, all motion in the universe will cease. Then I tell you that if you press it a second time, motion resumes. Do you press the button?
Yes - twice. No else notices.
Motion is space divided by time. OK?
No. Motion is empirical. So is space. Time isn’t.
Not my personal favourite starting point.
Can we agree that speed = ds/dt and velocity is dv/dt? A little bit of space divided by a little bit of time. Do that, with light, in vacuo, anywhere, any time, you get the same number. Experimentally. Lets call it c. The speed of light.
You get the same number because the second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. And because the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458th of a second. If the light goes slower, the second is bigger, they cancel each other out, and you still say the speed of light is 299792458 m/s.
Yes. Exactly.
Something is, indeed, changing. Something is, indeed, missing. But just what that change or missing thing is depends on how we choose to split up our thinking. What we choose to be primary, and what do we choose to be derived. Do we take space as primary?
Yes.
No. Neither did Godel or Einstein. Their argument was not that there is no time , but that time may (and for Godel -should) not be primary. the argument is that it (and space) may be derivable from a deeper principle. A clue to what that deeper principle might be  is already apparent in the conservation of energy equation, the continuity equation. It is div (E) = -dE/dt. This is an equation relating spatial derivatives to temporal derivatives. This relates and constrains the relationship between space and time - if you wish to see conservation of energy as primary. Of course the media has picked up the massage that "scientist says there is no such thing as time". What do you expect?
Do we take the constancy of the speed of light as primary?
No. Einstein didn’t. Nor does Shapiro, nor Magueijo and Moffat, nor Wright, nor Koks, nor me.
Me neither --- it is also derivable (in my view) from a deeper principle --- that of linearity. This is the theme of the paper I am working on at the moment, and hope to talk about (amongst oither things) in August.
Is something else primary?
Motion. We live in a world of space and motion. Clocks clock up motion. The little hand moves. The big hand moves. And we say they tell the time. But they just moved.
Motion is more primary - but it is still not the prime mover.
However, there is one thing I know about that is missing - that most other people do not know that is missing. Luckily some clever people have discovered it independently over the years. One of them was Martin, Another, (quite) a bit before was Louis de Broglie. It is the Harmony of phases.
I’m guessing that Andrew Worsley<http://www.bougainvilleaclinic.com/Dr-Andrew-Worsley.php> discovered it too.
Also I love and respect and idolise Einstein as much as the next man. As someone who has read some of his stuff, in German, and found mistakes and mis-directed steps in his work, I cannot take him as an absolute authority.
The evidence and experiment is the authority. And the evidence says this: when you open up a clock, you don’t see time flowing through it.
Agree about experiment - not about not "seeing" time.
The quote from Einstein is correct - but both he (and you) can choose whether you see it as a change in velocity or a change in speed
I’ve read the original German. It’s a change in speed. That’s why he referred to the SR postulate. If you try to insist on the vector-quantity, you leave Einstein saying light curves because it curves.
Yep. Einstein knew that (general) relativity was not complete. This is essentially because the "curvature" is ascribed to mass without any mechanism for it. It is just postulated. Now that is a good postulate. Genrel and QED are the only two theories we have not flatly contradicted by some experiment or other (as far as I know). Even QED disagrees with precise measurements of the fine structure constant at the 4 sigma level.
In Martin and my 1997 model the photon curves (changing velocity) but the speed remains that of the speed of light everywhere (c), for example.

You can make a car go round in circles by deflating the tyres on the left a little. But a much better way is to turn the steering wheel. Your second email:
Agreed. An important question though is the absolute sign of the circulation. Nature appears to be handed (to allow only left turns or right turns - corresponding to left deflation or right  deflation). Conventional is that it is right (clock) I think it should probably be left anticlock (as in the generally accepted positive direction for line and path integrals. Sigh - if we choose a sign why do we always seem to get the wrong one?
In the narrow context of space, time and light-speed (defined as = space/time at the rest-massless limit) there are two valid viewpoints (consistent with experiment) and six invalid viewpoints. Viz:

  space    time     speed     valid
1 fixed    fixed    fixed     no
2 fixed    fixed    varies    yes
3 fixed    varies   varies    no
4 fixed    varies   fixed     no
5 varies   fixed    fixed     no
6 varies   fixed    varies    no
7 varies   varies   varies    no
8 varies   varies   fixed     yes

Now you can have case 2 or case 8 but not both
Actually I think .... ultimately ... one can have only one of the above, but that more (including the absolute relative direction of the rotation of fields and spins) is required.
Case3 is valid. When the light goes slower the second is bigger but the metre stays the same. So space is fixed, time varies, and speed varies. Only I didn’t mention radial length contraction.
Don't get this one ; space fixed and radial contraction?
The lab on earth is not good as it is effectively (according to the postulate of equivalence) accelerating at g.
I root for relativity, but I will tell you this: the principle of equivalence only applies to an infinitesimal region. It doesn’t apply to the room you’re in. In truth, it was merely an enabling principle, a way forward. Accelerating through homogeneous space, it’s not the same as standing still in inhomogeneous space. In the former situation, light appears to curve, but actually, it doesn’t. In the latter situation, it does. Your third email:
For any particle-as-a-clock both (energy) frequency goes up and (clock ) frequency goes down.
Imagine an electron in front of you. It has an energy and a frequency. When you drop it, gravity converts internal kinetic energy into external kinetic energy. Then when you catch it, you dissipate that kinetic energy, and the electron now has a mass deficit. Its mass is lower. And all it really is, is an E=hf photon going round and round. Its energy is lower. So its frequency is lower too.
Yes: this is true for electrons. It is also true, however, for photons. In my view.
The main point of the harmony of phases is that the phase of both of these oscillations, is in harmony for all space and all time and in any Lorentz frame.
You must read Friedwardt Winterberg’s paper. When you drop an electron into a black hole, its downward speed relates to the difference in the “coordinate” speed of light at two elevations, which you can gauge with optical clocks. When the electron has fallen to a place where the coordinate speed of light is halved, I don’t think things are harmonious any more.
it does indeed make no sense to say the speed of light varies.
But the experiment says it does. If it didn’t vary, optical clocks wouldn’t go slower when they’re lower.
What this means mathematically is that the speed of light is fundamentally, in fact, infinite.
But experiment says it isn’t. You and I shine a laser at the moon, and it’s circa two seconds before we see the reflection. The speed of light is not infinite. It is indefinite.
If we could just throw a switch and double the speed of light we would then not notice.
True. Because we are made of light. The speed of everything would be doubled.
Exactly.
This is why it can, and should, become common knowledge that photon events always take place at a single space-time point ( the concept you were having trouble with before).
If the speed of light was infinite, everything would happen at once. There would be no time. Just as there would be no time if the speed of light was zero.
I have talked (and written) about this before for photons (the first time was in 2008 at Cybcon)- but have not yet managed to get it peer-reviewed published or even found any individual with whom the idea had any significant traction - outside of Martin of course.
Sorry to be an awkward sod. But I feel driven to get across this inhomogeneous space so that the road is clear for curved space.
Don't be sorry. You are absolutely right to insist on looking at every speculative possibility. I am looking forwards to the discussion over the wine or the beer. We need to end up with a theory, however that describes ALL of experiment. That is we need to solve Hilbert's sixth problem. While special realivity is not the whole answer to this (one also needs The Maxwell equations, and explanation for the origin of the curvature in General relativity, a complete consistency with QED and a proper theory of the strong and weak interaction - which is not there yet - see the xkcd cartoon from last Friday).
My own view is that a proper consistincy with special relativity will remain as a part of the puzzle. In the meantime I need the concept of time to write down the differential equations in the new theory of light and matter I am developing. To describe the dynamics in other words.
I think it is the single most important thing we should be communicating to everyone in the year of light. IMHO.
I wish we agreed on everything. But there again, if we did, whatever would we talk about?
Too true!
I think i need to find a new job or just give this one up though as the present one is giving me 50 hour weeks of teaching...
Maybe somebody is trying to keep you busy.
Yes: but this is getting so bad it is affecting my sleep and my health. I'm contracted for 35 hours but am pulling more like 90, including all the idiot admin - plus writing stupidly long emails to you lot in the early hours of a Saturday morning (that is the fun bit). Lunch is something that happens only four days out of seven. Weaver has even more than I do. If I did not know better I would guess the university was trying to drive us all away. (Tim is already leaving- and we have just learned there will be, in total, five less of us teaching next year - another 30 percent increase in teaching workload).  There you go....
Regards JGW.
Regards
John D

*  the pendulum clock is the odd man out, in that the clock rate depends on the first derivative of gravitational potential rather than gravitational potential. The “force of gravity”.
** Just keep gazing at the image below. Have a glass of wine or two. Keep looking at it. There’s some weird psychological barrier to all this, wherein people insist that clocks go slower when they’re lower because time goes slower, when the time is just the number of reflections, or oscillations, or turns of a cog.
[parallel]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150228/b3af769f/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 27799 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150228/b3af769f/attachment-0001.gif>