Time to end all misconceptions for ever!

[WebFeet]

If you have even one particle (charged of course) in this universe of yours,then your charge density of the vacuum would be greater than 0 and then c would be less than infinite.

You're right, the velocity would be less than infinite, across the entire Universe, but that does not say that it cannot be infinite locally.

 

What if the region of space was deviod of charge. This would mean that the refractive index was effectively zero, resulting in the speed of light being infinite.

I only mentioned a region of space, not the entire Universe. There's no reason why the region has to be any bigger than, lets say, a Planck Length.

The sunlight streaming in through your window has travelled 93 million miles and been refracted through various medium, vacuum,air,glass.

The average speed will be less than C. That doesn't mean that it didn't reach a velocity of C, just that its average wasn't that fast.

[Qfwfq]

I understand what is meant in PV and it certainly makes sense, ever since Dirac and especially with field theory where the photon's Fock space will have fermion-antifermion pairs in it. That wasn't what I asked you. You replied:

Speed = Distance/Time.

If the velocity were infinite this would mean that Time would be zero.

But you still don't give any meaning to a statement such as Time being zero. :) I don't see any meaning in it. What I see is that if, hypothetically, c were zero there would be no propagation of causality through space because light cones would "shrink around" the time axis. I don't call this "time being zero". For any elapsed time, at zero velocity, nothing could propagate a distance greater than zero.

 

I could even infer that for c = 0 there would be no measurement of distance between two points at a spacelike separation so it would hardly make sense to talk of spacelike distance, the topology of a spacelike submanifold may as well be the discrete one. Physics as we know it would certainly go fry itself. This is a totally different picture from that for any reduced value of c, even approaching zero but finite.

 

Considering instead the coordinate transformation to a reduced c in the limit of it approaching zero, time intervals would be larger and larger, approaching infinity. The inverse c. t. would give "our" time intervals as approaching zero.

 

In GR, time dilation is proportional to mass,

Which mass? :)

and since a photon is massless, it does not suffer from time dilation. Does this mean that Light/Photon/Energy is outside of the realms of time?

I don't think a photon suffers anything! In the photon's rest frame, considered as the limit of v --> c, time intervals become zero but I don't draw the conclusions you do.

 

If the speed of light were variable, then wouldn't it make more sense that Time is defined by the Speed of Light.

Under GR, this would not be the case. But in PV, which produces the same results as GR, it could be.

More the other way around, I'd say. The VSL interpretation means a locally reduced value of c instead of locally contracted time intervals, which are proper to the geometrical interpretation of GR.

 

BTW I still consider them as both being interpretations of GR. PV could be a reason in support of the VSL interpretation. In looking up these things I saw a site according to which Einstein himself had remarked that VSL would be an alternative to the geometrical interpretation, it simply didn't receive as much attention, especially in the media.

[paultrr]

Einstein's said that. You happen to have the link by chance?

[Qfwfq]

Sorry Paul, I would have to go through my browser's history, last week maybe, maybe the previous. You might be quicker to google on 'Einstein' with a few other relevant words.

[paultrr]

I just wondered. The closest I've ever seen Einstein to saying that was in some of his own words about GR. But even here he was simply saying something we tend to play with now on how under GR one can have a metric where something can appear to move superluminal(ie Alcubierre's Warp Metric). One of the reasons I asked was Einstein took exception with developing quantum mechanics over far more than the God playing Dice issue. He had problems with its action at a distance effects that seemed to violate the spirit of relativity on the surface. I do know, and its been to long ago on this to post a link also, that he did in private conversation at one time wonder if his whole idea might on day fall like some house of cards. I had always just considered that paranoid thinking on his part.

 

Either way, I think its correct though that VSL actually is nothing more than at best an extension to GR and as such it offers an altrernative picture of cosmic evolution. One thing that is true is VSL like a lot of ideas out there is theory. As far as support goes that requires observational and experimental evidence. The same goes for PV. What's needed with the PV model is more indepth look at how one could test this theory out.

[WebFeet]

Qfwfq,

Firstly, let me say that in a previous post I stated that when C = 0, then Time is zero. This was a mistake and it should have said that Time stops.

 

As you say, nothing could propogate a distance greater than zero, if c = 0. This I'm in agreement with, along with there would be no measurement of distance between two points.

 

Aren't these the properties that would be displayed by a singularity ? Time at a stand still and a lack of any spatial dimensions. A singularity is essentially a massless coordinate containing energy and no sense of time. (The last two parts of that sounds like my daughter!)

These properties can be associated with a number of different things. The Pre-Big Bang singularity, the singularity at the centre of a BlackHole (it there is one) and a photon.

 

I don't think a photon suffers anything! In the photon's rest frame, considered as the limit of v --> c, time intervals become zero but I don't draw the conclusions you do.

If the photon/energy is the basic building block of our Universe, why should it suffer anything, after all, it's the photon/energy that determines the properties of everything constructed from it.

 

More the other way around, I'd say. The VSL interpretation means a locally reduced value of c instead of locally contracted time intervals, which are proper to the geometrical interpretation of GR.

I think that there needs to be a better definition of speed of light theories, similar to diamonds. VSL is variable, VVSL is Very Variable.

VSL proposes reduced values of c, whereas VVSL (the one I prefer) proposes absolute variations from zero to infinite for c.

[Qfwfq]

I stated that when C = 0, then Time is zero. This was a mistake and it should have said that Time stops.

All right, that has a bit more meaning, it becomes a subtle semantic issue. You agree when I say that propagation would cease, I consider this totally different from, if not somewhat complementary to, saying that time would stop. It's more like space would "stop" than like time would.

Gedankenexperiment:

 

I'm a pointlike conscious being, able to perceive elapsing time and to think (reminescent of Kant, and suppose also that I have a some kinda heartbeat or whatever, "inside" that point). Bring c to zero, hence the light cone comes to coincide with the t axis. I presumably could continue to think, feel my "heartbeat" and anything that's totally in my point; the sole fact of the light cone tightening up doesn't imply that I no longer could. I simply couldn't perceive anything from neighbouring points, even at tiny distances. I don't think I'd be exactly like your daughter! :)

 

These properties can be associated with a number of different things. The Pre-Big Bang singularity, the singularity at the centre of a BlackHole (it there is one) and a photon.

I distinguish the photon as being a quite different case. For the photon's rest frame, the space submanifold doesn't completely wrap up, only in one spatial dimension contracts. This is a Lorentz coordinate transformation and not a hypothetical variation of c. There certainly is an analogy, yes, of course.

Gedankenexperiment:

 

Replace 'pointlike' with 'massless' in the above GE.... The picture is very different, we must consider my proper time and that of observers not travelling at c. We know it as the limit for c approaching infinity: in our p. t. a muon in flight has an average duration much greater than 2.2 µs but, in its own p. t., it is no greater. If we have some mus at rest in the lab, the ones in flight see them lasting a lot longer, contrarily to us. If I were massless I presumably would see no evolution occurring in the 2 dimensional squashed space around me. A photon emitted from A and absorbed at B must "see" its journey as instantaneous although we see it having a finite duration. First it's at A and the universe "looks" one way, suddenly it finds itself at B and the universe looks different. If I never get stopped, the journey duration in my proper time would be infinity times zero = ?, Lorentz can't tell us. No reason therefore why I shouldn't be thinking, feeling my heartbeat, and admiring a 2 dimensional space around me in which absolutely nothing is happening. Well... the only hitch about seeing the squashed space around me is: how would I see it? I could always suppose that the standard model was a bit different, and that neutrini are exactly massless, I could be made of them, and see by interacting with massless bosons...... :)

[WebFeet]

All right, that has a bit more meaning, it becomes a subtle semantic issue. You agree when I say that propagation would cease, I consider this totally different from, if not somewhat complementary to, saying that time would stop. It's more like space would "stop" than like time would.

There are two view points on this. If SpaceTime exists, then you could say that SpaceTime stops. The other view point is that Space is merely the background, the playingfield where all events take place. It's a bit like a catalyst. You need Space for events to take place, but it is not effected by any events that do take place.

 

Gedankenexperiment:

I'm a pointlike conscious being...... the sole fact of the light cone tightening up doesn't imply that I no longer could. I simply couldn't perceive anything from neighbouring points, even at tiny distances.

A scentient particle, I like the idea of that.:)

 

Whatever happens to the light cone directly effects you. As a pointlike particle, you are effected by Relativity the same as any other mass. As the cone tightens, so the energy that you consist of slows. If the energy that makes up your being can be compared to a circulatory system, the system effectively stops.

 

I distinguish the photon as being a quite different case. For the photon's rest frame, the space submanifold doesn't completely wrap up, only in one spatial dimension contracts. This is a Lorentz coordinate transformation and not a hypothetical variation of c. There certainly is an analogy, yes, of course.

Isn't SpaceTime geometry dependant on c being constant?

 

Gedankenexperiment:

 

Replace 'pointlike' with 'massless' in the above GE...... First it's at A and the universe "looks" one way, suddenly it finds itself at B and the universe looks different. If I never get stopped, the journey duration in my proper time would be infinity times zero = ?, Lorentz can't tell us.

 

 

So you've now changed to a scentient photon.:)

If the way you experience time is determined by the energy circulating within you, then as a photon you have a problem.

Your whole being consists of a single chunk of energy contained within a dimensionless coordinate. How fast energy can circulate is determined by your permeability, or in other words, by how much space there is for the energy to move - none. Energy within you doesn't move, its velocity is zero.

 

Time = distance / speed

Travelling at inifinite velocity means that you cover any distance in essentially no time. It's not the travelling that determines time, but the stops you make along the way. Each stop relates to encountering a refractive index higher than zero, meaning your velocity will decrease. Once through this, back into zero refractive space, your velocity increases back to infinity. Each one of these stops is effectively one tick on the great universal clock. The more stops you make, the more ticks there are from leaving point A and arriving at point B. Even with no stops, merely arriving at point B results in one tick.

 

As a scentient photon, its is your velocity in space that determines how fast my watch measures time as you whizz from one excited electron to the next. If the space you're travelling through is more like treacle and you're having a slow day getting from one electron to the next, then my watch takes longer to record each second.

[paultrr]

The book by Dover on Einstein's Relativity has the paper in it in which Einstein first considered a VSL version of GR. Basically, from what I have been able to gather, a variable light speed determined the geometry of spacetime which he later abondoned in favor of the more normal GR approach where matter/energy curves spacetime. I think his later GR incoporates aspects of the first since in certain cases the geometry of spacetime can be found to control the local value of C also.

 

Interesting to say the least.

[paultrr]

What in essence for the photon takes place is that the universe becomes 2D. Time and length are the two elements that contract. As mentioned width and height remain normal. Since this contraction takes place in the direction of its momentum in effect even though to us the photon takes a given amount of time to cross a certain distance for the photon itself no time transpires for it to cross that distance. If one was a thinking photon its whole existance takes place in an instant.

[paultrr]

I might add that unless C is actually a variable there is no such thing as C equals zero. Its only time that in most modeling changes. I mention the above because of the one case some VSL models hold to that C should slow down with time. In that case in theory eventually C would come to a stand still. But in essence then time would equal zero also even though it would also be true that some constract of space would still exist in literally frozen form. I also say that this implies in theory simply because as a little bit of math would tell one it would take an infinity to ever reach that zero point. It is rather like starting with 1 and trying to keep dividing in half. There are an infinite amount of steps to ever reach zero.

[WebFeet]

I might add that unless C is actually a variable there is no such thing as C equals zero. Its only time that in most modeling changes.

This is due to everything being founded on SpaceTime and C being the constant.

 

Time is then seen to vary instead of C. If this were the other way round, that C can vary, then Time ceases to be part of the foundation as any variation in C would cause a proportional variation in Time.

 

2 options are available

 

1. C -> SpaceTime

 

Where C is constant and SpaceTime varies

 

2. Space -> C -> Time

 

Where Space is constant and C varies which in turn causes variations in Time.

 

My preference is for option 2, unless you hadn't noticed. The implication is that there are no preset rules and limitations. If there is no resistance, then there is no limit on the speed of light. The only reistance light will encounter is from the presence of other light.

 

If Ds is Spatial Distance and Lt is the amount of light encountered, then the velocity of light will be determined by Ds/Lt.

This velocity is not measured in miles per hour, but needs to have another unit of measurement.

First Ds is a spatial distance, so miles don't really work here. From our prespective, the concept of a Spatial Dimension is a little hard to fathom because there is no way we can measure it. The easiest way to understand it is that if in our current environment the Ds between 2 photons = 1, then in a gravitational environment where mass is double what it is here, then the Ds between 2 photons = 2.

Now for the Time. This does not relate to seconds, although somewhere down the line it will be a fraction of a second dependant on the local environment. As I mentioned in a previous post, each encounter a photon has with a another photon can be seen as a single tick on the universal clock. So the measurement of time would have to be in terms of that clock, lets say Tu (time universal)

So the velocity of light is calculated using Ds/Lt and measured in units of Ds/Tu.

 

I hope that makes sense :)

[lindagarrette]

I've been reading an online book that explains another potential theory of it all. It's based on some (unknown to me) scientist's notion that the fundamental makeup of the universe is waves of potential energy loops. Here's an excerpt. You can find the entire book by going to the home page. I would appreciate your thoughts. It looks pretty good to me on the surface. No math, though. http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/schrod/schrodP.htm

[paultrr]

That would be fine in and of itself except that there is strong observational evidence in favor of the position that C has not varied outside of perhaps the inflationary era. In science we tend to rely upon both observational and experimental evidence. In this case, at the present time while not a fully settled matter, since there is some valid debate going on over evidence, C cannot be shown to have varied over the majority of the history of the cosmos. As such time would not be properly considered that variable which leads one back to the common way of working with metrics.

 

Basically, untill some version of direct lorentz symmetry breaking is ever shown to be valid or untill such time as we have a better grasp on some of the minor debated evidence out there on its variance then the normal way we consider the metric to work will hold. As such the only proper period when time may have varied was during the inflationary period when the vacuum that makes up spacetime was in flux itself. Even in this case its still spacetime that was changing and brought about the local changes in C itself.

[WebFeet]

That would be fine in and of itself except that there is strong observational evidence in favor of the position that C has not varied outside of perhaps the inflationary era. In science we tend to rely upon both observational and experimental evidence.

I think you've missed the point of what I'm proposing.

 

In terms of the measurement that you apply to the speed of light, I'm not suggesting that you would get anything other than 186,000 miles per second. There may well be fluctuations, but these should be extremely localised and extremely difficult to detect.

 

What I'm proposing is a way of viewing the universe, not in terms of what we perceive, but maybe in terms of what is actually happening.

 

Admittedly, if we cannot perceive it, then we have no way to verify it. This is a bit of a problem. As has been shown with PV, the results would appear to agree with Relativity. If this could be extended to agree with other laws or accepted theories, then shouldn't it be considered as a better alternative even though it may be beyond our perception.

[Qfwfq]

As a pointlike particle, you are effected by Relativity the same as any other mass. As the cone tightens, so the energy that you consist of slows.

In what sense does it slow? I mean, in a pointlike thing, what velocity could it have? I don't see the point and I see no argument of relativity by which time intervals would be zero.

 

Isn't SpaceTime geometry dependant on c being constant?

Constant? Or Lorentz invariant? Despite the insight about the optical interpretation, I think you still need to get this type of thing straight. Constant and Lorentz invariant don't mean the same thing.

 

So you've now changed to a scentient photon.:)

If the way you experience time is determined by the energy circulating within you, then as a photon you have a problem.

Your whole being consists of a single chunk of energy contained within a dimensionless coordinate.

Hold it, wait... relax and ponder, I proposed two different Gedankenexperiments, in the second I am massless but I did not say I'm a photon.

 

Time = distance / speed

Travelling at inifinite velocity means that you cover any distance in essentially no time.

Any distance? Or any finite distance?

 

In the example I made, my journey lasts an infinite time for other observers and Lorentz can't tell us how long it would last for me. If you put it as distance/speed then it isn't d/infinity, it's infinity/infinity.

 

It's not the travelling that determines time, but the stops you make along the way.

I find this, and what follows somewhat baffling. I have been arguing according to relativity and I'm not sure what your arguments are based on.

[ShaoLinBastard]

theories are great for the mind--it may not always be true, but it it meant to find truth...

imagine this...if you were a believer of God, you do not see God but you believe in Him...

or a better example...if your mom told you exactly how she cooked your steak and where and how of all the details of that steak, and if you ate that steak and it is termed as it is in your mind and view and sensations, wouldn't you deem to agree that she is correct?...

or let's draw another comparison or analogy...if I believe that the world is flat and you believe that the world is round...isn't it possible that it could be neither or a combination of both eh?...just some two cents...

 

i did not know that there was another thread but i am very angry at everyone for believe in the most implausble theorys.