Hi guys, just been thinking and I want to put forward an idea but I need to confirm a couple of points first.

1) When an object has the velocity of 'c' space is contracted according to that object to zero?
2) If this object was witnessed from Earth what would it's velocity be calculated as? ( I would guess that it would be 'c')

Hi guys, just been thinking and I want to put forward an idea but I need to confirm a couple of points first.

1) When an object has the velocity of 'c' space is contracted according to that object to zero?
2) If this object was witnessed from Earth what would it's velocity be calculated as? ( I would guess that it would be 'c')

1) If you want to take the math into uncharted territory... and the physics into uncharted territory... and cross your fingers that you can kick out some infinities here and there .... then yes. I wouldn't bet anything on it though.

2) Since only light can go at "the speed of light" (read those words twice), and the speed of light in vacuum is invariant for all observers, then yes, from earth we would also see it as "c".

Crisp you have a dry wit I'll grant you that...ha

Sorry for such an innane set of questions but I just wanted to be clear with out over assuming I know the answers.

Look I know very littel about this contraction stuff and what I am going to suggest may have been suggested before but here goes.

If as the Math suggests space contracts to zero at 'c' for an object could it not be said the same applied for our humble photon?
Contention:
If I was aboard a photon I would be everywhere simultaneously
so from this frae of reference light could be said to be instantaneous. In that it doesn' travel.

Now according to relativity an observer of the light would have a different view and I am guessing that if you did the math it would work out as 'c'.

Ok no big deal here .........

When we measure the speed of light are we measuring it form our frame of reference ...obviously yes?

So light could be both instantaneous and 'c' rated simultaneously.

If we measured it's velocity from it's own frame it would be instantaneous.

but from ours it has time 'c'

would this be a correct appraisal?

Crisp you have a dry wit I'll grant you that...ha

I think most people who know me in real life would call me immature and with a quite absurd feeling for humour, but I once I put on my "academic" hat I tend to become very lecturing and boring ;).

If as the Math suggests space contracts to zero at 'c' for an object could it not be said the same applied for our humble photon?

It suggests this yes.


If I was aboard a photon I would be everywhere simultaneously
so from this frame of reference light could be said to be instantaneous. In that it doesn' travel.

The problem is the very first sentence: "if I was aboard a photon". Special Relativity doesn't go there because it is doomed to fail. If you extrapolate what we know for speeds v << c to v = c, then yes, we can say that everything would be instantaneous.

Note that this is a HUGE contradiction with special relativity: SR dictates that from any frame of reference should measure "c" for the speed of light, but what happens in the frame of reference of the photon ? It would measure "v=0", no ? But as you remarked, everything contracts, time shrinks, and all kind of strange things happen. That is why special relativity clearly stays away from "the frame of reference of the photon".

It is a bit the same as asking "what happens to gravity, which goes like 1/r², if you go to the center of an object ? The maths suggest that it should go to infinity, but obviously this is not the case. There is an extrapolation going wrong here (in this case, to the situation r = 0).

Now according to relativity an observer of the light would have a different view and I am guessing that if you did the math it would work out as 'c'.

There is even no math involved, special relativity simple assumes from the start that any observer would measure "c" for the speed of light in vacuum.

So light could be both instantaneous and 'c' rated simultaneously.

It is really not that strange that you measure different velocities for an object. Someone standing next to the road would say a car goes at 140 km/h, while someone sitting in a train will say that a car goes eg. at 20 km / h (because the car moves a bit faster than the train). Observers that move relative to eachother measure different speeds.

The problem is that what you call "instantaneous" is not really correct (well, science will not give you an answer to that question).

Note that this is a HUGE contradiction with special relativity: SR dictates that from any frame of reference should measure "c" for the speed of light, but what happens in the frame of reference of the photon ? It would measure "v=0", no ? But as you remarked, everything contracts, time shrinks, and all kind of strange things happen. That is why special relativity clearly stays away from "the frame of reference of the photon".

I disagree, I don't se this as a contradiction in fact I see it as demonstrating just how clever the theory is.

When it is stated as a postulate that 'c' is invariant to all frames of reference it is assumed that the criteria function is treated separately. In that light being used as a measuriong stick can not directly be used as an example.

A bit like saying how can you see an error on your own with out the help of others becasue you are your error adn therefore it is oblivious to you but obvious to others.

Any way to me this is a very interesting development.

To measure 'c' we measure from our frame of reference and get the result v='c' and to measure 'c' from light's frame of reference we get v=0 (zero)


The other interesting thing is that if we look at the universe from a 'c' perpective it has zero dimensionality but if we look from a near stationary body it has 4 dimensions.

I see a whole host of mathematical difficulties in determining why approx 300,000kps in a vacuum is actually instantaneous. But hey Relativity is good at dealing with this sort of thing. I am refering to the thought experiments about cars and garages and lighting thingo.

The wonderous thing about all this is that when I look at a star from home with the naked eye I just know I am looking at the source of the light and not some light data trail delayed by 'c'.

To see the stars this way I must be seeing it from a photons frame of reference. But when we go to measure this light it rates as 'c'......what an amazing complexity.

If you calculate the lorenze transformation inversely from 'c' and zero space back wards to near stationary 4 dim. space what would this prove?

The thing is "measuring 'c' is a different event to actually perceiving light"

Measuring and perceiving can be different.

another approach is to ask the mathematical question:

assume that we know nothing about the speed of light.

If space has contracted to zero how can we get it back to 4 dimensions? What is the magical figure needed in this equation?

In other words "prove 'c' backwards from zero space" I have no idea how this could be done.......

I get the feeling that 300,000 kps is a figure that has more meaning to it than what we realise. for example could it be an amount that describes time dilation witnessed from an earth perspective when measuring light.

could the speed measurement of light be a measurement of time dilation?

Is there a name given to this dilemma by physics like the use of the name "twins paradox"

If you could expolate your speed to the speed of light, then, as you say, everything
would be contracted to one spot, with a time dilation. You would be INSIDE that star
you were looking at. Remember when i mentioned the big bang in reverse in your other
thread? Everything would seemingly be separated only by frames of reference, kind
of like dimensions. But this would require Special Relativity to be accurate and SR
does break down at the speed of light because that is its whole basis, relative velocity
between 'c' and everything else. There would be no relative velocity if we could travel
at 'c' and relativity would not work.

Actually, I failed to mention that, according to SR, the contraction would be only
along the direction of travel, front and back. An infinately large, two dimensional
circle with no thickness. Sounds even stranger, doesn't it?

If you could expolated your speed to the speed of light, then, as you say, everything
would be contracted to one spot, with a time dilation. You would be INSIDE that star
you were looking at. Remember when i mentioned the big bang in reverse in your other
thread? Everything would seemingly be separated only by frames of reference, kind
of like dimensions. But this would require Special Relativity to be accurate and SR
does break down at the speed of light because that is its whole basis, relative velocity
between 'c' and everything else. There would be no relative velocity if we could travel
at 'c' and relativity would not work.

Ahhh but this is the point. Relativity doesn't break down. There is always relative velocity......even if space has contracted to zero.......

The reasoning behind this can best be described if we split reality in to two dimensions that are in fact the one.

One dimension is the one we are familiar with ...it has 4 dimensions The other is the photonic dimension and here we have zero dimensions.

the two co-exist as is self evident, and I figure it is this exponentially inclined duality of zero to 4 dimensions that allows us the space to move with in with the light to see what we are doing...as well ( ha)


I don't consider just one side of the dimension, we combine the two to get what we have.

Along time ago I theorised to myself that reality was reallly just a 3 dimensional interpretation of 2 dimension..ie. 2 dimensional in a three dimensional form. ( ignoring for the moment the 4th dimension time) The perpective of looking at the two dimensional objects giving us an illusion of 3 dimensions ( volume )

This thing about zero space is really saying that light is a 2 dimensional manifestation. and thus gravity is also.

In another thread I proposed that gravity was the product of Nothing....nothing of course is zero dimension.

But obviously we have at least three dimensions with the forth called time...
So whilst we have zero space it is stretched across the entire universe and beyond, thus nothing is everywhere. How can zero dimension be stretched over the entire universe, well becasue it has no dimension.
The only thing giving nothing dimension is the mass within it and without it...

The universe is painted on a tapestry of nothingness. ( zero dimension )

If we take the logic of relativity all the way we have a theory for gravity as well.

Actually, I failed to mention that, according to SR, the contraction would be only
along the direction of travel, front and back. An infinately large, two dimensional
circle with no thickness. Sounds even stranger, doesn't it?

actually no. in fact it makes even more sense....( referring to my last post)

the thing that confuses us endlessly is this perception of distance in what is essentially a 2 dimensional reality.......light is 2 dimensional in that it has no distance yet we percieve distance and measure accordingly. so we have the co-existence of distance and no-distance and when we get down to the guts of nothing being split into two ( distance and no distance) we have a duality that is energistic. The spacial tension giving us the attributes of Vacuum ( casmir effect ) and all the other attributes that allow nothing to become a medium.


As an aside btw
With out mass as a form of referrence, what would floating in space be like?

"A state of unconsciousness ( except for your pressure suit etc )" and a sense of zero dimension. put some lights out there and we have 3 dimensions, allow for some change and we have 4 dimensions and I might add consciousness.

I often wondered why astronaughts often talk of space travel as an intensly "religious" experience. The closeness to nothingness and the reality of the universe or as some would call "God"

so in light of what we were discussing how does that effect our interpretation of our measureing light as 'c'?

Here is a cut and paste you may find interesting, QQ. It kind of gives an insight into
how Special Relativity is a self fulfilling theory, at least that is how I see it:

"When Einstein wrote down his postulates for special relativity, he did not include the statement that you cannot travel faster than light. There is a misconception that it is possible to derive it as a consequence of the postulates he did give. Incidentally, it was Henri Poincare who said "Perhaps we must construct a new mechanics, . . . in which the speed of light would become an impassable limit." That was in an address to the International Congress of Arts and Science in 1904 before Einstein announced special relativity in 1905.

It is a consequence of relativity that the energy of a particle of rest mass m moving with speed v is given by


E = mc2/sqrt(1 - v2/c2)

As the speed approaches the speed of light the energy approaches infinity. Hence is should be impossible to accelerate an object with rest mass to the speed of light and particles with zero rest mass must always go at exactly the speed of light otherwise they would have no energy."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html

As the speed approaches the speed of light the energy approaches infinity. Hence is should be impossible to accelerate an object with rest mass to the speed of light and particles with zero rest mass must always go at exactly the speed of light otherwise they would have no energy."

thanks for that ...you can see the two dimensions at work here or should I say the extremes of the one dimension.

It does make a lot of sense and it means that relativity has encapsulated and allowe for all contigencies. ( except for misunderstandings of course)

another question comes to mind.
Does light have a similar weakening of intensity/distance "graph" as gravity does?
A link would be nice

Yes, it's called cosmological redshift. This is different from Doppler Shift (velocity
related) and gravitational redshift (energy drain from escaping a gravity well). It
is expressed as a 'z' value, but it is not figured on a linear scale. I don't know how
they figure it, and the method/and or values have changed in the last few years.
A few years ago, they began finding galaxies older than the universe when calculated
the old way. It has changed. Here is a quick link, google will provide many:
http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#cosmologicalredshift

Just to clarify what I am asking ( you may have answered it but I am not sure)

If we take peek at our solar system and we measure the gavitational strength as we move away frome the sun does light intesity change at the same rate.....

It might be a too obvious question with a really too obvious answer....I dunno

at say 1 Ly is the gravity and light intesity similar?

and do they both follow a similar gradient of diminishing strengths.?

QQ, I'm not quite sure what you mean by light's 'strength'. In any case, I know of no
similar scales. Cosmological redshift is a measure of EM radiation's wavelength or
'energy'. You do realize that's the same thing, don't you? If you are speaking of light
as a photon, redshift is referring to the photon's energy loss. If speaking of light as
a wave, redshift is referring to an increase in wavelength, but that means the same
thing, longer wavelengths are less energetic than shorter wavelengths. However, those
losses due to distance only come at very great distances. They are calculated by a
very complex method. Gravity decreases very rapidly, by inverse square calculations.
If you are speaking of light's luminescence, that is more complicated. Generally, a
photon's 'strength' does not decrease on its own, unless by Doppler shift or one of
the redshifts. The reason light is 'weaker' at distance is because you see fewer photons from the source, they spread out over distance. This is in kind of easy-to-
explain layman's terms. If a real physicist would like to weigh in to put it more
scientifically, they are welcome to correct my more generalized explaination. But that
would probably require more space than is available here.

so in laymans terms
light emitted from a star "sperically" will decrease in intensity directly related to the circumference of that spherical emission.....a smooth graph involving pi no doubt.

However gravity follows the inverse square rule.

I guess I am just trying to find if there is a simple direct correlation between a stars emissions and gravity......and I get the feeling that this is not going to happen...yes?

This is an answer I have recieved from another source ( ex-sciforums)
and was wondering if any one would care to comment on it's relevance to the question posed by this thread "Could light be instantaneous and yet measured as 'c'"
If the photon had a rest frame, then its zero proper time would register there as instantanious. But the same thing that makes that so, makes a rest frame impossible for a massless object like a photon. When we look at a photon, or a beam of them, from our rest frames, they move at c. And there just isn't any rest frame where they are intantaneous

Could the rest frame of the photon be considered it's entire distance from source to destination, Thus with contraction to zero space along it's path it exists at any point and all points along this path.

A "frame of reference" is somebody's point of view.
An object's "rest frame" is a point of view from which the object under consideration is observed to be at rest.
A rest frame is not a distance.

Photons do not have a rest frame, since it is impossible to observe a photon at rest. Photons are always observed to travel at the speed of light, from any point of view you'd like to choose.

The arguement I am attempting to put forward is that due to contraction the photon is at rest for it's entire journey...... thus the entire journey is it's rest frame. Of course based on the proposition that for the photon space has contracted to zero.

i'd just like to address the first few posts this thread began with....

i think you are forgetting about how we measure the distance and how we measure time in special relativity terms. think back to the light clock, where you send out photons to do your time checks and it shows you the EFFECT of zero distance and the EFFECT of instantenous time.

Remember the classic photon bouncing off of a mirror, and a round trip was one time unit? Well, if you send out a photon in your light clock, but you are moving at the speed of light, and speed of light is same in all referene frames, then you can travel any distance whatsoever and that photon will never catch up to you because you are moving at c. So the first time period never comes until you stop or slow down, so time stops.

The distance contraction. Remember, your time does not move until you reach your destination as explained in the paragraph above. Then you stop and the photons of the time clock catch up to you and you can count time again. So if you are moving towards a far away place in the universe. (remember velocity = distance / time). You send out a photon to the destination. But you are moving at the speed of light, so you are chasing that photon all the way to the destination. And at the same time the time photon is trying to catch up to you. Once you arrive at the destination, the photon bounces off of it and reaches you. You check your time to see how long it took to get to the destination and the first photon of your light clock just now catches up to you, so you conlude that the distance is zero because light speed is constant and you sent out the photon and got it back immediately.

So it feels like the distance is zero, and it feels like the time stopped. But does space really contract to meet you? Or are you just chasing photons, and your time photons are chasing you??

actually, i'm gonna start another thread on the topic i put forth above