What has the speed of light got to do with time travel?

In summary, the speed of light is special because it does not require a medium in which to propagate and it is the only speed that all observers measure as having the same value. This means that different observers may disagree on whether events at different locations happened simultaneously or at different moments. This can lead to the concept of time travel, but only in extreme situations involving high mass-energies and gravitational fields, not by simply exceeding the speed of light.
  • #1
sammy8761
7
0
Just wondering what the connection is between them, I understand that it relative to what we see but time in general? why not the speed of sound as its only another sense right? Just interested to know why light is so special?

thanks guys, :smile:

Sorry messed up title should be speed of light! doh!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


sammy8761 said:
Just interested to know why light is so special?
Light is special because it does not require a medium in which to propagate.
 
  • #3


DaleSpam said:
Light is special because it does not require a medium in which to propagate.

I apologise but I am afraid i don't understand. :redface:
 
  • #4


The speed of light is the only speed that everyone measures as having the same value relative to themselves.

So what does this have to do with time?

Consider this scenerio:

You have a two people, one riding a train and one standing on the embankment. Lightning strikes at two points along the track at equal distances from the second observer. The light from these strikes arives at this person at the same moment the person riding the train passes him. Thus both people see the lightning strikes at the same time.

Each person is also able to measure the speed of that light relative to himself. when the embankment observer does this he determines that the strikes occurred at the same instant, as the strikes were at equal distances from him and the light from each strike traveled at the same speed relative to him.

The person on the train will also measure that the both flashes of light traveled at the same speed relative to himself. But he also knows that he is in motion relative to the points at which the strikes took place. Thus for him to be at a point an equal distance from the strikes when he sees them, he had to be closer to one strike than other when they took place, abd thus for him to be able to see the light from both strikes at the same time, the strikes themselves would have to have taken place at different times (one strike would have had to take place before the other.)

Thus we have two observers seeing the same lightning flashes but obe concluding tthat the strikes took place simultaneously, and the other concluding that they did not. All because both measure the same speed for the speed of light.
 
  • #5
sammy8761 said:
Just wondering what the connection is between them, I understand that it relative to what we see but time in general? why not the speed of sound as its only another sense right? Just interested to know why light is so special?

thanks guys, :smile:

Sorry messed up title should be speed of light! doh!

Define time travel
 
  • #6
The speed of light has nothing to do with time travel except in science fiction stories.

There is no reason to believe that "exceeding the speed of light" would result in backwards-in-time travel. Any such idea is mere speculation. The equations say that your clock would be mvoing in imaginary units - multiples of 'i' - which has no meaningful physical interpretation.

The only even remotely credible possibility of traveling backwards in time involves certain paths in general relativity involving extremely high mass-energies and gravitational fields. It has nothing to do with the speed of light (except to the extent that the GR equations have c as a parameter).
 
  • #7
Janus gave an explanation of why, if the speed of light is the same in each observer's frame of reference, that means different observers must disagree on whether events at different locations, like the two lightning strikes, happened simultaneously or at different moments. You can also watch a youtube video here which gives a nice illustration of the train thought-experiment. But I want to add a little to this to make the connection to "time travel" more clear. One of the basic principles of relativity is that each inertial (non-accelerating) observer measures the same value for the speed of light in a vacuum, but another principle is that all the laws of physics appear the same in each observer's own rest frame. This means that if I am in a sealed windowless spaceship moving inertially, and you are in a different sealed windowless spaceship which is in motion relative to my ship (and also moving inertially), then if I do some experiment on board my ship and you perform an identical experiment on yours, we should always get the same result. Now, imagine we both had some device which could transmit information faster than light--"instantaneously", let's say.

Now let's repeat the idea of the train thought-experiment, and suppose the observer on the side of the tracks has an FTL transmitter at the location of the strike at the back of the train, and at the moment the strike happens this transmitter sends a signal to a receiver at the location of the strike at the front of the train. Since both strikes happen simultaneously in the frame of the observer on the side of the tracks, and since the transmitter transmits information instantaneously in the frame of the observer on the side of the tracks, that means the receiver will get the message about the strike at the back of the train at the same moment that the lightning is striking right next to its own location at the front of the train (of course the train is moving relative to the receiver, so its location only coincides with the front of the train for a moment). But now remember that in the frame of the observer on board the train, the lightning actually hit the back of the train after it hit the front of the train. So in this frame, the receiver is actually receiving information about an event that "hasn't happened yet"!

This wouldn't be so bad if we just imagined that one frame's definition of simultaneity was the "correct" one and the other wasn't. But if the laws of physics work exactly the same in every frame, that must apply to whatever laws of physics govern the FTL transmitter too...so, if it's possible to build a transmitter which sends information back in time according to the train-observer's definition of simultaneity, it must also be possible to build a transmitter which sends information back in time according to the track-observer's definition of simultaneity. It works out so that if you are moving away from me at some significant fraction of light speed, and we each had FTL transmitters of this kind, then I'd be able to send a message to you which traveled "instantaneously" in my frame but "backwards in time" in your frame, and then you could immediately send a reply which traveled "instantaneously" in your frame but "backwards in time" in my frame, and the result would be that I'd actually receive your reply before I sent the original message! In this case every frame would agree that causality had been violated and that information had traveled back in time. Of course, this is a pretty good argument for suspecting that FTL communication is forbidden by the laws of physics...
 
  • #8
peter0302 said:
The speed of light has nothing to do with time travel except in science fiction stories.

There is no reason to believe that "exceeding the speed of light" would result in backwards-in-time travel. Any such idea is mere speculation. The equations say that your clock would be mvoing in imaginary units - multiples of 'i' - which has no meaningful physical interpretation.
Incorrect, see my post above. The issue is not what a faster-than-light clock would experience--trying to use the Lorentz transformation in this case gives nonsense answers as you point out, but then it also gives nonsense answers to what a clock moving at exactly the speed of light would experience, yet this doesn't mean we can't transmit signals which move at the speed of light in our frame, and similarly your point about the nonsensicality of FTL clocks also doesn't rule out the possibility of sending signals which move at FTL speeds in our frame (see this article on the hypothetical 'tachyons'). But because of the relativity of simultaneity, any signal which moves FTL in one frame would seem to move backwards in time in another, and if FTL signals obey the principle of relativity which says all laws of physics work the same way in every inertial frame, this means that two slower-than-light observers can bounce FTL signals between them in such a way that one of them will receive the other's reply before she even sent her original message. There's a helpful explanation of this using spacetime diagrams on this page.
 
  • #9
I don't, and didn't, equate "time travel" with backwards-in-time signaling.
 
  • #10
peter0302 said:
I don't, and didn't, equate "time travel" with backwards-in-time signaling.
Well, normally I think physicists would interpret time travel as causality violation, and certainly sending information backwards in time would be a violation of causality. And if you can send information back in time I think you should be able to do quantum teleportation backwards in time too.
 
  • #11
If you define quantum teleportation as "travel" ok... since the source object is destroyed I don't think that's what the OP has in mind.

To me time travel is the idea of moving a person either backwards in time or forwards in time faster than normal. And the common myth in sci-fi and I think in the general public is that traveling faster than light would allow you to do this, just like in Superman reversing the rotation of the Earth sends you back in time. There isn't even a theoretical basis to believe that you would be traveling backwards in time if you exceeded the speed of light. Your lorentz factor would be imaginary, not negative, implying it's a nonsensical scenario.

I do agree with you that the only thing standing in the way of FTL or B-I-T signaling is causality problems, which itself is a dubious concept. We all know in QM traditional causality gets thrown out the window. Maybe there will be a way to learn information about the future via a signal from it; but that doesn't mean anyone suddenly found themselves hundreds of years in the past. That will never happen.
 
  • #12
peter0302 said:
If you define quantum teleportation as "travel" ok... since the source object is destroyed I don't think that's what the OP has in mind.
According to quantum indistinguishability I think it's basically meaningless to ask whether the teleported system is really the "same" as the original system or whether it's really a "copy", for the same sort of reasons that it's meaningless to ask which slit a photon in the double-slit experiment "really" went through in cases where you see an interference pattern (under certain interpretations of QM these questions might have a true answer, but an answer that would be impossible in principle to determine experimentally).
peter0302 said:
To me time travel is the idea of moving a person either backwards in time or forwards in time faster than normal. And the common myth in sci-fi and I think in the general public is that traveling faster than light would allow you to do this, just like in Superman reversing the rotation of the Earth sends you back in time. There isn't even a theoretical basis to believe that you would be traveling backwards in time if you exceeded the speed of light. Your lorentz factor would be imaginary, not negative, implying it's a nonsensical scenario.
There's no theoretical basis for saying that the Lorentz transformation would allow you to figure out how things look in the "frame" of an FTL object, no--the principle of relativity would be violated by such a frame. But if tachyons existed, and if they could interact, one might be able to design some type of "clock" out of tachyonic matter even if its rate of ticking at various speeds could not be inferred from the Lorentz transform. And it is true that if such a tachyonic clock could exist, then if it was ticking forward in some frames it would necessarily be ticking backwards in others.
peter0302 said:
I do agree with you that the only thing standing in the way of FTL or B-I-T signaling is causality problems, which itself is a dubious concept. We all know in QM traditional causality gets thrown out the window.
"Causality" in physics is not really the same as vague philosophical notions of "cause and effect" (which are dubious even in classical physics because classical laws are time-symmetric and thus there's no basis for saying the present state of the universe is determined by its past state but not by its future state). In quantum field theory it is still provably impossible to use measurements at one location to gain information about any events outside the light cone of that point, so quantum theory is still said to obey causality.
peter0302 said:
Maybe there will be a way to learn information about the future via a signal from it; but that doesn't mean anyone suddenly found themselves hundreds of years in the past. That will never happen.
In terms of causal paradoxes, being able to send information into the past is every bit as problematic as sending matter into the past (you could send a message to your younger self trying to get them to change history, or even upload your mind into a computer simulation and send your mind back in time), so I don't see why you'd be so confident that the latter will never happen if you think the first is possible. General relativity does open up the possibility of material objects going back in time and interacting with earlier points on their own worldline, though many physicists would probably bet on quantum gravity eliminating this possibility.
 
  • #13
JesseM said:
According to quantum indistinguishability I think it's basically meaningless to ask whether the teleported system is really the "same" as the original system or whether it's really a "copy", for the same sort of reasons that it's meaningless to ask which slit a photon in the double-slit experiment "really" went through in cases where you see an interference pattern (under certain interpretations of QM these questions might have a true answer, but an answer that would be impossible in principle to determine experimentally).
Ok, I take it you'll be first in line to volunteer for the quantum transporter?

In terms of causal paradoxes, being able to send information into the past is every bit as problematic as sending matter into the past (you could send a message to your younger self trying to get them to change history, or even upload your mind into a computer simulation and send your mind back in time), so I don't see why you'd be so confident that the latter will never happen if you think the first is possible.
Two reasons: 1) signaling is not travel; 2) MWI avoids causality paradoxes.
 
  • #14
peter0302 said:
1) signaling is not travel;

As stated above, "signalling" is sending information into the past. How do you propose this information is sent?
 
  • #15
JesseM said:
"Causality" in physics is not really the same as vague philosophical notions of "cause and effect"

You don't seem to realize that logic falls with the domain of philosophy.

Regards,

Bill
 
  • #16
peter0302 said:
Ok, I take it you'll be first in line to volunteer for the quantum transporter?
Quantum transportation of macroscopic objects is pretty ridiculously futuristic, but if some form of transporter had been invented (even a non-quantum one that was able to measure the position and momentum of every atom in an object up to the limits of the uncertainty principle) and had been tested on other brainy organisms with no evidence of long-term problems...well, I still probably wouldn't volunteer to be the first human to try it (their might be some kind of subtle errors in reproducing the brain that just weren't apparent in animals), but my objections wouldn't be on the philosophical grounds that it'd just be a "copy" and not really "me" (after all, the matter which makes up my brain is almost completely replaced by new matter every two months or so according to http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_molecular_turnover.html, but I'm not worried that I'm going to be replaced by a 'copy' in two months just because my brain won't be made of the same atoms).
peter0302 said:
Two reasons: 1) signaling is not travel; 2) MWI avoids causality paradoxes.
You can't have it both ways! If the MWI avoids the dangers of paradoxes for sending information back in time, then it would obviously do the same for sending physical objects back in time (which as I said might be possible according to general relativity). The point is that there is absolutely no good reason to think that sending objects back in time is any more physically problematic than sending information back in time.
 
  • #17
Antenna Guy said:
You don't seem to realize that logic falls with the domain of philosophy.
What's your point? Just because logic is a part of philosophy and is also used in science, that doesn't mean all philosophy (including notions of 'cause and effect' which are not part of logic) is part of science too. Just think of it as a Venn diagram with "logic" in the overlap between the circle marked "philosophy" and the circle marked "concepts essential to science".
 
  • #18
JesseM said:
Quantum transportation of macroscopic objects is pretty ridiculously futuristic, but if some form of transporter had been invented (even a non-quantum one that was able to measure the position and momentum of every atom in an object up to the limits of the uncertainty principle) and had been tested on other brainy organisms with no evidence of long-term problems...well, I still probably wouldn't volunteer to be the first human to try it (their might be some kind of subtle errors in reproducing the brain that just weren't apparent in animals), but my objections wouldn't be on the philosophical grounds that it'd just be a "copy" and not really "me" (after all, the matter which makes up my brain is almost completely replaced by new matter every two months or so according to http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_molecular_turnover.html, but I'm not worried that I'm going to be replaced by a 'copy' in two months just because my brain won't be made of the same atoms).
Wow, ok, a very interesting (and consistent) viewpoint.

You can't have it both ways! If the MWI avoids the dangers of paradoxes for sending information back in time, then it would obviously do the same for sending physical objects back in time (which as I said might be possible according to general relativity). The point is that there is absolutely no good reason to think that sending objects back in time is any more physically problematic than sending information back in time.
Well you didn't my earlier post where I mentioned GR opens up possibilities for time travel. But if you do go into the past - or send a signal into the past - it will be a different past than yours and won't affect yours. You can't do the Back to the Future thing where you change the past and come back to a different future. I think mainstream physicists are unanimous that that is not possible under any theoretical model. Anyway, that's "time travel" to me. If the OP meant something different, he should clarify.

Oh and Cristo, I don't know what your point is. Signaling and travel are two different things because, if for no other reason, one can happen at the speed of light, and the other cannot.
 
  • #19
JesseM said:
What's your point?

That you don't seem to understand philosophy.

Just because logic is a part of philosophy and is also used in science, that doesn't mean all philosophy (including notions of 'cause and effect' which are not part of logic) is part of science too.

"cause and effect" and "if this then that" are different ways of saying the same thing. Consider: "if these are your initial conditions (cause), then this is what results (effect)". Causality is not the ambiguous concept you make it out to be.

Regards,

Bill
 
  • #20
Antenna Guy said:
That you don't seem to understand philosophy.
Perhaps you could point out what specific aspect I don't understand.
Antenna Guy said:
"cause and effect" and "if this then that" are different ways of saying the same thing.
Not according to any philosopher I've ever read. For example, we could say that "if X is a human, then X must have a mother", but you wouldn't say the person "caused" their mother. You can read the article The Metaphysics of Causation from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to see a discussion of causation in philosophy (along with related articles like Causal Processes and Counterfactual Theories of Causation and Probabilistic Causation and Backward Causation), it's a lot more complicated then just logical implications of the form "if X, then Y" (if you think there are any professional philosophers who say causation is nothing more than logical implication, please name them).
 
Last edited:
  • #21
JesseM said:
Perhaps you could point out what specific aspect I don't understand.

How much you rely upon it.

If you wish to discuss this further, I'd suggest either PM, or another forum.

Regards,

Bill
 
  • #22
Antenna Guy said:
How much you rely upon it.

If you wish to discuss this further, I'd suggest either PM, or another forum.
OK, please start a thread in the appropriate forum (philosophy, I assume) that discusses why you think I was incorrect to say that "vague philosophical notions of cause and effect" (like the ones discussed in the articles I linked to) don't have much relevance to physics.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Hey Bill, if you can provide a mathematically rigorous definition of "causation" I'd love to see it.
 
  • #24
Would this answer work? - Light has to do with time travel, because anything that travels at the speed of light doesn't experience time.
 
  • #25
atyy said:
Would this answer work? - Light has to do with time travel, because anything that travels at the speed of light doesn't experience time.
No, in relativity anything moving at the speed of light won't have its own inertial rest frame, so you can't really talk about what it "experiences".
 
  • #26
JesseM said:
No, in relativity anything moving at the speed of light won't have its own inertial rest frame, so you can't really talk about what it "experiences".

That seems consistent with what I suggested. However, to consider your objection, the proper time of a trajectory of light is not undefined. It is well defined to be zero.
 
  • #27
Huh?

If you mean the time dilation equation yields zero as v->c, that is true. But when v=c, the answer is most certainly not well defined. It is 1 / sqrt(0). Last time I checked, 1 / 0 was still undefined.
 
  • #28
atyy said:
That seems consistent with what I suggested. However, to consider your objection, the proper time of a trajectory of light is not undefined. It is well defined to be zero.
It's true that along a photon worldline the proper time is zero. I don't really see what this has to do with time travel, though.
 
  • #29
JesseM said:
It's true that along a photon worldline the proper time is zero. I don't really see what this has to do with time travel, though.

Just time travel in the normal sense, where it is said that we do travel through time - at the rate of 1 second per second :smile:

Actually, there is an interesting heuristic I've heard. From the "missing" solar neutrinos, it was hypothesized that neutrinos "oscillate". If null-particles don't "experience" time, then they cannot "oscillate". So if neutrinos "oscillate", they cannot be null-particles. I don't know if this language can be turned into something well-defined, since photons obviously oscillate too in some sense.:confused:
 
  • #30
sammy8761 said:
Just wondering what the connection is between them, I understand that it relative to what we see but time in general? why not the speed of sound as its only another sense right? Just interested to know why light is so special?

thanks guys, :smile:

Sorry messed up title should be speed of light! doh!

Wow, this thread is certiantly turning into a train wreak.. always nice to see that happen without someone wanting to stop it :rolleyes:

Short answer: Let's define "time travel," according to Special Relativity, to be observers experiencing different amounts of elapsed time due to your velocity relative to each other. Light itself has virtually nothing to do with this definition of "time travel," however, the speed that light naturally travels at has much to do with it! The faster an object's velocity, the slower time will run when compared to another frame of reference. Let's say a stationary frame of reference, to keep things easy.

What happends if you reach the speed of light? Time stops. Of course, this is just silly hypothetical non-reality physics, but everybody loves to think it would. Consequently, ftl travel would logically mean reverse time travel. These concepts are what give birth to science fiction works for the most part. However, SR itself is definatly not fiction.

But agian, why is it the speed of light that's so special? Anything that has 0 mass, such as light, will indefinatly travel at the speed of light for reasons I won't go into here. It is theorized that gravity -- if it travels -- does so at light speed (c). So again, it's not that light is special, but the speed of light definatly is.

DaleSpam said:
Light is special because it does not require a medium in which to propagate.
Isn't the medium of space required for light to propagate?
 
Last edited:
  • #31
eNathan said:
What happends if you reach the speed of light? Time stops. Of course, this is just silly hypothetical non-reality physics, but everybody loves to think it would. Consequently, ftl travel would logically mean reverse time travel.
If you mean that a clock moving at light speed would be stopped, and therefore that a clock moving faster than light would be running backwards, you're wrong, the Lorentz transformation simply doesn't give a meaningful answer about the rate of ticking of an FTL clock (if you try to apply the Lorentz transformation to an FTL clock, you get the nonsensical answer that the time between its ticks would be an imaginary number). As I've said before, the reason FTL is associated with time travel has nothing to do with FTL clocks or what would be seen by an FTL observer, and everything to do with how FTL signals would look from the perspective of slower-than-light observers; because different slower-than-light frames define simultaneity differently, if you have a signal that moves FTL, it will always be possible to find a frame where the time that a message is received is actually earlier than the time it was sent.
 
  • #32
atyy said:
Actually, there is an interesting heuristic I've heard. From the "missing" solar neutrinos, it was hypothesized that neutrinos "oscillate". If null-particles don't "experience" time, then they cannot "oscillate". So if neutrinos "oscillate", they cannot be null-particles. I don't know if this language can be turned into something well-defined, since photons obviously oscillate too in some sense.:confused:

So it turns out this can actually make some sense.

The absence of neutrino oscillations does not mean that neutrinos have zero mass. However, the existence of neutrino oscillations imply that at least one neutrino has mass. Each neutrino is itself a wave, and the mass difference is the change in relative phase between neutrino waves. What has this got to do with light not "experiencing" time?

The idea that light does not "experience" time can be made sensible in a limited way. For example, light moves relative to us, so we can use the successive peaks and troughs of a light wave moving past us to measure time. In this sense, we "experience" time. However, the speed of light is the same for light of all frequencies, so light does not move relative to light. If two light waves of different frequencies set out in the same direction, any particular peak in one of the waves will not move relative to the nearest peak or trough in the other wave. It will never experience the peaks and troughs of the other wave moving past it. In this sense, a light wave does not "experience" time.

So basically, light not "experiencing" time means that light waves of different frequencies maintain constant relative phase. Furthermore, by analogy to neutrino oscillations, a "photon oscillation" would be a change in relative phase between two light waves of different frequencies. For this to happen, there must be a slight difference in their velocities, and at least one wave cannot travel at the speed of light. Since things that do not travel at the speed of light must have mass, "photon oscillations" would imply that at least one frequency of light is massive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9905257
 
  • #33
JesseM said:
What's your point? Just because logic is a part of philosophy and is also used in science, that doesn't mean all philosophy (including notions of 'cause and effect' which are not part of logic) is part of science too. Just think of it as a Venn diagram with "logic" in the overlap between the circle marked "philosophy" and the circle marked "concepts essential to science".

Without getting too philosophical, science and philosophy are based on the same method of thinking which is an "if, then" system, there is no difference. Science boasts of having "facts" but these are simply agreed upon conjectures and labels which help us deal with reality as we sense it, just like philosophy does. Mysticism is outside these realms.

To provide my viewpoint on the speed of light and time, may I suggest the following: It is easier for me to understand these concepts, if I use the speed of light as the reference point, that is: it is zero and we are currently moving close to the speed of light. This makes sense to me because time is also zero at the speed of light. So to travel back in time, we would have to go less than zero, by this reference point. More interesting, is the question as to why we can't go slower than zero as we conventionally define it? These two limits of speed are the same thing. If we can go slower, we can experience time at a faster rate. I would like to see some math which tackles the question of going slower than zero as we currently define it. This may answer your dilemma. My math is rusty, and I only have a doctorate of philosophy in biotechnology.
 
  • #34
WillBlake said:
To provide my viewpoint on the speed of light and time, may I suggest the following: It is easier for me to understand these concepts, if I use the speed of light as the reference point, that is: it is zero and we are currently moving close to the speed of light. This makes sense to me because time is also zero at the speed of light.
The notion that time dilation approaches infinity as you approach the speed of light only applies to inertial coordinate systems in SR. You can invent a coordinate system where light is at rest and we are moving at c or close to it, but this is not a valid inertial coordinate system in SR, so you can't assume that time dilation in this system works anything like the way it works in inertial frames.
WillBlake said:
I would like to see some math which tackles the question of going slower than zero as we currently define it.
If you're asking about a speed slower than zero, then I've told you before that this is nonsense because of the very definition of speed. You might as well ask about a number whose absolute value is less than zero, or a square with five corners.
 
  • #35
WillBlake said:
To provide my viewpoint on the speed of light and time, may I suggest the following: It is easier for me to understand these concepts, if I use the speed of light as the reference point, that is: it is zero and we are currently moving close to the speed of light.

I am going to speculate a bit here, so I don't know if this is right. I am using "!=" to mean "not equal".

Yes, it is interesting why we cannot set the speed of light to be zero, whereas we can set say 32oF o be 0oC. Anyway, it seems that as long as we only add or subtract temperatures, that is not a problem, because 0+5!=0+1 [Eqn 1]. If we do multiply temperatures, as in thermodynamics, then it does matter that we use absolute zero as a reference, not 0oC, because 0X1=0X5.

Now, we can set the speed of light to be 1, because 1X5!=1X1 [Eqn 2]. Comparing Eqn 1 and Eqn 2, we see that 0 with respect to addition is like 1 with respect to multiplication. So if you want to define the speed of light as zero, it may work if you, for starters, define addition to be multiplication and multiplication to be addition. The mathematicians have thought long and hard about this and they call this "abstract algebra":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(mathematics [Broken])
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics [Broken])
Note particularly in the definition of a field, that "For technical reasons, 1 is required not to equal 0."

You can certainly take the speed of light to be negative, as long as you interchange all positives and negatives in your equations.

The basic idea in the renaming game is that you can rename things anyway you like. One major rule is: you can give two different names to the same thing, but you cannot give two different things the same name. How to play the renaming game in physics is called "gauge theory". Now this game is obviously very confusing, so instead of reading Wikipedia on gauge theory, I recommend:
V Parameswaran Nair, Quantum Field Theory: A Modern Perspective (Springer, 2005)
Xiao-Gang Wen, Quantum Field Theory of Many-body Systems: From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons (OUP 2004)
Peter Olver, Equivalence, Invariants and Symmetry (CUP 1995).
These books don't talk about renaming zero and one, but they talk about renaming 1 to be 3 and 8 to be 9, and zillions of other sorts of renaming.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
65
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
858
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
74
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
95
Views
4K
Back
Top