Can one determine the velocity of a photon in the fourth dimension using limits?

In summary, Brian Greene's book An Elegant Universe states that as an object's velocity increases through the three spatial dimensions, its velocity through the fourth dimension shrinks. This is also the same as Einstein's/Minkowski's dx4/dt=ic and Misner's/Thorne's/Wheeler's dx/dt=ic.
  • #1
physics22
7
0
Can one shed light on the velocity of the photon through the fourth dimension x4 using limits?

To begin with, please study the mathematics from Brian Greene’s book An Elegant Universe.

main-qimg-7cdfb5aa68baf9c5a57d8ce3e7c49643?convert_to_webp=true.png


The upshot is that the faster an object moves through space, the slower it moves through the fourth dimension.

The four velocity of a photon, which travels at c, is generally taken as “undefined,” so instead of using a photon, let us use a particle.

Examining Brian Greene’s simple mathematics, one can see that as our particle’s velocity increases through the three spatial dimensions, its velocity through the fourth dimension shrinks.

To begin with, let us assume that our particle is traveling at .9c. Then most of its motion is directed through the three spatial dimensions.

When our particle’s velocity increases to .99c, even more of its motion will be directed through the three spatial dimensions, with less of its motion directed relative to the fourth dimension then we saw in the prevous case for v=.9c.

When its velocity increases to .99999c, even more of its motion will be directed through the three spatial dimensions.

Here it is stated that 14 digits of precision are given by our best experiments testing theories such as QED:

The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science

We can do better than this.

Suppose our particle is moving at .999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c

Then we can effectively say, “When an entity moves at the velocity of light, all of its motion is directed through the three spatial dimensions, and it becomes stationary in the fourth dimension.”

If the above is not good enough, we can run the math for a particle moving at

.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c

And we can then conclude that, “When an entity moves at the velocity of light, all of its motion is directed through the three spatial dimensions, and it becomes stationary relative to the fourth dimension.”

For all the naysayers out there, how many 9’s would you need in front of the c before you were convinced that an entity that moves at the velocity of light must be stationary with regards to the fourth dimension? I am prepared to give you as many 9’s you need, even a googol^googol of them and more!

Taking this limit, we see that a photon must remain stationary relative to the fourth dimension. Ergo, the fourth dimension must be moving at the velocity of light relative to the three spatial dimensions, as implied by Einstein’s/Minkowski’s/Poincaire’s dx4/dt=ic and Misner’s/Thorne’s/Wheeler’s dx/dt=ic.

:)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Pop science books are not valid references, especially not Brian Greene's.
 
  • #3
Dale said:
Pop science books are not valid references, especially not Brian Greene's.

Oh OK! Well, Einstein's work gives us the same result! :) Is it OK to reference Einstein's books and papers on Relativity here?

If so, could you please answer the question? Thanks! :) :)
 
  • #4
Dale said:
Pop science books are not valid references, especially not Brian Greene's.

Also, are you saying Brian Greene is wrong? I actually know him and I could have him correct it so please share your correction, if any. Thanks!

A lot of folks read that book so if you could please provide a correction, you would be helping everyone out! :)
 
  • #5
This particular part of the book has been corrected over and over and over again. If you know him then please tell him that his books cause more problems and confusions than any other author.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #6
Dale said:
This particular part of the book has been corrected over and over and over again. If you know him then please tell him that his books cause more problems and confusions than any other author.
Could you please provide the correction? Thanks! I will forward it to him!

What is wrong with the math? Is Einstein wrong too? It is Einstein's/Minkowski's math!
 
  • #7
physics22 said:
are you saying Brian Greene is wrong? I actually know him

Then I suggest you ask him to show you an actual textbook or peer-reviewed paper he has co-authored in which he uses the math you describe to actually do computations in relativity. AFAIK no such sources exist--the only place this mathematical scheme of his ever shows up is in his pop science books.

physics22 said:
What is wrong with the math?

It's not that the math is wrong. The rearranging of terms that he does in the equation for the spacetime interval is fine mathematically.

The problem with it is that, physically, it leads nowhere. It doesn't lead to any novel predictions about the results of experiments, or suggest any new experiments to run. It doesn't make computations any easier. The only thing it seems to be good for is selling pop science books. And causing confusion among lay people who are actually trying to understand the physics.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Dale
  • #8
PeterDonis said:
Then I suggest you ask him to show you an actual textbook or peer-reviewed paper he has co-authored in which he uses the math you describe to actually do computations in relativity. AFAIK no such sources exist--the only place this mathematical scheme of his ever shows up is in his pop science books.
It's not that the math is wrong. The rearranging of terms that he does in the equation for the spacetime interval is fine mathematically.

The problem with it is that, physically, it leads nowhere. It doesn't lead to any novel predictions about the results of experiments, or suggest any new experiments to run. It doesn't make computations any easier. The only thing it seems to be good for is selling pop science books. And causing confusion among lay people who are actually trying to understand the physics.

So how is it wrong again?

Now you're saying that it isn't wrong?

Could you please be more specific about how the math is wrong?

You wrote, "This particular part of the book has been corrected over and over and over again."

Again, could you please just provide me with your stated "correction"? I will forward it to Brian! :)

Please share! Thanks!
 
  • #9
PeterDonis said:
physically, it leads nowhere.

To put this another way: all of the stuff in your OP sounds like it's describing physics--like it's describing some way the universe is that's somehow different from the way the universe would be if the standard interpretation of SR, the one that says that the concept of "elapsed time" doesn't apply to a photon, were correct.

But in fact all you're doing is using different words to describe exactly the same physics. Rearranging the terms in a mathematical equation doesn't change the physics in the slightest. All it does is create confusion, when people are misled by the different words into thinking that something profound about different physics is being said, when in fact the physics is exactly the same, just described in different words.
 
  • #10
physics22 said:
Could you please be more specific about how the math is wrong?

I didn't say the math was wrong. Read more carefully. And read my follow-up post #9, which crossed yours in the mail, so to speak.

physics22 said:
You wrote, "This particular part of the book has been corrected over and over and over again."

I didn't write that, Dale did. I suspect he was referring to the many, many threads here on PF that have centered around trying to clear up confusions caused by Greene's pop science books and TV specials. But I'll leave it to him to respond.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #11
PeterDonis said:
To put this another way: all of the stuff in your OP sounds like it's describing physics--like it's describing some way the universe is that's somehow different from the way the universe would be if the standard interpretation of SR, the one that says that the concept of "elapsed time" doesn't apply to a photon, were correct.

But in fact all you're doing is using different words to describe exactly the same physics. Rearranging the terms in a mathematical equation doesn't change the physics in the slightest. All it does is create confusion, when people are misled by the different words into thinking that something profound about different physics is being said, when in fact the physics is exactly the same, just described in different words.

Could someone please just state specifically why Brian Greene is wrong and provide the correction?

I will forward it to Brian! If you are right, I am sure he will fix it!

Please do share--thanks. :)
 
  • #12
physics22 said:
Could someone please just state specifically why Brian Greene is wrong and provide the correction?

I already did that. I also suggested a question you could ask him, the answer to which I think would be quite illuminating.

In the meantime, this thread is going around in circles and is therefore closed. If you happen to get a response from Greene, feel free to PM me.
 
  • #13
physics22 said:
You wrote, "This particular part of the book has been corrected over and over and over again."

Again, could you please just provide me with your stated "correction"? I will forward it to Brian! :)
See

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...-brian-greenes-book-and-sr-in-general.329142/

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/speed-of-time.321080/

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...through-space-plus-speed-through-time.835354/

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/brian-greenes-spacetime-loaf.676547/

And many more

Please let him know. Until then this thread is closed.
 

1. What is the significance of studying the velocity of the photon through the fourth dimension x4?

The fourth dimension, also known as spacetime, is a fundamental concept in physics that helps us understand the relationships between space and time. By studying the velocity of the photon through this dimension, we can gain a deeper understanding of how light moves through the universe and how it is affected by gravity and other forces.

2. How can one shed light on the velocity of the photon through the fourth dimension x4?

One way to approach this question is through the use of mathematical limits. By taking the limit of the photon's velocity as it approaches the fourth dimension, we can gain insights into how it behaves in this dimension and how it is affected by the curvature of spacetime.

3. What tools or techniques can be used to study the velocity of the photon through the fourth dimension x4?

The most commonly used tool for studying the velocity of the photon through the fourth dimension is Einstein's theory of general relativity. This theory provides a mathematical framework for understanding the behavior of light in curved spacetime. Other tools and techniques that may be used include mathematical models and simulations.

4. Are there any limitations to studying the velocity of the photon through the fourth dimension x4?

Like any scientific study, there are limitations to our understanding of the velocity of the photon through the fourth dimension. Some of these limitations may include the accuracy of our measurements, the complexity of the mathematical models used, and the potential for unknown factors that may affect the photon's velocity.

5. What potential applications or implications could arise from understanding the velocity of the photon through the fourth dimension x4?

Studying the velocity of the photon through the fourth dimension could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and its evolution. It could also have practical applications in fields such as astrophysics, cosmology, and the development of new technologies based on the principles of general relativity.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
Replies
32
Views
905
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
60
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
182
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
471
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
891
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top