Infinite Universe and Parallel Universes

[PeterDonis]

it is C; Where E becomes undefined and Mo -- rest mass becomes zero.

The energy of a photon is not undefined. The general formula $E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4$ applies equally well to photons, with $m = 0$, and to timelike objects, with $m > 0$. If you are looking at the formula $E = \gamma m c^2$, that formula is not applicable to photons, so the fact that it is undefined for $v = c$ is irrelevant.

I just imagined what would it look like having zero time or maybe non zero, infinite time dilation and length contraction--gamma. In the case of microscale no well defined time.

I'm not sure what this means. SR doesn't suddenly stop working for objects like photons that move at $c$, and QFT doesn't suddenly stop being based on the spacetime of SR for photons. If you are talking about proposed quantum gravity theories in which spacetime is no longer fundamental but emerges from something else, that still doesn't change how spacetime behaves once it emerges. So I don't see the point of imagining what you are trying to imagine.

 

[julcab12]

The energy of a photon is not undefined. The general formula E2=p2c2+m2c4E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 applies equally well to photons, with m=0m = 0, and to timelike objects, with m>0m > 0. If you are looking at the formula E=γmc2E = \gamma m c^2, that formula is not applicable to photons, so the fact that it is undefined for v=cv = c is irrelevant.

Ah, ok. Maybe that's the cause of my confusion. Since photon (photoelectric effect) rest mass of the photon is zero while it has inertial mass -- nothing with rest mass can travel at C(pythagorean). A photon clocks happens to travel along paths of zero spacetime interval. At C, the math breaks down 0/0. Well we can say 2 things about it. Either, You imagine it as zero(strongly implied) second or you could simply say that the equations of SR breaks down irretrievably at relative speeds of C. If that's the case. Would it be possible to say that lengths goes to undefined(lengths get shorter and shorter doesn't mean they get to zero)? A massless particle has no well defined distance or frozen in time. They appear in all places or hidden(we just don't know) until it interacts with something (like higgs field and by virtue of motion or momentum) and time deviates in that process and can be detected as particle. We can't say anything meaningful from a photons perspective except to speculate under its limit time > 0 non zero. I just imagined that 'time' intervals created by interactions creates that nonlocal picture or at least has something to do with nonlocality and why particle behave in peculiar way. Generally, I was imagining it to be this way.; At time zero(assuming, let's just say zero interaction approx). A 'thing' single particle could appear in all places at once/flat/spread out indefinitely-- (normally it will appear FLAT ) and when it interact with something, 'time' starts to move and particle will gradually collapse from its spread state to a local state. In MWI the spreading out is composed of unique infinite states; that can only be possible if time is absolute but why?. In what I am imagining(regardless of me being relationalist); time is an step state and 'relative' to the amplitude/field not spread in unique infinite states having its own time. The higher(time slows as it get higher) the peak the greater the probability of a particle be detected. They only appear 'as if' (IMO) they are in places or spread out because time is jittery to them and we get that picture (mulitplicity) until it is computed as we get obvious singular result like for example -- Einstein cross. It appears in multiple because spacetime is distorted having projected as 5 images by our detector until computed.

 

[PeterDonis]

At C, the math breaks down 0/0.

No. At c some of the math breaks down 0/0. But not all of it. And we can describe photons perfectly well using the math that does not break down at c.

All the rest of your post appears to be based on this misconception you have that all the math breaks down at c. It doesn't.

 

[julcab12]

But not all of it. And we can describe photons perfectly well using the math that does not break down at c.
.

Sorry for the late reply. Yes. I'm aware of that but i haven't gotten much on the detail (introductory). The rest of my post is from standard QFT concerning on the interpretation of time. Notice that i didn't add or change anything. It's just how time is represented in the equation. My main motivation comes from this paper http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/1309.0400v2.pdf which is discussed in QM forum with regards to photon without having any trajectories. According to the paper-- "To understand the main idea, let us first reformulate the problem as follows. Suppose that one wants to interpret |ψ| 2 as probability density conserved in time. But the theory of relativity asserts that the time coordinate is not unique. So the question is: which time?". According to the paper, Time is a spacelike hypersurface of constant time and the time is experienced by the particle starting at x^0 trajectory Or the proper time is associated with particle trajectories. For obvious reasons, a massless particle is always at time 0(standard convention). Details shown 1.2 pg 5 onward). We can therefore say that a particle is spread out at time 0. For instance, Photon (boson field). I was imagining this way. Instead of particle. It is just fields. A true field (boson field) is global @ time 0 and the hypersurface is flat in a hypothetical absence of any excitation or interaction. There are no particle just fields. Particle is created from interactions and excitation of the field. I imagined a 'field to particle' transformation not a particle in a field. The information is spread out/hypersurface and it doesn't travel since distance is contracted to 0 or maybe infinite(natural consequence of SR). From a psuedo perspective of a 0 time field -- entanglement. What does it have to do with particle in superposition? Distance/time no longer applies. Interactions cause the field to deviate to a particle and time emerges. Label state(QFT) is not a multi state (MWI -QM). We can just have fields(minimal structure LQG) and energy in hilbert space(probably infinite).https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/some-sins-in-physics-didactics-comments.812627
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/comments-how-fundamental-is-the-arrow-of-time.819255/

 

[PeterDonis]

The rest of my post is from standard QFT concerning on the interpretation of time.

No, it isn't; it's your personal (mis)interpretation of QFT. QFT is perfectly consistent with SR and with how SR handles null worldlines and particles with zero rest mass that move on null worldlines. The only complication with QFT is that massless particles, like the photon, only move on null worldlines when they are on shell; off-shell photons can move on timelike or even spacelike worldlines. (Similarly, off shell particles with nonzero rest mass can move on null or spacelike worldlines.)

My main motivation comes from this paper http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/1309.0400v2.pdf

This paper isn't about QFT; it's about "relativistic Bohmian mechanics". They're not the same thing.

 

[PeterDonis]

This thread appears to have run its course.