Special Relativity and the existence paradox

  • Thread starter bohm2
  • Start date
  • #1
825
54
Do you find this argument by this author that SR implies "at least one continuum other than our own spacetime" flawed or reasonable?

According to the special theory of relativity, observers stationary relative to one another will measure the time in the rest frame of an entity moving relative to them i.e. its proper time, to pass more slowly relative to their own i.e. the coordinate time (assuming appropriate synchronization procedures), and the faster the entity moves, the shorter its proper time is observed to be. If the entity moves at the speed of light, its proper time is observed to be exactly zero. But this implies that any entity which moves at the speed of light from the time it comes into existence until it ceases to exist must be observed to perceive itself to have a zero duration of existence in spacetime (since no time passed in its rest frame and presumably it is at rest with respect to itself). This seems very strange, as one might intuitively have thought that a zero duration of existence would be associated with non-existence, but such entities, e.g. photons, clearly exist. This has been previously pointed out by this author and termed the existence paradox .

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/83153/1/Ontology_and_the_Wave_Function_Collapse.pdf


The author suggests that:

Finally, it may become necessary in certain circumstances to now add the qualifier ‘in spacetime’ when speaking of observers or events in spacetime. For example, the explanation for the speed of light postulate given in this paper suggests that the speed of light postulate itself should now be stated as ’the speed of light has the same value in all inertial frames of reference in spacetime independent of the motion of the source or the observer’. That makes its domain of validity explicit, which is important because the domain of validity of the speed of light postulate also defines the domain of validity of the principle of locality, which says that nothing travels faster than the speed of light. The principle of locality should now be stated as ‘nothing in spacetime travels faster than light’. This in turn allows one to approach an understanding of its apparent violations, such as those occurring in Bell’s paradox, by asking in what way they might lie outside its domain of validity.

http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-cont...f?phpMyAdmin=0c371ccdae9b5ff3071bae814fb4f9e9
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
686
This just goes to show that philosophers have no business dabbling in physics. The divorce between the two was finalized hundreds of years ago.

There is no existence paradox here. Just a lack of understanding.
 
  • #3
1,944
0
This just goes to show that philosophers have no business dabbling in physics. The divorce between the two was finalized hundreds of years ago.

There is no existence paradox here. Just a lack of understanding.

LOL, some physicists claim all of string theory is philosophy and physicists shouldn't be dabbling in philosophy. Which, of course, is not a scientific fact but a philosophical stance!
 
  • #4
Evo
Mentor
23,193
3,001
Overly specualtive posts aren't allowed.
 
  • #5
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
686
The heart of the author's lack of understanding is highlighted in footnote ii in the author's FQXI submission:
Here it is obviously assumed that it is sensible to speak of such a thing as a ‘photon frame’. One might object that since no observer in spacetime can transform to such a frame even in principle this assumption is questionable. However, there is difference between not being able to transform to a frame and dismissing altogether the possibility that it exists simply because one cannot transform to it. Claiming that it is not sensible to speak of a photon frame seems tantamount to either claiming that photons have no frames, or that photons do not exist.
There is no such thing as a photon's rest frame. The concept is worse than meaningless.
 

Related Threads on Special Relativity and the existence paradox

  • Last Post
4
Replies
91
Views
34K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
R
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
7K
Replies
70
Views
12K
Replies
26
Views
10K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
55
Views
6K
Replies
18
Views
21K
Top