Special Relativity Contains Massive Error

[tenzin]

Couple questions

For tempest: First of all I am not against challenging special relativity. I have quesitons as to its foundation as well. But the first thing I do before I try to refute a theory is learn it. If you do not do this then your attacks will be very weak.

For chroot: If the photon experiences no time how can it be produced, abide and then decay? If it does not experience time then how can it change?

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by tenzin
If it does not experience time then how can it change?

I'm sorry if this is too much handwaving, but consider this: to a large extent, what we call time is defined by the behavior of speed-of-light entities. It is not unreasonable that they would follow different rules.

 

[tenzin]

Please Clarify

You wrote...

I'm sorry if this is too much handwaving, but consider this: to a large extent, what we call time is defined by the behavior of speed-of-light entities. It is not unreasonable that they would follow different rules.

I am not sure what is meany by time being defined by speed-of-light entities. My watch is not made of light and it keeps time.

Even if we assume what you said to be true I don't see the connection between time being defined by speed-of-light entities and them following different rules.

 

[Jimmy]

Originally posted by tenzin
]{ahrkron wrote...

I'm sorry if this is too much handwaving, but consider this: to a large extent, what we call time is defined by the behavior of speed-of-light entities. It is not unreasonable that they would follow different rules.}

I am not sure what is meany by time being defined by speed-of-light entities. My watch is not made of light and it keeps time.

Even if we assume what you said to be true I don't see the connection between time being defined by speed-of-light entities and them following different rules.

To be clear, ahrkron said, "...what we call time is defined by the behavior of speed-of-light entities." The most obvious characteristic of light is its source independence. This behavior is the key to the relationship between space and time. Specifically, how time is measured with regard to massive objects as they move in space. If the speed of light is measured to be the same regardless of the speed of its source, then it certainly cannot be considered to be an inertial frame of reference.

When talking about space-time, it is often stated that there are three dimensions of space and one time dimension. This is correct to a point. However, I believe it is more correct to say that there are four space-time dimensions. Time isn't an absolute quality of the universe with an axes that points in the same direction in space-time. How we perceive space and time is dependent on our motion. Two people moving at different velocities will measure each others motion, with regard to space and time separately, to be different. One person's space is another person's time, so to speak.

Regardless of what your velocity is with respect to any frame of reference, with respect to yourself, your motion is always time-like. So if time does not represent an absolute 'direction' or quality of space-time but is dependent on the motion of a massive object, then time (or how we measure time) is a property of matter and does not apply to light.

Light's motion is always spatial regardless of who measures it. Anything that is measured to move at C has a purely space-like motion.

 

[tenzin]

Still haven't answered the question

You still have not answered the question. Initially I said..."If the photon experiences no time how can it be produced, abide and then decay? If it does not experience time then how can it change?"

According to the view that the photon experiences no passage of time the following needs to be answered.

 

[Jimmy]

Originally posted by tenzin
You still have not answered the question. Initially I said..."If the photon experiences no time how can it be produced, abide and then decay? If it does not experience time then how can it change?"

According to the view that the photon experiences no passage of time the following needs to be answered.

Does a photon need time to exist and propagate? From our point of view (entities with rest mass) we see light propagate as a function of time. We measure astronomical distances in terms of how long light takes to travel from point a to point b. From the perspective of a photon, if such a perspective is possible, who knows? I certainly haven't traveled along with a photon to see for myself. The point is, time, in the context of the theories of Relativity, applies to massive bodies and the rate at which time is measured to proceed in different frames of reference. Time is an abstract concept which defines a relationship between massive objects, as distance is an abstract concept which defines a spatial relationship between objects.

I think it is unfortunate that the word "time" is used to refer to time itself and the measure of time. We measure space with units of distance. We measure time with units of time. I think that causes a lot of confusion. When I think of space-time, it's hard not to visualize time as some physical quality of that 4-D geometry. However, what we call time, isn't different from space in an absolute sense. We differentiate time and space based on how we move in those four dimensions and not on some absolute quality of the universe. As I said before, time is an abstract relationship between massive objects and how we measure that relationship depends on how we move. Light is decidedly different from matter as can be seen by its behavior and the same rules do not apply.

 

[tenzin]

Originally posted by Jimmy
The point is, time, in the context of the theories of Relativity, applies to massive bodies and the rate at which time is measured to proceed in different frames of reference. Time is an abstract concept which defines a relationship between massive objects, as distance is an abstract concept which defines a spatial relationship between objects.

So time does not apply to light which has no mass?

I think it is unfortunate that the word "time" is used to refer to time itself and the measure of time. We measure space with units of distance. We measure time with units of time. I think that causes a lot of confusion.

No, we measure distance in units of meters and time in units of seconds. You are attempting to use a parallel reason but it does not hold.

Third, you didn't answer my question. All you have do is change the rule to fit your view. Read what I wrote and think about it them reply.

The real problem is that you haven't defined time. I have and it is posted somewhere here.

 

[Jimmy]

Originally posted by tenzin
So time does not apply to light which has no mass?

Not in the same manner that time applies to matter. As I said before, light is decidedly different than matter as is seen by its behavior. Honestly, I don't know how time would apply to light in its own frame. We certainly observe light to traverse between two points in a finite amount of time. I don't believe anyone really knows what is happening from the point of view of a photon.

No, we measure distance in units of meters and time in units of seconds. You are attempting to use a parallel reason but it does not hold.

My point was that we describe relationships in space by using distances. A meter is just one particular unit of measure. You can use whatever unit you like. We describe relationships in "time" with units of time. A second is just one particular unit of measure of time. Again, you can use whatever unit you like. I was trying to point out the confusion that can arise when talking about time and the measure of time. Anyway,

Third, you didn't answer my question. All you have do is change the rule to fit your view. Read what I wrote and think about it them reply.

tenzin: For me the most general definition of time is change. If we measure the time between two events we are measuring the number of occurences of a particular event that happened between the two events.

The real problem is that you haven't defined time. I have and it is posted somewhere here.

Your definition of time is change. We measure the rate of that change with a physical system that has a property which varies in a regular fashion. That's a pretty good definition in my opinion but does that really define what time is? In the absence of a device to measure time, however, if a system does not change does this mean that zero time has elapsed? Is time an abstract concept? If it is, does light depend on our abstract notion of time in order to propagate in space?

 

[tenzin]

Originally posted by Jimmy
Not in the same manner that time applies to matter. As I said before, light is decidedly different than matter as is seen by its behavior. Honestly, I don't know how time would apply to light in its own frame. We certainly observe light to traverse between two points in a finite amount of time. I don't believe anyone really knows what is happening from the point of view of a photon.

First of all I don't have any idea what is meant by 'the point of view of a photon'. I believe that the photon does experience change and therefore experiences time. If it didn't experience time how could we talk about the lifetime of a photon?

My point was that we describe relationships in space by using distances. A meter is just one particular unit of measure. You can use whatever unit you like. We describe relationships in "time" with units of time. A second is just one particular unit of measure of time. Again, you can use whatever unit you like. I was trying to point out the confusion that can arise when talking about time and the measure of time. Anyway,

Maybe it is me but I don't see any confusion when talking about time and the measurement of it. I have defined time and we can measure it with a clock. When I snap my fingers we know there is an amount of time over which the snap occurred and we can measure it. What's the problem here?

Your definition of time is change. We measure the rate of that change with a physical system that has a property which varies in a regular fashion. That's a pretty good definition in my opinion but does that really define what time is? In the absence of a device to measure time, however, if a system does not change does this mean that zero time has elapsed? Is time an abstract concept? If it is, does light depend on our abstract notion of time in order to propagate in space?

A photon is always changing. You use system but I you need to give an example for me to comment on that example.

 

[Jimmy]

Originally posted by tenzin
First of all I don't have any idea what is meant by 'the point of view of a photon'. I believe that the photon does experience change and therefore experiences time. If it didn't experience time how could we talk about the lifetime of a photon?

I don't either. That was my point. A photon always moves at a speed of c no matter how we are moving in relation to the source of that photon. The frame of reference of a photon isn't a valid frame in SR as Russ_waters pointed out. How we measure time and space with regard to inertial frames does not apply to a photon because a photon exists in a special frame of it's own. The relationships between distances and time do no apply as they do to matter.

What exactly do you mean by the 'lifetime of a photon'? How does a photon experience time? How does a photon change with time?

Maybe it is me but I don't see any confusion when talking about time and the measurement of it. I have defined time and we can measure it with a clock. When I snap my fingers we know there is an amount of time over which the snap occurred and we can measure it. What's the problem here?

That was just a side issue I happened to be thinking about at the time and I felt like mentioning it. If there is no confusion in your mind about time and the measure of time, then there is no problem. Just forget I mentioned it.

A photon is always changing. You use system but I you need to give an example for me to comment on that example.

Again, what is it about a photon that changes?

Earlier, you defined time as change. The measure of time depends on change. Take any object, say a book. Place that book on a table. It's possible for that book to remain unchanged for an indefinite length of time. Let's say that it's position hasn't changed relative to the table. In fact, let's say that no measurable property of that book has changed during a certain period of time. Did time stop for that book simply because it did not undergo a change?

Edit: I'm enjoying this discussion very much but I need to step out for a little while. You raise good points and I will certainly be thinking about this while I'm gone. I'm not arguing with you just for the sake of arguing or because my ideas are set in stone. I consider myself pretty open minded and I enjoy discussions such as this for the sake of learning.

We might consider moving this discussion to a new thread. I fear we have hijacked this thread for the sake of our own discussion and have strayed from the original posters topic.

 

[hey.like]

The relativity is not right in new physics time-space area

As the new area habit, the relativity isn't right in new time- space area. like time travel, exceed light speed particle. semi-dimension. no common reference frame. and so on. specially, as it is not right in reverse mind like the sun relative the light speed and some.
But it is right in limit theory and enable ref in future. the right and lose exist same. it is a physics permit area.
Sorry as the nature limit by humans.