- #1

- 8

- 0

## Main Question or Discussion Point

First of all, I'm an electrical engineer, I had to take a class on modern physics, so answers don't need to be "dumbed down" so let me START with the question: Can anyone see a flaw in my logic/interpretation of what's happening? My goal is to gain a more accurate conceptual (not mathematical) picture of what's happening (in as much as we can ever really 'conceptualize' it.)

Here are some initial assumptions:

1. The worldline is specific to an observer.

2. The observer is located at the origin of the worldline.

3. The origin of the worldline is a dimensionless point that represents the "here and now".

Ok, so then that means that no matter where you define the 'origin' to be, that every point in the observer's body is space-like separated from every other point in their body -- If the origin had any width or dimension to it, then the light-speed boundary would necessarily be violated. (I'll leave any 'Quantum Uncertainty' in defining the exact location of the worldline origin for another post)

I'm thinking of the worldline origin as the 'primary' location of observation... I won't go so far as to say it is the location of 'consciousness' because really you can put that point anywhere... in your foot, between your eyes, etc... The important thing is that in order to not violate relativity, you MUST have a precise dimensionless point of reference. Everything else is secondary and SEPARATE from that point, just information streaming into and out of that dimensionless point at the origin. Your arms, your legs, your memories, your age right down to the second, even the information that you HAVE a body is information streaming into that point NO FASTER than the speed of light.

Now what this says to me is that if you were to go from rest up to light-speed, all that information would have to come with you. Basically, As you travel through space near the speed of light, all that information that makes up your body would propagate outward from your start-point at roughly the same speed. You would pretty much experience a freeze-frame of yourself until you stop, the same with your perceived spaceship... in other words, you would not experience any time! I feel like this is the fundamental aspect of time-dilation, unless there's a flaw in my logic.

At this point I need to share another analogy which was explained to me on another forum by a physicist who I only know as "cavediver":

So, to say you are always travelling at the speed-of-light, just not always spatially, I have to assume that the origin of our personal worldline is what's doing the 'travelling' relative to everything else. If that's true and what I say is true then NOTHING ELSE is doing the travelling besides the dimensionless point at the origin of your worldline... not even your body!!! (if your bodily information was on the same vector through time as the worldline origin, then as above, you would experience a freeze-frame of yourself, which clearly we don't) This really would mean that what we experience is really 3-dimensional snapshots of a 4-dimensional universe (our BODIES would have to be 4-dimensional too!) In conclusion, depending on how much importance you place on my so called "worldline origin", I think intuitively it can shed some light on the shape, dimensionality, and biases of that troublesome little thing in physics we like to call "the observer".

This is where I have to stop since to go further will make me sound crazy[er?]... comments? criticisms?

Here are some initial assumptions:

1. The worldline is specific to an observer.

2. The observer is located at the origin of the worldline.

3. The origin of the worldline is a dimensionless point that represents the "here and now".

Ok, so then that means that no matter where you define the 'origin' to be, that every point in the observer's body is space-like separated from every other point in their body -- If the origin had any width or dimension to it, then the light-speed boundary would necessarily be violated. (I'll leave any 'Quantum Uncertainty' in defining the exact location of the worldline origin for another post)

I'm thinking of the worldline origin as the 'primary' location of observation... I won't go so far as to say it is the location of 'consciousness' because really you can put that point anywhere... in your foot, between your eyes, etc... The important thing is that in order to not violate relativity, you MUST have a precise dimensionless point of reference. Everything else is secondary and SEPARATE from that point, just information streaming into and out of that dimensionless point at the origin. Your arms, your legs, your memories, your age right down to the second, even the information that you HAVE a body is information streaming into that point NO FASTER than the speed of light.

Now what this says to me is that if you were to go from rest up to light-speed, all that information would have to come with you. Basically, As you travel through space near the speed of light, all that information that makes up your body would propagate outward from your start-point at roughly the same speed. You would pretty much experience a freeze-frame of yourself until you stop, the same with your perceived spaceship... in other words, you would not experience any time! I feel like this is the fundamental aspect of time-dilation, unless there's a flaw in my logic.

At this point I need to share another analogy which was explained to me on another forum by a physicist who I only know as "cavediver":

The above excerpt is also very similar to Brian Greene's explanation.Imagine the space around you (in your room, office, etc) is representing space-time, with left-right, and forward-backward as your space dimensions, and up-down as your time dimension.

Take a 1m (or 3ft) ruler. This is your 3-dimensional (2space +1time) velocity vector. Let's call its length "c". Point it straight up.

As you can see, your velocity vector is pointing entirely within the time-direction and not pointing in any spatial direction. This is you, moving through time with "time-velocity" c, and not moving through space at all.

Now tilt the ruler over by 5 degrees from vertical. Your velocity vector is pointing slightly sideways, and so you have a small spatial velocity, but your "time-velocity" is hardly changed. However, because of the magnitude of c, this small spatial velocity is actually enormous in our terms.

Now tilt the ruler further to 45 degrees. You have now made a measurable impact on your "time-velocity". You also have a large sideways, spatial velocity.

Finally, tilt the ruler until it is horizontal. You now have NO time-velocity at all, but all of your velocity is in the spatial direction. How much velocity? c of course... the length of the ruler is fixed.

You should now start to understand simultaneously the reason for a max speed limit and time-dilation (and if you think about it hard enough, length-contraction)...

The speed-of-light is a maximum simply becuase it is THE ONLY SPEED. It just depends in which direction of four-dimensional space it is pointing! You are always travelling at the speed-of-light, just not always spatially.

So, to say you are always travelling at the speed-of-light, just not always spatially, I have to assume that the origin of our personal worldline is what's doing the 'travelling' relative to everything else. If that's true and what I say is true then NOTHING ELSE is doing the travelling besides the dimensionless point at the origin of your worldline... not even your body!!! (if your bodily information was on the same vector through time as the worldline origin, then as above, you would experience a freeze-frame of yourself, which clearly we don't) This really would mean that what we experience is really 3-dimensional snapshots of a 4-dimensional universe (our BODIES would have to be 4-dimensional too!) In conclusion, depending on how much importance you place on my so called "worldline origin", I think intuitively it can shed some light on the shape, dimensionality, and biases of that troublesome little thing in physics we like to call "the observer".

This is where I have to stop since to go further will make me sound crazy[er?]... comments? criticisms?