Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 24, 2015 at 5:59 am
(February 24, 2015 at 1:47 am)Surgenator Wrote: In the relativity equations you will be dividing by zero if you go into the photon's rest frame. Thats what makes it invalid. Doesn't calculus take care of that for us via limits?
Quote:The number of interactions that happen to the photon is independent of the reference frame. The time between two or more interactions would be spaced differently for different reference frames. Moving reference frame would see a smaller time difference between interactions compared to the stationary one. In the photon reference frame, all the interactions occurred at once which would break causality if the photon didn't get destroyed with each interaction.
So a photon gets exactly one interaction-- its absorption into a receiving body. Does this mean, then, that passing through gravity fields (which will have changed as the photon "moves" in our reference frame) does not count as an interaction? It certainly would seem to affect what specific body is going to get to aborb the photon.
Quote:Imagine a photon starting on the trajectory toward your eye. Midway between galaxies, a flying black hole and photon have a close encounter. The black hole would change the trajectory of the photon.
Ah yes, but from the photon's reference frame, the distance between it and your eye is 0. In other words, as soon as it is brought into existence, it is already at your eye, meaning that nothing COULD have intervened which would have prevented it from reaching your eye.
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 24, 2015 at 6:19 am
(This post was last modified: February 24, 2015 at 6:19 am by Alex K.)
(February 24, 2015 at 5:59 am)bennyboy Wrote: (February 24, 2015 at 1:47 am)Surgenator Wrote: In the relativity equations you will be dividing by zero if you go into the photon's rest frame. Thats what makes it invalid. Doesn't calculus take care of that for us via limits?
You could try to perform a limit, but the Lorentz transformation matrices do not converge in the limit of boost factor -> infinity.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 1121
Threads: 53
Joined: February 5, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 24, 2015 at 7:41 am
(February 23, 2015 at 6:44 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Okay, so photons "experience" no passing of time. In other words, in the relative framework of a photon, whatever it's leaving and whatever it arrives at are brought together to a zero distance-- i.e. they share the same point.
Now, let's say that a photon leaves a very distance star, perhaps 1000 years away, and travels through gas clouds and (let's say in this case) the atmosphere of at least one planet, before arriving at my eye. The question is this-- could ANYTHING happen in QM, any kind of butterfly effect, which could change the final destination of that photon? Could any QM effect cause a buttefly effect which subtly affects the path of the photon?
The answer must be no. No time has passed for that photon in its long journey, so it was always going to arrive at my eye, and no matter what happens in its journey, this is written in stone. I think from this that we can conclude that IF relativity is correct, then the universe MUST be entirely 2-way deterministic (i.e. QM events must also be deterministic, because no butterfly effect can possibly exist which can interfere with an event that is timeless in any frame of reference). So this means that even though the photon left its distant star 1000 years ago in our time, and passed through that planetary atmosphere say 500 years ago, the state of that atmosphere was already (pre-)determined: it was truly inevitable.
Does this argument seem unsound to anyone?
Relativity my dear bennyboy.
Movement isn't dependent on the time experienced by the moving object but by your time.
Photons may not experience time or distance (space) but all they need in order to 'move' is change in your spacetime.
Paradox solved.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
Posts: 30673
Threads: 2117
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 24, 2015 at 7:54 am
Um QM does not employ dead words in old philosophy. We cannot think in terms of either/or. In QM it is either/or, and OVERLAP. It is not chaos vs order but BOTH.
It is why we can determine the conditions that lead to a hurricane, but cannot determine the exact number of clouds in it, or the exact number of rain drops it produces from start to finish and all the angles and paths each raindrops take.
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 24, 2015 at 9:31 am
(This post was last modified: February 24, 2015 at 9:36 am by bennyboy.)
(February 24, 2015 at 6:19 am)Alex K Wrote: (February 24, 2015 at 5:59 am)bennyboy Wrote: Doesn't calculus take care of that for us via limits?
You could try to perform a limit, but the Lorentz transformation matrices do not converge in the limit of boost factor -> infinity.
Hmmmm. Boost factor sounds like you're trying to relate a photon's reference with that of any massive object. I guess a photon's like a black hole in the sense that the rules break down.
(February 24, 2015 at 7:41 am)ManMachine Wrote: Relativity my dear bennyboy.
Movement isn't dependent on the time experienced by the moving object but by your time.
Photons may not experience time or distance (space) but all they need in order to 'move' is change in your spacetime.
Paradox solved.
MM I don't think it's that easy. If we are relating two massive objects, there is always a non-zero amount of time in one frame whenever another has a non-zero amount of time. But a photon is non-massive, which is why it instantly "accelerates" to the speed of light. But that means we are relating zero time with non-zero time. So from the photon's "perspective," there's no possibility for any change or effect on it.
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 24, 2015 at 10:53 am
(February 24, 2015 at 9:31 am)bennyboy Wrote: Hmmmm. Boost factor sounds like you're trying to relate a photon's reference with that of any massive object. I guess a photon's like a black hole in the sense that the rules break down.
I thought that's what you were trying to do, going from any old inertial frame to the reference frame of a photon.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 3164
Threads: 117
Joined: January 19, 2015
Reputation:
30
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 24, 2015 at 11:34 am
I don't get it. As has been pointed out several times, gravity does deflect the path a photon. It has been observed. I believe that was the first test of general relativity. A star was observed close to the sun during a total eclipse and its apparent position was indeed shifted by the sun's gravity well.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 24, 2015 at 11:40 am
(This post was last modified: February 24, 2015 at 11:40 am by Alex K.)
(February 24, 2015 at 11:34 am)AFTT47 Wrote: I don't get it. As has been pointed out several times, gravity does deflect the path a photon. It has been observed. I believe that was the first test of general relativity. A star was observed close to the sun during a total eclipse and its apparent position was indeed shifted by the sun's gravity well.
As I understand the OP now, the question would then be whether the way in which matter/spacetime deflects the photon isn't also determined from the start because the proper time of the photon is zero.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 3164
Threads: 117
Joined: January 19, 2015
Reputation:
30
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 24, 2015 at 11:59 am
Ah, I see.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
Posts: 1121
Threads: 53
Joined: February 5, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 24, 2015 at 12:52 pm
(February 24, 2015 at 11:40 am)Alex K Wrote: (February 24, 2015 at 11:34 am)AFTT47 Wrote: I don't get it. As has been pointed out several times, gravity does deflect the path a photon. It has been observed. I believe that was the first test of general relativity. A star was observed close to the sun during a total eclipse and its apparent position was indeed shifted by the sun's gravity well.
As I understand the OP now, the question would then be whether the way in which matter/spacetime deflects the photon isn't also determined from the start because the proper time of the photon is zero.
No because it's still relative to the observer not the photon itself.
The OP seems to be predicated on the observer buying into the photon's self-referencing spacetime rather than it being observed through the observer's spacetime (relatively). Any deflection, therefore, is a relativistic observation. The proper spacetime of the photon itself is an irrelevance.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
|
