(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)
"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)
