Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 26, 2015 at 12:24 pm
(February 26, 2015 at 4:52 am)bennyboy Wrote: (February 26, 2015 at 12:10 am)Surgenator Wrote: The universe didn't condensed, it only seemed to for the observer. A subtle but important distinction. I don't think relativity is about how things SEEM. Someone who leaves Earth at a high speed and returns REALLY travels a difference relative distance than we perceive, and their clock really moves at a different rate. The universe did not condense. The observer is experiencing the rate of time and the space they travel through differently. But the observer has no affect on the observed.
Quote:Now, that's not to say the universe from OUR perspective has become a singularity. But I think a photon and the universe have a kind of inverse relationship (or maybe better to see it as perpendicular); from one framework, the other is an undefined or paradoxical quantity.
Word salad
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 26, 2015 at 1:28 pm
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2015 at 1:32 pm by bennyboy.)
(February 26, 2015 at 12:24 pm)Surgenator Wrote: (February 26, 2015 at 4:52 am)bennyboy Wrote: I don't think relativity is about how things SEEM. Someone who leaves Earth at a high speed and returns REALLY travels a difference relative distance than we perceive, and their clock really moves at a different rate. The universe did not condense. The observer is experiencing the rate of time and the space they travel through differently. But the observer has no affect on the observed. No, but in the observer's framework, what is being observed is reality. In the framework of something traveling at the speed of light, the universe is a singularity.
Quote:Quote:Now, that's not to say the universe from OUR perspective has become a singularity. But I think a photon and the universe have a kind of inverse relationship (or maybe better to see it as perpendicular); from one framework, the other is an undefined or paradoxical quantity.
Word salad
Only if you don't have an imagination.
Posts: 18503
Threads: 79
Joined: May 29, 2010
Reputation:
125
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 26, 2015 at 4:07 pm
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2015 at 4:10 pm by LastPoet.)
(February 25, 2015 at 10:21 pm)Nestor Wrote: It's depressing that the lottery in my evolutionary history apparently drew up a brain completely left blank when it comes to but the most basic of concepts in physics.
Well then, it is up to you to go around and fill that blank huh? 
As to the OP, like others said, it is folly to set up a frame of reference in a photon, simply because our working theories are... incomplete. What I find disturbing, is the accumulation of "what if?", when the correct approach is to figure out a way to draw more data, to better complete our knowledge.
(February 26, 2015 at 1:28 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Only if you don't have an imagination.
People have imagination. Most keep it to themselves untill they can show others that its imagination has some resemblance to reality.
Posts: 3620
Threads: 22
Joined: January 19, 2015
Reputation:
30
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 26, 2015 at 4:10 pm
I keep reading "photos and determinism" and wondering what these two have to do with each other. ffs brain.
Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 26, 2015 at 4:26 pm
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2015 at 4:30 pm by Surgenator.)
(February 26, 2015 at 1:28 pm)bennyboy Wrote: (February 26, 2015 at 12:24 pm)Surgenator Wrote: The universe did not condense. The observer is experiencing the rate of time and the space they travel through differently. But the observer has no affect on the observed. No, but in the observer's framework, what is being observed is reality. In the framework of something traveling at the speed of light, the universe is a singularity. The observer observes their view of reality which is not any more/less correct than another observer's view (assuming a proper inertial reference frame). The affects (e.g. time dilation) on the observer do not come from their view of reality but which observer spent more "time" going through space relative to the other observer.
Quote:Quote:Word salad
Only if you don't have an imagination.
Or you're not coherently using the words.
edit:
I realized my explanation of the observer isn't as good when reading aloud. I'll get back to you after I get some food in me.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 26, 2015 at 6:18 pm
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2015 at 6:18 pm by Mudhammam.)
(February 26, 2015 at 4:07 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Well then, it is up to you to go around and fill that blank huh? I really forget where I read it, and who the person was (it's actually pissing me off searching everywhere to recover the exact knowledge) but a Roman citizen, from the first few centuries of the common era I believe, is said to have owned 60,000 books in his personal library. When I first thought about that I realized there is not enough minutes in an hour, hours in a day, days in a year, and years in a lifetime!
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 26, 2015 at 6:45 pm
(February 26, 2015 at 1:28 pm)bennyboy Wrote: No, but in the observer's framework, what is being observed is reality. In the framework of something traveling at the speed of light, the universe is a singularity. In the framework of the photon, there is no time, no distance, no observation, no nothing. From the photon's perspective, it never existed, therefore, there is no observation to be had.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 26, 2015 at 6:48 pm
(February 26, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Surgenator Wrote: (February 26, 2015 at 1:28 pm)bennyboy Wrote: No, but in the observer's framework, what is being observed is reality. In the framework of something traveling at the speed of light, the universe is a singularity. The observer observes their view of reality which is not any more/less correct than another observer's view (assuming a proper inertial reference frame). The affects (e.g. time dilation) on the observer do not come from their view of reality but which observer spent more "time" going through space relative to the other observer.
Attempt 2:
The observer observes their view of reality which is not any more/less correct than another observer's view.
The affects on the observer occur when the observer changes inertial reference frames.
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 26, 2015 at 7:24 pm
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2015 at 7:29 pm by bennyboy.)
(February 26, 2015 at 6:45 pm)IATIA Wrote: (February 26, 2015 at 1:28 pm)bennyboy Wrote: No, but in the observer's framework, what is being observed is reality. In the framework of something traveling at the speed of light, the universe is a singularity. In the framework of the photon, there is no time, no distance, no observation, no nothing. From the photon's perspective, it never existed, therefore, there is no observation to be had. Okay, good. Now we are getting somewhere.
(February 26, 2015 at 6:48 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Attempt 2:
The observer observes their view of reality which is not any more/less correct than another observer's view.
The affects on the observer occur when the observer changes inertial reference frames. Okay. So since a photon never exists at any other speed than "c," it is not changing inertial reference frames, and therefore there is nothing like a Lorentz transformation to be considered. Is that what you're saying?
(February 26, 2015 at 4:07 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Well then, it is up to you to go around and fill that blank huh?
As to the OP, like others said, it is folly to set up a frame of reference in a photon, simply because our working theories are... incomplete. What I find disturbing, is the accumulation of "what if?", when the correct approach is to figure out a way to draw more data, to better complete our knowledge.
I respectfully disagree with your unwillingness to look at mathematical ideas and apply them to philosophy (or science). "What if" is the foundation of all modern physics, starting with Einstein. I'd say he represents the turning point at which math PRECEDES physical observations, rather than vice versa. As with anyone else, I reserve the right to adjust or completely discard my ideas as better or entirely new observations become available.
Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 26, 2015 at 7:42 pm
(February 26, 2015 at 7:24 pm)bennyboy Wrote: (February 26, 2015 at 6:48 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Attempt 2:
The observer observes their view of reality which is not any more/less correct than another observer's view.
The affects on the observer occur when the observer changes inertial reference frames. Okay. So since a photon never exists at any other speed than "c," it is not changing inertial reference frames, and therefore there is nothing like a Lorentz transformation to be considered. Is that what you're saying?
It refers to your response that things "I don't think relativity is about how things SEEM" and ... ahh forget it. My point is distraction from your discussion.
For the sake of the argument, lets ignore how the photon's reference frame breaks one of relativity's axioms. Where is this leading to?
|
