We see phenomena as separate which are really one thing. So electrostatic forces of attraction and repulsion versus magnetism. They are projections of a deeper unity in SR.
We cleave apart the time and space components but not symmetrically. If the unit of time is the convenient second, the corresponding unit of space is the light-second, 300,000 km.
This is the scale of stars, not people.
When we separate space and time we find the new, partial phenomena are related by a factor of the speed of light squared. Thus magnetism is weak compared to electrostatic forces; Newton's gravity captures time-curvature, ignores spatial-curvature.
We are spatially-narrow and temporally--large (light years!) and we move slowly in the galactic frame.
No wonder we see the deeper reality skewed.
The purest view of the universe is surely from the viewpoint of the photon. Yet for itself, its proper time is zero.
How can it even exist?
Looks like you are still mulling General Relativity after that Mercury calculation (with c definitely added back in)!
ReplyDeleteThe photon has pure energy E=hf with no rest mass either. Graviton (if it exists) too. Rest mass (if any), quantum length and internal clock time (if any) are linked by Compton wavelength and Compton time (uses c).
The photon is not guaranteed to have eternal life though. When you get hit by one (preferably a few) - you will know about it!
(Bucket List item: Explain Dark Matter.)
I'll know about it (nice few days coming up). I guess they won't (tau zero).
DeleteTo get a little more technical (harder on the Comments):-
Delete1.It would seem that the physics is telling us that particles do not have to have an active proper time to exist.
2. There is still time present though. Quantum field theory uses the magic of quantum mechanics to build up an EM wavepacket.
This consists as a sum of photon wavefunctions of different frequencies (=sharp momenta), which then contain:
a(k,t) = a(k) exp(-iw_k t)
There is then a sum/integral, which in the position representation has phase factor terms = exp (k.r - w_k t) [note the SR Invariance to this phase factor] within the summation.
So "time" enters into the overall wavepacket as a kind of emergent quantity.
Though it seems indeed that individual photons haven't got a clue what is going on.
My QFT is not good. I recall time and space are on an equal footing as labels. I also recall that space-time is not intrinsic to QFT (the problem if you're someone who thinks background independence is both meaningful and desirable).
ReplyDeleteMy biases predispose me to geometry..
The relation between non-space-time invariant QM and space-time invariant QFT needs careful attention. Recently Sabine H. had a blog on this, claiming that QFT disproves QM (as QFT is relativistic). But I think that QFT is a QM theory underneath, mixing two metaphors together. I don't think anything (currently) disproves QM.
ReplyDeleteThese matters are not too calculationally complex, just conceptual.
Perhaps worthy of a bucket-list investigation?
All roads here lead to the competing paradigms of quantum gravity. Such as LQG vs ST. Obviously I have nothing to add to that debate!!
DeleteI think this ultimately comes back to the mysterious hard problem of consciousness and psychological (consciously experienced) time vs physical time. We start from conscious experience and work our way to QFT + GR - but then can't get full circle from there back to an explanation of conscious experience.
ReplyDeleteThis is a view which has been expressed. My own view is that the issues of GR-QFT consistency and understanding the ontologies of these theories is decoupled from the 'hard problem'. The latter, for me, is an architectural issue concerned with the kind of flexible social creature humans (and perhaps some other social mammals) are.
DeleteBut absent a compelling theory we're all just speculating.
An interesting further comment!
ReplyDeleteThe subject of "psychological time" versus "physical time" was discussed on Radio 4 recently as part of a program on Philosopher Bergson.
Although speculative I am examining "Intuitionist Logic" using modern theorems which might give some mathematical basis to this "architectural issue" referred to above.
Perhaps you need another blog item to take this further? Maybe I will write a paper on something like: "An Intuitionistic Logic view of Agent Theory".