Time Paradox!

[Fifi Jane]

Hi

Just reading through some of the postings and now about to add my little bit...(at the risk of appearing to be a bit of a prune! As this is my first ever contribution other than saying 'hi')

Have been rather seduced with John Gribbins books on QuantumTheory but wondered why the conclusion I expected was never mentioned by him....I am given to understand that from a photons point of view, travelling as it does at light speed, that time does not exist from it's viewpoint - everything which presents itself to the photon appears to happen in the same instant...even if those events are light years apart....all to do with the slowing of time as one approaches 'C'....am I correct in thinking that at 'C' time ceases to exist?

If what I am given to understand is correct then what happens to the space in which such a photon is travelling? Does space exist for the photon? or merely to it's puzzled observer?

If all this seems a little naive (even silly) please be gentle with me as am a bag of nerves for finally making this contribution.

kindest regards Fifi.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Fifi Jane

I am given to understand that from a photons point of view, travelling as it does at light speed, that time does not exist from it's viewpoint - everything which presents itself to the photon appears to happen in the same instant...even if those events are light years apart....all to do with the slowing of time as one approaches 'C'....am I correct in thinking that at 'C' time ceases to exist?

Hello Fifi,

A while ago I asked a very similar question, and received some valuable and enlightening information from our members. You may find use in the thread below, and I encourage you to read it through. If, after exploring the existing dialogue, you still have questions, that would likely be the best place to pose them. Enjoy.

http://hypography.com/forums/astrono...e-no-time.html

[CraigD]

http://hypography.com/forums/newrepl...reply&p=172579

Welcome to hypography, Fifi Jane! Congratulations on a pretty deep first non-intro post.

Originally Posted by Fifi Jane

I am given to understand that from a photons point of view, travelling as it does at light speed, that time does not exist from it's viewpoint - everything which presents itself to the photon appears to happen in the same instant...even if those events are light years apart....all to do with the slowing of time as one approaches 'C'....am I correct in thinking that at 'C' time ceases to exist?

Approaching it from the perspective of classical Newtonian mechanics + Special Relativity, and taking some liberties with the mathematics of limits, this is a reasonable conclusion.

A bit more precisely, one can say that, for an inertial frame with speed relative to another of exactly c (note that the symbol for the speed of light is traditionally lowercase, not uppercase “c”) the relationship between their clocks is indeterminate. If it were possible for a body A to travel at speed both c and zero relative to body B, and begin and end a trip near B, it would be impossible for any clock tA on A to predict the reading of a clock tB on B. Because the distance A travels as measured by B is simply tBc, this means that the distance xA traveled by A at speed c for any duration tA can’t be determined. One might describe xA as “infinity”, but this doesn’t really change its indeterminate nature.

If what I am given to understand is correct then what happens to the space in which such a photon is travelling? Does space exist for the photon? or merely to it's puzzled observer?

Again from a classical+Special relativistic perspective, we predict that the photon “sees” space as contracted to a length of zero only in its direction of travel. In other words, it sees ordinary 3-dimensional space “flattened” to 2 dimensions.

Combining this length contraction, which predicts that space has length zero in A’s direction of travel, and the time dilation described previously, which predicts that xA = infinity, we’re faced with the question of the value of zero times infinity, another indeterminate quantity.

In short, the predictions of Special Relativity for bodies that move at both c and zero are nonsensical.

From a perspective of particle physics, objects that can move at both c and zero are prohibited. Also prohibited is any sort of clock – tA – that can be made out of photons. Photons (and other luxons - particles with speed c) are bosons, and bosons don’t interact with one another in a particle-like manner. So the idea of a photon being able to “have a viewpoint” is nonsensical.

One might object to the claim that photons can’t interact, on the grounds that they can, as a (superbly confirmed) prediction of General Relativity, interact via gravity. Gravity is not part of the Standard Model of particle physics, one of the great unresolved issues of physics. In principle, 2 photons emitted at exactly the same instant in exactly the same direction would oscillate with one another, making possible a clock (tA), and hence suggesting that A can “have a viewpoint”. However, the relativistic mass of such photons that allows this interaction to be predicted by General Relativity exists only relative to an observer (B) with speed c relative to the photons. Relative to one another, their speed is zero, so their relativistic mass and rest mass are identical, and zero. So this interaction can be used to make tA possible, of some ensemble of photons “have a viewpoint”.

In short, the interactions necessary for a body that move at both c and zero appear to do anything (sense, record, or otherwise have a viewpoint), and even the existence of an particles out of which such a body could be made, appears prohibited by particle physics. In some sense, photons can be said to exist “out of time and in reduced-dimensional space”, but this “existence” is so lacking in the qualities we take for granted of ordinary objects that we must carefully consider it to make sense out of what we’re saying.

[EStein]

Originally Posted by CraigD

..... as balls from one position in time jump back to interfere with themselves....

Again, the Nastification Paradox rears its ugly head.

[arkain101]

I dunno dude.. its a creation.. all the time.. but only now.. at least in our limitation I guess.. I think.. I dunno.. sure.

[EStein]

Originally Posted by arkain101

I dunno dude.. its a creation.. all the time.. but only now.. at least in our limitation I guess.. I think.. I dunno.. sure.

Creation(procreation?) has been a bit diifficult, lately, as balls from one position in time jump back to interfere with themselves. I hate it when that happens. It's a nastification thing.

[arkain101]

Logic appears to break down when you look for limitation answers.

This would mean, trying to find a fundamental object. (which of course would have to be a mental contruct).

The rest of this post was off-topic.

I will post in page #3, to share some of my views on this subject of time and logic.

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by EStein

Creation(procreation?) has been a bit diifficult, lately, as balls from one position in time jump back to interfere with themselves.

Talking about things interfering with themselves in a time paradox.

If you haven't watched the UK series 'Red Dwarf' you should. It's about Lister, the last man in the universe who travelled into a parallel universe and mated with his female parallel, became pregnant and had to go back in time to put his baby (himself) into the orphanage where he grew up. (but how did his parallel self come into being ?)

Another episode is where the Red Dwarf crew convince JFK that the world would be a much worse place if he survived his assassination so, the man on the grassy knoll was actually JFK himself.

BTW, One new theory that rejects all non causal elements is Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) Causal dynamical triangulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
While I don't particularly agree with all of the theory, it is better than most.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Farsight]

Originally Posted by quatumrulesoverall

(Redirected from Time Travel and Paradox Click the link to read the full article.

I was so shocked by this concept and keep thinking why the people in the future still cant travel to the past...

You were shocked by the concept of a time paradox? Wait until you read this:

TIME EXPLAINED

It's why there aren't any time paradoxes. And the truth of it is far more shocking than a time paradox.