How far does a photon move in the time dimension when it travels for one second?

[caltechpostdoc]

How far does a photon move in the time dimension when it travels for one second?
How far does a photon move in the spatial dimension when it travels for one second?

How far does a golf ball move in the time dimension when it stays stationary on a tee for one seceon?
How far does a golf ball move in the spatial dimensions when it stays stationary on a tee for one second?

[J-man]

I did some calculations once and I may be wrong but only using special relativity I found that something moving at the velocity of light has no lenght and experiences no time so in a sense it only exist at one point while we move around it

[Epsilon=One]

I did some calculations once and I may be wrong but only using special relativity I found that something moving at the velocity of light has no lenght and experiences no time so in a sense it only exist at one point while we move around itSomething that moves at maximal speed (infinite speed) does not exist.

Therefore, it cannot "exist at one point." Something moving at infinite speed is simultaneously moving at infinitesimal speed.

Light, moving at the speed of light, exists; however, Light pulses at infinite speed; thus, its non-locality, which accounts for the "photon" effect of a wavefront.

The internal geometry of a Light wave (pulse) is ellipsoidal with the major vertices (wavefront) at infinitesimal speed and the minor vertices at maximal speed.

Concentric Brunardot Ellipses (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=104) (perigees are Natural integers (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=100), epsilon=one, and vector equals perigee squared) heuristically represent a propagating, pulsing light wave.

[J-man]

I should not have said exist, because something moving at the speed of light cannot have a mass or a lenght. If something of mass were to aproach the speed of light its mass would increase infinitly as it aproached the limit.

[Epsilon=One]

I should not have said exist, because something moving at the speed of light cannot have a mass or a lenght. If something of mass were to aproach the speed of light its mass would increase infinitly as it aproached the limit.I don’t believe if something “…were to approach the speed of light its mass would increase infinitly (sic.) as it aproached (sic.) the limit,” as you state.

To believe such would require accepting the speed of light as a limit for speed, which is a critical mistake in Special Relativity, which accounts for many paradoxes and enigmas in the contrived world of pomo theoretical physicists. When SR was formulated little, or nothing, was understood about the internal structure of an atom, non-locality, or gravity's universal duality as observed with accelerating galactic recession.

As mentioned, in my above post, light moves at the speed of light . . . and light exists. In fact light exists in four different states, three of which exceed the “speed of light.” (I use a capital “L” to signify the four states of Light. (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=143))

Light only fails to exist when it reaches the limits of the duality of Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) (the infinite and the infinitesimal), which occurs where non-locality is observed: such as between light pulses that are misinterpreted as a photon phenomenon.

Speeds in excess of the “speed of light” are required: 1.) in the lateral motion (oscillation) of light waves to keep up with the direction of the light wave; 2.) in the internal, fundamental structures of mass (otherwise non-locality and bonds would not manifest); and, most importantly, in the speed of gravity’s illusionary attractive action (otherwise gravity waves would have been observed long ago; and, the Cosmos would appear as ricocheting balls on a pool table).

All phenomena of entanglement require hyper-relativistic speeds.

As long as theories such as: SR, GR, and the voodoo aspects of QM (These theories all underlie, one way or another, String Theories; Loop Quantum Gravity; Membrane Theory; etc.), the Big Bang, and black holes are considered with sanctity; there will be little progress toward understanding the cyclic nature of the Universe and how radiant energy manifests as mass. (Does anyone know the source of radiant energy, how it is conserved/where it goes to . . . ???)

Until theoretical physics can shed its dependence upon metaphysics (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=87); oppression from faith cannot be attenuated.

[J-man]

I was only talking about macroscopic objects and not the weird working of Qm and youre right about the weird aspects ofQM and how it afects the universe in a not so well understood way. However in all particle acelerators the acelerators only increase the velocity of the particle to 99.999% percent the speed of light and they get mass increases and they cant go further this speed no matter how much energy is poured into the accelerator. And for macroscopic objects they follow the equation m=(rm)/Sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) where m is the mass due to increase of v and rm is the rest mass as vaproaches c m aproaches infinity.

[Epsilon=One]

…youre right about the weird aspects ofQM and how it afects the universe in a not so well understood way.You are understating the situation when you write: “...in a not so well understood way.”

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is a contrived theory which attempts to explain the observed characteristics of Light (radiant energy).

As with all “plugged” data; the bottom line is usually acceptable in the paradigm being “plugged”; however, seldom is this of much help when trying to understand the dynamics of the paradigm itself as applied to other situations.

QM is fundamentally flawed and of little use in understanding the Cosmos. This is most evident when it is applied to phenomenon such as the mythical Big Bang and Cosmic evolution.

An entirely new paradigm must be considered.

The most obvious observations concerning Cosmic evolution have to do with the illusion of gravitational “attraction,” large scale entanglement, and the accelerating recession of various galactic structures.

When QM is applied to the Cosmos, particularly to its genesis, QM obstructs any actual understanding of the environment that supports our well-being.

QM must address the source of Light, its method of propagation, and, Light’s internal geometry before cavalierly speaking of its effects beyond its limited usefulness.

Before the forces can be applied to explaining Cosmic phenomena or “unified” with macro Cosmic phenomena, it is necessary to first explain why the speed of light is constant; why there is time and space (and what “is” energy, time, and space).

Where does the “added” energy come from when a wave of Light is reflected or generated in near infinite directions? That is: How many eyes can “see” a star? Is there a medium? Does the medium add energy? Is Light the medium of space? Is the medium (Light or space) quanticized? And, to these questions . . . Why???

It is not adequate to speak of Feynman diagrams and exchanges of force; the terms must be fundamentally defined. If not, physicists are invoking their own gods within their controlled faith.

However in all particle acelerators the acelerators only increase the velocity of the particle to 99.999% percent the speed of light…Fundamentally, what is a particle? Or, a quark? Or, a quarks constituents. These are real questions; they are relevant if physics is to move beyond its current metaphysical foundation.

[T.E. Jones]

... It is not adequate to speak of Feynman diagrams and exchanges of force; the terms must be fundamentally defined. If not, physicists are invoking their own gods within their controlled faith.

Fundamentally, what is a particle? Or, a quark? Or, a quarks constituents. These are real questions; they are relevant if physics is to move beyond its current metaphysical foundation.

Physics needs to try to move forward by either a better grasp of theoretical facts or a different type of experimentation. In this context, consider the conflict between classical and quantum electromagnetism. Maxwell's electromagnetism implies that an accelerating charge should emit energy continuously, so there may be an error in Maxwell's equations.

If the error could be corrected, so that Maxwell's classical electromagnetism gave quantum steps, then perhaps the ramifications in quantum field theory would throw some light (no pun intended) on what particles "really are".

See the calculations and graph here (http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec2.htm), and the discussion in plain English on the previous page (http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm) about how the capacitor charging curve (which should be steps because electricity enters the plate at light speed and bounces around).

Although correct in some revolutionary concepts (like stepwise charging), the author of that article, Catt, while expert in computer chip design, was not a physicist but an engineer, and made a slips which allowed critics to ignore/dismiss it. The concept of a constant voltage electric current entering both capacitor plates like a transmission line is not strictly correct. At the front of the step, the potential difference will not rise instantly from 0 to v volts, but will take some time. Maxwell's law of "displacement current" (the "special term" Maxwell added to Ampere's law to complete the Maxwell/Heaviside equations), can then operate while the voltage rises (http://feynman137.tripod.com/).

At the same time as the voltage is rising, the current will increase from 0 to i, and this causes radio emission just as occurs in a radio transmitter aerial. The suggested similarity between the physics of "displacement current" and radio transmission is quite revolutionary. The atom itself is kind of charged capacitor and gains/loses energy in steps, like the correct model of the capacitor. This suggests the correctness of the picture of "displacement current" as being radio energy transmission.

So what should happen is that long established theories like Maxwell's equations should be re-examined. Once the foundations are updated, perhaps the true nature of the particle will become clear to everyone.

[Epsilon=One]

To begin: For the last few days, I have carefully read all your posts. Your academic knowledge of what you write indicates much understanding. Your wisdom concerning the current state of affairs within post-modern theoretical physics is nothing less than astounding considering your academic knowledge.

If there were more like you, and there must be many (somewhere?), the world (Earth) might not be in its present predicament of chaos that threatens the standard of life for so many.

My argument and concern is that only the physicist can marshal the resources required to attenuate the current societal (economic, political, and religious) chaos in time to save much suffering. The importance of uniting Science, Theology, and Philosophy cannot be understated. As I assess the situation: the divide will continue to exponentially widen unless the theoretical physicist can rationalize Reality (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=188) in such a way that a layperson is left with very little doubt concerning what now requires much secular and religious faith.

Physics needs to try to move forward by either a better grasp of theoretical facts or a different type of experimentation.I don’t believe the exorbitant amount of resources that are expended for gravitational wave or subatomic experimentation is warranted before there is much more effort expended upon logical, theoretical, alternatives to the current paradigms.

It should be obvious from observation of the Cosmos alone that something is very wrong with our fundamental academic models . . . including the academic process itself. I don’t believe academia can reform itself anymore than politicians.

Thus, from the beginning, to continue my point. There must be many others with expertise and wisdom as you have. How can they be found? And, how can their voices be heard?

In this context, consider the conflict between classical and quantum electromagnetism. Maxwell's electromagnetism implies that an accelerating charge should emit energy continuously, so there may be an error in Maxwell's equations.I agree with your insight as to “errors” may exist. I believe they are even more fundamental than you indicate.

Electromagnetism (em) implies electricity and magnetism. I have yet to be satisfied with any fundamental definition as to what electricity and magnetism actually are. I use the terms “Light” (capitalized) or “radiant energy” instead of “em.” Only because, I am slightly happier with the connotations.

What exactly is a “charge”? And, can acceleration be defined without relying upon other fundamentally undefined circular, or little understood, dimensions? What is not, fundamentally, a result of acceleration? Can any motion be fundamentally constant?

And, what is the emitted “energy” that is continuous?; where does it come from?; go to?

And by what “right” can equations (Is math provable? How?) be more than analogous of a physical process?

I do believe that arithmetic can accurately reflect Nature; but, I have never seen academia provide an adequate proof.

I am not questioning your intellect. I am only trying to point out for others the enormity of the problem that theoretical physics is challenged with; I am sure that you are well aware of the dire situation without my added carping that is meant for others.

If the error could be corrected, so that Maxwell's classical electromagnetism gave quantum steps, then perhaps the ramifications in quantum field theory would throw some light (no pun intended) on what particles "really are".You, I believe, are correct in looking to “quantum steps.”

I don’t believe Quantum Mechanics (QM) goes far enough in quanticising. Motion and space itself must be quanticized. The internal geometry of Light would lend itself to the quanticizing of all phenomena. Where does Light come from? Where does it go? What is it? Why is it alone an absolute constant? What is Light’s complete etiology? How does Light establish arithmetic? Particles? Life? Rationalizing these questions (even if contrived and “plugged”) would minimize the current requirement of excessive faith that is required by Science, Theology, and Philosophy.

Although correct in some revolutionary concepts (like stepwise charging), the author of that article, Catt, while expert in computer chip design, was not a physicist but an engineer, and made a slips which allowed critics to ignore/dismiss it.I admire engineers. They are concerned with making things work; and, when they do, they are little concerned with: Why? They have endlessly refined what can be done with radiant energy without ever having to be concerned with what it is.

However, it is their near miracles without an understanding of Reality (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=188) (the environment) that is the root cause of current societal chaos. Considering intrinsic happiness, who is to say that primitive man didn’t have more of it than modern man? Certainly, primitive man had no devastating effect upon planet Earth.

The atom itself is kind of charged capacitor and gains/loses energy in steps, like the correct model of the capacitor. This suggests the correctness of the picture of "displacement current" as being radio energy transmission.It would also seem to indicate that Light itself is propagated in “steps.” Small “steps” certainly; but steps that are beyond simple sinusoidal vibrations. Complex oscillation requires timing, which requires a clock. The "unit" and "escapement" of fundamental intrinsic time (FIT) must be defined for Light.

So what should happen is that long established theories like Maxwell's equations should be re-examined. Once the foundations are updated, perhaps the true nature of the particle will become clear to everyone.Yes. I agree. Now, how does a person go about updating the “foundations”?

[T.E. Jones]

... Now, how does a person go about updating the “foundations”?

Thank you for your reply! I think you have to go over all the foundations in the light of the best information available, and produce a new treatment.

The key foundations, 1. Maxwell's equations, 2. general relativity, and 3. quantum field theory, should be integrated with the facts of the Standard Model. (Obviously classical mechanics, thermodynamics, statistical physics, and basic quantum mechanics are important, but there are reasons why these are not foundations compared to the three topics just numbered.)

What you want to obtain is a slim textbook replacing the existing heavyweight one, getting rid of the classical versus quantum conflicts, and producing something to replace speculative "string theory".

Loop quantum gravity (LQG) (http://lqg.blogspot.com/) suggests a spin foam vacuum which is the major competitor to "string theory".

However, LQG superficially looks vague and speculative to most people, since it is not publicised with the non-mathematical hype that surrounds string theory.

I think efforts should be focussed on trying to understand, develop and test LQG. Although it is possible to identify interesting ideas on the internet at present, including some important mathematical suggestions by Danny Ross Lunsford, Peter Woit, Tony Smith, and others, it is a large problem to reconcile the available facts and guesses.

Lunsford gets to the heart of the original extra-dimensional issue by analysing the 5-dimensional Kaluza-Klein unification theory (for Maxwell and general relativity). Lunsford shows that a 6-dimensional unification is more rigorous, and this predicts that there is no cosmological constant/dark energy. Since the only purpose of the cosmological constant/dark energy is to cancel out the predicted (but not observed) gravitational deceleration of the universe at great distances, you can get the observed data by a gravity mechanism in which gravity is a push and not a pull. Distant galaxies won't be slowed down, because there is less mass beyond them which is pushing them back than there is mass behind them causing them to speed up (if gauge bosons exchanged by mass cause gravity, they will also cause the expansion of the universe).

Woit and Smith are mathematicians concerned with the Standard Model, the leptons and quarks with associated bosons and neutrinos. Woit has some ideas on using Clifford algebras and spinor geometry to produce the particle families, while Smith has some prediction of quark masses utilising a Higgs field. Both tend to use a lot of very sophisticated mathematics, which takes some digesting by anyone who studies it in earnest. Woit has stated in various places that understanding the mechanism for electroweak symmetry breaking is a priority in physics.

I think this is right, and Maxwell's equations should be reviewed for electroweak theory. The electroweak unification is a unification of QED, not Maxwell's classical electromagnetism, with the weak force (which allows beta radioactivity, the change in flavour of quarks). So it is interesting to think about electroweak theory in terms of Maxwell's equations. The Standard Model allocates mass and electroweak symmetry breaking as functions of the Higgs field: there are four natural vector bosons, but the vacuum Higgs field screens three of them at low energies, where they have only a very short range. At higher energies, the weak force range is increased. The fourth vector boson is the photon of electromagnetism, which manages to penetrate the Higgs field at all energies without attenuation.

I think the way forward may be to develop a non-perturbative mathematical model of the vacuum in terms of its virtual particles and Higgs bosons, and try to achieve a unified force theory by playing with the parameters in a computer model of the vacuum. The reason this is not being done seems to be more due to prejudices against any kind of aetherial model Higgs field and in favour of abstract mathematical methods, than based on solid objections. It should be possible to analyse ideas like specific SUSY (supersymmetry) concepts easily if a semi-classical computer model of the vacuum existed.

[Epsilon=One]

I think you have to go over all the foundations in the light of the best information available, and produce a new treatment.I agree . . . with an emphasis on “new.” For emphasis, I prefer “Paradigm Shift !” to “new.”

The key foundations, 1. Maxwell's equations, 2. general relativity, and 3. quantum field theory, should be integrated with the facts of the Standard Model. (Obviously classical mechanics, thermodynamics, statistical physics, and basic quantum mechanics are important, but there are reasons why these are not foundations compared to the three topics just numbered.)I agree with what you have left out as foundations. Quite a courageous statement, I would imagine, from your position. I am particularly pleased that you have omitted thermodynamics; as, the 2nd law is quite incomplete. Probably, as misleading and troublesome as the Big Bang.

I agree that the most fundamental concepts of your “key foundations” are important. I would guess that what I accept as important is far less of the theories than you have intended. Maxwell brings non-particle (mass) concepts; general relativity brings counterintuitive, dimensional relationships of motion and its acceleration; quantum field theory indicates that particles are more than “lumps” of mass.

My analogies may fall a little short. The “key foundations” do add something. But mostly they are of interest to the engineer and researcher. Other than the most fundamental concepts that I have alluded to; they obfuscate the “Why?” of Reality. (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=188)

Fields must be precisely defined. Energy must be precisely defined. What is space? What is time, where is time’s clock? Why is energy conserved, where does it come from? Why acceleration? Why the Inverse Square Law? Why are spatial dimensions orthogonal? What is “One”? Why non-locality? Why entanglement, etc.

Which is more important to an understanding of physics, the forces (3, 5, or 1, or whatever) or arithmetic. Where do any of these concepts come from???

The above must be defined before “key foundations” can be used to remove physics from its present metaphysical foundation. All the “foundations” of physics, “key” or otherwise, and the standard models are seriously flawed. Much like religion; if there is only one true god then, most likely, all are false. So be it with the paradigms of post-modern, theoretical physics. Each has an exalted following; but, all are false.

Amazingly, all the questions presented above have a common thread. And it is such that runs through all Reality; (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=188) bits of which appear in all standard models. If simplicity is sought first; complexity will follow. It is difficult to know the majesty of a bird from a broken egg that lies on the ground.

What you want to obtain is a slim textbook replacing the existing heavyweight one, getting rid of the classical versus quantum conflicts, and producing something to replace speculative "string theory".I quite agree; with the caveat that: the “slim textbook” must be able to be understood by most laypersons with not too much effort.

Loop quantum gravity (LQG) suggests a spin foam vacuum which is the major competitor to "string theory".There is much merit to LQG. However, it is too embroiled with “standard model” concepts . . . as is, ST. (About 11 years ago, in Feynman's (RPF) old office, I spent an hour, or so, with John Schwarz. I came away with the feeling that he was too much of a “conventional physicist” to believe that ST was anything more than a heuristic exercise for nimble minds. However, he does understand the importance of complex oscillation; though, I am unaware of any research that he has undertaken.)

LQG has the correct approach in theorizing that space is not continuous. ST has the correct approach of placing importance upon oscillations and resonance. Both address little that bears upon observed Cosmic enigmas.

I think efforts should be focussed on trying to understand, develop and test LQG.The theory appears too incomplete to attempt much research before defining basic observed concepts that are now standard model enigmas.

Although it is possible to identify interesting ideas…including some important mathematical suggestions by Danny Ross Lunsford, Peter Woit, Tony Smith, and others, it is a large problem to reconcile the available facts and guesses.I agree.

Lunsford gets to the heart of the original extra-dimensional issue by analysing the 5-dimensional Kaluza-Klein unification theory (for Maxwell and general relativity). Lunsford shows that a 6-dimensional unification is more rigorous,…No one has adequately defined 3 or 4 dimensions; how can anyone seriously consider 5, 6, 11, and upward??? And, don't answer: mathematically. I'm not sure that physicists realize that there is still much question as to whether mathematics is fundamentally provable. It would be quite strange if a contrivance of man could pose for fundamental Nature. Not that I am saying that mathematics is a contrivance of man.

…and this predicts that there is no cosmological constant/dark energy.”Dark” energy and “dark” matter are facts that must be lived with. A simple explanation is possible and would solve many problems.

…you can get the observed data by a gravity mechanism in which gravity is a push and not a pull.This is exactly what the situation is. Anything else would be ludicrous at best and voodoo science at worst. Can there possibly be a force that doesn’t act directly on its object? Gravity as currently defined is at best six forces: reach, grasp, and pull by each of at least two objects!!!

Distant galaxies won't be slowed down, because there is less mass beyond them which is pushing them back than there is mass behind them causing them to speed upThis is somewhat correct.

...Maxwell's equations should be reviewed for electroweak theory. The electroweak unification is a unification of QED, not Maxwell's classical electromagnetism, with the weak force (which allows beta radioactivity, the change in flavour of quarks). So it is interesting to think about electroweak theory in terms of Maxwell's equations.As best I can figure, QED is contrived from the brilliant mind of RPF and delivers the bottom line with little concern for reality.

The weak force itself is no more than a mythical contrivance. But then, so are the other forces . . . which was very well understood by RPF.

The Standard Model allocates mass and electroweak symmetry breaking as functions of the Higgs field: there are four natural vector bosons, but the vacuum Higgs field screens three of them at low energies, where they have only a very short range. At higher energies, the weak force range is increased. The fourth vector boson is the photon of electromagnetism, which manages to penetrate the Higgs field at all energies without attenuation.To think that many of the people that study, theorize, and research the above, heap scorn on string theorists. But then, this is the academic environment that breeds most string theorists . . .

I think the way forward may be to develop a non-perturbative mathematical model of the vacuum in terms of its virtual particles and Higgs bosons, and try to achieve a unified force theory by playing with the parameters in a computer model of the vacuum. The reason this is not being done seems to be more due to prejudices against any kind of aetherial model Higgs field and in favour of abstract mathematical methods, than based on solid objections.I think you are saying: let’s mathematically analyze nothing and its motion. If so, I heartily agree.

It should be possible to analyse ideas like specific SUSY (supersymmetry) concepts easily if a semi-classical computer model of the vacuum existed.This shouldn’t be too difficult a thought experiment if I understand what you mean by “semi-classical.”

[amrit]

that's a good question

photon moves in space only, not in time
time is not a medium where motion happens
time is of the mind, motion of the universe

[Epsilon=One]

that's a good question

photon moves in space only, not in time
time is not a medium where motion happens
time is of the mind, motion of the universeYou just can't seem to understand that fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT) has nothing to do with the mind.

You have yet to comment, after being reminded in many posts, as to how there is anything that exists which is not synchronised; and, how there can be synchronization without time. All observed motion is, fundamentally, synchronised with something.

Also, to say that photons "move in space only" doesn't seem to differentiate a photon from anything else.

Besides, what is a photon? Is it that oxymoron that is referred to as a massless particle?

The question may be good; but, your comment is without meaning.

[amrit]

a photon travels in space only
duration of travel we measure with clocks
time is a mind model through which we experience motion of the photon

[Epsilon=One]

a photon travels in space only
duration of travel we measure with clocks
time is a mind model through which we experience motion of the photonPlease don't repeat the same drivel.

You are wasting everyone's time with repetition.

You have thoroughly stated your ridiculous belief, over and over, that the environment requires a "mind."

[Albers]

I have just presented what might help the situation here!