Live data from Hacker News

Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

quantamagazine.org

41–50 of 86 posts

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#41
post #24
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, really it isn't a universal constant, then? I guess the makes sense. Sub question - if photons are light particles, moving at the speed of light, then do they actually experience time dilation themselves? i.e. from the frame of reference of the photon, is the local time for the photon ticking away in one frame, while the outside world appears to move much much faster? Or, relative to us is time on the photon movi…

It is a universal constant. See above. The photon travels at the speed of light c . If you look at the expression for the time dilation, you will see that it tends to infinity as v approaches c . Remember that this relates the time experienced between two frames moving relative to each other at a constant velocity v . However the fact is that the expression fails when v=c , since you have a division by zero. This ref…

That is actually a great explanation, thanks. So, photons don't experience time? Does that mean that they don't experience entropy, either? I.e. They don't lose any energy in transit, since to them "transit" is instantaneous.

Another question this raises for me is that if photons move in a timeless state between 2 points, what accounts for the period of their oscillation in the particle/wave duality? If they are tracing the fastest path through spacetime, yet to them, the time dimension is non existent, how do they have wave characteristics?

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#42
post #38

I just ran into an interesting theory for Gravity: Subquantum Kinetics It's featured in Dr. Paul LaViolette's book The Secrets of Anti-gravity Propulsion, and there's a really interesting section that challenges the Standard Model in Quantum Mechanics called the Model G in Subquantum Kinetics. The idea is that matter is born out of what's called the Ether, the origin to all energy. The positive and negative electrica…

That is crackpottery, pseudoscience and conspiracy theory at 11. Forget about it if you are interested in any serious conversation about physics.

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#43
post #16

I have a question as a non physics/math person: We assume that light speed is a constant, but we also know that speed is measured as distance/time. We know that in the presence of high gravity (or proximity to very high mass), or very high speed, we experience time dilation, and that perspective and location matters WRT actual time. So, how do we assume that light speed is constant? Does the distance moved change rel…

There is a little bit of geometry and group theory jargon here in my description of 'c' in General Relativity, but no equations:

The plane tangent to the surface of the ball in this diagram is a tangent space.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Im...

A metric on a space determines lengths (both spatial lengths and time durations).

The geometry of spacetime induces the Minkowski metric on tangent spaces.

At every point in a Minkowski space lengths are invariant under the Poincaré isometry group, which means that lengths stay the same under any or all of three spatial translations along orthogonal axes, three rotations about these axes, three Lorentz boosts, and one time translation.

There is one free parameter in the Poincaré group, which is "c", which physically corresponds to a particle with zero invariant mass. Photons are expected to have zero invariant mass, and experiment sets a very very very small upper bound on their mass.

Observers in the same tangent space as a photon will measure it as massless and moving at 'c'.

Minkowski space is flat spacetime, and in flat spacetime each tangent space covers the whole spacetime; they overlap completely.

As you add curvature^2 to the geometry of spacetime, the tangent spaces shrink and are oriented to each other at different angles.

Observers in one tangent space measuring a photon in another tangent space may not agree on its speed. In fact, in General Relativity, it is mostly forbidden to talk about the relative velocities of objects in other tangent spaces -- that's a dramatic departure from Special Relativity, but then SR is the theory of Minkowski space, where all tangent spaces cover the same region of spacetime, and so they are indistinguishable.

Spacetime curvature around us is pretty gentle, so within a small laboratory test apparatus everything is in the same tangent space or so close to it that differences aren't detectable. We have excellent and readily reproduced data on the speed of light in such setups.

The Poincaré isometry group is a subgroup of the group theory of the Standard Model. All the scatterings allowed under the Standard Model are in a region of spacetime where curvature doesn't matter, and we have many exabytes of evidence supporting the Standard Model in terrestrial experiments, in experimental systems elsewhere in the solar system, and in astronomical observations. Indeed, we can use the repeatability of the Standard Model and its built-in Poincaré invariance to measure spacetime curvature, and we do so with GNSS systems like GPS.

A violation of Poincaré invariance would produce different behaviours in microscopic systems, and so far they have not been detected. The Lorentz group is a subgroup of the Poincaré group, and there have been many tests specifically probing for violations of Lorentz invariance near us and in distant parts of the observable universe, and as of today none have been found after a century of trying.

So unless there is a low energy breakdown of the Standard Model, we can be pretty confident that the photon is a massless particle and moves at 'c' for all observers close to the photon.

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#44
post #42
post #38

I just ran into an interesting theory for Gravity: Subquantum Kinetics It's featured in Dr. Paul LaViolette's book The Secrets of Anti-gravity Propulsion, and there's a really interesting section that challenges the Standard Model in Quantum Mechanics called the Model G in Subquantum Kinetics. The idea is that matter is born out of what's called the Ether, the origin to all energy. The positive and negative electrica…

That is crackpottery, pseudoscience and conspiracy theory at 11. Forget about it if you are interested in any serious conversation about physics.

[deleted]

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#45
post #41
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a universal constant. See above. The photon travels at the speed of light c . If you look at the expression for the time dilation, you will see that it tends to infinity as v approaches c . Remember that this relates the time experienced between two frames moving relative to each other at a constant velocity v . However the fact is that the expression fails when v=c , since you have a division by zero. This ref…

That is actually a great explanation, thanks. So, photons don't experience time? Does that mean that they don't experience entropy, either? I.e. They don't lose any energy in transit, since to them "transit" is instantaneous. Another question this raises for me is that if photons move in a timeless state between 2 points, what accounts for the period of their oscillation in the particle/wave duality? If they are trac…

I'm on mobile and not a physicist but the key is the observer. Photons don't observe anything.

We observe them since we observe time and they do have energy changes that we observe (I believe this is how colors and red shift work).

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#46
post #16

I have a question as a non physics/math person: We assume that light speed is a constant, but we also know that speed is measured as distance/time. We know that in the presence of high gravity (or proximity to very high mass), or very high speed, we experience time dilation, and that perspective and location matters WRT actual time. So, how do we assume that light speed is constant? Does the distance moved change rel…

'Does the distance moved change relative to the proximity to mass'

Yes, length contraction happens alongside time dilation. If I travel towards you, the distance between us shrinks in my frame of reference.

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#47
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The universe as a simulation is one of those ideas that sound interesting at first but are actually pretty useless the longer you think about them. There is for example also solipsism, the idea that only you exist and the rest of the world is just in your mind, or Last Thursdayism, the idea that the world came into existence last Thursday with all our minds filled with fake memories of the time before last Thursday.…

The idea that the universe is a simulation is just a different way to express the religious impulse.

Actually its just the opposite - most folks who invoke 'the universe is a simulation' view this as a 'scientific' way of positing a creator of the universe that is not God. Rather it is a program being run on some fantastical computer.

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly wrong. Light speed is constant in all frames

What is the speed of light in a photon's frame of reference?

Same as any other, however. A photon has a very distorted view of distance.

Play around with this: http://gamelab.mit.edu/games/a-slower-speed-of-light/

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#49
post #38

I just ran into an interesting theory for Gravity: Subquantum Kinetics It's featured in Dr. Paul LaViolette's book The Secrets of Anti-gravity Propulsion, and there's a really interesting section that challenges the Standard Model in Quantum Mechanics called the Model G in Subquantum Kinetics. The idea is that matter is born out of what's called the Ether, the origin to all energy. The positive and negative electrica…

Yeah, this is insane and totally wrong.

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#50
post #42
post #38

I just ran into an interesting theory for Gravity: Subquantum Kinetics It's featured in Dr. Paul LaViolette's book The Secrets of Anti-gravity Propulsion, and there's a really interesting section that challenges the Standard Model in Quantum Mechanics called the Model G in Subquantum Kinetics. The idea is that matter is born out of what's called the Ether, the origin to all energy. The positive and negative electrica…

That is crackpottery, pseudoscience and conspiracy theory at 11. Forget about it if you are interested in any serious conversation about physics.

I think you're proving Dr. Paul LaViolette's point why the theory is not getting attention: emotional, knee-jerk reactions like this.

Seems like I have to agree with everything you say in order to have a conversation about physics with you.

Post reply on HN