Random Thoughts About Relativity

Facts About Relativity  

In order to introduce some of my ideas, it will be good for the reader to become familiar with some of the weird behavior of particles traveling at very high speed, high enough to invoke relativistic effects.

As seen by a stationary observer:

1) The closer a moving object gets to the speed of light, the slower its moving clock gets.

At the speed of light, it is zero – to the moving object, everything is simultaneous.  Start, Splat. The moving object sees the outside world as distorted, getting shorter in length, and at c, the length from here to there is zero, no matter how far the stationary observer measures it.  Photons live in a go-splat world.

2) The closer a moving object gets to the speed of light, the shorter its length gets.

At the speed of light, it has zero length to the stationary observer, but normal length to the moving object.  Everything seems normal to the moving object  until it gets to c – the problem for the moving object at c is that there is no time to seem normal – everything is instantaneous.

3) The closer a moving object gets to the speed of light, the larger its mass gets due to kinetic energy increase (for objects that have mass).

At the speed of light, an object with mass would have infinite mass.   This rules out object with mass ever getting up to c.  Photons do not have mass so they can move at the speed of light.   Nothing with mass can go that fast.

4) The closer a moving object gets to the speed of light, the more energy you have to use to get it there.

You have to give more and more energy to the object to get it  closer and closer to the speed of light. Energy equals mass times speed of light squared.  At the speed of light, the energy required is infinite.  You can never push an object with mass that hard.

What is the equation that describes the way in which time slows down as you approach the speed of light?

The equation is known as the time dilation equation and is:

Δ t = Δ T/ √[ 1 – (v/c)²]    Time dilation

Where  Δ t is the moving object time ticks and Δ T is the stationary object time ticks, v is the velocity and c is the speed of light.

When the velocity approaches c, the term v/c becomes very close to 1 and then the term Δ t becomes very large because the right side is divided by a very small number approaching zero.  This means that the distance between clock ticks gets very long for the moving object.   Time begins to stand still as it reaches the speed of light because the distance between tics becomes infinite.

What happens to space (in direction of motion)?

Δ x = Δ X/√[ 1 – (v/c)²]      Space distortion

Where  Δ x is the ruler mark as measured by the moving object and Δ X is the ruler mark as measured by the stationary object.

When the velocity approaches c, the right hand term approaches infinity.  essentially, a unit measure, such as an inch for the moving object would stretch millions of miles as measured by the stationary object at speeds near c.  

conversely, a foot long ruler moving near c would be invisibly short as seen by the stationary object – a term called foreshortening

Conversely again, the stationary object would seem impossibly close and impossibly short to the moving object near c.  At c, neither could see the other even with the best of instruments until they collide, which would be instantaneous for the moving object.  (To do so would imply that the image was moving faster than c.)

 So someone (very small and massless) sitting on a photon would think they see time normally, but the time of flight would seem to pass instantly from time started to time finished because no time would elapse (Δt very large).   Of course there would be no time to measure time (or even think about it) because the photon would instantly hit the other end of its path, no matter how far away that is.

Someone sitting and watching nearby would see time normally (from their perspective), but in their case, ΔT would be very short (time interval ticks near 0) and they would seem to age quickly compared to the someone riding on a photon.

The total time of flight might seem 100 years to an observer, but seem instantaneous for one traveling at the speed of a photon. The observer would age instantly according to the one moving fast, and the observer would think the one moving quickly didn’t age at all.   Weird isn’t it?  Weird but true.

Similarly, distance gets shorter as an object approaches c as seen by the observer and longer for the observer as seen by the object that is moving fast.

In other words, the time that passes in one time frame (Δ t) is the time that passes in another (Δ T) divided by the square root of 1 minus the velocity squared divided by the speed of light squared.

Enough of this – keep in mind that photons don’t have time to age, and photons arrive the instant they are emitted.  A photon emitted in the furthest star that we can see by telescope arrives the instant it is emitted.   (From the photon’s point of view).   They live an instantaneous “go-splat” life.

From our point of view it may have taken billions of years to get here.  Both viewpoints are valid.  That is the weird nature of relativistic speeds.  Time and space are distorted. 

One last thing:  Effect of speed on atoms:

Atoms are flattened in the direction of their motion.  Normally about 10 -8 cm in diameter they change from a sphere to a flattened disk as they approach the speed of light (from our stationary perspective only).

Particle accelerators have to be designed to account for both time dilation and space contraction in order to work. 

Atoms have mass so they can never reach the speed of light, but particle accelerators push particles, including atoms, to very high speeds that require design changes to keep them on track around their path – changes that involve the equations above.

Next – some of the quantum weirdness explained, example by example from the earlier posts.

About these ads

12 responses to “Random Thoughts About Relativity

  1. If there is no time for the mass less photon, then the start and end of its life would be known the instant it was created. Lets say the photon is created 1 light year from a stationary observer, so that to him it (looks like) he has one year till it reaches him, and that in that time he could do all kinds of things to end the photons life when it reaches him. But since the end is already known by the photon when it starts, does that mean that the whole world is deterministic?

    cheers,
    Thor Asmund

  2. There is no time for the photon. The start and end for the photon is known to the photon the instant it was created, because for it that is the only instant there is. It is the photon’s space-time that is warped, not the observer’s. The observer only knows about the photon when it arrives (or later).

    The observer lives in a world that has a sense of measurable time, but the photon does not. Photons live and die at the same instant and it only experiences that one instant due to relativistic space-time distortion.

    Photons are emitted as random or near random discrete events and all are different and have different destinations. They don’t all exist at the same instant. There is nothing deterministic about that. It is not even deterministic for an individual photon as the landing zone is purely random and it could “die” at any point in its path if something interviened. It also has no “knowledge” of the end point at the time of its beginning, but it experiences the end point and the begining point at that same instant becasue it has no other instant to experience.

    The point of my theory is this: A photon has only one instant of being. That instant includes the beginning and the end and all points in between and all paths in between that are open.

    Any closed path and any device (mirror or detector) that is inserted at a point to block it is also known at that same instant of being. It can’t be fooled by our experiments, inclduing “delayed choice” experiments.

    Later, when I say a photon’s landing point is stuck to its nose and the emitter to its tail, it is a figurative illustration of the experience of the photon, not that they actually are connected.

    To the photon (only) that is the effect (touching at both ends) in its “instant of being” because it is the only instant it has.

  3. If you’re sitting at the end of a flatcar at the end of a train with a stick of dynamite in your hand and the train accelerates to the speed of light and the stick of dynamite expodes and blows off your hand, do you feel the pain?

  4. Hi, Andy, thanks for the problem!

    I would likely be sitting in the middle of the tracks when it went off, as the accelerating train would zip out from under me – in that case yes.

    If somehow I hung on and the acceleration didn’t kill be (as it would) then it would probably blow up during the acceleration because my clock would still be moving and the fuse still burning. – in that case, also yes.

    If somehow I hung on and the acceleration didn’t kill me and the acceleration was so quick that the fuse did not reach the dynamite before we reached light speed, then no – as it would never reach the dynamite – it would be frozen in mid spark forever or until we ran into something.

    In my humble opinion, the fuse could never time out at the speed of light, so the dynamite could not explode. Also the train, the dyanmite, the fuse, and me all have mass and thus could never achieve the speed of light anyway.

    But it is fun to think about.

    Oldtimer

  5. The zero time for a photon explains delayed choice weirdness. Yes!
    Since space contraction is only in the direction of photon motion, as you say, this leaves a problem for double slits since they are separated perpindicularly to the motion vector.
    Do you have an answer for this?
    Thanks!

    • The photon is launched in a specific direction and arrives there in zero time. A distant (for it) arrival point is just that, a point. The point of arrival is defined the instant it is launched. However, the point of arrival may involve a number of different paths, all of which are contracted to a zero distance apart at the time of launch. They may be perpendicuar to the path locally, but not from a distance. Two street lights a mile away look much closer from wherever you are.

      There are some real times for the photons travel from our point of view. It may take millions of years for it to reach our lens, even though the photon takes zero time from a space contraction standpoint.

      When a photon is launched from a distant star, its landing point does not change due to the motion of objects in between or the time (as we measure it) involved to get there. You might think that some of them that were headed for the earth may be intercepted by the moon or a intervening galaxy of stars. Actually such intervening point was defined at launch and the photon is destined to hit it, no matter how much of our time we measure. A distant galaxy may act as a lens because some of the paths that have been contracted to zero include the paths around the galaxy and some of those paths point to our lens. Very few photons have paths around such a galaxy and very few have paths that are close enough in length to cause interference, but then the number emitted in our direction is very high and some of them fit the circumstances for interference. In that case the paths may interfere with each other as the paths collapse to zero or in other words, shrink to a zero path width. Their shrinking to zero path width does not mean that the path length from our time standpoint is also exactly zero.

      In the case of a double slit, the idea is the same. There are multiple paths the photon can take during its travel to the landing point, but they are all contracted to zero width at the time of launch. Again from the standpoint of the photon, it all is done in zero time over a zero path and all paths are combined to reach the destination. The length of the various paths do nothing but slightly delay the photon in one or more other paths as we measure them. The result when they reach that predefined point is they have experienced some interference with themselves. Photons launched in a direct line to the ending point do not interfere because the great preponderance of the paths are all the same. Yet there is some dither, I would imagine, leading to a band of some non-zero width.

      The slits are contracted to zero distance apart from the standpoint of the photon at time of launch and the time to reach the destination is instantaneous within the lifetime of the photon as it is always instantaneous. Go/splat! We see it differently, of course because we can measure all these distances and times with great precision. We just have not embraced the concept of zero flight time and zero distance for the photon and not understood the concept of zero path separtion due to distance and relativity effects.

  6. Thanks for putting this stuff out here, with an opportunity to comment. If this comment appears on other pages as well, that was an error on my part. I hope you can/will remove it from other pages.

    This page of your work seems to me to be suffering from losing sight of one of the fundamental concepts of both classical and Einsteinian relativity, which is the symmetry among all inertial observers. One cannot talk in any absolute sense of one observer being at rest, and a second observer being in motion. All observers moving at constant velocity relative to one another experience the SAME relativistic effects as any other observer. From now on if I say relativity, I mean Einstein’s special relativity. I think you know this, but I also think that they way you have worded some things could easily be interpreted to imply that one observer really is at rest and that only the other observer is moving, and that the moving observer is sort of seeing the opposite effects of the stationary observer.

    If you, with your stationary-to-you clocks and sticks are moving relative to me at a very high velocity, then I see your clocks ticking slowly compared to my identical clocks, and I see your sticks aligned parallel to the direction of motion shortened compared to my identical sticks. By “identical” I mean that we agree on the standards and units of length and time so that when each of us observes our own clocks and sticks (i.e. at rest relative to ourselves), we observe exactly the same thing. (The lengths of sticks perpendicular to the direction of motion are not affected by the motion, but because of differences in how long it takes light to travel from different parts of those sticks to my eye, what I “see” will be distorted.) This does NOT mean that you will see my clocks running fast or my sticks being lengthened. From your point of view, it is me who is moving, and by symmetry you must see my clocks running slowly and my sticks being contracted.

    What is definitely problematic is your statement “So someone (very small and massless) sitting on a photon would think they see time normally, but the time of flight would seem to pass instantly from time started to time finished because no time would elapse (Δt very large).” This is a violation of the fundamental postulate of special relativity from which the effects of time dilation and length contraction are deduced. Namely, that the speed of light is the same to all observers. If the postulate is true (and it seems to be verified by a great deal of empirical evidence that we both apparently accept) then it is impossible to even conceive of an observer sitting on a photon. While it may appear to me that there is some massless observer (MO) moving through my world with the same velocity as a photon, relativity says that MO observes the same photon that I observe moving away from him at speed c. It may appear to me that MO is sitting on my photon, but it cannot appear that way to him.

    I think that what can safely be said is that from my point of view, MO and the photon are moving through my world in the same direction with speed c, that consequently as seen by me there can be no distance in the direction of motion between MO and the photon, so MO may appear to me (but not to himself) to be sitting on or next to the photon, and that for all of my time that it takes for MO and our photon to cross my universe, no time passes on MO’s clock. This is possible, not because MO sees his clock as being frozen at some instant in time, but rather because he sees my universe as being flattened to a zero-length pancake through which the photon and MO each pass in an instant (not necessarily the same instant, but it could be if the photon came into existence at MO’s exact location relative to himself at the instant my universe went by his). I does then follow that for the single instant of MO’s time during which he finds himself within my flattened universe, the photon is in a single position (but not at rest) in his universe.

    In this sense, it may seem promising that you can talk about the photon being “everywhere” in my universe (along the direction of motion) because to MO my universe appears to have zero length. But you have to be careful not to conclude that I will observe the photon being everywhere in my universe at one instant in my time. MO sees my universe as having zero length with a photon and himself flying through it in an instant of his time, but he also sees my clocks that are spatially separated and synchronized in my world not ticking while reading different times from one another (i.e. not synchronized). What I see is MO’s clocks and sticks and the photon all being located in the same plane, migrating across my universe at the speed of light, but with MO’s clocks not running (and not synchronized if separated in the direction of motion). In other words, MO and everything in his universe is seen by me to be confined to a plane perpendicular to his direction of motion.

    If the photon has length, as you seem to imply in your earlier pages and I expect will appear again in later pages, then it is unique in ways that cannot be explained by special relativity because it is then the only thing that can both be moving at the speed of light and still have length in the direction of motion. That does not change the fact that as it moves through our world, if there is a clock moving along beside it, that clock will not be running, so in some sense we may perhaps latch on to the idea that a photon does not spend any of its own time (if there is such a thing) in our universe. But it does spend our time here, and according to our clocks if it exists in the same sense as other classical (i.e. non-quantum) particles it is only going to be in one place at any instant of our time. Relativity does not change that.

    I’ll still be interested in seeing where you are going with these ideas, but I suspect there are going to be some other things that will emerge as difficulties.

  7. I am posting this as a separate comment because it refers to your reply to the comment from Mitch Bogart, rather than your posted article. You state that “The slits are contracted to zero distance apart from the standpoint of the photon at time of launch and the time to reach the destination is instantaneous within the lifetime of the photon as it is always instantaneous. Go/splat! ” How do you get zero distance apart for the slits? Length contraction only happens in the direction of motion of the photon, which is perpendicular to the plane of the slits.

    The position-momentum uncertainly relation of Heisenberg has bearing on the spreading of the momentum directions of the photon that has passed through a slit. The more narrow the slit, the more uncertain the momentum component perpenduclar to the initial photon momentum, and hence the wider the diffraction pattern of photons that find their way through it. A collimated beam of photons heading toward a double slit pair (possibly because of passing through a single slit first, but it could be from some other direction selection process, such as a laser) will experience diffraction from either or both of the two slits in the double slit pair. The overlapping diffraction patterns in are essential to the formation of the interference pattern that is produced, and that pattern depends very much on the amount of separation between the two slits. If the two slits are widely separated, you can only observe two separate diffraction patterns, not interference bands. I am unaware of any theory or experiment that suggests the slits have no separation from the perspective of the incoming photons.

  8. I may be looking at this all wrong, but from my standpoint, from the instant the photon is emitted all the lengths to the apparatus are zero distance and zero time away as if the photon is entering a worm hole (which may be what is actually happening. I have had the thought for some time that every photon creates its own wormhole at the instant of emission and the wormhole collapses from the emission end to the landing point at the rate of c.)

    I hope you will allow me to use the term wormhole in the rest of this comment because it greatly aids in the description. It may not fit the definition of a wormhole, but it is appealing to me that may be what is happening.

    If all edges of the slits are zero distance away (as are all parts of the apparatus), then they must be zero distance apart, totally contracted, even though significant parts are perpendicular to the path.

    They are not perpendicular to the photon until the photon actually passes through them. From the wormhole concept, until the wormhole collapses past that point.

    The two separate processes are those of the photon which has simultaneous birth and death, and those of the experimenter that measures the start and stop of the experiment in measurable and predictable duration.

    To the photon’s relativistic life, every thing in its path is zero distance away including the two edges of the slit and thus the slit width, even the apparatus width. To the experimenter, the slits have significant width and the photon takes time to traverse the apparatus.

    What is harder to understand is that the photon has all parts of its prospective path essentially stuck to its nose, including its landing point, but experiences the parts of the path one part at a time as they are encountered, or, as I would like to say it now, at the time the wormhole collapses through that part. It does experience crystals, glass and other non vacuum mediums somewhat separately as far as wormhole collapse time is considered, but the entire apparatus is still in its path at the time of the determination of the landing point. That is, the wormhole exists for the entire life of the photon.

    By having the landing point established at the moment of emission, all the effects of paddles, blocked slits, switched mirrors, and other sneaky attempts to fool it don’t matter. It will land where it is supposed to land.

    Now we run into a problem of describing what this means and the wormhole concept helps me greatly.

    It means that since the wormhole is created with both ends established in different time frames and all time frames in between are linked together by the wormhole, the photon experiences the entire apparatus in the same instant and the landing point is determined by the conditions of the apparatus at each of those linked together times, even though they are in different time frames throughout.

    If paddles, detectors, calcite crystals, slits, or switched mirrors are there at the time it needs to go through a slot, then that part of the apparatus will be stuck to the photon at the time of emission and die on the paddle or be deflected by the mirror or other intervening apparatus.

    If not, then the photon lands at a spot at the back of the apparatus determined by whatever parts of the apparatus it interacted with on the way.

    If the emission is from a distant star, it does not matter. Our planet, maybe our galaxy is a point until it passes through. The landing point is defined at the moment of emission at the far end of a wormhole that was created perhaps billions of years ago as we measure it but established by the conditions of the near end landing point.

    So it does not matter that other galaxies, stars, planets may cross that path at various times as we look back at a distant star. The landing point in our eye is only because the ones that get there did not land on one of the possible paddles that move through our universe.

    An intervening black hole or galaxy that looks like a point to the wormhole that brought the photon creates a lens effect that may display self interference from that distant traveling photon just as a double slit would on your tabletop.

    • I don’t think you are looking at it all wrong. What I find difficult at times is knowing which point of view you are talking about, which leads me to think you are not capturing the symmetry inherent among inertial observers in special relativity; perhaps that is due to my gradual loss of brain cells, or diminishing attention to detail, but I am inclined to think that your descriptions of some things could be clearer.

      I will allow you to talk in terms of wormholes if you wish, but I will not, for the simple reason that I really know very little about them, and I do not think that concept is needed for the issues at hand. I really don’t know much about general relativity and all of its cosmological implications, and I am inclined to associate wormholes with those more general and perhaps more esoteric theories. I do know that I have and will continue to run afoul of those theories when I say thinks like “the universe appears flat as a pancake to an observer moving through it at speed c.” The idea of truly inertial observers existing in the actual universe is an approximation that can never be realized because of the ever present effects of gravity. They can exist to a reasonable approximation in regions of limited extent. Nevertheless, the abstract concept of an ideal inertial observer, or an infinite number of such observers in relative motion to one another is well within the bounds of the special theory.

      What I find discomforting about some of your presentations is an apparent mixing, or lack of symmetry of the views of different observers, such as when you say “Similarly, distance gets shorter as an object approaches c as seen by the observer and longer for the observer as seen by the object that is moving fast.” The implication is that one observer (the one called the observer) is observing things in motion relative to him to be SHORTER than they would be if there were no relative motion, while the other observer (the object) is observing things in motion relative to it to be LONGER than they would be if there were no relative motion. This is simply not the case. Each of the observers in uniform relative motion will observe lengths of objects at rest relative to the opposite observer as being contracted. Nobody is observing anything being expanded.

      A related problem arises when you talk about the photon experiencing zero time and zero distance. (At least that is how I interpret what you are saying.) In this article you say “This means that the distance between clock ticks gets very long for the moving object. Time begins to stand still as it reaches the speed of light because the distance between tics becomes infinite.” In the context of the header many lines above which says “As seen by a stationary observer:” this statement is true as long as we are clear about whose time we are talking about (the time ticking on a moving clock, as seen by the stationary observer), but taken all by itself the first statement suggests that the moving observer (stationary relative to the clock) is seeing his clock running slower than it would be if he were not moving. This misperception is reinforced by the statement “Everything seems normal to the moving object until it gets to c – the problem for the moving object at c is that there is no time to seem normal – everything is instantaneous.” In my opinion, the focus here should not be on the implied “stopping of time” of the moving observer. There is NO problem with the time observed by an object (observer) moving at c. To him, his clock is a perfectly normal clock clicking time off with the normal interval between tics. Everything is not instantaneous. In particular, if such an observer continues on his way after reaching the outer limits of our universe, his clock will be working just fine, marking the passing of time in a perfectly normal manner.

      I think your presentation would be stronger if instead of implying that the moving-at-c observer’s time is coming to a stop (which is only true as seen by the so-called stationary observer), you focused on the zero-length separation of the objects this observer witnesses as they fly past him at c, all going by at the same instant of his non-stationary time (and by the way, with all of their clocks not ticking, but reading different times from one another). It may seem of no consequence, because it leads to the same conclusion that I think you want, namely that from the point of view of this observer everything in our universe is experienced at the same instant of his time. But I think it would make a difference in how you try to explain the interactions of photons with material objects in our universe in your other articles, which to me at least imply some passing of “photon time.”

      In your reply you state “If all edges of the slits are zero distance away (as are all parts of the apparatus), then they must be zero distance apart, totally contracted, even though significant parts are perpendicular to the path.” On this point I have to disagree. (Although I am now going to explain why I disagree, let me first say that I do not think you need or even want to incorporate this notion of total contraction into your theory.) All edges of the slits are not zero distance away. Length contraction in special relativity is only in the direction of motion; there is no effect on lengths in directions perpendicular to that direction. If we imagine an observer moving along our x axis, he will observe all points on the x axis being closer together than we would observe them (length contraction). However, he and we would agree about the y and z coordinates of every point in space. Anything that we observe to be separated in the y and z directions would also be observed by him to have the same separation in those direction that we observe.

      As I mentioned elsewhere, “observe” and “see” are not the same thing. If we talk about material objects, what we “observe” is defined to be the simultaneous positions of the points that make up the object, whether it be at rest or moving relative to an observer. What we see is an image formed by light rays entering our eyes at the same time. If our eye is at the origin, and an object is distributed across a y-z plane passing through a stationary point x, it does not matter that it takes longer for light from points far out in y and z to reach our eyes than it does for the light travelling along the x axis, because the information coming from every point of the object is unchanging. We will see an undistorted plane object. However, if that object is moving rapidly toward us, the light from the outer edges reaches our eye later than the light from along the x axis. The rays that enter the eye at the same time come to us from different x positions that the object was in as it approached. This leads to some rather fascinating distortions of the shapes of plane (or solid) objects travelling at high speeds, with the distortion being symmetric about the direction of travel, but it does not shrink the appearance of these objects to a point. The distortions of plane objects are only appearances; they depend on how fast the object is moving and how far away it is, but they are not the result of any actual change of the shape of an object. For a solid object the shape does depend on its speed, but only in the direction of motion. What we “see” is the combination of length contraction and time-of-flight distortion effects. With a little Google searching, I’m sure one can find videos of simulations of these effects.

  9. In the case of a collimated beam of photos, I consider each and every photon to be self interfering to create the interference patterns, which, after all, are all dots arranged in a pattern. They are not interfering with each other and it is not wave collapse, but the landing of the photon dispersing its energy that makes the dots on a detector or film strip. The beam just has lots more photons compared to the setup that sees the same effect one photon at a time.

    I agree with you when you say that “The position-momentum uncertainly relation of Heisenberg has bearing on the spreading of the momentum directions of the photon that has passed through a slit. The more narrow the slit, the more uncertain the momentum component perpendicular to the initial photon momentum, and hence the wider the diffraction pattern of photons that find their way through it.”

    Your point being that the slit has to have width for the pattern to emerge and various widths have an effect on the pattern. and I agree with that as well. I have no quarrel with Harrisburg’s Uncertainty Principle. I do think that the jitter and uncertainty have something to do with the internal components whirling around at near relativistic speeds.

    I am saying that the width of the slots are close to if not exactly a point when the emission occurs in the far end and widens as the photon closely approaches and then passes through it. That moment being when the collapsing wormhole passes through it as the back end of the photon (there may be, as you pointed out elsewhere, no such a thing) passes through.

    It is my view that the wormhole has zero length throughout its existence and so the photon is still a flat disk with no depth but yet still attached to both ends of its existence. Wormholes are weird and I so invoke them here. So are photons.

    When a wormhole collapses, it does so at c.

    .

  10. “In the case of a collimated beam of photos, I consider each and every photon to be self interfering to create the interference patterns, which, after all, are all dots arranged in a pattern. They are not interfering with each other and it is not wave collapse, but the landing of the photon dispersing its energy that makes the dots on a detector or film strip. The beam just has lots more photons compared to the setup that sees the same effect one photon at a time.”

    I see nothing wrong with looking at it this way in most cases, although there is no reason why multiple photons cannot interfere with one another if they interact with the same electron at the same time. Experiment seems to indicate that a single photon can interfere with itself, and I see no problem in assuming that all of them do, at least in cases where there has been no interaction with matter along their path. I’m not quite so confident about this for cases where photons travel through materials, and are absorbed and re-emitted one or more times, but I do not feel I understand those well enough to raise any objections.

    “I am saying that the width of the slots are close to if not exactly a point when the emission occurs in the far end and widens as the photon closely approaches and then passes through it. That moment being when the collapsing wormhole passes through it as the back end of the photon (there may be, as you pointed out elsewhere, no such a thing) passes through.”

    This is an example of what I referred to earlier as implying the passage of photon time, while you assert that there can be no photon time. Surely the slits have constant separation in the rest frame of the slits, so you must be talking about their separation as observed by the photon. How can their separation change when there is no passing of photon time? I see no need for you to assume a changing separation to support your theory.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s