[deleted]
Dear Emmanuel,
thanks for the clarifications. The first one answered to one concern I had about the preference for photons in the primordial radiation in your model. I find your explanation very ingenious.
Cristi
The Universe and Photons by Emmanuel Moulay
Dear Constantin,
Yes, it is an independent research and yes I make a classical physical assumption in this essay. I think that photons can help us to remove the initial singularity, contrary to other particles (see my previous post).
Thank you for your remarks.
Emmanuel
[deleted]
Dear Emmanuel,
what do you mean by "photons remove the initial singularity"?
Do you mean that the singularity doesn't exist because is balanced somehow by a pressure due to the photon field, or that it evaporates into photons?
Thanks,
Cristi
Dear Cristi,
This is a key point of the essay. To answer to this question, we have to come back to the foundations of the General Relativity and time. The General Relativity stipulates that we live on a four dimensional Lorentzian manifold whose metric, which is the link between the time variable and the space variables, is a solution of the Einstein field equations. What is exactly this time variable? I have written an eprint available here http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00511837 where I try to explain that the time variable represents the possibility of motion for the matter relative to the speed of light (which is the possibility of motion of photons) along the geodesics defined by a metric. If there are photons only at the Planck epoch, the meaning of the time variable falls down due to the fact that photons have no proper time. I agree that it is always possible to calculate the solutions of the Einstein field equations for a large quantity of energy, but the time variable has no meaning with photons only. It is exactly as if you calculate the solution of a differential equation describing the evolution of the quantity of fish on a planet which has no water at the beginning of its evolution. In a certain kind, I think that the physical reality of photons can protect us again the initial mathematical singularity of the Einstein field equations.
Emmanuel
[deleted]
Dear Emmanuel,
the eprint you mention would have been a good entry for the first FQXi contest. Thanks for your explanations.
Cristi
4 days later
Dear Emmanuel,
I have reread your essay and the eprint mentioned above and I agree with Cristi that your eprint would have been a excellent entry to the first contest and especially enjoyed the simplicity and clarity of your definition of time. I also believe that the ideas from both of your papers complement some of my own. I will be finishing my essay in the next week or two and I hope you will seek it out, since I would value your opinion. I am addressing the issue from a fundamental cosmological viewpoint and I believe that you may find some of the conclusions interesting.
Dan
Dear Dan,
Your post is very important. Indeed, the notion of time is fundamental in order to develop a physical theory. We have to come back to an old debate between Albert Einstein and Ernst Mach concerning the relativity. Ernst Mach thought that all was relative (speed but also acceleration) whereas Einstein has postulated that all is relative with respect to the speed of light and thus nothing can go faster than the speed of light. For another reason, Albert Einstein has introduced the notion of light quanta: the photon. Concerning time, there is a similar debate. You can think that time is totally relative (see the fantastic book of Julian Barbour "The End of Time") or you can think, as me, that time is defined relative to the speed of light. I have developed this idea and I have given a definition of time: "The time coordinate ct represents the possibility of motion for the matter relative to the speed of light c along the geodesics defined by a metric g" (see http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00511837) and then time comes from the time coordinate but it is not a fundamental variable of the General Relativity. Then I have tried to extend the idea of relativity with respect to photons to the fundamental particles. Actually, you can obtain all the fundamental particles starting with photons only, as an evolution of photons depending on the temperature (see the previous posts). Somehow, the fundamental particles are defined relative to photons (I have made a mistake concerning the bosons corrected by Cristi). The next step was to postulate that the fundamental element in the universe is the photon. This is a very different philosophy than the one of the Quantum Gravity, but this is the same goal. The last step is to see if there is a problem with the initial singularity. To my mind, this problem can be compared with the Hawking radiation. If you have only photons at the boundary of the Planck epoch, and with the previous definition of time, the notion of time falls down. Indeed, the notion of time starts with the first pair production at the boundary of the Planck epoch. The Planck area is well defined with known particles: the photons, but there is no time and thus the motion is not defined.
I will read your essay with pleasure.
Emmanuel
[deleted]
Hi dear Christi and dear Emmanuel,
Congratulations for this beautiful papper Emmanuel and your explainations,like says Christi,it is pleasant to read also.
Regards
Steve
[deleted]
Dear Emanuel Moulay,
You explained that time travel is impossible. However, I looked in vain for an explanation for the direction chicken-egg-chicken-egg. Admittedly, I am not familiar with some mathematical notions, for instance nabla in the sense of Levi-Civita connection.
You called General Relativity most fundamental. Sorry, I would like to disagree: Fundamental to it is perhaps what you referred to as the Lorentzian metric signature (n-1,1). Can you please point me to convincing evidence that supports it? So far I looked into some original papers by Voigt, Heaviside, FitzGerald, Lodge, Larmor, Lorentz, Poincaré, Einstein 1905, and Minkowski.
Eckard
Dear Eckard,
In physics, proofs come from experiments, contrary to Mathematics. Thus, you obtain that a theory is checked with a certain degree of precision. Concerning the General Relativity, there are many papers showing that this theory is checked with a huge degree of precision (see for instance the works of Holger Müller at Berkeley).
Concerning the time travel, you have to define what time is. Based on the General Relativity, I have developed the idea that time is not fundamental in the General Relativity and comes from the time variable. The time variable represents the possibility of motion for the matter (the matter is all non zero mass objects) relative to the speed of light. Then, time comes from the possibility of motion. It is strange but there is no arrow of time at the fundamental level, only motions relative to the speed of light (or relative to photons which are the light quanta). Nevertheless, due to the second law of thermodynamics, some motions are not allowed. With this point of view, the time travel makes no sense. This is the motion relative to photons which is fundamental, not time, as usually defined.
Emmanuel
[deleted]
Hi ,
Indeed it's impossible to travel in time, the time is purelly irreversible and constant.The space time of Eisntein is an evolutive system where the localities respect the constant.
It's not a real dimension and furthermore the extradimensions do not exists like tachyons.
The strings imply so many confusions.
Regards
Steve
[deleted]
Dear Emmanuel,
I apologize for misspelling your name. You pointed me to http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2010/02/17_gravitational_redshift.shtml
Well, confirmation of predictions is indeed a necessary precondition for at least partial correctness of a theory. However, I maintain my objection against the claim that the whole theory of relativity is fundamental on a sound theoretical basis, and am reiterating my desire to learn convincing arguments for Lorentz transformation. Do not get me wrong. I have no reason to distrust the limitation for the speed of propagating electromagnetic waves. I just see flaws in some theories, and I wonder why there is apparently no way to unify them.
I asked for the direction of time, and you wrote "It is strange but there is no arrow of time at the fundamental level". Do you agree with Schulman? I quoted him in my earlier essays 369 or 527.
Eckard
Dear Eckard,
I am not sure to understand what you mean. The Lorentz transformation is the mathematical way to explain how the speed of light was observed to be independent of the reference frame in the Special Relativity. I don't see any flaw in this theory. You can read the initial work of Henri Poincaré (or any book about the Special Relativity) to be convinced that the Lorentz transformation is the right way to express the fact that the speed of light is constant.
I think that the problem of unification you talk about is the one of the quantum gravity (unification of the General Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics). It is a very hard mathematical program with two main theories: the string theory and the loop quantum gravity. Actually, the fundamental questions are the unity of physics and the beginning of the universe. It is possible that a physical solution emerges from the quantum gravity program. As an alternative, I point out in my essay that we could answer to the previous fundamental questions if we make the assumption that the photon is the most fundamental element in the universe.
Emmanuel
[deleted]
Hi Emmanuel,
I too liked many aspects of your essay. I was particularly pleased to see your following statements:-
"that time is defined relative to the speed of light." and "The time coordinate ct represents the possibility of motion for the matter relative to the speed of light c along the geodesics defined by a metric g".
I think this touches on something deep and potentially far reaching! I have long thought that what we call "time" should be expressed in a form that represents "potentiality" of motion. Our reliance on the use of "clock time", whilst operationally useful, cannot bring us closer to an understanding of fundamental reality. This "potentiality" is actualised by the redistribution of energy which, as you say, brings us back to photons. Our conventional time variables, operators etc, can only ever be considered as relative spatial displacements caused by motion and therefore *cannot explain themselves*.
I'm not so sure about your description of "wave/particle duality" as "continuous and discrete". I stand to be corrected but I thought that all wave forms can be quantised, including their various fourier modes, so that we still have discrete/digital information? I guess it may depend on your definitions?
Finally, could you please clarify..."I think that photons can help us to remove the initial singularity". From your description it seems to me that the initial singularity still existed at t=0, even though it may have "evaporated" extremely rapidly. It would have existed as a point of infinite energy density I think, given your explanation? Or are you saying that, as it did not exist "in time", it is unobservable and therefore not "real"?
Good luck in the contest!
Regards,
Roy
Dear Roy,
Thank you for your comment. I suppose that you agree with my definition of time relative to the speed of light. In the history of the universe, if we get back in time then we know that some pair production reactions are not possible when the temperature reaches a certain threshold. I suppose that the photon is the primordial element and that the Planck epoch corresponds to the epoch where no pair production reaction is allowed. At the Planck epoch, we are not at the initial singularity. Nevertheless, with the previous definition of time and if there are only photons at the Planck epoch, the notion of time is not defined. I agree that the Planck epoch becomes a singular domain because the geodesics cannot be extended into the past, but we are not at the initial singularity where all values become infinite. Somehow, we "remove" the initial singularity with photons.
Your question about the continuity of the variables is fundamental. I think, for instance, that the frequency of the photon is a continuous variable (taking all the real values). In the definition of the energy of photons (equation (1) in the essay), there are the quantification with the Planck constant and the continuous variable of the frequency. As said Cristi (see the previous post): "the photon has in its blood the laws of quantum theory and relativity". Nevertheless, I confess that I am in trouble with the problem of masses. In my essay, formula (4) is a definition of masses. If the photon is the primordial particle then (4) is the fundamental definition of masses. I don't see what does it mean physically and I don't see any connection with the Higgs mechanism.
Emmanuel
[deleted]
In fact you are right and false.
In fact all is composed by the same essence.The gravity, the space and the light.
Now let's assume a specific entanglement,thus a specific number, let's assume also a specific serie from the main central sphere.
Now the question is this one, why they are different and however they are same at the origin.
Only a different sense of rotation of entangled spheres answer rationally.
And the time is a result of these rotations like mass also, thus space is entanglement without motion, like particles in wait.
Now how can you say that photons are the most foundamental essence, yes and no we can say that for garvity and space also.In fact it's the entanglement of speheres which is foundamental,like a serie from the main center.The volumes take all their sense and the sense of rotation spinal and orbital also.Logic.
Now let's assume a fusion mass light in an evolutive pint of vue.....thus an other important point is this one.is it the light which is fractalized or the gravity in its pure quantic number???Don't forget the number of the ultim fractal do not change.Thus if it's the light which is fractalized really, it's not light the most foundamental essence but the gravity because the number for a gravitational stability do not change.I return about senses of rotation and the volumes for a real polarization between mass and light.
Very interesting essay, you are right and false in afct.
Best Regardfs
Steve
[deleted]
Dear Emmanuel,
You are definitely not the only one who does not understand what I meant. While I did not deal with Lorentz transformation in my essays 369, 527, and the essay in preparation, the reason for me to do so is related to them.I was seeking for the reasons why the 4th dimension ict is imaginary and how to explain the twin paradox. Guided by discussions here at FQXi and reading a lot, I arrived at points of view close to Essen and other proponents of Galilean electrodynamics.
I noticed that Voigt already in 1887, i.e. before the Michelson's experiments and dealing not with light but with an incompressible medium as to explain the Doppler effect, introduced what Poincarè later called Lorentz transformation. Voigt's priority that was acknowledged by Minkowski in 1908 and by Lorentz himself in 1909.
Milan Pavlovic wrote a Critical Analysis that proved Einstein's 1920 "simple derivation of Lorentz transformation" wrong. His main objection likewise applies to Voigt 1887 and Lorentz 1895. Unfortunately, Pavlovich did not declare the Lorentz transformation wrong but he suggested instead to derive it from something what is based on it.
Van Flandern also rejected Einstein's SR but he inconsequently suggested a Lorentz relativity instead. At least he understood that Lorentz contraction is an illusion due to unjustified time desynchronisation.
The latter objection agrees with what I independently revealed from Einstein's 1905 paper "Zur Elektrodynamik...": a round-trip (ABA) and therefore asymmetrical synchronization is responsible for the paradox deviation from logically correct and measurable Doppler effect.
Einstein did not mention that he perhaps plagiarized Poincaré here. Malheureusement je ne pas parle Francais. I could only read a small part of Poincaré's work, and I would appreciate if you could point me to further available on the web translations into English, German, or Russian. From what I read I understood that Poincaré highly estimated Lorentz.
Lorentz (Versuch einer Theorie .... 1895) himself was directly or indirectly influenced by Lodge 1893, FitzGerald 1889, and Heaviside even earlier. Peter Jackson has been pointing to a mistake by Larmor concerning stellar aberration.
By the way, FQXi's Paul Davies resolved the twin paradox by means of Doppler terms to be added or subtracted, respectively, to Lorentz contraction.
What prompted my suspicion was the implausible contraction in both cases, increasing and decreasing distance.
There is of course opulent secondary literature, e.g. work by Harvey Brown, Oxford. Being a retired university teacher of power electronics, fundamentals of electrical engineering and signal processing, I am aware of my limitations in understanding modern physics. Fortunately, I am in position to learn and get informed from FQXi, Wiki, and other excellent opportunities. Don't measured fluctuations of cosmic background radiation confirm a flat universe?
Eckard
Dear Steve,
Concerning gravitation, if you look at the Newton's theory then you can think that it is a similar force to the electrostatic interaction between electrically charged particles. But when you look at the General Relativity, you understand that it is something else. Since several years, I have tried to use what is called in geometry a framed hypersurface, in order to describe gravitation as a normal force to a three dimensional manifold. Unfortunately, I did not succeed in recovering the spacetime of the General Relativity. Finally, I gave up this idea. The philosophy of the General Relativity is that we live in a manifold (called a Lorentzian manifold), and not in a submanifold. This is rather technical but the main idea is that our universe is full content and not embedded in a bigger space. It is possible to give a mathematical constancy of a universe embedded in a bigger one, but I don't believe that it is the philosophy of the General Relativity. Energy models the geometry of the spacetime: here is the main idea of the General Relativity. I think that we can forget the idea that gravitation is a force or something fundamental.
Concerning the space, things are quite similar. It is possible to find a mathematical justification to the fact that there are 3 space dimensions, but I don't think that it is really interesting. We observe that there are 3 space dimensions. Once again, the 3 space variables (that represents the space dimensions) intermingles with the time variable in the metric of the spacetime. This metric is given by the Einstein's field equations and thus by the energy. The content of the universe is fundamental, not the container. My idea was to focus my attention on the content. Then I propose, as an extension of the Relativity with respect to the speed of light, that the photon can be the primordial particle. All is relative to light (or to its quanta called photons).
Happy new year.
Emmanuel
Dear Eckard,
I have found this link: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00182764 concerning the "Physical Geometry and Special Relativity: Einstein and Poincaré".
I'm sorry I can not help you more about the Lorentz transformation.
Emmanuel
[deleted]
Dear Emmanuel,
Thank you very much for the link. It revealed to me that indeed neither Einstein nor Minkowski but Poincaré, in particular "Le measure du temps" 1898, is to blame for the twin paradox and the imaginary 4th spatial component: "...two frames in relative motion, the one taken as at rest, and the (other) one in motion". This via ABA desynchronizing idea of relativity of simultaneity does not only obviously violate the principle of equal rights for A and B. I see it already questionable to consider the relative motion between two frames A and B, each of which is unrealistically thought to extend from minus infinity to plus infinity, instead of just their tangible origins.
Of course, Poincaré used the rather ad hoc and ether related FitzGerald-Lorentz explanation of the Michelson-Morley null result. Perhaps he was also mislead by Larmor 1897 who is credited for interpreting the equation of concern as time dilatation.
Eckard