Note: This theory as-is is disproven, but leads to the basis of other compelling theories
Long ago, everything was about matter. Everything was about stuff interacting with stuff. Even light was thought of as a bunch of tiny particles moving at extreme velocities.
Then everything was about energy. Einstein showed that matter and energy are equivalent, that E=mc2. In effect, matter is made up of energy.
Now, the new big thing is information. The transfer of energy is a transfer of information. Stuff interacting with stuff is a transfer of information.
c, the speed of light in a vacuum, is the nominal speed of information travel in the universe. There is nothing inherently special that I know of about light that would make light the defining thing of the universe. c is more than just the speed of light; it is the speed of the universe itself. Electricity flows as a wave carried by adjacent electrons at c. Gravity waves travel at c. No matter or energy or information can travel faster than c. Calling it "the speed of light" severely undervalues its importance, and makes it seem confusing that it should have such a pivotal role in the workings of the universe. After all, what's so special about light?
For matter to travel at c, it would need to have an infinite amount of energy. What if we were to consider c to be an infinite speed, and redefine space and time as we need to, around that assumption? Then, light would be transmitted at infinite speed. Instead of light being some piece of energy that moves like matter does, it is energy or information that is conveyed instantly. It is emitted and absorbed in the same instant. Since we know from experience that light in fact takes a certain amount of time to cross a certain distance (at speed c), we must redefine "time" to allow these 2 events in different locations to be "simultaneous" even though they appear not to be.
This would mean that if you observed a star exploding 100 light years away, that is happening "now" where you are. But "now" would not be the same in all locations, as an observer 50 light years away would seem to see it 50 years earlier, according to our notion of light taking one year rather than an instant to cross a light-year. But it would mean that despite this apparent difference in time, according to me and my observations, the 3 events of the star exploding, the closer observer seeing it, and myself seeing it, all occur at the same time. (Note: Since my observations are based on the propagation of light, it is clear that all 3 events would be observed simultaneous from where I am -- but does simultaneous observation imply simultaneous occurrence?)
This is shown to be confusing, if not just plain wrong, when you consider something like reflecting a laser off the moon. According to this theory, an observer on the moon would see the laser on Earth turned on at the same time that the light hits the moon, which is then instantly reflected back. An observer on the Earth would see the light reflecting off the moon and instantly being seen on Earth. However, the observer on Earth would not see the laser being turned on and then being instantly reflected by the moon. There would be a delay, equal to the time it would take if the light was traveling the return distance at c. This means that time and simultaneity are not the same between different locations. 2 events that occur between the Earth and the moon may seem to occur with different timing, when seen by each.
So why bother considering this confusing idea, when everything makes sense if we just return to the idea of light being something that travels at a given speed? What do we gain with this concept? I started by arguing that light is nothing special, so why then treat it so specially? Compare it to sound... if for example we hear the crack of a bat hitting a baseball after we see it, we wouldn't consider that the events we see and hear occurred at different times. Wouldn't light propagation being instant make it special?
Well, the answer is no. It would simply mean that light is an instantaneous transfer of information, while sound (like all information transmitted through the movement of matter) is not. What we gain is this notion of instantaneous information transfer, which we can apply to a myriad of interactions that appear to occur at a speed of c.
General Relativity already allows for such a redefinition of time and the loss of universal simultaneity, between 2 observers who are traveling at different speeds relative to one another. That is a necessary weirdness, however, to allow for things that would otherwise be impossible with a notion of universal time. The theory discussed here, on the other hand, adds unintuitive weirdness to common everyday events that otherwise appear not weird at all, and can be intuitively explained with existing simple classical physics.
The theory of instantaneous information transfer (IIT) implies that all events observed through information that arrived at an apparent speed of c, occurred at the time they were observed, according to the observer. That means that light from the moon arrives instantly. It means that to an observer on the moon, light from Earth arrives instantly, but it does NOT mean that according to an observer on Earth, light sent to the moon arrives instantly. Although light propagates instantly, there is no valid concept of universal time that says that what happens in one place happens at the same time in another place. Remember that this theory implies that the appearance of propagation of light at a fixed speed is a side-effect of a re-definition of time as something that is not fixed, as it seems to be. To an observer on Earth, light is sent to the moon, and though I am seeing the moon as it is "now", it receives the light in a different time. When that happens, it immediately reflects the light back, which I instantly see.
That would imply that information transmitted across a distance is sent into the future.
So we have events happening in various locations, and light instantly conveying information about those events. Then we have time defined as a factor of distance such that it appears that events 1 light-second away occurred 1 second ago. (Or, we could have distance defined as a factor of time, such that it appears that events that happened 1 second ago appear to be 1 light-second away -- however I think this is actually TOO complicated to bother contemplating at the moment).
It could then be that all of our perception of the passage of time is nothing but an effect of the distances between everything.
Now then, what were those interesting consequences of this theory?...
Then everything was about energy. Einstein showed that matter and energy are equivalent, that E=mc2. In effect, matter is made up of energy.
Now, the new big thing is information. The transfer of energy is a transfer of information. Stuff interacting with stuff is a transfer of information.
c, the speed of light in a vacuum, is the nominal speed of information travel in the universe. There is nothing inherently special that I know of about light that would make light the defining thing of the universe. c is more than just the speed of light; it is the speed of the universe itself. Electricity flows as a wave carried by adjacent electrons at c. Gravity waves travel at c. No matter or energy or information can travel faster than c. Calling it "the speed of light" severely undervalues its importance, and makes it seem confusing that it should have such a pivotal role in the workings of the universe. After all, what's so special about light?
For matter to travel at c, it would need to have an infinite amount of energy. What if we were to consider c to be an infinite speed, and redefine space and time as we need to, around that assumption? Then, light would be transmitted at infinite speed. Instead of light being some piece of energy that moves like matter does, it is energy or information that is conveyed instantly. It is emitted and absorbed in the same instant. Since we know from experience that light in fact takes a certain amount of time to cross a certain distance (at speed c), we must redefine "time" to allow these 2 events in different locations to be "simultaneous" even though they appear not to be.
This would mean that if you observed a star exploding 100 light years away, that is happening "now" where you are. But "now" would not be the same in all locations, as an observer 50 light years away would seem to see it 50 years earlier, according to our notion of light taking one year rather than an instant to cross a light-year. But it would mean that despite this apparent difference in time, according to me and my observations, the 3 events of the star exploding, the closer observer seeing it, and myself seeing it, all occur at the same time. (Note: Since my observations are based on the propagation of light, it is clear that all 3 events would be observed simultaneous from where I am -- but does simultaneous observation imply simultaneous occurrence?)
This is shown to be confusing, if not just plain wrong, when you consider something like reflecting a laser off the moon. According to this theory, an observer on the moon would see the laser on Earth turned on at the same time that the light hits the moon, which is then instantly reflected back. An observer on the Earth would see the light reflecting off the moon and instantly being seen on Earth. However, the observer on Earth would not see the laser being turned on and then being instantly reflected by the moon. There would be a delay, equal to the time it would take if the light was traveling the return distance at c. This means that time and simultaneity are not the same between different locations. 2 events that occur between the Earth and the moon may seem to occur with different timing, when seen by each.
So why bother considering this confusing idea, when everything makes sense if we just return to the idea of light being something that travels at a given speed? What do we gain with this concept? I started by arguing that light is nothing special, so why then treat it so specially? Compare it to sound... if for example we hear the crack of a bat hitting a baseball after we see it, we wouldn't consider that the events we see and hear occurred at different times. Wouldn't light propagation being instant make it special?
Well, the answer is no. It would simply mean that light is an instantaneous transfer of information, while sound (like all information transmitted through the movement of matter) is not. What we gain is this notion of instantaneous information transfer, which we can apply to a myriad of interactions that appear to occur at a speed of c.
General Relativity already allows for such a redefinition of time and the loss of universal simultaneity, between 2 observers who are traveling at different speeds relative to one another. That is a necessary weirdness, however, to allow for things that would otherwise be impossible with a notion of universal time. The theory discussed here, on the other hand, adds unintuitive weirdness to common everyday events that otherwise appear not weird at all, and can be intuitively explained with existing simple classical physics.
The theory of instantaneous information transfer (IIT) implies that all events observed through information that arrived at an apparent speed of c, occurred at the time they were observed, according to the observer. That means that light from the moon arrives instantly. It means that to an observer on the moon, light from Earth arrives instantly, but it does NOT mean that according to an observer on Earth, light sent to the moon arrives instantly. Although light propagates instantly, there is no valid concept of universal time that says that what happens in one place happens at the same time in another place. Remember that this theory implies that the appearance of propagation of light at a fixed speed is a side-effect of a re-definition of time as something that is not fixed, as it seems to be. To an observer on Earth, light is sent to the moon, and though I am seeing the moon as it is "now", it receives the light in a different time. When that happens, it immediately reflects the light back, which I instantly see.
That would imply that information transmitted across a distance is sent into the future.
Okay so much for Occam's razor. The theory of IIT will likely be tossed out well before the next trash day. Well it was a valiant attempt at any rate.Note that IIT doesn't break the law of causality or even imply faster-than-light travel, because time and distance are redefined based on c in a way that maintains causality.
So we have events happening in various locations, and light instantly conveying information about those events. Then we have time defined as a factor of distance such that it appears that events 1 light-second away occurred 1 second ago. (Or, we could have distance defined as a factor of time, such that it appears that events that happened 1 second ago appear to be 1 light-second away -- however I think this is actually TOO complicated to bother contemplating at the moment).
It could then be that all of our perception of the passage of time is nothing but an effect of the distances between everything.
Now then, what were those interesting consequences of this theory?...
No comments:
Post a Comment