If Light does not experience Spacetime, why and how does it experience spacetime curvature?

At the limit of spacetime, at the speed limit, the ‘speed’ of light, spacetime ceases to exist. Speed of light is about the relation between space and time, spaces and times, spacetime points/events/states. It is not that something like photon or the usually conceived ideas or intuition of it exists. It is not that there’s some point-like or sphere-like or ball-like entity that moves through spacetime like usual ordinary ball of matter.

Photon/light is just about the relation between the smallest entities in our this universe – the spacetime events, and more fundamentally the spacetime states.

By the way, this universe is, as of yet, governed by Einstein’s theory of relativity, with ‘speed of light’ in vacuum c = approximately 299792458 meters per second, by Quantum physics with the smallest length being the Planck’s length, smallest time the Planck’s time, smallest spacetime the Planck’s spacetime.

But anyway, at the limit, the spacetime vanishes, there is no spacetime information.

Now, light experiences no spacetime, or in other words, light doesn’t experience spacetime. But then how and why does it experience spacetime curvature or structure?

Now if we take the above discussion and argument about light as spacetime relation, then there is no problem at all, the question is already answered. Because light, or its ‘vacuum speed’, is all about the relation between spacetime points, that’s what’s preserved and remains as defined by the General Theory of Relativity. And the curvature of spacetime is just that relation playout when the spacetime is curved i.e. when there is the presence of matter-energy.

No point-like, or sphere-like, or ball-like entity traverses through the spacetime points.

But if we think in terms and perspective of a ball-like creature moving through the spacetime, of dynamism, then what? Then we are met with the question/problem.

This problem vanishes if we think of spacetime events/points, and their relation. This perspective or picture, and this term is the non-dynamical – dynamical picture.

[Note: Non-dynamical is also referred to as dynamical picture]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Absolutism – The search for the Absolute

I often ask myself, what? why?, I can find many hows, so hows are not primary for me. It is the easiest among them. No matter what the answer is, or how many answers there are, it all fades to insignificance. What does not fade in insignificance is the question itself. It stands strong and proud as ever. Trying to find the answer, the search has always been for an answer. The answer that is supposedly nothing but that is expected to be the representation of the Absolute – that which is invariant, immortal, Permanent. But everything, every answer fades and is temporary, goes extinct, vanishes into nothing, into insignificance. The ‘answer’ that was supposed to express and teach immortality, itself fades to non-existence, itself consumed by death so to speak. Never ever came to realization, that the Question that has been staring at me, and that I’ve been staring at, is the one that has never abandoned me. It has always stood there facing the answer that were supposed to destroy it, and,...
Read more

NOTHING = EVERYTHING

Image
What is Everything? Let me define everything as such: Everything is that which ‘exists’. It is that which is ‘real’. It is the ‘state’. Existence is experience, it is measure, it is ‘state’. So, for state A, A exists. For state B, state B exists, and so on. Now, does state B and/or state C and/or any state ‘not A’, exist for A? The answer is that for any state A, the state, any state, ‘not A’ or ‘A complement’, is absolutely undefined. One cannot say that “B exists for A”, one cannot say “B doesn’t exist for A”. So for state A, state A is everything, it is the universe for itself. For state B, state B is everything/universe, and so on. So, ‘everything’ is not absolute, it’s relative. Now, of course, for state A, state A is absolute, it is ‘absolute everything’ for itself. For B, B is ‘absolute everything’, and so on. The thing that needs to pointed out is that, any state is quantized. State is a quantized entity. It cannot be reduced to any smaller parts. It is the smallest entity, and...
Read more

On the nature of Nature

Image
  ON THE NATURE OF NATURE We have been discussing about the design and developing new and clearer theories that we think can precisely define the nature of nature. We have been trying to explain her grand creation on the basis of the observations or events that take place around us. We are doing so from the beginning of our human history. We observe, explain, predict and test. The explanation sometime and in some condition agrees and sometime in some other condition disagrees or fails. But still we are confident that we can describe nature of nature in a way that is certain by making a realization that our views still lack something. Today we are known about many subjects of nature but still we believe there is a perfect model that perfectly explains the design of nature. Is keeping such belief a mistake? Nature on the fundamental level has no law. Nature demands not to act in any certain perfect way or pattern. There is no any limitation to how nature can act. Nature is absolutely...
Read more