The World from Light's Point of View
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 พ.ค. 2015
- Excerpt from "The Primacy of Consciousness" video showing how from light's point of view, there is only "here" and "now". The so-called constant "speed of light" is actually the constant rate of manifestation of space and time to an observer. Light itself has no need to be either wave or particle. That need only arises for an observer for whom light appears to cross space and time.
Light doesn't need to be a wave or a particle because it doesn't go anywhere. Fascinating
Very enlightening presentation. I learned a lot. I have great respect for your work.
another listen. BRILLIANT.
I think the "speed of light" is our attempt to measure the speed at which physical reality manifests all around us.
Physical reality is our very "limited" sensory translation of the great mystery expressing as motion and density, now giving rise to space, light, and sound. Expressed through our interpretive filters, we get but one version of temporal reality, our own. Rocks, plants, insects, stars, planets, puppy dogs, kittens etc, have different filtered versions similarly their own. In the dream state, the laws of physics break down and I am speeding on the wrong side of a freeway in a bathtub that just moments prior was a skateboard that drove like a car. So why do I measure my reality at all? Perhaps because if I didn't, my reality would cease to exist as would I. So I measure planets, stars, and moons, I measure forks and knives and spoons. I measure days, and months and years. I measure dreams and hopes and fears. I measure space and time to see, a smallest crack in infinity. Just measured words for effect. Nothing more I suspect. Now yours to embrace or reject and otherwise explore or correct!
@@kencohen66 super comment
No
absolutely amazing lecture
thank you
What an incredible eloquence. It freshened my eye on the subject
Amazing
Thank you! Cheers!
Truly wonderful and thought provoking. Thank you :)
wonderful Peter. much needed take on the ultimate reality,
It is actually an emotional reaction from the audience, resulting from a simultaneous paradigm shifting realization of what Mr. Russell is proposing.
The whole presentation, Primary of Consciousness is, IMHO, one of the most informative and entertaining hour long videos I’ve watched. It’s absolutely brilliant. I’ve watched it at least 10 times and go back often for wisdom. Thank you!
This just makes a torch something that we dont know...its like magic....
Beautiful.
awesome!!
Wave or Particle is simply our perception of light, the former in probabilistic terms while the latter in deterministic ways. Two sides of the same coin so to speak. Nada & Bindu are both different forms of the One Siva.
Agreed. Nicely put.
Wow. Incredible. Have to let this sink in for the next little 'while'.
Great stuff. If we couldn't see light or were unaware of it , we would have to formulate a different view of the universe. Things I glean from this lecture - light doesn't move, but it also does . iThat's cool , it's a paradox we have no right to expect to understand. We are also outside the space/time continuum .
That was so fun to listening to. Mind blown a few times!
what are these people laughing at?
Such an amazing presentation, so soothing to listen to....just like fatherly figure explaining you something difficult in a subtle manner
It’s funny though how we can stress the principle of least action and yet our society is based on pretty much the exact opposite. We need to start lining up these principles with our ways.
Since You are here today, and I am returning to this video today for the n'th time just to appreciate its elegance, I am sharing a gift with you. I found the following video today, after wondering around this video for years. th-cam.com/video/FcmA3xq0Dk4/w-d-xo.html
This is a fascinating lecture. The photon indeed exists beyond the very notion of space and time. Photon's experience is neither "eternity" nor a "moment" because those are occurrences within space-time, and space-time is not applicable to a photon. Also it can't experience itself as a "particle" because a "particle" is also an occurrence within space-time, and a photon doesn't experience that. Also, there shouldn't be the "beginning" and the "end" to a photon at all, because beginning and the end would again imply relation to space and time. Maybe a photon "experiences" that it just "is". But who's experience is real? Mine or the photon's? While my experience (as a material object) is true only within this particular frame of reference, the photon's "experience" is true in absolute sense, outside of all frames of references. I don't know what to make of this fact yet.
I don't think is is possible for the human mind, experiencing within the world of space and time, can ever grasp these other realities.
So for light, time doesn't exist
Does this also explain quantum entanglement? The rotation of both photos is instant because it's already at both points from its perspective
Unfortunately not. There isn't a photon traveling between the two points. There is no communication as we know it. So far there is no satisfactory explanation of how it occurs. Even to ask "how" may be wrong thinking, based on "local" paradigms. But there's no doubt entanglement is real.
I realize this is an older presentation, but I just want to say that here in the comments you seem a little bashful to owning up to the obvious conclusion that lights frame of refrenve is for all intensive purposes the correct one.
I realize that most contemporary physicists say that all frames of refrence are equally valid per Einstein theory, but I do not hear sound reasoning behind that presupposition. What's more the fact that lights frame of refrence does not change irregardless of any other refrence frame is strong evidence that lights "perspective" is the only objective refrence frame, and therefore the only correct one. I understand that people push back hard against this because frankly it makes light a useless tool in measuring distance, or time if true.
But the consequences of the truth are not a good reason to obscure the truth.
Agreed,
From the photons point of view, no space, no time, no mass.
Very clear ^ - ^
I love it...No time
when one is a particle of light one can describe the experience
"Through faith (knowledge of reality of Light) we understand that the worlds were framed (constructed - Immanuel Kant) by the Word of God (the Mind or Creator), so that things which are seen (Matter, space) were not made of things which do appear (elementary particles)." - Hebrews 11:3
Reaching for a deeper, more practical understanding. To us regular folks, absent the scopes & tech of science, light just seems to BE - it doesn't seem to travel. We can relate to it traveling by astronomers telling us that the stream of energy from this coronal hole should reach earth by such-and-so time/date - which we take on faith. Their measurements seem to validate this.
I want to enter your view. So how am I to visualize what you're saying viz, if I'm stationary I see 186K miles & 1 second? Can you help me grok the meaning, so I can transfer it to envisioning seeing, at 87% C, half that speed & half that time, etc.?
Perhaps I just want to know how this is measured, but I don't really know
"'what" I'm asking for, just what I want, i.e., to grok what you're saying. It's easier for me to accept that light doesn't actually travel - that it just IS - and that perhaps it's more of a bleed through into 3D than something native here. That part I get. Just trying to get it from the 3D perspective - I think, LOL.
Though in truth, I may just be making a big fool of myself, I don't care. I *love* this stuff too much to care _how_ "I" look while coming into deeper consonance with it. I'm just ever so grateful for you & those like you - with the science background - speaking up in terms we regular folk, LOL, have a chance to grasp.
~♥~
Interestimg concept, I wanted to find more videos or maybe books on this subject of light time and distance specificaly. Help
th-cam.com/video/FcmA3xq0Dk4/w-d-xo.html Enjoy!
Mr.Peter Russell
Hope you find my message. I am living in South Korea. I was very much happy to read your video above which tells about fundematality of light reviewd from relative theory & quantum theory and its extention to conscineousness.
I want to learn more and so want to read your book about this story. Could you remind me which of your writings has this story ?
I have seen some your books on google search but not sure which one has this story. Thank you so much. Jeon from Korea.
It is in my book "From Science to God"
Genius...
The bottom line with relativity is that perception is the only constant, regardless of any other context, scientific or spiritual, physical or otherwise. The easiest example is with clocks, twins, or triplets. It's obvious that to measure time your clock needs to move at a predictable rate. Relative to your clock, a faster or slower moving clock would appear to move slower or faster (respectively) than your clock, but for the faster or slower observers, your clock would appear to move slower or faster (respectively), while their own clocks would appear as normal (twins or triplets paradox). Since perception is identical to the confirmation of a theory via observation (eureka!), and since perceptions can't be predicted in advance, perception is logically prior to whatever theories or content thereof may exist.
Dear Peter, I think you're absolutely right with this idea. I've experienced this directly through meditation and psychedelic experiences. This lecture has been among my favorites for the last 6 years. thank you. Keep it up!
Do you hear the insanity people have to come up with to claim that light is a constant
why the fuck is everyone giggling in the bacgkround?
After watching this, I'm reminded of one of the Nag Hammadi texts, The Gospel of Thomas, that says "Tell us how our end will be."
Jesus said, "Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning; he will know the end and will not experience death."
One way I interpret this is that pure consciousness is both the beginning and the end. (And there are other ways of course)
Ok. Having trouble with this concept of light's point of view. I understand light's point of view is 'no distance zero time' from emission to absorption. And an observers point of view would be 186,282 m/s. Got that part. However...where I am confused is...if light's point of view is zero time/distance, and my point of view takes 8 minutes, (using the approximate amount of time for light to reach Earth from the Sun), where is the light/photon actually at, during my perspective, compared to light's perspective? Seems to me...if light's perspective...is it is already absorbed by/at Earth, (immediately after emmison), then where is the photon, from its perspective, when it is halfway, or 4 minutes into its journey, from my perspective? Asked another way; at 4 minutes...light from my perspective, is half way to Earth. But Einstein's theory, says from its perspective, it is already at Earth. How can that be? It has to physically be at one location or the other....correct? I cannot get that around my head/mind. As much as I try...I cannot see, how light can already be at Earth, (from its own persepctive), but only be halfway to Earth from my perspective. How can light already be there, (from its perspective)...if it is only half way, (from my perspective)? I am trying hard to grasp this concept. Please be kind to me and my ignorance...lol. I am in need of serious help...for I know I am just not seeing the reality of it. Thanks for any help, anyone is willing to offer. And thanks for this presentation. I am devouring this information. I love it. Thanks again.
Yes, it is mindboggling - at best. Part of the problem is assuming there is some actual true reality. In Einstein's language, some absolute frame of reference. He showed there is no preferred frame, each is valid, even though they appear on the surface to be in conflict.
@@peter-russell Thanks for your reply Peter. Taking this all in...is quite revealing. Like you said..."...assuming there is some actual true reality..." is the very hard part to grasp. What exactly...is reality? The more I study it...the more I see...it is something created...that is not really real.
does this mean that we are still in the singularity?
If you mean the one at the purported Big Bang, then no. Light only came into being later. (according to current theories)
Great job.
In Einstein's theory light's frame of reference is no more and no less valid than any other. Consciousnes is not yet understood but one thing is known for sure - it requires a brain. What would one experience when travelling close to the speed of light with a mass approaching infinity? What does one experience when one is dead? I imagine what light experiences, having no brain at all. Nothing at all. Light would then be like consciousness in a dead brain.
I would challenge that. Because I think the grounds that lights frame of refrence never changes, or alters in perspective to any other refrence frame makes it an objevtivly more valid refrence frame.
Who disliked and why ?
because 'consciousness' is an assumption.
there is no observer separate from everything.
So, if you managed to get your ship to light speed, then counted say 5 seconds before slowing down, where would you end up ?
Somewhere beyond this universe.
So really from lights perspective, there is no universe as there are no distances from objects.
A little more complex than that. Distance perpendicular to direction of travel still exists.
So from a 1 dimensional photons perspective, we - in the 3 dimensional reality - are on a 2 dimensional plane, since there is no space? 🤯
Yes, from its point of view.
I Love you.
HI
I am a physics ignoramus but this video has helped me grasp relativity better than any other explanation. Where he loses me is when he talks about the human frame of reference. What does it mean that we “stretch out that zero interval of time” to 186,000 miles for every second? Surely it’s not a property of the human brain, yet he describes it as though it is something artificial that we do.
Sorry I was not clearer. I did not mean that the brain does this. More correctly... In the process of observation (whether human, any creature or instrument) the zero interval is, so to speak,"stretched out" into 186,000 miles of space or every second of time. But don't ask me "how" that happens.
@@peter-russell a lightbub doesn't emit anything....its a symbol when completed by clicking the switch "reveals" where light has interacted...
My favourite presentation of all TIME 🤣🤣(but really)
so light is actually a stretched out particle anf that's why we can also see it as a wave? got that right???
An interesting interpretation I hadn't come across before. Part of the challenge is that wave and particle are both concepts we use to describe the behavour we observe. But what it "really" is may be beyond our understanding.
Light is just a specific frequency of electromagnetic wave. So ALL electromagnetic Waves, Radio, microwave. Etc etc, have light speed
Love this. One of the best things I've seen in 38 years. At 10:43 is this action of light emission to absorption the Vesica piscis? The birthing pool of universal manifestation.
Always said that this was your best work Peter; hence, my asking for a presentation of this profound postulate. Friendly reminder..................Tucson Consciousness Conference papers are due soon and I think you would do the Monistic/Idealistic/NonDual East a world of good. Hameroff, Chalmers, Penrose, Deepak, Kafatos are a few who would welcome your presence.
Sound also doesn't have mass then how come it travels and has got speed?
The medium of sound is matter - atoms and molecules - so it does have mass. Photons don't.
@@peter-russell Are we talking about the mediun having mass, or the actual light/sound? I know sound is just waves that move air, air moves our eardrum ,which we experience as sound . Does your comment mean that light does not need a medium that has mass ( like air particles) to travel? Maybe photons are there existing everywhere stationary, and lightwaves are the only waves that can excite them? kind of like air molecules exist and let sound "happen". So maybe there actually is ether in space? And ether is to photons what air is to sound?
@@marialeina5866 With sound there is a medium, air for example, and it does have mass. It used to be thought, back in the nineteenth century that light had a medium they called the aether, but it was then found that light has no medium. Photons travel through empty space.
@@peter-russell What is the difference between electrons and photons in the context of light?
Also, how can we say photons experience no time but on the other hand they have measurable velocity? How did we calculate velocity to be 3·10⁸m/s if t=0 ?
There was something for everyone. With a glass of wine spacetime becomes quite amusing.
I remember the equation for momentum looking like this p=mv not like this ML/T
But I was educated in a rural school in the middle no where so probably my educators were mistaken
v's unit is L/T (length / time) so you're right
Its said that, to travel at speed of light, we need infnite energy. But where does light itsel get this energy from to pull of such a feat?
Also, at the speed of light, the spacecraft would become of infinte weigth and probably become a black hole in itself. Why this dosnt happen with light?
A body with mass requires infinite energy because its mass becomes infinite as it approaches the speed of light, but light has no mass,
A spacecraft would not have infinite width, its width would be unchanged. It is length that changes, and gets shorter not longer.
But as per physics law.. anything in space and time has to have weight. so if light has weight, its because it has mass.
Now if it has mass, wouldnt it need infinte energy to reach top speed?
There is no law that says everything has to have weight. And light does not have weight .
Ok.. so if it has no weight, then it means it has no mass. IF it has no mass, the how come the gravity of a black hole bends the light? coz we know, gravity acts on mass, and if so, it defintly has to have weight..
IF light doesnt, then how come gravity effect light
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity showed that what we call gravity is a bending of space-time, and light follows the bend.
So, how do we know it's the same photon from emission to absorption in spacetime? isn't a photon just an EM vibration that ripples along the spacetime lattice? when the lattice bends around mass, the ripple also bends with it... because its a ripple it behaves like a wave, and because the ripple is carried by an instantaneous point in the lattice, it behaves like a particle...
When an electron falls into a lower state, it plucks the spacetime lattice string causing a vibration ripple that manifests as a photon. This ripple will keep on going forever until it is stopped by another electron/mass.
Because a photon is the vibration of the spacetime lattice itself, it is massless and it "travels" fundamentally different than other masses trapped inside the lattice.
This reminds me of a proposal many years ago that the photon is 3-D wave packet. The problem was keeping it stable. I suspect that the human mind may be incapable of understanding what is really going on. Wave and particle are, after all, just concepts drawn from our mesoscopic view of the cosmos.
EM vibration, what is the E and what is the M?
@@Fixundfertig1 electro magnetic , i.e light, electromagnetism are the laws that describe both the behaviour of light and magnetism , the same actions of the weakly coupled force .
so if a photon's path is discrete, doesn't this mean there is an aether??????? :O
“...it doesn’t go anywhere”
lol😇❤️
2:05 We can know it, but you need to leave your mind.
Wow that was excellent. I've never heard anyone say the same things I say to myself before haha
time = interaction speed of internal states of a observer. Time doesn't stop for light, because it gets it's interaction speed for lower energy states. Macro sized objects get their interaction speed from the interactions of light/molecular interactions. We need to get a better understanding of the speed of "non-locality" before you make this assumption that light doesn't experience time relative to it's frame of reference.
Thank you, Peter, for this lecture. Could you answer this question please: At 87% the speed of light, the manifestation of spacetime is 93k miles per 0.5 secs. But, of course, this is just the "normal" rate of c at 50%, with the next half-second delivering the full rate. Therefore, why is the "half-rate," the 93k per 0.5 secs, a different manifestion of spacetime in terms of what the stationary observer experiences? I would expect a rate, let's say, of 93k at some unit of time greater than 0.5 secs - because, if not, why is your "new" rate different? Please clarify. Thank you, Wayne
+Wayne B. Not quite sure I understand your question. 93k per 0.5sec is the same as 186k per sec. So the speed is the same. And the ratio space to time the same.
Thank you for your response, Peter. I must be missing a step here because if, as the observer's speed increases distances then shrink and time contracts - all the way down to zero for both items at the c - then, would there not be a progressive reduction in distance and time? I believe that is what you were saying in your lecture, but since 93k per 0.5 sec is the same as 186 per 1 sec, I don't see how the progressive reduction works. Thank you for your time. Wayne
@@wayneb.7172 Since I used to have the same issue as you, I'll try to clarify. Pretend we're traveling to a star 8 years light away at that speed. In that case we would experience 4 light years of distance because of the space shrink, and it would appear to us that the travel longed for, not sure how many time really but something more than 8 years for sure.
Einstein was the one who showed that light comes in quantized packets (photons), not Planck. It was part if his theory of the photoelectric effect for which he won the Nobel Prize. Planck introduced the idea that the energy levels of electromagnetic waves were not continuous but rather quantized.
You're correct. My slip.
Peter Russell
I’m not so educated as to critique your presentation. To my level of understanding the bulk of the presentation I have to take as accepted.
My confusion is the in the word light. Which seems to be the portion of the spectrum that is examined. But does the entire spectrum and gravity and all forces exert or present this same behavior? Leaving only matter and non-matter?
I can’t even formulate a proper question.
Larry Scott Yup, photons from the entire Electromagentic spectrum (Radio, Microwaves, Gamma Rays etc), all move at the speed of light (c). Gravitational waves also travel at c.
Its simpler if you break the notion of it as being the "speed of light" in your head and understand that it is the speed of all massless particles. I've seen people refer to it as the "universal constant" or the "cosmic speed limit". But yeah, if you have no mass (like photons, or gluons) then you HAVE to move at that speed.
Larry Scott There is also a theoretical but unproven particle called the Tachyon, which would move faster than the speed of light, have some sort of "negative mass" and experience time in reverse, but again its just theorized.
This video demands a new look at the way the universe is constructed and a completely new set of physics to explain it...is the rest of the science/physics community paying attention? Or will they continue trying to force a round peg through a square hole and thus continue trying, and failing, to achieve the holy grail of the theory of everything?
Terrific video - Richard Feynman was already ruminating about these very same thoughts 80 years ago.
so light speed is actually clock speed of simulation of our universe?
Einstein also said that you can't prefer one frame of reference over another.. Any frame of reference is equally valid because there is no absolute frame of reference from which to observe motion, time, distance, etc. That's the heart of relativity. Yet you seem to prefer the photons point of view over the human point of view. Can you explain this?
Correct. I'm not preferring light's point of view, but saying that we need to include it (which physics has not done) and when we do we see a very different perspective on the world that sheds light on some of the conundrums of contemporary physics.
Steven Castellano I don't think it's not a preference of light's "point of view", since light (that doesn't experience space and time, therefore no locality from which to draw a "point of view"). It's a somewhat misleading use of the phrase but necessary to cross the boundary of the what I would call the moment of manifestation/action between the possible/probable and the material/causality. By using light as the reference point, one is better able understand that every point of view in space/time is equally valid (and invalid in an interesting way).
An interesting side note, if we extrapolate the concept of lights "point of view" to its ultimate conclusion: If you consider the very first photon emitted at the "beginning" of the universe to when it is ultimately absorption at the conclusion of its "journey", the universe collapsed into its entire timeline instantaneously, from beginning to end (
The mind is not constrained by space time (e.g.: abstract thought). Plus: the premise here is asserting our notion of time and space and mass are not fixed in any real reality. QM has already proven reality is fixed for the observer. GR only confirms that hypothesis.
Yep.. great lecture and awesome theory..
Light is indeed one of the biggest mysteries of all, given that we only know space-time through light, in terms of observation.
it seems so obvious that its been there all along, right in Einsteins work,
If everything distorts around it, then it itself must be without distortion in that logic,
and form there.. we have geometry etc coming right out of the mix..
and what that says for consciousness is just wicked!
What the heck is wrong with the audience? Are they all on laughing gas? I wasn't aware this was a comedy routine.
Brad Nothing wrong...they are in tune with the humour that Peter Russell has inserted in to the presentation :)
I thought the same thing! I get that there is sometimes humor in science talks but this is ridiculous.
In my opinion, some of what he says is ridiculous therefore the crowd expresses ridicule in the form of laughter, I would note that the speaker himself is aware of this and is in some ways pointing out that our knowledge of these things is not as strong as it should be, and also is expressing the fact that the apparent quantum nature of our universe makes fools of all who purport knowledge of these subjects as absolute fact.
just getting their minds blown and they enjoy learning
Then i could say theoretrically light in every space is infinite , no mater how small the space , because if light is finite then it has mass or volume which will turn out wrong
Interpreting the zero mass of light is difficult because it is hard to think outside of a worldview which is intrinsically materialistic. I suspect any ideas we come up will be incorrect, and the full nature of light may remain ever mysterious to our limited minds
Peter when Observer is travelling at light speed 186000 miles per second than in d= km/186000 and t=1sec/ 186000.... the answer will not be zero
As I understand, light does not have a point of view at all because if you try to catch up with a light beam, it will not slow down with respect to you but it will stretch to nonexistence.
i´m dissapointed again that i find myself not being the first who has figuerd that out and said it publicly. but one day ....
Advanced meditators already know of this, experientially :) But this man has realized and explained it well scientifically 👍🏽
for all of you who are wondering people are laughing, its because they get it.
So are we living in a simulation?
I very much doubt it for many reasons. Would we have consciousness in a simulation? Even if it is, it's a pretty good one.
@peter-russell Thankyou for the reply. The lecture was a refreshing exposition of the subject. I think they're finding similarities to computer error codes in some aspects of string theory.
I love your videos but this argument sounds flawed to me.
My understanding is that Einstein created an abstraction called Interval (also called Separation) in space-time and defined it by the equation
Time^2 - Distance^2 = Separation^2
From the point of view of the photon at rest, surely those 2 events are the the BEGINNING and END of the emission of the photon. The distance between events would be zero but the Interval would be non-zero (ie: Interval is entirely Time-like).
When viewed from the perspective of a distant observer who believes himself to be at rest and the photon moving at speed c, both the distance and time between events would appear almost vanishingly small but the Interval value would remain constant (although so small as to make it appear as if there had been only 1 event).
Also you said that there is a quantum of Action with units erg-secs (ie: Energy X Time) but if a photon experienced zero time then does that mean it should have zero Action from its own point of view but be capable of transmitting Action to an outside observer?
Sounds confusing so (in my arrogance) that means the mathematical model is failing to bring order and enough simplicity for my reason to accept it. Fun discussion but my reason says NO.
The rest of the video I liked.
I was wrong. Sorry if i confused anyone.
@@clay1070 in what way were you wrong can i ask?
@@dannyj5756 I wrote that comment 11 months ago. Today I don't remember why I wrote it. I re-watched the video today and I am liking it very much. I need to become more familiar with the concept of action. It was hardly mentioned in my curriculum.
@@clay1070 appreciate you responding 🌈
I watched this when it first published on TH-cam, some 4, years ago - A FLAWLESS CLASSIC PHENOMENON - ON PAR WITH E=MC2 - Whenever i see Peter Russells name appear on TH-cam I always investigate the “subject matter” and length of time the talk will be - in hope of getting our PhD Petter Russell back - I think he’s let someone-else rock his boat and it’s time to dislodge them -
At 3:00 minutes into the video the numbers presented are not correct. The conclusion might be, but not the actual numbers. A stationary observer indeed sees a light pulse travel a distance of 186,000 miles in 1 sec. However, for an observer moving along the light pulse at a speed of 87% c (that is: gamma-factor of 2) the light pulse travels less than half the distance, because the endpoint of the light pulse also moves towards the observer. Hence the distance is not 186,000 x 0.5 = 93,000 miles, but 186,000 x 0.268 = 50,000 miles in 0.268 secs, where 0.268 = 1/gamma x 1/(1 + beta) with gamma and beta as the usual dimensionless factors in special relativity. Of course for the moving observer: speed of light = distance / time = 50.000 miles / 0.268 secs = 186.000 miles/sec. Distance and time for the light pulse indeed become shorter for a moving observer, but much faster than presented here.
Thanks for the correction.
Imagine two photons emitted at the same time, in the same direction and close enough to each other. How do they interact with each other?
A possible experimental setup:
a) photons are emitted one at a time and detected after a distance.
b) photons are emitted by pairs, at the same time and I the same direction, and detected as in a).
Is there any difference in the properties detected in a) and b)?
If the photons are a pair emitted from the same source then they will be entangled and their properties connected. But photon do not communicate with each other,
Loved the video... until he brought "consciousness" into the equation. :(
It made me wonder if the laughter was ridicule or admiration.
I had this realization a few years ago, and have been making my failed attempt to re-evaluate Einstein's Relativity equation from "Light's point of view".
From this point of view, it takes the same time for a photon to come from your monitor to your eye, as is does from the Andromeda Galaxy to your eye. (minus re-absorption probabilities along the way)
This is the key to understanding entanglement!
Emission and Absorption ARE the same event in SPACE AND TIME.
No Multiverses needed. :P
+Will Mack Ah, my apologies Peter, I did not realize that you, the poster, were also the host featured in the viedo. Keep up the good work!
I personally may not agree that "consciousness" plays a part in our observation of reality. Best Wishes!
Will Mack I also don't quite get why the audience was laughing... I guess physicists are kind of jerks
Light doesn't have a valid frame of reference
Yes, I didn’t see or hear any reason to laugh. I can’t relate with that audience.
Applying the rules of special relativity *to* the inertial reference frame of light *doesn't work* because you have then contradicted a postulate of SR. Light does not have a valid reference frame.
Can you elaborate upon this please?
@@dollabz777 Woah this is an old comment. I'd be happy to elaborate, though.
One of the key postulates of special relativity is that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference. An "inertial frame of reference" (IFR) is just a set of things moving at the same velocity and which are not being accelerated relative to which you can make measurements about things like velocity or distance. E.g. two people sitting in a car which is moving at a constant velocity are in the same IFR as one another and are in the same IFR as the car itself. This means that when they look out of the window and see someone on the sidewalk who isn't walking, they will all see that person whizz past them. This is because, in one's *own* IFR, your velocity is always measured to be 0 and things which are outside of your IFR will have some velocity. A thing is always motionless relative to itself.
Now, if we assume that the speed of light is constant in all IFRs (specifically; 30,000,000m/s), we couldn't make sense of the idea of *light itself* having its own IFR because, if it were to have its own IFR, it would be moving at 30,000,000m/s relative to itself which is simply impossible. All things are motionless relative to themselves, by definition.
Any conclusions being drawn from the existence of light's own reference frame under SR are based on bad physics because the theory says that light does not have a valid reference frame.
Hope that helps.
@@joop5415 Thanks for replying, I really appreciate you taking the time! I see your point, and I believe it is valid. However, space and time do appear to progressively contract at increasing relativistic speeds. Perhaps the postulate becomes unsound when applied in this unique case. Even the best theories have some point at which they break down (e.g. Planck Length).
@@dollabz777 Yes, length contraction and time dilation do take place and increase with relative velocity, but this doesn't mean that space and time aren't objective features of the universe.
Very true, but I don't believe the speaker's viewpoint necessarily opposes that.
Why does the audience keep laughing.
I'm puzzled about this too. I think it's because Peter Russell is a very non mainstream physicist. He might be saying pretty out there stuff. Also there are no experimental results in his talk, so it might all be a pretty much unverified conjecture, unverifiable maybe even. What does it even really mean for a photon to "experience" time and space?
@@chrslb the first time ever hearing of Peter Russell was in this video.
I found it really weird that a physicist or a person talking about physics wouldn't know the symbol for momentum is a lower case p
Can't tell if the background chatter and laughter are agreement or ridicule...
***** So after watching again, it seems to be agreement :)
it is the reality of ones self finnally getting it
Indirectly what u r saying is that light has a brain!! However small it is! Right?:)
Mot a brain. That is a much more complex arrangement of matter in animals. But a brain is not necessary for awareness - despite what the dominant scientific paradigm says..
@@peter-russell I could agree, brain is not needed for awareness. This opens the door for an unimaginable area of discussion. Remembering the lyrics from one of the Disney song: " ...But I know every rock and tree and creature Has a Life, has spirit, has a name...." Wise men knew that all along!
Pure Consciousness seemingly becomes the object cognized.
This is the end of knowledge.
A person can reach the end of knowledge, but thought is unlimited in space and time. People make their own mental prison with beliefs that don't have any room to expand. The dogmas of many religions are so restrictive to free thought that people don't even have the mental liberty to check cause and effect without the threat of eternal damnation. I wasn't raised with any dogmas which allowed me to feel free exploring science...which is where I found quantitative proof of God. If I had been terrified to question authority I wouldn't have found the proof I needed. The fact that we live and breathe is also a pretty good indicator of a benevolent force at work here.
@@terrafirma8064
Thought is by definition an object, thus limited.
Using thought to come to the end of thought or knowledge is futile.
All spirituality (or finding the Infinite) is thus bullshit.
Also, regarding identity and being alive - you'd be surprised how finite, mechanical and dead what you call 'you' really is.
If photons don't experience time nor space, that means that in the lights point of view the Big Bang never happened? 😱
Light did not come into existence till some time after the Bog bang (if there even was such a thing). So for a photon that was emitted early on in the Universe, and which still exists in our frame of reference, there is no perceived time between its emission and now. Not that perceiving time means much for a photon.
@@peter-russell That's kinda mind blowing. I mean...photons move at the speed of light bc they don't have any mass, at the same time photons depends on motion to exist but they don't experience time and space...weird..
Btw, thanks for reply to my comment in an old video
why are people laughing
Ah, bliss - a clip from perhaps my favorite presentation of all space/time, LOL. *Love* your work, Peter - and your guts for being in the scientific community yet not of it - unwilling to drink the mechanistic kool-aid required to believe in most current scientific theories. As you step out from that herd mentality you inspire so many others :))
~♥~
Weird audience
The Bible tells us, that God is love. However, it also tells us, that God is light.
When I realised, how time stands still for light, and wondered about it, I was thinking that light might be God, so it was quite a revelation, when I realised that this is exactly what the Bible tells us.
I never seen an explanation quite as good as yours though, and I love how you brought in Kant, who has an interesting and relevant first name btw.
Thank you for uploading this!
psudeo science
but even light slows down sometime . 😂 all thing he said is bullshit
The minute you try to make something woo woo out of this, it still doesn't make sense. Guys try and hook people in to some sort of religious thing using this stuff. You really can't do that. The best we can do is try to understand it. But, from what I can with my own consciousness, it is what happens when you have so many neurons connected in your head. You can alter it with drugs, take it away with anesthesia, etc. The bigger mystery for me is memory. How that is formed is almost more important to me than consciousness explaining.
Sounds like he 1:1 copied the script from the 10thdim video on this topic.
Good precognition on my part since the original was made in 2004.
@@peter-russell ah ok Sorry, was just looking at the upload date... whatever, just noticed it sounds the same ;)
@@timmbrockmann959 No problem. Confusion understandable. Upload date reflected when I uploaded that section. The first person to explore this, as far as i know, was a physicist in the 1920s. And various others have over the years.
This can't be true. Just illogical that light doesn't experience space and time. Must be something they are not discerning properly.
That's what's so weird about both quantum physics and relativity, they both run totally counter to common sense. But what has been proved time and again is that in this case it is our common sense that is wrong.