Photons have no time

[CraigD]

Something of mass cannot accelerate to c.... except from a photon's perspective?

Something with non-zero rest mass cannot be accelerated to c, period. Even in a thought experiment such as this thread’s, presuming that observations can be made by a single photon, the equivalence principle holds, so the laws of physics, including mass dilation, are no different than in any other frame of reference.

 

In this thread’s thought experiment, the massive bodies the photon-frame observer is observing has always been moving at the speed of light. It was not accelerated, that is, its velocity as measured by the observer has not, and cannot, change.

The photon sees us as having the property of infinite mass, yes?

Yes, an absurdity resolved by noting the impossibility of such an observation actually being made.

 

Other weirdnesses include length contraction. In the direction of the photon-frame relative to any observer with velocity with speed less than c relative to any other observer, the entire universe appear to the PFO to have zero length. Since the PFO’s velocity’s direction is different relative to other sub-luminal observers, I’m not quite sure what this suggests about the shape of the universe as measured by the PFO’s. Since, due to time dilation, the distance to a finite, universe-containing volume is either undefined or infinite for the PFO, I suspect the question is irrelevant, as it can never actually “see” the universe in order to determine anything about its shape.

 

Also, what does one photon look like to another photon?

One of the laws of physics preserved by the equivalence principle is the invariance of the speed of light, so the PFO measures photons to have the same speed as any other observer – the speed of light.

 

So, the PFOs associated with two photons with exactly the same velocity would not perceive a photon to have speed zero. Adding to the contradictory nature of the PFO thought experiment, a PFO would not measure any photon, even the one associated with it, to have a speed other than c.

I suppose these are division by zero problems.

I think that’s a fair descriptive analogy.

[CraigD]

Nobody addressed the point that photons move at C, which should cause all photons to appear the same using the principle of SR.

I believe nobody is addressing this because there is not principle of relativity that requires all photons to have the same frequency. SR requires only that all photons have an invariant velocity, c. As a consequence, the usual equations for the energy of a photon, [math]E = h v = \frac{h}{\lambda}[/math], don’t require either rest mass or velocity.

 

Yet photons can display a wide range of finite expressions in distance and time, even while going at C. A mass object moving toward C would display the entire system undergoing time dilation. One would not have one part of the space-ship looking like it is moving different than C. With the photon, even at C it doesn't show what one would expect from something at C.

 

The radio wave photon moving at C is not contracted to a point but still displays distance affects in meters.

…

If photon with a given wavelength, i.e., from a blue light, was in a space-ship and we increased the velocity of that spaceship toward C, the photon's wavelength would get distance contracted. How can the photon show another level of distance contraction when it is already at C?

The wavelength of a body – be it an photon, an electron, a proton, and atom, of a macroscopic object like a baseball – is not the same thing as its size.

 

A photon is not a sphere or lozenge with diameter equal to its wavelength!

 

Although it’s less common to consider the frequencies and wavelength of bodies other than photons, all bodies, whether they be fundamental particles, composite particles, or ensembles of great numbers of particles, have de Broglie frequencies and wavelengths. These wavelengths are not mere mathematical abstractions – like photons, massive particles can also display optical qualities such as diffraction. Although the wavelength of macroscopic bodies like baseballs are much smaller than their diameters, making such effects very difficult to detect, these effects are routinely detected for electrons, less routinely for protons, and recently (per reference #8 of the linked wikipedia article) even for fairly massive [ce]C60[/ce] molecules.

 

To the best of my knowledge, massless particles can’t meaningfully be said to have dimensions – that is, to be other than point-like. The term “photon radius” occurs occasionally in the literature, but is an uncommon synonym for event horizon, not a reference to the size of a single photon.

[modest]

Something of mass cannot accelerate to c.... except from a photon's perspective? The photon sees us as having the property of infinite mass, yes?

Something with non-zero rest mass cannot be accelerated to c, period. Even in a thought experiment such as this thread’s, presuming that observations can be made by a single photon, the equivalence principle holds, so the laws of physics, including mass dilation, are no different than in any other frame of reference.

 

In this thread’s thought experiment, the massive bodies the photon-frame observer is observing has always been moving at the speed of light. It was not accelerated, that is, its velocity as measured by the observer has not, and cannot, change.

 

In fact, I have used the wrong word. The sentence should read:

Something of mass cannot

accelerate to

[move at]

c.... except from a photon's perspective? The photon sees us as having the property of infinite mass, yes?

 

In other words this equation:

[math]M=\frac{M_0}{\sqrt{1-{\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}}[/math]

assumes v is being measured from some reference frame. If that reference frame belongs to a photon (which I agree is impossible) then any velocity measured equals c. Thus any mass observed is infinite.

 

A situation where this would make more sense is if the two frames of reference are separated by expanding space. We could then say v=c where neither the observer nor the observed is massless and any mass in question would be infinite (relativistically speaking). Once again, however, we have problems 'observing' the mass in question. You can't see something that's receding at the speed of light.

 

This actually gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling. The math, which would not allow us to divide by zero:

[math]M=\frac{M_0}{\sqrt{1-1}}[/math]

stops us exactly when our thought experiment stops us - and all is right with the world :)

 

-modest

[Mike C]

And you were proven wrong in this very thread when you used to post under username "New Science."

 

 

You're still wrong. Your personal anecdotes do nothing to overturn the decades of empirical evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

This would be known as the Galileo Gambit, and it neither a) supports your claims, nor :rolleyes: refutes existing ones.

 

The reason I refute Einsteins formulas is because his mass/energy formula is obviously wrong .

 

FORCES create all the energies.

 

He admitted that his 'static' universe would collapse and needed a Lambda included to prevent this collapse. Since the BBT was promoting an expansion of space, his Lambda was not needed.

You know the rest.

 

His Newtonian gravity bending of space does not explain why Zwicky Gravity (dark matter) does not WARP space since it is 10 times more powerful than the Newtonian bending of space.

 

His refusal to acknowledge the credibility of Quantum Physics is another reason I refute his work

 

Mike C

 

. .

[Mike C]

You're still wrong. Your personal anecdotes do nothing to overturn the decades of empirical evidence.

 

I have reasons for refuting Einsteins tiny corrections to Newtons math.

 

1- His mass/energy formula is wrong.

Only FORCES create energies.

 

2 - His 'curvature of space' does not explain why Zwicky Gravity (dark matter) does not WARP space since it is 10 times stronger than Newtons gravity.

 

3 - He admitted his 'static' universe would collapse. So he introduced his Lambda to correct this. When informed of the EoS, he admitted his blunder.

 

4 - He never really did accept the Quantum Theory of Plancks formula.

 

Anyway, I gave a solution to the photons ellapsed time in one of the back pages.

 

On another website a couple of years back, a supporter of the BBT gave a solution for the 'creation' of a photon'.

He said that "the electron disappeared from the outer orbit and reappeared in the inner orbit with no elapsed time"!

So than the photon, according to him, was created in an instant?

Can you explain the official view as to how a photon is created?

 

Thank you.

 

This would be known as the Galileo Gambit, and it neither a) supports your claims, nor :hihi: refutes existing ones.

 

That was an example of power science that was proven wrong.

 

Mike C

[Reaper]

Oh dear. Looks like we've got yet another person who claims to be able to debunk relativity. Time to clean up the mess....

 

1- His mass/energy formula is wrong.

Only FORCES create energies.

 

Wrong. The mass/energy conversion can be derived from the fact that c is the same in all inertial reference frames. More specifically, it can be derived from momentum. Here is one such derivation: Special Relativity: Derivation of E=mc^2

 

2 - His 'curvature of space' does not explain why Zwicky Gravity (dark matter) does not WARP space since it is 10 times stronger than Newtons gravity.

 

You are just making that up. Dark matter does indeed warp gravity by a great deal. Why do you think dark matter is taken into account when determining whether or not the universe will expand or collapse.

 

3 - He admitted his 'static' universe would collapse. So he introduced his Lambda to correct this. When informed of the EoS, he admitted his blunder.

 

So what? Do you even understand why a static universe would not be stable? And besides, recent research indicates that there may be a cosmological constant after all.

 

4 - He never really did accept the Quantum Theory of Plancks formula.

 

What he didn't except initially was the idea of the uncertainty principle. And, Planck's formula refers to blackbody radiation, something which was used to help explain the photoelectric effect and the quantization of light by Einstein and others. So not only are you ignorant of the science, but also of history.

 

And even then this is irrelevent, because we have an enourmous amount of data that supports relativity. How do you think GPS works?

 

Anyway, I gave a solution to the photons ellapsed time in one of the back pages.

 

On another website a couple of years back, a supporter of the BBT gave a solution for the 'creation' of a photon'.

He said that "the electron disappeared from the outer orbit and reappeared in the inner orbit with no elapsed time"!

So than the photon, according to him, was created in an instant?

Can you explain the official view as to how a photon is created?

 

Oh really? First of all, this really has nothing to do with relativity. Why don't we take a look at the math here, and see if it holds water.

 

Or better yet, why don't you actually get a textbook on the subject instead of spreading this nonsense around?

 

 

That was an example of power science that was proven wrong.

 

Mike C

 

Yeah, yeah, you and every single one of those cranks. I suppose next you'll create the perpetual motion machine :hihi:

[nkt]

^- What Reaper said.

 

Also, photons cannot see the masses they hit as being infinite, otherwise they would not impart acceleration to them. At macroscopic levels this photon pressure is not noticable, but it has an effect on spacecraft over long times in zero gravity, where few forces are acting. It has a very big effect at nano- and below scales.

 

Think of how a photon is absorbed. That energy kicks the electron about, and hence we have the logical thought that you cannot take a picture to tell where something really small is, because it won't be there afterwards.

[Mike C]

Reaper

 

I do not use thought experiments.

I rely on real science like Copernicus's, Kepler's, Newton's, Planck's and Bohr's.

 

Like I said, those Teeny Weeny corrections can be mind/spiritual corrections.

I have witnessed actual physical influences of casino slot machines. For your information, there is a Universal Mind.

 

Also, there is a perpetual motion machine and that is the Steady State Universe.

Ever hear of the Conservation of Matter and etc?

 

Did you read my post on the 'Theory of Everything'?

 

Mike C

[Reaper]

Reaper

I do not use thought experiments.

I rely on real science like Copernicus's, Kepler's, Newton's, Planck's and Bohr's.

 

Ok, so what do you call this then: http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/experiments.html

 

That's as real a science as you are going to get. In order for your arguments to hold water, why don't you go through that list and try to point out anything wrong with all of them.

 

And later, I'll bring in some experiments that support General Relativity. Alternatively, you can read up on how GPS works....

 

Like I said, those Teeny Weeny corrections can be mind/spiritual corrections.

I have witnessed actual physical influences of casino slot machines. For your information, there is a Universal Mind.

 

Uh..... yeah. I'm not sure if I want to respond to this. All I'm going to tell you is that there isn't a single shred of evidence that supports any of those claims.

 

And the corrections are FAR from "teeny weeny". Why don't you take a look at this graph right here, which displays just one of the implications of relativity:

 

 

 

Also, there is a perpetual motion machine and that is the Steady State Universe.

Ever hear of the Conservation of Matter and etc?

 

In this universe, we obey the laws of Thermodynamics!

 

Did you read my post on the 'Theory of Everything'?

 

Mike C

 

 

No I haven't. And, I really don't think I even need to after what I saw from you here.

[modest]

Also, photons cannot see the masses they hit as being infinite, otherwise they would not impart acceleration to them.

 

Don't worry. They can't hit a mass that's infinitely length contracted anyway. It's just a thought experiment - one where we accept things we shouldn't accept and presuppose things we shouldn't presuppose.

 

-modest

[Erasmus00]

I think the problem is in thinking of the frame of reference of light as an INERTIAL frame. All the formulas we are thinking of (length contraction,mass,etc) are valid only in inertial frames, where the metric is diagonal. In light cone coordinates, the metric is off diagonal.. clearly not inertial.

-Will

[Mike C]

Ok, so what do you call this then: http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/experiments.html

 

That's as real a science as you are going to get. In order for your arguments to hold water, why don't you go through that list and try to point out anything wrong with all of them.

 

And later, I'll bring in some experiments that support General Relativity. Alternatively, you can read up on how GPS works....

 

 

 

Uh..... yeah. I'm not sure if I want to respond to this. All I'm going to tell you is that there isn't a single shred of evidence that supports any of those claims.

 

And the corrections are FAR from "teeny weeny". Why don't you take a look at this graph right here, which displays just one of the implications of relativity:

 

 

 

 

 

In this universe, we obey the laws of Thermodynamics!

 

 

 

 

No I haven't. And, I really don't think I even need to after what I saw from you here.

 

Besides the other reasons I gave to refute Einsteins views, I can add the 'Theory of Everything'.

 

Mike C

[InfiniteNow]

Besides the other reasons I gave to refute Einsteins views, I can add the 'Theory of Everything'.

 

Mike C

Care to be more specific, new science?

[CraigD]

The graph on the Proton energies is ludicrous. Protons do not come close to the velocity of light.

This is simply false.

 

For several decades, many particle accelerators have accelerated protons to near c. For example, the Tevatron, completed in 1983, routinely accelerated protons to over 99.89% c. The energy of these protons – their ability to do physical work – agrees with high precision with the predictions of relativity.

Do not ask for the source since I do not remember everything I read.

When asserting data as established scientific fact at hypography, especially when your assertion disagrees with what most people believe to be true, you must support it with links or references.

 

If you are unable to provide references to information you recall reading, just indicate that you are uncertain about it.

 

Information we recall, but cannot verify, is often the most misleading kind, because we often recall inaccurately or incorrectly.

[Mike C]

Care to be more specific, new science?

 

If you are referring to the Theory of Everything, I cannot be more specific than what is written.

 

I would like to ask you a question regarding the 'official' explanation of how a photon is 'generated'(?) or created.

No mathematics, please.

 

Mike C

[InfiniteNow]

If you are referring to the Theory of Everything, I cannot be more specific than what is written.

 

I would like to ask you a question regarding the 'official' explanation of how a photon is 'generated'(?) or created.

No mathematics, please.

 

Please go start your own thread. It's not relevant to the topic being discussed here.

[HydrogenBond]

I have a question about the photon. It travels at C, so in its reference, it can go anywhere in zero time. If the photon could look at its own frequency, what would it see? Do all the frequencies look the same at C? If they do, what about the photon is there that distinguishes the frequency spectrum to us, even though the photon can not see it, since it is going at C?

 

An analogy is like the photon has a sign on its back we can see, but from the front looking in the mirror, all photons sees the same thing. This is sort of the speed of light paradox, finite time expressions that should not be possible for something moving at C. Try it with plugging in numbers in SR.