Photons have no time

[InfiniteNow]

In order to measure the frequency of something, mustn't you be in a different reference frame to make that measurement?

[Rade]

If the photon is outside of "time', then it may be in the "moment"--for the reason that since we know the photon does exist, then it must exist somewhere, and one such place it could exist is within the moment, which by definition is also outside of time. So, imo, the photon mediates the past and the future via the present within the moment. This is how I see the relationship of the photon concept to time.

[Mike C]

Its customary to divide the photon length into 'c' to get the frequency of that photon even though it is a pulse only.

 

I believe in the Planck Bohr model of creating a photon.

I simply ignore the SR or GR to get solutions for photons.

 

Mike C

[InfiniteNow]

I simply ignore the SR or GR to get solutions for photons.

 

That actually explains quite a lot about your posts. Thanks for the info.

[Mike C]

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.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.

 

Craig

 

I was thinking about the proton in it normal atomic state.

I did overlook my own solution for the Gamma Ray bursters that are high velocity protons.

That graph merely establishes a ratio to velocity that is true but the Gamma Ray bursters are about the only natural velocity to link to that graph.

 

Regarding my recall of a BB'ers opinion on the 'creation of photons'

I have supplied an article in my post on the CoP's as a comparison to my version based on the Planck Bohr planetary model.

 

Incidentally, that article does mention that a photon does transit instantly but later confuses the issue by showing that there is a time elapsed.

 

Mike C

[rockpython]

I don't know if the question has been answered correctly, too many off topic stuff to go through, but here is an answer given on another forum.

 

Self-Service Science Forum Message

 

hope this helps.

[InfiniteNow]

I don't know if the question has been answered correctly, too many off topic stuff to go through, but here is an answer given on another forum.

 

Self-Service Science Forum Message

 

hope this helps.

 

Hi rock,

 

That is actually quite a simple summary of the final answers we arrived upon in this thread. Good find! ;)

 

 

Thanks. :hihi:

[Little Bang]

This thread presupposes that the photon is a massless point particle. If that supposition is wrong and there is some evidence that it is wrong then the thread is pointless.

[InfiniteNow]

This thread presupposes that the photon is a massless point particle. If that supposition is wrong and there is some evidence that it is wrong then the thread is pointless.

 

Perhaps I can ammend your stance somewhat?

 

 

"This thread requires that one presupposes that the photon is a massless point particle. If that supposition is wrong and there is some evidence that it is wrong then the entire central premise on which this thread is based becomes pointless."

 

 

I only say this because the thread itself has taught me much about other things, so I don't think it would be valid to dismiss the thread itself as pointless.

 

 

Unless, perhaps you're suggesting that a photon is not pointlike? :hihi:

[Little Bang]

Infi, your rephrasing of my statement was indeed better and yes I am suggesting that the photon is just a wave in the original electromagnetic field that started the universe.

[Mike C]

Infinite and Little bang:

 

The introduction of other sources of photons is not needed to explain this type of photon.

 

My explanation of a photon is based on the Bohr Planetary Model of the hydrogen atom. This type of photon does have an elapsed time. In other words, it is not a point source (no elapsed time).

 

The photons generated in the stars are explained by the BM. These photons account for 90-95% of all the photons in the universe.

They result from electron transitions that do take some fractional time.

As I have explained previously, a red photon has a 'distance value' that is measured at 6.56e^-7 meters. So if we take this dimension as a fraction of 'c' (one second). Then :

 

c/6.56e^-7 = 4.57e^14. Then one/4.57e^14 = 2.188e^-15 seconds.

 

So that last figure is the elapsed time of the photons transition.

 

Mike C

[InfiniteNow]

Relative to an outside observer, maybe. Oh yeah, you ignore relativity, Mike_C. Nevermind. :)

[Mike C]

Infinite and Little bang:

 

The introduction of other sources of photons is not needed to explain this type of photon.

 

My explanation of a photon is based on the Bohr Planetary Model of the hydrogen atom. This type of photon does have an elapsed time. In other words, it is not a point source (no elapsed time).

 

The photons generated in the stars are explained by the BM. These photons account for 90-95% of all the photons in the universe.

They result from electron transitions that do take some fractional time.

As I have explained previously, a red photon has a 'distance value' that is measured at 6.56e^-7 meters. So if we take this dimension as a fraction of 'c' (one second). Then :

 

c/6.56e^-7 = 4.57e^14. Then one/4.57e^14 = 2.188e^-15 seconds.

 

So that last figure is the elapsed time of the photons transition.

 

Mike C

 

I have an URL to add to my post above. See below.

 

Reading on Color & Light, Part I

 

Mike C

[steve 9]

Time dilation increases as speed increases - max time dilation (ie no time at all) occurs at c, but normal matter cant get there, since photons are travel at c they have no time.

 

Do you think that this time thing is a real physical thing?

[steve 9]

Okay, that's confusing. Wouldn't that mean that all photons share a reference frame at all times?

 

Wait NO - because they don't always travel at c do they? Does a photon have mass when it passes through water or air or whatever? Does it experience time then?

 

Also, if you have an area of negative pressure (Casimir Vacuum) and you sent a photon throught it, theoretically it would travel faster the c - then it would it be going backward in time, and arrive before it left?

 

Wacky stuff - and I'm just as confused as you.

 

On the other hand, it does sort of address my question about what reference frame quantum entanglement would occur in.

 

Interesting though - it almost leads to a redefinition of simultaneous. I have a photon, emitted from star A 10 years ago, and a photon emitted from star B 5 years ago - when I find them, I trap them. Which photon travelled longer? Neither - they where both trapped at the same time. If I release a photon from my "photon gun" toward Alpha Centauri and another toward the Mars, fifty minutes later, my counterpart on Mars can see my photon. Four years later Alpha Centauri catches my photon. Which photon was capture first? According the photon, they were both captured at the same time. Intuitively (ie, wrongly) every event that has ever happened to any photon not travelling through a gravity distorted frame or medium thicker than vacuum occured at the exact same instant throughtout the history of the universe.

 

Is time itself (the difference in this instant) the effect of mass and particles on the movement of photons?

 

Someone stop me before I make a complete *** of myself.

 

TFS

[too late, isn't it?]

 

Never mind - the gravity question is moot - it isn't curving because it's slowing down, it's curving because the definition of "straight line" has been changed. Hold for things like water though. Unless I misunderstand photon passage through water (quite likely.)

 

 

You want to clear up your confusion. Look up the term time in any reference book or dictionary and you will see that time is not a physical thing.

[InfiniteNow]

Do you think that this time thing is a real physical thing?

 

It makes no sense to refer to it as "physical." That is not the basis of existence. Think of energy, for example. Energy is not necessarily "physical," but it exists all the same. :)

[InfiniteNow]

You want to clear up your confusion. Look up the term time in any reference book or dictionary and you will see that time is not a physical thing.

 

Dictionaries are not, as a general rule, used by scientists studying in the field to "explain" the work they do. A dictionary is a lay person guide with simple summaries of concepts and terms. You need to remember that there are several scientific terms used in practice which do not have the same definition as you find in a standard dictionary.

 

In most scientific work, time is defined as a measurement of an oscillation. It is accepted that there is no absolute time, and that it is relative to each observer. Further, just in case you get too hung up on this dictionary thing, remember that units of time are not the same thing as time.

 

If I were to guess, you seem to be trying to describe some arbitrary metaphysical definition of time here, and that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand. That's more philosophical in nature than scientific.