Photons have no time

[sebbysteiny]

"I read Einstien was hesitant when he was discovering E=MC^2.

 

Since C was supposed to be the limit it didnt make sense to have it used as anything higher than itself. "

 

 

Erm, I doubt he was particularly worried about squaring C because it's dimensionally correct. I think he would have been more woried if the C wasn't squared.

[arkain101]

Yes, but think about what that means when you apply the equation to reality.

 

The energy contained in a value of Mass is perportional to the speed of light multiplied by the speed of light.

 

I was considering how and why this could be.

 

Equations show that if an object could reach the speed of light it would experience and collapse energy frequencies. (it can not do this mathamatically, nor can we know what it would do). However, in order to do this mathamatically you need to travel at C.

 

Now, when light has collapsed its frequency what is it? The closest idea is matter. Although when light has no frequency it must have zero wavelength, and therefore take up very little space if not next to none. So if this state were achievable, the new velocity of such a condition of energy would be 0. Once solid it is mathamatically acceptable for it to take on a second value of C. So this solid energy contains a potential C and a Kinetic C capability.

 

These are not tested and experiemented thoughts, but they are calcualbe.

 

It may be why E=MC^2. Think if that was the first equation written in physics after understanding what E and M and C were. How would they explain it, without using math derivations.?

[sebbysteiny]

I'm very sorry arkain. I've lost your logic entirely. I had thought, having studied theoretical physics up to general relativity, I might have been able to have a crack, but I failed.

 

I understand trying to ask why the constant should be C and why it should be squared. I have previously thought there was nothing bizar about this, since, if there is any constant that would turn up in a relativistic equation, C is probably a good bet. I admit that there may be a bit more to it than this, but you will need to explain your idea better

 

From my understanding, objects can't travel at the speed of light. Describing an object as travelling at that speed doesn't 'collapse energy frequencies' (whatever that means), it is just meaningless, like trying to move a piece to a square off the chess board.

 

Also, a light photon with frequency 0 doesn't have a wavelength of 0. It would have a wavelength of infinity surely. Otherwise it doesn't actually exist. It would also have 0 energy, as E = h x frequency. Perhaps what you meant was a standing wave?

 

Perhaps instead, the answer is this. I don't think it is surpising that E is proportional to a velocity squared (after all, Newtonian KE = 1/2 mv**2). The question is, why is that velocity C for a rest mass.

 

Imagine that light is a particle, not a wave. It's energy should be proportionate to it's equivilant mass * speed of travel (ie v) **2. However, we know the photon is massless, but if rework the equations, it might give an equivilent mass. Mph = E / C**2 = h * frequency / C **2 = h / ((Wavelength**2) * frequency) perhaps?? (dodgy step).

 

However, all mass came from from high energy photons being converted into matter and anti matter (during the big bang). It stands to reason that all matter must therefore have a rest energy proportional to C squared.

 

I admit this is a bit of a fudge, because quantum calculations of photon energies are not that simple, and I admit that this concept of an equivilant mass for a photon is a little dodgy, but it could explain the connection between rest energy of mass and C**2.

[arkain101]

Re: Photons have no time - Today, 04:18 PM

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I'm very sorry arkain. I've lost your logic entirely. I had thought, having studied theoretical physics up to general relativity, I might have been able to have a crack, but I failed.

 

I understand trying to ask why the constant should be C and why it should be squared. I have previously thought there was nothing bizar about this, since, if there is any constant that would turn up in a relativistic equation, C is probably a good bet. I admit that there may be a bit more to it than this, but you will need to explain your idea better

 

From my understanding, objects can't travel at the speed of light. Describing an object as travelling at that speed doesn't 'collapse energy frequencies' (whatever that means), it is just meaningless, like trying to move a piece to a square off the chess board.

 

Also, a light photon with frequency 0 doesn't have a wavelength of 0. It would have a wavelength of infinity surely. Otherwise it doesn't actually exist. It would also have 0 energy, as E = h x frequency. Perhaps what you meant was a standing wave?

 

Perhaps instead, the answer is this. I don't think it is surpising that E is proportional to a velocity squared (after all, Newtonian KE = 1/2 mv**2). The question is, why is that velocity C for a rest mass.

 

Imagine that light is a particle, not a wave. It's energy should be proportionate to it's equivilant mass * speed of travel (ie v) **2. However, we know the photon is massless, but if rework the equations, it might give an equivilent mass. Mph = E / C**2 = h * frequency / C **2 = h / ((Wavelength**2) * frequency) perhaps?? (dodgy step).

 

However, all mass came from from high energy photons being converted into matter and anti matter (during the big bang). It stands to reason that all matter must therefore have a rest energy proportional to C squared.

 

I admit this is a bit of a fudge, because quantum calculations of photon energies are not that simple, and I admit that this concept of an equivilant mass for a photon is a little dodgy, but it could explain the connection between rest energy of mass and C**2.

 

sebbysteiny,

 

I respect your thoughts since this sounds like your are of expertise.

 

 

I'm very sorry arkain. I've lost your logic entirely. I had thought, having studied theoretical physics up to general relativity, I might have been able to have a crack, but I failed.

My appologies, I summerized alot since I had posted similar thoughts in other topics.

 

From my understanding, objects can't travel at the speed of light. Describing an object as travelling at that speed doesn't 'collapse energy frequencies' (whatever that means), it is just meaningless, like trying to move a piece to a square off the chess board.

Right. I did not mean to make it seem I suggested traveling faster than light was possible. What I meant was to suggest for a though experiments sake, to look at the consequences mathamatically and vividly what happens when such a thing occurs.

 

Running the figures through the equation for doppler effect one can see what happens to the frequency of EMR as an object of mass accelerates up towards the speed of light.

 

Also, a light photon with frequency 0 doesn't have a wavelength of 0. It would have a wavelength of infinity surely. Otherwise it doesn't actually exist. It would also have 0 energy, as E = h x frequency. Perhaps what you meant was a standing wave?

 

Extending on to the previous paragraph,

The frequency of EMR has a beginning -the lowest energy and slowest rate- and an end -the highest energy and fastest rate-.

 

If you go beyond either point, you end up with zero frequency, and wavelength is equal to the velocity and perportional to the inverse of its frequency. (im new with speaking in these terms so forgive me.)

 

This is what I meant by 'collapsing' the wave. A term related to this thought experiment which describes what happens when an object accerlates quickly enough and finally reaches C. Even though this is not possible for an object to do, if we look at the consequences when we force it to happen the frequency becomes so fast that it becomes one solid form.

 

An example I use is this. If we imagine a paintball gun that shoots paintballs at 1000m/s and each paintball is a diameter of 10cm. As we increase the rate or frequency at which we shoot these balls the distance between them decreases. Eventually if we are capable to shoot these balls quickly enough the wavelength and frequecy will 'collapse'. By this, it means that we will not have moving paintballs hitting a far away target. We will have a solid stream of balls lined up one behind the other exterting a single united force with an energy = to the combined mass multiplied by the square of its velocity. Then of course halved.

 

Like the paintball gun scenario. As an object accelerates towards C the redshift as it were will increase in frequency and ultimatly will become a solid stream of photons distance by zero. which can be calculated with;

Fo= sqrt [(1-V/C)/(1+V/C)]Fs which I am sure you are familiar with and could make do with any possible errors in my typing.

 

So we suggest to apply these ideas to our perspective of energy and matter.

 

Is matter a state of energy that has become 'collapsed' as it were?

 

However, all mass came from from high energy photons being converted into matter and anti matter (during the big bang).

 

If somehow in the big bang energy/photons had gone from the beginning side of the scale @ 0 frequency & wavelength to the 'End' side of the scale at collapsed frequency 0 & wavelength is this the process of which formed matter?

 

A proton for example would be a collapsation of this energy. A compressed space as it were, a huge number of photons acting as one @ a group velocit of 0. Thus this group assumes a secondary version of velocity. The proton can move (meaning gain energy), increase its mass, and compress energy forms (space-time) around it. Though when the energy is released it is equal to its mass multiplied by its containement of photons (that I suggest requires C) and releases them at C.

 

So we take another look at our paintball gun and the long stream of paintballs moving at 1000m/s (all traveling at rest relative to eachother as one form). If we want to release these painballs we must take the energy of 1000m/s they are at now and then move the gun away from the target at 1000m/s in order to return it to the original frequency..

 

This is what was meant by my post.

It would be much better if I was to supply this with actual values and calculations. Though I think this will suffice for expressing the logic.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Assume for the moment, just for the sake of argument, that McCutcheon's theory of all particles (including light) expanding at a constant rate is true. If it is, then it would seem to follow that photons do 'experience' time since no matter how far they travel, they'd be expanding. And that's within their own frame of reference. In other words, they 'age'.

My point is that if McCutcheon is correct, it would tend to cast serious doubt on the ubiquitous nature of the photon and warping of space and time.

[sebbysteiny]

Thanks for your info. Haven't had time to digest everything, but I have understood what I think you mean by a collapsed wave.

 

Do you mean, simpley, a photon with frequency of infinity (and therefore a wavelength of 0)? Again, a photon of frequency 0 has no energy, but a photon of frequency infinity (but 0 wavelength) will have a lot of energy all contained within a point which are the properties you describe.

 

 

 

Assume for the moment, just for the sake of argument, that McCutcheon's theory of all particles (including light) expanding at a constant rate is true. If it is, then it would seem to follow that photons do 'experience' time since no matter how far they travel, they'd be expanding.

 

erm no. Light has no time, ie it doesn't exist as a meaningful concept. You should also remember, light has no distance either. light 'expanding' would only be what an observer would see. As far as light is concerned, the distance between two atoms in a metal is indistinguishable from the distance between the milky way and andromider so the concept of 'expansion' also breaks down for light. Sorry to put a dampner on things.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

sebbysteiny:

You should also remember, light has no distance either.

sebby, 'remember' from what?

[Qfwfq]

I suppose he means that [math]\norm ds^2 = 0[/math] for a photon. Apart from sign, [math]\norm ds^2[/math] is the square of proper time for a timelike curve, or of distance for a spacelike curve. For a null curve, i. e. the photon's case (or of any massless particle), it is neither of those two and it makes no sense to talk about elapsed time, nor about distance travelled, from the photon's point of view.

[sebbysteiny]

I suppose he means that for a photon. - Qfwfq

 

Wow! It's like your reading my mind :eek_big:

[IDMclean]

Ok just real quick for people who don't know this stuff already.

 

In Quantum Theory the value of a Quanta is:

non-zero, non-negative whole number.

[math]n\not= 0[/math]

[math]n\not= -1, -2, -3, ...[/math]

[math]n= 1, 2, 3, ...[/math]

 

Light is the Quanta of Energy. Light has Quatitized Length, and Frequency. There is some disagreement, I think, though I am not sure, between wheather or not a Quantum property can become zero.

 

However this does illiterate the thought I had as to what happens when, not if, somemass or another reachs c.

 

In the Quantum Aether theory, with the foldable model of the atom, I would suspect that as the particle approachs c, the particle begins to fold in on itself, the interia, for lack of a better word, forces this folding, and hitting c would then result in the fusion of the Anti-particles with their counter parts, resulting atomic annihilation into Photons.

 

See page 10 of the Quantum Aether Theory to see what I mean.

[CraigD]

In the Quantum Aether theory, with the foldable model of the atom, I would suspect that as the particle approachs c, the particle begins to fold in on itself, the interia, for lack of a better word, forces this folding, and hitting c would then result in the fusion of the Anti-particles with their counter parts, resulting atomic annihilation into Photons.

I’ve not finished attempting to digest the white paper, what I’ve picked up so far leads me to suspect it predicts no remarkable behaviour as a particle approaches c.

 

Eg:

The APM [(Aether Physics Model)] substantially quantifies the earlier concepts of Aether and provides a solid foundation for Einstein.s GRT, although it does not support his Special Relativity Theory.

and

Sir Isaac Newton developed the gravitational law as in expression 10.5. [[math]G\frac{M_1 \dot M_2}{L^2}=F[/math]] G is the Newton gravitational constant, M1 and M2 are two masses, L is the distance between the masses, and F is the force between the masses. Early in the study of gravity, Henry Cavendish made very accurate measurements of the value of G. Information is widely available concerning the nature of the gravitational law, therefore it is not further elaborated here.

The theory appears to claim to accept both relativistic and classical gravity! However, I suspect that it’s actually purely classical, allowing massive object to freely exceed c, and with the observed velocity of light in the absence of a planet-sized mass dependent on the velocity of the observer relative to a fixed aether. Eg:

Since the prevailing understanding of Aether did not easily accommodate Aether dragging along with the planet, many touted this as evidence against the existence of the Aether. This premature conclusion against a dragging Aether also caused many to proclaim the erroneous assumption that the Michelson-Morley experiments showed absolutely no Aether drift.

After all interested hypographers have had time to study it, we should, I think, start a thread to discuss the APM. Though the white paper appears rife with factual and theoretical errors, and simply bizarre uses of natural language, reduced to it’s essence, it seems to me to be discussion-worthy.

[arkain101]

I read through part of this topic recently again and it again amazed me.

 

If light does not experience time, or photons if you prefer, it strikes me as having profound importance!

 

If photons do not experience time, then do they even technically move?

 

If time is a form of a timeline then as said before photons are already all places and times, writing the universe in stone as said before.

 

If time is not a form of a timeline, then we look only at now and may call it constant creation -the use of constant as continuious and steady pace-.

 

I just wanted to express some thoughts. It blows my mind how this place works..!!

[IDMclean]

Two interps I have encountered regarding the nature of time and it's relation to the photon. The first is to say that the Photon has zero time. This to me is rather meaningless, as it doesn't exactly express anything useful.

 

The second is to assume that the zero that we get for light is not infact zero but undefined. In which case, the photon's unit of time would be the definition of time. Which I believe is more in the spirit of Relativity and Lorentzian transformation.

 

The first interp is an expression, the second is a definition. I believe that essentially the consensual interp is one of definition.

[EStein]

Two interps I have encountered regarding the nature of time and it's relation to the photon. The first is to say that the Photon has zero time. This to me is rather meaningless, as it doesn't exactly express anything useful.

 

The second is to assume that the zero that we get for light is not infact zero but undefined. In which case, the photon's unit of time would be the definition of time. Which I believe is more in the spirit of Relativity and Lorentzian transformation.

 

The first interp is an expression, the second is a definition. I believe that essentially the consensual interp is one of definition.

 

The photon experiences nothing; it's a photon. Photons travel from point A to point B taking all possible trajectories at once(Richard Feynamn http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-6999571-4751823?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177872434&sr=8-2). The time it takes for the journey is determined by the observer. Different observers traveling at different speeds would record different times. Statements concerning the photon's "point of view" are meaningless.

[IDMclean]

Estein, I made a statement regarding the interpertation of a photon's travel through spacetime as perceived by an outside observer.

 

My statement of the photon having (not experiencing) zero time is one of measurement and thus of observation.

 

My statement of time being defined interms of the photon is a laymen's explanation. It isn't meant to be comprehesive nor technically correct.

 

So, though the time measured of a photon going from one place to another may vary with the observer, the units of space (length) and time (period), are more or less defined based on the measured and calculated properties of light, and thus the photon.

 

The photon experiences nothing; it's a photon. Photons travel from point A to point B taking all possible trajectories at once(Richard Feynamn). The time it takes for the journey is determined by the observer. Different observers traveling at different speeds would record different times. Statements concerning the photon's "point of view" are meaningless.

 

This then would appear to me, at least, to be a red hearing or strawman. It simply isn't what I said, nor meant.

[Mike C]

I've been trying to read more and more about QM. Last night, I read that photons do not experience time. That a photon travelling through time (relative to an observer in inertial frame) is indistinguishable from an anti-photon travelling backward in time. Strangely, I'm okay with that.

 

However, I'm struggling to understand that a photon released from a star 10 million light years away, from the perspective of something else, will take 10 million light years to arrive, but in it's own frame of reference arrives immediately to all places.

 

Can someone help shed some light ( :hyper: ), and potentially assist me in clearing up mistakes in the above description? It sounds a lot like a photon is InfiniteNow, but I am trying to be objective. ;)

 

I kimd of ignored this post because it sounds ludicrous. Does QM promote the idea that photons are 'timeless'? This is nonsense.

 

My post on the 'Creation of Photons' explains how they are created.

There IS an elapsed time during the creation of the photons and that is the transition of the electron from the outer to the inner orbits.

The easiest way to determine this elapsed time is by dividing the velocity of light that is given for 'one' second (3^8 meters) by the wavelength.

This would give the elapsed time for 'one' wavelength (photon).

 

NS

[InfiniteNow]

I kimd of ignored this post because it sounds ludicrous. Does QM promote the idea that photons are 'timeless'? This is nonsense.

 

My post on the 'Creation of Photons' explains how they are created.

There IS an elapsed time during the creation of the photons and that is the transition of the electron from the outer to the inner orbits.

The easiest way to determine this elapsed time is by dividing the velocity of light that is given for 'one' second (3^8 meters) by the wavelength.

This would give the elapsed time for 'one' wavelength (photon).

 

NS

 

A lot of people on this site lately tossing around the term "nonsense" without much support for their own perspective. I enjoy learning new things, and attempt fervently to have an open mind, but my mind closes immediately when one tries to influence me by suggesting a proposal is nonsense without describing why. :hyper:

 

Having done some further reading on the topic since time of that post, it seems this is just an issue of us trying to imagine via our macrocosmic understanding the implications of the math itself... namely, relativity.

 

The math indicates that events occuring when approaching the speed of light slows down, and since a photon travels AT the speed of light time would stop. Since spacetime is one entitity, the math also implies that the other 3 dimensions would decrease as an event occurs approaching the speed of light, and AT the speed of light the dimensions would cease to exist. Our desire to put things into everyday terms implies then that, for a photon travelling AT the speed of light, the terms height, width, depth, and duration lose all significance.

 

I've also read that if a photon is imagined as a delocalized wave in space, it is technically spreading across the entire universe whilst "deciding" where to be the strongest... thus everywhere all at once... However, you'll likely call that nonsense too without supporting your position or educating me where I'm mistaken. ;)