Photons have no time

[kailas_knight]

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.)

Gravity is generated when an object (with mass ofcourse) distorts space time( every object does this) ...and this distorion around the object is actually gravity .... Actually in 4 dimesional space , every object moves in a straight line , but when space-time is distorted (ie bent) the path followed by an object appears as curved path in 3 dimensional space to us because of the effect of gravity... ie , Gravity bends space ...

[kailas_knight]

This fact is the very reason I'm a determinist; The photon has, according to it's perception, already reached it's final destination, locking in all of the previously occurred events.

 

Time is an illusion we humans falsely judge as the unfolding of events which in truth, according to the experience of the photon, has already occured. We can't change what the photon has already experienced, to do so would change the final state of the photon and would result in a paradox of reality.

 

Ask the photon; All events are predestined, the future is cast in stone. BTW, this is one scientific position which fits rather nicely with my religious point of view. Restraining myself, I will not delve into my reasons for this understanding, because to do so would be off topic. Just my humble opinion................Infy

yes , it can be said that time is an illusion .... but more precisely , an invisible or complex parameter or constraint in our reality .... yes , you are right in saying that photon has seen what's gonna happen , ie what we call the future .. respective of it's own frame of reference , it has seen almost every thing in the destination in virtually no time at all ..... but the only problem is that from our point of view , it reaches us in "t" time ....which is from our perspective the "future" ....

No theory is ever perfect ...In our quest for an ultimate theory of the universe , we have so far created many theories , all of them having atleast having one irregularity .... Just imagine that we have created seperate theories about every event happening in the universe....then if those theories are united they will form a super unified theory that would descibe every event in the universe ie , every event that has so far happened , eventa happening now and that will happen in the future ... Such a theory can even show and describe our efforts to create that theory itself and what conclusion we are gonna reach or have already reached and if that conclusion is true or not and even that there would be no conclusin at all...

such a theory can even predict our actions ...ie what we do are events happening in the universe...right ??. so such a super theory can infact predict what we have done so far , what we are doing now and what we are gonna do next ....... (free will ??? aint so free after all )

 

It's too bad that such a super theory is impossble to form .......

[InfiniteNow]

yes , it can be said that time is an...

Hi Kailas,

 

Thank you for your interest and your enthusiasm, but if you'll take a moment to read through the entire thread prior to posting, I think you'll find that most of the posts to which you are responding have already been addressed. You are, in essence, repeating many existing pieces of information.

 

All the same, it's nice to see you around. Thanks for your inputs. :evil:

[kailas_knight]

I intend to start a new thread about the mysterious two places on earth...

the two famous triangles .... The origin of the universe(this reality) is some thing to which a satisfactory explaination can be given only by assuming that both space and time already existed from the very begning ....... every thing out side the parameter "time" is way beyond our wildest imainations ... recently i read the book " A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME" and i got many facts from it which supports my suggestion that all realities constrainted by "time" will end at some finite point in time....

Is our buddy durgatosh still here ???.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Here's my two cents. Then I'm going away again.

 

When I see such confusion I begin to suspect that something in our understanding is seriously wrong. Just an observation and a very big suspicion.

 

I thought logic was a tool to help us identify contradictions and when we identify them, doesn't that mean we need to go back to our basic premises? You know, weep and repeat.

 

Keeping contradictions like they were sacred objects is like putting a rattlesnake in your underwear drawer.

 

Bye.

[kailas_knight]

Here's my two cents. Then I'm going away again.

 

When I see such confusion I begin to suspect that something in our understanding is seriously wrong. Just an observation and a very big suspicion.

 

I thought logic was a tool to help us identify contradictions and when we identify them, doesn't that mean we need to go back to our basic premises? You know, weep and repeat.

 

Keeping contradictions like they were sacred objects is like putting a rattlesnake in your underwear drawer.

 

Bye.

Exactly what is the point that you are trying to make ?? Please be more specific ...

[CraigD]

Doesn't einstein say E = mc^2

Yes. The relationship expressed by the equation [math]E= m c^2[/math] is known as mass-energy equivalence. It’s been experimentally verified to high precision. In the formalism of particle physics, it describes how changes in mass of fermions create and destroy bosons. It’s accounted for in a bookkeeping-like manner, using notation such as Feynman diagrams.

And light is a source of energy, so how does this equation apply if photons are massless?

According to particle physics, photons have no rest mass – that is, the mass of a photon when at rest is zero. Photons are, however, theoretically prohibited, and experimentally never observed to have any speed other than c (about [math]3 \times 10^8 \, \mbox{m/s}[/math]).

 

Photons are observed to have energy – that is, interact with fermions to change their mass. This relationship, which has been experimentally confirmed to high precision, depends only on the photons frequency ([math]\nu[/math]), and is given by the equation [math]E = h \nu[/math], where [math]h[/math] is Planck's constant. From this, and some fundimental physical definitions, it’s possible to calculate the mass of a photon moving at c.

 

Another way of looking at the mass of a photon is in terms of the mass dilation, which is given by the special theory of relativity as [math]M = \frac{M_{\mbox{rest}}}{\sqrt{1 – (\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/math]. Applied to a photon, where [math]v=c[/math], this gives [math]M = \frac{M_{\mbox{rest}}}0[/math], a mathematically undefined quantity. So the rest mass of a photon can be considered a “flavor of zero” – that is, an infinitesimal quantity.

 

The mass of something that can’t be at rest, but isn’t infinite at c, is a strange concept, not much matching everyday experience. The critical point here is, I believe, to avoid thinking of photons – or, more generally, bosons – as being a sort of “tiny matter” – fermions, or, to use a 17th century physics term, corpuscles. In the few centuries since such brilliant people as Isaac Newton proposed thinking of them this way, experimental evidence has strongly contradicted this way of thinking, leading to the current theories like the standard model of particle physics, in which bosons have no rest mass, and must travel at c.

[Mike C]

Photons are not completely massless... They do have mass , but it's negligibly small... Every object in this universe has mass , how much small it might be.... I do believe that gravity can't attract anything that doesn't have mass...

since the gravitational pull of a black hole bends light(stream of photons) , photons must have some mass .

 

I do not believe in 'black holes' (BH) fot two reasons.

 

If there actually were BH's, than they should be visible.

When our galaxy was created, there obviously must have been many more blue giant stars that have burned themselves out to leave a BH as their remains. That means there should be some in our vicinity for detection. None are seen nearby.

BH's should be surrounded by a diffused sphere of light from background stars where their light is bent just outside the 'event horizon' (EH) that surrounds these BH's. These spheres would appear as 'halos' of light when seen from the sides.

Even though this light would be dim and diffused, we should be able to detect them with our very large telescopes and advanced techinical instruments. Since none have been detected, that are not seen.

 

Another point brought up by Kailas is that gravity is EM in nature and photons are EM in nature, so gravity should effect the light and the idea of the EH.

BUT, if gravity can affect the light to contain it, than why isn't gravity also contained within the EH since it is EM in nature as well?

 

The two reasons given above is why I do not believe in the existence of BH's.

 

NS

 

.

[InfiniteNow]

I do not believe in 'black holes' (BH) fot two reasons.

 

If there actually were BH's, than they should be visible.

Really? Why is that? Would it help if we called them frozen stars?

 

When our galaxy was created, there obviously must have been many more blue giant stars that have burned themselves out to leave a BH as their remains. That means there should be some in our vicinity for detection. None are seen nearby.

When dealing with astronomy and cosmology, I don't believe one must rely on the "there obviously must have been" argumentative tactic. How about you look into the data and give some actual bits of information?

 

BH's should be surrounded by a diffused sphere of light from background stars where their light is bent just outside the 'event horizon' (EH) that surrounds these BH's. These spheres would appear as 'halos' of light when seen from the sides.

Even though this light would be dim and diffused, we should be able to detect them with our very large telescopes and advanced techinical instruments. Since none have been detected, that are not seen.

Uhhmmm... Here's but one example of many:

Chandra :: Photo Album :: Images by Category: Black Holes

 

Another point brought up by Kailas is that gravity is EM in nature and photons are EM in nature, so gravity should effect the light and the idea of the EH.

BUT, if gravity can affect the light to contain it, than why isn't gravity also contained within the EH since it is EM in nature as well?

First, gravity <> EM. If it were, unified theories would not have evaded us for so long. This makes the rest of the points moot.

 

Anatomy of A Black Hole

 

 

You probably don't believe in germs either...

[Little Bang]

New, I can not believe that you consider your post as proof that black holes do not exist. If you truely do then I don't know how anyone could show you that an error may be present in your logic.

PS. As to Kailas statement that Photons are EM in nature, read my thread (The Journey of Light).

 

There is a possible experiment that may have already been done about light, if someone is aware of it please tell me where I can read about it. Generate a strong magnetic field, place a photon emitter at the north pole of the field pointed at the south. Measure C inside the field. It could be placed at the south, makes no difference

[Mike C]

Infinite

 

Those Chandra pictures show BH's as lighted objects. Where are the BH's?

 

Blue giant stars have short 'lifespans' depending on their sizes. The bigger they are, the quicker they burn out.

 

Their lives are in the hundreds of millions of years only.

Our galaxy is estimated to be 10 billion years old. So it now has a preponderance of 'red dwarf' stars.

Newly forming galaxies have a large number of if not a majority of blue giants.

 

NS

[InfiniteNow]

Those Chandra pictures show BH's as lighted objects. Where are the BH's?

 

Blue giant stars have short 'lifespans' depending on their sizes. The bigger they are, the quicker they burn out.

 

Their lives are in the hundreds of millions of years only.

Our galaxy is estimated to be 10 billion years old. So it now has a preponderance of 'red dwarf' stars.

Newly forming galaxies have a large number of if not a majority of blue giants.

 

I've lost my desire to point out the continued errors in your comments. Please explain how any of your posts relate the original question or stop posting in this thread.

 

The original question pertains to, what can only be described as, the "first-person" experience of time by a photon (or lack thereof).

[arkain101]

Let us assume the universe is made of 3 things

 

1)Light

2)Matter

3)Mind (and all its perceptions/awarenesses)

 

If light is the first addition to the logical system, and we define it all as one frame, we apply the rules of logic that would consist of one frame. These are quite simple. One frame is All places, and all places are this one frame. This one frame can not reason space, time or mass.

 

So we have frame one, unreasonable, meaning strange and unlogical.

 

If we enter frame two, we need to add something other than this "light", we need to add a seperate distinct layer so to speak of both logics and tangibility.

 

So we enter matter. We decide that each singular unit of matter (singular when observed macroscopically) is made of a pairity, this is, binded singular frames. Amongst themselves rules of logic can be applied to dicern position and self awareness, self existence. Through this we discover this pairity unit allows some reasonablility, but when observed from outside we must conclude that each object is one, and yet two, and each object is correct to behave as though it is responsible for action. So thus when we observed this kind of structure we would find the same strange reasonability as we do in the study of quantum mechanics.

 

So what is the 3rd thing we may add. We can add the mind, and think of it like an artist of devine, non scientific properties, and it paints out macroscopic patterns and stabilizes the unreasonables, into a reasonability. Here we are refering to sight perception.

 

Applying some rules of relativity, I find this is what one could peice together as the first person experience of light/matter/mind.

 

becoming a photon is abandonmant of all reason. It should I think create a situation of timeless infinity, something we can not comprehend except when comprehending the now moment.

 

This is where I have been at with this kind of thing lately.

[Boerseun]

Arkain, you say the universe consist of:

 

1) Light

2) Matter

3) Mind

 

Photons are emitted when electrons change orbitals. It's energy that's released in a very elementary fashion.

Matter might be said to be energy trapped in higher dimensions, 'rolled' up in (what we might perceive as) tiny balls. An atom is virtually empty. If not for electromagnetic repulsion between particles of same charge, an atom might collapse to virtually nothing. If an atom is expanded to human scales, a proton might be the size of a tennis ball, and the electron will be smaller than a gnat, stuck in an orbit fifty kilometers away. If you take away the repulsive force between protons, how many tennis balls can you stuff into a sphere with a radius 50kms wide? Literally billions and billions [/que Carl Sagan voice]. Which means a star can collapse to the size of football, composed of pure energy if not for the repulsive EM force.

The mind, of course, is simply an artifact of matter, being arranged in a particular way. Matter, of course, being trapped energy.

 

Hence, following this line of argument, the universe consist solely out of energy. The dimensions in which its expressed is simply the 'frame' in which it exist. There are no such things as light, matter or mind. They're simply different expressions of energy.

 

It's like saying the universe consist out of graphite, charcoal and diamonds. They're simply different expressions of carbon.

[arkain101]

I said let us 'assume', for the sake of a thought experiment in order to gain some kind of reasonable insight to the first person experience of the frame of a photon.

 

Nicely put Boer.

 

However, to say everything is energy creates a problem in my thinking. I agree everything is a form of energy. A giant complex unwinding spring perhaps as an analogy of the universe.

 

However, reason must be our basis or foundation to claims and statements of things. As I understand we can not have an absolute rest. Not only because of the complexity of things but also because it is unreasonable to attempt it in any kind of thought experiment.

 

I accept your answer, but it is insufficient due to the fact we can not apply something materialistic about energy. As I said, it is a state of reason, a singular all encompassing reference frame. But, it is entirely unreasonable, so we can not apply a tangible explaination to light, or a materilistic concept, it is because we use reason to form all interpratations of reality.

 

But if we do this, we must understand what reason itself means, what is it, and how is it we can have a legal reasoning.

 

In the macroscopic world we have some pretty reasonable concepts. Speed of sound, a meter is a meter.

 

but as we learn light is not the same kind of reasoning. If it always maintains the same velocity regardless of your velocity, this is not reasonable. How can it have this characteristic. It behaves unreasonable, relative to macroscopic reason.

 

I am digging to show that reason is a formation of a trinity that forms a singular unit of reality.

 

Life in the frame of a photon or the frame of an electron persay, is but unimaginable. It casts out the trinity of our mind, our matter, and light combo world. Thus reason as we know it must be cast out to put ones self into such a world concept.

 

This I hope leads to express further how I meant to say, you can not imagine being a photon, because imagination does not exist in a singular universal frame. You'd have to comprehend nothing, or infinity, the lack of value.

[Mike C]

The original question pertains to, what can only be described as, the "first-person" experience of time by a photon (or lack thereof).

 

I already answered the thread question on one of the back pages that photons do have a time element.

Photons have wavelengths and that means that they have a period of time.

 

Red light has a wavelength of 6.56^-7 meters. Divide this into c and then into one will give you the elapsed time of this photon.

 

NS

[InfiniteNow]

I already answered the thread question on one of the back pages that photons do have a time element.

Photons have wavelengths and that means that they have a period of time.

 

Red light has a wavelength of 6.56^-7 meters. Divide this into c and then into one will give you the elapsed time of this photon.

Again, you miss the point of the thread. Your comment above might apply if we were asking about the elapsed time of a photon relative to an outside observer, however, we are not.

 

Oh yeah... you don't believe in relativity.

 

 

I'm going to go ahead and call the alert:

 

We have a forum troll here, people.

 

All attempts to correct wrong concepts and presentations have fallen on deaf ears, and none of the claims have been supported. That is against the rules of this site.

 

Either change the rules, or throw Mr. No Science out with the refuse.