How can someone "age" if they were traveling on a photon?

Iwonderaboutthings · June 28, 2013

How can someone "age" if they were traveling on a light photon?

I have read and I am sure many are familiar with this question here, however if the speed of light is constant and flows in a "straight direction" or omni "massless" then where does this photon "turn" to register a cycle of earth time??

Example: An earth year = 365 days in a year because earth goes around the sun right?

So my question may be "where" does the speed of light "cycle" "turn" "orbit that gives the age of someone traveling on a light photon??

Would this not violate E= mc squared?

And if so does the squaring of the speed of light above have anything to do with time loops?

This may be rather vague to ask from professionals here but no question is ever a dumb one

Thanks in advance!

Edited June 28, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

iNow · June 28, 2013

People have mass, and hence cannot travel at the speed of light, by definition.

If you just wonder about the age of a photon, it also makes no sense, since the photon would technically be at all places at all times all at once... if it had a valid reference frame, but it doesn't. This question, too, does not make sense since the photon only exists when it moves at the speed of light and since it can never be at rest it cannot have a valid rest frame... Which is required to describe things like age (it's relative to something else).

This is a high-level rough view based on pop-sci books I've read through the years. There are many others here who can explain it far better than I can, and probably correct any of my misconceptions.

EdEarl · June 28, 2013

You caught me saying a dumb thing. Only things without mass can travel at the speed of light. From the perspective of the light, time moves at a normal rate (I think, I'm not very good at relativity); thus, the light ages (and anything hypothetical traveling with it) year by year at a normal rate. I used that example to communicate with a person who was having difficulty understanding the size of the Universe and what looking at a galaxy 13.7 GLY away means. Totally accurate explanations are sometimes too complex and confusing for a novice. It is a trade-off, and now I am paying the price, but that's OK if I helped someone.

Edited June 28, 2013 by EdEarl

ajb · June 28, 2013

This question, too, does not make sense since the photon only exists when it moves at the speed of light and since it can never be at rest it cannot have a valid rest frame... Which is required to describe things like age (it's relative to something else).

Exactly right. There is no inertial frame that can be considered the rest frame of a photon. Any statments like "from the photons point of view" is unclear.

Iwonderaboutthings · June 28, 2013

You caught me saying a dumb thing. Only things without mass can travel at the speed of light. From the perspective of the light, time moves at a normal rate (I think, I'm not very good at relativity); thus, the light ages (and anything hypothetical traveling with it) year by year at a normal rate. I used that example to communicate with a person who was having difficulty understanding the size of the Universe and what looking at a galaxy 13.7 GLY away means. Totally accurate explanations are sometimes too complex and confusing for a novice. It is a trade-off, and now I am paying the price, but that's OK if I helped someone.

No not all! I think you probably stated the inverse by sheer intuition.I don't really agree that the speed of light is everywhere though, there indeed is a reference point due to the quantum of action.

From what I gather Max Plank in a "kiln" used stationary standing waves in black body radiation for the h constant it also has an angular h bar. Either the h bar and h constants are not "real" hence digital or this "everywhere" for the mass-less speeds of light is a hyper digital cube of some kind hence "kiln". The reasoning being "again" Max Plank in a "kiln" used stationary standing waves in black body radiation.

I believe in "philosophy here" that before one is born they travel to and from points in space, thus when they are "born" "with mass" this then defines speeds of light "relative" and or quantized to the person's energy ie spirit etc " here on "earth." Earth from what I gather has equal amounts of positive and negative electrons making it a great semiconductor and hence reference point in " space" not to mention precession and seasons.

Currently it is around Winter Solstice in the South, and Summer Solstice in the North, surly planet earth does not share the same years, or am I wrong about this? This is also why I doubt the speed of light to be everywhere all at once " unless this everywhere is a digital hyper cube " hence" h quantum world with the later mentioned.

Thanks..

Exactly right. There is no inertial frame that can be considered the rest frame of a photon. Any statments like "from the photons point of view" is unclear.

Could this point of view from the photon be the same as a kilm in where Max Plank found his h constant and h bar constants in connection to the speed of light?

A photon is said to be "everywhere mass-less" can this everywhere be this kilm?

Can the kilm be infact a hyper cube of some kind that is relative to earth?

Edited June 28, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

ajb · June 28, 2013

Could this point of view from the photon be the same as ain where Max Plank found his h constant and h bar constants in connection to the speed of light?

A photon is said to be "everywhere mass-less" can this everywhere be this kilm?

Can the kilm be infact a hyper cube of some kind that is relative to earth?

I do not understand your question.

The trouble is that most statments in special relativity are about things measured in inertial reference frames and how to transform measurments from one inertial frame to another. You do not have to use inertial frames in fact, but you may have frame dependent effects that need some care in understanding. Now as we do not have any inertial frames that can be considered as rest frames of a photon one must be very careful in apply the language\results of special relativity to massless particles. In this sense I say "photons do not have a point of view".

Iwonderaboutthings · June 28, 2013

I do not understand your question.

The trouble is that most statments in special relativity are about things measured in inertial reference frames and how to transform measurments from one inertial frame to another. You do not have to use inertial frames in fact, but you may have frame dependent effects that need some care in understanding. Now as we do not have any inertial frames that can be considered as rest frames of a photon one must be very careful in apply the language\results of special relativity to massless particles. In this sense I say "photons do not have a point of view".

When you say "transform" what does this mean???

To move? Scale?

Is this a Cartesian Coordinate Systems? Polar Form?

If so that is the same as an Atlas or Manifold copies of imaginary units "static" and these are relative to an axial tilt like earth??

Inertial frames to another " then" are invisible " god is also invisible."

How then can this be "physics and science" compared to digital discrete quanta?

ajb · June 28, 2013

When you say "transform" what does this mean???

Usually one is thinking of just a change of coordinates.

Is this a Cartesian Coordinate Systems? Polar Form?

The standard Minkowski coordinates are Cartesian. These are the usual coordinates that people use in special relatvity.

If so that is the same as an Atlas or Manifold copies of imaginary units "static" and these are relative to an axial tilt like earth??

I don't follow what you are asking. However, Minkowski space-time is a manifold and can be covered with a single chart; just as standard Euclidean space can.

Inertial frames to another " then" are invisible " god is also invisible."

What has this got to do with god?

How then can this be "physics and science" compared to digital discrete quanta?

It maybe that on the smallest scales that space-time is discrete or granular. But what has this to do with your opening question? Edited June 28, 2013 by ajb

krash661 · June 28, 2013

iwonderaboutthings,

i'm just curious,

but are you a metaphysics advocate ?

Edited June 28, 2013 by krash661

Iwonderaboutthings · June 28, 2013

iwonderaboutthings,

i'm just curious,

but are you a metaphysics advocate ?

In a sense I am a "metaphysical thinker" highly into astrology and numerology BUT---> not for matters of people's charector , fortune telling and etc but for the premise and relation to " space time geometry" coupled with the premise of human thinking and the famous belief in the LA W OF ATTRACTION, good point there. But I also believe in free will. From the ancients to the current science I study all perspectives and highly respect them for a good reason

The reason I believe in this is because of "human relations on the speed of light " time keeping systems" monetary systems, calenders, human age, the human spirit, love " men with men" women with woman" man and woman" and etc. I believe to understand the forces of nature " HENCE--->life being one of them" at times we need to "think" like the speed of light versus understanding it in human " dual" conscious and subconscious terms.

Obviously translations " numbers" in quantum physics use spectral and other non physical natures " matrix blue prints" that "provide some multiple answers" but not all " again" psychical answers of definition for absolutes..

Honestly I don't believe in quantum mechanics at all due to how Max Plank found his constants in a kiln "as per the information" on classical physics, but also required in physical formula used today by physics. There is a bigger picture not looked at here.

Physics is 100% certain! Quantum mechanics require too much "decoding."

Thinking like this helps me rid myself from discrete thinking.

Usually one is thinking of just a change of coordinates.The standard Minkowski coordinates are Cartesian. These are the usual coordinates that people use in special relativity. I don't follow what you are asking. However, Minkowski space-time is a manifold and can be covered with a single chart; just as standard Euclidean space can.What has this got to do with god?It maybe that on the smallest scales that space-time is discrete or granular. But what has this to do with your opening question?

Some people believe that " god " created the universe, rather this is true or not I decided to include " another" intangible example god as a " man made" creation like a manifold's direction and or compass pointing to the North Pole here on earth.

Example:

I have not seen any other method for compass needles pointing in other directions other than here on earth's north having an axial tilt of roughly 24.4 degrees "out here" yes I know North is South

So as with god I have not heard anything else but good people going to Heaven

Do you see my comparison? May be vague but I try lol.

In regards to any atlases "Suspected Lay Lines" have been here on earth for quite some time.

It appears there are many types of atlases as their are gods. God being Supreme and an Atlas as the Eye in Space.

So the confusion behind cooridinents like you said relies on "relative condition or positions in space" all of which use numbers and imaginary units " that are highly needed, valued relied on etc.

The "REAL PROBLEM HERE"

There is and only has been "from what I know" one earth and one atlas for earth by human design.

These rather longitudes/latitudes, lay lines, Minkowski Coordinates, Cartesian. Lorentz, Dopplers and etc, are man made copies of non physical behavior.... Unless of coarse there is more to a " ratio" pi being one of them that we are not seeing as Fibonacci being thus space time itself connected to discreet dimension rather pointless values and numbers, that is boring.

To add every unit no matter how big or small is a dimension with mas and energy held in "space"

Thinka about it..

No matter how complex, we still use 2D circles and diameters in our current age, they just have different names attached to them..

Edited June 28, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

Delbert · July 2, 2013

How can someone "age" if they were traveling on a light photon?

I understand that according to Richard Feynman the photon doesn't actually travel from A to B, but rather a myriad of interations whereby the energy (or is it momentum?) of the photon is spread out occupying all possible paths. One example being the two slit experiment whereby the photon apparently goes through both slits.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Delbert

Iwonderaboutthings · July 5, 2013

I understand that according to Richard Feynman the photon doesn't actually travel from A to B, but rather a myriad of interations whereby the energy (or is it momentum?) of the photon is spread out occupying all possible paths. One example being the two slit experiment whereby the photon apparently goes through both slits.

I think you nailed this jut right! You see I believe there is a product " sum " value not considered in the double slit experiments of which causes a " pre " destined particle path that is the result of the product in question.

Here is a good link on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

In classical mechanics, linear momentum or translational momentum (pl.momenta; SI unit kg m/s, or equivalently, N s) is the product of the mass and velocityof an object.

And as mentioned above earlier, "Translations" are merely changes in Coordinate Systems that use imaginary mathematics " numbers."

It seems that " numbers" sequences and etc have other "constituents" as does theparticle.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

Delbert · July 9, 2013

I think you nailed this jut right! You see I believe there is a product " sum " value not considered in the double slit experiments of which causes a " pre " destined particle path that is the result of the product in question.

Hope I'm not drifting off topic here and perhaps my mind is wandering somewhat, but if a Photon, when it transit, is in fact a myriad of interactions as described by Richard Feynman, does what we call a Photon actually exist as an object? Leaving what we call a Photon merely some sort of 'event' at the source and then later at the destination?

And drifting a tad more, does the same apply to all the other elementary particles?

Anyway, thinking my last reply was off topic, if you were on a Photon (assuming such exists as per my last), you will seem to age normally. But what will be different is everything else, which will be aging much faster - in fact considerably faster (I offered a scenario about what one would experience upon approaching a black hole in an another thread).

But I understand you can't actually travel on a Photon since James Clark Maxwell's calculations about the speed of light was based on physics and not relative speed. In other words, you wouldn't actually be able to travel with a Photon, simply because the Photon would have to move away from you at the speed of light. For this to make sense to us mere earthlings, it is Time (and possibly space as well) would presumably have to be relative.

As we all know speed is relative, there is no such thing as absolute speed. Depending where we are on Earth we could be travelling anything between approx. 1,000 MPH or zero. Then again the speed of our motion around the Sun... ...and so on. That's what Maxwell's calculations say - they are based on physics. I think Prof Brian Cox has said: we are travelling through time at the speed of light.

**swansont** · July 9, 2013

It's more apt to say, in a pop-science fashion, that we travel through spacetime at the speed of light; our velocity four-vector in invariant and has a magnitude of c. In any frame that measures something as moving at some speed v, the time passage for that thing must slow to compensate.

Iwonderaboutthings · July 10, 2013

It's more apt to say, in a pop-science fashion, that we travel through spacetime at the speed of light; our velocity four-vector in invariant and has a magnitude of c. In any frame that measures something as moving at some speed v, the time passage for that thing must slow to compensate.

Very true indeed but I am curios though in regards to compensation, would this be like the " inverse square laws?" per say.

The reason I question this and quote, "this won't sound correct" but time being constant somehow puts back what we take out.

Perhaps even when using fundamental constants?

Hope I'm not drifting off topic here and perhaps my mind is wandering somewhat, but if a Photon, when it transit, is in fact a myriad of interactions as described by Richard Feynman, does what we call a Photon actually exist as an object? Leaving what we call a Photon merely some sort of 'event' at the source and then later at the destination?

And drifting a tad more, does the same apply to all the other elementary particles?

Anyway, thinking my last reply was off topic, if you were on a Photon (assuming such exists as per my last), you will seem to age normally. But what will be different is everything else, which will be aging much faster - in fact considerably faster (I offered a scenario about what one would experience upon approaching a black hole in an another thread).

But I understand you can't actually travel on a Photon since James Clark Maxwell's calculations about the speed of light was based on physics and not relative speed. In other words, you wouldn't actually be able to travel with a Photon, simply because the Photon would have to move away from you at the speed of light. For this to make sense to us mere earthlings, it is Time (and possibly space as well) would presumably have to be relative.

As we all know speed is relative, there is no such thing as absolute speed. Depending where we are on Earth we could be travelling anything between approx. 1,000 MPH or zero. Then again the speed of our motion around the Sun... ...and so on. That's what Maxwell's calculations say - they are based on physics. I think Prof Brian Cox has said: we are travelling through time at the speed of light.

You will have to excuse my reply I still don't know how to use the multi-quote button sorry. I will need to copy and past your question for now "AND" do my best to answere.

What I think causes some confusion in QM is how most if not all things require imaginary units used as Manifolds and Cartesian Coordinates. From what I gather they are mainly a numbering theory system only.

your question: does what we call a Photon actually exist as an object?

What I " think" that occurs with photons is actually what you stated "some sort of 'event' at the source and then later at the destination.

Reminds me of imaginary units like a+bi where i can be either the area, locator, or even the tangent. However there are many ways to use imaginary units coupled with the system that uses them, not to mention theoretical mathematics. I like to think of this imaginary unit as the destination.

Why did I focus on the imaginary unit if at all the explanation is correct? For me I believe it is an area worth study I believe there is the "event" you speak of.

Your question of: And drifting a tad more, does the same apply to all the other elementary particles?

QM uses something called the forbidden regions. Despite all the technical aspects if you are not skilled in some pretty " fancy" math, you won't understand the " why." And it is this why that causes much confusion with h, c and gravity. From what I understand it has something to do with SI units and how the h constant is " somehow" not compatible with other units of measure. To make matters even worse, classical formulas are used by QM operators from what I know.

Until the forbidden region used in QM are fully understood the answers no matter how complex correct and etc, will remain a general concept that helps us all.

One thing is certain, " numbers" are the force carriers of all things. These numbers represent that of which is missing as the force itself. I like to think of these numbers as " anti-units" the remnants of an event per say.

Decoherence and Hidden Variables

http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html

Kinematics: Free Fall Gravity Problem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVYkfgeP48U

Edited July 10, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

**swansont** · July 10, 2013

Very true indeed but I am curios though in regards to compensation, would this be like the " inverse square laws?" per say.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/VelocityFour-Vector.html

The rate at which time is passing, as it were, is [math]\gamma c[/math] because when looking at the position four-cevtor, the term is [math]\gamma ct[/math]. That's the reference to time "moving" at the speed of light. (I think there's a non-vanishing poetic use of the phrase here)

The reason I question this and quote, "this won't sound correct" but time being constant somehow puts back what we take out.

Perhaps even when using fundamental constants?

This makes no sense to me.

Delbert · July 10, 2013

QM uses something called the forbidden regions. Despite all the technical aspects if you are not skilled in some pretty " fancy" math, you won't understand the " why."

Didn't someone say something like: explanations should be simple and understandable to those who don't understand it (or something like that)?

Anyway, would it not be the case that without Quantum Mechanics and Relativity we would have an even greater problem in explaining the universe and all that? For example, how would we explain something that was really there? Like atoms were little tiny bits of stuff, like mini ball-bearings. If so they'd presumably have volume, surface area, surface imperfections and all the other stuff. No, QM saves us from all that. They don't really exist as photons can go through two slits at once - possibly an infinite number of slits if we could such an experiment. And as for a universe that was really there and not subject to Einstein's Relativity, that would be difficulty in the extreme.

Returning to the subject of how would someone age on a photon, and ignoring the stuff about would it even be possible to hitch a ride on something that may not even exist, one would age perfectly normally. What would be different is everything else as one looked at the universe all around, which would be seen aging very fast. And as far as I understand not only aging faster but shrinking to the point that the universe would shrivel up and disappear. Or to express it another way, one would be transported to the future at the dying moments of the universe.

Iwonderaboutthings · July 11, 2013

Didn't someone say something like: explanations should be simple and understandable to those who don't understand it (or something like that)?

Anyway, would it not be the case that without Quantum Mechanics and Relativity we would have an even greater problem in explaining the universe and all that? For example, how would we explain something that was really there? Like atoms were little tiny bits of stuff, like mini ball-bearings. If so they'd presumably have volume, surface area, surface imperfections and all the other stuff. No, QM saves us from all that. They don't really exist as photons can go through two slits at once - possibly an infinite number of slits if we could such an experiment. And as for a universe that was really there and not subject to Einstein's Relativity, that would be difficulty in the extreme.

Returning to the subject of how would someone age on a photon, and ignoring the stuff about would it even be possible to hitch a ride on something that may not even exist, one would age perfectly normally. What would be different is everything else as one looked at the universe all around, which would be seen aging very fast. And as far as I understand not only aging faster but shrinking to the point that the universe would shrivel up and disappear. Or to express it another way, one would be transported to the future at the dying moments of the universe.

My apologies and yes I truly believe that explanations should infact be simple, but QM deals mostly with waves. I am questioning my judgement on understanding this whole area in general.

However, you are very correct that QM seems to answer many questions. But there is the issue as what is relative to Cartesian Space in QM. This is where the math gets rather extreme, at least for me.

What truly represents 1? Whom knows. It takes many many numbers to get a general idea.

Since QM deals with the "unseen" the models involve many many calculations that at times you can get lost in all the numbers.

I had 2 choices, either learn the math, or the technicals of QM and proper terminology.

I choose to understand the math, and have a generalization of QM for verbal usage. I am finding that the math is a complete different concept in itself. That's my opinion..

Edited July 11, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

Delbert · July 11, 2013

if you were to accelerate, parallel to the path of propagation of some photon, then that photon would red-shift to you... yes ?

so, if you somehow were able to accelerate all the way to light-speed, then that photon would red-shift all the way... to zero frequency... yes ?

Like Maxwell's calculations on propagation are based on physics and not relative speed. So this zero frequency (to you) light would still be moving away from you at the speed of light. Which is either impossible because light is a wave phenomenon, or you would be transported far into the future at the time of the death of the universe.

I choose to understand the math, and have a generalization of QM for verbal usage. I am finding that the math is a complete different concept in itself. That's my opinion..

Unfortunately for me I have trouble with maths inasmuch as I get to the end of a concept and then have to reread it! Again, and again... So I try to understand just the general concept and put aside the details.

Trouble is I get asked questions. So, in anticipation I end up rushing for relevant books and just do a copying job!

Edited July 11, 2013 by Delbert

Iwonderaboutthings · July 12, 2013

Like Maxwell's calculations on propagation are based on physics and not relative speed. So this zero frequency (to you) light would still be moving away from you at the speed of light. Which is either impossible because light is a wave phenomenon, or you would be transported far into the future at the time of the death of the universe.

Unfortunately for me I have trouble with maths inasmuch as I get to the end of a concept and then have to reread it! Again, and again... So I try to understand just the general concept and put aside the details.

Trouble is I get asked questions. So, in anticipation I end up rushing for relevant books and just do a copying job!

That will only impress others.The best thing is try to understand math, seriously without this you won't have a model to back up any replies pertaining to questions asked to you. Math is also needed for visualization. You Tube has many incredible videos on math, I urge you to check them out, its worth it trust me... I have learned both there and in books. In reality though once you "get it" you will be able to create Theoretical Math Models and get creative.

I would recommend you get familiar with Dimensional Analysis first before you venture into any math studies. The reason for this is because of your particular inquires, plus I know math will will be easy for you. It takes some patience, the universe was not created over night

Edited July 12, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

Iwonderaboutthings · July 16, 2013

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/VelocityFour-Vector.html

The rate at which time is passing, as it were, is [math]\gamma c[/math] because when looking at the position four-cevtor, the term is [math]\gamma ct[/math]. That's the reference to time "moving" at the speed of light. (I think there's a non-vanishing poetic use of the phrase here)

This makes no sense to me.

I should have said " the inverse square law" rather like a big jig saw puzzle

Iwonderaboutthings · July 20, 2013

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/VelocityFour-Vector.html

The rate at which time is passing, as it were, is [math]\gamma c[/math] because when looking at the position four-cevtor, the term is [math]\gamma ct[/math]. That's the reference to time "moving" at the speed of light. (I think there's a non-vanishing poetic use of the phrase here)

This makes no sense to me.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

John Cuthber · July 20, 2013

Can I ask a related question please?

How can someone "age" if they are travelling on a unicorn?

Iwonderaboutthings · July 24, 2013

Can I ask a related question please?
How can someone "age" if they are travelling on a unicorn?

someone = Pamela Anderson

travelling= Riding

unicorn = time

age = getting off at the next stop

In this case the lucky bstrd should not mind HA!

I think it has something to do with horizontal positions Dam!

Edited July 24, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

ACG52 · July 24, 2013

someone = Pamela Anderson

travelling= Riding

unicorn = time

Be realistic. Only virgins can catch unicorns.

Sign In

How can someone "age" if they were traveling on a photon?

Recommended Posts

Iwonderaboutthings

iNow

EdEarl

ajb

Iwonderaboutthings

ajb

Iwonderaboutthings

ajb

krash661

Iwonderaboutthings

Delbert

Iwonderaboutthings

Delbert

swansont

Iwonderaboutthings

swansont

Delbert

Iwonderaboutthings

Delbert

Iwonderaboutthings

Iwonderaboutthings

Iwonderaboutthings

John Cuthber

Iwonderaboutthings

ACG52

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Browse

Activity

Important Information