A general discussion on the relationship between Photons and Time.

[Klaynos]

The physics of a photon = The physics of an observer(-time)

 

Observer physics:

Speed = Distance / Time

 

Photon physics:

Speed = Distance... there is no time for a photon so the photon's distance can't be divided by time and it can't have a speed.

 

If you want "proof" that there is no time for a photon you'll have to ask Neil deGrasse Tyson, I'm sure he knows the math that led him to the conclusion that photons are "timeless" as he states in the video in the opening post. "If you hit the speed of light, which we don't know how to do yet, but if you hit the speed of light, then time stops... time does not exist."

 

You are making assertions. Neil deGrasse Tyson, has said something that whilst may be true in a simplistic sense is not something that can be formally taken to be true. Therefore it is not valid to use it to reach any conclusions. I also find it somewhat surprising that you feel confident making conclusions when you do not understand the origin of the premise.

[Alias Moniker]

Are you going to refute Neil deGrasse Tyson's comments or not? If you can prove to me that he's wrong and that in fact Photons do experience a reality where time exists, I will abandon my arguments and never return to this forum. Otherwise I have drawn the logical conclusion from his statements.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Alias Moniker

[Strange]

You totally believe that you observe the physics of light, yes.

 

It is not a matter of "belief".

 

 

I don't know why you don't understand.

 

Because you are being very unclear. Deliberately, I assume.

 

Physics under the influence of time, not the same as, physics not under the influence of time.

 

 

There is no "physics not under the influence of time". Unless you want to present some.

 

 

If you can prove to me that he's wrong and in that in fact Photons do experience a reality where time exists

 

Photons don't experience anything. They are photons.

 

 

I will abandon my arguments and never return to this forum.

 

Please feel free.

 

One more time: do you have a point to make?

Edited July 19, 2014 by Strange

[Klaynos]

Are you going to refute Neil deGrasse Tyson's comments or not? If you can prove to me that he's wrong and in that in fact Photons do experience a reality where time exists, I will abandon my arguments and never return to this forum.

 

That's not how science work, you are making a claim, you need to back it up, using a logical fallacy (appeal to authority) is not going to cut it here, especially when it is (I'm assuming) a pop sci reference which whilst valuable doesn't provide the required knowledge for an indepth discussion of this nature. I'm not saying that photos experience time, I am saying that we do not have any valid transformations into a photons frame, therefore discussions of this nature are meaningless.

[Strange]

Are you going to refute Neil deGrasse Tyson's comments or not? If you can prove to me that he's wrong ...

 

I haven't watched your video (because it's a video; therefore not a good source of technical information) but you may be mistaking an analogy for science.

 

He may not be wrong, but it sounds as if he is not being very accurate, either.

 

That is the thing about popular science; it is presented as simplifications, analogies and approximations for people who don't (yet) understand the details. One would like to think it stimulates a desire to learn. And it does in a lot of cases.

 

And, just to be clear, I have no disagreement with what Tyson may or may not have said, but with what you have said in this thread. Which is generally just wrong or, at best, confused.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Strange

[ajb]

Can you explain a non-inertial frame better?

An inertial frame is one for which Newtons first law applies. In a non-inertial frame you need to modify this law using a fictitious force. Basically, inertial frames are the frames in which physics takes its simplest form. In the context of special relativity these frames are given by the standard rectilinear coordinates.

 

 

 

Are you going to refute Neil deGrasse Tyson's comments or not? If you can prove to me that he's wrong and that in fact Photons do experience a reality where time exists, I will abandon my arguments and never return to this forum. Otherwise I have drawn the logical conclusion from his statements.

 

 

I expect that Neil deGrasse Tyson is talking rather informally. Mathematically he is considering what happens in the formula for time dilation and length contraction in the limit that v->c. In this sense it looks like a photon experiences no time. However, this analysis is not to be taken too seriously as taking this limit is unphysical. These are the kind of statements I was thinking of when I said you need to be very careful with "the photons point of view". The limit is unphysical and does not give you a well defined inertial frame of reference, you can only give hand-waving analogies here.

Edited July 19, 2014 by ajb

[Alias Moniker]

1. The rules of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to each other.
2. The Photon is never in uniform motion relative to any or all observer.
3. A Photon in an observer's frame is not the same as a Photon in a Photon's frame.
4. The Photon must have "a frame" (under a different definition of frame), because the Photon occupies coordinates in space as a particle.
5. The Photon's frame would not define Time.
6. The Photon does not exist in any observer's frame, because the Photon is never in uniform motion relative to any observer, but the Photon does exist.
7. If the Photon does not exist in any observer's frame, then the Photon must have a frame of its own that it does its existing in.
8. The laws of physics for all Observers includes a definition for time.
9. The Photon's frame has no time coordinates, so time coordinates from any observer's frame can not be meaningfully associated with the Photon or the Photon's frame.

Observer = Time
Light = (-time)

If one physicist says that a particle is instantaneous
And another physicist says the same particle takes 8 minutes to travel from the Sun to the Earth
That's a contradiction
8 Minutes > Instant

If we try to measure the distance that light travels using physics
Distance = Speed x Time
According to Lorentz transformation the "time" for any particle where V=C is 0.
Distance = C x Time
Distance = C x 0
Distance = 0

All physical laws should remain unchanged under a Lorentz transformation.
An observer's physical laws include time laws.
A Photon's physical laws do not include time laws.
All physical laws can't remain unchanged when transforming an observer's physical laws into a photons physical laws.
This would cause the application of time laws to the photon, but time laws and photons are incongruent.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Alias Moniker

[Mordred]

A measurement is not possible in the reference frame (rest frame) of a photon because there is no such frame. That's all there is to it. You can't make a measurement (or do anything else) in a reference frame that doesn't exist. In the Lorentz transformations it is an invalid frame. for this reason already posted

 

"The Lorentz transform cannot be applied in this case because you end up dividing by zero"=infinities=meaningless in terms of defining it according to physics.

 

the rules is the same for all observers is correct. the photon rest frame does not exist and it is a valid observer frame.

3 is not possible for the same reasons and the reasons everyone else has already mentioned.

same goes for 4 and 5

6 is completely wrong the photon exists in everyone's frame of reference and its momentum is invariant at c. the photon does not have a frame.

 

the rule of GR and SR is that the speed of light is invariant (always equals c in all frames of reference) the rest frame of the photon does not exist, and therefore there is no frame of reference for the photon. a speed of 0 is a violation of the invariant rule for the speed of light

Edited July 19, 2014 by Mordred

[Alias Moniker]

A measurement is not possible in the reference frame (rest frame) of a photon because there is no such frame. That's all there is to it. You can't make a measurement (or do anything else) in a reference frame that doesn't exist. In the Lorentz transformations it is an invalid frame. for this reason already posted

 

Exactly. If it isn't possible to measure in the reference frame of a photon then how is it possible to measure a photon. How can you bring a photon into your frame to measure it by your laws? What is the other conclusion? That since we can't mathematically represent the speed of light in relationship to us, it must not exist?

Edited July 19, 2014 by Alias Moniker

[Mordred]

were not in the same frame of reference as the non existent frame of reference of the photon. we measure the photon according to our frame of reference.

 

"In physics, a frame of reference (or reference frame) may refer to a coordinate system used to represent and measure properties of objects, such as their position and orientation, at different moments of time"

 

if there is no time then there is no frame of reference

 

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

 

spacetime

In physics, spacetime (also space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum

 

if there is no time then there is no spacetime as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

 

GR and SR are based on geometric descriptions you cannot separate them to make a definition outside of those metrics

Edited July 19, 2014 by Mordred

[Strange]

Exactly. If it isn't possible to measure in the reference frame of a photon then how is it possible to measure a photon.

 

Because the measurement is not made in the photon's reference frame.

 

This has been explained to you repeatedly, in many different way, by several different people. What is the point of this thread? Is it simply to demonstrate you unwillingness/inability to learn? Or are you just spouting nonsense for the craic?

[Endy0816]

were not in the same frame of reference as the non existent frame of reference of the photon. we measure the photon according to our frame of reference.

 

"In physics, a frame of reference (or reference frame) may refer to a coordinate system used to represent and measure properties of objects, such as their position and orientation, at different moments of time"

 

if there is no time then there is no frame of reference

 

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

 

spacetime

In physics, spacetime (also space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum

 

if there is no time then there is no spacetime as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

 

GR and SR are based on geometric descriptions you cannot separate them to make a definition outside of those metrics

 

Is it a case of trying to relate to a situation that is impossible to relate to?

 

Been bothering me off and on.

[Mordred]

I wouldn't say impossible, I prefer to think of it as meaningless. keep in mind relativity is observer dependent. We might come up with a different way to explain observational influences that provide a solution. In some abstract ways its akin to the singularity problem of the BB and BH's.

 

describing the photon as being point like with no wave, with the universe contracted to a point like state due to contraction, or the photon being everywhere at once or having no time , are all meaningless statements. As meaningless as the metrics of the BB and BH singularity.

 

I don't have the paper anymore but there was a mathematical model of FTL that worked, with the assumption that everything moves at FTL. Then instead of contraction you had Lorentz expansion, and reverse time. Worked within the context of GR and SR though that metric also stated V=c still had the same problems. Its been a few years and I never heard anything further on the paper so it may have been squashed

Edited July 20, 2014 by Mordred

[Endy0816]

I wouldn't say impossible, I prefer o think of it as meaningless. keep in mind relativity is observer dependent. We might come up with a different way to explain observational influences that provide a solution.

 

Well, I mean impossible in terms of measuring zero. Frustratingly difficult subject to discuss.

 

Extrapolating seems reasonable to say that could the photon have a perspective, that perspective would be that it took no time to travel no distance. Though you can't have such a perspective as the nature of that perspective forbids having it.

 

Frustratingly difficult subject to discuss.

[Mordred]

that pretty much sums it up, lol how do you have a coordinate system with zero coordinates ? your describing 4d nothing lol yay we just invented 0d spacetime roflmao j/k on that one however as a photon is a particle and a wave, can it exist on 0d space, a wave requires time? like I said meaningless, any method to try to describe it becomes nonsensical

Edited July 20, 2014 by Mordred

[Endy0816]

yeah, pretty much the thread of my own thoughts. Makes me feel like our reality is held together by spit and bailing wire.

[Mordred]

nah the universe doesn't care how we perceive or describe it, we simply have to accept and improve on our limitations in doing so. Understanding something so complex takes time and development (if we had all the answers science wouldn't be nearly as much fun lol)

Edited July 20, 2014 by Mordred

[Alias Moniker]

Assume that "space time" is a prison. In the prison there are guards and inmates. Everyone in the prison follows rules, but the guards follow one list of rules and the inmates follow a different list of rules. Some of the rules for the inmates and the guards are the same, some of the rules for the inmates and the guards are not the same. Among the inmates, all inmates must follow all of the inmate rules, no inmate receives special treatment. Also among the guards, all guards must follow all of the guard rules, no guard receives special treatment. The two lists of rules are written in different languages. All of the inmates speak different languages. All of the guards only speak the language that the guard rules are written in. One inmate speaks all languages in the prison.

It's possible for the one inmate who can read the inmate rules, to translate those rules into all of the languages that the inmates speak. And because all of the inmates follow exactly the same set of rules, the number of rules would be the same in each of the inmate languages. It's also possible for the inmate to translate the list of guard rules entirely into the language of the inmates, and the list of inmate rules into the language of the guards.

This doesn't matter though, because the inmates and the guards still follow different rules. Writing the rules of the guard in the language of the inmate does not allow the inmate to follow the rules of the guard, and writing the rules of the inmate in the language of the guard does not subject the guard to the rules of the inmate.

The laws of physics for any observer include laws that define the behavior of time. The entire system of physics for all observers then, is inherently based on the existence of time, and time is one of the defining features of the "existence" or "reality" that all observers occupy. It is the presence of time that allows an observer's laws of physics to establish a frame of reference. Because all observers follow exactly the same list of rules, like all inmates, all of the rules of "observer physics" can be translated (by the one inmate, "man") from one observer to the next, even though all observers speak a different language, or have differing personal frames of reference.

However, the laws of physics for "light" or "the speed of light", do not recognize the existence of time. The entire system of physics for "light", is inherently without time, and this lack of time is one of the defining features of the "existence" or "reality" of "light" or, "anything 'traveling' at the 'speed' of light". It is the lack of "time", and therefore the lack of a definition between "at rest" and "moving", which is THE REASON why a photon can't be assigned an inertial frame of reference when trying to translate the photon's physics to the observer's physics. There is no time for a photon, so the photon can not have inertia. Inertia is resistance to change, change requires time, photon's don't experience time. Even though a photon never changes, it still can't be defined as having inertia. Inertia still is a property of the time based physics.

It only APPEARS that photons exist by the same laws of physics as an observer because some of the laws cross over from one reality to the next. It appears that the physics of photons and the physics of observers are the same because the existence of time in our reality prevents you from observing the photon in it's "natural habitat" to see how we different we really are.

Any math you're doing to the contrary is only as true in reality as when math says that if I have 3 apples, you can take 4 and I'll "have" -1 apples.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Alias Moniker

[Strange]

So I assume you have no interest in science at all?

 

Do you have anything positive to contribute? Or are you just going to post the same displays of ignorance over and over again?

 

 

It only APPEARS that photons exist by the same laws of physics as an observer

 

Science can only work with what we can observe.

 

If you want a discussion on whether photons "really" exist (whatever that means) then you need a philosophy forum, not physics.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Strange

[swansont]

Exactly. If it isn't possible to measure in the reference frame of a photon then how is it possible to measure a photon. How can you bring a photon into your frame to measure it by your laws? What is the other conclusion? That since we can't mathematically represent the speed of light in relationship to us, it must not exist?

 

You don't bring it into your frame. You don't do this when you measure the motion of anything else, e.g. a car moving, so this is moot. All measurements are done in the frame of the observer, regardless of the frame of the object being measured.

[Alias Moniker]

It would require an infinite amount of energy to reduce the speed of the photon enough for any observer to observe it. Photon's can't be observed without being destroyed and even still the term "observation" is loosely used. What is observed is not the photon itself but how the Photon appears to interact with our reality from our point of view. This is not my theory this is science, research light and you'll find that much of the explanations of its existence are still theory. Even if you could overcome the infinite energy and speed issues, the most powerful scanning electron microscopes are still only observing on the level of atoms, not even individual electrons which are still larger than the photon.

[Mordred]

However, the laws of physics for "light" or "the speed of light", do not recognize the existence of time. The entire system of physics for "light", is inherently without time, and this lack of time is one of the defining features of the "existence" or "reality" of "light" or, "anything 'traveling' at the 'speed' of light". It is the lack of "time", and therefore the lack of a definition between "at rest" and "moving", which is THE REASON why a photon can't be assigned an inertial frame of reference when trying to translate the photon's physics to the observer's physics. There is no time for a photon, so the photon can not have inertia. Inertia is resistance to change, change requires time, photon's don't experience time. Even though a photon never changes, it still can't be defined as having inertia. Inertia still is a property of the time based physics.

 

It only APPEARS that photons exist by the same laws of physics as an observer because some of the laws cross over from one reality to the next. It appears that the physics of photons and the physics of observers are the same because the existence of time in our reality prevents you from observing the photon in it's "natural habitat" to see how we different we really are.

 

Any math you're doing to the contrary is only as true in reality as when math says that if I have 3 apples, you can take 4 and I'll "have" -1 apples.

 

 

you don't seem to comprehend a basic difference between the term observer time and and time in the relativistic reference frame

 

take spaceship A moving at 90.0 the speed of light and spaceship B at rest. spaceship a looks at his own watch and see's time moving normally. When he looks at spaceship B's watch then he see's the time dilation.

 

you cannot have an observer moving at c. That is what the rules state.

It would require an infinite amount of energy to reduce the speed of the photon enough for any observer to observe it. Photon's can't be observed without being destroyed and even still the term "observation" is loosely used. What is observed is not the photon itself but how the Photon appears to interact with our reality from our point of view. This is not my theory this is science, research light and you'll find that much of the explanations of its existence are still theory. Even if you could overcome the infinite energy and speed issues, the most powerful scanning electron microscopes are still only observing on the level of atoms, not even individual electrons which are still larger than the photon.

this is complete garbage, we observe photons everyday. we even have the means to observe and measure individual photons

[Alias Moniker]

 

 

you don't seem to comprehend a basic difference between the term observer time and and time in the relativistic reference frame

 

take spaceship A moving at 90.0 the speed of light and spaceship B at rest. spaceship a looks at his own watch and see's time moving normally. When he looks at spaceship B's watch then he see's the time dilation.

 

you cannot have an observer moving at c. That is what the rules state.

this is complete garbage, we observe photons everyday. we even have the means to observe and measure individual photons

 

Observer time and relativistic time both only exist in the system of physics where time exists. Since photons exist in a reality where time does not exist they're not subject to either observer time or relativistic time. Time doesn't exist for the photon.

[Mordred]

NO see the example I posted and try to understand that example. the photon cannot OBSERVE if it had a mythical watch in its own mythical reference frame time is normal, it would not be able to observe anyone else's time

Edited July 20, 2014 by Mordred

[Klaynos]

 

Observer time and relativistic time both only exist in the system of physics where time exists. Since photons exist in a reality where time does not exist they're not subject to either observer time or relativistic time. Time doesn't exist for the photon.

More assertions without any evidence. As had been explained saying things like "time does not exist" requires a valid transform, you are yet to show this is possible.