If a photon is travelling at the speed of light, does time not exist for it?

  • 89 Replies
  • 23910 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
Photons do, and can decay. They just don't decay spontaneously in space. There is  a big difference there.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
Quote from: JP
in physics, there is no theory that defines the frame of reference of a photon

Quote from: JP
We don't know how to describe the reference frame of a photon scientifically, so any claims about it not experiencing time in it's own reference frame aren't scientific.

Looked at from a slightly different perspective; is there any scientific evidence suggesting that a photon's apparent experience of time exists other than in the F of R of an observer?

I'll answer this. The answer is no.

If a photon decayed spontaneously in space, there might be some indication that it experiences a time, but this is not the case. Relative to us however, as JP has noted, photons do experience time.
QC, it's the other way around as I see it. It's to our frame of reference the photons take time, to their 'own', if that one exist, time can't exist. At least not as we experience it, if it did we should observe a 'decay', just as JP describes it.
==

Saying that because they are 'massless' they do not apply to our 'reality'?
Is that science?

When I say relative to us, I mean it requires observers like us to attribute a time pass. JP and myself are talking about the same thing.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
The other issue is this: aren't electrons also stable?  They can certainly annihilate in collisions, but I don't think that one left alone would spontaneously decay into photons...  I'm not a particle physicist, so I could be wrong on this.

When an atom does emit an electron (beta decay), I don't think it travels quite at c, but I don't know if it decays or not.

You're right.  An electron can never travel at c since it has mass.  I didn't mean to imply that it did.  Because it has mass and can't move at c, it has a reference frame within relativity, unlike a photon, and so it experiences time in it's reference frame.  But I think it's also stable. 

I was making two points.  One of them is that stability of a particle isn't necessarily a good definition of the lack of passage of time.  If electrons are stable, they have a reference frame in special relativity in which time passes.  I'd be interested to know if they're stable or not and what characteristics of particles influences their stability, but that's probably a topic for another thread and we'd need some particle physicists!

The second point I was making is that if you insist on adding a reference frame for a photon, and you believe that SR is basically correct, that reference frame should depend only on the photon's speed.  (I've argued strongly against this, since there's no good science behind it!) Therefore anything of zero mass, moving at the speed of light should have the same "timelessness" property as a photon.  If you're assuming that instability of a particle is a sign that it experiences time passing in it's own reference frame, then gluons experience time they aren't stable!  But gluons are massless and move at c, so they should be in the same kind of "timeless" reference frame as a photon! 

I think there's two conclusions you can draw from this:

1) There's something fundamentally wrong with just tacking on a reference frame for things moving at light speed and calling it "timeless" (by basically setting v=c in the equations of SR).  You can (and I have) argued this from the derivation of SR, in which setting v=c is wrong because the equations of SR are invalid in that case.

2) It's probably wrong to define "timeless" reference frames as those held by particles which are stable.  That concept of time doesn't agree with the concept of time in special relativity, at any rate, so even if you did define it this way, I'm not sure how much use it would be.  You'd basically just be using the word "timeless" to replace "stable," and it wouldn't have any real relation to measurements time as used in other areas of physics.

But let's take a step back.  We need to agree on terms, since the definitions of time and "timeless" I'm arguing from are very precise. 

Proponents of a "timeless" photon, what does "timelessness" mean in precise technical terms?

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Ok JP - super speculative question. 

i. In a superconductor the condensate of cooper pairs can act through the higgs mechanism to give a mass to the photon.

ii. If a photon has a mass - can it still be travelling at maximal velocity within that material?  i.e. this is not just a photon travelling slowly because of a refractive index greater than 1 - it's a Marks and Spencer's photon(sorry scrub that) - it's a photon travelling at less than the speed of light.

iii.  Would this change the decay characteristics?  Could this provide a difference between the timeless epithet and travelling at lightspeed? 


I agree with you, I think, that the example of the gluon already knocks that into the long grass; but perhaps evidence from the photon would be more conclusive.
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Photons do, and can decay. They just don't decay spontaneously in space. There is  a big difference there.

You got more details on that - I would be interested
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
As a non-scientist it would be presumptuous of me to describe myself as a proponent of a "timeless" photon, and I think we might need to be sure of some consensus on a definition of time before tackling timelessness.

I am probably agreeing with JP when I say I think terminology is an important factor.  I know I have another question, I know what it is, but it will take a little thought to frame it in words that will ensure that everyone else knows what it is, or is that just wishful thinking? [:-\]

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Yep Imatfaal, I'm curious to that statement too. QC, you have a link to that?

And JP. The frame existing for a photon is the one where we observe it.
The frame existent for a gluon is theory, no direct observations possible as far as I understands?

That we from indirect observations define something we call a gluon is true, as you pointed out before, but there's no direct observations possible. And as far as I understands it does not exist inside a observable time frame, which to my eyes place it outside Plank time. If you know different JP, link me up :) That's one of the really weird ones to me. That something outside Planck-time actually 'interacts' inside it.

As for if a photon have an 'internal frame'? I don't think so myself which in a way makes the discussion meaningless as it works from another principle, as I guess, than our arrow of time. But it does not makes it meaningless to call it 'time less' from our perspective, as we only have that proposition to work from. That is three dimensions (possibly more:) and 'time'.
« Last Edit: 28/01/2011 18:38:40 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Matthew, I'm not entirely sure what happens to a photon in matter.  Is the slow down in a superconductor sufficiently different to, say, glass?  The way I usually understand a photon moving in matter is that it is propagating at the speed of light in between the bits of matter, but interactions with the matter essentially cause it to take longer to get through.  I don't think this should change its decay properties, or the fact that it moves at the speed of light in between those interactions.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
"When the temperature was lower than the Planck scale, the universe was an expanding gas of relativistic particles. These particles include quarks and leptons, the gauge bosons such as photons, gluons, and W and Z bosons, and perhaps more exotic particles like the supersymmetric partners of the standard model particles, heavy right-handed neutrinos, gauge bosons related to grand unification theories, etc. As the temperature cooled below the masses of certain particles (such as the W and Z bosons) they “freeze out” and decay, i.e., they are not longer created by inverse reactions of their decay products due to the lower temperature. Some of these particles with a short life time had disappeared long ago, and some with a long life time may still be with us today in the form of dark matter." From Quark-Gluon Plasma and the Early Universe

This description seems to agree with my assumption JP?
That Gluon's are under Planck scale. And if they are then you might want to question the idea of them being 'particles' too. Any particle making 'sense' to us will show a gravitational 'potential'. Do virtual particles do that? If they do, then one might consider finding the 'missing mass' in their 'interactions' with all 'thingies' over Planck scale

But if they don't they are something outside of 'SpaceTime' to my eyes.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
The more I try to think, the more questions I seem to find, so here goes with some thoughts and a question arising out of them.


If we assume that frame of reference = inertial frame = rest frame, then it makes perfect sense to argue that a photon cannot be assigned a frame of reference because in the rest frame of any object, the velocity of that object itself is zero.  

Relativity says that photons always move at the speed of light, so we might reason that, according to relativity, a photon would have to travel at the speed of light in its own frame of reference, which doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.
 
However, relativity does not define a frame of reference for a photon; all it does is state that a photon must travel at c in the frame of reference of everyone and everything else.  

Bearing in mind that in relativity all motion, or lack of it, is relative, are we saying that a photon has no frame of reference in which it is stationary relative to itself?  

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Matthew, I'm not entirely sure what happens to a photon in matter.  Is the slow down in a superconductor sufficiently different to, say, glass?  The way I usually understand a photon moving in matter is that it is propagating at the speed of light in between the bits of matter, but interactions with the matter essentially cause it to take longer to get through.  I don't think this should change its decay properties, or the fact that it moves at the speed of light in between those interactions.

I am trying to split two phenomena - you rightly describe how a photon moves through material via interactions; this is the case within glass.  The photon moves at light speed between interactions but overall at a slower speed- I think that's the best explanation I have read, not sure if it isnt a bit hand-wavy though.

But within a superconductor, electron pairs (cooper pairs) form a condensate.  It is thought that this condensate can act like a bosonic field and emulate the higg's field.  But in a superconductor (as opposed to everywhere else) this higgs-like field will provide mass (very very small) for the photon.  I would imagine a photon with mass would be forced to travel slower than a photon without mass.  A subluminal photon (and I still don't think it really works) would be free from any argument that time is meaningless for it as it is moving in a normal frame of reference.

I will dig out references for the cooper pair condensate field - I hope.
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Does the mass of the photon in this scenario exist other than in the F of R of an observer?

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
That one doesn't make sense imatfaal?

If you consider the 'Higgs field' it exists everywhere according to the idea?
And then the difference would be that space isn't superconducting?
And that a photon acquire a mass inside a condensate?

Sounds very much like a theory without any foundation in experiments to me?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
This description seems to agree with my assumption JP?
That Gluon's are under Planck scale. And if they are then you might want to question the idea of them being 'particles' too. Any particle making 'sense' to us will show a gravitational 'potential'. Do virtual particles do that? If they do, then one might consider finding the 'missing mass' in their 'interactions' with all 'thingies' over Planck scale

But if they don't they are something outside of 'SpaceTime' to my eyes.

I don't think that gluons are under the planck scale any more than photons are.  Every fundamental particle in the standard model is a point particle, but their wave functions are smeared out over larger areas.  I assume gluons do cause gravity, but just like a photon causing gravity, you can't really measure it since they're so tiny.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Bearing in mind that in relativity all motion, or lack of it, is relative, are we saying that a photon has no frame of reference in which it is stationary relative to itself?  

Exactly what I'm saying.  Until we can experimentally access that reference frame to make tests on it, it's not a scientific theory.  That's why all the discussion on such a frame is basically philosophy or personal opinion, not science. 

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Matthew, I'm not entirely sure what happens to a photon in matter.  Is the slow down in a superconductor sufficiently different to, say, glass?  The way I usually understand a photon moving in matter is that it is propagating at the speed of light in between the bits of matter, but interactions with the matter essentially cause it to take longer to get through.  I don't think this should change its decay properties, or the fact that it moves at the speed of light in between those interactions.

I am trying to split two phenomena - you rightly describe how a photon moves through material via interactions; this is the case within glass.  The photon moves at light speed between interactions but overall at a slower speed- I think that's the best explanation I have read, not sure if it isnt a bit hand-wavy though.

But within a superconductor, electron pairs (cooper pairs) form a condensate.  It is thought that this condensate can act like a bosonic field and emulate the higg's field.  But in a superconductor (as opposed to everywhere else) this higgs-like field will provide mass (very very small) for the photon.  I would imagine a photon with mass would be forced to travel slower than a photon without mass.  A subluminal photon (and I still don't think it really works) would be free from any argument that time is meaningless for it as it is moving in a normal frame of reference.

I will dig out references for the cooper pair condensate field - I hope.


Interesting.  It sounds like what's going on is that the superconductor is behaving mathematically similar to the Higgs field, but physically it isn't.  In that case, the photon won't physically have mass, but will slow down like it has gained mass via the Higgs mechanism.  I don't think it would decay... that would be very odd.  It would be interesting to see the paper, though!

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Quote from: Bill S
are we saying that a photon has no frame of reference in which it is stationary relative to itself?

Quote from: JP
Exactly what I'm saying

OK, but how can a photon be in motion relative to itself?  [???]

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Just because it has no frame in which it's stationary does not mean that is has a frame in which it's in motion with respect to itself. 

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
At the risk of over simplifying things (a common failure among aliens) I would speculate that the only way to avoid becoming a decadent imperialist lackey is to zip along at c. Now, photons of one sort or another do seem to be able to do that, presumably because they have no rest mass. (Because they are not resting like a bunch of decadent imp......)

So, if particles that have a rest mass (and therefore are not able to zip along at c) don't seem to decay, or lose energy, or alter in some way or another over time, my "theory" kind of falls apart.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Heh, JP that one was lovely :)

"Just because it has no frame in which it's stationary does not mean that is has a frame in which it's in motion with respect to itself." I'm sure the way you thought of it will make a ultimate sense but reading it is soo sweet :) You will have to explain your thinking there.

And yes, assuming that gluons are 'inside Planck size', also assuming that there goes the border between what is 'reasonable' from the physics we know? you will have a point. But to me all of those emergences are exactly 'emergences' getting new properties as they scales up. That means that to me a gluon is an expression of interactions observed inside our macroscopic 'reality' leading us to define them as existing. But on their own 'scale', as I see it outside Plank size, they are nothing like it, just as I expect 'times arrow' to be an emergence needed for our macroscopic universe.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Heh, JP that one was lovely :)

"Just because it has no frame in which it's stationary does not mean that is has a frame in which it's in motion with respect to itself." I'm sure the way you thought of it will make a ultimate sense but reading it is soo sweet :) You will have to explain your thinking there.

It seemed like Bill was assuming that you only have two options:
1) the photon has a reference frame in which it's at rest with respect to itself,
2) the photon has a reference frame in which it's moving with respect to itself,
and obviously (2) is a bit nonsensical.  There is a third option.  The photon has no reference frame (at least not one we know how to describe in terms of it's motion).  That's the one that's true since the above options are not allowed in relativity.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
So, if particles that have a rest mass (and therefore are not able to zip along at c) don't seem to decay, or lose energy, or alter in some way or another over time, my "theory" kind of falls apart.

That was my point with the electrons.  Also, gluons do zip along at c and do spontaneously decay.

Maybe we can save a lot of this for another thread, but I believe the reason why things that move at c tend to be stable is that being massless is a requirement for forces to act over long range (which is probably the same as saying that being massless is a requirement for force-carrying bosons to be stable).  However, gluons have an additional property that determines how they behave: color charge.  The color charge changes how they interact with the force and makes them short-lived.

So I guess the conclusion is that masslessness is a necessary requirement for force-carrying Bosons to be stable, but it isn't sufficient.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What makes it so remarkable is how few types of interactions there are needed for creating a SpaceTime, as the color-force tells us. One might expect it to be more complex. And yeah, I knew it would make sense :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
Let's look on some sense of photon travel [:D]
The water pillar is history of events. The water level constantly increases. Movement of a wave on a surface  is movement of a photon. Event of movement of a photon does not plunge in the past. [:)]

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Movement of a wave on a surface  is movement of a photon.

No it isn't.  The idea that a photon is a wave in matter was discredited with the aether theory.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Quote from: JP
There is a third option.  The photon has no reference frame (at least not one we know how to describe in terms of it's motion).  That's the one that's true since the above options are not allowed in relativity.

What about the possibility that the photon has a frame of reference in which it is stationary relative to itself and time?

Is that more of an assumption than saying that because we cannot describe the F of R of a photon, it cannot have one?

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Quote from: JP
There is a third option.  The photon has no reference frame (at least not one we know how to describe in terms of it's motion).  That's the one that's true since the above options are not allowed in relativity.

What about the possibility that the photon has a frame of reference in which it is stationary relative to itself and time?

Is that more of an assumption than saying that because we cannot describe the F of R of a photon, it cannot have one?

If you can't scientifically describe the F of R of a photon, does it matter if it has one?  It's just a matter of opinion unless there's an actual model for it.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
I
Matthew, I'm not entirely sure what happens to a photon in matter.  Is the slow down in a superconductor sufficiently different to, say, glass?  The way I usually understand a photon moving in matter is that it is propagating at the speed of light in between the bits of matter, but interactions with the matter essentially cause it to take longer to get through.  I don't think this should change its decay properties, or the fact that it moves at the speed of light in between those interactions.

I am trying to split two phenomena - you rightly describe how a photon moves through material via interactions; this is the case within glass.  The photon moves at light speed between interactions but overall at a slower speed- I think that's the best explanation I have read, not sure if it isnt a bit hand-wavy though.

But within a superconductor, electron pairs (cooper pairs) form a condensate.  It is thought that this condensate can act like a bosonic field and emulate the higg's field.  But in a superconductor (as opposed to everywhere else) this higgs-like field will provide mass (very very small) for the photon.  I would imagine a photon with mass would be forced to travel slower than a photon without mass.  A subluminal photon (and I still don't think it really works) would be free from any argument that time is meaningless for it as it is moving in a normal frame of reference.

I will dig out references for the cooper pair condensate field - I hope.

What would happen to its spin if it gained a mass? It's spin 1 normally having two degrees of freedom instead of three due to its 'masslessness' But gaining a mass should change that, shouldn't it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
To be honest Yoron - I am struggling to find a good write-up on it.  Lots of papers mention it in passing, and several refer to a section in Ryder but no decent explanation.  Not sure what exactly you mean by tying up the degrees of freedom and masslessness
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The spin of a photon is defined as having two degrees of freedom, that in its turn is a headache. "Let us go back to the photon statistics formula derived by Bose. There is a factor "2" sitting on the numerator of this formula. The usual explanation is that it is because photons are massless particles. Then why not 1 or 3 ? Bose argued that the photon can have two degenerate states. This eventually led to the concept of photon spin parallel or anti-parallel to the momentum.

The question of why the photon spin should be only along the direction of momentum has a stormy history. Eugene Wigner (1939) showed that the internal space-time symmetry of massless particles is isomorphic to the symmetry of two-dimensional Euclidean space consisting of one rotation and two translational degrees of freedom. It is not difficult to associate the rotational degree with the photon spin either parallel or anti-parallel to the momentum, but what physics is associated with the translational degrees of freedom. These translational degrees were later identified as gauge transformations. This does not solve the whole problem because there is one gauge degree of freedom while there are two translational degrees of freedom. How do they collapse into the one gauge degree of freedom? This problem was not completely solved until 1990."

"If electrons had total spin s=1 then there would be three possible spin projections sz={−1, 0, or +1} ... and you would find orbitals with three electrons in them. You can’t occupy a given orbital more times than are allowed by the spin multiplicity because of the (Pauli) exclusion principle."

So a photon that actually is of spin 1 still doesn't have three degrees of freedom. But if we give it a mass?
==

Spin is weird.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 21:44:04 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Quote from: JP
If you can't scientifically describe the F of R of a photon, does it matter if it has one?  It's just a matter of opinion unless there's an actual model for it.

I'm not really nit-picking here, honest,  [:)] just trying to get things straight in my own mind.

Given that you can't scientifically describe the F of R of a photon, would it also be true to say that you cannot scientifically establish that it does not have one?  I accept that even if this is the case, the whole thing comes down to a matter of opinion, and that some opinions have more weight behind them than others.  In the midst of a sea of strongly held views, though, I often find myself wondering what is established fact and what is opinion.



 

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
It depends on your definitions, Bill.  Frame of reference in physics tends to refer to Einstein's inertial frames of special relativity.  In that case, you can say conclusively that the photon has no frame of reference.  (The same is true for local coordinate frames in general relativity.)

If you want to use a different definition of frame of reference in order to allow the photon to have one, you'll have to define it first, and justify it's usefulness as a physical model.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
JP,

What happens in the case of matter? I realize that matter can't travel at the speed of light, but is it possible to extrapolate the effects on time as it approaches c to arrive at a conclusion about what might happen at c, or does the math simply go haywire long before you get there?
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
The math goes haywire.  The problem is that simply taking the limit as v->c doesn't account for the fact that the mass goes to zero.  If you do the appropriate limit taking, you get something like 0/0, I recall...

That, and all of special relativity deals with observers who always observe light as moving at c.  The math just doesn't hold if you throw out that assumption.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The math goes haywire.  The problem is that simply taking the limit as v->c doesn't account for the fact that the mass goes to zero.  If you do the appropriate limit taking, you get something like 0/0, I recall...

That, and all of special relativity deals with observers who always observe light as moving at c.  The math just doesn't hold if you throw out that assumption.

I had a nasty feeling that might be the case  [;D]  Thanks!
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Thanks, JP, but I'm still struggling a bit here.

We seem to have moved from saying that we can't scientifically describe the F of R of a photon, to saying conclusively that the photon has no frame of reference.

let's stick with "inertial frame", so you know I'm not trying to come up with my own definition of F of R.  [:)]

The reasoning seems to go something like this: A photon must always be observed as travelling at c, so it cannot share an inertial frame with anything else. 
Arguing that  photon must be stationary relative to itself is meaningless; therefore it is meaningless to suggest that a photon occupies an inertial frame.

Am I getting closer?

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
I think you're understanding me, Bill.  The reason I was saying things like "science can't describe the F of R of a photon" rather than categorically ruling them all out is just because some of the suggestions here have been to introduce new models specifically to define a F of R of a photon. 

But if you stick, like you say, to inertial frames defined by relativity, then there is none for the photon, simply because they don't exist within special relativity.  You correctly point out that it would be wrong to simply add on an inertial frame in which the photon is at rest.  (I'd add on to your description that a photon can't be at rest with respect to itself because the frames described by special relativity all require that light moves at light speed in those frames.) 

*

Offline Locke

  • First timers
  • *
  • 7
    • View Profile
Matter is a concentrated energy. If you like, radiation is a free energy - a diffused type of matter. If all matter is made from photon energy, then it contributes to the kinetic energy of the system, and the inertial energy of the system. It does not mean that matter will move at lightspeed. This is in direct contradiction of relativity theory.

Are you saying that matter and photons are actually two totally different things? I thought you maintained that matter was made from photons, or did I get that wrong?

Yes you are wrong, again.

Matter can be made out of photons, it does not necesserily mean that attributes of the photon are carried on. Intrinsic properties in the form of information is almost certainly passed on in order to conserve quantities like charge and spin. It does not mean that the manifestation (matter) obeys the rules which radiation does. Matter and energy are still quite different, even though they are interchangeable via E=Mc2.
If matter is made out of photons and matter has mass, that would give photons mass as well...
And photons, by my understanding, don't have mass.

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
If matter is made out of photons and matter has mass, that would give photons mass as well...
And photons, by my understanding, don't have mass.

It's a disputed point Locke - but the answer some might give is:  that mass and energy are equivalent (everyone should agree that E=mc^2) and thus the energy of a photon pair can become the mass of a particular (pair of) particles (this is also agreeable); others go on to say that ALL matter can be considered to be made of photons (this is where the argument lies).

Bear in mind you need really energetic photons - the lightest particles you are gonna create will prob be a positron electron pair  and even these will require light well into the gamma rays
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Some questions and thoughts :)

First of all. Isn't 'c' a valid frame for photons in any frame seen? Accelerating or inertial (uniformly moving)? And if I argue that light is 'timeless'? Well, that depends on what you define 'time' as, I would say. Is it 'time' it takes for light to wander 13.7 billion light-years from the 'visible' edge of our universe? If you to that add what 'expansion' did to the space it 'wandered' in it has been awfully stretched (like 47 Billion light years one-way), as a wave that is, as a photon it can't be stretched at all, as far as I know?

As a 'light-quanta' it shouldn't be able to lose any energy without a 'interaction' either, as far I know? As such all energy it has should be the same from 'source' to 'sink'. And all of those descriptions are valid as I understand it. 'scientifically so.' But the 'trick' is to choose your definition to what the radiation does, isn't it? Why I differ a light quanta and a photon is in the indeterminacy of a photon seen as a wave-packet, where it start and ends as I understands it. But as a light quanta, again as I understands it, we expect it to be of the same defined 'energy' from source to sink. And what we call a photons red or blue shift will then only be a relation to the 'frame of reference' observing it.

Now, this is a questionable approach, but never the less the one taken as I understands it, and from 'Science' no less. A better approach is to admit that if you observe a photon, or light-quanta you will annihilate it. To observe or interact with a wave is not the same though :) as we can see when looking in a mirror, although there you can actually use both descriptions, photons or waves, to describe it. As with waves, the red and blue-shift makes more sense in form of frequency and energy getting 'stretched out'.

When it comes to a expansion though, stretching a 'light-quanta' or photon? Even when it comes to wave packet this sounds very far fetched, how exactly can a mere 'distance' down-shift a photon? It won't stretch at all as far as I can see, it's with gravity and speed we use red or blue shift and then as only relative the observer, if we we define them of invariant light quanta. To make a light-quanta 'stretch' you better start with giving it a 'size', otherwise it's a exercise in futility. and if you don't define it a 'size' then you have distance doing what we only attributed to gravity and speed before, 'down-shifting' light-quanta.
==

The real problem here is when someone suggests that photons just are like bullets coming from our universal machine guns (Suns). Then a red-shift should be fewer 'bullets' per 'time unit' and a blue-shift more bullets per 'time unit'. That one seems to work until we consider one light-quanta/photon moving. Because if we do so, it is my understanding that this light quanta will express the same red and blue shift, and just as easy as any amount of photons then would do by being 'together'. Now, if my understanding of this is wrong :) Then I'll go with the 'machine gun description'. But if I'm right a photon somehow manage to express its red and blue shift some other way. And if it does I suggest it to be a relation, that is, two different 'frames of reference' interacting.

(The Pound–Rebka experiment did just that, if I understood it right, testing one photon 'jumping' between atoms.)

" When an atom transits from an excited state to a base state, it emits a photon with a specific frequency and energy. When the same atom in its base state encounters a photon with that same frequency and energy, it will absorb that photon and transit to the excited state. If the photon's frequency and energy is different by even a little, the atom cannot absorb it (this is the basis of quantum theory).

When the photon travels through a gravitational field, its frequency and therefore its energy will change due to the gravitational redshift. As a result the receiving atom can no longer absorb it. But if the emitting atom moves with just the right speed relative to the receiving atom the resulting doppler shift  will cancel out the gravitational shift and the receiving atom will be able to absorb the photon. The "right" relative speed of the atoms is therefore a measure of the gravitational shift. The frequency of the photon "falling" towards the bottom of the tower is blueshifted. Pound and Rebka countered the gravitational blueshift by moving the emittor away from the receiver, thus generating a relativistic Doppler redshift"
==

Anyway, now I will use my own trick. If we keep on persisting that photons 'propagates' then we know that they don't 'die', by that alone. And then I will use that for defining them as 'timeless', that is as observing them from my frame of reference, or you from yours JP :) Or anyones 'frame', willing to dispute it. And to dispute, you will need to prove that a photon 'decay', if you now missed that. My definition is valid for all frames I know of too, as long as you don't let a light-quanta/photon 'interact'.

And you can start with defining if it interacts in a redshift/Hubble/expansion. Then you need to define that from two scientifically equally valid truths at least the light-quanta/photon and the wave. And as far as I know they all two/three are experimentally proven.

(Then we come to what I find the nicest solution, that light don't 'move' at all :)
That takes care of it. Now we only have the photons/waves relations defining how it will behave, and even though 'c' will be as valid a concept as ever it now becomes a axiom, or a constant if you like, just as the Feigenbaum constant.)


Heh.
So, yes JP, I will call them 'timeless' :)
« Last Edit: 08/02/2011 05:54:06 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."