Alias Moniker

Posted Today, 01:58 PM 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. Yes, it's called physics. It's an argument you started and a position you took, do you hear yourself?

"When the team fired a photon at the cavity, the atom’s dual personality caused two things to happen at once. In one of the 'parallel universes' of its superposition, the one in which the atom was resonant with the cavity, the photon did not enter: it just bounced back from the outside of one of the mirrors. In the other parallel universe, the photon entered the cavity, bounced between the two mirrors, and then exited again the same way it came in. The overall quantum state of the photon was not affected, but the state of the atom was: The phase between the coupled and the uncoupled state was shifted by 180 degrees. By reading this shift, the researchers could detect the passage of the photon, explains Ritter." http://www.nature.com/news/photons-detected-without-being-destroyed-1.14179 In 2013 it was groundbreaking to "detect the passage of the photon" without destroying it, so now you show me the link to an article or a paper or anything, that says that a photon has been DIRECTLY OBSERVED, which is not the same as "detect the passage".

Yes, you're agreeing with me but not understanding why. The physics you have won't work there because, you're trying to apply time based physics, to something that does not experience time. Or from my analogy earlier, you are the inmate, and photon is the guard, and you are trying to apply inmate rules to the guard.

Time dilation can only exist until 99.99% the speed of light, because if traveling at the speed of light, time no longer exists to be dilated. You're correct later in saying that the photon would not be able to observe time in any other frame, but because time still doesn't exist to the photon even if it is observing a frame where time does. You are not understanding the concept of "time does not exist". Correct, you can not have an observer moving at C. And since the photon travels at C, this means the photon can not be an observer. And since the laws of physics are the same to OBSERVERS moving in relative motion, and the photon CAN'T BE AN OBSERVER, the laws of physics are not the same for the photon as they are for the OBSERVER, because the photon is NOT AN OBSERVER. No, the absence of a valid transform of what we call time into what the photon would call time, IS THE EVIDENCE that FOR THE PHOTON, TIME DOES NOT EXIST. Everything else that we know of which we can transform via Lorentz, does experience time. So, if time DID EXIST FOR THE PHOTON, then we would BE ABLE to TRANSFORM "photon time" into "observer time". If Inertia existed for the photon, the photon would have an inertial frame of reference. But since it is not possible for the photon to have or not have inertia, there can never be an inertial frame of reference for the photon. I'm pretty sure that you're agreeing with me but you don't understand why.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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." So then the following two statements are conclusions from the idea that time does not exist to a photon, but does exist to an observer. Observer physics = space, space, space, time, gravity But for a photon, time doesn't exist so, Photon physics = space, space, space, gravity (or whatever, but not including time) How can physics that require time, explain a reality where time does not exist?

You totally believe that you observe the physics of light, yes. I don't know why you don't understand. Physics under the influence of time, not the same as, physics not under the influence of time.

Ok check this out... Time dilation and length contraction Both are laws of observer physics So neither are required to apply to a non observer like light. Light does not need to follow the physics of an observer because it is not an observer. In the instance of length contraction: "Length contraction is only in the direction parallel to the direction in which the observed body is travelling." Again, the photon would need to be traveling, which would require the passage of time. Since the photon is not traveling during its existence, the photon would not experience length contraction. In the instance of time dilation: The photon would not experience time dilation, it would be created already under the full effect of time dilation. The Photon is created at C, so it's time is already 0.

Space doesn't disappear in the direction of travel because if there is no time then there is no direction of travel. Or do you believe that travel can happen without change over time? Just because you're horrible at understanding a point of view that isn't your own doesn't mean my logic is flawed.

That doesn't agree with what Neil deGrasse Tyson implies in the video in my first post. In the video that I linked to on the very first comment, Neil deGrasse Tyson explains the "timelessness" of photons, so you should watch that.

The physics of a photon = The physics of an observer(-time). Observer's frame = Space, Space, Space, Time Photon's frame = Space, Space, Space Why do you think it's not possible for you to translate one to the other? The observer's frame would, by definition, include variables for time. The Photon's frame would, by definition, have no place settings to insert those variables for time. It's like trying to run Direct X 11 software on a Direct X 10 GPU. There's more information in the software than the hardware knows what to do with.

I don't know what you mean? I've never taken a physics class before I'm approaching this all from a logic point of view so I appreciate your patience with my ideas and unfamiliar language. My first question is, does "translates meaningfully" basically imply "have an effect on". Can I show that time has an effect on the photon?

Well let's take great care then. But it has to be recognized at some point that the photon's point of view would not include time, so physics would not be the same for the photon as they are for us because our physics depend on an existence where there is time. It isn't accurate to measure a photon with velocity or speed because both velocity and speed require one moment to pass into a next moment and a photon is not experiencing one moment passing to the next moment. It "appears" that the photon "travels" that way if you're looking through the scope of time but it isn't actually possible for a photon to "travel" because it only ever gets one single non-existent unit of what we call "time" for its entire existence to fit into. Like the photon is created in an "extra dimensional space" where time doesn't exist, only the extra space is between two of our moments. You might think of it like cramming the DISTANCE of a thousand light years, in between 0:01 and 0:02 seconds. The photon's passing causes the disturbance in our dimension known as the electromagnetic wave, that follows the path of the photon like thunder following lightning, only the wave has to move from moment to moment where the photon passed through that space "timelessly".

I'm trying to keep up I agree with you. Can you explain a non-inertial frame better? Does "no inertia" equate to the same thing as "no passing time"? That's correct. But just because it isn't science doesn't mean it's not reality. Ultimately, it is testable, but to test it, you have to perform a test outside of the existence of time, because you're trying to measure a particle that exists outside of the existence of time.

I mean whatever you mean when you say that light is not an observer.

Since you can't be an observer traveling at the speed of light, you can't know that "any" observer would observe light the same way. You can know that, all observers who are not traveling at the speed of light observe light the same way. But you can't know that "any" observer would observe light the same way. And then you'll say, it is BECAUSE we can never be an observer traveling at the speed of light, that it doesn't matter that we can't know what light would behave like if we were traveling at the speed of light. It's like asking, what would I look like if I turned myself inside out, or some other ridiculous notion. But, turning myself inside out and looking at myself is not possible and can't happen. Where as Light does travel at the speed of light, and at the speed of light, since light is no longer an observer, the laws of physics that apply to an observer are not guaranteed to apply to light. Why not? Because the laws of physics are only necessarily the same for two observers, they are not necessarily the same for an observer and a non observer.

But that IS a problem, because even though we are never in that frame, the photon is in that frame. That frame of light, that physics can't describe, does exist, and the photon may behave radically different in that frame than it "appears" to, in our frame. The laws of physics may be radically different in that "non-observers frame", than they are in any "observers" frame. The speed of light is on the other side of a horizon where time doesn't exist. It can't be accurate to apply physics that depend on time (an observer's physics) to a particle that doesn't depend on time (light/a non observer).

Do the laws of physics apply to something if it is not an observer?

To whom do the laws of physics apply? "All observers" Is light an observer? "No" The laws of physics apply to all "observers", but this does not mean that the laws of physics apply to light, which is not an observer. You apply physics to light because physics is how you understand particles and waves and light is perfectly both of those, a particle and a wave, so it makes sense that physics should apply. But Being an "observer" overrules "being a particle and a wave". Since light is not an observer and since the laws of physics only apply to observers you can't accurately apply physics to light even though it is both a particle and a wave because it is still not an observer and physics (as far as you understand it) only applies to all observers. And light is not an observer. Why do you keep asking me what something that, "isn't an observer" or "doesn't have a frame" is? You are the one telling me that light is not an observer and doesn't have a frame.

"All the laws of physics are the same in any frame" But I understand that light is not a frame. So there's no reason to assume that "all the laws of physics are the same in (not a frame)". Physics wouldn't exist where there is not a frame. Light is not a frame.