A general discussion on the relationship between Photons and Time.

[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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Alias Moniker

[Klaynos]

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.

Can you show this to be true?

 

It can be shown that the Lorentz transformations do not good when v=c which if you are being sloppy or taking to non scientist could be said that time didn't exist but strictly that is not a valid statement so either back it up or stop making the assertion.

 

 

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. if time DID EXIST FOR THE PHOTON, then we would BE ABLE to TRANSFORM "photon time" into "observer time".

No, that's just evidence that the physics we currently have doesn't work there. You cannot make further statements.

[Alias Moniker]

No, that's just evidence that the physics we currently have doesn't work there. You cannot make further statements.

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.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Alias Moniker

[swansont]

It would require an infinite amount of energy to reduce the speed of the photon enough for any observer to observe it.

 

No, not really. It's sloppy to equate "violates physics" with "takes an infinite amount of energy"

 

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.

 

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.

 

People that misuse theory like this generally don't understand the way the word is used in science. Yes, it's theory — we have a model and mountains of evidence to support that model. That's what a theory is.

 

We don't have physics that works in the photons point of view — equations for time and length diverge. Semantics aside, so what? Is there a point to this?

[Alias Moniker]

"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".

Edited July 20, 2014 by Alias Moniker

[swansont]

"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".

 

Or perhaps not, as this is a straw man argument, and nobody has to defend a position they aren't taking.

[Alias Moniker]

 

Or perhaps not, as this is a straw man argument, and nobody has to defend a position they aren't taking.

 

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?

 

Edited July 20, 2014 by Alias Moniker

[Mordred]

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/162289-light-stopped-completely-for-a-minute-inside-a-crystal-the-basis-of-quantum-memory

 

done light is only c in a vacuum, we've been slowing light down for a while with the use of supercooled mediums and this method

 

just a side note here is a single photon detector

http://www.toshiba-europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotondetection.html

 

here is the single photon LED

http://www.toshiba-europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotonled.html

Edited July 20, 2014 by Mordred

[Klaynos]

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.

You are yet to show this assertion to be true.

[Alias Moniker]

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/162289-light-stopped-completely-for-a-minute-inside-a-crystal-the-basis-of-quantum-memory

 

done light is only c in a vacuum, we've been slowing light down for a while with the use of supercooled mediums and this method

 

Come on guys, you tell me I'm using my words wrong but check your own sources. The link you gave goes to this link for the actual write up of the experiment. http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/80

 

Even though the title of your link says "light stopped", if you read the summary it clearly says that the light is converted into a magnetic spin, stored, and then converted back into light. The light itself is never stopped.

 

You've been slowing down the electromagnetic wave of light for years but, as the article I linked to above clearly shows if you would bother to actually read what I'm saying, the Photon has still not been directly observed, or slowed down, without being destroyed.

 

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?

But the photon doesn't EXIST in your frame. You can't measure something in your frame if it does not exist in your frame.

[Mordred]

and your point is what,? all observations of particles is an interaction measurement, this does nothing to solve your problem with photons having an observation frame of reference.

 

your worried and fighting a problem that isn't one, you can never have an observer at c so why do you feel this is a problem? your worried to death over an impossibility. The metrics works for any valid observer reference frame, v=c is not a valid reference frame simple as that

Edited July 20, 2014 by Mordred

[Klaynos]

Taking about whether photons "exist" in a frame is philosophy, not physics. The photon can interact, therefore you can measure its properties in whatever inertial frame you want.

[swansont]

 

It's an argument you started and a position you took, do you hear yourself?

 

 

Agreeing that "observations" of photons consists of seeing how they interact with other objects, from our point of view is hardly asserting that we directly observe photons, if I'm understanding what you mean by direct observation..

 

But the photon doesn't EXIST in your frame. You can't measure something in your frame if it does not exist in your frame.

 

Bollocks. The photon exists in all frames of reference. It has to. For the photon to exist in one frame but not another would violate one of the basic ideas of relativity.

 

Don't try that argument to get out of a speeding ticket. "I wasn't in your frame, officer. I didn't exist, so you couldn't have measured me!" isn't going to work.

[Strange]

It would require an infinite amount of energy to reduce the speed of the photon enough for any observer to observe it.

 

And yet, I can see the world around me quite well.

 

 

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.

 

This is not your theory, this is your baseless speculation.

 

Of course the explanations of light are theories. What would you expect? That is what science does: create theories and test them.

Time dilation can only exist until 99.99% the speed of light

 

Please provided some evidence to support his assertion. Or stop making stuff up.

 

We regularly accelerate things to far higher velocities than this. The time dilation effects are exactly as predicted by relativity.

But the photon doesn't EXIST in your frame. You can't measure something in your frame if it does not exist in your frame.

 

And yet we measure photons all the time. Why do keep saying things that are so obviously untrue?

[swansont]

 

We regularly accelerate things to far higher velocities than this. The time dilation effects are exactly as predicted by relativity.

 

Energies, yes. Speeds or velocities, not so much.

[Alias Moniker]

http://www.livescience.com/24509-light-wave-particle-duality-experiment.html

[Mordred]

good article thanks for posting it wouldn't mind reading the arxiv paper on the experiment. Not sure why you posted it here considering no one is arguing wave-particle duality.

 

the topic is whether a photon can have an observer reference frame the answer is no it can't

Edited July 21, 2014 by Mordred

[Alias Moniker]

http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q212.html



"The best understanding we have is that it [light] is a disturbance in the electromagnetic field of charged bodies."

Exactly what I said earlier. First "a particle" "travels" through space, but not through time. This causes the "disturbance in the electromagnetic field of charged bodies" that we call "light". Similar to how lightning causes thunder. And since the "particle" of light exists not in our reality, where there is time, but in another reality, where there is not time, it is not possible for us to currently observe the particle that causes the electromagnetic wave that we are able to observe. Passing through space but not passing through time causes an electromagnetic disturbance in "space time" that we call "light". Like creating friction between space and time.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Alias Moniker

[Mordred]

this is an earlier statement you made

"It would require an infinite amount of energy to reduce the speed of the photon enough for any observer to observe it."

 

all your doing is showing where your wrong in that statement and proving our case. What your posting is basic science there is no argument that we can measure light except for your statement

 

here maybe this will help

 

http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/

 

here is a free SR book.

 

page 55 Kinemetics

 

"Our universe does, however, contain ingredients such as light rays, gluons, and gravitational waves that travel at c, so we might wonder whether these things could be put together to form observers who do move at c.But this is not possible according to special relativity, because if we let v approach infinity ,extrapolation of figure d on p.54 shows that the Lorentz transformation would compress all of spacetime onto the lightcone,reducing its number of dimensions by 1.Distinct points would be merged, which would make it impossible to use this frame to describe the same phenomena that a subluminal observer could describe.That is,the transformation would not be one-to-one,and this is unacceptable physically."

 

there is your straight our of a textbook answer, which is exactly what we have been telling you all along. (this textbook is written by a PH.D instructor) see the list of the institutions that support it (one of the main reasons is its far simpler to understand than say Wald's general relativity by design this one is an introductory level book where Wald's is more advanced and yes I own copy, excellent book one of my favourites)

 

http://www.lightandmatter.com/books.html#adoptions_sr

 

 

 

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau here is a free one for GR

Edited July 21, 2014 by Mordred

[Alias Moniker]

this is an earlier statement you made

"It would require an infinite amount of energy to reduce the speed of the photon enough for any observer to observe it."

 

 

Science can observe and slow the electromagnetic wave but not the photon. The evidence for this has already been linked to. Science only "observes" a photon by observing how it interacts with reality, not directly. Read past links.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Alias Moniker

[Mordred]

I already agreed with that do you accept that the an observer at v=c is not valid or not? your argument on being able to stop light is pointless to the topic of this thread

 

a photon is never an observer, the only valid observers are subluminal that's what this whole argument has been about is your refusal to accept that understanding

 

we are subluminal observers and we can observe and measure light. we can see, we can measure its influences, enough to attempt to distinquish if its a particle or a wave, so obviously we can make make measurements on it. However this means we are OBSERVERS that are SUBLUMINAL.

 

an observer at c is not an observer period

 

here is the trillion sec camera taking images of light

http://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/trillionfps/

 

here is a non destructive means

http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2013/11/nondestructive-photon-detection.html

 

none of this is to the point of whether you can have an observer at c

 

quite frankly if you haven't figured it out with all the details and answers we've already provided then were just wasting our time...

 

live under whatever misconceptions and illusions you want

Edited July 21, 2014 by Mordred

[Alias Moniker]

There's a lot of overlap on this thread so I've started a cleaned up "Part 2" at the following link

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84565-part-2-light-and-time-discussion-a-new-theory-on-light-and-time-and-space-time/

[Alias Moniker]

Getting on the same page: I'll try to keep an updated list of reference material at the bottom of the post for the assumptions that I use.

Please read at least this first article. If you refute anything in this article especially, please provide your sources. It is slightly outdated at "Copyright 1997" but it's brief, and it establishes the most important aspect of this thread, which is that we don't understand what "light" truly is, outside of a relatively few, very specific mathematical properties.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q212.html

And some of those mathematical properties "appear" to "contradict" the physics of nearly everything else that we know of. For example, light is a wave but it "appears" to propagate without a medium (unlike any other form of wave energy that we know of?).

In the Lorentz transformation, if you calculate for the velocity of light the math is no longer possible to do. Indicating that it is not possible to use that law of physics, which applies to everything not moving at the speed of light, when dealing with the speed of light. It isn't that result is 0, and makes sense. It is that the result is "null", or "does not compute". When dealing with the speed of light, all of the steps in that mathematical transformation can not be completed, as they can when dealing with anything that is not moving at the speed of light.

 

Light is also incompatible with the concept of an inertial frame of reference, and the concept of being an "observer". The problem with these concepts isn't simply that we can do these calculations and they calculate out to be 0, and that would indicate that light can't exist. The problem is that the physics we use do not allow us to reach a final result when we account for something traveling at the speed of light. Indicating that it is not possible to use these physics to understand or relate to, the speed of light.

Special Relativity:

The speed of light in a vacuum is always C, regardless of the velocity of the observer.

The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion.

These two statements that we know as "Special Relativity" indicate that C (speed of light) does not follow the same laws of physics as the observer.

1. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion.

2. The observer is (anything that never travels at the velocity C).

3. The laws of physics are the same for (anything that never travels at the velocity C).

4. The laws of physics are not the same for anything that does travel at the velocity C.

 

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.

(work in progress)

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

Edited July 21, 2014 by Alias Moniker

[Mordred]

well at least some of your statements are getting closer to the truth. so some progress is being made. First off lets ignore that garbage pop media video you now know its garbage from your descriptive above.

 

"Special Relativity:
The speed of light in a vacuum is always C, regardless of the velocity of the observer.
The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion.

These two statements indicate that C (speed of light) does not follow the same laws of physics as the observer.
1. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion.
2. The observer never travels at the velocity C.
3. The laws of physics are the same for anything that never travels at the velocity C.

4. The laws of physics are not the same for anything that does travel at the velocity C"

 

this means that video you posted is garbage, and this above is accurate although it would be better to word it the "observed laws of physic"

 

"In the Lorentz transformation, if you calculate for the velocity of light the math is no longer possible to do. Indicating that it is not possible to use that law of physics"

 

inaccurate, any subluminal observer can use the Lorentz transformations, only v=c non existent observers have the issue with the lorentz transformions, but your rules already preclude that as being an observer. rules 1,2, 3 and 4

 

"Assume that "space time" is a prison. In the prison there are guards and inmates. Everyone in the prison follows rules"

 

as the only prisoners are observers, then light as an observer isn't in jail to follow those rules the rest of your jail analogy is pointless

 

"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"

 

correct

 

"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,"

 

incorrect, the photon cannot observe so it cannot observe time, however it does have time. Time is not stopped

 

here is the part you keep missing,

 

time moves normal for relative observer A looking at his own watch... however when he looks at someone else's watch (observer looking at another watch then he see's the time dilation.

 

time dilation is always relative to something else. hence the name special RELATIVITY.

 

time moves normal in the observers own frame of reference, its when he compares his frame of reference to another frame of reference that you have time dilation.

 

Lets put it this way the Lorentz tranformation's only occur between A and B it does not occur when A or B observes itself or any other object in its own reference frame

Edited July 21, 2014 by Mordred

[Sensei]

In the Lorentz transformation, if you calculate for the velocity of light the math is no longer possible to do. Indicating that it is not possible to use that law of physics, which applies to everything not moving at the speed of light, when dealing with the speed of light. It isn't that result is 0, and makes sense. It is that the result is "null", or "does not compute". When dealing with the speed of light, all of the steps in that mathematical transformation can not be completed, as they can when dealing with anything that is not moving at the speed of light.

Lorentz transformation is designed for particles that have rest mass..

 

Light is also incompatible with the concept of an inertial frame of reference, and the concept of being an "observer". The problem with these concepts isn't simply that we can do these calculations and they calculate out to be 0, and that would indicate that light can't exist. The problem is that the physics we use do not allow us to reach a final result when we account for something traveling at the speed of light. Indicating that it is not possible to use these physics to understand or relate to, the speed of light.

 

This message went through fiber wire on the bottom of ocean, with speed of light...

 

You can take fiber wires with lengths 1 km, 10 km, 100 km, and emit light to them from the same source, and calculate delay on other end of fiber wire.

 

You can send photons to satellite far away in cosmos, and measure delay of reply. And it'll be t=2*distance/c

Edited July 21, 2014 by Sensei