It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The photon's perspective

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
As we know, photons only travel through space, not time like we do. So what would a photon see?

Due to it's very nature, the photon should see things as absolutely still, in a moment of time. A snapshot of the universe.

We look at a star that's 100 light years away and we think to ourselves, "hmm, ok what I'm seeing is what that star looked like 100 years ago". But what does the photon see? Does it see it as it exists now?

For that matter, if a photon is sent out and arrives at a planet that wasn't even created until after the photon was sent out, does that mean it sees into the future? I suppose from the photon's perspective it wouldn't be the future, but from ours it would be.

Ugh. Physics. Must.... understand!




posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Kruel
 


Photons don't have eye, so they don't see anything.

Photons do travel through time, they travel forward through time like everything does.

Why do you think photons don't travel through time? We can bend light, we can even slow it down, light is not a constant (otherwise I would never be able to turn on or turn off a light).

-Lahara



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I guess you may be kind of right, but that's only assuming that Einstein's second postulate doesn't apply to photons.

If the second postulate did apply, then photons would see other photons moving past them at 'c', thus everything else would not look like a still picture.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by daniel_g]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Makes you wonder what the speed of light would be if that photon had headlights.

I think light is nothing more than the result of released energy and that energies effect on the vaccum somewhat like how energy moves through water as waves. The water does not move but is moved up as the energy moves through it. Oddly, perhaps light is the missing Dark Energy =).



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by daniel_g
 


Incorrect, kind sir.


The photon would never pass another photo, despite going faster. The reason is time dilation. Though the photon may take only one "second" to catch up, in the 'real Universe, that will be many billions of years. In fact the death of the Universe (in real time) will occur before the photon ever catches up to an "imaginary" observer riding on the first photon.

Good discussion.

Any one like to tackle the "What if the Sun were to suddenly disappear" problem?


Only real physics nerds need reply. (j/k)



[edit on 19/10/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


Any one like to tackle the "What if the Sun were to suddenly disappear" problem?

We wouldn't know for a few minutes (however long light takes to travel from sun to here).......But.....Would the lack of the suns gravitational pull be felt instantaneously?

I think our lack of understanding on the true nature of gravity will leave us scratching our heads and chalking it up to "Spooky action at a distance".

Peace



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRandom1
reply to post by Kruel
 

Photons do travel through time, they travel forward through time like everything does.


Yes, from our perspective, but not from a photon's. Photons do not age, for they exist in an instant. From their perspective they arrive at their destination instantaneously.

What makes me curious is this: if from a photon's perspective it's connected to it's destination instantaneously, then what if we could tap into that? You know... be able to measure or detect distant objects in a future time frame. Maybe photons can see the end of the universe.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
This is too much for me on a Monday morning. It's all very interesting though.
Any good links on this topic?



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Kruel
 

An 'instant' to a particle moving at the speed of light is how long in 'real (human) time'.

They go from place-to-place very quicky, but when they get back, we have aged thousands, millions, and billions of years.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
To sum it up quickly (as I understand it): Distance and time do not exist for a photon. It leaves the star Sirius and arrives here on Earth without any time passing, and without any notion that it has traveled 8.6 lightyears. From it's perspective, it did not go anywhere, yet it's now here on Earth hitting our retina's.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Right... now consider this thought from a quanta (photon) perspective:

Photon 1 leaves Planet A and hits Planet B. As Photon 1 arrives at Planet B, Photon 2 leaves Planet B, but it doesn't arrive at Planet A at the same time as Photon 1 leaves it! Even though from their perspectives it's all instantaneous.

This would mean that both photons see Planet B the same way, and perhaps even 'see' each other, but they view Planet A at different times. Amiright?



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheBandit795
 


It's all about inertial frame of reference. For the Photon it's not possible to define one, because the math breaks down when the numbers reach infinity.

Example: displacement = distance x time. What happens when T=infinity. Does that mean a stationary object has an infinite displacement?
=====
There are two equations used to find displacement, or delta-x:

delta-x = (1/2)*(vi + vf)t

where t = time, vi = initial velocity, and vf = final velocity
(constant acceleration)
-and-
delta-x = vi + (1/2)* a * t2

where t = time, vi = initial velocity, and a = acceleration.
=====
When you set t=infinity these break down. Make sense?



A photon may go from one end of the Universe instantaneously from its inertial frame, but the Universe will have died and been reborn many times in our frame of reference before this is observed.

Incidentally on a related topic:

Astronomers have a special convention when dealing with distant objects.

They will refer to the great supernova of 1987 and the supernova of 1604. But since the 1987 nova was in another Galaxy, it happened many millions of years before the 1604 event which was in the Milky Way.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
reply to post by daniel_g
 


Incorrect, kind sir.


The photon would never pass another photo, despite going faster.


No, I'm not wrong, however, we are both right, and wrong. Let me explain:

I'm am describing events as they would be seen by a single photon reference frame, you are describing the events as seen from, say, a person from Earth looking at the photons.

What does time dilatation say? It says that if I were riding a photon, I would see the whole universe die(or whatever happens to it at T=infinite) in an instant, but a second photon would still catch me in my lifespan, doesn't matter if the universe has died, it will still catch up. It is from the reference frame of some other observer not riding the photon that it would never catch me(actually it would at infinity, but no human could ever live to see that...).

You mentioned 'real universe' and 'real time'. There is no such thing, it's all relative. If I was in fact traveling at c, we would have two realities: My reality and your reality. Now I could have pointed out from the beginning that that I can't travel at 'c', but then we'd have nothing to discuss. That's why I said we were both wrong, we can't tie a reference frame to a photon since we'd break the second postulate hence the reason of the assumption in my first reply.


[edit on 19-10-2008 by daniel_g]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
reply to post by TheBandit795
 


=====
When you set t=infinity these break down. Make sense?



A photon may go from one end of the Universe instantaneously from its inertial frame, but the Universe will have died and been reborn many times in our frame of reference before this is observed.



make sense? no
But it's so cool and confusing ^_^



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:56 AM
link   
I thought learning was supposed to be fun?My brain crashed and had to reboot and now i cant access certain parts of my memory.
Hope you lot are happy.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by daniel_g
 

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think you're 'arguing' from a layperson's point of view and not from that of a physicist.

Inertial reference frame and time dilation make your initial question invalid anyway.

Google "Why God doesn't ride Photons"

[edit on 20/10/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01

Inertial reference frame make your initial question invalid anyway.


Yes, just as I pointed out on my last reply.


Originally posted by Badge01

time dilation make your initial question invalid anyway.


No, time dilatation does not make it invalid, in fact, it explains why we would see the universe die quick if we were traveling at 'c'.


Originally posted by Badge01

I think you're 'arguing' from a layperson's point of view and not from that of a physicist


Really? I'm not the one that tried to explain speed of light using non relativistic equations. BTW, double check your queations:

1- displacement != distance*time

2- delta-x = vi + (1/2)* a * t2: Set a=0 and see what happens..





[edit on 20-10-2008 by daniel_g]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
the light really isn't traveling at all its stationary we just happen to move through its space due to expansion... or not



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Here's a link I found which puts things into perspective pretty well I thought: riding a photon


keep in mind that photons don’t have time to age, and photons arrive the instant they are emitted. A photon emitted in the furthest star that we can see by telescope arrives the instant it is emitted. (From the photon’s point of view). They live an instantaneous “go-splat” life. From our point of view it may have taken billions of years to get here. Both viewpoints are valid. That is the weird nature of relativistic speeds. Time and space are distorted.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
The we all need to paddle faster so we live longer =). This stuff is all so cool.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join