Light Beam Travel: Can I See Light Standing Still?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter shankar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light Speed
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conceptual question of whether one could perceive light as standing still if traveling alongside it at the speed of light. Participants explore the implications of this scenario, touching on topics such as the nature of light, relativistic effects, and quantum phenomena.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if traveling at the speed of light would allow them to see light as motionless, suggesting a hypothetical scenario.
  • Another participant asserts that light is always measured to travel at speed c, regardless of the observer's speed.
  • A modified question introduces the idea of photons being conscious and able to observe each other, raising further questions about their perception of time and distance.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of Lorentz transformations, noting that they are derived for speeds less than c and may not apply to light itself.
  • There is a debate about whether photons have mass, with some stating they have no rest mass but possess energy, while others question how they can be captured or delayed in experiments.
  • One participant mentions experiments that reportedly delay photons, prompting discussion about the nature of these experiments and the distinction between absorption and delay.
  • Another participant connects the discussion to the concept of time dilation and length contraction, expressing confusion over the apparent contradiction between light's speed and its perception of time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints, with no consensus reached on the nature of light's speed, the implications of relativistic effects, or the interpretation of experimental results regarding photons. Multiple competing views remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note limitations in understanding the implications of Lorentz transformations and the nature of quantum effects, indicating that the discussion involves complex and unresolved concepts.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the nature of light, relativistic physics, quantum mechanics, and the philosophical implications of speed and perception in physics.

shankar
Messages
17
Reaction score
1
if iam traveling along a light beam and if my speed matches (dosent happen,if) can i see the ligth standing still...
 
Science news on Phys.org
No, light will always be measured to have speed c, for every observer, regardless of your speed with respect to other objects.

So if you were able to attain .9999c with respect to the Earth any experiment to measure the speed of light would yield c.
 
Allow me to modify the question
somewhat to satisfy my curiosity
about this: Let us stipulate two
laser beams traveling in space
as parallel as possible. The
photons in these beams are con-
sious and intelligent and they
have eyes. If the photons in one
beam look at the photons in the
other do they seem to be motion-
less or whizzing by at C?
 
Photons do not know time or distance. To a photon the universe is a point, it takes zero time to traverse it. So they cannot observe antother photon, being as they spend zero time in transit.
 
How is it that crossing the Univer
-se takes 0 time from the photons
perspective when it seems to us
to take trillions, or whatever,
years? Why is the universe a
point to a photon?
 
Are you familiar with the Lorentz transforms? When your velocity is c, time dilation and length contraction reduce time and distance to nothing. So as far as a photon is concerned, the instant it is emitted it is adsorbed, it has gone no distance in no time.

Edit: Typo
 
Last edited:
Yes, I'm familiar with the Lorentz
Transformation, and, I see what
you're saying makes sense in light
of them (pun intended).

I'm sure you can understand that
this situation presents as a
contradiction: we measure light
to go at 300,000 kilometers a
second, but light perceives its
own travel as instantaneous. This
bothers me.

Regardless, thanks for your expl-
anations.

-Zoobyshoe
 
Last edited:
Perhaps it the precieved speed is in reality a Quantum effect, haveing to do with the Plack Time and Distance. I feel your pain, why if Light sees no time and no distance, do we preceive a finite speed.

Wonders of the universe.
 
Once again, it has been forgotten that Lorentz transformations have been set up and derived for observer systems of coordinates with a speed v less than c between them. In order to arrive at the transformation, light must be capable of going from one observer to the other and back again, at any time, according to either observer's clocks. The transformation is not expected to work when v is set to c and the Lorenz factor becomes 1/0. Light itself cannot comprise an observer system under this scheme.
 
  • #10
Still learning here so help me out fella's. Photons do/don't have mass? If they do, and since they are already at c, why don't they have infinite mass already? If they don't, how can they be captured, stalled, and/or held as I've seen in so many experiments that have been reported as of late?

Does the time dilation and length contraction bit, for a photon, equate to tunnelling(sp)?

Thank you in advance.

E6S
 
  • #11
Photons do/don't have mass?
Photons don't have rest mass. But they do have energy, which we translate to "relativistic mass".

If they don't, how can they be captured, stalled, and/or held as I've seen in so many experiments that have been reported as of late?
Uh... stalled/held? Which experiments?

The key postulate of relativity is that light travels at c regardless of frame of reference.

Tunnelling is IIRC a quantum phenomenon, due to quantum uncertainty in particle involved.
 
  • #12
I'm almost positive that I followed a link from this site to a BBC story where a group of Scientists were able to at least "delay" a photon a measurable amount of time. I want to say they were Nederlanders but that part I'm not sure of. I believe either AMES RC or SWRI duplicated it, but then again, I could be completely wrong.

DANG! Not a whole lot of concrete info coming from me nowadays. If I find it would you like a PM or a re-post here?

E6S
 
  • #13
Originally posted by Echo 6 Sierra
I'm almost positive that I followed a link from this site to a BBC story where a group of Scientists were able to at least "delay" a photon a measurable amount of time. I want to say they were Nederlanders but that part I'm not sure of. I believe either AMES RC or SWRI duplicated it, but then again, I could be completely wrong.

DANG! Not a whole lot of concrete info coming from me nowadays. If I find it would you like a PM or a re-post here?

E6S

What happens in these experiments is the the photon is absorbed by an atom, and the atom stores the properties of the photon until triggered. It then emits an exact copy of the original photon. The effect is as if the photon was delayed, but what really happens is that it ceases to exist as a photon while its information is stored in the atom. As long as a photon exists as such, it will travel at c.
 
  • #14
Originally posted by shankar
if iam traveling along a light beam and if my speed matches (dosent happen,if) can i see the ligth standing still...



SWEET work man! You just asked yourself the same question einstein did before he invented relativity to deal with it. The answer (known before relativity) is that no matter how fast you go, light is always traveling the speed of light faster. You can never see a beam of light standing still. This is precisely why you can never REACH the speed of light, since it's always faster! This mind boggling answer is what leads to time distortion and all that confusing stuff.
 
  • #15
Janus: from the links he supplied, it looks like Echo etc was referring more to experiments involving the production of BECs, where what you said may not apply. (But then again, I am mostly ignorant as to the nature of Bose-Einstein condensates) In any case, can you (or anyone else) enlighten us?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
8K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
11K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K