Quick question for a confused English major

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of light, particularly photons, and the implications of their behavior at the speed of light. Participants explore theoretical concepts related to the existence of light particles, their speed, and the perception of time in relation to light, with a focus on conceptual understanding rather than established conclusions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether a single photon could exist everywhere at once, suggesting that if time stops for light, it might be possible.
  • Another participant challenges the notion that light's speed implies time is not stopped relative to it, stating that being in a vacuum does not affect this concept.
  • A later reply indicates that the confusion surrounding light's behavior is common and acknowledges that light may be considered timeless and spaceless, complicating the understanding of its speed.
  • One participant expresses frustration over the lack of a clear answer to their questions, suggesting that the existence of light's speed presents a gap in theoretical understanding.
  • Another participant clarifies that photons do not exist in an inertial reference frame and that special relativity becomes singular at the speed of light, making it difficult to interpret light's behavior from a photon's perspective.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying degrees of confusion and frustration regarding the nature of light and its implications, with no consensus reached on the fundamental questions posed. Multiple competing views and interpretations remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding light's behavior, particularly regarding the implications of speed and time, and the challenges of interpreting infinite quantities in a finite context.

Eldian
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
English Major

Translation: Knows little to less about physics.

However, I have a question for some of you who DO know...

I realize that it's all theory and that we can know what happens AT the speed of light, but I'm wondering this:

Is it possible for only one singular light particle/wave thing (photon?? see, I told you I knew nothing), traveling at the speed of light, to exist, and simply be in all places at once? This may sound inane... but if time stops relative tothe particle, then it, technically, COULD be everywhere at once, and perhaps there is only one particle in the entire universe...

hmm... for that matter, why does it take any time, in our eyes, for light to travel anywhere? I mean, it has a speed, right? Which implies that time is NOT stopped relative to the light... or is it that it's not actually going C, because it's not in vaccuum?


So, what part am I getting wrong, here?

El.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Eldian said:
English Major

Translation: Knows little to less about physics.

However, I have a question for some of you who DO know...

I realize that it's all theory and that we can know what happens AT the speed of light, but I'm wondering this:

Is it possible for only one singular light particle/wave thing (photon?? see, I told you I knew nothing), traveling at the speed of light, to exist, and simply be in all places at once? This may sound inane... but if time stops relative tothe particle, then it, technically, COULD be everywhere at once, and perhaps there is only one particle in the entire universe...

Actually, that's not so bad. The problem is DEFINING what it means to "be in all places at once"!

hmm... for that matter, why does it take any time, in our eyes, for light to travel anywhere? I mean, it has a speed, right? Which implies that time is NOT stopped relative to the light... or is it that it's not actually going C, because it's not in vaccuum?
No, being in or not in vacuum has nothing to do with it. It is NOT true that light "has a speed" RELATIVE TO US "implies that time is NOT stopped relative to light". Not being light myself (there's a joke there I will NOT use!) and not moving at the speed of light, I have no idea what it would mean for time to be "stopped relative to the light" but it has nothing to do with light moving relative to us.

So, what part am I getting wrong, here?

El.[/QUOTE]
 
Eldian said:
...confused English Major...

So, what part am I getting wrong, here?

El.
The fact that you're confued actually means you do understand the implications reasonably well. At first glance, its so cointerintuitive, it should confuse anyone who can grasp it. You've got a good start (and welcome to PF!).

Some of the bizarreness of Quantum Mechanics may be related to the idea that light is timeless and spaceless, but in any case:
hmm... for that matter, why does it take any time, in our eyes, for light to travel anywhere? I mean, it has a speed, right? Which implies that time is NOT stopped relative to the light... or is it that it's not actually going C, because it's not in vaccuum?
You're having problems here because this line of reasoning does, indeed lead you to dead ends. Ie, if time is stopped for light, how can you even calculate speed from the light's frame of reference? The answer is, of course, you can't. Because of this, you can't really say light has a frame of reference of its own - there isn't much useful that can be said about it. So with that, its best to try not to think about riding along next to a beam of light just yet and think about what you really can do: travel around the world, in a plane, on a spaceship, and you'll always measure the speed of light to be C.
 
Hunh... okay then. So the answer is that there is no answer. Umm... I find it odd that there isn't even a theory to try and explain this... or is there? Does anyone know of any quasi-explanation? Doesn't the fact that light has a speed present a gaping hole in the theory itself?

It hurts my brain. Oh well... I guess neither science nor religion can explain it all. That's where faith comes in, eh?

Peace,
El.
 
Well, the reason there's no answer because it's not a well-formed question. Technically, a photon doesn't exist in an inertial reference frame, and the physics of special relativity becomes singular at the speed of light -- distances shrink to zero, times to infinity, and so on. The mathematics of infinite quantities is actually pretty straightforward, but you won't have much luck interpreting that math to arrive at a picture of how the world looks to a photon. Our human experience is based in the world of the finite, and we just can't expect those experiences to anything like those in the world of the infinite. It's a moot point, too, since a human can't ever go the speed of light, anyway. The question simply has no answer.

- Warren
 

Similar threads

High School A question about special relativity
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
High School Einstein thought experiment confusion: “light clock in a moving frame”
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Confused about time dilation -- motion vs energy
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
High School Question about the relative motion of an eye relative to light source
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Undergrad Understanding Spacetime simultaneity in twin paradox scenarios
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
High School Ride Gravitational Waves to Increase Speed?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Graduate Speed of Light for Bonnor Beam
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
Undergrad What if particles are moving near light speed and one slows?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
High School Experience Travel on a Photon: Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Universe
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Undergrad Questions regarding traveling speed in time and gravity as a force
  • · Replies 95 ·
4
Replies
95
Views
8K