Why don't photons experience time?


by la6ki
Tags: experience, photons, time
la6ki
la6ki is offline
#1
Jan27-13, 11:18 AM
P: 51
I am asking this question in order to clarify something which I thought I had understood.

First of all, let me say that I understand talking about the perspective (or frame of reference) of a photon doesn't make sense. Yet, after many searches in the web, I feel like there is a consensus among posters who seem to be the experts that for a photon there is no passage of time. Well, I don't understand that.

Let me clarify. When we're talking about, say, a spaceship moving at .5c, we say that an outside observer will 'accuse' the clocks in that spaceship as running slower. But for people on the spaceship, their clocks will still be moving at their regular speed. Is this correct?

If yes, then why can't we extend the same logic to a photon? It is moving at 100% of c and if it... had a clock attached to it, we would say that the clock is stopped. But won't the photon still perceive the clock as ticking at its regular rate?

To repeat, I understand that the question about a photon's perspective doesn't really make sense, but I'm only asking it because in the past 2 hours I saw the answer "a photon doesn't experience time" many times.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur
Hackathon team's GoogolPlex gives Siri extra powers
Bright points in Sun's atmosphere mark patterns deep in its interior
bcrowell
bcrowell is offline
#2
Jan27-13, 11:33 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
bcrowell's Avatar
P: 5,500
Quote Quote by la6ki View Post
If yes, then why can't we extend the same logic to a photon? It is moving at 100% of c and if it... had a clock attached to it, we would say that the clock is stopped.
You can't make a clock move at c.

Quote Quote by la6ki View Post
But won't the photon still perceive the clock as ticking at its regular rate?
Photons aren't observers, so they don't perceive anything.

FAQ: What does the world look like in a frame of reference moving at the speed of light?

This question has a long and honorable history. As a young student, Einstein tried to imagine what an electromagnetic wave would look like from the point of view of a motorcyclist riding alongside it. But we now know, thanks to Einstein himself, that it really doesn't make sense to talk about such observers.

The most straightforward argument is based on the positivist idea that concepts only mean something if you can define how to measure them operationally. If we accept this philosophical stance (which is by no means compatible with every concept we ever discuss in physics), then we need to be able to physically realize this frame in terms of an observer and measuring devices. But we can't. It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate Einstein and his motorcycle to the speed of light.

Since arguments from positivism can often kill off perfectly interesting and reasonable concepts, we might ask whether there are other reasons not to allow such frames. There are. One of the most basic geometrical ideas is intersection. In relativity, we expect that even if different observers disagree about many things, they agree about intersections of world-lines. Either the particles collided or they didn't. The arrow either hit the bull's-eye or it didn't. So although general relativity is far more permissive than Newtonian mechanics about changes of coordinates, there is a restriction that they should be smooth, one-to-one functions. If there was something like a Lorentz transformation for v=c, it wouldn't be one-to-one, so it wouldn't be mathematically compatible with the structure of relativity. (An easy way to see that it can't be one-to-one is that the length contraction would reduce a finite distance to a point.)

What if a system of interacting, massless particles was conscious, and could make observations? The argument given in the preceding paragraph proves that this isn't possible, but let's be more explicit. There are two possibilities. The velocity V of the system's center of mass either moves at c, or it doesn't. If V=c, then all the particles are moving along parallel lines, and therefore they aren't interacting, can't perform computations, and can't be conscious. (This is also consistent with the fact that the proper time s of a particle moving at c is constant, ds=0.) If V is less than c, then the observer's frame of reference isn't moving at c. Either way, we don't get an observer moving at c.
Naty1
Naty1 is offline
#3
Jan27-13, 12:02 PM
P: 5,634
Well, nobody knows for sure what photons experience.

The idea that photons 'don't experience time' comes from that fact that we know faster moving massive particles experience a slower passage of time than slow moving ones according to the laws of special relativity. That's been convincingly confirmed experimentally. So it's 'easy' [in some people's minds] to extrapolate that to massless photons [light] and figure they must "not experience any passage of time" since they move at the 'ultimate speed'...c. Exactly what that might mean nobody really knows. It doesn't make much sense as the prior post explains.

Was it Einstein who said " Eternity is no time at all for a photon."?? Well, somebody important said something like like that and it captures the idea.

Whatever the exact meaning, I hope eventually some part of the FAQ explanation above will be found incorrect. If we ever do figure it out perhaps we can use it to our advantage in ways not even understood now. Crazier things have happened.

After all, Einstein imagined catching up to light to observe what it would look like, so far understood to be an impossibility as explained above, yet years later emerged general relativity.

PeterDonis
PeterDonis is offline
#4
Jan27-13, 12:08 PM
Physics
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,506

Why don't photons experience time?


Quote Quote by Naty1 View Post
faster moving massive particles experience a slower passage of time than slow moving ones according to the laws of special relativity.
I think this is a misleading way of putting it, because it is frame-dependent; to the "faster moving massive particles", *we* are the ones whose time is "moving slower".

Quote Quote by Naty1 View Post
That's been convincingly confirmed experimentally.
Only in the frame-dependent sense given above.

Quote Quote by Naty1 View Post
So it's 'easy' to extrapolate that to massless photons [light] and figure they must "not experience any passage of time" since they move at the 'ultimate speed'...c.
It's "easy", but that doesn't mean it's correct.

Quote Quote by Naty1 View Post
Exactly what that might mean nobody really knows.
We know quite well what it means: it means that the concept of "passage of time" doesn't apply to photons. It means that there is a fundamental physical difference between objects that move on timelike worldlines, and objects that move on null worldlines. That's because "timelike" and "null" are two fundamentally different kinds of spacetime intervals.
PeterDonis
PeterDonis is offline
#5
Jan27-13, 12:10 PM
Physics
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,506
Quote Quote by Naty1 View Post
After all, Einstein imagined catching up to light to observe what it would look like, so far understood to be an impossibility as explained above
And that's exactly the conclusion Einstein reached from that thought experiment: what he imagined was not possible. *That* is what led him to relativity (and it was SR, not GR; the insights that led Einstein to GR had nothing to do with imagining catching up to light).
bcrowell
bcrowell is offline
#6
Jan27-13, 12:13 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
bcrowell's Avatar
P: 5,500
Quote Quote by Naty1 View Post
Well, nobody knows for sure what photons experience.
I disagree, for the reasons given in my #2. Which part of my argument in #2 do you disagree with?

Quote Quote by Naty1 View Post
Exactly what that might mean nobody really knows. It doesn't make much sense as the prior post explains.
I disagree with this statement. Does "prior post" refer to my #2? What I said was the opposite of your characterization. I claim that there is nothing at all mysterious or unknown about these issues. They've been well understood for literally 100 years.

Quote Quote by Naty1 View Post
Whatever the exact meaning, I hope eventually some part of the FAQ explanation above will be found incorrect. If we ever do figure it out perhaps we can use it to our advantage in ways not even understood now. Crazier things have happened.
I disagree that there is any real chance of our current understanding being overturned in this area. Science doesn't progress by overturning theories within the domains where they have already been verified by experiment. It progresses by modifying them to deal with new circumstances under which they had never been tested or were already known or expected to fail.

Quote Quote by Naty1 View Post
After all, Einstein imagined catching up to light to observe what it would look like, so far understood to be an impossibility as explained above, yet years later emerged general relativity.
I don't understand what you mean by this. I don't think general relativity has anything to do with this issue.
Naty1
Naty1 is offline
#7
Jan27-13, 12:35 PM
P: 5,634
Hi PeterDonis, bcrowell....

I do not disagree with anything you posted.....I was attempting to provide some perspective on how theories and understanding evolve....maybe my language is unhelpful.

Hopefully your comments will aid the OP.


Regarding my comments on Einstein imagining catching up to light: I was thinking about the fact that it was the issue of the constant speed of light and 'ether'..... that got him started on relativity.....[according to the accounts I have read] and that it was his 'crazy thought experiment' that eventually led to such an overall revolution in understanding.
Naty1
Naty1 is offline
#8
Jan27-13, 12:40 PM
P: 5,634
Quote by Naty1
So it's 'easy' to extrapolate that to massless photons [light] and figure they must "not experience any passage of time" since they move at the 'ultimate speed'...c.
It's "easy", but that doesn't mean it's correct.
yeah, thanks I did not mean it that way...I edited the earlier post to read.....

'easier [in some people's minds]"

referring to those who claim 'photons don't experience the passage of time.
PeterDonis
PeterDonis is offline
#9
Jan27-13, 12:45 PM
Physics
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,506
Quote Quote by Naty1 View Post
I was thinking about the fact that it was the issue of the constant speed of light and 'ether'..... that got him started on relativity.....[according to the accounts I have read] and that it was his 'crazy thought experiment' that eventually led to such an overall revolution in understanding.
I think this is true as far as it goes, but it's important to understand exactly what it was about the thought experiment that led to the "revolution". Einstein imagined moving at the same speed as an electromagnetic wave, and asked himself what he would observe if that were the case. The answer was that he would observe an electromagnetic wave that was stationary in space--i.e., oscillating in space but not in time. But such a wave is not a solution to Maxwell's Equations: they only allow waves that oscillate in *both* space and time. That made Einstein realize that there was something wrong with the premise of his thought experiment, and *that* led him to SR and its different view of space and time.
Naty1
Naty1 is offline
#10
Jan27-13, 01:53 PM
P: 5,634
I started, then stopped, a search in Google for
"who said 'Eternity is no time at all for a photon'....because I have forgotten....
and what turns up....THIS THREAD>> OMG We ARE being watched!!!!!!!!!!!!
SysAdmin
SysAdmin is offline
#11
Jan27-13, 02:08 PM
P: 29
isn't photon already experience time it self, by having internal clock, the photon frequency?
according to photon, it has frequency, according to us, we do not know the photon exist, up until we hit it. then after that, we assume, more or less the momentum and the frequency of it.

let say the photon sending graviton to earth. according to photon, earth is the one moving in accelerate, therefore it's getting smaller, while according to earth photon periodic is increased (T get bigger, f get smaller). Now imagine that the gravity is so big, it will make the frequency so high, than it is the actual meaning the Photon stop in time.

wait, am I wrong in here?
bcrowell
bcrowell is offline
#12
Jan27-13, 02:08 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
bcrowell's Avatar
P: 5,500
I googled and found this extremely intelligent remark, which I haven't made yet:

Quote Quote by bcrowell View Post
If CTCs are going to turn up on PF, the relativity subforum would be the logical place.
bcrowell
bcrowell is offline
#13
Jan27-13, 02:09 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
bcrowell's Avatar
P: 5,500
Quote Quote by Naty1 View Post
I started, then stopped, a search in Google for
"who said 'Eternity is no time at all for a photon'....because I have forgotten....
and what turns up....THIS THREAD>> OMG We ARE being watched!!!!!!!!!!!!
If CTCs are going to turn up on PF, the relativity subforum would be the logical place.
bcrowell
bcrowell is offline
#14
Jan27-13, 02:12 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
bcrowell's Avatar
P: 5,500
Quote Quote by SysAdmin View Post
isn't photon already experience time it self, by having internal clock, the photon frequency?
No, because this is the frequency measured by some observer who is not at rest relative to the photon, and it can have any value whatsoever depending on the observer. What makes a clock a clock is that its frequency has a specific, special value when you measure it in a frame at rest relative to the clock.
SysAdmin
SysAdmin is offline
#15
Jan27-13, 02:17 PM
P: 29
Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Not experiencing time is mean the periodic ticking of the clock is so high, it require eternity to the clock second hand reaching the next mark.

so it's not moving in space that stop, but moving in time. we perceive the clock is not moving, but actually it is moving. but the periodic so high the wave length become near to zero.
la6ki
la6ki is offline
#16
Jan27-13, 02:23 PM
P: 51
Thanks for the discussion guys. I couldn't really follow everything, tbh, but I think I more or less get it. Can you confirm for me if the following is true?

There is a qualitative jump between moving at .999999999999999999c and c. So, a particle with mass moving with the former will experience the same time it experiences if it were stationary, but it would perceive all other clocks as running slower. Similarly, all other observers will perceive the clock of the particle as running slower. However, a photon (moving at c) will not experience time at all, due to the qualitative difference I started with.

Is this more or less true?
SysAdmin
SysAdmin is offline
#17
Jan27-13, 02:23 PM
P: 29
What makes a clock a clock is that its frequency has a specific, special value when you measure it in a frame at rest relative to the clock.
If I'm moving in space 0.8c, I will eat for 10 ticking of my clock. But for earth observer, I eat, I dunno, 13 ticking of their clock. So according to them, my clock ticking is very slow compare to their ticking

So when I move 0.999...c, they will see my clock stop ticking. Isn't it?
Naty1
Naty1 is offline
#18
Jan27-13, 02:25 PM
P: 5,634
One of my motivations for posting here was that sometimes I find the FAQ's difficult to understand...when I first began here in the forums and read a few, I often gave up.... Now I am beginning, maybe, to understand them...usually only parts.

I post the following hoping the OP will find answers instructive:

From the FAQ..in post #2:

(This is also consistent with the fact that the proper time s of a particle moving at c is constant, ds=0.)
Could one of you experts explain what this means....maybe put this in the context of the OP's question...... do you think it a source of the common refrain the OP encounters....'why don't photons experience time'?? [I am not sure what to make of it.]

and how do we square this
If V=c, then all the particles are moving along parallel lines, and therefore they aren't interacting, can't perform computations, and can't be conscious.
Does this apply to only parallel or also to anti-parallel [opposite directions] light waves?? In other words, how do anti-parallel light waves interact if their frame time doesn't make sense?? [I can't answer this either.]

Also, on behalf of the OP, maybe I could ask:

If photons don't experience any time, how do they interact with a gravitational field? Doesn't that take some time?? Is that a refutation that their time can't be zero??
[I can't answer this one either.]


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Do photons experience "instant" lifetimes? Special & General Relativity 12
If light does not experience time, why does it take time to get here? General Physics 16
Does a photon experience time? General Physics 21
Our Experience of TIME Medical Sciences 0
Our experience of TIME General Discussion 2