Photons are clocks and SR says they shouldn't tick

In summary: And a very poor one at that.In summary, the conversation discusses the time dilation formula and its implications for clocks moving along with a photon. It is argued that if the denominator in the formula is zero, the numerator must also be zero for the theory of special relativity to avoid self-contradiction. However, it is pointed out that different reference frames will give different measurements for a photon's frequency due to the Doppler effect. The conversation also addresses the issue of alternative theories to special relativity and a statement is made about Einstein worshippers.
  • #1
StarThrower
220
1
Suppose the time dilation formula is true:

[tex] \Delta t = \frac{\Delta t^\prime}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} [/tex]

if v = c then the denominator is zero.

If the denominator is zero and there is division by zero error then the numerator is nonzero.

If the denominator is zero and there isn't division by zero error then the numerator is zero.

Assume the time dilation formula doesn't lead to division by zero error.

Thus, if the denominator in the formula is zero then the numerator is zero.

Consider a photon moving through an inertial reference frame.

By the fundamental postulate of the theory of special relativity, the speed of this photon is c.

It follows that the denominator is zero. For the theory of special relativity to avoid self-contradiction, it follows that the numerator must be zero.

Thus, if there were a clock attached to a photon that moves along with a photon, that clock cannot be ticking (since delta t` is an amount of time measured by a clock moving at speed v in an inertial reference frame).

Thus, any clock moving along with a photon, cannot be ticking.

A photon has an intrinsic frequency. Thus, something within the photon is cycling at regular intervals. Thus, a photon constitutes a clock which is ticking.

This contradiction indicates that there is an error in the special theory of relativity.

Regards,

The Star
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #2
A photon has an intrinsic frequency.

No it doesn't. Different reference frames give different measurements for a photon's frequency. We call this the Doppler effect.


And, in the limit, the Doppler effect predicts that the frequency of a photon would be redshifted to zero in the photonic "frame", so there's no problem here even when assuming the limit is valid.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
StarThrower said:
Thus, any clock moving along with a photon, cannot be ticking.

A photon has an intrinsic frequency. Thus, something within the photon is cycling at regular intervals. Thus, a photon constitutes a clock which is ticking.

This contradiction indicates that there is an error in the special theory of relativity.

Regards,

The Star

Why does this argument sound oh so familiar? Is it because... StarThrower gave us a substantially similar argument in a thread StarThrower started YESTERDAY?

And why is it that SR predicts that all observers will measure c to have an identical value, while not making the same prediction about photon frequency (which is subject to redshift and blueshift)? Is it because SR makes correct predictions? Why, yes, that is the case!

On the other hand, why is StarThrower seemingly incapable of putting forth an alternative predictive theory as a part of his apparent obsession with dethroning SR? He has dismissed the idea that SR does not apply when the velocity of the reference frame v=c. Yet he offers no substitute for use when v<c other than SR itself.

Hmmm. Maybe I will start a thread critical of SR because it does not account for leprechauns.
 
  • #4
This thread is positively ridiculous.

StarThrower, perhaps it has escaped your attention, but pet theories that attempt to disprove relativity (especially those based on gross misunderstandings of the theory, such as your pet theories) are to be posted in the Theory Development Forum.

*kick*

Off you go.
 
  • #5
Hurkyl said:
No it doesn't. Different reference frames give different measurements for a photon's frequency. We call this the Doppler effect.


And, in the limit, the Doppler effect predicts that the frequency of a photon would be redshifted to zero in the photonic "frame", so there's no problem here even when assuming the limit is valid.

Yes, there is a problem here, you are practically standing on top of it.

Kind regards,

The Star
 
  • #6
DrChinese said:
Why does this argument sound oh so familiar? Is it because... StarThrower gave us a substantially similar argument in a thread StarThrower started YESTERDAY?

And why is it that SR predicts that all observers will measure c to have an identical value, while not making the same prediction about photon frequency (which is subject to redshift and blueshift)? Is it because SR makes correct predictions? Why, yes, that is the case!

On the other hand, why is StarThrower seemingly incapable of putting forth an alternative predictive theory as a part of his apparent obsession with dethroning SR? He has dismissed the idea that SR does not apply when the velocity of the reference frame v=c. Yet he offers no substitute for use when v<c other than SR itself.

Hmmm. Maybe I will start a thread critical of SR because it does not account for leprechauns.

Why would I offer an alternative theory to SR, Newton gave it almost 400 years before SR.

Kind regards,

The Star
 
  • #7
Tom Mattson said:
This thread is positively ridiculous.

StarThrower, perhaps it has escaped your attention, but pet theories that attempt to disprove relativity (especially those based on gross misunderstandings of the theory, such as your pet theories) are to be posted in the Theory Development Forum.

*kick*

Off you go.

I'm not propounding a theory, I'm just doing algebra.

Kind regards,

The Star

P.S. You know, it really is scary how many Einstein worshippers are here. You guys are like mystical about a theory which is so obviously erroneous as to make me want to vomit.

A reference frame in which a photon is at rest happens to be an inertial reference frame, so the whole theory is self-contradictory.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
StarThrower said:
I'm not propounding a theory, I'm just doing algebra.

Then where did you get

StarThrower said:
A photon has an intrinsic frequency.
and
StarThrower said:
A reference frame in which a photon is at rest happens to be an inertial reference frame,

?
 
  • #9
StarThrower said:
I'm not propounding a theory,

Yes, you are. You have in a single sentence propounded a theory of the photon (that "intrinsic frequency" nonsense, remember?)

I'm just doing algebra.

And you aren't even doing that correctly.

P.S. You know, it really is scary how many Einstein worshippers are here. You guys are like mystical about a theory which is so obviously erroneous as to make me want to vomit.

Pffft.

A reference frame in which a photon is at rest happens to be an inertial reference frame, so the whole theory is self-contradictory.

Since there is no reference frame in which a photon is at rest, this is moot.
 
  • #10
Tom Mattson said:
Since there is no reference frame in which a photon is at rest, this is moot.

Hey Tom, could I bother you for some sources on this discussion? I'm a novice with SR and the topic of a photon's reference frame has me puzzled. I've determined on my own that a photon's spacetime diagram would be very unorthodox (that the length of each unit on the ct axis would be [tex]\infty[/tex] and the length of each unit on the x-axis would be 0). But I wondered if you have some sources that discuss this in great detail.

I have a feeling that in the end it will turn up like dividing by zero...I'll just have to trust that it's undefined. Don't get me wrong, I want that to be true!

Thanks!
 

What is the concept of "Photons are clocks"?

The concept of "Photons are clocks" is a thought experiment proposed by physicist Albert Einstein. It suggests that photons, which are particles of light, can be used as clocks to measure time.

What does SR (Special Relativity) say about photons as clocks?

According to SR, photons cannot be used as clocks because they do not experience time in the same way as other objects. They always travel at the speed of light, which means that time does not pass for them.

Why do photons not experience time?

Photons do not experience time because they are massless particles that always travel at the speed of light. This means that they do not age or decay, unlike objects with mass that experience the passage of time.

How does the concept of "Photons are clocks" challenge our understanding of time?

The concept of "Photons are clocks" challenges our understanding of time by suggesting that time is relative and can be experienced differently by different objects. It also raises questions about the nature of time and whether it is a fundamental aspect of the universe or simply a human construct.

Are there any practical applications of the idea of "Photons are clocks"?

While the concept of "Photons are clocks" may not have direct practical applications, it has been used in thought experiments to further our understanding of the nature of time and space. It has also played a crucial role in the development of theories such as Special Relativity and has led to advancements in fields like quantum mechanics and cosmology.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
58
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
65
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
101
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
649
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
415
  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
115
Views
5K
Back
Top