The feeling of time while traveling at the speed of light

In summary: A) If no time would have passed then the photon, and the traveler on the photon would appear to be in more than one place at a time, in fact would he not be in every place within the path at the same time until the photon slows under the speed of light? Is that a paradox?No, it's not a paradox.
  • #1
arkay
2
0
So I have been wondering about something, this is completely theoretical obviously you cannot sit on a photon but think about this and let's see what you think...

We have a Photon traveling at the speed of light from one point to another. The origination point, a light source 1000 light years from Earth. Now, let's say a traverler is very tiny and sitting on that photon traveling from the light source to Earth.

A) If the photon is traveling at the speed of light, and time slows down relative to the item in transit, 1000 years will have passed on Earth before the journey is complete, however to the traveler, relatively, no time would have passed. So that leaves two questions: 1) For the traveler, how long would it "feel like", he was sitting on the photon? Was it instant, or was he sitting there for a thousand years? 2) If no time would have passed then the photon, and the traveler on the photon would appear to be in more than one place at a time, in fact would he not be in every place within the path at the same time until the photon slows under the speed of light? Is that a paradox?

B) Now let's take the same scenerio as A except slow the photon down so it is moving just under the speed of light, so the entire trip takes 1001 years now. Does that traveler feel as though he has been sitting on the photon for 1 year or 1001 years?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
arkay said:
So I have been wondering about something, this is completely theoretical obviously you cannot sit on a photon but think about this and let's see what you think...

I think that that in fact, it is not even theoretical, but that it's a pointless exercise.

I have already explained it before here, so - being a lazy physicist/mathematician, I'll just refer you to that thread :-)
 
  • #3
A) is not possible as mentioned by CompuChip, so I will stick with B).
arkay said:
B) Now let's take the same scenerio as A except slow the photon down so it is moving just under the speed of light, so the entire trip takes 1001 years now. Does that traveler feel as though he has been sitting on the photon for 1 year or 1001 years?
Actually it is 44.7 yrs for the traveller.
 
  • #4
Interesting that someone else had a very similar thought. Almost worded the scenerio the same as me too. Kinda wierd.

Anyway thanks for the link, that was a very interesting thread.
 
  • #5
In the link, a couple of responders said that, "You can claim 'photons don't age' if you like," and "For photons, the infinitesimal interval is zero, and in this sense, photons experience no time." I think the question both OP's either stated or hinted at what, if it was like something to be a photon, what would it be like? If a photon experienced, what would the experience be like?

If photons "experience no time", then can they experience change? Is change dependent on time?

I'm not sure if the question crosses out of physics and into philosophy, but I'd wondered the same thing myself and might have found an appropriate forum to gain some understanding.
 
  • #6
The short answer is that assuming photons experience time is like dividing by zero. It leads to contradictions. Other ways of saying this

"Garbage in, Garbage out" (a bit impolite, perhaps, I don't really mean to be perjorative, it's just that if you make an incorrect assumption, incorrect conclusions follow).

"Loaded question". ("A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial assumption such as a presumption of guilt. Or in this case, an assumption that relativity is invalid."). People want to ASSUME that they can travel as fast as light in spite of the fact that it's impossible. Why, I don't know. Some of it might be sloppy thinking, in terms of thinking that is possible to answer questions in a framework where the assumption is inconsistent with said framework without getting nonsense.
 
  • #7
DaleSpam said:
Actually it is 44.7 yrs for the traveller.

How it can be? Light never slows down, it just takes longer path, so time experienced by the photon rider (If there is any) will still be Zero.
 
  • #8
pervect said:
People want to ASSUME that they can travel as fast as light in spite of the fact that it's impossible. Why, I don't know.

I suspect in this case, with most people naturally having bad intuition for anything involving limits, it feels very natural to assume that v = c is just the limit case of the v < c theory.
 
  • #9
NoDoubt said:
How it can be? Light never slows down, it just takes longer path, so time experienced by the photon rider (If there is any) will still be Zero.
In case 2 we were explicitly discussing something slightly slower than c, e.g. an observer riding a pulse of light in a dielectric medium. Just use the spacetime interval formula to get the proper time.
 
  • #10
DaleSpam said:
In case 2 we were explicitly discussing something slightly slower than c, e.g. an observer riding a pulse of light in a dielectric medium. Just use the spacetime interval formula to get the proper time.

Oh.., I see, Now it is "something" slightly slower than c, Then the formula will work perfectly, But I thought I heard "photon moving just under the speed of light". Never heard that before. :smile:
 
  • #11
Did you even read the OP? Take it up with him, it isn't my scenario.
 
  • #12
CompuChip said:
I suspect in this case, with most people naturally having bad intuition for anything involving limits, it feels very natural to assume that v = c is just the limit case of the v < c theory.

So does that mean that the posters who said that photons don't age were wrong--or at least that they didn't have good justification for claim?

Maybe my hang-up is that I'm familiar with a framework for thinking about time for massive things that travel at less than the speed of light--but then there are these things that travel at the speed of light. Is there a way to think about time for them?
 
  • #13
You can certainly say that the proper time along the worldline of a pulse of light is 0.

The problem comes when people try to go beyond that and start talking about light's "perspective". In relativity an object's perspective refers specifically to the reference frame where that object is at rest. There is no inertial reference frame where light is at rest, so there is no unambiguous meaning to the term "photon's perspective", just as there is no unambiguous meaning to the "perspective" of a non-inertial object.

In both cases you have to define exactly what coordinate system you mean, and people asking such questions never do that.
 
  • #14
DaleSpam said:
You can certainly say that the proper time along the worldline of a pulse of light is 0.

The problem comes when people try to go beyond that and start talking about light's "perspective". In relativity an object's perspective refers specifically to the reference frame where that object is at rest. There is no inertial reference frame where light is at rest, so there is no unambiguous meaning to the term "photon's perspective", just as there is no unambiguous meaning to the "perspective" of a non-inertial object.

In both cases you have to define exactly what coordinate system you mean, and people asking such questions never do that.

Very interesting. So, if "perspective" in relativity refers to the reference frame of an object at rest, and light is never "at rest", is it true to say that light has no perspective? Or, is talking about a photon's perspective ambigious, but clear and sensical provided that you define a coordinate system?
 
  • #15

1. What is the theory of relativity and how does it relate to time travel at the speed of light?

The theory of relativity, proposed by Albert Einstein, states that the laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion. This means that time and space are relative and can be affected by factors such as gravity and velocity. When traveling at the speed of light, time slows down for the traveler compared to someone who is stationary. This is known as time dilation.

2. How does time dilation affect the perception of time for someone traveling at the speed of light?

Time dilation causes time to appear to slow down for the traveler. This means that while they may experience a few hours, days, or even years, for someone who is stationary, much more time may have passed. This phenomenon has been observed in experiments with atomic clocks on airplanes and satellites.

3. Can someone actually travel at the speed of light and experience time dilation?

According to the laws of physics, it is impossible for an object with mass to reach the speed of light. However, this does not mean that time dilation is impossible. In fact, it has been observed and measured in experiments with particles traveling at speeds close to the speed of light. It is also a principle that is used in theories of time travel.

4. Is time travel at the speed of light possible?

While time dilation is a real phenomenon, it is important to note that traveling at the speed of light is not possible for objects with mass. Even if an object could travel at the speed of light, it would require an infinite amount of energy to do so. The concept of time travel at the speed of light remains a theoretical possibility but has not been achieved or proven.

5. How does the feeling of time at the speed of light differ from our everyday experience of time?

For someone traveling at the speed of light, time would appear to slow down significantly. This means that they may experience what feels like only a few hours, while for someone who is stationary, years may have passed. It would also mean that events and experiences would seem to happen much faster for the traveler than for someone who is stationary. This is a result of time dilation and the relativity of time and space.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
319
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
55
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
65
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
58
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
1K
Back
Top