Photons are clocks and SR says they shouldn't tick

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter StarThrower
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Clocks Photons Sr
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of special relativity (SR) on the concept of time as it relates to photons. Participants explore the idea of whether photons can be considered to have an intrinsic frequency and the consequences of this on the understanding of time dilation and reference frames in SR.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that if the time dilation formula leads to a division by zero when considering a photon, then a clock moving with a photon cannot be ticking, suggesting a contradiction in SR.
  • Another participant counters that photons do not have an intrinsic frequency, citing the Doppler effect, which shows that frequency measurements vary across different reference frames.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the validity of the original argument, questioning the understanding of SR and the nature of reference frames for photons.
  • There are claims that the discussion has been repeated from previous threads, indicating a pattern in the arguments presented by one participant.
  • One participant emphasizes that they are not proposing a new theory but merely performing algebraic manipulations related to the topic.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of claiming a reference frame in which a photon is at rest, with some asserting that such a frame does not exist.
  • A novice participant expresses confusion about the topic and seeks additional resources to understand the implications of a photon's reference frame in SR.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit significant disagreement regarding the nature of photons, their frequency, and the implications for special relativity. No consensus is reached, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved assumptions about the nature of time and reference frames in SR, as well as the implications of the Doppler effect on photon frequency. The discussion also reflects varying levels of understanding among participants.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the foundations of special relativity, the nature of light and photons, and the implications of time dilation in theoretical physics.

StarThrower
Messages
220
Reaction score
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
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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:
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,

?
 
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!
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Time Dilation for Photons: Explained
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
High School Intuition for time dilation in a cesium clock
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
High School Relative rate of clock ticks on the radius of a rotating disc
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
Graduate Solving "const. K" in Gourgoulhon's SR in General Frames
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School Am I understanding the concept of proper frame of reference?
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
High School Photon Frequency: How Special Relativity Affects Light
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
Undergrad Is time dilation a real effect?
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
Undergrad Regarding centrifugal effects on the time dilation of a moving clock
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
Undergrad Revisiting the Light Clock
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
Undergrad Could the (SR) forbidden photon's own referential mean something?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
469