Does a photon experience time or is it affected only 'instantaneously'?

[That was mine]

I heard that an infinite amount of time would pass as an object decelerates from the speed of light, is that true?

 

[nicksauce]

Only massless objects travel at the speed of light, and massless objects always travel at the speed of light, so this question doesn't really make sense.

 

[That was mine]

Assuming that the object was already traveling at light speed, what would happen if it decelerated?
The question was asked to me earlier today, and I couldn't think of an answer.

 

[That was mine]

Only massless objects travel at the speed of light, and massless objects always travel at the speed of light, so this question doesn't really make sense.

Assuming that the object was already traveling at light speed, what would happen if it decelerated?
The question was asked to me earlier today, and I couldn't think of an answer.

 

[That was mine]

Here is the exact quote:
"now , you have a person go goes into a spacecraft and begins to travel the speed of light (exactly) in circles around his wife. (yes i know that's not possible , but this is a thought experiment) His wife is standing in the yard , and he is going light speed around her , over and over. Now . Stop the craft 3 months later. What will he see and why? And what about her?"

 

[I_am_learning]

you can always skip the answer nicksauce posted "Mass can't travel at speed of light, so your question doesn't make sense" by asking "What will happed if we decelerate from the speed of 0.9999999999999999999999c (take the limiting case)" If the declaration time tends to infinite as V tends to C, you got your result.

 

[That was mine]

you can always skip the answer nicksauce posted "Mass can't travel at speed of light, so your question doesn't make sense" by asking "What will happed if we decelerate from the speed of 0.9999999999999999999999c (take the limiting case)" If the declaration time tends to infinite as V tends to C, you got your result.

So what happens?

 

[Dale]

Assuming that the object was already traveling at light speed, what would happen if it decelerated?
The question was asked to me earlier today, and I couldn't think of an answer.

Your lack of an answer was the correct answer. A massive object has a timelike four-momentum and an object traveling at c has a lightlike four momentum. So the question is fundamentally flawed in the same way as any question that began "What if 1 equaled 0"

 

[Vanadium 50]

yes i know that's not possible , but this is a thought experiment

No it's not. A thought experiment describes something that is not, by construction, impossible. Dale is exactly right, this is like starting "supposing 1 = 0".

 

[A.T.]

I heard that an infinite amount of time would pass as an object decelerates from the speed of light, is that true?

If by "object" you mean something with rest mass: There's no answer because it never moves at c.

If by "object" you mean some energy moving at c as light: It becomes matter + antimatter if you "decelerate" it below c:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

 

[Vanadium 50]

If by "object" you mean some energy moving at c as light: It becomes matter + antimatter if you "decelerate" it below c:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

That's really, really misleading. Yes, one can pair produce particles with photons, but calling this a consequence of deceleration is really not right. If I apply a force to a photon, I can change it's energy or direction without any particle production.

 

[That was mine]

That's really, really misleading. Yes, one can pair produce particles with photons, but calling this a consequence of deceleration is really not right. If I apply a force to a photon, I can change it's energy or direction without any particle production.

I should note that he is, allegedly, a construction worker with a ninth-grade education. Not saying that he couldn't have dabbled in SR, but maybe his knowledge is a little off.
This is the answer that he gave:
As the light from her getting bored and leaving would not be able to reach your eyes , when you stopped , everything would appear exactly as it did the moment you started off traveling the speed of light. No time would have appeared to pass. But. Once you stopped , the light from your wife getting annoyed and going back into the house would now reach your eyes. So get out of your ship and watch your wife walk towards the door. But to make this cooler , let's say she waits 10 minutes before doing that. You see , whatever you did has no bearing on here , so she just went on living life. But as you return , light now can catch up to you. So there you are out of your ship , face to face to with your wife. But something will be wrong. Because assuming you traveled for a time (3 months was the deal right?) that light will be 3 months old. Now despite what people say , your not actually in the past , your just seeing it, much as we see ancient stars that are likely dead (some anyways). She would not respond to you , in fact you could put your hand right through her , as what you were seeing would only be the light that was unable to catch up to you until now. If she something in the back yard that wasnt there while u were traveling , you would hit it and trip. But you would be amazed... you can feel something , but you can't see it.Everything around you is 3 months old and no longer existant. But to you its very real.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am not sure what question the above post answers. (It is all nonsense anyway. Travelling at near light speed does not allow you to pass your hand through invisible objects!)

If the question is still "what would happen if you decelerated from the speed of light", then the answer is still "this is an impossible scenario".

If you want a sensical answer, you'll have to reform the question.

 

[That was mine]

I am not sure what question the above post answers. (It is all nonsense anyway. Travelling at near light speed does not allow you to pass your hand through invisible objects!)

If the question is still "what would happen if you decelerated from the speed of light", then the answer is still "this is an impossible scenario".

If you want a sensical answer, you'll have to reform the question.

I know that the question makes no sense.
I quoted the question above and the answer they gave.

I would like to know what seasoned physicists would say about doing this.

 

[That was mine]

I still need help!

 

[DaveC426913]

What help do you need? The question is nonsense, as is the answer.

 

[DaveC426913]

This question can be answered (though I don't understand the point of the three month delay):

"now , you have a person go goes into a spacecraft and begins to travel NEARLY the speed of light in circles around his wife. His wife is standing in the yard , and he is going ALMOST light speed around her , over and over. Now . Stop the craft 3 months later. What will he see and why? And what about her?"


If she looked in on the spacecraft as it was traveling at .999999999c, she would see her husband virtually frozen, unmoving. As the craft decelerated, she would see him "come to life" slowly, until after three months, he would be moving normally.


This whole nonsense about light being "three months old" is nonsense. The light is traveling from him to her and her to him, which is - what? - the width of their backyard - a few dozen metres? Light can do that standing on its head.

 

[tickle_monste]

Let's say that the man swallowed an anti-matter pill, subsequently transforming himself into pure energy, and his wife was large enough that her gravitational pull caused him to now orbit her, for 3 months, after which he, in his pure-energy form, swallows his matter-anti-matter annihilation reversal pill which is also composed entirely of pure-energy and so is allowed to travel with him to be swallowed (does this fit into the bounds of a thought experiment?), and all of his pure-energy undergoes a highly ordered particle-anti-particle pair production process that leaves him feeling 20 years younger. I know that when he stops, everything will be back to normal and that the 3 month old light doesn't make sense anyway, but I'm curious as to what he would see during his orbit. Nothing at all? Certainly light can't catch up to him, but he's constantly intersecting light along his path, how does he 'see' this?

 

[sym666]

Here is an actual journey I made from Proxima Centauri to our solar system heading Sol first, which required a correction of the route as you can see, and then to Earth. I put on ship's screen the planets' orbits in order to better visualize relativistic effects. I hope you enjoy it

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xaaxdu_proximacsolearthThanks to Dr. Mitchell McKaine who realized this amazing software. I used an unregistered version of it.

 

[DaveC426913]

...I'm curious as to what he would see during his orbit. Nothing at all? Certainly light can't catch up to him, but he's constantly intersecting light along his path, how does he 'see' this?

As energy moving a light speed, he is composed of massless photons. Photons do not have a frame of reference and do not experience time.

 

[tickle_monste]

As energy moving a light speed, he is composed of massless photons. Photons do not have a frame of reference and do not experience time.

Certainly not in the manner in which us slower beings experience time, but as he makes the orbit, the photons are in a (somewhat uncertain) place at a (somewhat uncertain) time. Even if he doesn't experience a progression of time, he is still at a place, at a time, and at that same place at that same time, there will be other massless photons emitted from his wife that intersect his path. Do they not experience each other, even for a moment, even if they've completely 'forgotten' and returned to normal by the time that single moment is over? Photons are certainly experienced by everything else over time. A photon is emitted here at this time, and absorbed there at that time. They exist for a duration, and the longer they exist, the more they are affected by the external environment: gravitational lensing, reflection, refraction, etc. I guess I'm just having a hard time seeing how the fact that "a photon has no reference frame and does not experience time" is not the same as "a photon is only affected by things 'instantaneously' rather than for a duration, and thus could not, if it were conscious, 'feel' or 'relate to' any passage of time" (please tell me if that doesn't make sense because I've got something very specific in mind).

 

[DaveC426913]

A photon is emitted here at this time, and absorbed there at that time. They exist for a duration, and the longer they exist, the more they are affected by the external environment: gravitational lensing, reflection, refraction, etc. I guess I'm just having a hard time seeing how the fact that "a photon has no reference frame and does not experience time" is not the same as "a photon is only affected by things 'instantaneously' rather than for a duration, and thus could not, if it were conscious, 'feel' or 'relate to' any passage of time" (please tell me if that doesn't make sense because I've got something very specific in mind).

Think of a photon in 4-dimensional space-time. The photon is akin to a piece of string joining two atoms. It is static; it does not move through time. (In fact, it isn't even curved; it is a straight piece of string - it is the 3 spatial dimensions that alter what it means to be straight (gravity warps space time; photons trace lines through curved space).)

The point is, the photon does not travel from place to place, it simply joins two points in space-time.