Does a photon know how fast to leave its emitter?

  • Thread starter stever
  • Start date
  • #1
41
0
Does a photon "know" how fast to leave its emitter?

Does a photon "know" how fast to leave its emitter, which is moving relative to the photon's receiver, so as to be traveling at c when it reaches the receiver?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Bill_K
Science Advisor
Insights Author
4,155
195


The photon leaves at a speed of c in the emitter's frame. This is also c in the receiver's frame, or in any other frame. The speed of a beam of light is the same in every frame.
 
  • #3
atyy
Science Advisor
14,038
2,331


The photon knows by travelling not relative to the emitter or receiver, but by travelling on the "null geodesic" of spacetime.
 
  • #4
137
11


c is the speed at which the electromagnetic field propagates through the vacuum. The quanta of this field are individually entirely ignorant of this fact (I presume).

[On the other hand, every chemical and electron signal in our brains is based entirely on the electromagnetic force, so the processes that make us conscious are entirely due to the interactions of real and virtual photons. Fortunately they all travel at the right speed without us worrying about it.]
 
  • #5


the photons also knows to take the shortest path when it crosses the boundary between matters with different densities. it's as if it knows the path it's going to travel is the most efficient one and less time-consuming, perfect example of effect before cause
 
  • #6
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
16,409
6,674


the photons also knows to take the shortest path when it crosses the boundary between matters with different densities. it's as if it knows the path it's going to travel is the most efficient one and less time-consuming, perfect example of effect before cause
Hm ... I don't believe simple refraction is effect before cause. I'd be interested to hear comments from folks who know more about this than I do. Any optics gurus out there?
 
  • #7
41
0


Unfortunately I don't know what a null geodesic of spacetime is. I googled it but it looks like it will take a while to study it.

Basically I am looking for some explanation of how light speed gets "adjusted" to the motion of emitters or receivers so as to remain the same.

I am confused by the possibility that the one way speed of light, which cannot be measured, may vary while the round trip is at c. If one way speed does vary, it seems a little strange that light could be traveling at different speeds in different directions (for example within the same object).

Another problem is that I see no explanation in the slowing of time and contraction of length of the moving object, as the two mechanisms (slowing and contraction) affect equally both oncoming light and catching up light which, if they have different speeds, would continue to have them.
 
  • #8
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
16,409
6,674


Basically I am looking for some explanation of how light speed gets "adjusted" to the motion of emitters or receivers so as to remain the same.
Light does not adjust itself to emitters and receivers. It is utterly indifferent to them. When a photon is created, it immediately travels at c and is seen to do so in all reference frames.

I am confused by the possibility that the one way speed of light, which cannot be measured, may vary while the round trip is at c. If one way speed does vary, it seems a little strange that light could be traveling at different speeds in different directions (for example within the same object).
The problem is NOT that the one-way speed of light is different than any other speed of light; there is only one speed of light in a vacuum, but what IS a problem is that we can't properly MEASURE the one-way speed of light.

Another problem is that I see no explanation in the slowing of time and contraction of length of the moving object, as the two mechanisms (slowing and contraction) affect equally both oncoming light and catching up light which, if they have different speeds, would continue to have them.
These effects do not affect light. Light travels at c. Period.
 
  • #9
41
0


I read on Wikipedia that the Lorentz theory of relativity uses one-way speeds of light that vary, and that Lorentz's theory is indistinguishable from Einstein's otherwise.
 
  • #10
atyy
Science Advisor
14,038
2,331


I read on Wikipedia that the Lorentz theory of relativity uses one-way speeds of light that vary, and that Lorentz's theory is indistinguishable from Einstein's otherwise.
It's very unclear what Lorentz's theory of relativity was, and probably of interest only from a historical viewpoint.

There is a view of special relativity which is Lorentzian in spirit, eg. Bell's "Lorentzian pedagogy". It is special relativity described in any particular Lorentz inertial frame. It is equivalent to special relativity.

Special relativity is a theory that spacetime and all matter have a particular symmetry called Lorentz symmetry (more strictly, Poincare symmetry). Lorentz symmetry means that spacetime at each event is divided into past, future, and elsewhere. A null geodesic forms the boundary between elsewhere and the past or future. A wave travelling on a null geodesic will be seen to have the same "privileged speed" in all Lorentz inertial frames. Lorentz symmetry and the fact that electromagnetic fields have an additional symmetry called conformal symmetry imply that electromagnetic waves travel on null geodesics, which is the same as saying that light travels at the "privileged speed" in all Lorentz inertial frames. The "privileged speed" is therefore usually called the speed of light. In contrast to light, the fields describing a massive emitter and massive receiver have Lorentz symmetry, but not conformal symmetry.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
1,352
90


Unfortunately I don't know what a null geodesic of spacetime is. I googled it but it looks like it will take a while to study it.
I find it is made overly complicated for a layman like myself.

Know that c is the fastest speed, anything that travels this fast, i.e. 299,792,458 meters in one second is following a "null" geodesic path.


In the image below the yellow line is a null geodesic path, this is the path a photon would travel since they travel at c.
any coordinate on the graph that is on the right side of the null path is spacelike, timelike is on the left side.

This is a very generalized description, but is enough to give the term a context. I came across the null geodesic term and googled it like you did. It wasn't until I started reading about intervals that it became clear what a "null geodesic path" is. Said differently reading about (and asking questions here) intervals made clear what the terms spacelike, timelike and null mean in this context.

for a mathless approach check out spacetime diagrams.


c is always the same speed;
So something travelling at 0.5c emits a stream of photons, those photons are traveling at the same speed the always do, they're not "adjusted" in anyway.

When the dude travelling at 0.5c calculates the speed of those photons it will be the same as everyone elses calculated value of c.

It is the measurements that are "adjusted".

Specifically time dilation and length contraction "adjust" accordingly so that the calculated value of c is always the same, no matter your relative speed to those photons.

(image below is from wikipedia)
240px-Minkowski_diagram_-_photon.png
 
Last edited:
  • #12
PAllen
Science Advisor
2019 Award
8,186
1,440


Hm ... I don't believe simple refraction is effect before cause. I'd be interested to hear comments from folks who know more about this than I do. Any optics gurus out there?
Not at all an optics guru, but a simple mathematical observation may demystify this. When one minimizes an integral quantity (by path variation), the result (Euler-Lagrange equation) is a strictly local differential criterion. This criterion amounts to following the local 'path of least resistance' or 'straightest possible path - in a possibly abstract phase space'. It happens that this strictly local condition is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for an overall extremum.

In my view, it is better to think about the light, system, or whatever directly following this local condition rather than 'magically' discovering a global extremum.
 
  • #13
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
16,409
6,674


Not at all an optics guru, but a simple mathematical observation may demystify this. When one minimizes an integral quantity (by path variation), the result (Euler-Lagrange equation) is a strictly local differential criterion. This criterion amounts to following the local 'path of least resistance' or 'straightest possible path - in a possibly abstract phase space'. It happens that this strictly local condition is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for an overall extremum.

In my view, it is better to think about the light, system, or whatever directly following this local condition rather than 'magically' discovering a global extremum.
I don't follow that, but let me ask a slightly different question which may already be answered by your statement. Would it be fair to say that refraction is caused ENTIRELY because of what happens at the BOUNDARY between materials (a very local effect) and NOT because of anything outside the boundary (which would be a global effect and COULD imply effect before cause). This seems very reasonable to me because once the light leaves the boundary, it does not change direction again.
 
  • #14
PAllen
Science Advisor
2019 Award
8,186
1,440


I don't follow that, but let me ask a slightly different question which may already be answered by your statement. Would it be fair to say that refraction is caused ENTIRELY because of what happens at the BOUNDARY between materials (a very local effect) and NOT because of anything outside the boundary (which would be a global effect and COULD imply effect before cause). This seems very reasonable to me because once the light leaves the boundary, it does not change direction again.
Yes, you could say that, and I meant to imply that mathematically. Further, if you consider a material with continuously varying index of refraction, the light is really (oops, there's that problem word again..) responding only to local conditions.
 
  • #15
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
16,409
6,674


Yes, you could say that, and I meant to imply that mathematically. Further, if you consider a material with continuously varying index of refraction, the light is really (oops, there's that problem word again..) responding only to local conditions.
Thanks
 
  • #16
137
11


I think if Feynman was asked this question, he would say that a photon takes every path simultaneously, including those that are much faster or slower than the speed of light. Then all the amplitudes for all the paths are added up (a huge integration). If you do this calculation, the only paths that get left with amplitudes different to zero are the equivalent of straight lines in curved spacetime at a speed of c. This is truly a wonderful thing, and may be a hint why the Universe behaves the way it does.
 
  • #17
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
16,409
6,674


I think if Feynman was asked this question, he would say that a photon takes every path simultaneously, including those that are much faster or slower than the speed of light. Then all the amplitudes for all the paths are added up (a huge integration). If you do this calculation, the only paths that get left with amplitudes different to zero are the equivalent of straight lines in curved spacetime at a speed of c. This is truly a wonderful thing, and may be a hint why the Universe behaves the way it does.
I think you are overextrapolating Feynman. I don't think he believed in FTL.
 
  • #18
643
27


Does a photon "know" how fast to leave its emitter, which is moving relative to the photon's receiver, so as to be traveling at c when it reaches the receiver?
I dont know what you mean by "know" photons know nothing.
 
  • #19
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
16,409
6,674


I dont know what you mean by "know" photons know nothing.
The word was put in quotes and in context the meaning seemed quite clear.
 
  • #20
295
2


Well, define SpaceTime as one wave equation, define interactions as the wave equation 'falling out' locally, relative interference as in the Feynman definition and you have one answer :) maybe. Or .. .. ..

Refraction is a index defined relative 1, as I understands it. Where one is 'space' always being 1. Defining 'space' globaly as 'densities', for example relative 'gravity', should then invalidate the index of refraction as it no longer have a valid definition to be measured relative.

A photon 'exists' in two ways to us. Due to the 'recoil' observed in a 'source' as demanded by the conservation laws, and in its annihilation at your retina. There is nowhere in between it can be said to 'exist' without a measurement.

But it also has to do with what you 'think'. Do you expect a propagation? Then you expect a 'path'.
 
  • #21
137
11


Elroch said:
I think if Feynman was asked this question, he would say that a photon takes every path simultaneously, including those that are much faster or slower than the speed of light. Then all the amplitudes for all the paths are added up (a huge integration). If you do this calculation, the only paths that get left with amplitudes different to zero are the equivalent of straight lines in curved spacetime at a speed of c. This is truly a wonderful thing, and may be a hint why the Universe behaves the way it does..
I think you are overextrapolating Feynman. I don't think he believed in FTL.
I checked what Feynmann wrote and found it supported my statement completely. For example he discussed an example where a photon was emitted at one point and detected at another after reflection from a mirror, and considered the amplitudes for a range of paths between these two points in space-time. Obviously almost all of these paths are longer than the straight line path, implying a faster speed, but the amplitudes were all included.
 
  • #22
PAllen
Science Advisor
2019 Award
8,186
1,440


I checked what Feynmann wrote and found it supported my statement completely. For example he discussed an example where a photon was emitted at one point and detected at another after reflection from a mirror, and considered the amplitudes for a range of paths between these two points in space-time. Obviously almost all of these paths are longer than the straight line path, implying a faster speed, but the amplitudes were all included.
This agrees with my understanding of what Feynman wrote on this. I have no idea whether this was the only way he looked at the question. However, I like that, when thinking more classically, it is completely unnecessary to invoke global influences to explain any least action principles, e.g.:

- path of light
- evolution of a system defined by a Lagrangian
 
  • #23
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
16,409
6,674


I checked what Feynmann wrote and found it supported my statement completely. For example he discussed an example where a photon was emitted at one point and detected at another after reflection from a mirror, and considered the amplitudes for a range of paths between these two points in space-time. Obviously almost all of these paths are longer than the straight line path, implying a faster speed, but the amplitudes were all included.
Wow ... I'm surprized. Thanks for that correction.
 
  • #24
643
27


The word was put in quotes and in context the meaning seemed quite clear.
It has no meaning the photon does not know how fast to leave it's emitter it is an inate object it knows nowt.
 
  • #25
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
16,409
6,674


It has no meaning the photon does not know how fast to leave it's emitter it is an inate object it knows nowt.
Which is why the word was put in quotes. You are clearly being WAY too literal here and ignoring the conventions of the English language.
 

Related Threads on Does a photon know how fast to leave its emitter?

Replies
4
Views
745
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
9K
Replies
1
Views
936
Replies
1
Views
635
Replies
11
Views
753
Replies
35
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
578
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
Top