Does this connect Quantum Theory and Special Relativity?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the relationship between quantum theory and special relativity, particularly focusing on the nature of photons and their properties in relation to time and position. Participants examine concepts such as the experience of time by photons, the implications of being "everywhere at once," and the interpretation of quantum states before observation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that if photons don't experience time, it implies they are "everywhere at once," while others challenge this interpretation, stating that the concept of "experiencing time" does not apply to photons.
  • One participant argues that photons are "everywhere at once" only in the direction of flight, while another counters that different events on a null worldline are distinct and cannot be described this way.
  • There is a discussion about the lack of a well-defined "position operator" for photons, with some participants asserting that this does not equate to being "everywhere at once."
  • Some participants highlight that the interpretation of photons being "everywhere at once" is philosophical and cannot be definitively disproven, suggesting it can be a useful visualization for understanding physical properties.
  • Others caution that this viewpoint may lead to misunderstandings about the nature of information from the past light cone and its relevance to the present.
  • The uncertainty principle is mentioned, with discussions on how it relates to the definitions of frequency, momentum, and position for photons.
  • One participant notes that the level of understanding among participants may vary, suggesting that some responses may be too advanced for the original poster's background.
  • Frame dependence of the notion of "out of date" information from the past light cone is also discussed, with some arguing that this perspective may not be useful for the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the interpretation of photons and their properties, with no consensus reached on the implications of these interpretations for connecting quantum theory and special relativity.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that interpretations of quantum mechanics and relativity can vary significantly, and discussions often hinge on philosophical assumptions that are not universally accepted.

QuantumTheoryThinker
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
This is probably extremely wrong I just want to know how. If photons don't experience time doesn't that mean they are every where at once, and if that is true doesn't part of quantum physics say before a particle is observed its in all the states it can be in? So doesn't that apply in that sense since connecting special relativity and quantum theory in some way? Btw I'm not even learning this in school yet for probably a couple of years so I'm probably extremely wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
QuantumTheoryThinker said:
If photons don't experience time

This is not correct. A better way of saying it is that the concept of "experiencing time" doesn't make sense for photons.

QuantumTheoryThinker said:
doesn't that mean they are every where at once

No.
 
QuantumTheoryThinker said:
If photons don't experience time doesn't that mean they are every where at once
They are everywhere at once in the direction of flight only. The transversal position is well-defined as it commutes with the momentum in the direction of flight.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Demystifier
A. Neumaier said:
They are everywhere at once in the direction of flight only

I don't think this is correct. Different events on a null worldline are distinct; even though proper time cannot be used as an affine parameter along a null worldline, there are other affine parameters that can be used, and each event on the worldline has a distinct value of the affine parameter. It is true that there is not a well-defined "position operator" for a photon, but that's not the same as saying it's "everywhere at once".
 
PeterDonis said:
I don't think this is correct. It is true that there is not a well-defined "position operator" for a photon, but that's not the same as saying it's "everywhere at once".
Of course saying it is ''everywhere at once'' is an interpretation issue, but you cannot say it is not correct since one cannot disprove it without making philosophical assumptions. it is at least as correct as saying that a photon is a particle.

In fact, it is a very good visualization for the physical properties, as it explains in an effortless way why we perceive the whole boundary of the past light cone as our present.

In addition, according to the uncertainty principle, a completely well defined frequency means (in the limit of a massive particle with exceedingly tiny mass, where a position operator is still well-defined) a completely well-defined longitudinal momentum and hence a completely undetermined longitudinal position .
 
A. Neumaier said:
you cannot say it is not correct since one cannot disprove it without making philosophical assumptions

Perhaps a better wording than "correct" would be "not useful for this discussion".

A. Neumaier said:
In fact, it is a very good visualization for the physical properties, as it explains in an effortless way why we perceive the whole boundary of the past light cone as our present.

But it also invites the incorrect inference that the entire boundary of our past light cone is our present. The information coming to us from our past light cone is not "present" information; it is out of date, and how out of date it is varies according to how far "back" in our past light cone it is (where "back" here means "how different the value of the appropriate affine parameter is compared to its value at our current event"). So I still don't think that this viewpoint is useful.

A. Neumaier said:
according to the uncertainty principle, a completely well defined frequency means (in the limit of a massive particle with exceedingly tiny mass, where a position operator is still well-defined) a completely well-defined longitudinal momentum and hence a completely undetermined longitudinal position .

This is true, but the OP did not talk about photons with a completely precise frequency. It just talked about photons.
 
On consideration, I have changed the level of this thread from "I" to "B", given the OP's apparent background. @QuantumTheoryThinker , I suspect that most of the responses given so far have been somewhat over your head. However, more information about exactly what level of school you are in would help.
 
PeterDonis said:
The information coming to us from our past light cone is not "present" information; it is out of date, and how out of date it is varies according to how far "back" in our past light cone it is
This is again a question of interpretation.

How far out of date it is according to your definition is frame dependent, and by going to a nearly infinite momentum frame, you can make any point on the past light cone almost vanishingly little out of date. Being not covariant, your notion of ''out of date'' is unphysical and therefore
PeterDonis said:
"not useful for this discussion"
 
A. Neumaier said:
How far out of date it is according to your definition is frame dependent

Yes, fair point.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 232 ·
8
Replies
232
Views
22K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K