# How far can light travel?

1. Dec 27, 2007

### InfinateLoop

I am hoping someone could let me know how far light can travel?

2. Dec 27, 2007

### ok123jump

If light (as in photons) were in a vacuum, it would travel forever in a given direction.

In reality however, it is far more probable that light will experience disturbances (absorption, reflection, refraction, etc..) as it moves through space - thus, it's distance of travel is limited to some finite distance. I do not think that there is any good estimation for this realistic finite distance. Clearly, this finite distance depends on the situation of the light being transmitted, direction and regions of space through which it will travel.

Last edited: Dec 27, 2007
3. Dec 27, 2007

### InfinateLoop

So do these disturbances destroy the light? I'm a little confused to what actually happens to the energy/photons.

4. Dec 27, 2007

### belliott4488

Photons can be "destroyed", although the more usual term is "absorbed". Their energy is then transferred to the material (particles) that absorbed them. They might also be reflected (or re-radiated, if you prefer the quantum-mechanical version), in which case they might have lost some energy to the reflective surface.

Classically, light is simply absorbed, much as a sound wave can be absorbed by a soft material. In Quantum Theory, there are fundamental interactions wherein a photon interacts with a charged particle, e.g. an electron, and the photon is absorbed. Another way this is stated is that "photon number is not conserved", i.e. you can create and destroy photons.

That was somewhat rambling - I hope it helped.

5. Dec 27, 2007

### InfinateLoop

So on a quantum level is this a massive collision? A photon is traveling at c and comes to a screeching halt?

6. Dec 27, 2007

### ok123jump

[Removed Text] I wasn't correct about the facts.

Last edited: Dec 27, 2007
7. Dec 27, 2007

### belliott4488

I'm not sure what you mean by a "massive collision".

Unfortunately, Quantum Field Theory stops short of describing in detail what happens to the fields that correspond to the particles participating in an interaction like this. One thing that is for sure, however, is that you have to leave behind the classical picture of a particle as a discrete object; the photon and the electron are both represented by quantum fields that carry certain properties. The energy and momentum of the photon are transferred to the electron, and the photon field is no more. I'm speaking very loosely here, and if you want a better picture, I think you'll have to post a question specifically about particle interactions in Quantum Field Theory.

Alternatively, you could just stay in the classical realm, where light is only a wave form of an electromagnetic field (no photons). In this case, the EM field exerts forces on the electrons in the absorbent material, which react by absorbing the energy of the incoming field. Since the electrons have EM fields of their own, you could think of these fields as "swallowing up" the incoming field, although I've never heard a physicist describe it this way!

8. Dec 27, 2007

### belliott4488

Sorry, I don't think that's right. EM fields most definitely carry momentum and can transfer it to massive particles. Invoking F=ma isn't quite appropriate since it describes the acceleration of a massive particle, which, as you've said, the photon is not. Better is to use F=dp/dt, i.e. a force produces a proportional change in momentum (which reduces to ma for a particle with constant non-zero mass).

In any case, the momentum transfer from light (i.e. EM waves) to massive objects is well-known, and is responsible for the solar radiation pressure that is exerted on satellites in orbit, or which would drive the solar sails that have been suggested as a form of propulsion in space.

9. May 22, 2010

### thomas pesek

OK so light will stop if some force interacts with it.

but what about light that misses an event, and keeps traveling in the vacuum of space ?

was just wondering, in SETI, instead of searching for sound, wouldn't it be wiser to search for light ? wouldn't that travel farther and faster ?

instead of looking out wards, why don't we look in wards ?

I mean, why not send out messages ourselves, piggy backed on lazer beams ?
if found, maybe they'll reply ?

maybe green men are out there and are just waiting for us to call them first ?

10. May 22, 2010

### dgtech

So then it is possible for the observable universe to be limited by distance rather than time?

11. May 22, 2010

### Kynnath

It's limited by both, in a sense. Light travels at a fixed speed. So you can describe the observable universe in terms of the distance the light we can see travelled, or the time it took it to travel that distance. The result is the same either way.

12. May 22, 2010

### dgtech

But how do we make sure? The only thing we know for sure is light gets absorbed and decays, everything else is just unproven hypothesis.

13. May 22, 2010

### Kynnath

We don't need to be sure, and proving is not possible. So long as the model we have is internally consistent and agrees with observations, it's good enough.

I'm don't know myself, but astronomers have figured out ways to measure the distance of the farthest emissions we can see (observable universe is, after all, how much of the universe we can see). Then again, for astronomers, a couple orders of magnitude of error is 'precise'. But seeing as I don't want to do the math myself, I'm happy to take them at their word.

14. May 22, 2010

### dgtech

Yes, I know that, but those ways of measuring are also based on plenty of assumptions, plus there was so much controversial evidence discovered, which was hurried to be "reevaluated" and reinterpreted in a more convenient form. IMO there is a strong element of "believing" and wishful thinking in that area :)

15. May 22, 2010

### pallidin

Does a photon, given enough space and time(and totally unimpeded), eventually "flat line"?

16. May 22, 2010

### dgtech

It's not a practical question, perfect vacuum likely does not exist

However, even in perfect vacuum gravity will affect photons - a very weak effect but present, at least in the current model

17. May 22, 2010

### pallidin

OK, unimpeded with respect to physical blocking atoms/objects.
What happens to that photon over VERY EXTENDED time? Decrease in wavelength?

18. May 22, 2010

### dgtech

you mean redshift?

19. May 22, 2010

### pallidin

No. Redshift requires that the emmiter and observer be separate and moving away from each other.
I just want to know what happens to a photon if it goes on, and on, and on.
Does it change?

20. May 22, 2010

### dgtech

if there is nothing to take away its energy potential theoretically it shouldn't decay
or at least I think so

I don't really have an idea what the photon actually is made of, maybe it can decay if there are some internal dynamics in it, that interact with each other and displace some form of energy