1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How quickily does a photon reach c?

  1. Nov 28, 2012 #1
    Hi,
    I have a very dumb question in my head: when a photon gets emitted by a source, how long does it take to reach c?
    the fact it has no mass makes me thinking the acceleration is instantaneous (t=0) but this is from a classical physics point of view (and I also know that around speed of light few things go as it would be intuitive to think them going)

    thanks :)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 28, 2012 #2

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    It does not accelerate at all. It is produced as particle travelling with c, and it travels at c all the time.
     
  4. Nov 28, 2012 #3
    That's actually a great question. You should keep asking questions like that. I never even thought to ask it.

    Here's an interesting Q&A on the subject:

    http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2026

    -Dave K
     
  5. Nov 28, 2012 #4
    That is an excellent question.
    I have been thinking about this puzzle for a while.
    I do not think anyone else thought about this question,
    or most people simply gave up.

    But my suspicion is, the photon emerges with constant velocity c
    from whatever system it is trapped into. In other words, the acceleration
    of the photon takes place inside the atom as it builds up energy to
    leave the atom (I am here considering Bohr's atom).

    I would like to hear thoughts about this from other minds.
     
  6. Nov 28, 2012 #5
    and in those means where the photons travel slower than c? (i.e. everything except the void)
     
  7. Nov 28, 2012 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It isn't a dumb question, but "acceleration is instantaneous" is gibberish... Informative gibberish, though: As you correctly noted, instantaneous means t=0. That's not acceleration, it is just time. Acceleration is v/t, so if t=0, acceleration is undefined.
     
  8. Nov 28, 2012 #7

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The same thing applies to any other elementary particle produced in a decay or interaction process. A muon decays into an electron and two neutrinos, each of which has a certain energy and velocity at the moment of decay. They don't accelerate to those velocities.

    Afterwards, of course, the decay products may accelerate or decelerate depending on the conditions. When a nucleus decays via beta-decay, the emitted electron starts out with a certain energy and velocity, but then slows down a bit as it recedes from the nucleus because of the Coulomb attraction.
     
  9. Nov 28, 2012 #8
    According to the link I posted above "Those photons didn't really exist before. There aren't a fixed number of photons. They can be destroyed and created. The energy, momentum, and angular momentum they have were there beforehand, but not in the form of photons."

    I think this is probably important to understand. C isn't just the "speed of light," but it is the maximum speed of other things as well, like the electrons that are running through the light bulb.

    Do I have this about right?

    -Dave K
     
  10. Nov 28, 2012 #9
    Now, when a photon is transitioning through a boundry, it must accelerate right?
     
  11. Nov 28, 2012 #10
    This mental image may explain why some here think that there's some acceleration happening. Imagine someone, call him John, throwing a ball. First the ball in John's hand is at rest, and later it travels through the air with some speed v. Somehow it must have accelerated from zero to v, and so there's an acceleration involved.

    When a photon is emitted by another particle, this is not like John who held the ball before he emitted it. The ball existed before the throw, and so it had to "be somewhere". But the photon came into existence, and so it couldn't have had a speed before, since there was no "before" from its point of view.

    I think many people find this thought to be quite a hurdle. How can something just come into being if it wasn't there before? If the photon was emitted, it must have been hiding somewhere. Even a conjurer who pulls a rabbit out of a hat had that rabbit hidden somewhere, it didn't just appear from nothing.

    Photons aren't rabbits though, and they don't behave like rabbits.
     
  12. Nov 28, 2012 #11

    ok. that's actually pretty straightforward once you deal with the fact that photons are "generated"

    but the questions I posted above remains. what happens to those photons that are generated into a medium (i.e air, water, glass) where the light is slower than in the vacuum?
    are they decelerated?

    if yes, what happens to a photon crossing a sheet of glass into the vaccum? it slows down and than accelerates again?
     
  13. Nov 28, 2012 #12
    Sorry to sound redundant, and I know you probably want a discussion - but the link I posted above pretty much answers all these questions.

    (to repeat, it's here: http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2026)

    -Dave K
     
  14. Nov 28, 2012 #13
    When photons travel through a medium they travel at the speed of light,but their rate of propagation is slowed by being absorbed and re-emitted by atoms.
     
  15. Nov 28, 2012 #14
    sorry, I didn't see your previous post!
     
  16. Nov 28, 2012 #15

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    It depends on the interpretation - see derek101's for one possible model.
    You can describe light propagation with "effective" photons in matter as well - when photons enter a medium, they just have a different velocity inside (but no "acceleration process"!) than outside.

    Note that my description is a simplified model and not the actual quantum mechanics behind that.
     
  17. Nov 28, 2012 #16
    derek101's answer is very interesting.
    it explains why the speed of a beam of photons travels at v<c, without the need to slow the actual photons down



    here ( http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2026 ) I read:

    "...As photons go into materials, they become something a little different, dressed in excitations of electrons. Assuming no reflection, the net energy E of the whole packet stays essentially the same, since the frequency f doesn't change and the relation E=hf is universal. However, the wavelength λ becomes shorter, so the momentum p of the packet goes up, since p=h/λ is also universal. (The momentum conservation is maintained by a slight recoil of the whole material.)

    So since p goes up and v goes down, if you define inertial mass as p/v, it goes up by a factor (c/v)2=n2, where n is the index of refraction. In a typical material with electric but not magnetic susceptibility at optical frequencies, this is just a factor of ε, the electric susceptibility..."


    I assume the v that goes down is the v of the beam of light, not the v of the actual photons, right?
     
  18. Nov 28, 2012 #17

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    From the Frequently Asked Physics Questions section at the top of this forum:

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511177 [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  19. Nov 28, 2012 #18
  20. Nov 28, 2012 #19
    Question.So does the model I described work ok for gas and liquids?

    A photon entering a solid is no longer a particle until it is re-emitted/re-created.
     
  21. Nov 28, 2012 #20

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Liquids are very similar to solids, and gases can behave similar, too (if the wavelength is long compared to the typical distances between atoms).
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook