QM & Relativity: Can Photons Moving at Speed of Light Be Stationary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wittgenstein
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qm Relativity
wittgenstein
Messages
222
Reaction score
7
My understanding is that any uniform motion ( according to relativity) can be considered stationary. For example if object A is moving at a constant velocity, it is as legitimate to say that it is stationary as to say that it is in motion. Why cannot a photon, moving at the speed of light and at a constant velocity ,be considered stationary? In that case according to the photon's "viewpoint" the space it traverses is non existent. This seems to me to coincide with QM's idea of non-locality.
One more related question. Why is the speed of light 186,282 mps? Why not 186,283mps? To make my point more dramatic, suppose that photons of light in a vacuum traveled at 45 miles per hour. Would time dilation effects then be noticeable at 20 miles per hour? I would guess not ( I could be wrong, I'm not a physicist, just a curious layman) . Then, my question becomes why do photons move at the exact speed that time ( for them) ceases?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
wittgenstein said:
My understanding is that any uniform motion ( according to relativity) can be considered stationary.
A postulate of relativity is that all uniformly moving reference frames are equivalent and equally entitled to be considered 'stationary'.
For example if object A is moving at a constant velocity, it is as legitimate to say that it is stationary as to say that it is in motion.
OK.
Why cannot a photon, moving at the speed of light and at a constant velocity ,be considered stationary?
Since another postulate of relativity is that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, light itself cannot be at rest in any reference frame.
 
There's no reason why one can't consider a photon to be stationary.
It might be amusing to do so.
I guess that from that perspective the entire universe would contract to a two dimensional plane and time would freeze.
I've never looked into the physics of Black Holes (one day if I live long enough) but I would have thought the math involved should consider a situation close to this.

As to Light at 45mph, George Gamow wrote a book entitled 'Mr Tompkins in paperback' where he discussed this, and other concepts in detail at a popular level - worth a read if you can find a copy.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
Back
Top