Space-time at the speed of light

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the nature of time and space from the perspective of a photon traveling at the speed of light (c). It concludes that a photon does not experience time or space in a conventional sense, as the concept of a reference frame breaks down at this speed. The impossibility of defining a frame of reference for a photon is supported by the principles of general relativity, which dictate that transformations at v=c cannot be one-to-one and thus are incompatible with the structure of relativity. The conversation also touches on the philosophical implications of measurement and observation in physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Einstein's theory of relativity
  • Familiarity with the concept of reference frames in physics
  • Basic knowledge of the speed of light (c) and its implications
  • Awareness of positivism in scientific measurement
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of Lorentz transformations in special relativity
  • Study the concept of time dilation and length contraction
  • Investigate the philosophical foundations of measurement in physics
  • Learn about the behavior of massless particles in quantum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the fundamental nature of time and space, particularly in the context of high-speed travel and theoretical physics.

San K
Messages
905
Reaction score
1
How does time and space appear to a photon in vacuum (i.e. photon at at the speed of light)?

Does time stop, when looked, from the frame of reference of a photon? What about space?

Time-space are in a senses interchangeable/inseparable,

so how does space-time appear to a photon?

Does a photon even experience (or is effected by) space-time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It doesn't "appear" to the photon at all, there is nothing like the frame of reference for a photon. For something moving at c, the concept of the reference frame breaks down.
 
FAQ: What does the world look like in a frame of reference moving at the speed of light?

This question has a long and honorable history. As a young student, Einstein tried to imagine what an electromagnetic wave would look like from the point of view of a motorcyclist riding alongside it. But we now know, thanks to Einstein himself, that it really doesn't make sense to talk about such observers.

The most straightforward argument is based on the positivist idea that concepts only mean something if you can define how to measure them operationally. If we accept this philosophical stance (which is by no means compatible with every concept we ever discuss in physics), then we need to be able to physically realize this frame in terms of an observer and measuring devices. But we can't. It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate Einstein and his motorcycle to the speed of light.

Since arguments from positivism can often kill off perfectly interesting and reasonable concepts, we might ask whether there are other reasons not to allow such frames. There are. One of the most basic geometrical ideas is intersection. In relativity, we expect that even if different observers disagree about many things, they agree about intersections of world-lines. Either the particles collided or they didn't. The arrow either hit the bull's-eye or it didn't. So although general relativity is far more permissive than Newtonian mechanics about changes of coordinates, there is a restriction that they should be smooth, one-to-one functions. If there was something like a Lorentz transformation for v=c, it wouldn't be one-to-one, so it wouldn't be mathematically compatible with the structure of relativity. (An easy way to see that it can't be one-to-one is that the length contraction would reduce a finite distance to a point.)

What if a system of interacting, massless particles was conscious, and could make observations? The argument given in the preceding paragraph proves that this isn't possible, but let's be more explicit. There are two possibilities. The velocity V of the system's center of mass either moves at c, or it doesn't. If V=c, then all the particles are moving along parallel lines, and therefore they aren't interacting, can't perform computations, and can't be conscious. (This is also consistent with the fact that the proper time s of a particle moving at c is constant, ds=0.) If V is less than c, then the observer's frame of reference isn't moving at c. Either way, we don't get an observer moving at c.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
7K
Replies
60
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K