Light's Instantaneous Wordline: Is Time Really Zero?

  • Thread starter Thread starter OS Richert
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time Zero
OS Richert
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
The proper time of a photon which always has a lightlike wordline is zero, correct? Does this mean from the perspective of light (which doesn't have any conscience to have a perspective) that it travels instantaneously in zero time. So while we see light from Alpha Centari and can watch it travel for four years to get to earth, it thinks it traveled from Alpha Centari to Earth instantaneously?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes. Also this approach is the easiest way to understand the twin paradox. One twin goes to Alpha Centauri at almost the speed of light and to him it takes a very short time. After stopping to catch his breath, he returns to Earth at the same speed, so to him the round trip took a very short time. On the other hand, his twin on eath has aged around 9 years,
 
mathman said:
One twin goes to Alpha Centauri at almost the speed of light and to him it takes a very short time.
Not only does it take him a short time but the distance to Alpha Centauri is much shorter for him than for an observer on Earth.
 
OS Richert said:
The proper time of a photon which always has a lightlike wordline is zero, correct? Does this mean from the perspective of light (which doesn't have any conscience to have a perspective) that it travels instantaneously in zero time. So while we see light from Alpha Centari and can watch it travel for four years to get to earth, it thinks it traveled from Alpha Centari to Earth instantaneously?

Actually it is mathematically inconsistent to say that a photon has a perspective in terms of time and space. The problem isn't so much with "proper time" for the photon which goes to zero, but with any idea of assigning a frame or distance to the photon.

What one can safely say is that the limit as one approaches light speed, the time it takes to get to Alpha Centuari from Earth approaches zero. A seemingly minor, but potentially important, distinction.

The closest thing to giving a photon a perspective is to adopt a system of null coordinates, which are neither timelike nor spacelike, but null.

For instance, if x and t are cartesian coordinates, U= x-t and V = x+t are null coordinates. U gives a constant number for the worldline of a photon moving in one direction, V gives a constant number for the worldline of a photon moving in another direction.
 
For those interested in null coordinates, mathpages has an interesting http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s1-09/1-09.htm" on it.

Note that the anonymous author expresses a remarkable level of lucidity on the subject which not everybody might appreciate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top