What would the universe look like from the perspective of a photon observer?

[Wallin]

According to Einstein's relativity theories, each observer is afforded a frame of reference which can be considered central and stationary. What would the universe look like to the frame of reference associated with a photon observer. Would all things be moving past the photon at the velocity c? Would such things be moving in one direction or in all directions? What would other photons look like to the photon observer which considers itself at rest?

 

[Mentz114]

Actually, Einstein said -

each inertial observer is afforded a frame of reference which can be considered central and stationary.

In this context 'inertial' means not accelerating and with relative velocity < c.

There is no 'frame of reference' for the 'photon', so no answers can be given to your questions.

Einstein reportedly had this thought and concluded it was logically impossible to 'catch up with light' many years before he formulated special relativity.

 

[belliott4488]

You'll find plenty of discussion of this idea if you search through older threads; it comes up a lot.

Mostly, I expect you'll find that people will respond by pointing out that no observer (in any sense of "observer" that we have) can be accelerated to the speed of light, so the question is meaningless. You can still work through the transformation equations of Special Relativity to see how various quantities behave as you go to the limit of v -> c, but you'll find that most of them go to infinity or to zero, with the result that you can't really speak in a meaningful way about what the universe would look like from such a frame.

A more specific response might point out that time slows to zero as you go to v -> c, so in such a frame you can't talk about time passing. So what does anything look like from the point of view of a reference frame where there is no time? It means nothing.

(Note: I don't mean this to be critical of the question - it's a perfectly reasonable one and is actually what allegedly led Einstein to come up with the theory of Relativity. It's not immediately obvious that it's a meaningless question.)

 

[Mentz114]

Hi belliot,
I've no quarrel with what you've said, but

... as you go to v -> c, ...

This cannot happen, of course. Nothing ever graduates from from sub-light speed to light speed. I just want to emphasise this to the OP in case he misunderstands 'v -> c'.

M

 

[HallsofIvy]

He didn't say anything about an object "graduating" from sub-light to light speed. He was talking about the limit of the formulas in the mathematical sense.

 

[Mentz114]

Halls,

He didn't say anything about an object "graduating" from sub-light to light speed. He was talking about the limit of the formulas in the mathematical sense.

yes, I understand that, as does belliot - but did the OP, who clearly is a neophyte to SR.

 

[Wallin]

I don't mean this to be critical of the question - it's a perfectly reasonable one and is actually what allegedly led Einstein to come up with the theory of Relativity. It's not immediately obvious that it's a meaningless question.)

Thanks for your response. I didn't take your response as critical. I'm grateful for the insight. Perhaps if Kaluza had been right and light were a phenomena of 4 spatial dimensions my question would make more sense. I'll think about it some more and see if I have any other questions. Thanks again.

 

[yuiop]

Wallin, you have had a lot of sensible formal answers so I hope you do not mind this this slightly light hearted point of view.

Imagine you were going at very close to the speed of light and some bizarre quantum fluctuation or uncertainty principle accidently boosts to you to exactly the speed of light. (It can't happen but bear with me ;) Assume you survive being squashed to a volume of zero width, which is a big problem in itself. Your rulers will be zero length and your clocks will have stopped so you won't be able to measure distances or relative velocities of anything else. The lenses of your telescopes (and the lenses of your eyes) will be completely flat so you won't be able to focus on anything because lenses have to be curved to work. So you won't see anything. All process including biological processes slow down as you approach the speed of light, so your brain slow down too and at the speed of light your thought processes stop. So at the speed of light your eyes and brain don't work so you would not have a point of view.

 

[Wallin]

Thanks for the levity, Kev. I feel like that almost every morning! Perhaps the condition you describe is more common than those who commented before you have let on! The reason I asked the question is because it seems to me that velocity we call c is something we take terribly for granted (kind of like the Dome of Fixed Stars in the millenium and a half before Copernicus made his correction to the geocentric model). Everyone held that the motion of the Dome of Fixed Stars was an unchanging constant. In some ways, it seems like the velocity c (which applies to all electromagnetics and the propogation of gravity) might be like the Dome of Fixed Stars. In other words, can we say with absolute certainty that the light and gravity are moving at c or is there another option? Could it be that we (the observable universe) are moving in relation to gravity and light in a way we have not yet detected? I better stop there because I can feel myself on the verge of breaking the rules and rushing into the realm of speculation. Apologies.

 

[yuiop]

...
In other words, can we say with absolute certainty that the light and gravity are moving at c or is there another option? ...

I guess we could take something that is not constant like the velocity of an object falling in a gravitational field and declare that it is constant. With a bit of mathematical ingenuity we might be able build a model that is self consistant and yet has a non constant speed of light. I'm not sure because I haven't tried it, but it might be interesting and instructive to try. On the other hand, such a model might already exist or at least have been attempted. Anyone know if that is the case?

 

[Mentz114]

In other words, can we say with absolute certainty that the light and gravity are moving at c or is there another option?

I think a theory that violated SR would predict contradictory things, like two observers seeing different outcomes to the same experiment. Special relativity ( and logic) demands that this is not so, and the invariance of local velocity of light is a necessary condition. If locally measured light velocities vary, it means local values of epsilon and mu and that causes problems of another kind.
There are cosmological theories where c changes over time, but SR applies at any given time.

 

[colorSpace]

Just for fun, or actually serious interest of a non-expert, I'd like to pose a few challenges:

1. Doesn't a photon (or anything moving at c) deserve a frame of reference, like any element of reality?

2. Even though this is not a gradual process, the energy that constitutes a photon was at sub-c before the photon was emitted. So it is possible for energy to 'jump' from sub-c to c.

3. Time stands still for a photon ... but isn't that only from a sub-c frame of Reference? Any other particle would not notice a slow down of time in its own frame of reference, when accelerated to a speed close to c.

4. Isn't the fact that a photon can be seen as a particle and/or an element of reality, yet that the formula of SR don't apply to photons, a paradox not resolvable within SR (nor GR), and points to SR being incomplete? And there is no other theory completing that picture yet?

 

[lightarrow]

Wallin, you have had a lot of sensible formal answers so I hope you do not mind this this slightly light hearted point of view.

Imagine you were going at very close to the speed of light and some bizarre quantum fluctuation or uncertainty principle accidently boosts to you to exactly the speed of light. (It can't happen but bear with me ;) Assume you survive being squashed to a volume of zero width, which is a big problem in itself. Your rulers will be zero length and your clocks will have stopped so you won't be able to measure distances or relative velocities of anything else. The lenses of your telescopes (and the lenses of your eyes) will be completely flat so you won't be able to focus on anything because lenses have to be curved to work. So you won't see anything. All process including biological processes slow down as you approach the speed of light, so your brain slow down too and at the speed of light your thought processes stop. So at the speed of light your eyes and brain don't work so you would not have a point of view.

Completely wrong.
Approaching light's speed at an acceptable acceleration, nothing special happens to you and to your starship (excepting for the effects of acceleration).

In your ref. frame, what you measure as length and time contracted are objects moving at near c with respect to you.

 

[Mentz114]

Just for fun, or actually serious interest of a non-expert, I'd like to pose a few challenges:

1. Doesn't a photon (or anything moving at c) deserve a frame of reference, like any element of reality?

What for ? No physicist that I know of has ever found it necessary.

2. Even though this is not a gradual process, the energy that constitutes a photon was at sub-c before the photon was emitted. So it is possible for energy to 'jump' from sub-c to c.

You're making assumptions about the emission process that might be wrong , but obviously energy from the emitter takes the form of light, and therefore is moving at c.
What's the challenge ?

3. Time stands still for a photon ... but isn't that only from a sub-c frame of Reference? Any other particle would not notice a slow down of time in its own frame of reference, when accelerated to a speed close to c.

No, this doesn't have meaning because the photon does not have a frame of reference. The time dilation effects apply between inertial frames. You're mis-using the formulae.

4. Isn't the fact that a photon can be seen as a particle and/or an element of reality, yet that the formula of SR don't apply to photons, a paradox not resolvable within SR (nor GR), and points to SR being incomplete? And there is no other theory completing that picture yet?

No. How does the existence of a light quantum violate SR ?

 

[colorSpace]

What for ? No physicist that I know of has ever found it necessary.

It seems that this means that in relation to a photon, even though it exists in physical reality, the laws of physics do not take the same form as in relation to other elements of reality.

Also, it seems to me that for Einstein it was important that physical statements are about reality, rather than just of computational usefulness for the physicist doing his job.

You're making assumptions about the emission process that might be wrong , but obviously energy from the emitter takes the form of light, and therefore is moving at c.
What's the challenge ?

I couldn't see which assumption is wrong. Are you saying it is (or might be) a gradual process, and that the energy is gradually accelerating to c, in so far as one can say that energy accelerates?

Either way it seems that a photon, as a mass-less particle, is an exception to otherwise general "rules", such as that acceleration to c is not possible. Which means that these rules are not universal.

No, this doesn't have meaning because the photon does not have a frame of reference.

I don't really understand that statement. To me it would seem that one could try, as a theoretical exercise, to describe events and establish a coordinate system, so to speak, from the perspective of a particle moving at c. It maybe that SR can't do that, but why would that be a-priori not a valid attempt?

The time dilation effects apply between inertial frames. You're mis-using the formulae.

No. How does the existence of a light quantum violate SR ?

I don't think it was me misusing the formula, on the contrary, you seem to be saying the same thing as I did.

 

[Mentz114]

It seems that this means that in relation to a photon, even though it exists in physical reality, the laws of physics do not take the same form as in relation to other elements of reality.

The existence of photons as free 'particles' is not established. You are mistaken in giving to them particle properties. Any inference based on this assumption is wrong. Please read some books about this, you are just wrong.

I couldn't see which assumption is wrong

All and any. There is no model for the emission process in current physics. How do think emission proceeds ?

I don't really understand that statement. To me it would seem that one could try, as a theoretical exercise, to describe events and establish a coordinate system, so to speak, from the perspective of a particle moving at c. It maybe that SR can't do that, but why would that be a-priori not a valid attempt?

There's no such thing as a particle moving at c !

You're free to waste your time as you please.

you seem to be saying the same thing as I did.

I absolutely deny that. How do you work that out ?

How does the existence of a light quantum violate SR ?

Answer my question, please.

[sorry about all the edits - lots of typos]

 

[colorSpace]

No. How does the existence of a light quantum violate SR ?

I should have responded to this separately since it was the reply to #4. However my answer is implicit in my other responses. I did not say that SR is violated, but that it is incomplete, based on that photons (or anything moving at c) is an exception to many rules and formula, which are therefore not universal. And this even though energy that wasn't moving at c can change to doing so, and vice versa (when a photon is emitted or absorbed). That means that the same energy becomes subject to the SR rules, then not, then again, apparently without a reflection of this "mutation" within the theory itself.

[Edit: I just wrote this response before reading your latest reply above. I hope it still applies... I'll be reading it now.

 

[colorSpace]

The existence of photons as free 'particles' is not established. You are mistaken in giving to them particle properties. Any inference based on this assumption is wrong. Please read some books about this, you are just wrong.

My argument doesn't really depend on photons being particles. Let's say they are wavicles. Or do you deny quantum physics?

All and any. There is no model for the emission process in current physics. How do think emission proceeds ?

Again my argument doesn't depend on any specific understanding of the emission process.

(Just on the side, though, I've recently heard that they are emitted for example when electrons change their energy level, but I've also heard there are other ways a photon can be created.)

I absolutely deny that. How do you work that out ?

I simply haven't said what you are objecting to. Please re-read my original statement.

Answer my question, please.

I've meanwhile done so, above, before reading your immediately preceding reply.

 

[Mentz114]

Or do you deny quantum physics?

Now you are being insulting. So it's my turn to point out to you -

(Just on the side, though, I've recently heard that they are emitted for example when electrons change their energy level, but I've also heard there are other ways a photon can be created.)

Congratulations, considering that's been known since about 1913. I learned that at high school many years ago, and have learned a few more things since then.

Keep learning and you'll be OK, but I'm tired of arguing this with you now, so, good night.

 

[colorSpace]

Now you are being insulting. So it's my turn to point out to you -

That's not an insult, but a question that seemed adequate given your previous response: I've had many (interesting) discussions with people very knowledgeable in physics, yet actually denying quantum physics.

Congratulations, considering that's been known since about 1913. I learned that at high school many years ago, and have learned a few more things since then.

Oh, I thought "There is no model for the emission process in current physics". Perhaps you meant: not a detailed model, however I don't see how that would be relevant to our discussion. BTW, I guess at some time long ago, I learned that as well... :)

Keep learning and you'll be OK, but I'm tired of arguing this with you now, so, good night.

Ok, good night.

 

[mdeng]

Just for fun, or actually serious interest of a non-expert, I'd like to pose a few challenges:

1. Doesn't a photon (or anything moving at c) deserve a frame of reference, like any element of reality?

An interesting thought. I don't know whether this means SR is incomplete other than SR's equations does not apply to object of speed c. And if photon can't have a (inertial) reference frame, what other sensible (whatever it maybe) reference frame it may have? It does seem unsatisfactory that SR has no answer about this.

2. Even though this is not a gradual process, the energy that constitutes a photon was at sub-c before the photon was emitted. So it is possible for energy to 'jump' from sub-c to c.

I am not sure exactly what you are asking or what it means by "the speed of energy" or "speed change of energy".

http://groups.google.com.tj/group/alt.philosophy.debate/browse_thread/thread/7cfefc9c6bfb0f96 suggests the following.

The force, according to the Newton’s Second Law,
is equal to : F= ma.
This force is possible to consider as absolute independent
quantity - impulse. When in case with light quanta
the impulse is equal to: mc.
He continued.
Let us now imagine that light quanta falls on a black body,
and it absolutely absorbs this light quanta
( it means light quanta stops).
Then, according to the Lebedev,s law, light quanta
renders pressure on the black body: E/c.
Therefore it is possible to write: mc=E/c.
It means that light quanta has not mass of rest equal to zero,
but it has potential energy/mass: M=E/c^2. (E=Mc^2).

3. Time stands still for a photon ... but isn't that only from a sub-c frame of Reference? Any other particle would not notice a slow down of time in its own frame of reference, when accelerated to a speed close to c.

Since SR does not apply to v=c, I am not sure whether your premise of stand-still time is sound.

4. Isn't the fact that a photon can be seen as a particle and/or an element of reality, yet that the formula of SR don't apply to photons, a paradox not resolvable within SR (nor GR), and points to SR being incomplete? And there is no other theory completing that picture yet?

good question.

 

[jcsd]

Clearly there are some distinctions between massive and massless particles in relativity, but I don't see any overriding reason to exclude the latter from particlehood. That of course that entirely depends on your definition of particle, though the very existence of the term 'massless particle' should indicate that massless particles are indeed widely held to be particles.

Clearly the formulae for massive particles don't apply to photons as they are massless, but SR as a whole applies to photons just as much as it applies to massive particles. Photons cannot be acclerated to c as they can only travel at c (that this is true in SR is undeniable as it's a postulate of SR)

 

[colorSpace]

Since SR does not apply to v=c, I am not sure whether your premise of stand-still time is sound.

"Time stands still for a photon" is a reference to previous posts. My point is that this can't be said from the photons own frame of reference. That is, I'm objecting to that statement in the form in which it was made in other posts.

For other particles, as they are accelerated closer and closer to c, if they had a clock "on board", this clock would be perceived as going slower and slower from a stationary observer's point of view. So one could argue that for a photon, the clock would stand still. But that would be only from stationary observer's point of view. This is what I am pointing out above. From "aboard" any object, the clock will still appear to tick as it ticks, no matter how close to c the speed becomes.

I see this as a challenge, since when trying to approach this question by letting v come close to c, the external observer's point of view appears difficult to reconcile with the "local" (to the photon) point of view. The external observer could assume to perceive the clock of the photon to be at a stand-still, but for the photon itself the clock would have to continue to tick. Will it tick once more, or not?

good question.

Thank you! :)

 

[mdeng]

From "aboard" any object, the clock will still appear to tick as it ticks, no matter how close to c the speed becomes.

I don't think SC says this though. The best I can get from SC is it's unknown whether it ticks or not.

 

[jcsd]

Special relativity says that photons do not have a reference frame. When constructing a reference frame for an object in relativity you start by choosing a basis vector for the time coorindate which us the unit vector (whose 'length' of |1|) that is tangent to it's worldine. However for a photon (or an object traveling at c) all vectors tangent to it's worldlien are null vectors (whose 'length' is 0) so you cannot construct a reference frame.

This is not a flaw in theory it is a feature of the theory as in SR there is no reason that a photon shoudl have a reference frame.

 

[Mentz114]

Special relativity says that photons do not have a reference frame. When constructing a reference frame for an object in relativity you start by choosing a basis vector for the time coordinate which us the unit vector (whose 'length' of |1|) that is tangent to it's worldine. However for a photon (or an object traveling at c) all vectors tangent to it's worldlien are null vectors (whose 'length' is 0) so you cannot construct a reference frame.

This is not a flaw in theory it is a feature of the theory as in SR there is no reason that a photon should have a reference frame.

Yes ! Thank you jcsd. It irks me that people are seriously discussing the 'photons point of view'. Might as well talk about square circles.

 

[colorSpace]

Special relativity says that photons do not have a reference frame. When constructing a reference frame for an object in relativity you start by choosing a basis vector for the time coorindate which us the unit vector (whose 'length' of |1|) that is tangent to it's worldine. However for a photon (or an object traveling at c) all vectors tangent to it's worldlien are null vectors (whose 'length' is 0) so you cannot construct a reference frame.

This is not a flaw in theory it is a feature of the theory as in SR there is no reason that a photon shoudl have a reference frame.

I guess I could leave it at that and just accept that as what SR happens to say about photons. But I don't think that's what my mind is going to do.

When a photon gets emitted and absorbed, the energy constituting it goes into a special "mode", where it isn't subject to the same rules of space and time anymore. And the theory itself doesn't seem to reflect these "mode" changes. So it seems to me that SR doesn't really elegantly address this "mode", and I haven't heard anything so far that keeps me from being confident that future research is going to step into this open end. I don't think the work is done yet.

 

[Mentz114]

ColorSpace,

So it seems to me that SR doesn't really elegantly address this "mode", and I haven't heard anything so far that keeps me from being confident that future research is going to step into this open end. I don't think the work is done yet.

I think this problem is outside the scope of SR, which is a kinematical principle, not a theory of energy flow. What happens exactly when light is absorbed or emitted is not understood at present. It's not clear how we can ever probe this event.

 

[Wallin]

I guess I could leave it at that and just accept that as what SR happens to say about photons. But I don't think that's what my mind is going to do.

When a photon gets emitted and absorbed, the energy constituting it goes into a special "mode", where it isn't subject to the same rules of space and time anymore. And the theory itself doesn't seem to reflect these "mode" changes. So it seems to me that SR doesn't really elegantly address this "mode", and I haven't heard anything so far that keeps me from being confident that future research is going to step into this open end. I don't think the work is done yet.

Does Roger Penrose' twistor space play a role in this discussion? Here is what Lee Smolin says about twistor space in his book The Trouble with Physics, pg 244: "More specifically, you can make a new space, consisting of all the light rays in spacetime. You can then translate all of physics into this space of light rays. The result is an incredibly beautiful construction, which Penrose calls twistor space." He goes on to write, "In surprisingly beautiful ways, many of the basic equations of physics could be rewritten in terms of twistor space. It really did seem as if you could see the light rays as the most fundamental thing, with space and time just an aspect of relations among them...The events of our spacetime turn out to be certain surfaces suspended in the twistor space. The geometry of our spacetime also emerges from structures in twistor space." He does go on to describe the problems with twistor space (which are associated with the fact that twistor space "is only understood in the absence of quantum theory"). We can't overlook such a blatant flaw, but isn't it interesting that Penrose seems to simply give the element of light a reference frame? I hadn't thought about this until I read the last comments of colorSpace. Though I may be going out on a limb to say that Penrose gives light a frame of reference. That's just how my little brain interpretes what I read about it.

 

[Mentz114]

Wallin:

but isn't it interesting that Penrose seems to simply give the element of light a reference frame?

No he does not. You're talking balderdash because you don't understand what is being said. Have you heard of general relativity ? One could equally argue the a GR space-time is nothing but all the trajectories ( geodesics) of light and matter. There is no implication that a frame of reference exists for light in this or in Penrose's ramblings.

Why don't you leave off ? You've been told by people a lot more qualified than me that the notion is meaningless in physical terms.

 

[Wallin]

There was a time when people a lot more qualified than me said the Earth was the only valid frame of reference. So the age of geocentricity was born. It started with Ptolemy (a most qualified and eminent scientist of the 2nd century A.D) and lasted for over 1500 years because everyone believed Ptolemy without question. It scares me when people are so sure of themselves and the status quo that they cannot afford to explore the places where conflictiing theories (GR and QM, for instance) might merge. Thank heaven Copernicus came along and dared to ask a question, to reach a little bit outside the box. Now I know I'm no Copernicus. In fact I would go so far as to say that I'm an idiot--a fool if you like. But I am wise enough to know that GR, SR and QM are missing something. Einstein, the author of GR knew that as well and I think he would object to your unquestioning, and wonder-crushing self assuredness. He would encourage me to keep asking questions and to keep up the search for the truth. I don't pretend to think I will be the one to find missing truth. But I'll certainly continue to have fun looking.

 

[pervect]

I see someone beat me to locking this thread. Let me point out, that we are not attempting to push the state of the art here at PF, and that this is mentioned in our guidelines, which I encourage people to read (click on 'rules'). People with personal theories to discuss need to find another forum, we are interested in explaining physics as it is currently understood to a general audience here, and not in pushing the state of the art or providing a soapbox for everyone with some pet personal theory.

Unfortunately, advancing the state of the art of physics is not as easy as it might appear to someone who lacks expertise in the field. Unfortunately, not only do grandiose proposals generally fail when subjected to close scrutiny, they are rarely even original :-(.