(February 24, 2015 at 5:59 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 24, 2015 at 1:47 am)Surgenator Wrote: In the relativity equations you will be dividing by zero if you go into the photon's rest frame. Thats what makes it invalid.

Doesn't calculus take care of that for us via limits?

Alex already answered this one.

Quote:

Quote:The number of interactions that happen to the photon is independent of the reference frame. The time between two or more interactions would be spaced differently for different reference frames. Moving reference frame would see a smaller time difference between interactions compared to the stationary one. In the photon reference frame, all the interactions occurred at once which would break causality if the photon didn't get destroyed with each interaction.

So a photon gets exactly one interaction-- its absorption into a receiving body. Does this mean, then, that passing through gravity fields (which will have changed as the photon "moves" in our reference frame) does not count as an interaction? It certainly would seem to affect what specific body is going to get to aborb the photon.

That is hard question to answer since it depends if. your taken the general relativity approach or QM approach. In general relativity, space-time is curved so there was no interaction with the photon. In QM approach, the photon would interact with the graviton. So maybe. I don't know my feynman diagrams for graviton-photon interaction.

Quote:

Quote:Imagine a photon starting on the trajectory toward your eye. Midway between galaxies, a flying black hole and photon have a close encounter. The black hole would change the trajectory of the photon.

Ah yes, but from the photon's reference frame, the distance between it and your eye is 0. In other words, as soon as it is brought into existence, it is already at your eye, meaning that nothing COULD have intervened which would have prevented it from reaching your eye.

Two problems, the photon reference frame in an invalid frame and the number of possible interactions have to be equal independent of the frame.

Your also making another fallacy where your assuming that because a photon hit your eye it was destined to hit your eye. There are countless photons that are on a trajectory toward your eye right now, so why are you not blinded by them? Answer.

Except that the night sky isn't dark.

There is the uniform 2.73 degree microwave background radiation. Not quite what Olbers had in mind, I suppose, but an amazing feature of the universe.

(February 24, 2015 at 11:40 am)Alex K Wrote:

(February 24, 2015 at 11:34 am)AFTT47 Wrote: I don't get it. As has been pointed out several times, gravity does deflect the path a photon. It has been observed. I believe that was the first test of general relativity. A star was observed close to the sun during a total eclipse and its apparent position was indeed shifted by the sun's gravity well.

As I understand the OP now, the question would then be whether the way in which matter/spacetime deflects the photon isn't also determined from the start because the proper time of the photon is zero.

Yeah, that's the idea.

---

(February 24, 2015 at 1:33 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Two problems, the photon reference frame in an invalid frame and the number of possible interactions have to be equal independent of the frame.

You say it's invalid because it breaks the math. But that's only when you are trying to "boost" our reference frame to that of something moving at the speed of light, isn't it? But I don't have a problem with that, because the fact that the math is broken is an indicator that something tricky is up with causality.

Quote:Your also making another fallacy where your assuming that because a photon hit your eye it was destined to hit your eye. There are countless photons that are on a trajectory toward your eye right now, so why are you not blinded by them? Answer.

That's not an assumption, that's my conclusion: since the photon has hit my eye, and since in its frame time does not pass, it is not subject to any possible alterations, even from our point of view, and even though wee see the photon to have "travelled" for a thousand light years.

(February 23, 2015 at 6:44 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Okay, so photons "experience" no passing of time. In other words, in the relative framework of a photon, whatever it's leaving and whatever it arrives at are brought together to a zero distance-- i.e. they share the same point.

A photon is timeless in it's own frame. The photon cannot change anything. From a photon's reference, all places share a single point. However, because no time passes for the photon, it cannot be 'aware' of anything. From a photon's perspective, it never was.

From our perspective, a myriad of things can change the path of a photon. The path is not determined. (Unless one goes with Laplace's demon perspective.)

(February 24, 2015 at 6:54 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 24, 2015 at 1:33 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Two problems, the photon reference frame in an invalid frame and the number of possible interactions have to be equal independent of the frame.

You say it's invalid because it breaks the math. But that's only when you are trying to "boost" our reference frame to that of something moving at the speed of light, isn't it? But I don't have a problem with that, because the fact that the math is broken is an indicator that something tricky is up with causality.

You're taking the limits of equations to determine the behavior. We know those limits are longer valid. So how are you determining the true behavior of the photon?

Quote:

Quote:Your also making another fallacy where your assuming that because a photon hit your eye it was destined to hit your eye. There are countless photons that are on a trajectory toward your eye right now, so why are you not blinded by them? Answer.

That's not an assumption, that's my conclusion: since the photon has hit my eye, and since in its frame time does not pass, it is not subject to any possible alterations, even from our point of view, and even though wee see the photon to have "travelled" for a thousand light years.

Bullshit. Imagine I put pulse a laser that is on the moon which will hit your eye. I know it takes a little over 1 second to reach your eye. Can I or can't I put a piece of paper to block the laser light from hitting your eye. According to your logic, the photon left the moon and reached your eye instantly. According to me, I blocked the lasers path and it never reached your eye. Who's right?

You also failed to answer to what happened to all the other photons going toward your eye that never hit it.

(February 24, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Bullshit. Imagine I put pulse a laser that is on the moon which will hit your eye. I know it takes a little over 1 second to reach your eye. Can I or can't I put a piece of paper to block the laser light from hitting your eye. According to your logic, the photon left the moon and reached your eye instantly. According to me, I blocked the lasers path and it never reached your eye. Who's right?

The photon was always going to hit your paper, right at the point it left the emitter, and before (in our reference frame) you moved the paper to block its path. This is because for the photon, no time has passed and no distance had to be covered-- the photon represents a direct link between the emitter on the moon and the receiving body, i.e. your eye. Whatever the photon hits, it could not have hit anything else, because there is no time in which the photon could be influenced by anything.

I'm pretty sure this is one of the apparent paradoxes in physics, and is connected to the observer effect, to wave/particule "duality," etc.

(February 24, 2015 at 8:29 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I'm pretty sure this is one of the apparent paradoxes in physics, and is connected to the observer effect, to wave/particule "duality," etc.

Not so. The photon travels at 3x10E8 m/s. It is not instantaneous. The point of reference from the photon is irrelevant.

(February 24, 2015 at 9:22 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(February 24, 2015 at 8:29 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I'm pretty sure this is one of the apparent paradoxes in physics, and is connected to the observer effect, to wave/particule "duality," etc.

Not so. The photon travels at 3x10E8 m/s. It is not instantaneous. The point of reference from the photon is irrelevant.

People keep saying that, but nobody has given anything but a bald assertion. As I said, in any other comparison of reference frames, there is SOME time involved, and you can array events as conveniently along a 1-second timeline as you can along a one trillion year timeline. But in the case of a photon, NO time passes, and so there is no room for any of the events which would represent a causal interaction.

(February 24, 2015 at 8:29 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 24, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Bullshit. Imagine I put pulse a laser that is on the moon which will hit your eye. I know it takes a little over 1 second to reach your eye. Can I or can't I put a piece of paper to block the laser light from hitting your eye. According to your logic, the photon left the moon and reached your eye instantly. According to me, I blocked the lasers path and it never reached your eye. Who's right?

The photon was always going to hit your paper, right at the point it left the emitter, and before (in our reference frame) you moved the paper to block its path. This is because for the photon, no time has passed and no distance had to be covered-- the photon represents a direct link between the emitter on the moon and the receiving body, i.e. your eye. Whatever the photon hits, it could not have hit anything else, because there is no time in which the photon could be influenced by anything.

I'm pretty sure this is one of the apparent paradoxes in physics, and is connected to the observer effect, to wave/particule "duality," etc.

How do you know it was always going to hit the paper? The fact that it hit the paper doesn't prove that it was always going to hit the paper. How fast did I move the paper according to the photon reference frame? Infinitely fast. How can my hand move faster than the speed of light?

IATIA reminded me of something else. What is the speed of light in the photons reference frame? What is the speed of light in any other reference frame? Do you realize the contradiction yet? The fundamental assumption for relativity, the speed of light is the same in all proper inertial reference frame, is a contradiction in the photons reference frame. The photon suppose to be going at 3e8 m/s in its reference frame, but its suppose to be at rest in its reference frame. Contradiction! That is the conceptual reason why the photon reference frame is invalid.

(February 24, 2015 at 11:28 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

(February 24, 2015 at 8:29 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The photon was always going to hit your paper, right at the point it left the emitter, and before (in our reference frame) you moved the paper to block its path. This is because for the photon, no time has passed and no distance had to be covered-- the photon represents a direct link between the emitter on the moon and the receiving body, i.e. your eye. Whatever the photon hits, it could not have hit anything else, because there is no time in which the photon could be influenced by anything.

I'm pretty sure this is one of the apparent paradoxes in physics, and is connected to the observer effect, to wave/particule "duality," etc.

How do you know it was always going to hit the paper? The fact that it hit the paper doesn't prove that it was always going to hit the paper. How fast did I move the paper according to the photon reference frame? Infinitely fast. How can my hand move faster than the speed of light?

It can't, so it didn't. From the photon's frame, your hand couldn't have moved, and therefore it didn't. Despite the photon seeming to "move" from our perspective it actually represents a curve through spacetime, immalleable and unchangeable. And therefore. . . determinism.

Quote:IATIA reminded me of something else. What is the speed of light in the photons reference frame? What is the speed of light in any other reference frame? Do you realize the contradiction yet? The fundamental assumption for relativity, the speed of light is the same in all proper inertial reference frame, is a contradiction in the photons reference frame. The photon suppose to be going at 3e8 m/s in its reference frame, but its suppose to be at rest in its reference frame. Contradiction! That is the conceptual reason why the photon reference frame is invalid.

That's right. In its own frame of reference, the photon is not moving. . . for 0.0000000000000000000 seconds, after which it is absorbed into a receiving medium. In other words, the photon draws the projecting medium and the receiving medium into a single point in spacetime. That zero distance represents a collapse of the universe into a singularity-- tricky, naughty little photon!