Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 25, 2015 at 1:13 am
(February 25, 2015 at 12:44 am)bennyboy Wrote: (February 24, 2015 at 11:28 pm)Surgenator Wrote: 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. ![[Image: picard-facepalm.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i3.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Foriginal%2F000%2F001%2F582%2Fpicard-facepalm.jpg)
If my hand moved in my frame, it moved in all frames.
Quote: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!
Special relativity axiom is violated in the photon's reference frame. The axiom states the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frame. That is not the case for the photon's reference frame. Special relativity isn't valid. It doesn't how far the photon traveled or how long it existed, the axiom is still violated.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 25, 2015 at 1:35 am
^
That's for everyone engaged in this debate being so goddamn smart.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 25, 2015 at 6:41 am
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2015 at 6:42 am by bennyboy.)
(February 25, 2015 at 1:13 am)Surgenator Wrote: Special relativity axiom is violated in the photon's reference frame. The axiom states the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frame. That is not the case for the photon's reference frame. Special relativity isn't valid. It doesn't how far the photon traveled or how long it existed, the axiom is still violated.
Who says that the photon is light in its own reference frame?
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 25, 2015 at 6:48 am
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2015 at 8:13 am by Alex K.)
(February 25, 2015 at 6:41 am)bennyboy Wrote: (February 25, 2015 at 1:13 am)Surgenator Wrote: Special relativity axiom is violated in the photon's reference frame. The axiom states the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frame. That is not the case for the photon's reference frame. Special relativity isn't valid. It doesn't how far the photon traveled or how long it existed, the axiom is still violated.
Who says that the photon is light in its own reference frame?
There is no well defined reference frame "of the photon" in the conventional special relativity sense. Tell me what you mean by it and then we can talk about properties...
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 25, 2015 at 1:09 pm
(February 25, 2015 at 6:41 am)bennyboy Wrote: (February 25, 2015 at 1:13 am)Surgenator Wrote: Special relativity axiom is violated in the photon's reference frame. The axiom states the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frame. That is not the case for the photon's reference frame. Special relativity isn't valid. It doesn't how far the photon traveled or how long it existed, the axiom is still violated.
Who says that the photon is light in its own reference frame? From its definition. Are you going to explain why it stops being a quanta a light in its own rest frame?
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 25, 2015 at 4:56 pm
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2015 at 5:03 pm by bennyboy.)
(February 25, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Surgenator Wrote: (February 25, 2015 at 6:41 am)bennyboy Wrote: Who says that the photon is light in its own reference frame? From its definition. Are you going to explain why it stops being a quanta a light in its own rest frame? Sure. For the reason you just described: light moves at "c" in all reference frames, but nothing moves in its own reference frame. We can respond to this in one of two ways: 1) a photon doesn't have a reference frame; 2) a photon, in its own reference frame, is not light as we normally think of it, but a different kind of thing.
In v1.0 of this thread, I took the position that a photon wasn't a thing at all, but rather an idea about a relationship between things, and that the universe was therefore best viewed in idealistic terms. In this thread, I am accepting the broken math and considering the consequences of that acceptance: the bringing together in spacetime of one framework which is infinite or undefined with our own rest frame. It's not that much different than asking what happens inside a black hole, or what existed "before" the Big Bang singularity, I guess.
Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 25, 2015 at 6:26 pm
(February 25, 2015 at 4:56 pm)bennyboy Wrote: (February 25, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Surgenator Wrote: From its definition. Are you going to explain why it stops being a quanta a light in its own rest frame? Sure. For the reason you just described: light moves at "c" in all reference frames, but nothing moves in its own reference frame. We can respond to this in one of two ways: 1) a photon doesn't have a reference frame; 2) a photon, in its own reference frame, is not light as we normally think of it, but a different kind of thing. There are other options like (3) relativity isn't valid in the rest frame of the photon.
1) Maybe valid since you cannot boost into the frame
2) This doesn't make any sense. Changing views shouldn't change the physics.
Quote:In v1.0 of this thread, I took the position that a photon wasn't a thing at all, but rather an idea about a relationship between things, and that the universe was therefore best viewed in idealistic terms. In this thread, I am accepting the broken math and considering the consequences of that acceptance: the bringing together in spacetime of one framework which is infinite or undefined with our own rest frame. It's not that much different than asking what happens inside a black hole, or what existed "before" the Big Bang singularity, I guess.
By all means speculate all you like. However, you shouldn't think the photon as something unique, there is another known massless boson named gluons. Their behavior is more complex than the photon. They also cannot exist without the aid of a pair of quarks. But there are theories of glueballs. In addition, there are other massive bosons like Z and W just to make things more complicated.
Posts: 6946
Threads: 26
Joined: April 28, 2012
Reputation:
83
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 25, 2015 at 6:45 pm
Perhaps I'm just pig dick ignorant here, but I can't get past the fact that it takes a photon 8 minutes to get to the Earth from the surface of the sun. I understand that if left unimpeded, 8 minutes travel time would 'seem' infinitesimal to a photon, but don't understand the argument how this translates into zero distance.
I think it's perfectly acceptable to pontificate about a photon perceiving the journey to be instantaneous; the same as our inability to differentiate nanoseconds from instantaneous. To then state as fact that no distance was traveled by the photon and reason necessary truths from this seems unreasonable.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 25, 2015 at 7:29 pm
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2015 at 7:30 pm by Mudhammam.)
(February 25, 2015 at 6:45 pm)Cato Wrote: Perhaps I'm just pig dick ignorant here, but I can't get past the fact that it takes a photon 8 minutes to get to the Earth from the surface of the sun. I understand that if left unimpeded, 8 minutes travel time would 'seem' infinitesimal to a photon, but don't understand the argument how this translates into zero distance.
I think it's perfectly acceptable to pontificate about a photon perceiving the journey to be instantaneous; the same as our inability to differentiate nanoseconds from instantaneous. To then state as fact that no distance was traveled by the photon and reason necessary truths from this seems unreasonable. I can never wrap my brain around where that actually leaves "the perspective of the photon" emitted from a galaxy so distant that it can never reach us due to inflation. People have explained it to me before and I'm always just left dumbfounded.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
February 25, 2015 at 7:30 pm
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2015 at 7:37 pm by bennyboy.)
(February 25, 2015 at 6:45 pm)Cato Wrote: Perhaps I'm just pig dick ignorant here, but I can't get past the fact that it takes a photon 8 minutes to get to the Earth from the surface of the sun. I understand that if left unimpeded, 8 minutes travel time would 'seem' infinitesimal to a photon, but don't understand the argument how this translates into zero distance.
I think it's perfectly acceptable to pontificate about a photon perceiving the journey to be instantaneous; the same as our inability to differentiate nanoseconds from instantaneous. To then state as fact that no distance was traveled by the photon and reason necessary truths from this seems unreasonable. Yes, these are the consequences of Relativity. I turns out that apparent times, distances, etc. change as things move in relation to each other. For example, if a spaceship takes off and accelerates, its clock slows down relative to those remaining on Earth. If the ship accelerates at a high % of the speed of light and then returns to Earth, the astronaut may find that everyone on Earth that he knew is dead, even though he himself has aged only a little. The recent movie Interstellar deals with this theme extensively as a central plot point.
Anyway, in the case of a photon, which is traveling at 100% of the speed of light, this effect is absolute: the photon's clock slows to absolute zero, and no time passes for the photon, EVEN THOUGH we can measure its time from the sun to Earth from our own perspective. The problems come up because trying to run infinity through formulas, or divide-by-zeroes, breaks the math.
(February 25, 2015 at 7:29 pm)Nestor Wrote: I can never wrap my brain around where that actually leaves "the perspective of the photon" emitted from a galaxy so distant that it can never reach us due to inflation. People have explained it to me before and I'm always just left dumbfounded. My view is that all photons MUST have a destination, or they couldn't exist. I'm also wondering, since in a photon's framework the universe would be a singularity, we should consider that there is only ONE photon in existence, rather than practically infinite ones.
|
