Do photons effectivley travel instantaneously?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pyrokenesis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Photons Travel
Pyrokenesis
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Do photons effectivley travel instantaneously? If not then the question posed by Einstein "If I travel at the speed of light and hold a mirror in-front of my face, do I see a reflection?" has the answer, no!

Although I'm not positive why but would say that because your in the same frame of reference as the mirror that you do see a reflection.

Befuddled!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Photons travel at c, they don't have a rest frame.
 
Just for the record, here is what Einstein wrote.

""
Wenn ich einem Lichtstrahl nacheile mit der Geschwindigkeit c (Lichtgeschwindigkeit I am Vacuum), so sollte ich einen solchen Lichtstrahl als ruhendes, raümlich oszillatorisches elektromagnetisches Feld wahrnehmen. So etwas scheint es aber nicht zu geben, weder auf Grund der Erfahrung noch gemäss den Maxwell'schen Gleichungen.
""

Here is an English translation.

""
If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as a spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest. However, there seems to be no such thing, whether on the basis of experience or according to Maxwell's equations.
""

If he were traveling at c behind the beam of light, then he would not be catching up to it. He said "nacheile", which means "lag". So it should be "If I lag a beam of light...". He didn't say "gehe mit" (go with) or "reise mit" (travel with) that beam of light. So he hasn't explained just how he thought he could experience those (for him) stationary oscillations, and he hasn't explained just how he might have transformed those Maxwell equations to that moving frame of reference. But this is just a remembrance of something from his early thoughts, before his theory of relativity. It would have been about 1895 and (he says) he was sixteen.

I think he agrees with the topic originator. It would be just like standing still (relativity principle), so the light beam can't be at rest even in this frame of reference. Relativity theory won't permit this (traveling at lightspeed)to be a frame of reference at all.

*autobiography from Schilpp Library of Living Philosophers
 
Last edited:
Thanx guys, I've read a bit more on the subject, and if he couldn't see his image then as I understand it he would know the speed he was moving at without having to look outside his own frame. This violates the principle of relativity. Makes sense!
 
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)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...

Similar threads

Back
Top