Humans travelling at light speed?

[mibaokula]

humans traveling at light speed?

just a little thought experiment. we know it is ludicrous to suggest that humans can travel at "c" because we have mass and it takes infinite energy to travel at c if you have mass. however, does this work for relative velocities: let us assume you are in a closed dark room standing completely still; suddenly a flash-light at the end of the room is turned on. we know that the flash light is expelling photons that are able to travel at c. my question is: with respect to each photon, what velocity do you (standing still) travel at?

 

[Pengwuino]

It makes no sense to ask what photons see. They do not have frames of reference where it makes sense to ask "what does a photon see". They don't experience time or space.

 

[mibaokula]

It makes no sense to ask what photons see. They do not have frames of reference where it makes sense to ask "what does a photon see". They don't experience time or space.

thanks i guess that would make sense. but that's no fun, light can experience time (we see galaxies as they were millions of years ago), light can experience space (black holes and other massive objects can "bend" light) but light has no reference frame in that particular thought experiment - in short, i don't get it

 

[ghwellsjr]

When we talk about a frame of reference associated with some object/observer, we define that object/observer to be at rest in that frame. We also define the speed of light to be c in any frame of reference that we are considering. A photon cannot both be at rest and traveling at c at the same time so it is meaningless to talk about a frame of reference associated with a photon.

 

[mibaokula]

When we talk about a frame of reference associated with some object/observer, we define that object/observer to be at rest in that frame. We also define the speed of light to be c in any frame of reference that we are considering. A photon cannot both be at rest and traveling at c at the same time so it is meaningless to talk about a frame of reference associated with a photon.

would the same principle apply if talking about two "photons" moving in opposite directions. can that be described using frames of reference?

 

[Doc Al]

would the same principle apply if talking about two "photons" moving in opposite directions. can that be described using frames of reference?

Sure it can be described. Just not from the frame of reference of a photon, which has no meaning.

 

[ghwellsjr]

would the same principle apply if talking about two "photons" moving in opposite directions. can that be described using frames of reference?

Yes, but remember, a photon, like any ray of light, is defined to travel at a speed of c. It makes sense in SR to talk about two photons being emitted in opposite directions simultaneously from a common source at rest in a reference frame so that they simultaneously hit a pair of targets equally spaced from the source. But when we use a different reference frame where the source and targets are in motion, the speeds of those two photons are redefined to be c in that new reference frame so that they do not hit the targets simultaneously.

 

[mibaokula]

Yes, but remember, a photon, like any ray of light, is defined to travel at a speed of c. It makes sense in SR to talk about two photons being emitted in opposite directions simultaneously from a common source at rest in a reference frame so that they simultaneously hit a pair of targets equally spaced from the source. But when we use a different reference frame where the source and targets are in motion, the speeds of those two photons are redefined to be c in that new reference frame so that they do not hit the targets simultaneously.

so in other words, looking at one frame of reference can have a completely different effect to another frame of reference. that makes me even more confused

 

[Pengwuino]

thanks i guess that would make sense. but that's no fun, light can experience time (we see galaxies as they were millions of years ago), light can experience space (black holes and other massive objects can "bend" light) but light has no reference frame in that particular thought experiment - in short, i don't get it

No, they do not experience either. The reason we see objects as they were millions of years ago is simply because it takes time for light to travel. However, that's in our frame of reference, not the photon's. Same idea with space.

 

[mibaokula]

No, they do not experience either. The reason we see objects as they were millions of years ago is simply because it takes time for light to travel. However, that's in our frame of reference, not the photon's. Same idea with space.

now I'm super confused. if light has a numerically defined speed - 300,000km/s in a vacuum. then surely a photon traveling at that speed experiences time. in other words, it would take 20 seconds for light to travel 6,000,000 km. And in general relativity, light does get effected by space ignoring frames of reference, right? the medium light propagates through is space, right? that's why it can travel in a vacuum.

so doesn't light get effected by space and time or am i completely misunderstanding your point?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

now I'm super confused. if light has a numerically defined speed - 300,000km/s in a vacuum. then surely a photon traveling at that speed experiences time. in other words, it would take 20 seconds for light to travel 6,000,000 km. And in general relativity, light does get effected by space ignoring frames of reference, right? the medium light propagates through is space, right? that's why it can travel in a vacuum.

so doesn't light get effected by space and time or am i completely misunderstanding your point?

Photons do not experience because they are non-conscious entities.

However to suggest an answer to your question (which may be an inappropriate answer because I may be wrong about this) if we imagine a hypothetical, conscious entity that is able to travel at light speed it would still not be able to "experience" anything. This is because time dilation at the speed of light becomes infinite.

 

[mibaokula]

Photons do not experience because they are non-conscious entities.

However to suggest an answer to your question (which may be an inappropriate answer because I may be wrong about this) if we imagine a hypothetical, conscious entity that is able to travel at light speed it would still not be able to "experience" anything. This is because time dilation at the speed of light becomes infinite.

sorry, what i meant by "experience" is the forces acting on it. i would say for example that a ball "experiences" gravity. I'm not crazy enough to say that the ball has a conscious or something. i (foolishly) mean that the ball is attracted to the Earth through the force of gravity. Likewise, i am saying that the force of gravity has an effect on the path of light on large scales and equally time has an effect on light because it doesn't take an instantaneous amount of time for light to travel a light year. Am i wrong?

 

[bcrowell]

FAQ: What does the world look like in a frame of reference moving at the speed of light?

This question has a long and honorable history. As a young student, Einstein tried to imagine what an electromagnetic wave would look like from the point of view of a motorcyclist riding alongside it. But we now know, thanks to Einstein himself, that it really doesn't make sense to talk about such observers.

The most straightforward argument is based on the positivist idea that concepts only mean something if you can define how to measure them operationally. If we accept this philosophical stance (which is by no means compatible with every concept we ever discuss in physics), then we need to be able to physically realize this frame in terms of an observer and measuring devices. But we can't. It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate Einstein and his motorcycle to the speed of light.

Since arguments from positivism can often kill off perfectly interesting and reasonable concepts, we might ask whether there are other reasons not to allow such frames. There are. One of the most basic geometrical ideas is intersection. In relativity, we expect that even if different observers disagree about many things, they agree about intersections of world-lines. Either the particles collided or they didn't. The arrow either hit the bull's-eye or it didn't. So although general relativity is far more permissive than Newtonian mechanics about changes of coordinates, there is a restriction that they should be smooth, one-to-one functions. If there was something like a Lorentz transformation for v=c, it wouldn't be one-to-one, so it wouldn't be mathematically compatible with the structure of relativity. (An easy way to see that it can't be one-to-one is that the length contraction would reduce a finite distance to a point.)

What if a system of interacting, massless particles was conscious, and could make observations? The argument given in the preceding paragraph proves that this isn't possible, but let's be more explicit. There are two possibilities. The velocity V of the system's center of mass either moves at c, or it doesn't. If V=c, then all the particles are moving along parallel lines, and therefore they aren't interacting, can't perform computations, and can't be conscious. (This is also consistent with the fact that the proper time s of a particle moving at c is constant, ds=0.) If V is less than c, then the observer's frame of reference isn't moving at c. Either way, we don't get an observer moving at c.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

sorry, what i meant by "experience" is the forces acting on it. i would say for example that a ball "experiences" gravity. I'm not crazy enough to say that the ball has a conscious or something. i (foolishly) mean that the ball is attracted to the Earth through the force of gravity. Likewise, i am saying that the force of gravity has an effect on the path of light on large scales and equally time has an effect on light because it doesn't take an instantaneous amount of time for light to travel a light year. Am i wrong?

No your not wrong, photons are affected by gravity, matter etc.

 

[mibaokula]

FAQ: What does the world look like in a frame of reference moving at the speed of light?

This question has a long and honorable history. As a young student, Einstein tried to imagine what an electromagnetic wave would look like from the point of view of a motorcyclist riding alongside it. But we now know, thanks to Einstein himself, that it really doesn't make sense to talk about such observers.

The most straightforward argument is based on the positivist idea that concepts only mean something if you can define how to measure them operationally. If we accept this philosophical stance (which is by no means compatible with every concept we ever discuss in physics), then we need to be able to physically realize this frame in terms of an observer and measuring devices. But we can't. It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate Einstein and his motorcycle to the speed of light.

Since arguments from positivism can often kill off perfectly interesting and reasonable concepts, we might ask whether there are other reasons not to allow such frames. There are. One of the most basic geometrical ideas is intersection. In relativity, we expect that even if different observers disagree about many things, they agree about intersections of world-lines. Either the particles collided or they didn't. The arrow either hit the bull's-eye or it didn't. So although general relativity is far more permissive than Newtonian mechanics about changes of coordinates, there is a restriction that they should be smooth, one-to-one functions. If there was something like a Lorentz transformation for v=c, it wouldn't be one-to-one, so it wouldn't be mathematically compatible with the structure of relativity. (An easy way to see that it can't be one-to-one is that the length contraction would reduce a finite distance to a point.)

What if a system of interacting, massless particles was conscious, and could make observations? The argument given in the preceding paragraph proves that this isn't possible, but let's be more explicit. There are two possibilities. The velocity V of the system's center of mass either moves at c, or it doesn't. If V=c, then all the particles are moving along parallel lines, and therefore they aren't interacting, can't perform computations, and can't be conscious. (This is also consistent with the fact that the proper time s of a particle moving at c is constant, ds=0.) If V is less than c, then the observer's frame of reference isn't moving at c. Either way, we don't get an observer moving at c.

so in short, until we are able to hypothesise a situation where we have infinite energy to travel at "c", it is impossible to even begin to describe what can happen at a photon's frame of reference

 

[mibaokula]

No your not wrong, photons are affected by gravity, matter etc.

so using my basic (probably naive) concept of velocity and distance, surely then there is no infinite time dilation if traveling at the speed of light (hypothetically). this is because it will still take you time to travel huge distances.

what confuses me is that if "c" is an actual numerical value, then how can time stop if traveling a distance? do you understand my confusion here?

 

[ghwellsjr]

so in other words, looking at one frame of reference can have a completely different effect to another frame of reference. that makes me even more confused

We don't "look" at a frame of reference, rather, we "define" an arbitrary reference frame from which we "look" at everything else. We can then use the Lorentz Transform to "see" what the same things "look" like according to a different frame of reference. Switching between frames of reference doesn't change the effect of anything that is happening, it only changes how we label what is happening.

 

[mibaokula]

We don't "look" at a frame of reference, rather, we "define" an arbitrary reference frame from which we "look" at everything else. We can then use the Lorentz Transform to "see" what the same things "look" like according to a different frame of reference. Switching between frames of reference doesn't change the effect of anything that is happening, it only changes how we label what is happening.

a-ah! but with the example of the light particles and the sources, two different effects are observed right?

but i don't understand why light (photons) are exempt from reference frames. photons, as i have tried to explain are affected both by space and time. what "criteria" must you meet in order to be "allowed" a frame of reference

 

[JDoolin]

The limit of acceleration.

Say you are looking at a planet in front of you, and you accelerate toward it.

The event that you are looking at moves into the past, and further away.

In the limit as you accelerate "to" the speed of light, the event moves infinitely far away, and infinitely into the past.

The image then approaches superluminally. In the limit, as you accelerate "to" the speed of light, the image approaches at infinite speed, and arrives in zero time.

Also, the frequency of the light coming to you, of course, goes to infinity; the wavelength goes to zero.

 

[mibaokula]

The limit of acceleration.

Say you are looking at a planet in front of you, and you accelerate toward it.

The event that you are looking at moves into the past, and further away.

In the limit as you accelerate "to" the speed of light, the event moves infinitely far away, and infinitely into the past.

The image then approaches superluminally. In the limit, as you accelerate "to" the speed of light, the image approaches at infinite speed, and arrives in zero time.

Also, the frequency of the light coming to you, of course, goes to infinity; the wavelength goes to zero.

thats if you are accelerating to the speed of light. However, if you are already moving at a constant speed of c, are you saying that there is an infinite time dilation. in other words, when we "see" the sun as it was 8 minutes ago, in the frame of reference of the light from the sun, what actually happened was that it arrived on Earth instantaneously but Earth went into the past to make it appear as though there was a delay of 8 minutes?

 

[JDoolin]

thats if you are accelerating to the speed of light. However, if you are already moving at a constant speed of c, are you saying that there is an infinite time dilation. in other words, when we "see" the sun as it was 8 minutes ago, in the frame of reference of the light from the sun, what actually happened was that it arrived on Earth instantaneously but Earth went into the past to make it appear as though there was a delay of 8 minutes?

Well, there is a big difference between looking in front of you and looking behind you. If you look behind you while traveling "at" the speed of light, then it would appear that the Earth was staying with you. The light from behind you is just keeping up.

If you look at the variety of good relativity books out there, you'll see a place where this type of discussion ought to be, but is notably lacking. It's the part of the twin paradox where they show the situation from the perspective of the stay-at-home twin, but they do not show the situation from the perspective of the traveling twin.

You can see it has been tried in Wikipedia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twin_paradox/Archive_13#Specific_example
but, even though it's a simple calculation, because it is considered "original research" Wikipedia can't publish it.

I've read one version of the twin paradox even, where the traveling twin is put into a locked cell with no windows, to assure that you don't question what the traveling twin sees, because the traveling twin sees nothing at all!

When the traveling twin turns around, they will see the image of home shoot suddenly away during the acceleration phase, before rushing back superluminally during the return.

If you imagine zooming across a room, near the speed of light, the far wall will appear to be much further away, and the space across the room in front of you is likewise, far distant, but approaching superfast. The wall behind you would hardly appear to be receding at all.

 

[ghwellsjr]

a-ah! but with the example of the light particles and the sources, two different effects are observed right?

but i don't understand why light (photons) are exempt from reference frames. photons, as i have tried to explain are affected both by space and time. what "criteria" must you meet in order to be "allowed" a frame of reference

An observer can only be aware of the photons that hit his eyes or instruments located right next to him. For photons that he or his instruments emit, he cannot tell where they are at any particular time.

So light (photons) are certainly not exempt from reference frames, in fact, this ambiguity in knowledge of their whereabouts is one of the main reasons why Einstein came up with his Theory of Special Relativity. In any reference frame, light is defined to travel at c.

So, as I said before, there are not two different effects that are observed as a result of using two different frames. Things that are defined according to one frame because they could not have been observed, for example, the trajectory of a photon, also cannot be observed in any other frame, but are merely given a different definition.

I don't understand your question: 'what "criteria" must you meet in order to be "allowed" a frame of reference'. The only criterion for a frame of reference in Einstein's Special Relativity is that it is inertial, that is, not experiencing acceleration, either a change in speed or a change in direction.

 

[DrGreg]

I don't understand your question: 'what "criteria" must you meet in order to be "allowed" a frame of reference'. The only criterion for a frame of reference in Einstein's Special Relativity is that it is inertial, that is, not experiencing acceleration, either a change in speed or a change in direction.

There is also a second criterion, that the speed of light is the same (c) in all directions, and that clearly rules out a frame in which light (in one direction) can be stationary.

 

[mibaokula]

Thanks that really explains it well.
so in summary, light can be a frame of reference so long as it travels at c. time, sometimes, must be warped to hold this fact. light still travels at the same speed but time stops so light reaches a destination instantaneously. this must be true to obey Einstein's rules that c is the maximum speed. Correct?
what confuses me is that the "photon" doesn't experience time. so each photon of light is actually light from the very beginning of the Big Bang?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Thanks that really explains it well.
so in summary, light can be a frame of reference so long as it travels at c. time, sometimes, must be warped to hold this fact. light still travels at the same speed but time stops so light reaches a destination instantaneously. this must be true to obey Einstein's rules that c is the maximum speed. Correct?
what confuses me is that the "photon" doesn't experience time. so each photon of light is actually light from the very beginning of the Big Bang?

Please go back and read the posts at the beginning of your thread. I don't know why anything you have read in this thread would lead you to conclude that "light can be a frame of reference so long as it travels at c". All light travels at c in all frames by definition. You could say that any object with non-zero mass traveling at constant speed in a straight line in any direction "can be a frame of reference" but you cannot say that about a photon.

 

[IronHamster]

My interpretation of special relativity is this. If you were to race a beam of light, it would always beat you by 300,000,000 m/s in your frame of reference, since light goes at this speed relative to you no matter how fast you are going (relative to a "stationary" observer). This is a restatement of the second postulate.

If you were to travel at the speed of light, however, you would perceive the light traveling faster than you, and the other observer going light speed would perceive you traveling faster than them. What's more, the stationary observer would observe you both traveling at the same speed.

It's very strange.

 

[JDoolin]

Thanks that really explains it well.
so in summary, light can be a frame of reference so long as it travels at c. time, sometimes, must be warped to hold this fact. light still travels at the same speed but time stops so light reaches a destination instantaneously. this must be true to obey Einstein's rules that c is the maximum speed. Correct?
what confuses me is that the "photon" doesn't experience time. so each photon of light is actually light from the very beginning of the Big Bang?

Going the speed of light in Einstein Relativity is effectively the same as going at an infinite speed in Galilean Relativity. You can imagine relative speeds going faster and faster and faster, but you can't really imagine going at an infinite relative speed--except that it takes zero time to go from one place to another.

Effectively, from the photon's point of view (if it could be said to have a point-of-view, which really, it can't), it is going at that "infinite" speed. It is going an infinite distance in zero time. From any other point of view, it is gong a finite distance in a finite time, at the speed of light.

I'm not sure what you mean by "each photon of light." Are you referring to a certain light in particular

 

[ghwellsjr]

If you were to travel at the speed of light, however, you would perceive the light traveling faster than you, and the other observer going light speed would perceive you traveling faster than them. What's more, the stationary observer would observe you both traveling at the same speed.

It's very strange.

It's very strange because there is no basis in Special Relativity or anywhere else for attempting to discuss what would happen if you were to travel at the speed of light.

 

[mibaokula]

i meant that if light "experiences" zero time but infinite velocity, light in today's universe must actually be light existing at the dawn of time?

 

[nitsuj]

i meant that if light "experiences" zero time but infinite velocity, light in today's universe must actually be light existing at the dawn of time?

While there is some electro-magnetic energy that is still hanging around from the "dawn of time", there certainly is no visable light.

I don't know the mechanics, but understand a photon to be created when an electron in an atom experiences a change (increase) in energy levels. It spits out a photon to shed this unwelcomed increase in energy.

Photons come and go.

I see you are looking for the impact infinite time dilation has on a photon (electro-magnetism), maybe read about half-life of matter.

 

[mibaokula]

Doesn't what you say break a fundamental law: energy cannot be created or destroyed?
How can photons come and go?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Photons carry energy from one atom or molecule to another. The total energy is constant.

 

[nitsuj]

Doesn't what you say break a fundamental law: energy cannot be created or destroyed?
How can photons come and go?

Your blackest shirt on a sunny day will give you the feel of photons being "destroyed"

Your brightest light bulb can "create" the photons if it's too cloudy

 

[nitsuj]

sorry, what i meant by "experience" is the forces acting on it. i would say for example that a ball "experiences" gravity. I'm not crazy enough to say that the ball has a conscious or something.

how emotive descriptions of physics, despite transparency, can still be lost in translation to the point of requiring such an obvious reply it is humorous for most readers.

mibaokula, I would have replied the same, less the sorry.

 

[mibaokula]

Your blackest shirt on a sunny day will give you the feel of photons being "destroyed"

Your brightest light bulb can "create" the photons if it's too cloudy

surely the photons aren't destroyed but their wavelengths lengthened. i.e., visible light radiates on the black shirt and infra red is emitted? with the light-bulb, electricity in the circuit meets a very high resistance to the extent that visible light is radiates as the temperature reaches a critical level?

how emotive descriptions of physics, despite transparency, can still be lost in translation to the point of requiring such an obvious reply it is humorous for most readers.

mibaokula, I would have replied the same, less the sorry.

thanks - in my haste i often forget to describe my questions in fully scientific terms