Would it Feel as if Time Stopped If I Became Light?

[Fredrik]

If you wish to advance your argument, rather than arguing somewhat randomly that nothing makes sense this way and that, you might discover what is formally indeterminate and what is not. But to insist that nothing is determinate is a very risky stance to take.

The arguments have been presented in all of the recent threads about this topic, and they're very solid. They're certainly not "random". If you think so, you haven't been reading carefully enough.

OK, qwerty1's argument about monkeys is kind of random, I'll grant you that.

(qwerty1: Atoms aren't conscious either, but we can still talk about their points of view. When we do, we're always referring to a description in terms of a coordinate system that can be associated with the particle's motion in a very natural way. The problem with photons is that the "natural way" to associate a coordinate system with the particle's motion doesn't work, and that a null geodesic can never be the time axis of an inertial frame).

 

[JesseM]

If you wish to advance your argument, rather than arguing somewhat randomly that nothing makes sense this way and that, you might discover what is formally indeterminate and what is not. But to insist that nothing is determinate is a very risky stance to take.

Only a formally-defined question can have a formally-defined answer like "formally indeterminate". "What are things like from a photon's perspective" is just a bunch of English words that don't have any clear technical meaning. My argument may have looked "somewhat random" to you but take note that I was listing different formal meanings that "perspective" might have (what things are like in the object's rest frame, what would be seen visually on the object's worldline) and explaining why, whichever you chose, the question would not have a determinate answer in relativity. If you'd like to offer some alternate possibilities for how the nontechnical word "perspective" might be interpreted I'm happy to hear it, but as the question stands, it's too vague to be have either a formally determinate or formally indeterminate answer, you might as well ask "how does a photon feel as it travels" ('feel' being an English word with no well-defined technical meaning, just like 'perspective')

 

[Phrak]

Perhaps I should have been discussing the limit as v approaches c.

Dividing by zero a few times and giving up does not mean something makes no sense. It just means we gave up. We can change to null coordinates where some things do make sense when v -->c, where the velocity of the frame is in the positive x direction:

a = x-ct
b = x+ct

The y and z coordinates remain unchanged.

In null coordinates the Lorentz transform takes a simple form.

V = sqrt[(1-(v/c)²/(1-(v/c)²]

a' = aV
b' = b/V

The map from b to b' is undefined. We have to divide by zeo.
The map from a to a' is determinate. Of course it's not very interesting. All of the a coordinate collapses to zero extent.

There may be other things that make sense such as the ratio between the null velocities of two particles.

 

[bapowell]

The fact that no inertial frame exists for the photon does not depend on the choice of coordinates. The fact that the Lorentz transformations are singular at v=c is a symptom of this deeper problem. Myself and others in this thread have been tirelessly saying this over and over for some time now.

 

[JesseM]

Dividing by zero a few times and giving up does not mean something makes no sense. It just means we gave up.

As bapowell said, the conclusion that photons cannot have an inertial rest frame does not have anything to do with "dividing by zero". It follows from the first postulate of SR, which says the laws of physics must have the same form in every frame defined as an "inertial" one. Since light cannot be at rest in any sublight inertial frame, the first postulate would be violated if there were an inertial frame where light was be at rest. Of course you can still define a coordinate system where light is at rest, but it's a non-inertial one.

 

[Dale]

As bapowell said, the conclusion that photons cannot have an inertial rest frame does not have anything to do with "dividing by zero". It follows from the first postulate of SR, which says the laws of physics must have the same form in every frame defined as an "inertial" one. Since light cannot be at rest in any sublight inertial frame, the first postulate would be violated if there were an inertial frame where light was be at rest.

It also follows from the second postulate of SR which says that light propagates at c in all inertial reference frames. Since light propagates at c in all inertial reference frames then any frame where it is at rest must be non-inertial.

 

[Fredrik]

a = x-ct
b = x+ct

Yes, it's true that there's a coordinate system that has the massless particle's world line as the 0th axis. (It is a valid coordinate system, even though it's not an inertial frame). But why would we want to define this to be "a photon's point of view"? The motivation for it wouldn't be the same as for the association of an inertial frame with the world line of a massive particle.

 

[phyti]

I think I already know the answer, but a friend of mine disagreed with me on this point:

If I were to become light, i.e. my consciousness was transferred to a photon moving with speed c, would it then seem to me as if I existed outside of time? I think it would because of the fact that moving clocks seem to travel slower. If you do a time dilation calculation you get the time interval in the moving system to be infinite compared to the proper time interval. It seems to me as if you would paradoxically experience two different things:

1. The universe would stand still (i.e. time would stop) for the rest of eternity.

2. All events in the future would happen instantly.

Neither.
If the Lorentz factor becomes indeterminate, i.e., the period is without a limit, it takes no effort to conclude 'the clock stops'. This does not falsify SR, no more than 1/0 falsifies algebra.
The result (as mentioned in a previous post), if the clock stops, so does everything else, including your brain. You would experience nothing, the same as death.

A simple answer would have been sufficient, and not 3 pages of ...whatever!
It's unfortunate that people get so focused on ideas that they lose perspective and comprehension on the simple issues. It isn't necessary to use a backhoe to plant a tulip bulb.

 

[bapowell]

phyti, I'm so glad you came and saved us all with your brilliant and tactful treatment of the problem.

 

[JesseM]

Neither.
If the Lorentz factor becomes indeterminate, i.e., the period is without a limit, it takes no effort to conclude 'the clock stops'.

What clock? There is no physically possible "clock" moving at the speed of light. You can't use the Lorentz transformation to conclude that a "clock stops" at the speed of light any more than you can use it to conclude that a clock's ticking rate becomes imaginary when it moves faster than light. Equations in physics often have some restricted domain of physically meaningful applicability, this is just another such case.

 

[atyy]

Perhaps what I'm asking, quite simply, is how light and time are related.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
"The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."

If we and a light beam are traveling in the same spatial direction, the light beam will overtake us, and we will "experience" the successive peaks and troughs of its waves, which we can use to mark time.

Does it matter which frequency of light we use? No, because all frequencies of light travel at the same speed past us.

If two light beams are traveling in the same spatial direction, will the peaks and troughs of one wave shift relative to the other wave? No, because all frequencies of light travel at the same speed past us. So unlike us, a light beam will not "experience" the successive peaks and troughs of another light beam. So in the sense of being able to use a light beam traveling in the same spatial direction to mark time, time will not pass for light.

 

[qwerty1]

The arguments have been presented in all of the recent threads about this topic, and they're very solid. They're certainly not "random". If you think so, you haven't been reading carefully enough.

OK, qwerty1's argument about monkeys is kind of random, I'll grant you that.

(qwerty1: Atoms aren't conscious either, but we can still talk about their points of view. When we do, we're always referring to a description in terms of a coordinate system that can be associated with the particle's motion in a very natural way. The problem with photons is that the "natural way" to associate a coordinate system with the particle's motion doesn't work, and that a null geodesic can never be the time axis of an inertial frame).

agreed, but time is really not relevant in his question... if you "became a photon" or "group of photons" and "transferred your consciousness" to it... nm that... my point was that he is not presenting anything of relevance... he is asking a ridiculous question for a personal argument... time would be completely irrelevant to this conscious particle or energy wave... it simply is... this fourth dimension has no bearing to it... so why pose this question... if you could be a conscious particle or wave or whatever, time would not likely work into your 'thinking'... we are, for lack of a better term, machines built to absorb data in a specific linear way... why we were built this way is beyond me... time and space are what they are, and will be what they will be... time and space just dictate where these things are...

i like to think of time like this: (and if anyone thinks i am an idiot, which i am, i would rather enjoy the flames...)

space is like a jello mold... inside of the jello mold are teeny tiny bits of fruit... the jello mold is strung on a piece of sting that i like to call time... the sting runs from one "magic point" ,the beginning, to another "magic point", the end... if you slide the jello mold left down the string all the little pieces of fruit move away from the center of the mold and in little circles until the dissolve when the reach "the end" if you slide the mold to the right they move exactly opposite until they all run together... so really the fruit bits don't perceive anything... they are fruit bits (particles/matter) and the little gaps they leave behind themselves or project in front of themselves don't care either (energy)... and i know i am retard and i know this is a serious over simplification... but still it makes sense to me as a special ed student...

 

[chiro]

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
"The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."

If we and a light beam are traveling in the same spatial direction, the light beam will overtake us, and we will "experience" the successive peaks and troughs of its waves, which we can use to mark time.

Does it matter which frequency of light we use? No, because all frequencies of light travel at the same speed past us.

If two light beams are traveling in the same spatial direction, will the peaks and troughs of one wave shift relative to the other wave? No, because all frequencies of light travel at the same speed past us. So unlike us, a light beam will not "experience" the successive peaks and troughs of another light beam. So in the sense of being able to use a light beam traveling in the same spatial direction to mark time, time will not pass for light.

I think this is what the OP is getting at, that time does not pass for light. Also as other people have mentioned, finite differences contract to points as the velocity approaches light.

In this sense these two things are consistent with each other: if all of space contracts to a single point, then through an analogy of ds = vdt we get 0 = 0 which is consistent with finite distances contracting to points and also the fact that time doesn't pass for the photon.

I don't know about the other threads discussing this topic, but I think this is not a dumb question to ask personally.

 

[Fredrik]

I think this is what the OP is getting at, that time does not pass for light. Also as other people have mentioned, finite differences contract to points as the velocity approaches light.

And as other other people have mentioned, there's no good reason to think of this limit as a photon's point of view.

I don't know about the other threads discussing this topic, but I think this is not a dumb question to ask personally.

I don't think anyone thinks its a dumb question. All those comments about how this topic is an "extremely frequently asked question" and that maybe it should even be on the banned topics list, aren't a reaction to the question, but to the fact that we've all answered it 20 times already. I agree that we need a sticky about this one, and the twin paradox.

 

[bapowell]

Agreed. In any case, it appears the OP abandoned this thread many posts ago...

 

[atyy]

In this sense these two things are consistent with each other: if all of space contracts to a single point, then through an analogy of ds = vdt we get 0 = 0 which is consistent with finite distances contracting to points and also the fact that time doesn't pass for the photon.

I'm not very fond of "space contracting to a point" language. But your equation is close to dss=dtt-dxx=0. I'm only giving a very, very abbreviated explanation here, try looking up Minkowski metric, the spacetime interval, and null geodesics.

 

[phyti]

What clock? There is no physically possible "clock" moving at the speed of light. You can't use the Lorentz transformation to conclude that a "clock stops" at the speed of light any more than you can use it to conclude that a clock's ticking rate becomes imaginary when it moves faster than light.

-The poster is a biological clock. At c, he or any device obviously would cease to qualify as a clock. We could accelerate the person to within a fraction of c, to make it more 'real', and at least make him comatose.
How does anyone determine that a device has stopped, or are they wrong?

Equations in physics often have some restricted domain of physically meaningful applicability, this is just another such case.

- Like when the observer is measuring the length of an approching rod along the x-axis, and as he records it, the rod hits him between the eyes?

Some people are just curious and don't have the time or inclination to do detailed studies of certain subjects. If their question is simple then give a simple answer in terms they can understand. To know your subject is one thing. To impart understanding about the subject is another. The first does not imply the second.
If someone asks for the time of day, no need to instruct them on how a clock works!

 

[Dale]

And if somebody asks what 5/0 it is not our fault if he doesn't like the answer that the question is bad.

 

[JesseM]

-The poster is a biological clock. At c, he or any device obviously would cease to qualify as a clock.

It's not that he would cease to qualify as a clock "at c", it's that it's physically impossible to get him moving at c in the first place, since he is made out of particles with nonzero rest mass. If you are arguing that his clock would stop at c, I would say this is just as incorrect according to known laws of physics as saying he would become a bowl of petunias at c.

We could accelerate the person to within a fraction of c, to make it more 'real', and at least make him comatose.

Sure, but the question was about what happens at c, not at a fraction of c. Again, any question about how time passes for someone moving at c just isn't physically meaningful according to the current understanding of physics.

Equations in physics often have some restricted domain of physically meaningful applicability, this is just another such case.

- Like when the observer is measuring the length of an approching rod along the x-axis, and as he records it, the rod hits him between the eyes?

Perhaps you are being facetious, but no, the fact that the rod hits him in the eyes doesn't change the fact that the length contraction equation correctly gives the rod's length in his frame (regardless of whether he is able to measure that length or not).

If their question is simple then give a simple answer in terms they can understand.

And the simple answer in this case is that there is no well-defined notion of light's "perspective" in SR. Anyone who tries to give any definite answer to this question, like your answer that "the clock stops" at c, is probably just confused about the physics.

 

[mordechai9]

My area of study lately has been plasma physics, and I find it very interesting to ask myself "What would it be like to be one of the electrons (or ions) zooming around in the field?"

For a photon, at the speed of c, I don't know a lot about special or general relativity, but you can at least say a few things, can't you? Basically the intuition is that you would be moving through space very rapidly. I can't think of a lot else to say. Obviously your motion might terminate or change depending on your surroundings, like light in a rainbow being diffracted around in a big circle, and scattering off at different frequencies. You find yourself moving along gravitational geodesics, I think, but I'm not entirely sure how that's interpreted.

 

[Dav333]

Just a noob question. Can you speak about the reference frame of a fast moving electron at 99.9999999999 c?

Would the universe from its view in the forward direction be extremely short?

 

[Phrak]

The specter of inertial frames has been raised a dozen times in this thread despite complete irrelevance. Carry on.

 

[matheinste]

Just a noob question. Can you speak about the reference frame of a fast moving electron at 99.9999999999 c?

Yes we can, and in fact we are possibly moving at very very high speeds withe respect to other objects in the universe. The transformation equations apply to any subluminal speed is inserted into them.

I must plead ignorance of what does or does not happen phyically when we plug c into the equations. The usual answer is that we cannot theroretically achieve a relative speed of c. This is true. However if the result of the mathematics gave a definite answer in the limit as we approached c then perhaps we would have no qualms in venturing an opinion. But in this case the result is indeterminate and so we cannot extrapolate although we can get as close as we like.

It is of course tempting and, to me, not unreasonable to assume that the trend continues towards time "standing still" for the "stationary" observer and length in the direction of motion becoming zero for the "travelling" observer, and vice versa.

Although I am aware of the problem, or non problem, I have no definite answer but I do not worry about it as it is a scenario that is not going to happen.

Matheinste.

 

[JesseM]

The specter of inertial frames has been raised a dozen times in this thread despite complete irrelevance. Carry on.

So what do you think is relevant to defining a photon's perspective? Do you agree that there are an infinite number of distinct possible non-inertial frames in which a photon is at rest (with different definitions of simultaneity, distance, and time intervals) and none are preferred over any other by the laws of physics? If "perspective" isn't interpreted in terms of a coordinate system, how is it to be interpreted?

 

[phyti]

Anyone who tries to give any definite answer to this question, like your answer that "the clock stops" at c, is probably just confused about the physics.

What's the probability?

Light mediates all energy transfer, therefore processes slow down for moving objects,
which includes clocks. This is also the reason objects can't be accelerated to light speed.
By reason without LT, the processes must stop, a consequence of a constant and independent light speed.

'No well-defined notion of light's "perspective"' doesn't answer his question in the context he's asking, and allows him freedom to imagine anything.

The poster got a hypothetical answer to his hypothetical question, which shows that nothing physically meaningful happens.

Of the many posts I've read (including other forums), some in broken english, there are only a few that were not easily understood. I think some answers have more complexity than the question merits.

Can you give an answer in laymans terms without all the techno-babble of theory?

 

[Fredrik]

Light mediates all energy transfer,

This isn't true in the real world.

therefore processes slow down for moving objects,

This isn't true even in electrodynamics.

which includes clocks.

Clocks don't "slow down" in special relativity. They just keep doing what they're supposed to, which is to measure the proper times of the curves in spacetime that represent their motion.

This is also the reason objects can't be accelerated to light speed.

This calculation of the energy required to accelerate a mass m to speed v doesn't involve light at all. (It does of course involve the invariant speed).

'No well-defined notion of light's "perspective"' doesn't answer his question in the context he's asking, and allows him freedom to imagine anything.

How would you answer a question that asks you to assume that the theory you're supposed to use to answer the question is logically inconsistent? It clearly doesn't make sense to allow "the freedom to imagine anything".

Can you give an answer in laymans terms without all the techno-babble of theory?

You want to know what the theory says, but we're not allowed to use the theory? You don't see a conflict there? Anyway, the bottom line is that there's a specific reason why we think of inertial frames as massive particles' points of view, and that reason isn't there when we consider massless particles. The synchronization procedure we'd like to use just wouldn't work.

 

[ZirkMan]

...since a photon can't have an inertial rest frame (and there's no physical reason to prefer any of the infinite number of non-inertial rest frames you could invent), nor does a photon have any internal processes that could be used to mark the time on different events on its worldline.

Einstein already did this exercise in imagination when he was child. The answer to "what it would be to ride a beam of light?" was if I remember correctly that you would see nothing but a pulsating electric and magnetic field changing one into the other. Couldn't this pulsation serve as your hypothetical clock? Could you start to count these pulses and measure your internal time this way?

I also think that the depiction of a "rest frame" of a photon is as far from frame of an observer moving with a limit approaching c as is velocity of c to this observer. These frames are totally different even they seem to be very close to each other.

 

[JesseM]

Einstein already did this exercise in imagination when he was child. The answer to "what it would be to ride a beam of light?" was if I remember correctly that you would see nothing but a pulsating electric and magnetic field changing one into the other.

But he was considering what would have been true in pre-relativistic theories of light...some discussion of what he may have been thinking about here. At best the thought-experiment shows some internal problems with non-relativistic theories of light, but it doesn't make sense as a thought-experiment in the context of relativity itself.

Couldn't this pulsation serve as your hypothetical clock? Could you start to count these pulses and measure your internal time this way?

You can use those to define a time coordinate in a non-inertial frame if you want, but there's no unique way to decide how many pulses should be equivalent to one second in a sublight inertial frame (since such a clock cannot be constructed in these frames), you could define the time between pulsations as 1 nanosecond or 12 trillion years. So, this doesn't give you a basis for any kind of time dilation equation relating the rate time is passing for an observer moving at c to the rate time is passing for an inertial observer. Likewise this doesn't give you any physical basis for deciding how simultaneity and distance "should be" defined in a non-inertial frame moving at c, there are many different ways you could do this.

I also think that the depiction of a "rest frame" of a photon is as far from frame of an observer moving with a limit approaching c as is velocity of c to this observer. These frames are totally different even they seem to be very close to each other.

The concept of the "rest frame" of a photon is not even well-defined (it can't be an inertial frame, and there are an infinite number of different ways to construct a non-inertial rest frame for an object with different judgments about simultaneity and so forth, none preferred over any other by the laws of physics). I agree that it doesn't make sense to view the limit as you approach c as equivalent to the perspective of someone actually moving at c.

 

[jtbell]

Einstein already did this exercise in imagination when he was child. The answer to "what it would be to ride a beam of light?" was if I remember correctly that you would see nothing but a pulsating electric and magnetic field changing one into the other.

From the Usenet Physics FAQ entry, http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/headlights.html

Einstein reported that in 1896 he thought,

``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. [...]"

I added the emphasis, to point out that Einstein realized that such a configuration of E and B fields does not satisfy Maxwell's equations and is therefore impossible according to electromagnetic theory as it was understood then.

Instead of modifying electromagnetic theory to allow for such a situation, Einstein ended up modifying mechanics so as to prevent such a situation from ever happening!

 

[ZirkMan]

Thank you! That essentially closes the case (at least for me )

 

[ZirkMan]

You can use those to define a time coordinate in a non-inertial frame if you want, but there's no unique way to decide how many pulses should be equivalent to one second in a sublight inertial frame (since such a clock cannot be constructed in these frames), you could define the time between pulsations as 1 nanosecond or 12 trillion years. So, this doesn't give you a basis for any kind of time dilation equation relating the rate time is passing for an observer moving at c to the rate time is passing for an inertial observer. Likewise this doesn't give you any physical basis for deciding how simultaneity and distance "should be" defined in a non-inertial frame moving at c, there are many different ways you could do this.

Actually this is an interesting thought experiment. Imagine you would define 1 pulse as one second. That would be your definition of a second. Would you be able to count a finite number of "seconds" and determine a time interval between you started counting and something else happened e.x. you were absorbed or reflected by an atom (as a photon)?

 

[JesseM]

Actually this is an interesting thought experiment. Imagine you would define 1 pulse as one second. That would be your definition of a second. Would you be able to count a finite number of "seconds" and determine a time interval between you started counting and something else happened e.x. you were absorbed or reflected by an atom (as a photon)?

Sure, using this definition you could assign a value to the time between two events on a photon's worldline, though any such time/pulsation convention would be an arbitrary one since there's no physical reason to define the time between pulses as one second as opposed to ten seconds or whatever. And this wouldn't be sufficient to define the time between events not on the photon's worldline since we haven't picked a simultaneity convention.

 

[ZirkMan]

Sure, using this definition you could assign a value to the time between two events on a photon's worldline, though any such time/pulsation convention would be an arbitrary one since there's no physical reason to define the time between pulses as one second as opposed to ten seconds or whatever.

Yes, but it's the only convention you can make since nothing else changes until something happens.

And this wouldn't be sufficient to define the time between events not on the photon's worldline since we haven't picked a simultaneity convention.

I'm not sure what you mean by a simultaneity convention in this case. But the fact that a photon can theoretically have its own internal clock is an important one. At least we can say that time doesn't have to stop entirely for a photon from its own perspective (if there is such a thing).

The only "window" to the outside world would be by recording interference patterns of its own EM field with other pulsating EM fields that it happens to cross on its way (and those happen to be parts of images of the outside world). I'm not so good in EM theory so I do not know if you would be able to detect these interferences in its EM field and if they can transfer any information by changing frequency of the photon's EM field?

 

[JesseM]

Yes, but it's the only convention you can make since nothing else changes until something happens.

When you say "it's the only convention you can make", I assume you're talking about the general idea of defining time in terms of pulses, rather than the specific idea of defining the time between pulses to be 1 second rather than some other amount like 1 microsecond or 1 hour? The point is that even if you choose to say equal number of pulses = equal time interval, that still doesn't give a unique way for comparing how much time has passed for the observer moving at c between a given number of pulses and how much time has passed for slower-than-light observers between the same number of pulses, so it doesn't give any specific time dilation equation.

I'm not sure what you mean by a simultaneity convention in this case.

Are you familiar with the relativity of simultaneity for slower-than-light inertial frames? For these inertial frames there's a natural way of defining what "same time" means in different frames, but no obvious way to extend this to the type of non-inertial frame you're talking about...so if you know a particular event on the light beam's own worldline happens at T=23 seconds according to the time coordinate you've defined, how do you decide whether some other spatially separated event not on the light beam's worldline happened simultaneously with the first event (i.e. it should be assigned a time coordinate of T=23 seconds too) or at a different time?

But the fact that a photon can theoretically have its own internal clock is an important one.

Not a type of clock whose rate can be compared to identical clocks moving slower-than-light though, so there's no non-arbitrary basis for saying the photon elapses less or more time between two events on its worldline than the time between those events as judged in my frame according to my clocks.

At least we can say that time doesn't have to stop entirely for a photon from its own perspective (if there is such a thing).

Since there's no basis for assigning an amount of time in seconds between oscillations "for a photon", you could say the time was zero seconds (or an infinitesimal fraction of a second).

I'm not so good in EM theory so I do not know if you would be able to detect these interferences in its EM field

By "you" do you mean an ordinary slower than-light-observer or an FTL one? I don't know how to construct anything resembling an "observer" out of things moving at light speed, but certainly we should be able to detect changes in the EM field when two electromagnetic waves cross.

and if they can transfer any information by changing frequency of the photon's EM field?

Again, we can transfer information by changing the frequency of an electromagnetic wave, sure.

 

[ZirkMan]

When you say "it's the only convention you can make", I assume you're talking about the general idea of defining time in terms of pulses, rather than the specific idea of defining the time between pulses to be 1 second rather than some other amount like 1 microsecond or 1 hour?

Exactly. One pulse equals one unit of time and in terms of these units you would measure all observed events.

By "you" do you mean an ordinary slower than-light-observer or an FTL one?

By "you" I meant and further in discussion I will mean the observer at the photon's rest frame as I try to look from its perspective.

The point is that even if you choose to say equal number of pulses = equal time interval, that still doesn't give a unique way for comparing how much time has passed for the observer moving at c between a given number of pulses and how much time has passed for slower-than-light observers between the same number of pulses, so it doesn't give any specific time dilation equation.

Are you familiar with the relativity of simultaneity for slower-than-light inertial frames? For these inertial frames there's a natural way of defining what "same time" means in different frames, but no obvious way to extend this to the type of non-inertial frame you're talking about...so if you know a particular event on the light beam's own worldline happens at T=23 seconds according to the time coordinate you've defined, how do you decide whether some other spatially separated event not on the light beam's worldline happened simultaneously with the first event (i.e. it should be assigned a time coordinate of T=23 seconds too) or at a different time?

Thank you for an interesting read. It was one of the clearest explanations of series of thought experiments that lead to SR that I have ever seen.

But you somehow suppose that from the perspective of light the world would look exactly as from our perspective i.e. divided to the worlds of subluminal and luminal speeds. But so far nothing seems to give indications this would be the case. I think that from a perspective of a photon where luminal speed is your rest frame you cannot even learn subluminal or maybe any velocities exist at all. From the photon's point of view you would have no way of finding out velocities exist until you were absorbed by an atom. And even then it is a question if you could ever find out because you might not slow down at all. You might only acquire a spin that gives an illusion of subluminal speed because you no longer travel in straight line but we probably do not want to discuss this now

I don't know how to construct anything resembling an "observer" out of things moving at light speed, but certainly we should be able to detect changes in the EM field when two electromagnetic waves cross.

Again, we can transfer information by changing the frequency of an electromagnetic wave, sure.

So information from these changing frequencies of your own EM field resulting from interactions with other EM fields would be the only way you could find out something exists outside your refference frame.

What I'm thinking now is if we can use this limited but still potentially usable frame of reference to get some insight into relativity.

For example if we could count and compare nr. of pulzes from perspective of each photon from http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/rel_of_sim/index.html" in section 2 and see how and if they differ for different observers, if you would be able to detect existence of gravity in such a frame by measuring effects of gravitational red(blue) shift etc.