# Thread: Does light travel instantly relative to itself?

1. What do you think the universe looks like to light? Imagine a photon relative to itself, it must get to where it is going instantly right? Think about it, if we travel towards the Andromeda galaxy at 99.999999%c we would reach it relative to ourselves on our ship in a matter of months (at the appropriate speed to get that answer) because Andromeda's approach towards the Milky Way would be apparently accelerated due to our time dilation, so my question is imagine how fast we would get there at 99.9999999999999999999999999% c so for light it must be instantaneous?

Are there any theories or credible discussions and query into this question? Or something similar?

Thanks!

2.

3. Originally Posted by Quantime
... so my question is imagine how fast we would get there at 99.9999999999999999999999999% c so for light it must be instantaneous?

Are there any theories or credible discussions and query into this question? Or something similar?

Thanks!
Photons do not have a valid frame, as they are traveling at c. Now that hasn't stopped some textbook authors from making statements to the effect that "time stops for photons" so that "photons can be everywhere without taking any time." Do not listen to those authors. They are attempting to apply formulas in regimes beyond their domains of validity.

4. What makes it so that they have no valid frame? Does it violate any physical constants or laws?

Why can't they observe say for instance the Earth or the object they are approaching as much as say an object could were it traveling at 0.99c for instance? Is it because of the number infinite that messes up any interpretation of 'observe'? If so would this be a similar failing of relativity similar to explaining singularities?

My premise is that because we at a very close speed to the speed of light means that we could travel across the entire universe in a matter of seconds at the sacrifice of eons of time, my question is then if there is no observed reference frame of 'time' for a photon then by the same logic there is no distance to sacrifice either as space and time are not separate.

Or is merley the fact that other objects 'time' is dilating is giving the impression we are approaching them very rapidly when actually we aren't covering that distance of the spacetime continuum as though we were in separate reference frame?

5. You're anthropomorphizing photons.

Matter cannot travel at c.

6. Originally Posted by Neverfly
You're anthropomorphizing photons.
Elaborate.

Matter cannot travel at c.
Mass cannot travel at c, can you elaborate on where this applies to photons and say also gluons?

7. What makes it so that they have no valid frame?
Because their velocity is invariable in all frames.

If photons had/were a valid frame unto themselves, their velocity would be c in their own frame and only their own frame. The velocity of light would be measured as different in all frames other than it's own.

8. Mass cannot travel at c, can you elaborate on where this applies to photons and say also gluons?
It applies to photons and gluons in that they are not matter, and have no mass, thus they must travel at c.

9. Originally Posted by Quantime
Originally Posted by Neverfly
You're anthropomorphizing photons.
Elaborate.

Matter cannot travel at c.
Mass cannot travel at c, can you elaborate on where this applies to photons and say also gluons?
I'm sorry, I was in a bit of a hurry when I typed earlier in didn't have time to express what I wanted to in full.

Back to the beginning- Anthropomorphizing: The assumption that there can be an observer reference at c. This is a reference frame we are familiar with but not necessarily a valid frame for c.
Mass cannot travel at c: We are the observers in this case, but a rock, for example, another bit of mass, is not an observer.
You're asking about what effect that might be observed if, say, (totally ridiculous hypothetical here) you could astrally project your soul into a photon and see from its perspective.
Which of course is an invalid idea in the first place. Which is where the invalidity problem comes in.

But let's say you could for the sake of argument. All time for anything else would be meaningless. The perceived time, for you as the photon, would be your own. As a mass-less velocity, you cannot partake in the effect that creates time or gravity. Gravity cannot hold you, nor can time.
However, you must follow the fundamental properties of spacetime. If it is curved, you're bound to follow that curve, even if that curve is causing a gravity well- even if you are not effected by gravity- you are. You must move in timed motion, even if you are not bound by time, the curvature of spacetime will still effect your path, creating the effect that you are moving at a set velocity relative to any observer, rather than infinite speed. For you, as the photon, from your frame, there would be no frame and all your time/speed/velocity would be infinite. Which makes it an invalid frame from any perspective other than that of the photon itself.

10. Originally Posted by Quantime
What makes it so that they have no valid frame? Does it violate any physical constants or laws?
In addition to AlexG's answer, if you try and apply the Lorentz transform to particles travelling at c, you end up dividing by zero. A sure sign that you are trying to apply the theory in a context in which it is not valid.

11. Originally Posted by Quantime
What do you think the universe looks like to light? Imagine a photon relative to itself, it must get to where it is going instantly right? Think about it, if we travel towards the Andromeda galaxy at 99.999999%c we would reach it relative to ourselves on our ship in a matter of months (at the appropriate speed to get that answer) because Andromeda's approach towards the Milky Way would be apparently accelerated due to our time dilation, so my question is imagine how fast we would get there at 99.9999999999999999999999999% c so for light it must be instantaneous?

Are there any theories or credible discussions and query into this question? Or something similar?

Thanks!
Light nor any form of matter travels relative to itself.

12. We dealing with speed lower than : An object is traveling at , relative to the ground ( which is considered to be static ); relative to it self, it's speed is 0.

Light however is a special case, its speed relative to itself is still !! While relative ground speed is also .

13. I thing that the best way of approaching this question is to start from an observer's frame [an observer whose position in his own frame at t=0 is the same as the position of the photon] and try to calculate the coordinates x', t' in the "frame moving at c." If you try to use the Lorentz transformation to find the coordinates x', t' of the frame moving at speed c, you find that you get something divided by zero for all values of x and t, except when x=ct. Under that condition in the observer's frame it is consistent to take x'=0 and t'=0 for all values of t, in the sense that the limit of v -> c of the Lorentz transformation gives x'=0 and t'=0 for those points. All of them.

A frame with only one point in it, or in the best possible interpretation having only one observable point in it, is not a physically useful frame.

14. Ok, enough with the high science. We can see from that, that light doesn't travel instantaneously. So, let's use a practical form to describe why it doesn't. The first would have to be the night sky would look vastly different. Instead of seeing just a few stars, you would see a 'silver' sky. The reason for that would be that the light from all stars, planets and galaxies would reach us at exactly the same time. Am I correct in saying that? Secondly, that little leaf on the tree or plant, won't be able to 'catch' the photon because it would just zip straight through it as if it wasn't there. But then, by that logic, we won't see light at all. Now, we can most likely find more examples, but I just don't know them. Light cannot travel instantaneously in any frame or frames, because then we won't be here discussing it.

15. Thanks for the answers, I have a few more questions:

If light always travels at a constant speed why then can it increase in a Casimir vacuum?
What about action at a distance?
What would photons see other photons doing, can a photon have a reference frame in the same way an electron traveling at 99.999999%c can?
What would if photons could, they observe other objects doing? How fast would they approach?

Neverfly if what you are saying is true, then photons don't really exist in its own properties in a 3+1 dimensional universe do you not think? If you were to observe the universe as a photon which you said time would not apply was my point, it would be 1c so time, distance etc would be irrelevant unto itself relative the universe. Do you think this is the same problem with singularities?

Also guys could you cite your claims so I can read up on them, preferably not wikipedia if possible!

Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Quantime
What makes it so that they have no valid frame? Does it violate any physical constants or laws?
In addition to AlexG's answer, if you try and apply the Lorentz transform to particles travelling at c, you end up dividing by zero. A sure sign that you are trying to apply the theory in a context in which it is not valid.
This is my point, there is a problem with relativity somewhere because like in black holes when we try to explain a singularity we get again infinite or something that is not valid....

16. Originally Posted by Quantime
Thanks for the answers, I have a few more questions:

If light always travels at a constant speed why then can it increase in a Casimir vacuum?
It is experimentally unverified that it would increase in a Casimir vacuum. Calculations show that an infinitesimal increase is possible if one could lower the vacuum energy (e.g., by shielding produced by closely-spaced plates). By "infinitesimal," I mean really, really, really, very little. So little, in fact, that we are unlikely to acquire the experimental ability to make a measurement any time soon, if ever. But the effect can be explained as equivalent to a lowering of the permittivity of free space by a tiny amount.

What about action at a distance?
What would photons see other photons doing, can a photon have a reference frame in the same way an electron traveling at 99.999999%c can?
As explained in previous posts, a photon has no valid reference frame. But an electron traveling at any speed short of c does.

What would if photons could, they observe other objects doing? How fast would they approach?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. It sounds as if you're asking "if we ignore the invalidity of their reference frame, what would happen?"

Neverfly if what you are saying is true, then photons don't really exist in its own properties in a 3+1 dimensional universe do you not think? If you were to observe the universe as a photon which you said time would not apply was my point, it would be 1c so time, distance etc would be irrelevant unto itself relative the universe. Do you think this is the same problem with singularities?
Since you directed the question to Neverfly, I won't presume to answer, other than to observe that there's no logical connection between your premise and the rest of your post.

This is my point, there is a problem with relativity somewhere because like in black holes when we try to explain a singularity we get again infinite or something that is not valid....
I'm not sure why you call it "a problem with relativity." All theories have a domain of applicability, so trying to use a theory outside of its domain is always going to cause a problem. I know of no theories that have infinite domains of applicability, so relativity is not unique in not being able to answer all questions.

17. As explained in previous posts, a photon has no valid reference frame.
Why is this?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. It sounds as if you're asking "if we ignore the invalidity of their reference frame, what would happen?"
Yes hypothetically what would happen?

18. There is no answer to that hypothetical. You're asking, 'if the universe didn't work the way it works, what could happen?' The answer is monkeys could fly out of my butt. If you're suspending the laws of physics, then anything at all could happen.

19. Originally Posted by Quantime
Yes hypothetically what would happen?
Then we'd know exactly why chickens decide to cross the road.

20. Originally Posted by Quantime
As explained in previous posts, a photon has no valid reference frame.
Why is this?
Well it's true, the colloquialism "reference frame" can be misleading until we know what it actually refers to.

Consider this......

Any set of coordinates, relative to which a body can be considered to be in uniform (unaccelerated) motion that can be subject to a coordinate transformation relative to which our body can be considered to be at rest on new coordinates is referred to as inertial . Note this relationship is reciprocal - both coordinate sets are inertial with respect to this body and this body alone. These "inertial coordinate systems" (not a good term!!) are colloquially called "reference frames"

Now it is a postulate of the Special Theory that light can never be brought to rest by any possible coordinate transformation of the above kind.

Putting this all together one may say, colloquially, that light has no valid reference frame, though I grant it might be better to use more precise language than you have been offered thus far

21. Originally Posted by Quantime
What do you think the universe looks like to light?
The universe might look at a photon but the photon cant look back:

Its a difficult situation to visualise. Lets look at two clocks instead.
One is stationary and the other is spinning in front of us.

When we started the clocks were of the same age and synchronized
but now they no longer are
because the time of the moving clock lags behind the stationary clock.

The clocks has been in the room for an equally long time and are therefore of the same age,
but the moving clock (because of relativity) becomes younger than the stationary clock
so they are, and are not, of the same age!

Obviously there are two different time concepts applied here:
We can speak of the external and internal time of an object.
And the thing with photons is that their internal time is ever zero

22. Thanks Guitarist very clear.

23. I am a Newby; question please:? thanks much

A proton within a cell’s nucleus carries RNA replication transcription ability.

... Under beta plus decay a proton is absorbed by the neutron; forming a positron & a neutrino

Question
- Does the newly created positron carry the RNA sequencing posses abilities, that once of the proton?
- Does the newly formed positron pair with the existing neutron, as did the neutron proton was?
- Last: does the newly formed neutrino orbit the neutron positron as a pair?

PLEASE correct any statement or the wording of my questions, if not appropriately written/stated! thanks much from: Dave okwithme

24. A proton within a cell’s nucleus carries RNA replication transcription ability.
Do you have a citation for this? Cause I don't see how that can be possible.

25. Originally Posted by okwithme
I am a Newby; question please:? thanks much

A proton within a cell’s nucleus carries RNA replication transcription ability.
You seem to be confusing the cell nucleus and the atom nucleus. The same word is used for both, but they are two different things. The atomic nucleus is made of subatomic particles (protons and neutrons) and determines what element the atom is. The cell nucleus is a complicated chemical chemical factory. Protons, in of themselves have no RNA transcription ability.

... Under beta plus decay a proton is absorbed by the neutron; forming a positron & a neutrino
beta+ decay occurs when an up quark in a proton changes to a down quark. This turn the Proton into a neutron and emit a positron and neutrino. There is no absorption by a neutron

Question
- Does the newly created positron carry the RNA sequencing posses abilities, that once of the proton?
Since there are no such abilities present in the first place, there are none to carry
- Does the newly formed positron pair with the existing neutron, as did the neutron proton was?
The positron is ejected from the nucleus
- Last: does the newly formed neutrino orbit the neutron positron as a pair?
The neutrino leaves the nucleus.

PLEASE correct any statement or the wording of my questions, if not appropriately written/stated! thanks much from: Dave okwithme

26. You've got to remember how reference frames work. If Jimbob is in a space ship traveling at .5C and doing jumping jacks, and I'm on Earth, I think Jimbob is moving very slowly. I'm amazed how long he can stay in the air between each jumping jack.

If Jimbob were to look at me down on Earth, and I were doing jumping jacks, Jimbob would think I were moving very slowly. Jimbob would be amazed how long I was able to stay in the air between each jumping jack.

Both observers think the other is the one that slowed down.

Now apply this to a beam of light. A photon is moving at full C. So, it perceives time in its own vicinity to move at the normal pace, and time in the frame of reference we humans are in appears to have stopped.

27. Originally Posted by kojax
You've got to remember how reference frames work. If Jimbob is in a space ship traveling at .5C and doing jumping jacks, and I'm on Earth, I think Jimbob is moving very slowly. I'm amazed how long he can stay in the air between each jumping jack.

If Jimbob were to look at me down on Earth, and I were doing jumping jacks, Jimbob would think I were moving very slowly. Jimbob would be amazed how long I was able to stay in the air between each jumping jack.

Both observers think the other is the one that slowed down.

Now apply this to a beam of light. A photon is moving at full C. So, it perceives time in its own vicinity to move at the normal pace, and time in the frame of reference we humans are in appears to have stopped.
Can this really be proven?
It is very confusing, dont you think?

How is an observer observing both the other observers percieving the situation?
When we try to understand the situation, arent we observers of this later kind?
Trying to compare the other observers observations?

Suppose we try diving into a black hole.
Then our time will get slower and slower but we wont notice that, you say?
Instead the outside universe will to us seem to slow down?
So the time, as we measure it, to get closer to the hole gets longer ?
How then can we (without growing old and die in advance) ever get into the black hole?

Please keep in mind that I see nothing wrong in the theory of relativity itself!
The formulas work perfectly well for their intended use.
But are we really applying the theory correctly in these "thought experiments"?
Perhaps not, since the results are so surprising!

28. Originally Posted by sigurdV
Originally Posted by kojax
You've got to remember how reference frames work. If Jimbob is in a space ship traveling at .5C and doing jumping jacks, and I'm on Earth, I think Jimbob is moving very slowly. I'm amazed how long he can stay in the air between each jumping jack.

If Jimbob were to look at me down on Earth, and I were doing jumping jacks, Jimbob would think I were moving very slowly. Jimbob would be amazed how long I was able to stay in the air between each jumping jack.

Both observers think the other is the one that slowed down.

Now apply this to a beam of light. A photon is moving at full C. So, it perceives time in its own vicinity to move at the normal pace, and time in the frame of reference we humans are in appears to have stopped.
Can this really be proven?
It is very confusing, dont you think?

How is an observer observing both the other observers percieving the situation?
When we try to understand the situation, arent we observers of this later kind?
Trying to compare the other observers observations?

Suppose we try diving into a black hole.
Then our time will get slower and slower but we wont notice that, you say?
Instead the outside universe will to us seem to slow down?
No, in this situation, we would see the outside universe speed up. Gravitational time dilation, unlike time dilation due to relative motion, is not reciprocal.

29. Originally Posted by Janus
Originally Posted by sigurdV
Originally Posted by kojax
You've got to remember how reference frames work. If Jimbob is in a space ship traveling at .5C and doing jumping jacks, and I'm on Earth, I think Jimbob is moving very slowly. I'm amazed how long he can stay in the air between each jumping jack.

If Jimbob were to look at me down on Earth, and I were doing jumping jacks, Jimbob would think I were moving very slowly. Jimbob would be amazed how long I was able to stay in the air between each jumping jack.

Both observers think the other is the one that slowed down.

Now apply this to a beam of light. A photon is moving at full C. So, it perceives time in its own vicinity to move at the normal pace, and time in the frame of reference we humans are in appears to have stopped.
Can this really be proven?
It is very confusing, dont you think?

How is an observer observing both the other observers percieving the situation?
When we try to understand the situation, arent we observers of this later kind?
Trying to compare the other observers observations?

Suppose we try diving into a black hole.
Then our time will get slower and slower but we wont notice that, you say?
Instead the outside universe will to us seem to slow down?
No, in this situation, we would see the outside universe speed up. Gravitational time dilation, unlike time dilation due to relative motion, is not reciprocal.
Thank you! This clears up lots of past confusions.
Perhaps you would care to look at the two clocks in front of us?
They are synchronised and one starts spinning or oscillating.
What may we eventually notice while comparing the time showed by the clocks?

30. Hay Janus from: okwithme

I am working on rewriting my inquires & summarizing what I think I know
& asking more questions. Can I ask more questions of you soon Janus?

Sincerly: Dave re okwithme THANKS Girl/Janus

31. CAN I chime-in hear? I agree that time will seem
slower for both parties; on earth & traveling at the speed of light. As I see it, matter is formed
from basically dense partials that are subject to decay.

As neutral particles go, they don’t decay, or very slowly; once the person gets
to light speed; the effects of strong force no longer relevant to matter & decay,
and ageing/time re decay slows down or stops for the traveler. As does the perception
of time seems to slow down for the light traveler's. Time is no longer
relevant hear; then, just for fun. What is called time, "I all decay".
Neither are moving, at a slower or faster speed; time laps are the same for both, but only the light traveler does not age.

AS to the jumping jack visual slower prospective goes; not sure? Over all theary is great. Cool

* Does this sound reasonable to you?

PS: I think your line of thing is serendipity: as the question I am asking are
to prove humans are meant to, through a non-corporeal neutral matrix/liquid
quark form. We are meant to: Phase-shift into neutrality; not die and become
a ghost stuck in purgatory; I am trying to prove...

Both YOUR STATEMENTS below: “Thanks for your intellect & sharing” from Dave: okwithme

Originally Posted by kojaxYou've got to remember how reference frames work. If Jimbob is in a space ship traveling at .5C and doing jumping jacks, and I'm on Earth, I think Jimbob is moving very slowly. I'm amazed how long he can stay in the air between each jumping jack.

If Jimbob were to look at me down on Earth, and I were doing jumping jacks, Jimbob would think I were moving very slowly. Jimbob would be amazed how long I was able to stay in the air between each jumping jack.

Both observers think the other is the one that slowed down.

Now apply this to a beam of light. A photon is moving at full C. So, it perceives time in its own vicinity to move at the normal pace, and time in the frame of reference we humans are in appears to have stopped.
Can this really be proven?
It is very confusing, dont you think?

How is an observer observing both the other observers percieving the situation?
When we try to understand the situation, arent we observers of this later kind?
Trying to compare the other observers observations?

Suppose we try diving into a black hole.
Then our time will get slower and slower but we wont notice that, you say?
Instead the outside universe will to us seem to slow down? No, in this situation, we would see the outside universe speed up. Gravitational time dilation, unlike time dilation due to relative motion, is not reciprocal.

CAN I chime-in hear? I agree that time will seem
slower for both parties; on earth & traveling at the speed of light. As I see it, matter is formed
from basically dense partials that are subject to decay.

As neutral particles go, they don’t decay, or very slowly; once the person gets
to light speed; the effects of strong force no longer relevant to matter & decay,
and ageing/time re decay slows down or stops for the traveler. As does the perception
of time seems to slow down for the light traveler's. Time is no longer
relevant hear; then, just for fun. What is called time, "I all decay".
Neither are moving, at a slower or faster speed; time laps are the same for both, but only the light traveler does not age.

AS to the jumping jack visual slower prospective goes; not sure? Over all theary is great. Cool

* Does this sound reasonable to you?

PS: I think your line of thing is serendipity: as the question I am asking are
to prove humans are meant to, through a non-corporeal neutral matrix/liquid
quark form. We are meant to: Phase-shift into neutrality; not die and become
a ghost stuck in purgatory; I am trying to prove...

Both YOUR STATEMENTS below: “Thanks for your intellect & sharing” from Dave: okwithme

Originally Posted by kojax You've got to remember how reference frames work. If Jimbob is in a space ship traveling at .5C and doing jumping jacks, and I'm on Earth, I think Jimbob is moving very slowly. I'm amazed how long he can stay in the air between each jumping jack.

If Jimbob were to look at me down on Earth, and I were doing jumping jacks, Jimbob would think I were moving very slowly. Jimbob would be amazed how long I was able to stay in the air between each jumping jack.

Both observers think the other is the one that slowed down.

Now apply this to a beam of light. A photon is moving at full C. So, it perceives time in its own vicinity to move at the normal pace, and time in the frame of reference we humans are in appears to have stopped.
Can this really be proven?
It is very confusing, dont you think?

How is an observer observing both the other observers percieving the situation?
When we try to understand the situation, arent we observers of this later kind?
Trying to compare the other observers observations?

Suppose we try diving into a black hole.
Then our time will get slower and slower but we wont notice that, you say?
Instead the outside universe will to us seem to slow down? No, in this situation, we would see the outside universe speed up. Gravitational time dilation, unlike time dilation due to relative motion, is not reciprocal.

33. Originally Posted by okwithme
PS: I think your line of thing is serendipity: as the question I am asking are
to prove humans are meant to, through a non-corporeal neutral matrix/liquid
quark form. We are meant to: Phase-shift into neutrality; not die and become
a ghost stuck in purgatory; I am trying to prove...
Huh?

34. Originally Posted by Quantime
What do you think the universe looks like to light? Imagine a photon relative to itself, it must get to where it is going instantly right? Think about it, if we travel towards the Andromeda galaxy at 99.999999%c we would reach it relative to ourselves on our ship in a matter of months (at the appropriate speed to get that answer) because Andromeda's approach towards the Milky Way would be apparently accelerated due to our time dilation, so my question is imagine how fast we would get there at 99.9999999999999999999999999% c so for light it must be instantaneous?

Are there any theories or credible discussions and query into this question? Or something similar?

Thanks!
If you must anthropomorph photons; then for their point of view, they don't exist.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement