# In the perspective of the photon

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Cyperium, Nov 16, 2010.

1. ### M00se1989BannedBanned

Messages:
508
are you saying different states of matter don't have deterministic applications in the directionality of a photon? You have a terrible understanding of diffraction and kirchoff's laws:

"Kirchhoff's three laws of spectroscopy:

1. A hot solid object produces light with a continuous spectrum.

2. A hot tenuous gas produces light with spectral lines at discrete wavelengths (i.e. specific colors) which depend on the energy levels of the atoms in the gas. (See also: emission spectrum)

3. A hot solid object surrounded by a cool tenuous gas (i.e. cooler than the hot object) produces light with an almost continuous spectrum which has gaps at discrete wavelengths depending on the energy levels of the atoms in the gas. (See also: absorption spectrum)"(wiki)

Still light isn't only absorbed by matter it is also reflected back. You can contest the trichromatic theory of our vision system all day long. It still shows the light shinning (on/through) an object is in fact going into your eye as well as through the material. Still we can come to the obvious conclusion that the "reflection" is in the form of a wave as opposed to a beam. Still the light that goes into your eye and touches your photoreceptors and tickles your rods and cones. can be thought of as particles, which initiate their own defraction and reflection into our mind. Temperature by all accounts matters the most not to our visual system, but to our elements themselves as to their obsorbtion and reflection of photons.

So in the perspective of a photon, the more heat present from the beginning of the universe one has the further into the heat of an object of sufficiently large mass it goes. "Some" or small amounts or statistically "negligible per se" amounts, are reflected back. So your going fast you hit something, but it doesn't really matter because you have so much heat nothing can stop you for your determined path. This isn't to say the reflection does not make some kind of force at certain intensities. So when a photon hits the exact middle of an "infinitly dense" structure its "reflection" appears in the form of radiant energy. Any radiation works but it is easiest to put in the perspective of the universe if we say the radiation is Hawking radiation with its black body components.

3. ### rpennerFully WiredValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,833

Importantly, the state of matter solid/liquid/gas/plasma does not appear to factor into Kirchhoff's thinking, or the law given by that source: "At thermal equilibrium, the emissivity of a body (or surface) equals its absorptivity." Indeed, it happens with gas/plasma in the sky and with solids in a kiln.

A better source for similar laws of spectroscopy makes it clear that dense gas is as good as a solid for law one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_analysis

5. ### M00se1989BannedBanned

Messages:
508
True for absorbtion, but not true for the reflection which were the two points I was attempting to bring together and be understood in the perception of the photon.

7. ### CyperiumI'm always meValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,058
The star doesn't change to a discoid, but the effect is the same as if it did. If time stops for the photon and the universe shrinks to a point at the moment the photon travels that speed then the effect is the same as if the universe was actually a point. It is what the photon "observes" (if it could observe) and it could not observe any other scenario as it always travels that speed. To the photon the reality that it has traversed any distance just haven't occured, it would say "I haven't been there any more than any other place".

The impossibility of the photon observing is not the case here.

...and this proves the case, it is already in infinity and hasn't experienced any special point (except where it begun the journey).

8. ### CyperiumI'm always meValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,058
Still, as far as I have understood this spacetime is defined by c so when traveling at the speed of light spacetime would be a point.

9. ### Farsight

Messages:
3,492
I'm afraid it isn't, Cyperium. What you see and what's actually out there aren't the same thing. When you increase your speed you and your observations change, and the star looks flattened. But it's you that changed, not the star.

When you travel very fast through the universe your observation slows down, so everything you see appears to have speeded up. Galaxies would appear to whirl round as fast as pinwheels. But they haven't changed one iota. You have. And the crucial point is this: if you could travel at the speed of light, your observations would then have slowed down so much that they've stopped.

10. ### M00se1989BannedBanned

Messages:
508
Nope
yes, Yes, YES!!
Nope... if a bright shinny object is 300 billion light years out of your left window, it might take it a while for you to not be able to observe it. If an object is say the distance of the semimajor axis of Pluto (5.473) light hours away from you. you are still going to see it for that amount of time, but as you approach it and you going to come 18 inches away from it out your left window. The object is going to appear to be stretched when in fact it is you that is stretched. So the objects close side stretches toward you for a while, but the second it gets perpendicular to your left side... (gone)

11. ### CyperiumI'm always meValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,058
That is what I said. I didn't say that the star changed (?). I said that the effects is the same, actually it is a valid description of what happens. Everything is normalised in your own view, because of that the outside seem abnormal.

That the photon would exist at every point is the same as the distance to all points have shrunk to zero.

It is not only my observation that has slowed down, it is the rate of my entire physical reality. It is no illusion. If I perceive that the distance is closer to the star, then it really is.

In my own perspective I can go 2x the speed of light and reach a star that is 4 lightyears away in two years of my own time. There are no limits on speed in this manner - and it is because of length contraction (and time dilation), the distance has been halved because I am actually (for a outside observer) going close to the speed of light (in my own view I would measure going 2x the speed of light as the distance to the star decreases). The people outside would age 4 years by the time I have reached the star in two years.

If (in my own view) I would go at infinite speed I would be at the speed of light, time would have stopped and the length would have shrunk to zero.

Last edited: Nov 28, 2010
12. ### Farsight

Messages:
3,492
OK, my apologies.

Yes, it seems abnormal to you. You suffer time dilation and experience length contraction, but your abnormal view is just an effect of your rapid motion.

Think about a photon emitted by the sun. After 8 minutes it's passing the Earth. After an hour it's passing Saturn. That photon just doesn't exist at every point. It travels through space, and time elapses. But it has such an abnormal view of the world that it has no view at all.

Fair enough. But it's you that's changed, not everything else.

No it isn't. Your perception of that distance changed, your perception of reality changed. But the distance didn't change at all, and nor did reality. You're just moving fast. that's all.

Your perception of the distance has halved, because your motion alters your view of the world. But all those people will agree that it took you 4 years to travel that distance, despite anything you perceive or think.

When you do this, you don't have any view any more. Hence you don't see me put an asteroid in your way. Then BLAM, you no longer exist. So much for eternity.

13. ### CyperiumI'm always meValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,058
I didn't state that it was a effect of anything else.

To the photon it just does exist at every point! To you you just did arrive at the star in two years instead of four!

There is no perspective more important than another!

If it wasn't for time dilation and length contraction then I would have broken the speed of light limit! There is a reason why Relativity is needed! If it were unreal then it just wouldn't exist! I did arrive at the star in two years instead of four, I can even provide evidence for it by having a clock that runs perfectly valid and you can look at it and say, "Yes, you did arrive in two years instead of four". This is because of the real phenomena of time-dilation and length contraction. Spacetime is defined by the speed of light, if I move close to the speed of light this definition changes in my frame of reference. There is no objective reality to tell me that this isn't true or that it isn't real.

Despite what I perceive or think I did arrive there in two years and I could prove this to all those people by having a clock on-board which shows that only two years has passed for me. Time-dilation and length contraction are bounded to eachother just as space and time are bounded to eachother, you wouldn't argue that my clock is going slower but you would argue that distance isn't getting shorter!

That would happen if I'm not actually at the speed of light, when there's actually a direction to follow that leads to the asteroid, but from what I've come to understand at the speed of light all points in the universe is in a single point so how can we even talk about direction?

Why is the perception of the photon so different from the objective photon that we see?

14. ### Farsight

Messages:
3,492
Yes there is. The universe is what's real, not the way you see it. Check out the CMBR dipole anisotropy. This provides a way of gauging your motion through the universe. When you move faster you see the CMBR blue-shifted ahead of you and red-shifted behind. But you know that this is because you're moving faster, not because it's really changed. It's similar for your measurements of distance and time.

You can't exceed the speed of light. What special relativity does is tell you that you can't detect your motion locally, and that your motion alters your measurements of things that aren't co-moving with you.

No, I say you arrived in two years as measured by your clock, but then I add that your clock was running slow, and that while you were travelling the earth went round the sun four times. Hence it took you four years.

Your frame of reference isn't real. It's just an artefact of observation and measurement, and your observation and measurement change when you move fast through the universe. You change too, because you are electromagnetic in nature, and in this respect time dilation and length contraction are real. But it's you that's changed, and the way you see the universe using electromagnetic phenomena.

I wouldn't argue that your clock is going slower. Your clock clocks up local motion, and the rate of this is reduced when you move fast through the universe. And the distances you measure do appear contracted to you. But they aren't "really" contracted. We know this from what's called the pole and the barn paradox. Imagine you're going very fast through the universe, lying prone and carrying a 1m butterfly net. I'm lying prone too with a similar butterfly net, but I'm motionless with respect to the CMBR. We perceive each other to be length-contracted to under 1m. But we can't both catch one another in our 1m butterfly nets.

I'm afraid your understanding confuses how you perceive reality with actual reality. The universe doesn't change one iota just because you're moving fast through it. If you could travelling at c you might think you're in a situation where all of time happens at once and all of space is length-contracted to zero. But you'd be wrong. At the speed of light you are totally time dilated. There is no local motion "in your frame of reference", so it's like you're frozen. You're totally unaware of anything and everything in the universe around you.

Because it's a myth. If you could travel at c, you wouldn't have any perception. That's why I could put an asteroid in your path and you wouldn't see me do it. Then BLAM, and you definitely don't have any perception.

15. ### CyperiumI'm always meValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,058
I say: Instead of the universe shrinking to zero the photon exists at every point.

You say: The universe doesn't really shrink to a point it is you that has changed.

We agree, see?

But the effect is still the same as if the universe had shrunk to a single point as relativity is real and not a illusion which you seem to suggest. In the perspective of the photon the universe has shrunk to a single point as the speed of light is defining spacetime for the photon. This doesn't have a effect on us observing it, other than the fact that it should exist at every point.

If I would keep the time, I would see that it has only gone two years even though the earth has moved around the sun four times, a year is not only defined by the earth moving around the sun but also can be defined in number of seconds/days.

My frame of reference is obviously real though, even though it is I that have changed.

16. ### Farsight

Messages:
3,492
I'm afraid we don't see eye to eye Cyperium. Let's just agree to differ. Perhaps somebody else can assist you with this.

17. ### CyperiumI'm always meValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,058
Yes, I guess we don't see eye to eye.

I found this on the web, http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-57959.html, a similar discussion, also missed the point though.

Last edited: Dec 4, 2010