PDA

View Full Version : The Boom/Splat Photon Hypothesis



AriAstronomer
2009-Aug-10, 06:40 PM
I know that photons are massless, and therefore travel always at the speed of light. Because they travel at the speed of light, it is said that time does not exist for them, and it can be thought of as a boom/splat idea: the instant they are created, the next thing they 'realize' (if they could realize) is being dissolved by the thing absorbing the photon. Couldn't it also be possible however, that time lasts forever for them, and from getting from the source to the thing absorbing it could take forever? I know that sounds ridiculous since nothing that actually happens (the photon reaching the thing that absorbs it) can take forever, but I've heard crazier things (e.g. in the double slit experiment the electron goes through both slits and it goes through no slits when shot one at a time to create an interference pattern). Any thoughts?

astromark
2009-Aug-10, 07:26 PM
There are good experiments available to us that show light to be a wave form and, a particle stream. Setting up wave channelling patterns and the pond and stone pattern...
If you want there is much information available to us on the manor of light. Its interesting stuff... and as for the time dilation of the light photon... its blissfully unaware. Go to the Wikipedia page...Boom-splat...Lol

Jeff Root
2009-Aug-10, 07:48 PM
I think if you think about it a bit longer, you'll decide that instantaneous
makes sense, and forever doesn't. For time to pass, something needs to
happen. Nothing happens to a photon.

Hmm. "Boom" and "splat" need to be combined into one word for this use,
since the boom and splat are simultaneous in the photon's view. "Blat"?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

astromark
2009-Aug-10, 07:59 PM
----:)--* !

Jeff Root
2009-Aug-10, 08:14 PM
Careful, Mark! You only have a few posts to go before you reach kilopi,
and you don't know how onerous the ritual is that you are required to go
through when you get there. I had to shower three times to get all the
Crisco off!

Ari, Mark is approaching his 3,141st post. I just wanted to warn him.
I hope you don't mind. :)

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

astromark
2009-Aug-10, 08:33 PM
So... 3141... what is this ?
Back to the reality of this OP,. Instantanious as from the view of the photon, yes. for the rest of us its 186,000miles per second. With small veriations due to the medium being transversed...
N.B.8.25am... this building just rattled. I trust this has nothing to do with what has been said here...lol ---:)BLAT!

Cougar
2009-Aug-10, 08:39 PM
Any thoughts?

Humans tend to anthropomorphize (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphize). I think this is usually audacious and arrogant.

cosmocrazy
2009-Aug-10, 08:41 PM
So what was the last thing going through the photon's mind when it hit its first atom? lol!

mtaylor
2009-Aug-12, 05:11 AM
Can I ask two closely related questions?

The photon does not experience time. Therefore the moment of its creation is equivalent to the moment of its absorbtion. But we see the photon moving at C. We joke about not being able to "warp" space as a way to get from one place to another, but isn't that essentially what the photon does? Spacetime being 4 dimensions, the photon "warps" spacetime so that the time dimension does not exist for it. To the photon, the locations in the other three dimensions of space are crammed together.

Next question is: What does this say about the Pauli exclusion principle? To the photon, two places exist at the same time in the same place.

WayneFrancis
2009-Aug-12, 05:47 AM
Can I ask two closely related questions?

The photon does not experience time. Therefore the moment of its creation is equivalent to the moment of its absorbtion. But we see the photon moving at C. We joke about not being able to "warp" space as a way to get from one place to another, but isn't that essentially what the photon does? Spacetime being 4 dimensions, the photon "warps" spacetime so that the time dimension does not exist for it. To the photon, the locations in the other three dimensions of space are crammed together.

Next question is: What does this say about the Pauli exclusion principle? To the photon, two places exist at the same time in the same place.

To a photon the universe is only 2 dimensional in perpendicular to the direction travel which is strange since to the photon it doesn't/can't travel in that direction. Time does not actually have meaning in the photon's frame. So thinking of it as 2 places at the same time in the same place doesn't make sense.

I've just gave myself a headache.

m74z00219
2009-Aug-12, 06:59 AM
I think if you think about it a bit longer, you'll decide that instantaneous
makes sense, and forever doesn't. For time to pass, something needs to
happen. Nothing happens to a photon.

Hmm. "Boom" and "splat" need to be combined into one word for this use,
since the boom and splat are simultaneous in the photon's view. "Blat"?


HAHAHAHA! Priceless!

dhd40
2009-Aug-12, 10:11 AM
Next question is: What does this say about the Pauli exclusion principle? To the photon, two places exist at the same time in the same place.

Bosons (e.g. photons) donīt follow the Pauli exclusion principle

mtaylor
2009-Aug-13, 05:38 AM
My inquiry was about the superposition of both the origin of the photon and the absorption point. If the photon travelled from, say, one hydrogen atom to another, in the frame of reference of the photon, the two atoms are in the same place at the same time.

mtaylor
2009-Aug-13, 05:48 AM
Curiouser and curiouser ... Think about the wave/particle duality. The wave radiates out from a point in all directions, but when interacted with, the wave function collapses and we have a particle photon. From the photon's frame of reference, there being no time, the beginning and end of its existence are simultaneous. But where does its existence end? Since the place of its "splat" is not determined until it splats (from our frame of reference),in the photon's frame of reference, it must, in some sense, exist in all places simultaneously because in any one of those places its wave nature could be collapsed to a photon.

mugaliens
2009-Aug-13, 07:34 AM
Hmm. "Boom" and "splat" need to be combined into one word for this use,
since the boom and splat are simultaneous in the photon's view. "Blat"?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

(Stellar Travel technician): "Ok, Mr. Photon - are you ready for your journey across the visible universe?"

(Mr. Photon): "You bet! This is going to be swell!"

(Stellar Travel technician): "Ok! Here we g..."

(Receiving technician): "...re you are, Mr. Photon! How'd you enjoy your 13.7 billion year trip?"

(Mr. Photon): "Trip? What trip? And who are you? Where's the Stellar Travel technician? I want my money back!"

m74z00219
2009-Aug-14, 12:20 AM
My inquiry was about the superposition of both the origin of the photon and the absorption point. If the photon travelled from, say, one hydrogen atom to another, in the frame of reference of the photon, the two atoms are in the same place at the same time.

Yes, I am interested by this too. Two fermions can't share the same state, so how is this reconciled with relativity. Specifically, how is recognized from the photon's point of view. Or is the photon's point of view just not a valid frame of reference?

mugaliens
2009-Aug-14, 05:59 AM
I think the photon's frame of reference is perfectly valid, even though it represents the extreme far end of space-time compression given it's velocity.