exchemist
Valued Senior Member
So you are speaking from the point of view of the photon's frame of reference, apparently. But from the frame of reference of everything else, they are a travelling through space and time at c, right?
All Photons Move at 300,000km/s.... But Don't?
- Thread starter TruthSeeker
- Start date
So you are speaking from the point of view of the photon's frame of reference, apparently. But from the frame of reference of everything else, they are a travelling through space and time at c, right?
Correct.
Huh? I didn't say anything about time dilation. I was referring to you rather strange comment that photons don't move.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Well OK, but I'm not sure where that gets us, since they do move at c as far as anything with mass is concerned, and thus they move at c from the point of view of all interactions with matter, including all our observations.
This is where the speculation starts but it's really fun to think about what happens once a particle or a photon runs out of space to travel using linear logic this will not make sense.
Space time is a very special concept.
Of course photons move, you have to comprehend the context in which I was speaking about, I said I assumed they stopped moving at the speed of c in the photons own reference frame (as well as faster than c in the scenerio of entanglement) since distance = 0 logically if there is no space to move in they cannot be moving but how it makes sense in my personal opinion is sorta like an evolution takes place and they now obey a different set of rules that will not make sense using linear logic since technically they have transcended linear reality bieng omnipresent.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
You didn't, actually. You said, "I don't think the photons are moving at all that is why I used the wormhole example,…."
The clarification only came after I questioned you about it and suggested that this is what you seemed to mean. Frankly, your writing style is very unclear and it rather looks as if this lack of clarity in communication reflects lack of clarity of the thoughts behind it. A bit of punctuation and a few capital letters would help for a start, to separate one concept or idea from another.
I can't see the value of your idea of photons being omnipresent since, from the frame of reference of any matter in the universe, it is untrue.
From the reference point of the photon as you clearified above they do not experience time or distance so technically that means they are existing everywhere at once hence the technical evidence observed with the wave particle duality.
Yes the above is correct. I was bieng lazy as usual...
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Right. But please don't be lazy like this. When we are trying to discuss science, it is so important to take the time to be as accurate as possible about what exactly we are trying to say. Without this there is a real risk of seeming (at least) to talk out of one's arse, which gets everyone confused and irritated.
No. Because the wave-particle duality is observed (your words) by us, who are not in that frame of reference. Furthermore, all interaction of photons with matter of any kind involve things that are not in that frame of reference either. From this it follows that no effects of photons on matter can be described from the viewpoint of the frame of reference of the photon itself.
All of which seems to me to render your insight, about how things appear in the photon's frame of reference, of fairly limited value.
[QUOTE="exchemist, post: 3310184, . Because the wave-particle duality is observed (your words) by us, who are not in that frame of reference. Furthermore, all interaction of photons with matter of any kind involve things that are not in that frame of reference either. From this it follows that no effects of photons on matter can be described from the viewpoint of the frame of reference of the photon itself.
All of which seems to me to render your insight, about how things appear in the photon's frame of reference, of fairly limited value.[/QUOTE]
All of which seems to me to render your insight, about how things appear in the photon's frame of reference, of fairly limited value.[/QUOTE]
Reply to the above
This is true but using even linear logic it can be mathematically deduced and described that at the speed of c the photon experiences no time or distance so the indiginous behaviours of the photon is indeed mathematically consistent with the definition of omnipresent even if this cannot be observed in a material reality.
This is true but using even linear logic it can be mathematically deduced and described that at the speed of c the photon experiences no time or distance so the indiginous behaviours of the photon is indeed mathematically consistent with the definition of omnipresent even if this cannot be observed in a material reality.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
If it can't be observed in a material reality, what's the use of it?
Imagine you existed in an ocean and you were the size of a subatomic particle let's say a quark and your awareness was only capable of viewing one water molecule. But you bieng a scientist or logician just because of the limitations based on your sensory inputs you still would be able to logically deduce that an ocean must exist even if your material sensory inputs does not provide you with that information. Your senses will always provide you with limited information but your logic can still tell you that with many molecules like the singular one you are capable of observing logically there can be more, and if there was more what would that system behave like what would it look like now you are using your imagination. But just because you imagined it does not mean it cannot and does not have an equivalent in the totality of an existence your senses at the moment cannot conceive, and in this example I used here that equivalent will be an ocean. As for the other example we were talking about this structure could be a premature model of how we can build a warp drive.
Last edited:
And you call me a troll how ironic...
