## the reference frame of the light

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

### the reference frame of the light

From lights view everything we see that light bounces off when it dies to our retina, everything that we see (we don't see light obviously light makes us see) is like a really thin black pencil line of 1 dimension. So from lights frame, wherever it is, the world basically doesn't exist. Im sure other light exists though. Probably light can reference the difference between other lights even though between it is hardly anything at all, just a pencil line or some undefined nothing like a girl will say in a bar about her boyfriend when the night is well played. All falls away except the light. We are not light so we cant really see what light would see if it could see. But I bet God could if he exists.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE

barbarianhorde
Philosopher

Posts: 1362
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: the cupboard by your kn knees

### Re: the reference frame of the light

I have no idea what this even means. Can you send me some pictures?

lordoflight

Posts: 302
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:38 pm

### Re: the reference frame of the light

barbarianhorde wrote:From lights view everything we see that light bounces off when it dies to our retina, everything that we see (we don't see light obviously light makes us see) is like a really thin black pencil line of 1 dimension. So from lights frame, wherever it is, the world basically doesn't exist. Im sure other light exists though. Probably light can reference the difference between other lights even though between it is hardly anything at all, just a pencil line or some undefined nothing like a girl will say in a bar about her boyfriend when the night is well played. All falls away except the light. We are not light so we cant really see what light would see if it could see. But I bet God could if he exists.

From the point of view of light, there is no time or space and all travel is instant. That's why nothing can go faster than light because it's nonsense to travel faster than instant and nonsense to have a space smaller than nothing. I don't know why we see light as having a speed or why we see it slower than instant, but whatever it is, it's causing time and space to exist for us and not for light.

Also, light doesn't bounce, but is re-radiated, which is a separate wave from the original. The only way to stop light from traveling along its course is to cancel it with another wave 180 degrees out of phase. This is an important concept to keep in mind. Light is not like sound which bounces off objects, but light travels right through anything and can only be stopped by cancellation. Light only interacts with charges and things without charge do not exist for light.

This is one of the many videos that helped me get a better understanding of the mechanics of light:

Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1494
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: the reference frame of the light

Aren't we forgetting relativity? Doesn't light travel at the speed of light relative to every reference point?

Presumably this applies to the point of "view" of light too, so light travels at the speed of light relative to light as well - and therefore if light had some "eye-like" way of seeing that which light interacts with, it would see no differently to any organism with a similarly working eye.

Serendipper, light doesn't travel instantly - unless you're defining an instant as some minimal quantum of time that it can take for something to travel any given distance that corresponds to the universal speed limit.

Does light actually behave like a wave that you can cancel with another wave that's fully out of phase with it? Like sound? I've not heard of anything that corroborates this, but maybe you have?

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 3472
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: the reference frame of the light

Silhouette wrote:Aren't we forgetting relativity? Doesn't light travel at the speed of light relative to every reference point?

Presumably this applies to the point of "view" of light too, so light travels at the speed of light relative to light as well - and therefore if light had some "eye-like" way of seeing that which light interacts with, it would see no differently to any organism with a similarly working eye.

Serendipper, light doesn't travel instantly - unless you're defining an instant as some minimal quantum of time that it can take for something to travel any given distance that corresponds to the universal speed limit.

From light's point of view it travels instantly and I can offer two pieces of evidence supporting that:

"From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It's emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, but for the photon, there's zero time elapsed between when it's emitted and when it's absorbed again. It doesn't experience distance either." https://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-ligh ... e.html#jCp

and Feynman's idea:

At the suggestion of his thesis adviser John Wheeler, Feynman explained photon emission as a two-way interaction in which the regular photon is emitted and follows the "retarded" solutions to Maxwell's equations. "Meanwhile" (in some rather abstract sense of the word indeed) a target atom or particle in the distant future emits its own photon, but a very special one that travels backwards in time -- a type of solution to Maxwell's equations that had been recognized since Maxwell's time but had been ignored. These solutions were called the "advanced" solutions. This advanced photon travels back in time and "just happens" to arrive at the source at the exact instant when the regular photon is emitted, causing the emitting atom to be kicked backwards a tiny bit.

Amazingly, Wheeler and Feynman were able to write a series of papers showing that despite how mind-boggling this scenario sounded, it did not result in violations of causality, and it did provide a highly effective model of electron-photon interactions. From this start, and with some important changes, Feynman eventually produced his Feynman-diagram explanation of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. The curious time relationship continue in Feynman's QED, where for example a positron or anti-electron simply become an ordinary electron traveling backwards in time.

Staying fully consistent with his own ideas, Feynman himself described photon interactions as always having an emission and a reception event, no matter how far apart those events occur in ordinary time. In his view, if you shone a flashlight into deep space, the photons could not even be emitted until they found their "partner" advanced photon emission events somewhere in the distant future. The proof of it is in the very slight push back on your hand that happens when you shine the light, that kick coming from the advanced photons arriving from that distant point in the future and nudging the electrons in your flashlight filament.

Since an emitting particle needs a receiving particle and since there is no time passage for light, then emission and reception is the same event. I don't know why we see them as separate events, but I'd like to. Something is causing us to see light experiencing time that it does not experience and traversing space that it does not cross.

Does light actually behave like a wave that you can cancel with another wave that's fully out of phase with it? Like sound? I've not heard of anything that corroborates this, but maybe you have?

Yes, that's why the penetration of light is frequency dependent, for when light resonates a charged particle (resonance is always 180 degrees out), the charged particle produces its own light that cancels the incoming and causes the object to appear opaque at that frequency, but change the frequency either higher or lower than resonance and the light will pass without much cancellation, depending how far from resonance and the resultant waveform. And by "light" I mean any electromagnetic radiation from radio waves to gamma rays.

Here's how wikipedia put it:

In classical electrodynamics, light is considered as an electromagnetic wave, which is described by Maxwell's equations. Light waves incident on a material induce small oscillations of polarisation in the individual atoms (or oscillation of electrons, in metals), causing each particle to radiate a small secondary wave in all directions, like a dipole antenna. All these waves add up to give specular reflection and refraction, according to the Huygens–Fresnel principle.

In the case of dielectrics such as glass, the electric field of the light acts on the electrons in the material, and the moving electrons generate fields and become new radiators. The refracted light in the glass is the combination of the forward radiation of the electrons and the incident light. The reflected light is the combination of the backward radiation of all of the electrons.

In metals, electrons with no binding energy are called free electrons. When these electrons oscillate with the incident light, the phase difference between their radiation field and the incident field is π (180°), so the forward radiation cancels the incident light, and backward radiation is just the reflected light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)#Mechanism

I had to learn this to make up my mind about whether co2 could warm the earth because I had trouble understanding how co2 could act as a high pass filter (passes highs and blocks lows) since nothing like that exists in nature. The answer was that co2 is only existent to light at one of its resonances while both highs and lows would be passed. The only thing light can "see" is charge; nothing else exists to it. But charge doesn't stop the light as if it were a brick wall in the path, but the charge reacts to the force produced by the interaction of the light with the charge. All charge will experience the force, but not all charge will resonate; that depends on the strength of the bond holding whatever it is that has the charge and the mass of the charged particle.

Everything we see are vibrating masses on springs.

Here's water:

There are some interesting graphs here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroma ... n_by_water
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1494
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: the reference frame of the light

Serendipper wrote:
Silhouette wrote:Serendipper, light doesn't travel instantly - unless you're defining an instant as some minimal quantum of time that it can take for something to travel any given distance that corresponds to the universal speed limit.

From light's point of view it travels instantly and I can offer two pieces of evidence supporting that:

"From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It's emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, but for the photon, there's zero time elapsed between when it's emitted and when it's absorbed again. It doesn't experience distance either." https://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-ligh ... e.html#jCp

To address this piece of evidence, I'm not sure I buy the mechanism of the argument.

The first part of the argument describes how the faster you move relative to e.g. Earth, the slower your clocks become relative to the clocks on Earth. But your speed tends towards a speed limit, not to infinity.
If your speed could tend towards infinity, then you would end up traveling to any given point in an instant (time and distance not experienced), but in this case the tendency towards infinity is bounded by the speed of light, so you don't quite reach any given point instantly.

The second part of the argument relies on this first part to conclude that photons reach zero distance and zero time. No, they tend towards zero, but are bounded by the speed of light so never quite reach zero of either dimension.

As to the Feynman idea, this argument would make no sense if light traveled instantly. This is because there could be no time for any advanced photon to travel back in time to arrive at the source, as the source would instantly be at the advanced photon already (and vice versa - so they would be the same photon having zero time to start at different points in time and meet one another at the destination). There needs to be a time differential between the source and the advanced photons in order for them to be traveling at all from different points in time and only meeting "afterwards".
It may be the same event, when the source and advanced photon partner up, but it's not the same event in time.

And as to the wave phase idea, I was hesitant to accept the idea because of the concept wave/particle duality - your notion seemed to treat light solely as a wave. I'll bear it in mind though, considering what you've backed your assertion with.

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 3472
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: the reference frame of the light

Silhouette wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Silhouette wrote:Serendipper, light doesn't travel instantly - unless you're defining an instant as some minimal quantum of time that it can take for something to travel any given distance that corresponds to the universal speed limit.

From light's point of view it travels instantly and I can offer two pieces of evidence supporting that:

"From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It's emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, but for the photon, there's zero time elapsed between when it's emitted and when it's absorbed again. It doesn't experience distance either." https://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-ligh ... e.html#jCp

To address this piece of evidence, I'm not sure I buy the mechanism of the argument.

Here's another piece of evidence given by Don Lincoln at Fermilab:

The main point of his presentation is that all things in spacetime move at the speed of light through spacetime as a resultant vector comprised of speed through time and speed through space, so light would move at the speed of light through space and zero through time while something perfectly still relative to spacetime would travel at the speed of light through time (whatever that means) and zero through space.

So if what he says is true, then travelling at the speed of light results in zero time passing and therefore any point in the universe is instantly attainable at that speed.

The first part of the argument describes how the faster you move relative to e.g. Earth, the slower your clocks become relative to the clocks on Earth.

Think of clocks like a bouncing photon: when the clock moves, the photon has to travel a longer path.

If the clock is moving at the speed of light, then the photon couldn't bounce because all its speed is used in the x direction, so time stops.

But your speed tends towards a speed limit, not to infinity. If your speed could tend towards infinity, then you would end up traveling to any given point in an instant (time and distance not experienced), but in this case the tendency towards infinity is bounded by the speed of light, so you don't quite reach any given point instantly.

The speed of light doesn't tend towards infinity, but it tends towards instant (zero time) from its own point of view. The speed of light is a limit because to travel faster would mean arriving before it left (negative time) which is a contradiction and therefore "instant transmission" becomes the speed limit.

The second part of the argument relies on this first part to conclude that photons reach zero distance and zero time. No, they tend towards zero, but are bounded by the speed of light so never quite reach zero of either dimension.

Photons are light and should travel at the speed of light.

As to the Feynman idea, this argument would make no sense if light traveled instantly. This is because there could be no time for any advanced photon to travel back in time to arrive at the source, as the source would instantly be at the advanced photon already (and vice versa - so they would be the same photon having zero time to start at different points in time and meet one another at the destination).

I understand what you're saying, but that's from our point of view that it takes time for photons to travel. From our point of view, the advanced photon must have traveled 13 billions years back in time to coincide with the release of a photon 13 billion years ago that just hit our telescopes from 13 billion light years away. IOW, our telescopes must have "existed" in some sense 13 billion years ago in order for that galaxy to radiate its light. But from the photon's point of view, time doesn't exist and the 13 billion light year voyage was an instantaneous event in both directions.

Here's Brian Green (Columbia), David Kaiser (MIT), and Max Tegmark (MIT) putting their names on Einstein's assertion that future events already exist. Start about 4:00:

And as to the wave phase idea, I was hesitant to accept the idea because of the concept wave/particle duality - your notion seemed to treat light solely as a wave. I'll bear it in mind though, considering what you've backed your assertion with.

I think of it as waves which have particle-like properties like high frequency sound becomes more directional with increasing pitch. Likewise, more energy added (frequency increases by E=hf) causes waves to act more like tangible things and less like waves. E=mc^2=hf so m=hf/c^2 and mass is a function of frequency and two constants.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1494
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: the reference frame of the light

If you give me some anustheshia and transport me to France in a crate and barrel, I might, in the right circumstance, perceive that no time has elapsed. That doesn't mean it didn't. Check and mate.

If light has the gall to think it doesn't "move" over a period of "time" then light is a retard, and a tool. Regardless of what its hypothetical eyes tell him, he is indeed moving through time and space. This has been proven by Professor Einstein and again by Dr. Steven Hawken. Proof speeks for istelf.

Sound, on the other hand, doesn't travel. It is proven faster than light. When you hit something and it vibrates it creates a quantum entanglement noise that is felt on the other side of the galaxy instantly. Nobody knows why this is except me as I did research on it in a lab and didn't tell anyone, the government was involved, and it was on CNN if you don't believe me you can do a lexus nexus search. If you need access keys to the lexus IM me.

Gamer
ILP Legend

Posts: 2145
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:24 pm

### Re: the reference frame of the light

Gamer wrote:If you give me some anustheshia and transport me to France in a crate and barrel, I might, in the right circumstance, perceive that no time has elapsed. That doesn't mean it didn't. Check and mate.

If light has the gall to think it doesn't "move" over a period of "time" then light is a retard, and a tool. Regardless of what its hypothetical eyes tell him, he is indeed moving through time and space. This has been proven by Professor Einstein and again by Dr. Steven Hawken. Proof speeks for istelf.

Sound, on the other hand, doesn't travel. It is proven faster than light. When you hit something and it vibrates it creates a quantum entanglement noise that is felt on the other side of the galaxy instantly. Nobody knows why this is except me as I did research on it in a lab and didn't tell anyone, the government was involved, and it was on CNN if you don't believe me you can do a lexus nexus search. If you need access keys to the lexus IM me.

Nice.. can you post the CNN clip, or a summary of the findings/outcome here?
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

--MagsJ

MagsJ
The Londonist

Posts: 17699
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1