The universe from the viewpoint of a photon?

[Brandonv]

Lets say there is a spaceship with magical propulsion that allows it to accelerate closer and closer to the speed of light. As the ship gets closer to light speed, relativity says that:

1.) From the viewpoint of the ship, the clock of every "stationary" object will run slower.

2.) From the viewpoint of the ship, Lorentz contraction will cause the distance between the ship and it's destination to shrink. Edit: I worded this part of my post poorly. What I meant to say is that, from the ships viewpoint, the external universe will shrink in the direction of motion.

As the ship continues to accelerate, the speed of external clocks will keep slowing down, and space between the ship and it's destination will continue to decrease. If time and distance both approach zero as speed approaches the speed of light, does this mean that from the point of view of a photon, time and distance do not exist?

But of course, from the ships viewpoint, it never gets any closer to the speed of light because c is a physical constant. Wow, now I have gone and confused myself more.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Time is an illusion. The Universe is a hologram.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

As the ship continues to accelerate, the speed of external clocks will keep slowing down, and space between the ship and it's destination will continue to decrease. If time and distance both approach zero as speed approaches the speed of light, does this mean that from the point of view of a photon, time and distance do not exist?

Yes. I believe this is one of the questions that Einstein asked himself when developing the theory of Special Relativity. What would it be like to ride on a beam of light?

But of course, from the ships viewpoint, it never gets any closer to the speed of light because c is a physical constant.

In theory, the observers on the ship can deduce their speed from distance and time measurements in their frame of reference. They will measure this speed to be creeping up to, but never achieving, the speed of light in vacuo.

 

[RoJoHen]

Time is an illusion. The Universe is a hologram.

Does that make you Moriarty?

 

[Trekker4747]

2.) From the viewpoint of the ship, Lorentz contraction will cause the distance between the ship and it's destination to shrink.

Can't this be said for any form of movement at any speed? I mean, if you're moving at a speed and the distance between you and your destination isn't shrinking then you've failed at moving.

It was my understanding that the physical length of the object moving at c shrinks in the direction of travel. So an object with mass moving at c is infinitely "short" to the outside observer.

 

[Brandonv]

2.) From the viewpoint of the ship, Lorentz contraction will cause the distance between the ship and it's destination to shrink.

Can't this be said for any form of movement at any speed? I mean, if you're moving at a speed and the distance between you and your destination isn't shrinking then you've failed at moving.

It was my understanding that the physical length of the object moving at c shrinks in the direction of travel. So an object with mass moving at c is infinitely "short" to the outside observer.

I phrased that poorly. Someone observing the ship flying by would see the ship shrink in the direction of motion, but from inside the ship the entire outside universe shrinks in the direction of motion.

Someone standing on Earth would see the ships clock running slower, and a person on the ship would see Earths clock running slower. The reason the astronaut ages less (instead of the person on Earth aging less), is because the astronaut travels a shorter distance inside his reference frame.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

When you do the math (or maths), there is no observable contraction, but actually an apparent rotation around a sphere (Penrose-Terrell rotation):

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/penrose.html

 

[Brandonv]

When you do the math (or maths), there is no observable contraction, but actually an apparent rotation around a sphere (Penrose-Terrell rotation):

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/penrose.html

My understanding is that while the contraction cannot be observed, it is in effect still what is happening?

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

No, it's an artifact of the equations that is only a part of the whole effect that distorts your observation of the moving object from your frame of reference. There was a proposal to try and measure the Penrose-Terrell rotation for a relativistic dumbell-shaped molecule in the LHC. I don't know if they were actually going to attempt it, nor why, if feasible, why the experiment couldn't be performed in some other particle accelerator.

ETA: Here's a nifty animation: http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/ContractInvisible.html

and some more references:
http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/Gener...l/SpecRel.html

 

[think]

Time is an illusion. The Universe is a hologram.

verbs as well are illusionial but we just don't let the delusional know this for the greater good.

When you do the math (or maths), there is no observable contraction, but actually an apparent rotation around a sphere (Penrose-Terrell rotation):

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/penrose.html

spherical rotations leaves a conical evaluation not possible but with spherical rotations about the line of "intent" we may be able to find the source where there really is no source... sorry. Are we still considering the Lorentzian default patterns as having some value>? yes?

 

[Silvercrest]

Time is an illusion. The Universe is a hologram.

verbs as well are illusionial but we just don't let the delusional know this for the greater good.

Too late!

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

think Are you really a brain sitting in a jar hooked up to the Internet with no other sensory inputs, or is that just how I imagine you?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Someone standing on Earth would see the ships clock running slower, and a person on the ship would see Earths clock running slower. The reason the astronaut ages less (instead of the person on Earth aging less), is because the astronaut travels a shorter distance inside his reference frame.

From earth's point of view, earth is stationary and the ship travels a distance l.
From the ship's pov, the ship is stationary and earth travels a distance l1<l in the opposite direction.

In conclusion
From the astronaut's pov, he is stationary.
And from the earthbound twin's pov, he is stationary.

About the photon
From our pov, time doesn't flow for it - IT IS FROZEN IN TIME, IT DOESN'T AGE.
And from the photon's pov, the rest of the universe is frozen in time and doesn't age.
Also
From our pov, the photon has lost a spatial dimension (along its direction of motion) - the photon HAS ONLY TWO SPATIAL DIMENSIONS. Yes, for us, the photon is a bi-dimensional object.
From the photon's pov, the universe has only two spatial dimensions.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

verbs as well are illusionial but we just don't let the delusional know this for the greater good.

spherical rotations leaves a conical evaluation not possible but with spherical rotations about the line of "intent" we may be able to find the source where there really is no source... sorry. Are we still considering the Lorentzian default patterns as having some value>? yes?

Interesting, think.

I have a question worthy of your intellectual prowess:
What is the meaning of being, if we assume the future existence of an apple with only two seeds, one white and one pink, and the universe as a dream of an intoxicated chimpansee with a 0.05*infinite/infinite chance of ever existing, expanding into a faied banana simulation 3 years 245 hours 76 seconds ago with exactly 3 bugs that should manifest 5 times every 10000 operations?

 

[think]

think Are you really a brain sitting in a jar hooked up to the Internet with no other sensory inputs, or is that just how I imagine you?

actually I am a "self-proclaimed" artist-at large *LOL*

this is an image from the newest video work I am working on in bryce 5.5 right now.

can we use bitmaps in image links?

guess so

verbs as well are illusionial but we just don't let the delusional know this for the greater good.

spherical rotations leaves a conical evaluation not possible but with spherical rotations about the line of "intent" we may be able to find the source where there really is no source... sorry. Are we still considering the Lorentzian default patterns as having some value>? yes?

Interesting, think.

I have a question worthy of your intellectual prowess:
What is the meaning of being, if we assume the future existence of an apple with only two seeds, one white and one pink, and the universe as a dream of an intoxicated chimpansee with a 0.05*infinite/infinite chance of ever existing, expanding into a faied banana simulation 3 years 245 hours 76 seconds ago with exactly 3 bugs that should manifest 5 times every 10000 operations?

The being, being a unit of life of a given thought => married to a Dionysian Mystery, one can clearly see the BS involved in creating that given unit.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Well, I think you probably express yourself much better in the visual medium than the written one. It's kind of like communicating with a sea named Solaris.

 

[think]

Well, I think you probably express yourself much better in the visual medium than the written one. It's kind of like communicating with a sea named Solaris.

ahhh my favorite movie Solaris I was doing those graphics that were used for the image of Solaris A while bit before that movie came out or wait ., was that i was doing that while the movie was in production??

we will never know.

*pass the jar of Solaris please extra sauce*

 

[ProtoAvatar]

When you do the math (or maths), there is no observable contraction, but actually an apparent rotation around a sphere (Penrose-Terrell rotation):

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/penrose.html

My understanding is that while the contraction cannot be observed, it is in effect still what is happening?

No, it's an artifact of the equations that is only a part of the whole effect that distorts your observation of the moving object from your frame of reference. There was a proposal to try and measure the Penrose-Terrell rotation for a relativistic dumbell-shaped molecule in the LHC. I don't know if they were actually going to attempt it, nor why, if feasible, why the experiment couldn't be performed in some other particle accelerator.

ETA: Here's a nifty animation: http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/Gener...Invisible.html

and some more references:
http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/Gener...l/SpecRel.html

Great Mambo Chicken, for light to have the same speed in all inertial reference frames, the length contraction (or a distorsion that produces the exact same effect) MUST BE REAL.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Well I'll let you argue that one with John Baez.

ETA: The length you measure is shorter, but the object may not look shorter. A sphere whould keep its shape but any surface features would appear distorted. Paradoxes ensue, see for example, the barn and pole paradox:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html

This is actually a statement of the length measurement problem.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

The reason the astronaut ages less (instead of the person on Earth aging less), is because the astronaut travels a shorter distance inside his reference frame.

Brandonv, if you don't want to hit paradoxes everywhere, you must analyse any SR situation from the POV of one inertial frame of reference, then from the POV of the other.

At this stage, if you compare the two POVs, expect them to be contradictory, paradoxical. This is because they are - if you try to take into account both POVs, you'll hit logical paradoxes everywhere.
Special relativity is most definitely God's joke at our expanse. If you'll try to 'think big', to take into account both POVs at the same time, you'll hit a wall of insolvable contradictions. The only way to advance is to 'think small', to analyse one POV at a time.

When will these paradoxes be resolved and the two inertial frames of reference, again compatible? When these frames of reference have the same speed again - in effect, becoming the same frame of reference.
The paradoxes are resolved due to what I can only call - "if you have the 'illusion' it's real, it becomes real" - not only for you, but for everyone else (as far as their relation to you is concerned). And yes, IT IS WEIRD.
For example - acceleration becomes gravity, simply because you can't tell the difference. This means, of course, that the time distorsion effects of gravity become real for you and, from your perspective, for anyone else you can see or interact with.

About your quote and the twin paradox - either the twin who stayed at home or the astronaut ages more, depending on how their separate frames of reference become, again, a single reference frame (there is, again, no difference in speed between the two frames of reference).