In the frame of photon does time stop in the meaning that past future and present all happen together?

If we have something with multiple outcomes which is realized viewed from such frame? Are all happening together or just one is possible?

How the communication between two such frame s work meaning is there time delay for the information as $c$ is limited? If there is time delay does it mean that time does not stop?

My question does not concern matter at that speed rather how it looks viewed from the photon reference.

Thanks Alfred! I think I understand it now.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/q/29082/4552 $\endgroup$ – user4552 Jun 20 '13 at 4:33
  • $\begingroup$ Nope. It is not.. $\endgroup$ – Anonymous Jun 20 '13 at 5:46
  • $\begingroup$ Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/16018/2451 and links therein. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jun 20 '13 at 5:50
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Anonymous, there is no frame of reference for the photon because there is no frame of reference in which the photon is at rest. This is elementary. There is no meaningful way to talk about how the universe "looks" to a photon because that would require that a frame of reference in which a photon is at rest exists. But, there is no such frame of reference. $\endgroup$ – Alfred Centauri Jun 20 '13 at 13:23
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks.So there is no such frame, because it is assumed that c is same in all frames and a photon will move with c in its own frame. So photon could not exist at other speed. So it means that we could not know from existing theories how the photon sees the universe, so we can say the photon is "not observer".. $\endgroup$ – Anonymous Jun 20 '13 at 13:52

I think you are asking about how a photon experiences the passage of time? There is no right time. Photons are not ordinary things moving through space. So from the point of view of the photon this time is not moving at all but the point of view of the photon is that it's place in space is changing but no time is passing. Change - ie. motion - in time and space actually happens in four dimensions in which no point in time or place in space can be preferred. We could create any ( or many) agreeable coordinate system in such space with four indices - they can be anything at all but with them change of any of the four indices for position and time can be described by the difference in these arbitrary agreed numbers. But this "Minkowski space" and the equations that relate motions in space and time allows the one special thing. That one "thing" is that light moves at same speed always, fastest possible. So light photons were they able to experience, could only experience change of space. They cannot experience time having changed position in space in the least possible time. I have avoided any math based on your question. If you sought a more rigorous treatment sorry, this works for me.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "So from the point of view of the photon..." There actually is no "point of view" for a photon as there is no reference frame for a photon. $\endgroup$ – Alfred Centauri Jun 20 '13 at 13:49
  • $\begingroup$ @AlfredCentauri, you keep saying this but repeating it over and over doesn't help someone who doesn't get it. You need to understand what the questioner is asking and explain why the question makes no sense - you can't just say "there is no frame" - what does that actually mean? $\endgroup$ – Yevgeny Simkin Dec 3 '18 at 21:40
  • $\begingroup$ @GeniaS., of course I can keep saying "there is no frame" - I would only be repeating myself if I made that comment to the same person more than once, correct? I and others here have already explained what "there is no frame" means. Do you wish me and others to repeat the explanation over and over? $\endgroup$ – Alfred Centauri Dec 3 '18 at 23:14
  • $\begingroup$ @AlfredCentauri, no, but you could cite your own explanation. Note that if it's something that ever warranted explaining, then you have to assume that not everyone has read (seen/heard etc) your reasoning. I get that it's tiresome to keep telling people *why the earth isn't flat, but it simply isn't enough to say "it's round because it is, and I've explained why elsewhere). I don't mean to berate you - but the fact is that this is very much like Zeno's paradox and anyone thinking through it (like me) gets tangled up in the infinities. $\endgroup$ – Yevgeny Simkin Dec 4 '18 at 20:34
  • $\begingroup$ @GeniaS., I suppose I could cite it every time I point out this but I don't and I won't. The fact is that anyone that is the slightest bit curious about my comment will take the time to research it here and elsewhere. I think of it as planting a seed, and that's all the time I care to invest in this conversation. $\endgroup$ – Alfred Centauri Dec 5 '18 at 1:38

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.