/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5939890
Lorentz transformation doesn't apply if v=c

>>5939890
stop this cross posting !
come to >>5939776

>>5939915
isn't that kind of arbitrary?

>>5939915
So? Does that mean that there is no frame of reference of the photon?

photons dont move, they are a line that in their frame is a single point.

>>5939923
>arbitary

iirc it has to do with limit equations, like how 1/0=x, x approaches infinity but is undefined as an exact value

>>5939921
no inertial frame.

>>5939922
It's an entirely different question. The thread you linked to is a bad troll trolling about the speed of a photon. I'm asking about the actual locations it visits. In other words, my question is:

Can you conclude that the photon is in superposition and therefore affected by all characteristics of the locations it will/has/is visiting?

That poster's bait is:

The speed of a photon in the photon's reference is 0, so the speed of light is zero in at least one reference frame, so one of the postulates of special relativity is incorrect (that light moves at a constant speed to all observers).

>>5939921
>there is no frame of reference of the photon

bingo

>>5939925
That's what I thought, but this has limited application to the real world. What I'm thinking is, just in the same way as we use limits to approximate values for the sake of calculation, shouldn't we be able to approximate values in order to explain real physical phenomenon?

It seems to me like the math needs changing if we can't explain a physical phenomenon that we know to exist and occur.

>>5939932
How is this possible? I just don't understand the implications of this. How can a theoretical frame of reference not exist for a point charge particle that we know to exist?

>>5939923
>isn't that kind of arbitrary?

Not really. C is effectively "infinitely fast" in relativity. You can't expect infinite and finite values to be treated the same.

>>5939934
we use math like that to approximate only to what is worth modeling. light in itself isn't a frame of reference that's achievable by anything other than a photon, assuming any form of relativity in future allows this, so it wouldn't be needed in an approximate form. like how pi is transfinite, having the values to the degree that they're relevant is what's wanted here, not an exact value.

>>5939935
it doesn't has inertial mass, so it wouldn't be able to produce a gravity field. a photon exhibits no locality.

>>5939935
>we know that a photon exists as a point charge particle

>>5939935
>point charge particle

what is this now?

>>5939939
I can agree with this but only to a point. The usefulness is irrelevant to a lot of people I've known throughout my life, it's often a matter of curiosity. Also, OP is saying that we don't have ANY value, that the assertion that NO reference existing is a bit absurd. Also, these questions are really worth asking because though they may have no immediate use their research might lead to transformations which do.

>>5939946
>so it wouldn't be able to produce a gravity field
wrong.

>>5939947
>>5939945
Sorry guys, I was thinking of electrons.

Substitute in "a force carrier" for "a point charge particle". Point still stands, it's a real aspect of nature that governs how bodies interact.

>>5939946
This isn't true.

>>5939935
OP his a point besides his idiotic slip of the tongue. If force carriers govern body interactions, shouldn't they be able to be modeled by the same general rules? If not, don't we have to accept them as extradimensional interactions?

How you interpret the math is up to you

You can say "photons have no inertial frame", or you can say "photons have a frame, but it's an odd one"

>>5939962
But then what are the implications in terms of information? If we can accept that photons are in a superposition with all of their destinations, then doesn't each of those destinations lose a little of their identification in relation to each other and doesn't the photon essentially destroy information in its path? Can't you conclude that information is not conserved?

Obviously this whole bit about information is less well defined, but I think it's interesting insofar as we accept the superposition.

>>5939967
why do you think the photon interacts with anything except at its point of creation and destruction?

>>5939976
I don't understand what you mean. It mediates a force, so it must necessarily "interact" albeit not as a classical body would.

>>5939979
it interacts at exactly two points, it's creation and destruction points. the space in between, that it "travels through" is irrelevant

>>5939986
Oh, I see what you mean. Okay, it interacts at exactly two. So what? You say the space it travels through is irrelevant. Sure, that space is irrelevant to the mediation of the electromagnetic force. That's not to say that the space is irrelevant in terms of information, reference frame, etc.

Yes.
In it's own point of view, its not in a superposition.
Even more, if you could somehow see trough a photon's "eyes", you would see the birth and death of the photon for the smallest amount of time possible. You won't even see yourself moving, since all of the dimensions would have contracted to a single point.

>>5940031
Like you said, it would see all dimensions contracted to a single point. So, it would be in a superposition. Can we then conclude that information isn't conserved?

>>5940005
if it doesn't interact it is irrelevant. if it were relevant, ie have any effect on anything at all, some interaction would have to take place

>>5940037
>Can we then conclude that information isn't conserved?
Try to explain what you are up to, because I see no reason for information to not be conserved.

>>5940052
Information is, so far as I can remember, that which differentiates one thing from another. Everything in the line of the photon's travel is contracted to a single point. This means that, in some frames of reference, there is no longer a physical distance between them (e.g. between the window that the light goes through and the mirror it reflects off of). Before the photon came through the window and reflected off the mirror, these objects had a defining characteristic in that they were a certain distance apart. As the photon comes through, it destroys information in that it alters the premise of the objects being universally a certain distance apart. Now, in at least one frame of reference -- the photon's -- they are in the exact same position.

>>5940068
I see what you are trying to say.
No, that's not true. The empty space between them is not information. It doesn't even exist.

>>5940080
But the space between them, which distances them from one each other, is part of their defining information right? I'm not talking about the space itself, only in relation to those objects.

>>5940087
Don't look at the distance as information. Particle A is at Y1;X1;Z1, particle B is at Y2;X1;Z1, etc, but that doesn't mean that there is space between them. All you see is inflation of distance, when in reality, those particles should all be at a single, zero-dimentional point, touching each other.

And it's already like that. We are currently living in that exact zero-dimentional point, also called The Universe. Because we are living INSIDE it, everything around us is infinite (we have infinite dimentions)

Fuck this I don't have enough energy to finish this. Have to go to sleep, thanks for overloading my brain.

>>5940109
I have to go to class but I'm confident that I can rebuke this, will brb in like 3 hours.

>>5940148
>confident

oh shit, another faggot who thinks he's seen something no one else has.

everyone has their "inertial frame of the photon" moment.

if you allow such a frame, then any spooky shit that goes on inside it is only accessible to the thing whose frame it is, ie the photon, but guess what, the photon only interacts when created and destroyed, so all other things in its frame are irrelevant

>>5939927
Sorry, I'm very late.
But the cross-post I indicated was only because of the

>there is no frame of reference of the photon

conclusion. I wanted to turn the bad trolling into your question, which was more interesting

>>5940278
I see, the clarification is appreciated.
>>5940242
I never said that I've seen something no one else has seen. I never said I'm confident I can overthrow physics. I said I was confident I could rebuke his post.

Definition of rebuke:
>To criticize or reprove sharply.

My entire point is that even though the photon only mediates a force at the point of its destruction, its perceived superposition does affect conservation of information.

>>5940109
I'm not saying that the distance itself is inherently information, I think we have a misunderstanding there. What I'm saying is that the distance is arbitrary. You're right in that the distance has no consequence on the force being mediated, is itself meaningless, etc. My point is that the distance between the objects, being an arbitrary distinction between the objects in all frames of reference, is a bit of physical information for both of the objects. If a photon is truly in a superposition, then if a photon were to reflect off of both of these objects at t=2, both objects would have lost information at t=2.