Special relativity (which has been proven to be correct in everything testable, so far) tells us that the closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time passes (relatively, in comparison to someone traveling much slower). Also, the closer you get to the speed of light, the shorter any distances get. (time and space dilation) As you approach light speed, the passage of time approaches 0,and distance approaches 0. (Lorentz factor)
So, to a light particle no time passes,it also travels no distance. It is created, touching its target. So the light from a lightbulb, the sun, a star, etc experiences its final target being so close that it it touching its source, even if it's a billion light-years away to us.
The following thought is fucking up my head....
Heat from light is considered radiation to us, but heat from light is considered conduction to the light particle. What the actual FUCK????
I have a degree in this. You are pretty much 100% right. Enjoy your drugs.
Angel Morales
And now you know why so many people choose to believe in religion instead. It's easier to say "god did it" than to actually educate yourself on the truth.
Jace Roberts
Wouldn't any of this work different at an quantium level?
Camden Turner
Maybe feelings are feelings cause we feel them
Jacob Howard
The problem with photons is that they do not have a rest mass. Though the formulas of special relativity do not explicitly include rest mass, most formulas in general relativity use the momentum p, which depends amongst other things on the rest mass. Considering our ability to percieve time depends on the configuration of our matter, you could question whether or not it makes sense to talk about "percieving time" for an object without rest mass. For any object with a rest mass, speed of light cannot be ever achieved (as "infinity" is not a value your internal energy can take, as it's not a number)
Zachary Hill
Feelings are just a chemical ride our brain sends us on.
Grayson Morales
For the radiation vs convection thing, that differentiation doesn't work that easily at this small scale. When a photon heats an object by radiation, the photon disappears, as he gets absorbed. Probably. Should there be a process where the photon doesn't get absorbed, and only reduced it's frequency, to heat the material, we'd model it as "getting absorbed, atom goes into excited state, atom re-emits another photon" anyways. We wouldn't be able to differentiate (at least I don't think so) between "photon gets absorbed and re-emitted" and "photon just drives-by, reducing it's frequency while putting atom in excited state". Considering the way QM describes things, I'm not even sure if trying to differentiate both actually makes sense (as in: if we consider the system atom+photon described quantum mechanically, we'll have a set of base vectors of some vector space that gives us the statesin which we can observe the system through the measurment corresponding to w/e the fuck we were doing while establishing these equations. Could we find a linear operator (with certain characteristics, but's let's assume the operatore meets them trivially) with eigenvectors that form a different, equivalent base of the same vector space, for which we could clearly tell apart two subsets of eigenvectors: 1 subset clearly indicating an absorbtion, 1 subset clearly indicating the lack of absorbtion, with the two subsets always having the photon change momentum/frequency, and the atom changing internal energy, then you might make an argument that we could call 1 "convection" and the other "radiation".
But all you'd have achieved by this is solve a semantic question that has no reason to be asked.
TL;DR: "heat by radiation" and "heat by convection" are macroscopic concepts, that are resulting averages of microscopic actions, as such, they make no sense microscopically, as you do not have enough of these microscop actions to average over.
Parker Rodriguez
You've just fallen into the trap of locking yourself into your own frame of reference (FOR) . We're talking about our FOR vs a light particles FOR.
Jackson Cruz
I did not though. Photons have no rest mass, independently of frame reference. Mostly because a photon at rest cannot exist.
Our perception of time being tied to our own matter is again independent of FOR. Our perception changes depending on FOR, but the fact that it is tied to our matter is always true independently of FOR.
The fact that infinity is not a number is also independent of FOR.
IDK what you're getting at
Cooper Ortiz
(Obviously not OP) Alright, I'm just a young dumbling, so my question will probably have lots of misunderstandings:
I still wonder, if the universe has no reference point (wich I find to be very logical inb4), then how come there's a thing such as approaching the speed of light? And the idea that time dilation it isn't caused by speed in itself but acceleration seems like a bandaid just to fit our current circumstances, but lets say we have a spacedock traveling half the speed of light in a complete void pointed towards X, and a spaceship leaves the spacedock pointed towards the opposite of X with half the speed of light. That should be considered as even more acceleration right? But it makes no sense as to why that object should have a different time perspective compared to something that has been immovable in the starting point.
Daniel Johnson
>but heat from light is considered conduction to the light particle.
What the fuck? I am an uneducated imbecile and I can not get my head around this. Explain please: are you saying that from the perspective of the light particle, there's no space between the source of light and the object it hits? Does this mean photons just keep going on forever when they're beamed out of a light source?
It's because conduction, convection, and radiation are all names for the same thing. It's all just particles touching particles and transferring energy when they touch. It's how you look at it.
Aaron White
Light source heat is considered radiant heat conduction is shown in photo which is the hand touches a hot surface. Conduction is when one heat source is touching another like a plate and frame heat exchanger. Radiant heat is like a radiant heater the heat source is expelled out into the room with out the means of a fan. So you are incorrect in that philosophy
Gavin Allen
>just Yeah, they happen all by themselves and not in any way related to the way we percieve the world around us in which we exist.
You are as deep and insightful as a puddle. gtfo
Joshua Parker
(Not op nor physicist), but that's a very simple yes, that's why light years are a thing, it keeps going on forever until the universe rips itself apart.
Christopher Brooks
Are you implying that relativistic effects only apply to particles with mass, and that Lorentz contraction of space does not apply to massless particles????
Jordan Kelly
I don't think you really understood what OP was saying
Mason Cooper
An independent non moving observer would correctly see both spaceships moving towards each other at over 1c. However both spaceships would detect the approaching spaceship at nearly 1c.
Anthony Roberts
no, I do not. I'm questioning the very idea of being able to percieve space and time without mass.
Should it be impossible to do so, then any thought experiment stating "let's put us in the FOR of a photon and try to check how it looks like", then asking the question "why does it look so crazy", can be answered by stating: "It's obvious that it's crazy, because you are trying to imagine percieving something that cannot physically be percieved". That would be the absolute version of it.
The physical results are set in stone. I'm not trying to deny the fact that in a photons frame of reference, space and time are fubar. I'm mostly trying to argue that any attempt we try to make in order to imagine this fubarness is meaningless, as it would amount to trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. And that in itself can allow you to wrap your head around this fubarness. "Why is whatever I imagine while observing this thing weird?" - "Because I'm imagining observing something that cannot be observed."
Leo Collins
It's the movement *through* space that causes the effect, not the movement relative to an object. Two planets, one on each side of the universe are flying away from each other much faster than the speed of light, though time isn't inverted
Camden Moore
Imagine you're a photon traveling by a clock. What time would it be?
Jaxson Lewis
exactly
Ian Cox
Time stands still for you, so you wouldn't be able to observe the clock you're passing by. Time doesn't stop for you while you're twiddling your fingers, everything stops, you're absolutely frozen in time
Jace Lewis
Rather than this, you perceive the entirety of your trip from source to final destination simultaneously?
Logan Jackson
You perceive no "trip" at all. You are instantaneously at your destination
Sebastian Flores
Read more about quantum mechanics or chromodynamics if you want your brain to explode.
Julian Gray
Actually this heat you are talking about is kinetic energy that is transmitted from the photon to the electron of an atom, increasing it's energy level. This is also known as electron temperature, which is the 'excitement' of this electron. These processes occur before there is any heat in the classical sense.
Additionally as to your statement about time and space, depending on the material the photon travels through the velocity of the particle is slowed down as compared to vacuum.
For us it seems the particle travels instantaneous over short distances, however when you bring short time instances into account different effects occur.
