541
The life of a photon
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
541 points (93.6% liked)
Memes
45584 readers
1271 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I’ve been trying to wrap my head around this part and what it means for cause and effect for a while. I think Feynman said something like a photon is only ever emitted when the source and destination agree to exchange one. Which makes sense if the exchange is instantaneous to the photon. But how can billions of years pass for us in the mean time?
Because there isn't perspective of a photon. It doesn't experience because it doesn't change like mass does.
I'm not sure Feynman was right. Most photons are emitted and never absorbed by anything.
Photons exist, so there is the perspective of a photon. Most may not be absorbed but that's irrelevant because some are. And when they are, their perspective - like them - ends. Like yours does when you die.
The photon does not experience time, but we do, so from our perspective they can be emitted and absorbed even though from their perspective they are timeless. Again, like us. Before you were born, you didn't experience being not alive. From your own perspective, you've always existed, even though from the perspective of someone older than you, there was a time when you didn't.
I was using the wrong term. Photons don't have a frame of reference.
But even from the colloquial definition, photons don't have perspective. They don't live and die because they never experience time. If you had their point of view, your beginning and end would happen simultaneously, meaning you wouldn't experience anything. They are immutable particles whose only interactions are emission and absorption.
I just want to say how much I appreciate those discussion. They remind me of how little I know even though I'm considered an "expert" in my field of work.
There's a difference between time not passing and not existing. To a photon, space (in the direction of its movement) doesn't exist, as its origin and destination points are the same. But time does not pass - the axis of time is there, but the photon never budges in either direction, like a rock buried in the middle of the desert doesn't move in any spatial direction on a human timescale. The photon's beginning and end aren't simultaneous, quite the opposite. Since it can't move in time, they might as well be infinitely far apart.
Open loop dispersion vs closed loop absorption, in either case they are a distinction of low energy observer bias. They are functionally equal because the waveform is a projection through a open feature of a manifold bound by a topological inversion that intersects it.
So the photon never really goes anywhere, we just see its shadow cast across a screen that moves from our perspective.
Yet
Eventually all photons will hit something. Even if it's a trillion trillion trillion years in the future when nearly everything in the universe has decayed into irony.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but eventually the universe is going to be expanding faster than the speed of light. At that point all interaction ceases, and any photons that didn't get absorbed by something yet never would.
Sort of. The expansion of space causes (and is measured by) redshift. The photon that doesn't get absorbed "exists" until its wavelength is not measurable (as its wavelength approaches infinity).
The cool thing about this is that it is identical to what happens in a black hole. Spaghettification. This also has the fun consequence of us possibly existing inside of a black hole, and black holes themselves are entire universes. Because of the breakdown of physics beyond the event horizon its not exactly easy to confirm or deny this either.
Edit: redshift not redshirt. Startfleet personal aren't dying here, it's photons
Genuine question, how do we know that photons are being emitted that never get absorbed if observing them requires absorbing them? Is it an energy loss type of thing with the emmiter where we have to assume x many photons had to have been emitted to explain the loss?
Because we know how different things emit photons. We know a light bulb emits photons in all directions because we can move around and measure it. And we can see the photons being emitted from objects receiving the initial light bulb's light as well so we know it's emitting light in that direction as well.
The idea that photons are only emitted if they hit something also doesn't make sense because of power usage and how we know particle physics work.