When you transfer the photons from Room A to Room B at the speed of light, the information carried by those photons would reach Room B nearly instantaneously. Therefore, when you look into Room B, you would see the contents of Room B as it is at that moment and not a reflection of Room A.

While I think of your question being an extremely interesting one (hence I followed) you probably should precise it a bit more.

To take a photon from room A to B is in any case a purely hypothetical thought experiment style question (whatever the outcome of this discussion might be).

What is not at all hypothetical though, is the very real much related question with what “mechanism“ particles like electron and positron (and maybe protons, without regard to their inner structure which might very well be electrons and positrons as well instead of a “quark-gluon soup“) are able to accelerate any photon (beams of light so unavoidably consisting of photons one way or another whatever wave equations one mathematically correct used to determine the path of such emitted light (ray)) in seemingly (?) 0 (zero) Seconds from (assumed) particle at rest to speed of light c (299792458m/s) in (again seemingly) zero Seconds!?

I do not at all buy into such an *unphysical* picture, as *nothing* (NOTHING) ever accellerates from any speed to ANY other in 0 (zero) seconds.

So my most likely take (proposal) to get out of there is assuming there is something - an onnipresent medium - like Max Planck already suggested with his extremely far sighted yet geometrically simple hexagonal charge transport cells - while Einstein unfortunately abolished any physical existence of such medium completely short sighted (and against many warnings from highly reputable collieauges of the time):

Article New novel physical constants metric and fine structure const...

That should make us all think (and discuss).

So such medium would (is) rotating at cell border with exactly the speed of light and hence emission of a physical photon (particle) would be nothing else the opening the hand to let loose of a ball „instant“ accelerating with carousel border speed (so with „hand opening“ speed, actually to stay with the picture, but not ever zero time).

Zero time is not possible by the way due to iSpace derived Quantum of time to be 1/6961 iSpaceSecond in new iSpace-IQ unit system forbids such physically.

Dear Arash Majidian

From the frame of reference of photons, photons from room A would instantly be transmitted to room B, and will bounce back from Room B, thus they would carry the information about room B.

However, from the observer's frame of reference, this might not be instantaneous. We might see a little projection of room A because the photons from room A were NOT carried to room B at the speed of light, but "instantly" (I know, we interpretate these things as same, however, what I really mean from this, is that, the moment photons got some information (or something) about room A, at the very same moment those were instantly transmitted to room B, and what if, at the very same instant, these photons were observed in room B, then what should we see? - room A or room B)

Dear Christian G. Wolf

Yes, this is purely hypothetical as of our current understanding about the Universe, and of course, our current technologies. Yet, hypothetical approach leads to discoveries and a wider imagination about the world.

The essence of this question (hypothetically) is to transfer the photons, that travels at the speed of light, form one location in space to another location, while preserving the information (or whatever they possess) contained within them. Does that mean that photons indeed carry some information about objects they bounced off? Well, yes they do, but still this question might explore some branches of the "yet" unexplored part of the Cosmos. (Just saying)

Nothing accelerate from one speed to another or nothing moves in no time "in space" but something can move in no - time, "in time". I don't even know, where I am going with this, these are just some random thoughts.

That is the reason, I would dedicate my whole time to the Universe.

Siddharth Rana Thats why we are here to discuss, would we known all the answers already, we didn’t need to. But logic (and not science fiction) should be the basis of all of our argumentative chains.

Christian G. Wolf Agreed. We are here to discuss and explore rather than just believing what is shown to us in popular science fictions, without any foundations.

About the question, yes this question has something beyond than just the current understanding that we have about the universe. As of my understanding, I think there is something we are missing with the "instantaneous" part. On what basis, a thing can be "instant"? Is it about the space? or Is it about the time? or is it about the space-time?

"instantaneous" has different definitions, and it depends upon the frame of reference. As relativity of simultaneity describes that "An event that is instant in one frame, need not be instant in some other frame", I think from this part we should carry our words forward, to present an approach towards the question.

Our science perception of artificial light (flashlight ) and sunlight ( with photon) is the same, which it is wrong.

This article clearly explains

Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon

Siddharth Rana With whatever you do or calculate, it’s important to keep in mind while relativity is not completely wrong, it for sure isn’t completely correct, either. I‚d keep a close eye on iSpace theory, constants of nature and it’s intrinsic inter-constant relations as shown by iSpace, and most important - derived quantum of time. Unless you really understand such, you understand nothing else (properly).

Christian G. Wolf Theory of relativity is purely incomplete, as it misses out a great part (or the all part) of the Quantum Physics (or Mechanics), however, both are a good approach to understand about the Universe on a different scales. To be able to understand and perceive a profound picture about the Universe, one must have have a knowledge about the bridge (or build a bridge), to connect Relativity with Quantum Physics, providing a broader understanding about the Universe, and allowing us to explore the unexplored part of the Cosmos. And that's where, we scientists comes in, and slides our hypothesis to get a little picture about the cosmos.

I am dedicating my time to understand about gravity and it's working at the quantum level, that's a good beginning point to start from.

I'm also ready to dedicate my whole life to understand "Time", and working of Time at our level as well as at quantum level. "We may not be certain about Time at any level. "

Once we have a broader understanding about "Time" other than just believing it to be a human perception providing duration, but somethin beyond would allow us to have a visual picture of the complete Universe (all at once) right in before our eyes.

And that's Time.

Time is Everything.

This may sound "philosophical" or may be it is, but I believe it to be something beyond than our current understanding about the Cosmos. Present your own thoughts about the above said. I'd appreciate it.

With Regards.

Siddharth Rana "to understand and perceive a profound picture about the Universe, one must have have a knowledge about the bridge (or build a bridge), to connect Relativity with Quantum Physics"

the excerpt of your above last reply to me is indeed very well stated and the exactly correct answer to be made (imho). This is not least because iSpace theory - and with this constants of nature as such - exactly are or form that bridge with exactly identical constants in both cosmology (the very large or relativity) and the very small (the quantum dominated world or Quantum Mechanics).

So no need to further seek for such brigde - its iSpace theoretical simple first order multiplicative integer geometric model and hence not easy but super-easy to understand, use and be applied to all your own ideas and theoretical models developed (and those to come, freeing you all up from the burden of 25+ years of intense lonely research myself had to go thru to actually find the brige).

All who do not or maybe cannot see this simple fact immedeately, are just typically still somewhat blinded by their own beloved "pet physical model" to be propagated in RG discussion forums like this, or in other words a typical "not invented here" syndrome (very well known in IT related area).