Great question;
When a photon is reflected by a mirror, the concept of "its own time" changing doesn't exactly apply in the way it might for objects with mass experiencing time dilation as described by Einstein's theory of relativity. For photons, which are massless particles traveling at the speed of light, the concept of time is fundamentally different.
According to relativity, time for a photon does not progress in the same way it does for objects with mass. From the photon's perspective (if we can use such a term), the emission and absorption events happen instantaneously. Photons experience no passage of time between when they are emitted and when they are absorbed, regardless of the distance they travel in a vacuum. This is because, at the speed of light, the relativistic time dilation effect becomes infinite. In simpler terms, for anything traveling at the speed of light, time effectively stands still.
Therefore, when a photon is reflected by a mirror, it doesn't experience time in the way we understand it. It is not meaningful to talk about time changing for the photon itself during reflection or any part of its journey. The photon's behavior and interactions can be fully described by Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism and the principles of quantum electrodynamics, without needing to invoke the concept of time passing for the photon.
Dear Harri Shore,
if one imagine a single photon traversing the entire hypotenuse of a right triangle and its "brother" which first traverses the adjacent side then it will be reflected by a mirror located at the corner of the 90 degree side then it traverses the entire adjacent side to finally arrived at exactly the same place as his brother. the two photons leave from exactly the same place and at the same time. Do this photon which has traveled two sides (the adjacent one then the opposite side of the triangle) and its brother which has only traveled the hypotenuse arrive at the same place at the same time?Why?
Sorry I changed "adjacent" in place of "opposite". Here the correction:
if one imagine a single photon traversing the entire hypotenuse of a right triangle and its "brother" which first traverses the adjacent side then it will be reflected by a mirror located at the corner of the 90 degree side then it traverses the entire "opposite" side to finally arrived at exactly the same place as his brother. the two photons leave from exactly the same place and at the same time. Do this photon which has traveled two sides (the adjacent one then the opposite side of the triangle) and its brother which has only traveled the hypotenuse arrive at the same place at the same time?Why?
Jamil Kooli
The scenario you've described is a classic illustration of the principles of light path and
speed, particularly as understood in the context of physics and, more specifically, optics.
In a vacuum, all photons travel at the same speed, which is the speed of light,. The time it
takes for a photon to travel a certain distance is directly proportional to that distance.
Therefore, the time it takes for a photon to reach a destination is given by
(𝑡 =𝑑/𝑐 ), where
(𝑡) is the time, (𝑑) is the distance, and (𝑐) is the speed of light.
….Back to the right triangle, where the lengths of the legs adjacent (𝑎) and opposite (𝑜) to
the right angle, and the length of the hypotenuse (ℎ), follow the Pythagorean theorem:
(𝑎2 + 𝑜2 = ℎ2).
- The first photon travels the hypotenuse (ℎ) directly.
- The "brother" photon travels the sum of the two legs (𝑎 + 𝑜).
The key question is whether the two photons arrive at the same place at the same time. To
answer this, we compare the distances travelled:
- The direct path along the hypotenuse is always shorter than the sum of the other two
sides in a right triangle (ℎ < 𝑎 + 𝑜), because of the Pythagorean theorem.
Since the speed of light is constant and the same for both photons, the photon traveling
along the hypotenuse (ℎ) will always arrive first. It travels a shorter distance, and since
speed is constant, shorter distance translates to shorter travel time.
This conclusion is based on classical physics and does not account for any potential
quantum effects that might arise in a real-world experiment, but at the macroscopic scale
and within the context of classical physics, the answer is clear.
What if a photon is not an independent particle that moves through space, but only part of a relay system of virtual photons? https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/light-wave-particle-something-else-warren-frisina/?trackingId=FNWUp%2FOTR%2FSy6DzSemgvpQ%3D%3D
Dear all,
I believe that Einstein did not explain everything in his theories. So there are still many fundamental things to discover. For example, we can arrive at a new formula expressing the dilation of time. But in Einstein's physical approach of the time dilation via the Lorentz formula, the triangle on which Einstein based himself to explain dilation, hypothenus, adjacent side, and opposite side represent distances. If we take another triangle where we indicate only speeds on hypothenuse, adjacent side, and opposite side, then the language changes. it is poosible that the observer no longer observes the time dilation! The question is: is it the own time of the photon that underwent the dilation? Assuming that the photon has its own time. In the triangle where we can indicate speeds only, in each side there is no more apparent external time dilation, that is to say that the external observer could not observes the time dilation and it is possible that only the photon sees it, in my opinion it is is another method to show that Einstein's calculation is correct and even the use of the Lorentz formula is correct. For this new method we can consider that the photon is itself an observer of everything that happens around it, it understands the environment around it and it acts according to what happens around it and perhaps anticipates ! So coming back to my right triangle on which I only write speeds, is there a way to determine experimentally whether the two "brother" photons arrive at the same time or not at point B?
Dear all,
With this question I am trying to show that it is not gravity that is responsible for slowing down a clock, it must have another reason. If my memory does not deceive me, in literature, the higher a clock is, the less it turns, that is to say, it has less beating. It was Einstein who wanted it to be this way in order to try to unify his two theories, general and special relativities. I think the most important role of gravity is to make sure that objects stay together and not go off in all directions!
Much of the confusion about topics such as this arises, I suspect, because of a failure to recognize and account for an important distinction between discussions concerning the fundamental nature of time (i.e., the question, "what is time?") on the one hand, and questions about the behavior or clocks under a variety of physical circumstances on the other hand.
As physicist Julian Barbour wrote in The End of Time, “Relativity is not
about an abstract concept of time at all: it is about physical devices called
clocks. Once we grasp that, many difficulties fall away.”
Einstein did not begin his theorizing by asking "what is time?" Rather, he took as a "given" in his theories the operational definition of time, i.e., "time is that which is measured by clocks." Given this foundation for his theories, one might reasonably ask the question, "what then is the definition of a clock?" Unfortunately, the answer typically given is that "a clock is a physical device that measures the passage of time." Proponents of the operational definition of time go on to add that clocks are devices that count the recurrence of regularly recurring physical changes such as the swings of a pendulum or the changes of state of a cesium atom, for example, but they fail to explain how we would know that such changes are "regularly recurring" unless we had already measured their motions with another clock. This would appear to open the door to problems arising from circularity of thinking and reasoning.
I have written more about this in several articles posted at my profile.
J. C. N. Smith,
Thank you very much for the information. I will post a preprint somewhere soon where I will indicate the theoretical time it takes for light to travel an exact terrestrial mile. And there one has a terrestrial mile a function of the speed of light. But in this special case we have a frequency corresponding to a radio wavelenght. I think one can use this frequency to make that the cesium and strontium reproduice a second.
To answer the question “When a photon is reflected by a mirror, does its own time changes?” it is necessary before really scientifically to understand – what are “photon”?, and “time”?.
The mainstream physics knows about that “photons” are “particles” that are “quantum” of “EM filled”, having at that only purely phenomenological empiric answers to questions – what is “particle” and “EM filed”, which are in most cases in the physics practice adequate to the objective reality,
- but has fundamentally wrong illusory “understanding” of what is “time”.
That happens because of in the In the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc.,
- are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, and so in every case when the mainstream addresses to any really fundamental problem, then result is completely inevitably is transcendent/mystic something. As, say, the answers in this thread are.
The fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, really scientifically defined only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read one paper
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics,
- where, correspondingly, in rigorous accordance with all known reliable experimental data it is rigorously scientifically rationally shown that Matter’s utmost universal “kinematical” spacetime fundamentally isn’t postulated in the mainstream physics two 4D spacetimes
– 4D Euclidian spacetime with metrics (t,X,Y,Z) in classical mechanics and Minkowski space with metrics (ict,X,Y,Z), where the time “ict” dimension is mystically mathematically imaginary,
- but it is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z, ct), where, of course, fundamentally there cannot be “space contraction”, “time dilation”, etc. in the SR.
However because of that the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle is extremely might, the real time “ct” coordinate isn’t observable at mainstream physics practice, so the mainstream uses really the specific space “cτ” dimension as the time dimension [though can use any other space dimension, and measure “time” in meters, say, instead of counting number N of rotation of a pointer with a length R, of some clock, to measure the distance that the pointer’s end passes, 2πNR] .
Really Matter’s ultimate base is the (at least) [5]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [5]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the spacetime above,
- while everything that exists and happens in Matter is/are some disturbances in the lattice, which are created when some 4D momentums P [“bold” means 4 D vector] impact on some the lattice’s FLE. Further the disturbances move/propagate in the lattice [so in the 4D space] with 4D velocities that have identical absolute values be equal to the speed of light, c.
Including particles are the disturbances, and so are of two mains types: “T-particles” that are created by momentums that are directed along cτ-axis, and so, if are at rest in the 3DXYZ space, move only along this axis with the speed of light, and “S-particles” that are created by the 3D space momentums, and so move only in the 3D space with the speed of light, that are now known photons.
But at that both –T-particles, which can move – and mostly move – also in 3D space, and photons, at their motion in 4D space always fundamentally obligatorily move in parallel in the time dimension, in physics it is convenient to postulate that with the speed of light;
- while fundamentally there cannot be some specific “own times” of everything in Matter, including photons.
More, including why having rest mass moving in 3D space particles really live longer [not, of course, because of some mystic “time dilation”] than if are at 3D space rest see the link above, SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_particle_be_its_own_antiparticle are relevant in his case
Cheers
Jamil Kooli Yes, it does.
Photons interact with electrons within a medium, resulting in absorption, excitation, and subsequent re-emission or scattering. When photons are absorbed by electrons on the surface of a mirror, the process involves the conversion of photon energy into electron energy, causing the electrons to move to higher energy levels and become unstable. As a result, the electrons re-emit photons. These interactions contribute to absorption loss. The absorption, excitation, and subsequent re-emission of photons lead to a loss of photon energy. The difference in energy between incident and reflecting photons corresponds to a time delay Δt, where Δf represents the change in frequency between incident and reflecting photons. The equations for these processes are expressed as follows:
ΔE = γᵢ − γᵣ = hΔf, where Δf is the change in frequency between incident and reflecting photons.
Δt = (1/Δf)/360, where Δf corresponds to the infinitesimal time delay Δt during reflection.
Refer research Preprint Relativistic Effects and Photon-Mirror Interaction – Energy ...
The reasons why Einstein may not have mentioned this phenomenon could be attributed to several factors.
Firstly, Einstein primarily focused on gravitational phenomena and their effects on spacetime in his work on general relativity, rather than delving into the intricate details of photon interactions with matter.
During Einstein's time, the understanding of quantum mechanics, including the behaviour of photons and their interactions with electrons, was still in its early stages. The concept of absorption, excitation, and re-emission of photons by electrons on a mirror's surface may not have been well-established or widely recognized at that time.
Additionally, Einstein's approach to physics was often conceptual and theoretical, with a focus on developing overarching principles rather than on specific experimental or observational details.
Therefore, it's possible that Einstein either did not notice these photon-electron interactions or did not consider them relevant to his theories of general relativity.
Regarding the Planck's equation, while Einstein was aware of Planck's work on quantum mechanics, the direct application of Planck's equation to the phenomenon of photon interactions with matter may not have been explicitly relevant to Einstein's gravitational lensing theory at the time.
Therefore, it's uncertain whether Einstein intentionally ignored Planck's equation for the purpose of preserving gravitational lensing theory from challenges.
Regards,
Soumendra Nath Thakur