Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:29:00 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>> They (apparently) oscillate, which, at least according to my limited and
>> rather primitive understanding of relativity theory, means time passes
>> for them, which suggests pretty strongly that their speed must be
>> subluminal.  At C, 1/gamma=0 and the particle must remain immutable
>> between events, because its internal "clock" has stopped.
> 
> This makes me wonder how an ordinary photon manages to go through umpteen 
> cycles
> between source and destination with a "stopped clock". :)

It doesn't.  A photon is the same no matter when you sample it.

The wave function associated with it "goes through multiple cycles"
(which are distributed in space) but the photon itself does not
oscillate in any sense of the word.

Remember, the photon is traveling with the wave front, and ON THE WAVE
FRONT the E and B fields are "stationary".  If, at the crest of the
wave, E points up, then it's that up-pointing E vector which is
traveling through space; at the crest it always points up, but the crest
is moving at C.  Any observer in any inertial frame will see an
oscillating E field as the photon passes, of course, because the
up-pointing E field at the crest is preceded and followed by
down-pointing E fields -- but they're all moving along through space in
tandem.

If you could travel at C, and you flew along with a radio wave (which is
easier to measure than a light wave), and you sampled the E and B
fields, you would find that they didn't seem to be changing.  This is
one of the problems with traveling at C:  In a frame of reference moving
at C the traveling wave no longer looks like a solution to Maxwell's
equations, because @E/@t = @B/@t = 0.  The way out of this box chosen in
special relativity is to let @t -> 0 when you travel at C.

A "traveling wave" is exactly that.  It is not a "changing wave"; rather
it's a fixed pattern which travels through space.



> 
> [snip]
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 

Reply via email to