Does Light have an inertial reference frame?
So, this is something that I have been puzzling about for a bit. We know from Einstein that at the speed of light time goes to 0. We also know that when the speed of light is measured in any reference frame it is a constant, and as long as the medium it is propogating through is the same, then the same constant.
So, lets assume for a moment that we are in the reference frame of light itself. Time doesn't propogate. So without delta T there can be no movement. So, that means as far as light goes, all things and all places have to exist simultaneously, regardless of when they happen in a non - light intertial reference frame.
Or to say it a different way. With some cool equipment I can measure light going from point A to point B. There is a distance and a time that it takes and I come up with the speed of light. However, if I am the light (no pun intented) then I have to be at points A and B simultaneously. Regardless of how far apart or how long it takes when measured in a different reference frame.
I don't really see how to reconcile that other than to think that light doesn't have an intertial reference frame, but that seems like a cheat. I've read a number of books about light and relativity and have never seen this addressed.
Any takers?
Thinkingblade
So, my term was not precise. I am aware that light is massless therefore no inertia. That isn't really my question. I also know that time does not pass for a photon and that C is a constant in all intertial reference frames.
So, to Jose - yes, this I already understood, it wasn't my question, though I appreciate your response.
To eye - you are closer to my question, but your answer has problems with it. First, on board the photon time cannot "seem to pass normally" delta T is zero. As far as I understand Einstein's writings on the matter that is as fixed as the value of C itself relative to inertial reference frames. Therefore "velocity" as we think of it is either undefined or infinity - take your pick. So nothing can come and go.
Irv, interesting. It is perfectly legal to divide by 1-i, it just means in this case that T=0. A number of "real" electrical phenomena come from "imaginary" solutions. Is there some "mathematically" wrong with the solution?
Thanks all.