[MikeS]

If one were able to ride on a beam of light would time stand still in relation to everything else? 

..]and time would stand still for everything else in relation to light. So it doesn't count...


Why doesn't it count?

[lightarrow]

Why doesn't it count?

Because you can't say which clock goes slower than the other, since *both* are seen going slower, from the other: a clock on Earth is measured going slower, from a fast spaceship's frame; the spaceship's clock is measured going slower from the Eart's frame.
I know you are talking of light instead of a spaceship, but you shouldn't, if you want to know what you would see or measure from a very fast frame.

The question:
"If one were able to ride on a beam of light would time stand still in relation to everything else?"

since it's not possible *even in principle* to ride on a beam of light because a frame of reference in which light (in the void) is stationary doesn't exist,
should be interpreted in this way:
"If one were inside a spaceship traveling at almost light's speed with respect (e.g.) to Earth, as near to c as one want, would time go slower for him with respect to Earth?"
The answer is: yes, and time would go slower for Earth with respect to the astronaut.

Twin's "paradox" comes into existence only when one of the two (the spaceship or the Earth) goes back (I make it simple, this is just an example) and they meet again. The one who comes back then is younger than the other.

[MikeS]

If one were able to ride on a beam of light would time stand still in relation to everything else? 

...and time would stand still for everything else in relation to light. So it doesn't count...

I think the sentence is a little misleading as it stands.  If you had written
"from the 'perspective (point of view, reference frame etc.)' of light, time would stand still for everything else in relation to light"  then I would agree it doesn't count.

[Airthumbs (OP)]

Define "subjected to time", because for what I wrote up, it's not clear.

[/color]


Sorry I don't think I can...  []

[lightarrow]

If one were able to ride on a beam of light would time stand still in relation to everything else?

...and time would stand still for everything else in relation to light. So it doesn't count...

I think the sentence is a little misleading as it stands.  If you had written
"from the 'perspective (point of view, reference frame etc.)' of light, time would stand still for everything else in relation to light"  then I would agree it doesn't count.

It was what I intended. (But you are answering to me, here, or to Airthumbs?)

[MikeS]

If one were able to ride on a beam of light would time stand still in relation to everything else?

...and time would stand still for everything else in relation to light. So it doesn't count...

I think the sentence is a little misleading as it stands.  If you had written
"from the 'perspective (point of view, reference frame etc.)' of light, time would stand still for everything else in relation to light"  then I would agree it doesn't count.

It was what I intended. (But you are answering to me, here, or to Airthumbs?)

I was answering to you.  "and time would stand still for everything else in relation to light.  So it doesn't matter"

[damocles]

One of the main direct verifications of Special Relativity is that unstable particles moving close to the speed of light appear to us to decay slower than they should.

Perhaps a photon has a really short decay lifetime in its own framework, but for us, its time is stopped, so it never decays!

(totally whimsical speculation).

[MikeS]

One of the main direct verifications of Special Relativity is that unstable particles moving close to the speed of light appear to us to decay slower than they should.

Perhaps a photon has a really short decay lifetime in its own framework, but for us, its time is stopped, so it never decays!

(totally whimsical speculation).

As far as we know a photon never decays in any time frame, it just 'splats'. []