[LeeE]

If this scenario is correct, then for this photon at least, the future was predetermined at it's creation. And if we can agree upon that premise, all photon futures must be therefore, predetermined.

You've gone back to referring to a time based property i.e. 'future' in a context where the duration of time = 0.  Within it's frame of reference, the photon would appear to have no future because it has no time context (but remember, this is all based on the assumption that non-matter items i.e. photons, have the same properties as matter items i.e. er... matter, and personally, I'm not sure that this is a safe assumption to make, the two types of item being intrinsically different in just about every other respect we can think of.  For example, non-matter items always travel at 'c' but matter items can never do this.  Non-matter items have no rest mass, but matter items always do, and so on...).

[LeeE]

For any degree of time-dilation where the rate of time is > 0 events will occur in an order, one before the other, and so on,

No. If two spatially separated events A and B occur in [a temporal] order (A first and then B), they can occur in the reverse [temporal] order (B first and then A) in another frame of reference moving with respect to the first.

My emphasis.

This is logically correct, but the other frame of reference must be one where the direction of movement along the temporal axis is in the opposite direction to ours when it seems that within our spacetime environment everything moves along the temporal axis in the same direction. 

Maybe I haven't explained myself well. I'm not talking about going back in the time, but normally travelling in space. If you are in a starship A and you are observing your friend in another equal starship B approaching you from left and going to right faster than you, both starships going to right (so the starships' "heads" are on the right, and the "tails" on the left)  then in the frame of reference of your starship you see these events in this temporal order (H_A = head of A; T_B = tail of B, ecc):

1. H_BT_A --> T_BT_A --> H_BH_A

Instead, from his frame of reference:

2. H_BT_A --> H_BH_A --> T_BT_A.

As you see, the events coloured in blue and red are in reversal temporal order.
This is due to the fact that, for Lorentz contraction, you see your friend's starship shorter than your, and he sees the opposite.

Edit. I assumed it as obvious, but in case it's not: H_BT_A means "the head of starship B is next to the tail of starship  A", ecc.

Sorry lightarrow, I misunderstood what you meant.

That's a good illustration but I think that what you're really pointing out is that there isn't an absolute frame of reference.  While each observer may see things happening in a different order, they will always see it in that order and the order will remain consistent within that frame of reference.  Neither craft could see a different order from their respective frames of reference.

[LeeE]

In my starship travelling at ~ c I experience time in the same way as before the travel.

Yes, you would experience time normally, but if you could reach 'c' so that no time passes, you will just experience what happens in zero time i.e. nothing.

But that is true only in the hypothesis that our universe had a finite time of existence, because a finite number (universe time of existence) multiplied zero (Lorentz factor) is zero (time elapsed for the photon); but if the universe has an infinite time of existence (and, sincerely, neither me, nor you can know it) then infinite multiplied zero is undetermined (which means that it could be zero, a finite number or an infinite number).

If we accept the BB hypothesis, only a finite amount of time can have elapsed for the universe up to this point in time.  Whether the universe goes on to exist for an infinite amount of time or not is open to debate, but for any specific time in the future only a finite amount of time can have elapsed.

While trying to do maths with ∞ doesn't give meaningful answers anyway, I have to disagree that ∞ * 0 is indeterminable; it will still be 0.

[yor_on]

Lightarrow, Just want to give you an eulogy for your precise and patient explanations of your logics, it's a pleasure reading you.

As for the discussion going on here I think I'll just will read up on you, for now.
Though I'm sure I'll have one (opinion) soon enough
I seem to have a lot of them )

[lightarrow]

But that is true only in the hypothesis that our universe had a finite time of existence, because a finite number (universe time of existence) multiplied zero (Lorentz factor) is zero (time elapsed for the photon); but if the universe has an infinite time of existence (and, sincerely, neither me, nor you can know it) then infinite multiplied zero is undetermined (which means that it could be zero, a finite number or an infinite number).

If we accept the BB hypothesis, only a finite amount of time can have elapsed for the universe up to this point in time.  Whether the universe goes on to exist for an infinite amount of time or not is open to debate, but for any specific time in the future only a finite amount of time can have elapsed.

If you are in a starship travelling at c you have lived zero time from the BB up to know, but since you live in a different time, you keep going ahead, till the end of the universe, so don't know how your consideration applies here.

While trying to do maths with ∞ doesn't give meaningful answers anyway, I have to disagree that ∞ * 0 is indeterminable; it will still be 0.

Did you study mathematics?

[Mr. Scientist]

I'm going to suggest a hypothetical circumstance which is quite impossible, nevertheless, it has raised a question in my mind which has many possible interpretations.

If one could hitch a ride on a photon, present theory suggests they would experience absolutely no passage of time. If I'm correct in this understanding, starting with the Big Bang, and progressing forward in time until the theorized heat death of the universe, how would the rider view the total experience? Would I be correct in saying; Because no time had elapsed for this passenger, the Big Bang and the Heat Death of the universe would be a single event with absolutely no time occuring in between. And with such a perspective, would the passenger have, from their position, already arrived at the Heat Death?

If this assumption is correct, then the future is already determined and it can't be changed...........................Ethos

You kind of answered your own question, but a good question at that. Let me go through it for you:

''If one could hitch a ride on a photon, present theory suggests they would experience absolutely no passage of time. If I'm correct in this understanding,''

Yes you are right, from a photons point of view, it experiences no time because space is stretched into infinity

''starting with the Big Bang, and progressing forward in time until the theorized heat death of the universe, how would the rider view the total experience?

Going back to the original assumption, correct at that which you made, the photon would actually experience no time passing, so even from big bang to heat death, or even big rip to big crunch, it would never know, because it never lived for a single chronon, or a single Planck Time which stands at around of a second.

and thus your final remarks

''Would I be correct in saying; Because no time had elapsed for this passenger, the Big Bang and the Heat Death of the universe would be a single event with absolutely no time occuring in between. And with such a perspective, would the passenger have, from their position, already arrived at the Heat Death?''

Are absolutely sound

[lightarrow]

...
and thus your final remarks

''Would I be correct in saying; Because no time had elapsed for this passenger, the Big Bang and the Heat Death of the universe would be a single event with absolutely no time occuring in between. And with such a perspective, would the passenger have, from their position, already arrived at the Heat Death?''

Are absolutely sound

Actually, it's nonsense saying "the passenger have, from their position, already arrived at the Heat Death". If you want to relate events in our frame of reference with events in his frame of reference then he *is not* arrived there, he's arrived exactly where we are in this moment. Nonetheless it's true that he will experience just a few instants to go in our far future.

[LeeE]

But that is true only in the hypothesis that our universe had a finite time of existence, because a finite number (universe time of existence) multiplied zero (Lorentz factor) is zero (time elapsed for the photon); but if the universe has an infinite time of existence (and, sincerely, neither me, nor you can know it) then infinite multiplied zero is undetermined (which means that it could be zero, a finite number or an infinite number).

If we accept the BB hypothesis, only a finite amount of time can have elapsed for the universe up to this point in time.  Whether the universe goes on to exist for an infinite amount of time or not is open to debate, but for any specific time in the future only a finite amount of time can have elapsed.

If you are in a starship travelling at c you have lived zero time from the BB up to know, but since you live in a different time, you keep going ahead, till the end of the universe, so don't know how your consideration applies here.

If you've lived zero time up until now, you're not living in a 'different' time; you've lived, as you said, zero time.  With time being absent as a factor in your frame of reference, you don't keep going because you aren't doing anything.  Nothing can happen and there is no scope for change to occur because there is nowhere else for a different state to exist.

[lightarrow]

If you've lived zero time up until now, you're not living in a 'different' time; you've lived, as you said, zero time.  With time being absent as a factor in your frame of reference, you don't keep going because you aren't doing anything.  Nothing can happen and there is no scope for change to occur because there is nowhere else for a different state to exist.

That I have coloured is wrong.

[amrit]

I'm going to suggest a hypothetical circumstance which is quite impossible, nevertheless, it has raised a question in my mind which has many possible interpretations.

If one could hitch a ride on a photon, present theory suggests they would experience absolutely no passage of time. If I'm correct in this understanding, starting with the Big Bang, and progressing forward in time until the theorized heat death of the universe, how would the rider view the total experience? Would I be correct in saying; Because no time had elapsed for this passenger, the Big Bang and the Heat Death of the universe would be a single event with absolutely no time occuring in between. And with such a perspective, would the passenger have, from their position, already arrived at the Heat Death?

If this assumption is correct, then the future is already determined and it can't be changed...........................Ethos

photon moves in atemporal space only and not in time
time is a clock run that measure photon speed
you can not move woth photon speed, so your question has no answer

[Mr. Scientist]

...
and thus your final remarks

''Would I be correct in saying; Because no time had elapsed for this passenger, the Big Bang and the Heat Death of the universe would be a single event with absolutely no time occuring in between. And with such a perspective, would the passenger have, from their position, already arrived at the Heat Death?''

Are absolutely sound

Actually, it's nonsense saying "the passenger have, from their position, already arrived at the Heat Death". If you want to relate events in our frame of reference with events in his frame of reference then he *is not* arrived there, he's arrived exactly where we are in this moment. Nonetheless it's true that he will experience just a few instants to go in our far future.

Actually, to every beginning there is an end. If you want to get technical about this, then the photon never really existed at all, because it has no beginning of existence in time (this is why we say if the photon really has any kind of birth, it would simultaneously be its death also). This is why, as soon as big bang imploded, and photon where released - the very basic building energy tools of all matter - from ''their point of perspective,'' not a single bit of time passes, so any symmetry in time (such as a big crunch where the time direction has flipped due to gravity), from their point of perspective, there existence accounts to nothing, so it has experiences nothing, but can be said to have a birth and death (the beginning and end) which cancel out entirely.

[Ethos]

Actually, to every beginning there is an end. If you want to get technical about this, then the photon never really existed at all,

And this exposes a contradiction in terms because; If the photon never really existed within it's own time, why did it exist in ours? My own take on this is that the photon experiences it's birth and it's death even though these are crowded into a singular event.

[LeeE]

If you've lived zero time up until now, you're not living in a 'different' time; you've lived, as you said, zero time.  With time being absent as a factor in your frame of reference, you don't keep going because you aren't doing anything.  Nothing can happen and there is no scope for change to occur because there is nowhere else for a different state to exist.

That I have coloured is wrong.

What you have coloured is correct.

[lightarrow]

If you've lived zero time up until now, you're not living in a 'different' time; you've lived, as you said, zero time.  With time being absent as a factor in your frame of reference, you don't keep going because you aren't doing anything.  Nothing can happen and there is no scope for change to occur because there is nowhere else for a different state to exist.

That I have coloured is wrong.

What you have coloured is correct.

Then we're on a loop...

[yor_on]

Ok, I'm a photon, yes I am Now, what can I see? looking out wth my photonic eyes I see nothing at all. Why I think so? There is no distance to see anything in. When I'm at 'c' distance as well as time disappear. At 'c' our spacetime is nothing more than a un-dimensional point and whatever travel it does from our point of view, won't even exist from the view of that photon, as I understand it. To it, it does not 'travel', the only thing it may do from its own point of view is to 'break down' into spacetime. And when it do, it disappears.

---

But this is when discussing bosons like photons. They don't obey the rules of fermions, even thought they seem, as from our frame of reference, to obey both gravity and time. Fermions won't get up to 'c' as I understand it, if ever matter was at 'c' it would have a infinite amount of everything, from momentum to energy to 'mass' to??? As Lightarrow say, if fermions was at 'c' what he describes should be true. So, I think there are a collision of 'frames' here:)

To test the idea of time slows down 'internally' should be possible, the question here is not so much if an accelerated frame is 'slower' in all it does as compared to an unaccelerated frame. The question is rather if 'thinking' would stop at 'c' for us. The first question is defined by a comparison between frames, but with two truths to it, depending on your frame of reference.The other question is a question about what 'internal experience' you might have while traveling at 'c' and that can only be described from the 'internal' frame of reference. There I believe Lightarrow to be right, as time for 'fermions' never stops.

[Mr. Scientist]

Actually, to every beginning there is an end. If you want to get technical about this, then the photon never really existed at all,

And this exposes a contradiction in terms because; If the photon never really existed within it's own time, why did it exist in ours? My own take on this is that the photon experiences it's birth and it's death even though these are crowded into a singular event.

Shhh... That is where relativity comes in. Our frame of reference does not effect our ability to notice the distortions of spacetime themselves, even if there are photons and gluon ect ect all moving at speeds which defy their own existence. But this has to do with ''frame of references'' and it depends on what frame of reference you take.

You could say the photon is absolutely and utterly meaningless and utterly non-energetic, if there was no reference frame to destinguish it at all. Remember, the photon, is just a wave of possibilities, and the probability of finding that particle depends on some kind of decoherence due to observation.

It may seem contradictory, but relativity explains it quite well, and if my explanation is not good enough, i will try again.

[Mr. Scientist]

Actually, to every beginning there is an end. If you want to get technical about this, then the photon never really existed at all,

And this exposes a contradiction in terms because; If the photon never really existed within it's own time, why did it exist in ours? My own take on this is that the photon experiences it's birth and it's death even though these are crowded into a singular event.

Shhh... That is where relativity comes in. Our frame of reference does not effect our ability to notice the distortions of spacetime themselves, even if there are photons and gluon ect ect all moving at speeds which defy their own existence. But this has to do with ''frame of references'' and it depends on what frame of reference you take.

You could say the photon is absolutely and utterly meaningless and utterly non-energetic, if there was no reference frame to destinguish it at all. Remember, the photon, is just a wave of possibilities, and the probability of finding that particle depends on some kind of decoherence due to observation.

It may seem contradictory, but relativity explains it quite well, and if my explanation is not good enough, i will try again.

I will also add, since i mentioned the birth of photon, so-to-say, at the big bang, their goal must be evident and plain. It must be as plain as:

1) They desired to become rest matter

2) They desired to experience time under a rest matter's frame of existence

Without these ''desires'', then the world as we know it would just be a ghostly apparition of photons, if it would exist [at all].

[Ethos]

It may seem contradictory, but relativity explains it quite well,

Yes, I understand. The only disagreement I have with this rationale is this: I believe the photon's experience, from birth to death, is crowded into a single moment. I don't accept the argument that this moment never existed within the photon's frame of reference.

Some will argue that a moment of time can't equal zero, and I would agree. For this moment I propose one attosecond. One unit of Plank time equal to: (10^-18) seconds.....................Ethos

[yor_on]

It's a nice question Ethos. We should have it on record. Ah, possibly
How long can the interaction of a photon in spacetime be.
The light I mean, from one photon.

[Ethos]

It's a nice question Ethos. We should have it on record. Ah, possibly
How long can the interaction of a photon in spacetime be.
The light I mean, from one photon.

From it's frame of reference or that of an observer?