0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Photons being mass less ‘particles’ do not experience time.
Final quick thought, instantaneous communication over any finite distance, sounds a lot like gravity.
Nowhere have I ever claimed or will ever claim that the speed of light is not a constant.
In the real universe, gravity slows the photons down.
Ok, the car thing is impossible but as a mind experiment I would like to have a go at answering it. I am traveling at the speed of light at night and I turn on my headlights. Actually, I am frozen in time so cannot turn the headlights on.
That's a strange thing with 'time' and its arrow. There is no frame of reference that can be said to be 'unmoving/frozen'. If you define a frame as such, then it has to be from a different 'frame of reference', relative that definition. And as soon as you're 'at rest' relative that 'frozen' frame you will find that its 'time' ticks the same 'as always', in fact it ticks the same as yours.
A photon experiences no passage of time. Anything travelling at the speed of light will also experience no passage of time. I thought this was generally accepted.
JP"It's wrong to think that photons don't "experience" (whatever that means to a massless particle) time"In what way do they experience time, please?I am still interested to know in what way you think photons experience time?Thanks.
light only exist in its interactions. You have no way other than conceptual to define as 'propagating', when it comes to 'matter' is seems somewhat different as you actually can see it 'move' as translated by light.
But why would you set mass to zero when Relativity tells us that mass traveling at the speed of light becomes infinite.
Well, this was why I find Einstein being right in treating light as a constant. When it comes to your definitions of lights 'infinite speed' I can't agree. To me, and Einstein, light has only one speed, it does not adapt to 'time/gravity'.
3) Do we all also agree that light speed is constant,? Yes and completely uninfluenced by gravity, No but that clocks and measuring sticks are influence by gravity? Yes
The ‘rate of flow of time’ to me seems obvious. If I said the ‘rate of flow of water’, everyone would know what I meant. Time flows past at a certain rate.
Quote from: MikeS on 06/05/2011 07:22:24The ‘rate of flow of time’ to me seems obvious. If I said the ‘rate of flow of water’, everyone would know what I meant. Time flows past at a certain rate. Ah, but that's a problem Mike. You can refer to a rate of flow of water, but you can't refer to a rate of flow of time because a "rate" is a measurement of something in a certain amount of time, so you'd be using time to measure time, which obviously won't work.
We know that photons 'bend' to gravity, so you can say that light is 'influenced' by gravity Mike. And yes, you can turn it around if you like and state that we have some 'forces' (not really forces per se, but I'm using the word for lack of a better here) that are in a 'equilibrium' at all times, adapting to each other. In a way that was Einsteins thought too, as I understands it.But in his world it was light that was the weight in the scale, the other adapting themselves around its invariant speed. In yours it will be gravity? That is the defining factor, and that light needs to be at 'c', if I understand you right?
Mike: You posted over me, but here goes anyway.-----------------I think it's more a conceptual thing.We are conditioned to think that there is some sort of master clock that controls everything. There isn't. Time is purely local, but that local time controls absolutely every process from the activity in atoms to the rotation of planets, and also the movement of light.All we can say is that clocks may not agree because time is not univesal, and there is plenty of hard evidence to confirm this.
Yes I have already explained that. You refer to it as (time is not universal,) so you know exactly what I am trying to say. If you can think of or know of a better term to explain the phenomenal I would love to know what it is.
By the way, different observers measure time differently (time dilation) but they also measure lengths differently (length contraction). Is there a reason you think time dilation is more important than length contraction?
Quote from: MikeS on 06/05/2011 21:32:35Yes I have already explained that. You refer to it as (time is not universal,) so you know exactly what I am trying to say. If you can think of or know of a better term to explain the phenomenal I would love to know what it is.I'll give it one more shot Here is an analogy. Like any analogy, you will be able to blow many holes in it, but it might help.We talk about atmospheric pressure. We know it varies on Earth for many reasons, but I don't think we can define a Universal standard for pressure.Time is not so different. It's different all over the joint.However, while it's easy to measure differences in pressure locally, it's impossible to measure differences in time locally because the local time affects all time measuring devices, including human metabolism, and anything else you can think of.
Quote from: JP on 06/05/2011 21:42:48Time dilation?Only works for time dilation not for contraction.