Notices
Results 1 to 15 of 15
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By geordief
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke

Thread: Light is infinitely young?

  1. #1 Light is infinitely young? 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    287
    So to my current knowledge (may not be correct) but as you approach infinitely closer to the speed of light time becomes infinitely slower.

    Ok so now light travelling at the speed of light, does that mean that it is basically infinitely young despite taking perhaps years to reach us for example other suns.

    That light we see has only existed for a very small amount of time in it's "dimension"


    I didn't explain it well, but please leave comments


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post


    I didn't explain it well, but please leave comments
    Why do you feel the need to continue to spam this forum with your nonsense?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    So to my current knowledge (may not be correct) but as you approach infinitely closer to the speed of light time becomes infinitely slower.
    No, light never becomes slower, it propagates at exactly the same speed in all frames of reference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    So to my current knowledge (may not be correct) but as you approach infinitely closer to the speed of light time becomes infinitely slower.
    No, light never becomes slower, it propagates at exactly the same speed in all frames of reference.
    I don't think that is what ScienceNoob said. I understood he said time (not light) became slower .

    I thought I had also heard that time didn't pass for a beam of light .So wouldn't "infinitely young" be another , perhaps less meaningful way of putting it?

    (the formatting is a bit tricky -I can't seem to cancel the bold format)
    ScienceNoob likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Although you can extend the idea of time dilation to photons and conclude that they experience no time, there are a couple of problems with this:

    1. A photon travelling at the speed of light is not a valid frame of reference in special relativity, and so the application of the Lorentz transform to this case is invalid.

    2. Photons don't age or have clocks, so the idea of them experiencing time is meaningless anyway.
    ScienceNoob likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    I don't think that is what ScienceNoob said. I understood he said time (not light) became slower .
    Sorry, you are right, I misread.
    ScienceNoob likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post


    I didn't explain it well, but please leave comments
    Why do you feel the need to continue to spam this forum with your nonsense?
    Sorry sir, I don't know very much so everytime I think of something random I just come on here and ask it to find the truth
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    So to my current knowledge (may not be correct) but as you approach infinitely closer to the speed of light time becomes infinitely slower.
    No, light never becomes slower, it propagates at exactly the same speed in all frames of reference.
    I don't think that is what ScienceNoob said. I understood he said time (not light) became slower .

    I thought I had also heard that time didn't pass for a beam of light .So wouldn't "infinitely young" be another , perhaps less meaningful way of putting it?

    (the formatting is a bit tricky -I can't seem to cancel the bold format)
    Ahhh that's better way to say it, so it is true? Awesome thanks!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,676
    I think i understand his intent, but i am not knowledgable enough in physics to answer this, as this is about time perception, which is above my knowhow. I think he wants to know, if a photon that travels at light speed, while mass, while travelling near light speed, has a slower perception of time. He wants to know if a photon can be designated infinitely young, because it does travel at light speed, which may peak the scale on this mass, who travels faster than light.

    I think the answer would still be no.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post


    I thought I had also heard that time didn't pass for a beam of light .
    This is just as non-sensical, one cannot attach frames of reference to a beam of light, so one cannot talk about time passage for a beam of light. This thread belongs in Pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    I think the answer would still be no.
    I'm taking a stab in the dark here, but we may also want to consider when the photons were generated, emitted, and absorbed. Once absorbed, are they still considered photons, and if so can we still apply an "age" to them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    So to my current knowledge (may not be correct) but as you approach infinitely closer to the speed of light time becomes infinitely slower.

    Ok so now light travelling at the speed of light, does that mean that it is basically infinitely young despite taking perhaps years to reach us for example other suns.

    That light we see has only existed for a very small amount of time in it's "dimension"


    I didn't explain it well, but please leave comments
    Let's try and put this a little differently. As an object's velocity approaches approaches the speed of light as measured by some observer, time will slow for that object as measured by that observer. One way to look at it is that for every second that passes for the object, the observer measures more time on his own clock. Now as the velocity of the object approaches the speed of light, the time measured by the observer for each second on for the object approaches infinity.

    Now the "approaches" is important here, as it does not mean that at the speed of light it becomes infinite. I'll explain by way of some mathematics:

    Consider the equation



    As x gets smaller, the answer becomes larger. In fact we say that as x approaches 0 the answer approaches infinity. However we cannot say that 1/0 equals infinity.

    One reason is that then we would say that infinity times 0 equals 1.

    The problem is that the answer to the equation:



    Also approaches infinity as x approaches 0, and we can't very well say that infinity times 0 equals both 2 and 1.

    So what we have to do is declare that 1/0 is undefined. It has no answer.

    It is the same with the speed of light, because the time dilation formula which predicts the time slow down above gives an 1/0 answer at exactly the speed of light. This is where Strange's response with regard to a photon not having a valid frame of reference comes from. We cannot say what happens to time for an object traveling at light speed because the theory we use to predict time dilation at different velocities does not have an answer at the speed of light.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    So to my current knowledge (may not be correct) but as you approach infinitely closer to the speed of light time becomes infinitely slower.

    Ok so now light travelling at the speed of light, does that mean that it is basically infinitely young despite taking perhaps years to reach us for example other suns.

    That light we see has only existed for a very small amount of time in it's "dimension"


    I didn't explain it well, but please leave comments
    Let's try and put this a little differently. As an object's velocity approaches approaches the speed of light as measured by some observer, time will slow for that object as measured by that observer. One way to look at it is that for every second that passes for the object, the observer measures more time on his own clock. Now as the velocity of the object approaches the speed of light, the time measured by the observer for each second on for the object approaches infinity.
    Janus,

    I have never disagreed with you in the past but this time , I have to. The total elapsed proper time approaches zero, not infinity when the speed of the object approaches c: . The "moving" observer measures , while the "stationary" observer measures T (not zero and not infinity).

    I think that you might have intended to talk about "time rates". In that case, indeed:

    when
    Last edited by Howard Roark; March 26th, 2014 at 01:39 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    So to my current knowledge (may not be correct) but as you approach infinitely closer to the speed of light time becomes infinitely slower.

    Ok so now light travelling at the speed of light, does that mean that it is basically infinitely young despite taking perhaps years to reach us for example other suns.

    That light we see has only existed for a very small amount of time in it's "dimension"


    I didn't explain it well, but please leave comments
    Let's try and put this a little differently. As an object's velocity approaches approaches the speed of light as measured by some observer, time will slow for that object as measured by that observer. One way to look at it is that for every second that passes for the object, the observer measures more time on his own clock. Now as the velocity of the object approaches the speed of light, the time measured by the observer for each second on for the object approaches infinity.
    Janus,

    I have never disagreed with you in the past but this time , I have to. The total elapsed proper time approaches zero, not infinity when the speed of the object approaches c: . The "moving" observer measures , while the "stationary" observer measures T (not zero and not infinity).

    I think that you might have intended to talk about "time rates". In that case, indeed:

    when
    Just to clarify, here's what I meant: For example if the object is moving at 0.8c relative to the observer, then according to the observer, for every one second that accumlates on the object's clock, 1.6667... sec passes on his own. As the relative speed increases, that 1 sec accumulation for the object's clock represents a larger and larger passage of time on his own.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    So to my current knowledge (may not be correct) but as you approach infinitely closer to the speed of light time becomes infinitely slower.

    Ok so now light travelling at the speed of light, does that mean that it is basically infinitely young despite taking perhaps years to reach us for example other suns.

    That light we see has only existed for a very small amount of time in it's "dimension"


    I didn't explain it well, but please leave comments
    Let's try and put this a little differently. As an object's velocity approaches approaches the speed of light as measured by some observer, time will slow for that object as measured by that observer. One way to look at it is that for every second that passes for the object, the observer measures more time on his own clock. Now as the velocity of the object approaches the speed of light, the time measured by the observer for each second on for the object approaches infinity.
    Janus,

    I have never disagreed with you in the past but this time , I have to. The total elapsed proper time approaches zero, not infinity when the speed of the object approaches c: . The "moving" observer measures , while the "stationary" observer measures T (not zero and not infinity).

    I think that you might have intended to talk about "time rates". In that case, indeed:

    when
    Just to clarify, here's what I meant: For example if the object is moving at 0.8c relative to the observer, then according to the observer, for every one second that accumlates on the object's clock, 1.6667... sec passes on his own. As the relative speed increases, that 1 sec accumulation for the object's clock represents a larger and larger passage of time on his own.
    OK, so in symbolic terms you are referring to when
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 84
    Last Post: October 10th, 2014, 07:01 AM
  2. The infinitely expanding Universe..?
    By EugeneT in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 16th, 2014, 08:48 PM
  3. Infinitely smaller than Kansas?
    By Victor Vector in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 21st, 2011, 06:25 AM
  4. Sequences with infinitely many acc points
    By VnnE4aEXxfhkrjPX in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 9th, 2011, 02:17 PM
  5. get 'em young?
    By Robin Hood in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: December 19th, 2007, 02:25 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •