March 25th, 2014, 08:01 PM
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
Why do you feel the need to continue to spam this forum with your nonsense?Originally Posted by ScienceNoob
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 .No, light never becomes slower, it propagates at exactly the same speed in all frames of reference.
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)
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.
Sorry, you are right, I misread.
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 truthWhy do you feel the need to continue to spam this forum with your nonsense?
Ahhh that's better way to say it, so it is true? Awesome thanks!I don't think that is what ScienceNoob said. I understood he said time (not light) became slower .No, light never becomes slower, it propagates at exactly the same speed in all frames of reference.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Janus,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.
I have never disagreed with you in the past but this time , I have to. The total elapsed proper timeapproaches 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.
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.Janus,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.
I have never disagreed with you in the past but this time , I have to. The total elapsed proper time
I think that you might have intended to talk about "time rates". In that case, indeed:
OK, so in symbolic terms you are referring toJust 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.Janus,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.
I have never disagreed with you in the past but this time , I have to. The total elapsed proper time
I think that you might have intended to talk about "time rates". In that case, indeed:
| « The Big Rip | Woah, any help? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
