No time at the speed of light

[Chaos]

it's been a while since i've read "the elegant universe" by brian greene, but i know this is discussed in it.

 

it is said that at the speed of light, there is no time. yet how do we at the same time say some star is x light years away? if it takes light years to get somewhere, how can there also be no time at the speed of light?

 

:shrug:

[tolworthy]

it is said that at the speed of light, there is no time. yet how do we at the same time say some star is x light years away? if it takes light years to get somewhere, how can there also be no time at the speed of light?

:rant:

 

There is distance, but no time. We call it light years because we have time. (or at least we think we do). I imagine that a being-of-pure-energy would call it something else. :shrug:

[Chaos]

i also have 2 interesting questions:

 

what would it be like to exist at roughly 99.99999999999999% the speed of light? i ask because with this motion, there is almost no time for you.

 

what would it be like to exist at roughly .0000000000000000001% the speed of light? i ask because with this motion you're almost moving all through time and not space.

[Qfwfq]

it is said that at the speed of light, there is no time.

This is a simple expression for something more complicated. The same points of space-time have different coordinates for different observers or, more precisely, according to different frames of reference. The Lorentz transformations tell how the coordinates of one relate to those of another. For a relative velocity of c the transformations are singular and this is what causes the difficulty, it doesn't make much sense to match up our coordinates with those of the photon.

[Little Bang]

With regards to time only, a traveler at near C, with respect to the rest of the universe, it would appear that everything is running infinitely fast. To an outside observer the traveler's time would appear to stop. Remember everything is relative to the observer's frame of reference.

[UncleAl]

Lightspeed is not an inertial frame of reference. Your question is without meaning. The question of how inertial frames of reference moving at different velocities view each others' clocks has been addressed,

 

Annalen der Physik 4 XVII pp. 891-921 (1905)

 

http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>

<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>

Longitudinal and transverse mass

[maddog]

Chaos,

 

This was a comment I made earlier. Yes, I believe the issue of (time=0) for light is

discussed in "Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. I think Qfwfq said it best by talking

about from whose point of reference. Time not existing for light is ONLY from light's

point of view (reference frame). Uncle Al's comment about inertial reference frames

though correct would Only be pertinent for particles with mass (rest mass). Since

you mentioned Brian Greene's excellent book, let give an high salutation for his new

one, "Fabric of the Cosmos" !!! I just getting to the section on String Theory. He has

really branched off from the first book. It is a Great sequel (update on theory &

observation).

 

Now back to No time for photons... Photons always travel at C (local reference frame).

It is only from our point of view observing with a photon (by its interaction with some

other particle (typically with mass) that we observe a speed less than (by traveling

through a medium other than a vacuum). Were a particle with mass to travel with

a speed close to light, we would view it time exceedingly slowed. However the

particle would view that our time was what had slowed by this proportion. This is all

by special relativity (SR) of Einstein. Were it to be the other end of exceedingly slow

speed (very near 0), then the sense of time would be imperceptively change from

observer to observer (depending of frames of reference). Were GR brought in here

then acceleration would become equivalent to a gravitic field of equal intensity for

the appropriate observers point of reference.

 

Hope this clarifies...

 

maddog

[EWright]

Chaos,

 

This was a comment I made earlier. Yes, I believe the issue of (time=0) for light is

discussed in "Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. I think Qfwfq said it best by talking

about from whose point of reference. Time not existing for light is ONLY from light's

point of view (reference frame). Uncle Al's comment about inertial reference frames

though correct would Only be pertinent for particles with mass (rest mass). Since

you mentioned Brian Greene's excellent book, let give an high salutation for his new

one, "Fabric of the Cosmos" !!! I just getting to the section on String Theory. He has

really branched off from the first book. It is a Great sequel (update on theory &

observation).

 

Now back to No time for photons... Photons always travel at C (local reference frame).

It is only from our point of view observing with a photon (by its interaction with some

other particle (typically with mass) that we observe a speed less than (by traveling

through a medium other than a vacuum). Were a particle with mass to travel with

a speed close to light, we would view it time exceedingly slowed. However the

particle would view that our time was what had slowed by this proportion. This is all

by special relativity (SR) of Einstein. Were it to be the other end of exceedingly slow

speed (very near 0), then the sense of time would be imperceptively change from

observer to observer (depending of frames of reference). Were GR brought in here

then acceleration would become equivalent to a gravitic field of equal intensity for

the appropriate observers point of reference.

 

Hope this clarifies...

 

maddog

 

I believe you are mistaken on one point. From the accelerated particle's 'view' it would appear that our time sped up. We would view its time as having it's time as slowed. That is, according to SR.

[Fredu]

Time does not exist.

How can there be no time?

[EWright]

Time does not exist.

How can there be no time?

 

Your statement and then quetion do not compute. I assume both were questions?

 

Special Relativity says there would be no passage of time at the speed of light, and thus for a photon. But be warned, SR is mistaken about a great many things.

[Erasmus00]

But be warned, SR is mistaken about a great many things.

 

You are either here to discuss your ideas, or you are not. You follow your posts, almost without exception, with "SR is wrong." Sometimes you even include "and I'm right." If you aren't willing to discuss your ideas, these statements don't lead anywhere, so why keep making them?

-Will

[niviene]

I'd also like to know... what mistakes? Please tell me what you think are the flaws, I'm curious to know.

[EWright]

I'd also like to know... what mistakes? Please tell me what you think are the flaws, I'm curious to know.

 

See my posts in the Physics and Mathmatics section. To go into detail I would have to explain too much of my own theory, and I'm not yet ready to do that.

[lindagarrette]

Time does not exist.

How can there be no time?

 

Here's how I understand it. Time is merely a means of measuring the interval between events. It measured nothing before there was a universe. Velocity is a means of measuring how quickly an object in motion travels from one point to another. In equations using velocity, events occur at longer or shorter intervals of time depending on the observer's perspective -- SR.

[lindagarrette]

Special Relativity says there would be no passage of time at the speed of light, and thus for a photon.

SR applies to the space/time observable universe. No passage of time would mean that only one event occurs. Anything in motion creates a series of events which are measured by time. A photon cannot travel from one point to another simultaneously.

[EWright]

SR applies to the space/time observable universe. No passage of time would mean that only one event occurs. Anything in motion creates a series of events which are measured by time. A photon cannot travel from one point to another simultaneously.

 

So you disagree with SR?

[xersan]

Special relativity is wrong. I have mathematical evidences and key knowledges. All of the logic traps had been solved.

 

One of them: Numerical analysis with Lorentz equation :

 

Position A : The source and the light are the direction of (+ x)

 

(For this position ; v = 0.60 c , t = 5 s , c = 300 000 km/s)

 

=> x’ = 750 000 km t’ = 2.5 sec (Tempo of time becomes slower: Time dilation)

 

 

Position B : The light is at the direction of (+ x) ; The source goes at the direction of (- x)

 

(For this position: v = - 0.60 c ; t = 5 sec ; c = 300 000 km/sec)

 

 x’ = 3 000 000 km ; t’ = 10 sec (Tempo runs faster: time contraction)

 

Position C: The source goes at the direction of (+ x), light is at the direction of (- x)

 

(For this position: v = 0.60 c ; t = 5 sec ; c = - 300 000 km/sec

 

 x’ = - 3 000 000 km ; t’ = 10 sec ( Tempo of time runs faster: Time contraction)

 

The velocity of light for allpositions:

 

C = 750 000/2.5 = 3 000 000 / 10 = | - 3 000 000| / 10 = 300 000 km/sec

 

The velocity of light for each position is obtained the fixed value of < c> (= 300 000 km/sec). But the tempos of time run faster for the position (:hihi: and © . If the tempo of time could have been slower for also the position B and C, the scientific integrity of SR would be assured. But this condition could not be realized. Faster and slower tempos never becomes simultaneously on the same experiment .

 

If Einstein was alive, he would take back his theory (SR)certainly because of the results of analyzing with opposite directional light.