Photons have no time

[modest]

You need to remember that there are several scientific terms used in practice which do not have the same definition as you find in a standard dictionary.

 

This is so true and often the cause of some serious confusion. 'Theory' is a good example.

 

I was talking with someone about temperature and heat - standard dictionary and common-sense definitions have them pretty much the same thing. The important distinctions in physics or chemistry were completely lost. It caused problems.

 

-modest

[aytche]

respectfully; photons have wavelength, therefore they have time; although nothing to do with our or some observers time. processes that have wavelength and frequency then have maximum and minimum values. i propose the max and min values are constants where dy/dx is zero. maybe this corresponds to the speed of light. then as the wave proceeds to it's max dy/dx at the x axis the velocity is greater than the speed of light. i also propose the coupling with space where all this takes place results in our only observing the constant. i remind myself that all photons are the result of the acceleration of a charged particle, their origin sort of, and their frequency is proportional to the acceleration. acceleration has a time component and it is expressed in the photon wavelength. since the energy of a photon is proportional to it's frequency, and it is electromagnetic in nature it has an omega|t signature. i'm voting for the answer to all our questions will be found in string theory and dark energy in space. peace to all!

[InfiniteNow]

respectfully; photons have wavelength, therefore they have time; although nothing to do with our or some observers time. processes that have wavelength and frequency then have maximum and minimum values.

Hi aytche,

 

I am led to believe that you have not read this thread. What you state above has already been covered, and is relative to an outside observer OF the photon, not the photon itself, which has been the basis of this entire discussion. I do want to thank you for your contribution though. :)

[CraigD]

Do you think that this time thing is a real physical thing?

This question – is time physically real? - is arguably the most common of the deep scientific epistemological questions. It’s been much discussed in this and other science and philosophy forums, but IMHO, like any deep question, can’t be discussed too much or too often.

 

It’s helpful to define the concept of a physical measurement, and reach a consensus that there are 3 fundamental kinds:

• Distance, also known as length, displacement, position, or space.
  
• Mass
  
• Time, also known as duration.
  

(Note that most treatments of physics build on 4 fundamental units, adding temperature to the above 3, but given that temperature can be defined in terms of only these 3, it can be considered derived, rather than fundamental)

 

Next, we need to define the concept of a measurement in a yet more fundamental, “what is it, really” way. I propose that, for the purposes of this discussion, a measurement is anything that has the quality of repeatability. It must be that, in the domain of reality in which we use it, some acts of which a human is capable must have the same outcome if, and only if, some other collection of acts do. For example, I use my legs to measure a distance of “10 paces”, my physiological sense of effort to measure a speed (defined as distance per time) of “normal walking”, and my pulse to measure a time of “7 beats”. With reasonable precision and within the limitations of my “instruments”, every time I repeat this, I get the same measurements of distance, speed, and time. More, give the fundamental mechanical definition distance = speed multiplied by time, I can predict, and confirm, that if I travel 10 paces in 7 beats at normal walking speed, I will travel 100 paces in 70 beats at the same speed. In short, these measurement concepts are scientifically useful.

 

Intuitively, distance and mass measurements seem more “real” than those of time, but formally – even in the imprecise terms of the previous example – all are merely terms related by agreed-upon definition to repeatable acts. Why our intuition, a complex collection of psychological phenomena, has this bias, is a question apart from the physical reality of measurements of various kind. I’ve a suspicion it’s related to our perceptual physiology, which results in our perception of distance (and the related quantity of volume, which provides reasonable approximations of mass in our usual physical domains) being perceived via “gestalt (all at once) channel”, while we perceive time via a “serial channel”. This “gestalt communication channel” is due to our well-developed visual perception system, which not only makes us very good at perceiving distances and volumes, but actually confuses our sense of sequence and duration in many situations. Had we evolved without such a perceptual system – for example, in a lightless world best perceived via a sense of smell – it might be more common for humans to ask “is distance physically real?” than “is time physically real?”

[steve 9]

It makes no sense to refer to it as "physical." That is not the basis of existence. Think of energy, for example. Energy is not necessarily "physical," but it exists all the same. :hihi:

 

I am not the one who said that time was physical. Go define the term ENERGY and clear up any misunderstood words in that definition. You will see that you are being ambiguous, “Energy is not necessarily "physical," but it exists all the same.” What exactly does that mean “ not necessarily”

 

Just look up the term Energy. While you are at it look up the term TIME also.

[steve 9]

Dictionaries are not, as a general rule, used by scientists studying in the field to "explain" the work they do. A dictionary is a lay person guide with simple summaries of concepts and terms. You need to remember that there are several scientific terms used in practice which do not have the same definition as you find in a standard dictionary.

 

In most scientific work, time is defined as a measurement of an oscillation. It is accepted that there is no absolute time, and that it is relative to each observer. Further, just in case you get too hung up on this dictionary thing, remember that units of time are not the same thing as time.

 

If I were to guess, you seem to be trying to describe some arbitrary metaphysical definition of time here, and that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand. That's more philosophical in nature than scientific.

 

 

Look! Use any reference book that you want. Just show me that science defines time as something that is physical. Stop avoiding the question. The term time is used in physics, so what definition of TIME are they using? Simple as that.

[steve 9]

This is so true and often the cause of some serious confusion. 'Theory' is a good example.

 

I was talking with someone about temperature and heat - standard dictionary and common-sense definitions have them pretty much the same thing. The important distinctions in physics or chemistry were completely lost. It caused problems.

 

-modest

 

So can you provide evidence that states TIME is a physical thing?

[steve 9]

respectfully; photons have wavelength, therefore they have time; although nothing to do with our or some observers time. processes that have wavelength and frequency then have maximum and minimum values. i propose the max and min values are constants where dy/dx is zero. maybe this corresponds to the speed of light. then as the wave proceeds to it's max dy/dx at the x axis the velocity is greater than the speed of light. i also propose the coupling with space where all this takes place results in our only observing the constant. i remind myself that all photons are the result of the acceleration of a charged particle, their origin sort of, and their frequency is proportional to the acceleration. acceleration has a time component and it is expressed in the photon wavelength. since the energy of a photon is proportional to it's frequency, and it is electromagnetic in nature it has an omega|t signature. i'm voting for the answer to all our questions will be found in string theory and dark energy in space. peace to all!

 

Show me the reference that states time is a physical thing.

[steve 9]

This question – is time physically real? - is arguably the most common of the deep scientific epistemological questions. It’s been much discussed in this and other science and philosophy forums, but IMHO, like any deep question, can’t be discussed too much or too often.

 

It’s helpful to define the concept of a physical measurement, and reach a consensus that there are 3 fundamental kinds:

• Distance, also known as length, displacement, position, or space.
  
• Mass
  
• Time, also known as duration.
  

(Note that most treatments of physics build on 4 fundamental units, adding temperature to the above 3, but given that temperature can be defined in terms of only these 3, it can be considered derived, rather than fundamental)

 

Next, we need to define the concept of a measurement in a yet more fundamental, “what is it, really” way. I propose that, for the purposes of this discussion, a measurement is anything that has the quality of repeatability. It must be that, in the domain of reality in which we use it, some acts of which a human is capable must have the same outcome if, and only if, some other collection of acts do. For example, I use my legs to measure a distance of “10 paces”, my physiological sense of effort to measure a speed (defined as distance per time) of “normal walking”, and my pulse to measure a time of “7 beats”. With reasonable precision and within the limitations of my “instruments”, every time I repeat this, I get the same measurements of distance, speed, and time. More, give the fundamental mechanical definition distance = speed multiplied by time, I can predict, and confirm, that if I travel 10 paces in 7 beats at normal walking speed, I will travel 100 paces in 70 beats at the same speed. In short, these measurement concepts are scientifically useful.

 

Intuitively, distance and mass measurements seem more “real” than those of time, but formally – even in the imprecise terms of the previous example – all are merely terms related by agreed-upon definition to repeatable acts. Why our intuition, a complex collection of psychological phenomena, has this bias, is a question apart from the physical reality of measurements of various kind. I’ve a suspicion it’s related to our perceptual physiology, which results in our perception of distance (and the related quantity of volume, which provides reasonable approximations of mass in our usual physical domains) being perceived via “gestalt (all at once) channel”, while we perceive time via a “serial channel”. This “gestalt communication channel” is due to our well-developed visual perception system, which not only makes us very good at perceiving distances and volumes, but actually confuses our sense of sequence and duration in many situations. Had we evolved without such a perceptual system – for example, in a lightless world best perceived via a sense of smell – it might be more common for humans to ask “is distance physically real?” than “is time physically real?”

 

 

So what is your answer? Is time a physical thing or not?

[steve 9]

Alright everybody. Those of you who think TIME is a physical thing, give your scientific evidence. What has lead you to believe that time is a physical thing? It is as simple as that. Use the internet, ask your friends, put your cards on the table. This whole debate can end right now when anybody can show evidence or a reference that time is a physical thing. Plain and simple.

 

Who is going to step up to the plate? This is a good reasearch project for someone. Have fun, learn something, clear up your misunderstanding of the term time.

[InfiniteNow]

Yep... I thought you were the same forum troll I've encountered elsewhere. Thanks for proving it to us all so quickly.

 

 

This guy posts as Eric5 at SFN, and he's about to be banned there, too.

 

 

:eek_big:

[CraigD]

So what is your answer? Is time a physical thing or not?

Yes, time is a physical thing.

[steve 9]

Yes, time is a physical thing.

 

 

 

Fine, can you provide any evidence or proof that time is a physical thing? What has lead you to believe that time is a physical thing. I am not trying to invalidate your claim that time is a physical thing, I am just curious as to how you came to this conclusion. I am interested in what you have to say, so please feel free to express yourself.

 

Thank you.

[modest]

Well, someone has too much time on their hands.

 

So what is your answer? Is time a physical thing or not?

 

In the interest of supporting everyone’s claims... By the EPR definition of what’s physically real:

 

google book

 

A sufficient condition to identifying an element of physical reality is: “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e. with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity."

 

I’ll note that this is the more strict definition than “anything that can be measured”

 

I can, by this definition, prove time is real by predicting the value of its future measurement. e.g. using my watch, I know when my alarm clock is about to go off - which it is :hyper:

 

Now you can take your game elsewhere.

 

-modest

[Mike C]

To All

 

Steve 9 is right.

Time is NOT a physical thing.

It is a form of 'energy'.

My definition is:

 

Time is 'uniform unwavewering motion'.

Motion is a form of energy.

I consider matter to be a form of physical thing.

 

Physics can be reduced into 3 basic componants.

They are 'matter, force and energy'.

 

Even though matter contains the forces, they are not identical to be equated as alike because there are the separate particles like the electrons and protons that contain the coulomb forces and the elements that contain the combined neutralized coulomb gravitational forces.

I hope you understand that.

 

Mike C

[HydrogenBond]

The concept of time was already around way before we could look at photons in great detail. Once we saw photons, this should have changed the perception of time, since the photon defines it own expression of time or frequency. The photon does naturally what was already anticipated. Since photons, are tangible things, and since photons express a distinct quanta of time, time needs to be tangible or else photons are half philosophy and are therefore semi-real.

 

I think the reason science has a problem with making time a type of potential, or partial aspect of energy, is that science uses philosophical time in so much of its analysis, it would require a major overhaul. This concept would make much of it obsolete, since it is old school, still stuck on the assumption of philosophical time, i.e., pre-photon years. It is easier to ignore it. It is also easier to ignore the paradox of energy being considered a known tangible phenomena, based philosophical time.

 

Where a potential definition of time makes things easier is when we look at relativity. The time dilation, caused by the relativity, increases the local time potential. We need to add energy potential to get the affect. With more time potential in one spot, time lasts longer. If you use philosophical time, the explanation gets stuck at nebulous. In the case of SR, if we bleed off the energy within its kinetic energy, time dilation reverses. This is what one would expect by removing time potential.

[InfiniteNow]

Here we go... yet again... So much for actually keeping this thread inline with accepted physics. :hyper: