Jump to content
Science Forums

Photons have no time


InfiniteNow

Recommended Posts

InfiniteNow, skant chance of that!

 

Who was it who said that the photon sees the masses as infinite? That's clearly wrong, or they wouldn't be able to affect the movement of particles. (Think about it: even a massive force onto an infinite mass could cause no acceleration, as acceleration is force into a mass. (F=ma))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was it who said that the photon sees the masses as infinite? That's clearly wrong, or they wouldn't be able to affect the movement of particles. (Think about it: even a massive force onto an infinite mass could cause no acceleration, as acceleration is force into a mass. (F=ma))

 

Yes, you made that objection in post 245 to which I remarked:

 

Don't worry. They can't hit a mass that's infinitely length contracted anyway. It's just a thought experiment - one where we accept things we shouldn't accept and presuppose things we shouldn't presuppose.

 

-modest

 

Which doesn't really answer you question. However, Erasmus then made a striking and valid point:

 

I think the problem is in thinking of the frame of reference of light as an INERTIAL frame. All the formulas we are thinking of (length contraction,mass,etc) are valid only in inertial frames, where the metric is diagonal. In light cone coordinates, the metric is off diagonal.. clearly not inertial.

 

And more on that here.

 

So, while I accept your objection and agree with your conclusion, I disagree with your method.

 

-modest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for taking your time to do some research into this topic. I appreciate the effort. Now lets see what you found.

 

 

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

 

Quote:

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."

 

 

google book

 

 

 

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

 

O.K. The first thing I have to say is the definition that you gave is was not intended to be a definition of what is physically real. This definition is for the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox. This paradox had to do with the debate between Einstein and Neils Bohr. The debate was over the physical reality of quantum phenomena. There was a fundamental problem of the interpretation of quantum phenomena. This definition was not designed to define the physical reality of time. You will have to go back to your link and read from the beginning of the chapter.

 

Like you said this is a more strict definition, it is a very specific definition that was only applicable to the resolution of the question: “Do the laws of quantum mechanics provide a complete description of an individual system, or do they embody only the statistical laws governing ensembles?”

 

So as you can see this was in no way a definition that was to be applied to the common everyday objects that we perceive around us. This is not a definition that would be used to describe the physical reality of a rock for example. Besides, I was not looking for a definition of physical reality.

 

 

 

 

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 :eek_big:

 

Now you can take your game elsewhere.

 

-modest

 

The question is: What definition or observation can you provide that gives evidence to the idea that time is a physical thing. Predicting a value of a future measurement is not how physical objects are defined. The only thing you can predict is the value of the future movement of a clock, not time. Let me ask some basic questions. If time is a physical thing then; What is this physical thing when it is not being measured? What physical thing is a clock actually measuring?

 

If you want to use a clock to prove that time is a physical thing then you will have to show how a clock is measuring some physical outside influence called time.

I will give basic definitions of a clock and time that is based on what you can find in any standard reference books and from the observations of the world around us.

 

 

 

 

 

CLOCK-- Every measurement of time is based on what man decided that measurement to mean. Seconds, minutes, hours and so on are all man made. Time did not come pre-packaged in these units, man agreed on what to call these durations. Clocks measure how much of a pre-determined man made unit passed for a given motion. If something takes a minute of time, then that activity lasted for what man determined to be a minute. Time is the concept of man.

 

Clocks are a man made device operating as man designed it, counting off man made increments that man gave a numeric significance to, that results in a man made concept called time. Clocks are designed to give numbers, to which man assigns a significance or importance to. A clock could be considered to be a device or machine that generates a number or numbers in a regulated manner that was pre-determined by man. A clock is akin to a regulated number generator that converts mechanical, electrical, or the motion of an object to a number through pre-determined engineering of the device, and these numbers are delivered at a rate that follows the set standards that man has agreed to be universal in all such machines.

 

 

Please share with me your definition of a clock and time that shows that clocks actually measure anything outside of its immediate construction. What outside influence is a clock measuring?

 

 

 

 

TIME--- Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time.

 

 

Please if you have a disagreement with these definitions then let it be known. Maybe this would be a good place for you to start in your search for proof that time is a physical thing.

 

I also want to be clear here, we have been debating on this topic for a while now, I may have come off a bit harsh at times and you could interpret this as a personal attack against you. I have no intension of attacking your personal beliefs or opinions. I am more interested in continuing on this path of determining the true nature of time. I apologize for coming across unprofessional at times.

 

Alright back to the topic at hand. I have the viewpoint that time is not a physical thing and you have the opinion that time is a physical thing. So from all the definitions and books that I have read on the topic of time, and from observations I have made in the world around me, I have concluded that time is not a physical thing.

 

Maybe the best and easiest way for you or anyone who is of the same opinion as you to resolve this issue of time would be for you to really look at how you came to the conclusion that time is a physical thing. Maybe it might help to explain what you think would be the case if time was not a physical thing. Try that approach, tell me what would happen if time was not a physical thing.

 

Thank you for your time and effort in this endeavor, it is much appreciated.

 

Steve9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have come off a bit harsh at times and you could interpret this as a personal attack against you. I have no intension of attacking your personal beliefs or opinions.

 

You are not attacking me (and I honestly wouldn't care if you did). You are attacking the forum in a troll-like manner.

 

I have answered your post here. I will engage you on the topic THERE. Please refrain from ambushing people on multiple threads with the same question seeing as how it is against the rules. Let's do this there. The thread I answered you in is appropriate for our topic of conversation. My stipulation is that this topic be contained there. If you continue hijacking treads and being a pest, I will ignore you and you will probably get yourself banned. You have already been warned by a moderator and I'm offering you an out.

 

-modest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A photon is real. It expresses itself as a particle-wave duality as well as with wavelength and frequency. The frequency is the reciprocal of time. In the case of the photon, this quanta of time, built into the photon, will last forever due to the photon moving at C. This time quanta, stored in the photon, can be used to create a distinct change of state at any time or place. To make time a thing, one would have to know what about, or within, a photon causes the frequency affect.

 

Since time is only part of the photon, time is not a full potential but a partial potential. A partial potential would be something that can create an affect without expressing potential. For example, if we have a cold piece of matter at steady state there is no change of state or net potential change. The partial potential of time keeps the inert matter moving forward in time, but can not alter the net potential unless it combines with another partial, such as within a photon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...