How did time begin?

Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
How did time begin?

Rationally, I think that we can conclude that time had a beginning.  For example, if I told you I was going to give you a candy bar after an infinite amount of time, would you ever get it?  No, because we could never conclude that an infinite amount of time had passed.  The same can be applied to the universe.  The earth had to come about after a finite amount of time, otherwise it would have never been created.  So what started time itself?  Was it an event that involved matter, energy, and the speed of light?  I know that with the theory of relativity and other things scientists have discovered, there might be an explanation, but my mind is still kind of cloudy on how it all happened.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Master Jedi Dan wrote:
todangst wrote:

Why does 'time beginning' appear so mysterious? If there is no three dimensional space, no entities, how can there be time? No entities, no time. Time is relational, isn't it?

It doesn't really appear as mysterious. All I want to know is how it began.

It doesn't have to be relational. If I am sitting in space with nothing around me, I can say "One, two, three, four, five, six, seven...", and so on.

This situation you have just described is relational! You are a three dimensional object in space.

 

 

Quote:
  I could even be a matterless soul and time still would have passed.

The phrase "I" could be a 'matterless soul" is an internal contradiction. How can there be an "I" without an entity?

And if a soul is an entity, how can it exist 'matterless"

You're failing to see that you are stealing the concept, you must invoke dimensionality and relationships.

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Ok then...so we have

Ok then...so we have determined that without entities, time does not exist. So before there was matter and space, time did not exist either. Woohoo. And time didn't always exist, because if time never had a beginning, we would have never gotten to this moment. And we are...back where we started in this discussion. So how did time begin?

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Let's suppose time had a



Let's suppose time had a beginning.
Whatever started time was "moving" because it "acted" to start time.
Something 'acted' on the 'whatever' to cause time.
This obviously results in an infinite regression.
Eliminate the middle repetitious (the cause caused the cause that caused the cause...) and the result is time exists.
There is no beginning.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: Let's suppose

AiiA wrote:


Let's suppose time had a beginning.
Whatever started time was "moving" because it "acted" to start time.
Something 'acted' on the 'whatever' to cause time.
This obviously results in an infinite regression.
Eliminate the middle repetitious (the cause caused the cause that caused the cause...) and the result is time exists.
There is no beginning.

 The universe had a begining.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Define 'universe'

Define 'universe'


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: Define

AiiA wrote:
Define 'universe'

What you're in what now.

 

 

There's a picture. 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Thats not a

Thats not a definition.

Thats an artist's rendition


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: Thats not a

AiiA wrote:

Thats not a definition.

Thats an artist's rendition

An artist's rendition based on scientific observation.

 

What you don't seem to understand is that our laws of physics collapse before the planck second. (~1x10^-43s)

Time could be undefinable in such a state since space-time was, to put it simply, a cosmic mess. 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
In other words, it has not

In other words, it has not been proven that time had a beginning.

It is just that no one can state that time is eternal simply because the physics is not understood.

This reasoning is similar to ancient sailors claiming they will fall off the earth if they go too far out to sea because they don't know what is there that far in the distance.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
That's the 2nd time you

That's the 2nd time you said I don't understand. I find it condescending. What does that mean?  Shut up, I'm smarter than you? If you don't like to be questioned don't make any statements. I don't have to accept anything you claim. Especially your "god". You have yet to show any evidence for any "god". At the least, I am referring to something that unquestionably exists. As far as I'm concerned you're the one who does not understand.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: In other

AiiA wrote:

In other words, it has not been proven that time had a beginning.

But it is a possibility

Quote:
 

It is just that no one can state that time is eternal simply because the physics is not understood.

Time is interlinked with space. If space-time was eternal, than time was eternal. If not, then no, it wasn't eternal. 

 

Quote:

This reasoning is similar to ancient sailors claiming they will fall off the earth if they go too far out to sea because they don't know what is there that far in the distance.

 No, it's nothing like sailors and distance. At super temperatures/densities, physics is not simple. All the sailors had to do is go farther into the distance to know. It is not that simple to determine what happened before the planck time. 

Quote:

That's the 2nd time you said I don't understand. I find it condescending. What does that mean?

It means, you don't understand.

Quote:

You have yet to show any evidence for any "god".

I have showed you why I think there is a God. You claimed it wasn't worth understanding.  

 

Quote:

  I don't have to accept anything you claim.

I am giving you modern theoritical physics. Whether you accept them or not will not change their validity. 


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
I made a post that

I made a post that expresses some odd ideas about time

Here

 After reviewing it again I fear it may sound affected, this was not my intent. I am often playful with words and I hope you can get round this frivolousness. 

The basic idea is that time (as we experience it) is the progression from one state of order to the next. There are only two states of perfect order, one at the start of time and the other at the end. These types of order are represented by groups and symmetry respectively.

Time is not a one dimensional line but infact a 2d static structure. We only think of time in one dimension. The other dimension is at right angles (so unseen/experienced) to every point along our perceived time line, together they represent all possible instances. Thus time is just a structure of everything possible. We think that we progress through time as moving from one type of order to the next is contrained by the laws of nature allowing knowledge of future and past states...but not precisely as there is an infinite amount of pathways between the types of order (so many ways to reach the present state). The perfect states of the types of order are obvious origins and endings as they are always the same for any pathway.

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote:  At the

AiiA wrote:

 At the least, I am referring to something that unquestionably exists. As far as I'm concerned you're the one who does not understand.

And what exactly does my Theism have to do with the validity of the information I'm presenting? 


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

In other words, it has not been proven that time had a beginning.

If time never had a beginning, we would have never gotten to this moment. The universe would have never come about. Example.

Time is never-ending, but had a beginning. (---->---- represents time):

Time begins with matter & space --->------->--big bang happens --------->----earth forms------->--------life forms------------->-------we evolve------->------this moment happens--------->

 

Time is eternal, no beginning or end:

<--------<-------------------------Where do we happen?-------------------->---------->

 

Quote:

You have yet to show any evidence for any "god".

That's where this post is getting...if time did have a beginning, and time and space cannot exist without one another, and matter cannot exist without space, then time and space depend on one another and matter depends on space. The point is, when time began, the very essence of matter and space began. I don't see this happening naturally...

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Quote:

In other words, it has not been proven that time had a beginning.

If time never had a beginning, we would have never gotten to this moment. The universe would have never come about. Example.

Time is never-ending, but had a beginning. (---->---- represents time):

Time begins with matter & space --->------->--big bang happens --------->----earth forms------->--------life forms------------->-------we evolve------->------this moment happens--------->

 

Time is eternal, no beginning or end:

<--------<-------------------------Where do we happen?-------------------->---------->

If the multiverse exists it can give an explanation. Time 'branched off' from another universe. That is time as we know it started 13.7 billion years ago.

 

 

Quote:

Quote:

You have yet to show any evidence for any "god".

That's where this post is getting...if time did have a beginning, and time and space cannot exist without one another, and matter cannot exist without space, then time and space depend on one another and matter depends on space. The point is, when time began, the very essence of matter and space began. I don't see this happening naturally...

There are many theories. I suggest you read

Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku

 

Trust me, invoking Creationism or Intelligent Design is not wise. 

 


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Quote: In other

Quote:
Quote:

In other words, it has not been proven that time had a beginning.

If time never had a beginning, we would have never gotten to this moment. The universe would have never come about. Example.

Time is never-ending, but had a beginning. (---->---- represents time):

Time begins with matter & space --->------->--big bang happens --------->----earth forms------->--------life forms------------->-------we evolve------->------this moment happens--------->

 

Time is eternal, no beginning or end:

<--------<-------------------------Where do we happen?-------------------->---------->

Call me naive, but how do you know time actually exists when applied to the whole universe? 

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Master Jedi Dan wrote:
Rationally, I think that we can conclude that time had a beginning.  For example, if I told you I was going to give you a candy bar after an infinite amount of time, would you ever get it?  No, because we could never conclude that an infinite amount of time had passed.  The same can be applied to the universe.  The earth had to come about after a finite amount of time, otherwise it would have never been created.  So what started time itself?  Was it an event that involved matter, energy, and the speed of light?  I know that with the theory of relativity and other things scientists have discovered, there might be an explanation, but my mind is still kind of cloudy on how it all happened.

I've never understood why this line of questioning is thought to require an answer. It has always seemed to me it only makes sense in the light of an assumption that there is a pre-universe state. If the expanding singularity was the initial state of existence it requires neither a cause nor a pre-state to explain its existence.

Time seems to simply be, as todangst has stated, a relation between objects or entities that exist within space. To speak of before time would be to speak of before existence which is absurd. There can be no existence before existence. There can be no time before time. This is not to say that nothing would exist pre-universe, as nothing existing is self contradictory. It would simply be to say that there is no pre-universe state. The universe is the initial state and thus not only does not require a cause, but could not possibly have a cause.

What happens when we approach the question this way is that we see that the question of a beginning is misleading in any relevant sense. Our concept of begining is a concept that exists within time. When we say something begins we are saying that there was a point in time at which something went from not being there to being there. Obviously, if we lack a pre-universe state then the entire concept of the universe having a begining, as we know 'begining', is fundamentally flawed. All we can really say when considering the question from such a perspective is that the expanding singularity is the instantiation of existence; it seems to be the initial state and thus questions of pre-states are non-sensical.

Of course, I'm not claiming that any of this is 'truth', simply pointing out that to consider the question of how time or the universe began to be a question is not necessarily based in anything actual or necessary.      

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan wrote: If

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

If time never had a beginning, we would have never gotten to this moment. 

You're stealing the concept again.Your argument implicitly relies on there actually being a 'beginning' an 'infinite' amout of time ago, even while it expressly rules it out. 

Why is this so? Because in order for an 'actual infinite' to be crossed, one must imagine a point in time an 'infinite' amount of time ago that has been traversed, in violation of the definition of infinite a 'never ending". To violate the 'never ending' aspect of an actual infinity, we must imagine it 'ending', right?

Which means this argument implicitly implies that time had a starting point an infinite amount of time ago, and our present point represents 'traversing an actual infinity' 

I think the problem is that people view an infinite regress as actually having a starting point an infinite amount of time ago, when an infinite regress need not work that way, for example, a circle is an infinite regress, yet finite.

I believe an infinite regress would be akin to a potential infinity, and not an actual infinity.  

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: Let's suppose

AiiA wrote:


Let's suppose time had a beginning.
Whatever started time was "moving" because it "acted" to start time.

Then this is precisely when time started!

Quote:
 

Something 'acted' on the 'whatever' to cause time.

This appears to be a false presumption. A vaccum flucuation is not caused.

 

Quote:

This obviously results in an infinite regression.
Eliminate the middle repetitious (the cause caused the cause that caused the cause...) and the result is time exists.
There is no beginning.

Or consider what I've said above, and the idea of a beginning to time is not so paradoxical.

1) A state change - from some initial timeless state (zero dimensions) to a 3 (or more) dimensional state would lead to a concurrent beginning to time. Time is change.

2) If no 'cause' is required for the state change, then the paradox is eliminated, there is no 'time before time', merely an uncaused change from zero dimensions to multidimensions, which simultaneously leads to what we call 'time'.

If we can accept the idea of an uncaused move from zero dimensions to multidimensions, then the idea of a beginning to time ought to be less strange to us!

No dimensions, no time.

Dimensions: time.

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Faidros
Faidros's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-09-01
User is offlineOffline
Parden my "euro-english".

Parden my "euro-english". Hope you can understand me despite my spelling.

 When we go back in time we reach a time when the consept of time has little or no meaning. In a singularity (as the one that preseded the big bang) the difference betwene an eternity and a millisecond would have been purely accademical.

 Time and space is not only interliked they are different manifistations of the same phenomenon. Theoretical physics use the word timespace for that reason. No space - no time, no time - no space.

 This way of seeing the problem makes it possible for time to both have a "begining" and having existed for an "eternity". ie. If you include the original singularity time could be regarded as eternal at the same time as the big bang could be regarded as the point where time started ticking in a more familiar way.

Welcome to Sweden. The country where 85% are atheists and the crime rate are among the lowest in the world.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote:   I've

Vessel wrote:

 

I've never understood why this line of questioning is thought to require an answer. It has always seemed to me it only makes sense in the light of an assumption that there is a pre-universe state. If the expanding singularity was the initial state of existence it requires neither a cause nor a pre-state to explain its existence.

I see you are already way ahead of me here.

Quote:
 

Time seems to simply be, as todangst has stated, a relation between objects or entities that exist within space. To speak of before time would be to speak of before existence which is absurd. There can be no existence before existence. There can be no time before time. This is not to say that nothing would exist pre-universe, as nothing existing is self contradictory. It would simply be to say that there is no pre-universe state. The universe is the initial state and thus not only does not require a cause, but could not possibly have a cause.

 

 

I agree, and this is the point theists must run from. If there is no multiverse, and the big bang is in fact the (sole) transitional event, then there can be no cause for it, and no time prior to the big bang.

Our universe would have originated ex nihilio, from a zero dimensional 'state', if I can be allowed this oxymoron....

Quote:
 

 What happens when we approach the question this way is that we see that the question of a beginning is misleading in any relevant sense. Our concept of begining is a concept that exists within time.

Nice. Agreed.

Quote:
 

 When we say something begins we are saying that there was a point in time at which something went from not being there to being there. Obviously, if we lack a pre-universe state then the entire concept of the universe having a begining, as we know 'begining', is fundamentally flawed. All we can really say when considering the question from such a perspective is that the expanding singularity is the instantiation of existence; it seems to be the initial state and thus questions of pre-states are non-sensical.

Agreed. To me, the solution is this: there is no linear progression, there merely is a zero dimensional 'state' and then a causeless transition, time as we know it is a concurrent 'occurrence', with the transitional state, we have time... but not prior to the transition.

 

Quote:

Of course, I'm not claiming that any of this is 'truth', simply pointing out that to consider the question of how time or the universe began to be a question is not necessarily based in anything actual or necessary.

Same here, I wonder what cosmologists have to say on this.  

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Faidros wrote:   When we

Faidros wrote:

 

When we go back in time we reach a time when the consept of time has little or no meaning. In a singularity (as the one that preseded the big bang) the difference betwene an eternity and a millisecond would have been purely accademical.

Time and space is not only interliked they are different manifistations of the same phenomenon. Theoretical physics use the word timespace for that reason. No space - no time, no time - no space.

We agree.

Quote:
 

This way of seeing the problem makes it possible for time to both have a "begining" and having existed for an "eternity". ie. If you include the original singularity time could be regarded as eternal at the same time as the big bang could be regarded as the point where time started ticking in a more familiar way.

Interesting. I disagree, because I hold to the equation: no space=no time, but your position is interesting nontheless. Perhaps "no time' and 'eternity' are the same thing?

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Faidros wrote: This way

Faidros wrote:

This way of seeing the problem makes it possible for time to both have a "begining" and having existed for an "eternity". ie. If you include the original singularity time could be regarded as eternal at the same time as the big bang could be regarded as the point where time started ticking in a more familiar way.

Yes, time gets warped up and rather high densities (black holes for example). So our current state of time could have had a begining.

But then again, we are in three dimensional space, perhaps time could tick in a completly different thing in four or five or even ten dimensional space.  


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: But

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

But then again, we are in three dimensional space, perhaps time could tick in a completly different thing in four or five or even ten dimensional space.

Interesting. Don't some corners of modern cosmology hold that we do live in 10 dimensional space? (Just the other 6 are too small to see?)

Another thought: photons move at speed C, the speed of light. Would photons be timeless?

And what does it mean to say that 'no time' traverses for a photon moving from point a to point b? The only way I can make sense of that is to say that point a and point b are the same point.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Faidros
Faidros's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-09-01
User is offlineOffline
Remember that the big bang

Remember that the big bang is not only an erruption of matter - its also an erruption of timespace. If you will the transition from singularity in to the events we call the big bang must have included the expansion/explosion of time .  As I picture it time must have been pressent in somthing like a "frozen" state already in the singularity.

However Im just interrested layman. Smiling

 

P.S. Main problem for this topic is that studying physics in a singularity demands that we move outside consepts and notions that we normaly regard as fundamental.  D.S.

 

Welcome to Sweden. The country where 85% are atheists and the crime rate are among the lowest in the world.


Faidros
Faidros's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-09-01
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple But then

Cpt_pineapple

But then again, we are in three dimensional space, perhaps time could tick in a completly different thing in four or five or even ten dimensional space.  

[/quote wrote:

Maybe but making that move also would put us outside this universe and outside the realm that could be observed. That time would be another time - not the time of this universe.

Welcome to Sweden. The country where 85% are atheists and the crime rate are among the lowest in the world.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
todangst

todangst wrote:

Interesting. Don't some corners of modern cosmology hold that we do live in 10 dimensional space? (Just the other 6 are too small to see?)

Yep, 10 dimensional space (+time makes 11). As for the us not seeing them, we could if we can get a '4-D' cube projected onto us, it will look in a distinguished way that could only be if it was from the fourth dimension of space.

It is explained better in the book I'm reading

Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe's Hidden Dimensions

 

 

Quote:

Another thought: photons move at speed C, the speed of light. Would photons be timeless?

Yes, photons don't age 

 

Quote:

And what does it mean to say that 'no time' traverses for a photon moving from point a to point b? The only way I can make sense of that is to say that point a and point b are the same point.

 

 Relative to the photon it is instantanous. If you asked the photon, no time would have passed. 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Faidros wrote: Remember

Faidros wrote:
Remember that the big bang is not only an erruption of matter - its also an erruption of timespace. If you will the transition from singularity in to the events we call the big bang must have included the expansion/explosion of time.

Yes, this is how I view it. Time/Space occured at once. As long as it was causless, there is no paradox.

Quote:
 

 As I picture it time must have been pressent in somthing like a "frozen" state already in the singularity.

However Im just interrested layman. Smiling

 

I guess I just view 'frozen state' as 'stateless' 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Yep,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Yep, 10 dimensional space (+time makes 11). As for the us not seeing them, we could if we can get a '4-D' cube projected onto us, it will look in a distinguished way that could only be if it was from the fourth dimension of space.

It is explained better in the book I'm reading

Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe's Hidden Dimensions

Thanks! 

 

 

Quote:

And what does it mean to say that 'no time' traverses for a photon moving from point a to point b? The only way I can make sense of that is to say that point a and point b are the same point.

Quote:
 

Relative to the photon it is instantanous. If you asked the photon, no time would have passed.

Right. Which says something rather odd about the universe in my estimation... to a 'photon' everything is 'one'...  

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13506
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
The deep questions that our

The deep questions that our resident eggheads rightfully ask, erk me sometimes, not because they are right, THEY ARE, but when asked it is open ended far to often leaving the comic book fans the shot of "SEE YOU DONT KNOW, SO THEREFORE I AM RIGHT".

"I dont know" is a lagit answer to a question one does not have answers to. But what I personally dont like is when these questions of grey area are asked, is left so wide open that that the defenders of the patently absurd jump in and cry foul.

This leaves the believers of everything from Allah to Jesus to Pantheism to Vishnu to jump on unanswered questions as being some default position to them being right.

My point is just as we should not presume the future, we also should not allow detractors to claim law of probibility defaulting to them when the oposite is true.

If I could boil this long diatribe to one axiom it would be, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probibly is". It is ok for skeptics, not only ok, but a nessesity for us to use our file 13(trash can) to throw absurdities in.

These questions about time and space are valid, but in no way should we allow comic book cheerleaders distroy honest inquery and replace it with myth and fiction.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Would photons be

Quote:
Would photons be timeless?

It can be seen by the formula in special relativity:

 t' =  t/(1-(v^2/c^2))^0.5

where:

t' is the factor by which time will be running slower when looked upon by a stationary observer.

t is 'real' time

v is the velocity of the moving system, and

c is the velocity of light.

That as v approaches the speed of light t' approaches infinity.

if v = 0.5c we get

t' = 1/0.75^0.5,

t'= 1.15...

time in the moving system is obseved as 1.15 times slower by the stationary observer.

 

This implies that anything traveling at speed c will be timeless. However, a photon does not have an inertial frame of reference (a photon is never at rest relative to something) so contemplating how things are from the point of view of a photon are meaningless (according to SR).

If you are to assume a photon has an inertial frame of reference, then from the point of view of the photon everything else would be traveling at speed c. Thus the photon would consider everything else as static in time or motionless.

The important point is that a photon does not have an inertial frame of reference and that no massive object can travel at speed c. 

Quote:
The only way I can make sense of that is to say that point a and point b are the same point.

Another consequence of special relativity is length contraction. A very similar formula describes this phenomenon, where as speed c is approached observed length tends to zero. Again this is all a bit meaningless in context to a photon.

 

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Cernunnos wrote: Another

Cernunnos wrote:

Another consequence of special relativity is length contraction. A very similar formula describes this phenomenon, where as speed c is approached observed length tends to zero. Again this is all a bit meaningless in context to a photon. 

 

Thanks, I forgot to include length condraction.