Photons - General - Facepunch Forum

If photons travel at the speed of light, does that mean they're stuck in time?

Why would it?

[QUOTE=PederPauline;28982796]If photons travel at the speed of light, does that mean they're stuck in time?[/QUOTE] No but if they were sentient beings they would experience time differently to us.

Wouldn't it be impossible for the patterns of matter that produce a consciousness to even exist at the speed of light?

Time stands still from a photon's perspective.

From the photons perspective, it's standing relatively still while the rest of the universe is moving at the speed of light, in waves. Time is still relative, and it does still pass for a photon, it is just able to move a lot farther in a seconds time.

Yes. A photon's existence happens all at once from its frame of reference. It has no age. [editline]6th April 2011[/editline] Furthermore, whatever direction a photon is traveling in collapses completely. The photon sees the 3D world as a 2D plane.

Welcome to DD Johnny :v:

Time is a human concept, a mental structure created to allow us to understand the relationship between past (memories), the present, and the future (hopes/dreams) There is no such thing as time. There is no past. There is no future. There is only the now.

[QUOTE=Cypher_09;29018059]Welcome to DD Johnny :v:[/QUOTE] Thank you! I enjoy venturing in here to giggle at stoners attempting to do science. [editline]6th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Anubis678;29019103]Time is a human concept, a mental structure created to allow us to understand the relationship between past (memories), the present, and the future (hopes/dreams) There is no such thing as time. There is no past. There is no future. There is only the now.[/QUOTE] No! Space and time are intrinsically linked. Time is as real as space.

And freak us out with your avatar :/

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29019924]No! Space and time are intrinsically linked. Time is as real as space.[/QUOTE] Explain

[QUOTE=Anubis678;29022290]Explain[/QUOTE] If you move close to the speed of light, clocks in your frame of reference slow down as measured by an outside observer. This is because time and space are actually combined into one 4-dimensional manifold. They're not separate, they're all part of one big thing, spacetime. You're always moving at a constant speed through spacetime: the speed of light. The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time to preserve that.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29019924]No! Space and time are intrinsically linked. Time is as real as space.[/QUOTE] You're not addressing his argument... at all. You're dumber than the stoners you're trying to insult. You can't prove that time moves forward. You can't prove that time moves continuously, or that it even moves at all. The only reason that time seems to move forward is because we remember the past. We could snap to the middle ages and back and you wouldn't even know, because the laws of physics still dictate (if you will) that your brain will be ordered in such a way as to remember events from your own, past lifetime at any given point in time during your life. If you call that time, a correlation between events that isn't necessarily continuous, forward-moving and constant, then time is real, but that's not what most people mean when they say "time". [editline]6th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29023150]If you move close to the speed of light, clocks in your frame of reference slow down. This is because time and space are actually combined into one 4-dimensional manifold. They're not separate, they're all part of one big thing, spacetime. You're always moving at a constant speed through spacetime: the speed of light. The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time to preserve that.[/QUOTE] Again, you're not addressing anything he said, what the fuck are you getting at?

[QUOTE=Lenni;29023242]You're not addressing his argument... at all. You're dumber than the stoners you're trying to insult. You can't prove that time moves forward. You can't prove that time moves continuously, or that it even moves at all. The only reason that time seems to move forward is because we remember the past. We could snap to the middle ages and back and you wouldn't even know, because the laws of physics still dictate (if you will) that your brain will be ordered in such a way as to remember events from your own, past lifetime at any given point in time during your life. If you call that time, a correlation between events that isn't necessarily continuous, forward-moving and constant, then time is real, but that's not what most people mean when they say "time".[/QUOTE] I never said time goes "forward," and that it doesn't isn't what he claimed. He claimed there is only now and time as we know it doesn't really exist. [editline]6th April 2011[/editline] You're so fighty for no reason. It's hilarious. [editline]6th April 2011[/editline] Also I'm not trying to insult anyone.

"I enjoy venturing in here to giggle at stoners attempting to do science." No reason at all.

That's not an insult. [editline]6th April 2011[/editline] Cool off your rageboner jesus christ [editline]6th April 2011[/editline] Also you just told me I didn't address anything he said and when I addressed what you said you failed to address what I said.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29023150]If you move close to the speed of light, clocks in your frame of reference slow down. This is because time and space are actually combined into one 4-dimensional manifold. They're not separate, they're all part of one big thing, spacetime. You're always moving at a constant speed through spacetime: the speed of light. The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time to preserve that.[/QUOTE] Interesting... So, exactly what is "time," then?

[QUOTE=Anubis678;29023451]Interesting... So, exactly what is "time," then?[/QUOTE] As far as what we know it's just a dimension that acts in a slightly different way than others but it depends on what you mean. Kind of hard to answer, "What is time?"

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29023340]I never said time goes "forward," and that it doesn't isn't what he claimed. He claimed there is only now and time as we know it doesn't really exist.[/QUOTE] If there is only now, then time stands still and it doesn't "move". That's not to say there isn't different points in time, but time doesn't necessarily move the way we perceive it to. That's what I said, that's what he said. And you still haven't addressed any of these claims. You can't prove that time moves, only a correlation between two points in time and space, which are truly interlinked, but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that we're talking points in time ("nows"). [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29023340]Also I'm not trying to insult anyone.[/QUOTE] Then you're doing a bad job.

It just seems that you and I are referencing two different concepts hiding behind the label of "time" It could also just be that I haven't got any fucking idea what I'm talking about. That seems fairly likely...

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29023400]Also you just told me I didn't address anything he said and when I addressed what you said you failed to address what I said.[/QUOTE] Because what you said is irrelevant to anything Anubis said to begin with.

[QUOTE=Lenni;29023497]If there is only now, then time stands still and it doesn't "move". That's what I said, that's what he said. And you still haven't addressed any of these claims. You can't prove that time moves, only a correlation between two points in time and space, which are truly interlinked, but doesn't have anything to do with the fact that we're talking points in time ("nows").[/QUOTE] Time not "moving" is a necessary condition for there being only now, but not a sufficient condition. Time can "not move" and there can still be more than just a now. Imagine looking at a box that doesn't change but still exists as more than just a point. If you look at time as just a dimension, all of history and the future is one big continuum that's already set in stone and we're just moving along it. Why we perceive time to be going forward the way we do still isn't understood. And it kind of depends on whether things are probabilistic. It may not all be predetermined. Okay? [QUOTE=Lenni;29023497]Then you're doing a bad job.[/QUOTE] Then it seems to me maybe you should just take a chill pill. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRGd0gD0QNE[/media]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29023646]Time not "moving" is a necessary condition for there being only now, but not a sufficient condition. Time can "not move" and where there is still more than now. Imagine looking at a box that doesn't change but still exists as more than just a point.[/QUOTE] L-O-L, read my edit, says exactly the same thing. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29023646]If you look at time as just a dimension, all of history and the future is one big continuum that's already set in stone and [b]we're just moving along it.[/b][/QUOTE] Agree with the first part (kinda), disagree with the bolded assertion. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29023646]Why we perceive time to be going forward the way we do still isn't understood. And it kind of depends on whether things are probabilistic. It may not all be predetermined.[/QUOTE] "Why we perceive time to be going forward the way we do" vagueness ftw, what are you talking about? Being able to remember the past and not the future? We understand that pretty well. Things most likely aren't "pre"-determined, but it goes both ways: you can't simply look at a system and determine with certainty what it looked like in the past. So tell me, taking this into consideration, in which direction is time not "pre"-determined?

[QUOTE=Lenni;29023924]Agree with the first part (kinda), disagree with the bolded assertion.[/QUOTE] How come? [QUOTE=Lenni;29023924]"Why we perceive time to be going forward the way we do" vagueness ftw, what are you talking about? Being able to remember the past and not the future? We understand that pretty well. Things most likely aren't "pre"-determined, but it goes both ways: you can't simply look at a system and determine with certainty what it looked like in the past. So tell me, taking this into consideration, in which direction is time not "pre"-determined?[/QUOTE] It's not really that vague. I was saying if you see time as a continuum stretching from past to future and every moment in history is just a point on that, why do we even feel as if there is a now, and why don't we have any control over which "now" is occurring at any given moment? If you've ever read Slaughterhouse Five, why do we see time as humans and not Tralfamadorians? It makes sense even if you consider it that way that we can remember the past and not the future and etc., but why does time appear to be moving forward? Why are we progressing through the moments we experience from this one to this one to this one etc. in such a consistent way? [editline]6th April 2011[/editline] I interpreted the original question differently. Not as a question about the arrow of time, but as a question of whether or not a past and future really exists. Honestly I'm not entirely sure what Anubis was originally asserting, (and apparently neither did he) but I was trying to show him that not only do things in the universe depend on time, but the rate at which time passes also depends on things in the universe, so it isn't just a "human concept." If the rate at which time is passing depends on velocity, for instance, time is a concept independent of us observing it. Probably.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29023646]Why we perceive time to be going forward the way we do still isn't understood[/QUOTE] Is there any other way to perceive time...? When the concept of time is attributed to the observable passing of one moment to the next, how else could one perceive it? [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29024149]I was saying if you see time as a continuum stretching from past to future and every moment in history is just a point on that, why do we even feel as if there is a now, and why don't we have any control over which "now" is occurring at any given moment?[/QUOTE] To quote Dr. Manhattan: [i]"There is no future. There is no past. Do you see? Time is simultaneous, an intricately structured jewel that humans insist on viewing one edge at a time, when the whole design is visible in every facet."[/i] I don't see time as a continuum stretching from past to future. I don't believe the past exists as anything more than memories, nor do I believe the future exists as anything more than dreams. Why do feel as though there is a now? Because we live in each moment, and we have our memories and dreams to serve as contrast. Why don't we have control over which now is occurring? Well, because these exists as mere concepts, mental structures for interpreting the experience of existing. You cannot hope to have any control over an intangible concept. The "now" is only a concept existing in relation to that which is not "now." [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29024149]It makes sense even if you consider it that way that we can remember the past and not the future and etc., but why does time appear to be moving forward?[/QUOTE] lolwat? We can remember the past because we experienced it and it left some chemical imprint on our minds. We can't remember the future for the obvious reason that you cannot remember something that has not occurred. You cannot recall a memory that does not exist. Why does time appear to be moving forward? Because we keep natural, personal records of things we have previously experienced. We construct a timeline and impose the concept of time upon our memories so that we can maintain some semblance of organization. Remembering that everything exists in relation to something else, we need this silly construct called "time" to make sense of these memories. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29024149]Why are we progressing through the moments we experience from this one to this one to this one etc. in such a consistent way?[/QUOTE] What if we aren't? Refer back to my quote above.

[QUOTE=Anubis678;29024550]Is there any other way to perceive time...? When the concept of time is attributed to the observable passing of one moment to the next, how else could one perceive it?[/QUOTE] How should I know if I've only ever perceived it one way? [QUOTE=Anubis678;29024550]To quote Dr. Manhattan: [i]"There is no future. There is no past. Do you see? Time is simultaneous, an intricately structured jewel that humans insist on viewing one edge at a time, when the whole design is visible in every facet."[/i] I don't see time as a continuum stretching from past to future. I don't believe the past exists as anything more than memories, nor do I believe the future exists as anything more than dreams. Why do feel as though there is a now? Because we live in each moment, and we have our memories and dreams to serve as contrast. Why don't we have control over which now is occurring? Well, because these exists as mere concepts, mental structures for interpreting the experience of existing. You cannot hope to have any control over an intangible concept. The "now" is only a concept existing in relation to that which is not "now."[/QUOTE] You've misinterpreted the quote. [QUOTE=Anubis678;29024550]lolwat? We can remember the past because we experienced it and it left some chemical imprint on our minds. We can't remember the future for the obvious reason that you cannot remember something that has not occurred. You cannot recall a memory that does not exist. Why does time appear to be moving forward? Because we keep natural, personal records of things we have previously experienced. We construct a timeline and impose the concept of time upon our memories so that we can maintain some semblance of organization. Remembering that everything exists in relation to something else, we need this silly construct called "time" to make sense of these memories.[/QUOTE] Not my point.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29024888]How should I know if I've only ever perceived it one way? You've misinterpreted the quote. Not my point.[/QUOTE] Feel free to explain whenever is most convenient for you...

This has gotten WAY off of the topic of photons. [editline]6th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Anubis678;29024933]Feel free to explain whenever is most convenient for you...[/QUOTE] Explain what, my point or the quote

In other words, "not my point" isn't an acceptable answer [editline]6th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29024934]Explain what, my point or the quote[/QUOTE] Oh no, I understand the quote perfectly well. Explain why that wasn't your point.