Mixing
If photons don't experience time, does that mean time is a consequence of mass?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
If photons don't experience the passage of time because they have no mass, does that mean time is a consequence of mass?
To me that's a profound conclusion yet not one I see printed. Is it right?
special-relativity mass time inertial-frames popular-science
edited 19 mins ago
knzhou
37.3k9104180
asked 14 hours ago
TLV
513
New contributor
TLV is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
If photons don't experience the passage of time because they have no mass, does that mean time is a consequence of mass?
To me that's a profound conclusion yet not one I see printed. Is it right?
special-relativity mass time inertial-frames popular-science
edited 19 mins ago
knzhou
37.3k9104180
asked 14 hours ago
TLV
513
New contributor
TLV is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
"If photons don't experience the passage of time..." Why do you think this?
– Aaron Stevens
13 hours ago
They're massless?
– TLV
13 hours ago
Sorry. Why do you think no mass means no "experience of time"?
– Aaron Stevens
13 hours ago
Ah, it's statement I've seen in several texts so I've taken it to be truth. Is that not the case?
– TLV
13 hours ago
3
The OP has a point, light travels in a geodesic in which proper time is a constant, you could interpret that as photons experiencing no time.
– Wolphram jonny
13 hours ago
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
If photons don't experience the passage of time because they have no mass, does that mean time is a consequence of mass?
To me that's a profound conclusion yet not one I see printed. Is it right?
special-relativity mass time inertial-frames popular-science
edited 19 mins ago
knzhou
37.3k9104180
asked 14 hours ago
TLV
513
New contributor
TLV is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
If photons don't experience the passage of time because they have no mass, does that mean time is a consequence of mass?
To me that's a profound conclusion yet not one I see printed. Is it right?
special-relativity mass time inertial-frames popular-science
special-relativity mass time inertial-frames popular-science
edited 19 mins ago
knzhou
37.3k9104180
asked 14 hours ago
TLV
513
New contributor
TLV is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 19 mins ago
knzhou
37.3k9104180
asked 14 hours ago
TLV
513
New contributor
TLV is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 19 mins ago
knzhou
37.3k9104180
edited 19 mins ago
knzhou
37.3k9104180
edited 19 mins ago
knzhou
37.3k9104180
37.3k9104180
asked 14 hours ago
TLV
513
New contributor
TLV is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 14 hours ago
TLV
513
asked 14 hours ago
TLV
513
513
New contributor
TLV is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
TLV is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
TLV is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
"If photons don't experience the passage of time..." Why do you think this?
– Aaron Stevens
13 hours ago
They're massless?
– TLV
13 hours ago
Sorry. Why do you think no mass means no "experience of time"?
– Aaron Stevens
13 hours ago
Ah, it's statement I've seen in several texts so I've taken it to be truth. Is that not the case?
– TLV
13 hours ago
3
The OP has a point, light travels in a geodesic in which proper time is a constant, you could interpret that as photons experiencing no time.
– Wolphram jonny
13 hours ago
 |Â
show 7 more comments
"If photons don't experience the passage of time..." Why do you think this?
– Aaron Stevens
13 hours ago
They're massless?
– TLV
13 hours ago
Sorry. Why do you think no mass means no "experience of time"?
– Aaron Stevens
13 hours ago
Ah, it's statement I've seen in several texts so I've taken it to be truth. Is that not the case?
– TLV
13 hours ago
3
The OP has a point, light travels in a geodesic in which proper time is a constant, you could interpret that as photons experiencing no time.
– Wolphram jonny
13 hours ago
"If photons don't experience the passage of time..." Why do you think this?
– Aaron Stevens
13 hours ago
"If photons don't experience the passage of time..." Why do you think this?
– Aaron Stevens
13 hours ago
They're massless?
– TLV
13 hours ago
They're massless?
– TLV
13 hours ago
Sorry. Why do you think no mass means no "experience of time"?
– Aaron Stevens
13 hours ago
Sorry. Why do you think no mass means no "experience of time"?
– Aaron Stevens
13 hours ago
Ah, it's statement I've seen in several texts so I've taken it to be truth. Is that not the case?
– TLV
13 hours ago
Ah, it's statement I've seen in several texts so I've taken it to be truth. Is that not the case?
– TLV
13 hours ago
3
3
The OP has a point, light travels in a geodesic in which proper time is a constant, you could interpret that as photons experiencing no time.
– Wolphram jonny
13 hours ago
The OP has a point, light travels in a geodesic in which proper time is a constant, you could interpret that as photons experiencing no time.
– Wolphram jonny
13 hours ago
 |Â
show 7 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
9
down vote
To me that's a profound conclusion yet not one I see printed.
If there were just massless fields (particles), it would still be the case that spacetime has 1 temporal and 3 spatial dimensions so, in this sense, time exists independently of mass.
However, as Sir Roger Penrose has pointed out in his work on the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC), when there are just massless (conformally invariant) entities, there is no way to 'build a clock' (or a ruler) and so the universe 'loses track of time' (and distance too).
From Before the Big Bang: An Outrageous New Perspective and its Implications for Particle Physics
Physically, we may think that again in the very remote
future, the universe “forgets†time in the sense that there is no way
to build a clock with just conformally invariant material. This
is related to the fact that massless particles, in relativity
theory, do not experience any passage of time. We might even
say that to a massless particle, “eternity is no big dealâ€Â.
answered 12 hours ago
Alfred Centauri
47.2k347142
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
I'm not sure where you're at in your studies, but you shouldn't accept anything as true just because it's in a book. You should convince yourself of it beyond any reasonable doubt. In the words of Boyle, "nothing by authority."
This is related to this question, but I do not suspect the OP here will get much from the solution there, so I reword it more simply:
In special relativity, light rays (or just call them photons) are called "null observers." Null observers, by definition, have no proper way of measuring time intervals. Conceptually, one measures time intervals in relativity by sending light signals between frames - but if you are traveling at light speed then that measurement is useless. Mathematically, the proper time of an ideal clock between $t_o$ and $t_1$ is given by,
$$ int_t_o^t^1 Bigg(1 - fracv^2c^2Bigg)^1/2 dt = int(0) = 0$$
since $v = c$ for null observers.
Perhaps this also helps for understanding "why null observers?"
If photons don't experience the passage of time because they have no mass, is it fair to say the property of time is a consequence of having mass?
I think it's more correct to say that they do not "pass time" because they are traveling at light speed, and they travel at light speed by definition. There is a very interesting article here about why photons have zero rest mass.
answered 13 hours ago
N. Steinle
82519
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
It is true that photons do not experience proper time. On the other hand a photon can experience a series of events during its lifetime. Does that means that he experiences all the events at the same time? this does not seem plausible. In addition, you cannot define a reference frame that travels at c. Mixing all of this together, one possible conclusion could be that the experience of proper time in a non-reference frame is different than the experience of proper time in a reference frame, and thus we have no clue what the photon "experiences".
answered 12 hours ago
Wolphram jonny
10.3k22451
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
is it fair to say the property of time is a consequence of having mass?
Yes, it is fair to say that as long as you are specifically speaking of proper time (which seems reasonable to say when speaking of “the property of timeâ€Â).
Proper time is an affine parameter for timelike worldlines, and only massive objects have timelike worldlines. Massless objects do have affine parameters, but they are not proper time.
answered 10 hours ago
Dale
3,021416
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
I do not think it is fair to say the property of time is a consequence of having mass.
Photons, even though are not supposed to experience time per GR, but they somehow, still retain the frequency, which by definition involves time.
Again, there has to be something massive to measure that frequency otherwise it does not mean much.
However, to say that universe looses track of time is going too far, because the frequency is remembered and is always kept available if there were anything to observe/measure it.
May be this part is off the topic, but IMO, universe always knows everything, including uncertainty and entanglement! Otherwise things at macro level would behave unpredictable. It is the process of observation that has limitations
answered 7 hours ago
kpv
3,750420
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
9
down vote
To me that's a profound conclusion yet not one I see printed.
If there were just massless fields (particles), it would still be the case that spacetime has 1 temporal and 3 spatial dimensions so, in this sense, time exists independently of mass.
However, as Sir Roger Penrose has pointed out in his work on the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC), when there are just massless (conformally invariant) entities, there is no way to 'build a clock' (or a ruler) and so the universe 'loses track of time' (and distance too).
From Before the Big Bang: An Outrageous New Perspective and its Implications for Particle Physics
Physically, we may think that again in the very remote
future, the universe “forgets†time in the sense that there is no way
to build a clock with just conformally invariant material. This
is related to the fact that massless particles, in relativity
theory, do not experience any passage of time. We might even
say that to a massless particle, “eternity is no big dealâ€Â.
answered 12 hours ago
Alfred Centauri
47.2k347142
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
To me that's a profound conclusion yet not one I see printed.
If there were just massless fields (particles), it would still be the case that spacetime has 1 temporal and 3 spatial dimensions so, in this sense, time exists independently of mass.
However, as Sir Roger Penrose has pointed out in his work on the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC), when there are just massless (conformally invariant) entities, there is no way to 'build a clock' (or a ruler) and so the universe 'loses track of time' (and distance too).
From Before the Big Bang: An Outrageous New Perspective and its Implications for Particle Physics
Physically, we may think that again in the very remote
future, the universe “forgets†time in the sense that there is no way
to build a clock with just conformally invariant material. This
is related to the fact that massless particles, in relativity
theory, do not experience any passage of time. We might even
say that to a massless particle, “eternity is no big dealâ€Â.
answered 12 hours ago
Alfred Centauri
47.2k347142
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
up vote
9
down vote
To me that's a profound conclusion yet not one I see printed.
If there were just massless fields (particles), it would still be the case that spacetime has 1 temporal and 3 spatial dimensions so, in this sense, time exists independently of mass.
However, as Sir Roger Penrose has pointed out in his work on the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC), when there are just massless (conformally invariant) entities, there is no way to 'build a clock' (or a ruler) and so the universe 'loses track of time' (and distance too).
From Before the Big Bang: An Outrageous New Perspective and its Implications for Particle Physics
Physically, we may think that again in the very remote
future, the universe “forgets†time in the sense that there is no way
to build a clock with just conformally invariant material. This
is related to the fact that massless particles, in relativity
theory, do not experience any passage of time. We might even
say that to a massless particle, “eternity is no big dealâ€Â.
answered 12 hours ago
Alfred Centauri
47.2k347142
To me that's a profound conclusion yet not one I see printed.
If there were just massless fields (particles), it would still be the case that spacetime has 1 temporal and 3 spatial dimensions so, in this sense, time exists independently of mass.
However, as Sir Roger Penrose has pointed out in his work on the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC), when there are just massless (conformally invariant) entities, there is no way to 'build a clock' (or a ruler) and so the universe 'loses track of time' (and distance too).
From Before the Big Bang: An Outrageous New Perspective and its Implications for Particle Physics
Physically, we may think that again in the very remote
future, the universe “forgets†time in the sense that there is no way
to build a clock with just conformally invariant material. This
is related to the fact that massless particles, in relativity
theory, do not experience any passage of time. We might even
say that to a massless particle, “eternity is no big dealâ€Â.
answered 12 hours ago
Alfred Centauri
47.2k347142
answered 12 hours ago
Alfred Centauri
47.2k347142
answered 12 hours ago
Alfred Centauri
47.2k347142
answered 12 hours ago
Alfred Centauri
47.2k347142
47.2k347142
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
I'm not sure where you're at in your studies, but you shouldn't accept anything as true just because it's in a book. You should convince yourself of it beyond any reasonable doubt. In the words of Boyle, "nothing by authority."
This is related to this question, but I do not suspect the OP here will get much from the solution there, so I reword it more simply:
In special relativity, light rays (or just call them photons) are called "null observers." Null observers, by definition, have no proper way of measuring time intervals. Conceptually, one measures time intervals in relativity by sending light signals between frames - but if you are traveling at light speed then that measurement is useless. Mathematically, the proper time of an ideal clock between $t_o$ and $t_1$ is given by,
$$ int_t_o^t^1 Bigg(1 - fracv^2c^2Bigg)^1/2 dt = int(0) = 0$$
since $v = c$ for null observers.
Perhaps this also helps for understanding "why null observers?"
If photons don't experience the passage of time because they have no mass, is it fair to say the property of time is a consequence of having mass?
I think it's more correct to say that they do not "pass time" because they are traveling at light speed, and they travel at light speed by definition. There is a very interesting article here about why photons have zero rest mass.
answered 13 hours ago
N. Steinle
82519
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
I'm not sure where you're at in your studies, but you shouldn't accept anything as true just because it's in a book. You should convince yourself of it beyond any reasonable doubt. In the words of Boyle, "nothing by authority."
This is related to this question, but I do not suspect the OP here will get much from the solution there, so I reword it more simply:
In special relativity, light rays (or just call them photons) are called "null observers." Null observers, by definition, have no proper way of measuring time intervals. Conceptually, one measures time intervals in relativity by sending light signals between frames - but if you are traveling at light speed then that measurement is useless. Mathematically, the proper time of an ideal clock between $t_o$ and $t_1$ is given by,
$$ int_t_o^t^1 Bigg(1 - fracv^2c^2Bigg)^1/2 dt = int(0) = 0$$
since $v = c$ for null observers.
Perhaps this also helps for understanding "why null observers?"
If photons don't experience the passage of time because they have no mass, is it fair to say the property of time is a consequence of having mass?
I think it's more correct to say that they do not "pass time" because they are traveling at light speed, and they travel at light speed by definition. There is a very interesting article here about why photons have zero rest mass.
answered 13 hours ago
N. Steinle
82519
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
I'm not sure where you're at in your studies, but you shouldn't accept anything as true just because it's in a book. You should convince yourself of it beyond any reasonable doubt. In the words of Boyle, "nothing by authority."
This is related to this question, but I do not suspect the OP here will get much from the solution there, so I reword it more simply:
In special relativity, light rays (or just call them photons) are called "null observers." Null observers, by definition, have no proper way of measuring time intervals. Conceptually, one measures time intervals in relativity by sending light signals between frames - but if you are traveling at light speed then that measurement is useless. Mathematically, the proper time of an ideal clock between $t_o$ and $t_1$ is given by,
$$ int_t_o^t^1 Bigg(1 - fracv^2c^2Bigg)^1/2 dt = int(0) = 0$$
since $v = c$ for null observers.
Perhaps this also helps for understanding "why null observers?"
If photons don't experience the passage of time because they have no mass, is it fair to say the property of time is a consequence of having mass?
I think it's more correct to say that they do not "pass time" because they are traveling at light speed, and they travel at light speed by definition. There is a very interesting article here about why photons have zero rest mass.
answered 13 hours ago
N. Steinle
82519
I'm not sure where you're at in your studies, but you shouldn't accept anything as true just because it's in a book. You should convince yourself of it beyond any reasonable doubt. In the words of Boyle, "nothing by authority."
This is related to this question, but I do not suspect the OP here will get much from the solution there, so I reword it more simply:
In special relativity, light rays (or just call them photons) are called "null observers." Null observers, by definition, have no proper way of measuring time intervals. Conceptually, one measures time intervals in relativity by sending light signals between frames - but if you are traveling at light speed then that measurement is useless. Mathematically, the proper time of an ideal clock between $t_o$ and $t_1$ is given by,
$$ int_t_o^t^1 Bigg(1 - fracv^2c^2Bigg)^1/2 dt = int(0) = 0$$
since $v = c$ for null observers.
Perhaps this also helps for understanding "why null observers?"
If photons don't experience the passage of time because they have no mass, is it fair to say the property of time is a consequence of having mass?
I think it's more correct to say that they do not "pass time" because they are traveling at light speed, and they travel at light speed by definition. There is a very interesting article here about why photons have zero rest mass.
answered 13 hours ago
N. Steinle
82519
edited 6 hours ago
answered 13 hours ago
N. Steinle
82519
answered 13 hours ago
N. Steinle
82519
answered 13 hours ago
N. Steinle
82519
82519
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
It is true that photons do not experience proper time. On the other hand a photon can experience a series of events during its lifetime. Does that means that he experiences all the events at the same time? this does not seem plausible. In addition, you cannot define a reference frame that travels at c. Mixing all of this together, one possible conclusion could be that the experience of proper time in a non-reference frame is different than the experience of proper time in a reference frame, and thus we have no clue what the photon "experiences".
answered 12 hours ago
Wolphram jonny
10.3k22451
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
It is true that photons do not experience proper time. On the other hand a photon can experience a series of events during its lifetime. Does that means that he experiences all the events at the same time? this does not seem plausible. In addition, you cannot define a reference frame that travels at c. Mixing all of this together, one possible conclusion could be that the experience of proper time in a non-reference frame is different than the experience of proper time in a reference frame, and thus we have no clue what the photon "experiences".
answered 12 hours ago
Wolphram jonny
10.3k22451
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
It is true that photons do not experience proper time. On the other hand a photon can experience a series of events during its lifetime. Does that means that he experiences all the events at the same time? this does not seem plausible. In addition, you cannot define a reference frame that travels at c. Mixing all of this together, one possible conclusion could be that the experience of proper time in a non-reference frame is different than the experience of proper time in a reference frame, and thus we have no clue what the photon "experiences".
answered 12 hours ago
Wolphram jonny
10.3k22451
It is true that photons do not experience proper time. On the other hand a photon can experience a series of events during its lifetime. Does that means that he experiences all the events at the same time? this does not seem plausible. In addition, you cannot define a reference frame that travels at c. Mixing all of this together, one possible conclusion could be that the experience of proper time in a non-reference frame is different than the experience of proper time in a reference frame, and thus we have no clue what the photon "experiences".
answered 12 hours ago
Wolphram jonny
10.3k22451
answered 12 hours ago
Wolphram jonny
10.3k22451
answered 12 hours ago
Wolphram jonny
10.3k22451
answered 12 hours ago
Wolphram jonny
10.3k22451
10.3k22451
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
is it fair to say the property of time is a consequence of having mass?
Yes, it is fair to say that as long as you are specifically speaking of proper time (which seems reasonable to say when speaking of “the property of timeâ€Â).
Proper time is an affine parameter for timelike worldlines, and only massive objects have timelike worldlines. Massless objects do have affine parameters, but they are not proper time.
answered 10 hours ago
Dale
3,021416
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
is it fair to say the property of time is a consequence of having mass?
Yes, it is fair to say that as long as you are specifically speaking of proper time (which seems reasonable to say when speaking of “the property of timeâ€Â).
Proper time is an affine parameter for timelike worldlines, and only massive objects have timelike worldlines. Massless objects do have affine parameters, but they are not proper time.
answered 10 hours ago
Dale
3,021416
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
is it fair to say the property of time is a consequence of having mass?
Yes, it is fair to say that as long as you are specifically speaking of proper time (which seems reasonable to say when speaking of “the property of timeâ€Â).
Proper time is an affine parameter for timelike worldlines, and only massive objects have timelike worldlines. Massless objects do have affine parameters, but they are not proper time.
answered 10 hours ago
Dale
3,021416
is it fair to say the property of time is a consequence of having mass?
Yes, it is fair to say that as long as you are specifically speaking of proper time (which seems reasonable to say when speaking of “the property of timeâ€Â).
Proper time is an affine parameter for timelike worldlines, and only massive objects have timelike worldlines. Massless objects do have affine parameters, but they are not proper time.
answered 10 hours ago
Dale
3,021416
answered 10 hours ago
Dale
3,021416
answered 10 hours ago
Dale
3,021416
answered 10 hours ago
Dale
3,021416
3,021416
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
I do not think it is fair to say the property of time is a consequence of having mass.
Photons, even though are not supposed to experience time per GR, but they somehow, still retain the frequency, which by definition involves time.
Again, there has to be something massive to measure that frequency otherwise it does not mean much.
However, to say that universe looses track of time is going too far, because the frequency is remembered and is always kept available if there were anything to observe/measure it.
May be this part is off the topic, but IMO, universe always knows everything, including uncertainty and entanglement! Otherwise things at macro level would behave unpredictable. It is the process of observation that has limitations
answered 7 hours ago
kpv
3,750420
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
I do not think it is fair to say the property of time is a consequence of having mass.
Photons, even though are not supposed to experience time per GR, but they somehow, still retain the frequency, which by definition involves time.
Again, there has to be something massive to measure that frequency otherwise it does not mean much.
However, to say that universe looses track of time is going too far, because the frequency is remembered and is always kept available if there were anything to observe/measure it.
May be this part is off the topic, but IMO, universe always knows everything, including uncertainty and entanglement! Otherwise things at macro level would behave unpredictable. It is the process of observation that has limitations
answered 7 hours ago
kpv
3,750420
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
I do not think it is fair to say the property of time is a consequence of having mass.
Photons, even though are not supposed to experience time per GR, but they somehow, still retain the frequency, which by definition involves time.
Again, there has to be something massive to measure that frequency otherwise it does not mean much.
However, to say that universe looses track of time is going too far, because the frequency is remembered and is always kept available if there were anything to observe/measure it.
May be this part is off the topic, but IMO, universe always knows everything, including uncertainty and entanglement! Otherwise things at macro level would behave unpredictable. It is the process of observation that has limitations
answered 7 hours ago
kpv
3,750420
I do not think it is fair to say the property of time is a consequence of having mass.
Photons, even though are not supposed to experience time per GR, but they somehow, still retain the frequency, which by definition involves time.
Again, there has to be something massive to measure that frequency otherwise it does not mean much.
However, to say that universe looses track of time is going too far, because the frequency is remembered and is always kept available if there were anything to observe/measure it.
May be this part is off the topic, but IMO, universe always knows everything, including uncertainty and entanglement! Otherwise things at macro level would behave unpredictable. It is the process of observation that has limitations
answered 7 hours ago
kpv
3,750420
answered 7 hours ago
kpv
3,750420
answered 7 hours ago
kpv
3,750420
answered 7 hours ago
kpv
3,750420
3,750420
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
TLV is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
TLV is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
TLV is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
TLV is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f438936%2fif-photons-dont-experience-time-does-that-mean-time-is-a-consequence-of-mass%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
"If photons don't experience the passage of time..." Why do you think this?
– Aaron Stevens
13 hours ago
They're massless?
– TLV
13 hours ago
Sorry. Why do you think no mass means no "experience of time"?
– Aaron Stevens
13 hours ago
Ah, it's statement I've seen in several texts so I've taken it to be truth. Is that not the case?
– TLV
13 hours ago
3
The OP has a point, light travels in a geodesic in which proper time is a constant, you could interpret that as photons experiencing no time.
– Wolphram jonny
13 hours ago