Mixing
Is the property of time a consequence of having mass?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
It's an abstract question, but I was thinking...
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?
To me that's a profound conclusion yet not one I see printed. I assume then the conclusion is wrong. Is it?
The conclusion seems analogous and as profound as the property of gravity being a result of mass distorting spacetime.
special-relativity mass time inertial-frames popular-science
asked 6 hours ago
TLV
162
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 5 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
It's an abstract question, but I was thinking...
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?
To me that's a profound conclusion yet not one I see printed. I assume then the conclusion is wrong. Is it?
The conclusion seems analogous and as profound as the property of gravity being a result of mass distorting spacetime.
special-relativity mass time inertial-frames popular-science
asked 6 hours ago
TLV
162
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
6 hours ago
They're massless?
– TLV
6 hours ago
Sorry. Why do you think no mass means no "experience of time"?
– Aaron Stevens
6 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
6 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
5 hours ago
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
It's an abstract question, but I was thinking...
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?
To me that's a profound conclusion yet not one I see printed. I assume then the conclusion is wrong. Is it?
The conclusion seems analogous and as profound as the property of gravity being a result of mass distorting spacetime.
special-relativity mass time inertial-frames popular-science
asked 6 hours ago
TLV
162
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.
It's an abstract question, but I was thinking...
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?
To me that's a profound conclusion yet not one I see printed. I assume then the conclusion is wrong. Is it?
The conclusion seems analogous and as profound as the property of gravity being a result of mass distorting spacetime.
special-relativity mass time inertial-frames popular-science
special-relativity mass time inertial-frames popular-science
asked 6 hours ago
TLV
162
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 6 hours ago
TLV
162
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 4 hours ago
asked 6 hours ago
TLV
162
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 6 hours ago
TLV
162
asked 6 hours ago
TLV
162
162
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
6 hours ago
They're massless?
– TLV
6 hours ago
Sorry. Why do you think no mass means no "experience of time"?
– Aaron Stevens
6 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
6 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
5 hours ago
 |Â
show 5 more comments
"If photons don't experience the passage of time..." Why do you think this?
– Aaron Stevens
6 hours ago
They're massless?
– TLV
6 hours ago
Sorry. Why do you think no mass means no "experience of time"?
– Aaron Stevens
6 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
6 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
5 hours ago
"If photons don't experience the passage of time..." Why do you think this?
– Aaron Stevens
6 hours ago
"If photons don't experience the passage of time..." Why do you think this?
– Aaron Stevens
6 hours ago
They're massless?
– TLV
6 hours ago
They're massless?
– TLV
6 hours ago
Sorry. Why do you think no mass means no "experience of time"?
– Aaron Stevens
6 hours ago
Sorry. Why do you think no mass means no "experience of time"?
– Aaron Stevens
6 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
6 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
6 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
5 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
5 hours ago
 |Â
show 5 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
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.
Perhaps this also helps for understanding "why null observers?"
answered 6 hours ago
N. Steinle
79519
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
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 5 hours ago
Wolphram jonny
10.3k22451
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
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 4 hours ago
Alfred Centauri
47.1k347142
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
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 3 hours ago
Dale
2,976416
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
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.
Perhaps this also helps for understanding "why null observers?"
answered 6 hours ago
N. Steinle
79519
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
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.
Perhaps this also helps for understanding "why null observers?"
answered 6 hours ago
N. Steinle
79519
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
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.
Perhaps this also helps for understanding "why null observers?"
answered 6 hours ago
N. Steinle
79519
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.
Perhaps this also helps for understanding "why null observers?"
answered 6 hours ago
N. Steinle
79519
answered 6 hours ago
N. Steinle
79519
answered 6 hours ago
N. Steinle
79519
answered 6 hours ago
N. Steinle
79519
79519
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
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 5 hours ago
Wolphram jonny
10.3k22451
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
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 5 hours ago
Wolphram jonny
10.3k22451
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
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 5 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 5 hours ago
Wolphram jonny
10.3k22451
answered 5 hours ago
Wolphram jonny
10.3k22451
answered 5 hours ago
Wolphram jonny
10.3k22451
answered 5 hours ago
Wolphram jonny
10.3k22451
10.3k22451
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
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 4 hours ago
Alfred Centauri
47.1k347142
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
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 4 hours ago
Alfred Centauri
47.1k347142
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
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 4 hours ago
Alfred Centauri
47.1k347142
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 4 hours ago
Alfred Centauri
47.1k347142
answered 4 hours ago
Alfred Centauri
47.1k347142
answered 4 hours ago
Alfred Centauri
47.1k347142
answered 4 hours ago
Alfred Centauri
47.1k347142
47.1k347142
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
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 3 hours ago
Dale
2,976416
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
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 3 hours ago
Dale
2,976416
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
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 3 hours ago
Dale
2,976416
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 3 hours ago
Dale
2,976416
answered 3 hours ago
Dale
2,976416
answered 3 hours ago
Dale
2,976416
answered 3 hours ago
Dale
2,976416
2,976416
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%2fis-the-property-of-time-a-consequence-of-having-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
6 hours ago
They're massless?
– TLV
6 hours ago
Sorry. Why do you think no mass means no "experience of time"?
– Aaron Stevens
6 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
6 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
5 hours ago