Is time absolute for the photon?

[Scott Sieger]

AS we already know Einstien ruled out absolute time with his theory of relativity. However I feel that in doing so he had to make time for the photon or light ray absolute instead.

So, I ask if in discussion, this could be cleared up.

The premise for my concern is that Einstien placed the photon in the center of time, so that the photon or light ray becomes invariant, thus creating the postulate.

But I feel that in doing so Einstien re-establishes absolute time by default with out realising it.

I would show a diagram but currently are not allowed to.

Care to discuss?

[chroot]

The concept of time is meaningless for a photon. Furthermore, a photon cannot be at rest in any inertial frame, so relativity says essentially nothing about it.

- Warren

[Scott Sieger]

chroot , thanks for your time,

I do beg to differ with this assessment

The concept of time is meaningless for a photon. Furthermore, a photon cannot be at rest in any inertial frame, so relativity says essentially nothing about it.

Whilst I agree that the photon is never at rest, Einstiens basis for relativity places the photon at the center of time, and in fact if it were not then relativity would fail.

The centre of time is not "rest"

Chroot, can I ask you how einstien arrived at his theory of the invariance of light or is this a little difficult to explain in simple terms.

[chroot]

Whilst I agree that the photon is never at rest, Einstiens basis for relativity places the photon at the center of time, and in fact if it were not then relativity would fail.
The term "center of time" is nonsense. I recommend you review our posting guidelines before continuing this sort of discussion.
Chroot, can I ask you how einstien arrived at his theory of the invariance of light or is this a little difficult to explain in simple terms.
The invariance of the speed of light is a postulate of relativity -- an axiom.

- Warren

[Scott Sieger]

The term "center of time" is nonsense. I recommend you review our posting guidelines before continuing this sort of discussion.

Chroot, a number of points;

1) Einstein Minkowsy space time implicitly referrs to the centre of time with the aid of a descriptive analogue of what is commonly referred to as light cones.
( a link below just to refresh your memory )

http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/minkowski.html

2) These light cones describe clearly the relationship of future and past events for a light ray.
3) This relationship with light ray and time is the very essence of relativity.
4) To censor someone else in an intimidating way due to your own misunderstanding of the posters question does not reflect your true value to this board and more importantly to the posters.
5) You say that invariance is a postulate ( I agree) and I ask you to describe and discuss how this postulate is arrived at.

[chroot]

Chroot, a number of points;

1) Einstein Minkowsy space time implicitly referrs to the centre of time with the aid of a descriptive analogue of what is commonly referred to as light cones.
( a link below just to refresh your memory )
The link you provided does not include the term "centre of time." You made this term up, and it's nonsense.
2) These light cones describe clearly the relationship of future and past events for a light ray.
The light cone is the locus of points in spacetime which have null intervals to or from some chosen point in spacetime.
3) This relationship with light ray and time is the very essence of relativity.
I don't think you know much relativity.
4) To censor someone else in an intimidating way due to your own misunderstanding of the posters question does not reflect your true value to this board and more importantly to the posters.
Then go elsewhere.
5) You say that invariance is a postulate ( I agree) and I ask you to describe and discuss how this postulate is arrived at.
It's a postulate. You don't "arrive" at postulates. You choose postulates willfully, then explore the conclusions resulting from those postulates. If, as in the case of relativity, the conclusions match experiments, then you can accept the axioms as being valid.

- Warren

[Scott Sieger]

The light cone is the locus of points in spacetime which have null intervals to or from some chosen point in spacetime.

so we agree that the centre of the cones represents a null point that exists in space time? as in future and past......

[Scott Sieger]

and that this null point is invariant, thus invariance exists

[Scott Sieger]

the photons existence is placed where in spacetime? or more importantly in what time - future, null point , or past?

[chroot]

Okay, Quantum Quack, we've had enough. Goodbye already. On your way out, why not pick up a book on relativty and actually try to learn something?

- Warren