Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Ageless photon. do photons travel through time?

  1. Jan 8, 2007 #1
    when a photon from a distant star arrives on earth, it has not aged.

    does this mean that it has not traveled through time at all, but only space?

    thanks!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 8, 2007 #2

    Hootenanny

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There have been many threads in the forums on this subject in which the question was extensively answered; I suggest you do a search.
     
  4. Jan 8, 2007 #3
    Hello there--I did do a search, but none of them seemed to answer my original question.

    Does a photon travel through time? Does it age?

    Thanks!
     
  5. Jan 8, 2007 #4

    ranger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  6. Jan 8, 2007 #5

    Hootenanny

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thread Title: Do Photons Age?

    A few excerpts;
    Edit: Damn Ranger, your quick!
     
  7. Jan 8, 2007 #6
    A photon can reach one end of the universe to another in no time.
     
  8. Jan 8, 2007 #7

    Hootenanny

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In no proper time.
     
  9. Jan 8, 2007 #8
    So basically a photon does not move through time, but only space.

    that is the reality of the photon.

    Thanks.
     
  10. Jan 8, 2007 #9
    Something keeps bothering me here.

    Time is the fourth dimension.

    A photon that travels across the universe does not move through time.

    Thus a photon that travels across the universe has not moved through the fourth dimension.

    How can something move a million light years plus through space, and yet not budge one micron in the fourth dimension?
     
  11. Jan 8, 2007 #10

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    If you are going to pretend to be able to view things from a photon's frame of reference, then go all the way: All distances would shrink to zero, so time and space have no meaning for the photon! (Of course, this is just for fun--photons do not have a frame of reference in special relativity.)

    Again, from our frame of reference (or any real frame of reference in which the speed of a photon is c) the photon most certainly does move through both space and time!
     
  12. Jan 8, 2007 #11
    But wait a second here.

    If there were a clock on the photon, when we looked at the clock after the photon's long journey, we would have to conclude that the photon had not moved at all through time.

    Thus both the people on the photon and we agree that the photon did not move through time.

    And too, we would both agree that it moved a vast distance through space, for when the people got off the photon, they would find themselves in a brand new place.

    So, at the end of the day, we would all agree.

    The photon moved across the universe. It did not age.

    Hence it moved a vast distance through space, and not at all through time.

    That's what its clock shows.
     
  13. Jan 8, 2007 #12

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    One second according to whom? :wink:

    With the proviso that we are just pretending to view things from the photon's frame of reference (a photon does not have a legitimate frame of reference), everyone will agree that the photon's clock will read zero time.

    No. Different observers will measure different times. Each observer is entitled to his own clock readings.

    No. From the photon's (pretend) frame of reference there is no "new place". From our frame of reference, the distance is vast; from the photon's frame of reference, the distance is zero. (Note that "people" cannot travel with the photon--that's why assigning a frame of reference to a photon is problematic.)

    We all agree that the photon did not age in the sense of accumulating proper time. (Since "age" is defined according to the photon's own clock.) We see the photon moving across the universe and taking time to do so; the photon sees "the universe" as a single point--no need to travel, no need for time. It's perfectly OK to ask how long a photon has been traveling according to our clocks.

    The "vast distance" is traveled only from our frame; the "no time" is only from the photon's frame.

    Clocks only show time.

    (I hope you see why it's problematic to assign a frame of reference to a photon.)
     
  14. Jan 8, 2007 #13
    Hey Doc,

    Here we go:

    An observer gets on a spaceship and travels acorss the universe at the speed of c.

    They then get ou of their spaceship to talk with us.

    We all agree that their clock's time has not changed since when they started.

    We also agree that they are on the otehr side of the uiverse now, with us.

    Thus, we all agree that they traveled across the universe.

    And also that no time elapsed on their clock on the spaceship.

    I know that nothing but photons can travel the speed of light, so in the above example, replace c with .99999999999999999999999999c.

    So basically they traveled across the universe and their clock showed almost no change. They did not age.

    So it is that something which travels .999999999999999999999999c barely travels through time.
     
  15. Jan 8, 2007 #14
    than i have a question: if photons move at no proper time, we can assume that nothing can move faster than it, otherwise would have "negative time". can we assume that the speed of the photon is the "speed of time" ????

    i would like to define "speed of time", but i just don't have words for that...:S is a meditation what i've tought...wondering...
     
  16. Jan 8, 2007 #15

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Good.

    Good.

    Beats me why you keep wanting to say this. What does "travel through time" mean to you? To me, I calculate that it takes you (in that ship) about a year (of my time) for you to travel one light-year of distance (as measured by me). Well... that sounds like you are "traveling through time" to me!
     
  17. Jan 8, 2007 #16

    ranger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It is theoretically possible to have objects that travel faster than the speed of light. These are known as tachyons. However we cannot observe them. These particles would have imaginary proper time. And no, if it where possible accelerate beyond the speed of light, time wont go backwards if thats what you mean by "negative time".
     
  18. Jan 8, 2007 #17

    ranger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Of what use would be defining the "speed of time"? Time is relative to the observer and there is no absolute time.
     
  19. Jan 8, 2007 #18

    But Doc,

    When we wit dwon to lucn with the traveller who just crossed the universe at .9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c, we all agree that no time elapsed on their watch, and that they did not age.

    thus, we all agree that they did not travel through time on their journey.
     
  20. Jan 8, 2007 #19

    Hootenanny

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Er.. no we won't. Ever heard of something called time dilation?
     
  21. Jan 8, 2007 #20
    as would be inpossible to go faster than it, as is imposssible to go faster than light. let me try to explain: when we are moving faster, time "decreases", so my wonder is:

    imagine we have time speed, is the speed that time passes in referencial, and now, when we are still, the time passes at a great speed(at a total speed "c") and as we can't still imagine that how big it was, time become a referencial....

    now, what i'm saiyng, is that, with veryfast speeds(relativistics speeds like 0.8c), we can say that time is passing slower and slower, as we aproch speed of light, so, why don't think that speed of light is actually speed of time?? and the explanation for that is the fact that, the more fast we go, the "closer" velocity to time we are, as for the ones who are still, time is passing at a huge speed. so, getting aceleration is only a step to say that we are getting speed in relation to "speed of time"

    ok is a little bit anoying, but was a wondering of a 17 years old boy...:biggrin:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?