Could Light Be a Time-Traversing Particle?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Psykostx
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the concept of light potentially being a time-traversing particle, examining the implications of time singularities on the nature of light and its properties. Participants engage with theoretical ideas about the relationship between light speed and time, as well as the philosophical underpinnings of physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that if time consists of singularities, light might move so quickly that it exists between these singularities, leading to its wave-particle duality.
  • Another participant proposes that the constant speed of light could actually represent the speed of time itself.
  • Some participants challenge the feasibility of these ideas, questioning their logical consistency and scientific validity.
  • References to Einstein and Minkowski are made, with claims that light speed may not be a traditional velocity but rather a unit conversion.
  • One participant expresses frustration over the lack of mathematical engagement in the discussion, emphasizing that physics is fundamentally about mathematical representation.
  • Concerns are raised about overly speculative ideas being presented without sufficient grounding in established physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a range of opinions, with some supporting the speculative ideas and others expressing skepticism or outright disagreement. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the validity of the proposed hypotheses.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the discussion involves philosophical considerations that may not align with scientific rigor, indicating a tension between speculative thought and established scientific principles.

Psykostx
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Is it possible that singularities of time present themselves slower than the speed of light, giving the photon the apparent properties of being both a particle and wave. Basically, could light actually be a time traversing particle? Let me explain what I mean before you guillotine me...

If time is a series of singularities, maybe light moves so fast it fits in between these singularities. It would constantly be moving in and out of existence, creating a wave-like effect. This would also explain the impossible lack of mass (impossible because light does exert force on objects, however miniscule the proportion) because the light would simultaneously exist and not exist between two "ticks" of time (existing on the tick, and not existing in between) cancelling out its physical mass yet causing us to observe its "shadow" which in fact is illumination.

Do any of these things make sense to anyone or should i stop listening to prog rock?...lol
Go ahead and bash me, but this is stuff i think about that I wish I knew more about so I could have a stronger opinion (and argument). Maybe someone wants to stray of the beaten path and throw some numbers around? Or maybe you just want to stray from numbers, and throw me a beating...haha
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This would also explain light speed as a constant... the light-speed we observe would actually be the speed of time. Has anyone ever considered this?
 
Psykostx said:
This would also explain light speed as a constant... the light-speed we observe would actually be the speed of time. Has anyone ever considered this?


Geez, this is just playing with words! Get real!
 
Einstein once said "The speed of light is the speed of time"
 
Hmm someone who claims to be a mentor says "get real" but doesn't explain anything? I understand its a play on words, and I think that's been made quite clear in my post. Now I would like to see a play on math, which is all physics is...duh. Its a tool for representation, not truth. I'm sorry to hear that you've reached mentor status with such a closed mind. Did you even consider in any way it could be possible even for a second?

Thank you Rad, at least someone considers what I said, even if it is only Einstein!
 
RAD4921 said:
Einstein once said "The speed of light is the speed of time"
And Minkowski (Einstein's teacher) once said:

"Lightspeed is not a velocity but a units-conversion i.e. it's the number of meters in one second."
 
interesting, I thought m/s (with direction) is a velocity? Or is that a play on words rather like my own? I still don't understand why what I said isn't feasible, it makes logical sense and I see no reason why someone with a little more backround than I can't tell me WHY it makes no sense or is entirely unreal. Some physicists with credible phd's still say time dilation is unreal. Call them crackpots, but whens the last time you saw time dilation occur (maybe the brain uses it all the time, its not entirely impossible because electricity travels at the speed of light, but who knows), besides experiments with too many variables to be considered controlled?

I still think my HYPOTHESIS could be credible with some real genius calculation... read the whole first post.
 
Minkowski's point was:

"Lightspeed is not a velocity but a units-conversion i.e. it's the number of meters in one second."

In one second as opposed to per second.
 
So that would mean light is not constrained by time, only distance? If so that is incredibly mind boggling.
 
  • #10
RAD4921 said:
Einstein once said "The speed of light is the speed of time"
Do you have a source for that?

Psykostx said:
Do any of these things make sense to anyone or should i stop listening to prog rock?...lol
Honestly, to me, they don't make any sense at all.
 
  • #11
Psykostx said:
Now I would like to see a play on math, which is all physics is...duh.

You think physics is nothing more than "playing with math?"

Overly speculative posts are not welcome here, by the way.

- Warren
 
  • #12
I agree with Chroot. Philosophy is an academic discipline of its own, folks, it isn't just a venue for presenting hypotheses that don't pass scientific muster.

This thread is closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 190 ·
7
Replies
190
Views
17K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K