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

Could light be faster than time?

  1. Jul 28, 2006 #1
    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
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 28, 2006 #2
    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?
  4. Jul 28, 2006 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Geez, this is just playing with words! Get real!
  5. Jul 28, 2006 #4
    Einstein once said "The speed of light is the speed of time"
  6. Jul 28, 2006 #5
    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 thats 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!
  7. Jul 28, 2006 #6
    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."
  8. Jul 28, 2006 #7
    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 dialation is unreal. Call them crackpots, but whens the last time you saw time dialation 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.
  9. Jul 28, 2006 #8
    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.
  10. Jul 28, 2006 #9
    So that would mean light is not constrained by time, only distance? If so that is incredibly mind boggling.
  11. Jul 28, 2006 #10
    Do you have a source for that?

    Honestly, to me, they don't make any sense at all.
  12. Jul 28, 2006 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

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

    - Warren
  13. Jul 28, 2006 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook