time for a puzzled dummy, speed and aging of light

Hi again,

one more question (although some more might show up...):

Light needs about 6 (or is it 8) minutes to travel the distance from the sun to earth, so far this is very clear. When 1 brother of a twin travels from the sun to earth and lands next to his brother, he is 6 (or 8) minutes younger.

So: light needs a certain time to travel, but on the other hand, it does not age....

Any insights?

Friendly greetings,

guf.

Light has its own clock. It is affected only by gravity. Slower time will slow light.

I don't think it's quite that simple. To find out how much younger he is relative to his brother/twin, you would have to use the Lorentz transformations. This page has more information on time dilation.

Only the one traveling through space would have the lorentz transformation effect him. Only one has a clock that goes slow and that is the one actually moving through space. Einstein went to far in applying his relativity principle reciprocally. Relativity is actually one sided.

Both are moving through space since the earth moves as well.

The time it takes light to cross the distance is based on our reference frame. The amount light ages is based on its reference frame. At © time stands still. Thus, since light travels at ©, it does not age. © is 186,000 mps. In one second light travels through 186,000 miles of space. x 60 x 6 (or 8) and you get a grand total of 66,960,000 (or 89,280,000) miles of distance. With the average distance of the earth from the sun at 93,000,000 miles, you have light spending 8.333333333 minutes to get here (which answers the question of 6 or 8).

Both are moving through space since the earth moves as well.

The person on Earth is in an interial frame (sufficently close to one anyway) while the person who accelerates to the Sun and then accelerates back is NOT in an inertial frame and therefore is the one who experiences time dilation.

If light aged how could we tell? Light does have a waving property that takes place in time. This is known as its frequency. But it cannot be used as a clock even though it waves at regular intervals.

Does this mean, that light, at any given now, is simultaneously here, there and everywhere, or put in other words: at ©, spatiality does not exist?

If this is valid, what the big bang theory actually is saying, is that at ©, the spatial universe does not happen? In other words, electromagnetic waves that initiated at the big bang are simultaneously, for themselves, both at the point of initiation, as at the utmost regions of space?

meaning that:

Looked upon universe from the `viewpoint´ of light, the spatial is a sphere of contemporaneity wherein:
1. © = Time
2. +© = antimatter
3. -© = matter

Time and space exist for light in that it is a wave. It is spatially extended and it waves in time (frequency.)

Hi Nick, I see that. It is the view of everything not traveling at ©.
For light itself though, which does not age at any distance -thats my conception at least, and please prove me wrong if thats the case- time and space are zero.
As you commented, I understand that both time and light are affected (equally?) by gravitation. Both slow down at the rate that the gravitational mass increases. Still, time, as experienced by light itself is not affected by gravitation.
Time, experienced by an observer, slows at the same rate as the speed of light, while being under influence of gravitation. Light itself though, whether it slows down to zero km/h, or traveling at its regular speed, equals time.

How I see it, but I'm not more than a self-thought (and stubborn ) creative mind, spatiality comes into existence when time and the speed of light diverge from each other: everything traveling at a speed less than © appears as matter or photons, everything traveling at a speed over © appears as antimatter or photons.

In my opinion, this does not contradict with the lectures of Feynman, bundled in his 'QED: the strange theory of light and matter', but since this stems from 1985, I don't know how valid it still is.

Light is not instantaneous. It has its own clock. It is a wave in both space and time(wavelength and frequency.)

Can you please explain?

Light isn't instantaneous means it takes time to move in space. Light has its own clock in gravity. Where time slows light slows (in gravity.) Light's wave is extended in space. Therefore it is spatial. Light waves in time because of its frequency.

Light has its own clock and ruler corresponding to time and space for matter that is absolutely still. That might be hard to understand.

Hey guf,

If you consider the your question in 4D "spacetime" it may be easier to conceptualize.

Within Minkowski spacetime, the "speed" of any motion through spacetime is equal to c. The metric is ds^2=c^2 dt^2 - dx^2, where dx is dx1^2 + dx2^2 + dx3^2 (the 1, 2 and 3 following the x's are supposed to be subscript) while proper time is dt^2=ds^2/c^2, therefore ds/dt=c. From this prospective, everything travels through "spacetime" at c. Light, which travels through the spatial dimensions at c does not travel through the time dimension. Anything traveling slower than c through the spatial dimensions, travel at some rate through the time dimension.

Hope this helps...

The space-time interval for null motion, ie that of light, is zero. So you have

dx^2 = dt^2 (ie ds^2 = 0)

For massive particles like you and I, then you have dt^2 - dx^2 = -ds^2 (up to a choice in signature ). I've used natural units too, easier to remember