If photons don't experience time, are they everywhere at once?
353005
No. But, from the POV of the photon, they are everywhere along the path of the photon at once. See the answer on "lorentz contraction", because it's right, but I just wanted to clarify that photons are not, in fact, *everywhere* at once.\n\nOh, and from the POV of any subluminous velocity, no, they propagate at the speed of light, naturally.
936725
Photons are mass-less elementary particles.  There is a famous, and simple, experiment to prove this.  A small pinwheel in a vaccum sealed light blub which is balanced on a pin can be made to spin in proportion to the amount of light that falls on the vanes of the pinwheel.  The vanes are colored alternatively black and white.  The white vanes reflect photons and the black vanes absorb them, so the thing spins like crazy, proving that the photons have enough energy and speed (momentum) to impart motion on the pinwheel.\n\nPhotons are said to have no 'intrinsic mass' which means they don't have mass when 'at rest.'  Of course photons are never 'at rest' so there's something called 'relativistic mass' which accounts for mass-like properties of things traveling at high speed (like the speed of light, which photons travel at).
383428
It's an interesting idea, but subatomic particles that do not have electrons are also affected by time dilation (cosmic rays for instance).  And electrons do not literally spin around a nucleus (as far as we can tell) there is a potential for it to be anywhere in a give shell at any given time.
509589
Yes, there are. If you move an object by half an atom's width, the smooth movements added together still make a quantum leap. If there were no quantum leaps, then there could be no space-time, since everything would be constricted to nothing.
247190
The patterns are the same.  It doesn't matter if you send the photons through one at a time or many at once.
271484
yeah, you get a bit off on a deep tangent towards the end there... but I don't think Einstein asserted anything more than the idea that time, space, and matter are related and not independant.  two systems of matter travelling in wildly different velocities relative to one another also have different processions of time and different masses, from the perspective of the other.  It only applies to things moving close to the speed of light- I think it's the Schroedinger Equation that covers the inter-relation.  But there's no real analogy to it in the observable world, unless you work at a particle accelerator, so I leave it to the doctorates of physics to debate.
36596
That's a big "if", that's some car!\n\nOK, I'll go there:\n\nThe photons in the forward direction could not escape thre filaments so they'd build up there, but the filaments would not blow because they'd be infinite mass.  Boring answer, really.  Nothing would happen.
839438
Well, if you look at the fact that electrons have the ability to be in more than one place at once, then you see that to make a time machine is possible, and I'm sure someone much, much smarter than I am would be able to figure it out.  Also, the ministry of magic in Harry Potter made the time turners.
350943
Time is simply a measurement. That's it. Nothing more-a measurement. Even in other galaxies events happen. There is a sequence to events. Time is how we keep track of what happened first. Time is not a stream of light. I believe they call that "light", or gammas, or whatever else you wish. This is a subject that has confused many a great mind by overcomplication.
893783
Time is always now, now, now. We only really are certain about the present; our memory & evidence of the past, and our ;assumptions about the future. The past and future dont really exist, because they  dont exist now. The past used to exist, but doesnt exists now except what we know about it. The future will exist but doesnt exist now and so we don't experience it. \n\nTime continues on at a steady pace all the time as far as we know. There are theories that time has relation to other things, that time is affected as you approach the speed of light, but we haven't fully explored this theory. \n\nTime exists as more then that but only as a concept. We have words for many things that don't exist or that exist only as concepts.
670589
Forever and ever.\nIt may get dimmer, but that is from the spreading of the light.  The photons will travel until they collide with something.
416146
yes in the quantum world. hey and if no one reads this answer have i really typed it??
838380
Photons that travel at the speed of light have zero mass.  Photons are tiny packets of pure energy.  Theoretically photons could be converted to mass using Einstein's equation E = mc2 but would then be unable to travel at the speed of light.  Do photons really exist?  Enough of them in the UV range can give you a sunburn.
991704
If you could get your atoms to stop moving, then you would be at absolute zero, so you'd be frozen, and not caring much.\n\nHaving said that, no. Why would time stand still? Theoretically, if EVERYTHING were to stand still, then time would have no meaning, since time has no definition apart from measurements of the number of events  in the universe.
989387
The only thing that can travel at the speed of light is light. So basically yes.
10713
no, only things traveling at speeds close to the speed of light experience the distortion of time.  Light itself doesn't have mass or anything, it's an electromagnetic wave.  And even if it did, time is only distorted for the thing thats moving at the high velocities, so you wouldn't ever know it.
780880
The trouble is that any answer to that question is guess work at best.\n\nWhether that guess is based on scientific observation or pure mythology or religion...  It's still pure guess work and any one answer is as valid as the next...\n\nBased on the fact that the passage of time is variable dependant upon the effects of Gravity and/or Speed...  Every answer is true.\n\nFor the passage of time in a Gravity free vacuum, the universe infinitely old...  For the passage of time for the very first photon released - The Universe is only moments old.\n\nIf we look at the physical evidence and declare that it would have taken 16 billion years for this, or that...  We are talking about the time experienced by those things...  But that measurement is no more valid than the mere momments of the photon or the infinite eternity of the vacuum...\n\nNo...  The truest answer I can give you is this...  The universe you live in came into existence at the momment of your creation.  So it's aproximately nine monthes older than your age, but it was created with all the appearences of having existed previously...