May 10th, 2010, 02:48 PM
If I had the means to move through space faster than the speed of light does that mean that i can technically age slower than people on earth. I heard a theory that for every day i travelled at the speed of light the people on earth would have ages a year??
You're thinking of the twins paradox, and you don't have to surpass the speed of light for the time dilation effect you describe to happen. Sub-luminal speeds will achieve the same thing, more so as you get closer and closer to light speed.
In fact, going faster than light speed implies that you'd be able to travel back in time, but since objects with mass cannot achieve light speed, that is speculative science fiction at best.
As you go really fast, though... Relative to people on Earth, you'll age more slowly relative to them.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...in_paradox.htm
You can also google the Hafele-Keating experiment to see how this has been demonstrated empirically here on Earth by flying jets around the world... Time dilated exactly as predicted by the equations of relativity. Pretty cool, really.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdRmCqylsME
http://sheol.org/throopw/sr-ticks-n-bricks.html
May 10th, 2010, 03:24 PM
You can't go faster thatn the speed of light.Originally Posted by GaryB
You can age less by traveling at 1 mph relative to earth, just not much less.
Time dilation formula. Special Relativity. Only for relative velocities, not relative gravitational field's.
(T) is elapsed time, for the stationary observer. (T') is travel time for the moving observer. (v) is the relative velocity of the moving observer.
The correct formula isTime dilation formula. Special Relativity. Only for relative velocities, not relative gravitational field's.
(T) is elapsed time, for the stationary observer. (T') is travel time for the moving observer. (v) is the relative velocity of the moving observer.
Unless v is an appreciable fraction of c the effect is miniscule.
Stupid book. I should have looked at one of my others. Well I got one for the bar-b-q now. Yeah, DrRocket's formula. That erroneous equation came from a college algebra text.
The erroneous one is still true, but only when v is expressed as fractions of c. The one DrRocket posted is true regardless of which system of units you use.
i wanna ask dr.rocket that what does in mean one would travel backward in time
if he travels faster than speed of light, please give me physical picture as much as posible and for twins paradox one doesnt need to travel faster than speed light as theory said.
1. You can't travel faster than light.
2. You can't travel back in time either.
3. Even applying the Lorentz transform of special relativity without thought and plugging in a speed faster than light does not result in a negative tiime interval (aka going back in time) but rather results in complex imaginary time, which makes no sense at all. The theory does not let you travel back in time.
4. There are some rather bizare circumstances in general relativity that result in closed timelike curves, which would be traveling backward in time, but they occur inside the event horizon of a Kerr black hole. Even if they are physicall possible, going inside the event horizon of a black hole is not a good idea. It is not clear that these closed timelike curves are really physical either. They may represent a problem with general relativity.
2. You can't travel back in time either
Yes you can
all you need is two cosmic strings that spiral arownd each other that twists space time in to a vortex and vwala a time portal
ps don't you whatch the sience ch
also nothing is imposible if just given the proper mind
Aw, crap.
Well, maybe this will be funny.
Okay, the apparent stochastic nature of quantum phenomena lead's to multiple paradoxes concerning time travel. This is for me, reductio ad absurdem. I am prepared to argue against time travel, albeit primarily from a philosophical position.
Not often. To much of it is somewhere between wild speculation and just plain wrong. Your example qualifies.
Nothing is impossible? Okay, then. Find me a rational square root of the number two. Ready? Go!
this I know, but the phisics usualy check out, also the one thing that makes this impobable is that they have not located a cosmic string but, aperantly ,matamaticly they must exist
this I know, but the phisics usualy check out, also the one thing that makes this impobable is that they have not located a cosmic string but, aperantly ,matamaticly they must exist
Is the above an attempt to recreat the Twins Paradox? Which post is older?
Thank you for this something to doAw, crap.
Well, maybe this will be funny.
Okay, the apparent stochastic nature of quantum phenomena lead's to multiple paradoxes concerning time travel. This is for me, reductio ad absurdem. I am prepared to argue against time travel, albeit primarily from a philosophical position.
For instance, you can't reach overlightspeed with a mass. Atleast, that's the myth.
Lightspeed is peace of cake, they are called photons.
It would take all energy in the universe to make a tachyone. Luckily that exists in a black hole, that is why if a black hole radiate energy from within the black hole radius it would be in the form of a tachyone.
Imagine a reaction in the black hole. Both particles have neverending mass, the product is neverending, that is to say, the overlightspeed photon, called tachyone, escapes the black hole due to its properties of moving backwards in time.
when the tachyone escapes the black hole, it regains it's non accelerated properties and isn't neverending anymore, all according to the enhanced relativity theory.
In all the history of human thought, mathematics is the most rigorous and logically consistent language to have ever existed. It is powerful and essential(mathematics). I submit that it must be considered however, that the map is not the territory. Because it can be said, that doesn't make it true.matamaticly they must exist
If the energy for a photon initially is neverending, like in a black hole (according to relativity) a particle faster then the speed of light can form, and a such would escape the black hole. Atleast occasionally.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that there is any such thing as a tachyon.
The energy for a photon is not "neverending", whatever that means.
Your statement regarding black holes is gibberish. It has no possible meaning, let alone any correct meaning.
hiii....
i got a doubt over here.... by usin d time dilation eqn, u can only travel 2 d past.... how can u travel 2 d future??
pl help me by givin d ans for my ques....
If the power of the black hole is just as strong as a photon is fast, then the black holes gravity is faster then the speed of light, so ultimately that can create reactions faster then the speed of light, isn't that right, OP?There is absolutely no reason to believe that there is any such thing as a tachyon.
The energy for a photon is not "neverending", whatever that means.
Your statement regarding black holes is gibberish. It has no possible meaning, let alone any correct meaning.
time dilation allows an object moving very fast relative to some other observer to "age less" or rather, experience less time go by, than the observer. afaik this applies most directly to an object that makes a round trip and has more to do with the acceleration than the specific relative velocities.
Ophiolite we would need to ask The Doctor how he time travels right :wink:
"Arcane_Mathematician" wrote:
time dilation allows an object moving very fast relative to some other observer to "age less" or rather, experience less time go by, than the observer. afaik this applies most directly to an object that makes a round trip and has more to do with the acceleration than the specific relative velocities.
thn how abt d theory?? as v approach d velocity of light, accordin 2 d eqn, time goes 2 "Infinity".... wat does tis mean???
1st of all, am i correct in approach??
gibberishIf the power of the black hole is just as strong as a photon is fast, then the black holes gravity is faster then the speed of light, so ultimately that can create reactions faster then the speed of light, isn't that right, OP?There is absolutely no reason to believe that there is any such thing as a tachyon.
The energy for a photon is not "neverending", whatever that means.
Your statement regarding black holes is gibberish. It has no possible meaning, let alone any correct meaning.
"gibberish"
Well, then again, what isn't gibberish in your humble opinion?
Anyway, the photons initial acceleration must be lower then the black holes at any given point. The smallest photon must also be the size of one point since h = E when f = 1. Yet the gravity is larger for any given photon to escape.
Between 2 points in a black hole the length is contracted to 0 for an outer reference frame, time is dilated in the same way.
Seen from the outside the black hole does not move timewise, but in its own reference frame it is quite the opposite.
The particles in a black hole are all accelerated more then that of a photon. For matter to remain it's own weight, they have to become a matter that has a speed beyond the photon.
I agree, GIBBERISH !!
Stop looking at light as a photon, but consider also its wave qualities. Since an acceleration is equivalent to a gravitational ffield (see Einstein), light trying to escape a black hole would be 'red-shifted' to infinite wavelength, or zero energy. It would in effect cease to exist.
Another way of looking at it, a black hole is the ultimate entropy mechanism, it disorders everything, all information is lost (see Hawking) and light being information is lost (vanishes) as well.
What are you, a parrot? Read the bold, how can that be wrong?
Not only is it not right, it such gibberish that in the words of Pauli, it is "not even wrong."
It can be wrong simply by being wrong. But, I agree with Dr Rocket and Pauli. "It's not right. It's not even wrong"
Take a tennis ball, and a fist size rock. Drop them simultaneously. See when they hit the ground. Objects of different mass all have the same rates of acceleration in same gravitational fields. Go here;The particles in a black hole are all accelerated more then that of a photon. For matter to remain it's own weight, they have to become a matter that has a speed beyond the photon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
What's your native language?
| « The physics of walking on stilts? | Thermodynamics question » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
