# Thread: Time Dilation, One Assumption, and Possible Implications

1. Einstein has proven that as we approach the speed of light time dilates. As one gets very close to C the time elapsed, for the traveler becomes very short even traveling across the universe itself. As one got closer and closer to C the time elapsed traveling between points A and B would shrink to almost nothing, to the traveler. Of course if he were to return at the same speed the Earth would probably be a cinder and the Sun dead after such a journey. As one's velocity got closer and closer to the speed of light the time elapsed for him between any two points in the Universe would approach 0.

The assumption I am making here is that AT the speed of light the time elapsed to travel between any two points, anywhere in the Universe would be in fact 0.

As distance traveled = velocity x time, it would be inferred that as time would always equal 0, distance traveled would also equal 0. (at the speed of light)
Or it could also be said that P(point)sub1 = Psub2 = Psub3 ...............= 0

Since T also equals 0 at lightspeed Tsub1 = Tsub2 = Tsub3..........= 0

At the speed of light, therefore time and space do not exist. Nor mass of course, because mass must occupy space. At the speed of light space/time does not exist, only energy.
All existence springs out of a (place)? where there is no time and could be said in our space/time oriented minds, smaller than the tiniest subatomic particle.

This could also demonstrate the reality of the mystic "One" or "Unity", "All is One". Reality lives at the speed of light. All things spring from this "singularity"

Any thoughts on this would be welcome.

Best Wishes
Randy J.

2.

3. Originally Posted by czydiamond
The assumption I am making here is that AT the speed of light the time elapsed to travel between any two points, anywhere in the Universe would be in fact 0.
Nothing (no thing) can travel at the speed of light. But people sometimes say that photons don't experience time for this reason. The trouble with extrapolating to this point is that it is not a valid frame of reference. There are a couple of reasons why not. Firstly, you end up dividing by zero; always a good sign that the theory is being misapplied. Also, the speed of light is always the same for all observers; if a photon must be travelling at c relative to itself then you end up with a rather meaningless conclusion.

At the speed of light, therefore time and space do not exist.
Note that as you travel at speeds closer to the speed of light, you do not see your space ship getting shorter (or your clocks running slower). So space and time do not change for you.

because mass must occupy space
Must it? Fundamental particles (with mass) appear to have zero size.

I'll skip the mysticism, if you don't mind.

4. Originally Posted by czydiamond
Any thoughts on this would be welcome.
My first thought is "This isn't physics".

This could also demonstrate the reality of the mystic "One" or "Unity", "All is One".
Excuse me. What "mystic "One" or "Unity""?

Reality lives at the speed of light.
Er, no.

All things spring from this "singularity"
no.

5. Of course I'm not talking about anyone traveling at the speed of light. I'm speculating about what actually happens or exists at that speed. My opinion is that Reality lives at the speed of light. or just beyond.
When people try to work the math from this end of reality, as they try to create equations and such that explain near light speed, the math becomes, shall I say "illigical".

Or the photons, for example, that the Chinese measured??, whose "magic" quantum interactions occurred at 10,000 times the speed of light. I believe that this could possibly be true. Maybe light itself is not base Reality, but only the first step removed. These interactions could have occurred one step closer to Reality than light itself. If light itself were base Reality the interactions would be instant, because at that level, no space (distance to travel), or time. Only energy.

6. Dywyddyr
Is that the best you can do. "NO", "Not Physics". You sound like those Royal Society guys back in the 19th century.

7. Originally Posted by czydiamond
Is that the best you can do.
Not even close. But it was the "best" your post deserved.

"NO"
Exactly. NO. Unless you want to redefine "reality".,

"Not Physics".
Are you contending that the "mystic One" IS physics?

You sound like those Royal Society guys back in the 19th century.
Thank you.
I always appreciate comparisons between me and the likes of Babbage, Cayley, Davy, Faraday, etc. Although, to be honest, I don't think I've yet had as much impact as any of them.

8. Still no facts at all. You still sound like those old farts who dismissed every new idea that came along.

BTW.
I would be very curious as to anybody else's ideas as to what does actually happens at the speed of light or possibly 10,000 times faster, is it magic? Kind of spooky those interactions between two separated particles.
Scientists would do well to work with some mystics. Mystics have known by OBSERVATION that Reality is in fact energy for millennia.

9. Originally Posted by czydiamond
Still no facts at all.
Agreed.

Scientists would do well to work with some mystics.
No thanks. Science prefers to stick with reality.

Mystics have known by OBSERVATION that Reality is in fact energy for millennia.
Um, no they haven't.

10. You're full of it guy. If you want to argue why don't you say something besides derision?

11. Originally Posted by czydiamond
Of course I'm not talking about anyone traveling at the speed of light. I'm speculating about what actually happens or exists at that speed.
Then maybe you are in the wrong place. IS there a specualtionsthatcontradictknownscience.com?

My opinion is that Reality lives at the speed of light. or just beyond.
You opinion isn't supported by known science.

When people try to work the math from this end of reality, as they try to create equations and such that explain near light speed, the math becomes, shall I say "illigical".
Prove it. The theory of relativity is perfectly consistent (and special relativity is pretty easy to derive from first principles). And therefore not illogical.

Or the photons, for example, that the Chinese measured??, whose "magic" quantum interactions occurred at 10,000 times the speed of light.
I assume you are referring to entanglement. I assume their measurement is a lower bound (I haven't read the details). It is likely the interaction is instantaneous. This has nothing to do with the speed of light.

12. Originally Posted by czydiamond
You sound like those Royal Society guys back in the 19th century.
You sound as if you think you have some valid scientific ideas. You don't. If you want to develop a new theory involving movement at or beyond the speed of light you will need to replace all of Einstein's relativity and large parts of quantum mechanics. Both of these have been tested to high degrees of accuracy and used in practical, everyday technology.

13. If you want to say something why don't you provide some evidence or actual support for your case?
Empty speculation, especially centred around some hypothetical "mystic one", isn't science.

14. Originally Posted by czydiamond
I would be very curious as to anybody else's ideas as to what does actually happens at the speed of light or possibly 10,000 times faster, is it magic?
All massless particles (photons and gluons) travel at the speed of light. Everything else is slower. No magic involved.

Kind of spooky those interactions between two separated particles.
That is what Einstein thought.

Scientists would do well to work with some mystics. Mystics have known by OBSERVATION that Reality is in fact energy for millennia.
And we abandon science (and reality) completely. Have I told you about the invisible pink unicorns that run the universe?

15. You're saying that space/time exists at (or beyond) the speed of light? Are you able to explain to me in simple terms how relativity excludes the possibility that it does not? Remember that a traveler traveling very close to the speed of light would experience virtually no time elapsed as he got near that speed no matter how far he traveled. Almost nothing. A millisecond. Of course it would be impossible and I am in no way saying it would be, to go that fast. But light does. And quantum interactions do appear to surpass C. Seems to me that in Reality space does not actually exist, only the illusion of it.

16. Originally Posted by czydiamond
You're saying that space/time exists at (or beyond) the speed of light?
Space-time exists. It has nothing to do with the speed of light.

Are you able to explain to me in simple terms how relativity excludes the possibility that it does not?
I have already explained why something travelling at the speed of light is not a valid frame of reference. It is therefpore outside the theory. Therefore you need a new theory.

Remember that a traveler traveling very close to the speed of light would experience virtually no time elapsed as he got near that speed no matter how far he traveled.
You seem to be forgetting the "relative" bit.

We are travelling at 99.99...99...99% of the speed of light relative to high energy cosmic rays. Are you aware that time is not passing? No, I didn't think so.

And quantum interactions do appear to surpass C.
Indeed they may be instantaneous. So what.

Seems to me that in Reality space does not actually exist, only the illusion of it.
As this is a science forum, why would I care about your baseless opinion?

17. Originally Posted by czydiamond
You're saying that space/time exists at (or beyond) the speed of light?
No.

Are you able to explain to me in simple terms how relativity excludes the possibility that it does not?
Um, given that you later say this:
Of course it would be impossible and I am in no way saying it would be, to go that fast.
What exactly are you saying? That you accept the impossibility but don't understand it?

Seems to me that in Reality space does not actually exist, only the illusion of it.
Seems to me you don't have a clue what you're saying.

18. I have already explained why something travelling at the speed of light is not a valid frame of reference. It is therefpore outside the theory. Therefore you need a new

That is beside the point. I am asking you "What does happen at (or beyond) the speed of light?". No one seems to even think about it.

We are travelling at 99.99...99...99% of the speed of light relative to high energy cosmic rays. Are you aware that time is not passing? No, I didn't think so

I understand there are equations explaining how to bodies moving closer together at a speed greater than C actually are not exceeding C because of the temporal distortion.

Indeed they may be instantaneous. So what.

SO WHAT????, the simple fact that there is in actuality no space between them. No one has been able to explain that.

As this is a science forum, why would I care about your baseless opinion?

That sounds pretty closed minded for a "scientist". Many religious people have dismissed Buddhism because they claim it is a science, not a religion. calling them atheists, being that some Buddhists do not believe in a "God", but are rather, students of Reality. As I said earlier scientists are foolish to dismiss mysticism while knowing nothing of it. Mysticism is in fact a science, based on OBSERVATION, not theory, or dogma, or faith dealing directly with physics and the nature of being, using ones own mind alter their view of things. There is no faith involved for many of them. Myself I do have faith as do many other Buddhists and Christians.

19. Originally Posted by czydiamond
Mysticism is in fact a science

20. Originally Posted by czydiamond
That is beside the point. I am asking you "What does happen at (or beyond) the speed of light?". No one seems to even think about it.
It has been thought about. Answer nothing (other than massless particles) can travel at the speed of light. Hypothetical particles called tachyons are what you get if you consider particles that travel faster than light. (There is no evedicen that tachyons exist.)

I understand there are equations explaining how to bodies moving closer together at a speed greater than C actually are not exceeding C because of the temporal distortion.
And that is one reason why nothing can travel at the speed of light.

But the important point is that you seem to think that someone travelling at or near the speed of light would be crushed to zero size. That isn't true. We are travelling near the speed of light (considered from another frame of reference).

SO WHAT????, the simple fact that there is in actuality no space between them. No one has been able to explain that.
Of course there is space between them.

Mysticism skipped as this is a SCIENCE forum.

21. Just like the Royal Society. You have refuted nothing I have said.

22. Originally Posted by czydiamond
Just like the Royal Society.
What is that about? Is that some form of the Galileo Gambit? Are you saying that The Royal Society stands in the way of scientific progress?

Are you saying that baseless speculation that contradicts well established science and has no supporting evidence should just be accepted because its, like, cool.

23. About the Royal Society. During the 17 and 1800's they patently dismissed much that has now been proven true. They derided.

I dismiss nothing about relativity. I just do not completely understand the math. Have only been turning it over in my head for 40 years and feel that there is a
good basis for agreement between science and much mystic thought.

Of course no one can travel at close to light speed, but it is not "base speculation" to postulate that at C, or at 10,000 times faster as the quantum stuff seems to show, considering that as one closely nears C time dilation becomes nearly infinite, that at the ultimate "speed" the value of T itself would be 0, as would space (distance), of course making math and space/time meaningless. Very possibly it is not possible to explain Reality with math or logic. I understand logic and math get pretty slippery when dealing with quantum stuff. Maybe there are tools besides logic and math useful for human understanding. I have heard much learned speculation about different dimensions,(Is it that hard to imagine a dimension with no space and time?), different universes, space warps, black holes etc. that is "pure speculation" although very plauseable. No one knows.

You seem too willing to dismiss outright what you do not understand to be a "scientist". Open your mind and think a bit.

24. Originally Posted by czydiamond
About the Royal Society. During the 17 and 1800's they patently dismissed much that has now been proven true.
Much?

They derided.
Unfortunately the fact that something is derided now does not guarantee that it will be found to be true at a later date.
Many things that were once derided still deserve derision.

Of course no one can travel at close to light speed, but it is not base speculation to postulate that at C, or at 10,000 times faster as the quantum stuff seems to show, considering that as one closely nears C time dilation becomes nearly infinite, that at the ultimate "speed" the value of T itself would be 0, as would space (distance), of course making math meaningless.
Apart from the other little problem that achieving c requires infinite energy...

Very possibly it is not possible to explain Reality with math or logic.
Science.

I understand logic and math get pretty slippery when dealing with quantum stuff.
Then why does maths work so well when it comes to "quantum stuff"?

Maybe there are tools besides logic and math useful for human understanding.
Science.

25. Originally Posted by czydiamond
About the Royal Society. During the 17 and 1800's they patently dismissed much that has now been proven true. They derided.
So what. Do you conclude from this taht every idea that is rejected must therefore be correct?

Very possibly it is not possible to explain Reality with math or logic.
You could start a thread in the philosophy forum to discuss that. I'll stick with the fact that the scientific method (*) works: it is productive.

(*) Which includes the rejection of new ideas; think about why that is a Good Thing.

26. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by czydiamond
About the Royal Society. During the 17 and 1800's they patently dismissed much that has now been proven true. They derided.
So what. Do you conclude from this taht every idea that is rejected must therefore be correct?
Of course not
Very possibly it is not possible to explain Reality with math or logic.

You could start a thread in the philosophy forum to discuss that. I'll stick with the fact that the scientific method (*) works: it is productive.

The only objection you seem to have with what I am talking about is the very real possibility that at what one might call "base Reality" time and space might indeed not exist. It is not such a jump to imagine, with the curve of time dilation nearing infinity as it approaches C that time could indeed have a value of 0 as velocity actually reaches (which is in fact impossible) penultimate (speed?) Trouble is, it is only impossible within the space/time continuum. Within the s/t/c, which is possible, the almost infinite time dilation is pretty strange in itself. All manner of scientific thought has been written, speculating about (places) outside of space/time. Most of these guys are engaging just as much in philosophy as they are science. That is how a scientist forms a theory.(scientific method)Then observation, (the quantum experiments in China), seem to bear that out. Many many times faster than Light. Instant communication!! IMPOSSIBLE. Outside of space/time, it could be possible. Many, many noted physicists have acknowledged the possibility of other "areas" not within space/time. IMHO scientists are just beginning to see the really "spooky" stuff. Fortunatly these guys are not brushing off their observations as "impossible".

Best Wishes and Goodnight
Randy J.

(*) Which includes the rejection of new ideas; think about why that is a Good Thing.
Rejection of bad ideas is a great thing.

27. Originally Posted by czydiamond
The only objection you seem to have with what I am talking about is the very real possibility that at what one might call "base Reality" time and space might indeed not exist.
I don't have a problem with that - if it is discussed in the context of either science or proper philosophy. I am not a big fan of discussions of what "reality" means, but I guess they have a place. I don't see your uninformed contributions adding much to the debate.

It is not such a jump to imagine, with the curve of time dilation nearing infinity as it approaches C that time could indeed have a value of 0 as velocity actually reaches (which is in fact impossible) penultimate (speed?)
It is a jump, because it involves invalid math (division by zero) and contradicts well established science.

Then observation, (the quantum experiments in China), seem to bear that out. Many many times faster than Light.
You keep going on about this as if it is something new. It isn't. It has been known for about 100 years. All they have done is find a lower bound on the time involved (which is actually assumed to be instantaneous).

Instant communication!! IMPOSSIBLE.
There is no instant communication. That is impossible.

Rejection of bad ideas is a great thing.
Good start. Now think about how we know which are good ideas and which are bad ideas.

28. Firstly, as has already been pointed out, a massless particle travelling at c is not a valid frame of reference; asking what it would be like is thus largely academical, because no ruler or clock could ever be accelerated to be travelling at that speed.

Secondly, one could look at this in terms of the geometry of Minkowski spacetime. An idealized particle at rest travels only through time, but not through space. If you accelerate that particle, you trade movement through time for movement through space, meaning that the faster you go, the less time it takes to traverse more space. The limit case is then the photon, which would in that picture travel only through space, but not through time. A hypothetical observer riding a ray of light would notice nothing special in his own ( non-existent !! ) frame, but would see the universe infinitely length contracted along his axis of movement. Basically he could get to any point in the universe without having to "invest" any proper time.

Thirdly, whatever might be beyond the light barrier is not causally connected to "our" part of the universe, and would be energetically unstable.

Lastly, quantum entanglement does not involve the exchange of information over large distances at superluminal speeds. The entanglement merely creates a backward correlation to the point of entanglement, but does not need any information exchange thereafter.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement