It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# speed of light and time slowed down

page: 1
0
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 04:19 PM
Hello

could i ask a question from an idiots perspective?

i read/heard some time back that if someone set off at the speed of light around the universe that they would arrive back and a lot less time would have passed for the traveler than someone that was static and ergo time slows the faster we go.

Could i ask the people that know the following

in the scheme of things is it general wear and tear that ages things? if so, on an atomic and sub atomic level things wear out i assume?? if so would traveling at the speed of light in fact slow down the particles revolving around an atom to the smallest one(sorry not sure of all the terms for these things) stop their natural motion and therefore stop decaying? Like swinging balls around in a bag they group together?

am i making sense?

david

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 04:23 PM
When you leave the planet at light speed time speeds up for the people you left behind. So if you left at the speed of light, and were gone for 3 months, 1.5months to get there, 5 min at destination, and 1.5months to get home, much more than 3 months and 5 min. would have passed on Earth. Like many many years.

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 04:30 PM

Originally posted by downtown436
When you leave the planet at light speed time speeds up for the people you left behind. So if you left at the speed of light, and were gone for 3 months, 1.5months to get there, 5 min at destination, and 1.5months to get home, much more than 3 months and 5 min. would have passed on Earth. Like many many years.

Hello

does it speed up for them or does it slow down for you? also that was my query, does it slow down at all or do the sub atomic particles stop decaying and give the illusion that times speed was different.

does time exsist at all? how can it be measured? clocks cannot do it as all clocks are are things that move it regular intervals, be they digital or analogue. as they are physical, any clock traveling at the speed of light would suffer the same effects regarding decay, wouldn't they??

many thanks

david

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 04:53 PM
Lets say a certain particle has a half life of ten seconds.

That same particle accelerated to the speed of light will last many times longer then that due to the time dialation effect.

Now, in the particles "world", while traveling at the speed of light, he still only lives for ten seconds.

But! to an outside observer, he would last many times longer then that.

This is the basis for the theory of relativity, and how two things that are exactly the same, can be so vastly different when measured based on the relative position of the observer.

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 04:56 PM
Nothing in the way of time changes for either those on the Earth, or those in the spaceship. en.wikipedia.org... this explains it much better than I ever could.

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:00 PM

Lets say a certain particle has a half life of ten seconds.

That same particle accelerated to the speed of light will last many times longer then that due to the time dialation effect.

Now, in the particles "world", while traveling at the speed of light, he still only lives for ten seconds.

But! to an outside observer, he would last many times longer then that.

This is the basis for the theory of relativity, and how two things that are exactly the same, can be so vastly different when measured based on the relative position of the observer.

Thanks

disregarding the observer, it is the effect of speed on the particle "world" that gives the illusion of a difference in the rate of time.

if this is the case then time travel is impossible??

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:04 PM

Originally posted by downtown436
Nothing in the way of time changes for either those on the Earth, or those in the spaceship. en.wikipedia.org... this explains it much better than I ever could.

many thanks

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:05 PM

you are maybe interested in this and this since muon lifetimes were one of the best tests for special relativity

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:09 PM
Let me change my wording, I think you mistook the term "world" as I ment it. Here goes..

If you have a finite age, lets say, you live till your 25 then die. No matter what..

Ok, now lets assume there is a railroad that runs around the circumference of the earth and the velocity of this train is the speed of light.

If you were to ride this train for 25 years, to yourself, exactly 25 years would have passed and you would die right on time.

But! to the rest of the earth that was in a different frame of reference, it could have possibly been hundred of years that passed until you eventually died.

In short.

Time is relative to the person experiencing it.

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:09 PM
Let me change my wording, I think you mistook the term "world" as I ment it. Here goes..

If you have a finite age, lets say, you live till your 25 then die. No matter what..

Ok, now lets assume there is a railroad that runs around the circumference of the earth and the velocity of this train is the speed of light.

If you were to ride this train for 25 years, to yourself, exactly 25 years would have passed and you would die right on time.

But! to the rest of the earth that was in a different frame of reference, it could have possibly been hundred of years that passed until you eventually died.

In short.

Time is relative to the person experiencing it.

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:09 PM
Let me change my wording, I think you mistook the term "world" as I ment it. Here goes..

If you have a finite age, lets say, you live till your 25 then die. No matter what..

Ok, now lets assume there is a railroad that runs around the circumference of the earth and the velocity of this train is the speed of light.

If you were to ride this train for 25 years, to yourself, exactly 25 years would have passed and you would die right on time.

But! to the rest of the earth that was in a different frame of reference, it could have possibly been hundred of years that passed until you eventually died.

In short.

Time is relative to the person experiencing it.

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:24 PM

hello

thanks for that

Mad! i'm obviously as bright as a one watt bulb with a dark blanket over it

i do understand, i think, You would travel for longer (as appears from the onlookers) as you would live longer as the particles etc would decay slower,

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 06:58 AM

Let me change my wording, I think you mistook the term "world" as I ment it. Here goes..

If you have a finite age, lets say, you live till your 25 then die. No matter what..

Ok, now lets assume there is a railroad that runs around the circumference of the earth and the velocity of this train is the speed of light.

If you were to ride this train for 25 years, to yourself, exactly 25 years would have passed and you would die right on time.

But! to the rest of the earth that was in a different frame of reference, it could have possibly been hundred of years that passed until you eventually died.

In short.

Time is relative to the person experiencing it.

Please explain how does movement speed affect time?
And you triple-posted btw..

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Blue10110
Please explain how does movement speed affect time?
And you triple-posted btw..

The function: t' = t / sqrt(1 - (v^2/c^2)) where t=time, c=speed of light, v=velocity.

So at 99% of speed of light, you're looking at time stretching at a factor of 7. So if you leave on a spaceship moving at 99% the speed of light for 1 year, everyone on earth will have aged 7 years.

[edit on 5-4-2008 by alkali]

[edit on 5-4-2008 by alkali]

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:38 AM
Well let me really confuse you....
Back in Jan we learned that superluminal (Faster than light) travel was possible.... see my post LANL scientist makes radio waves travel faster than light

Anyway it will be years before we understand whats going on but for now it looks like once you break superluminal something akin to a sonic boom occurs... this ends up becoming a major event and the result is time and distance no longer have meaning... you could cross the galaxy and no time would have past for traveler or observer

we might be witness to the next great discovery of mankind lets just hope they don't make as big a mess of this as the did when they split the atom...

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:51 AM

Well let me really confuse you....
Back in Jan we learned that superluminal (Faster than light) travel was possible.... see my post LANL scientist makes radio waves travel faster than light

Anyway it will be years before we understand whats going on but for now it looks like once you break superluminal something akin to a sonic boom occurs... this ends up becoming a major event and the result is time and distance no longer have meaning... you could cross the galaxy and no time would have past for traveler or observer

we might be witness to the next great discovery of mankind lets just hope they don't make as big a mess of this as the did when they split the atom...

I'm not an expert, but I think this was the experiment that seemed a little distorted. If I have the right experiment, the peak went faster than light, but the total energy did not, therefore it didn't clash with relativity. This won't work with people trying to cross the galaxy. We'd become infinitely large. And if we were to somehow get around that snag, the time dilation function (above a couple of posts) throws another curve.

By increasing velocity to more than the speed of light in the time dilation function, you get the square root of a negative number. Factor out the i and the graph begins decreasing back to "normal" time. So, according to that function, time will increase to infinity as you approach the speed of light. Once you pass the speed of light time will begin to come down from infinity back to normal time and will actually dip below normal time. It sorta resembles the graph lim 1/x^2 = infinity, x->c.

This makes absolutely no sense, but its pretty nifty.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:14 PM

Originally posted by drevill
in the scheme of things is it general wear and tear that ages things? if so, on an atomic and sub atomic level things wear out i assume??

No.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:37 PM
if you read the abstract the hard math starts around page 4 but he just loses me altogether by the the middle of page five...
Abstric
what I think he's getting at ..is by rotating the field the sign wave (radio wave) pattern starts to fold in on itself

anyway this is way over my head but I still think its really cool...
I'm be waiting to see where his research goes...

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 04:36 PM
It all depends on what inertial frame of reference you are in. That is Einstein's Theory about General and Special Relativity. Nothing has really changed all that much. Yes, astronauts in orbit do have time slow down, but it only is by a few nanoseconds. I think the longest space orbit flight added like 40 nanoseconds to the astronauts life. That is because that the astronauts are in a different inertial frame of reference than you are being here at ground level on the planet. What was brought up to explain it in a way that other people can understand, is that if you were in an elevator with no windows or any way of knowing if you are moving, then you could not tell whether you were accelerating at a speed away from anything (up) or whether you were actually falling because of gravity (down). It is called the Principle of Equalivance. It is all depending on your perception due to being in a 'inertial frame of reference'. So say you are in your vehicle at a rate of acceleration, then time moves at the normal rate you are used to -- due to your perception. Now, you are moving in a spaceship nearer the speed of light (which is the fastest speed that anything can move according to what we know), and you are aboard the spaceship moving near the speed of light also. Your inertial frame of reference still has the clock moving at what you think is the same rate of speed, so your perception is that everything is normal. But to someone else in a different inertial frame of reference (hence here on Earth) to them, your clock is moving slower than a similiar clock on the Earth. I think it is equated to gravity in the end. So by moving a clock above the earth in an airplane moving at jet speed, a difference is noted on the clocks (the one on the Earth and the other clock in the airplane) and it amounts to a few nanoseconds of time. The inertial frame of reference is the governing factor and the inertial frame of references are both different. Every thing in this Universe is moving according to being in an inertial frame of reference - which is Einstein's Theory about General and Special Relativity.

So, it depends on the observer's frame of reference. The hard fact to grasp is that even if you could move at the speed of light (infinite mass so you never can go that fast in the first place) the speed of light which is moving towards you is not cumulative, but still the same as if you were at rest (not moving) and still at the fastest speed which is possible - which is the speed of light. It is not the same as having your vehicle in an airplane at which you move the vehicle in the airplane say at 5mi/hr while the airplane is flying at 400 mi/hr which makes your vehicle moving relative to the ground (and in the same direction at which the airplane is moving also) at 405 mi/hr relative to the ground. No, if you were moving at the speed of light, light would still be approaching you at the speed of light, and there would be no difference, so it is not cumulative (you add the speeds together). Thus in the end, it is called the Principle of Equalivance.

I suppose there is some Internet site that can explain it perhaps better than what I can - so Google "Principle of Equalivence" however it is spelled.

Thus everything in the Universe is moving with respect to its own "inertial frame of reference" (nothing is still -- but if in a particular frame of reference you may be at rest within that inertial frame of reference - not moving inside of the inertial frame of reference but merely moving along with that inertial frame of reference). So even moving at the speed of light (which is impossible to do because it would also take infinite energy to get up to that speed in which case you would be an infinite amount of mass -- light has no mass so that is why it can move that fast), you still are at rest inside the inertial frame of reference and it is like you are not moving at all concerning another inertial frame of reference (light moving is the other frame of reference) so it all depends on the inertial frame of reference you are in - and the rest mass of how much mass you are - at that point.

new topics

top topics

0