Time - Energy Equivalence

ImaFungi
But im asking why C at all; What is it about the value of the speed of light, relates to the relationship between mass and energy?

According to Einstein, if something has absolutely no mass, then c will be the maximum speed the thing can reach. Anything which has even a small mass will go slower than light speed. Light speed is like, the Universal speed limit.

reply to post by swanne


Im not saying I do, but I dont think you are grasping the importance and intimacy of the relationship. Oh well, just thought id put the question out there, maybe some time you will have free time to think about it further and harder. As for now, I will look forward to seeing your progress on the line of thought in your OP.

E=mc^2 casually reads as "The energy of a system is equivalent to the total mass of the system multiplied by the speed of light in a vacuum squared". We lose the concept of time because we are looking at the result of c^2 which is a unit in joules before we multiply the mass.

Though the speed of light is a cosmological constant it varies as a measurement under distorted space. Time is simply a domain for the duration of cosmological calculations to occur in such as space is a domain for physical interactions to occur in. This is why space-time is coupled: The more mass a system has the more calculations are being performed at the quark-gluon level.

An ambiguous quanta of energy fed into E=MC^2 can thus render a massive object in a discreet spacial domain where the sum quantum constituents is the mass of the object, and the amount of quantum calculations needed representing all possible communication at a quantum level is the moment of duration.

This effect is best observed when approaching a black bodied object.

As we scale (in Euclidean space) the mass of the object we subsequently scale the amount of calculations preformed at a given moment as we alter the quantum substructure of our object. Thus, a photon has practically zero drag in the degree of freedom known as time because it constitutes a system (macroscopic object) which preforms minimal quantum calculations. A black hole (which imparts space-time drag to interacting objects) experiences drag through time due to the massive amount of interactions which take place within the system at a given moment.

reply to post by swanne


Time is relative to the amount of energy left in the universe. The universe is an expanding event horizon that is relative to the speed of light. Some say it would take an infinite amount of energy to travel at the speed of light. Well, it is partially true. Infinity in this manner is like a circle (3.14159...). The diameter of the circle can change but the ratio of circumference will always be 3.14159. Our speed of light is like the measurement of the diameter of the event horizon.

You see, the speed of light changes. But we don't know it because we are traveling on its plane. This means that space and movement is not real. It is all fixed to one point. Its almost like putting a magnifying glass to your eye and, while moving with it you, you get closer and closer to your object. It appears that what you are looking at is getting bigger (our universe) but in reality its just an illusion. The speed of light would be much like measurable distance between the magnifying glass and your eye. To you it is a fixed distance, but when measured on a different plane, the axis of movement from the magnifying glass to the fixed object, the magnifying glass moves.

We are only measuring the speed of light on one of the planes. When in reality we should be measuring it to the distance from the event horizon, the membrane, that our universe exists upon.

It also gets more fun depending on whether you use special or general relativity... I know one of them allows for localization, in which case c varies based on gravity. But it also happens that t also varies on gravity, so they still manage to function as a constant, but that constant also happens to be coefficient in the ratio of distance to time. This is what allows light to curve under a gravitational field while effectively not having any mass. Such a thing also allows for "quasi-FTL", as if you approach c while traveling your trip effectively becomes shorter in terms of time such that you may as well be going FTL. If you put enough energy in, you could cut 100LY trip to 1 year on your clock even though external clocks still measure 100 years for you to get there. (It's weird if you think of it, if such theory proves true. Almost like there's a lag or overflow bug somewhere in the nature of how the universe works.)

There's also a relationship between energy, surface area, and gravity which is kind of interesting. Particularly so when gravity and time are interlinked. Most effects remain nearly unseen unless dealing with stuff like black holes.

Now if the math holds up, some interesting things can happen if it's possible for negative energy or matter to exist. Problem is nobody seems to have defined whether it's actually possible or if there's any method of doing it. I suppose it's a lot of fun if you're into mathematics, but physics and engineering have yet to catch up with what can be done on paper or in simulations under special conditions. (At least in terms of anything made public.)

Dynamike


Time is relative to the amount of energy left in the universe.

If energy cannot be created or destroyed will there not always be the same amount of energy left in the universe?

When a pulse of light interacts with an object it loses energy. This energy is absorbed by the object and radiated as infrared light (heat). The pulse of light has lost E even though entropy of the system is preserved. The light that is not absorbed by the object refracts/reflects from the objects surface. If energy from the pulse of light has decreased then wouldn't its speed also decrease? Furthermore if the pulse of light needs to interact with the object it comes in contact with in order for energy to be absorbed and refracted/reflected, then even for the smallest unit of time the pulse of light has stopped, right? If true, it's like taking a picture of a ball the very moment it comes in contact with a wall, the balls speed has changed (stopped?) for a moment. Am I correct?

reply to post by mrphilosophias


I think reflection, is the light jumping the electron into a higher energy state and then the electron immediately coming and emitting that same light it received, this is why mirrors can work (I think). So maybe when the light hits the atom it is affected in that moment but its like a buoy on water,a wave takes it up, and the buoy moves, but the wave is still able to continue after. In the case of a mirror where its a 180 degree reflection or more or 90 degrees...idk... I guess that is nothing like a buoy and more like a wall like you suggest, a ball bouncing off a wall I think that must have to do with the material structure and how the electrons are shared between the molecules, because for example a glass window, the majority of the light goes straight through, from outside into our eyes, and even vice versa if we were outside, but also as you may know a small percentage of light is something reflected off of a glass window, in the sense that sometimes you can faintly see your reflection. It is extraordinary how much light is bouncing around on earth at all moments of the day, so that you can see an outside scene out the window and also see the constant reflection that is bouncing at light speed or very near between the electrons in the glass, the light from the sun, and into your eye and brain. To really think about how much light exists around earth at each moment and to think of how fast light really is moving, think about if youve ever been on top of a mountain or seen a grand and huge view, how many atoms and electrons must be making up that view, and then how much light must be bouncing off all of them at lightspeed, all the way from your view miles away and miles left to right, all reflecting and all fitting in your eye. Pretty cool.

Hello ATS. First post and not english by default. Just wanna ask op how we can move back in space? Isn't that, as far as we know, impossible? We always travel in a positive direction. If we move in a negative direction, wouldn't we create more and more energy the more we move? And wouldn't that also be the case if we move in negativ time while not moving negativly in space? To get the motion×time right, we would have to move negativly if time is negative and we would not know that anything happened because we end back in the same place we already been, before we knew what happened?

Floke
Hello ATS. First post and not english by default. Just wanna ask op how we can move back in space? Isn't that, as far as we know, impossible?

It's moving back in time that we don't know how to do. Moving "fast forward" in time we know how to do hypothetically as in the twin paradox, but realistically we don't have spaceships that can travel at over 99% the speed of light.

Space is easy. Take two steps forward, you've moved forward in space. Take two steps back, you've moved back in space.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Energy is mass that has been excited. Much like a plucked guitar string, the excitement fights resistance. That resistance comes in the form of gravity and the Higgs field.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Yes I understand that. But imo, you just change direction, and that is not the same as moving backwards in space. You add to the total milage of your body no matter how you move, even if you for some reason run backwards all your life.

I have no education in this matter what so ever, but somthing that has been on my mind regarding why time is slower the faster you go. If we simplify our 3d to a 2d surface on a sphere and we move from A to B rather slow, we follow the curved surface. But the faster we go, the more we overcome the force that keeps us on that surface and we move in a straighter line. Thus are we moving a shorter distance but have still moved the longer distance according to those who didn't go as fast. And sence A and B are in the same place, time becomes relative?

Floke
Yes I understand that.

But imo, you just change direction, and that is not the same as moving backwards in space. You add to the total milage of your body no matter how you move, even if you for some reason run backwards all your life.

Then how do you define backwards in space? It seems you're talking about time, not space. Think of it this way. If you move 2 steps forward, you've changed position in space. The only way to get back to that location is to go backwards in space. So you take 2 steps back and you're back where you started. Your position in space is now where it was to start with. The only thing different is time. So, you're talking about time, not space. You're calling it space, but if you don't think taking 2 steps back is moving back, then you're talking about time, because yes, time moves in only one direction in our experience.

I have no education in this matter what so ever, but somthing that has been on my mind regarding why time is slower the faster you go. If we simplify our 3d to a 2d surface on a sphere and we move from A to B rather slow, we follow the curved surface. But the faster we go, the more we overcome the force that keeps us on that surface and we move in a straighter line. Thus are we moving a shorter distance but have still moved the longer distance according to those who didn't go as fast. And sence A and B are in the same place, time becomes relative?

I do know a little about relativity and there is a concept of time slowing down related to curved space-time, in the vicinity of a gravitational field. If you want to learn more about it, research Equivalence Principle which says:

The local effects of motion in a curved space (gravitation) are indistinguishable from those of an accelerated observer in flat space, without exception.

It's not exactly what you're saying but it deals with time slowing down in curved space-time, the same way that time slows down for an accelerating observer in flat space.

ImaFungi
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

I think reflection, is the light jumping the electron into a higher energy state and then the electron immediately coming and emitting that same light it received, this is why mirrors can work (I think).

Actually a mirror isn't like that. You're describing flourescence or a resonant absorption/emission "line" in an atom.

A mirror is almost exactly the opposite, not like this at all.

A mirror comes from a highly conductive surface. Which means that the outer electrons in this
material are no longer bound to atoms, they form a 'sea' of electrons which can be excited to move
back and forth with almost zero minimum force, unlike a quantum state excitation of a bound electron which requires a significant minimum energy for the state change to occur.

So, in a mirror, the incoming E&M fields make these loosely bound electrons move back and forth very easily, and because they're being accelerated, they create E&M fields of their own which happen to mostly counteract the E&M fields going deeper into the mirror, and emit corresponding "reflective" E&M fields back out at the angles known from classical physics.

If you take a standard electromagnetism course you will see the computations of all of this in one of your lectures, quantum mechanics doesn't enter into it, you have to assume though a surface of highly mobile charge carriers with a low conductivity.

It takes very complex quantum mechanical computations however to figure out from first principles why some materials work as mirrors, like silver, and others don't, like chalk. If you take as an assumption some properties in the classical domain, you don't need to worry about QM for conventional mirrors.

Think about it this way though. A mirror works for certain frequencies, say radio waves up through optical. Would it work the same way for an X-ray photon? No, it wouldn't, then you'd have to concern yourself about the QM of the photons and the atoms.

If there was a system that had no mass, or no distance, or no energy--then time could not be measured. T=0 or T=infinity. Just like your equation shows.

Arbitrageur
Then how do you define backwards in space? It seems you're talking about time, not space. Think of it this way. If you move 2 steps forward, you've changed position in space. The only way to get back to that location is to go backwards in space. So you take 2 steps back and you're back where you started. Your position in space is now where it was to start with. The only thing different is time. So, you're talking about time, not space. You're calling it space, but if you don't think taking 2 steps back is moving back, then you're talking about time, because yes, time moves in only one direction in our experience.

If you take 2 steps forward, then 2 steps back, you are not where you started, because the earth has moved a tremendous amount. This is why time and space are linked I think, because the movement of matter/energy is space and time.

Followed your process and enjoyed the escape from time in doing so, but back to

Time is anthropomorphic acuity aught affixation

Time is perceiving physical placement patterns

Time is ephiphanical elloquential embroidermentious entitletude

Time is as good explained in any form or context when it can be

Time is the only thing, that is what it is

Time is more precious than Gold

Time is traded and regretted most

Time is wasted and mourned each moment

Time is somewhere

Time is back there and up ahead and here

Time is Me

reply to post by swanne


Hello Swanne, thanks for making this thread!

My notion is probably unrelated, perception totally limited, but my stupid brain has been wondering if and how the fact, that humans are "moving" faster in space (cars, airplanes, trains, etc), is effecting the perception of time.

I wish i had more intelligence with intuition.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Sorry for not making my definition clear. I was talking about moving in a negative direction. My definition is that our 3d space is always moving in a positive direction linked with time. If I take two steps forth and then two steps back, I have walked four steps in total. I like to belive time and space are connected very strong and having negative time is like negative motion. We, as of now, can't do neither. If me move positive in negative time, we would have a negative velocity. Wouldn't that lead to an negative amount of energy needed for that action? And if I move back in time/space, how could I know that?

ImaFungi
If energy cannot be created or destroyed will there not always be the same amount of energy left in the universe?

Yes, good point. I think what Dynamike meant was working energy - the whole entropy concept.