/sci/ - Science & Math

Watch the Flash and it will all be explained

>>10290613
dont kniw what u talking bout

>>10290607
time isnt real faggot its a glitch in the simulation

Physics is how it is.

Really, if you think about it, "why" questions are fundamentally flawed.
You can ask about the details of the mathematical relations involved, but it will never answer why. At least if the alternatives would be just as consistent. There's no knowing why physics is best described one way and not like an equally consistent thinkable alternative to that.

>>10290607
This is how I think about it. You and another person start at the same point in spacetime, you are traveling on the same line/path. Then, one of you accelerates away, on to a different path through space time and then the traveler turns around and accelerates back. You both started at the same point and ended at the same point but you took different paths to get there, one of you took a longer path between the same points. What you are looking at when you see someone moving really fast is someone traveling on a different path through spacetime.

>>10290607
>Why
Not math or science

>>10290680
what the fuck you on about slimebone

>>10290607
Because light speed remains always the same no matter how fast or slow the observer us going so the timespace warps. Not only time but the space too.

>>10290607

It's god's way of telling you to slow down and appreciate what you have and not run away from your problems.

>>10290607
>a unit of measurement actually exists as a thing and moves

What? Can you rephrase the question?

>>10290680
kek

>>10290661
Did you make this up?

I want some damn physiciats in here giving me some answers some math some history, not class clowns >>10290956 or assholes >>10290653.

Why the fuck dod fagstein have to come to the conclusion that time does woohoo when youre faffing about.

>>10290979
no unit of measurrment has been mentioned

>>10291099
Time is a measurement you retard.

>>10291125
if time is a thing not a measurement

>>10291208
Time is not a thing, it's a measurement...

>>10290607

because that's the way the universe works

>>10291250
a measurement of what

>>10291410
of time

>>10291429
scumbag

>>10290607
I can explain exactly "why" but it's going to be a bit hard to stay with me.

First you need to know something. Light always goes the same speed for every observer.

Normally if you drive in a car at 50 miles a second and throw a ball straight with 30 miles a second the ball will go 30 miles a second from your perspective and 80 miles an hour from an outside perspective because of the added speed from the car.

THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH LIGHT. Light emitted from the headlights of the car won't go the speed of light+50 miles an hour. It'll still go the speed of light from both the outside perspective as well as the perspective of the driver.

Okay so now that we have established that light always goes the same speed to all observers we can give you an example of a really cool thing.

Imagine there is a giant glass train that is completely transparent. And someone inside (Observer Green) is dribbling a basketball in it while standing stationary on the same place.

You (Observer Red) are standing outside of the train on a hill looking from the side so that you can see the entire length of the train when it rides past.

Look at my shitty paint drawing. For Observer Red looking from the outside the Basketball is moving in a zig-zag motion because the train is moving through space from left to right and the ball inside it is moving up and down. Meaning the net motion is a zig-zag.

However to Observer Green dribbling the ball it only goes up and down. However you can easily explain this away by just saying that the speed differs from the observer since Observer Green doesn't take into account the motion of the train and you would be correct.

However now instead of a basketball. Imagine a ray of light bouncing between 2 perfect mirrors up and down instead. Light must always move the same speed to all observers.

(1/2)

So now you Observer Red STILL sees a zig-zag movement done by the light. While Observer Green sees a straight line. As shown in the bottom of the drawing the green line is shorter than the red line. Both show the same movement the ray of light makes in one bounce.

So what the hell? For Observer Green the light traveled less distance than for Observer Red while the light was going at the same speed for both observers??? HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?

The solution is that time is experienced differently by both observers. "The universe slowed down time" for Observer Green so that for both observants light always moves at the same speed. This is your answer.

TL;DR: Time slows down for moving observers (and slows down more with more speed) because the universe has to maintain the physical law that light moves at the same speed for every observer.

You can ask "why does the universe have to maintain the same speed for every observer?" but that is a WHOLE other question.

(2/2)

>>10291462
>>10291460
nice example though the end sounds like youre doxxing God's dick.

>>10291462
do you think light moves at the same speed because its going the fastest possible speed?

>>10291666
I have no idea what you mean.

>>10291671
Yes it's actually bad to call it "The speed of light" It should have been called the speed limit of the universe instead. Everything moves at this speed at maximum. It just so happens that light is the easiest to observe so we found out the speed limit using light and so we call it "the speed of light".

So yeah you can't really speed up light for one observer because that would mean we went faster than the speed limit of the universe and thus "the universe has to find a solution" and that solution is to slow down/speed up time for certain observers instead.

I say "observer" but it has nothing to do with the actual act of observing as well some random rock going at high speed will also have time slow down for itself. Some pseudo-science people always take the "observe" too literal so I had to add this part to avoid confusion.

>>10291676
>"the universe has to find a solution" and that solution is to slow down/speed up time for certain observers instead.
this. this type of phraseology makes it seem like god is doing magic tricks tweaking things

>>10291699
There's a reason I put it in brackets. It's more like the mathematical balance has to stay the same if it can't change the distance and speed then it has to change the time to make the experiences in observation equal.

It's easier to just anthropomorphize and put brackets around it so people don't take it too serious.

>>10290680
Based pedantanon

>>10291250
>>10291410
>>10291429

This is why time does not exist. It has no properties and the explanation to it is a combination of circular logic and fallacy of reification. Things do not, cannot, and will never have the capacity to define themselves.

>>10290979
>>10290607
shifting the time-frame point costs time?

time is basically constant change or entropy, and speed of light is the limit at which change ceases to propagate, the slower one moves through space, the faster the change/entropy is ( I am not sure if thats any direction or just constant vector only or both), the closer one gets to speed of light the slower entropy becomes.

If that object happens to be conscious human then the whole slow down observation would appear. The entropy within that space the person is occupying would slow down so person's perception would also slow down (in contrast regular unaffected space still have normal rate of entropy,basically much faster going on) and therefore to slowed down perception everything outside their immediate space would appear happening much slower. This is what I learned from popular tv shows, hope this helps

>>10291838
>This is what I learned from popular tv shows
Anon...

>>10291460
>>10291462
Does this mean that if I move faster than everyone else, I will technically live longer than them?

I think that *c* is used in equations to indicate the "speed of causality". Or, the limit of how fast information can travel. This just happens to also be the speed of light in a vacuum.

>>10290607

Because you travel through time at light speed and if you move faster in space you move less through time. Time is a direction like moving in space and so your movement though time and space has to always add up to the same thing or else you break causality.

>>10291904
Yes, but only in the perspective of the people not running around.
If you have a super fast spaceship and go away for a year you will get one year older but when you come back to earth everyone else is older.

>>10292036
Still sounds like a winning deal to me. Live 100 years and stick around for 120 years technically

I understand the concept of time slowing down the faster I travel, particularly as I approach the speed of light, but if I reach the speed of light [yes, physically impossible if I have mass, but theoretically] does time stop for me?

>>10292060
yes

Thanks. So that means photons don't experience time.
Does that mean that the photon that has spent 12 billion years travelling from a distant galaxy to us experienced it as happening instantly?
Thats a bit scary because it would mean that the photon was in all the places between the galaxy and us at the same instant.
If I extrapolate that to ALL the photons in the universe....my head hurts.

>>10292094
>Thats a bit scary because it would mean that the photon was in all the places between the galaxy and us at the same instant.
thats incorrect

>>10290607
>Why does time go slower if you move quickly or whatever?
It doesnt you just PERCEIVE IT SLOWER

>>10290661
blah blah blah blah blah.............
That's how I read your post.

my thoughts you say....well good sir, let me think,, my thoughts....dude SNEED FUCK BETA KEK FAGGOT NIGGER PUSSY ASS FUCK NIGGER BIG GUY 4 YOU HE’s GoNnA SaY iT
MRS
OBAMA
A
M
A
GET THE {fuck} DOWN
NIGEYSIAKAVosks

>>10292050

It's more like time-traveling into the future than living longer.

>>10290607
Light Clocks make it obvious
https://youtu.be/js1myWkrv8Q?t=3m

>>10291809

Only an idiot would make such a pedantic point that is irrelevant to this conversation but then is still continuously peddled by this asshole

>>10292104
but these effects are imperceptible..

>>10292060
Pretty much, that is why, barring being absorbed, light will carry on forever unchanged because for it time has effectively stopped.
It also means time travel into the future is theoretically possible since if time slows down for you you age slower than everything else.
Also there's a cool effect to do with cosmic muon particles raining down on Earth. Muons have a short half life meaning out of millions of them entering the atmosphere only a few should make it to a detector without decaying. However because the muons are moving at relativistic speeds, for them time is moving slower so they decay slower, meaning we detect far more on Earth than should be possible.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html

>>10290607
Imagine a car that is on a plane comprised of 2 axed (North and East).
Suppose that car is traveling in North Eeast direction, the amount of "going East" and "going North" are represented equally *a vector 45 degrees angle to both cardinal points. Now imagine that car driving Eastwards. There is no Northern direction to speak of. Now substitute North with "Space" and East with "time". It's purely theoretical.

>>10292548
They’re very perceptible, though.

Since the 4-velocity is normalized to the speed of light, if you increase the 3-velocity then the 1-velocity (time) has to decrease to maintain the normalization of the 4-velocity. GR says the 4-velocity of every non-singular thing in the universe is always normalized to the speed of light.

If two photons hit each other, wouldn’t the collision equal the force of twice the speed of light? What if two cars were traveling the speed of light towards each other, if one car measured the speed of the other car wouldn’t it also be twice the speed of light? What if there was something traveling the speed of light and when it hits something it pushes the object to half of its energy. What if you had three of these objects hit something at the same time, would that object be faster than the speed of light?
Also does anyone know how much light it would take to push an object to half the speed of light? Would it be more or less than the light given off by the sun?

>>10290607
>time warping
Literally pseudoscience gibberish.
Go back to /x/, retard.

>>10292521
>no you're an [ad hominem]

>>10292962
>If two photons hit each other, wouldn’t the collision equal the force of twice the speed of light?
No.

>>10293213
I remember kids actually fighting over this game. Some cunt always tried to sneak two pieces down in one move by pushing them in as quickly as possible.

t. straya cunt

>>10293024
>What is special relativity

>>10293241
Explain

>>10293241
The energy required to go faster than light is infinite.

>>10293355
What makes light different in a collision compared to other objects? Go more in depth instead of just saying it can’t

>>10293024
Special relativity, General relativity.

We literally have to account for time warping with GPS receivers because the time the satellites experience is slightly off from what we on Earth experience.

>>10293418
Photons usually ignore eachother, but if they interact, there is a possibility of them performing pair production, turning into actual particles.

>>10290607
Because Einstein needed a better clock.

>>10290982
Einstein was thinking about a clock moving really fast. His clock was two opposing mirrors with light bouncing between them. As the mirrors moved faster and faster, the light had to travel further to hit the other mirror, if the mirrors reach the speed of light, the clock stops working, as the light beam can no longer bounce, and, voila, time stands still.

>>10293480
What if it were two baseball sized objects? If they were somehow protected from ripping apart at that speed, would the impact be more energetic than the speed of light?

>>10293568
>would the impact be more energetic than the speed of light
I don't get how you're comparing speed of light to energy when they don't have the same dimensions.

Speed of light seems to be same for every observer no matter how fast they move. This can happen only with special kind of space where Time and space are not absolute. If you move with speed of 0.99c, time needs to slow down significantly in order to "maintain speed of light" from your perspective.

>>10293660
Yep

>>10291460
>>10291462

>>10290607
Why does space shrink when things are far away or whatever?

>>10290607
Why does energy, namely a photon, get special status to be massless and move fast?

Hey man, you can't accelerate anything to the speed of light because it would take infinite amounts of energy.

Oh light? Yeah that shit is massless, you can create photons with very little energy btw.

What?

>>10293698
Massless photons are derived from QFT.

>>10293577
Sorry I meant if they were the speed of light

>>10293814
"If they were the speed of light", they would have infinite energy, as others have already said. You can't get infinite energy in a collision.

>>10293819
You autists keep saying the same obvious information of how it’s not possible instead of looking at in a hypothetical scenario.
My question isn’t about if they were the speed of light, it’s about if the collision would exceed the energy of one object hitting something stationary at the speed of light.
Ex. What would happen if 2 objects moving at 200,000,000m/s collided in a perfectly dead on collision. Explain your answer.

>>10293866
I said I didn't understand what you meant, and you said "if they were at the speed of light". If two massive objects collide at less than the speed of light, they have finite energy. If any massive object is "at the speed of light", it has infinite energy. If you want me to respond to what you actually meant, then post what you mean.

Let's say we have two objects weighing 1kg, traveling towards each other at equal speeds. In the center of mass frame, they are each moving at 2/3 the speed of light. The total energy of the system is about 2.4e17 Joules.

>>10292736
>if you increase the 3-velocity then the 1-velocity (time) has to decrease to maintain the normalization of the 4-velocity
This is exactly wrong.

If 3-velocity increases, the time component of the 4-velocity also has to increase in order to keep the normalization in tact.

>>10291460
>Light always goes the same speed for every observer.
Does light from a specific source have the same speed as observed by another light from a different source that moves in the same direction? And if yes, does that not create a weird paradox where both lights "observe" each other as moving faster than themselves (since, if they perceived each other as moving at the same speed, they would perceive a no speed at all), yet reaching the same points at the same time?

>>10294090
There are no legitimate reference frames moving at the speed of light.

>>10294112
Is light itself not a legitimate reference frame?

>>10294125
No. There is no rest frame for a photon.

>>10290607
It's more realistic than dropping frames.

>>10294125
Photons don’t have rest states. They go until they are gone.

why is there a fucking hard cap on speed, doesn't make any sense to me
>t. /engi/

>>10292962
e = mc2
dense motherfucker

>>10294358
Speed of light used to be infinited and there were 10 macroscopic dimensions but aliens having space wars kept reducing the dimensions to kill eachother off :^]

>>10291462
Excellent explanation.
I have an unrelated question, where did all the Kurisu posting go?

>>10293024
>I don't know how GPS satellites work.

>>10290607
Draw a lightclock in a stationary and a moving frame. Draw the path of a photon in the lightclock. Calculate the length of the path in each frame (use the pythagorean theorem for the moving frame). Then calculate the time it takes the photon to traverse that path in each frame. Note the difference.

>>10294529
is this literally the only thing fagstein did for us?

>>10290607
It just moves slower from your point of view. Kind of like when you're in a plane and you look down at the boats in a river, you can see their wake and know they're moving, but they appear to be standing still.

>>10294551
Forgot to mention that you need to assume the photon moves at the speed of light in both cases. There is no change in the speed of the photon when switching between frames.

>>10294567
If he wasn't such a pseudo-chad drowning in all that pussy we might have more. But hey, general relativity, special relativity, photoelectric effect (the only thing that gave him his Nobel prize) and other faggots shit I don't know about.
Not bad for a wannabe Chad.

>>10294612
>thinks its a surprise a pseudo chad would pave the way for gps

>>10294630
The photoelectric effect is extensively used in everyday products, same with relativity it's effects are not only visible in satellites, but also electromagnets.

>>10294630
https://youtu.be/1TKSfAkWWN0

>>10290607
Entanglement

>>10290607
Superposition

>>10290607
Tunneling

>>10293460
>the time the satellites experience is slightly off from what we on Earth experience.

If a satellite were to experience a much greater time difference like say 10 years compared to Earth. Would it disappear from our time line?

>>10294205
Didn't someone stop a photon in glass or something like it?

>>10295092
It would just need to reset its clock, if at all the satellite were still operational that far down the line. For it to skew 10 years it would be a gazillion years old.

>>10290607
kek

>>10294672
but is that stuff we couldnt have had without chadstein?

>>10293418
light is a wave, it cancels itself

>>10290638
>time is a glitch in the simulation
Imagine being this retarded, time is not a glich, faggot,>>10290653
time not being constant is the glich, you know what a simulation without time is? A fucking photo, why would you even bother simulating a stationary universe.

>>10290607
if you see the universe as a 4D space-time manifold then it's pretty simple I think, everything always moves at the same speed through space-time and you can use energy to transform some of that time motion to space motion, with the speed of light being the transformation factor

>>10295103
I know they've passed light through exotic gas atmospheres that slows the speed of light in that medium to the speed of smell.

>>10292087
>>10292570
Does it mean the moment of birth = the moment of death for photon?

If yes, does it mean, ALL photons in the Universe must be absorbed (die) sooner or later?

>>10295571

>>10295601
>does it mean, ALL photons in the Universe must be absorbed (die) sooner or later?
It can also redshift itself to near oblivion just trying to cross empty space. Since space across the universe is expanding faster than the light traveling can catch up you're going to have some photons that are just eternally traveling.

>>10290607
Read "six not-so-easy pieces", it's a book containing six lectures Richard Feynman did about vectors and special/general relativity. It's a good introduction to the subject.