/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 7 KB, 379x311, 1299911866032.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 01:17:42 2011 No.2955744 [Reply] [Original]

So if traveling at the speed of light makes time stop, theoretically, does that mean that traveling at any speed whatsoever makes time run slower than if you were stationary, by even the most minuscule fraction?

So if I'm traveling in a car at 100kms an hour for several hours, will time have gone slower inside the car than outside it, and will I have aged less than someone outide the car standing stationary?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 01:26:42 2011 No.2955793 bamp this should be easy right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 01:34:42 2011 No.2955810 yes but it only works if you are travelling in a line not in a circle path

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 01:38:42 2011 No.2955817 Google the "Twin Paradox".

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 01:39:42 2011 No.2955821

It doesn't work that way.
If you aren't accelerating, i.e. in an inertial fram (diving 100kmh or standing around at the road) then everything will be as usual.
furthermore your own time with respect to yourself is always normal. you never see yourself move slow or fast. what is different is the time of things moving relatively to you.
so yes, if you're diving in a car, then everything around you will have it's own time (proper time) and if you then turn around and go back to the place where you started (i.e. you drive from your cat in your house to your school and back to the cat) then your cat will have grown more older than you.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 01:40:42 2011 No.2955835
File: 211 KB, 1336x2000, cutey_Emma_eyeprime1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

so yes, if you're diving in a car, then everything around you will have it's own time (proper time) and if you then turn around and go back to the place where you started (i.e. you drive from your cat in your house to your school and back to the cat) then your cat will have grown more older than you.

btw. driving around for serveral hours or 2 minutes makes no real difference since when you drive at constant speed (relative velocity to the road) then nothing interesting happens. the interesting things happen when you change the intertial frame, i.e. when you accelerate (start, turn around, stop)

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 01:45:42 2011 No.2955850 File: 15 KB, 400x320, jelly.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Doesn't matter because when traveling as fast as 1-2% of the speed of light you're a steaming pile of mush, even behind a 30 meter lead wall. Picture related

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 01:45:42 2011 No.2955851 It depends on what you're traveling relative to. Just running in circles at the speed of light means nothing.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 01:45:42 2011 No.2955853

yup, just divide by gamma and that's how much you've aged in the same time interval

so, let's say you do go at 100km/hr (like in your car) for 10 hours straight. (we're trying to be slightly realistic here)

gamma (i'll call it g) is defined as:
g = 1/ sqrt( 1 - (v/c)^2 ),
where c is the speed of light, and v is your speed.

doing this, you get a staggering g of:
1.0000000000001111111111111234568

so instead of aging 10 hours, you age:
10/1.0000000000001111111111111234568 =
9.9999999999988888888888888888889

holy moses, you're like a god, why are you not exploiting this RIGHT NOW?!?

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 01:48:42 2011 No.2955870

The short answer is that you and your car have aged slightly slower than the world around it. I mean if you drove at 100 km/s (faster than you described) for a year, you and your car would have experienced the passage of 365 days but the world around would have experienced the passage of 365.0000203 days (extremely small difference).

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 05:41:42 2011 No.2956633 >>2955835 implying my cat isn't chasing mice at 200mph when I'm out of the house.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 05:49:42 2011 No.2956657 >>2955850 hey my name is daniel :D

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 05:54:42 2011 No.2956665

>>2955850
of course it matters. Let's say you are running a chemical experiment with molecules that will break apart in 1 minute, but you need 1:15 to transfer them to some other container. Solution: accelerate them close to the speed of light, time dilates for them and they don't break up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 05:55:42 2011 No.2956668 File: 28 KB, 630x592, 1285098536574.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 06:36:42 2011 No.2956757

Pardon me for being such a noob (highschoolfag here), but does this time dilation affect say our biological or chemical aging processes too? Because from what I've gathered the only 'aging' occuing is in relation to what we've made and called 'proper time'?
Thanks /sci/

>>	Anonymous !wM5G0xiB/Q Wed Apr 27 07:00:42 2011 No.2956833 >>2956757 Yes. There is no difference between iron and our biology on physical level. They are still atoms.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 09:46:42 2011 No.2957299 >>2956665 The forces and time necessary to get them to that speed make your idea totally ludicrous.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]