[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 115 KB, 590x375, Deformation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4160873 No.4160873 [Reply] [Original]

Would one of /sci/'s big brains kindly explain to me, like I'm a 7 year old, why, if I travel at the speed of light, does time stop for me?

Does this mean, as I travel at the speed of light, that I can go 1,000 light years, and experience no time, so I'm immortal during the 1,000 year journey?

thanks for dumbing it down for me.

>> No.4160886

time does not stop.

>> No.4160908

>>4160873
Why would you be immortal if time stopped, exactly?

>> No.4160910

>>4160873
From what we know, If you travel at the speed of light, there is no "time". "Everything" happens at once.

>> No.4160919

>>4160873
Read somewhere that a proton is asorbed at the same time as it is emitted (from the point of its persepective)
And the only we thing we can see its a wave of electrons changing patterns in the universe of whatever.

It was the Neil Degrasse Tyson AMA on REDDIT.

>> No.4160921

>>4160873
>Would one of /sci/'s big brains kindly explain to me, like I'm a 7 year old, why, if I travel at the speed of light, does time stop for me?
Let me rephrase that question for you.
>Yo /sci/, like what if the laws of physics were broken, and I did X, then what would I see, according to the laws of physics?

>> No.4160923

>>4160921
my head just asploded.
i guess that's the answer.

>> No.4160929
File: 98 KB, 492x315, dice..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4160929

>>4160873
>If you travel at the speed of light from Point 'A' to Point 'B'

You will experince no "progression of time" when you move at the speed of light. It will appear to you as if you just "teleported" from 'A' to 'B'.

To everyone else (not traveling with you), it will appears as that at point 'A' you effectivly "froze up" then at point 'B' you "unfroze".

You are not immortal. Immortal has no meaning here.

>> No.4160966

Not OP, but a question along the same lines.

Given the oft-cited example in regard to frames of reference for an observer on earth and a spaceship pilot moving at a considerable percentage of the speed of light - why does this example not work in reverse? Does the fact that the spaceship pilot is travelling away from the observer break symmetry? Is there any reason he should biologically age less the the observer on earth, or is this merely a perceived aging (but hence an accelerated aging for the astronaut)?

>> No.4160973

>>4160929
this is OP.
so if i go the speed of light, i can teleport around the universe, essentially?
sweet!

>> No.4160974

The thing people are not explaining to you is that time has nothing to do with age. Age is the deterioration of your body as it functions every day. Our skin wrinkles due to gravity. The reason we die is because our heart gives out, and our muscles deteriorate, not because of time.

If you traveled 1,000 lightyears at the speed of light, you would die in about 100 lightyears.

On the topic of your first question, our perception is time is based on the axiom of earth's speed and roation around the sun. As you increase to a velocity greater than that of the norm, time slows down, because your relative momentum changes. Idk how to simplify it. Refer to Einstein's Theory of Relativity on Relative Motion for a more in depth analysis.

>> No.4160975

>>4160966
Time is relative.
So lets say you travel from Alpha Centauri to Earth with the speed of light.
For you, it would take 1 second, and you would age 1 second.
But for people on earth that would be 4.37 years.

>> No.4160977
File: 9 KB, 469x428, 1324198587065.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4160977

>>4160973

>> No.4160986

>>4160974
i know you are speaking english, but what you wrote is not comprehensible at the 7 year old level

>> No.4160987

>>4160975

Yeah, except for the fact that alpha centari is over 1000 light years away, so he would still die.

The sun is 8 light minutes away, so by the time the sun sends its image, we've aged 8 minutes by the time the sun's image reaches us. however, the sun has also aged 8 minutes in the passing time, so this shows that time has nothing to do with age.

>> No.4160991

>>4160986

If you can explain the Theory of Relativity to a 7 year old and have them comprehend it I will congratulate with tits.

>> No.4161001

Let's say I'm traveling really close to speed of light. Now if I want to stop the spaceship wouldn't it take thousands if not millions of years for the command to move from my brain to my hands and then some time from my hands to the computer and then some time for ship to react to it?

>> No.4161015

time and space are one. we are moving through spacetime even when standing still (time is elapsing, but your position in space is not changing) when you move through space, some of the motion through time is lost (kinda like energy). As a result, moving in any direction affects your version of time. When you come to an absolute stop (wrt to space) your time comes back to "normal".

As for the time stopping thing, I'm not sure we really know that's what would happen. For one, an object with any significant mass (say a person) would need infinite energy to get to the speed of light (which is physically impossible anyway) and the whole thing seems like maybe our understanding just isn't there yet.

>> No.4161016

>>4161001
Repeat after me - the laws of physics are independent of the net velocity of an experiment.

If you are "moving" at close to speed of light, or "not", then either way the electricity still takes the same amount of time to travel - from your perspective.

And repeat after me: There is no preferred or special perspective.

>> No.4161028

>>4161016
you sound like a physics TA

>> No.4161029
File: 92 KB, 590x775, 1323916390891.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4161029

>>4160973
Yes! It is sweet!

You will see yourself as teleporting. Only you see this though. Others may age alot during your teleports. If you "teleport" from earth to andromeda and back, thousands of years will have passes for people on earth, even though it was instantanous for you.

Anyother questions?

>> No.4161044

>>4160987
Where did you get the information Alpha Centauri is so far?
>>4160974
then this guy ignores the issue of time dilation entirely, and figures a lightyear takes a year subjective (didn't he remember the question?).
Worse, he figures our PERCEPTION of time has something to do with our quantitative label for a unit -- of course it does not, and that label has nothing whatever to do with any speeds.
Oi.
>>4161016
This was a much better response, but still didn't get it: even if the subjective time is normal, the objective time takes much longer -- his point must be that controlling a moving object is problematic. (He is correct; who wants to pilot something under those conditions?)

>> No.4161066
File: 21 KB, 340x457, albert-einstein092310.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4161066

>>4160991
Special Relativity is all about clocks.

1) No matter where I am or how I am traveling, If i look at my wristwatch, I always see the clock click at "one second per second". MY OWN CLOCK ALWAYS LOOKS NORMAL NO ME.

2) If someone else is moving in a direction different then me, at a speed differnt then me, and I catch a glimpse of there wrIstwatch, THERE CLOCK TICKS WILL SEEM ALL FUCKED UP! The clicks wont be at one second per second, In fact I will see there wristwatch click slower then mine. They will apears to be going in slowmotion from my perspective. The faster they get, the more fucked up there clock ticks will become, and the "slower" there time will tick.


WHERE ARE THESE TITS I HEARD OF?

>> No.4161073

>>4161016
>There is no preferred or special perspective

Never taken general relativity? There is one special frame that we use in general relativity, "Coordinate space".

>> No.4161104

>>4161029
>If you "teleport" from earth to andromeda and back, thousands of years will have passes for people on earth, even though it was instantanous for you.
it hurts my brain

>> No.4161113

>>4161016
No preferred perspective, but you ignored that there is still more than one perspective.

>> No.4161128

>>4161044
>even if the subjective time is normal, the objective time takes much longer
As long as you think in these terms, you are wrong.

/Again/, repeat after me: there is no preferred speed, and all the laws of physics are independent of the experiment's local "speed".

>> No.4161129

>>4161066
But you just explained the QUESTION, you didn't explain why that happens at all.

>> No.4161140

if all time is relative to the speed of the object then does that mean people who travel at high speeds frequently like pilots and couriers age more slowly than everyone else?

>> No.4161145

>>4161140
Yes, it does. Exactly that.
But, only at the fraction relative to the fraction of the speed of light they are moving, which is unimaginably small. Light is fast.

>> No.4161152

>>4161073
coordinate space is a semantic creation, used merely to make it possible to DISCUSS the issue.
Coordinate space is not a tier of real space that exists specially and from which someone could actually participate in 'ideal time' or 'ideal motion.'

>> No.4161155

>>4161140
Not quite, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
Read. Understand.

>> No.4161168

>>4161128
You are arguing that all laws of physics occur at the same rate, regardless of their motion?
Are you sure you have that right, since the whole discussion is about the opposite principle?

Here is the model we are working from: clock on Earth, clock on spaceship moving away very quickly.
The clock on the spaceship will advance LESS than the clock on Earth, because the (spaceship local) physical behavior happens more slowly.
Whether chemical, electrical, or wound, that clock's physics are different.

I thought you were just trying to explain that there was no 'perfect' or 'superior' or 'ideal' perspective that created an absolute viewing relationship -- but you are flat-out claiming all physical activity continues at the same rate in all situations -- which means time has to be moving at the same rate in all situations.

I think you got confused from a simpler statement: that all physical reactions take place in the same amount of TIME -- but time is not the same in these cases.

>> No.4161172

>>4161168
You said "subjective" vs "objective" time. That immediately makes you wrong and confused. There is no preferred passage of time, and there is no preferred speed. All experiments when performed by an observer moving at the same speed as the experiment look the same. Every time, for every speed.

>> No.4161183

>>4161168
>I thought you were just trying to explain that there was no 'perfect' or 'superior' or 'ideal' perspective that created an absolute viewing relationship -- but you are flat-out claiming all physical activity continues at the same rate in all situations -- which means time has to be moving at the same rate in all situations.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Let me try again. Imagine an experiment X, and an observer moving at 0 speed relative to the experiment X. He will observe the experiment to take some amount of time. No matter the speed of X, as long as the observer is moving the same speed as X, he sees X take the same amount of time. Always. Always always always.

There is no preferred speed. All physics is independent of plus or minuses to speed and changes of frame.

An observer moving at a different speed than X will see something different than if he is moving at the same speed as X. Again, read the Twin's Paradox entry on wiki, linked else-thread.

>> No.4161201

lol this thread reminds me of The Forever War

>> No.4161202

>>4161172
You misunderstand my usage:
I am not writing of an absolute 'subjective' and 'objective' time perspective; only using the given example, the perspective of the pilot.
For that pilot, regardless of the situation given, motion, time, name, gender -- there is always a subjective view.

Of course I know that any 'meta' discussion of the topic means there is no fundamental 'subjective' -- but we were applying it to a specific use, which means we do not have to avoid that.

In other words, I am not using a 'preferred' perspective -- i am using the NECESSARY one for this example of pilots, which is the pilot's perspective. If the word 'subjective' gives you too much trouble, use 'pilot's perspective' instead.

Why do YOU insist we cannot use such simple terms?
Did some teacher smack your hand?

>> No.4161209

you could travel across the entire universe within a human lifespan at lightspeed

>> No.4161214

>>4161202
Sorry, wasn't clear from context. Please don't use "objective" in the future, and say instead "from the perspective of X".

>> No.4161216

>>4161172
Absolutely correct.
Now, going back to any of the examples brought up:
what if there is someone _not_ moving with the experiment?

The last one given was of a pilot: does a pilot age LESS than (watch this bit) a different person who is stationary (that's the other perspective -- the one where, no matter what, you have to accept a second viewpoint).
Each of them has (even if you don't like it) a subjective perspective; nowhere did I suggest that one of them is a better perspective.

>> No.4161218

>>4161209
the universe is that small?

>> No.4161222

>>4161216
To make it simpler for me, if that pilot would regularly take rounds trips to IO at near light speeds, then yes, a clock carried with the pilot would show less time expended when brought back to Earth and compared with a clock that was kept on Earth.

Not sure if that applies to merely airplane pilots.

>> No.4161223

>>4161155
This says they age differently.
What part has you confused, the Minkowski diagram? I don't blame you; it's like trying to graph the difference and then explain it in terms of justifying the graph, which is silly. People buy that garbage just because it is different, not useful.

>> No.4161227

>>4161223
I said not quite, no, because the poster said:
>if all time is relative to the speed of the object then does that mean people who travel at high speeds frequently like pilots and couriers age more slowly than everyone else?
The goal was to emphasize that it's not the /speed/ that matters. You need to do the proper analysis. It's because of the acceleration, that one changed frames, and one did not. Saying it's because of the "speed" is a sign that you don't know what you're talking about.

>> No.4161235

>>4161218
No, he was avoiding the standard practice of using an external perspective to gauge the time:
if the pilot's time is stopped, he has forever to get anywhere.
there's a problem, though; aside from not having 'edges' for a destination, what if the universe is expanding faster than light?

And the peppered-in comments about hopping around the universe (practically applying the concept) are ignoring all the other issues, like what is moving the fanciful ship -- if this effort costs much energy, then getting so far may be of very very limited value.

>> No.4161238

>>4161214
Ah, I gotcha; the term (objective) was mostly automatic, rather than an appropriate selection.

>> No.4161251

>>4161227
Correct, changes in acceleration are relevant, not the instantaneous 'speed' . (However colloquially the term speed encompasses those concepts, it is useful to separate them for physics.)

I suggest avoiding the BS of Minkowski's 'frames' though; I don't care how much new-age hipster physicists like it, I don't see it as a help, and it what it explains best seems to be the way things look on a graph. Buzzword territory.

>> No.4161261

How much does a photon age over a year?

>> No.4161266

>>4161261
Let me clarify. How many Earth yeats does a photon age per lightyear? I'm made to believe this isn't zero and you can figure it out with Lorentz transformation. But I may be confused.

>> No.4161273

>>4161266
Are you thinking of a particle which has a complex chemical structure and undergoes internal changes as it moves?

Remember, something external to any fundamental 'particle' has to change for the photon to have _any_ kind of change. There are unfamiliar forces acting in that realm, but they aren't happening inside the photon.
Remember, some of those buggers get from very distant objects in space to us.

Gave me a humorous image of worn-out, tired and battered photons puttering around, though.

>> No.4161279

>>4161266
>>4161261
Photons don't age. Your question is ill-formed.

>> No.4161292

>>4161279
>Your question is ill-formed.

I love /sci/. You guys are so polite. Sure beats other boards where derogatory remarks rule.

>> No.4161293

>>4161266
Also, distance is relative to the observer. What is a light year for one observer is shorter for some, longer for others.

>> No.4161307

>>4160910
so really all this means in your going at a speed faster than what a clock will tick at,so thats the reason why they say time stops ?

OR is there more to it than tha

>> No.4161308

>>4161292
You are also a dumb fuck. Christian much?

>> No.4161311

>>4160929
if thats the case then if they do ever find a way we c an travel at this speed then how are we supposed to dodge or planets and stars and astroids and shit ?

>> No.4161321

>>4161307
No. Your speed has nothing to do with the rate at which "your clock ticks". You always see your clock tick normally. Your speed only affects those who arent moving with you. They see your clock as fucked up.

>> No.4161330

>>4161307
As long as you think about it in terms of "faster speed" you are going to be wrong. Again, review the twin paradox. Both twins see the other twin moving at a very high speed, relative to each other. But only one "ages" at a slower rate. Only one changes because only one accelerated, because only one changed reference frames. (Twice, actually. One to accelerate away, and once to accelerate back.)

I don't think I can explain it better than that, and you're going to get frustrated soon if not already because the questions you're asking are based on wrong suppositions, and thus meaningless.

>> No.4161333

>>4161311
The way to travel through space is not to do it at "c". All space travel can be done with speed less then "c" and continual change in acceleration. This way you can control the speed of the time you see other objects coming at you, and dodge shit that way.

You can transverse pretty much the whole universe in ~100 years at sublight speeds.

>> No.4161350

do you guys believe we will ever travel at this speed?

I cant see it ever happening my self

>> No.4161353

>>4161350
We are traveling at that speed already, for an observer in a faraway galaxy. There is no such thing as absolute rest or a preferred speed - get it through your head.

>> No.4161383

>>4161330
So isn't actually the speed that matters for time dilation, it's the change of reference frame?

>> No.4161844

>>4161383
Is that right?

>> No.4161850

>>4161353
>implying a massive object can appear to be travelling at the speed of light in any reference frame

Back to grade school with you.

>> No.4161852

Check out the twin paradox on wikipedia, it explains through a simple example why time dilation doesn't work the way many people think it does.

>> No.4161853

>>4161383
I don't know who you are replying to but time dilation is most definitely based off of the velocity you are traveling relative to the speed of light.

>> No.4161876

Photons have nothing to use to measure time.

>> No.4162087

Sunlight takes 8 minutes to reach Earth.

That is all.