• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

A question about light speed, time travel and understanding relativity.

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you think something is incorrect, please show me, with math and diagrams, why and how. Then please notify Einstein.
If you travel at a speed very close to c the difference is negligible.
This is incorrect.
I would say one being impossible is quite a difference.

If you want math, put v=c in Einstein's special relativity equations and you'll end dividing by zero.
edit: One thing I struggle with is trying to understand how, when the Lorentz factor increases (due to velocity), the duration of time is slower. I just can't comprehend that when a factor y (such that y > 1) gets bigger, how we experience time slows down (gets smaller?). Maybe I don't understand what Δt ' and Δt  are?
Δt is an interval between two events, Δt ' is how that interval will be measured by an observer.
And yes, as v grows closer to c, so would Δt ', but what it means in practical terms is that events will seem like they're taking longer, which looks like time is slowing down (if you need help visualizing this, think of a clock, and think of Δt  as the time it takes the second hand to move one notch).
 
primer.jpg
 
This is incorrect.
I would say one being impossible is quite a difference.

If you want math, put v=c in Einstein's special relativity equations and you'll end dividing by zero.

Δt is an interval between two events, Δt ' is how that interval will be measured by an observer.
And yes, as v grows closer to c, so would Δt ', but what it means in practical terms is that events will seem like they're taking longer, which looks like time is slowing down (if you need help visualizing this, think of a clock, and think of Δt  as the time it takes the second hand to move one notch).

Ah, that definitely clears it up. Thanks a bunch. I'm off to create time travel now.
 
This has always been one of my theoretical thoughts....


If you were traveling faster than the speed of sound and yelled several words and then stopped immediately just ahead of where you shouted you would hear your own words catch up.

If you were traveling faster than the speed of light and were able to stop immediately then would you not see an image of yourself approaching?

It gets iffy talking about traveling faster than the speed of light, so let's not try to pretend that we can. What we can point out are some fascinating points about how it LOOKS to accelerate towards the speed of light. Imagine looking at a square straight on. You are looking at the center, and your head is in line with the center. Now, if you're moving at a high speed towards that square, it won't look like a square for long. The center of the edges of the square lie closer to your eyes than the four corners of the square. That means that when some photons from the corners hit your eye, they're from a perspective of being "further away" since they're further from your eyes, and the photons have to travel a longer distance. This will smooth out the corners and make the square more circular like.

There's also some completely ridiculous things that happens when you travel fast (let's say around 0.9c) - you can "look around corners".

If you're talking about someone on a spaceship and a stationary observer (or Earth), then the person on the spaceship traveling at a high speed (relative to the observer), is the one that experiences time dilation. His clock slows compared to the observer's clock. When he returns to Earth, his clock will be behind.

If you look at it from the point of the traveler, his clock stays at the same rate, and the clock on Earth has sped up.

The relative velocity being +v or -v depending on the reference frame does not mean that both experience the same time dilation.
What causes the dilation traveling through spacetime. Regardless of perspective, Earth is traveling through space at the typical Earth speed and time on Earth flows at typical Earth time. Regardless of perspective, the (near) lightspeed traveler is traveling through space faster than Earth, and is thus traveling through time slower than Earth is.

You're suggesting that the traveler can say "Hey, Earth is just moving away from me at v, so should have a slower clock when it gets back to me." just as people on Earth say "Hey, the traveler is just moving away from Earth at v, so should have a slower clock when he gets back to Earth.".

This is wrong. The actual travel through the fabric of spacetime, from a Universal (or outside, fixed) reference frame is what causes the dilation. Flipping reference frames doesn't make the relative effect go away or apply to the other side as well. Only the people on Earth can make that statement.

We've done this. We've flown atomic clocks and they've come back slow (or fast, depending on East/West travel). A plane clock and an Earth clock don't experience the same time dilation. Time dilation is caused by traveling though space, not traveling relative to an observer. The measurable effect of time dilation is always expressed as relative between the two parties - a traveler would think Earth's clock sped up and Earth would think the traveler's clock slowed down - or an outside observer. This is because we don't have a Universal reference frame that grids everything to the fabric of spacetime.

The keyword here was "special relativity". There's no "universal reference frame" and I bet that is what Chichikov was trying to point out to you. The thing that differs reference frames is acceleration.
 
That movie is so good. My friend sat me down to watch this without telling me anything about it, and I'm glad he didn't.
Same here, had no clue what it was about other than it being a sci-fi movie. I'm happy every time I see that poster posted by someone on gaf; can't be recommended enough.
 
This has always been one of my theoretical thoughts....


If you were traveling faster than the speed of sound and yelled several words and then stopped immediately just ahead of where you shouted you would hear your own words catch up.

If you were traveling faster than the speed of light and were able to stop immediately then would you not see an image of yourself approaching?
I'm going to attempt to appear smart and be corrected by actually smarter people later.

1: If we ignore the fact you would of basically vaporised by travelling at the speed of sound, then it still wouldn't work. If you are going faster than the speed of sound and you yell out words then they won't leave your mouth. They can't move forward as the air carrying the sound is being shot backwards way faster than they are coming out your mouth. In fact to even open your mouth at such speed would force air into your lungs at an alarming rate forcing your lungs and probably skin to burst. Like trying to breath out through your nose when you stick your head out of a car window pointing your nostrils, or mouth, towards the front when the car going fast. You can't.

Important to note that the speed of sound isn't the speed that all sounds travel. The speed of sound is the fastest sound can travel, in air at least. (I may be wrong here)

FUN FACT: The crack of a whip is a mini sonic boom caused by the end of the whip travelling faster than the speed of sound.

2. Probably very wrong here. Again ignoring the fact you would be vaporised by crashing into particles and/or dead in the vacuum of space then I believe you would see yourself turning up in reverse. The first thing you would see is the light reflecting off you just before you stopped travelling faster than light (and instantly had turned round), then next you would see the light a spilt second before you stopped travelling faster than the speed of light, etc etc, so you would infact watch yourself arriving being 'played' backwards

Summary assuming you are alive reaching these speeds:
1. No because you couldn't make a yell noise travelling faster than the speed of sound
2. No, you would see yourself arriving 'played' backwards

TL:DR
No to both questions
 
WRONG.
If you travel at the speed of light you will not age. Time will not affect you. You will travel 40 light years instantly from your perspective.

An outside, stationary (relative to you) observer will see you traveling at c, and 40 ly / c = 40 years. They will experience 40 years in the time it takes for you to travel 40 ly.
I am a (undergraduate) physicist and he is right.

You will travel 40 ly instantaneously from your perspective.

Of course it doesn't make any sense because it is not something we will ever be able to experience.

What? Who said that travel at light speed is always instantaneous? So you're saying that if you're traveling at light speed, traveling an inch takes the same amount of time as traveling x, where x is any length? That makes zero sense.
 
What? Who said that travel at light speed is always instantaneous? So you're saying that if you're traveling at light speed, traveling an inch takes the same amount of time as traveling x, where x is any length? That makes zero sense.
For the person travelling it, yes, for someone observing them travel that distance, no
 
For the person travelling it, yes, for someone observing them travel that distance, no

Why? What's so special about light speed that everywhere you go seems like it's instantaneous? Is it because time ceases to exist at that speed?
 
If you travel at the speed of light time stops for you. It wouldn't take 80 years, it wouldn't take 40 years, it would take exactly 0 time from when you reached c until you reached your destination. Of course, your destination will probably just be some particle you crash into, destroying you spectacularly, but oh well.

I think I'm starting to wrap my head around this. Where I'm still quite hazy is what we were talking about earlier - 0.99c. How long does it appear to take for someone in a spaceship to travel across the universe at 0.99c, from their perspective?


This is a great film.
 
Calm down GAF... These topics are out of your scope.
I know you're just being a dick for laughs, but special relativity is really not that complicated.
A high school graduate with a moderate knack for math should be able to get a really solid understanding of it if he puts his mind to it.
And that's the beauty of it.
 
I think I'm starting to wrap my head around this. Where I'm still quite hazy is what we were talking about earlier - 0.99c. How long does it appear to take for someone in a spaceship to travel across the universe at 0.99c, from their perspective?

Well, just to reiterate, you can never actually reach the speed of light, but you can approach it. As you approach ever closer to the speed of light, the effects of relativity scale upwards. Here is where I throw out the disclaimer that it has been a few years since I messed with the equations for special relativity, so I am very rusty on the exact specifics. As I recall however, at even 99% of the speed of light, they are not necessarily as pronounced as some might think. You are moving very fast, and the relativistic effects are pronounced, but you are not even close to crossing the universe in a human lifetime. However, as you get even closer to the speed of light, say 99.99999999% of the speed of light, the relativistic effects (dilation of time, increase of mass, and shortening of linear distance) continue to ramp up at an extremely rapid rate. Theoretically, while you can't ever reach the speed of light, you can get as close to it as you need to for any given journey. That said, this is just theoretically speaking. There is a practical limitation brought about by the absolutely astronomical energy requirements to get up to that kind of speed. However, even mild relativistic effects from 70% the speed of light could shave a perceptible amount of time off of an interstellar journey.

Sorry I can't give any specific answers. I would need to spend a couple days refreshing my memory and atrophied math skills.
 
I know you're just being dick for laughs, but special relativity is really not that complicated.
A high school graduate with a moderate knack for math should be able to get a really solid understanding of it if he puts his mind to it.
And that's the beauty of it.

Agreed. Relativity was mind-bending, but had some of the easiest math of any topic in my physics 3 course.
 
Agreed. Relativity was mind-bending, but had some of the easiest math of any topic in my physics 3 course.

Heck, rocket science is more mathematically complicated. Or just factoring air resistance into falling body problems, as far as I recall. It was E&M (electricity and magnetism) that made me chicken out of getting a physics major.
 
Agreed. Relativity was mind-bending, but had some of the easiest math of any topic in my physics 3 course.

Well, special relativity's math is pretty easy, but general relativity's math is freaking tensor calculus.


--
Also, lets not forget that with time dilation comes length contraction, that makes everything easier to picture.
 
Same here, had no clue what it was about other than it being a sci-fi movie. I'm happy every time I see that poster posted by someone on gaf; can't be recommended enough.

Yup, watched it blind because it looked interesting on Netflix. Now one of my favorite sci-fi movies.
 
I've always imagined relativity by imagining a 2D graph, with "space" on one axis and "time" on another, with a vector of length c on it, representing your speed. If you're stationary, your speed vector is parallel to the "time" axis, and if you're moving at c in space, your speed vector is parallel to the "space" axis.

It's not the most rigorous model, but I read it somewhere (on GAF, I think, actually), and it helps visualize how time dilation works.
 
I recommend reading this article:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html

EDIT:

WRONG.
If you travel at the speed of light you will not age. Time will not affect you. You will travel 40 light years instantly from your perspective.

An outside, stationary (relative to you) observer will see you traveling at c, and 40 ly / c = 40 years. They will experience 40 years in the time it takes for you to travel 40 ly.

^+1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom