So apparently time stops at the speed of light?

[Comma-Kazie]

This sounds more like a question for an astrophysicist than a gaming community forum . . . unless some of us ARE astrophysicists, which actually might not surprise me all that much.

*back on track*

Seriously, though, I don't think many of us here can give you a good answer beyond a layman's best guess.

 

[Frequen-Z]

We're not even gonna come close to matching the speed of light for a long time. Maybe we'll never reach it. So any speculation now is just that, speculation. And that's all it'll ever be until our history is long forgotten.

So it's not worth worrying about.

 

[Agayek]

I'm confused, if time stops at the speed of light, then how can it take any amount of time for light to reach point A to point B? For example the speed of light is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second, and it takes 8 minutes for the suns light to hit earth, and for some stars light to get to earth it takes millions, and sometimes billions of years. If time stops at the speed of light, then how come it takes time for light to reach us? It seems to make more sense that time goes very slow at the speed of light.

Moving at the speed of light does not stop time. At all. Period. Moving at, or more appropriately very near, the speed of light causes time to dilate. Which is observed through the twin paradox. Two twins are separated, one begins moving at very near the speed of light, while the other remains absolutely stationary in space (that means off Earth and away from any sort of orbit or gravity). After 50 years for the stationary twin, they are brought back together, and the twin that was moving at near-light speed has aged dramatically less than the other.

Essentially, times does not stop, but in the absolute sense it slows down significantly.

Honestly though, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, because every physicist I've talked to about the paradox claims that the light-speed movement must be relative between the two. If that's the case, then they are both moving at light speed away from each other. From the perspective of one, the other is accelerating and then moving and then decelerating to/at/from the speed of light.

Second question, theoretically, if you went faster than the speed of light you would go back in time, if you were to go faster than the speed of light, and lets say that the time it takes you to get from point A to point B is five seconds backwards in time, would you see your self before you traveled if your ending point (point B) at point B, if it was close enough ahead of your self to see (two meters ahead of your starting position for example)? (Obviously end up two meters ahead of your self at the speed of light you would not go in a straight line, you would travel far out and then back, almost make a circle, accept you would end up two meters in front of your original position when you stopped)

Theoretically, you do not go FTL. Unless there's some massive breakthrough in quantum mechanics that allows for their application at Newtonian sizes, FTL travel is quite literally impossible.

That said, if it was somehow made possible, traveling through time would not happen. Time, in and of itself, does not exist. It is wholly a measuring device we use, it has no physical presence. There is no way to travel forward or backward or sideways through time, because time doesn't really exist like that. Time is just another measurement of movement, no more and no less.

 

[MR T3D]

i would like to think that it is not unlike going at the speed of sound.
when you start going that fast, you will still intercept light wave with your eyes, but the effects would likely be trippin'

 

[Danny Ocean]

Or something. I'd ask Harbinger here bef-

ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL.

MY ATTACKS WILL TEAR YOU APART.

Light itself doesn't affect space-time, a mass moving at that speed would theoretically not see any passage of time though.

It all has to due with distorting space-time, if there is no distortion there are no relativistic effects such as the apparent stopping of ti-DIRECT INTERVENTION IS NECESSARY.

I can never see this whole harbinger thing getting boring, can you?

RELEASING CONTROL OF THIS FORM . . . no, never.

Spoiler: Nope, Never.

Hahaha that's funny

I know, right? =D

Seriously though, you seem to know your physics. You explained it very good.

Yeah you'd think so, wouldn't you? I've got a great interest in science, but maths is completely beyond me. I only took a Higher GCSE course, but I maintain an interest outside of school. So I can explain abstractions very well, but ask me to tell you the equation and I'll be flummoxed.

Thanks for the compliment, though. Means a lot.

 

[j0z]

You are correct in saying that if me or you, or a clock went at the speed of light it would seem that time was standing still. But, it makes sense when you remember that time and speed is all relative. And yes, theoretically, if you went fast than the speed of light, you would be traveling back in time.

But, it is impossible to go the speed of light because as you approach c your mass increases, and when you reach c (you can't) you will have infinite mass, and therefore you need an infinite amount of energy to move you.

Bear with me, I only did A level physics, but doesn't that only hold when a body accelerates to C? In theory, if it were possible to instantaneously change your velocity without going through all the intermediate velocites, then one could travel at the speed of light? and presumably this is what light indeed does when it goes through a different medium and comes out the other side? (I forget what material it is that makes light travel slower than walking pace but I'd probably insert something about that here)

You might be correct, I did not take a physics course, and all that I know have been self-taught. But from what I understand, and with just my common sense, I would think that if you traveled at the speed of light, when you looked at something, you would be looking into the past (like we do whenever we look at the sun or stars). But I could be wrong.

time would appear to stop. becasue you would be traveling at the same speed so no new particles of light would be entering you eyes to see with. which would render you blind. till you slowed down.

the only way to effectively stop would be to suspend all atomic movement.
but that presents its own challenges. if you somehow managed to do it. you would either freeze to death or over heat and die depending if you could interact with the surrounding atoms

Actually, the cessation of all atomic motion is impossible due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, because you would know both how fast and where the particles are at the same time, which violates the principle.

But what about at 0 K? It is defined as a temperature when all particle motion ceases (the total absence of temperature)

 

[Uberjoe19]

You are correct in saying that if me or you, or a clock went at the speed of light it would seem that time was standing still. But, it makes sense when you remember that time and speed is all relative. And yes, theoretically, if you went fast than the speed of light, you would be traveling back in time.

But, it is impossible to go the speed of light because as you approach c your mass increases, and when you reach c (you can't) you will have infinite mass, and therefore you need an infinite amount of energy to move you.

Bear with me, I only did A level physics, but doesn't that only hold when a body accelerates to C? In theory, if it were possible to instantaneously change your velocity without going through all the intermediate velocites, then one could travel at the speed of light? and presumably this is what light indeed does when it goes through a different medium and comes out the other side? (I forget what material it is that makes light travel slower than walking pace but I'd probably insert something about that here)

You might be correct, I did not take a physics course, and all that I know have been self-taught. But from what I understand, and with just my common sense, I would think that if you traveled at the speed of light, when you looked at something, you would be looking into the past (like we do whenever we look at the sun or stars). But I could be wrong.

time would appear to stop. becasue you would be traveling at the same speed so no new particles of light would be entering you eyes to see with. which would render you blind. till you slowed down.

the only way to effectively stop would be to suspend all atomic movement.
but that presents its own challenges. if you somehow managed to do it. you would either freeze to death or over heat and die depending if you could interact with the surrounding atoms

Actually, the cessation of all atomic motion is impossible due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, because you would know both how fast and where the particles are at the same time, which violates the principle.

But what about at 0 K? It is defined as a temperature when all particle motion ceases (the total absence of temperature)

Thus it is unobtainable. Even at such low energies, the fabric of space itself has energy that moves the particles preventing one from ever reaching absolute zero.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

this is not how physics work.

And if you travel at the speed of light, a five-pound tungsten brick is required. Once lightspeed is achieved, pineapples made of magnesium appear.

No one knows why.

 

[aaronmcc]

ok so here is a simple answer for you. sound does not stop at the speed of light. Light travels faster than sound, therefore, if you were travelling at the speed of light the sound could never reach you, assuming you are travelling away from it.

theoretically if you went faster than the speed of light...? unfortunately, that IS impossible.

/thread

 

[Plazmatic]

Yes. If you were somehow travelling at the speed of light time would appear to you to have stopped. Everyone else looking at you would be all like "How the fuck is he going at C?!"

Oh, I see. It's because light can travel in waves, and waves don't have mass. That's why waves are the only things that can travel at the speed of light. E=MC[sup]2[/sup] and all that means that it's impossible to reach it anyway. The faster you go the more energy you need to make you go faster. You can never get there. You can get damn close, but never there.

It's like walking half way from point A to B. Then half again. Then half again. Then half again. And each time it requires significantly more energy to halve the distance between you and B. You'll never get there. No matter how much energy you have.

Or something. I'd ask Harbinger here bef-

ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL.

MY ATTACKS WILL TEAR YOU APART.

Hey cant you go faster than the speed of light (or atleast get to one place to another faster than light) though entanglement, (which, i think, is using one atom to affect another, which, if we can get the atom to do the same thing, we may be on our way to teleportation, see ending of half life 2, were Dr. Breen tries to get away using an entanglement device) or folding the universe to get from one place to another, (Wormholes)

I guess we cant really go faster than the speed of light, but we can get to places faster, possibly.

http://calitreview.com/51

and


WE ARE YOUR GENETIC DESTINY

 

[aaronmcc]

Bear with me, I only did A level physics, but doesn't that only hold when a body accelerates to C? In theory, if it were possible to instantaneously change your velocity without going through all the intermediate velocites, then one could travel at the speed of light? and presumably this is what light indeed does when it goes through a different medium and comes out the other side? (I forget what material it is that makes light travel slower than walking pace but I'd probably insert something about that here)

light has wave/particle duality. you do not.

 

[Uberjoe19]

ok so here is a simple answer for you. sound does not stop at the speed of light. Light travels faster than sound, therefore, if you were travelling at the speed of light the sound could never reach you, assuming you are travelling away from it.

theoretically if you went faster than the speed of light...? unfortunately, that IS impossible.

/thread

Excuse me, but when did sound ever come up in this thread? We were discussing light, a duality of particles and waves that carries energy from one end of the Universe to the other.

 

[Tharwen]

If you travel at the speed of light, light can't catch up with you, so you can't see anything new. Because of this, it appears to you that time has stopped (because you can't see anything new happening).

If you look at something, then travel away from it faster than the light coming from it can travel, you could overtake this light, then see it again after you slow down. This would require faster-than-light travel to be possible, though, and it isn't (assuming wormholes don't exist).

 

[Shoes]

So let me get this straight time doesnt stop when you go that fast? Or does it? I'm confused can one of you smart guys tell me what we've learned from this whole th-I KNOW YOU FEEL THIS

 

[Scorp123]

Here's something interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYmdgHyCF_Q

 

[Flying-Emu]

Time stops for no man (wave?)

/end philosophy.

 

[Danny Ocean]

I guess we cant really go faster than the speed of light, but we can get to places faster, possibly.

Yeah. You're not actually travelling at the speed of light. That's like saying instant teleportation is travelling at the speed of light. It has the same practical benefits, though.

If you travel at the speed of light, light can't catch up with you, so you can't see anything new. Because of this, it appears to you that time has stopped (because you can't see anything new happening).

I think you might go blind. If we're talking about the human eye I vaguely remember the chemical reactions are reliant on photons knocking around sub-atomic particles. If you and light are moving at the same speed, those light particles have effectively stopped. There will no longer be any impacting your retina, so all will be black as your eyes aren't sensing any light.

Just throwing that out there.

Phototransduction [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phototransduction].

 

[p3t3r]

time only stops for the person traveling at the speed of light. to you it would like you just left

 

[aaronmcc]

SNIP

Hey cant you go faster than the speed of light (or atleast get to one place to another faster than light) though entanglement, (which, i think, is using one atom to affect another, which, if we can get the atom to do the same thing, we may be on our way to teleportation, see ending of half life 2, were Dr. Breen tries to get away using an entanglement device) or folding the universe to get from one place to another, (Wormholes)

I guess we cant really go faster than the speed of light, but we can get to places faster, possibly.

and


WE ARE YOUR GENETIC DESTINY

you may have a point here but it's not useful. the entanglement comes from separating two halves of a whole quantum particle. it can't actually be applied to a person.