i saw what you did there.Daystar Clarion said:
OT:
it is more likely for time to stop when you go faster than the speed of light, which is impossible, so time stopping is impossible.
So apparently time stops at the speed of light?
- Thread starter Plazmatic
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OT:
it is more likely for time to stop when you go faster than the speed of light, which is impossible, so time stopping is impossible.
First question:Plazmatic said:
Light is treated as both a particle (Photon) and a wave and is treated as having no mass. The reason traveling at light speed is impossible is because as you approach the speed of light, the amount of energy required to move a mass approaches infinity. Since your output can never reach infinity, you can not reach the speed of light. Light bypasses this because it has no mass, so it can move at the speed of light.
Second question:
it is theoretically impossible to pass the speed of light. According to Einstein, you can approach it, but not pass it unless you're working with quantum mechanics which a whole different level of complexity.
Your thinking absolutely not relativity
think about planes when you fly from London to New York on Concorde (when it was around) it took 3 hours and the time difference is 5 hours so you arrive 2 hours before you left, but if you called your self at the air port you wouldn't be able to answer because it's relative to you.
That being said if you had 2 atomic clocks set to 00:00 then flew one around the world and one stayed at the start when it got back there would be a microsecond variance so theorticly if you flew fast enough and far enough you could go forward a few years, but not backwards.
think about planes when you fly from London to New York on Concorde (when it was around) it took 3 hours and the time difference is 5 hours so you arrive 2 hours before you left, but if you called your self at the air port you wouldn't be able to answer because it's relative to you.
That being said if you had 2 atomic clocks set to 00:00 then flew one around the world and one stayed at the start when it got back there would be a microsecond variance so theorticly if you flew fast enough and far enough you could go forward a few years, but not backwards.
You have it backwards. If you were traveling at arbitrarily close to the speed of light (I refuse to say "exactly"), you would see a billion years of events occur in the blink of an eye. Outside observers would see you frozen like a statue, rocketing through space. You would be stuck watching the universe in fast-forward until you collide into something and lose enough momentum, or until you disintegrate from proton decay.Danny Ocean said:
Apologies if somebody else already answered this.
This sounds like something a physicist said while he was drunk, and a sci-fi writer overheard him and took it as fact. Even if it were true, your personal atoms are not 14 billion years old. Electrons randomly appear and disappear all the time. No single particle is going to survive the entirety of the universe.aaronmcc said:
That's a crock. Time doesn't stop, but would appear to to someone who can both move at and perceive things at the speed of light. Since you'd be moving so damned fast, light waves would not reach you properly and thus your perception would be skewed. To everyone else, you would appear to teleport, and to you, everyone else would appear to stop, then teleport (though not very far, since only seconds would have gone by).
As far as moving faster than that, you would appear at your destination instantaneously, but would also appear to go from point A to point B (clones?), and the time that you would appear in multiple places would be equal to the amount of time for which you exceeded the speed of light. The difference in speed would only allow you to go further in the same amount of time.
As far as moving faster than that, you would appear at your destination instantaneously, but would also appear to go from point A to point B (clones?), and the time that you would appear in multiple places would be equal to the amount of time for which you exceeded the speed of light. The difference in speed would only allow you to go further in the same amount of time.
so if an object were lets say actually to become light wave and travel from point a, theoretically if said object were to suddenly become a solid mass object while nearing point b, and lets assume the object were to stay solid and in one piece and not vaporize and it's particle were not suddenly become unstable (that what would probably happen in real life if said phenomenon to occur.) would the object slowing down have enough velocity to go through point b if point b were...let's say a planet. i also what would it take for the object to massively decelerate at point b to a stop. (i'm working on a scifi game and trying to incorporate some logic even if this is theoretically impossible).
Time stops FOR YOU at the speed of light, anyone else would just see you moving at the speed of light, time would flow normally for them. Therefore, if you were to go the spped of light (which is impossible) time would stop for you. you wouldn't notice time pass, till you decellerated. but everyone else would see you move, so you arent moving instantaneously.Plazmatic said:
You can't go the speed of light because as you approach the speed of light you gain mass (yes, you become heavier) and since mass gives you more momentum, it takes more and more energy to make you gain speed. This mass grows asymptotically compared to the speed of light, ie you will never get to the speed of light just very close to it. to get to the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy which is impossible, since the universe is for all purposes finite.
Also, if you get close to the speed of light you will start to exhibit wave/particel duality (like in light and electrons and all that jazz) which means you would convert to an energy wave, and cease to be matter. You would still act sort of like matter, but sort of like a wave. This might not cause you serious problems, but it would be weird, cosidering you would now be able to reflect of things, and go right through the walls of your craft. you would also have interference problems with your own body.
Also, the best way to move faster than light would be teleportation, but we can only do that with protons and light over a couple of meters max.
You can't go faster that the speed of light (or if you can, the result is impossible to predict), the equation describing the relation between time and speed is (t-(v/c^2))/(1-sqrt(v^2/c^2) where c is the speed of light, so by going faster than the speed of light, your relative time would be an imaginary number.
You would be blind, but it wouldn't matter. It would be like you were asleep in tha fact that you wouldn't be conscious when you're going the speed of light (you wouldn't age, or breathe or anything, since nothing can happen without the passage of time)Danny Ocean said:
Who ever said that time stops at the speed of light? I believe the theory is that time slows down as you approach the speed of light. Since light is always travelling at the speed of light, it's unaffected. And time is meaningless to light particles anyway.
0 Kelvin is purely theoretical. It's impossible to get anything to it, similar to the speed of light. It's very different though, because light can go at the speed of light in a perfect vacuum, but NOTHING can be at 0 K. Energy from somewhere would radiate to it and cause the atom to start vibrating.balanovich said:
We actually do know a bit aobut what happens to atoms as they approach 0 K. They start to behave more as waves, and less as particles. Similar to how particles act when they start to approach the speed of light.
The most fundamental unit of the universe are of course the planck units. The absolutely smallest distance, energy amount and time. This basically sets out how low we can get temperatures and how fine we can divide time. (fun note, teleportation takes one planck second, and everytime something moves it goes into superposition before resolving into its new location, meaning that it existed in two places at once for an instant.)
as for the replies to my post. which i am aware reaching absolute zero is impossible is why i stated reaching it
"the only way to effectively stop would be to suspend all atomic movement.
but that presents its own challenges."
after then was a hypothetical if it was achieved or something very similar. the most likely scenario would end up with you freezing as the near stopped atoms draw heat from your body quickly killing you. similar to being submerged into liquid nitrogen.
on the other hand if you were to stop the other atoms from drawing your body heat. then you would begin to over heat, be unable to breathe or see. ending up dead all the same.
"the only way to effectively stop would be to suspend all atomic movement.
but that presents its own challenges."
after then was a hypothetical if it was achieved or something very similar. the most likely scenario would end up with you freezing as the near stopped atoms draw heat from your body quickly killing you. similar to being submerged into liquid nitrogen.
on the other hand if you were to stop the other atoms from drawing your body heat. then you would begin to over heat, be unable to breathe or see. ending up dead all the same.
As I understand it time goes slower the closer you get to the speed of light from the perspective of an external observer. It's all about reference frames. To answer your 1st question. In the case of light from stars you're confused. If the light particle was a clock travelling at c (speed of light in a vacuum) the clock would appear to have stopped. The speed of light is ALWAYS the same no matter what speed you travel. That is how Einstein arrived at the theory. It is very complex.
Actually what you describe would be instantly recognisable to a hardcore Star Trek fan as you have described the "Piccard Maneuver" where a ship warps a short distance and thus confuses an enemy's sensors into thinking there is two targets and firing on the wrong one.
Yes you would (in theory as what you describe is impossible with known physics) if you moved faster than the light that reflected off you before you moved you would "overtake it" and see yourself. It's like throwing a ball, running and catching it again.Plazmatic said:
Actually what you describe would be instantly recognisable to a hardcore Star Trek fan as you have described the "Piccard Maneuver" where a ship warps a short distance and thus confuses an enemy's sensors into thinking there is two targets and firing on the wrong one.
True. As you reach speeds closer to c your mass increases. At c you have infinite mass, and so infinite energy is required to maintain this speed (which is impossible by definition). EM radiation has no mass, and so is unaffected by this restriction.canadamus_prime said:
It's all theoretical right? so mabey all it takes to reach light speed is the correct type of bagel.
A: Time is relative.
B: Your mass will also increase as you approach the speed of light until you reach the speed of light and your mass becomes infinite. So you would need infinite energy to reach and sustain that speed, which is currently impossible and will probably stay impossible.
C: This is all theory and has yet to be proven.
B: Your mass will also increase as you approach the speed of light until you reach the speed of light and your mass becomes infinite. So you would need infinite energy to reach and sustain that speed, which is currently impossible and will probably stay impossible.
C: This is all theory and has yet to be proven.
You would be blind, but it wouldn't matter. It would be like you were asleep in tha fact that you wouldn't be conscious when you're going the speed of light (you wouldn't age, or breathe or anything, since nothing can happen without the passage of time)[/quote]Macflash said:
But why would the speed at which you are travelling affect the degeneration rates of your cells and other such things? Surely you still would age and change normally to yourself, but travelling at the speed of light makes those changes appear to others to be happening really really slowly?
Bleh. I'm tired and out-scienced. Please do respond though, I love to learn.
Time wouldn't stop at SoL velocities, it would just be your perception and reaction of your surroundings around you that would skew time so that it's moving slower (while if you're the thing moving that fast, you would perceive time moving at a regular speed, while things around you went by really quickly). And no matter how fast you move, you can't catch up with or surpass yourself--maybe the image of yourself transposed as light, kind of like a photograph with a long exposure time.
