How faster do you age when going at the speed of light?
206 replies, posted
[QUOTE=yawmwen;19249459]Then we could make a :airquote: laser beam, and with this :airquote: laser beam, we will blow up the moon.[/QUOTE]
Sounds very reasonable! Then maybe we could make a :airquote: hyperfluxtux wormhole to :airquote: teleport into Mars!
[QUOTE=Talat112;19249639]This topic always hurts my head.
If a a person left the earth traveling at near-lightspeed, and keeps time as he normally would on earth, then returns to earth after 50 years of traveling, would more than 50 years have passed on earth?[/QUOTE]
If I'm correct this is in the eye of the perciever.
To this person (the traveler), 50 years would have passed.
A person on earth, would however say no, 50 years would not have passed according to him/her.
[QUOTE=Talat112;19249639] ...then [B]returns to earth after 50 years[/B] of traveling, would [B]more than 50 years[/B] have passed on earth?[/QUOTE]
If he/she is away for 50 years, and then returns... then yes, 50 years would have passed. HURR
[QUOTE=yawmwen;19249459]Then we could make a :airquote: laser beam, and with this :airquote: laser beam, we will blow up the moon.[/QUOTE]
That's just stupid why would we blow up the moon?
[QUOTE=Von Kluth;19249998]If he/she is away for 50 years, and then returns... then yes, 50 years would have passed. HURR[/QUOTE]
I meant after recording 50 years on his or her spaceship, which is traveling at near light speed.
[QUOTE=Justin37111;19243595]Nasa has an article on how you age slower in space, without gravity. Their astronauts that go up for 2-3 years age a lot slower. I forget their names. Oh, and one day we will find a source of energy that will let us go. If you study UFO and physics you would understand.
Negative Gravy and Positive Gravity will make us go the speed of light, we have not discovered it yet, but it is there. Read about the "Ebens" I read a 9345 page article.[/QUOTE]
So if I cover my body with gravy, I will go the speed of light?
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;19248887]You guys maybe don't get one thing - if you traveled near speed of light, you could live for hundreds of years, but only for outside observer. For you, the time would go at totally normal speed. You would live your normal life, but the outer space would look extremely sped up for you.
The point is, you would live longer for the rest of universe, but you wouldn't live longer in your own eyes. Living in fast moving vehicle in sake of longer life wouldn't help you that much, because you would have the same amount of time to live as you would have on earth, but you would spend the time much slower than the rest.[/QUOTE]
The point is that you could slow down from the speed of light and then you would be in the future.
If you achieved absolute zero velocity in space (impossible, yes) would time stop as you're experiencing it?
It depends on how fast you aged corresponding to someone who does NOT move with you.
Your eigentime stays the same. You see yourself ageing as if you won't move.
But for an external observer, who does not move with you, it looks like, your time goes slower. The lorentz-factor here is [img]http://matematicaos.codingcorner.net/cgi-bin/mimetex.cgi?\Large \frac{1}{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}[/img] where c is the (vacuum)speed of light and v your current velocity. This factor scales your time [b]relative[/b] to an observer. If your time passes with '1 second per "your local second"', then the oberservers time passes 'by 1 second per "his local second"' = 'this factor' * "your local second"'.
[editline]02:32AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Phanny;19243748]thats what e=mc^2 means![/QUOTE]
What has the energy of particle with zero velocity to do here? concerning time dilatation?
Imagine a bubble that contains a space ship, the bubble and the ship are going at 99% the speed of light. If that ship continues moving for a year, the people on the ship would age a year, as they normally would. they wouldn't experience any change in the rate of time, nor would anyone outside the bubble.
The only difference would be that people on the outside of the bubble would have aged X years more than the peple inside the bubble.
Still not got it?
You're a mong.
[QUOTE=booster;19234968]How faster would you age when traveling at 99% of the speed of light? I know that it would be pretty much impossible to make something carrying a human to go this fast but what if.
For example, If you put a baby in this and let it go for about 1 year. Would this mean that the baby had the body of a 10 year old, but the mind of an infant?[/QUOTE]
The baby would hardly age at all. To the baby, it would only seem like a few minutes or hours, depending on how fast the vehicle traveled.
It just doesn't make sense that going faster will slow down time, sure maybe it would appear that time is slowing down because it takes longer for LIGHT to hit your eyes but I doubt time is actually slowing down. In fact I highly doubt time exists physically at all.
[QUOTE=jalit;19288858]It just doesn't make sense that going faster will slow down time, sure maybe it would appear that time is slowing down because it takes longer for LIGHT to hit your eyes but I doubt time is actually slowing down. In fact I highly doubt time exists physically at all.[/QUOTE]
Time dilation has been [I]proven[/I] with the use of atomic clocks on airplanes.
So yes, it does exist.
[QUOTE=Spacetech;19239614]Isn't c supposed to be equal to the speed of light?
In [img]http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?E=mc^2}}[/img] c is a constant representing the speed of light. c is always 299,792,458 m/s in that question.
You wouldn't make it .99 if you are traveling at 99% the speed of light.[/QUOTE]
Sure. But in in relativistics, you define c = 1 to keep formulas easier.
But if you do this, you have of course make your velocities you insert in your formulars a multiple of the speed of light.
If you write v = 29979245.8 m/s or v = 0.1 c (with c = 299792458 m/s) it makes no difference if you change this constant c to 1 now. But it makes your calculations shitload easier.
In general relativity, you go even further.
You define
[list]
[*]c = 1 (speed of light)
[*]G = 1 (gravitational constant)
[*]kb = 1 (Boltzmann-constant)
[/list]
This makes formulas easy to write, because you don't have to take care of c,G or kb. The consequence is, every unit (you know) like time, energy or mass etc is now expressed by a distance.
Example: The mass of the sun is m = 2*10^33 g = 1.5 km. You can easily transform the mass to a distance using the definitions above of c,G and kb.
[editline]02:48AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=ferretsrule;19240602]So you'd age slower at the top of a skyscraper than at the bottom of it?[/QUOTE]
Yes, by scales proportional to 10^-15. This is currently not really measurable. Only by optical clocks, which are still in development - some work but aren't yet practicable. For example Sr-Optical clocks or Al+-Ion-Clocks (I work at the group of my institute which develops an optical clock using Magnesium).
So time is getting faster and faster as the universe continues to accelerate outwards?
What happens when you go above the speed of light, does time dilation continue growing?
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;19235070]If we ever discover how to go that fast. I heard somewhere that to accelerate one molecule of fuel to around the speed of light, it would require all of the molecules of fuel in the universe.[/QUOTE]
:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:
How do you think particle accelerators accelerate atomic nuclei to 99.999% the speed of light? We obviously wouldn't use chemicals to do it. A chemical rocket is limited to the speed of the expanding gasses.
@aVoN
I have a small physics question I haven't been able to find an answer(I'm no physicist), velocity is always described as being relative to something in the universe, like Earth, Sol, The Milky Way, The Local Group etc. But I thought, isn't it possible to measure the actual velocity of something relative to the universe?
Here's my idea, you get a really long pole(several km long, or longer) and on one end you attach a laser that emits a certain wavelength of light down to the pole to the other end. On the other end you attach some type of incredibly accurate photosensor. Surely, if the pole is slowly rotated to various angles and measured, the relativistic effects on the laser beam would change the wavelength very very slightly, thus enabling you to see not only what direction the pole is moving in relative to the universe(dunno if that's the right term, maybe your absolute velocity through space). So yea, would this be possible? Or am I stupid?
I don't think anyone in this thread can match aVoN
[QUOTE=Darkcoder;19293146]@aVoN
I have a small physics question I haven't been able to find an answer(I'm no physicist), velocity is always described as being relative to something in the universe, like Earth, Sol, The Milky Way, The Local Group etc. But I thought, isn't it possible to measure the actual velocity of something relative to the universe?
Here's my idea, you get a really long pole(several km long, or longer) and on one end you attach a laser that emits a certain wavelength of light down to the pole to the other end. On the other end you attach some type of incredibly accurate photosensor. Surely, if the pole is slowly rotated to various angles and measured, the relativistic effects on the laser beam would change the wavelength very very slightly, thus enabling you to see not only what direction the pole is moving in relative to the universe(dunno if that's the right term, maybe your absolute velocity through space). So yea, would this be possible? Or am I stupid?[/QUOTE]
Your absolute velocity is not relative to anything, it's how fast you are moving in space.
If you're going 5 m/s you are moving 5 meters each second. A meter is a set distance in space.
Your absolute velocity would have to include how fast the Earth is moving through space.
So basically you would measure it based on how far you moved in a set amount of time, you wouldn't need to measure light wavelengths or anything.
[QUOTE=NickFury666;19294287]Your absolute velocity is not relative to anything, it's how fast you are moving in space.
If you're going 5 m/s you are moving 5 meters each second. A meter is a set distance in space.
Your absolute velocity would have to include how fast the Earth is moving through space.
So basically you would measure it based on how far you moved in a set amount of time, you wouldn't need to measure light wavelengths or anything.[/QUOTE]
I know, but when your car moves at 10m/s it's measured relative to the ground, when a plane moves it's measured relative to the air and the ground, a boat is measured by the sea and the ground, a space craft is measured relative to Earth, this galaxy is measured relative to the local group. I've never heard of anyone trying to find the actual velocity of something relative to the universe itself, it's always relative to some other physical object and I just never understood why, or if there was some good reason as to why it has to be. Obviously it's far more intuitive to express velocities relative to something you can easily observe, and I'm not exactly sure what benefit knowing the absolute velocity of anything would be, but I've wondered this for a while.
The whole laser thing was my idea for an experiment that could be used to find the absolute velocity of the pole. Right now I'm moving at 0m/s relative to the ground but the Earth is spinning rather fast and Earth ism moving around Sol rather fast and Sol is moving around The Milky Way rather fast, and that too is moving rather fast etc etc.
The baby dies of malnutrition.
This is a dumb question, but considering that atomic clocks still lose time and aren't 100% accurate, is it right to assume that they calculated the time loss on this particular clock they experimented with?
For one teeny tiny second here, let's assume someone doesn't know what all those numbers mean.
[img]http://www.millionaireplayboy.com/mpb/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/venkman.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=booster;19235039]So if we ever discover how to go that fast, Wouldn't that mean that we would be able to travel really far without ageing?[/QUOTE]
Time machine.
[QUOTE=Sickle;19297638]Time machine.[/QUOTE]
No...
It would make you be able to go faraway without aging :eng101:
A time machine would either make you go forward or backwards in time.
[QUOTE=Darkcoder;19293146]I have a small physics question I haven't been able to find an answer(I'm no physicist), velocity is always described as being relative to something in the universe, like Earth, Sol, The Milky Way, The Local Group etc. But I thought, isn't it possible to measure the actual velocity of something relative to the universe?[/QUOTE]
There is no "absolute universe" definable. Every particle has it's own frame of reference and you can only transform between both (with a Lorentz-Transformation)
[QUOTE=Darkcoder;19293146]Here's my idea, you get a really long pole(several km long, or longer) and on one end you attach a laser that emits a certain wavelength of light down to the pole to the other end. On the other end you attach some type of incredibly accurate photosensor. Surely, if the pole is slowly rotated to various angles and measured, the relativistic effects on the laser beam would change the wavelength very very slightly, thus enabling you to see not only what direction the pole is moving in relative to the universe(dunno if that's the right term, maybe your absolute velocity through space). So yea, would this be possible? Or am I stupid?[/QUOTE]
That device you constructed has it's own frame of reference. If you move along with that device, you measure the exact same as when that device is in rest (and you too).
You only measure a (relative) difference if that thing moves and you not.
One "Rule" of Relativity is, that physics have to work the same exact way inedependant of what (inertial) frame of reference you are in. As consequence two frames of references see the other one's physics differently, if they have a relative speed to each other.
[editline]06:56PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Demopack;19294196]I don't think anyone in this thread can match aVoN[/QUOTE]
I'm not the only one here who understands physics. Just take Swebonny for example too (and others too).
Relativity. You age the same speed in your perspective, but to an outsider traveling 0mph you are aging very, very slowly.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;19295865]This is a dumb question, but considering that atomic clocks still lose time and aren't 100% accurate, is it right to assume that they calculated the time loss on this particular clock they experimented with?[/QUOTE]
Nothing is 100% accurate.
Some of the best atomic clocks by now are accurate to 10^-17 s. So in 10^17 years, they will have a mistake of 1 second. 10^17 seconds are 3.25 10^9 years (3.25 Billion years).
But the time difference they measured was much above 10^-17.
Also, the time difference they measured was (with a minimal uncertainty) the one (Special and General) Relativity predicted.
I don't know, I think you would age normally... Einstein based this time thing off of daydreaming about a clock... While moving at the speed of light and looking back at a clock face, it would appear that time is standing still because the light (or image) of the clock couldn't catch up to you so the physical image of the clock would appear to not move.
It is kind of like looking at a star and realizing that the light from that star could be 10 years old.
I doubt that "time" actually stops or slows down.
1,000,000. That's right. A thousand thousand. ten-thousand hundred. The big mill.
[QUOTE=Yahnich;19235161]That's because you actually can't say it better yourself.
What I find intriguing is that the time speediness isn't vice versa. Technically, if time goes slower when you go faster, time should go faster when you go slower, ergo, time should blitz past you if you stand completely still, yet this does not happen. Yeah I realize this only happens with extreme speeds, but still, interesting to think about.[/QUOTE]
Actually, relative to the speed of light, we're going incredibly slow, almost nothing ever ac/decelerates enough for you to notice, so you're usually going through time at around max speed.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.