Theory of Relativity Question? (I think)

[kerrywins]

As an object moves closer and closer to the speed of light...does time slow down for that object?

[htuttle]

1. Do you have an exam coming up?

All the physics questions. :)

Anyway, time would slow for that object RELATIVE to the rest of the universe traveling slower. Anything on the object wouldn't notice anything, except perhaps everyone else appearing to speed up.

They'd get much more massive as well, so the fast the object would go, the harder it would be to change course (if we're talking about a controllable object, like a spaceship).

I think the main reason for the speed of light 'speed limit' in our physics, is that the math says that once you actually reach the speed of light, you are so massive you are everywhere in the universe, or something like that. The equations fall apart, in any case.

[kerrywins]

3. hehe...no...I was just reading a book

at my brothers house...
so, at the speed of light...does time stand still?
like when light moves from one place to another...does time stand still relative to the light? or is it just really slow?

[Endangered Specie]

6. If you could travel at light speed...

Time would appear to accelerate around you at an infinite pace.

Only trouble is, that requires infinite energy and your mass will be infinite, try to blame that on MCDonalds.

[kerrywins]

7. someone must know this....

...

[TroubleMan]

4. Also, if you could somehow go faster than the speed of light....

you would go backwards in time.

Theoretically, there are particles that do this called tachyons. However, nobody's ever recorded one, so it's just conjuncture.

[guitar man]

13. Hmmm

I thought they had been recorded. While they are no chart-toppers, I'm pretty sure The Tachyions put out a CD a couple years ago.

(ba da boom!)

[Richard D]

2. R

Time stays the same for that object, but it slows way down in comparrison to everything else. So if you were approaching the speed of light, you would not notice a difference in the passage of time. But when you returned to where you started, a whole lot of time will have passed for those who stayed behind. This is a common theme in Specualtive fiction.

[Endangered Specie]

5. If outpost S is stationary, and starship C is approaching light speed...

From S's point of view, people on C will be moving in slow motion.
and from C's point of view, people on S will be moving in fast foward.


Think of it as though you are always moving through space-time at 1.0 using this equation:

1.0 = c^2+t^2 where C is the fraction of light speed you are moving at, and T is a "time multiplyer" which compares your rate of time to an object stationary (0 c) (and their time multiplyer is 1.0.)

[slutticus]

8. But if you are using a warp field to travel..

...then you're actually warping space-time around you, thus you can move faster that the speed of light without requiring an infinite amount of energy.

:P

[VelmaD]

9. Geek!

:P

It's cool though...geeks ROCK!

P.S. Check your pm

[Endangered Specie]

12. but, but, hes right

:vulcanhandsplit:

[TroubleMan]

10. time is relative depending on your speed

maybe that's the answer he's looking for.


Same thing with velocity. Your car might be going 55 mph relative the the road, but how fast is the earth spinning, then add the rotation of the earth, then you can figure in the rotation of the solar system around the galaxy, and you can factor in that our galaxy and those in our local supercluster are headed really fast toward some supermassive black hole called "The Great Attractor".....then factor in that the universe is expanding.

From each different perspective (on the ground, from outside the planet, outside the solar system, outside the galaxy) your going faster or slower. It's all realtive. It's the same with time.

[slutticus]

11. Yes.

As one accelerates, time slows down (called "time dilation") with respect to the rest of the Universe (or any other stationary reference frame).

Another interesting effect is gravitational time dilation. The clocks on satellites actually have to be adjusted so that they can be in sync with the clocks here on earth, because the earths gravitational field causes time dilation. In other words, the clocks on earth seem to run slower than the clocks on the satellites.

[Mike Niendorff]

14. secondary issue: contraction of distances

Thinking back onto Physics 123, I remember that, as an object's speed increases toward relativistic velocities, distances contract (from that object's point of view).

So, if you're trying to make an object "turn" along a particular curved path, the radius of that curve should also become tighter and tighter (from the object's point of view), due to distance-contraction.

It seems to me that this is another way to look at the increase-in-mass issue, because the relativistic effect (geometric) adds to the force required to deflect that object along a curved path, due to the contraction of the path itself. The Newtonian model would not predict this, because distance-contraction is not a part of that model.

To the real physics gurus out there:

Would I be correct in thinking that what appears in one reference-frame (the fast-moving object's) as distance-contraction is the same thing that appears as mass-increase in an "observer's" reference-frame? Or do I just need to brush up on my college physics a bit?

Either way, this stuff fascinates the hell out of me :)


MDN