How Fast Are You Moving Through Time?

Started by Solitary, July 04, 2013, 08:49:59 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

AllPurposeAtheist

Don't go fucking up the space/time continuum. I don't want the special super bowl edition of the Brady Bunch meets Gilligans Island on the South Shore staring Justin Beiber or some shit like that. :evil:
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Hakurei Reimu

You know, you would probably be better served of you to just pick up a good university-level textbook on relativity (special or general) and learn the material, rather than than idly speculate about it here.

There is no reference frame that goes at the speed of light. The Lorentz transformation collapses at that speed and you cannot give every event in the local environment its own unique coordinates, so there is no physics that can be done in it.

But there's a more subtle reason: a particle cannot possess 0 total energy in any reference frame. Otherwise, they could simply bubble up by the uncountable bajillions out of the vacuum and cause all sorts of havoc. But the photon (and other particles that travel at the speed of light) has no rest mass, so if there were a legal reference frame where a photon doesn't move, then you would have a frame where photons would bubble up out of nothing and swarm the universe — because while the photon would have no energy in its own frame of reference, in others they would, so you would have a severe disagreement between the basic facts of the universe: in the photon's rest frame, the universe would be filled with an infinitely intense photon bath at all times, whereas in any earthly reference frame, intensities are more finite. You're forced to conclude that photons have no reference frame. And conveniently, they mathematically don't: there's no Lorentz transformation for v = c.

So mass-bearing particles have a non-zero rest energy, which is why in some frames you see them at rest. But that means that they always have at least a liiiitle bit more energy than a photon of the same momentum. Consequently, its 4-momentum is always at least a little bit steeper than that of a photon in any reference frame, and thus they must always be slower than light.

And that's the nitty gritty of it. A massive particle is hoisted by its own petard if it wants to go faster than light. If it had no mass at all, then it could ONLY go at the speed of light.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Seabear

Quote from: "Solitary"#-o Only with regards to space-time. We are moving through space-time when moving through it, but time would be less. Standing still with regard to it, we would be moving through time, and that would be at the speed of light, according to Einstein. Solitary

Lol, standing still in what frame of reference, exactly? The reason you cannot travel faster than the speed of light is because you can't travel slower, either. You are always moving at light speed in space-time.  Accelerating in the spatial dimensions relative to a given reference point causes time dilation between the two points. You "borrow" from the time vector when you accelerate in space. When your stop accelerating, you are effectively "at rest" with regards to your own spatial reference, and you are then traveling at light speed thru time.
"There is a saying in the scientific community, that every great scientific truth goes through three phases. First, people deny it. Second, they say it conflicts with the Bible. Third, they say they knew it all along."

- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Solitary

#18
:evil:
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Colanth

Quote from: "Solitary"Since space and time are simply different examples of dimentions, can we speak of an object's speed through time like an objects speed through space?
You move through space at the distance of one foot per foot.  (Or one inch per inch or ...)

You move through time at the speed of one second per second.

Time is not a distance, space is not a duration, and neither one is a speed.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

Solitary

Quote from: "Seabear"You are already moving thru space-time at the speed of light. Explained, with diagrams:
http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/



Time is the result of our transition outward from the Big Bang. Our transition outward from the Big Bang is independent from the spatial dimension and is occurring in a dimension that we call the time dimension.

Independent dimensions are perpendicular to each other as we see with independent spatial dimensions. We see this same perpendicularity with the time dimension.

Velocity = distance per unit of time

If you plot this you find that time is perpendicular to all spatial directions.

The rate of the transition outward from the Big Bang, time, is equal to the speed of light. The speed of light is the maximum for all transitions in the universe, including our transition in the time dimension.

The equation for the difference of position in Space-time is.

[ X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 – C^2 * T^2 ]

This equation result in a difference of position that is ( distance ). Time is converted to distance my multiplying ( time ) , seconds, by the speed of light ( C ) , distance / seconds.

The equation also indicates that we are in transition at the speed of light in the time dimension when multiplying by the speed of light results in the proper conversion to distance.
Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: "Solitary"The rate of the transition outward from the Big Bang, time, is equal to the speed of light. The speed of light is the maximum for all transitions in the universe, including our transition in the time dimension.

Solitary

I'm not sure what you had in mind with this statement and your use of the word "transitions". But for clarification, the universe is not expanding at the speed of light. If you mean by "transitions" - which is very unclear and not the usual technical language in cosmology - "signals"  then it would be correct to say that signals are transmitted at the speed of light.

Solitary

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "Solitary"The rate of the transition outward from the Big Bang, time, is equal to the speed of light. The speed of light is the maximum for all transitions in the universe, including our transition in the time dimension.

Solitary

I'm not sure what you had in mind with this statement and your use of the word "transitions". But for clarification, the universe is not expanding at the speed of light. If you mean by "transitions" - which is very unclear and not the usual technical language in cosmology - "signals"  then it would be correct to say that signals are transmitted at the speed of light.

It doesn't say that, it says the speed of time is equal to the speed of light, not the universe.
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Jesus

Time is subjective, is it not? We have clocks that measure our time, but we also have the inevitability of our aging. We have the internal clocks of our organs, and the ticking of the universe around us.
I like to appear in various forms, but my favorite is as a toast.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: "Solitary"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "Solitary"The rate of the transition outward from the Big Bang, time, is equal to the speed of light. The speed of light is the maximum for all transitions in the universe, including our transition in the time dimension.

Solitary

I'm not sure what you had in mind with this statement and your use of the word "transitions". But for clarification, the universe is not expanding at the speed of light. If you mean by "transitions" - which is very unclear and not the usual technical language in cosmology - "signals"  then it would be correct to say that signals are transmitted at the speed of light.

It doesn't say that, it says the speed of time is equal to the speed of light, not the universe.

Time doesn't travel at the speed of light but it does tick at different speed for different observers depending on how fast they are moving and how strong the gravitational field they happen to be in.

SGOS

Quote from: "stromboli"Our perception of time is experiential. At a young age we constantly encounter new experiences, so time seems to move at a slower pace. As we age those experiences diminish, so we dismiss them as occurring. In old age you tend to think back of your experiences over long segments of time, rather than as moments- all of which makes time seem to move faster. And as such, you become more aware of its passage in older age.
I heard an interesting explanation for the time acceleration we experience as we grow older:  We can only experience time based on the single reference of our personal experience of our own lifetime, which we might consider to be 1 unit.  From ages 0 to 10, we experience 1 unit.  From ages 10 to 20, we experience 1/2 of a unit.  From 20 to 30, it's a third of a unit, and so it goes for each additional 10 years of our life.

I've pondered this theory some, but I suppose not completely.  There could be a flaw in it, but I think it rather mirrors my personal experience of the phenomenon.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: "SGOS"
Quote from: "stromboli"Our perception of time is experiential. At a young age we constantly encounter new experiences, so time seems to move at a slower pace. As we age those experiences diminish, so we dismiss them as occurring. In old age you tend to think back of your experiences over long segments of time, rather than as moments- all of which makes time seem to move faster. And as such, you become more aware of its passage in older age.
I heard an interesting explanation for the time acceleration we experience as we grow older:  We can only experience time based on the single reference of our personal experience of our own lifetime, which we might consider to be 1 unit.  From ages 0 to 10, we experience 1 unit.  From ages 10 to 20, we experience 1/2 of a unit.  From 20 to 30, it's a third of a unit, and so it goes for each additional 10 years of our life.

I've pondered this theory some, but I suppose not completely.  There could be a flaw in it, but I think it rather mirrors my personal experience of the phenomenon.

 Show the math or it isn't true.

 :P

SGOS

I don't even have the energy to play with the math, let alone show it to anyone.  I'm not even sure it's true.  I just like it. :-D  :-D

Colanth

Quote from: "SGOS"I heard an interesting explanation for the time acceleration we experience as we grow older:  We can only experience time based on the single reference of our personal experience of our own lifetime, which we might consider to be 1 unit.  From ages 0 to 10, we experience 1 unit.  From ages 10 to 20, we experience 1/2 of a unit.  From 20 to 30, it's a third of a unit, and so it goes for each additional 10 years of our life.

I've pondered this theory some, but I suppose not completely.  There could be a flaw in it, but I think it rather mirrors my personal experience of the phenomenon.
That's how I've always seen it.  To a 1 hour old baby, an hour is a lifetime.  To me, an hour is a minuscule portion of a lifetime.  That, to me, is why time passes faster to an old man than to a very young child, to whom "tomorrow" seems impossibly far in the future.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

Solitary

Quote from: "Seabear"You are already moving thru space-time at the speed of light. Explained, with diagrams:
http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/


What do you mean by already?  :-?  Right! So that means we are moving through time at the speed of light when standing still also does it not ? Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.