Speed of Light and Energy...?

[dj357]

I'm currently working on a little theory of mine about Time Travel and I'm working on Time Dilation at the moment.

Based on the theory of relativity, time moves differently for two seperate observers in motion relative to one another, and also for two observers in different positions within a gravity well. This is the reason for the very very slight inaccuracy of GPS satellites compared to ground-based clocks.

So, forgetting ALL about entropy and thermodynamics and all that jazz for a second, can anyone tell me, if you take a spaceship infintely distant from any gravitational fields or masses, and have it move at half the speed of light, is it's mass greater than that of the spaceship at rest...?

It follows from Einstein that as you approach the speed of light your mass increases, but is this actually true? e = mc2 tells us that for an object to reach 'c', the speed of light, you need infinite mass or infinite energy, but would it be possible for light to simply be mass that exists as pure energy...?

I realise this is all a wee bit broad in a sense, but I've been working on this theory of mine for the past 5 years or more so I'd like to be sure my reasoning is correct.

[Tigger]

I'm currently working on a little theory of mine about Time Travel and I'm working on Time Dilation at the moment.

Based on the theory of relativity, time moves differently for two seperate observers in motion relative to one another, and also for two observers in different positions within a gravity well. This is the reason for the very very slight inaccuracy of GPS satellites compared to ground-based clocks.

So, forgetting ALL about entropy and thermodynamics and all that jazz for a second, can anyone tell me, if you take a spaceship infintely distant from any gravitational fields or masses, and have it move at half the speed of light, is it's mass greater than that of the spaceship at rest...?

It follows from Einstein that as you approach the speed of light your mass increases, but is this actually true? e = mc2 tells us that for an object to reach 'c', the speed of light, you need infinite mass or infinite energy, but would it be possible for light to simply be mass that exists as pure energy...?

I realise this is all a wee bit broad in a sense, but I've been working on this theory of mine for the past 5 years or more so I'd like to be sure my reasoning is correct.

You might need to expand your thoughts a little more, but basically Einstein's equation correctly explains the behaviour of matter and energy. Actually, there's another bit in the equation to do with momentum, so it's e = mc2 + "something small", but I can't remember what that is, and it's years since I did my quantum mechanics module.

[AshtonBlack]

I'm currently working on a little theory of mine about Time Travel and I'm working on Time Dilation at the moment.

Based on the theory of relativity, time moves differently for two seperate observers in motion relative to one another, and also for two observers in different positions within a gravity well. This is the reason for the very very slight inaccuracy of GPS satellites compared to ground-based clocks.

So, forgetting ALL about entropy and thermodynamics and all that jazz for a second, can anyone tell me, if you take a spaceship infintely distant from any gravitational fields or masses, and have it move at half the speed of light, is it's mass greater than that of the spaceship at rest...?

It follows from Einstein that as you approach the speed of light your mass increases, but is this actually true? e = mc2 tells us that for an object to reach 'c', the speed of light, you need infinite mass or infinite energy, but would it be possible for light to simply be mass that exists as pure energy...?

I realise this is all a wee bit broad in a sense, but I've been working on this theory of mine for the past 5 years or more so I'd like to be sure my reasoning is correct.

Can you explain the bit about mass increasing at relativistic speeds? I've not heard that one.
I get the bit about having to be either massless or have infinite energy, but I'm pretty sure mass doesn't increase.

[Tigger]

I'm currently working on a little theory of mine about Time Travel and I'm working on Time Dilation at the moment.

Based on the theory of relativity, time moves differently for two seperate observers in motion relative to one another, and also for two observers in different positions within a gravity well. This is the reason for the very very slight inaccuracy of GPS satellites compared to ground-based clocks.

So, forgetting ALL about entropy and thermodynamics and all that jazz for a second, can anyone tell me, if you take a spaceship infintely distant from any gravitational fields or masses, and have it move at half the speed of light, is it's mass greater than that of the spaceship at rest...?

It follows from Einstein that as you approach the speed of light your mass increases, but is this actually true? e = mc2 tells us that for an object to reach 'c', the speed of light, you need infinite mass or infinite energy, but would it be possible for light to simply be mass that exists as pure energy...?

I realise this is all a wee bit broad in a sense, but I've been working on this theory of mine for the past 5 years or more so I'd like to be sure my reasoning is correct.

Can you explain the bit about mass increasing at relativistic speeds? I've not heard that one.
I get the bit about having to be either massless or have infinite energy, but I'm pretty sure mass doesn't increase.

Apparently it does. As it approaches light speed, the mass of the object increases, and to achieve light speed, it must have infinite mass, that's the light barrier for you.

[dj357]

Apparently it does. As it approaches light speed, the mass of the object increases, and to achieve light speed, it must have infinite mass, that's the light barrier for you.

As far as I can tell the "extra bit" to add in the equation is the Lorentz factor which is the limiting factor which would require infinite mass or energy, but what I'm trying to get my head around is in all modern physics we have a concept of time as being universal and constant and a thing, and it differs based on frames of reference e.g. different for someone in motion relative to someone at rest. My theory is that time is simply the rate of occurences of events on the atomic and sub-atomic level. E.g. Polonium-210 has a half-life of 138.376 days but if you accelerate 5g of Polonium-210 to half the speed of light and compare how long it takes to reach 2.5grams at that speed versus the standard half-life, will you get the same value? Special Relativity is all about frames of reference and observers etc... but when you break it down into the basic elements, time does not appear to be a dimension rather it's simply the interaction of particles at the atomic and sub-atomic levels and the fields that act upon them.

Is any of this making sense?

[AshtonBlack]

I'm currently working on a little theory of mine about Time Travel and I'm working on Time Dilation at the moment.

Based on the theory of relativity, time moves differently for two seperate observers in motion relative to one another, and also for two observers in different positions within a gravity well. This is the reason for the very very slight inaccuracy of GPS satellites compared to ground-based clocks.

So, forgetting ALL about entropy and thermodynamics and all that jazz for a second, can anyone tell me, if you take a spaceship infintely distant from any gravitational fields or masses, and have it move at half the speed of light, is it's mass greater than that of the spaceship at rest...?

It follows from Einstein that as you approach the speed of light your mass increases, but is this actually true? e = mc2 tells us that for an object to reach 'c', the speed of light, you need infinite mass or infinite energy, but would it be possible for light to simply be mass that exists as pure energy...?

I realise this is all a wee bit broad in a sense, but I've been working on this theory of mine for the past 5 years or more so I'd like to be sure my reasoning is correct.

Can you explain the bit about mass increasing at relativistic speeds? I've not heard that one.
I get the bit about having to be either massless or have infinite energy, but I'm pretty sure mass doesn't increase.

Apparently it does. As it approaches light speed, the mass of the object increases, and to achieve light speed, it must have infinite mass, that's the light barrier for you.

Ahh I know why! You're talking about relativistic mass. This is the sum total quantity of energy in a body or system. I thought you meant invariant mass (the rest mass).

It was a conceptual error on my part. Yes Relativistic Mass does increase with velocity, but on the same frame of reference it doesn't.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm currently working on a little theory of mine about Time Travel and I'm working on Time Dilation at the moment.

Based on the theory of relativity, time moves differently for two seperate observers in motion relative to one another, and also for two observers in different positions within a gravity well. This is the reason for the very very slight inaccuracy of GPS satellites compared to ground-based clocks.

So, forgetting ALL about entropy and thermodynamics and all that jazz for a second, can anyone tell me, if you take a spaceship infintely distant from any gravitational fields or masses, and have it move at half the speed of light, is it's mass greater than that of the spaceship at rest...?

Mass increases as velocity increases and approaches infinite mass at the speed of light. So, yes, mass is greater if your spaceship moves.

It follows from Einstein that as you approach the speed of light your mass increases, but is this actually true?

Apparently so.

e = mc2 tells us that for an object to reach 'c', the speed of light, you need infinite mass or infinite energy, but would it be possible for light to simply be mass that exists as pure energy...?[/quote]

That doesn't make sense under Einsteinian physics. To reach the speed of light you need infinite energy to increase the speed of the mass that last little blip to reach the speed of light.

I realise this is all a wee bit broad in a sense, but I've been working on this theory of mine for the past 5 years or more so I'd like to be sure my reasoning is correct.

What's your theory?

[dj357]

What's your theory?

you'll find it above

[Coito ergo sum]

What's your theory?

you'll find it above

"My theory is that time is simply the rate of occurences of events..."

Time is a non-spatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

The slowing down of the moving clock is only true from the point of view of the local observer (on the body relatively at rest).

So, if you put a clock on mars and a clock on earth, from the point of view of an observer on Earth the clock on mars is slower. And, from the point of view of the observer on Mars the clock on Earth is also slower. i.e. time dilation.

[dj357]

"My theory is that time is simply the rate of occurences of events..."

Time is a non-spatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

The slowing down of the moving clock is only true from the point of view of the local observer (on the body relatively at rest).

So, if you put a clock on mars and a clock on earth, from the point of view of an observer on Earth the clock on mars is slower. And, from the point of view of the observer on Mars the clock on Earth is also slower. i.e. time dilation.

I understand that, but why? Since time is simply the irreversible succession of events (on the atomic and sub-atomic level) what actually causes the disparity in the clocks...?

If we take our definition of one second to be the amount of time it takes for 5g of Polonium-210 to decay into 2.5g (ignore the fact that the half-life is waaaay larger than this) what actually causes the definition of one second to change between Mars and Earth...?

[AshtonBlack]

"My theory is that time is simply the rate of occurences of events..."

Time is a non-spatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

The slowing down of the moving clock is only true from the point of view of the local observer (on the body relatively at rest).

So, if you put a clock on mars and a clock on earth, from the point of view of an observer on Earth the clock on mars is slower. And, from the point of view of the observer on Mars the clock on Earth is also slower. i.e. time dilation.

I understand that, but why? Since time is simply the irreversible succession of events (on the atomic and sub-atomic level) what actually causes the disparity in the clocks...?

If we take our definition of one second to be the amount of time it takes for 5g of Polonium-210 to decay into 2.5g (ignore the fact that the half-life is waaaay larger than this) what actually causes the definition of one second to change between Mars and Earth...?

Because you cannot distinguish between space and time. In a given gravity well in spacetime will warp not just space (gravity) but also time as seen from the outstide of that gravity well. Local, subjective time within that field remains the stable if it's at rest.

[dj357]

Because you cannot distinguish between space and time. In a given gravity well in spacetime will warp not just space (gravity) but also time as seen from the outstide of that gravity well. Local, subjective time within that field remains the stable if it's at rest.

I mean no disrespect but WTF...? What does that even mean that you cannot distinguish between space and time...? Spacetime is simply something that mathematicians have developed to understand the different frames of reference in general relativity, but if I am defining time as simply the successive occurence of events on the atomic and sub-atomic level, how could time and space be more distinct...?

Time Dilation states that the twin paradox of one twin sitting on earth while the other accelerates away at the speed of light, turns and comes back having aged significantly slower shows us that local to the slowly aged twin appeared to run normally, the fact that he aged differently tells us that time (as defined as the successive occurrence of event at the atomic and sub-atomic level) ran differently in both situations. What I want to know, is why...? Why does one twin age slower...? What effect does the increased mass at speeds approaching the speed of light have the successive occurrence of events at the atomic and sub-atomic level?

[AshtonBlack]

What I want to know, is why...? Why does one twin age slower...? What effect does the increased mass at speeds approaching the speed of light have the successive occurrence of events at the atomic and sub-atomic level?

None assuming you mean the time piece held by the twin going at relativistic speeds. To the twin holding a time piece at rest, the first twin's time piece, at the atomic level, would appear to slow.

[dj357]

What I want to know, is why...? Why does one twin age slower...? What effect does the increased mass at speeds approaching the speed of light have the successive occurrence of events at the atomic and sub-atomic level?

None assuming you mean the time piece held by the twin going at relativistic speeds. To the twin holding a time piece at rest, the first twin's time piece, at the atomic level, would appear to slow.

I'm not talking about the apparent or perceived running slow of the travelling twins clock as viewed by the resting one though. I'm talking about the slowly aged twin having come back to earth, is sitting down beside his/her far older twin and the fact being that time (as defined previously) actually ran at a slower pace for the travelled twin. What caused that...?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The twins paradox is due to one twin sitting in a gravity well (on Earth) while the other travels.

If the twins were the only matter in the universe, they would each perceive the others clock to be running slower than their own as they travelled apart and quicker than their own as they travelled back towards each other - in this case, special relativity applies and either twin can be equally assumed to be the one travelling. When reunited, the same amount of time would have passed for both.

But, because one twin is on Earth, the gravity effects of general relativity would have a bearing on things and the perceived difference in clock speeds would not be the same for each twin - hence the paradox.

That's the very simplified version. See the wiki article for a far more detailed explanation.