- #1
Vast
- 285
- 0
Can someone please tell me how fast we would need to travel in order to go a relatively short distance into the future? Just a matter of years really…
Vast said:Can someone please tell me how fast we would need to travel in order to go a relatively short distance into the future? Just a matter of years really…
We should be able to do this in about 14 years. I already went ahead and checked...
There is only one speed in space-time, the speed of light. In this context, your question has no meaning.
Vast said:Well again we don’t need to travel at such a speed, experiments using two clocks; one on the ground and another in a plane have shown a slight difference. The faster you travel the slower time ticks.
Time travel of the second kind works by making your time flow at a different rate that the time of someone else, so that your time keeps running slow or fast compared to the time of the other person. In this way you can slowly accumulate a time difference with others. Time travel of the second kind is possible, because there is no single universal clock that ticks at the same rate for everyone. How long something seems to be or to last depends on the circumstances of the observer, even if all of the measurements are accurate.
It follows from Einstein's Theory of Relativity (which explains the strange observations) that if you keep changing your speed for some time while your friend doesn't move, then your clock goes slower than the clock of your friend. This is called time dilation. If you make a long journey through space in a fast rocket, then your journey will take less time as measured by your accurate ship's clock than as measured by an identical clock back at home. This effect is only noticeable when speeds are reached that are close to the speed of light. In your daily life, the effect is very small. For example, if you accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) in 20 seconds and then slow down to 0 again in another 20 seconds, then you'll have remained 20 femtoseconds (0.000,000,000,000,06 seconds) younger relative to your friend who didn't move, but both of you have of course aged by about 40 seconds.
Vast said:
Prometheus said:I consider your citation excellent, because it coincides very well with what I contend.
I am now confused, however, as to the purpose of your initial posting. Did you just come upon this web page, and therefore have a better understanding of what your were seeking, or what was your purpose of your initial post? Perhaps I misunderstood your purpose.
Vast said:Actually I think I do have a better understanding of what I was seeking, and correct me if I'm wrong...
If you want to travel any significant amount of time into the future you essentially have to reach a speed close to the speed of light?
Prometheus said:Notice that the use of the phrase "speed of light" in the preceding paragraph and in your posting is confusing and misleading. There is only one speed in the universe, because everything always moves at the speed of light. The phrase as used here refers to the speed of light in a Newtonian sense, wherein the speed of light refers to motion through space only, and motion through time is ignored. Remember, the speed of light is constant in space-time, and is the only rate of motion in space-time. We are always moving through space-time at the speed of light. Motion through space and time are symmetrical. As we increase our rate of motion through space, there is a symmetrical decrease in our rate of motion through time.
selfAdjoint said:You would have to vibrate the object so the average velocity is some large fraction of c. That suggests the object should be small, and lo and behold, we have such small vibrating objects in the atoms and molecules of crystals. I don't know if this experiment has been done.
But the twin phenomenon has famously been confirmed by experiment. Muons are created 60 km up in the atmosphere by cosmic rays striking atome of oxygen at very high energies. It takes these muons at least 200 ms to reach the ground (60 km over c, a lower limit). Now the half life of a muon in its own rest frame is measured to be 1.5 microseconds, so the expected fraction that reach the ground would be (1/2)133 ~ 10-40. (you get the 133 by dividing the half life into the elapsed time). But in fact we see 1/6 of the muons! The answer of course is that the muons are traveling at a high fraction of c relative to the ground, and their time is dilated just like the traveling twin. So the arithmetic has to be done with the dilated half life time, not the muons rest frame time. (example and numbers from Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler).
Njorl said:"How long till we can travel into the future? "
Once you get there it becomes the present. This makes time traveling with the kids really irritating.
"Are we there yet?"
"NO!"
"Are we there yet?"
"NO!"
"Are we there yet?"
"NO!"
"When are we going to get to the future?"
"In one instant."
"Are we there yet?"
"NO!"
"Are we there yet?"
"NO!"
"Are we there yet?"
"NO!"
Njorl
Enginator said:Where can I read more about the concept that "we are always moving through space-time at the speed of light?"
I don't feel like I'm moving that fast. I mean, I'm only 190 lbs...heh...
Enginator said:I mean, doesn't the mass of the traveling object go to infinity at the speed of light?
Now, when you say I see someone walking, I see the light "emitted" (actually reflected) by him,
are you saying that because the only thing that I am seeing/sensing is light, then that is how fast he's moving? If so, then we are not actually talking about the movement of his mass that is at the speed of light but the light reflected off of him, right?
Enginator said:Ok, I found this (http://www.raindrop.com/text/perspective_timedist.html) which seems to explain it a little more clearly to me. Here's what I still don't understand how to reconcile.
1. How does mass fit into the vector?
2. If photons have a "0" time component in the vector, why do we see lights "go out?" Because for us, their relative time component is infinite, right?
You have made two statements, which you equate as one. The first is true, the second is false. You hand is moving at the speed of light, because everything moves at the speed of light. There is no other speed.n0n said:uhmm.. what?. I wave my hand, my hand is not going 299792458 meter/s , the energy that is a hand Ie. gravity, electromagnatizm, and heat are. but the mass of my hand is by far not going C.
You are treating the speed of light as a measure of motion through space only, which is inaccurate.so not everything is moving at the speed of light, only the forces, which is pretty fundimental.
Nothing except that you do not understand this concept well yet.but to say everything travels the speed of light is to say nothing at all.
You are confusing your concept of the speed of light when you consider "infinite" mass, which obviously cannot exist.think of infinite mass in the speed of light as so. take 2 points, A and B, now if you start at point A and instantly went the speed of light and say 100 light years latter you get to point B. mass becomes infinite because time stops for you,
Space-time is not relative to all that exists. Space-time IS all that exists.light = binding of space time?? last I checked light exists, space time is relitive only to that which exists,
Huh.space-time is best looked at like this, one can move any amount of distance within an instant and still be at the point of starting. once you add objects to referance space-time then and only then will observation of speed and distance be within a finite range.
I have read this book and the point that you make. I like it, as it fits very well with the data as I interpret it.Doctor Z said:The idea that we are all moving at the speed of light all the time through space-time is the thesis of a very good book Relativity Visualized (ISBN 093521805X, Insight Press) by professor Lewis Carrol Epstein, City College of San Francisco, retired. In the book he explains that the "force" of gravity is the result of moving (through time) through a curved space-time. Epstein's book is the only place I've seen this idea. The level of acceptance of this idea is unknown to me (this is MY question).
You are using a limiting definition of speed, which nevertheless is only used as a method of describing motion through space.CJames said:Aren't you guys all forgetting about the definition of speed? v=d/t. You can't travel at a "speed" through time, because speed is *distance* traveled within a given time. What you are trying to say is that our 4-dimensional vector through space time always has the same *magnitude*, which is different. Correct?
According to Einstein's theory of relativity, time is relative and can be affected by gravity and speed. This means that as an object moves faster or experiences stronger gravity, time will pass more slowly for that object. Therefore, by traveling at high speeds or near a strong gravitational field, one can technically travel into the future.
Theoretically, there is no limit to how far into the future we can travel. However, the amount of time that can be traveled depends on the speed and duration of the journey. For example, if one were to travel at 99% of the speed of light for 1 year, they would age 7 years, meaning they have traveled 6 years into the future.
At this time, there is no scientific evidence or theory that suggests time travel to the past is possible. However, some scientists believe that it may be possible to create a time machine that could send information or particles back in time, but not a physical object or person.
In theory, anyone can travel into the future by simply living their lives. However, traveling significant amounts of time into the future would require advanced technology and extremely high speeds, making it currently inaccessible for the average person.
There are potential consequences and dangers associated with time travel into the future, such as the possibility of creating paradoxes or altering the course of history. Additionally, traveling at high speeds or near strong gravitational fields can have physical effects on the body. Therefore, extensive research and caution would be necessary before attempting to travel into the future.