Does time stop at the speed of light?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the implications of reaching the speed of light, particularly regarding time dilation, and explores the nature of matter and light in terms of dimensions and energy-mass equivalence. It includes theoretical considerations and conceptual clarifications related to special relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether time would dilate to a stop if an observer could reach the speed of light, while others assert that such a scenario is meaningless within the framework of relativity.
  • There is a discussion about the dimensionality of matter and light, with some participants proposing that matter has three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension, while light is described as having two physical dimensions (electricity and magnetism) and one temporal dimension.
  • One participant suggests that to convert matter to light, one must multiply by c², while another challenges this notion, stating that E=mc² does not imply a direct conversion from matter to light.
  • Some participants clarify that light, as a wave, can travel in three spatial dimensions, disputing the claim that it is inherently two-dimensional.
  • There are discussions about the proper time of photons, with one participant stating that photons do not age as measured by their proper time, while emphasizing that all observations depend on the observer's frame of reference.
  • One participant mentions that understanding the subtleties of special and general relativity takes time and repeated study, suggesting that terminology is important for clear communication.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of reaching the speed of light and the nature of dimensions associated with matter and light. There is no consensus on the dimensionality claims or the conversion between matter and light, indicating ongoing debate and uncertainty.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on specific interpretations of dimensionality and energy-mass relationships, which may not be universally accepted. The discussion also highlights the complexity of relativity and the importance of observer-dependent perspectives.

Yoshek
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi there,
I have a question for you pros on this site.

If an observer were to reach the speed of light, would time dilate to a stop?

Now I have another question about the nature of matter and light.

I've made this observation:
Matter has 3 physical dimensions (length, width, height) and one "movement" dimension - time
Light has 2 physical dimensions (electricity and magnetism) and one "movement" dimension - out in all directions in time. Light by nature is 2 dimensional - projections in your eye or on a screen - any image in fact - is 2 dimensional.

If you want to get from matter to light you have to multiply the matter by c^2 to get that amount of light. So you have 4d matter, 3d light... now say you want 2 dimensions (one dimension of space, one dimension of time) wouldn't you just multiply the equivalent matter by c^2^2 and then if you wanted just 1 dimensional material (no spatial dimensions and one dimension of time) you just multiply the equivalent matter by c^2^2^2, or c^8

Just been having these ideas and I've read through Einstein's special theory - still not clear on how much time would mathematically dilate if one were to actually reach light speed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A massive particle cannot accelerate to the speed of light.

A ray of light travels a path of zero proper time.

Light as a wave can travel in all three spatial dimensions, so it isn't more two dimensional than matter. But you have the right intuition about multiplying by c.

For massive particles at rest E=mc2

Light has no rest mass, but it has momentum "p", so the equation for light is E=pc.

Of course particles can have momentum too, so the full equation for massive particles is E2=(mc2)2+(pc)2.

To work out how many "c"s you need, use the idea that "c" converts between space and time, ie. ct and x have the same dimensions.
 
Yoshek said:
Hi there,
I have a question for you pros on this site.

If an observer were to reach the speed of light, would time dilate to a stop?
An observer can't so the question of what would happen is meaningless. You cannot assume a situation that cannot happen in relativity and then ask what relativity would say about that situation!

Now I have another question about the nature of matter and light.

I've made this observation:
Matter has 3 physical dimensions (length, width, height) and one "movement" dimension - time
Light has 2 physical dimensions (electricity and magnetism) and one "movement" dimension - out in all directions in time.
You are using the word "dimensions" in two different ways. The first is the standard use but I have no idea what you mean by "dimensions" in the second case.
Light by nature is 2 dimensional - projections in your eye or on a screen - any image in fact - is 2 dimensional.
No it isn't. In the first place "light" is not the same as "image". In the second place, a convex mirror will produce a "real" three dimensional image. A sculpture is a three dimensional image.

If you want to get from matter to light you have to multiply the matter by c^2 to get that amount of light.
That makes no sense at all! I guess you are referring to e= mc2. That has nothing at all to do with "get from matter to light".

So you have 4d matter, 3d light... now say you want 2 dimensions (one dimension of space, one dimension of time) wouldn't you just multiply the equivalent matter by c^2^2 and then if you wanted just 1 dimensional material (no spatial dimensions and one dimension of time) you just multiply the equivalent matter by c^2^2^2, or c^8
Multiplying one number by another number has nothing at all to do with dimensions.

Just been having these ideas and I've read through Einstein's special theory - still not clear on how much time would mathematically dilate if one were to actually reach light speed.
Odd. I would think that you would have learned very early that one can't actually reach light speed.
 
There are many subtlies with special and general relativity...it took perhaps twenty years for many of them to be uncovered and understood...so don't feel bad if some seem unclear to you yet...also it takes time to learn standard terminology so others understand you better.

After reading material two or three or in my case even more times, you'll begin to understand...

As noted by others, light moves through four dimensional spacetime. So do we: the cool part is that it can be said we all move though spacetime at the speed of light...always...this has been discussed on other threads here...


If an observer were to reach the speed of light, would time dilate to a stop?

In simple terms, yes...I would add to posts above that photons traveling at the speed of light do not age...as measured by their "proper time"...if an original photon from just after the big bang reaches an observer, it is unchanged from way back when...maybe 13B years or so! unless maybe it has been polarized or red/blue shifted a bit...but it's still the same photon...But everything in relativity depends on the observer, on their frame of reference.

If you want to get from matter to light you have to multiply the matter by c^2 to get that amount of light.

You have it backwards. via E=mc^2, if you have some energy (say light) and want to convert it to an equivalent mass, it would be M = E/c^2...so you divide an amount of energy by c^2 to see what the equivalent mass would be...

Light has kinetic energy, it has momentum, but no mass...these are relativistic, not absolute...so they,too, are observer dependent...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
Replies
60
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K