How long till we can travel into the future?

[Vast]

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…

 

[photon]

We should be able to do this in about 14 years. I already went ahead and checked...

 

[Prometheus]

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…

There is only one speed in space-time, the speed of light. In this context, your question has no meaning.

In case you haven't noticed, you have been traveling into the future your entire life.

 

[Vast]

We should be able to do this in about 14 years. I already went ahead and checked...

Apparently we can do it now. :tongue2:

There is only one speed in space-time, the speed of light. In this context, your question has no meaning.

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. Therefore traveling at a relatively fast speed out in space, upon returning to Earth time should have elapsed longer than it has for you…

 

[Prometheus]

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.

Think about what you have said here. You claim that we do not need to travel at such a speed, by which I assume that you mean the speed of light.

You then provide commonly used examples that contradict what you said.

Why does the increase in motion through space lead to a decrease in motion through time? Because the speed of light is constant in space-time, and all motion in space-time is at the same speed, the speed of light.

 

[Vast]

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.

http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/relativiteit.html

 

[Prometheus]

http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/relativiteit.html

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]

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.

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]

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?

Correct.

Each of us is moving into the future, all of our lives. As well, we each move into the future at a somewhat different rate. However, the total difference over a life time is limited to years, due to the inability of people to vary sufficiently in their rate of motion through space relative to each other to gain extremely large differences in their rate of motion through time.

If a person would like to move a century or more into the future of the planet, for example, which is an entire life time, then much greater motion through space would be required. Motion near the speed of light increases this possibility.

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.

 

[Sugien]

if it is only motion that causes the perceived time dilation effect why would you need to travel into space? Could you not vibrate an object at a frequency equal to the velocity required for time dilation? In other words in the twin paradox instead of one long journey out to a distant star and back would not 10K small journeys out and back to a point 1/10th the distance away be the same as one long journey? if that is so then a vibration is the smallest of all journeys. Could you not cause an object to vibrate and a significant percentage of light? Of course for this primus it would have to be a given that the object could withstand such a sever shaking.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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]

"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]

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.

Hi, I'm new here. You just blew everything I THOUGHT I new about relativity out of the water. :surprise: But then, it has been a while since I've studied anything on it. Looks like I have some catch-up to do. 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...

 

[Vast]

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).

That’s really interesting selfAdjoint!

Not sure I understand why less hit the ground though.

 

[Vast]

"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

Sorry for the childish irritation, it’s only because I hate living in the 21st century.

And of course it’s always the present for you…

 

[Prometheus]

Where can I read more about the concept that "we are always moving through space-time at the speed of light?"

Try an introductory book on relativity or space-time.

I don't feel like I'm moving that fast. I mean, I'm only 190 lbs...heh...

Look at anything around you. Look at the buildings outside your window. Do you feel like they are in motion at all? I suspect that you do not feel like they are in motion. Yet, the Earth is in motion around the sun, the solar system is in motion through the galaxy, and the galaxy is in motion through the universe. I submit that your feelings are irrelevant when it comes to understanding rates of motion in space-time.

Look at some person walking or running. How fast is he moving? How are you even aware that he is moving? You see him. What does it mean to see him? It means that you see light that is emitted by him. How fast is his motion? He can only be moving as fast or as slow as the speed of the light. THere is only one speed in the universe, the speed of light.

The motion of light has both spatial and temporal components. The speed of light is constant in space-time. The speed of light is not constant in space or in time, but only in space-time. The speed of all objects in space-time is equal to and is dependent upon the speed of light. All of your awareness of objects in motion is through awareness of their light. All motion in space-time is subject to the motion of light. Light enables the interaction of space and time to create space-time.

 

[Enginator]

Prometheus: I have read an introductory book on relativity (Eintstein's) and Michio Kaku's Hyperspace (which is the most recent thing I've read and is admittedly a bit old now). I simply don't remember anything in there saying we are all traveling at the speed of light. My comment about not "feeling" like moving that fast had more to do with my weight than the feeling. I mean, doesn't the mass of the traveling object go to infinity at the speed of light? I don't feel infinitely heavy...close, though. I just had three pieces of cake for someone's office birthday...(yuk).

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?

 

[selfAdjoint]

In four dimensional spacetime your momentum is a vector which is the sum of two othe vectors: one of them is your three dimensional momentum and the other pints in the time direction and has length equal to your energy (in appropriate units). In your rest from, the spatial momentum is zero, but the time directed one remains, its magnitude is now your rest energy, given by mc^2, and multiplied by the speed of light. In fact that time component always has that factor of c in order to give it the same units as the space components.

The magnitude of your four momentum is a Lorentz scalar, the same in all frames. In the rest frame this is all due to the time component, but in other frames it's a sum of contributuions from time and space components. So it can be looked at that you always have a time component of momentum, which is its max when looked at from your rest frame.

This is the source of the idea that we are all moving in time at the speed of light. I believe Greene alludes to this idea in Elegant Universe.

 

[Enginator]

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?

:uhh:

 

[Prometheus]

I mean, doesn't the mass of the traveling object go to infinity at the speed of light?

This is a confusion of the context of the "speed of light". In a Newtonian sense, the speed of light is a measure of motion through space, irrespective of time. In the Newtonian context, the speed of light refers to the maximum rate of motion through space that is possible, the rate of motion through space of light. When people make this statement about mass, they are referring to motion through space at the speed of light, devoid of the time component. As an example of the prevalence of this confusion, consider subatomic particles. Subatomic particles are considered to move at the speed of light. Why, then, does the mass of each of them not go to infinity? The reason is that in relativity there is a time component, and thus that nothing but light can ever move at the Newtonian speed of light.

Do not think that the speed of light is constant, or that the speed of light is constant in space. It is not. The speed of light is constant in space-time. Everything always moves at the speed of light. I am not saying that everything always moves at the Newtonian speed of light, which is the maximum rate of motion through space. There is always a time component, such that the space component can never be 100% of the motion, what people often refer to as the speed of light, but which is only the Newtonian speed of light, wherein time is not a factor.

Now, when you say I see someone walking, I see the light "emitted" (actually reflected) by him,

Emitted, not reflected. When light hits the object of your vision, the object absorbs that light and responds by emitting light. You then observe the emitted light.

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?

No. Light enables the binding of space and time into space-time. Not only is light the enabler of space-time, but it is our only source of awareness of space-time and of motion through space-time. My point is that light is our only source of awareness of motion through space-time because light is the enabler of that motion.

 

[Enginator]

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?

:uhh:

-----Bump-----

 

[n0n]

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. so not everything is moving at the speed of light, only the forces, which is pretty fundimental. but to say everything travels the speed of light is to say nothing at all. cause you could also say, everything is collapsing invertedly. and god = all , all = all, moooo000=all; and nothing is explained.

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, and going from point A to B would be a single moment and as a single moment the mass that you were becomes streatched between the two points indefinatly as a single moment. althou the observation of the object going C is not infinite in mass because the observers are moving also, so the visable mass (testable mass) fades.

light = binding of space time?? last I checked light exists, space time is relitive only to that which exists, thierfor light cannot bind space-time, cause if light can ,so can all else. 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.

Well at least this is what makes sense to me.

 

[Doctor Z]

We are all moving at the speed of light.

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).

 

[CJames]

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?

 

[chronon]

So does light travel at the speed of light?

You could say that we travel through Minkowski spacetime at a speed of c metres (in spacetime) per second experienced. However, using this convention the speed of light is 0/0.

 

[Prometheus]

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 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.

so not everything is moving at the speed of light, only the forces, which is pretty fundimental.

You are treating the speed of light as a measure of motion through space only, which is inaccurate.

but to say everything travels the speed of light is to say nothing at all.

Nothing except that you do not understand this concept well yet.

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,

You are confusing your concept of the speed of light when you consider "infinite" mass, which obviously cannot exist.

light = binding of space time?? last I checked light exists, space time is relitive only to that which exists,

Space-time is not relative to all that exists. Space-time IS all that exists.

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.

Huh.

 

[Prometheus]

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).

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.

I don't know how well it is accepted, but I would guess that on this forum very few people accept it.

 

[Prometheus]

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?

You are using a limiting definition of speed, which nevertheless is only used as a method of describing motion through space.

 

[PRyckman]

E=mc2 did you know the c in that equation is
d=(c-v)t
t=c/v+d
v=(d+c)t
c=(dt)-v
*Note velocity is directional. light could also be c=(dt)+v depending if your looking at direction of travel or opposite your direction.

If you make velocity light speed. Then distance is zero and time is infinite(relative to someone behind the velocity)

What if infinite times zero equalled one?
Then traveling faster than light would make you exit our universe instantly and begin traveling out of a black hole from which our universe exists.

Looking behind you at the singularity you would see space that is moving away from you at the speed of light. Exiting the black hole, your speed relative to our universe would be v=(c+d)t. Relative to the new universe you are in your speed is once again v=dt or, (v=c2+d2)[root]t which would show relativity to our universe and the parent...I think...(just came up with the c2+d2)

therefor the body traveling c+1mph the distance behind it(the singularity) distance =0
and are traveling out of a black hole at one mile an hour. The reason the singularity no longer has a distance relative to you is because your traveling light speed or greater away from it. Because the space itself is moving.
Once you exit the black hole your traveling 1mph relative to the new universe.

Only at the point of singularity do you have to be going more than light speed to exit, past that you only have to go a faster than the space that is falling into it. (which to an outside viewer is greater than light speed)

 

[PRyckman]

in the equation d=(c-v)t If velocity was light then time is infinite.
zero times infinite being one. distance would equal one.

That distance would be our universe, or our singularity.
And since only mass traveling at light speed can make distance zero and time infiinite
dt=1 the one means light speed therefor in the equation
c=(dt)-v
dt is c and v is your velocity above light speed relative to the universe in which the c is relative to and looking forwards it would be c=(dt)+v
which shows that our parent universe is just like ours.
Ps I'm bad at math if i got any of the cross multiplyig wrong in the last two equations please let me know

 

[PRyckman]

and if infinite times zero equals one then
dimension=d(t)
with each variable representing a zero or infinite
and dimension representing our universe
to exit our universe out of a black hole and exit that universe out of a consecutive black hole dimension must be 2 or greater. where a value of 2 even would be absolute zero in that universe.