1) Either you have some serious English-spelling issues or I've been outside the news for a while (What are particals??).
2) If those particles do last a few seconds, wouldn't they "travel in time" (whatever this means to you)?
3) I'm particularly curious: why have you limited your "insights" to massless particles? This assumption seems to come from nowhere and have no use in your previous reasoning.
4) "so that the space is twise as fast as earth time" - moving space. Interesting concept.
5) "What partical is it?" - And you ask me?
6) What would be the "standard rate"?
7)"If the particals traveled only through space and not time or through time at a different rate to us then the earth partical would tarvel a greater distance than the space partical." Brilliant. Too bad that people have already thought of this and have done experiments with mesons, showing that Einstein's ideas (not yours) are correct. And they didn't even need a space-based particle accelerator!
I acknowledge I'm not very smart so either you are a genius or you should stop watching TV.
Movement through space at < c always involves movement through time, and there is plenty to be argued about whether or not a photon "experiences" the passage of time. I don't really see what you're getting at here... at all.
@nismaratwork: That's exactly my point.
Although I'm still puzzled by the expression "movement throught time" - I haven't studied much relativity, so I don't know if that is a valid wording.
s1c0's post makes no sense to me.
Consider a particle's 4-velocity in Minkowski space... it's moving not just in 3 spatial dimensions, but a temporal dimension. This is the reason that the world-line for a regularly orbiting body is helical, and not circular. We're always moving through time.
(1) Use the quote function, not the primitive @ key.
(2) Don't be so offensive in your responses. Different levels of understanding are present (and welcome, from what I've see) on this forum.
I understood what was meant by "movement through time". But I didn't know if it were a valid expression.
I think your "idea" has already been tested... 10,000 times/minute on every square meter of the earth's surface.
Space and time is flexible, the speed of light is the same for all observers, according to Albert Einstein’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity" [Broken].
sorry for the bad spelling im dyslexic, google search "did you mean" can only help me so much. :( sorry about the post since its already been done. just thought since im not going to uni it could be something for someone to think about. I gues I should leave the thinking for you smart guys :P
No worries, mate, never leave the thinking to others... we are all "wise guys" in some way or another...
Nah, don't be self-deprecating; you've asked a good question that puzzles many people who are not deeply into physics. That you haven't fully grasped instantly doesn't say anything about your intelligence, it just means there is more explaining to be done on our part. If you can specify where the problem is for you, it will make it easier for the rest of us to explain the problem, but that also requires you to think.
I wasnt really asking a question :P. However looking over my own thoughts I think this might better explain my ideas. Lets say that time in space1 (the space with stars and planets :P) is the "nomal" time (time is never faster than this in the example) and we will be observing everthing in the example from space1. So now time dialation is making everything around the earth slower than us. All i was saying is that for a partical traveling through space2(3 dimensional space) and not time (or through time at a different rate to us)then in 1 second in space1"normal time" the partical could travel x meters. Now if it travels through the time dialated space for 1 second "earth time"(would be more observed from space) the partical would travel a greater disrance than x meters.
sorry about any non- physicsy phrases " time dialated space " im not sure how to word some of the stuff.
This is just a thought about stuff. im not trying to disprove or prove anything.
This spreed sheet shows the numbers if the dialated space was twise as slow. It also shows the numbers for a normal partical(object is probley a better word).
I think I know what you are saying... If we on earth, with our gravitational slowed down clock, are looking at a particle in space for 1 "earth-second" it would travel 1 meter.
And in space, with a faster clock, we are looking at the same particle for 1 "space-second", it must naturally have traveled < 1 meter, because there is less time for the particle to move.
This is what you mean?
This is a tricky question... can anybody do the math, please...
But we can make it "simple", and say that your particle is a photon, always traveling at the speed of light. Then we can see that when observer A on earth is looking at the photon moving in space for one second, it will travel 299 792 458 meters.
And observer B in space, looking at the same photon for one second, it will also travel 299 792 458 meters...!?
Solution: Observer A & B have different opinions not only on what constitutes one second, they also have different opinions on what constitutes one meter. And since we know that observer A on earth has a slower clock, he must also have a shorter meter... gravity not only affects clocks, it bends space!
(This must be checked by a real pro so that I’m not telling you the wrong thing! )
I think the "time dilated space" would be referred to as a time dilated inertial frame, or better yet, just a moving inertial frame (moving relative to the observer).
But anyway, I had a funny thought reading through this. I don't know if this is what you were imagining but this is what I pictured when I thought of moving through space not time:
If you think of time as a straight arrow, this "timeless" particle would be moving perpendicular to this arrow. In a relativistic space-time diagram this would appear as a horizontal line. Now, this would clearly indicate it is moving faster than the speed of light and in fact to be completely horizontal it would need to be moving infinitely fast. So let's just sweep those complications under the rug for a bit.
Now, something was mentioned about this being a possible mechanism for particles that appear and disappear rapidly and perhaps randomly? I think that if it never moved through any interval of time, it would be undetectable because even if we directly crossed its path in space as we move though time the intersection would occur for such an infinitesimal period of time that it would be essentially nonexistent (unless perhaps the particle also had a sort of "temporal width" in the sense that one part of it existed say one second in the future compared to the other end of it).
If it were moving slightly through time (but still faster than c) then there is chance it may share a short period of space and time with us slow-pokes, seeming to appear then vanish. I want to go think about this more carefully but at first glance I think trying to following this particle may even result in it appearing to have a "dotted line" movement; hopping through space and time.
I may just be thinking this because of a short paper I read in the "independent research" forum which demonstrated how the results of the single/double slit experiments for single quanta can be theoretically modeled by assuming that the particle is moving in discrete hops which are the length of its deBroglie wavelength (and never using a wave description). So I find it exciting to think of something which may justify the assumption that instead of particles moving in waves, we are actually seeing single discrete objects hoping around somehow.
But either way, I believe the whole topic of "faster than light" particles has been thoroughly explored. If I'm not mistaken these were called tachions and they proved to be very inconsistent and messy to work with in theoretical calculations. So chances are it will be hard to shed light on anything new here, but then again you never know what small detail might have been missed!
No question that something lying outside of the light-cone (purely space-like for all observers) would be impossible to detect.
Separate names with a comma.