d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Would Like Someone To Explain To Me Ftl > And Why It Can Not Work
Prev123
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 13,578
Joined: Jul 27 2010
Gold: 2,285.00
Apr 6 2011 12:55pm
Quote (djeb081292 @ Apr 6 2011 01:46pm)
Is there something supporting that formula, or is it just an accepted theory

Time dilation has definitely been witnessed, yes. Muon decay rates differ by a factor of 10 when they're moving at high velocities, and since a radioactive substance's half-life is a constant, this difference in decay rate can only be due to time dilation, i.e. the muon is experiencing 10x less time than we are.

An even cooler tidbit is that recently (as in early 2010) scientists witnessed a measurable difference in time flow in speed differences as small as 10 m/s (about 22 mph).
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5999/1630
Member
Posts: 15,374
Joined: Mar 26 2008
Gold: 8,009.00
Apr 6 2011 11:51pm
Quote (bentherdonethat @ Apr 6 2011 01:55pm)
Time dilation has definitely been witnessed, yes. Muon decay rates differ by a factor of 10 when they're moving at high velocities, and since a radioactive substance's half-life is a constant, this difference in decay rate can only be due to time dilation, i.e. the muon is experiencing 10x less time than we are.

An even cooler tidbit is that recently (as in early 2010) scientists witnessed a measurable difference in time flow in speed differences as small as 10 m/s (about 22 mph).
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5999/1630


I know the time dilation has been seen, i heard so on the moon missons all clocks were 4 min slow on the ships.
just the stuff 'shrinking' is what my mind is having a hard time accepting
Member
Posts: 9,692
Joined: Apr 10 2006
Gold: 19,597.59
Apr 7 2011 02:36pm
also keep in mind, from a photon's perpective it is 0 seconds old no matter how long it travels through space. you, travelling at 99% the speed of light have aged somewhat.
Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Sep 30 2008
Gold: 52.66
Apr 8 2011 04:21am
The relativistic factor (being (1-(v^2/c^2))^.5) is simply derived from applying Pythagoras' right angled triangle rule to different frames of reference of a single photon bouncing between two mirrors. The maths is quite simple. In the frame of reference of the mirror-photon system, the photon is bouncing directly up and down. When the system is moving at a velocity v, perpendicular to the photon movement, the photon appears to be moving in a zig zag pattern. The photon will hit each mirror at the same time regardless of the frame of reference, but cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Somehow it is travelling more distance in the same time, while not speeding up. It can do this because the distance it is travelling has been contracted.

Your OP was pretty much bang on. The relationship v = d/t does still hold, and so to keep v below a maximum constant, the length must be contracted/time dilated. They are the same phenomenon. You're asking the right questions in your OP.

In an example format: Say you travel 10 ly at half the speed of light. From the standpoint of someone back home, you travel the 10 light years in 20 years. From your perspective, you only travel for 17.3 years (relativistic factor = (sqrt0.75)), due to time dilation. But you were still travelling at .5c, so after travelling for 17.3 years you've covered 8.65 light years (17.3*0.5), which by no accident is= sqrt(0.75) * the distance as it appears from home. The length has contracted by the factor of sqrt(0.75) to keep the relationship v=d/t. This is why it is called the relativistic factor, not just the time dilation factor.

As for the speed of light to be impossible for any object with mass to reach, it is because the equation for kinetic energy, when taking into account relativistic effects, doesn't look as simple as Ek = 1/2mv^2. It looks like: Ek = mc^2/((1-(v/c)^2)^.5) - mc^2
As the velocity approaches c, the energy needed to make it go just a little bit faster increases hugely (dividing by number close to 0). You can see this from the equation quite easily. (As v->c, v/c -> 1, so 1-v/c ->0). Thus you can never accelerate any object (with mass) to light speed, as it would require infinite energy. What someone said before about it would if given enough time is wrong. To accelerate a mote of dust to close to light speed would require the entire universe, and then some, to turn into energy. To accelerate it to exactly light speed would require an amount that is by definition impossible. Photons can travel at the speed of light because they don't have any mass. Incidentally, a photon's entire travels throughout the expanse of the universe takes place in no time at all and covers no distance, from its perspective.

Edited for maths goof.

This post was edited by TIMMY213 on Apr 8 2011 04:30am
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev123
Add Reply New Topic New Poll