|
|
Post by MoonageDaydream on Mar 19, 2005 20:41:48 GMT -5
*chuckles silently*
|
|
|
|
Post by donniedarkorules on Mar 20, 2005 14:51:01 GMT -5
YAUUUUGHHHHH!
[glow=red,2,300]*HEAD EXPLODES DUE TO HCE*[/glow]
(look it up, it's a real condition)
|
|
|
|
Post by mright on Apr 29, 2005 18:43:45 GMT -5
some theries say that if you were travleing light speed time would stop.. or be non exsistance... yup.... i think wat you heard is referring to the fact that relative to us a beam of light that could have been created in the big bang (or if u dnt believe in big bang theory "was created years n years ago") |
|
|
|
Post by mright on Apr 29, 2005 18:45:31 GMT -5
ooops never finished my post ^^^^^^^
that that beam of light is zero years old and zero days hours minutes,
because time is dependant on velocity...... which is the concept u need to grasp
|
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on Apr 29, 2005 21:23:21 GMT -5
There is a modify button in your post that you can click in order to well modify your post....
Also, I thought time was not fully dependant on speed, it is just relatively affected by the speed of the object......
|
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Apr 29, 2005 22:01:51 GMT -5
Nice catch Mad. Speed is definately a more accurate term than velocity in this case - it shouldn't matter which direction the light is travelling.
I'm also pretty sure that local reletivistic time dilation doesn't apply to light itself, because it has zero mass, and a non zero mass is required to curve/warp spacetime.
Also, if no (sujective) time passed for light itself, then once emitted light would be immune to any causal effects, rendering events such as reflection, refraction and absorption impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on Apr 29, 2005 22:21:33 GMT -5
Nice catch Mad. Speed is definately a more accurate term than velocity in this case - it shouldn't matter which direction the light is travelling. I'm also pretty sure that local reletivistic time dilation doesn't apply to light itself, because it has zero mass, and a non zero mass is required to curve/warp spacetime. Also, if no (sujective) time passed for light itself, then once emitted light would be immune to any causal effects, rendering events such as reflection, refraction and absorption impossible. Thanks for that... 1. But doesn't light have a natural mass, because it is a particle. (It might be an extremly small particle and the mass might be insignificantly small, but it is still is matter, hence it posses a mass). 2. I am kinda getting your last phrase on light and how if time had no effect on light itself it "would become immune to any casual effect". I get how those events happen and how the interaction between the light particles/waves and the matter works, but how would time affect the interaction between them? |
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Apr 30, 2005 5:41:54 GMT -5
1. Light has no mass - it's pure energy. Light sometimes has partical like behaviour thanks to wave/partical duality.
If light had mass it wouldn't be able to travel at the speed of light...!
2. THe best way to demsontrate the idea is this: Get a ball. Bounce it off a wall and catch it. Now do it in 0 seconds. You can't - every 'event' or interaction requires some time to occur no matter how small - so what I'm saying re light in mright's post is that if no time passes for light itself, any interactions that light has must occur in zero (local) time.
|
|
|
|
Post by m right on Apr 30, 2005 6:22:18 GMT -5
yea tis hard to get ur head around that no mass concept!!! ya havta start entering into string theory to explain that one, or else ponder that we cant measure its mass because it occurs in a diff dimension. thats pretty much the accepted view on gravitons and other "weightless particles" (accepted view by string theorists). and its not conclusive that u need a non zero mass to warp space time .... alot of this area is extremely fuzzy. you have to get down to wat exactly is mass?? back in the newtonian era this question had a simple answer, but now its open to debeat. inertia my ass
and let me clarify my previous post, the time dilation (since u seem to like that word) is so large for photons, that the age of a photon as we see it (relative to us) is zero. ie light cannot age. i am not saying that time(as we know it) doesnt pass while light is moving... it does !!! simply (distance / speed of light) but the photons dont get "older" in terms of what we humans would regard aging.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Apr 30, 2005 6:56:56 GMT -5
I understood your post ok - when I was talking of no time passing I am talking relative to the light (from the light's point of view if you will).
My point is that, if this as you say, how can light ever change? It is widely held now that there is a minimum period of time for any event to occur (it's been dubbed the Planck time scale to reflect the similarity to the better known fundamental minimum Planck length), so if no 'light time' passes no event can affect it...
'Time dilation' is a direct effect of the warping of spacetime. So if light causes a great enough degree of time dilation that no subjective time passes for the light, then the conclusion must be that every photon results in a singularity - which doesn't work...
|
|
|
|
Post by mright on Apr 30, 2005 12:15:38 GMT -5
firstly, no wat im saying doesnt require every proton to result in a singularity
ok in string theory..... the universe would be composed of eleven dimensions..(people keep adding in more, but when i did my thesis this was the case),four dimensions of visible space-time that we all know and percieve... seven space dimensions, twisted in spaces of Calabi-Yau.
"In the dimension of time, the photon does not age. At the speed of the light, time ceases passing " (Brian Greene 2000). <--- one of my favourite string theorists.........
and
ok so time = fourth dimension. The orientation past > future disappears for the photon. Asymmetry past > future is the only parameter distinguishing space dimensions from temporal dimension. This asymmetry, denied by Stephen W. Hawking is affirmed by Roger Penrose (1996). If asymmetry disappears from the concept of time, nothing distinguishes any more temporal dimension from a space dimension. A recent experiment confirmed the asymmetry of time in the strange elementary particles (PLEAR 1998). The temporalist model results from the assumption of the fundamental asymmetry of time.
this last para was taken from a website.. its fair to say that the asymmetry of time would be widely accepted and it would take more than a message board and a simple equation to prove this to you...
i can send on some research papers if u want big joe...
otherwise u gonna havta believe the superior mind in the arguement....
have u heard of light clocks... i suppose i could explain it that way, that they slow down infinitely... but ill have to think about it...
i hope im clearing this up for u.... u should read brian greenes book. its very good,
|
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on Apr 30, 2005 12:38:07 GMT -5
i can send on some research papers if u want big joe... otherwise u gonna havta believe the superior mind in the arguement.... I am sorry, and hopefully nobody gets insulted by my following comments: It's seems to me that you (mright) are just randomly googling some relevant information on the matter of this post... copieng and pasting, scanning and randomly spitting out some of the phrases in order for you to look smart... I am not a relatively high authority in this subject, specially due to my lack of further knowledge in this subject. But it seems to me that if you were actually to be a "superior mind in this subject" that you would at least worry about spelling and grammar.... Or at least present the information in a bit more formal/organized format and not try to muddle it up around trieng to sound smart... Add to all of this the fact that you couldn't proporly differintiate between the role of velocity/speed in time relativity. There is also an odious air of arrogance and superiority in your post which I am not very cormftable with.. I know that I am bearly an insolent 15 year old son of Mexican parents kid, but I will not tolerate this behavior... Again, I hope not to insult anybody with these comments and that if you are a master on these topics or what not, please pardon me and just work a bit on making your explanations seem a bit more proffesional yet simple... |
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Apr 30, 2005 14:19:53 GMT -5
I don't pretend to know everything mright. I'll concede the point on light and time - having read for myself (you'll forgive me given your attitude that I don't merely take your word for it) If you had stuck to addressing the questions I posed instead of going out of your way to appear superior and then rub it in, then you may have earned a bit of respect. it's also intersting that the entire informational content of your post can be found word for word here: (and not just the part you said you quoted) www.ifrance.com/recessiongalaxies/mtfivetheconceptoftime.htm |
|
|
|
Post by mr right on Apr 30, 2005 16:55:38 GMT -5
glad ur admitting defeat bigboy.. thats all i wanted.
any other physics knowledge u wish to obtain im here for ya. (sorry im jus tryna rub it in...)
i think ull find i didnt copy it word for word bigboy i put the quote from brian greene in quotation marks and said the paragraph was from a website.
i already knew details of this,,, how did i just randomly contradict you?? come on guys,,, lets all live in harmony
its wat donny wants.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Apr 30, 2005 17:34:00 GMT -5
mr right, can you see much from where you are? i can imagine it being quite dark
|
|
