Time boxes?

[humility]

Im trying to go to sleep but I keep having these thoughts.

 

Note when I say kike "for a year" I mean relative earth time.

 

Okay, from the pov(point of view) of a photon, it is teleporting, going from point A to point B instantly.And its only from our pov that light seems to go so slow, taking millions of years to get from star to star.

 

Now the faster you go, the faster time seems to fly by. If you spend a year traveling at 50% the speed of light, it will feel like 6 months. It will only be a year for the observers.

 

But speed isnt the only thing that affects the rate time moves. If someone stood in a machine that made their rate of relative time passage the same as someone going 50% the speed of light, would the person in the machine, watching the person going 50% the speed of light for a year, feel like only 6 months had passed, or would it also feel like a year, in some wort of strange quantum limbo.

[DrKrettin]

I don't think time does box, actually.

[humility]

I wanted to post a youtube video of an old cartoon that had baby new year boxing old man new year as a retort, but that cartoon was never uploaded to the internet it seems.

[swansont]

We don't really know what happens from the photon's POV. Our physics breaks down; the photon's frame is not an inertial one.

 

Traveling at 0.5 c will cause time to slow to 86.6%, not 50%. (1-v²/c²)^-1/2 is the relevant term (gamma = 1.155)

[humility]

Well someone needs to figure it out. This is going to bug me for the rest of my life.

lets see if I remember how to math, that expression reads

the imaginary value of velocity squared divided by the speed of light squared miltiplied by zero point five. And once that is simplified you have the resulting relative passage of time.

[imatfaal]

Well someone needs to figure it out. This is going to bug me for the rest of my life.

lets see if I remember how to math, that expression reads

the imaginary value of velocity squared divided by the speed of light squared miltiplied by zero point five. And once that is simplified you have the resulting relative passage of time.

 

You cannot use special relativity for an inertial frame which is travelling at light speed - the physics doesn't work and you get a nonsense answer. Nothing with a mass is able to travel at the speed of light - so we cannot really envisage the "perspective" or "time flow" for something (massless) which does travel at c

[swansont]

We don't have to solve problems from the point of view of the photon, so it's moot.

[Strange]

Now the faster you go, the faster time seems to fly by. If you spend a year traveling at 50% the speed of light, it will feel like 6 months. It will only be a year for the observers.

 

 

You need to be clear whose year you are talking about. And do the necessary arithmetic, rather than guessing at numbers.

 

If you spend a year travelling at 50% the speed of light, it will feel like a year to you.

 

If someone else is traveling at 50% of the speed of light, relative to you, then after a year of your time about 10 months will have passed for them.

[humility]

Everyone completely missed my actual questions. I dont think the actual numbers are relevant to my question.

[Strange]

Everyone completely missed my actual questions. I dont think the actual numbers are relevant to my question.

 

 

Maybe you could restate the question more clearly? (The last part of the opening post made no sense at all, to me.)

[Bender]

If you somehow make a machine in which time moves at the same rate as in some specific frame of reference, then yes, time in that machine will run at the same rate. It's a tautology.

[humility]

Okay like when you go faster, the rate time flows relative to yourself changes. So that while while a year passes for an observer, only ten months pass for you. Or something like that.(Im not sure if the term speed up or slow down applies here)

 

But there are otherways to manipulate the relative passage of time like gravity.

 

So if the observer, used one of these methods to alter their own rate of passing time to match that of the person going really fast.

 

Would they actually syncronize, or would relatavistic forces maintain the disparity?

[Strange]

OK. I think I see what you are getting at.

 

Lets consider two people, A and B, who are moving relative to one another. A will see B's clock running slow and B will see A's clock running slow by the same amount (lets say 10%).

 

Now if we also say that that A is at a higher gravitational potential than B such that it causes 10% time dilation, then A will see B's clock running at the same speed, while B will see A's clock running 20% slower. (I think.)

[Mordred]

There is no difference both observers will still measure the same dilation to each other. Though the amount of that dilation will change in the two circumstances. The Lorentz transforms are symmetric

 

Also keep in mind the equivalence principle. So it is possible for one observer to use gravitational potential to match an inertial observer. In essence they can establish the same Inertial frame of reference

Edited April 25, 2017 by Mordred

[swansont]

Okay like when you go faster, the rate time flows relative to yourself changes. So that while while a year passes for an observer, only ten months pass for you. Or something like that.(Im not sure if the term speed up or slow down applies here)

 

But there are otherways to manipulate the relative passage of time like gravity.

 

So if the observer, used one of these methods to alter their own rate of passing time to match that of the person going really fast.

 

Would they actually syncronize, or would relatavistic forces maintain the disparity?

 

There is an orbit where the kinematic time dilation will cancel the gravitational, as they have opposite signs. So a clock on the earth would keep the same time as a clock in that orbit.

[humility]

ok! Thanks!