E=mc² relates to time travel

[cperkinson]

This post is an explanation of my understanding to how Einstein's relativity theory works in conjunction with time.

 

Allow us for a minute to reflect upon Einstein's theory of relativity. E=mc². Einstein's theory states that energy equals the product of mass times the speed of light squared. From this very equation Einstein was able to theorize that time is irrelevant.. Irrelevant to everything that exists in it. Allow me to shed some light here. To my understanding (this is simply just my thought process in the matter, hopefully posting this will get me some feedback) since light remains at a constant speed we can conclude that it is essentially a constant figure within the equation and theoretically in actual life as well. The speed of light is "c = 299,792,458 m/s." So after we square this figure we will get "c = 89,875,517,873,681,764 m/s" and this figure will always remain the same no matter what you would plug in for energy or what you would plug in for mass. So in turn, the conclusion that light is constant can be made.

 

With that said, I have also concluded that light is, in its own way, irrelevant to Einstein's famous equation. While it still needs to be there for the equation to make sense we can simply dismiss fluxations in this number. The same goes for time.. While time is still here we can conclude that it is irrelevant in its own sense. With this being said we can then go on to discuss time's consistency within the matter. While light is irrelevant in the sense that it travels at a constant rate, so is time.. In conclusion, both light and time travel in a forward motion making time travel possible, but only forward into the future, not into the past. HOW CAN THIS BE? I'll explain.

 

Einstein believed that the differences in the way people perceive time is irrelevant.. that they are both correct. Watch this video to further explain this concept:

. Theoretically, by exceeding the speed of light we would be able to travel into the past. Inversely if we were able to adjust our speed away from that of the speed of light (to reduce the rate at which we travel) we would be able to "jump" into the future. Since the laws of physics forbid moving faster than the speed of light; we cannot travel into the past. Yet, if we move slower than we already are then we would travel into the future. Explanation: Think of a coma patient at a hospital. He's out for 10 years, so when he wakes up his knowledge was absent of the 10 years that he was comatose for. So in essence his mind traveled 10 years into the future. Now, let us say that someone, we'll call him person A, is able to slow down everything about himself (mind and body) by 10 times that of everyone else, we'll call "everyone else" people B. In one year person A will have moved forward in time by 10 years by the standards of people B. Meaning that both his mind and body experienced only one year while people B's minds and bodies experienced 10 years. Vwala! Person A has just experienced time travel. Unlike the coma patient, person A's body will be slowed down equally to the rate that his brain will be slowed down by, were as the coma patient's body remained at it's same rate while his mind slowed down by ten years.

 

This process can be similarly viewed with another phenomenon known, in sci-fi, as criosleep. So let's say we had a form of criosleep so powerful that it slowed us down by 31,536,000x that of our normal rate. This way for every second that we experienced, one year will have passed. So imagine walking into a machine and pressing 20 years.. only 20 seconds would pass for us to travel 20 years into the future.

 

FACT: If I am not misled, I believe that our scientists must move the clocks on their satellites forward by approximately 3 seconds every year.

Edited June 15, 2009 by cperkinson

[ajb]

Allow us for a minute to reflect upon Einstein's theory of relativity. E=mc². Einstein's theory states that energy equals the product of mass times the speed of light squared. From this very equation Einstein was able to theorize that time is irrelevant.

 

I thought it was more the other way round. The principles of special relativity tell us that for physical particles the mass-shell condition holds

 

[math]E^{2}-p^{2}c^{2} = m^{2}c^{4}[/math]

 

holds. The now (infamous) [math]E= mc^{2}[/math] is only valid for massive particles in their rest frame.

 

Irrelevant to everything that exists in it. Allow me to shed some light here. To my understanding (this is simply just my thought process in the matter, hopefully posting this will get me some feedback) since light remains at a constant speed we can conclude that it is essentially a constant figure within the equation and theoretically in actual life as well. The speed of light is "c = 299,792,458 m/s." So after we square this figure we will get "c = 89,875,517,873,681,764 m/s" and this figure will always remain the same no matter what you would plug in for energy or what you would plug in for mass. So in turn, the conclusion that light is constant can be made.

 

Really as above. Don't apply [math]E= mc^{2}[/math] to massless particles so easily.

 

With that said, I have also concluded that light is, in its own way, irrelevant to Einstein's famous equation. While it still needs to be there for the equation to make sense we can simply dismiss fluxations in this number. The same goes for time.. While time is still here we can conclude that it is irrelevant in its own sense. With this being said we can then go on to discuss time's consistency within the matter. While light is irrelevant in the sense that it travels at a constant rate, so is time.. In conclusion, both light and time travel in a forward motion making time travel possible, but only forward into the future, not into the past. HOW CAN THIS BE? I'll explain.

 

The "special" property of light is that it travels along null geodesics. Null geodesics describe the causal structure of space-time. you can use light rays as "tracers" to describe the space-time.

 

Einstein believed that the differences in the way people perceive time is irrelevant.. that they are both correct. Watch this video to further explain this concept:

. Theoretically, by exceeding the speed of light we would be able to travel into the past. Inversely if we were able to adjust our speed away from that of the speed of light (to reduce the rate at which we travel) we would be able to "jump" into the future. Since the laws of physics forbid moving faster than the speed of light; we cannot travel into the past. Yet, if we move slower than we already are then we would travel into the future. Explanation: Think of a coma patient at a hospital. He's out for 10 years, so when he wakes up his knowledge was absent of the 10 years that he was comatose for. So in essence his mind traveled 10 years into the future. Now, let us say that someone, we'll call him person A, is able to slow down everything about himself (mind and body) by 10 times that of everyone else, we'll call "everyone else" people B. In one year person A will have moved forward in time by 10 years by the standards of people B. Meaning that both his mind and body experienced only one year while people B's minds and bodies experienced 10 years. Vwala! Person A has just experienced time travel. Unlike the coma patient, person A's body will be slowed down equally to the rate that his brain will be slowed down by, were as the coma patient's body remained at it's same rate while his mind slowed down by ten years.

 

Different observers measure different times. That is fine.

 

The scenarios you describe are not usually considered as time travel. Travelling into your own future light-cone is what we all do. Travelling into someone else's causal future is again not really time travel.

 

What is considered time travel is to travel back into your own past.

 

This process can be similarly viewed with another phenomenon known, in sci-fi, as criosleep. So let's say we had a form of criosleep so powerful that it slowed us down by 31,536,000x that of our normal rate. This way for every second that we experienced, one year will have passed. So imagine walking into a machine and pressing 20 years.. only 20 seconds would pass for us to travel 20 years into the future.

 

Again, not usually considered as time travel.

 

FACT: If I am not misled, I believe that our scientists must move the clocks on their satellites forward by approximately 3 seconds every year.

 

I don't know the exact figures, but time delay effects due to the earth gravitational field need to be taken into account.

[swansont]

I don't know the exact figures, but time delay effects due to the earth gravitational field need to be taken into account.

 

Yes. GPS satellites run fast, 38 microseconds a day, as a result: 45 microseconds from gravitational dilation, and 7 microseconds slow from kinematic, which ends up being a little less than 14 milliseconds a year. And it will be different depending on the orbit.

[cperkinson]

So what is being said here is that somehow the stronger a gravetational pull is on an individual, the faster they move through time. Time in this scenario being a constant. This is all very interesting stuff btw, thx.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

"Really as above. Don't apply [math]E= mc^{2}[/math] to massless particles so easily."

 

BUT I AM RIGHT IN SAYING THE EQUATION STILL APPLIES FOR MASSLESS PARTICLES, NO?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The true underlined conception of my whole theory is that time travel is only possible into the future and that time is only measured corectly when weighed against someone elses perception of it. I suppose by you telling me about a person's "time cone" I cannot really call this idea my own but while others may already have the same idea, I have formed this understanding through my own logic.. No body else explained it to me.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

and what is with this new equation? "p^2"? Is it that "p^2" equals "m"? i know essentially p = Ev/c² but in order for the origonal equation to make sense then p^2 must equal m. therefor may we infer that m also = Ev/c²?

Edited June 15, 2009 by cperkinson
Consecutive posts merged.

[the tree]

So what is being said here is that somehow the stronger a gravetational pull is on an individual, the faster they move through time. Time in this scenario being a constant. This is all very interesting stuff btw, thx.

From the POV of an outside observer, yeah, sort of.

 

Really as above. Don't apply [math]E= mc^{2}[/math] to massless particles so easily.

 

BUT I AM RIGHT IN SAYING THE EQUATION STILL APPLIES FOR MASSLESS PARTICLES, NO?

No.

 

The true underlined conception of my whole theory is that time travel is only possible into the future and that time is only measured corectly when weighed against someone elses perception of it.

Be careful with the word theory - in fact, don't use it until you're sure you know what it means, you could easily get bitten otherwise. It's sort of impossible for time to be measured against someone else's measurement because time flows differently based on local criteria.

 

 

I suppose by you telling me about a person's "time cone" I cannot really call this idea my own but while others may already have the same idea, I have formed this understanding through my own logic.. No body else explained it to me.

Take a look at urm... How To Build A Time Machine by Paul Davies and maybe The Universe In A Nutshell by Stephen Hawking. Both very interesting and useful when it comes to a gaining basic understanding of this stuff - not to mention that they are written by a couple of the most respected physicists out there.

 

and what is with this new equation?

It's not new, it's just that thanks to the demons of pop-science you've been over exposed to the special case of the general formula. p is momentum.

 

 

[rambling]

Avoid trying to make sense of anything via algebraic manipulation - if you see something being presented to you by ajb - it's pretty unlikely he'll just being obscuring something else for no good reason.

 

 

Oh and lastly,

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This is really irritating, please try to compose your posts coherently.

[cperkinson]

A theory is a composed idea about something. From my thoughts, I form ideas. SO I am free to use the word theory whenever I want. thx for the useless insight Tree.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I compose these forum replies and posts as they come to mind. And just because my logic defies yours, doesn't mean that there is no logic in it at all. Think more deeply about what i say if you want to make sense of it.

[D H]

And I am free to move nonsense such as this to its rightful home. Thread moved to pseudoscience.

 

BTW, lose the attitude.

[mooeypoo]

This post is an explanation of my understanding to how Einstein's relativity theory works in conjunction with time.

Okay, but what you need to understand is that you're going to present YOUR understanding of the theory, and not necessarily what the theory is about.

 

Allow us for a minute to reflect upon Einstein's theory of relativity. E=mc².

 

While it's true the Einstein is most known for his theory of relativity, E=mc² isn't strictly about relativity. It is the mass-energy equivalence, and defines the relationship between energy and mass. It's not quite relativity. Actually, it's not at all. The only "relativity" about it is the speed of light, but that does not make it the theory of relativity.

(see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence )

 

Einstein's theory states that energy equals the product of mass times the speed of light squared. From this very equation Einstein was able to theorize that time is irrelevant..

Absolutely not. The equation includes time in it. C is the speed of light, and speed is movement *in relation to time*. Velocity is equal to the derivative of position in relation to time = dx/dt. In this equation, the velocity (dx/dt) is equal to the constant C.

 

The equation includes time in it, just not explicitly as the letter 't'.

Irrelevant to everything that exists in it. Allow me to shed some light here. To my understanding (this is simply just my thought process in the matter, hopefully posting this will get me some feedback) since light remains at a constant speed we can conclude that it is essentially a constant figure within the equation and theoretically in actual life as well. The speed of light is "c = 299,792,458 m/s." So after we square this figure we will get "c = 89,875,517,873,681,764 m/s" and this figure will always remain the same no matter what you would plug in for energy or what you would plug in for mass. So in turn, the conclusion that light is constant can be made.

Just a note here - The speed of light is this number above only in a vacuum. In other media, the speed of light is smaller.

 

The relativity part of the speed of light says that no matter in which relative frame of reference you look from, it will remain the same in all.

 

With that said, I have also concluded that light is, in its own way, irrelevant to Einstein's famous equation.

As stated above, you concluded wrong.

 

While it still needs to be there for the equation to make sense we can simply dismiss fluxations in this number.

I don't quite understand what you mean 'fluxuations in this number', or how your premises lead to the conclusion that we can ignore them.

 

The same goes for time.. While time is still here we can conclude that it is irrelevant in its own sense.

No, no no. Time's there, and we can't dismiss it at all. Without it, there's no speed, which means C=0, which means no energy.

 

With this being said we can then go on to discuss time's consistency within the matter. While light is irrelevant in the sense that it travels at a constant rate, so is time.. In conclusion, both light and time travel in a forward motion making time travel possible, but only forward into the future, not into the past. HOW CAN THIS BE? I'll explain.

What do you mean light travels in a forward motion? First off, time itself does not have a direction. If you mean "forward" as in it only "grows" (1, 2, 3..) then that does not follow to the same definition of "forward" of the movement of light; light moves in a spherical shape - all around.. that would make its movement forward *AND* backwards, and sideways, in all directions, at the same time.

 

The equation E=mc^2 ignores the directionality of the speed of light because squaring off the speed negates whatever "minus" sign it would have had to represent the directionality, so we can just not write it.

 

It also means that the ENERGY that is produced does not depend on the directionality of the movement. That does not make light move in one direction only, though.

 

Einstein believed that the differences in the way people perceive time is irrelevant.. that they are both correct.

Did he? I don't remember him ever noting anything about that.. do you have any quotes to share? I'd like to see what you mean here.

 

Also - what both? Which differences are you referring to?

Watch this video to further explain this concept:

.

 

I think you should watch the video again. It's explaining about simultaneity in DIFFERENT frames of reference. It does not (AT ALL) state that light is one-directional, or that time is irrelevant.

 

Theoretically, by exceeding the speed of light we would be able to travel into the past.

(that conclusion doesn't follow the previous premise).

 

Not according ot Einstein. According to Einstein, you cannot exceed the speed of light. That's according to Electrodynamics, too, Maxwell and Lorentz. If you think this is wrong, you need to show us why. The mathematical concepts (and experimental data) tell us that no mass can surpass the speed of light. This statement of yours require more evidence and explanation.

 

Inversely if we were able to adjust our speed away from that of the speed of light (to reduce the rate at which we travel) we would be able to "jump" into the future.

At which frame of reference? See, there are frames of reference in which we might already be at that speed. There are definitely frames of reference in which we are moving a lot faster, and others in which we are moving a lot slower.

 

That's the point of relativity. It's relative.

 

Since the laws of physics forbid moving faster than the speed of light; we cannot travel into the past.

Actually taht would depend what you consider "travel". If you consider "seeing the past" as travelling to the past, we do that all the time by looking at distant stars. Their light reaches us after thousands of years, and as a result, we see them as they *were* thousands of years ago, and not as they are now. They might already be dead and gone by now and we still see them as if they exist.

 

Yet, if we move slower than we already are then we would travel into the future.

Again, we already ARE moving slower than we are, if you look at other references. Besides, if I pick my own frame of reference, then I am now at full stop in front of my computer. My velocity is 0. You can't get slower than that before you start moving physically backwards. Backwards in space (as in, I will push myself backwards from my desk) and not in time.

 

Can you get slower than 0? and if so, at which relative frame of reference?

 

Explanation: Think of a coma patient at a hospital. He's out for 10 years, so when he wakes up his knowledge was absent of the 10 years that he was comatose for.So in essence his mind traveled 10 years into the future.

First off, he didn't move in time, he AGED. The fact he doesn't remember (or didn't "compute" his surroundings for) the past 10 years does not mean they didn't happen for him.

 

What if an 80 year old healthy person, living a full and exciting life, gets some head injury that causes him long-term amnesia and all he can remember is his time in college, when he was 20? Would that make him go forward in time too? He just isn't AWARE of the time that passed because of injury or disease - that does not mean time didn't pass for him.

 

He may think he's 20, but his phisiology is still that of an 80 year old. Time definitely affected him. He did not "travel" back to the past, or into the future.

 

Now, let us say that someone, we'll call him person A, is able to slow down everything about himself (mind and body) by 10 times that of everyone else, we'll call "everyone else" people B.

NOW you're starting to talk bout issues that might involve relativity. If you take this Person A and put him on a fast ship that travels close to the speed of light, that's exactly what would happen: His time (his reference frame) will be "slower" than the time of the people in whatever was his rest-frame. That's the point of relativity.

 

 

In one year person A will have moved forward in time by 10 years by the standards of people B. Meaning that both his mind and body experienced only one year while people B's minds and bodies experienced 10 years. Vwala! Person A has just experienced time travel. Unlike the coma patient, person A's body will be slowed down equally to the rate that his brain will be slowed down by, were as the coma patient's body remained at it's same rate while his mind slowed down by ten years.

Yep. That is done by moving FASTER -- moving faster and faster, close to the speed of light, *compared* to other frames, will make time in that moving frame move slower (again, COMPARED to the other frames). Since motion is relative, that theoretically already happens to us -- there are many frames of reference in which time moves much faster compared to us, because we, compared to these references, move at much higher speeds.

 

We also can see that with atomic clocks; two perfectly synchronized atomic clocks are produced. One is put on the ground and one on top of a fast-moving plane (or even an Orbiter). After a few hours in which the plane is in fast movement, the clocks are compared. The moving clock will be slower than the clock taht was, comparatively, at rest.

 

Welcome to relativity.

 

This process can be similarly viewed with another phenomenon known, in sci-fi, as criosleep.

No, not really. Time *DOES* move to the moving person, it just moves slower *COMPARED* to teh rest frame.

 

That would mean that if you, the moving person, went through 10 years of riding the rocket, I thought you went for 15. That does not mean you didn't notice the 10 years,does it? If you want criosleep, you need to make a way to produce criosleep. The people in the moving ship will still experience time. Slower, maybe, comparatively, but they will experience it, and they will not notice that their time is comparitively slower. They will think they're moving regularly, and the rest-frame is the one in which people are frantically moving around quicker.

 

So let's say we had a form of criosleep so powerful that it slowed us down by 31,536,000x that of our normal rate.

Extremely unrealistic, but okay.

 

(you're lacking a system for this. The system you offered ;'till now -- fast movement, relativity style -- will *not* produce this number. Not even close).

 

This way for every second that we experienced, one year will have passed. So imagine walking into a machine and pressing 20 years.. only 20 seconds would pass for us to travel 20 years into the future.

You're lacking a method for this. Theoretically,though, if you are moving fast enough it is, theoretically, possible, to experience very little time in your moving frame while a long time has passed in the rest-frame.

 

There are a few problems with this, too, including how you could make anything move from rest-frame (so we can 'board it') to extreme speeds (so time can "slow down" enough fro you to get this high effect) in such a short period of time (minute?). As it stands, such acceleration would rip the human body to shreds. But, I'll ignore that "tiny" detail for now. Theoretically, relativity states that time is relative in different frames of reference. You could, theoretically, move forward in time (you already are moving forward in time, with a relation of 1:1 minutes) if you board a fast rocket.

 

That doesn't make time not affect E=mc^2. Or light move in one direction only.

 

 

FACT: If I am not misled, I believe that our scientists must move the clocks on their satellites forward by approximately 3 seconds every year.

K, just a tip here: a Fact is a fact, it's not "if i'm not misled, it's a fact". If you start something with "If.." then it's not a fact, it's a premise or a hypothesis.

 

As it stands, yours is extremely weird. Your entire post speaks of a certain issue and then the "fact" at the end is a completely different issue. You are correct that in different speeds we have corrections for time (GPS satellites are DEPENDENT on General Relativity), but from this assumption to a decision that it would be precisely 3 seconds.. well.. I don't quite see how that follows.

 

If you want to give us a number, you need to include your mathematical method of arriving to such a number. As it is, your number seems WAAAAY too high to me, but I'm willing to examine your calculations and see if my "gut" feeling is wrong. Produce the calculations, though, otherwise your 3-second-guess is nothing but a guess, and an unfounded one.

 

You also have some problems with your logic in this thread.

You go from the (wrong) premise that time has no effect on E=mc^2 to the idea that light is moving in one direction, to an idea that we can move back in time if we go very slow, to the idea that we can move forward in time if we move very fast, to a conclusion that we have a discrepency of 3 seconds in our satellites.

 

How does that follow?

 

~moo

Edited June 17, 2009 by mooeypoo

[ajb]

A theory is a composed idea about something. From my thoughts, I form ideas. SO I am free to use the word theory whenever I want. thx for the useless insight Tree.

 

This comes up a lot. In physics a theory is generally synonymous with "mathematical model".

 

To be taken seriously your ideas will need to be stated mathematically. The exact formulation is up to you.

 

After that a physical interpretation could be useful.

[swansont]

So what is being said here is that somehow the stronger a gravetational pull is on an individual, the faster they move through time. Time in this scenario being a constant. This is all very interesting stuff btw, thx.

 

It's the gravitational potential, i.e. a deeper gravitational well, that has clocks running slower, not the pull itself (which is the slope of the well)

[Janus]

Just to add to what swansont said in his last post.

 

This means that if you had a uniform gravity field (one that did not change in strength with height.), a clock placed at a higher point in that field will run faster than one at a lower point, even though both clocks experience exactly the same force of gravity.

[proton]

holds. The now (infamous) [math]E= mc^{2}[/math] is only valid for massive particles in their rest frame.

 

 

If m is proper mass then the precise expression is

 

[math]E_0= mc^{2}[/math]

 

People all too often forget the "0" subscript denoting proper energy.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

A theory is a composed idea about something. From my thoughts, I form ideas. SO I am free to use the word theory whenever I want.

Not if you post in English. Words like "theory" have very specific meanings. Just because you come up with a thought and then choose to call it a theory doesn't mean that the term "theory" as defined, say, in the dictionary, will be consistent with the way you've used it. I can tape two screwdrivers together and call it a plunger. But that doesn't mean a plumber can use it to unclog a drain.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just to add to what swansont said in his last post.

 

This means that if you had a uniform gravity field (one that did not change in strength with height.), a clock placed at a higher point in that field will run faster than one at a lower point, even though both clocks experience exactly the same force of gravity.

In General Relativity (GR) the uniform gravitational field is very tricky. People have the tendancy to use Newtonian thinking without realizing it. In Newtonian mechanics a uniform gravitational field has (1) the same gravitational acceleration throughout the field and (2) a vanishing tidal force tensor. In GR this is no longer the case. In GR a uniform gravitational field has zero spacetime curvature (i.e. no tidal forces present). However in such a spacetime the the gravitational field strength varies with height in the field. The change is extremely small but present.