How to think about special relativity

[HardonColluder]

Mod note: moved from this thread

 

 

How's this for taking libertys ;

I think one problem that exists for any thinker is knowing how best to think about special relativity . I'm not sure it helps by imagining spacetime as an interlinked fabric , but rather , like mass and energy , 3d space and time is the same thing .

It assumes another way of looking at light . That EM is in a constant state of balance that exists in every point in space . That creating interference in energy/EM can propagate a luminous wave (Luminous because we can see the interference) . To move in the direction of time is to be motionless . Time is motion . Taking energy from time will take energy from motion . We hit a wall at lightspeed because (with regards to energy)we are actually going backwards to a motionless state . Light speed is unattainable in the same way that absolute zero is unattainable . I predict that , at extremely low temperatures , time ticks slower . I predict that it is cold at near the speed of light . I predict that heating equipment on a starship will restrict it's velocity .

Spacetime is like space-motion . Time is just a measurement of motion by motion . The wave-particle nature of light is because the wave is just interference . The particles are like the tracks of EM that we can pinpoint due to the interference but they represent a substance that is constant and everywhere , frozen in time and all over the void . Everything is a vibration in spacetime . Interactions happen when two appropriate frequencys of EM interfere with eachover. Mass/energy cannot be accelerated to lightspeed because for something to travel at light speed it can't have any energy (No mass) . Light is not energy itself , but merely ripples in timeless energy (Timeless in that it can do everything at once) .

Any thoughts on this perspective (As I duck and cover) ?

 

('Timetravel' can only change the rate of motion through space so more things can be done in the same amount of 'time'. In that sense you're not travelling into the future as such but time is merely passing quicker for you as you are moving through time (spacetime) faster . )

Edited May 28, 2010 by swansont
add mod note

[swansont]

I predict that , at extremely low temperatures , time ticks slower .

 

It doesn't. There are a number of cold-atom clocks and frequency standards in use today (where cold = microKelvin-ish temperatures; they yield more precise values than the systems they've replaced or augmented) and do not show any difference in time measurements when compared with other devices that run at much hotter temperatures.

 

Also, time ≠motion. This is a topic that's been discussed a number of times. Motion loses its classical meaning at the quantum scale at which clocks operate.

[JohnB]

swansont, I thought that at absolute zero all motion ceases? Would that not then be "duration without change" and therefore time stopping?

 

Obviously there isn't a sliding scale for this, but isn't that how it works at absolute? Time doesn't slow down as you approach absolute zero, it just stops when you get there.

 

Or am I misunderstanding something? (As usual;))

[swansont]

swansont, I thought that at absolute zero all motion ceases? Would that not then be "duration without change" and therefore time stopping?

 

Obviously there isn't a sliding scale for this, but isn't that how it works at absolute? Time doesn't slow down as you approach absolute zero, it just stops when you get there.

 

Or am I misunderstanding something? (As usual;))

 

You can't get there, so the objection is moot. Time is not motion, so again, the objection is moot.

[HardonColluder]

I agree that a cold atomic clock would not be cold enough . Like infinate acceleration is needed to move matter at light speed , you'ld need an equivilant "infinate freeze" to hold an object in stasis (Hypothetically , of course) .

. I also understand that time looses it's classical meaning at the quantum level . Time being a way to stop energy from doing everything or being everywhere at one . I propose time doesn't exist on the quantum scale at all .

It would be interesting to hear what effect 'increasing the temperature' would have on a spaceship accelerating very close towards the speed of light . If mass and energy is equivilant and you need energy to stay hot , then where would you get the heat/energy to keep a faster-than-light-speed vessel warm . The heat/energy would seem to be be just as impossible as the faster-than-light spaceship (Assuming the faster-than-light ship is a classical type that doesn't use tunnelling or space manipulation) .

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If I have two pendulams , one large , one small (though any difference is sufficiant) , I can extrapolate a crude form of relative time from the differences between the motion of the two pendulams . I don't need anything else . Relative motions are all that's required . If I slow the pendulams down , I'm not affecting 'time history' , I'm just reducing the latency/frequency of my clock . If I speed the pendulams up , both will get more work done in the same amount of time relative to some other constant source of motion somewhere else .

If I was part of the clock , hanging by my neck like a biological pendulam , and I 'turned time backwards' , my path would not lead me to a 'historical time' before I became part of a clock , as time for the clock started when I started pretending to be a pendulam . I can only manipulate the latency of my own clock , I cannot 'timetravel' in the classical sense .

If time is a dimension I imagine it to have only a single degree of freedom (The speed and relative motion that exists between the other 6 degrees of freedom . I do not think it's required to treat time as an 'extra' spacial dimension).

Edited May 28, 2010 by HardonColluder