The slowing of time

[zapatos]

From the perspective an observer at rest on Earth or theoretical observer at rest on any near- obbject in space which, although may be moving, whose movement would be insignificant in relation to the near-speed of light.r

Then yes. But remember that from the perspective of the person in the space ship it is the person 'at rest' on earth or the theoretical observer 'at rest' on any near object in space who appears to be moving in slow motion.

 

As an aside, I found your use of the term "...literally virtually..." to be interesting.

[swansont]

"Swansot".There are implications stemming from the idea that there is no preferred frame of reference.

Question.Does this mean that mass can move at the speed of light if the space it occupies is moving. For example if 2 areas of space are expanding away from each other?

 

Areas moving away from each other owing to expansion are not in the same reference frame, so SR doesn't apply — that requires a local reference (no expansion), and you will not see speeds exceed c when doing that local measurement. In the context of GR, yes, you can measure recession velocities exceeding c, because of the expansion.

[ronians1]

If you were moving uniformly at 99.9% of the speed of light in intergalactic space, ie. with no reference points such as stars or planets for your motion, you would not be able to tell that you are moving at all ( again motion is relative ).

So why would you NOT expect the normal passage of time, ronians 1 ????

 

Say one was going around a distant star and back to Earth in a spaceship. The clock in the spaceship once back on Earth has run say 12 hours slow to the one on the ground, thus the hands on the clock in the ship surely would have moved in slow motion compared to those on the ground just as human hands (and other parts) would have moved in slow motion irrespective of not being able to tell if one was moving or not. I know that onboard the spaceship in flight a second would still be a second but because of dialation that second would take longer to pass. So at the near speed of light the astronaught would be vitrually frozen (thanks zapatos) in time. Besides one could use the "ether" as one's FOR or perhaps there would be no preferential FOR.

 

Differential aging would ensure that cause and effect was not violated and that time travel could not occur. In fact time travel would be impossible.

Edited July 31, 2012 by ronians1

[zapatos]

Say one was going around a distant star and back to Earth in a spaceship. The clock in the spaceship once back on Earth has run say 12 hours slow to the one on the ground, thus the hands on the clock in the ship surely would have moved in slow motion compared to those on the ground just as human hands (and other parts) would have moved in slow motion irrespective of not being able to tell if one was moving or not. I know that onboard the spaceship in flight a second would still be a second but because of dialation that second would take longer to pass. So at the near speed of light the astronaught would be vitrually frozen (thanks zapatos) in time. Besides one could use the "ether" as one's FOR or perhaps there would be no preferential FOR.

 

Differential aging would ensure that cause and effect was not violated and that time travel could not occur. In fact time travel would be impossible.

It is generally accepted that there is no aether or preferential FOR.

[MigL]

"Going around a distant star and back to earth" is NOT uniform motion.

It involves accelerations and so there is no doubt to the occupants of the spaceship that they are moving. And when they return to their original ( take-off ) frame, much less time will have elapsed for them than for the observers who stayed behind on earth.

Uniform motion means no acceleration and so even if you are moving at close to light speed, you cannot tell since there is no preferred frame. Any frame which you consider to be at rest may in fact, be moving.

Edited August 2, 2012 by MigL

[ronians1]

Just suppose that the TOR was falsified in the way discussed. What would the implications be and how would it affect (if at all) the future of physics.?

[MigL]

That kind of speculation has no scientific basis.

 

But if I was to guess, the situation you describe might result in the death of all unicorns,

 

I joke, but a non-sensical question usually gets a non-sensical answer.

[ronians1]

That kind of speculation has no scientific basis.

 

And why not? Physics is incomplete. Quantum Mechanics cannot be reconciled with Relativity. The equation bringing together the world of the very small with the real world results in infinity or nonsense. Somethings is wrong with one or more of the areas of physics

 

I think its healthy to challenge anything one finds unconvincing.

.

[imatfaal]

And why not? Physics is incomplete. Quantum Mechanics cannot be reconciled with Relativity. The equation bringing together the world of the very small with the real world results in infinity or nonsense. Somethings is wrong with one or more of the areas of physics

 

I think its healthy to challenge anything one finds unconvincing.

.

Ronians - to be clear Quantum Mechanics works exceedingly well with Special Relativity - it is General and QM that is the problem. And QM works amazingly well "with the real world" - it is in unusual circumstances where things get tricky; most of the time you can use one thing or another, it's unusual to find everyday scenarios where one must tally both quantum effects and gravitational effects to make a prediction.

[ronians1]

Ronians - to be clear Quantum Mechanics works exceedingly well with Special Relativity - it is General and QM that is the problem. And QM works amazingly well "with the real world" - it is in unusual circumstances where things get tricky; most of the time you can use one thing or another, it's unusual to find everyday scenarios where one must tally both quantum effects and gravitational effects to make a prediction.

 

I have been told that: Relativity must be wrong, or Quantum Mechanics must be wrong, or perturbation theory is not the right tool to reconcile the two, or the space-time metric is not the field that should be quantized!''

 

 

Which of these would you lay your bet on?

[imatfaal]

If I knew enough to decently guess how to resolve the problems of quantum gravity I would be writing papers not forum posts. However, again, it is General Relativity and not Relativity nor Special Relativity that is at odds with Quantum Mechanics.

[Delta1212]

Also, keep in mind, saying that both GR and QM cannot be correct doesn't mean that one or both are necessarily wrong. They are both highly accurate at predicting experimentally verifiable results. The most likely scenario is that one or both are incomplete.

 

For example, take Newtonian gravity. If Newton's conception of gravity was correct, Mercury's orbit would not behave the way that it does. Newton's theory was therefore wrong. However, that doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist, only that Newton was missing some rather important properties of gravity (such as the fact that its effects propagate at the speed of light rather than instantaneously) which Einstein added to formulate GR.

 

It is likely that either General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics will eventually be replaced, not with something completely new, but with a slightly different formulation of basically the same theory that is more accurate to reality. The level of precision that each theory achieves at predicting reality means that it is exceedingly unlikely that either is simply wrong and must be chucked out in its entirety.