Time Dilation

As we approach the speed of light, from any distance in speed, our time, relative to everyone else slows down exponentially. Now I know reaching the speed of light for a big mass is impossible as an infinite amount of energy is needed, but just go with it, remember the world was once flat.

Since our time slows down relative to onlookers as we approach the speed of light, it would be reasonable to assume that our time stops relative to people around us when we are at the speed of light.

This means that for on lookers every second they pass, we we would pass 0. In reality the person traveling at the speed of light is still going forward in time from their perspective at the same speed they were originally. 1/0 = infinite remainder 1. So for every second that the person going at the speed of light lives for from their perspective, they go an infinite amount of everyone else time, whom are not going at the speed of light.

Now, to go faster than the speed of light, you would first need to accelerate. This means that at some stage you would be at the speed of light for some 'unit' of time.

Once going faster than the speed of light, you can begin to go back in time. For every unit of time you sped alive, the time of people that aren't going the speed of light reverses depending on how far over you are going.

Now this is a big assumption, does this mean, that to travel back in time, you must first travel beyond the end of time itself, which in resolution means that you will not actually come back to or before the time you originally started at?



It's a confusing concept to me, and I'm probably missing something out, but what do you think about this?

 

Well, Einstein's theory of relativity is based on the assumption that nothing can go faster than light.
However, CERN discovered particles that could, so while the same general idea might still exist and be the same, I don't think that everything is still accurate

 

I think that it is irrelevant to a certain point, yes the part saying that NOTHING can go past the speed of light may be tossed aside, but non the less, the speed of light is still a constant. Neutrinos, yes they can go past the speed of light, that's not to say they always do.

Regardless of something breaking the speed of light, tests they do with atomic clocks etc to calculate how time dilation works, all still calculate perfectly with the part of the theory considering time dilation.

What I am asking however is, assuming Einsteins theory holds true, is this how it works?

 

I agree with most of it, however I believe the time travelling as you say it isn't traveling back into time. I think it's travelling with such a speed that barely or no time passes in the outside world. meaning you could travel from here to other stars with only a fraction of the real time passing.

However, seeing time is relative..
Lets say you have a spaceship inside a shield wich travels with the speed of light.
Would any time pass on the inside?
Would any time pass in the outside? if so, would you be invisible to the outside?

 

I think it is considered as a theory though that going faster than the speed of light means you travel back in time, thus the awkwardness of the cern neutrino. Traveling at the speed of light to a location would mean no time would pass, as relative to everyone else your time have stopped.

Not sure about the second part.

 

The world is categorized into two types of particles:
"Real" Particles, to which the rules of physics apply and,
"Unreal" Particles, to which the rules of physics do not apply - EG neutrinos. These particles to not count, so please just ignore them for the sake of this type of discussion.

I'd just like to point out that I came up with this when I was 8 (Along with a theory regarding forward time travel and absolute 0... I can explain if you want me to)

Anyways, assuming that an object made of real particles could pass the speed of light, your theory is completely valid. The main problem, however, is that it is not possible.


And on another note, I would like to point out that scientifically, a theory is a proven fact with tons of evidence and is viable (EG Newton's Theory of Gravity)
What you came up with is a hypothesis *Reads rest of post* but since I misused the word theory as well, just keep that at the back of your head.

 

I don't see what is the point in applying the results of Einsteinian physics into something that it doesn't cover. It is impossible to accelerate anything (with a mass?) to the speed light, because of the mass-energy equivalence. That means, an object's mass is tied to it's energy. With two identical balls, one traveling at 20 kilometers per hour and one at 0.99c, the latter, faster one, will have a greater mass. When the mass increases further, more energy is required to accelerate the object. As the speed approaches the speed of light, the energy required (and the object's mass) approach infinity.

Needless to say, we don't have the means to achieve this. But even if we - through some miracle magic or whatnot - could accelerate an object to the speed of light, it would require an infinite amount of energy and would end up with an infinite mass. Now: guesswork. I would assume an infinite mass in a finite space creates a black hole, and with it all the issues of general relativity's singularities. Quantum mechanics can be sort of applied when dealing with black holes, but my knowledge of it is too limited. And I'm digressing.

I sort of forgot what I was going to say, it's quite late. I'm hoping that I made at least some kind of sense to someone because I'm getting to the point where nothing seems to make sense any more.

e: Actually, I sort of made the assumption that it doesn't cover faster-than-light anything there, because I couldn't think of anything that's ever told me otherwise. Correct me if I was wrong.

 

You have to remember, this came to mind when neutrino's were found to apparently go faster than the speed of light and accordingly, neutrinos do have a finite mass, which would mean they should go faster than the speed of light or even at it.

 

If you're talking about the OPERA experiment on September, they've been taking new sets of measurements last month and expect result by the end of this month. I wouldn't take it as given before it's been replicated or they've finished the new set of experiments.

Tachyons are hyphotetical particles that always move faster than light. Special relativity doesn't allow objects to be accelerated to speed of light (or beyond), but it's not impossible for particles (ie. tachyons) to exist which always move faster than the speed of light. I'm not going to delve into the details of them, (because I still don't know much about quantum physics) but it's been proposed that neutrinos might have a tachyonic nature. If that is the case, they wouldn't end up breaking the laws of physics. I have to admit that I've come to my knowledge's boundaries, and you'll need to figure out yourself how neutrinos would act regarding time, if they were tachyonic. If you figure things out, please do tell.