Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 301 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 55
G
gan Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
G
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 55
I need anyone who interest to give me a comment... If the atomic mass of time is <= the atomic mass of light, or the speed of time is <= the speed of light, then if we can breakthrough the constant speed of light(velocity) ; we can breakthrough the constant of time ( that means we can travel past or future ) as well ... hope you all can figure out and give some comments

.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
How do you define the speed of time? dt/dt is just 1 no matter how 'fast' it goes.

Time isn't atoms so it can't have an atomic mass, nor can light.

But yea I think if you go faster than light you're supposed to travel back in time or something.

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 55
G
gan Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
G
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 55
ooo thanks... but light can be measure by E=\mc2.... then how to measure time???

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Get a watch or, better still, a strontium atomic clock:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/clock/clock.html

"The JILA strontium clock would neither gain nor lose a second in more than 200 million years, compared to NIST F-1's current accuracy of over 80 million years." - Feb 14, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d9IU-Dyemo


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
You are making a common, but fatal error in your assumptions. Time is not a constant; rather, time is variable and it is relative to your reference frame. Ergo, there is no fundamental "unit" or "mass" or "speed" of time.

At sufficient velocity (speed of light) there is <u>no</u> time, although it is impossible to get mass upto that speed. However, at speeds close to the speed of light, time slows to near-infinite slowness...

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
Also proximity to mass (gravitational field) also slows time.

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 55
G
gan Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
G
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 55
thanks... That means that are imporsible to breakthorugh time although we can travel as light...

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 55
G
gan Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
G
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 55
that means time is same as atom's frequency... what if we breakdown the constant of atom's vibration ??? breakdown the constant of time....

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
You are making a common, but fatal error in your assumptions. Time is not a constant; rather, time is variable and it is relative to your reference frame.

Yes, although it's worth pointing out that time is, indeed, constant within your frame of reference, and that the passage of time for other frames of reference can, theoretically, be ascertained by applying relativity theory.

Originally Posted By: gan
that means time is same as atom's frequency

No, it doesn't mean that. You might equally suggest that time is the same as a metronome's frequency - but speeding up the metronome doesn't make the music lesson shorter.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
You are making a common, but fatal error in your assumptions. Time is not a constant; rather, time is variable and it is relative to your reference frame. Ergo, there is no fundamental "unit" or "mass" or "speed" of time.

At sufficient velocity (speed of light) there is <u>no</u> time, although it is impossible to get mass upto that speed. However, at speeds close to the speed of light, time slows to near-infinite slowness...

Bryan

==============.
Time, Space and Quantum of Light. / My opinion./
http://www.paricenter.com/forum/index.php?topic=61.0;wap2
==.
S.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: gan
that means time is same as atom's frequency... what if we breakdown the constant of atom's vibration ??? breakdown the constant of time....


You seem to be attaching some fundamental importance to atoms. They're just structures that happen to have formed, not particularly different from molecules, stars, galaxies, people, etc. Once upon a time there were no atoms in the universe. They don't have to be there any more than stars have to be there.

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 55
G
gan Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
G
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 55
so long wo... but useful... that means light and speed have relationship la..... if like that, Albert Einstein say nothing can faster than light wo.... then we cant breakthrough time lo....

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: gan
then we cant breakthrough time

Yes and No. The norm, of course, is that we travel forward in time at a constant rate within our local spacetime frame of reference; but when we move relative to an object outside our frame of reference, we travel forward in time relative to that object. We don't usually have evidence of this because the effect is very close to zero at day-to-day, earthbound speeds, but it becomes significant as an object's relative velocity approaches that of light (as do particles at LHC). So, travelling forward in time is a reality. Going backward in time is the problem; it's considered by many to be impossible for reasons of both science and philosophy. Although there are serious ideas about how it might be achievable, there's no foreseeable feasible experiment.

Originally Posted By: gan
Albert Einstein say nothing can faster than light
Right. One way to see it is: as an object approaches light velocity (called 'c'), it increases in mass. So it requires ever increasing energy to accelerate it. If it could reach c, it would have infinite mass, and so would have required infinite energy to do so.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 55
G
gan Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
G
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 55
ooo... then we really need to work hard to take out this... but I only a student... cant do anything instead of study hard... Is there any machine that can contact with the ghost??? I think have scientist investigated it...

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: gan
Is there any machine that can contact with the ghost?
That's Not-Quite-Science territory. Maybe you'd like to open a new thread in that section.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: redewenur

considered by many to be impossible for reasons of both science and philosophy. Although there are serious ideas


There's a fairly simple theoretical way to fake it, which might be good enough for some purposes.

Just do the twin paradox! You could travel hundreds of years into the future, and when you return to Earth, people would meet someone from the past, in his ancient spaceship, with his memories of the world that they only know from history books.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: kallog
Just do the twin paradox!
Well, yes; although the twin paradox is defunct in the light of experiment results. Not that I have a deep insight into why one twin moves through time faster than the other. Acceleration, sure. Inertial frames, sure. But why? - Oh to be a mathematician versed in tensor calculus! At least I could confidently kid myself that I understood it all.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Originally Posted By: kallog
Just do the twin paradox!
Well, yes; although the twin paradox is defunct in the light of experiment results.


You mean it doesn't work?? I didn't think it'd ever been properly tested. I know there's been experiments with atomic clocks on planes, and GPS satellites and all that, but they're slightly different situations.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: kallog
You mean it doesn't work??
What I mean is that the 'paradox' isn't actually a paradox. According to Special Relativity, the travelling twin should age less. The time dilation is predicted, and has been tested and verified not only by the clocks on planes, but by various other means since the 1940s, and continuously in particle accelerators since the 1950s; or so I'm reliably informed (as they say).


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 55
G
gan Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
G
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 55
I don think we can travel so far... it's only a prediction, isn't it???

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5