Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Physics (relativity) experts confirmation required

profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084

hey, so i know you can like look this up everywhere, but i cant get through these formal equations and expressions.

its not like only to ensure my thoughts about relativity, but to bring this knowledge to more people as it seems possible that our lives will be changed in a way we cannot even think about rite now and more people should reflect on our current and future position in the universe.

so, lets say we wanna travel to a planet some 10 lightyears away (i dont know how we would acquire the information that there is something of worth, but ok). if we could get close to speed of light (0.99999c), it would take some 20 years to get there and back, rite?

well unfortunately, and somehow luckily there are some things in the way. the gamma factor (1/(v^2/c^2)^0.5)) shows the relation between the distance measured from earth and the distance felt while in the spaceship. at v=0.99999c the value is 223.6. so the whole trip would require 223.6 times LESS time OR (but this is just a definition thingy) would be 223.6 times SHORTER in terms of distance.

BOTTOM LINE: it could be possible in, idk, 50-100 years, that a colony of the earth would start travelling through the universe and given that they could reach v=0.999999999999c (which is physically POSSIBLE, hard but still possible) they could travel some 10 million lightyears within 14 felt years. the problem would be that they could revisit the earth and would find that 20 million years have gone by. like the second you step into that ship its 100% that you will never see anyone again on that planet.

just think about it, physics is not just a dead thing that does nothing for you, imo it holds the keys to what we have to do in the second our planet becomes uninhabitable

thx for all that have come that far

Jan 13 2010 11:00AM
0 0
profile picture
remove
Posts: 2566 - Karma: 1,026
my Physics teacher talked about this for like an hour a few weeks ago. Shit is crazy
Jan 13 2010 11:03AM
0 0
profile picture
hartig
Posts: 8192 - Karma: 10
holy shit i never actually thought of it that way but thats ridiculous
Jan 13 2010 11:06AM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
ridiculous in the sense of untrue? or more like awesome
Jan 13 2010 11:09AM
0 0
profile picture
flexpattern
Posts: 1090 - Karma: 45
this is true. shits crazy. i have an important exam on relativity next week. better get off ns and get learnt!
Jan 13 2010 11:39AM
0 0
profile picture
Tasche
Posts: 5422 - Karma: 99
right =/= rite

Require reading (in order of difficulty and complexity)

Click for larger image

Click for larger image

Click for larger image

Click for larger image

It is awesome that you are getting into this. The world would be a lot better place if more people made an attempt to study science outside of the context of a class room. I found these books extremely interesting. Even though Kaku kind of dumbs down his stuff it is a great starting point. He also has a series on the Science Channel (best channel on TV) which is basically a short synopsis of his books. And Kurzwile's book is just insane, he backs his theories up with a lot of solid data and is a great read. The important thing to understand is that a lot of it is going to be over your head. I have an engineering degree and most of the stuff is so complex I can only understand analogies of the subjects. This will also make Futurama a lot more fun to watch.
Jan 13 2010 11:39AM
0 0
profile picture
chapz
Posts: 10182 - Karma: 66
gah i love relativity. what you said is mind boggling, especially because it IS possible.
Jan 13 2010 11:44AM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084

i read hawkings "brief history" already and it was great. so i will try to find the two easier ones you mentioned, since somehow the book is easy, but at other times, i had to read a page 10 times to get it.

as you said, most of the time i could just work with the examples given, not with the theory. like wormholes. its hard without the analogy of a ball (3d) covered by a lower-dimension surface just like it could be in our universe, with some kind of 4d/5d or as hawking mentiones once 21 or 22 d universe around

Jan 13 2010 11:52AM
0 0
profile picture
spliff.Life
Posts: 7847 - Karma: 1,549
thats legit
Jan 13 2010 12:22PM
0 0
profile picture
COskier
Posts: 1066 - Karma: 131
What you said i a little oversimplified. The time dilation effect is messed up my the acceleration and deceleration of the ship, also, humans cant withstand many G's so it takes forever to achieve such speeds and also a long ass time to stop.
Jan 13 2010 3:07PM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084

yeah, i omitted that because i show a graph once where it said that the different times to reach the planets including the acceleration are only something like 1.5 to 2.5 times without it, which is of course an issue but i would say that it can be omitted.

the next problem would be fuel of course, but i guess that if its possible to reach 0.999999c than we should know how to get that worked out,

no but since you seem legit, is the effect that it FEELS shorter in time the same effect that it is shorter in space? i would guess so and not that they are adding up, which would result in taking the gamma factor squared.

thx though for your thoughts

Jan 13 2010 3:17PM
0 0
profile picture
Drop~The~Disk
Posts: 96 - Karma: 11
I got to see cosmic particles today while they were passing through an alcohol fog on dry ice. LOVE IT!!

and michio kaku is the shit. how about those guys at Michigan "teleporting" two atoms.
Jan 13 2010 3:57PM
0 0
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,686
Thhe more I learn about relativity the less I know about relativity. But before we start thinking about closing in on c we are going to have to figure out if gravity actually exists (along with force in general) or if it is just a figment of our imagination to account for acceleration due to the space time curve.

So when all you athiests claim that evolution is as much a theory as gravity, you are saying that it reallycould just be something we invent to account for changes we don't really understand.
Jan 13 2010 4:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Luc.
Posts: 7540 - Karma: 59
im really rusty on physics, but wouldnt you age just as fast in the given space ship, even if you are traveling at a certain speed in time? because (correct me if i am wrong) your cells would still break down at the same rate, regardless of how fast you are moving, no? Or is it just like you are jumping ahead in time, due to moving faster than the speed of light...would this explain why everyone on earth would be dead over 10 million years ago once you have returned??

quantum physics is such a trip
Jan 13 2010 4:24PM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084

everyone knows that our current understanding of the world is not perfect. but come on, even newtons laws are detailed enough for most situations so i guess the relativity theory and quantum mechanics are very close to make it, but since both of them are excluding each other, both cannot be true.

everyone is looking for the relativity of quantums theory, maybe then we know whats up

and please dont start anything with evolution/creation. please dont. everyone who thinks our life looks like this because a superhuman intelligence shaped it by hand 10,000 years ago, should keep it to himself. /religious discussion

Jan 13 2010 4:24PM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
no you wouldnt, because everything that causes your cells to age would be slowed down in accordance. i am not too sure, but i always thought the same about mechanical clocks, they gotta have to keep the same pace, but when you look at it, everything that they measure (as well as your cells do) timewise is determined by your status
Jan 13 2010 4:27PM
0 0
profile picture
twin-tip-hero
Posts: 2896 - Karma: 277
my brain hurts
Jan 13 2010 4:29PM
0 0
profile picture
Forkstealer
Posts: 508 - Karma: 16
Possible and interesting, but getting the energy to propel something even as massive as a ping pong ball that close to the speed of light would take a collossal scientific breakthrough.
Jan 13 2010 4:36PM
0 0
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,686
your thinking of time as a fixed axis, with a fixed rate. An independent variable.

Time however is a dependent variable, time is a function of velocity. Not the other way around.
so as you speed up, you move slower on the time axis, then you would if you were standing still.
Jan 13 2010 4:47PM
0 0
profile picture
panojibber
Posts: 3382 - Karma: 216
Its space time curvature, which is measured in a way by gravity. An atomic clock at the top of a water power will register a slightly different time than an atomic clock at the bottom. It will be negligibly small, but on a large scale its basically what would account for your travel forward in time. It is not slower aging, it is not faster time elsewhere, it is a physical difference in the speed of time.

Thats basically it, more or less, but I learned everything I know about relativity from a book by the good Stephen Hawking. Probably a simplified version, but thats more or less how it works. I think.
Jan 13 2010 4:50PM
0 0
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,686
Key word,

the reality is we don't know.
Jan 13 2010 4:53PM
0 0
profile picture
Canuker
Posts: 4730 - Karma: 165

Yes but this all speaking in theory, which im sure you know.

My thoughts, this is cool. not going to lie i dont understand all the aspects ( im in grade 11 ) of this or how all this works. This is the reason i really took physics ( next semester ), because i like learning about these things, i have actually searched up Michio Kaku before ( on my own time ) and have loved some of his theorys.

The sad truth is once i get into my physcis class im going to end up hating my teacher who is monotone, and will not be interested in anything he is teaching. I learn so much better by researching myself rather than being taught and told what to do. The physics im going to do is projectile motion, force, electro magnitisum and sound waves.

Oh well maybe ill manage to keep myself from switching out in hopes of ( eventually, in university ) being able to understand things like what you have said.

Jan 13 2010 4:55PM
0 0
profile picture
Tinga
Posts: 11349 - Karma: 2,333
damn i tried to find the monsters vs aliens clip where dr cockroach yells "By Hawkin's chair!" but i couldnt find it
Jan 13 2010 4:57PM
0 0
profile picture
COskier
Posts: 1066 - Karma: 131
Ummm, time dilation has been repeatedly tested and has repeatedly matched the expected results when measuring values such as they decay of pions. Also, the US gov't once flew atomic clocks around the world on several different airplanes and it was recorded that the were running slow as expected.
Jan 13 2010 5:18PM
0 0
profile picture
Tasche
Posts: 5422 - Karma: 99
You will not touch any of this stuff until university physics 3.

And these are tested theories, not purely hypothetical. An experiment was done with 2 identical clocks and a jet airplane. Another good example is GPS satellites, they have to be adjusted periodically because their velocity actually causes them to be a couple of seconds slow over long periods of time which would throw off the whole system.

Like someone said above, time is not linear, however human brains have evolved to believe this is the case which is why we have such a hard time understanding this stuff. Just give it 30 years when humans brains will interface with computers, then this will all make perfect sense.
Jan 13 2010 5:19PM
0 0
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,686
ya, we know that it happens, but we don't really know why.

Shit for a while there we were fucking convinced classical physics was correct. And then got everything turned upside down.

at the end of the 19th century, people were saying that everything to know about physics was known.

We are no smarter now then they were then, we have just discovered more.

And the truth is, the more you learn, the more you you realize how ignorant you really are.
Jan 13 2010 5:25PM
0 0
profile picture
COskier
Posts: 1066 - Karma: 131
Sort of true, I guess but I wasn't arguing that we have completely proven why it happens, just that it does as the op was saying.
Jan 13 2010 5:28PM
0 0
profile picture
Whifazoo
Posts: 737 - Karma: 132
thats ike the book "enders Game" where some space war hero is flown around at the speed of light for set amounts of time if they ever need him again, so when the next battle happens 100s of years later he is only a few years older , its really cool and it would be super trippy if they ever figured out how to do something simmiler to that in the near future
Jan 13 2010 7:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Elijah.
Posts: 9322 - Karma: 76
Mazer Rackham.
Good series.
Jan 13 2010 7:22PM
0 0
profile picture
hellomynameisjef
Posts: 5794 - Karma: 167

Jan 13 2010 7:47PM
0 0
profile picture
An10a_Eng
Posts: 2505 - Karma: 26
2 major, major problems. we are no where near the kind of technology to even come remotely close to something that fast. would take up way to much fuel, would run out really quick yada yada yada. and 2, we have nowhere near the budget to spend any money to develop such technology. a second moon mission was cut because there is no money. and even if the economy was perfect and happy there wouldnt be nearly enough money to make a dent. physically possible under the laws a physics yes, possible for humans to accomplish, no. plus the world is going to end in 2 years anyway so keep dreamin...
Jan 13 2010 7:52PM
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
Click for larger image
Jan 13 2010 7:54PM
0 0
profile picture
Canuker
Posts: 4730 - Karma: 165

Yes i totally realize this stuff will not be touched apon for a while, and like i said previously the sad thing is i probably wont be taking physics close to long enough to learn this more in-depth. maybe ill just purchase a couple books though, ahah.

Also when i said hypthetical i was reffering to him( who ever i qouted ) mentioning how designing a ship and a power source capable of such a feat will take a while. I was just saying that the part abou the ship isnt really the point, its the time difference and whatnot.

And now that my interest has been sparked im probably going to go read theories explaining what you brought up ( that time isnt linear ) instead of doing my actual homework, haha.

Jan 13 2010 9:00PM
0 0
profile picture
Forkstealer
Posts: 508 - Karma: 16
If you really want to study advanced physics on your own, look into getting a copy of the Feynman Lectures, theyre a little dated (1960s) but theyre really fascinating and they have some really great stuff on quantum physics.
Jan 13 2010 9:22PM
0 0
profile picture
COskier
Posts: 1066 - Karma: 131
He's not really talking quantum physics, more special relativity. And to the op, I knew you weren't talking about the technology but the theory. I was saying that the problem with the way you were talking about it is that you were negating the effect that slowing down and accelerating have on time dilation which changes the effect a bit.
Jan 13 2010 11:44PM
0 0
profile picture
panojibber
Posts: 3382 - Karma: 216
Yeah, if you want to take a good look at relativity without a whole ton of math, check out Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" and "A Briefer History of Time". 2 super interesting books for sure.
Jan 14 2010 12:01AM
0 0
profile picture
spliff.Life
Posts: 7847 - Karma: 1,549
I have taken a few physics classes along with ap in highschool so i understand it.....just said that to back this up.

one time while on acid i figured out time, and from what you said it makes me believe it even more. But to the point, time is almost another dimension and i figured it out whilst frying believe me or not. hahah I cant get pics, and i cant explain it because its not just one thing its a whole number of things and theories that must be understood.

now everyones gonna tell me im a stupid kid hahaha
Jan 14 2010 12:08AM
0 0
profile picture
squibble
Posts: 4569 - Karma: 104
thats basically saying that as you approach the speed of light time slows down, at c time doesnt pass. theres so much crazy shit even in first year science courses. people really underestimate that field in general, i find it way more interesting than studying why shakespear put a vowel behind a subject twice in a row to symbolize the romance between yada yada (for example)
Jan 14 2010 12:41AM
0 0
profile picture
hartig
Posts: 8192 - Karma: 10
as weird as it is i know what you mean. i feel like i understand everything a lot better since i tripped
Jan 14 2010 2:34AM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
some nice thoughts in here, really

and to assure i dont look like a total fool: i would say that my estimation of 50-100 years in which we go to something like 0,99/0,999999c was a little optimistic. in regard that right now were at, idk, something like 22 km/s not 300,000 km/s for an object in the size of a spaceship, it should take waay longer to reach that (and the fuel thing is a whole different subject, since we might be able to "capture" matter/antimatter out of space and use it as fuel or whatever)

but it fucks my mind when i think about aliens. it couldnt be like it is mostly suggested, that a small pioneer spaceship travels through space and discovers other solar systems (and is seen by some drunk redneck 52 times in a year). even if they live 1,000,000 earth years, there "homebase" wouldnt live long enough to see what they found out. interesting when you think about it, it somehow opens up the possibility of intrastellar travellers and it somehow kills it

Jan 14 2010 5:41AM
0 0
profile picture
TheButterHashira
Posts: 9691 - Karma: 1,702
How we could get near light speed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail


Jan 14 2010 6:14AM
0 0
profile picture
Luc.
Posts: 7540 - Karma: 59
o ok. so if i was moving at just below the speed of light, to someone who was moving a normal speed that we live at now, i would be moving extremley slow, but in actual fact i would be moving so fast they could just barely see me?

and the main theory to how cells age is free radicals in our cells getting less and less neutralized as we age, which breakdown the advancement and rapid re-growth of our epithelial tissue in our bodies...i assume this would also be affected by moving at hyperspeed, negating the breakdown of the cells due to free rads as you are now in a "different time zone" more or less...
Jan 14 2010 8:59AM
0 0
profile picture
COskier
Posts: 1066 - Karma: 131
no
Jan 14 2010 2:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Mike-O
Posts: 14593 - Karma: 1,089
Bit off-topic, but I'm dropping this here, my favourite thought experiment ever, with sooo many theories and possible alternate explanations to its feasibility (pushing on 75 years now):

Schrödinger's neko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat


Jan 14 2010 3:32PM
0 0
profile picture
andrew.
Posts: 2349 - Karma: 165
assuming all this is possible, and there isnt anything we dont know about yet standing in the way (VERY probable), its most likely wouldnt be conceivable.  while its plausible to get a particle or something else very very small up to .99999999999c, it would be near impossible to get anything big enough to transport even one person up to that speed.  not to mention something big enough to transport a person, enough fuel for the trip, oxygen, food, water, and other necessities.  id say a more appropriate time span would be way bigger than 50-100 years.





also, is anyone else getting creepy flashbacks to planet of the apes?
Jan 14 2010 3:38PM
0 0
profile picture
Luc.
Posts: 7540 - Karma: 59
care to explain instead of being a moron?
Jan 14 2010 5:20PM
0 0
profile picture
Tasche
Posts: 5422 - Karma: 99
if you were moving at near the speed of light, and someone could look in on you, you would appear to not be moving at all. However you would of course be traveling near the speed of light. Relativity is just that, it is relative. It is based on your velocity compared to another velocity. Time is not linear, so it is not like you are in a time machine, literally time does not pass at the same rate so every process that is time dependent passes at the same rate that you do. I just talked myself in a circle but if you want to learn more please read one of the books I posted above.
Jan 14 2010 5:44PM
0 0
profile picture
Shreddysaurus
Posts: 2120 - Karma: 59
i love stuff like this even if it is hard to understand at times. im just day dreaming here but to travel at near the speed of light with a human you would need a long distance to start and stop so as not to over stress the human body with g force. so if in space where (correct me if im wrong) there is no friction so therefore nothing to slow down your ship or watever. so couldnt you slowly build the speed of the craft over the coarse of a year or so until you reach near the speed of light. one problem that occured to me is that with nothing to in space to really generate a great amount of thrust you would need something of greater mass than the ship to push off of, sort of like a propulsion checkpoint.
Jan 14 2010 6:10PM
0 0
profile picture
Tasche
Posts: 5422 - Karma: 99
there are a lot of ideas out there. for example you could build a electromagnetic track in space. Or a hydrogen ram jet, basically a massive opening would collect hydrogen in space which actually has a lot of hydrogen floating around, and it would accelerate at about 9.8 m/s/s so you would have gravity.
Jan 14 2010 6:25PM
0 0
profile picture
KiDCuDi
Posts: 390 - Karma: 13

Jan 14 2010 6:37PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)