Question Speed of Light and Time Dilation

Aug 7, 2024
17
2
15
Visit site
The speed of light and time dilation seem to be connected in many texts. In these texts, is time dilation actually infinite at the speed of light, or is this just a reference used for simplification?

If time dilation actually occurs with the speed of an object relative to an observer, why do we not assume that light itself doesn't undergo time dilation effects?

When looking into deep space, we see objects that are billions of LY away. Usually this is followed by a statement similar to, we are seeing these objects as they were, billions of years ago.

But if light experienced time dilation, wouldn't that light reach our instruments in zero time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: meerkat
The speed of light and time dilation seem to be connected in many texts. In these texts, is time dilation actually infinite at the speed of light, or is this just a reference used for simplification?
Light does not 'experience' time. There's a thought: Infinite slowing = zero, er not quite.[url=https://postimages.org/][/URL]

OB represents a photon. The horizontal axis is distance. Vertical is Time. All things having a speed must exist on the circumference. Distance OB is 1 Light Year. This is just an expression of Special Relativity. NB all my stuff needs checking as most is ex my imagination and not text book :)
I think the circumference can be thought of as space. Imagine, as the universe expands per second say the circumference increases at the Hubble constant (If you insert the age of the universe for time OA). Therefore the idea that SR only refers to local stuff doesn't seem correct as the diagram can be extended to represent all current space
 
Last edited:
Aug 7, 2024
17
2
15
Visit site
All things having a speed must exist on the circumference. Distance OB is 1 Light Year. This is just an expression of Special Relativity. NB all my stuff needs checking as most is ex my imagination and not text book :)
I think the circumference can be thought of as space. Imagine, as the universe expands per second say the circumference increases at the Hubble constant (If you insert the age of the universe for time OA). Therefore the idea that SR only refers to local stuff doesn't seem correct as the diagram can be extended to represent all current space

Gibsense,

Please, help me understand the diagram better. I have a couple of questions.

"All things having a speed..." meaning all matter as well as photons must reside on the circumference?

...or is the circumference is essentially the "boundary" in which any matter can exist due to light speed being the speed limit and given the number of spacetime intervals?

Let's say that time cannot possibly go in reverse, or there is only the present moment (except for memories), then the horizontal axis line would be the lowest point on the diagram?
 
Ok, first thanks for asking -
"All things having a speed..." meaning all matter as well as photons must reside on the circumference?
Correct. The diagram is a 2D illustration of a hypersphere existing in 4D Space. A Sphere would be a cross-section of a hypersphere. To understand better look up Hypersphere on Wikipedia or similar. You will learn that the SURFACE of a hypersphere is 3-dimensional - our sort of space. So that means the circumference of the circle illustrates our space.
Strictly speaking, the hypersphere is the surface of a hyperball.
...or is the circumference is essentially the "boundary" in which any matter can exist due to light speed being the speed limit and given the number of spacetime intervals?
This can get confusing. Imagine you were in that circumference line (just 1 dimension, a line but representing our 3D space) then you could travel around it forever (repeating the same round journey over and over) then you could not find a boundary and you would determine the universe was curved - spherical.

However, let's say you were a superbeing in 4D outside the universe looking at the whole thing you would see that those in it were confined within the circumference. From that perspective, you could consider it a boundary but the word is usually reserved for something that limits from within 3D space
Let's say that time cannot possibly go in reverse, or there is only the present moment (except for memories), then the horizontal axis line would be the lowest point on the diagram
The radius of the circle is (as the diagram shows) both distance and time. But note that any radius can be delegated as time or as distance. That is a light year can be considered as a year and vice versa (check this statement - it is correct!).
But always time runs at 90 degrees to space

This bit is crucial to understand (But is my personal take that I think is obvious). Time is a process, not a dimension. It is an action occurring in 4D Euclidian space within the Ball the surface of which is the sphere. This means it has to be positive as there is no such process as Unaction. Don't confuse this with rewinding stuff like making a broken egg whole - that is not negative time. (according to me)

However, the position opposite A on the diagram but on the circumference has a radius that is pointing down in an opposite direction to the radius at A. Time there is still a positive process but because the direction is opposite it is designated as negative.

The negative in this sense is still a positive process and not a rewinding of events. You should note that it is all relative. If you were a person travelling through 3D space (on the circumference) positive time would rotate with you and you would regard the opposite hemisphere as negative. (and anyone opposite would regard you as negative)

Whilst we are at it it is worth mentioning something I have not ventured into before but it seems to me to be a good 'maybe'. Let's say the universe responds as a hypersphere - mathematically but that it acts out the processes as if projecting the hemispheres onto a plane that devides the hemispheres. That way the processes of anti-particles and particles will act out in time in an everyday way. (the negative time changes an electron to a positron and vice versa). Not only that but the 'relativity rotation' of speeding stuff in space is rotated in situ (it doesn't have to jump to the other side of the universe to match up the rotation angle. It's a subject I have been thinking about how to express. Not doing so well on that so far but its an early shot. :)
 
Last edited:
Jan 7, 2025
1
0
10
Visit site
The speed of light and time dilation seem to be connected in many texts. In these texts, is time dilation actually infinite at the speed of light, or is this just a reference used for simplification?

If time dilation actually occurs with the speed of an object relative to an observer, why do we not assume that light itself doesn't undergo time dilation effects?

When looking into deep space, we see objects that are billions of LY away. Usually this is followed by a statement similar to, we are seeing these objects as they were, billions of years ago.

But if light experienced time dilation, wouldn't that light reach our instruments in zero time?
i could neverunderstand why they say time slows down when you travle close to speed of light. my point is if you take 2 clocks and 1 travels fast its time are slower when they stop. what that tells me is the clock going at speed of light took longer to do the same action as the other... time did not slow down the action was slower.... example if you drop a apple and at the same time exselirate to speed of light the apple will apear to hang in the air untill you return to normal speed and then hit the floor. i dont know what cause this or if its just gravity like when you get pushed into your seat when excilerating very fast but on a mutch biger scale. but its defenitly not time slowing down and if ther math say you would need infinet power to excilerate that fast why does light not need infinte power? i switch on a lazer pointer and the light tavels instantly at the speed of light that from a 9volt battery....
 
Jan 6, 2025
66
9
35
Visit site
i could neverunderstand why they say time slows down when you travle close to speed of light. my point is if you take 2 clocks and 1 travels fast its time are slower when they stop. what that tells me is the clock going at speed of light took longer to do the same action as the other... time did not slow down the action was slower.... example if you drop a apple and at the same time exselirate to speed of light the apple will apear to hang in the air untill you return to normal speed and then hit the floor. i dont know what cause this or if its just gravity like when you get pushed into your seat when excilerating very fast but on a mutch biger scale. but its defenitly not time slowing down and if ther math say you would need infinet power to excilerate that fast why does light not need infinte power? i switch on a lazer pointer and the light tavels instantly at the speed of light that from a 9volt battery....
You are misunderstanding time dilation.

Time dilation, within the theory of special relativity, is the “slowing down” of a clock as determined by an observer who is in relative motion with respect to that clock. In special relativity, an observer in inertial (i.e., nonaccelerating) motion has a well-defined means of determining which events occur simultaneously with a given event.

A second inertial observer, who is in relative motion with respect to the first, however, will disagree with the first observer regarding which events are simultaneous with that given event. (Neither observer is wrong in this determination; rather, their disagreement merely reflects the fact that simultaneity is an observer-dependent notion in special relativity.)

A notion of simultaneity is required in order to make a comparison of the rates of clocks carried by the two observers. If the first observer’s notion of simultaneity is used, it is found that the second observer’s clock runs slower than the first observer’s by a factor of Square root of √(1 − v2/c2),
where v is the relative velocity of the observers and
c equals 299,792 km (186,282 miles) per second—i.e., the speed of light.

Similarly, using the second observer’s notion of simultaneity, it is found that the first observer’s clock runs slower by the same factor. Thus, each inertial observer determines that all clocks in motion relative to that observer run slower than that observer’s own clock.

In simple terms.

You see, like the speed of light, time is relative to the observer. If you are on a spaceship travelling at 99% c then you will see YOUR clock operate normally, but the clock on a space ship traveling at 10% c would be operating slower than your clock from your perspective, thus the observer on that spaceship would see their clock operate normally, and your clock operate slower.
 

TRENDING THREADS