0

Just a quick question to help me see if my reasoning is right. The speed of light is constant from all frames of reference. So does this mean that an observer travelling at the speed and taking into consider time dilation. Does this mean that observer observes the passage of time of every other observer to be the same rate relative to theres since every observer would be travelling at the speed of light toward them.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
  • 5
    "Observers at the speed of light" - I believe it's been stated here many times here that there are no inertial frames of reference (observers) with relative speed $c$. – Hal Hollis Jun 02 '17 at 19:27
  • 1
    Possible duplicates: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/16018/2451 and links therein. – Qmechanic Jun 02 '17 at 19:40

1 Answers1

1

You're going to get the usual objections that we can't answer except in the limit as one goes faster and faster; obviously for massive entities like us actually attaining the speed of light is off-limits.

As one gets moving faster and faster (relative to some space-permeating lattice of clocks which are equidistant to each other and in sync in their coordinate system, say), many things happen:

  1. Everything that they can see "crowds into" the point right in front of them, except for the single point immediately behind them.
  2. The lattice also appears to be length-contracted; at higher rapidities $\alpha$ the speed these things are coming towards you is approximately a constant $c \tanh \alpha \approx c$ but the distance between them goes to zero like $\ell / \cosh \alpha.$ Therefore you appear to be passing more and more and more of them per second of your time.
  3. These two effects of the stars wanting to tilt "forward" and the things you're passing flying backwards past you seem to meet up at a definite distance behind you: your uniform acceleration effectively creates an event horizon at a fixed distance behind you; things which pass you appear to fall towards this and redshift into stasis rather than fully disappear. However this wall of death is actually an effect of your acceleration and if you were to stop accelerating it would fall back further and further behind you, as the tilt "forward" stopped increasing.
  4. Clocks which appear on the lattice appear to be getting time-dilated more and more, going slower and slower.

There is, technically speaking, no "limit where one accelerates all the way to the speed of light." The problem is that everyone measures light travel at the speed $c$ in their own local coordinates, so no matter how fast you start going, you still have an infinite distance to go! I like to refer to this as a "real-life Zeno paradox".

But we can try to stretch our imagination, to try to figure out what would be happening if you took these trends as far as they may go: for example, all of the stars crowding into the one point of the sky suggests a one-dimensional existence, but all of the inter-object distances shrinking also suggests that this line is only a handful of real honest-to-goodness points. So one might imagine that one needs to think of a sort of zero-dimensional three-point existence, there is the point where the photon "is" between emission and absorption, the entire future-pointing light cone of events appears as one point in front of it, and the emission event and its past-pointing light cone of events appears as one point behind it. There is no "time" per se as the photon hops from the first of these points to the middle to the end point; there are just the two transitions where it winks into existence and winks out, and as far as the photon is concerned they just happen one after the other.

CR Drost
  • 37,682
  • thanks for the answer, was far more interesting than saying observers cannot travel at the speed of light. At least now I know someone's been thinking seriously about a picture of things as observers get close to the speed of light thanks again I've never heard that description before. – 8Mad0Manc8 Jun 02 '17 at 19:47
  • @Bobs, consider adding another identical accelerated observer to the above set-up; there is never a time when one observes the other to be length contracted or otherwise affected despite both 'being close to the speed of light'. My point is that it doesn't make since to say that an observer is close to the speed of light since motion is relative. It is meaningful to talk about how two observers with relative motion close to $c$ observe each other. – Hal Hollis Jun 02 '17 at 19:53
  • At the limit where one accelerates all the way to the speed of light You know you can't do that so please rephrase it so as not to give a potentially misleading impression to the uninformed. I get what you're trying to say, but the expression makes me cringe somewhat. – StephenG - Help Ukraine Jun 02 '17 at 21:27
  • 1
    OK, I added some caveat explaining why you can't do that. – CR Drost Jun 02 '17 at 21:52
  • My first intuition when an observers relative velocity gets closer to the speed of light was that every other observer would become an equal distance from them but I dismissed this intuition and my mind turned to the observer would observe every other observer to be coming more directly toward them and there time dilation to becoming more equal to one another and given your answer about the lattice I think it may be vindicated.The Members of the lattice relative velocity to each would become more equal as the observer accelerated and got closer to the speed of light I am correct about that? – 8Mad0Manc8 Jun 03 '17 at 00:19
  • If two observers relative velocity to one another cannot be at the speed of light because of mass and its energy relation what about two incorporeal observers could there relative velocity ever be at the speed of light or does something have to consist of matter in order to have a relative velocity to some other something consisting of matter? – 8Mad0Manc8 Jun 03 '17 at 17:25
  • The closest physics terms to "corporeal" or "incorporeal" might be "fermions" and "bosons": arbitrarily many bosons can occupy a boson-state, only one fermion can occupy a fermion-state. You will have to be more critical with me as I start talking about such particle-physics matters; it's not my main training field. With that said, some bosons are massive in practice and can't go at the speed of light, and while none of the fermion particles we've seen have turned out to be massless, for a while people thought neutrinos were and as far as I know nobody thought that was physically impossible. – CR Drost Jun 04 '17 at 16:17
  • @CR Drost thankyou for further engaging in conversation to be honest I have a dry sense of humour and did not expect a favourable comment when I mentioned "incorporeal" thought it was maybe out the bounds of the realm of physics. However it got me further thinking about your answer and my picture of things as you imagine when the relative velocity of two objects approach the speed of light all the other reference frames approach a one dimensional universe as they all begin to approach the other and as they pass the other observer they wink out of existence at an event horizon. – 8Mad0Manc8 Jun 07 '17 at 23:16
  • @CR Drost that got me thinking the other observers travelling toward you they would observe the same because of relativity the would observe you winking out of exisetence as you pass them. Now if you reverse the arrow of time on this picture wouldn't that mean that everything would be slowing down and as a consequence objects, matter whatever you call it would wink into existence from the event horizons. Couldn't this be a picture of what happened at the big bang matter leaps into the universe as it slows down from the speed of light relative to other matter or is this idea too far out – 8Mad0Manc8 Jun 07 '17 at 23:23
  • @CR Drost just adding as the relative velocity approaches the speed of light the other observers pass you and fall into the event horizon and wink out of existence relative to you (is what i meant to say). And if you reverse the arrow of time the relative velocity of observers slows down and "matter" leaps out of each of the observers event horizons and into their existence. – 8Mad0Manc8 Jun 08 '17 at 00:50
  • I can't speak to all of these speculations, but I do want to at least offer the comment that the "wall of death" (the event horizon behind you) is a consequence of acceleration, not speed. A good reference is Baez's web page. You can draw the analogy that at a black hole you have to accelerate to escape it and so the two horizons are both very similar, but the shape of the one is a plane while the shape of the other is warped by general relativity into a sphere. – CR Drost Jun 08 '17 at 16:08
  • The idea that there is a time-reversed version of a black hole has indeed previously been explored and speculated as the beginning of our universe; this is also the reason that some people speculate that maybe if you fall through a black hole you could end up in a new universe; see also e.g. this paper. – CR Drost Jun 08 '17 at 16:13
  • @CR Drost thanks for your comments and as sped read through your answer I must have misunderstood the description of the chain of events you described. I can picture the crowding of stars or frames of reference and as the relative velocity increase the stars tend to to one dimension existence and i understand that further increase would mean this picture tending to a limit of zero dimensional 3 point existence as the relative velocity tends to speed of light. I guess I had a conceptual leap too far as I though you meant the event horizon was created as a result of relative velocity. – 8Mad0Manc8 Jun 08 '17 at 20:37
  • @CR Drost and because i could not picture the fate of the observers as they pass one another lead me to imagine that they would wink out of existence reltive the observer as the picture was tending to a zero point existence which suggest that the observer at this zero point is unable to observe anything since the univers has become dimensionless relative to them. Anyhow ill stop bothering you now but thanks for the stimulating and enlightening conversation well at least from coming from your frame of reference and not mine lol. – 8Mad0Manc8 Jun 08 '17 at 20:45