Time Dilation, will we ever take advantage of it?

[StepBangin]

Will we ever be able to take advantage of Time Dilation to reach distance planets, stars or even galaxies?

For those of you that believe in Intelligent life outside of Earth and for the ones that believe those "beings" have been to earth in UFO's or whatever. Do you think those other civilizations are so advanced that they can build ships good enough to travel at speeds high enough to take advantage of time dilation or purhaps they have an average life span much longer than ours (Maybe 10,000 Earth yrs per being)???

[madnak]

Well, time dilation is just a relative effect, right? There's no actual "slowing of time" going on, it's just that time seems to move at different rates from different frames of observation. But isn't a planet 1000 light years away going to remain 1000 light years away from our frame? That is, won't it take 1000 years for the traveler to reach a world 1000 light years away, even if "at the same time" it seems to be less on earth?

My understanding was that it was never possible to "close the distance" between two objects at a speed faster than that of light from the perspective of those objects, regardless of time dilation.

[StepBangin]

No, Time Dilation is a proven phenomenom (sp?). It has been proven many times.

So if you and I hopped in a spaceship that approached speeds near the speed of light we could go 1000 light years away and then come back to earth. It would now be year 4006 on Earth and you and I would just be a little older. It would feel like we have only been gone a short time (how short, I have no clue)

Its been said that time dilation doesnt really have much of an affect on things until it reaches about
18,600 miles/second or about 1/10 the speed of light. However it can and has been observed at speeds much slower than that

EDIT: I believe there is some in the Guiness Book of Records about time travel and time dilation. It was about some astronaut I believe

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]

So if you and I hopped in a spaceship that approached speeds near the speed of light we could go 1000 light years away and then come back to earth. It would now be year 4006 on Earth and you and I would just be a little older. It would feel like we have only been gone a short time (how short, I have no clue)



[/ QUOTE ]This is incorrect if we traveled at the speed of light for 1000 light years there and back. We would experience 2000 years worth of time. However many times that would have passed on earth.

[r3vbr]

IF there is an alien civilization that is more advanced, it is very probably MUCH more advanced, since technology grows exponentially.

Thus any advanced civilization would certainly have acomplished imortality (wich isnt such a big issue as people assume, and will be reached by humans possibly still within our lifetimes according to some futurologists)


see "Live Long Enough to Live Forever" Ray Kurtzweil.

[StepBangin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So if you and I hopped in a spaceship that approached speeds near the speed of light we could go 1000 light years away and then come back to earth. It would now be year 4006 on Earth and you and I would just be a little older. It would feel like we have only been gone a short time (how short, I have no clue)



[/ QUOTE ]This is incorrect if we traveled at the speed of light for 1000 light years there and back. We would experience 2000 years worth of time. However many times that would have passed on earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're saying the same thing.

Im just saying if I travel 1000 Lightyears away (relative to people on earth) and then back to earth (2000 earth years after our initial take off) then I would have only been on the spaceship for a short ammount of time (relative to myself)

Wow, does that make sense?

For example 1000 earth years passes = 1 day traveling NEAR the speed of light on my space ship passes

EDIT: A better example

If I take off in 2006 traveling at speeds near the speed of light and then comeback in 4006 it will seem like a short time to me, but the earth has changed a lot

[StepBangin]

[ QUOTE ]
(wich isnt such a big issue as people assume, and will be reached by humans possibly still within our lifetimes according to some futurologists)

[/ QUOTE ]

Great now I dont get to retire until I am 28,330,948,472,920

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Im just saying if I travel 1000 Lightyears away (relative to people on earth) and then back to earth (2000 earth years after our initial take off) then I would have only been on the spaceship for a short ammount of time (relative to myself)

Wow, does that make sense?


[/ QUOTE ] It makes sense it's just incorrect. If we are 1000 light years away and travel back, slighly over 2000 light years would have passed on the ship. Many times that would have passed on earth. Basically you can't say that we are 1000 light years away and less than 1000 years has passed on the ship.

[ QUOTE ]
For example 1000 earth years passes = 1 day traveling NEAR the speed of light on my space ship passes

[/ QUOTE ] This is correct idea. I am also in ignorance regarding the exact conversation rates. The point is that if you are traveling at near the speed of light for 1000 years you will be near 1000 light years away and the apparent passage of time on the spaceship will be NEAR 1000 years.

If we traveled aound the earth at the speed of light for 30 years acording to our clock on the ship, 2000 years would have passed on earth.


Edit: now that I think about it I might be incorrect here.

[NewUser2006]

What if I move realllllly slowly, will it have the opposite effect?

[Matt R.]

madnak,
From the POV of the light speed traveler, the distance appears much shorter that 1000 light years due to Lorentz contraction. So from say an observer on Earth, it looks like the time experienced by the traveler is moving much slower. And from the traveler's perspective, the distance he is actually traveling is much shorter. So from the light speed traveler's perspective, he will reach the destination at some fraction of 1000 light years depending on how close to light speed he is actually moving.

[StepBangin]

[ QUOTE ]
What if I move realllllly slowly, will it have the opposite effect?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you still have to travel fast, but just make sure you're traveling backwards, duh!

[StepBangin]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically you can't say that we are 1000 light years away and less than 1000 years has passed on the ship.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, my mom on Earth can say I am 1000 light years away, correct?

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically you can't say that we are 1000 light years away and less than 1000 years has passed on the ship.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, my mom on Earth can say I am 1000 light years away, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, a light year is a distance measured by a stationary observer. From the perspective of someone traveling at something like .9999c, the distance contracts considerably. And, from the "stationary" observer's perspective, the time for the traveler is moving much slower (but the distance still appears to be 1000 light years). Thus the traveler will age much less than 1000 years during the trip from all reference frames.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically you can't say that we are 1000 light years away and less than 1000 years has passed on the ship.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, my mom on Earth can say I am 1000 light years away, correct?

[/ QUOTE ] Are you stoped in relation to earth. If so i believe yes. I think if you are moving the distance changes a bit.

[madnak]

So the distance between me and the object actually seems to contract from my perspective as my speed increases? And if I were going fast enough, another galaxy might appear to be only a few miles away?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im just saying if I travel 1000 Lightyears away (relative to people on earth) and then back to earth (2000 earth years after our initial take off) then I would have only been on the spaceship for a short ammount of time (relative to myself)

Wow, does that make sense?


[/ QUOTE ] It makes sense it's just incorrect. If we are 1000 light years away and travel back, slighly over 2000 light years would have passed on the ship. Many times that would have passed on earth. Basically you can't say that we are 1000 light years away and less than 1000 years has passed on the ship.

[ QUOTE ]
For example 1000 earth years passes = 1 day traveling NEAR the speed of light on my space ship passes

[/ QUOTE ] This is correct idea. I am also in ignorance regarding the exact conversation rates. The point is that if you are traveling at near the speed of light for 1000 years you will be near 1000 light years away and the apparent passage of time on the spaceship will be NEAR 1000 years.

If we traveled aound the earth at the speed of light for 30 years acording to our clock on the ship, 2000 years would have passed on earth.


Edit: now that I think about it I might be incorrect here.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears I am the one that is incorrect.
From Wiki

Consider a space ship going from Earth to the nearest star system a distance d = 4.45 light years away, at speed v = 0.866c (i.e. 86.6% of the speed of light). The round trip will take t = 2d / v = 10.28 years in Earth time (i.e. everybody on earth will be 10.28 years older when the ship returns). Ignoring the effects of the earth's rotation on its axis and around the sun (at speeds negligible compared to the speed of light), those on Earth predict the aging of the travellers during their trip as reduced by the factor http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/1/5/d157bb3599dd4322be9e528a1faf6a01.png , the inverse of the Lorentz factor. In this case e = 0.5 and they expect the travellers to be 0.5×10.28 = 5.14 years older when they return.

The ship's crew calculate how long the trip will take them. They realize that the distant star system and the earth are moving relative to the ship at speed v during the trip. Therefore, the distance between the earth and the star system will be shortened (by the length contraction) to e = 0.5d = 2.23 light years, for both the outward and return journeys. Each half of the journey takes 2.23 / v = 2.57 years, and the round trip takes 2×2.57 = 5.14 years. The crew arrives home having aged 5.14 years, just as those on Earth expected.

If a pair of twins were born on the day the ship left, and one went on the journey while the other stayed on earth, the twins will meet again when the traveller is 5.14 years old and the stay-at-home twin is 10.28 years old. This outcome is predicted by Einstein's special theory of relativity. It is a consequence of the experimentally verified phenomenon of time dilation, in which a moving clock is found to experience a reduced amount of proper time as determined by clocks synchronized with a stationary clock. Examples of the experimental evidence can be found in the time dilation page.

[oneeye13]

[ QUOTE ]
IF there is an alien civilization that is more advanced, it is very probably MUCH more advanced, since technology grows exponentially.

Thus any advanced civilization would certainly have acomplished imortality (wich isnt such a big issue as people assume, and will be reached by humans possibly still within our lifetimes according to some futurologists)


see "Live Long Enough to Live Forever" Ray Kurtzweil.

[/ QUOTE ]

why don't you post this is the "singularity" thread?

for what reason does one call ones self a "futurologist"?

[MaxWeiss]

This whole idea of finding a way to travel close to the light barrier seems contrary to praticality and my own intuition. Based on what we have learned about nature in the last century or so and with all the new phsyics and weird things we have discovered, and continue to discover, it seems likely to me that we will figure out a way to circumvent the light barrier and have it be praticle within three or four hundred years at most. There's just too many loopholes in the math which hint at the idea that light speed is just another hurdle to be overcome. Heck, we thought Mach 1 was the limit of space travel once. Warp 1 doesn't seem all that absurd to me, and I've taken a few courses on special and general relativity--though I haven't gotten to the quamtum or superstring stuff yet.

[ScottHoward]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically you can't say that we are 1000 light years away and less than 1000 years has passed on the ship.

[/ QUOTE ]
let me try to clear this up /images/graemlins/cool.gif
if you get in your ship and travel at or near c, to a planet 5 light years away and back, when you return the earth will be ten years older. Your ship clock will show significantly less time accumulation. 10 light years doesn’t mean your ship clock accumulates 10 years, ten light years is the distance light travels in 10 years as measured by a clock that’s basically not moving (like, one that’s on earth). people on earth would watch you during your trip and watch their clocks, to them it would take you 10 years round trip. your clock would not agree with theirs.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
if you get in your ship and travel at or near c, to a planet 5 light years away and back, when you return the earth will be ten years older.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you travel at the speed of light, time stops(for you) completely.

Stu

[ScottHoward]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you get in your ship and travel at or near c, to a planet 5 light years away and back, when you return the earth will be ten years older.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you travel at the speed of light, time stops(for you) completely.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]
which would make your clock accumulation significantly lower? or no?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
which would make your clock accumulation significantly lower? or no?

[/ QUOTE ]

There would be no clock accumulation if you travel at the speed of light. That being said, its impossible for objects with mass to travel at the speed of light. Objects with mass become more massive as they approach the speed of light. As an object becomes more massive it takes more energy to continue to accelerate it. Eventually the energy required to continue the acceleration exceeds all the available energy in the universe.

Stu

[ScottHoward]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
which would make your clock accumulation significantly lower? or no?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
There would be no clock accumulation if you travel at the speed of light.

[/ QUOTE ]
no kidding? but there would be accumulation as the ship accelerated to c.
[ QUOTE ]
That being said, its impossible for objects with mass to travel at the speed of light. Objects with mass become more massive as they approach the speed of light. As an object becomes more massive it takes more energy to continue to accelerate it. Eventually the energy required to continue the acceleration exceeds all the available energy in the universe.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]
im pretty sure everybody knew that?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically you can't say that we are 1000 light years away and less than 1000 years has passed on the ship.

[/ QUOTE ]
let me try to clear this up /images/graemlins/cool.gif
if you get in your ship and travel at or near c, to a planet 5 light years away and back, when you return the earth will be ten years older. Your ship clock will show significantly less time accumulation. 10 light years doesn’t mean your ship clock accumulates 10 years, ten light years is the distance light travels in 10 years as measured by a clock that’s basically not moving (like, one that’s on earth). people on earth would watch you during your trip and watch their clocks, to them it would take you 10 years round trip. your clock would not agree with theirs.

[/ QUOTE ] Thanks for trying to clear this up. The problem that I was overlooking is the distances are not the same for all observers. Something that is 1,000 ly away from earth ignoring speed is only 500 ly away when one is moving at 86.6% of c. If we are moving at 99.9%c e = .0447 and we complete our journey there in 44.7 years. And we measure the distance as 44.7 ly away if we are traving at 99.9%c.

[ScottHoward]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for trying to clear this up. The problem that I was overlooking is the distances are not the same for all observers. Something that is 1,000 ly away from earth ignoring speed is only 500 ly away when one is moving at 86.6% of c. If we are moving at 99.9%c e = .0447 and we complete our journey there in 44.7 years. And we measure the distance as 44.7 ly away if we are traving at 99.9%c.

[/ QUOTE ]
when you get back your clock says 44.7 and the earth clock says 1000.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for trying to clear this up. The problem that I was overlooking is the distances are not the same for all observers. Something that is 1,000 ly away from earth ignoring speed is only 500 ly away when one is moving at 86.6% of c. If we are moving at 99.9%c e = .0447 and we complete our journey there in 44.7 years. And we measure the distance as 44.7 ly away if we are traving at 99.9%c.

[/ QUOTE ]
when you get back your clock says 44.7 and the earth clock says 1000.

[/ QUOTE ] This is a one way calc for a round trip you'd double it. But i think you get the idea. Of course this ignores acceleration and deceleration, the ammount of force required to move anything at 99.9%c.

[Metric]

I also subscribe to this point of view. By the time you have the technology to begin colonizing the galaxy in a serious way, you certainly should be able to transcend the limitations on lifespan handed to you by your own evolution.

[Riddick]

Random question: how fast are the electrons moving between two magnet ends?