[mxplxxx (OP)]

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the faster we go the slower time goes as far as we are concerned. Can anyone describe the mathematics of how time and velocity are related in this situation?

[imatfaal]

Wikipedia Intro To Special Relativity

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Thanks ... I was hoping for something simple like a t = f(v) equation.

[Soul Surfer]

remember always that the time speed shift only applies to viewers at a distance that are moving at a different speed.  Time always flows perfectly normally for the person that is moving and all the objects that are moving with him.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Thanks ... although time appears to flow normally it has in fact slowed down or speeded up. It seems to indicate that there are two types of time, perceived and actual. This still doesn't help me with an equation relating speed and time. It seems to me that such a beast should be as fundamental as E=MC². If not, then something seems to be seriously amiss.

[imatfaal]

Mxpl - the reason I posted an intro to special relativity is because it is a very good place to start.  The phrase you use "it has in fact slowed down or speeded up" betrays the fact that you are working on an idea of absolute time.  There is no god-frame which allows observation the absolute time dilation or absolute motion - everything is relative, there is only the time dilation from any other frame. And whilst time and length are normal within the local frame, they are always dilated and contracted to a greater or lesser extent from every other frame in relative motion.  There is no "actual time" - there is the time in one's own local frame and the dilated time in other frames.

To calculate the time dilation and length contraction of an object in relative motion we use the Lorentz Contraction which is based around this factor gamma



you will note that [tex] \frac{v^2}{c^2} [\tex] v²/c² will always be less than one for subluminal speeds and when [tex] \frac{v^2}{c^2} [\tex] v²/c²equals one we end up with a problem ie SR does not deal with frames moving with a relative velocity of speed of light, and when [tex] \frac{v^2}{c^2} [\tex] v²/c² is very small we end up with real-world earthly situations where no dilation or contraction can be observed.

edit - I had forgotten we dont have latex yet equation as follows

γ = 1 / √(1-v²/c²)

[mxplxxx (OP)]

What if time, speed and energy are equivalent? An increase in speed is achieved by an increase in energy. And what if instead of a past, present and future there is just an eternal present. In this scenario, time is just the rate of change of an entity. And change is related to an increase or decrease of energy which is related to an increase or decrease in speed. By the way, if you think of an eternal present as unlikely, think about the alternative of a past, present and future. In this scenario, the present is an infinitely thin knife edge, meaning that we don't exist at all. This is a possibility (we could be a simulation for example), but unlikely IMHO.

[imatfaal]

mxpl - you are getting into the realm of speculation and the New Theories sub-forum; the physics forum is for discussing and asking questions through mainstream science.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

There is no god-frame which allows observation the absolute time dilation or absolute motion√(1-v²/c²)

We may not be able to observe absolute time, that is not to say that it doesn't exist. Maybe God can observe it []  

[mxplxxx (OP)]

mxpl - you are getting into the realm of speculation and the New Theories sub-forum; the physics forum is for discussing and asking questions through mainstream science.

Ok, thanks for pointing that out. I will desist.

[imatfaal]

mxpl - you are getting into the realm of speculation and the New Theories sub-forum; the physics forum is for discussing and asking questions through mainstream science.

Ok, thanks for pointing that out. I will desist.

No - never stop asking questions!  Personally i think you would be much better served to ask questions and get explanations about mainstream science which in my opinion is amazing enough for any imagination.  But if you would prefer to speculate on the fringes then do so - but never stop questioning.  :-)

[syhprum]

Isaac Watts "A thousand ages in thy sight are like an evening gone" (Victorian hymn)

[mxplxxx (OP)]

It seems to me there are two types of time. One is the rate at which time flows and the second is elapsed time (seconds for example). The relationship of the first to speed could well be given by the equation t = 1/v. No idea of what the units might be. Immediately this raises the criticism that time stops at the speed of light but the equation does not predict this. So maybe the equation needs a speed of light component, but the maths eludes me.

[LetoII]

they are the same...

[swadewade8]

I have read recently read an article that the sub-atomic particle neutrino has been clocked at traveling 186415.0858983536 Miles per second (300,006 k.p.s.) which is faster than the speed of light which travels at roughly 186,282 miles per second.  This is faster than the speed of light but, not by much.  If this is true and does get proved, I am quite sure new mathematical equations will evolve to incorporate the new data.  This could possibly lead to being a step closer to understanding more of what dark matter is and how it equates to everything else.  From what I know of dark mater (or the lack thereof) couldn't this be similar relationship between Isaac Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of curved space time?  From what I understand about the two is there is a lag in gravity the farther away an object is from our sun the less pull it will have of course to hold the planet in space.  What keeps the planets in orbit is the curved space time in which a 'groove' is created by this propagation and is held into space by gravity.  I read the articles and pieced them together that made sense to me.  Are there computations to tie these two together?   If there is, I would like to know what they are.  I haven't got that far into math or physics aspect of it as of yet, but I am pretty good at formulating a spatial orientation and understanding the concepts.  Any help would be gratefully appreciated!!     

[David Cooper]

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the faster we go the slower time goes as far as we are concerned. Can anyone describe the mathematics of how time and velocity are related in this situation?

I thought I'd found an easy way to do it on a calculator like this: if you type in the amount of length shortening or clock slowing that you want, you can convert it to the required speed by typing inv sin, cos. If you want to start with the speed in order to work out the amount of contraction, type it into the calculator and type inv cos, sin. For example, if you want a clock to run at half the normal rate or to shorten a length to half the rest length, type in 0.5 inv sin cos and you'll get the speed of 0.866 the speed of light. If you want to know the shortening of time or length at half the speed of light, type 0.5 inv cos sin.

I hope that's right.

I worked that out by drawing lines on paper representing the course light would take when moving between two mirrors at opposite sides of a moving space ship - when you do that, the reasons for length contraction and time slowing become visible.

[tryme83]

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the faster we go the slower time goes as far as we are concerned. Can anyone describe the mathematics of how time and velocity are related in this situation?

I was just watching this video newbielink:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqmMoI0wks [nonactive] and asked myself the same question. Immediately at the beginning, the video shows an experiment in which we flew an airplane carrying an atomic clock around the world, after which this clock deviated from an atomic clock kept on the ground. I'd expect that this experiment has been repeated over and over with airplanes traveling at different speeds.. and that if you would plot the speeds of the airplanes vs. the time deviation, some curve with a simple mathematical formula would fit through the plotted points. I think this is in essence the question proposed here. Has this (or something similar) been done?

[David Cooper]

Haven't watched the video, but the experiment has been done many times. There is a complication with it though in that gravity affects the results more than the difference in speeds, so to eliminate that you want to compare two planes flying at different speeds but at the same altitude.

[Seldin]

mxplxxx, it may be hard to imagine but if you consider each particle in the universe to be an independent observer, then the idea of "absolute time" falls away as each particle's experience of time becomes relative. Likewise, you can further go as to view groups of particles (bodies) as observers as well; ie planets, stars, objects, people, etc... You can observe this with the atomic clock experiment presented by tryme83 in which two atomic clocks were synchronized and then separated. One stayed on the ground as the other was flown high above the earth. When reunited it was noted that the two clocks had a different opinion in what time it was because they had, in their own right, observed it independently of each other.

[evan_au]

the sub-atomic particle neutrino has been clocked at traveling 186415.0858983536 Miles per second (300,006 k.p.s.) which is faster than the speed of light

This result has subsequently been traced to an experimental error including a loose cable connector.

It is currently believed that neutrinos travel slightly slower than the speed of light. The difference is so slight that it can't be measured with current techniques.