If light's relative time stopped then shouldn't it be everywhere at the same time, yet it take minutes for the sun's light to reach our eyes and several years for other stars like Alpha Centauri. If special relativity is true there would be no need for light years because light would travel at an infinite speed.
P.S. This is the biggest unexplained problem I have with Einstein's theory.
2006-08-02 12:46:27 · 8 answers · asked by Jorfer 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
Many of these answers are on topic but fail to answer the question posed. When rscanner answered "Time stops for the beam of light, not for the observer." He only reinforced my question and hidden in pearls answer is "When you are moving with the speed of light either toward or away from the light, the length of all objects is reduced to zero and time freezes." This poses a new question also. Since light has a wavelength woudn't length contraction theory make light nonexistant. It also answers the question generally in terms of matter at the speed but fails to answer the question in regards to light itself. Since time freezes at the speed of light like other users have already mentioned then light would travel instantaneously throughout the universe. It seems either light travels instantaneosly or Einstein was wrong on length contraction and time dillation.
2006-08-02 16:04:59 · update #1
I like mad's answer but I just need confirmation. Does that mean that time is still moving but time appears to stop. If that is all it is then that would make the theory a lot less significant. Time does not stop but the image of the clock is frozen in place since the light emitted afterwards can't reach your eyes. That would just make it an illusion of time freezing. That makes sense, but I just need to make sure that I am correct when I say that time doesn't actually freeze.
2006-08-04 01:54:43 · update #2
If I may, I should say something about the Special theory of relativity that will solve the problem.
I hope you know why Newtonian theory had to change, and the Michealson-Morley experiment saying that ether does not exist, and the velocity of light derived from Maxwell equations independent of the velocity of the observer.
Up to this point we know that all inertial observers measure the speed of light to be c = 299792458 m/s .
What Einstein said was that although light propagates extremly fast ,it's speed is finite, and it's fastest signal we know, so we have to take the time it takes light to travel the distance between us(observer) and the event into account. Using to postulates and the Idea led Einstein to the special theory of relativity. This leads to a limit for velocities, c ,and that no particle moving with a velocity less than c can reach c or cross it. As I mentioned that the fastest signal we know is light, take force as a signal that the reciever of the signal accelerates to a faster speed,if something moves with the speed of light there is no way we can tell it to accelerate because light emited by us will never reach it(relative to us).
Now, I said all of these to say this, assume you were observing a clock,as the clock turns to 12:00 you start to move away from it with the speed of light. Does the clock stop? As you are moving at the same speed as light, none of the lightwaves emited by the clock after 12:00 will reach you because you are moving with the same speed as them.So what you observe is that the clock is freezed at 12:00 and you say the time has stopped for the clock relative to you. But time does not stop, for you,I mean if you had a watch, synchronized with the clock before your departure,when you've started to move (and you take the watch with you),the clock stops for you but the watch does not.
2006-08-03 13:06:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The time dialtion formula relates inertial time of a wave.
Light can change colors relative to the motion of the observer. At the same frame of reference the velocity remains the same.
It does take time for light to reach your eyes even though it appears instantanaeous.
Your problem with relativity theory is that you believe the first postulate. I believe the first postulate only applies to locaLspace where the density of the proagation medium is quasi -constant,
The fact that the science theories lean toward the belief that the speed of light is the same thruout the Universe is really a leap of faith.
2006-08-02 20:04:07 · answer #2 · answered by goring 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
'At the speed of light" in your question means when you are moving with the speed of light either toward or away from the light.
When you are at rest, if you measure the speed of light it will be 3x 10^8m/s.
When you move either toward or away from a source of light, the length of all objects is decreased or time is slowed down such that we measure the speed of light as 3x10^8m/s.
When you are moving with the speed of light either toward or away from the light, the length of all objects is reduced to zero and time freezes.
That is the reason that no objects can attain the speed of light.
2006-08-02 22:14:19 · answer #3 · answered by Pearlsawme 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Light travels at finite speed of 160000K/s and so even At that speed it takes time to travel from A to B.
2006-08-02 19:57:31 · answer #4 · answered by nininha 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Definitely relative (pun intended) to the actual speed of light!
2006-08-02 20:38:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Time stops for the beam of light, not for the observer.
2006-08-02 19:50:11 · answer #6 · answered by rscanner 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Time doesnt stop at the speed of light, it only slows down.
2006-08-02 19:49:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think your biggest problem is that you don't read your physics very carefully. Start over and try to think it through.
2006-08-02 19:53:22 · answer #8 · answered by Gremlin 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋