Students helping students, join us in improving Bored of Studies by donating and supporting future students!
It depends on who's point of reference we are taking. From the point of reference of the spaceship that's travelling at the high speed (some fraction of c) it will take less time from your point of view, whereas someone outside observing the spaceship will see it normally.Stopsign said:Does time dilation mean that it takes longer for events to occur?
The time dilation equation itself says that you can't move at the speed of light. The equation involves division by √(1 - v2/c2), and when you reach the speed of light that equals 0. You can't have division by 0, so everything falls apart.Stopsign said:So that means that, according to the stationary observer, the time for the moving observer, time slows (or it takes longer for events to occur).
If in the same instance, the moving traveller travels at a speed at c, then time stops and it takes an infinate amount of time for anything to occur.
Okay i edited my previous response to your question about varying acceleration.Bennah0 said:I was asking whether a particle could be shot at a superhuge mass a large distance away and if the gravity from this superhuge mass would accelerate the particle to beyond light speeds...and if not then why?
i guess, like most things in HSC physics, it's because the syllabus says so.r3v3ng3 said:i don't understand WHY light HAS to be the maximum achievable velocity or why nothing can go faster than it.
The equations for energy you use above are low-velocity approximations, and do not apply when speeds are very large.r3v3ng3 said:Okay i edited my previous response to your question about varying acceleration.
Now as to whether or not the particle can approach or succeed the speed of light, i think i have read something about it, but i don't think that it was due to the gravitational pull of a celestial body.
I'd try and work out the energy requirement to pull a neutron (i chose this particle because it shouldn't have any attraction or repulsion forces affecting it) so that it approaches the speed of light first.
=======================
Et=Ek + Er
Et=1/2mv2 + mc2
Et=1/2m(v2 + 2c2)
Now the mass of a neutron is : 1.674 927 16 × 10−27 kg
The speed of light c is : 299,792,458 metres per second
Let v = c (since we want the velocity of the neutron to be at light speed):
Et=1/2m(3c2)
Et=2.258... x 10-10 J
Now... this is a surprising result lol and i have no way to explain it other than i mucked up somewhere or i have applied the formula wrongly. (if anyone finds an error please say where)
Anyways, if this was the energy requirement to allow a neutron travel at light speed then it should be easily achievable by the acceleration to the gravity. To be honest, i don't understand WHY light HAS to be the maximum achievable velocity or why nothing can go faster than it.
In fact.... In 2002, physicists Alain Haché and Louis Poirier made history by sending pulses at three times light speed over a long distance for the first time, transmitted through a 120-metre cable made from a coaxial photonic crystal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#.22Faster-than-light.22_observations_and_experiments