Physics concept question

[Swifty]

I’ve been reading Brian Green’s The Fabric of the Cosmos and have found a fascination with physics. I’m basically learning all the concepts from scratch since I haven’t had a physics class since high school. I’ve understood everything up until this “special relativity.”

From the analogies in the book; I’ve concluded that light is outside of time. It is the fastest anything can travel in our universe. No mater the perspective, it always travels 670 million miles per hour. Also, the combined speed of any object’s motion through space and its motion through time is always precisely equal to the speed of light. Green uses an example of a parked car, when it starts and pulls onto the road some of its motion through time is converted to motion through space.

Later on he tells that if one was to travel at 500 million miles per hour and then looked at their watch, it would be ticking about two-thirds as slow. While if a light particle could have a watch it would not tick at all since light does not age.

This is where my question comes into play. In the book he describes one end of the spectrum of going 670 million miles/hour and what would happen. What I’ve been wondering is the exact opposite. I read a little further and he has yet to discuss this, so since I have no idea where to begin searching, I came here. I want to know what would happen if you were to remain completely still. Obviously, the earth is moving through orbit along with the galaxy, etc…. which is why we age the rate we do. So, if it where possible to find a point somewhere out there where no movement occurs how fast would we age?

All I could do was settle for a simple proportion and put a 1 instead of 0. I end up with something traveling 1 mile/76484 of our earth years. I still have no idea what would happen if something was completely still. Would we infinitely age, or am I getting in way over my head for the level I’m at.

[lollingat]

there is no reference frame at c so it doesn't matter how much "time" there is for light

[leg]

I've read Brain Green's Elegant Universe, as well as other books related to theoretical physics so I know where you are coming from...string theory is fascinating. Anyway, to answer your question, at absolute zero is it thought that all atomic movement halts. Thus, there is no movement, no atomic decay, and no aging (I don't know about quantum particles).

I'm not exactly sure why this is so, but the closer an atom is accelerated near the speed of light, the less it decays. This has been proven in particle accelerators.

Also, on another note, it has also been proven that the speed of light has increased over time. However, the reason is still unknown.

[lollingat]

I've read Brain Green's Elegant Universe, as well as other books related to theoretical physics so I know where you are coming from...string theory is fascinating. Anyway, to answer your question, at absolute zero is it thought that all atomic movement halts. Thus, there is no movement, no atomic decay, and no aging (I don't know about quantum particles).

I'm not exactly sure why this is so, but the closer an atom is accelerated near the speed of light, the less it decays. This has been proven in particle accelerators.

Also, on another note, it has also been proven that the speed of light has increased over time. However, the reason is still unknown.
1. the speed of light never changed
2. absolute zero or ZERO atomic movement isn't possible by the laws of QM, you can get almost no atomic movement but there will always be some. The movement is enough to keep helium, from ever becoming solid at normal pressure
3. atoms moving at high velocities decay slower according to the laws of relativity, they have so little mass it's very easy to get them going at 99% c

[leg]

Yeah, absolute zero is considered to be impossible. I was stating the theory.

Regarding the speed of light, I should of stated that the theory that the speed of light has changed is still considered to be speculative. I'll try to find my sources later to clarify.

[SlimBrady]

If you took a college level relativity course like I had to for mechanical engineering you would be looking at this differently since your concept really makes no sense. You have to be looking at this with different parallaxes since you are still, but you will to not be when you look at everything else relative to you. Not everything can be still or will be at the same time.

[wads]

I’ve been reading Brian Green’s The Fabric of the Cosmos and have found a fascination with physics. I’m basically learning all the concepts from scratch since I haven’t had a physics class since high school. I’ve understood everything up until this “special relativity.”

From the analogies in the book; I’ve concluded that light is outside of time. It is the fastest anything can travel in our universe. No mater the perspective, it always travels 670 million miles per hour. Also, the combined speed of any object’s motion through space and its motion through time is always precisely equal to the speed of light. Green uses an example of a parked car, when it starts and pulls onto the road some of its motion through time is converted to motion through space.

Later on he tells that if one was to travel at 500 million miles per hour and then looked at their watch, it would be ticking about two-thirds as slow. While if a light particle could have a watch it would not tick at all since light does not age.

This is where my question comes into play. In the book he describes one end of the spectrum of going 670 million miles/hour and what would happen. What I’ve been wondering is the exact opposite. I read a little further and he has yet to discuss this, so since I have no idea where to begin searching, I came here. I want to know what would happen if you were to remain completely still. Obviously, the earth is moving through orbit along with the galaxy, etc…. which is why we age the rate we do. So, if it where possible to find a point somewhere out there where no movement occurs how fast would we age?

All I could do was settle for a simple proportion and put a 1 instead of 0. I end up with something traveling 1 mile/76484 of our earth years. I still have no idea what would happen if something was completely still. Would we infinitely age, or am I getting in way over my head for the level I’m at.

most of your assumptions are wrong.. so your question donest really make any sense.

ill see if i can break it down..

1. you can't add a speed in space, and a speed in time together, to get the units of the speed of light.

2. if you went at 3/4 the speed of light, and you looked at your watch, you would not notice any difference in the behavior of the watch. the discripencies arrive when your watch is observed from an outside perspective. an outside observer would see you aging slower, and you would see the outside observer aging faster.

3. the simple equation of special relativity only shows strange behavior when an object reaches near the speed of light. at the relative speed's the earth is moving is basically computed to 0 when working with the equations.

4. from our own perspectives, we are always not moving, it's everything else that's moving.

5. only when speed become a significant fraction of the speed of light do we start aging differently. we will never reach any speed that will change the way we age in the near future.

5.5 realistically, no matter how fast we move, or how "slow" we move we will ALWAYS age at 1x speed, there is no other possibilities. only except being traveling near the speed of light, or orbiting a black hole. (which is not possible at the moment.)

6. the only real life applications of special relativity, that matter are the relativistic calculations made to satalites(for gps etc.) and adjustments made in atom smashers

7. either that book you're reading is like a tabloid or something, or you misunderstood everything it was talking about.

[wads]

I've read Brain Green's Elegant Universe, as well as other books related to theoretical physics so I know where you are coming from...string theory is fascinating. Anyway, to answer your question, at absolute zero is it thought that all atomic movement halts. Thus, there is no movement, no atomic decay, and no aging (I don't know about quantum particles).

I'm not exactly sure why this is so, but the closer an atom is accelerated near the speed of light, the less it decays. This has been proven in particle accelerators.

Also, on another note, it has also been proven that the speed of light has increased over time. However, the reason is still unknown.

particles moving near the speed of light dont decay slower, we just observe them to decay slower. such as muons hitting the earths atmosphere.

btw, where is this proof to show that light's speed has increased over time? i would like to see it.

[leg]

btw, where is this proof to show that light's speed has increased over time? i would like to see it.

Again, it is still considered to be speculative. I originally read it in a book, but I don't have it with me right now. However, I think this is the article it was referring to:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092.html
Now, Lamoreaux, along with LANL colleague Justin Torgerson, has re-analysed the Oklo data using what he says are more realistic figures for the energy spectrum of the neutrons present in the reactor. The results have surprised him. Alpha, it seems, has decreased by more than 4.5 parts in 108 since Oklo was live (Physical Review D, vol 69, p121701).

That translates into a very small increase in the speed of light (assuming no change in the other constants that alpha depends on), but Lamoreaux's new analysis is so precise that he can rule out the possibility of zero change in the speed of light. "It's pretty exciting," he says.

[wads]

thats pretty interesting, but i woudlnt believe it just yet until those results can be reproduced else where, outside of olko