Opposite of the speed of light

[Hulio]

according to einsteins theory of relativity if someone approaches the speed of light, their mass will increase, the density of space will increase and time will slow down. So if the speed of light could be reaced, your mass would be infinite, space itself would be squashed into an infinite density and time would freeze.

 

Now this theory of relativity has already been proven but if this theory is true the opposite should also be true. So if the speed of light is around 3 000 000 meters per second then the slowest you can move is to simply not move at all.

Lets say your not moving at all, theretically time sould become infinite, density should become 0 and your mass should become 0.

 

Of course we never really stop moving, the earth spins and revolves around the sun and so we are always moving. If you can travel into space and escape from any kind of orbit then your no longer moving forward. If that happens then theoretically you should have no mass and time should become infinite.

[Queso]

Wow.....

What a meditation that would be.

Thanks for the post. Never thought about the "opposite of the speed of light"

 

what a taoist concept!

[IDMclean]

The opposite side of the scale is found by looking into Thermodynamics. 0 Kelvin would be what you are looking at; however, we have yet to achieve that low of a temperature, but what we have achieved is what is known as the Bose-Einsteinian Condensate which does have remarkably weird properties.

[InfiniteNow]

So if the speed of light could be reaced, your mass would be infinite, space itself would be squashed into an infinite density and time would freeze.

Relative to what?

 

As I understand it, it's actually AT the speed of light that time itself becomes infinite (again, though, that's relative to a stationary observer).

 

Clown is correct about zero kelvin/absolute zero being the scale you seek, but I doubt also your statement about space itself being squashed to infinite density at c.

 

What is space itself, and why would this be squashed? It seems a misunderstanding of length contraction... or, at the very least, a misrepresentation of relativity. Can you clarify?

 

 

This thread will likely need to be moved to philosophy... unless, of course, you can represent these beautiful thoughts and intriguing contemplations with maths?

 

 

With the biting tongue of a harsh critic, but the curious eyes of an excited child... moi. :hihi:

[freeztar]

Yes, absolute zero would be the opposite.

Would this infer the same effects as the opposite (speed of light)? I don't think so.

 

In fact, as a mass undergoes more inertia (probably not the correct way to describe this), as in the case of a Bose-Einstein condensate, we do not see a growth in mass. Yet, as KAC said, we do see some very strange things happen such as superfluidity.

 

Although the phenomenologies of the superfluid states of helium-4 and helium-3 are very similar, the microscopic details of the transitions are very different. Helium-4 atoms are bosons, and their superfluidity can be understood in terms of the Bose statistics that they obey. Specifically, the superfluidity of helium-4 can be regarded as a consequence of Bose-Einstein condensation in an interacting system. On the other hand, helium-3 atoms are fermions, and the superfluid transition in this system is described by a generalization of the BCS theory of superconductivity. In it, Cooper pairing takes place between atoms rather than electrons, and the attractive interaction between them is mediated by spin fluctuations rather than phonons. See fermion condensate. A unified description of superconductivity and superfluidity is possible in terms of gauge symmetry breaking.

Superfluid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The basic assumption we could have that one extreme mimics the other is easily conceivable in imagination, but does not play out in the quantifiable reality of physics we study. Nonetheless, we have never reached either extreme (photons don't count :)), so it is ALL pure speculation at this point. (ok, there's some convincing mathematics involved, but we can argue Plato's perfect triangle all day)

 

Oi...it's time for bed...

[InfiniteNow]

In some sense, the question is a bit like asking "what is the opposite of 467 mHz." Opposite implies polarity. Velocity hath not polarity (AFAIK).

 

 

 

Green overalls are enlightened fig, yes?

[freeztar]

In some sense, the question is a bit like asking "what is the opposite of 467 mHz."

 

:) That's easy, -467 mHz.

 

Opposite implies polarity. Velocity hath not polarity (AFAIK).

 

Oh drat! ;)

Green overalls are enlightened fig, yes?

 

Huh? You lost me there.

[snoopy]

OH God,

 

First of all there is no opposite of the speed of light,

its a constant.

 

That means it universally stays the same.

 

Secondly if you achieved absolute Zero Kelvin time would not become infinite.

Time would not exist for you at all.

 

You would be frozen in spacetime quite literally.

 

Weird things would happen at the atomic level and if you tried to measure a frozen persons atoms then and only then would the einstein-bose condensate come into play.

 

If you achieved absolute zero you would almost certainly retain your mass

your velocity would have to be zero to achieve absloute zero kelvin as it necessarily implies you have energy if you are moving and this energy would heat you up.

 

Peace

:confused:

[Natural]

OH God,

 

First of all there is no opposite of the speed of light,

its a constant.

...

Secondly if you achieved absolute Zero Kelvin time would not become infinite.

Time would not exist for you at all.

 

You would be frozen in spacetime quite literally.

...

If you achieved absolute zero you would almost certainly retain your mass

your velocity would have to be zero to achieve absolute zero kelvin as it necessarily implies you have energy if you are moving and this energy would heat you up.

First, just because you have a constant value doesn't mean that there couldn't be a secondary opposite value.

Next, just because you were frozen doesn't mean that someone else couldn't be standing there watching you be frozen, so I think time would continue.

And last, I agree about the energy heating you up but now we're talking about what happens when an electron stops in it's orbit? (...Heisenberg has left the buliding...)

:confused:

That one got you thinking didn't it?

:confused:

[Little Bang]

Is there a place in the universe where your motion with respect to anything would zero?

[paigetheoracle]

OH God,

 

First of all there is no opposite of the speed of light,

its a constant.

 

That means it universally stays the same.

 

Secondly if you achieved absolute Zero Kelvin time would not become infinite.

Time would not exist for you at all.

 

You would be frozen in spacetime quite literally.

 

Weird things would happen at the atomic level and if you tried to measure a frozen persons atoms then and only then would the einstein-bose condensate come into play.

 

If you achieved absolute zero you would almost certainly retain your mass

your velocity would have to be zero to achieve absloute zero kelvin as it necessarily implies you have energy if you are moving and this energy would heat you up.

 

Peace

:doh:

 

Another interesting post by you (2112, 2nd). As Natural says, you could be frozen and someone else could be standing beside you - the very point I was about to make in response to your post, when I scrolled down to his (notice face icon chosen is the same as mine - another coincidence! Isn't life amazing! Okay it's not but what the hell, I'm old and cynical enough not to care anymore).

 

By the way the opposite of the speed of light is the sloth of dark, obviously (and that is not as daft as it sounds - it's dafter!): Black holes absorb light as White wholes radiate it, in theory at least. I think there is a self-regulating mechanism at work in the universe, which ensures that once an absolute is reached (if possible,totally) then it sets off it's opposite again (Homeostasis in the body for instance or the way mountains create the climate that ultimately wears them down again: Not saying it's perfect just that it seems to exist in some form as though the universe was an intelligent machine, creating its own destiny (intelligent design but not as creationists mean it, thank God!). Merry Christmas to all my readers!:phones:

[amidst]

From what i understand and assuming that the big bang theory is correct, then the universe is expanding at the speed of light and it is this rate of expansion that governs the speed of light, so if the rate of expansion was to slow down then so would the speed of light and this would be proportional to the rate of deflation of the universe. So if the universe was to suddenly stop expanding and slowly begin its return journey back to its origin the point of singularity where all matter is infinitly compressed into a space so small it could said that it does not actualy exist at all, and it is then at this moment where it ceases to exist that it becomes the point where it begins to exist again a kind of zero point crossing, could this be termed as the opposite of the speed of light.

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography, Hulio. Thanks for the thought-provoking thoughts. :)

 

In your study of Relativity, I believe you’ve overlooked the most essential part of it: all velocity is relative. So when you state

So if the speed of light could be reaced, your mass would be infinite, space itself would be squashed into an infinite density and time would freeze.

what the theory actually states is, relative to some observer not in motion along with you, who measures your speed as having reached the speed of light ©, your mass as measured by them (for instance, by its gravitational attraction) is infinite, your length in your direction of travel is zero, and your time (for instance, the movement of the hands of your wristwatch, or any other sort of observable activity, as seen by the observer) halts. Switching observer/observed roles to you looking at the observer, results in you seeing the same thing: his mass is infinite, length zero, time halted. (As you note, nothing can actually reach c, so can never have infinite mass, but, given enough energy and some way to get it to do work, you can get something very close to it)

 

Your next step, however, doesn’t agree with Relativity, or with any real-world evidence:

… then the slowest you can move is to simply not move at all.

Lets say your not moving at all, theretically time sould become infinite, density should become 0 and your mass should become 0.

Though it’s reasonable to call a velocity of zero the slowest you can move and “the opposite of the fastest you can move, ©, let’s look at what special relativity says about your mass, length, and time when your speed is 0 relative to the observer.

 

Pretty much all the “dilation” effects in Special Relativity involve multiplying or dividing by an expression known as the Lorentz factor (sometimes abbreviated [math]\tau[/math], pronounced “tau”, which I like because it reminds me of my childhood encounter with wonderful science fiction novel involving the concept, “Tau Zero”),

 

[math]\tau = \sqrt{1 - \left( \frac{v}{c}\right)^2}[/math] where v is your speed as measured by the observer.

 

[math]m = \frac{m_{\mbox{rest}}}{\tau}, L = \tau L_{\mbox{rest}}, t_{\mbox{observed}} = \tau t_{\mbox{observer}}[/math] where m is mass, t is change a time measurement, and L is length.

 

Setting [math]v=c[/math], [math]\tau=0[/math], giving the expected infinite mass, zero length and halted time. Setting [math]v=0[/math], however, gives [math]\tau=1[/math], (not infinity), causing mass, length, and time to be unchanged.

 

This should make intuitive sense. If you and I are sitting without much movement near one another, neither of us sees the other’s mass, length, or time much dilated.

 

The key point, which goes against intuition, is that, according to Special Relativity (General Relativity, which involves gravity, is a different subject) nobody every detects their own clocks slowing. No matter who observes who, each sees the other’s clock slowing, not speeding up, relative to their own.

 

Although many strange things – superconductivity, many atoms behaving as if their a single one (Bose-Einstein condensation), etc. – occur when a collection of particles is cooled to near – or, in principle, all the way to – 0 K (absolute zero), nothing dramatic happens to its mass, length, of time. Since temperature is a measure of the average relative motion (kinetic energy) of a collection of particles, and absolute zero requires that the collection have no relative motion, it’s arguable impossible for such a collection to have a working clock to confirm this, but we could verify the prediction that nothing strange happened to its mass or length.

 

Note that temperature, too, is observer-relative. For example, a gas cooled to nearly 0 K, would, technically, have a fairly high temperature relative to an observer moving at a high speed relative to it – though it would be a strange sort of temperature, in that rather than the particles moving randomly, as they usually do, they’d all be moving in nearly the same direction relative to the observer.

[IDMclean]

Is there a place in the universe where your motion with respect to anything would zero?

 

If a tree falls in a forest and no auditory sensor is nearby to hear it, would it make a sound?

 

or

 

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

 

Pretty much all the “dilation” effects in Special Relativity involve multiplying or dividing by an expression known as the Lorentz factor (sometimes abbreviated [math]tau[/math], pronounced “tau”, which I like because it reminds me of my childhood encounter with wonderful science fiction novel involving the concept, “Tau Zero”),

 

Isn't that Gamma rather than Tau? (See the wikipedia article). If I remember correctly and if the wikipedia source is accurate Tau actually refers to the relative time measurement due to length contraction at speeds approaching c.

[CraigD]

Pretty much all the “dilation” effects in Special Relativity involve multiplying or dividing by an expression known as the Lorentz factor (sometimes abbreviated [math]tau[/math], pronounced “tau”, which I like because it reminds me of my childhood encounter with wonderful science fiction novel involving the concept, “Tau Zero”),

Isn't that Gamma rather than Tau? (See the wikipedia article). If I remember correctly and if the wikipedia source is accurate Tau actually refers to the relative time measurement due to length contraction at speeds approaching c.

Yes, it is. Gamma’s actually the reciprocal of tau ([math]\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\left( \frac{v}{c}\right)^2}}[/math]), and is a more commonly used convention than tau. I’ve heard it argued that tau should only be used to refer to time dilation ( [math]\tau = \frac{t_{\mbox{observed}}}{ t_{\mbox{observer}}} = \sqrt{1-\left( \frac{v}{c}\right)^2} [/math] ), but, largely out of affection for the book and the sound of the phrase “tau zero!”, I like to use it as a slightly easier-to-write variation of the usual gamma.

 

It’s one of those “you say tomato, I say the reciprocal of tomato” things ;)

 

Seriously, the point I was trying to make is that, unlike for relative velocities near c, mass, length, and time dilation for relative velocities near 0 change very little. For example, for a change in relative velocity from 1 to 0 m/s, tau changes from about 0.999999999999999995 to 1, a factor of about one in ten thousand trillion. For a change from 299792456.9 to 299792457.9 m/s, it changes from about 0.000086 to about 0.000025, by a factor of greater than three.

 

So while it’s reasonable to call a speed of zero is “the opposite of c”, not much happens in the vicinity of zero, while dramatic, interesting things happen near c.

[snoopy]

Another interesting post by you (2112, 2nd). As Natural says, you could be frozen and someone else could be standing beside you - the very point I was about to make in response to your post, when I scrolled down to his (notice face icon chosen is the same as mine - another coincidence! Isn't life amazing! Okay it's not but what the hell, I'm old and cynical enough not to care anymore).

 

By the way the opposite of the speed of light is the sloth of dark, obviously (and that is not as daft as it sounds - it's dafter!): Black holes absorb light as White wholes radiate it, in theory at least. I think there is a self-regulating mechanism at work in the universe, which ensures that once an absolute is reached (if possible,totally) then it sets off it's opposite again (Homeostasis in the body for instance or the way mountains create the climate that ultimately wears them down again: Not saying it's perfect just that it seems to exist in some form as though the universe was an intelligent machine, creating its own destiny (intelligent design but not as creationists mean it, thank God!). Merry Christmas to all my readers!:)

 

 

Hello Paige,

 

Life must be difficult at times what with the recession in the oracle business of some several thousand years but I was wondering what makes you think the the universe is some kind of machine why could it not be just chemistry happening in a happy way that creates life do we really need to mystify life, I know the truth is somewhat boring and lacks pizazz but is it really better to mystify and have the universe as some sort of supernatural or magical place.

IMHO intelligent design is just as mystifying as creationism as it implies some sort of intelligent designer, no doubt sitting at home with a coffee and a textbook something like 'Universe creation made simple' 24.99 at amazon or waterstones.

 

Merry Christmas to you too

 

Peace

:)

[paigetheoracle]

Hello Paige,

 

Life must be difficult at times what with the recession in the oracle business of some several thousand years but I was wondering what makes you think the the universe is some kind of machine why could it not be just chemistry happening in a happy way that creates life do we really need to mystify life, I know the truth is somewhat boring and lacks pizazz but is it really better to mystify and have the universe as some sort of supernatural or magical place.

IMHO intelligent design is just as mystifying as creationism as it implies some sort of intelligent designer, no doubt sitting at home with a coffee and a textbook something like 'Universe creation made simple' 24.99 at amazon or waterstones.

 

Merry Christmas to you too

 

Peace

:)

 

Hi Snoop

 

Please read my post thoroughly rather than react, chemically. It can be chemistry but how do things get mixed by accident to create life? I personally believe it can only happen when the conditions are right, plus what I'm saying does not negate chemistry or science in general (see Physics of God thread in Theology section and my posts on the subject there too). My idea of creationism or intelligent design doesn't imply a little man sitting at home with a chemistry set either. The point I'm trying to make is that 'both' states exist i.e. mysticism and boredom, and the latter fuels the former through investigation and discovery (experiment and exploration). What I'm further trying to say is that I define God as this state of wonder when we discover something new as opposed to the hell of being stuck in the consciousness prison cell of going nowhere/ doing nothing. What I'm trying to do is find what definition applies to what word and why - as I say the word God applies to something but how would I define it and as I say to me it means positivism as opposed to negativity. You are going by what other people mean by it and have defined it as in the past as you are using other terms in their specific scientific fields meaning, which I am not. Hence the confusion and seeming argument rather than the truth of the situation which is that there is really no dispute but it seems so as positions are being defended, not moved from and investigated.

 

Happy X-mas (read my jokes in the Watercooler section: You probably wont like (understand them) either!