Egregoros

Signal feed

Timeline

Post

Remote status

Context

1

I got something stuck in my brain for some time:

Let's say we want to travel to another star that is 4 light years from Earth and we keep accelerating with 1.5G to half way, turn around and decelerate the rest of the way

If we keep accelerating and getting closer to the speed of light our time slows relative to Earth

So from Earth it seems like 4 light years but on board it won't be experienced for the same duration

The distant stays the same but the time passes drastic different

Right?🤔

I guess you're referring to time dilation - clocks tick slower when they're moving really fast.

I personally like Lorenz's thinking around this, which is (roughly speaking): There is some kind of aether in the universe and light is a wave in that aether, same as sound is a wave in air.

Every physical thing has atoms or electrons orbiting, and these are going at the speed of light - so that means when the entire object is moving faster, those orbits become squished because they can't break the light speed barrier.

This gives rise to two effects: Things seems to become physically shorter in the direction they are traveling (orbits are squished) and physical processes slow down (orbits are forced to move more slowly). The part about physical processes is important because clocks become skewed to a clock on earth and when you land, you will observe that your clocks do not agree.

I will note that this is considered a "fringe" perspective, but the more commonly accepted Einstein perspective is that "time just does that, get over it" is not very fulfilling...

Replies

1
The Einstein perspective actually becomes quite annoying because it insists that there is no such thing as "stationary" in a universal sense.

So statements like "you can't go faster than the speed of light" becomes quite difficult to square, because the obvious question is "relative to WHAT?" - and the Einstein team's answer is a bunch of math which is able to answer the question of how fast you can go in any given situation - but it fails to give you a convenient mental model.

The history of why physics claims there is no such thing as "stationary" is because attempts to measure the speed that the Earth is traveling "through space" have come up empty-handed (Michelson–Morley experiment), and Einstein argued that if you can't directly measure it, you can't claim it exists.

Lorenz (and I) counter that it is okay to fill in an imaginary thing that has not yet been proven to exist, if it simplifies the overall mental model while retaining predictive accuracy vis à vis known experiments.