Questions about a theory of relativity! On a question about the theory of relativity, the tired mast

The definition of the theory of relativity is that the speed of any object cannot be greater than the speed of light.

If going faster than the speed of light would break the law of cause and effect, let's say you were born before your father, that's obviously not possible.

Going back in time is just a theoretical speculation

According to the theory of relativity, the faster an object is, the slower time will be, and when the speed of light is reached, time should stand still, and if the speed can continue to increase, time will theoretically turn back

It has been proven that time slows down by accelerating particles with accelerators so that they are close to the speed of light, but apart from light, it is currently impossible for physical particles to accelerate to greater than or equal to the speed of light, so this is just a theoretical speculation

In the theory of relativity, the speed of light is the fastest speed.

as the basis for such a theory.

Because it is necessary to choose the fastest speed as proof of the time of occurrence of the event at a distance.

That is, the time before and after is measured by the fastest speed.

Beyond the speed of light, an object where an event is occurring can reach the location of the event's measurer earlier than the light emitted by the event.

At this time, the event has not yet occurred here for the measurer.

It's like stepping back in time to understand.

Actually, if something could exceed the speed of light.

Einstein should have changed the speed of light in the equation to his speed.

The theory of relativity is wrong.

So going back in time is bluffing.

Einstein himself said it couldn't be.

He just assumed it.

It's very mysterious.

Arouse everyone's curiosity and imagination.

Upstairs is a testament to why light is the fastest.

This is the view of the logical self outside of physics.

The theory of relativity only says that time can be fast or slow, but does not say that time can be negative, and time cannot reach the flow f e s mc2 s

f kilogram m sec kg c2 m.

So. mMi sec c2

So time cannot be negative, that is, it cannot go back in time

This formula uses the mass-energy relation and the motion relation to conclude that space can be negative, but time is only positive

The theory of relativity solves the relationship between time and space. Velocity is a physical quantity that encompasses both.

In the theory of relativity, Einstein proved from many angles that the speed of light is an impossible limit. Time rewind is one of them. Einstein didn't think time would turn back.

On the contrary, he, like you, thinks that going back in time is unthinkable. So it can be proved that the speed of light is unattainable. Hence you think "going back in time......I don't understand."

However, it has been experimentally proven that high speeds slow down time.

If you are really interested in this question, I suggest you read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". Very well written, not difficult to understand.

Definitely not! I take the observer on the train as my standard. Two events that appear to be simultaneous on the ground (in this case, two bolts of lightning striking the mouth of the tunnel at the same time) do not appear to be simultaneous on a moving train.

So what kind of phenomenon does an observer on the train seem? Due to the movement of the tunnel (note, the point of view of the train), the tunnel became shorter! When the locomotive reaches the bottom of the tunnel, that is, when there is still a section of the train outside the tunnel.

A bolt of lightning struck the bottom of the tunnel, and the train was safe. When the rear of the train was all in the tunnel, another lightning bolt came. Safe.

It doesn't matter if the train is struck by lightning, the train is iron, the track is also iron, and it has reached the earth, whether there is it or not, it is fine!!

The connotation of the mass-energy equation is that the essence of mass is energy, and the change of mass must be accompanied by the absorption or release of energy, and the object has mass when it is at rest because it has stationary energy, which is contained in the interaction potential energy of various microscopic particles.

Kinetic energy, as the name suggests, is the energy that is possessed because of motion, which is equal to the total energy of the matter minus the energy at rest, that is, mc square - m0 * c square, if you still ask why, I just answered such a question two days ago, which is derived from a slide, you can search by my name.

1.Albert Einstein believed that mass and energy could be converted into each other.

2.Stillness is also relative.

3.For a frame of reference, static energy refers to the energy that can be released when the matter at rest is fully energized.

4.When an object moves (relative to a frame of reference), the mass increases, in other words, the mass is also relative, and the kinetic energy is also relative.

The total energy during motion is the mc square, and this m is greater than m0.

The condition you give is v c=, the square is, is subtracted by one, and the square is, which is the shrinkage coefficient of time, multiplied by 5 years is the year, that is, the elder brother is only one year older (younger than the younger brother). This formula and conclusion are not wrong, it is the conclusion of the so-called "twin paradox" problem.

Although it is inevitable that the elder brother will have to accelerate or negative acceleration (deceleration) when he leaves the Earth and returns to the earth, it can theoretically be calculated by changing the speed of the elder brother directly from 0 to v (just like taking a V-speed spaceship directly and coming back from a V-speed spaceship directly to a -V-speed spaceship). Although this kind of shifting is unbearable, it can still be considered for objects such as particles, such as shooting a bullet into a moving spaceship). The twin paradox, the elder brother is young when he comes back from the spaceship, and there is no need to involve general relativity.

This is the most popular and vivid demonstration of the effect of special relativity, and if you don't understand this, you don't understand special relativity! This has been pointed out in the writings of many experts (e.g., Wu Dayou's History and Philosophy of Physics, p. 176).

First of all, if the calculation process is as follows according to your requirements:

5*sqrt (i.e. 1 year.)

But the theoretical basis of this process is the special theory of relativity, which can only be used in straight lines or plane space, and if the elder brother can return to the earth after a trip, it will no longer be a straight line motion, so this problem cannot be calculated using this formula.

If you look at it the other way around, the younger brother is also in the same movement relative to the elder brother, first v and then -v, does that mean that the younger brother should become smaller than the elder brother after the elder brother travels?

The title is wrong.

It is"Twin paradoxes"...Google it yourself and find out.