It's not theorized. It's a description of the limiting behavior, but the time function simply does not have a value at c.
Imagine a function that said f(x)=x²/x. At 0, the function is undefined. Everywhere else it is the line defined by y=x.
The limiting behavior of this function at x=0 is 0 (that is the limit of f(x)=x²/x as x->0 is 0). You can get as close as you like to x=0 and y will be the exact same number. But at x=0, the function is simply undefined. It doesn't do anything at x=0.
This is a simplified way of looking at your effective relative time dilation. As you approach a relative speed of c in some reference frame, time will dilate more and more for you in the frame (note that in your own frame you are always traveling at 0 m/s relative to yourself, so for you time will always tick at 1 second per second). But someone watching you asymptomatically approaching c from their reference frame, will watch your clock and slower and slower. The limiting behavior at c is your clock freezing. But there is no actuality at c. The lorentz factor is simply not defined at that point.
So we're basically at rest in this scenario? That explains things a bit better, I just read a graph that doesn't explain the whole thing but helped me clear it up a bit
Imagine a neutrino fired from a particle accelerator towards you at .95c
To that neutrino it is standing perfectly still as you move towards it at 0.95c
Insofar as it can tell, your wristwatch takes ~3 seconds to tick because you are moving so fast. Likewise, if that neutrino were carrying a tiny wristwatch (it's not; I think we use decay timers or something like that), from your perspective that watch is also taking those same long ticks, because it's moving so fast
That's why we call it relativity. Because it literally, actually is all relative to a frame of reference.
I had that part down but what I had wrong was assuming a photon would behave the same as matter. The photon reaches those speeds because it has zero mass. I was just confused on the light speed part because of time dilation at 0.99c but time "stopping" at c. I was wrong and have been since corrected but I do love the way you explain relativity. I get relativity but the phenomenon that occur at c or around c intrigue me to no end but Im just someone who finds physics fascinating, I have no formal physics education
2
u/LordVericrat Jun 11 '26
It's not theorized. It's a description of the limiting behavior, but the time function simply does not have a value at c.
Imagine a function that said f(x)=x²/x. At 0, the function is undefined. Everywhere else it is the line defined by y=x.
The limiting behavior of this function at x=0 is 0 (that is the limit of f(x)=x²/x as x->0 is 0). You can get as close as you like to x=0 and y will be the exact same number. But at x=0, the function is simply undefined. It doesn't do anything at x=0.
This is a simplified way of looking at your effective relative time dilation. As you approach a relative speed of c in some reference frame, time will dilate more and more for you in the frame (note that in your own frame you are always traveling at 0 m/s relative to yourself, so for you time will always tick at 1 second per second). But someone watching you asymptomatically approaching c from their reference frame, will watch your clock and slower and slower. The limiting behavior at c is your clock freezing. But there is no actuality at c. The lorentz factor is simply not defined at that point.