> The faster you go, the slower time goes. If you could go as fast as light, you’d see time come to a halt and disappear.
No, you wouldn't. Someone observing you would. Am I getting relativity wrong?
No, you wouldn't. Someone observing you would. Am I getting relativity wrong?
Any incoming light would be blue shifted to infinity, or red shifted to zero, so if any actually touched you there would be infinite energy there. Luckily no light can actually reach you - nothing can. You would have no incoming sensory information at all.
Because of length contraction there's no distance between the start and and of your journey, so from your POV it doesn't take an time at all, since the distance was so short.
10^18 years by our perspective would only be 3 years by the perspective of something traveling at the speed of light.
We observe things going the speed of light all the time =]
"Using the largest allowed value for the photon mass from other experiments, we find a lower limit of about 3 yr on the photon rest-frame lifetime. For photons in the visible spectrum, this corresponds to a lifetime around 10^18 yrs."
Which does work under the assumption that photons have a non-zero rest mass, and as such, could decay. I probably should have phrased my post better - this is hardly settled science, and the majority of physicists would almost certainly say that photons, with our current accepted theories, do not have rest mass. SR is pretty explicit on this :). But we can't say for sure that photons have zero rest mass - experiments have allowed us to set an upper bound on the rest mass, but not allow us to deterministically say they have zero rest mass. In such a case that photons do have rest mass, we would need to stop saying "The speed of light", and instead say "The speed of a (rest) massless particle", though this might be worth doing in general - gluons (and gravitons, if they exist) should be similarly massless.