-3
$\begingroup$

theoretically, if organic matter was able to travel faster than the speed of light, without becoming "pure energy", and since theoretically traveling faster then the speed of light would travel backward in time, then would anything happen to the biological age of the organic matter?

$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by Qmechanic Apr 3 at 10:15

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Qmechanic
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1
$\begingroup$

No. Ignoring the impossibility of the situation, in the frame of the organic matter time progresses "normally" relative to itself as it "sees" the rest of the universe move by it at faster than the speed of light. It's just relative motion we are talking about, so it can't be some sort of magic "anti-aging" process. Not even Einstein can violate the second law of thermodynamics.

In any case, SR can't be applied at superluminal speeds, so I'm not sure we can apply SR reasoning anyway. In other words, we can't really use SR to talk about things SR doesn't allow. But I tried to address the main point about normal SR that your idea probably stems from. SR isn't a time machine, since that assumes an absolute time. In normal relative motion we aren't somehow slowing down time. It's just how things relate in frames moving relative to each other.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So the impossibility that a human found himself in this situation he would only be able to travel at this speed for the span of his biological lifespan? $\endgroup$ – StephanS Apr 3 at 9:43
  • $\begingroup$ @StephanS I suppose so? But I feel odd even saying that is definitive. See my edit to the answer. $\endgroup$ – Aaron Stevens Apr 3 at 9:53

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.