The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does slowed ageing at high speeds reflect a molecular "slow-down"?  (Read 22560 times)

Offline CZARCAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
cooling effects a molecular slowdown.
traveling near speed of light also effects an aging slowdown per einstein? wouldnt the slowed aging also involve a molecular slowdown?
« Last Edit: 26/11/2009 04:29:59 by chris »


 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
cooling effects a molecular slowdown.
traveling near speed of light also effects an aging slowdown per einstein? wouldnt the slowed aging also involve a molecular slowdown?

Theoretically, yes.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
The speeds of molecules are typically about the speed of sound, rather than the speed of light. The effect due to relativistic effects would be tiny.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Surely that is the actual reason for the slower aging associated with relativistic effects? As clocks travel, they slow down (relative to static clocks). Why would molecules be any different?
« Last Edit: 21/11/2009 20:56:08 by Geezer »
 

Offline CZARCAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
The speeds of molecules are typically about the speed of sound, rather than the speed of light. The effect due to relativistic effects would be tiny.
it would seem that the slowed aging of the traveling twin would be due to a slowed metabolism & molecular activity therein associated?
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
it would seem that the slowed aging of the traveling twin would be due to a slowed metabolism & molecular activity therein associated?

I believe that is correct. For the traveler, time itself is passing more slowly than it is for the stationary twin. Therefore, all activity - atomic, molecular, etc., etc., is relatively slower. Of course, the traveler is completely unaware of this. In fact, it is impossible for the traveler to measure any difference in the rate at which time elapses.

(At least, that's my understanding! I'm an engineer, not a scientist.)
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Theoretically, yes.

The predictions of the theory have been confirmed experimentally on many occasions. GPS systems have to take the effect into account.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
 

Offline CZARCAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
 if so i am looking at 2 opposites to find the same result=?
1-energy removal via cooling on earth results in slowed molecular activity
2- increased energy of the faster spaceship results in slowed molecular activity
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
You are forgetting one important thing RELATIVITY the effects of time dilation ONLY apply to objects that are travelling at high speeds with respect to each other therefore the individual molecules in an object are travelling at low velocities with respect to each other and there is no significant change. travelling near the speed of light has absolutely no effect on the molecules in the object that is travelling at high speed.  It is this vital fact that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and for objects travelling at high speed and the velocity of light is fixed that creates these relatavistic effects.
« Last Edit: 22/11/2009 11:29:24 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline CZARCAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
You are forgetting one important thing RELATIVITY the effects of time dilation ONLY apply to objects that are travelling at high speeds with respect to each other therefore the individual molecules in an object are travelling at low velocities with respect to each other and there is no significant change. travelling near the speed of light has absolutely no effect on the molecules in the object that is travelling at high speed.  It is this vital fact that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and for objects travelling at high speed and the velocity of light is fixed that creates these relatavistic effects.
the traveling twin returns younger than the stationary twin, the metabolic rate must have slowed?
« Last Edit: 22/11/2009 11:35:54 by CZARCAR »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
No it has NOT it is just that the fast moving twin has moved through LESS TIME than the stationary one because it has moved through MORE SPACE. The critical difference between the lives of the two twins is the acceleration and deceleration that is required to go quickly.

This may be counterintuitive but it is correct
« Last Edit: 22/11/2009 16:04:06 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
travelling near the speed of light has absolutely no effect on the molecules in the object that is travelling at high speed.

I don't think so. If it has no effect, how do you explain the difference between the two clocks in the well known experiment? Bear in mind, these are atomic clocks.

Relatively, less time has elapsed for the traveler. The metabolic rate will be the same for both twins from their perspective because, from their perspectives, there has been no change in the rate at which time passes. However, because their relative elapsed times are actually different, the relative amount of metabolization must indeed be different.
« Last Edit: 22/11/2009 18:26:26 by Geezer »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8132
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
... the relative amount of metabolization must indeed be different.

half-lifes are different, e.g. muons ...

Quote
When a cosmic ray proton impacts atomic nuclei of air atoms in the upper atmosphere, pions are created. These decay within a relatively short distance (meters) into muons (the pion's preferred decay product), and neutrinos. The muons from these high energy cosmic rays, generally continuing essentially in the same direction as the original proton, do so at very high velocities [~0.998c]. Although their lifetime without relativistic effects would allow a half-survival distance of only about 0.66 km at most, the time dilation effect of special relativity allows cosmic ray secondary muons to survive the flight to the earth's surface.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon#Muon_sources
« Last Edit: 22/11/2009 20:22:11 by RD »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
The extended life is only from our stationary point of view.  The fast moving muon decays in the same time as if it was stationary from its point of view.  this proves that the fast moving particle does not experience itself a slowing down of time
 

Offline CZARCAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
does jetlag have biophysical effects? might this apply?
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
does jetlag have biophysical effects? might this apply?

Well, jetlag does have effects, but not for this reason. At aircraft speeds the effects are incredibly small, and very difficult to actually measure (see experiment referenced above).
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The extended life is only from our stationary point of view.  The fast moving muon decays in the same time as if it was stationary from its point of view.  this proves that the fast moving particle does not experience itself a slowing down of time

Precisely! That's why it's called RELATIVITY. There is no way to measure "time" per se. We evaluate time based on the motion of things in space, be they pendulums or electrons. Because of this, a stationary muon (if there can be such a thing) and a fast moving muon will decay at different rates RELATIVE to each other. Likewise with humans. "Absolute" time is an illusion that we have created for ourselves.

In the case of the twins, who's to say the traveler's life is "extended"? From his perspective, everything is quite normal, except that his twin suddenly seems to look a lot older than he does (because he is!). From the traveler's perspective, his stationary twin's life has been considerably "shortened", even although from the perspective of the stationary twin, it has not been.
« Last Edit: 24/11/2009 00:18:44 by Geezer »
 

Offline CZARCAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
assuming an unchanged metabolic rate & that the twins' hearts are good for 100 ticks, the twins rejoin @ 99 ticks & both die on the next tick [heart worn out]. the traveling twin will have died "younger"?
 

Offline CZARCAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
similarly? each twin has a block of ice, the ice in the ship would melt in less time/faster than the ice on earth?
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
assuming an unchanged metabolic rate & that the twins' hearts are good for 100 ticks, the twins rejoin @ 99 ticks & both die on the next tick [heart worn out]. the traveling twin will have died "younger"?

If each twin was good for 100 ticks of their tickers, assuming the travelling twin moved through space really fast, he might only have reached 97 ticks when he meets with his twin again, but the stationary twin would be at 99 ticks.

From each twin's perspective, his metabolism is unaffected and identical to his twin. However, their relative metabolisms really are different. The stationary twin will expire 2 second sooner.

The term "rate" could be confusing. The metabolic rate of each twin is equal relative to each ones frame of reference, but it is not equal relative to each other's frames of reference. Time really does pass more slowly for the traveller relative to the static twin, but because time itself passes more slowly, it is impossible for the traveler to know it is passing more slowly within his frame of reference. How could he know? Everything is effected.

For example, if the static twin could magically observe his traveling twin, he would notice that the twin's voice is a bit deeper than usual because he is hearing it relative to his timeframe. However, the traveler would not notice anything unusual at all. Frequency is a function of time, so even although the waves are stretched from the static twin's perspective, they are not stretched from the travelers perspective.
 

Offline CZARCAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
assuming an unchanged metabolic rate & that the twins' hearts are good for 100 ticks, the twins rejoin @ 99 ticks & both die on the next tick [heart worn out]. the traveling twin will have died "younger"?

If each twin was good for 100 ticks of their tickers, assuming the travelling twin moved through space really fast, he might only have reached 97 ticks when he meets with his twin again, but the stationary twin would be at 99 ticks.

From each twin's perspective, his metabolism is unaffected and identical to his twin. However, their relative metabolisms really are different. The stationary twin will expire 2 second sooner.

The term "rate" could be confusing. The metabolic rate of each twin is equal relative to each ones frame of reference, but it is not equal relative to each other's frames of reference. Time really does pass more slowly for the traveller relative to the static twin, but because time itself passes more slowly, it is impossible for the traveler to know it is passing more slowly within his frame of reference. How could he know? Everything is effected.

For example, if the static twin could magically observe his traveling twin, he would notice that the twin's voice is a bit deeper than usual because he is hearing it relative to his timeframe. However, the traveler would not notice anything unusual at all. Frequency is a function of time, so even although the waves are stretched from the static twin's perspective, they are not stretched from the travelers perspective.

if the metabolic rate of the traveler has been affected then its effect is similar to cooling on earth?
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Nope. The metabolic rate of the traveler was not affected relative to the traveler. It's dangerous to use rate because it implies a constant time reference. In this situation, there is none.

(Done blame me! These are not my rules  :D)

 

Offline CZARCAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
lemme resort to water which is common to both ice & the twins.
assume that 1sec. in the ship = 2sec. on earth
the rate of the heartbeat of the water is 1/2sec. on earth but i can get to 1/1sec. [like on the ship] by lowering or raising the temp of the water on earth?
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
I don't think so. The rate of the heartbeat of water is the same on the earth as it is in the ship.

Back to your original question, no, there is no molecular "slow down". That would suggest the activity of the molecules is less in a certain amout of time. But that is not the case. Relative to the time frame of those molecules, the activity is just the same as the same molecules in the same amount of time in any other time frame.

Just as "There ain't a no Sanity Clause", "There ain't a no such thing as time".

Consider a photon (or an energy packet, or a propagating spatial distortion, or a whatever you would like to call it):

How long does it take the photon to travel one thousand light years?

Dumb question - obviously one thousand years. But from the photon's "perspective", it took no time at all - literally! It arrived as soon as it departed.
« Last Edit: 26/11/2009 05:05:38 by Geezer »
 

Offline CZARCAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
1 btu= 1btu
2 sealed containers [1 with each twin] with water & electric heating elements are compared.
assuming that 1 space sec.= 2 earth sec. the affect of time dilation in space can be simulated on earth by doubling the heatring of the container on earth so that
earth container is heating @ 2btu/2sec. = 1btu/1sec.=
space container is heating @ 1btu/1sec.
this seeming correlation between time dilation @ thermal i will call the "Felix Folly" [FF] for further reference, ok?
« Last Edit: 29/11/2009 13:26:41 by CZARCAR »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums