The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does slowed ageing at high speeds reflect a molecular "slow-down"?  (Read 22535 times)

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Felix Folly works for me  :D

It looks to me that both containers are receiving thermal energy at the same rate (bearing in mind that "rate" is only meaningful in each ones frame.

Let's say the traveler spent 1,000 seconds traveling. His container receives 1000 btu (we should really use kJ!)
Meanwhile back on Earth, that twin's container received 2000 btu when his twin returns to Earth.
So, you could say that the traveler has only used half as much energy as the non-traveler, even though they both used energy at the same rate.

I'm not sure if this helps because I can't really remember what we are trying to establish!  :D

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
No, inside whatever frame you are your heart will beat 'the same' as measured in it, no matter what that frame of reference is, near a neutron star or the moon, or 'speed'.

The age difference will only become obvious in a 'twin experiment' and if your heart contain one million 'beats' before you die then that 'million' will be what it ticks, no matter your frame of reference.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
No, inside whatever frame you are your heart will beat 'the same' as measured in it, no matter what that frame of reference is, near a neutron star or the moon, or 'speed'.

The age difference will only become obvious in a 'twin experiment' and if your heart contain one million 'beats' before you die then that 'million' will be what it ticks, no matter your frame of reference.

Assuming your "No" is answering the original question, then what you say is true. However, relative to each other, they are no longer the same age, so there had to be a relative "slow down" (and relative "speed up")
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
No, inside whatever frame you are your heart will beat 'the same' as measured in it, no matter what that frame of reference is, near a neutron star or the moon, or 'speed'.

The age difference will only become obvious in a 'twin experiment' and if your heart contain one million 'beats' before you die then that 'million' will be what it ticks, no matter your frame of reference.

Sounds very deterministic for your ''hypothetical'' number of heart beats. By that logic, everyone's heartbeat should be predeterministically-known somehow.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Sounds very deterministic for your ''hypothetical'' number of heart beats. By that logic, everyone's heartbeat should be predeterministically-known somehow.
Mr S, I think you may be introducing a wee bit of a "red herring" here. I doubt that he was suggesting for a minute (relative to my time frame of course) that anyones number of heartbeats can be predetermined. This is just an artifact of the assumption, for the purposes of the experiment, that the "twins" are absolutely identical in every respect, which, as you point out, is highly improbable.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
No, inside whatever frame you are your heart will beat 'the same' as measured in it, no matter what that frame of reference is, near a neutron star or the moon, or 'speed'.

The age difference will only become obvious in a 'twin experiment' and if your heart contain one million 'beats' before you die then that 'million' will be what it ticks, no matter your frame of reference.

Assuming your "No" is answering the original question, then what you say is true. However, relative to each other, they are no longer the same age, so there had to be a relative "slow down" (and relative "speed up")

No :)

It's about frames of reference. It's like every one of those frames is a 'bubble of time'. Normally :) we don't notice that different frames will change our 'age' relative each other. And this thing called 'frames of reference' is to me a very slippery definition too as you always will be able to go up or down in size in every frame you define and so be able to say that even what you first called your 'frame of reference' when 'split apart' into smaller constituents will have a different 'aging' to it. That's one of the main headaches for me.

But never the less, it's not about 'time' slowing down on it's own. It's about comparing two frames of reference relative each other before and after an acceleration (twin experiment).

There is a difference. If you accept that you in whatever frame you are will find your heartbeat being the same as measured by your clock then you also must accept that the 'time' inside that frame hasn't changed for you.

What has changed is the time relative, ah, whatever other frame you compare it against, before acceleration and after :) And as I said, it's a very slippery subject.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
No :)

It's about frames of reference. It's like every one of those frames is a 'bubble of time'. Normally :) we don't notice that different frames will change our 'age' relative each other. And this thing called 'frames of reference' is to me a very slippery definition too as you always will be able to go up or down in size in every frame you define and so be able to say that even what you first called your 'frame of reference' when 'split apart' into smaller constituents will have a different 'aging' to it. That's one of the main headaches for me.

But never the less, it's not about 'time' slowing down on it's own. It's about comparing two frames of reference relative each other before and after an acceleration (twin experiment).

There is a difference. If you accept that you in whatever frame you are will find your heartbeat being the same as measured by your clock then you also must accept that the 'time' inside that frame hasn't changed for you.

What has changed is the time relative, ah, whatever other frame you compare it against, before acceleration and after :) And as I said, it's a very slippery subject.

Arrrggghhhh! That's why I keep saying the term "rate" can only apply locally.

Apart from the fact that you said it differently, I can't see any difference between what I said and you said. What am I missing?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
It depends :)

If you are arguing that there has to be a slower and a faster time and that the proof of that is to compare two frames, where we then can define one as now being slower (Twin paradox)

And then from that draws the conclusion that the slower frame must have been slowed down 'in itself' without any need of 'comparing frames' then you are wrong.

That is what the heartbeat illustrates. But it's a very slippery subject.

You could look at time as matter, including its momentum/relative mass. If you think of it that way you will see how different speeds 'collects' time and creates the twin paradox.

But it doesn't explain the coherence we can see when we observe all objects moving, at different speeds and mass and still get that coherent picture. Or maybe it does?

Or maybe not :)

This gives me a headache ::))
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
No, I am not saying it is possible to detect a difference in time within a frame. There is none. How could we possibly detect a difference? Everything within a frame is affected by local spacetime.

Come to that, how do we even know time is "constant" in our frame. It could be varying erratically relative to another frame, but how we we ever know? We assume it is constant, but that might not be an entirely safe assumption.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Nice thinking Geezer. Now we're cooking.
Perfectly correct as I see it.

There is no real definition of time that I can see, in fact I kind of like to see it as directly correlated to momentum and 'invariant mass/restmass' but also as a 'whole', that is, not split up in any way although you will get different results when comparing those arbitrary defined frames against each other depending on speed, mass and momentum.

Time seems to contain an innumerable amount of 'time bubbles' just waiting on your definition of a 'frame' but still we perceive it as a 'whole' at all times.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
But then again, I differ between 'the arrow of time' and 'time' in itself. Maybe what we see as its 'arrow' is a direct consequence of 'mass'?
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
We only seem to be able to quantify time in terms of a change in something. Energy, position, anything else?

Does this have anything to do with quantum effects? In other words, at small enough scales, is it impossible to predict the precise position of, for example, electrons, because time at atomic scales "jitters" (for want of a better word) relative to our scale?

Do electrons have very predictable motion relative to their time?

Beats me  :D
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
As I said, we're cooking here :)

I guess you're quite close to how I see time there. As you said, on a subatomic scale time appears different. I call it emergence, it's the new 'catch word' I think :)

For me times arrow is a direct result of our macroscopic world. And the further down we go in 'size' the more questionable that arrow seems to become.

-----

But it will still exist, nota bene. 'Time' is still there, but the arrow isn't.
Why I say that?

That's because without time there can be nothing observed. So when a Feynman diagram can go both ways there is still the underlying element of 'time' there but the arrow seems to dissapear into something more questionable.
« Last Edit: 02/12/2009 21:45:31 by yor_on »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Wow! Is the idea that time "jitter" accounts for observed quantum effects well accepted in the physics community? Surely somebody must have tested that to see if it accounts for differences we observe at different scales? After all, it's been well known for a long "time" that time is not a universal constant.

(BTW, I would not know a Feynman diagram from a wiring diagram.)
 
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Don't really know that.

It's how I see it. But you have Feynman diagrams in where time can be seen to go two ways simultaneously delivering different outcomes. There are also physicists speculating in 'time' going backwards to create some observable phenomena. I don't have a link to that though.

The subatomic 'jitter' you are thinking of I see as 'emergences' instead, creating new properties, same as water if cooled creates ice. And from those properties when we go up in size we will get our arrow automatically.

But the emergences are very much like black body radiation, that is 'jumping' from one 'level' to another, not smooth like when you turn on your water tap.

Maybe you will like this link. It tells the story behind Feynman diagrams.
http://web.mit.edu/dikaiser/www/FdsAmSci.pdf
« Last Edit: 02/12/2009 23:20:20 by yor_on »
 

Offline CZARCAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
twins arre in 2 rockets 1 traveling 2x as fast as the other or whatever. though traveling at constant speeds, the fast rocket is accelerating away from the slow1 as the distance between the 2 rockets increases as they cruise. the fast rocket is encompassing more space.

the slow twin gets 2 sealed ELASTIC containers. 1 container gets 1btu/sec. & the other gets 2btu/sec. the 2btu/sec. container expands faster & encompasses more space like the fast rocket encompassing more space? the fast rocket is encompassing more space in an accelerational manner but is the 2btu/sec. container also expanding in an accelerational manner? [like gas law on earth which i dont remember]
 

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?

Can i make it known, if you don't mind, that a very long time ago that i made a prediction that the assumptions made by relativity could be found to be erreneous. I based the idea on the fact that everything remains relative, even down to the molecular level. Would it surprise many to find in some distant future when this technoogy is available to experiment on the macroscopic level, that when one twin moves at relativistic speeds from earth and returns, to find his age has asymptotically-aged - so there is no difference between his twin?

I want it also known, that when i said this could be an inconsistency, i was ridiculed horribly.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Can i make it known, if you don't mind, that a very long time ago that i made a prediction that the assumptions made by relativity could be found to be erreneous. I based the idea on the fact that everything remains relative, even down to the molecular level. Would it surprise many to find in some distant future when this technoogy is available to experiment on the macroscopic level, that when one twin moves at relativistic speeds from earth and returns, to find his age has asymptotically-aged - so there is no difference between his twin?

I want it also known, that when i said this could be an inconsistency, i was ridiculed horribly.

You certainly can. I do have a question though. How do you explain the difference in time between two atomic clocks? (See aeroplane experiment referenced above). Also, the same effect is observed with clocks on GPS systems. I understand that the relativistic effects between the terrestrial oscillators (clocks) and the oscillators on GPS satellites have to be factored into the calculations to eliminate significant positional errors. It is not necessary to travel at near lightspeed to observe the phenomena.

A theory should account for experimental and practical observations.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
At the time, i speculated that atomic clocks where not an incorrect proposition. Only macroscopic bodies caused the problem for me. How do we know a collection of paticles do not age asymptotically rather than one being atomic?
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Macroscopic bodies are composed of atoms. Why would those atoms be affected any differently than the atoms in atomic clocks?
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Macroscopic bodies are composed of atoms. Why would those atoms be affected any differently than the atoms in atomic clocks?

The same question in a way which has puzzled scientists for well over 100 years. Why do singular or even slight groups of loose particles exhibit a wavelength when its waveform seems to dissipate at macroscopic-sized bodies.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Are you saying that a macroscopic mechanical clock, if it was possible to construct one that was sufficiently accurate, would report a different time from an atomic clock?
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
I speculate at best.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
It may not be impossible to conduct the experiment. I'm a bit behind on high stability clock technology, but these days it might be possible to build a non-atomic clock that is sufficiently stable to conduct a test on a satellite. Would a crystal consisting of a millions of molecules be sufficiently macroscopic for the test?
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
It may not be impossible to conduct the experiment. I'm a bit behind on high stability clock technology, but these days it might be possible to build a non-atomic clock that is sufficiently stable to conduct a test on a satellite. Would a crystal consisting of a millions of molecules be sufficiently macroscopic for the test?

It's not impossible... It requires quite a lot of energy though, and by conventional wisdom, would far exceed a spacecrafts capabilies.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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