Post by: cowlinator on 02/10/2017 01:13:17
Obviously the outer event horizon of the universe would expand and we wouldn't be able to see past events so easily, but I'm curious as to how physical laws might change.
Post by: Kryptid on 02/10/2017 01:48:54
- The Schwarzchild radius of an object would dramatically decrease (it scales inversely to the square of the speed of light).
- Orbital decay due to gravitational radiation would be much, much slower (it scales inversely to the fifth power of the speed of light).
- Reactions (nuclear, chemical, etc.) would release significantly more energy (remember E=mc2?
- Atoms would be smaller (the diameter of atoms scale inversely with the speed of light according to the Bohr radius equation).
- The greatly enhanced speed of signal propagation would cause many processes to speed up dramatically (such as chemical reactions or radioactive decay).
- Objects with mass could move much faster before experiencing significant mass gain or length contraction.
Post by: David Cooper on 02/10/2017 18:38:03
Post by: Kryptid on 02/10/2017 20:01:42
Any process that is governed in every aspect by the speed of light would happen faster, but no difference would be apparent if the functionality of all the observers was speeded up to match, and that might happen if every part of the functionality of the observers is also governed by the speed of light. The only differences that would show up would be in things that have functionality not governed by the speed of light, and it isn't clear to me that there are any such things.
You'd definitely be able to tell a difference (at least in theory) because the ratios between different phenomena would be different. Some things are determined by the speed of light squared, other things are determined linearly by the speed of light while others are inversely proportional to the speed of light.
Post by: David Cooper on 03/10/2017 19:20:35
You'd definitely be able to tell a difference (at least in theory) because the ratios between different phenomena would be different. Some things are determined by the speed of light squared, other things are determined linearly by the speed of light while others are inversely proportional to the speed of light.
The speed of light is 1, and the square of that is 1. Can you show me an example of something where a difference would show up. The only possible candidate I can think of is with dark energy where the rate of expansion of space may not be governed by the speed of light.
Post by: Kryptid on 03/10/2017 21:35:04
The speed of light is 1, and the square of that is 1.
By that reasoning, E=mc2 might as well be written as E=mc.
Quote
Can you show me an example of something where a difference would show up. The only possible candidate I can think of is with dark energy where the rate of expansion of space may not be governed by the speed of light.
The ratio of the diameter of a hydrogen atom to the distance that the orbit of the Hulse-Taylor binary neutron star decays in 1 year. If we double the speed of light, the diameter of a hydrogen atom will decrease by 1/2 = 0.5 whereas the orbital decay of the neutrons stars will decrease by 1/25 = 0.03125. Since these values have not changed by the same amount, the ratio between them must change as well.
Post by: David Cooper on 03/10/2017 21:49:45
The speed of light is 1, and the square of that is 1.
By that reasoning, E=mc2 might as well be written as E=mc.
Yes, and it works if c=1. The energy tied up in matter is equal to the amount of energy released as radiation if you convert it all into radiation, and that should be no surprise as it's the same energy, none being created or destroyed. E=m.
Quote
QuoteCan you show me an example of something where a difference would show up. The only possible candidate I can think of is with dark energy where the rate of expansion of space may not be governed by the speed of light.
The ratio of the diameter of a hydrogen atom to the distance that the orbit of the Hulse-Taylor binary neutron star decays in 1 year. If we double the speed of light, the diameter of a hydrogen atom will decrease by 1/2 = 0.5 whereas the orbital decay of the neutrons stars will decrease by 1/25 = 0.03125. Since these values have not changed by the same amount, the ratio between them must change as well.
How does the diameter of a hydrogen atom decrease as a consequence of doubling the speed of light? The whole functionality of the hydrogen atom runs on components moving under the restrictions of the speed of light, so if you speed light up, all the functionality speeds up to match and the size is not changed. The measured speed of light would not change either, even though it's moving twice as fast (because clocks would run twice as quickly to match. The change in size might occur if you could double the speed of light and measure it as having doubled, but I don't think you could measure it as having changed because everything else would adjust to hide its change in speed.
Post by: Kryptid on 03/10/2017 21:58:53
Yes, and it works if c=1. The energy tied up in matter is equal to the amount of energy released as radiation if you convert it all into radiation, and that should be no surprise as it's the same energy, none being created or destroyed. E=m.
If you try to calculate the number of joules in one gram of matter, the squaring is important.
Quote
How does the diameter of a hydrogen atom decrease as a consequence of doubling the speed of light? The whole functionality of the hydrogen atom runs on components moving under the restrictions of the speed of light, so if you speed light up, all the functionality speeds up to match and the size is not changed. The measured speed of light would not change either, even though it's moving twice as fast (because clocks would run twice as quickly to match. The change in size might occur if you could double the speed of light and measure it as having doubled, but I don't think you could measure it as having changed because everything else would adjust to hide its change in speed.
I'm basing this on the fact that the speed of light is in the denominator in the equation for the Bohr radius.
Post by: jeffreyH on 03/10/2017 22:15:01
Post by: Colin2B on 03/10/2017 23:03:04
Post by: jeffreyH on 04/10/2017 06:20:51
Post by: Bill S on 04/10/2017 13:27:04
Post by: David Cooper on 04/10/2017 19:25:09
If you try to calculate the number of joules in one gram of matter, the squaring is important.
It's a constant and it's merely acting as a conversion factor between units, but the reality behind the distorted view that these units give us is that e=m.
Quote
I'm basing this on the fact that the speed of light is in the denominator in the equation for the Bohr radius.
Yes, I can see that if you change the value of c, it produces a different radius. If you could double the speed of light though, I think everything else would adjust to hide the difference so you would still measure it as having the same value of c. If you descend into a gravity well, for example, the speed of light slows, but nothing in physics appears to change for anyone doing local experiments - atoms don't get bigger.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/10/2017 21:27:38
It's a constant and it's merely acting as a conversion factor between units, but the reality behind the distorted view that these units give us is that e=m.
Yes, I can see that if you change the value of c, it produces a different radius. If you could double the speed of light though, I think everything else would adjust to hide the difference so you would still measure it as having the same value of c. If you descend into a gravity well, for example, the speed of light slows, but nothing in physics appears to change for anyone doing local experiments - atoms don't get bigger.
I will admit, you are starting to make me wonder about this. If such was true, that might imply that the laws of physics could be no different than they are now. If there is a multiverse, then would we expect all universes to have the same laws? Or would the equations governing interactions be different?
Post by: jeffreyH on 04/10/2017 21:41:14
Post by: cowlinator on 05/10/2017 17:45:33
It's a constant and it's merely acting as a conversion factor between units, but the reality behind the distorted view that these units give us is that e=m.
Times a constant with a specific kind of units.
everything else would adjust to hide the difference so you would still measure it as having the same value of c.
That would be an extraordinary coincidence, unless you're basing that on some law that I'm not aware of.
Post by: jeffreyH on 05/10/2017 18:02:41
Post by: Kryptid on 05/10/2017 21:38:51
Times a constant
Not according to relativity.
Back to the topic at hand, would we expect to see any differences if the speed of light had changed over time? If it, say, slowed down by 5% every billion years? Would that have any effect on the light and images we see coming from quasars that are billions of light-years away? If a photon was released from a source at a given frequency, would we expect its frequency to change as the speed of light slowed down over time?
Post by: cowlinator on 06/10/2017 08:27:43
e = m times a constant. According to relativity. (Note the lack of apostrophe in "times")Not according to relativity.It's a constant and it's merely acting as a conversion factor between units, but the reality behind the distorted view that these units give us is that e=m.Times a constant
Post by: Kryptid on 06/10/2017 16:55:24
e = m times a constant. According to relativity. (Note the lack of apostrophe in "times")
Oh, never mind. I thought you were saying "time is a constant".
Post by: David Cooper on 06/10/2017 17:12:57
Times a constant with a specific kind of units.
The most natural constant to use is 1. The material of the particle with mass is made up of the energy that it can be converted into so the amounts are equal. Any other conversion factor distorts reality, but this does give us units that are more convenient to work with for normal purposes - ordinarily our experience of energy is in tapping into "flogiston" (small differences in the bonding energy between atoms in molecules), so we heavily downplay the amount of energy that is actually stored in matter by using units more appropriate to the tiny proportion that is immediately accessible.
On another issue, suppose the speed of light has been slowing down as the universe expands. The universe could be expanding at a constant rate while appearing to speed up because the functionality of everything in the universe would be running slower and slower as the speed of light reduces, with the result that we would be measuring the expansion with slowing clocks.
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/10/2017 13:51:11
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/10/2017 13:53:39
Post by: David Cooper on 07/10/2017 19:09:46
Post by: Kryptid on 07/10/2017 20:05:08
One other thing. If there is such a thing as the big rip then the effect upon light is anyone's guess.
I figure it would be red-shifted like crazy, asymptotically approaching zero energy over time.
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/10/2017 21:25:04
Post by: yor_on on 07/10/2017 23:07:09
If you try to calculate the number of joules in one gram of matter, the squaring is important.
It's a constant and it's merely acting as a conversion factor between units, but the reality behind the distorted view that these units give us is that e=m.QuoteI'm basing this on the fact that the speed of light is in the denominator in the equation for the Bohr radius.
Yes, I can see that if you change the value of c, it produces a different radius. If you could double the speed of light though, I think everything else would adjust to hide the difference so you would still measure it as having the same value of c. If you descend into a gravity well, for example, the speed of light slows, but nothing in physics appears to change for anyone doing local experiments - atoms don't get bigger.
No. 'c' is a local constant. It's not what you define observing a black hole at a distance, it's what you define falling in. It's dependent on your own wristwatch, and ruler. So that's not correct.
Actually you would find 'c' to be the same locally no matter what you would conclude about 'c' at that far away place. That's what it mean being a local constant.
As for what would change?
Anything that uses 'c'.
Which brings us to the FSC
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5642233/ask-a-physicist-is-the-fine-structure-constant-really-constant
As a further comment you actually are moving from SR to GR when invoking 'Black Holes'. You're discussing gravity's influence on geodesics there. 'c' is a definition coming from Special relativity. And if you count in the geodesic then I would expect 'c' to still be 'c'.
Let me add this.
"Time, space, electricity and quantum mechanics
Our imaginary experiment shows that electrical and quantum effects are inter-related. Charge is carried by electrons and protons, which are subject to (quantum) mechanical laws. It is meaningless to talk of changes in an electromagnetic constant or a quantum mechanical one alone. Asking whether the speed of light changes over time superficially appears to be a reasonable question: it makes grammatical sense. But it doesn't make scientific sense. In science, a proposition must be, in principle, testable. (For instance, if you propose that there is an invisible gorilla in the room, and that she has no mass and no effects that can be detected, then your proposition is not a scientific one.)"
There are also 'dimensionless constants' that can be derived. 'c' is naively :) defined as the time it takes light to travel (propagate) a certain distance, so in that motto you can call it 'dimensional', but..
Have a read.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52976/how-can-the-speed-of-light-be-a-dimensionless-constant
And for myself I equal it to your local clock. Not the one you define for the far away Black Hole, but your own wristwatch defining how 'slow' you find processes to be over there. And that local clock doesn't change for you.
Rereading you we seem to agree on 'c' being 'locally c' ?
If it is 'c' in all experiments you can do, Why stipulate it to differ without consequences? Which brings us back to the gorilla example
=
Actually, thinking some more about it, it should be the other way around. If the physics we use, locally derived, holds for the particles far away, whatever processes we observe, then 'c' has to be 'c' there too. No matter what 'time' we give those processes unfolding.
Post by: cowlinator on 08/10/2017 02:21:56
The square in E=MC^2 doesn't go away just because you use 1 as 'c'. The dimensions of c^2 are distance * distance / time * time, which is not a speed, it is a speed squared.Times a constant with a specific kind of units.
The most natural constant to use is 1. The material of the particle with mass is made up of the energy that it can be converted into so the amounts are equal. Any other conversion factor distorts reality, but this does give us units that are more convenient to work with for normal purposes - ordinarily our experience of energy is in tapping into "flogiston" (small differences in the bonding energy between atoms in molecules), so we heavily downplay the amount of energy that is actually stored in matter by using units more appropriate to the tiny proportion that is immediately accessible.
On another issue, suppose the speed of light has been slowing down as the universe expands. The universe could be expanding at a constant rate while appearing to speed up because the functionality of everything in the universe would be running slower and slower as the speed of light reduces, with the result that we would be measuring the expansion with slowing clocks.
Post by: cowlinator on 08/10/2017 02:31:11
"Time, space, electricity and quantum mechanicsThe speed of light changing over time would be completely provable/falsifiable, wouldn't it? Maybe not with our current technology, but eventually, yes. The analogy to the gorilla seems unfounded.
Our imaginary experiment shows that electrical and quantum effects are inter-related. Charge is carried by electrons and protons, which are subject to (quantum) mechanical laws. It is meaningless to talk of changes in an electromagnetic constant or a quantum mechanical one alone. Asking whether the speed of light changes over time superficially appears to be a reasonable question: it makes grammatical sense. But it doesn't make scientific sense. In science, a proposition must be, in principle, testable. (For instance, if you propose that there is an invisible gorilla in the room, and that she has no mass and no effects that can be detected, then your proposition is not a scientific one.)"
For instance, it the speed of light slows over time, we would expect redshifting of distant light sources, and we would also expect that the CMB radiation would be relatively uniform in temperature.
Post by: Zer0 on 08/10/2017 20:52:46
Does the above statement make any sense scientifically?
Post by: Bill S on 08/10/2017 21:48:05
Hi Zer0, welcome.
Quote from: Zer0
When a ray of Light enters another Medium, say from air into water it affects the Speed of light decreasing it by a very very small fraction.When passing through a medium, photons may be absorbed by the collective vibrational modes (phonons) of the ions and electrons that form that medium. It is then converted to heat.
If the vibrational mode of the specific phonon doesn’t match the frequency of the photon, it “attempts to absorb”, then it (the photon) is re-emitted with a very slight delay.
If you reason that the photon; in whatever form it takes while it is being “sampled” by the phonon; is not actually light, then the speed of light through that medium is just the sum of the times during which it is travelling between “samplings”.
Quote
Does the above statement make any sense scientifically?It does, in that it represents the usual “shorthand” way of expressing what happens when light passes through a medium.
Post by: David Cooper on 08/10/2017 21:57:07
The square in E=MC^2 doesn't go away just because you use 1 as 'c'. The dimensions of c^2 are distance * distance / time * time, which is not a speed, it is a speed squared.
1=1^2.
If c=1, then c=c^2.
You can argue that the square doesn't just go away, but in this case it clearly does (or it remains there, but is hidden just as the number 1 arguably hides a squaring). 1 is the most natural value to use for the speed of light if you're trying to avoid creating some arbitrary unit for it. In the case of relativistic mass, we also see energy showing up as mass alone (without wave and without matter) and you shouldn't have a conversion factor when converting something into itself.
Post by: Bill S on 08/10/2017 22:29:59
Is it my lack of maths, or is claiming that "c=c^2" an example of obfuscation?
Post by: Zer0 on 08/10/2017 23:29:20
Sorry to hear about your skull fracture :-(
Wish n Hope you get well soon O:-)
Another General open ended Question :-
Imagine a straight string 100kms long in Space.
0..10..20..30..40..50..60..70..80..90..100 (kms)
(time to take the flight of fantasy)
Now imagine the Earth's location right in the middle of the string 50kms.
0..10..20..30..40..E..60..70..80..90..100
(slow n steady, doing good)
Now imagine the Sun's location at 20kms.
0..10..S..30..40..E..60..70..80..90..100
(a huge cup of coffee will help, almost there)
Now, Imagine n suppose the Speed of Light to be 1km/hr.
(yeah I know ive started to look like a little white rabbit and you are feeling like alice)
Now...Imagine two different rays/beams of Light,
First originating from point A(0kms) travelling rightside direction towards the Earth(50kms) and the
Second originating from point B(100kms) traveling leftside
direction towards the Earth(50kms) are Observed...
(deep deeper deepest, yes we are free falling)
Second Light beam starting point B at constant speed 1km/hr reaches Earth in 50hrs.
Would First Light beam starting point A at constant speed 1km/hr reach Earth in exactly 50hrs ?
If we assume First Light beam is bent due to the Gravity of the Sun would it still arrive or reach Earth in exact 50hrs ?
Considering fabric of space is curved around the Sun wouldn't First Light beam's travelling distance be slightly a Pi fraction of a bit longer than 50kms ?
(welcome to wonderland)
Even if SecondLight's e.t.a to Earth is 50:00:00hrs n FirstLight's e.t.a.to Earth is 50:00:01hrs considering both beams/rays started of at exactly the same time from their originating points...wouldn't SecondLight Win the Race???
(imagine, think n take your own sweet time..do not answer in a hurry or haste..for your reply patiently the white rabbit awaits)
>:-)
Post by: David Cooper on 09/10/2017 00:39:32
Surely, "c=1" is a mathematical convenience. Using it to establish that "c=c^2" makes no real sense.
"If c=1, c=c^2" should not be turned into "c=c^2" - you've performed an illegal transformation by removing the condition.
Quote
In the real world c=299,792,458.m/s, so "c^2" is about 8.99^16, I think.
In the real world, there is nothing special about the metre - it is an arbitrary unit which no alien species would be likely to invent independently, whereas all of them would be familiar with c=1 (if they've reached the point in their development where they're discussing physics on forums).
Post by: David Cooper on 09/10/2017 19:11:23
Post by: Bill S on 09/10/2017 21:39:43
My very inexpert opinion is that your conclusion is absolutely right; the beam that was deflected round the sun would take slightly longer to reach the Earth, because it would have to travel a little further than the other beam, at the same speed.
With a little adjustment, your question would provide a simple, if somewhat protracted, example of gravitational lensing.
There are those experts who interpret the effects of gravitational lensing as evidence of other dimensions or, even worse, of past directed time travel.
Jenny Randles seems to favour both, explaining gravitational lensing round a cosmic string she says of two light rays, separated by gravitational lensing, and arriving at different times: “One will travel less distance thanks to the presence of the cosmic string. However, it has still traveled at the same speed as the other ray of light despite reaching its destination early. Although we cannot view the motion of this light ray through those dimensions hidden from us, it seems to our senses that one of these rays has traveled faster than light.” She goes on to say: “That speed is an illusion caused by the shortcut, but explains how it can arrive too early. It will travel so fast, it will experience time travel and have actually moved into the past.”
Ref: Randles, J. "Breaking the Time Barrier"
I’ve done my best to make sense of that, but the feeling that it is “fairy tale physics” just refuses to go away.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/10/2017 06:12:20
Post by: Zer0 on 10/10/2017 06:35:17
Such minute details not only provide me with the Correct Answer, but also a clear understanding as to why it is so.
Wishing you a speedy recovery Billy 💐☕👍
I recently came across something very fascinating, I'm pretty sure almost all members at TheNakedScientists are already aware of it, but will still go ahead n present it here.
Screenshot_20171010-110142.png (365.73 kB . 1024x600 - viewed 4789 times)Subject - Critical Flicker Fusion Frequency.
Picture courtesy Archishman Bandyopadhyay (Quora)
Post by: David Cooper on 10/10/2017 20:05:56
Going back to the c=1 thing... yes, it is true that 1 squared is still one, but if you increase the speed of light to twice normal, you're replacing the 1 with a 2. 2 squared is 4. That definitely looks like a change to me. Many things may increase if the speed of light increased, but orbital decay due to gravitational radiation actually slows down instead. That should be a detectable difference.
The point is though that you'd still call it 1 as everything would behave exactly as normal because everything else adjusts to the speed of light, leaving you with no differences in any of your measurements.
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/10/2017 20:55:07
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/10/2017 21:00:43
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/10/2017 21:05:38
Post by: Kryptid on 10/10/2017 21:18:54
The point is though that you'd still call it 1 as everything would behave exactly as normal because everything else adjusts to the speed of light, leaving you with no differences in any of your measurements.
How can you say there is no difference when one thing increases and another thing decreases? That makes the gap between them greater. The ratio between the time it takes light from the Sun to reach the Earth to the time it takes for a pair of pulsar orbits to decay would change. It would take less time for light to reach the Earth and more time for the pulsars to collide. If you say that our measuring ability would change such that distances increase enough to make the time the same for light to reach the Earth as normal, that would make the pulsar orbital decay times take even longer than normal because now they travel an increased distance.
Post by: David Cooper on 11/10/2017 21:25:31
How can you say there is no difference when one thing increases and another thing decreases? That makes the gap between them greater. The ratio between the time it takes light from the Sun to reach the Earth to the time it takes for a pair of pulsar orbits to decay would change. It would take less time for light to reach the Earth and more time for the pulsars to collide. If you say that our measuring ability would change such that distances increase enough to make the time the same for light to reach the Earth as normal, that would make the pulsar orbital decay times take even longer than normal because now they travel an increased distance.
All matter can decay into electro-magnetic radiation, and if the speed of electro-magnetic radiation is suddenly increased such that light travels faster, the same will happen to matter as it's made of the same stuff, making it move faster in proportion. All the forces between atoms transfer at the speed of light, so clearly those will speed up and the functionality of everything will keep its pace tied to the speed of light. With the forces applying faster between two atoms in a spinning gas molecule, the spin rate will increase, not just because it takes less time to complete each force-transfer action, but because the speeded up functionality of the material generates more force transfers in a given length of time. A clock will run faster too, leading you to measure c as unchanged. With planets orbiting things, the same applies - more gravity force transfers occur in a given length of time and the planet orbits more quickly, but it is timed by the faster-ticking clocks as taking the same length of time to orbit as before. A moon orbiting a planet as they fall into a black hole moves into a place with the speed of light slower deeper in the gravity well, and the orbit will slow as they descend. None of the interactions between things become odd because everything adjusts to the local speed of light which still appears to be c when measured there.
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/10/2017 21:41:41
Post by: David Cooper on 11/10/2017 22:52:34
The weak nuclear force does not travel at the speed of light since the bosons that mediate it have mass. This does not sit well with the idea of a change in the speed of light being undetectable.
They will still speed up too though, along with everything else, because their functionality is ultimately governed by the speed of light.
Post by: jeffreyH on 12/10/2017 01:37:46
Post by: Zer0 on 12/10/2017 07:53:04
I ain't good at mathematics/geometry/equations. 🐒
(not as yet, but with time I'll grow up) 💪
I would like to humbly request n invite all you folks to Please express your views/opinions on this post, based on an average of your collective responses it would be easier for me to evaluate n conclude as to if I'm on the right track or I'd be better off going back to school n restart from grade 1. 🚃
(cmon guys cut me some slack here, 🍕 surely at a point of time you all were little kiddies 🐣 n the wise 🐤 held your hand 👋 n showed you the way right. please take this as an opportunity to pass on the good deed, just point me in the right direction 👈👆👇👉 n I shall crawl my way through) 🌷
Alright, so let's begin... 😁
Time - The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. ⏰
Light - The primary properties of visible light are intensity, propagation direction, frequency or wavelength spectrum, and polarization, while its speed in a vacuum, 299,792,458 metres per second, is one of the fundamental constants of nature. Visible light, as with all types of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), is experimentally found to always move at this speed in a vacuum. 💡
Now, assume there is a Box 📦 within which there are 3 objects.
A Pumpkin 🎃 a Watch ⏳ and a Candle 🗽
Consider the pumpkin rots in two months, and to calculate
2 months duration it relies on the Clock.
For the Clock to be precise it relies on the Candle, every flicker of the flame is counted as a precise second.
Now for some vague reason the candle decides to double its flicker rate. ( speed of light doubled)
On exactly the last day of the 1st month, Mr Clock rings an alarm signalling 2 months are over, hence time for Mr Pumpkin to rot n game over. 📛
Considering the Box is a complete independent Universe...
Now for someone observing the cyclic change of the Candle before(normal flicker rate) and after(double flicker rate) from outside the box (multiverse alien civilization) 👽could tell the difference that the pumpkin rotted way ahead of time.(considering those aliens are evaluating the time at which Mr Pumpkin starts to rot naturally before n after flicker rate of Mr Candle doubles n matching n timing it with their multiverse wrist watches) 💫 correct?
But considering the perspective of the 3 objects inside the box, according to them absolutely nothing changed at all right? ♻
Now if we were inside the box(universe) how would we tell the difference considering absolutely nothing has changed?(neither do we possess access to a multiverse watch located outside of our universe nor can make contact with those outside our universe aliens) 👾
The actual/real speed of light is based on our perspective on how we as humans perceive the universe, but not all living beings process information or time in the same way as us right? (critical flicker frequency rate)
A car travelling at 100kmph for me, 🐵 might be clocked by a housefly 🐝 at 20kmph n similarly at 200kmph by a leatherback turtle 🐢 correct?
Even if the Speed of Light was a trillion times faster wouldn't my brain have evolved much differently then from now?(increased metabolism decreased size) 👿
If overnight speed of light increases a trillion times, wouldn't the Neurons inside my brain also move a trillion times faster n wont i process information on a much higher level compared to now? 👼
Also Speed of Light is equated in a Vacuum, light certainly is absorbed/ delayed while passing through different mediums...how exactly does one create a vacuum in a Universe stuffed with Energy in different forms like solid/liquid/gas/plasma/electromagnetism/gravity etc etc etc? 👺
(geez that's one hell of a long post eh!) 🚼
Post by: puppypower on 12/10/2017 11:38:43
If the speed of light increased, the potential between matter/inertial and the speed of light ground state would increase. This means a more vigorous universal movement toward the ground state. The fate of the universe would speed up since all the forces would become more vigorous.
In the equation E=MC2, with C higher, energy potential becomes higher in the universe for the same amount of matter This would also make it more difficult to form a new universe compared to the current universe since the original event would need a larger departure from the C ground state. If C was too high, a universe could be rare.
Post by: yor_on on 13/10/2017 08:13:52
As
How can we see, thinking of light as individual photons, hitting our eyes, translated into 'moving pictures'? Forget about 'wave packets' for that one, or don't :)
Post by: yor_on on 13/10/2017 10:09:00
You wrote " For instance, it the speed of light slows over time, we would expect redshifting of distant light sources, and we would also expect that the CMB radiation would be relatively uniform in temperature. "
The cosmological redshift is a loss of energy, but the speed of that faraway light is the same as the light from from our nearby sun. Now, I'm guessing you're thinking of it in terms of 'old light' relative 'young light' there, right?
Which then might mean that light coming from billions of years ago should be slower than light coming from a 'newborn' source, some eight nine light minutes away? Am I getting you wrong there? Or maybe you're thinking of it as some invisible 'field' of molasses slowing everything down equally? In which case a cosmological redshift becomes irrelevant unless you think of it as the mainstream proposition do, as a result of a expanding universe.
=
Rethinking. If you meant that we have slower 'light' now it become slightly confusing for me? An alternative would be to consider light coming from different 'time zones' relative your observation. That would then give a universal 'golden standard' and you could then prove relativity wrong just by moving your observation some light years, to find yourself in another 'time zone'. Which indeed would wreck havoc not only with relativity but also with most of the foundations of physics. This last one would be a interesting universe and should be finite as light has to 'stop propagating' at some defined 'age/distance'. Kind of like that one
Douglas Adams would have liked it I think :) or maybe the rights for it should go to the disc worlds?
Post by: yor_on on 13/10/2017 10:16:19
Post by: Zer0 on 23/10/2017 09:23:28
Any change in the original image instantly shows on the reflected image.
This single thread seems to have split into two distinct views, first that absolutely nothing would change n second certain things, values, ratios n effects would change.
Thankfully the Speed of Light hasn't changed a million trillion times orelse I would instantly become visually impaired(second viewpoint)...but if neurons in my brain also speeded up a million trillion times then hopefully it won't make any difference.(first viewpoint)
😉
Post by: Bill S on 23/10/2017 11:49:44
I tend to try to take one step at a time.
Quote
Time - The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom
Undoubtedly, this is true, and very valuable for calculations, but what does it actually mean? Would you not have to define a second in some way before you could count the number of periods of radiation that occurred during that time?
Post by: Bill S on 23/10/2017 13:57:03
Quote from: Bill S
There are those experts who interpret the effects of gravitational lensing as evidence of other dimensions or, even worse, of past directed time travel.
Jenny Randles seems to favour both, explaining gravitational lensing round a cosmic string she says of two light rays, separated by gravitational lensing, and arriving at different times: “One will travel less distance thanks to the presence of the cosmic string. However, it has still traveled at the same speed as the other ray of light despite reaching its destination early. Although we cannot view the motion of this light ray through those dimensions hidden from us, it seems to our senses that one of these rays has traveled faster than light.” She goes on to say: “That speed is an illusion caused by the shortcut, but explains how it can arrive too early. It will travel so fast, it will experience time travel and have actually moved into the past.”
Ref: Randles, J. "Breaking the Time Barrier"
I’ve done my best to make sense of that, but the feeling that it is “fairy tale physics” just refuses to go away.
I'm re-posting this in the hope that someone might have some thoughts.
Post by: jeffreyH on 23/10/2017 16:24:13
Quote from: Bill SThere are those experts who interpret the effects of gravitational lensing as evidence of other dimensions or, even worse, of past directed time travel.
Jenny Randles seems to favour both, explaining gravitational lensing round a cosmic string she says of two light rays, separated by gravitational lensing, and arriving at different times: “One will travel less distance thanks to the presence of the cosmic string. However, it has still traveled at the same speed as the other ray of light despite reaching its destination early. Although we cannot view the motion of this light ray through those dimensions hidden from us, it seems to our senses that one of these rays has traveled faster than light.” She goes on to say: “That speed is an illusion caused by the shortcut, but explains how it can arrive too early. It will travel so fast, it will experience time travel and have actually moved into the past.”
Ref: Randles, J. "Breaking the Time Barrier"
I’ve done my best to make sense of that, but the feeling that it is “fairy tale physics” just refuses to go away.
I'm re-posting this in the hope that someone might have some thoughts.
If it isn't observable then it may as well not happen. Observation, on the other hand, can lead to conclusions that may never be confirmed by observation. Quantum mechanics is a prime example.
Post by: Bill S on 23/10/2017 18:53:43
Post by: jeffreyH on 23/10/2017 23:19:18
Not venturing into the "time travel" bit; Jeffrey. :)
The only time travel is into the future via time dilation. Nothing gets anywhere faster than light. My studies so far have convinced me of the impossibility of faster than light travel. As well as the impossibility of travel into the past.
Post by: Zer0 on 25/10/2017 05:57:42
QuoteTime - The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom
Undoubtedly, this is true, and very valuable for calculations, but what does it actually mean? Would you not have to define a second in some way before you could count the number of periods of radiation that occurred during that time?
Yes Bill, I totally agree with you on this...I have to.
Considering clocks 350yrs prior to today did not have a seconds hand.
In fact if every month had 28days fixed we could have had a 13months calendar year.
And as you rightfully said these universal standards measurements n values do help us tremendously to perform various calculations and form universal theories.
Metaphorically we all seem to live in our own personal universes, the way we all perceive things differently.(subjectively)
But certainly predefined universal standards help us to bridge the gap between our different universes, hence providing us both an opportunity to leave our personal universes and enter a common universe where both U n I can coexist meaningfully. (UnIverse)
For example :
When you say you own a 6 feet long spatula, I would say "oh wow! too cool."
N
When I boast of owning a 12feet long spatula, you might say "yeah right! tell me about it."
Would be hard for the both of us to believe each others claims, 👺 but we would both certainly agree we use these humongous tools for cooking purposes in the kitchen n not to brush our teeth in the washroom, right. 😝
Post by: Bill S on 27/10/2017 14:23:33
Quote from: Jeffrey
My studies so far have convinced me of the impossibility of faster than light travel. As well as the impossibility of travel into the past.
After much thought, but no real study, I had reached the point where I concluded that no time travel was possible. Then, some 20 yrs ago, I decided to try to find out what made some scientists believe it was possible. I soon realised that time was linked to practically everything else, and I found I was going round in circles. My wife suggested writing everything down. I found that the best form of note keeping was to write as though I were trying to explain points to someone else. 20 yrs, and some 250,000 words of (organised) notes later, I am at the same point as you.
I’m still a bit puzzled by the fact that some scientists seem convinced that past-directed time travel is possible. Could it be wishful thinking?
Post by: Bill S on 27/10/2017 14:28:33
I'm still a bit stuck on the apparent circularity of the definition of a second. Hopefully, someone will come up with a simple explanation.
Post by: David Cooper on 27/10/2017 17:46:01
Post by: Bill S on 27/10/2017 19:17:39
My initial response would be to ask what, if any, evidence we have that spacetime events are in any way mutable.
Even in “block universe models where the past persists” there are serious problems involved in trying to access that past, much less changing it if you ever got there.
Another thing that might be worth some thought is the question: “If I go back in time; what happens to you?” Nothing? I’m not sure that could be the case.
Post by: David Cooper on 28/10/2017 20:37:56
My initial response would be to ask what, if any, evidence we have that spacetime events are in any way mutable.
There is no evidence of it, but there's also no (lasting) evidence against it - any evidence that might be able to emerge would soon become hidden by a rewriting of events.
Quote
Even in “block universe models where the past persists” there are serious problems involved in trying to access that past, much less changing it if you ever got there.
The idea is that you find a way out of the Spacetime block of this universe and re-enter it at a location further back in "time", but to do that without changing the past, your re-entry into it at that point must have happened the first time round too, and as soon as you have a model that accommodates that, it has to tolerate a circularity of causality that is incompatible with real causality.
Post by: Bill S on 29/10/2017 19:07:00
Quote
The idea is that you find a way out of the Spacetime block of this universe and re-enter it at a location further back in "time", but to do that without changing the past, your re-entry into it at that point must have happened the first time round too, and as soon as you have a model that accommodates that, it has to tolerate a circularity of causality that is incompatible with real causality.
I think we are on the same page there, David.
When I was trying to make some sense of CTCs I found I could not avoid the conclusion that once a loop had formed, there would be no escape from it, and a quasi-infinite accumulation of “versions” of anyone who travelled round the loop would occur at the original start point. However, because that point is an immutable spacetime event, they must always have been there.
You can imagine the absurdities into which that threatened to lead me.
Post by: cowlinator on 29/10/2017 22:04:49
And this one you need to expand on " and we would also expect that the CMB radiation would be relatively uniform in temperature. " I guess you consider it following from your first statement?It does not follow from the first statement, it follows from that fact that the speed of light changes.
If, in the past, the speed of light were greater than it is today, then we would expect that two objects (or sections of fluid, or whatever) would be able to influence each other from farther away than is possible in a constant-c universe. If the speed of light were great enough, then that would mean that every part of the universe was interacting with every other part of the universe almost instantaneously. You didn't have to wait 20 minutes for infrared waves to travel 20 light-minutes, it was much quicker.
This would mean that at that time, the temperature of the entire universe would approach equilibrium much faster in a slowing-c universe than in a constant-c universe.
This would mean that the CMB radiation would be more uniform in temperature in a slowing-c universe than it would be in a constant-c universe.
The discussion would change from "why is the CMB so uniform?", to "why is the CMB so ununiform?"
Post by: Zer0 on 30/10/2017 18:56:46
Zer0, I think you lost me somewhere in your last post. :)
I'm still a bit stuck on the apparent circularity of the definition of a second. Hopefully, someone will come up with a simple explanation.
The second is the base unit of time in the International System of Units. It is qualitatively defined as the second division of the hour by sixty, the first division by sixty being the minute.
Unit system: SI base unit
Unit of: Time
(Wikipedia)
I'm pretty sure this explanation didn't impress you a bit, but hey at least I tried right. 👼
Post by: Zer0 on 30/10/2017 19:52:52
Realistic Scenario :
New York, NY USA is 13 hours behind Tokyo, Japan.
Calculated air distance between Tokyo n New York is 6,741 miles/10,849 kilometers.
Now...IMAGINE(time for Alice to follow the white rabbit) 🐇
On 31st of December, all of us are having an amazing time partying n dancing around with the Japs in Tokyo.
The clock strikes 12:00am Jan 1st, we wish each other a happy new year n continue partying till around 3:00am n finally get tired n call it quits.
At 5:00am Tokyo time we get onboard NASA's X-43A ScramJet n request the captain to take it easy n cruise at Mach2 speed cause we are in no hurry n want to doze off.
(Mach2 = 2469.6/kmph, flight duration 5hrs, distance covered - 12,345kilometers)
Flight lands in New York 9:00pm local time 31st DEC.
We rest for an hour n reset our wrist watches n get back to partying once again, clock strikes 12:00am once again n hence we wish each other a very happy new year...Once Again!
🎉🎈🎇🎈🎆🎉
(We might have had a blast of a celebration for new year's but we shall all definitely end up having an epic hangover on the 1st of Jan) 😴
Post by: Zer0 on 30/10/2017 20:51:56
Animated Scenario : 👯➡🐇➡🍥
Imagine, we are all a bunch of Frogs hanging around in the arctic region with a bunch of froggy chicks.
(woodfrog aka rana sylvatica)
Somehow we come across a secret underground hole which leads us into a supermarket, we find an automated refrigerator that can be easily used to simulate winter conditions for a set period of 6 months.
So, we go on a hogging frenzy n eat food n fill up our tummies n stop just before another bite could burst our stomachs.
We then jump into the automated refrigerator, set time for 6months n go into hibernation.
Wake up next season n go out n hang around with a new bunch of chicks, return n repeat the same hog food frenzy automated refrigerator hibernation cycle.
Resurrect next season n go hang around with a newer set of chicks until we're too old n have had more than our fair share respectively n decide to call it quits.
Eventually the smarty scientifically intellectual froggys that we are, we would have managed to live thrice longer than other dumbo frogs n ended up having ten times more fun compared to them. 🐸
(I know it indeed sounds like a lot of fun but, after the first hibernation cycle we might have hung around with our daughters, n by the end of the second cycle those froggy chicks could have been our grand daughters...geez!) 😱😵😱
Post by: Zer0 on 30/10/2017 22:04:43
MultiVerse Scenario : (use excessive imagination)
IMAGINE, the whole Universe is a Symphony Orchestra hall. 〽
I am a miniscule single musical note, a very small part of a very large symphonic play of grandeur scale. 🎵
Somehow I receive a message of alien origin, trying to trace its originating point I am dragged out of the orchestra hall(out of my universe)
I meet an alien creature from another universe, realizing multiverses are in fact a reality. 🌐
I'm gifted with an iPod sort of a device which the mutiverse civilization beings call an energetron, n they teach me how to use it. 🎦
Now, I plug into the energetron n point it at my universe n I can hear sweet symphony flowing harmoniously.(steady state of universal energy) 🎧
Then I hit the pause button 🔵 and the music stops.
(flow of universal energy stops)
Next I press the rewind button ⏪ n seems like the soundtrack is moving backwards.
(flow of universal energy is reversed)
Considering I'm outside the orchestra auditorium the energetron has no effects on me.
(my tone n sound remain constant) 🎵
Finally I see the orchestra has reached the point where its just about to begin so I hit the pause 🔵 n play button ▶
(just before the big bang) 🎬
And then I comeback to the location of the orchestra hall n take the front seat which is yet to come into formation n await holding my breath until the curtains rise n I would get to watch a harmoniously symphonic universal once in a lifetime performance to which I may never ever be able to stop applauding for.
🎶 🎼 🎻 🎹 🎷 🎺 🎸 🎼 🎶
(no doubt would cherish n love the show, but would also have a shallow hollow feeling of being left out) 🎵
Post by: Bill S on 31/10/2017 20:16:56
Do you want to tackle these points seriously? If so, we might need a slightly different approach.
Post by: Zer0 on 03/11/2017 21:38:05
Zer0, I applaud your imagination. What else can one say?
One could sing a song titled Imagine by John Lennon or simply say Hey U, Dream On!
👼
Post by: Zer0 on 03/11/2017 21:52:22
Do you want to tackle these points seriously? If so, we might need a slightly different approach.
Yes I'm up for it, let the games begin. 💪👊
But just to clarify the Rules of the Game, I'm Hoping the discussions would be Strictly pertaining to Scientific Rationality n not Metaphysical or Philosophical in nature. 🚬
Bill[edited] if you resort to Wonderlanding 🍥 theories n start acting all Alicey 👯 with me, then even I'm gonna go full Rabbity White 🐇 on you.
Post by: Bill S on 04/11/2017 00:31:36
Quote from: Zero
But just to clarify the Rules of the Game,
[OK. Rule one. Refrain from referring to me as "Billy". There are few things to which I take exception, but being called Billy is one of them I let it pass first time, but don't make a habit of it.
Post by: Bill S on 04/11/2017 00:38:18
Quote from: Zer0
Eventually the smarty scientifically intellectual froggys that we are, we would have managed to live thrice longer than other dumbo frogs n ended up having ten times more fun compared to them
How does hidernating make you live longer?
Post by: yor_on on 04/11/2017 17:56:57
And this one you need to expand on " and we would also expect that the CMB radiation would be relatively uniform in temperature. " I guess you consider it following from your first statement?It does not follow from the first statement, it follows from that fact that the speed of light changes.
If, in the past, the speed of light were greater than it is today, then we would expect that two objects (or sections of fluid, or whatever) would be able to influence each other from farther away than is possible in a constant-c universe. If the speed of light were great enough, then that would mean that every part of the universe was interacting with every other part of the universe almost instantaneously. You didn't have to wait 20 minutes for infrared waves to travel 20 light-minutes, it was much quicker.
This would mean that at that time, the temperature of the entire universe would approach equilibrium much faster in a slowing-c universe than in a constant-c universe.
This would mean that the CMB radiation would be more uniform in temperature in a slowing-c universe than it would be in a constant-c universe.
The discussion would change from "why is the CMB so uniform?", to "why is the CMB so ununiform?"
There are several difficulties with that idea Cowlinator. One main come from how a 'Big Bang' is presumed to act. A inflation without a 'center' is not something that need to relate to the geometry we define, and a 'lightspeed' would not be acting the way one might expect there. There is no problem in letting 'c' be 'c' for it to connect 'nodes'. And the 'nodes' making this universe exist is defined by 'c'. You could just as easily imagine a Big Bang to be what creates the connections allowing us a universe to define. It's very hard discussing a 'small universe' inflating unless one step away from how a 'Big Bang' is thought to act in mainstream physics.
Post by: yor_on on 04/11/2017 18:14:59
=
Presume we define it locally.
In that case the universe we measure in 'light years' from Earth will be getting older and older the further out we go. If you now imagine yourself at the very 'edge' of what we can see, then in a isotropic homogeneous universe you will find the exact same to be true, but now with Earth and its sun being the new edge. Although you won't see them of course, as they are later builds than the information light present you with, you being teleported to that 'edge'. Also I might add, this 'surround view' of a 'universe' will be existent at all directions, both from Earth and at that 'edge', implying a 'infinite universe'.
What one can notice here is that what makes a Big Bang plausible is not the question of how big, or small, this universe might be, or have been. Actually it's the age we're looking at. And that is a entirely different thing.
Post by: cowlinator on 05/11/2017 06:12:02
And this one you need to expand on " and we would also expect that the CMB radiation would be relatively uniform in temperature. " I guess you consider it following from your first statement?It does not follow from the first statement, it follows from that fact that the speed of light changes.
If, in the past, the speed of light were greater than it is today, then we would expect that two objects (or sections of fluid, or whatever) would be able to influence each other from farther away than is possible in a constant-c universe. If the speed of light were great enough, then that would mean that every part of the universe was interacting with every other part of the universe almost instantaneously. You didn't have to wait 20 minutes for infrared waves to travel 20 light-minutes, it was much quicker.
This would mean that at that time, the temperature of the entire universe would approach equilibrium much faster in a slowing-c universe than in a constant-c universe.
This would mean that the CMB radiation would be more uniform in temperature in a slowing-c universe than it would be in a constant-c universe.
The discussion would change from "why is the CMB so uniform?", to "why is the CMB so ununiform?"
There are several difficulties with that idea Cowlinator. One main come from how a 'Big Bang' is presumed to act. A inflation without a 'center' is not something that need to relate to the geometry we define, and a 'lightspeed' would not be acting the way one might expect there. There is no problem in letting 'c' be 'c' for it to connect 'nodes'. And the 'nodes' making this universe exist is defined by 'c'. You could just as easily imagine a Big Bang to be what creates the connections allowing us a universe to define. It's very hard discussing a 'small universe' inflating unless one step away from how a 'Big Bang' is thought to act in mainstream physics.
The statement
"The CMB radiation would be more uniform in temperature in a slowing-c universe than it would be in a constant-c universe."
is true in an universe with or without inflation, and is also true in a universe with or without a big bang.
Post by: yor_on on 05/11/2017 11:45:34
The CMB has to be 'uniform' if the universe 'inflates', light being of a constant 'c', as it seems to me? Using your definition, if I now understand it correctly, of light being 'slower' now? Then shouldn't early light be blue shifted? If we turn it around and assume a 'slower early light', red shifted? And shouldn't those two both imply different temperature graduations as measured by us, changing the further out (earlier in time) you try to observe.
If we on the other hand accept the idea of a Big Bang happening 'everywhere' with its subsequent 'inflation', stipulating 'c' to be unchanging, then the CMB should be of a uniform measure as I think of it.
=
It might be possible though to test? If we presume a blue shifted early light, uniformly dispersed. I don't know, but presuming that 'c' and other constants give us one value over time, you might be able to prove that this value comes out to 'low' unless the speed of light and other constants using it have changed their value over time. It would be a very theoretical exercise though.
Post by: Zer0 on 05/11/2017 12:15:07
Did not mean to offend/insult you in any manner. ✌
I shall certainly refrain from doing so in the future n this offence won't be repeated knowingly/ unknowingly, I assure you. 👍
Rule 1 totally accepted n agreed upon. 😀
Post by: Bill S on 05/11/2017 12:35:25
Quote
Bill, I Sincerely Apologize. 🌷
Thanks, Zer0. No one expects you to be a mind reader, but checking with fellow posters before playing silly b*ggers with their names might be considered a matter of courtesy. No lasting harm.
I hope we can continue to have interesting exchanges.
Post by: Bill S on 05/11/2017 12:45:26
Post by: Zer0 on 05/11/2017 13:58:20
Quote from: Zer0Eventually the smarty scientifically intellectual froggys that we are, we would have managed to live thrice longer than other dumbo frogs n ended up having ten times more fun compared to them
How does hidernating make you live longer?
Let's just keep the froggy stuff aside n move ahead okay.
Scenario 1 :
Subject (A) was born on 1st Jan 1850 n died 1st Jan 1900.
Subject (B) was born on 1st Jan 1850 n died 1st Jan 1950.
Who lived longer, (A) or (B) ?
Scenario 2 :
Subject (C) will be born on 1st Jan 2050 n grow up to oppose/dislike cryogenics leading a simple & peaceful life n dying natural death on 1st Jan 2150.
Subject (D) will be born on 1st Jan 2050 n grow up to accept/like cryogenics n eventually go under cryopreservation/hibernation on 1st Jan 2100 & wake-up on 1st Jan 2150 n live peacefully until dying of natural death on 1st Jan 2200.
Who will live longer, (C) or (D) ?
Bill S :
How does hidernating make you live longer?
I know a question cannot be answered with a bunch of follow-up questions, but at times it can help one realize the answer lies within the primary question itself.
(looking forward to know your thoughts n views on the above stated scenarios, and yes statements such as "No lasting harm." (glad to know) & "I hope we can continue to have interesting exchanges." (feeling is mutual) reflect understanding/maturity/kindness/forgiveness so Thanks A lot Bill.)
(0) ☺
Post by: yor_on on 05/11/2017 14:56:13
Post by: Bill S on 05/11/2017 16:13:05
Obviously, someone who underwent cryopreservation and who was successfully restored to active life, in the sort of, hypothetical, situation you describe, would be recorded as having lived longer, but, in what way could you claim he/she had travelled into the future to a greater extent that someone who was born later, and died at the same time?
Post by: Bill S on 05/11/2017 16:19:28
Quote from: yor_on
If we on the other hand accept the idea of a Big Bang happening 'everywhere' with its subsequent 'inflation', stipulating 'c' to be unchanging, then the CMB should be of a uniform measure as I think of it.
If you accept the Big Bang, is there any alternative to having it happen everywhere?
Post by: yor_on on 05/11/2017 16:32:37
Post by: Zer0 on 06/11/2017 16:25:59
(1) There is a strong tendency these days to equate cryopreservation with hibernation. I think this is unfortunate, as they are quite different.
(2) Obviously, someone who underwent cryopreservation and who was successfully restored to active life, in the sort of, hypothetical, situation you describe, would be recorded as having lived longer, but, in what way could you claim he/she had travelled into the future to a greater extent that someone who was born later, and died at the same time?
(1) I completely agree Cryopreservation & Hibernation are two distinct different terms/roads, but when you transcend your scientific thoughts n try looking beyond the cloudy horizon you would realize both these different techniques/roads lead towards the same result/destination.
For Example :
A frog in hibernation is travelling into the future. 🐸 ⏰ ➡
A human being in suspended animation is travelling into the future. 😷 ⏰ ➡
Similarly a future human, n the near future, using futuristic cryopreservation would also be travelling towards the future. 👦 ⏰ ➡
(2) Claiming (he/she had travelled into the future to a greater extent that someone who was born later, and died at the same time?) certainly wont be a task impossible enough to achieve for someone/anyone/no one.
For Example :
All I would have to do is click two snaps/pictures/photos of the two different Tombstones of subjects (C) & (D) respectively n upload them with due respect on Instagram, then even a Kindergartener quite frankly would be able to tell the difference as to who lived longer. 📷 🌐 👶
(to answer it in simplest of words would be to say that even a frog under hibernation will definitely live longer than a frog which ain't under hibernation). 👼
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=12479.0
Post by: Bill S on 06/11/2017 18:18:55
Quote from: Zero
A frog in hibernation is travelling into the future. 🐸 ⏰ ➡
A human being in suspended animation is travelling into the future. 😷 ⏰ ➡
Similarly a future human, n the near future, using futuristic cryopreservation would also be travelling towards the future. 👦 ⏰ ➡
True, but we are all travelling towards the future. Are you suggesting that any of your examples are travelling towards the future at a rate different from that of the rest of us?
Quote
All I would have to do is click two snaps/pictures/photos of the two different Tombstones of subjects (C) & (D) respectively n upload them with due respect on Instagram, then even a Kindergartener quite frankly would be able to tell the difference as to who lived longer
Surely you can't be saying that living longer than someone else is the same as travelling through time at a different rate.
Post by: Zer0 on 07/11/2017 12:25:58
Quote from: ZeroA frog in hibernation is travelling into the future. 🐸 ⏰ ➡
A human being in suspended animation is travelling into the future. 😷 ⏰ ➡
Similarly a future human, n the near future, using futuristic cryopreservation would also be travelling towards the future. 👦 ⏰ ➡
(1) True, but we are all travelling towards the future. Are you suggesting that any of your examples are travelling towards the future at a rate different from that of the rest of us?QuoteAll I would have to do is click two snaps/pictures/photos of the two different Tombstones of subjects (C) & (D) respectively n upload them with due respect on Instagram, then even a Kindergartener quite frankly would be able to tell the difference as to who lived longer
(2) Surely you can't be saying that living longer than someone else is the same as travelling through time at a different rate.
(1) Yes they are travelling at a different rate and this isn't a subjective/personal view rather an objective/universal view.
Guess its my fault, I should have been more specific n clear in pointing out that the link I had posted previously has all valid references to prove the point n also provide valuable clarifications.
So Please take a look at this -
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=12479.0
We age n get older in reference to our individual biological clocks, slowing(hibernation) or pausing(suspended animation)the clock does change the rate of travel into or towards the future. 👍
(keywords/terms that would help in understanding this complex phenomenon are suspended animation, metabolic rate, critical flicker fusion, DNA telomeres). 👼
(2) Yes, you are understanding my point very well as that is exactly what I'm trying to say.
(C) & (D) is the cryopreservation example, (D) would undergo cryonic self preservation hence completely stopping the biological clock which would be turned back on at a later time.
I wouldn't dare say that Science in the near Future would be capable of Resurrecting the Dead considering it to be demeaning/insulting prominent religious beliefs worldwide.
But no one can object or stop me from stating that Medical Science will Indeed someday, Wake Up the Clinically Dead. ✌
Post by: Bill S on 07/11/2017 15:02:54
Perhaps someone else would come in to help sort it out.
Post by: Zer0 on 08/11/2017 14:11:26
Do you want to tackle these points seriously? If so, we might need a slightly different approach.
Yes I'm up for it, let the games begin. 💪👊
But just to clarify the Rules of the Game, I'm Hoping the discussions would be Strictly pertaining to Scientific Rationality n not Metaphysical or Philosophical in nature. 🚬
Bill[edited] if you resort to Wonderlanding 🍥 theories n start acting all Alicey 👯 with me, then even I'm gonna go full Rabbity White 🐇 on you.
Chrononaut??? 😵
Yes its pretty clear we are certainly interpreting things differently.
Hibernating animals, Suspended Animation techniques and CryoPreserved humans aren't figments of my imagination.
Its a bit disheartening how quickly a scientifically rational conversation at times magically transforms into a trip to Disneyland or Wonderland Physics.
Perhaps it would be futile to expect someone with a scientific temperament to jump into this mess.
I certainly don't see anything left to be sorted out, its pretty clear already.
Thanks for your time Bill. 🙏
Post by: Bill S on 08/11/2017 14:38:15
Quote
Chrononaut???
Timetraveller.
Quote
Yes its pretty clear we are certainly interpreting things differently.
I am always interested to know why someone thinks differently from me about a subject.
Quote
I certainly don't see anything left to be sorted out, its pretty clear already.
If you are content to bask in your "clarity", you are probably right, there isn't anything left to be sorted out.
I'm still hoping that someone else will come in. One of us is obviously off track.
Post by: Bill S on 08/11/2017 14:47:30
Does hibernation or cryo-preservation cause the hibernating creature, or object preserved, to travel through time at a different rate from any creature or object not subject to hibernation or preservation?
Post by: David Cooper on 09/11/2017 20:01:11
Does hibernation or cryo-preservation cause the hibernating creature, or object preserved, to travel through time at a different rate from any creature or object not subject to hibernation or preservation?
No - it simply slows growth and ageing damage, but other damage from exposure to radiation continues at the same rate as normal, leading to an effective increase in that damage to the preserved creature by the time it's been revived, although you would try to eliminate that by shielding it with lead. The decay rate of any radioactive atoms in the preserved creature would continue to decay at the normal rate though, so that would make a clear distinction between this and relativistic slowing of "time".
Post by: Bill S on 10/11/2017 19:34:54
Quote from: David
No - it simply slows growth and ageing damage........
That's what I thought.
The next question must be: Am I misinterpreting Zer0's posts; or is he saying that hibernation/cryo-preservation change the rate at which one would travel through time?
Post by: David Cooper on 11/11/2017 18:39:42
The next question must be: Am I misinterpreting Zer0's posts; or is he saying that hibernation/cryo-preservation change the rate at which one would travel through time?
I don't know - I don't have time to read them carefully enough to tell. The rate of radioactive decay of the preserved material serves as a clock though which continues to tick unslowed, so all that's being changed is the rate of chemical reactions either by lowering temperature or introducing chemicals which block reactions while the functionality of the atoms themselves continues to run at full speed, and that clearly shows that it makes no difference to the rate at which the preserved stuff is travelling through time. To slow "time" properly, you have to use a relativistic method (high speed or gravity), and then you either have the preserved object follow a shorter path through time into the future (SR/GR) or you have slowed cycles for anything moving at the speed of light within the preserved object, thereby slowing its entire functionality (LET).