The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Profile of Astrogazer
  3. Show Posts
  4. Topics
  • Profile Info
    • Summary
    • Show Stats
    • Show Posts
      • Messages
      • Topics
      • Attachments
      • Thanked Posts
      • Posts Thanked By User
    • Show User Topics
      • User Created
      • User Participated In

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

  • Messages
  • Topics
  • Attachments
  • Thanked Posts
  • Posts Thanked By User

Topics - Astrogazer

Pages: [1]
1
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How does time dilation work?
« on: 23/11/2021 22:35:26 »
Hi,
I’d like clarification on the topic of velocity time dilation please, if anyone can help. 

I start by synchronising three identical atomic clocks in my sitting room. Relative to me sitting at home at ground level watching TV and keeping my eye on my super accurate atomic clock, I know that other clocks at a lower altitude than mine run slower than mine because the Earth’s gravitational field is stronger at lower altitudes than me, and conversely, those clocks at the top of a tower block run quicker than mine because the gravitational field (acceleration field) is not as strong as it is for me.   If these two clocks, the lower one and the higher one, are brought back to my sitting room they would once again run at exactly the same rate as my clock, but they would show different times in accordance with the length of time that they were away, one would be ahead of mine and the other behind mine.   I’m fine with the gravitational effects on clocks.

From now on the thought experiment and discussion is done at precisely the same gravitational field, or the results are modified appropriately to rule out the effects of any different gravitational fields.

Any acceleration, either speeding up or slowing down, causes the atomic clock undergoing this activity to slow down relative to my own in my sitting room. There is no difference on clocks between the acceleration caused by gravity or by rocket motors.

Here is my problem:-
Now I’ve heard from two authoritative sources, Dr. Pamala Gay (Universe Today podcast Astrocast) and Dr. Daniel Whiteson (Daniel and Jorge Explain the Universe)  that the only occasion when velocity can induce time dilation is when the clock accelerates or decelerates.  Both of these will cause time dilation, slowing relative to my clock, regardless of the direction of the acceleration.  I’m fine with that.

But for years it’s been drilled into me that a clock in a spaceship travelling at relativistic velocities relative to me at home, undergoes time dilation.  We have all read that if Alice and Bob are twins and Alice goes on a 10 year high speed space trip when she comes back the Earth Bob is many years older than Alice.   So is this age difference due solely to the four periods of acceleration (speed up, slow down, turn around, speed up, slow down) that Alice underwent?    If Pamala and Daniel are correct, it doesn’t matter how long Alice was away from Earth, only her four periods of acceleration or in other words the top velocity she achieved, not how long she coasted before slowing down.

I posed a triplets thought experiment, and sent it to Daniel, but I don’t think that I got an answer that addressed the crux of my issue.  Here is the triplets paradox:-

Let’s take triplets. Triplet A stays on Earth.   Triple B and C accelerate close to the speed of light over a period of one hour, then triple B immediately decelerates, turns round, accelerates again for one hour, decelerates and arrives back on Earth.    Upon return to Earth, Triple B reads his atomic clock and it reads start time plus 4 hours as expected..   Triple A, reads triple B’s clock and let’s say he reads 10 hours have passed (or whatever you like but it’s more than 4 hours). The clocks are different because of the acceleration undertaken by triple B.

Triple C takes off at exactly the same time as triplet B, accelerates for one hour but instead of immediately decelerating, he decides to turn off the engine and just cruises.   After 20 hours, triple C decelerates, turns round, accelerates over and hour then cruses for 20 hrs, then decelerates over a period of an hour and he is then back on Earth.

So triplet C sees that the following time has passed, 4 hours for acceleration and deceleration, plus 40 hours for the two cruise periods.  44 hours in total.

Triple A reads the clock of triplet C and reads 10 hours (the same as triple B for the acceleration and deceleration period) PLUS 40 hours (covering the two cruise periods) =50 hours.   I believe you said that the during the cruise period of triple C, time for A and C run at the same rate.  Is this correct?

Until just recently I’ve always heard that the longer people are travelling at relativistic speeds, the more the time difference mounts up when they return to Earth.  But from what you said, that is not true.   It’s just the acceleration periods that cause the time dilation, not the high speed cruise times as clocks tick at the same rate as clocks on Earth (let’s forget the effect that Earth’s gravitational field has on slowing the clock on Earth).

Can you clarify this for me please?

Daniel said this :-
‘ When you bring everyone back to Earth so they have the same velocity, the only thing that matters then is how much acceleration they have experienced. So B and C will be the same age relative to A because they've had the same acceleration.’


This tells me that the Earth clocks run at the same speed as clock C during C’s cruise phase.

I posed another question about GPS orbiting satellites to examine this further.  I said that I’ve heard it said that the high altitude of the clocks makes GPS clocks run faster (less gravitational acceleration)  but their speed slows them down so although they do run faster than clocks on Earth, they don’t run as fast as one would expect if only altitude was taken into account.   So this means that their ongoing high speed relative to me on the ground does cause an ongoing time dilation effect and it’s not just the initial launch of the satellites that caused an initial offset.

Daniel said that while the two clocks, one on Earth and the other orbiting, are at different velocities it’s a symmetric system and it’s only when the travelling clocks come back to Earth that a proper analysis can take place.  So I’m puzzling the following.  Is it the case that while the GPS satellite is orbiting and its radioing its clock’s time down the Earth, that Earth sees an ongoing velocity discrepancy accruing (we are not talking altitude dilation but speed only), that should the satellite be captured and brought back to NASA for analysis, that the GPS clock shows an offset due to the time spent at altitude, plus the launch acceleration and recovery deceleration phase only but not the 20 years of accrued dilation caused by the speed.   Isn’t that a lot of accrued time to loose on the homeward journey?

So on the one hand I’m being told that cruising at high speed doesn’t cause time dilation and on the other that it does.   Which is correct?

Thanks.



2
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Contribution of latent heat of fusion of iron at the Earth’s inner core
« on: 16/03/2021 22:18:34 »
Can anyone do some fag-packet calculations for me please?  We know that the solid inner core of the Earth began to form about 565 million years ago.  We also know that the heat energy produced by the radioactive decay of K, U and Th is not sufficient to account for the maintenance of the temperature at the Earth’s inner core.  As the solid inner core grows, it must be releasing iron/nickel’s latent heat of fusion.  My question is:- can this release of heat to form a body-centred cubic crystals, plus the heat from radioactive decay account for the maintenance of the core’s temperature?  How much heat is currently being released from this solidification process?
We know the size of the inner core, we know it’s mass therefore, we know the latent heat of fusion of iron, we know how much heat is being lost from the core, if we assume that the rate of heat released is constant over the last 565million years, do the figures make sense?   The calculations involved of a growing sphere would fry my mind so I’d appreciate some help with this please.

3
Cells, Microbes & Viruses / How do reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations vary?
« on: 16/03/2021 21:29:17 »
My wife and I have had our COVID AZ vaccinations.   My wife felt cold and ill the next day and off her food, and she had a large red and sore area on her arm a few cms below the injection point for more than a week afterwards.

I had virtually no reaction to it at all.  No soreness at all, not that hungry the next day, but I expect that I was empathising with my wife.

1.  What is the body reacting to in the AZ vaccine?  With no real virus being injected, is it the body’s marshalling of the antibodies which makes us feel so ill?   The AZ vaccine uses a modified monkey flu virus I believe, is it this virus which attacks our bodies that makes us feel ill?

2.  As I had no real reaction to the vaccination, is my immune system primed for a real SARS attack as well as my wife’s?

3. When we get the second dose, can we expect the same reaction for both of us as we got before?

4.  Two people I know had their vaccinations two months after they caught the real Covid virus and were both ill for two weeks.  They had a similar reaction to the vaccination as my wife had, I’m wondering if the reaction is caused by the body reacting to the injections of more spike proteins, the monkey virus or something else.


4
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Which stars by name or type emit polarised light?
« on: 16/03/2021 21:04:13 »
I’m looking for those stars that emit polarised light, or the light becomes polarised after leaving the star due to the space environment that the light passes through.

It’s appears that super high speed spinning stars emit polarised light at its fringes.  Magnetic fields in space can also cause polarisation by lining up magnetisable space dust to cause a grating effect.  I suspect magnetars and pulsars will cause the radiations to be polarised,

5
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Please explain the ‘angles’ in this abstract.
« on: 10/03/2021 23:57:03 »
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-017-0238-6

In this abstract discussing polarised light originating from the equatorial horizons of Regulus caused by its very high spin speed, it talks about:-

“ Observations of the linear polarization of Regulus, with two different high-precision polarimeters, range from +42 ppm at a wavelength of 741 nm to –22 ppm at 395 nm. The reversal from red to blue is a distinctive feature of rotation-induced polarization. Using a new set of models for the polarization of rapidly rotating stars, we find that Regulus is rotating at 96.5+0.6−0.8%
 of its critical angular velocity for break-up, and has an inclination greater than 76.5°. The rotation axis of the star is at a position angle of 79.5 ± 0.7°.
”

What is this inclination angle of 76 deg, relative to what? 

And the 42 and 22 ppm, what is this small quantity referring to, the percentage of light that is polarised?

Thanks

Jim

6
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can it possible to detect gravitational waves?
« on: 12/02/2013 23:06:39 »
How can it possible to detect gravitational waves when the basis (by basis I meant space-time) of our measurement stretches in sympathy by exactly the same amount as any gravity waves there may be would stretch our basis for measurement.  Badly put, ok.  We commonly picture space-time as the rubber surface of a trampoline.  We paint on this surface lines such that from the centre to the edge is 100 units.  We check it with a laser (our laser is moving through the space-time of our rubber trampoline) and yes its 100 units.  We then pile on some bricks in the middle, we measure the distance from the edge to the middle by counting the grid lines and yes its still 100 units, we check with our laser which mirrors the rubber surface (oops I mean space-time) and yes its still 100 units.  We now bounce the bricks up and down and yes at all times there is still exactly 100 units from the edge to the centre.  If this analogy is correct, we could be buffeted 'all over the place' by gravity waves and we wouldn't feel a thing, nor measure anything either. Is this why physicists are struggling to detect gravity waves?  So what do you all think?

Pages: [1]
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.118 seconds with 32 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.