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. Messages
  • 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

Messages - 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
Just Chat! / Re: How to Delete an OP...Testing?
« on: 03/04/2021 08:45:02 »
I’m sorry, I feel such an idiot, but I can’t remember nor find out how to create a post.   I’ve posted before but I can’t remember how I did it and can’t find any help on the matter.  😩.   

I’m logged in, now what?

3
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Contribution of latent heat of fusion of iron at the Earth’s inner core
« on: 03/04/2021 08:19:08 »
Thank you Kryptid, that’s very kind of you to do that rough calc for me, that’s really cheered me up.   I’m pleased the amount of heat released and the growth of the core is within about an order of magnitude of what seems to be actually happening.   Yes, of course, there are loads of details that we don’t know, but nevertheless to get the right order of magnitude is pleasing as the papers I was reading couldn’t account for the supplementary heat need to maintain the Earths magnetic field and I haven’t come across a single reference that said that the crystallisation of the core would release a substantial amount of heat.    There was one reference that said that to crystallise the iron would require heat - I couldn’t get my head around that statement at all, another statement I’ve read elsewhere said that to start the crystallisation would require impurities in the liquid iron to start off the process and he couldn’t see how there could be any impurities at the centre of the Earth, I find this statement weird too.

4
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Which stars by name or type emit polarised light?
« on: 21/03/2021 09:51:43 »
A couple of months ago I started a ‘professional astronomer experience course’.  There is no qualification at the end but it is marked, so for my own pride I want to get a distinction.   There’s about dozen questions to answer and a practical using SQA data on our own laptop using the same software that the professionals use.  Q1 was all to do with the Earth’s self sustaining geodynamo, Q2 is about polarised EM waves in space.   
I’m retired now, I don’t own a telescope as the things I find interesting I’d need a Keck in my back garden.   This course is good for me as it uses SQA data, no self owned telescope needed and no super computer.

This question asks various things including what are the sources of polarised EM waves, name some  sources, etc.     Of course the write up has be substantiated with references to peer reviewed published papers.

After spending many hours searching references I’ve discovered that high speed spinning stars, eg Regulus, will emit polarised light from its equatorial horizons, but seen from Earth one side cancels out the other so to see the polarisation the light from one side of the star has to be blocked out by some cunning method. Also, magnetars, pulsars, planetary nebula (ferromagnetic particles in the space aligning up with the prevailing magnetic field between the source and we the observer so that includes dust in planetary nebula), our sun looking at small areas (sun spots especially), and I’d also suspect black holes too especially the polar regions where the spinning black hole would generate a magnetic cork screw and materials get ejected at relativistic speeds.

 This topic is very hard to search for as I can’t search for ‘list the sources of polarised light that I don’t know about’.  I don’t know when I’ve reached the end of the list.

I don’t have anyone to chat to about astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology and quantum mechanics so I thought members here might be able to bounce some ideas back or to share their knowledge.   While I’ve seen every TV documentary to do with the four disciplines I’ve just mentioned over the past 5 decades, and I listen to science podcasts I still need some input on some points I’m struggling with.

So my questions now are:-
1.  Have I missed any other sources of polarised EM waves. (I’ve only just found another, the polar regions of Jupiter, probably due to the strong magnetic field and aerosols in the atmosphere).
2.  What are the names of some astronomical sources of polarised light.

So I’d need to name some pulsars, magnetars, nebula (the Egg Nebula I already know about) but others would be good, black holes, etc.   I’m useless when it comes to names.    I think that the Crab pulsar is called Tau A, but are any others named?  The other problem is that I’m having trouble linking definite detection of polarised light with these objects. 

What do you think?

5
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.

6
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.


7
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,

8
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Please explain the ‘angles’ in this abstract.
« on: 14/03/2021 16:46:28 »
Thank you for that link, I didn't realize that there might be free versions of the whole paper available.   I’m still a bit of trouble understanding what the datum is, the 0 degrees which as a result of the edge effects of the high speed spinning star results in a 79 deg twist.   Whilst I understand the general physics as I took physics to first year degree level, I’m having trouble with the terminology.  The authors seem to use abbreviations etc without explaining what they mean, still, I suppose that if I’m reading such a paper I’m supposed to know what the abbreviations mean and what the 0 degree datum is.

9
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

10
COVID-19 / Re: Why do viruses survive for longer on hard surfaces?
« on: 20/11/2020 17:29:06 »
The reason is because
1.  Hard surfaces often have tiny crevasses in which viruses are protected.
2.  There is very little drying effect on hard surfaces.
3.  The exception is copper, or copper containing metals such as brass or bronze.  The copper atom is unusual in that it will donate a number of electrons to a virus or bacteria and disrupt its surface. 

11
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How close would a stellar black hole have to be for us to detect it?
« on: 28/06/2019 22:24:31 »
We have seen pictures of the CMB which are created by ‘measuring’ the temperature of the sky.  The thermal fluctuations that needed to be resolved were ‘tiny’ and certainly less than 1 deg Kelvin.  Surely therefore detecting a 3 deg Kelvin difference should be easy, if only it was large enough to appear as an ultra cold spot.
But what is the best angular resolution obtainable from the equipment that measured the CMB?  From that we could estimate how close a stellar black hole would need to be for it to be detected by this method.  (Probably as close as Jupiter, lol)

12
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How can it possible to detect gravitational waves?
« on: 13/02/2013 20:56:46 »
What is binary systems with respects to gravitational waves?

In response to the 3 satellite set up where a laser is fired from one, hits a second then is detected (or not) by the third.  In my mind experiment I have just fired the laser and its on its way to the satellite containing the mirror.  Mid flight a wave arrives puts a kink in space-time.  Surely the laser would necessarily have to follow the kink and thus it would hit the mirror at which it was originally targeted resulting in no detection? I can't think of any setup that would detect either an angular change or a change in length where the measurement tools are confined to the same frame of reference.   

13
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?

14
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / If photons have no mass, how do they have momentum?
« on: 31/03/2011 23:15:03 »
For a few decades I have been lead to believe that gravity attracts objects - just as Newton told us.  But having watched Prof. Brian Cox's Universe series he said a couple of things that I am still pondering and may be for me beging to make sense of all this.  He said that, (at least I think that he said?!?!) that all objects are 'falling' in a straight line with respect to space-time.  He also said in a recent sky at night program that as exemplified by the Apollo astronauts on the moon that with out air resistance a feather falls at the same rate as a hammer.  And then he said something that is so obvious, and so profound.  He said if they also had a perfectly aligned horizontal laser, and also (a mind experiment here) the surface of the moon was about 5 light seconds long, dead flat and the same g long its length, the laser light and the feather and the hammer would all hit the lunar ground at the same time!  Obvious when its pointed out to me but not so obvious that it occurred to me without me being told. 

So I wonder if its right to conclude that is not that light has mass, (or doesn't), or momentum, or whatever that attracts it to a star and therefore bends the light around it, its the warp in space-time that is the cause - so you probably even an object with no mass will still follow a warp in space-time and therefore be bent around a strong gravity well such as a star.

I'm not expressing myself too well as I'm still trying to cope with space-time warps rather than gravitational attraction. 

On a related subject I want to question if gravity waves are detectable even though they exist - is there an existing thread can anyone tell me to join?  Its just that if the fabric of space-time wobbles as a result of passing gravity waves, then why should gravity detectors e.g. lasers, not suffer the same wobble thus our 'gravity ruler' is lengthening and shortening and time is wobbling too thus when one is divided by the other we get the same answer thus we couldn't ever detect gravity waves.


15
Question of the Week / How can you determine the distance to a star?
« on: 02/12/2010 22:59:32 »
The distance to 'close' stars can be measured by the paralax method versus the very far distant background stars. Put simply, measure the angle of the star to a baseline in, say, April.  Wait 6 months until the Earth has travelled 93,000,000 x2  miles and is now on the other side of the sun and measure the angle again.  Use triganometry and that is the distance. That's OK for quite a few light years.  After that we need to use the cephid technique, there pulsating stars whose brighness is related to the frequency of the pulsations.  Some assumtion  has to made about intervening dust absorbing the light.  Then after that there are the type 1a supernovas that blow up with about the same brightness as each other.  Then for the very far distant, we can use doppler shift.

16
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Why don't the stars in globular clusters crash into each other?
« on: 02/12/2010 22:44:27 »
This question is to do with the gravitational attraction between the stars of a globular cluster. As the stars are so close to each other, there must be a "reasonable" attractive force between themselves and as they are old stars they have had millions or billions of years to move together.  So after so long, and they are not that far apart from each other, how is it that they can maintain their spacial separation?

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

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 56 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.