0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
cooling effects a molecular slowdown.traveling near speed of light also effects an aging slowdown per einstein? wouldnt the slowed aging also involve a molecular slowdown?
The speeds of molecules are typically about the speed of sound, rather than the speed of light. The effect due to relativistic effects would be tiny.
it would seem that the slowed aging of the traveling twin would be due to a slowed metabolism & molecular activity therein associated?
You are forgetting one important thing RELATIVITY the effects of time dilation ONLY apply to objects that are travelling at high speeds with respect to each other therefore the individual molecules in an object are travelling at low velocities with respect to each other and there is no significant change. travelling near the speed of light has absolutely no effect on the molecules in the object that is travelling at high speed. It is this vital fact that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and for objects travelling at high speed and the velocity of light is fixed that creates these relatavistic effects.
travelling near the speed of light has absolutely no effect on the molecules in the object that is travelling at high speed.
... the relative amount of metabolization must indeed be different.
When a cosmic ray proton impacts atomic nuclei of air atoms in the upper atmosphere, pions are created. These decay within a relatively short distance (meters) into muons (the pion's preferred decay product), and neutrinos. The muons from these high energy cosmic rays, generally continuing essentially in the same direction as the original proton, do so at very high velocities [~0.998c]. Although their lifetime without relativistic effects would allow a half-survival distance of only about 0.66 km at most, the time dilation effect of special relativity allows cosmic ray secondary muons to survive the flight to the earth's surface.
does jetlag have biophysical effects? might this apply?
The extended life is only from our stationary point of view. The fast moving muon decays in the same time as if it was stationary from its point of view. this proves that the fast moving particle does not experience itself a slowing down of time
assuming an unchanged metabolic rate & that the twins' hearts are good for 100 ticks, the twins rejoin @ 99 ticks & both die on the next tick [heart worn out]. the traveling twin will have died "younger"?
Quote from: CZARCAR on 24/11/2009 10:35:32assuming an unchanged metabolic rate & that the twins' hearts are good for 100 ticks, the twins rejoin @ 99 ticks & both die on the next tick [heart worn out]. the traveling twin will have died "younger"?If each twin was good for 100 ticks of their tickers, assuming the travelling twin moved through space really fast, he might only have reached 97 ticks when he meets with his twin again, but the stationary twin would be at 99 ticks.From each twin's perspective, his metabolism is unaffected and identical to his twin. However, their relative metabolisms really are different. The stationary twin will expire 2 second sooner.The term "rate" could be confusing. The metabolic rate of each twin is equal relative to each ones frame of reference, but it is not equal relative to each other's frames of reference. Time really does pass more slowly for the traveller relative to the static twin, but because time itself passes more slowly, it is impossible for the traveler to know it is passing more slowly within his frame of reference. How could he know? Everything is effected.For example, if the static twin could magically observe his traveling twin, he would notice that the twin's voice is a bit deeper than usual because he is hearing it relative to his timeframe. However, the traveler would not notice anything unusual at all. Frequency is a function of time, so even although the waves are stretched from the static twin's perspective, they are not stretched from the travelers perspective.
No, inside whatever frame you are your heart will beat 'the same' as measured in it, no matter what that frame of reference is, near a neutron star or the moon, or 'speed'. The age difference will only become obvious in a 'twin experiment' and if your heart contain one million 'beats' before you die then that 'million' will be what it ticks, no matter your frame of reference.
Sounds very deterministic for your ''hypothetical'' number of heart beats. By that logic, everyone's heartbeat should be predeterministically-known somehow.
Quote from: yor_on on 29/11/2009 19:33:37No, inside whatever frame you are your heart will beat 'the same' as measured in it, no matter what that frame of reference is, near a neutron star or the moon, or 'speed'. The age difference will only become obvious in a 'twin experiment' and if your heart contain one million 'beats' before you die then that 'million' will be what it ticks, no matter your frame of reference.Assuming your "No" is answering the original question, then what you say is true. However, relative to each other, they are no longer the same age, so there had to be a relative "slow down" (and relative "speed up")
No It's about frames of reference. It's like every one of those frames is a 'bubble of time'. Normally we don't notice that different frames will change our 'age' relative each other. And this thing called 'frames of reference' is to me a very slippery definition too as you always will be able to go up or down in size in every frame you define and so be able to say that even what you first called your 'frame of reference' when 'split apart' into smaller constituents will have a different 'aging' to it. That's one of the main headaches for me.But never the less, it's not about 'time' slowing down on it's own. It's about comparing two frames of reference relative each other before and after an acceleration (twin experiment).There is a difference. If you accept that you in whatever frame you are will find your heartbeat being the same as measured by your clock then you also must accept that the 'time' inside that frame hasn't changed for you.What has changed is the time relative, ah, whatever other frame you compare it against, before acceleration and after And as I said, it's a very slippery subject.
Can i make it known, if you don't mind, that a very long time ago that i made a prediction that the assumptions made by relativity could be found to be erreneous. I based the idea on the fact that everything remains relative, even down to the molecular level. Would it surprise many to find in some distant future when this technoogy is available to experiment on the macroscopic level, that when one twin moves at relativistic speeds from earth and returns, to find his age has asymptotically-aged - so there is no difference between his twin?I want it also known, that when i said this could be an inconsistency, i was ridiculed horribly.
Macroscopic bodies are composed of atoms. Why would those atoms be affected any differently than the atoms in atomic clocks?
It may not be impossible to conduct the experiment. I'm a bit behind on high stability clock technology, but these days it might be possible to build a non-atomic clock that is sufficiently stable to conduct a test on a satellite. Would a crystal consisting of a millions of molecules be sufficiently macroscopic for the test?