Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Slower aging with speed, trick of the light?

  1. #1 Slower aging with speed, trick of the light? 
    Forum Senior Booms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The perceptual schematic known as earth
    Posts
    361
    Before you answer, please understand I'm not a scientist, I'm a 6th form student with an interest in physics (not even doing a Physics AS though) so please don't hassle me pointing out inaccuracies, incorrect statements, or wrong terms.
    I don't mind being corrected, I mind someone picking up that I mentioned FTL travel as an EXAMPLE and decides to be a snob and tell me it's impossible



    The Twins paradox, as I understand, is the idea that one twin goes very fast away, and then back to the other twin, and the stationary twin is older, the moving twin has aged 'slower' than the stationary one

    I saw the Diagrams on http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...in_paradox.htm

    So has the moving twin actually aged slower? or is it a trick of the light, he's moved further away and thus the light has reached Stationary slower (Kinda, if you throw a ball while moving backwards, it takes longer/ travels further to the same destination)... Although wouldn't this be negated by the Twins return trip?



    Something I just thought of, I remember reading about different reference frames, when the twin returns, does it return to it's original Frame with the stationary twin? Or when it leaves, does it's speed move it into a different reference frame (presumably further back in time or similar to explain the less age) and remain in that frame, even when returned and stationary with the twin who remained behind?



    P.S, does anyone actually understand the Twins Paradox? I'm sure many of you know it, I do, I know the idea behind it, but does anyone understand how it happens? grasping the concept of whats happening?


    It's not how many questions you ask, but the answers you get - Booms

    This is the Acadamy of Science! we don't need to 'prove' anything!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman IAlexN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    90
    If I recall correctly I think the slowdown of time can be expressed with: by Einstein's theory of relativity.
    This means that time dilation occurs at high speeds. However as to exactly why this phenomena exists in our Universe I'm not entirely sure about.

    You might find this site interesting: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...win_intro.html


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Slower aging with speed, trick of the light? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Booms
    Before you answer, please understand I'm not a scientist, I'm a 6th form student with an interest in physics (not even doing a Physics AS though) so please don't hassle me pointing out inaccuracies, incorrect statements, or wrong terms.
    I don't mind being corrected, I mind someone picking up that I mentioned FTL travel as an EXAMPLE and decides to be a snob and tell me it's impossible



    The Twins paradox, as I understand, is the idea that one twin goes very fast away, and then back to the other twin, and the stationary twin is older, the moving twin has aged 'slower' than the stationary one

    I saw the Diagrams on http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...in_paradox.htm

    So has the moving twin actually aged slower? or is it a trick of the light, he's moved further away and thus the light has reached Stationary slower (Kinda, if you throw a ball while moving backwards, it takes longer/ travels further to the same destination)... Although wouldn't this be negated by the Twins return trip?



    Something I just thought of, I remember reading about different reference frames, when the twin returns, does it return to it's original Frame with the stationary twin? Or when it leaves, does it's speed move it into a different reference frame (presumably further back in time or similar to explain the less age) and remain in that frame, even when returned and stationary with the twin who remained behind?



    P.S, does anyone actually understand the Twins Paradox? I'm sure many of you know it, I do, I know the idea behind it, but does anyone understand how it happens? grasping the concept of whats happening?
    FTL and time travel are impossible. Get used to it. It is true.

    The twin paradox is not a paradox. The traveling twin really does age less. This has been shown both experimentally and theoretically. The effect is quite real.

    It was shown in the Hafele-Keating experiment, and in the decay of elementary particles daily in collider experiments. One of the earliest pieces of evidence is the penetration of muons formed in the upper atmospher by collisions with cosmic rays. The muons penetrate much deeper into the atmospheree than would be expected from their known short lifetimes. The explanatin in the reference frame of the earth is time dilation, and in the reference frame of the muon length contraction.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ativ/muon.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...on.html#relcon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    There's also gravitational time dilation. Time passes more slowly in a strong gravitational field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo
    There's also gravitational time dilation. Time passes more slowly in a strong gravitational field.
    Basically true, but this takes some work to make precise. This is an effect of general relativity. General relativity does not use reference frames in quite the way that they are used in special relativity. Specifically general relativity models the universe as a spacetime manifold, a Lorentzian 4-manifold. There time and space are both local concepts and one cannot compare two clocks at different locations (yeah I know you can look across the room at a clock, but I am trying to explain the nature of the general theory).

    So, what happens is that if you consider two clocks that start at the same point in spacetime (same point in space and same point in time) and then one moves to a region of higher gravitational potential and then returns to the be rejoined with the other clock at the same spatial location then the clock that was in the higher gravitational field will show less elapsed time than the first clock. Now in part this will also be due to the trip that was taken, but the effect will be greater than just that and that is in fact due to the gravitational field.

    This was demonstrated in the Pound-Rebka experiment.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E...bka_experiment
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    IIRC, the effect is also more related to gravitational potential than the field itself, while clocks at higher altitudes run faster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Slower aging with speed, trick of the light? 
    Forum Senior Booms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The perceptual schematic known as earth
    Posts
    361
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Booms
    Before you answer, please understand I'm not a scientist, I'm a 6th form student with an interest in physics (not even doing a Physics AS though) so please don't hassle me pointing out inaccuracies, incorrect statements, or wrong terms.
    I don't mind being corrected, I mind someone picking up that I mentioned FTL travel as an EXAMPLE and decides to be a snob and tell me it's impossible



    The Twins paradox, as I understand, is the idea that one twin goes very fast away, and then back to the other twin, and the stationary twin is older, the moving twin has aged 'slower' than the stationary one

    I saw the Diagrams on http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...in_paradox.htm

    So has the moving twin actually aged slower? or is it a trick of the light, he's moved further away and thus the light has reached Stationary slower (Kinda, if you throw a ball while moving backwards, it takes longer/ travels further to the same destination)... Although wouldn't this be negated by the Twins return trip?



    Something I just thought of, I remember reading about different reference frames, when the twin returns, does it return to it's original Frame with the stationary twin? Or when it leaves, does it's speed move it into a different reference frame (presumably further back in time or similar to explain the less age) and remain in that frame, even when returned and stationary with the twin who remained behind?



    P.S, does anyone actually understand the Twins Paradox? I'm sure many of you know it, I do, I know the idea behind it, but does anyone understand how it happens? grasping the concept of whats happening?
    FTL and time travel are impossible. Get used to it. It is true.

    The twin paradox is not a paradox. The traveling twin really does age less. This has been shown both experimentally and theoretically. The effect is quite real.

    It was shown in the Hafele-Keating experiment, and in the decay of elementary particles daily in collider experiments. One of the earliest pieces of evidence is the penetration of muons formed in the upper atmospher by collisions with cosmic rays. The muons penetrate much deeper into the atmospheree than would be expected from their known short lifetimes. The explanatin in the reference frame of the earth is time dilation, and in the reference frame of the muon length contraction.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ativ/muon.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...on.html#relcon

    What the HELL!
    I hope you are over seventy five, otherwise you are the rudest hack I've ever met

    I...I mean you actually QUOTED the section of my post that said "don't nitpick over inacuracies" and used it to bloody nitpick! I can decide what's worse, that you've done that, or that what you've nitpicked over is the GODDAMN EXAMPLE, you've actually picked up on the example I gave to show what I hate people doing






    That out of the way
    Thanks for all the relevant help and responses, it helped. Unsuprisingly however, It was Stephen Hawking who made me understand completely. I didn't realise the effect wasn't increased aging in TB, or TA moving forwards in time. Rather the effect is the slowing of time around TA as she nears the speed of light

    Now there is but one question, How the heck does time do that?
    It's not how many questions you ask, but the answers you get - Booms

    This is the Acadamy of Science! we don't need to 'prove' anything!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Slower aging with speed, trick of the light? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Booms


    What the HELL!
    I hope you are over seventy five, otherwise you are the rudest hack I've ever met

    I...I mean you actually QUOTED the section of my post that said "don't nitpick over inacuracies" and used it to bloody nitpick! I can decide what's worse, that you've done that, or that what you've nitpicked over is the GODDAMN EXAMPLE, you've actually picked up on the example I gave to show what I hate people doing
    If you start out by postiing nonsense then don't be surprised if your begging for mercy falls on deaf ears.

    There were no nitpicks. Just statements of fact and identification of egregious inaccuracies.

    If you don't like it then engage the gear on your brain before letting out the clutch on your mouth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Booms

    That out of the way
    Thanks for all the relevant help and responses, it helped. Unsuprisingly however, It was Stephen Hawking who made me understand completely. I didn't realise the effect wasn't increased aging in TB, or TA moving forwards in time. Rather the effect is the slowing of time around TA as she nears the speed of light

    Now there is but one question, How the heck does time do that?
    Time doesn't do that as some sort of conscious act. It is simply the way that the universe works. Read up on special relativity. There are several good books. Rindler's Essential Relativity, Special, General and Cosmological is one of them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Slower aging with speed, trick of the light? 
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    The twin paradox is not a paradox.
    It is, because it seems to defy logic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Slower aging with speed, trick of the light? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    The twin paradox is not a paradox.
    It is, because it seems to defy logic.
    No.

    It only seems to defy an incorrect application of a perfectly consistent theory.

    There is not and never was a paradox.

    One resolution is very simple. Special relativity is formulated so as to apply in an inertial reference frame and only in an inertial reference frame. In the twin paradox the frame of the non-traveling twin is inertial while the frame of the traveling twin is not. Therefore the equations of special reltivity apply only in the frame of the non-traveling twin. No paradox.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Slower aging with speed, trick of the light? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    The twin paradox is not a paradox.
    It is, because it seems to defy logic.
    What it really defies is intuition, which as has been shown time and again is a terrible substitute for logic. Neither relativity (in either form) nor any of quantum mechanics are intuitive, but both work well beyond our ability to test whether or not things work. Therefore, despite grating against many people's intuition, we use them, and all the people who thing they should be thrown out just because they can't wrap their heads around them are simply wrong, if even that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Janus is absolutely correct. As usual
    I figured I'd truncate that statement due to its truth value. Janus is a superb teacher of complex things, and I offer him my personal gratitude for helping me to better understand so many things. [/Recognition_and_thanks]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,155
    Several posts have been split off into a new thread in New Hypotheses and Ideas under the title of "Differential aging", as they pertained to one poster's personal theory.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    DrRocket, MagiMaster: I was not trying to say it disproves the theory, just that it seems to defy logic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    DrRocket, MagiMaster: I was not trying to say it disproves the theory, just that it seems to defy logic.
    The point is that it does not defy logic.

    What it defies is illogic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    It defies ill-logic.
    A penguin can,t be half a penguin beit purple or any other colour.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •