Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 116 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
01/07/20 09:26 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#55942 - 05/30/16 01:21 PM Biological clocks and time dilation.
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Sean Carroll asks the question: "What would it be like if time passed more quickly, or more slowly?" His answer is interesting.

Quote:
“The crucial question there was: Compared to what? The idea that “time suddenly moves more quickly for everyone in the world” isn’t operationally meaningful; we measure time by synchronized repetition, and as long as clocks of all sorts (including biological clocks and clocks defined by subatomic processes) remain properly synchronized, there’s no way you could tell that the “rate of time” was in any way different. It’s only if some particular clock speeds up or slows down compared to other clocks that the concept makes any sense.”


This raises the question: what do we really know about biological clocks in terms of time dilation? We are told that the astronauts who have spent the most time in Earth orbit are minuscule fractions of a second younger than they would be if they had remained on Earth; but what does that actually mean?

People who suffer from any of the forms of progeria appear to age more quickly than the vast majority of people. Is this due to their biological clocks running at a different rate? Are their bodies "experiencing" time at a rate that is different from that experienced by their minds? If biological clocks can vary in this way, what evidence do we have to indicate that they will be influenced in the same way as mechanical or atomic clocks by time dilation?

Top
.
#55954 - 05/31/16 02:54 AM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
The most basic time clock is the half life of the decay of atoms ... does it get changed by time dilation?

Goes to whether a pile of "stuff" will survive exactly the same time in two different backgrounds. You might for example send some "stuff" to a different background bring it back and compare it to some of the same "stuff" you kept with you.

Might be worth a search Bill S smile


Edited by Orac (05/31/16 06:25 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#55958 - 05/31/16 01:08 PM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
The most basic time clock is the half life of the decay of atoms ... does it get changed by time dilation?


Worth investigating when time permits, but it wasn't the accuracy of clocks I had in mind; rather the question of wether biological clocks would be influenced in the same way as others.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#55961 - 05/31/16 01:33 PM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: Bill S.]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Biological clocks are a whole different kettle of fish. I'm not sure I even understand them in more than the most simplified form. According to my understanding biological clocks are more related to environmental conditions than to measured time. We have the circadian rhythm, which is based on the day night cycle. While that is related to time it is basically a response to daylight and dark. Ok, this is getting hard to say. The environmental signals that synchronize biological clocks are generally driven by physical 'clocks', day/night, the seasons, etc., but they are not directly coupled to any particular clock, I don't think.

But of course if the whole system is subject to time dilation, then the biological clock would also be subject to the same time dilation.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#55962 - 05/31/16 05:42 PM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: Bill]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
But of course if the whole system is subject to time dilation, then the biological clock would also be subject to the same time dilation.


This would mean that the travelling twin would return physically younger than the stay-at-home twin. (You just can't keep 'em out).
I know the calculations establish that, but I can't shake off a sneaking suspicion that all might not be as calculated. I bet Paul can do better than that.

Note to self: Check for typos before posting. Dropping an "h" let an unwanted sheep into my last post. laugh
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#55964 - 05/31/16 06:41 PM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
This would mean that the travelling twin would return physically younger than the stay-at-home twin. (You just can't keep 'em out).
I know the calculations establish that, but I can't shake off a sneaking suspicion that all might not be as calculated. I bet Paul can do better than that.

Well the traveling lump of stuff comes back a different age so why would you expect the biological thing to be different it is after all built out of stuff. You are implying that biological clocks are somehow disconnected from physical stuff .. an interesting concept smile

Using that so the time experienced by an innate object moving is different to biological aging, lots of fun to be had here !!!

Ok can I comment, you are back to this problem again you keep returning to the abstract notion of time in classical fairytales and transposing it into GR and QM and think it's valid to do so ... IT ISN'T !!!!!

So again I state, if you are working in GR or QM that sort of rubbish is wrong. Time is defined to other quantities in both frameworks and you can't use your classical definition of time in those frameworks. Classical time does not equal GR or QM time except in the head of layman. To stop the confusion can you use the term "proper time" for GR and QM for a while. Then if ever you try to discuss GR/QM and use "time" rather than "proper time" you and I know you have just made an error and mixed definitions.

That problem is not uncommon as I have said Temperature has the same problem. In classical physics temperature is a quantity, in QM it is a statistic made up of lots of different microstates. So temperature while somewhat loosely the same, you need care when trying to use the classical definition of temperature in the QM framework. The fact temperature isn't a pure quantity is why the thing is so hard to work with correctly in the classical framework and time is exactly the same.

What you are doing in trying to simplify, is mixing framework definitions, and I am railing against it because it is misleading.

From what I am reading you are now putting "Biological time" into another category as well so now we have 3 different types of time, which are all only loosely the same. I have no issues but you are going to confuse me if it isn't clear which version of time you are talking about.

So our twin paradox shows a difference in proper time, what it shows in classical time and biological time isn't clear to me.


Edited by Orac (05/31/16 07:12 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#55966 - 05/31/16 11:38 PM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
so the twin that comes back is younger than the twin that
stayed on earth.

a human ages a fraction of a second at a time.

so by traveling at a certain speed a human
can reduce that fraction of a second to the point
that he does not age at all.

in fact he begins to get younger at certain speeds.

so the twin that comes back may not even be there anymore
he may have decreased his age to the point before his first
cell divided and beyond.

thats the trouble with the magic show.

it expects way too much from us.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#55967 - 06/01/16 02:11 AM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
in fact he begins to get younger at certain speeds

The rest is true that statement part isn't .. you can only get the aging to zero .. you can't get younger that only happens in the movies smile

My answer only refers to proper time, I have no idea what that means with "Bill S time" and "biological time" or "Paul time" as the definitions aren't clear to me.

If you want to do a Bill S tachyon and get the younger state. You theorize you can go faster than light speed and use some extensions which have no experimental evidence, and thus create something which is called tachyon. So you suddenly go from being made of matter, get converted into tachyons at a particular speed and then start going backwards in time. It's a nice movie story but I think my invisible pink aliens or your GOD is better story than that, I might want some evidence.

If you want a scientific criticism of tachyons then it is that is is an extension of GR and as such the theorized particles are not quantized. So although you can conceptually do such a thing in GR there is currently no known way to do it in QM. Even string theory which has not been able to successfully incorporate tachyons although there are ongoing attempts because some want to believe it could be true. The common approach is to have a tachyonic field (which is easy) but having a tachyonic particle in that field generally leads to instabilities. So those proposing the idea need to show us how it's possible to get stability and give us evidence we could test for.

For Bill S: The Higgs field in your classical world must be tachyonic, you might want to read up on why. Be careful not to turn this into a kinematic motion, the naive idea of a field moving like light across the universe is grossly wrong. Perhaps turn it into a field vibration on the stationary spot which would work better but still isn't accurate as the description really isn't about motion but about stability and time when trying to drag this back to classical descriptions like GR.

Finally for Paul, I don't have the ability to ignore experiments like you do, so contrary to your claim, I expect absolutely nothing of you smile


Edited by Orac (06/01/16 03:46 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#55969 - 06/01/16 04:01 AM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
For Bill S:
This may help for the above field movement it's called a K3 manifold however be careful it requires 4 dimensions. This is one of many ways to geometrically describe our field movement but is sort of meaningless inside the 3D world. Think back to the angular momentum problem of quantum spin again.


Edited by Orac (06/01/16 04:06 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#55972 - 06/01/16 10:08 PM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
you can only get the aging to zero .. you can't get younger that only happens in the movies


which of the einstein laws of whatever can that be found in.

and what stops someone from getting younger if he has been
getting younger for all of the trip up to the point that he
has stopped aging?

is there a younger barrier or something?

its really stupid thinking that a person can get younger
by a rate of say .001 seconds each second for a extended period
due to acceleration then suddenly as he reaches zero aging all that happens is that he maintains his age even if he is still accelerating at the same rate of acceleration.

I didnt say he ever did reach the speed of light BTW.
just close enough so that every second he became slightly
younger than he would have been normally.

my gosh look at what they had to do to the atomic clocks on
the GPS satellites and they are only traveling at 3.9 km/s

lawd !!!!!


Also: if hes getting younger then will he ever require
food.

suppose he eats a hamburger just before the launch.
he is launched.

exactly 1 hour passes.

he then speeds up the spaceship to a speed that will
cause him to get younger .999 earth seconds each earth second.

he then travels at this speed for 1 hour earth time.

so that he has aged only 3.6 seconds per every earth hour
that he travels.

his hamburger has also only aged 3.6 seconds since he
increased the speed of the spaceship !!!

and all the "STUFF" inside him is "STUFF" isnt it?

so he would only get hungry apx 6 earth hours later.
which would be 6000 of his hours later.

once every 250 of his days.

correct?

oh , I almost forgot the hour before he increased the
speed.

so make that 500 of his days before he will be hungry again.

I dont know what your going to do about all of the living
"STUFF" inside him that has much shorter life spans than he does
but I'm almost certain that you guys can get together with
the biologist and come to a reasonable agreement on laws that
will govern how and what the "LIVING STUFF" in the micro world can and cannot LAWFULLY do.



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#55974 - 06/02/16 10:29 AM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: paul]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Paul, I think you are confusing the issue by talking about the astronaut “getting younger”. My understanding is that relativity maintains that her ageing process would be slower, relative to someone stationary on Earth. At no time would the astronaut become younger than she had been at a past time. You will probably point out that you didn’t say that would happen, but “getting younger” implies just that, unless you are more specific about what you mean.

The eating problems you mention would not apply, because, for the astronaut, time would pass “normally” (1 sec per sec). In her RF it would be time on Earth that would be passing at an abnormal rate.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#55975 - 06/02/16 10:33 AM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
This may help for the above field movement it's called a K3 manifold however be careful it requires 4 dimensions.


Fascinating to watch, but absolutely no help. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#55976 - 06/02/16 12:31 PM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
well orac stated that the person would reach a point that
he did not age.

Originally Posted By: orac
you can only get the aging to zero .. you can't get younger that only happens in the movies


this means that everything inside the person would also
reach a point that it did not age.

the way I see it is that the twin on earth would age normally
while the twin traveling in space would stop aging.

now heres where my concern comes in.

if there is a speed that is associated with zero aging
then thats fine with me.

but if that speed is increased then that person should begin
to get younger along with everything inside him.

suppose the astronaut causes his spacecraft to do a slingshot
around a star to gain speed , does the slingshot maneuver
no longer work because of einstein math or any other math or
theory?











_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#55978 - 06/02/16 01:30 PM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Paul
if there is a speed that is associated with zero aging
then thats fine with me.

but if that speed is increased then that person should begin
to get younger along with everything inside him.

Unfortunately you can't increase your speed past that point, because that point is the speed of light, which is the universal (and firmly enforced) speed limit.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#55980 - 06/02/16 05:15 PM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
you can't increase your speed past that point, because that point is the speed of light


so I suppose that the star would gain or lose some of its
orbital speed around the galaxy it is orbiting then because something would have to speed up or slow down.

odd.

now lets speed up the star by doing slingshots around it
until the star itself is traveling at the speed of light.

after the star has reached the speed of light and the
spaceship does the next slingshot maneuver what happens
then when theres nothing else that can speed up.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#55983 - 06/03/16 03:54 AM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
so I suppose that the star would gain or lose some of its orbital speed around the galaxy it is orbiting then because something would have to speed up or slow down.

odd.

Might be odd to you but correct smile

Originally Posted By: Paul
now lets speed up the star by doing slingshots around it until the star itself is traveling at the speed of light.

Slowing down the ship and speeding up the planet is generally called gravity braking and gravity slingshot is the other way.

Your reading homework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
Quote:
To increase speed, the spacecraft flies with the movement of the planet (taking a small amount of the planet's orbital energy);to decrease speed, the spacecraft flies against the movement of the planet. The sum of the kinetic energies of both bodies remains constant (see elastic collision).

The timings determine which you do and its generally referenced from the spaceship, braking = slow ship/speed up orbital body and slingshot = fast ship/slow orbital body. Yes it's a full energy exchange as you worked out even if you thought it odd. Energy shall be conserved it is the law and your god seems to enforce it much to our annoyance.

The gravity assist can work both ways but you will never get the star to the speed of light as it has mass and the faster you spin it the more inertia it gains requiring more and more energy to accelerate it in an exponential cycle. So you need to do true proper infinite gravity brakes perfectly timed to get the spin to the speed of light and have infinite time ... yeah that isn't going to happen.

The funny part is when you have it spinning very fast if you miss time your gravity brake you will probably die because your spaceship is going to get flung out at a hell of a speed and backwards probably with your brains splattered over the inside front of the ship smile

So the answer is you can't get it spinning at the speed of light but regardless it's just a very fast spinning celestial body and nothing new in that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_J1748-2446ad
Quote:
At its equator it is spinning at approximately 24% of the speed of light, or over 70,000 km per second.

Still has a way to go to get to the speed you want but a start to go do infinite gravity brakes on it smile

So that is how it works in Fantasy Physics (TM) and I have no idea how it works in Paul& GOD's Own Physics (TM) but from the OP this is way off topic. Start a new thread if you feel we need to know.


Edited by Orac (06/03/16 04:40 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#55985 - 06/03/16 07:21 PM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136

when I wrote this ...

Quote:
so I suppose that the star would gain or lose some of its
orbital speed around the galaxy it is orbiting then because something would have to speed up or slow down.

odd.


and when I wrote " odd "

the reason I thought it was odd was that you were claiming
that the astronauts aging process would decrease to ZERO at
a certain speed and from that point on any acceleration
would not affect his aging processes.

also: when I wrote this ...

Quote:
suppose the astronaut causes his spacecraft to do a slingshot
around a star
to gain speed , does the slingshot maneuver
no longer work because of einstein math or any other math or
theory?


meaning that once he had reached the speed that is required
for him to STOP aging and he continues to do slingshot
maneuvers would the slingshot maneuver no longer work due to
the einstein theories.

I never said braking and I never meant braking.

everything is effected by gravity.

if you do a slingshot maneuver behind a stars orbital
path then the spacecraft will accelerate and the
stars orbital velocity will slightly decelerate.

the opposite is also true.

so the next time he makes a slingshot maneuver behind the
star his spacecraft could not be accelerated any further
by the slingshot maneuver according to you and einstein.

and that is why I wrote what I did.

I never mentioned the rotation of a planet being involved.

I was talking about using the orbit of a star ... not the rotation of a planet.

and from what I understand about a slingshot maneuver its
due to the orbital velocity not any rotational velocity.



and the guy never will age so time is of no concern
but somewhere in this example a physical occurrence
that is tried and true is purportedly breaking down due
to a theoretical thought that is not tried and true.

I say the spacecraft accelerates further and further
each successive pass it makes behind the star.

theres no thing in its way except theory , like I said
there is no thing in its way.



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#55988 - 06/04/16 03:44 PM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
As explained in the gravity assist link the body has to be rotating/moving faster than the spaceship speed for the assist to work. If the ship is faster than the body rotation you pull a gravity brake, its actually 1.4 times the circular orbit speed is the exact number where you start braking unless you pass in front of the orbital in which case its always braking.

Taking your example at its stupid simplicity (from the wikipedia drawing) after you pull the first slingshot you are moving 2x faster than the planet so how do you do it again and not brake??????

So you have me completely lost ... READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN CAREFULLY and take care when they say the word simplification. I get you don't understand it but that isn't my problem and its way off topic. However if you want to discuss it first you need to understand Hyperbolic trajectory which has speed requirements and then start a new thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_trajectory

Funny Aside: There is a funny joke in this ridiculous idea that as the spaceship gets near light speed it's momentum becomes MASSIVE and as it comes in to do a slingshot it picks up the sun or orbital body and throws it off into space because the spaceship momentum is far greater than the orbital body laugh

To be honest I am not interested in Paul physics but someone may want to discuss it if you start a new thread, but it has nothing to do with OP. So can we please try and adhere to the topic which was time dilation and biological clocks.

Edit: Reduced down because I don't want to encourage off topic discussion but left Paul avenues if he wanted to start a thread.


Edited by Orac (06/04/16 04:42 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#55990 - 06/04/16 08:55 PM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: Bill S.]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
To return to the OP: I see no reason to think that biological clocks are not subject to time dilation, I just thought I would put it out there to trawl for others' thoughts.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#55991 - 06/05/16 06:48 AM Re: Biological clocks and time dilation. [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Just to put a label on you then Bill S, it makes you a sort of vitalist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

Quote:
Vitalistic thinking has also been identified in the naive biological theories of children: Recent experimental results show that a majority of preschoolers tend to choose vitalistic explanations as most plausible. Vitalism, together with other forms of intermediate causality, constitute unique causal devices for naive biology as a core domain of thought.
Sorry just having fun with you smile

There is an interesting theory to add your idea which will interest you that "photons carry subjectivity or consciousness as a property".

For me the living organism is consuming chemicals and energy and those things are definitely under the normal laws of physics. I don't think there is anything in a living body that lies outside the domain of normal physics, or at least I have absolutely no evidence that such a thing exists.

My invisible pink aliens are looking attractive in comparison unless you can offer some evidence?


Edited by Orac (06/05/16 07:21 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.