IF Time Slowed Down

Off Topic
41

[quote]pzehtoeur wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:
The scenario contains a contradiction and is therefore unimaginable. Time is a measurement of motion. If all motion in the universe were to slow down proportionately, the same would apply to our perceptual and mental faculties and therefore our perception of time would remain the same, assuming the change didn’t cause the physical universe to break down and kill us all outright.[/quote]

Time is not the measurement of motion. Time is the chronological passing of events. If I cool an atom down to absolute zero and there is no motion, time still passes for said atom.[/quote]

Also something moving at the speed of light does not experience time, yet it is still moving. Which is cool if you think about it. A photon can exist for trillions of years before it slams into something and gets absorbed, yet to the photon, it’s “creation and death” are instantaneous"

This does bug me though because the thing the photon hits is not in the same position when the photon leaves it’s source. Though the photon thinks it is. ???

V[/quote]

You have to remember that space and time are intertwined. A photon has the highest possible velocity in the three spacial dimensions, and thus has none in time dimension…if that makes any sense. Basically, anything travelling at the speed of light will not experience time due to relativity. Time is slowed down by an infinite amount at that velocity. So, technically, a photon is the same age today as it was when the universe was created. [/quote]

Am I incorrect in saying that this is all still theory? It’s been a while since I took physics, but Einstein had his “Theory of Relativity”. Absolute Zero is a theoretical temperature where all motion ceases. Right? In guess my point is that we don’t really know what impact the passage of time has on physical objects moving through space at the speed of light because we can’t examine the physical characteristics at various points throughout time. I suppose this is one of those things the super-collider will explore.

DB

42

[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
Am I incorrect in saying that this is all still theory? It’s been a while since I took physics, but Einstein had his “Theory of Relativity”. Absolute Zero is a theoretical temperature where all motion ceases. Right? In guess my point is that we don’t really know what impact the passage of time has on physical objects moving through space at the speed of light because we can’t examine the physical characteristics at various points throughout time. I suppose this is one of those things the super-collider will explore.

DB[/quote]

Special relativity is not due to Einstein, and it is good enough to do a lot of thought experiments to see how moving clocks behave. General relativity is a good model of the way gravity works. In physics you can only work with the best model you have available to you. General relativity has made predictions confirmed by observation which is why it is so useful.

When people refer to absolute zero, they usually mean 0 degrees Kelvin. But you’re right, theoretical absolute zero is not something we can ever obtain experimentally.

And no, the super-collider is not about confirming relativity, it’s to determine the existence of the Higgs boson (the mass-generating particle).

43

[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:

[quote]pzehtoeur wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:
The scenario contains a contradiction and is therefore unimaginable. Time is a measurement of motion. If all motion in the universe were to slow down proportionately, the same would apply to our perceptual and mental faculties and therefore our perception of time would remain the same, assuming the change didn’t cause the physical universe to break down and kill us all outright.[/quote]

Time is not the measurement of motion. Time is the chronological passing of events. If I cool an atom down to absolute zero and there is no motion, time still passes for said atom.[/quote]

Also something moving at the speed of light does not experience time, yet it is still moving. Which is cool if you think about it. A photon can exist for trillions of years before it slams into something and gets absorbed, yet to the photon, it’s “creation and death” are instantaneous"

This does bug me though because the thing the photon hits is not in the same position when the photon leaves it’s source. Though the photon thinks it is. ???

V[/quote]

You have to remember that space and time are intertwined. A photon has the highest possible velocity in the three spacial dimensions, and thus has none in time dimension…if that makes any sense. Basically, anything travelling at the speed of light will not experience time due to relativity. Time is slowed down by an infinite amount at that velocity. So, technically, a photon is the same age today as it was when the universe was created. [/quote]

Am I incorrect in saying that this is all still theory? It’s been a while since I took physics, but Einstein had his “Theory of Relativity”. Absolute Zero is a theoretical temperature where all motion ceases. Right? In guess my point is that we don’t really know what impact the passage of time has on physical objects moving through space at the speed of light because we can’t examine the physical characteristics at various points throughout time. I suppose this is one of those things the super-collider will explore.

DB[/quote]

It’s still a “theory” but it’s been backed up by experiments and observations. Similar to how evolution is still “a theory.”

Absolute Zero isn’t a theoretical temperature. It’s the temperature at which matter has its lowest possible energy value. I think the record for closest temperature to absolute zero (achieved on Earth) was within one-billionth of a Kelvin. In space, there are many astronomical objects, such as white dwarfs, that lose their energy as heat radiates away and their temperatures approach absolute zero.

And we do know how time is percieved by objects travelling at speeds that approach the speed of light. To an outside observer, their time has appeared to slow down by a factor of gamma (= 1/(1-(v^2)/(c^2))^1/2. Thus, for a photon, gamma = infinity, so time is completely stopped for a photon.

44

[quote]JLu wrote:

[quote]FlameofOsiris wrote:
Yeah, I remember learning about how gps had to take time delay into account in my physics class. It was never really explained in detail, but it was brought up again by my astronomy professor, Michio Kaku. He knows his stuff. =)[/quote]
Yes but it’s not because of time dilation due to the satellite/body moving so fast we have to take relativity into account, it’s due to the time taken for the transmitting wave to reach the satellite. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]

I’m not an expert on this, but I’m pretty sure this is not true. Time dilation is a factor in GPS, and a significant one. I believe the military branch that assumes control of the GPS satellites updates the clocks on the GPS satellites every two hours or so. You gotta remember that these things are either moving quick (although I believe most GPS satellites are in geosynchronous orbits), or they are under the effects of low(er) gravity (distance of GS orbit is pretty far out). GPS would be absolutely useless by the end of today if they didn’t update these clocks and it is due to time dilation. (updating due to the delay would be a pretty easy, static fix wouldn’t it?)

I think if you asked a real-deal physicist this question they would simply reply, “you’d never know if time slowed down.”

45

You had Michio Kaku as a professor?!?!

[quote]FlameofOsiris wrote:
Yeah, I remember learning about how gps had to take time delay into account in my physics class. It was never really explained in detail, but it was brought up again by my astronomy professor, Michio Kaku. He knows his stuff. =)[/quote]

46

This question doesn’t make any sense because it completely ignores the fact that time is relative.

47

I think black holes of extreme mass are the closest astronomical objects to absolute zero. Their temperature can be calculated by Hawking’s equation for black hole entropy. A black hole of 10 solar masses would have a temperature on the order of 10^-9 K, and that’s not a particularly massive black hole! Like you said, in the lab we have gotten to that level also, which is pretty amazing.

[quote]pzehtoeur wrote:

[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:

[quote]pzehtoeur wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:
The scenario contains a contradiction and is therefore unimaginable. Time is a measurement of motion. If all motion in the universe were to slow down proportionately, the same would apply to our perceptual and mental faculties and therefore our perception of time would remain the same, assuming the change didn’t cause the physical universe to break down and kill us all outright.[/quote]

Time is not the measurement of motion. Time is the chronological passing of events. If I cool an atom down to absolute zero and there is no motion, time still passes for said atom.[/quote]

Also something moving at the speed of light does not experience time, yet it is still moving. Which is cool if you think about it. A photon can exist for trillions of years before it slams into something and gets absorbed, yet to the photon, it’s “creation and death” are instantaneous"

This does bug me though because the thing the photon hits is not in the same position when the photon leaves it’s source. Though the photon thinks it is. ???

V[/quote]

You have to remember that space and time are intertwined. A photon has the highest possible velocity in the three spacial dimensions, and thus has none in time dimension…if that makes any sense. Basically, anything travelling at the speed of light will not experience time due to relativity. Time is slowed down by an infinite amount at that velocity. So, technically, a photon is the same age today as it was when the universe was created. [/quote]

Am I incorrect in saying that this is all still theory? It’s been a while since I took physics, but Einstein had his “Theory of Relativity”. Absolute Zero is a theoretical temperature where all motion ceases. Right? In guess my point is that we don’t really know what impact the passage of time has on physical objects moving through space at the speed of light because we can’t examine the physical characteristics at various points throughout time. I suppose this is one of those things the super-collider will explore.

DB[/quote]

It’s still a “theory” but it’s been backed up by experiments and observations. Similar to how evolution is still “a theory.”

Absolute Zero isn’t a theoretical temperature. It’s the temperature at which matter has its lowest possible energy value. I think the record for closest temperature to absolute zero (achieved on Earth) was within one-billionth of a Kelvin. In space, there are many astronomical objects, such as white dwarfs, that lose their energy as heat radiates away and their temperatures approach absolute zero.

And we do know how time is percieved by objects travelling at speeds that approach the speed of light. To an outside observer, their time has appeared to slow down by a factor of gamma (= 1/(1-(v^2)/(c^2))^1/2. Thus, for a photon, gamma = infinity, so time is completely stopped for a photon. [/quote]

48

[quote]pzehtoeur wrote:

Absolute Zero isn’t a theoretical temperature. It’s the temperature at which matter has its lowest possible energy value. I think the record for closest temperature to absolute zero (achieved on Earth) was within one-billionth of a Kelvin. In space, there are many astronomical objects, such as white dwarfs, that lose their energy as heat radiates away and their temperatures approach absolute zero.

[/quote]

But, until it’s actually been reached and verified, it is still a theory. It’s like a HS virgin’s theory of getting laid in that he “approaches” women many times, but until he actually scores, it’s just a theory.

I kid of course, but as a non-scientist, I am quite skeptical (particularly lately) of what is accepted as consensus fact when it maybe isn’t so. Approaching certain levels is not the same as attaining them, right?

DB

49

[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:

[quote]pzehtoeur wrote:

Absolute Zero isn’t a theoretical temperature. It’s the temperature at which matter has its lowest possible energy value. I think the record for closest temperature to absolute zero (achieved on Earth) was within one-billionth of a Kelvin. In space, there are many astronomical objects, such as white dwarfs, that lose their energy as heat radiates away and their temperatures approach absolute zero.

[/quote]

But, until it’s actually been reached and verified, it is still a theory. It’s like a HS virgin’s theory of getting laid in that he “approaches” women many times, but until he actually scores, it’s just a theory.

I kid of course, but as a non-scientist, I am quite skeptical (particularly lately) of what is accepted as consensus fact when it maybe isn’t so. Approaching certain levels is not the same as attaining them, right?

DB [/quote]

Yes, but the beauty of science is that all claims can be falsified. A million experiments can be done to back up a claim but if one experiment is done (and all flaws and errors are accounted for) that discredits that claim, then a new paradigm of thought has to be created that accounts for why that experiment disproved the previous claim. Theories will never be proven “true” but that applies to all of science. In science, theories are given to those ideas that have withstood the test of time and have been most difficult to falsify, like evolution and general relativity.

Approaching certain levels definitely is not attaining them, logically speaking. However, if we can only approach a certain level of something, such as the lowest possible temperature, then it makes sense to quantify that level as the lowest possible temperature and we theorize that that level can be attained at a time scale of infinity. It might be easier to accept if you think of it as some kind of barrier rather than a “theoretical level” of some sort.

For example, the speed of light is not “theoretical” but it is impossible to accelerate particles with mass up to that speed. Do we assume that the speed of light is theoretical? No, it is simply just the upper limit of speed in our universe just like how absolute zero is the lowest limit of energy in our universe. My example is not that greatest considering we do have objects that travel at the speed of light, namely the photon.

50

[quote]JLu wrote:

[quote]FlameofOsiris wrote:
The faster you go, the more time slows down. I’m actually fairly certain that gps takes this into account when positioning people.[/quote]
It’s not significant until you start approaching the speed of light though, so I highly doubt GPS would need to take into account movement of only 100 km/h or around there.

To answer OP though yes I think it would help scientific research a lot to be able to observe things for longer periods of time such as the elements that only exist for something like 1 trillionth of a second thus making it difficult to observe.[/quote]

GPS most assuredly does take it into account. It’s that adjustment for the relative speed of light that allows a gps to be accurate for more than a couple of days after it’s built. I remember seeing somewhere on Science Channel that a GPS will be off by more than 100 yards in just 48 hours if we didn’t adjust for that.

51

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…ever wondered why a fly is so quick at avoiding getting smashed? A fly perceives reality 3 times faster than we do. To a fly, we move slow; therefore our movements are slow and easy to avoid…

…time itself doesn’t actually exist, but it’s our perception of movement that creates the illusion of time. If you want to slow down time, you simply speed up your perception of reality. This is experienced often by people. In a high stress situation, adrenaline speeds up the brain’s perceptual pathways and everything appears to slow down. Neat, huh?[/quote]

Unless there’s some science to back that one up, a fly “reacts” quicker to someone trying to whack it because the tiny hairs on its body can feel the vibrations and changes in pressure as the air moves around them. If you want to kill a fly like 99% of the time, approach slowly, put your hands about 4 inches above it, and clap. The flies instinctual reaction is to fly straight up, and the movement of your hands, no matter how fast you are sends them up right between your palms. You will need to wash your hands afterwards.

52

If time slows, your mind’s ability to think would also slow at a proportional rate so you wouldn’t notice time slowing anyway.

53

Given the thread this seems appropriate (especially from 4:03 on)

54

[quote]JLu wrote:

[quote]FlameofOsiris wrote:
The faster you go, the more time slows down. I’m actually fairly certain that gps takes this into account when positioning people.[/quote]
It’s not significant until you start approaching the speed of light though, so I highly doubt GPS would need to take into account movement of only 100 km/h or around there.

To answer OP though yes I think it would help scientific research a lot to be able to observe things for longer periods of time such as the elements that only exist for something like 1 trillionth of a second thus making it difficult to observe.[/quote]

GPS does take this into account but not for your speed. The satellites account for their own velocity.

Syncronized atomic clocks placed on land and in a jet liner have shown that time does slow slightly on the jet.

55

Time slows for objects in motion due to special relativity. This basically states that the speed of light is constant. Einstein came up with it by imagining what one would see if they were able to travel at the speed of light parallel to a beam of light. This is impossible, however, according to his theory.

As an object with mass approaches the speed of light, some of it’s energy is converted to mass so that it would require an infinite amount of energy to travel at light speed. This prevents any object with mass from reaching the speed of light.

Time slows for an object in motion to satisfy special relativity. Say a man is in a space ship. Time inside the space ship slows while time outside stays the same. So, if his space ship could reach a velocity of about 75% of the speed of light, he could travel to the edge of the visible universe and back within his lifetime although centuries would’ve passed on Earth.

It’s all explained by E = m*c^2.