The Twin Paradox and Aging.

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
mabus":heg6pvbv said:
that the twins represent actual twins of human size, and not atoms, am I mistaken?
Oh I see.. no, you are not mistaken. The twins do represent actual, honest to goodness, bonafide human beings, one sitting on a spaceship and one staying on Earth.

But of course, the twins are made of atoms... ;)

All I am saying here is that it doesn't matter whether you use atomic clocks, or human beings sitting next to atomic clocks. Atomic clocks measure the passage of time, and the passage of time causes human beings to get older.

To dryson: Perception of time is a different matter entirely. Time can seem to take forever to pass, or it can pass in a flash, but after 1 day you will still be 1 day older. A second always lasts a second, and you get older by the second.
 
R

ramparts

Guest
Mabus, it's not a matter of size. These principles apply on the human scale as well as on a microscopic scale - the problem is that Dryson is talking specifically about human biological processes and how those would differ in a spaceship. While the biology may be suspect, it really has nothing to do with the twin paradox, which just gets at how we perceive time, and implicitly assumes that the aging process doesn't change at all.
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
ramparts":3hof3ysb said:
it really has nothing to do with the twin paradox, which just gets at how we perceive time, and implicitly assumes that the aging process doesn't change at all.
And just to be perfectly clear here... ;)

The ageing process doesn't change at all for either twin - for each of them individually, a second always lasts a second and they age perfectly normally. But when they meet at the end of the experiment, one of them has experienced less seconds than the other - their clocks show different elapsed times. One is now older than the other!
 
M

mabus

Guest
Ok that's what I thought. My worlds were colliding for a bit there :)
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
And of course, the paradox is that, from the point of view of the astronaut in the spacecraft, the fellow on earth is the one that is accelerating away and back....
 
B

benbald

Guest
Lol, anyone who thinks that the twin paradox has anything to do with biology has missed the point of the whole thing. It has nothing to do with aging. It has everything to do with time. If you can't wrap your head around it, replace the twins with identical stopwatches. The watch on the ship will show less time has passed than the watch on earth. General Relativity :)
 
D

drwayne

Guest
There have been a couple of discussions in the past year or so about versions of the
watch experiment. These have actually been done with airplanes and spacecraft.

The favorite anti-relativity argument is to speculate that a force exists that mechanically
slows processes when placed on a moving platform. It slows all processes equally,
consistent with the predictions of relativity, but it is not a relativistic effect.

Some are so uncomfortable with relativity that they would rather have a "magical"
force that accomplishes the same effects as relativity, but its not relativity.
 
D

dryson

Guest
What is Time?

First off we need to determine what time actually is. Is time being described here as a unified theory that has all ofthe aspects of the Twin Paradox included in the unified theory? Because time is actually a generalized and broad term used to describe the measurable distance between two particles that have affected upon each other a force of exerted energy where each type of particle will affect the other particle in such a way to created a distance between the other or time.

How came to this description of time was rather easy. I looked at historical time and what historical time is. History is the measureable progress of a civilization. With the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki creating a whole new time line from what people before this event had understood a new era for history had occured. If we watch the time line of the major events since then we can see that the energy of both biological and energetic systems being involved to create a length of measureable distance from the event in the past to today has created a measureable distance of length that can be measured. The same measure can be used when defining both energitic time lines as well as biological time lines. For energetic time lines the distance that the particle travels is based off of the initial event between two particles that caused an energetic reaction between the two particles that sent a particle one direction and the other particle in the opposite direction based off of the the two particles producing a certain amount of energy that then created an equal and opposite of length, time or distance between the two particles. The only affect that would create an aging process for the particles would be how much energy each particle was able to produce before exhausting all of the particles stored energy where the particle would diffuse into neutral and non energetic particles that may or may not be re-energized to become a new and possibly different type of particle based on the compression of the particle by a much more energetic force.

Biological time is the rate at which biological cells grow and decay based upon how much and of what type of energetic particle their cellular structures absorb. The more energy that a cell absorbs creates the possibilty of the cell becoming to energetic which would cause the reactions that the cell is part of to also increase in their energetic response. Not enough energy and the cells become sluggish were particles then build up on these particles that slow them down even farther. This process is called metabolism. If we take the twin paradox and apply the metabolism to the experiment, we can see that the farther away (or a measureable distance or time) from the sun which provides the bodies biological
process with energy, the less energy the body will take in and be able to use for cellular growth. This means that the body would not age as quickly because of the lesser amount of UV radiation present. Both observers would ahve two age histories one being a Solar Age or the amount of UV radiation absorbed that will decrease or increase cellular growth and decay as well as a Terran Age where the person would age depending on the yearly orbit of the Earth around the Sun. IF we could measure the affects of different biological cells at varrying distances from the Sun we would see this process very clearly, but since we do not have these types of facilities available to us then we can only conjecturize about the results. Lets say for instance on Earth the observer ages at a one year interval based upon the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, but in Solar years the person actually ages 5 times as fast. We have three observers, one is constantly kept inside until age 50, one is constantly in and out of the house on a 50/50 basis.The third observer is constantly outside for the entire 50 years never using any other shelter other then a sleeping bag to keep warm, of course outside bathing and hygiene facilities are allowed to be used, we dont want any stinky observers. All three observers will have aged the same Earth age of 50 years but each would have aged differently in Solar Years. The observer who was indoors their whole life would have developed a constant growth rate of their cells depending upon the amount of UV radiation that they absorbed in this case gamma radiation, which is the only radiation that is not able to be blocked and would have the most affect upon a biological cell. Observer one would be fifty Earth Years in age but would actually only be 20 Solar years in age based on the amount of gamma radiation that was absorbed. Observer two would be 50 Earth Years in age and 100 Solar Years in age due to the increased amount of gamma radiation absorbed that caused cellular decay and an increase in stress upon the body to replace the cells lost which causes further cells and energy to be used. The observer that was outside their whole life would be 50 Earth years in age but would be approximately 500 Solar Years in age due to the extreme amount of gamma radiation absorbed on a daily basis. Now if we take this model and place the three observer's in space observer three on the Earth, observer two near Pluto and observer one at the same distance that observer two is from observer three, we can generate the same results based on time ( or a measureable distance of a unit of length) that each observer will age the same Earth years based on the amount of days that the Earth takes to travel around the Sun as being the same, but when we factor in the amount of radiation obsorbed, each observer would age differently based upon their distance ( or time) from the Sun. Now if we take the three observers and place them in the different locations which one do you think will be able to better adapt to the new environment? The observer on Pluto would of course. The reason why is because observer two has obsorbed gamma radiation at a 50% extreme amount for their 50 years on Earth. This means that their bodies equilibrium would be balanced to produce cells in either environment of being sheltered or being fully exposed to the radiation given off by the Sun. Both observer's One and Three however would suffer extreme cellular damage due to the increase of gamma radiation to observer one that had been isolated his whole life which would shock his system and cause cancers to develop, observer three would develop cancers due to the decreased amount of gamma radiation obsorbed on a daily basis that would shock his system's cellular growth rate. Both observers One and Three would then
age normally based on the standard Earth age calculator but would increase their Solar Age by 25% due to the increased amount of stress being placed upon the body when dealing with the increase and decrease of gamma radiation absorption.

That is true about Mars, Since their is no atmosphere on Mars to block out the UV radiation from the Sun the Solar age of the observer on Mars would actually increase by 100 when compared to observer three on Earth. The Martian observer would age three ways now, the first age would be based upon the time it takes Mars to make one revolution around the Sun, The Martians Earth Age which is based on how long it takes the Earth to revolve around the Sun and the Martians Solar Age or the amount of UV Radiation that is obsorbed that causes cellular growth and decay rates to increase or decrease which puts an increase or decrease of stress on the orgins that produce cells to replace the cells that have been damaged and mutated by the Sun's UV radiation.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Are you seriously suggesting that Einstein was drugged? And that has anything to do with whether his theories, which have been resoundingly supported by observations over the last 80 years are correct or not?

Since your theories don't stand up to even the most cursory examination, should we therfore assume you are on drugs?

This is far enough off topic that this thread may need to be split, moved, or closed.
 
O

origin

Guest
dryson":18t1pdho said:
During the time of Einstein various drugs that are now illegal were commonly accepted as a good way to pass the time. These drugs included opium, heroine, morphine and other highly addictive and delusional causing stimulants. The main question that one must ask of this era is whether or not Einstein engaged in these social fads of the time, which we all know today causes sever mental problems that include the persons ability to form reasonable and logically thoughts in their minds.
That is funnier than crap. But I think some progress has definitely been made because it is clearly dawning on dryson what Einstein was actually talking about. He is just showning in his own way, the initial reaction that most people have when presented with time dialation, which is, WTF??

First off we need to determine what time actually is.
Nah, all you really have to do is to abandon your preconcieved notion that time is absolute. That is the crux of special relativity, there is no absolute time and there is no absolute postion - it is all relative....
 
D

dryson

Guest
Nah, all you really have to do is to abandon your preconcieved notion that time is absolute. That is the crux of special relativity, there is no absolute time and there is no absolute postion - it is all relative....
Time is absolute, as time is a measureable distance between two particles or points. Time is absolute in regards to distances and measures of space in so much that Earth as point A would measure through time to the edge of infinity as being an infinite and absolute measure of distances. Observer A however only has a limited amout of time based on their cellular age of being alive before the body consumes all of the available energy stored within the bones. Particle time is finitely infinite and depends upon the amount of energy that two particles produce to create a measureable distance of time where over time each particle will have consumed their energy and disipated into the ether of space.
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
Time is NOT absolute. This has been proved experimentally, a number of times.

Take 3 atomic clocks which are next to each other and all show the same time - they are synchronised.

Leave one clock where it is, but take the other two clocks and put them on two different airplanes. Fly those airplanes in different directions around the world (one flies east and one flies west) and then bring all the clocks back together again.

What you will find is the following:

The clock that was flown around the world eastwards now shows less elapsed time than the clock that stayed on the ground. The clock on the eastward plane ran slower than the clock on the ground.

The clock that was flown around the world westwards now shows more elapsed time than the clock that stayed on the ground. The clock on the westward plane ran faster than the clock on the ground.

This is known as the Hafele-Keating experiment, and it has been performed repeatedly. It confirms the time-dilation predicted by both Special and General relativity.

Another experiment, known as the Pound-Rebka experiment, also proves that time is NOT absolute.

A practical example of time-dilation in everyday life - the GPS system. The internal clocks on GPS satellites run at a different rate in orbit than they do on the ground. This has to be adjusted for by setting the clocks on the GPS satellite to run slower, so they are synchronised with clocks on Earth, and by your GPS device using relativistic mathematics, as defined by Einstein, in order to stay synchronised with the signals from the satellites.

Time is NOT absolute.
 
M

mabus

Guest
dryson":mdlhgu2w said:
What is Time?

First off we need to determine what time actually is........

Biological time is the rate at which biological cells grow and decay based upon how much and of what type of energetic particle their cellular structures absorb........

Not enough energy and the cells become sluggish were particles then build up on these particles that slow them down even farther. This process is called metabolism. If we take the twin paradox and apply the metabolism to the experiment........

the less energy the body will take in and be able to use for cellular growth. This means that the body would not age as quickly because of the lesser amount of UV radiation present.......

IF we could measure the affects of different biological cells at varrying distances from the Sun we would see this process very clearly......

The observer who was indoors their whole life would have developed a constant growth rate of their cells depending upon the amount of UV radiation that they absorbed in this case gamma radiation, which is the only radiation that is not able to be blocked and would have the most affect upon a biological cell........

That is true about Mars, Since their is no atmosphere on Mars to block out the UV radiation from the Sun the Solar age of the observer on Mars would actually increase by 100 when compared to observer three on Earth......

the amount of UV Radiation that is obsorbed that causes cellular growth and decay rates to increase or decrease which puts an increase or decrease of stress on the orgins that produce cells to replace the cells that have been damaged and mutated by the Sun's UV radiation..
Forget the aging process and UV radiation. Let's start fresh with an entirely new and different experiment, no twins, no biological cells, and no UV Radiation. Think (as others have suggested) of clocks.

Imagine you have two clocks on earth perfectly synchronized so that they tell time in an identical manner. You take one of the two identically set clocks, and put it on a rocket. The rocket blasts off and goes into orbit. It remains in orbit for several days and comes back down to earth. When the two clocks are compared again they will not longer be synchronized. One of the two clocks will be ahead of the other.

It appears (and this has been experimentally verified), that time appears to move at different rates for bodies in motion at different velocities relative to one another. The reason as you can see from our example with the clocks, has nothing to do with UV radiation, or the sun, or the biological aging process of cells, as this experiment involves only a mechanical metal clock.
 
D

drwayne

Guest
This is usually where the "unnamed force acted on the atomic clocks due to their motion to mechanically
slow them down or speed them up" pops up.
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
dryson":y8xj8e7r said:
First off we need to determine what time actually is. Is time being described here as a unified theory that has all ofthe aspects of the Twin Paradox included in the unified theory?
Yes. It is.


dryson":y8xj8e7r said:
This process is called metabolism. If we take the twin paradox and apply the metabolism to the experiment, we can see that the farther away (or a measureable distance or time) from the sun which provides the bodies biological process with energy, the less energy the body will take in and be able to use for cellular growth. This means that the body would not age as quickly because of the lesser amount of UV radiation present.
So why does the clock on his ship show the correct time for his age? How does the lesser amount of UV radiation also affect the twins wristwatch, and the clock on the wall, and the clock inside his computer? These are not biological clocks, but they also "age" at a slower rate, exactly the same rate as the twin!
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
When people are just making up silly stuff, another thread destined for the Unexplained. We shall see what develops.
 
S

Smersh

Guest
I guess I must be missing something, but I don't understand what the paradox is here. Twins are still two separate human beings, so why is it any different for twins if one of them is sent out into space on a high-speed rocket or any two random human beings? The person remaining on Earth would still age quicker than the one sent into space, (as would all the rest of humanity that remains on Earth) so why is it a paradox if twins are involved?
 
O

origin

Guest
Smersh":2zi25lnx said:
I guess I must be missing something, but I don't understand what the paradox is here. Twins are still two separate human beings, so why is it any different for twins if one of them is sent out into space on a high-speed rocket or any two random human beings? The person remaining on Earth would still age quicker than the one sent into space, (as would all the rest of humanity that remains on Earth) so why is it a paradox if twins are involved?
It is actually a paradox on 2 levels. On the most basic level you will have a set of twins that are no longer the same age. With the current acceptance of relativity it hardly seems a paradox anymore as you alluded to.

The deeper paradox has to do with general relativity coming into the picture. Here is the scenario:
One twin jumps in the space ship and flys away. Now, somehow the twin on earth is able to see into the window of the ship as it flys by earth at 99% of c, with a super duper telescope, he can see that the clock on board is going in slow motion so he knows that the twin flying away will come back and hardly have aged.
The paradox, is that as the twin on the ship flys by earth he also has a super duper telescope and sees the clocks on earth are moving in slow motion so he figures that his twin on earth will not have aged hardly at all when he gets back. Why would the clocks appear to move slowly on earth - relativity, baby - you cannot determine absolute motion so it is just as valid to say the ship is standing still and the stars are whizzing by.

So why is the twin on the ship the twin that actually ages less than the twin on earth? That is because the twin in the ship has accelerated while the twin on earth has remained in the same inertial reference frame. I have read several different accounts of the accelerated reference frames and I am afraid any further explanations from me would be little more than hand waving and mumbling.
 
M

mabus

Guest
Smersh":tmndwiow said:
I guess I must be missing something, but I don't understand what the paradox is here. Twins are still two separate human beings, so why is it any different for twins if one of them is sent out into space on a high-speed rocket or any two random human beings? The person remaining on Earth would still age quicker than the one sent into space, (as would all the rest of humanity that remains on Earth) so why is it a paradox if twins are involved?
I suppose you could say that it's a paradox because we are used to thinking of time as an absolute finite reference point. If time is an absolute (as everyone assumes before being initiated to relativity), then the two twins must age in an identical fashion. Or if you prefer, the two synchronized clocks must remain synchronized when the rocket returns to earth. The fact that they do not remain synchronized or age at the same rate is a paradox, unless one accepts relativity.

The fact that it happens is uncontested and has been (as others have pointed out) experimentally demonstrated. It's an observed fact. It's counter intuitive, and goes against every fiber of our notion of what time is, but it is a fact which we must accept. It seems like less of a paradox once you become used to Relativity, but I think most of us can remember the first time we came across this and had that inevitable What the heck!!! moment.
 
J

jessez13

Guest
Another way to look at the twin paradox is this. If an independent observer in any inertial were watching these twins they would agree that the twin who left the earth on a rocket ship aged less. In some reference frames the earth bound twin would age more for part the trip (going faster relative to the observer), but in the end the twin in the rocket ship will be younger when he returns to earth. If you want to crunch the numbers just remember that in most reference frames the earth and the rocket twins destination are also moving.
 
M

mabus

Guest
A thought just occured to me.

I'm aware that atomic clocks were used to test time dilation. I've been engaged in a debate with a friend on the subject of the Quantum Eraser recently and it's made me think of entanglement. So as a result of this twin paradox discussion, a thought occured to me, what would happen if you exposed an entangled pair of particles to time dilation? I'll explain;

What would happen if you took an entangled pair of particles perfectly synchronized. Placed one on the rocket and left one on earth and then accelerated the one on the rocket, and then brought them back. Basically the twin paradox with particles. I am assuming (correct me if I am mistaken) that if you performed the twin paradox with particles that one would experiance time different than the other. But what if the particles are entangled? What would happen then?

We know from experiments using atomic clocks that time dilation does occur when particles are not entangled. But entanglement (unless I misunderstand it, and I very well might), says that whatever happens to one of the entangled pair must also happen to the other. If this is the case, then would the pair of entangled particles age differently as per relativity? Or would they remain synchronized due to quantum entanglement? Or am I missing something entirely (the most likely, but the best way to learn is to ask).

Any thoughts?
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
mabus":3n01eoj4 said:
Any thoughts?
If you have been looking into the implications of the delayed choice quantum eraser, you should see that time-dilation is irrelevant - no synchronisation is required since entanglement works backwards across time...

;)
 
M

mabus

Guest
SpeedFreek":32l6xno3 said:
mabus":32l6xno3 said:
Any thoughts?
If you have been looking into the implications of the delayed choice quantum eraser, you should see that time-dilation is irrelevant - no synchronisation is required since entanglement works backwards across time...

;)
The whole backwards in time thing is one of many things about quantum mechanics that.... bothers me. :evil:
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
mabus":2nc9oadu said:
The whole backwards in time thing is one of many things about quantum mechanics that.... bothers me. :evil:
Would it bother you more if everything was predetermined? :twisted:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY