# time and mass relation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

#### kalrin2001

##### Guest
<p>Probably a stupid question but does time affect things that are smaller different then things that are larger?</p><p>Example, say our universe is a drop of water that is about to hit a hard surface in a milisecond, to a creature beyond our universe this happens instantly, but to us, being so small within the drop of water, it takes an infinite amount of time...</p><p>Kind of like time dilation for speed, what about size dilation, the larger you are the faster time is, the smaller you are the slower it goes.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Just a stupid thought.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

E

#### emperor_of_localgroup

##### Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Probably a stupid question but does time affect things that are smaller different then things that are larger?Example, say our universe is a drop of water that is about to hit a hard surface in a milisecond, to a creature beyond our universe this happens instantly, but to us, being so small within the drop of water, it takes an infinite amount of time...Kind of like time dilation for speed, what about size dilation, the larger you are the faster time is, the smaller you are the slower it goes.&nbsp;Just a stupid thought.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by kalrin2001</DIV></p><p><font size="2">Interesting question, although many here will shrug this question away as a juvenile question.</font></p><p><font size="2">In my personal opinion, if the sun, earth, moon, jupiter were 'conscious' and/or had 'intelligence', their time would be much&nbsp;slower than ours. If they invent a time measuring tool like our clocks, their 1 sec (or a small interval of time)&nbsp;would be&nbsp;hundreds of years&nbsp;to us.</font></p><p><font size="2">No, my idea is&nbsp;not&nbsp; dilation of time but 'time' used by various 'systems' in the universe. As one can see, the larger the mass, the longer the unit of time intervals if they are 'conscious'.</font></p><p><font size="2">This is my last 'edit', doesn't matter if it&nbsp;contains errors.<br /></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

W

#### weeman

##### Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Interesting question, although many here will shrug this question away as a juvenile question.In my personal opinion, if the sun, earth, moon, jupiter were 'conscious' and/or had 'intelligence', their time would be much&nbsp;slower than ours. If they invent a time measuring tool like our clocks, their 1 sec (or a small interval of time)&nbsp;would be&nbsp;hundreds of years&nbsp;to us.No, my idea is&nbsp;not&nbsp; dilation of time but 'time' used by various 'systems' in the universe. As one can see, the larger the mass, the longer the unit of time intervals if they are 'conscious'.This is my last 'edit', doesn't matter if it&nbsp;contains errors. <br /> Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>Agreed. If the planets and stars were conscious beings, their perception of time would be much different than ours! A billion years to the Sun would be like 15 years to us. This is the amazing thing about the cosmos!&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

D

#### DrRocket

##### Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Probably a stupid question but does time affect things that are smaller different then things that are larger?Example, say our universe is a drop of water that is about to hit a hard surface in a milisecond, to a creature beyond our universe this happens instantly, but to us, being so small within the drop of water, it takes an infinite amount of time...Kind of like time dilation for speed, what about size dilation, the larger you are the faster time is, the smaller you are the slower it goes.&nbsp;Just a stupid thought.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by kalrin2001</DIV></p><p>No.</p><p>We use the same units and calibrate to the same standards for measuring time to determine the speed of a locomotive as the decay time of neutron. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

V

#### vogon13

##### Guest
<p>&nbsp;</p><p>If you are having trouble keeping the neutrons fresh, try tupperware.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Seriously, there is an experiment underway analyzing the decay rate of the radioisotopes in the nuclear power packs on the Cassini spacecraft.&nbsp; They are looking for any change in the decay rate that correlates with distance from the sun.&nbsp; Weird idea, but checking all the details, like nuclear decay rates, is part of what science does.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>What proximity to the sun has to do with power level changes in an RTG traveling from 1 to 10 AUs is weird (to me). And what (if any) mechanism is responsible will be quite interesting.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Another angle; as I enjoy pointing out, ~40% of what we experience as the 'heft' of matter, is due to the mass equivalent of the energy of motion of the constituent quarks and gluons in the matter you are moving around.&nbsp; This calculates out as a very high % of C for those particles, so in this regard, a large portion of you (~40%), right now, is experiencing relativistic time dilation, and you are just sitting there in front of your PC snarfing a bear claw and a cuppa joe.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

D

#### DrRocket

##### Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;If you are having trouble keeping the neutrons fresh, try tupperware.&nbsp;Seriously, there is an experiment underway analyzing the decay rate of the radioisotopes in the nuclear power packs on the Cassini spacecraft.&nbsp; They are looking for any change in the decay rate that correlates with distance from the sun.&nbsp; Weird idea, but checking all the details, like nuclear decay rates, is part of what science does.&nbsp;What proximity to the sun has to do with power level changes in an RTG traveling from 1 to 10 AUs is weird (to me). And what (if any) mechanism is responsible will be quite interesting.&nbsp;Another angle; as I enjoy pointing out, ~40% of what we experience as the 'heft' of matter, is due to the mass equivalent of the energy of motion of the constituent quarks and gluons in the matter you are moving around.&nbsp; This calculates out as a very high % of C for those particles, so in this regard, a large portion of you (~40%), right now, is experiencing relativistic time dilation, and you are just sitting there in front of your PC snarfing a bear claw and a cuppa joe.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by vogon13</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Actually there should be a difference in decay rate with distance from the sun, or from the earth.&nbsp; This is due to the effect on time from the curvature of space-time near massive bodies.&nbsp; A difference in time measurements has been measured between the bottom and top of a tower at Harvard due to this effect.&nbsp; It is pretty small except in very large gravitational fields.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

V

#### vogon13

##### Guest
<p>&nbsp;</p><p>IIRC, that effect is allowed for in the experiment.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It be a weirdee if it turns out.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

U

#### UncertainH

##### Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Probably a stupid question but does time affect things that are smaller different then things that are larger?Example, say our universe is a drop of water that is about to hit a hard surface in a milisecond, to a creature beyond our universe this happens instantly, but to us, being so small within the drop of water, it takes an infinite amount of time...Kind of like time dilation for speed, what about size dilation, the larger you are the faster time is, the smaller you are the slower it goes.&nbsp;Just a stupid thought.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by kalrin2001</DIV></p><p>If by size you are talking about mass, then the effect is the opposite. The more massive the object the slower time passes on the surface relative to a less massive object</p>

K

#### kg

##### Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If by size you are talking about mass, then the effect is the opposite. The more massive the object the slower time passes on the surface relative to a less massive object <br />Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>Looking back at the original post I can see that&nbsp;the question is not about mass but more about conciseness.&nbsp; Say, if your brain were the size of the sun it would take longer to experience an event&nbsp;because of&nbsp;the time nerve impulses would take to travel such large distances.&nbsp;&nbsp;I think&nbsp;I've heard that&nbsp;smaller computer processors work faster because the electrons travel a shorter distance.<br /></p>

D

#### DrRocket

##### Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Looking back at the original post I can see that&nbsp;the question is not about mass but more about conciseness.&nbsp; Say, if your brain were the size of the sun it would take longer to experience an event&nbsp;because of&nbsp;the time nerve impulses would take to travel such large distances.&nbsp;&nbsp;I think&nbsp;I've heard that&nbsp;smaller computer processors work faster because the electrons travel a shorter distance. <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>When you get to very fast clock speeds size can begin to be an issue.&nbsp; That is because there is a limit to how fast information can travel from point to point, the speed of light.&nbsp;Electrons are a bit slower, so the practical effect is actually a more more accute, as you observed.</p><p>Consider the scales involved.&nbsp; Light travels at about 3*10^10 cm/sec.&nbsp; A&nbsp;100 GHz processor cycles in 10^-11 s.&nbsp; So during one clock cycle light travels 3mm.&nbsp; Now 3 mm is pretty far on an IC chip, but not very far on an old board with discrete components.</p><p>The message here is that we benefit from integrated circuits in two ways.&nbsp; First you can put a lot of semiconductor junctions (i.e. transistors and diodes) on a single chip, and a computer being basically a giant conglomeration of switches, needs a lot of such devices.&nbsp; So you can have a computer with billions of transistor junctions on your desk.&nbsp; Secondly, those switches have to communicate, and since they are very close together on a chip, signals can get from one device to another quickly, and can operate with the fast clock time to which we have become accustomed.</p><p>If you tried to mimic a modern PC with a circuit that was equivalent at the level of a detailed schematic but was built with old-fashioned transistors then it would be limited by speed-of-light considerations to much slower clock times than what we have today.</p><p>I would expect that similar considerations would apply to the brain, only more so.&nbsp; Nerve impulses that travel through synapses and rely on chemical reactions are slower than simple electrical signals.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

M

#### MeteorWayne

##### Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Nerve impulses that travel through synapses and rely on chemical reactions are slower than simple electrical signals.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Much Much slower! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

C

#### captdude

##### Guest
Time IS relative. When Einstein was asked to describe the relativity of time he answered "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, you think it's only a minute. But when you sit on a hot stove for a minute, you think it's two hours. That's relativity."

S

#### SteveCNC

##### Guest
Now we know that a clock runs faster in a high building so does that work in reverse as well ? If you take a clock to the lowest point possible say bottom of the Mariana Trench (inside something that could handle the pressure) would it run slower ? and if so at what point is the slowest for that planet ? It's center of mass ? If so then there should be a direct relationship between time and mass although it would seem like there would be 2 curves involved in the calculation , the mass itself , and the location relative to the center of mass .

S

#### SteveCNC

##### Guest
After I was thinking about the 2 curve idea reguarding mass/time relationship it would seem to me that the mass itself is the cause of the gravity/time effect and the accumulated effect of all the mass is what we feel when on the outside of the mass . But once you start tunnelling into the mass itself the gravity/time effect would have more like a doughnut shape because now you have part of what's causing the gravity above you also and once you reach the center of the mass you have gravity actually pulling at you from all sides by roughly half or so what it was at the surface . hmmm sounds kind of odd but is that how it really works ?
I wasn't refferring to pressure as that's something completely different , even though it's a result of gravity it's not necessarily local gravity which is what I'm talking about .

O

#### OleNewt

##### Guest
Forgetting for a moment that Earth is a solid ball of superheated minerals, if you were somehow able to carve yourself out a bubble of empty space at the exact center of Earth you would only be experiencing artificial gravity (ie, centrifugal force). There would be no local gravity, because you are at the center of mass already.

C

#### csmyth3025

##### Guest
OleNewt":2ruipw8b said:
Forgetting for a moment that Earth is a solid ball of superheated minerals, if you were somehow able to carve yourself out a bubble of empty space at the exact center of Earth you would only be experiencing artificial gravity (ie, centrifugal force). There would be no local gravity, because you are at the center of mass already.

Actually, I think this is an interesting theoretical question and a handy thought experiment. If you could create a chamber at the exact center to conduct experiments, what effects would you observe? As far as I can tell, it's true that you would feel "weightless" because the mass of the Earth would be pulling you in all directions equally (assuming that the Earth's mass is uniformly distributed). If your chamber is as small as the ISS, I doubt if you'll notice any "pull" in one direction or another no matter where in the chamber you choose to float around. I could be wrong about that, though.

More interesting is the question of what effect your location has on time and mass. I suspect that since your at the bottom of Earth's gravity "well" that your atomic clock will run slower than a similar clock on the surface ~6370 km from the center of gravity. I could be wrong about this, too.

Another question that I don't have any idea about is the effect on mass at the center of the Earth. An object on the surface has potential energy since it can "fall" to the center. Does this mean that such an object has slightly more mass than the same object at the center (E=mc^2)?

Chris

M

#### Mordred

##### Guest
Not to mention your velocity would be just the planets own velocity minus Its centrifical speed at the surface, That to would alter time at the centre as well. Makes for an interesting model would be curious to see described. At such a point you would still be affected by the suns Gravity + other stellar bodies such as our moon. So I would think it would be close to weightless but not quite.

C

#### csmyth3025

##### Guest
Mordred":flnqipg8 said:
Not to mention your velocity would be just the planets own velocity minus Its centrifical speed at the surface, That to would alter time at the centre as well. Makes for an interesting model would be curious to see described. At such a point you would still be affected by the suns Gravity + other stellar bodies such as our moon. So I would think it would be close to weightless but not quite.

The Earth and the moon are orbiting around a common barycenter (center of gravity, or center of mass for the Earth-Moon system). This point lies ~1700 km below the surface of the Earth, in line with where the Moon is at any given time. Likewise, the Earth-Moon system orbits the Sun, with the Earth-Moon barycenter being the orbital "point" of the Earth-Moon system. This "point" will move around within the Earth, of course, as the Moon goes around the Earth.

You may be right that you "would be close to weightless but not quite" but I suspect that any (tidal) forces acting on you by the Sun due to your not being exactly at the Earth-Moon barycenter will be almost undetectable. I might be wrong about this, though.

I would think that tidal forces acting on you from the Moon would be more pronounced than forces acting on you from the Sun, although I don't know how significant they would be.

If anyone has any ideas on how an atomic clock's time at the center of the Earth would compare to a similar clock's time on the surface I'd be interested to hear them.

Chris

Status
Not open for further replies.

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
469
Replies
1
Views
355
Replies
2
Views
397
Replies
0
Views
321