Exploring the Effects of Speed on Time and Decay: Unraveling Einstein's Theory

[menniandscience]

it is known that einstein's theory has been verified and time slows down for particles that should decay in certain time, takes more time to decay if moving fast.

what makes them behave like that, how moving fast makes time to slow down, is it really time or just maybe this has not been verified in greater scales, it is just because movement influence the inner parts and it decay slower?

thank you

 

[FactChecker]

The time slowing down has been verified at the molecular level. Processes in GPS satellites must take both special and general relativity theories into account or they get bad errors. Atomic clocks have been taken to the top of a mountain and behaved as GR predicted.

Why this happens is a direct consequence of the speed of light being constant even relative to moving reference frames. To make that all work out, it must be that time in a relatively moving frame appears distorted.

 

[menniandscience]

The time slowing down has been verified at the molecular level. Processes in GPS satellites must take both special and general relativity theories into account or they get bad errors. Atomic clocks have been taken to the top of a mountain and behaved as GR predicted.

ok, but why should time be affected by speed?

 

[FactChecker]

ok, but why should time be affected by speed?

When a reference frame is moving, the concept of "simultaneous" becomes ambiguous. Because the moving frame still measures the speed of light as c, its clocks must be set more and more differently as they are separated in the direction of motion. So the moving frame and the "stationary" frame do not agree on whether events separated in the direction of motion happened at the same time. A complete answer would explain why the speed of light is, in fact, constant. I do not know enough to answer that.

 

[Nugatory]

ok, but why should time be affected by speed?

The effect is a consequence the fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers, regardless of their speed. The easiest way to see this is to consider a "light clock" - you can google for that, and search here for threads... If that doesn't explain it, you can try asking followup questions here.

 

[Dale]

it is just because movement influence the inner parts and it decay slower?

Time dilation has been observed with particles like muons that don't have any inner parts.

 

[pixel]

ok, but why should time be affected by speed?

I think from your first post "it is just because movement influence the inner parts and it decay slower?" you are maybe assuming that movement has some kind of mechanical influence over a particle to make it decay slower, or a clock to make it run slower. That is not the case.

Consider that you are in the rest frame of a clock and consider two observers, moving at different speeds with respect to you. Your clock would be running slower by different amounts to the two observers. Your "movement" is different according to each observer. There is no such thing as absolute speed or "movement" that would be affecting the inner parts of the clock.

 

[menniandscience]

Time dilation has been observed with particles like muons that don't have any inner parts.

so what happned to them if they couldn't change in time since they don't have inner parts?

 

[menniandscience]

I think from your first post "it is just because movement influence the inner parts and it decay slower?" you are maybe assuming that movement has some kind of mechanical influence over a particle to make it decay slower, or a clock to make it run slower. That is not the case.

Consider that you are in the rest frame of a clock and consider two observers, moving at different speeds with respect to you. Your clock would be running slower by different amounts to the two observers. Your "movement" is different according to each observer. There is no such thing as absolute speed or "movement" that would be affecting the inner parts of the clock.

i'm glad you helped me focus my question.

i believe the fabric of space is somehow control the speed of light. gravity, as acceleration, known to "make time slower", and gravity isn't a spectator moving issue - but unlike it sounds - i see it as reinforcement of my idea.

" Your "movement" is different according to each observer." different in what way?

 

[FactChecker]

To a moving observer, absolutely nothing has changed. To an outside, stationary observer, the timing of the moving observer is wrong and everything measured by the moving time is wrong. It's all about how time is measured.

 

[Dale]

so what happned to them if they couldn't change in time since they don't have inner parts?

Usually it decays into an electron and two neutrinos. But those particles are not "inside" the muon before the decay.

i believe ... my idea

You probably should focus on learning the existing science before trying to make a new theory. Also, until your idea is published in the professional scientific literature it cannot be discussed here.

 

[pixel]

" Your "movement" is different according to each observer." different in what way?

By that I just meant that your speed relative to each of the two observers is different.

 

[Grinkle]

so what happned to them if they couldn't change in time since they don't have inner parts?

Nothing happened to them. As far as they are concerned, they are decaying at the same rate they have always decayed.

One must pick a theory, predict the consequences, and experiment to test the theory. If the time between two events is always the same for all observers, then the speed of light could not be the same for all observers. This does not mean that anything is modified or different in the particles that are being observed. It means that (now I am about to say some things that are at best half right) the passage of time is not a universal constant.

If I am in a train moving next to another train at the same speed, I can think of the other train as stationary. An observer next to the track will say both trains are moving at some non-zero velocity. One doesn't ask what has changed in the two trains to make the observer say this. Its just a different perspective. The rate of time passage is the same way - its a matter of perspective. That is not at all intuitive. We know it must be the case because if one follows the logic of SR either that is the case or the speed of light is a matter of perspective, and experiment contradicts that latter theory.

 

[menniandscience]

To a moving observer, absolutely nothing has changed. To an outside, stationary observer, the timing of the moving observer is wrong and everything measured by the moving time is wrong. It's all about how time is measured.

how time is measured?

 

[menniandscience]

Usually it decays into an electron and two neutrinos. But those particles are not "inside" the muon before the decay.

how the speed/movement of the muon made it decay more slowly for those who measured it?

 

[menniandscience]

Usually it decays into an electron and two neutrinos. But those particles are not "inside" the muon before the decay.

You probably should focus on learning the existing science before trying to make a new theory. Also, until your idea is published in the professional scientific literature it cannot be discussed here.

what makes speed of light same always? maybe the answer to that would solve my problem. why everything except propagation of light is relative?

as for my theories, maybe it's better not to reveal them here cause you can't discuses all the crazy theories that people might suggest online and i want the noble prize for my self one day anyway :)

 

[menniandscience]

By that I just meant that your speed relative to each of the two observers is different.

i'm trying to separate between time and the observers of time. don't forget that when you move away from me (in constant speed) it's the same (except dopler effect in EM) as me move away from you. why then your "time" will seem - seem?? should be without seem i guess - different

 

[FactChecker]

how time is measured?

Remember that when the beginning and end times of a process in the moving frame are measured, they are at different locations in the stationary frame. The moving and stationary reference frames can not agree on how clocks can be synchronized along the direction of relative motion. If they agree at one point, they must disagree at all other points in that direction. This is true of any type of "clock" system -- whether they are based on physical motion, on atomic processes, on the physical aging of a person, or anything else you can imagine.

How do we know this? Because long, hard efforts were never able to detect the slightest difference in the relative speed of light in a moving versus a stationary frame of reference.

Why does this happen? Only God knows.

 

[Dale]

how the speed/movement of the muon made it decay more slowly for those who measured it?

That is exactly the point. There is no mechanistic explanation possible since the muons have no sub structure. The only explanation we have found is time dilation.

 

[Dale]

what makes speed of light same always? maybe the answer to that would solve my problem. why everything except propagation of light is relative?

If you assume that the laws of physics are homogenous and isotopic and obey the principle of relativity then you can show that there are only two possibilities: Galilean relativity or special relativity (see https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045v1 ). It is then just a matter of experiment to determine if the invariant speed is infinite (Galilean relativity) or if the invariant speed is finite (special relativity).

 

[menniandscience]

That is exactly the point. There is no mechanistic explanation possible since the muons have no sub structure. The only explanation we have found is time dilation.

dosent that tells you - since there is not such as time except measuring to changing things compare to each other and to themselves (ticking clocks etc) - that must be some mechanistic explanation and to just say time changes, doesn't mean anything really. like saying there are not graviton, or higgs, or waves, just things fall always... maybe there is no known explanation, but then i want you to say - "we don't know, but we do know that saying time slows down near gravity and/or movement is a problem not a solution"
thanks!

 

[Grinkle]

i want you to say - "we don't know, but we do know that saying time slows down near gravity and/or movement is a problem not a solution"

You are stuck in your own perspective, not thinking about the responses you are getting. It is not logically consistent to say that time is the same for all observers and that the speed of light is constant for all observers. You need to understand this logic. You might as well be arguing that no one can explain why the Pythagorean theorem holds true for Euclidean geometry but not for all other geometries.

 

[Dale]

that must be some mechanistic explanation

No. Why do you think there must be a mechanistic explanation? The geometric explanation is enough for me.

maybe there is no known explanation,

There is a known explanation, it is just not mechanistic. It cannot be mechanistic for the reason discussed above.

 

[menniandscience]

No. Why do you think there must be a mechanistic explanation? The geometric explanation is enough for me.

what is the geometric explanation for making those mouan decay slower? I'm very surprised you haven't mention the string theory (which as much as i know - published in serious scientific journals) and could and should explain this decaying.

 

[menniandscience]

You are stuck in your own perspective, not thinking about the responses you are getting. It is not logically consistent to say that time is the same for all observers and that the speed of light is constant for all observers. You need to understand this logic. You might as well be arguing that no one can explain why the Pythagorean theorem holds true for Euclidean geometry but not for all other geometries.

hi sorry i didnt reply your previous posts. i read them but was a bit hard for me. my profession is far from science so was struggling to understand. can you try to explain to me:
"It is not logically consistent to say that time is the same for all observers and that the speed of light is constant for all observers."
i'm not sure why you mention is as i look for "mechanistic" explanation, but still i think it's logic. if you mean the twin pardox, keep in mind the spaceship could be Earth just like the metal vehicle, and so, it dosent matter what people can see, but the time in both places should be the same, both move the same speed away from each other

 

[FactChecker]

The time distortion and constant speed of light go hand-in-hand. Assuming either one explains the other. But why they are both true is a deeper question and I don't know if anyone can answer it. The consequences are profound and effect anything that is timed in a relatively moving frame -- mechanical, atomic, or electromagnetic. It's a property of time itself.

 

[Dale]

what is the geometric explanation for making those mouan decay slower?

The geometry of the universe is not Euclidean it is pseudo-Riemannian with signature (-+++). So in a local inertial frame the line element is $ds^2 = -dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2$. Time dilation follows from that. It means that the physical time experienced by a particle is given by $d\tau = \sqrt{-ds^2} \ne dt$

 

[phinds]

@meni ohana you might want to consider that you, right now as you read this, are MASSIVELY time dilated according to a particle in the CERN accelerator, you are somewhat time dilate according to an asteroid out in the asteroid belt, you are trivially time dilated according to the space station, and you are not at all time dilated according to the chair you are sitting in.

And by the way, string theory is utterly irrelevant to this thread and has NOTHING to do with time dilation. You obviously have some seriously incorrect preconceptions and I urge you to do some more reading in the basics of cosmology to help dispel them.

 

[Mister T]

... maybe there is no known explanation, but then i want you to say - "we don't know, but we do know that saying time slows down near gravity and/or movement is a problem not a solution"
thanks!

It's an observation. One that was predicted and explained before it was ever observed.

If time didn't slow down would you be looking for a mechanistic explanation for that?

 

[David Lewis]

ds2=−dt2+dx2+dy2+dz2

My interpretation is that all inertial observers will agree on the spacetime interval between two events.
So if something moves more in space from a particular observer's point of view, it must also move less in time for that observer.

 

[SiennaTheGr8]

My interpretation is that all inertial observers will agree on the spacetime interval between two events.
So if something moves more in space from a particular observer's point of view, it must also move less in time for that observer.

That's not quite right. When it comes to the spatial distance and time elapsed between two events, it's the difference of their squares that everyone always agrees on.

Consider an equation like $a^2 - b^2 = c^2$ (for positive $a$ and $b$). What happens if $b$ increases while $c$ remains the same? Does $a$ decrease? Absolutely not! The opposite is true: $a$ increases also.

In special relativity, we have $(\Delta s)^2 = (\Delta t)^2 - (\Delta \mathbf{r})^2$. The invariance of the spacetime interval guarantees that if Observer A measures a greater spatial distance between two events than Observer B does, then Observer A likewise measures a greater elapsed time between them.

I think some confusion on this point arises from the fact that the formulas for time dilation and length contraction are "opposites": $dt = \gamma dt_0$ vs. $L = L_0/\gamma$.

 

[puzzled fish]

meni ohana, how do you explain the fact that a particle on the surface of the Earth decays slower than another put away 10 km above it say? They are not moving and are stationary relative to one another, right? But their time difference is a direct consequence of accelerating frames of reference, exactly the way SR predicts.

 

[PeterDonis]

their time difference is a direct consequence of accelerating frames of reference

No, it's a direct consequence of them being at different heights, i.e., different gravitational potential. That is independent of any choice of coordinates or reference frame.

Locally, i.e., over a small enough change of height (which 10 km is not given our current accuracy of measurement--see below), you can treat spacetime as flat and correctly predict the time dilation by treating the two particles as following worldlines of constant proper acceleration in flat spacetime, i.e., using SR. But if the height change is large enough that you can detect the effects of tidal gravity (which we can over a 10 km height change), you can't treat spacetime as flat, so you can't use SR.

 

[FactChecker]

No, it's a direct consequence of them being at different heights, i.e., different gravitational potential. That is independent of any choice of coordinates or reference frame.

Locally, i.e., over a small enough change of height (which 10 km is not given our current accuracy of measurement--see below), you can treat spacetime as flat and correctly predict the time dilation by treating the two particles as following worldlines of constant proper acceleration in flat spacetime, i.e., using SR. But if the height change is large enough that you can detect the effects of tidal gravity (which we can over a 10 km height change), you can't treat spacetime as flat, so you can't use SR.

Good point. In GPS satellites, both SR and GR must be taken into account to eliminate large GPS position errors. The relative velocity of the satellites make their time go slower (SR), but the orbital altitude makes their time go faster (GR). At that speed and altitude, the GR effect is over six times larger than the SR effect. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error...tioning_System#Special_and_General_Relativity )

 

[puzzled fish]

Locally, i.e., over a small enough change of height (which 10 km is not given our current accuracy of measurement--see below), you can treat spacetime as flat and correctly predict the time dilation by treating the two particles as following worldlines of constant proper acceleration in flat spacetime, i.e., using SR. But if the height change is large enough that you can detect the effects of tidal gravity (which we can over a 10 km height change), you can't treat spacetime as flat, so you can't use SR.

Agreed. I thought 10 km was enough for only SR to be taken into account. Please read 1 km distance.