Absolute Zero v. The Speed of Light

[Atari_Me]

Is closing your eyes functionally equivalent to the sun shutting off? You cannot change reality or the laws of physics by ignoring them. A pot of water boils faster if I turn up the heat. Deciding to ignore the laws of physics and pretending time spend up instead doesn't work. It's a wrong way to think.

What are you talking about? I'm not trying to change anything nor am I ignoring any laws of physics. If you lack the engineering/chemistry backgroud to describe how absolute 0 impacts objects, ok, that aspect is a question for another forum. Let's focus on Relativity, and I will keep it simple. If an object were to leave Earth for 100 years and accelerate to 99% the speed of light and then returned to Earth at the end of the 100 years, and an identical object remained on Earth. Let's use a block of wood as an example. And the block of wood was maintained in a sealed vacuum chamber for the duration of the 100 years, I assume that various types of radioactive decay would be the measuring stick to show the age difference between the objects? Would there be any other measuring stick that could show change between the two objects?

 

[phinds]

What are you talking about? I'm not trying to change anything nor am I ignoring any laws of physics. If you lack the engineering/chemistry backgroud to describe how absolute 0 impacts objects, ok, that aspect is a question for another forum. Let's focus on Relativity, and I will keep it simple. If an object were to leave Earth for 100 years and accelerate to 99% the speed of light and then returned to Earth at the end of the 100 years, and an identical object remained on Earth. Let's use a block of wood as an example. And the block of wood was maintained in a sealed vacuum chamber for the duration of the 100 years, I assume that various types of radioactive decay would be the measuring stick to show the age difference between the objects? Would there be any other measuring stick that could show change between the two objects?

What's your point? It is both an empirical fact and according to theory that the traveling piece of wood would have aged less. So what? It doesn't matter what you use to detect the differential aging, it's there and that's a fact. The rate of radioactive decay, like the rate of all biological processes, for the traveling piece just ticks along at 1 second per second, just as you are doing right now even though you are traveling at near light speed.

 

[Atari_Me]

But you persist in believing that relativity does something that it does not do. You will NEVER understand how relativity does something when it doesn't DO that something. Again, study the science rather than argue about it.

Your first response brought up the fact that we are already traveling extremely fast. That's all. Do you often start your experiments with items that do not have an impact on the results? I didn't include the speed of the Earth, the Milky Way, the Universe, because they had no bearing on the question posed. You understood the intent of the question at the outset and chose provide a snarky response.

 

[jbriggs444]

Your first response brought up the fact that we are already traveling extremely fast. That's all. Do you often start your experiments with items that do not have an impact on the results? I didn't include the speed of the Earth, the Milky Way, the Universe, because they had no bearing on the question posed. You understood the intent of the question at the outset and chose provide a snarky response.

And yet you chose to include the speed of an object. Which is equally irrelevant. Speed is not an invariant property of an object.

 

[phinds]

Your first response brought up the fact that we are already traveling extremely fast. That's all. Do you often start your experiments with items that do not have an impact on the results? I didn't include the speed of the Earth, the Milky Way, the Universe, because they had no bearing on the question posed. You understood the intent of the question at the outset and chose provide a snarky response.

My response was intended to point out to you the error in your thought process, exactly as was zapper in post #23. You continue to seem more interested in arguing about it than in learning the science.

 

[Atari_Me]

What's your point? It is both an empirical fact and according to theory that the traveling piece of wood would have aged less. So what? It doesn't matter what you use to detect the differential aging, it's there and that's a fact. The rate of radioactive decay, like the rate of all biological processes, for the traveling piece just ticks along at 1 second per second, just as you are doing right now even though you are traveling at near light speed.

Facts are provable things. What methods are used to prove the aging difference? Your answer would imply radioactive decay. As above, the inquiry asks if there are additional means for showing decay and/or the passage of time in the two objects other than radioactive decay.

 

[anorlunda]

It's a no-no to question theories?

Have you ever read the Physics Forums mission statement?

Our goal is to provide a community for people (whether students, professional scientists, or hobbyists) to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/about-physics-forums/

PF is not a one-stop-shop for all things science. If you want to challenge theory, if you want to push back the frontiers, the way to do it is to publish a peer reviewed paper. We have a limited and different misssion here on PF.

 

[PeroK]

What are you talking about? I'm not trying to change anything nor am I ignoring any laws of physics. If you lack the engineering/chemistry backgroud to describe how absolute 0 impacts objects, ok, that aspect is a question for another forum. Let's focus on Relativity, and I will keep it simple. If an object were to leave Earth for 100 years and accelerate to 99% the speed of light and then returned to Earth at the end of the 100 years, and an identical object remained on Earth. Let's use a block of wood as an example. And the block of wood was maintained in a sealed vacuum chamber for the duration of the 100 years, I assume that various types of radioactive decay would be the measuring stick to show the age difference between the objects? Would there be any other measuring stick that could show change between the two objects?

If we assume that the wood decays by reacting with oxygen, then the vacuum sealed block will not have changed in 100 years. The space block will have decayed or not depending on whether it was exposed to oxygen.

But, it's not technologically possible to have near light speed space travel. So, almost all the overwhelming evidence for SR comes from high energy particle accelerators, where sub atomic particles can be accelerated to near light speed and all the relevant predictions of relativity can be directly observed. Including, of course, particle decay times that are correct when you take time dilation into account.

The thing is a done deal. Physics has moved on.

 

[Atari_Me]

Have you ever read the Physics Forums mission statement?

PF is not a one-stop-shop for all things science. If you want to challenge theory, if you want to push back the frontiers, the way to do it is to publish a peer reviewed paper. We have a limited and different misssion here on PF.

And all I am trying to do is gain a better understanding how how the generally understood and practiced scientific theories function in the real world. So a logical question is if time is often measured through decay, how is it different than extreme freezing. I have received a couple of partial answers. So far they boil down to radioactive decay. But a number of things have an impact on radioactive decay rates, therefore I am attempting to understand what other measurements are used to show decay in objects, or aging, when a clock is not available and radiocarbdating is not available/accurate.

 

[PeroK]

And all I am trying to do is gain a better understanding how how the generally understood and practiced scientific theories function in the real world. So a logical question is if time is often measured through decay, how is it different than extreme freezing. I have received a couple of partial answers. So far they boil down to radioactive decay. But a number of things have an impact on radioactive decay rates, therefore I am attempting to understand what other measurements are used to show decay in objects, or aging, when a clock is not available and radiocarbdating is not available/accurate.

Anyway, you have totally misunderstood the purpose of this forum. It is that you may learn mainstream physics, if you so wish.

However, the purpose of this forum is not to debunk crackpot ideas. First, because crackpots are many and second because no amount or debunking will ever convince a crackpot that he has been debunked.

 

[DrClaude]

But a number of things have an impact on radioactive decay rates

Unless you bombard the nucleus with very energetic particles, radioactive decay rates are pretty much constant.

therefore I am attempting to understand what other measurements are used to show decay in objects, or aging, when a clock is not available and radiocarbdating is not available/accurate.

By definition, a clock is what measures time. If you don't have a clock, you can't measure time. Radioactive decay is one thing that can serve as a clock, the oscillations in the internal states of an atom is another. But without a clock, no measurement of time.

On that note, I think it is time to close this thread.