Cancer developing in different RF's

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter curiousphoton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cancer
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of reference frames on cancer development, particularly in the context of relativistic physics. Participants explore whether cancer progresses at the same rate across different reference frames, referencing Feynman's work and seeking scientific literature on the topic.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference Feynman's assertion that cancer development may not occur at the same rate in different reference frames, questioning the validity of medical professionals' claims on this matter.
  • Others express skepticism about the existence of medical literature discussing time dilation effects on cancer cells, suggesting it is not a common topic in medical journals.
  • One participant proposes that medical professionals might be referring to the biological processes occurring at a normal rate within an organism's own reference frame.
  • Another participant highlights the distinction between ideal and non-ideal clocks in the context of time dilation, suggesting that time dilation applies to all clocks but may not be measurable in non-ideal scenarios.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of acceleration on time dilation, with varying opinions on how it affects different types of clocks.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of time dilation to cancer development and the validity of medical claims regarding this topic. There is no consensus on whether cancer develops at the same rate across reference frames or on the interpretation of Feynman's statements.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the potential limitations of medical professionals' understanding of physics and the complexity of relating biological processes to relativistic effects. There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions and assumptions underlying the discussion of time dilation and cancer development.

curiousphoton
Messages
117
Reaction score
2
In Feynman's 6 not so easy pieces, in Ch. 4 I believe ( don't have the book on me right now), he states:

"There are those in the medical profession who will claim cancer developes at the same rate no matter what reference frame it is in. They are wrong." (Not exact quote).

Obviously they are wrong, but I was wondering if anyone knew of a scientific article that backed up these medical professional's point of view? Just another reason to not trust doctors...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think there are medical journals that talk about the time dilation of cancer cells moving close to the speed of light.
 
Fredrik said:
I don't think there are medical journals that talk about the time dilation of cancer cells moving close to the speed of light.

Yeah didn't think so. I was just wondering why some Medical Professional's claim time dilation does not apply to cancer cells.

Boggles my mind.
 
(I skimmed chapter 3 (Special Theory of Relativity) and chapter 4 (Relativistic Energy and Momentum) but could not find the quote.)

I wouldn't expect medical doctors to know any more about physics than I would expect physicsts to know about medicine.

It's always possible the doctor(s) quoted are referring to the fact that basic biological processes evolve at a normal rate in that organisms own reference frame...in other words cancer would progress at the same rate relative to other biological processes as observed by the organism...
 
Last edited:
Naty1 said:
(I skimmed chapter 3 (Special Theory of Relativity) and chapter 4 (Relativistic Energy and Momentum) but could not find the quote.)

I wouldn't expect medical doctors to know any more about physics than I would expect physicsts to know about medicine.

It's always possible the doctor(s) quoted are referring to the fact that basic biological processes evolve at a normal rate in that organisms own reference frame...in other words cancer would progress at the same rate relative to other biological processes as observed by the organism...

I'll find the quote when I get off work tonight.

Feynman specifies the fact that certain claims in the world of medicine state that cancer, and only cancer, develops at the same rate in all RF's.

Original goal with this thread was to find out if anyone knew of any medical journals that claim this.

Or if anyone was friends with feynmen back in the day and knew his doctor.
 
Found it!

6 Not so Easy Pieces, 1997 Edition, Chapter 3, Page 62, 1st Sentence:

The biologists and medical men sometimes say it is not quite certain that the time it takes for a cancer to develop will be longer in a space ship*, but from the viewpoint of a physicist it is nearly certain; otherwise one could use the rate of cancer development to determine the speed of the ship!

*Why isn't a citation required? Come on Feynman!

Anyone else heard of a related paper or claim? Thanks.
 
Based on the quote, it sounds like something off-the-cuff. Ie, not something biologists claim in a scientific setting, but rather what one might say in an argument with a physicist over beers.
 
And Feynman does admit that a cancer may take longer to develop in a spaceship.

Time dilation applies to ideal clocks - like an atomic clock. It does not apply to non-ideal clocks such as pendulums.
 
atyy said:
Time dilation applies to ideal clocks - like an atomic clock. It does not apply to non-ideal clocks such as pendulums.
It most certainly does, this is the first postulate. Otherwise you could build a device consisting of an atomic clock and a pendulum and determine how fast you were going in absolute space. The only difference is how fast you need to go to be able to reliably detect the dilation.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
atyy said:
Time dilation applies to ideal clocks - like an atomic clock. It does not apply to non-ideal clocks such as pendulums.
Huh? Anything with time is affected by time dilation. It's just with a pendulum clock, other factors may be more measurable than time dilation (ie, such clocks aren't accurate enough to notice the time dilation for any time dilation achievable by humans).
 
  • #11
DaleSpam said:
It most certainly does, this is the first postulate. Otherwise you could build a device consisting of an atomic clock and a pendulum and determine how fast you were going in absolute space. The only difference is how fast you need to go to be able to reliably detect the dilation.

russ_watters said:
Huh? Anything with time is affected by time dilation. It's just with a pendulum clock, other factors may be more measurable than time dilation (ie, such clocks aren't accurate enough to notice the time dilation for any time dilation achievable by humans).

Well, it should be a clock that is not "directly" affected by acceleration - but a pendulum clock is "directly" affected by acceleration, so it won't be an ideal clock.

I guess it depends on whether Feynman was thinking of an inertial spaceship, or one that accelerated in a version of the twin paradox.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Even a clock affected by acceleration will still time dilate due to velocity, i.e. there will be time dilation on top of whatever acceleration effects exist.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
Replies
20
Views
18K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
8K