# Information's relation to Time and Mass

1. Jun 26, 2011

### hankaaron

Suppose we have a Star Trek type transporter. In this transporter objects are deconstructed on the transporter pad. Every atom's property is perfectly or even near perfectly copied. Now, deviating a bit from the show, a large block of material on another planet, equal in mass to the transported object, is arranged to match the atomic properties of the transported object. The object is now considered transported.

Now suppose that this is how nature progresses through time. Nature constantly deconstructs objects in the universe in one moment in time, and then recreates it in another moment in time. That would mean that objects with more mass, would required a longer time to deconstruct and reconstruct.

An object with greater mass makes time slow down (relative to it) as the information is much larger. But what about the effect of velocity on time?

Well if an object is moving faster, more of it is energy rather than mass. So it takes a shorter time to deconstruct and reproduce, so time speeds up for that object.

Am I anywhere near a logical train of thought?

P.S. If I am in the wrong forum for this kind of post, forgive me.

2. Jun 26, 2011

I can see what you're thinking, but id you was to deconstruct moving object to transport it, it would be a lot harder. Maybe impossible? I don't really know but it seems that way since if you want to transport you would have to be still so the scanner/transporter can scan it easily, Where as if it's moving, the scanner/transporter would have to be moving as well.

3. Jun 28, 2011

### bcphysicist

The logic makes sense, but technically that is very improbable. Does it reconstruct the object at the speed of light? If it doesn't, then time would be very fragmented and not smooth. And anyways, nothing can travel faster than light-- according to Einstein, but which I do not believe. After all--sorry for the digression; but technically can't you divide the "largest" speed possible--the speed of light, by the smallest time possible--the Planck time, and get a speed faster than the speed of light? I dunno. But good thinking. :)

4. Jun 29, 2011

You can't divide a big number by a smaller umber and get a bigger number than the big number you divided...

5. Jun 29, 2011

### SpectraCat

1/0.1=10

6. Jun 29, 2011

### SpectraCat

*That* doesn't make any sense.

It's not a question of belief, it's a question of understanding ...

After all, if you divide a quantity with the dimension of speed, by a quantity with the dimension of time, don't you get a result with the dimension of acceleration?

7. Jun 29, 2011

### SpectraCat

I think what you are saying is that, conservation of momentum (and angular momentum) tells us that in order for the reconstructed object to remain motionless on the "platform", the velocity (not just the speed) of the receiver would have to be matched to the speed of the sender. That certainly seems correct ... so actually, Kirk and Spock should have been smashed to a paste the first time they beamed up from the surface of a planet to the Enterprise in orbit.

But it's all good in the show, because it's sci-fi .. they just need to invoke the (imaginary) Kansuke-Bonobo theory of dilithium-powered quantum warp momentum cancellation. :tongue:

8. Jun 29, 2011

Oh yes, I forgot about decimals.

9. Jun 29, 2011

### my_wan

Not if the parts were (de)constructed in parallel.

Actually gravitational fields make time slow down relative to observers at a greater distance from the mass, not relative to the mass itself. This is absolute in GR, not relative. What is relative about it in GR is that different observers disagree on how much clocks slow down for different observers, but how could they agree if their clocks are going different rates.

A fast moving mass slows downs relative to another inertial mass. Of course this goes both ways but the accelerated observer is the one with the overall slowest clocks when they meet again. So again it is backwards from the given assumptions.

This all means that the effect is backwards and (de)constructed rate must be presumed serial for time to have meaning the way it was defined here. The general idea may or may not have some dubious validity in the right context but as stated this is not the right context.

10. Jun 29, 2011