Information's relation to Time and Mass

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter hankaaron
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass Relation Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the conceptual relationship between information, time, and mass, using a hypothetical scenario involving a transporter similar to that in science fiction. Participants consider how the deconstruction and reconstruction of objects might relate to their mass and velocity, and the implications for time perception and travel.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that if nature deconstructs and reconstructs objects over time, then objects with greater mass would require longer to process, suggesting a link between mass and the flow of time.
  • Another participant questions the feasibility of deconstructing a moving object for transport, suggesting it may be impossible due to the need for synchronization between the scanner and the object's motion.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the reconstruction process occurring at the speed of light, raising concerns about the implications for time continuity and the nature of speed limits as defined by relativity.
  • There are discussions about the mathematical implications of dividing the speed of light by Planck time, with some participants questioning the validity of such calculations and their interpretations.
  • One participant argues that if parts could be constructed in parallel, the time required for reconstruction might not depend solely on mass.
  • Another participant clarifies that gravitational effects on time are relative to observers at different distances from mass, rather than relative to the mass itself.
  • A suggestion is made that the theory could be experimentally tested by comparing the aging of two objects of different sizes, with the smaller object potentially showing more defects due to more frequent duplication.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement on various points, particularly regarding the implications of mass and velocity on time and the feasibility of the transporter concept. No consensus is reached on the validity of the proposed ideas or their implications.

Contextual Notes

Some statements rely on assumptions about the nature of time, mass, and information transfer that are not universally accepted. The discussion includes speculative reasoning and hypothetical scenarios that may not align with established scientific principles.

hankaaron
Messages
83
Reaction score
4
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
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. :)
 
bcphysicist said:
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. :)

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

1/0.1=10
 
bcphysicist said:
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.

*That* doesn't make any sense.

And anyways, nothing can travel faster than light-- according to Einstein, but which I do not believe.

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

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. :)

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?
 
MegaDeth said:
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.

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. :-p
 
SpectraCat said:
1/0.1=10

Oh yes, I forgot about decimals.
 
hankaaron said:
That would mean that objects with more mass, would required a longer time to deconstruct and reconstruct.
Not if the parts were (de)constructed in parallel.

hankaaron said:
An object with greater mass makes time slow down (relative to it) as the information is much larger.
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.

hankaaron said:
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.
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
SpectraCat said:
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. :-p

That transporters sci fi, but it doesn't really mean that transporters are impossible, just very, very improbable with the technology of today.
 
  • #11
It seems to me that this theory (if I can call it that) could be tested experimentally. What you would do is make two lumps of the same non- radioactive material (say lead, for instance).

The smaller of the two sizes should always have a greater number of "defective parts per million". That is, it should age much more than its larger counterpart. The aging comes about because there is always some chance of error in the duplication. Since the smaller object duplicates more often (to us), it should appear to age faster.
The differences might be very small, but it may be detectable.
 

Similar threads

High School Does Relativity Impact Gravity's Influence on Fast-Moving Objects?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
High School What if we use a non physical reference point to measure an object's mass?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Undergrad Information traveling faster than light? (thought experiment)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Question about geometrical engineering (placeholder name)
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Undergrad Time Dilation, Mass-Energy Equivalence: Implications for Time Passage
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Undergrad What can we scientifically measure directly?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
Undergrad Geodesics using 2 Variables: Time & Radius from Mass
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Quantum Entanglement information transmission idea to knock down....
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
High School How to shorten this speech about BH?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
High School Bending of Spacetime: Time Delay?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K