Radioactive decay in relativistic frames

Tyro
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
If you take two identical radioactive samples, place one on Earth and another on a near-lightspeed spaceship, and compare them some time later, will the one left on Earth have undergone comparatively more radioactive decay than the one on the spaceship?

If the experiment is repeated by leaving one on Earth and another on a planet with the same radius as Earth but made entirely of lead, what, if any, will the difference be?

Finally, how would the radioactive decay of a test source on the surface of Earth and its centre compare?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Originally posted by Tyro
If you take two identical radioactive samples, place one on Earth and another on a near-lightspeed spaceship, and compare them some time later, will the one left on Earth have undergone comparatively more radioactive decay than the one on the spaceship?

Yes. (assuming that the second sample is brought back to a state where it is motioness wrt the first when the comparision is made. )


If the experiment is repeated by leaving one on Earth and another on a planet with the same radius as Earth but made entirely of lead, what, if any, will the difference be?

The sample sitting on Earth will decay faster.


Finally, how would the radioactive decay of a test source on the surface of Earth and its centre compare?

The sample on the surface will decay faster.
 
This relativistic effect on decay time has been obseved. Muons produced from cosmic rays come to Earth at speeds close to c. As a result they live longer than expected.
 
Does that mean that time dilation slows time down to a near standstill as you near the centre of a black hole, but the second (excuse the pun) you hit the centre, time goes discontinuously back to normal?

Or is it generally accepted that some kind of bridging theory must be made between physics as we know it and the physics at a singularity, thus making the above interpretation speculative?
 
An outside observer sees something falling into a black hole slow down and never fall in. In fact, to the outside observer, the black hole never formed.

On the other hand, an object falling in would be in a different reference frame and would simply pass the event horizon and quickly be destroyed.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...

Similar threads

Back
Top