Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Flow Of Time

  1. Dec 2, 2005 #1
    If i were in a space ship traveling at half the speed of light. Then if i have this right. Time would seem to be passing at the regular speed to me while back on earth time is passing at about twice as fast. So if this is true my question is. The electrons in orbit around the nucleus of the atoms back on earth are traveling near light speed and making a great many orbits per second while on my ship if the electrons were making the same number of orbits per second. Adding on the speed that my ship is traveling the electrons would half to be traveling faster than light so in order for the electrons to stay below light speed they would half to be making about half as many orbits per second as compared to the electrons back on earth. Although the electrons are traveling at about the same rate of speed in both places. But there is a great differents in speed between the nucleuses of those atoms. So if time is passing at about half as slow to me as it is on earth and the electrons on my ship are orbiting about half as many orbits per second as compared to those on earth. Then is the number of orbits and the interaction between the electrons and the nucleus somehow controlling the flow of time. Also i would like to know if the electrons on my ship would jump to a higher or lower energy state.
    Thank you to anyone who answers my question
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 2, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    You're suffering from a number of misconceptions, which is why things seem paradoxical to you.

    This sentence indicates those misconceptions: "Time would seem to be passing at the regular speed to me while back on earth time is passing at about twice as fast."

    Time appears to you, on the bridge of your starship, to be running as it always does, at normal speed. Time back on Earth is not "really" running more slowly, in the sense that people on Earth don't notice anything different. Time on Earth simply appears to you to be running slowly. In the same way, it appears to people on Earth that the clocks aboard your spaceship are running slowly, but they seem normal to you.

    Second, velocities don't add together in relativity as simply as you imagine. If your spaceship is travelling at 0.5 c relative to Earth, and a projectile inside your ship is travelling at 0.5 c relative to the ship, the projectile is not travelling at c relative to earth. You need to use the relativistic form of velocity addition, shown here:


    Third, just so you know, a relative velocity of 0.5 c only results in about a 15% "slowdown" in measurements of time from one frame of reference to another, not 50%.

    - Warren
  4. Dec 2, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You got some things wrong: Every observer sees the other´s time slow down. But this has no consequences for the physical actions in both frames - electrons still orbit at the same frequency as measured in their time. When you apply the correct relativistic formulas you find that the speed of light is never exceeded, no matter how fast those electrons are moving.
  5. Dec 2, 2005 #4
    What if Einstein got it wrong?

    What if Einstein got it all wrong & we are not governed by the speed of light as an absolute limit?

    It would be interesting to see what happens & what physical effects occur as the vehicle actually approaches the 'speed of light'. Many folks thought that the 'speed of sound' was an impenetrable barrier - until we crossed it, that is.

    Surely we have just not been able to test the theory fully since we do not yet have vehicles capable of approaching those speeds?
  6. Dec 2, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    We do have such vehicles, eg small particles.You can pump as much energy in such a particle as you want, it will become faster and faster - but never reach c, just as SR predicts. And that´s not a problem of technology, it is something inherent in the structure of our universe.
  7. Dec 2, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    There may well be inaccuracies- no theory is perfectly correct- but Einstein didn't get it "all wrong"; the theory of relativity has been well tested. As Ich said, experiments have been done with high velocity particles. In particular, elementary particles appear to have longer "life expectancies" when moving at high speed than at low speed- extended in agreement with the formula for time dilation.

    There are even practical applications. GPS units have to make tiny corrections for satelite motion (special relativity) as well as the fact that the gravitational effects are slight less than on earth (general relativity).
  8. Dec 2, 2005 #7
    hmm though string theory does predict messenger particles and the gravitron which may redefine this....
  9. Dec 2, 2005 #8
    I was just wondering if someone could lead me to an experiment that tries to make a particle go faster then light. I have tried googling and I guess I just do not know the right key words. I was wondering how they calculated the speed of the particle.
  10. Dec 2, 2005 #9
    what if the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant?

    -which has already been shown...
  11. Dec 2, 2005 #10
    Where did you saw that of "already been shown?".

    There are hypothesis of velocity of light not being constant, mostly in the scheme of loop quantum gravity, but that hasn't already been show neither was this what you was refering to, i guess.
  12. Dec 3, 2005 #11
    Our understandings of how time, velocity and hadrons work may have given us a false sense of how they COULD work in non-terrestrial conditions. For instance if time is thought to be relative to increased velocity or acceleration, another possible effect would be that observable SIZE (not m=f/a MASS) becomes proportionately smaller as we approach c. Our seemingly WIDE universe thinning out to a small thread like tube as our near-c-speed and Earth reference time lead us out to what we call the primordial fog at 13.7 million years. A slice of that thread, a segment of time, could be small enough to be considered an atomic particle, itself with q-bit states that could be teleported back to Earth (assuming a co-operative sending partner), where it’s base relativity features might cause the SIZE to normalize against it’s earth phase reference and re-appear.

    This was done off the campus of Michigan State in August 1968 in a student math/physics experiment at 306 Beal St. 2nd floor kitchen attempting to define the shape and vortice points of dimensions 5 through 9 and how D3 (Earth) science would interact to possibly different laws within their dimensions, as it intersects those points. D5 through D9’s set of physics constraints would also differ as they merged with us or each other at vortice points. The experiment succeeded in teleportation, but other results were not clearly definable.

    The experiment was a REVERSE teleportation and the result was a reception, and that not of ‘states’ but of more, and data was received and analyzed that INDICATED several things: vortice points APPEARED to exist that contained laws and actions that did not comply with the understanding of quantum mechanics in 1968 (or 2005!); time was NOT a constant or an insurmountable wall; and there was a strong indication of interaction of intelligent life from another dimension that allowed completion of the experiment.

    Poorly funded experiments since then by one member of that group have not produced another teleportation of the same visual quality and sense of control from a single initiation, but have in fact better defined the ability of chained (amplified) teleportations to possibly effect particles here, and particularly influence weather and tectonic plate movement. Tesla appears to have jumped the relative time boundary with his simple Earth amplified current experiments at Colorado Springs and may have unwittingly unleashed a series of plasmoids that jumped dimensional vortices, and self initiated teleportation at the other end, returning to appear the same size but in a different time, and sometimes in a different place from the experiment.

    This effect also implies that an object might return to a stationary reference point on the Earth or in the solar system, which point changes continually, but appears to have an attraction effect tied to the Earth or it’s orbital signature at least. It has been conjectured that if one knows the reference point relative to the sun, or preferably to the mean center of the black hole in the milky way that serves as the anchor point, and also knows a reference co-ordinate of say D5 with D3, then one could predict that a plasmoid generated in Colorado Springs in 1899 by amplified current through Earth core/mantle’s natural magnetronic fields could result in a modified plasmoid recurrence, initiating 4-5’s plate movement in say Central Mongolia or Japan today, or a magnitude 6 quake in Northern Sudan this December.

    But to the point: Plasmoids don’t AGE, only mutate, and I suggest that as wind chill affects people and not inanimate objects like a car’s radiator, so the relativity time effect expected by Einstein also has an affect on human life alone but not on inanimate objects like atomic particles … such as RalphCalc’s Posting #1 was concerned with. Ralph’s questions and the thoughtful replies posted here should however be recognized as SIGNIFICANT to stir us all to reconsider that atomic activity CAN vary in non-Earth environments or conditions.
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2005
  13. Dec 3, 2005 #12
    There is an phenomeon in Quantum Physics called Quantum Tunneling.
    It describes the ACTUAL behaivor or particles to jump from position to position almost instantly, sidestepping space and time. I'm not an expert in this phenomeon but a german scientist Guntar Nimitz has claimed to have used Quantum Tunneling to send photons carrying music encoded onto them at 5 times the speed of light.

    I do not have a link to this claim and where I saw it was on television.
  14. Dec 3, 2005 #13
    Please excuse my lack of knowledge in this subject, my assumption may have already been answered ! "speed" is measured relative to "something" i.e you are driving along a motorway at 70mph you are travelling at 70mph faster than the surface of that road. If two cars are heading towards each other at 70mph they have a closing speed of 140mph. If two light photons are heading towards each other they would have a closing speed of 2c and would pass at 2c, if the photon sources were travelling towards each other at say .5c, would the photons not be be travelling at 1.5c and pass each other at 3c? I am just trying to get my head round realtive speeds, and actually where we would draw a baseline for calculating speeds within the universe.
  15. Dec 3, 2005 #14
    GPS satellites have to adjust for their speed relative to the motion of the earth because of the difference in time. The difference is extremely small.

    To find that difference, use the Lorentz Transformation for time dilation


    My advice is to NOT obtain basic knowledge of things from this forum. It is really NOT a good source of solid facts. Books are your best bet. If you really want an understanding of the experients done to prove special and general relativity then read a book on it. This forum is a lazy mans way and therefore unreliable.
  16. Dec 3, 2005 #15
    there is no universal "baseline"
    The universe is in constant flux and there is no single point that is at rest.

    Face facts and realize that we live in a relativistic universe
  17. Dec 3, 2005 #16
    “no universal baseline … constant flux … relativistic universe” is well said. This fact poses substantial problems for navigation beyond the galaxy we live in, or at least in planning for a trip back. An interesting phenomena is possible, those that use Microsoft Excel will recognize it. When you insert cells into a spreadsheet’s data or make some other editing changes, the cells that use the information in the cell that has moved are also modified to follow the changed cell’s location, so nothing is lost.

    Traveling in our own galaxy in Earth time or in relative Einstein time we still remain relative to physical points that relate to each other, as our galaxy is a self contained unit. However, recent study indicates that what we call dark energy and dark matter, identified in our paradigm as something essentially weighed but not clearly identifiable, has a characteristic apart from exerting a gravity pull. In fact our focus on this substance as energy or mass exerting gravity may have misled us or hindered us from realizing why the dark energy/matter phenomena really exists, or at least what it’s PRIMARY function is.

    The universe appears to contain a netting like substrate that we call dark energy or matter but is in fact a universal memory bank primarily which records the real time state of all entities and also archives every past motion, not so much as recording time that has passed (a human concept) but records actions that have occurred relative to other actions (a physics concept). This net in fact allows what otherwise would be random and constant flux that would prevent say, intergalactic navigation, or intergalactic mapping (because locations change relative to what?) to in fact be actions done as in Excel, and items needing the original data field are automatically (or can be made to automatically) track the original data. This is actually similar to the GPS systems example given, and GPS systems also need to adjust for a north pole that is not located in what we call the north pole at all, and is in fact also continually meandering from a fixed point.

    The memory net also has mass and energy as we know it and appears to serve as the wall between dimensions or parallel universes, containing the vertices between them, or better said, acting as a MS Word Excel like program to track and facilitate the many changes between actions occurring in our universe and between dimensions or parallel worlds. IF this is the case that memory needs to be accessible to every atom of matter everywhere in the universe at far above light speed availability … q-bit teleportation comes to mind (an INSTANTANEOUS mirroring of atomic states), and if this be a fact then it opens up a whole new concept of communication, transportation and unfortunately of interaction (invited or not!)
  18. Dec 4, 2005 #17
    I suposse this guy is not being serious. Maybe some kind of schizophrenia like psychosis. If not, he is laughing of people here.
  19. Dec 4, 2005 #18
    This was written only for those that can hear it, can see it ... not for those that can not, and is offered as any other recent unusual (i.e. string theory / Q-bit / Parallel Universes) scientific speculation based on ACTUAL experimentation with further study required before a final conclusion is arrived at. The positive result of the experimentation sufficient to at least INDICATE a direction of further required investigation.

    Comments challenging the scientific feasibility of postings will always be welcomed while comments challenging integrity or personal qualities of another will not.

    Science lives in irony, …. On one hand it must be viewed as absolute to apply anything of an engineering nature or mathematical application, … while on the other hand it’s own nature demands open minded consideration of all possible outcomes and necessitates modification of understood principals as we grow technically.
  20. Dec 4, 2005 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What experiments do you think support any of the ideas in your post? And have you read the "IMPORTANT! Read before posting" thread at the top of this forum?
  21. Dec 4, 2005 #20
    1.a) I have taken part in / witnessed / been personally advised of many of the new science experiments referenced. These have taken place privately over the last 37 years. I participated in the extraordinary teleportation in the 1968 case mentioned, and personally observed the results of weather and tectonic control type tests since.
    Although science is my true love, it is just a sideline to me, my day job has been in running international marketing and contract management companies in technology, outsourced software and recently … running an international aviation company that did a lot of UN and federal US work.
    1.b) Of course the String Theory / Q-bit teleportation / Parallel Universe and similar experiments and speculations are well known and articles about them are available through any on-line search. For particularly good reading I also suggest the following great magazines such as: SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, DISCOVER, SKY & TELESCOPE, NEW SCIENTIST AND AEROSPACE AMERICA.
    2.a) I do not seem to have anything marked ‘IMPORTANT! Read before posting’ that shows on my screen, and if it is something that I read when I registered about a year ago I guess I will have to plead that I forgot it.
    2.b) However, the tone of your post seems to indicate that I have violated some ethic or rule stated here, if so … please forgive the unintentional offense.
    2.c) Based on your input, I will not post again until I understand the nature of the infraction so as not to cause discomfort for others, thank you for pointing that out.
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2005
  22. Dec 4, 2005 #21


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It's a "sticky post" that always appears as the very first posting in this forum. I see it (the title, that is, not the text of the posting itself) every time I enter this forum. Here it is:

  23. Dec 4, 2005 #22
    Thank you. I looked and did not appear to have that ‘sticky note’ anywhere, so I went to the referenced link and read it. I likely enter through a different front page, clicking on an email header link to the site. I also since read the overall guidelines for posting, which were quite good and a good refresher for all of us.

    Of course two things immediately came to mind in the "Important" thread:

    First, the moderator of this thread is from Oregon where I also lived for many years (I ran Evergreen Helicopters in McMinnville, OR) so of course that moderator gets 10 credibility points automatically from me.

    Second, However I muse over PF's choice of quoting Bertrand Russell in defense of ANTI-speculation. The venerable old Mr. Russell was a British atheist philosopher with strong Anti-American views and held very improbable and conflicting, even very ethereal non scientific beliefs at best in my opinion, and not a credble source to quote to an American, a scientist and a God fearing man that believes in U.S. military action when needed and justified, such as myself. Russell's life and writings being the ULTIMATE EXAMPLE OF UNPROVEN SPECULATION. (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell)

    Russell was also a mathematician (ref: Wikipidia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematician ) and following the link under ‘MATHEMATICIAN’ on the Bertrand Russell Wikipidia site we find quoted “In fact, the publication of NEW DISCOVERIES in mathematics continues at an IMMENSE RATE in hundreds of scientific journals …” (CAPS emphasis mine). Of course I have to scratch my head as how that supports an anti-speculative stand.

    I would first want to consider another Brit and a true scientist of his time, Isaac Newton. Isaac Newton’s ideas were often considered crackpot speculation in his day and … his crazy new math (Calculus) as found in his Principia Mathamatica as almost a heresy. Then of course there was that scientist they called a wacko, DaVinci ... and Galileo being thrown out of the church for scientific heresy ... he believed the Earth revolved around the sun ...

    Be that as it may, now that I have synchronized with the rules of the house, and better understand what the moderator desires to guide or limit the discussion to, I will gladly comply and not post anything else in the relativity forum that other’s might see as unfounded speculation. I would gladly delete my recent long posts but the editing/delete function is no longer available. Please let the viewer accept my apologies, and my enouragement to continue an OPEN MINDED exploration of an intelligently designed universe, THE DESIGNER HIMSELF, and set of exciting physics laws that we have barely scratched the surface of.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2005
  24. Dec 5, 2005 #23

    Carry on to those who need not get angered in an internet discussion of science.
  25. Dec 11, 2005 #24
    How should we messure time?

    How should we messure time ?

    Hummans messure time in cycles one complete cycle is a unite of time.

    The year is a crude inacuratre meassurement of time beacuse not all years are the same length.

    We have more acurate measures of time like radioactive decay but even radio active decay might ocurror at different rates at extream, tempeture pressure or speed.

    If measure you time by how long it takes food to go bad you well find that a refrigerater can slow the passage of time of time considerably.

    Time must be messured as a prception of change if change dose not acure dose that mean no time has past?
  26. Dec 11, 2005 #25
    Yes, but michelson&morley did prove the speed of light to be constant, and showed that we can't "overtake" light.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook