Time Dialation and Biological systems

[indirachap]

Can anyone prove that Time Dialation affects biological systems?

 

[russ_watters]

How would you like it proven?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Why wouldn't it apply to biology?

 

[indirachap]

Beyond reasonable doubt

 

[indirachap]

Why wouldn't it apply to biology?

Biological systems work differently

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Biological systems work differently

To what and in what way?

 

[Dale]

Biological systems function based on the EM force, EM time dilates, therefore biological systems time dilate. QED.

 

[indirachap]

To what and in what way?

The beam of say a light clock is affected by acceleration and thus the measurement of time is affected but is time itself affected?? I think not IMHO

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The beam of say a light clock is affected by acceleration and thus the measurement of time is affected but is time itself affected?? I think not IMHO

So you deny that relativity is true?

 

[indirachap]

So you deny that relativity is true?

Perhaps as true as Quantum Mechanics is compatible with Relativity.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Perhaps as true as Quantum Mechanics is compatible with Relativity.

You're not making much sense. Could you articulate exactly why you think that biological systems would be exempt from the effects of time dilation?

 

[indirachap]

You're not making much sense. Could you articulate exactly why you think that biological systems would be exempt from the effects of time dilation?

I am no scientist. The beam of a light clock measuring time is affected by motion and the time measured slows down. How does biological time slow down when the principles of biology are totally different?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

How does biological time slow down when the principles of biology are totally different?

What principles are you talking about? What is "biological time"?

 

[indirachap]

What principles are you talking about? What is "biological time"?

A biological system works presumably to its own time within certain parameters - say 60 beats of a human heart per minute for homo sapiens. How is biological metabolism affected by velocity since excessive velocity would result in blackouts and eventually death. Surely this makes time travel impossible?

I also fear that whilst the measurement of time devices are affected by velocity, time itself isnt.

 

[Dale]

The beam of a light clock measuring time is affected by motion and the time measured slows down. How does biological time slow down when the principles of biology are totally different?

No, the principles are not totally different. In fact, they are exactly the same. Both are based entirely on EM. See post 7.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

A biological system works presumably to its own time within certain parameters - say 60 beats of a human heart per minute for homo sapiens. How is biological metabolism affected by velocity since excessive velocity would result in blackouts and eventually death. Surely this makes time travel impossible?

I also fear that whilst the measurement of time devices are affected by velocity, time itself isnt.

From the point of view of the traveller their heart still beats at ~1 beat per second. From the point of view of someone in a different frame of reference it may be beating at a far slower rate.

 

[indirachap]

No, the principles are not totally different. In fact, they are exactly the same. Both are based entirely on EM. See post 7.

How does the EM force affect our bodily functions? I can see it changing the environment but with change of environment a bioligical system will live or die... not slow down surely?

 

[HallsofIvy]

All you are telling us so far is that you refuse to accept the "Theory of Relativity". And, since there are few theories that have been confirmed by experimental evidence, that makes me suspect that you do not understand what the "Theory of Relativity" says. In particular, the theory says that if you observe a system moving at close to light speed, relative to you, you will observe that time has slowed in that system, relative to you. All processes, biological and non-biological, will have slowed down becasuse time itself has slowed down for that system. It is NOT a matter of "EM forces" causing processes to slow down- it is time itself that has slowed down.

 

[BruceW]

The beam of say a light clock is affected by acceleration and thus the measurement of time is affected but is time itself affected?? I think not IMHO

Your response is very natural. I think most people have the same reaction to relativity when they first learn about it. The fact is that every clock that has been tested, has acted in accordance with relativity. So with all the evidence we have so far, we can indeed say that time itself is affected.

Now if we did some experiment where we would expect to see time dilation in biological processes, and we did not see such time dilation, then relativity would be disproven. Relativity is just a theory, so we cannot rule out such a possibility. But it is highly unlikely, since relativity has had such success so far, and because its theoretical basis is so compellingly simple. (The most likely explanation is the most simple, remember).

 

[indirachap]

All you are telling us so far is that you refuse to accept the "Theory of Relativity". And, since there are few theories that have been confirmed by experimental evidence, that makes me suspect that you do not understand what the "Theory of Relativity" says. In particular, the theory says that if you observe a system moving at close to light speed, relative to you, you will observe that time has slowed in that system, relative to you. All processes, biological and non-biological, will have slowed down becasuse time itself has slowed down for that system. It is NOT a matter of "EM forces" causing processes to slow down- it is time itself that has slowed down.

Surely a biological system moving at nearly the speed of light relative to oneself wouldn't survive the slowing down process? Everything would have to operate at a virtual standstill! This is why I can't see how one can reconcile biology with time travel and relativity.

I will have to adjourn for a while, thank you.

 

[Dale]

How does the EM force affect our bodily functions?

Every bodily function is entirely governed exclusively by the EM force. All chemical reactions are based on EM attractions and repulsions between nearby molecules. As EM slows down so do all chemical reactions. All of the enzymes, chemical reactions, ion channels, mass transport, and other biological phenomena are fundamentally EM interactions.

Your example of the heart beat is a perfect example. A heart beat is triggered by a depolarization wave of the cardiomyocytes. The depolarization wave itself is obviously an EM phenomenon, and the cardiomyocyte membrane is obviously an EM capacitor, but less obviously the chemical reactions and the ion channels which maintain the transmembrane potentials are also EM phenomena at the molecular level.

If you accept that EM slows down then you must accept that biological functions slow down, since biological functions are entirely goverened by EM.

 

[Jimmy]

Surely a biological system moving at nearly the speed of light relative to oneself wouldn't survive the slowing down process? Everything would have to operate at a virtual standstill! This is why I can't see how one can reconcile biology with time travel and relativity.

In the frame of reference where the biological system is at rest, there is no 'slowing down process'. A clock slows down only from the point of view of an observer moving relative to the clock itself.

 

[Chestermiller]

Ryan mb and Jimmy both explained to you that, as reckoned by observers at rest within a biological species' reference frame, biological processes are not affected by time dilation. The speed of biological processes are only reckoned to be affected by time dilation by observers traveling in reference frames that are moving relative to the biological species. Time dilation is in many respects purely a geometric/kinematic effect in 4D hyperspace.

 

[Mark M]

Surely a biological system moving at nearly the speed of light relative to oneself wouldn't survive the slowing down process? Everything would have to operate at a virtual standstill! This is why I can't see how one can reconcile biology with time travel and relativity.

I will have to adjourn for a while, thank you.

I don't think you understand special relativity. Different observers disagree on the passage of time and length of objects in order to preserve a constant speed of light. You always see the clocks in your frame of reference as ticking normally, and measure objects as having the same length as in the rest frame. However, observers in a slower frame of reference see your clock ticking slower. Hence, they see your body processes occurring slower. There is no contradiction.

 

[ghwellsjr]

In the frame of reference where the biological system is at rest, there is no 'slowing down process'.

True, but it is also true that if the biological system is not at rest, then there is a 'slowing down process'.

A clock slows down only from the point of view of an observer moving relative to the clock itself.

If, in the frame of reference, the clock remains at rest and the observer is moving, then the observer's time is the one that has the 'slowing down process'.

If an observer is moving in a circle relative to a stationary clock so that he revisits the clock every time he makes a loop around the circle, then from the observer's point of view, the clock will not slow down but will be going fast.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Ryan mb and Jimmy both explained to you that, as reckoned by observers at rest within a biological species' reference frame, biological processes are not affected by time dilation. The speed of biological processes are only reckoned to be affected by time dilation by observers traveling in reference frames that are moving relative to the biological species. Time dilation is in many respects purely a geometric/kinematic effect in 4D hyperspace.

I don't think you understand special relativity. Different observers disagree on the passage of time and length of objects in order to preserve a constant speed of light. You always see the clocks in your frame of reference as ticking normally, and measure objects as having the same length as in the rest frame. However, observers in a slower frame of reference see your clock ticking slower. Hence, they see your body processes occurring slower. There is no contradiction.

You guys are taking a very simple concept and confusing it. In Special Relativity, whoever and whatever is moving in a particular reference frame is experiencing time dilation. It's not an issue of what observers see because no one can see time dilation, rather it's an assignment due to a specified frame of reference.

 

[Mk]

You guys are talking a very simple concept and confusing it. In Special Relativity, whoever and whatever is moving in a particular reference frame is experiencing time dilation. It's not an issue of what observers see because no one can see time dilation, rather it's an assignment due to a specified frame of reference.

Objects do not experience time dilation, measurements do. Measurements are formalized relations between objects.

If biological systems are comprised of relating objects, then we must ask how different their energies and velocities are. At significant differences, there is significantly high time dilation and contraction. But biological processes must interact within a limited scale of energy and velocity, otherwise they would not comprise a stable organism. Biological organisms do not experience significant time dilation at all.

If an observer/observed were to be moving at a significantly different speed than a biological system, then time dilation would occur, but only as part of that difference.

Correct?

 

[A.T.]

Surely a biological system moving at nearly the speed of light relative to oneself wouldn't survive the slowing down process?

Why not? What should go wrong biologically if all processes run slower by the same factor? It will not only survive, but even live longer.

 

[ghwellsjr]

You guys are taking a very simple concept and confusing it. In Special Relativity, whoever and whatever is moving in a particular reference frame is experiencing time dilation. It's not an issue of what observers see because no one can see time dilation, rather it's an assignment due to a specified frame of reference.

Objects do not experience time dilation, measurements do.

Would you also say "Objects do not experience velocity, measurements do."?

Measurements are formalized relations between objects.

In Special Relativity, time dilation is a formalized relation between the tick rate of an object (clock, observer, etc) and the tick rate of the coordinate time of a Frame of Reference based on the speed, v, of that object in that Frame of Reference. The ratio is √(1-v²/c²).

If biological systems are comprised of relating objects, then we must ask how different their energies and velocities are. At significant differences, there is significantly high time dilation and contraction. But biological processes must interact within a limited scale of energy and velocity, otherwise they would not comprise a stable organism. Biological organisms do not experience significant time dilation at all.

Are you saying that within a single organism, there cannot be significant velocity difference between different parts of the organism and that is why an organism cannot experience significant time dilation? If so, that has nothing to do with the subject.

If an observer/observed were to be moving at a significantly different speed than a biological system, then time dilation would occur, but only as part of that difference.

Correct?

No.

Time dilation is not an issue between the difference in speed between objects (observers, clocks, biological systems, etc), it's an issue of the speed of each object as defined by a Frame of Reference. The Frame of Reference does not have to have any objects at rest within it. Take, for example, a FoR where one object is moving at speed 0.6c in one direction and a second object is moving at the same speed 0.6c in the opposite direction. They both experience the same time dilation (80%) even though they have a large relative speed between them. Their clocks tick at the same rate in the specified FoR.

Now you could pick a different FoR in which the first object was at rest and the second object is traveling at 0.882c which gives it a time dilation factor of 47% or the other way around where the second object is at rest and all the time dilation is experience by the first object.

 

[Mark M]

You guys are talking a very simple concept and confusing it. In Special Relativity, whoever and whatever is moving in a particular reference frame is experiencing time dilation. It's not an issue of what observers see because no one can see time dilation, rather it's an assignment due to a specified frame of reference.

How does this, in any way, contradict what I wrote?

 

[ghwellsjr]

You guys are taking a very simple concept and confusing it. In Special Relativity, whoever and whatever is moving in a particular reference frame is experiencing time dilation. It's not an issue of what observers see because no one can see time dilation, rather it's an assignment due to a specified frame of reference.

How does this, in any way, contradict what I wrote?

Here's what you wrote:

I don't think you understand special relativity. Different observers disagree on the passage of time and length of objects in order to preserve a constant speed of light. You always see the clocks in your frame of reference as ticking normally, and measure objects as having the same length as in the rest frame. However, observers in a slower frame of reference see your clock ticking slower. Hence, they see your body processes occurring slower. There is no contradiction.

You have mentioned three different frames:
1) Your frame of reference.
2) The rest frame.
3) A slower frame of reference.
This is confusion. Look at this sentence:

You always see the clocks in your frame of reference as ticking normally, and measure objects as having the same length as in the rest frame.

Assuming that when you say "your frame of reference", you mean what everyone else means which is a frame in which you are at rest, then what do you mean by "the rest frame"?
Look at this sentence:

However, observers in a slower frame of reference see your clock ticking slower.

The first two frames apparently were at rest. What do you mean by "a slower frame of reference"?

If you pick one frame and realize that all objects are in that frame, then it is very clear how much time dilation each object experiences simply by their speeds in that frame. You can then do it all over again and pick another frame moving with repect to the first one and recalculate all the speeds and derive a new set of time dilations. Assigning different objects exclusively to different frames is confusion.

 

[Mark M]

Here's what you wrote:

You have mentioned three different frames:
1) Your frame of reference.
2) The rest frame.
3) A slower frame of reference.

1) I think it's generally understood what a reference frame is. I was speaking of an observer that was moving.

2) An observer free-falling in empty space.

3) Don't see the confusion here.

This is confusion.

Not really.

then what do you mean by "the rest frame"?

An observer sitting in empty space that isn't moving. This might be confusing you because you can't specify an absolute state if rest in SR, which you would be correct about.

The first two frames apparently were at rest. What do you mean by "a slower frame of reference"?

What makes you think this? I mean an observer that is moving with less velocity than the frame we were speaking of. What about that confuses you?

Let me be more specific - I never 'experience' time dilation. I don't feel my body slowing down, others observe it. This is well understood.

 

[ghwellsjr]

1) I think it's generally understood what a reference frame is. I was speaking of an observer that was moving.

So you think that it is generally understood that "your frame of reference" means "an observer that was moving"?

2) An observer free-falling in empty space..

And you think that it is generally understood that "rest frame" means "an observer free-falling in empty space"?

But a free-falling observer is simply another way of saying an inertial observer which is another way of saying a non-accelerating observer which is another way of saying an observer moving at a constant velocity, not necessarily at rest with respect to any frame.

3) Don't see the confusion here. Not really.

An observer sitting in empty space that isn't moving. This might be confusing you because you can't specify an absolute state if rest in SR, which you would be correct about. What makes you think this? I mean an observer that is moving with less velocity than the frame we were speaking of. What about that confuses you?

In Special Relativity, all velocities are defined with respect to the frame we are speaking of. How can an observer be moving with less velocity than the frame?

Let me be more specific - I never 'experience' time dilation. I don't feel my body slowing down, others observe it. This is well understood.

Nobody ever feels the effects of time dilation just like nobody feels the effects of velocity but both effects are defined according to an arbitrary Frame of Reference. In a particular Frame of Reference, if an observer is moving, then he is experiencing velocity even though he can't feel it and he is experiencing time dilation even though he can't feel it.

But, at the same time, nobody else observes time dilation in another observer. How could they? If it is an effect of a particular FoR and the effect can change for the exact same scenario with a different FoR, then how would you account for any observer being able to observe different time dilations in another observer, just because different FoRs were being used?

 

[indirachap]

I'm afraid things things are getting too technical for me.

If a spaceship travels from Planet Earth to a Plant X and back at the near speed of light would the clock onboard the spaceship run considerably slower than the clock at the spaceship station on Earth? If the answer is yes would this not mean that the crew lived their lives onboard in actual slowmotion - indeed a virtual standstill?

 

[ghwellsjr]

I'm afraid things things are getting too technical for me.

If a spaceship travels from Planet Earth to a Plant X and back at the near speed of light would the clock onboard the spaceship run considerably slower than the clock at the spaceship station on Earth? If the answer is yes would this not mean that the crew lived their lives onboard in actual slowmotion - indeed a virtual standstill?

This is the classic Twin Paradox. After the spaceship returns to Earth, the crew will be much younger than the people who remained on Earth. Is that all you want to know?