The end of the world and relativity

[Kerr]

Hi all.

Have been reading this book about the universe (more specifically it is about the Big Bang, but it talks about how we came to the view of it we have today). Just read the part about the special theory of relativity, or whatever the name in English is.

To summorize it, time is relative. It is not a constant and is actually flexible, it changes with speed. To put it simple, the faster you go the slower time goes, even though you won´t notice any difference. The reason we do not notice it here on the Earth, in our everyday lives, is that we are not dealing with things that are fast enough for us to notice. To be honest, though, I got a little confused over it so I am not sure if that is what it states or an effect of what it states. It has to do with it in any case... I think. Anyway, so I came up with this thought. It can very well be a result of poor insight or stupidity on my part, but here it goes.

If we say that there is a God, which God does not matter now, and it is predicted that this deity will end the universe sometime in, say, 2012. Now, you take a space ship and you travell so fast that when it is 2012 for you it would be 2015 on the Earth. Should you have been destroyed when it would be 2012 here on Earth, or would you have been destroyed when it would be 2012 for you, on that ship?

I hope I have not wasted anyones time.

Take care,
Kerr.

 

[True Faith]

you're talking like back to the future and other sci-fi type story.
Time is factor in this universe, so, it's not possible, you can exit this universe, it's not possible, According to Islam, the moment will arrive and entire universe will be destroy same time, same moment. but even for the sake of argument, let's say if world will destroy 2012 some day at 6 pm, so, where ever your ship at 6pm that day in 2012 will destroy.
so, travel in ship is nothing but fantasy idea.
BTW, According to Islam, world will not end before coming of Imam Mehdi, Jesus Christ and Anti-Christ (Dajjal). Jesus Christ will rule over world 40 years, that mean no possible end of the world near future in 40-50 years at least.

 

[Eliot Wild]

My understanding of Relativity it is not that "Time" is relative, but the passing of time for a single event as observed by different observers moving at different velocities. Of course, I don't even know what in the world that means.

But my guess would be that the end of the world would happen simulataneously for all of us regardless of our separate velocities, but since our observation of passing time might vary in relation to one another depending on our distinct velocities, then even if we left the same relative stationary position simultaneously and then faced the end of the world at different points in space while moving at different speeds, what you perceive to be 2012 might indeed be perceived by me as 2015, or something like that.

Honestly though, I should never have responded 'cause this stuff is way over my head.

 

[PolyHedral]

But my guess would be that the end of the world would happen simulataneously for all of us regardless of our separate velocities,

Simultaneity is no longer a meaningful concept once relativity is taken into account.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Simultaneity is no longer a meaningful concept once relativity is taken into account.

Ahhh, I get it. Due to one's relative distance from the event, the observers won't see the event as occurring simultaneously because even though light is traveling at a fixed rate of speed, the different observers are seeing the event from different distances away.

However, wouldn't the "End of the World" scenario be occurring throughout the entire universe and not in one localized location? And wouldn't that make the event appear to occur simulaneously for everyone? Of course, if it is literally just the end of Earth and not of the entire physical universe, then I would concede you must be right. But if it is happening everywhere and not in a localized location, then we would all be equidistant from the event, right?

I am assuming too that if it is the end of humanity, we would be apart of the event and not just observing it from a preset distance. In other words, thinking back to the example on Wiki, the one about the car crash being observed from a stationary position and a moving train . . . In the end of the world scenario presented, I didn't interpret it as humans as observers from different points in space. I intrepreted it as if we humans were caught in the car crash, so to speak.

I don't know. You guys are making me think too hard.

 

[Kerr]

you're talking like back to the future and other sci-fi type story.

Nope, talking about relativity when it comes to time. It is a scientific thing and not sci-fi. To put it simple, time is affected by speed. It is also affected by gravity if I remember correctly. At last that is what I have understood, may have got it wrong.
Special relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have not read what the general theory of relativity states, though. Think it was the one that said gravity has an affect but I am not sure.

 

[Kerr]

Ahhh, I get it. Due to one's relative distance from the event, the observers won't see the event as occurring simultaneously because even though light is traveling at a fixed rate of speed, the different observers are seeing the event from different distances away.

However, wouldn't the "End of the World" scenario be occurring throughout the entire universe and not in one localized location? And wouldn't that make the event appear to occur simulaneously for everyone? Of course, if it is literally just the end of Earth and not of the entire physical universe, then I would concede you must be right. But if it is happening everywhere and not in a localized location, then we would all be equidistant from the event, right?

I am assuming too that if it is the end of humanity, we would be apart of the event and not just observing it from a preset distance. In other words, thinking back to the example on Wiki, the one about the car crash being observed from a stationary position and a moving train . . . In the end of the world scenario presented, I didn't interpret it as humans as observers from different points in space. I intrepreted it as if we humans were caught in the car crash, so to speak.

I don't know. You guys are making me think too hard.

From what I read in the book, and if I assume for now I can trust it, time itself is relative and not just our perception of it. Think I found a wiki article that may describe something like what I mean.
Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If we say that there is a God, which God does not matter now, and it is predicted that this deity will end the universe sometime in, say, 2012. Now, you take a space ship and you travell so fast that when it is 2012 for you it would be 2015 on the Earth. Should you have been destroyed when it would be 2012 here on Earth, or would you have been destroyed when it would be 2012 for you, on that ship?

It depends on what you mean by 2012 for you.

If you could observe the earth in real time on your journey, you would see that it had revolved around the sun enough times for it to be 2012 there. Even if less time had passed for you, it would still be 2012 on the Earth. As 2012 is a date which signifies a particular point in time on the Earth, I would assume everything would be destroyed at the same time everywhere, when it was 2012 on Earth. So, if you had left Earth in 2010, but only 2 months had passed for you due to time dilation, it would still be 2012 in the context of when god was going to destroy the Earth.

The upshot of this is that you got the short end of the stick by only getting to live an additional two months, while everyone else got to live for another two years.

The problem with saying 2012 for you as an amount of time passing for you which would age you two years, is that a year wouldn't really have any meaning on your spaceship, other than an equivalency of time to how long it takes the earth to revolves around the sun one time. The date 2012, would become meaningless under time dilation.

 

[Kerr]

It depends on what you mean by 2012 for you.

If you could observe the earth in real time on your journey, you would see that it had revolved around the sun enough times for it to be 2012 there. Even if less time had passed for you, it would still be 2012 on the Earth. As 2012 is a date which signifies a particular point in time on the Earth, I would assume everything would be destroyed at the same time everywhere, when it was 2012 on Earth. So, if you had left Earth in 2010, but only 2 months had passed for you due to time dilation, it would still be 2012 in the context of when god was going to destroy the Earth.

The upshot of this is that you got the short end of the stick by only getting to live an additional two months, while everyone else got to live for another two years.

The problem with saying 2012 for you as an amount of time passing for you which would age you two years, is that a year wouldn't really have any meaning on your spaceship, other than an equivalency of time to how long it takes the earth to revolves around the sun one time. The date 2012, would become meaningless under time dilation.

Good points. I guess it depends on if the end of the universe would be defined by a date on the Earth, with the Earth as reference point, or by the time that passes (like a time counted from a previous moment, and 2012 would only be what the moment would be for us on Earth... if that makes sense).

 

[Eliot Wild]

So, I hate to jump to flawed conclusions and run, but it is getting close to happy hour by my clock . . . thank god Time Dilation is not a big problem at TGI Fridays in my neck of the woods.

But I guess the moral of the story is that regardless of who builds our spaceship, we ain't going to outrun the end of the universe . . . we just may end up getting more or less time before it happens depending on our relative speeds, distances from one another, the influence of gravity and other factors including time dilation.

Huh, I just hope it doesn't happen until I get at least two vodkas in me this evening. HA!!!

 

[Kerr]

So, I hate to jump to flawed conclusions and run, but it is getting close to happy hour by my clock . . . thank god Time Dilation is not a big problem at TGI Fridays in my neck of the woods.

But I guess the moral of the story is that regardless of who builds our spaceship, we ain't going to outrun the end of the universe . . . we just may end up getting more or less time before it happens depending on our relative speeds, distances from one another, the influence of gravity and other factors including time dilation.

Huh, I just hope it doesn't happen until I get at least two vodkas in me this evening. HA!!!

Lol, that is one way to look at it.

 

[True Faith]

Good points. I guess it depends on if the end of the universe would be defined by a date on the Earth, with the Earth as reference point, or by the time that passes (like a time counted from a previous moment, and 2012 would only be what the moment would be for us on Earth... if that makes sense).

Islmaic prospect, when life on earth will come to an end (al-Qiyamah). Angel Israfil will blow the horn. This tremendous blast will rip the hearts of the humans and kill all living creature on earth, including humans and, jinn; no humans or jinn will stay alive.
After the death of the humans, the angels will die, the last of them to die would be ^Azra’il. Some scholars said: Except for the angels in charge of Paradise, the angels in charge of Hellfire, those who carry the Throne, al-Hur, and al-Wildan. After that Allah will bring Israfil back to life, who had already blown the horn the first time, he will blow it a second time; forty years after the first one; making the dead people come out of their graves for the questioning (as-Su’al) and al-Hisab (Questioning).

 

[Kerr]

Islmaic prospect, when life on earth will come to an end (al-Qiyamah). Angel Israfil will blow the horn. This tremendous blast will rip the hearts of the humans and kill all living creature on earth, including humans and, jinn; no humans or jinn will stay alive.
After the death of the humans, the angels will die, the last of them to die would be ^Azra’il. Some scholars said: Except for the angels in charge of Paradise, the angels in charge of Hellfire, those who carry the Throne, al-Hur, and al-Wildan. After that Allah will bring Israfil back to life, who had already blown the horn the first time, he will blow it a second time; forty years after the first one; making the dead people come out of their graves for the questioning (as-Su’al) and al-Hisab (Questioning).

Which didn´t answer the original question, which was about how the end of the world would be effected by that time is not a constant but rather something relative .

To illustrate more closely what I mean we can look at the twin paradox. It is a thought experiment. Basically if you have two twins. One twin takes a very high speed flight into space with a space ship for, say, 10 year. When he returns he finds that he has aged less then his twin on the Earth. Even though this is a purely hypothetical situation, it is built on a phenomenon called time dilation which, if I have interpreted what I have read correctly, has been observed.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Which didn´t answer the original question, which was about how the end of the world would be effected by that time is not a constant but rather something relative .

To illustrate more closely what I mean we can look at the twin paradox. It is a thought experiment. Basically if you have two twins. One twin takes a very high speed flight into space with a space ship for, say, 10 year. When he returns he finds that he has aged less then his twin on the Earth. Even though this is a purely hypothetical situation, it is built on a phenomenon called time dilation which, if I have interpreted what I have read correctly, has been observed.

You have interpreted correctly. Time dilation occurs through both relative motion and differing gravitational masses.

 

[logician]

For photons traveling at the speed of light, time has stopped, they arrrive at their destination instantenously (from their viewpoint). From our viewpoint, they travel at the speed of light.

 

[Kerr]

For photons traveling at the speed of light, time has stopped, they arrrive at their destination instantenously (from their viewpoint). From our viewpoint, they travel at the speed of light.

An interesting question would be if we traveled at the speed of light, would we freeze or would we just not realize time has stopped for us? I would suspect we wouldn´t notice, from the little I have read about relativity.

But it is off topic anyway, but I am still curious.

 

[PolyHedral]

The latter, if the question can be answered meaningfully. It's impossible for a massive object, i.e. you, to travel at the speed of light.

 

[wmjbyatt]

It seems like a lot of people here don't understand the science. This is actually a really good question, Kerr, and I applaud it. First of all, we have experimental data that special relativity happens. Two atomic clocks were synched on earth and then one was flown very quickly around the planet. Upon re-joining, the clocks were a few milliseconds separate--exactly as special relativity predicted.

My thought is that God, being outside the Universe, would be able to deny the non-simultaneity constructs of special relativity. Basically, I don't think there's any way of predicting how exactly that would play out in a relativistic construction without knowing the mechanism--if any--God would use to destroy the universe.

 

[Tiapan]

Since it is real matter that would be "destroyed?" then the interactions of destruction would follow physical laws of the universe ie happen no faster than the speed of light. This means it could not happen simultaneously through out the universe. Instead Gods end of universe finale could be a point source or possibly a planar event, but objects further away will be affected at a latter time to the initial victims. So I think the probability of instantaneous universal disintegration is little far fetched either Newtonian or relativistically.

Even if it is a local event (just the Earth) such as an asteroid impact, there will be areas of the earth less affected and later than the initial impact affected areas. I notice a similar impact on Mercury resulted in severe geological disturbance on the opposite side of the planet as the shockwaves from the impact side were refracted and focused on the other side. So areas perpendicular to the impact will have higher initial survival rates. Medium probability of an event eg one every one hundred million years, but it could be tomorrow as well.

Definite local event eg a city or small country, earth quake, volcanic activity, flood, tsunami, nuclear, biological, chemical war could all result in local annihilation how ever beyond the affected area survival would be high. Probability High - one in 100 years.

The concept of the photons point of view is intriguing, consider how the universe it interacts with appears. At relativistic speed time dilates and length contracts, eg determine what speed a 10 ft plank will fit in a 9 ft room.

If god is outside our universal physics then he cannot interact with our universe, so he must be inside if anything.

Cheers

 

[PolyHedral]

My thought is that God, being outside the Universe, would be able to deny the non-simultaneity constructs of special relativity.

It doesn't make sense for God to "magic" constructions that don't actually exist in the universe into being. Whether or not two events happen at the same time is dependent entirely on your speed and position to the two events. There's no way to change that, if Relativity is anywhere near the "true" theory of the universe.

determine what speed a 10 ft plank will fit in a 9 ft room.

For the curious, 0.43c