Interstellar- time dilation
Discussion
Watching Interstellar again, and I still can't get my head around the time dilation bit. I think I understand the basic principle that gravity causes time to appear more slowly to different observers. But what I can't understand is how the guy not on the planet physically ages when the others don't.
Surely a human body ages and degrades over a linear timeline. Two bodies might experience time moving differently but the cellular breakdown happens on the same timeline?
It would make sense to me if those who landed on the planet aged in the normal way, but they observe time differently. So they experience 3 and a bit hours. But age 23 years.
I appreciate this is a film and its theoretical physics but can someone explain what I'm missing?
Surely a human body ages and degrades over a linear timeline. Two bodies might experience time moving differently but the cellular breakdown happens on the same timeline?
It would make sense to me if those who landed on the planet aged in the normal way, but they observe time differently. So they experience 3 and a bit hours. But age 23 years.
I appreciate this is a film and its theoretical physics but can someone explain what I'm missing?
Scabutz said:
Surely a human body ages and degrades over a linear timeline. Two bodies might experience time moving differently but the cellular breakdown happens on the same timeline?
Cells are subject to time as well. Time isn't something that just exists as an abstract concept in the human consciousness. It's an actual thing and is part of the workings of every atom in the universe, some atoms have more time than others. Time dilation is very real and for those on the planet in the movie time really would of run slower, its why the clocks used on the GPS satellites need constant adjustments or the errors caused by the fact they are running at a different speed to us on the earth would make your satnav wildly inaccurate
The perception of time passing is not distinct from the rate of time passing, it is not a psychological effect. To experience 3.5 hours passing and age 23 years would be a far more bizarre phenomenon.
Time is relative and affected by motion. An enormous gravity well such as a black hole causes those in its vicinity to experience a massive acceleration. This means they are travelling much faster through the physical dimensions and therefore slower in the temporal one.
Gravity causes acceleration causes time slowing. It’s that simple.
Time is relative and affected by motion. An enormous gravity well such as a black hole causes those in its vicinity to experience a massive acceleration. This means they are travelling much faster through the physical dimensions and therefore slower in the temporal one.
Gravity causes acceleration causes time slowing. It’s that simple.
MiseryStreak said:
The perception of time passing is not distinct from the rate of time passing, it is not a psychological effect. To experience 3.5 hours passing and age 23 years would be a far more bizarre phenomenon.
Time is relative and affected by motion. An enormous gravity well such as a black hole causes those in its vicinity to experience a massive acceleration. This means they are travelling much faster through the physical dimensions and therefore slower in the temporal one.
Gravity causes acceleration causes time slowing. It’s that simple.
OK, so it's actually slowing down time, not just the observer's perception of time. That makes sense. Thanks. The explanations I've read refer to an observation and I think I've confused an observation with a perception. I.e. someone observes time moving differently because it actually is moving different. Time is relative and affected by motion. An enormous gravity well such as a black hole causes those in its vicinity to experience a massive acceleration. This means they are travelling much faster through the physical dimensions and therefore slower in the temporal one.
Gravity causes acceleration causes time slowing. It’s that simple.
I’ve just watched Tenet. Reading this thread earlier reminded me that I’d never seen it (another Nolan film).
If the time effects in Interstellar confuse you, give Tenet a miss. I haven’t got the slightest clue what just happened. The film is one big plot hole and doesn’t seem to mind.
If the time effects in Interstellar confuse you, give Tenet a miss. I haven’t got the slightest clue what just happened. The film is one big plot hole and doesn’t seem to mind.
Scabutz said:
Watching Interstellar again, and I still can't get my head around the time dilation bit. I think I understand the basic principle that gravity causes time to appear more slowly to different observers. But what I can't understand is how the guy not on the planet physically ages when the others don't.
Surely a human body ages and degrades over a linear timeline. Two bodies might experience time moving differently but the cellular breakdown happens on the same timeline?
It would make sense to me if those who landed on the planet aged in the normal way, but they observe time differently. So they experience 3 and a bit hours. But age 23 years.
I appreciate this is a film and its theoretical physics but can someone explain what I'm missing?
The chap on the ship had been there for 23 years though waiting for the others to return. They had only been away for 3.5 hours.Surely a human body ages and degrades over a linear timeline. Two bodies might experience time moving differently but the cellular breakdown happens on the same timeline?
It would make sense to me if those who landed on the planet aged in the normal way, but they observe time differently. So they experience 3 and a bit hours. But age 23 years.
I appreciate this is a film and its theoretical physics but can someone explain what I'm missing?
To take your point to its logical conclusion the people on the planet would age and be dead before the day was out.
TX.
Scabutz said:
OK, so it's actually slowing down time, not just the observer's perception of time. That makes sense. Thanks. The explanations I've read refer to an observation and I think I've confused an observation with a perception. I.e. someone observes time moving differently because it actually is moving different.
As human observer our perception of time doesn't change. According to the general theory of relativity, gravitational time dilation is co-present with the existence of an accelerated reference frame. Additionally, all physical phenomena in similar circumstances undergo time dilation equally according to the equivalence principle used in the general theory of relativity (Wikipedia). The people on the planet and the people on the ship observe the time passing at the same rate. IE they would experience the same 24 hours a day that we do on Earth right now. Clocks would move the same and their bodies would age as if they had experience 24 hours. To the people on the planet, if they could see the people on the ship they would be moving and ageing very fast. And vice versa for the people on the ship if they were observing the people on the planet. And it's all related to their distance from a mass large enough to induce human observable time dilation effects.
MiseryStreak said:
I’ve just watched Tenet. Reading this thread earlier reminded me that I’d never seen it (another Nolan film).
If the time effects in Interstellar confuse you, give Tenet a miss. I haven’t got the slightest clue what just happened. The film is one big plot hole and doesn’t seem to mind.
I thought similar about Tenet at first, but read an explanation of it online after watching. Once you understand it, it is actually extremely clever. The problem is it’s supposed to be entertainment, but the Nolan omits key information and doesn’t explain the rules of the time traveling system. Deliberate apparently.If the time effects in Interstellar confuse you, give Tenet a miss. I haven’t got the slightest clue what just happened. The film is one big plot hole and doesn’t seem to mind.
He’s disappeared up his own backside (since Dunkirk) and thinks he can do whatever he wants and people should love it. He even deliberately botched the audio of the dialogue in Tenet to confuse people further. Clearly the man is very gifted and his earlier films are excellent (again, pre-dunkirk; I won’t get started on that).
Tenet needed someone else to step in and stop Nolan from doing what he did. The time travel system is fascinating, and probably my favourite of any film exploring time travel. Just a shame you need to read a long explanation after seeing the film, where you spent most of the time being deliberately confused by a cocky director.
MiseryStreak said:
I’ve just watched Tenet. Reading this thread earlier reminded me that I’d never seen it (another Nolan film).
If the time effects in Interstellar confuse you, give Tenet a miss. I haven’t got the slightest clue what just happened. The film is one big plot hole and doesn’t seem to mind.
I love Tenet. One of my favourite films. Although I agree 100% , after the 1st viewing I came away thinking what the bloody hell happened. If the time effects in Interstellar confuse you, give Tenet a miss. I haven’t got the slightest clue what just happened. The film is one big plot hole and doesn’t seem to mind.
I've seen it 5 times now and each time it makes a little more sense each time and you notice things that you missed. One thing I read I thought was interesting is the word Tenet appears on a sator square,all the words on that are in the film. Means nothing but adds a bit of mystery to it.
I also agree with the other poster that Nolan disappeared up his own arse. The timeline in Dunkirk is confusing as f
k. A cod, no maths explanation would be as follows…..
Space and time are inextricably linked, and normally the relationship between space and time is not altered, so we as humans just see time as a constant thing.
Remember all those films where space time is represented by a marble on a sheet? A black hole is a really, really heavy marble and distorts the sheet a lot. The Earth is a really light marble, and distorts the sheet a bit - but enough (for example) to alter time between the surface of the earth and a satellite a few hundred miles up.
Now imagine you’re looking at a black hole, You can see it, it is …. over there. But in terms of space time, it is at the bottom of the sheet. If the sheet was flat, it is (say) a million miles away. But the sheet isn’t flat, the black hole is at the bottom of a really, really deep well that your eyes can’t see. In space time terms, it is a billion miles away. As the speed of light is a constant, it takes much longer for the light around the black hole to reach your eyes. As an observer, you see something fall into the hole - and as it approaches the event horizon it appears to stop. From the perspective of the object, it is still travelling ever faster because it is falling down a well of infinite depth.
If you landed on a planet close to a black hole, per Interstellar, everything from a space time perspective is much father apart. You reach for a coffee cup in front of you, and you think your hand has moved 6 inches. But from a space time POV, your hand has moved a thousand miles. You would have no comprehension of this, because we don’t have any senses that link space and time - we see space, but time is a mental construct, and we are not equipped to cope with it changing.
Space and time are inextricably linked, and normally the relationship between space and time is not altered, so we as humans just see time as a constant thing.
Remember all those films where space time is represented by a marble on a sheet? A black hole is a really, really heavy marble and distorts the sheet a lot. The Earth is a really light marble, and distorts the sheet a bit - but enough (for example) to alter time between the surface of the earth and a satellite a few hundred miles up.
Now imagine you’re looking at a black hole, You can see it, it is …. over there. But in terms of space time, it is at the bottom of the sheet. If the sheet was flat, it is (say) a million miles away. But the sheet isn’t flat, the black hole is at the bottom of a really, really deep well that your eyes can’t see. In space time terms, it is a billion miles away. As the speed of light is a constant, it takes much longer for the light around the black hole to reach your eyes. As an observer, you see something fall into the hole - and as it approaches the event horizon it appears to stop. From the perspective of the object, it is still travelling ever faster because it is falling down a well of infinite depth.
If you landed on a planet close to a black hole, per Interstellar, everything from a space time perspective is much father apart. You reach for a coffee cup in front of you, and you think your hand has moved 6 inches. But from a space time POV, your hand has moved a thousand miles. You would have no comprehension of this, because we don’t have any senses that link space and time - we see space, but time is a mental construct, and we are not equipped to cope with it changing.
You could look at it like this - gravity doesn't warp time, the warping of time causes gravity...
https://youtu.be/UKxQTvqcpSg
[I know, but, you know...]
https://youtu.be/UKxQTvqcpSg
[I know, but, you know...]
andy_s said:
You could look at it like this - gravity doesn't warp time, the warping of time causes gravity...
https://youtu.be/UKxQTvqcpSg
[I know, but, you know...]
Thanks, enjoyed that. https://youtu.be/UKxQTvqcpSg
[I know, but, you know...]
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff