Cosmic Radiation Speeds up Aging in Space? 218
SpaceAdmiral writes "The Theory of Relativity tells us that the faster a person travels the slower time passes for that person relative to someone left on Earth. This means that traveling at high velocities in a spacecraft should reduce one's aging. However, recent research suggests that cosmic radiation may counteract that anti-aging effect. Iron-nuclei radiation affects the aging of cells, which is possibly one of the reasons astronauts who have been to the Moon tend to get cataracts about 7 years earlier than other astronauts."
So... (Score:5, Funny)
Cataracts? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So... (Score:2)
Re:From my cold dead hands (Score:2)
Not much connection between those two things (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting hit by a lot of hard radiation causes all sorts of cellular problems, not just cataracts.
How are the two connected again?
Re:Not much connection between those two things (Score:3, Informative)
It merely provided an example of the radiation possibly causing an acceleration of aging. This does not mean the astronauts in question were majorly affected by relativity.
Re:Not much connection between those two things (Score:2)
Re:Not much connection between those two things (Score:2)
Re:Not much connection between those two things (Score:2)
Are you sure about that? It was introduced into Physics by GR but I'm not sure wormholes have been completely ruled out.
Re:Not much connection between those two things (Score:2)
Mycroft
Re:Not much connection between those two things (Score:2)
Doh! Got my paradoxes mixed up, I was thinking of the Grandfather Paradox".
The Twins Paradox [wikipedia.org] was inspired by Einstiens work and solved many years ago.
Re:Not much connection between those two things (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly what I thought when I read this article. The effects of relativity won't be "counteracted" by cosmic radiation any more than a diet of donuts and lard can counteract the effects of relativity.
Big surprise, radiation kills you.
Re:Not much connection between those two things (Score:2)
The "discovery" is that the radiation will take away the "1 year" portion of your
Re:Not much connection between those two things (Score:2)
Exactly! What I thought, when I read this article: perhaps our engineers will develop better radiation shielding by the time our spacecraft are able to approach the speed of light?
Re:Not much connection between those two things (Score:2)
The hell?
Re:Not much connection between those two things (Score:2)
Re:Not much connection between those two things (Score:2)
Re:Not much connection between those two things (Score:2)
Uh, thermal energy: random motions of molecules/atoms/whatever on a microscopic scale?
The energy I use to conduct metabolic activities and which provides that heat comes from the Sun via EM radiation. But heat? Not radiation.
Re:Not much connection between those two things (Score:2)
Uh, thermal energy: random motions of molecules/atoms/whatever on a microscopic scale?
from wikipedia:
"Heat is a process quantity--as opposed to being a state quantity--and is to thermal energy as work is to mechanical energy."
and
"Infrared radiation is often linked to heat, since objects at room temperature or above will emit radiation mostly concentrated in the mid-infrared band"
Re:Not much connection between those two things (Score:2)
And "linked to heat" does not mean "is heat". Infrared is associated with warm objects because that's where things in our common experience tend to emit most of their thermal energy. (Hotter objects will shift that into the visible or beyond.) In much the same w
Re:Not much connection between those two things (Score:2)
Perfect solution for clones (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Perfect solution for clones (Score:2)
If we assume that we can bombard them with x amount of quantity of y radiation to decrease maturation time by z, we must assume a disorder rate of (x*M)*z-21.
This means that x amount time M, which is the average Mutation count per quantity of y radiation. Then the decreased in maturation time, z, minus 21 which is the legally "mature"(adult) age for total bombardment time multiplied by the
Re:Perfect solution for clones (Score:2)
Re:Perfect solution for clones (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Perfect solution for clones (Score:2)
So there really are just 10 types of people....
Bah! (Score:5, Funny)
Young.. (Score:5, Funny)
Miss Young was unavailable for comment.
Yeah, but that won't alter time (Score:5, Insightful)
The aging does not "counteract" the relativity. For example, you may look like you aged 50 years, but only 20 will actually have passed for you. Meanwhile, 50 years may actually have passed on Earth.
Cosmic radiation may age you, but it will not accelerate time.
Re:Yeah, but that won't alter time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, but that won't alter time (Score:3, Informative)
This means that traveling at high velocities in a spacecraft should reduce one's aging.
No it won't. I will reduce the appearance of time's progression on a person, from everyone outside that persons sphere of perspective. They will still have lived the same amount of relative time as someone else would have.
You weren't clear, and it sent shivers up a lot of people's backs.
Re:Yeah, but that won't alter time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, but that won't alter time (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, but that won't alter time (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, but that won't alter time (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, but that won't alter time (Score:2)
Not when it is presented as if there is some mathematical connection between living cells being damaged by high energy radiation, and the special theory of relativity.
Re:Yeah, but that won't alter time (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, but that won't alter time (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously not, because your description shows that you're confused about how it works. Which isn't surprising -- most people are. I've got a degree in Physics, and I still find much of this stuff to be very counter-intuitive.
As for the situation of a guy travelling at 0.99999c for a while and then coming back to Earth at the same speed, the two trips do NOT cancel out. The difference is that the traveller was accelerated to that speed, then deaccelerated until he stop
Re:Yeah, but that won't alter time (Score:2)
Scratch that -- I see what you meant. (The rest still applies, however.)
In any event, general relativity basically says that reaching 1 c is impossible. It doesn't say that you can't go faster than that (tachyons [wikipedia.org] supposedly spend their entire life above the speed of light) -- it just says that matter can't go exactly the speed of light. As for what exactly happens at warp one, you'll have to ask Gene Roddenbery for the specifics,
Re:Yeah, but that won't alter time (Score:2)
I think that a tachyon would exist backwards in time relative to us, and as it slowed and approached 1 c, time as seen by it would slow (but still be going backwards.) Of course, I'm not
Re:Yeah, but that won't alter time (Score:2)
All I'm saying is that we won't know untill we try, and it makes no sense (to me) until it happens. I sure we all saw Flight of the Navigator [imdb.com]. That's when I became intrueged with relativity,
Re:Yeah, but that won't alter time (Score:4, Funny)
The effects of relativity have been measured experimentally. Atomic clocks put onto planes and flown around the world have been found to run very slightly slower, and subatomic particles that are known to last for X picoseconds have been found to last much longer when zipping about at 0.999c. Neat stuff -- coming up with theories like this is one thing, but actually showing the effects in the real world -- that's what's really neat.
Re:Yeah, but that won't alter time (Score:2)
Particle accelerators "try" every day. They pump gigantic amounts of energy into protons, electrons and other particles, get them up to a hair below c, but never any hint of reaching or exceeding c (in vacuum, I know you can go faster than light does in glass, water, etc).
Re:Yeah, but that won't alter time (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, but that won't alter time (Score:5, Informative)
If you are going to pontificate on a subject you might want to spend a little time actually studying it first. Einstein's idea that the speed of light was independent of observer had a lot to do with the results coming from Maxwell's equations and the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Only a dilettante could think there was a useful analogy to the speed of sound in this context.
It is also worth noting that time dilation and lorentz contaction are effects of special relativity that are verified on a daily basis in particle accelerators everywhere around the world. It is not a subject on which one holds an opinion except insofar as how you want to explain the overwhelming amount of independently measured results.
This part of physics has now been around for over a century (Einstein's first paper on relativity appeared in 1905) and the math behind it has been around even longer. There aren't too many books on differential geometry for the layman but there are many good sources of information about relativity theory by Kip Thorne, John Wheeler and others.
Isn't this already known? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't Einstein still correct? (Score:2)
It's hysterical, and the editors knew it (Score:5, Insightful)
Einstein was completely correct. What's wrong is the idea that you can use the time-dilation effect to get to another solar system safely if you can get close enough to light speed, since even short times in space cause health effects. Which has nothing to do with "aging" per se, and even less to do with relativity. And still less to do with NASA's immediate plans, since NASA only has solar-system travel in mind for the next few decades.
So the final tally is:
Space travel: still dangerous
Einstein: correct
Article author: dipstick
Re:It's hysterical, and the editors knew it (Score:2)
What everyone's overlooking here is this:
If you've got a power source capable of accelerating a spaceship to 0.99c for years at a time, you've got also a power source capable of deflecting the induced radiation from your travels, and you're probably not so worried about ship mass that you can't affo
Re:It's hysterical, and the editors knew it (Score:2)
No, active shielding doesn't help much against GCR [physicamedica.com].
Re:It's hysterical, and the editors knew it (Score:2)
>
>No, active shielding doesn't help much against GCR [physicamedica.com].
The paper you quote appears to be discussing designs for interplanetary flights using technologies achievable today. (A reasonable approach - I'm mainly addressing the folks who are talking about time dilation effects as related to space travel :)
2.1: Electrostatic requirements "exceed the state of the art by over an order of magnitude".
Th
Re:It's hysterical, and the editors knew it (Score:2)
In terms of achievable electrostatic potentials? Hardly. There haven't been any significant innovations in charge buildup since the 60s that I can think of. You're talking about launching a half kilometer long Van de Graaf generator and accelerating it to relativistic speeds. Not going to happen.
The radiation induced by flying headlong into whatever ionized crap happens to be in interstellar space (however thin
Re:It's hysterical, and the editors knew it (Score:2)
Sigh.
SB
Well that spoils it for me (Score:2)
How much would it cost to Lorentz contract my time so I can stop in the year 3006? A couple of gazillion? Would I even want to see how much more screwed up the world will be in another thousand years?
Maybe that radiation wouldn't be such
anti-aging effects? (Score:3, Insightful)
Lying makes you go blind DOUBLE PROOF (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Lying makes you go blind DOUBLE PROOF (Score:2)
which begs the question,
why is it called "begging the question?"
Word Choice (Score:2)
Cosmic Radiation can also have positive effects (Score:2)
Re:Cosmic Radiation can also have positive effects (Score:2)
Sorry to disagree, but that's a ridiculous claim. (Score:2)
Sincerely,
Reed Richards.
It gets worse (Score:3, Funny)
Not quite correct. (Score:2)
The speed at which electromagnetic radiation propagates is constant, regardless of your velocity. If you are 'standing still' relative to the universe, light travels at 300,000 km/sec. If you accelerate at 1 km/sec for 300,000 seconds and measure the speed of light, it will be traveling at 300,000 km/sec (and just to be clear, you will not be traveling at 300,000 km/sec at that poi
Re:Not quite correct. (Score:2)
Not quite correct, part Deux (Score:2)
Re:Not quite correct, part Deux (Score:2)
This has got to be the most bizarre introduction (Score:2)
I mean who writes these things? Can you talk about the aging effect of space rediation without going off on a tangent about relativity. The two are completely unrelated you know.
Also as others have said relativistic speeds do not really extend your life. From the point of view of the person travelling at a high speed his/her life will not feel any longer.
Cataracts? (Score:3, Funny)
Statistical relevance? (Score:2)
speed of travel is important? (Score:2)
Secondly, at the speed of light the aging process does not slow down. The rate at which I age is constant but you may view me as not having aged.
Lastly, would cosmic rays have a greater or lesser impact on your relative aging? If travelling at 90% instead of 50% of the speed of light increase my chances of being viewed as aging faster?
Maybe my questions are answered in the article but I tried to read it and my head
It's what you call... (Score:2)
Another idiotic title/summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just the traveller ages more slowly... (Score:2)
For a limited time, we will offer you the ultimate in longevity treatments. You'll fly off at ultra high velocities in one of our specially-designed rocket ships, which use certified Space Technology®. You'll be the envy of your friends, as they watch you age 50 or 100 time
Re:Not just the traveller ages more slowly... (Score:2)
Yes I know, but that's not what was stated in the submitted comment. The person who turns around and comes back breaks the symmetry of the situation. Also, "the twins paradox" is just a phrase. "Flux capacitor" and "warp drive" are other examples of phrases.
Very, very wrong.... (Score:2)
Just.
The Start of Something New (Score:3, Informative)
The classic example in neuroscience is the case history of Phineas P. Gage [wikipedia.org].
Space travel and Space Stations have provided us with a burgeoning catalogue of studies on the impact of extended stays in space on our and other metabolisms. The Biomedical Results From Skylab [nasa.gov] are an example of earlier studies. Space promises unique biological insights.
Send in the Robots (Score:4, Insightful)
As a child I had been wildly enthusiastic about manned space flight or even becoming an astronaut myself some day. The fact that my 11th birthday coincided with the Apollo 11 Moon landing probably has something to do with this (I'll let you do the math to figure out my age). Anyway we've spent over 3 decades going basically nowhere and as it turns out space is a really hazardous place to stay for long periods of time. So while I'm still very much pro space exploration it is time to hand the baton to robots. Insisting that Man can do some things better is probably only true for the short term anyway. Better to embrace our robotic assisted lives by using the space program as a driving program to accelerate robotics instead of as a meat grinder for human flesh.
What NASA should REALLY focus on are sample return missions. That is where the real big bang for scientific buck will come.
Whoa... (Score:2, Funny)
Lightspeed reduces ageing? (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as I'm aware if your were 20 and traveled at reletavistic speeds for 10 years you would be 30 at the end of your journey. However many more years may have passed at some arbitrary fixed point (relatively).
So this article is basically saying radiation reduces lifespan?
Re:Lightspeed reduces ageing? (Score:3, Informative)
ROTFLMAO (Score:4, Informative)
"How LOWWWWWW can we go?"
This is "recent" research. Sheesh. I remember hearing about cosmic radiation's effect of aging when I was like 4 yrs old. (I just turned 30.)
Anyways, can someone please review the articles for some relanvancy to life. I mean, sheesh, this is a known issue. It's why one of the discussions regarding all deep space missions revolves around how best to shield the crew from cosmic radiation.
*yawn*
Oh yes, btw,...let me show you this great new revolutionary idea I've come up with.... I call it the "Space Shuttle"
No, it's the radiation! (Score:2)
Man, you must have absorbed quite a dose to age 26 years between reading the article and posting a comment.
Apples and Oranges non-sequitor (Score:3, Insightful)
Then the article goes on to talk about cosmic radiation causing premature age-jaculation. Talk about apples and oranges... First of all, the obvious... sub-light speed travel does not reduce one's aging -- it would just appear that way (in theory) to a "stationairy" observer (as if there were such a thing). Second, actually using sub-light travel to let the world around you go by faster isn't really plausable, now, is it? Ok, those are the obvious ones. Something actually interesting (because it's real and verifiable) is that radiation does indeed cause telomere shortening. There is a correlation with increased age and shortened telomeres. The experiment should be relatively straightforward with model organisms sent to space, even in earth orbit, but one would have a difficult time proving causality: cosmic rays -> shortened telomeres -> premature aging.
What the article does not tell you, is that the amount of radiation that caused the telomere damage would necessarily also cause other DNA damage. In other words, the premature aging might be the last of your worries if you were actually exposed to cosmic radiation. One would probably die of cancer or radiation poisoning first.
Re:Apples and Oranges non-sequitor (Score:2)
Point in fact, a clock on the top of mt. Everest would tick slower then one at sea level. Same thing if you had a clock on a pole, and one on the equator.
There are two factors, speed an gravity.
Re:Apples and Oranges non-sequitor (Score:2)
Relativity does not slow down ageing (Score:2, Informative)
Confused? (Score:3, Insightful)
that's putting it mildly (Score:2)
Some Questions (Score:2)
Just what is iron-nuclei radiation, and how is it different from, say, tin-nuclei radiation? It's the term 'radiation' that's throwing me here. Is this like Alpha radiation' which are helium-nuclei? And if it's iron, why not stop it with a magnetic field?
Also, is there an 'At-Rest' speed in the universe where everything else is traveling faster than you against whatever reference the universe uses to measure speed, and hence time at this relative speed passes faster than at any other s
Re:Some Questions (Score:3, Informative)
I know a spacecraft with radiation shielding. (Score:2)
does anybody take physics anymore? (Score:2)
Small Sample (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sample size (Score:2)
Re:Sample size (Score:2)
What exactly was the conclusion that they drew? It seems to me that they've simply stated known data (astronauts who have visited the moon develop cataracts about 7 years earlier than those who haven't. That there were only 12 astronauts whom have visited the moon doesn't change this fact), and speculate that cosmic radiation may be the cause of these observed occurences since it affects the aging of cells.
If they would have said that visiting the moon causes you to develop cataracts 7 years earlier than u
Re:SAMPLE SIZE??? !!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:WRONG (Score:2)
Re:WRONG (Score:2)
Re:WRONG (Score:2)
Re:Relativity is not anti-aging (Score:2)
If I slept in a stasis field for 8 hour a night, I would live 33% longer.
Of course if it was a stasis field, it wouldn't count as sleep.