-2
$\begingroup$

We all know the effects of speed on time, and we have a formula for that, but I have a hunch, that time also is relative to pressure, and that by increasing the pressure on matter, in fact time will speed up for that matter.

I am not a physics expert ( I have a Masters Degree in Computer Engineering, and have hence taken several physics, math and chemistry classes ) so don't slaughter me, I would appreciate a talkative tone.

So I will say some "ideas" in my head that might be stupid, or assumptions from my understanding of how things are that are in fact wrong from an expert view, but please try to understand my intention or follow my idea of what I am thinking instead of focusing on details.

So, my thinking is that once something starts travelling near the speed of light, or the speed of light, it will start to dissolve, before turning into energy and becoming the lightest of all while dissolving = light, and hence is why it can travel at the speed of light. So if something is to travel at the speed of light, it actually have to be dissolved into energy.

The idea I have with pressure, is that if matter, in a pressure chamber, where pressure is turned up, the matter will eventually turn into pure energy as well = light.

I also have this thought, that once pressure is applied to matter, the atoms starts to vibrate, move faster, and a reaction that would normally take hundreds of years, can be achieved with quicker results in a pressure chamber because time for all that materia increases, not because of the pressure, but because time is happening faster, which supports my idea of time actually speeding up for those particles.

What happens with used reactor fuel in a pressure chamber today? How much can we speed up the halftime?

It appears to me that if this was true, it will be the contradiction to speed. A twin X travelling near the speed of light, will come back to visit an older twin Y on earth.

However, with pressure, it might just be the opposite, that twin X in the pressure chamber will in fact be older than twin Y outside.

Surely turning up pressure on a twin might not be so healthy, but neither is acceleration from 0 to the speed of light in 1s. So pressure is probably not a healthy way to speed up time for matter, it will probably destroy certain things in it.

Am I on something here? No?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm sorry, it appears to be that you're trying to establish a theory outside the realm of current. While we don't want to discourage that, our policy is to disallow non-mainstream physics. Note that if you are working within the framework of relativity, and just want to find out if and how pressure affects the time taken for a reaction, I suggest you edit your question to clarify that (currently it looks like you're trying to tweak relativity) $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Jul 3 '13 at 9:35
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, perhaps, thanks for clarifying, but I do think there should be room for discussions. All such a post takes is a line in a list. It is hard to find competent people on other forums and stackoverflow and stackexchange are always very anal. I don't get that. Let people create their own threads. Strictly Q & A is not always appropiate. Sometimes, one wants to ask a question and work together to achieve the best answer possible. This forum, although it has many benefits, focuses too much on A & Q, life is not that simple. And often there are many questions in a post, but here there is .. $\endgroup$ – mmm Jul 3 '13 at 12:37
  • $\begingroup$ always only one answer ... I am not saying this is your fault, just expressing my opinion that things always can improve. Will stackoverflow / exchange stay like this forever? It shouldn't ... I don't get why you should censor my question. I am asking a question about time and pressure. If it has an answer, and it does, let it be. $\endgroup$ – mmm Jul 3 '13 at 12:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Unfortunately, the reason that SE has better quality than other forums is that we are pretty strict about what types of posts are allowed. Regarding non-mainstream physics, this rule is in place to prevent flamewars and all from happening, as well as to prevent people from using SE as a pitch for their own theory. Both of these things happen on places like Quora and Physicsforums, and it makes the place less inviting in general. We stick to Q&A because Q&A creates good and useful posts, while discussion and other things don't -- many end up in arguments. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Jul 3 '13 at 12:44
  • $\begingroup$ "and let it be" -- that's not how it works. I have no personal grudge here, but we have rules that need enforcing. If you don't like a rule, feel free to contest it on Physics Meta. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Jul 3 '13 at 12:50
3
$\begingroup$

Your idea about massive objects turning into energy as they approach the speed of light is unfounded. I know of nothing in physics that offers any way for this to happen. In the LHC we have accelerated massive particles to a hairs breadth away from the speed of light and they remain the same massive particles that they were in the lab rest frame.

However, although your going in point is entirely wrong you are actually correct that pressure can cause time to slow down - just not in the way you think. Pressure can act as a source of gravity. Although we usually think of mass being the source of gravity, in General Relativity the source is the stress-energy tensor. In most cases the stress-energy tensor is dominated by mass, but it does include pressure, and pressure does act as a source of gravity. Increasing the pressure will therefore decrease (make more negative) the gravitational potential energy and this will cause gravitational time dilation compared to an observer far from the gravitational field.

However the effect of pressure is entirely negligable except possible in extreme cases such as the interior of neutron stars. The effect of pressure on radioactive decay is immeasurably small for any pressures we could generate, which is a shame really as otherwise it would be a nice way to get rid of radioactive waste.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hi John, sorry but my answer was too long for this comment field, and I edited your answer to fit it. Let me know if that wasn't ok. Perhaps I should add it to my own question? $\endgroup$ – mmm Jul 2 '13 at 11:36
  • $\begingroup$ @Hamidam: I rejected your edit not because there was anything wrong with it, but because it's not a good way to ask for clarification. You should either edit your original question or ask a new question. I copied the text from your edit in case you didn't keep a copy of it. $\endgroup$ – John Rennie Jul 2 '13 at 12:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ NB the Physics Exchange isn't a forum type discussion site. It's intended for well focussed questions with reasonably concise answers. Obviously a reply can be discursive, and some of the best replies are more like mini-blog posts but discussions as such are frowned upon. You can take a discussion to the chat area. $\endgroup$ – John Rennie Jul 2 '13 at 12:03
  • $\begingroup$ Re the stuff in your edit, you have some mixed up ideas about the Big Bang. Searching this site for "FLRW metric" will find lots of answers (several from me!) clarifying what the Big Bang was and how the universe evolved. $\endgroup$ – John Rennie Jul 2 '13 at 12:06
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, thanks, I copied it too :) I read up a little about FLRW, it doesn't seem to be too far from what I was going on about!? It would be nice to have a chat someday :) $\endgroup$ – mmm Jul 2 '13 at 13:32

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.