/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11113882
it assumes a timelike trajectory all the way back. in other words, the 13.8 number is the upper limit taking into account time dilation

>>11113882
What a smart pupper. Also I’m pretty sure thats not quite the right way to think about it. My understanding is everywhere is the universe should be the same distance in spacetime from the big bang. Like time dilation is a relative thing, so the spaceship experiences time differntly to people on earth, but the start of the universe happened everywhere. Stuff traveling at the speed of light and the insides of black holes may be different because time maybe isn’t really a thing anymore.

>>11113882
oh my fucking god i saw this gif so long ago and didnt save and here it is again PRAISE ANONYMOUS

>>11113882
The stick is going through the fence on the right.

>>11113884

>>11113882
time dilation doesn't have much effect for things here on Earth, you could go slower (and experience time faster), but not by much. Zero out the cosmic background anomaly and you're "zero speed" in the Universe. Not even a fraction of c worth worrying about.

>>11113950
let me rephrase my question. what are the possible oldest and youngest quarks in the universe? is there a difference? 13,8billion years travelling with different speeds should have a effect on them, or not?
how big would the effect be? a second difference? a month? 1million years? or none?

>>11113882
I would cause some time dialation to your mom, if you know what I'm saying

13.8 billion years is the age of the OLDEST quark.

Photons released during the big bang haven't experienced even a second passing.

>>11114044
cool

but how "young" is the youngest quark?

>>11113929
Fuck. Why would you ruin this for me.

>>11113966
>13,8billion years travelling with different speeds should have a effect on them, or not?
Particles of the same type are indistinguishable.

>>11113882
There is a preferred frame in cosmology in which the distribution of matter (galaxy clusters, the cosmic microwave background, etc) is close to homogeneous. You can't apply a Lorentz boost and still get homogeneity. The 13.8 billion years is referring to this preferred frame.

The question about quarks doesn't quite make sense for a number of reasons, but in principle if you did have an unconfined distinguishable massive particle that was moving very fast with respect to this cosmological frame, it could have arbitrarily small proper time.

>>11113882