Why does time change when traveling close to the speed of light? A physicist explains
Why does time change when traveling close to the speed of light? – Timothy, age 11, Shoreview, Minnesota
Imagine you're in a car driving across the country watching the landscape. A tree in the distance gets closer to your car, passes right by you, then moves off again in the distance behind you.
Of course, you know that tree isn't actually getting up and walking toward or away from you. It's you in the car who's moving toward the tree. The tree is moving only in comparison, or relative, to you – that's what we physicists call relativity. If you had a friend standing by the tree, they would see you moving toward them at the same speed that you see them moving toward you.
In his 1632 book 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems,' the astronomer Galileo Galilei first described the principle of relativity – the idea that the universe should behave the same way at all times, even if two people experience an event differently because one is moving in respect to the other.
If you are in a car and toss a ball up in the air, the physical laws acting on it, such as the force of gravity, should be the same as the ones acting on an observer watching from the side of the road. However, while you see the ball as moving up and back down, someone on the side of the road will see it moving toward or away from them as well as up and down.
Special relativity and the speed of light
Albert Einstein much later proposed the idea of what's now known as special relativity to explain some confusing observations that didn't have an intuitive explanation at the time. Einstein used the work of many physicists and astronomers in the late 1800s to put together his theory in 1905, starting with two key ingredients: the principle of relativity and the strange observation that the speed of light is the same for every observer and nothing can move faster. Everyone measuring the speed of light will get the same result, no matter where they are or how fast they are moving.
Let's say you're in the car driving at 60 miles per hour and your friend is standing by the tree. When they throw a ball toward you at a speed of what they perceive to be 60 miles per hour, you might logically think that you would observe your friend and the tree moving toward you at 60 miles per hour and the ball moving toward you at 120 miles per hour. While that's really close to the correct value, it's actually slightly wrong.
This discrepancy between what you might expect by adding the two numbers and the true answer grows as one or both of you move closer to the speed of light. If you were traveling in a rocket moving at 75% of the speed of light and your friend throws the ball at the same speed, you would not see the ball moving toward you at 150% of the speed of light. This is because nothing can move faster than light – the ball would still appear to be moving toward you at less than the speed of light. While this all may seem very strange, there is lots of experimental evidence to back up these observations.
Time dilation and the twin paradox
Speed is not the only factor that changes relative to who is making the observation. Another consequence of relativity is the concept of time dilation, whereby people measure different amounts of time passing depending on how fast they move relative to one another.
Each person experiences time normally relative to themselves. But the person moving faster experiences less time passing for them than the person moving slower. It's only when they reconnect and compare their watches that they realize that one watch says less time has passed while the other says more.
This leads to one of the strangest results of relativity – the twin paradox, which says that if one of a pair of twins makes a trip into space on a high-speed rocket, they will return to Earth to find their twin has aged faster than they have. It's important to note that time behaves 'normally' as perceived by each twin (exactly as you are experiencing time now), even if their measurements disagree.
You might be wondering: If each twin sees themselves as stationary and the other as moving toward them, wouldn't they each measure the other as aging faster? The answer is no, because they can't both be older relative to the other twin.
The twin on the spaceship is not only moving at a particular speed where the frame of references stay the same but also accelerating compared with the twin on Earth. Unlike speeds that are relative to the observer, accelerations are absolute. If you step on a scale, the weight you are measuring is actually your acceleration due to gravity. This measurement stays the same regardless of the speed at which the Earth is moving through the solar system, or the solar system is moving through the galaxy or the galaxy through the universe.
Neither twin experiences any strangeness with their watches as one moves closer to the speed of light – they both experience time as normally as you or I do. It's only when they meet up and compare their observations that they will see a difference – one that is perfectly defined by the mathematics of relativity.
Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you'd like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.
And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you're wondering, too. We won't be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Michael Lam, Rochester Institute of Technology
Read more:
Why is astronomy a science but astrology is not?
How your emotional response to the COVID-19 pandemic changed your behavior and your sense of time
How could an explosive Big Bang be the birth of our universe?
Michael Lam does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
4 hours ago
- CNN
Small earthquake shakes the New York area. USGS says magnitude was 3.0
Earthquakes Federal agenciesFacebookTweetLink Follow A small earthquake rattled the New York metropolitan area Saturday night. The U.S. Geological Survey said the tremor had a magnitude of 3.0. It hit in the New Jersey suburb of Hasbrouck Heights, less than 8 miles west of Central Park, at a depth of about 6.2 miles. One resident of New York's Brooklyn borough described it as a very brief tremor, just a slight swaying for a moment. Nevertheless, social media quickly lit up with people who felt it. The official account of the Empire State Building reported in on the social platform X to say: 'I AM FINE.' The tremor was much milder than a 4.8-magnitude quake in 2024 that struck in Tewksbury, New Jersey, a little farther west of the city.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
National Science Foundation staff decry Trump's ‘politically motivated' cuts
Almost 150 workers from the National Science Foundation (NSF) have lambasted Donald Trump's cuts to the agency as 'politically motivated and legally questionable', joining colleagues at three other federal research agencies in warning that the administration is destroying innovation and sacrificing the US's position as a global scientific leader. The three-page dissent states the actions of the administration 'collectively amount to the systemic dismantling of a world-renowned scientific agency' and that they have been compelled to act because 'NSF employees are bound by their oath to uphold the Constitution.' The document condemns the decision as 'illegally' withholding $2.2bn of the $9bn budget appropriated by Congress for 2025 and the 'unlawful termination and threatened mass reductions' in the workforce, which has already seen more than 10% of the agency's staff dismissed. They also point to the termination of more than 1,600 active NSF grants 'using undisclosed criteria devised by the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge)' – the quasi-government agency set up by Trump's billionaire donor Elon Musk. Earlier this month, the Guardian reported on the unprecedented political interference being wielded by Doge which, together with the chaotic cuts, has already undermined the gold standard review process used by the NSF to support cutting-edge science, and was jeopardizing the future of US industries and economic growth. 'A covert and ideologically driven secondary review process by unqualified political appointees is now interfering with the scientific merit-based review system,' the letter states. The best public interest journalism relies on first-hand accounts from people in the know. If you have something to share on this subject you can contact us confidentially using the following methods. Secure Messaging in the Guardian app The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end to end encrypted and concealed within the routine activity that every Guardian mobile app performs. This prevents an observer from knowing that you are communicating with us at all, let alone what is being said. If you don't already have the Guardian app, download it (iOS/Android) and go to the menu. Select 'Secure Messaging'. SecureDrop, instant messengers, email, telephone and post See our guide at for alternative methods and the pros and cons of each. The NSF was created 75 years ago and until Trump took office for his second term had enjoyed bipartisan support. It is the only federal agency that funds fundamental research across all fields of science and engineering, and which over the years has contributed to major breakthroughs in organ transplants, gene technology, AI, smartphones, extreme weather warning systems, American sign language, cybersecurity and even the language app Duolingo. Trump's budget proposal calls for a 56% cut to the NSF budget for 2026, which if enacted 'would undermine US leadership in science, eliminate funding for over 250,000 researchers and students, and break bipartisan commitments made under the CHIPS and Science Act', the letter states. The NSF statement follows similar unprecedented dissent by hundreds of scientists and other staff at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and most recently the Voyager Declaration from almost 300 current and former Nasa scientists including four astronauts. All have warned about the devastating impact of the administration's arbitrary and chaotic cuts to staff and research funds on the lives of Americans – now and in the future – in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy including Trump's billionaire donors. The NSF dissent is addressed to California member of Congress Zoe Lofgren, the top Democrat on the House science committee, who has repeatedly condemned Trump's assault on science. Only one employee, Jesus Soriano, president of the local chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees which represents two thirds of the NSF's unionized bargaining unit, included his name; 148 of the 149 signatories are anonymous due to fear of reprisals. The fear is well founded given that around 140 named signatories of the EPA 'declaration of dissent' were put on administrative leave, and Lee Zeldin, the climate change denier and EPA secretary, warned that there was a 'zero-tolerance policy for career bureaucrats unlawfully undermining, sabotaging, and undercutting' the current administration. It ends with a stark warning: 'NSF employees are committed to serving the American people through research, education, and innovation. But they cannot do so under fear, censorship, and institutional sabotage. Without immediate oversight and corrective action from Congress, one of our nation's greatest engines for scientific and technological advancement faces irreversible long-term damage. Put simply, America will forfeit its scientific leadership position to China and other rival nations.'
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
A professor had a $2.4m grant to study Black maternal health. Then Trump was elected
Jaime Slaughter-Acey was in a state of shock and anger when she learned that her National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded study on birth outcomes in Black families was cancelled this spring. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill associate professor in epidemiology said that she felt like 'the rug was pulled out from under us' when the university called her to share the news. The termination notice said that the study no longer met the agency's priorities and didn't promise to increase life expectancy. 'It was heartbreaking,' Slaughter-Acey told the Guardian, 'and honestly, infuriating given the high rates of maternal and infant mortality in this country.' The cancellation came as the Trump administration terminated 1,902 NIH grants totalling more than $4.4bn between his January inauguration and the end of July, according to Grant Witness data. NIH followed guidance from the so-called 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) and Trump's executive orders to cut costs. Additionally, in April, the Trump administration let go of a majority of the staff at the federal Division of Reproductive Health, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) office that collects data on maternal experiences. It also surveils pregnancy-related deaths in an effort to reduce infant mortality and improve health outcomes for mothers and their children. Related: 'A scary time to be a scientist': how medical research cuts will hurt the maternal mortality crisis Slaughter-Acey's several-year study funded by a more than $2.4m NIH grant aimed to look at how social and biological factors affect outcomes for more than 500 Black women in Detroit. The grant termination froze the team's more than $581,000 remaining funding. Through blood samples and surveys of Black mothers and grandmothers, Slaughter-Acey and her team aimed to understand if social environments accelerated how bodies physiologically age, otherwise known as biological ageing, which may lead to adverse pregnancy outcomes for Black women. She said that the research is 'designed to tell us how social environment and the pathways that social environment affects us physiologically, to then increase this risk that Black moms and Black babies have with respect to pregnancy'. While most studies that look at racism only focus on one point in time, Slaughter-Acey said that hers was 'the first study to comprehensively examine how exposure to structural, cultural and intergenerational racism throughout a Black woman's life impacts her epigenome and her child's birth outcomes.' It was also innovative because Black women are underrepresented in epigenomic studies, a field where researchers look at how environment and behavior impacts a person's genes, said Slaughter-Acey, due to medical mistrust and experiences of racism in the healthcare system. 'When science is silenced, communities suffer' The NIH-grant cancellation in late March followed the release of data from the CDC revealing that Black women were the only race or ethnic group who didn't experience a decline in deaths from pregnancy related causes in 2023. Out of every 100,000 live births, 50.3 Black mothers died, compared with 14.5 deaths for white people, 12.4 for Latinos and 10.7 for Asians. The NIH didn't respond to a request for comment. Slaughter-Acey fears that the grant-cancellation signals that research and efforts to close the maternal death gap are at risk of coming to a standstill under the Trump administration. Other NIH grants that have been terminated include one that looked at prenatal exposure to public drinking water contaminants and a study that analyzed why women of color die of cervical cancer at a disproportionate rate. On Thursday, the Trump administration froze UCLA research grants from federal agencies including NIH and the National Science Foundation totaling nearly $200m, accusing the university of antisemitism and discrimination in admissions. 'It's part of a larger pattern of political interference in science that puts the health of all people at risk, especially vulnerable populations,' Slaughter-Acey said. The study 'is about understanding the root causes of poor maternal and infant health in this country – something that affects all of us, regardless of race or background. When science is silenced, communities suffer'. Still, Slaughter-Acey and her team are hopeful that the study will continue for years to come as they search for alternative funding sources, including donations. On Slaughter-Acey's LinkedIn page, she called upon her followers to donate to the University of North Carolina Department of Epidemiology, and to include a note that they support Slaughter-Acey's work, or the name of the study, 'LIFE-2'. 'The voices of these 500 plus moms and babies should not die or be silenced with the termination of this grant,' she told the Guardian. The pull in funding 'is an example of erasure of black mothers and infants'. There has been some temporary relief. This June, Slaughter-Acey's team received short-term funding from Michigan State University to continue their study over the next few months. Now nearly 600 moms are enrolled in the study, but without additional funding, it will probably pause again at the end of the year. 'We need research that reflects Black women's experiences' The nearly 600 women who have joined the study were recruited from local delivery hospitals in Detroit, Michigan, in the day or two following childbirth. Slaughter-Acey chose Detroit since she completed her post-doc at the University of Michigan, where she researched the influence of social environments on Black maternal health. Participants for her study, which began in 2021, completed a post-delivery survey where they answered questions about social determinants of health including housing and food insecurity throughout their life. Along with collecting their blood through a finger prick, researchers also collect the babies' and mothers' birth certificates from the state health department as well as the mothers' blood that was collected at birth and stored in a biobank. About 20% of the babies' grandmothers are also participating in the study by answering questions about the social environment during their pregnancies and their daughters' early childhoods. The multilevel data collection allows the researchers to create 'this robust and triangulated dataset that includes social determinants of health, like information about food and housing insecurity', Slaughter-Acey said. 'It's capturing a more holistic view than what's been captured previously for moms in terms of maternal and infant health.' After the moms are discharged from the hospital, the researchers also follow up with a majority of the women eight to 10 weeks after they give birth to ask about their adjustment to motherhood, whether they've received support for breastfeeding, a postpartum healthcare visit, or if they've experienced discrimination from their healthcare providers. At the time of the funding termination, the research team was in the process of creating a 12-month postpartum checkup with the mothers to help define maternal thriving. 'When we are talking about maternal morbidity and mortality, we're defining maternal health by the absence of disease, by mom not dying, by mom not having a severe morbidity,' Slaughter-Acey said. 'But the field in general does not have a good understanding or even definition of, 'what does maternal thriving look like?' And we need to get past this conversation of maternal survival, and move to thriving.' More than two years of funding remained in the NIH grant, during which her team had planned to recruit more mothers and to conduct data analysis. They also aimed to create a website for participants to read about the study's findings. Related: Consent decrees force schools to desegregate. The Trump administration is striking them down But the data that the team has analyzed thus far has revealed that mothers with a lot of adverse childhood experiences were more likely to have conflict with the father of the child. The finding, Slaughter-Acey said, 'underscores the importance of understanding how the social environment influences relationship dynamics and maybe perinatal outcomes. We know that social support is key during pregnancy'. The team also found that one in five study participants experienced housing insecurity during their pregnancy, a factor that she said greatly affects perinatal health and is rarely documented in hospital records. They also created a tool to measure racial microagressions from healthcare providers and in the mothers' everyday life, since many in the cohort said that they experienced harmful interactions that Slaughter-Acey said may explain why they felt unsupported. For Slaughter-Acey, the study findings 'highlight how structural inequities – across housing, healthcare, and personal history – intersect to shape maternal and infant outcomes. And they underscore why we need research that listens to and reflects the full complexity of Black women's experiences.' NIH research funding will probably continue to take a hit under the Trump administration. A new Trump administration policy requiring that multiyear grants be paid upfront lowers the odds that a research proposal will be accepted. As a result, university labs may close. Solve the daily Crossword
