Studying how time is perceived in space

Studying how time is perceived in space
Credit: NASA

Einstein predicted that time slows down the faster you travel and the time-dilation hypothesis has since been proven by flying atomic clocks on aircraft.

The three fastest human beings at the moment are NASA astronaut Anne McClain, Canadian Space Agency astronaut David Saint-Jacques (pictured) and Roscosmos astronaut Oleg Kononenko who are orbiting Earth on the International Space Station at a speed of around 28,800 km/h.

They are travelling so fast that they will return home to Earth after their six-month spaceflight 0.007 seconds younger than if they had stayed with their feet on the ground.

But how do astronauts perceive time in space? Space Station crew report that time seems to speed up in microgravity so European researchers are trying to find out more by immersing astronauts in and testing their .

A is used to block external visual cues that could influence the results. The experiment focuses on how astronauts estimate time duration as well as their reaction times. They are asked gauge how long a visual target appears on screen. Their reaction times to these prompts are recorded to process speed and attention.

The astronauts run the experiment before flight, on the International Space Station and again when they land to compare results. ESA astronaut Alexander Gerst was the first test subject to take part in this experiment in 2018. Anne and David did a session in February in ESA's Columbus laboratory.

Understanding how time is perceived in space is important as astronauts are often required to conduct precision work where timing is everything. This research in microgravity will help reveal clues as to what helps keep our brains ticking the seconds accurately.


Explore further

Three astronauts blast off to International Space Station

Citation: Studying how time is perceived in space (2019, February 27) retrieved 21 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-02-space_1.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
31 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 27, 2019
But time doesn't exist because a couple jackanapes on the Physorg forum said so.

Feb 27, 2019
Well, MrB, obviously their time is up!

Feb 27, 2019
Consider:

Q1: How do we measure 'time' values for analysis purposes?
A1: By noting the motion/change across energy-space of the body/system under study as compared to motion/change over space/dial etc.

Q2: How do we measure energy-space values for analysis purposes?
A2: By noting the energy-space traversed/affected by the body under study's linear/cyclic motion/change over the 'path length' or 'distance' which the body has moved/changed within the energy-space extent.

Note:

TIME/TIMING concept/value ABSTRACTLY DERIVED....from the motion/change of the body WITHIN THE UNDERLYING REAL PHYSICALLY EFFECTIVE UNIVERSAL ENERGY-SPACE REFERENT; whereas,

ENERGY-SPACE DISTANCE concept/value DIRECTLY OBTAINED....from the motion/change of the body within the real physically EFFECTIVE ENERGY-SPACE REFERENT ITSELF, which is a fundamental physically effective entity in its own right (unlike 'time').

So 'time exists' ABSTRACTLY, NOT FUNDAMENTALLY. That's the EFFECTIVE difference. :)

Feb 27, 2019
Consider:


Okay, I consider him,,,, I consider it still just as stupid as when you posted him on the other article.

Feb 27, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
Consider:
Okay, I consider him,,,, I consider it still just as stupid as when you posted him on the other article.
Still bot-voting and trolling I see, Ira.

Never mind, your stupidity condition will cease once your full complement of 'little grey cells' comes on-line after your present 'troll disease' is cured. My commiserations for it taking so long already, Ira; the years have just flown by, haven't they, while you've been 'having funs' being stupid on the net like you have admitted to so often!

Anyhow, all joking aside, have you any comprehension of the science terminology/conceptual matters under discussion re 'time' and 'space'? If so, feel free to make your considered opinions known to the forum at large; instead of skulking like a sneaky bot-voting troll sliding from one dark shadowy corner to another within the otherwise bright enlightening halls of PO.

ps: Your apology was accepted last time, Ira; no need to keep apologising like that! :)

Feb 27, 2019
But time doesn't exist because a couple jackanapes on the Physorg forum said so.
says Bo

Well well, you seem to have forgotten all of the things that I tried to teach you. Perhaps a fair bit of dementia creeping up on you, aye?
So I will repeat. The CONCEPT OF TIME ONLY EXISTS IN THE MINDS OF HUMANS. It is the passage of events, such as the event of sunrise to sunrise that eventually caused humans to come up with the idea of manufacturing a CLOCK (That's Clock with an L, SpookyOtto) in order that they could determine HOW LONG IT TOOK FOR ONE CYCLE OF SUNRISE TO THE NEXT SUNRISE, Bo. They later came up with the revolutionary idea/concept that the cycle of one Earth's rotation amounted to 24 HOURS, Bo.
Fast forward to today. The nuclear clock (that's clock with an L again, SpookyOtto) has a tad bit of radioactive material in it. It is the ACTIONS of the electrons in the clock that move the numbers forward, Bo - not some mysterious little elf in the clock called Time.

Feb 27, 2019
Groundhog Day in a time warp

< Space Station crew report that time seems to speed up in microgravity >

What we learnt yesterday on Groundhog Day
we forget
because
Tomorrow is Groundhog Day again
as
all this proves
is
that
Time is all in the Mind

Feb 27, 2019
Err, atomic clocks don't use "radioactive material." And they're not called "nuclear clocks." And nobody said there's a "little elf in the clock." And it's a shame you don't understand these things, and won't make the effort to try.

You know, light moves in space at the speed of light. Why is that? Are there "mysterious little elves" moving all the photonies around? Matter moves too- in time. The faster it moves in space, though, the slower it moves in time, according to an outside observer. That's what relativity says.

Feb 27, 2019
Getting back to the matter at hand, the results of the experiments would be interesting to see. And this article isn't about time; it's about how people perceive time, and whether weightlessness makes a difference in that. It has nothing to do with relativity, nor time dilation, nor Einstein.

Another bad translation from the ESA, perhaps? Or just a bad writer.

Feb 27, 2019
Typically, troll was so busy trolling it didn't realize what people who knew what they were talking about were saying. Next time ask questions instead of ASSuming. .Especially given you don't understand math.

Feb 27, 2019
But time doesn't exist because a couple jackanapes on the Physorg forum said so.
says Bo

One of your jackanape friends has come in to refute what I have said to you, pretending all the while that Da Schnitzophrenic knows of which he speaketh. As usual, he doesn't.

The link may help both of you to understand what radioactive Caesium entails in a Caesium clock (that's clock with an L, @SpookyOtto)

https://www.lives...ork.html

Feb 27, 2019
Time doesn't move any more than distance moves. Matter and energy move in space and time.

They don't use radioactive anything in atomic clocks; it would mess up the measurement. Cesium-133 is stable, not radioactive.

The word "radioactive" does not exist in your link.

You have not the least slightest idea of how an atomic clock works. And therefore are not qualified to talk about it.

You should ask questions. You'd look a lot less stupid that way.

More science mythology by the trolls.

Feb 27, 2019
Of course since as with all elements cesium has radioactive isotopes, you immediately jump to the conclusion that "cesium is radioactive." Carbon has a radioactive isotope; does that mean all carbon is radioactive? So do nitrogen and oxygen and hydrogen; does that mean they are all radioactive?

Teh stupid, it burnz.

Feb 27, 2019
Still waiting for an explanation of why light travels at the speed of light.

It just does. We don't know that yet. Just like why matter travels at the speed of time. It just does.

Feb 27, 2019
@Bo
Yep, it appears that your jackanape buttbuddy, Da Schnitzophrenic can't be bothered to read the whole article re: radioactive Caesium clocks (that's clocks with an L, @SpookyOtto)

"When exposed to certain frequencies of radiation, such as radio waves, the subatomic particles called electrons that orbit an atom's nucleus will "jump" back and forth between energy states. Clocks based on this jumping within atoms can therefore provide an extremely precise way to count seconds."

Feb 27, 2019
Searched on "radioactive" in your article.

It's not there.

You're lying. You don't even know what radioactivity means.

Feb 27, 2019
Of course since as with all elements cesium has radioactive isotopes, you immediately jump to the conclusion that "cesium is radioactive." Carbon has a radioactive isotope; does that mean all carbon is radioactive? So do nitrogen and oxygen and hydrogen; does that mean they are all radioactive?

Teh stupid, it burnz.


Oh you WILL BURN, I can guarantee that.

Feb 27, 2019
Why, because I don't claim to be a mind-reading space alien for jebus who likes videos of women running away in terror?

Here's your jebus: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

This is the god you claim to worship. Maybe it should have lasers from its balls too. Looks like you're the unicorn.

Teh stoopit, it burnz.

Feb 27, 2019
@Bo
Notice that your friend, Da Schitzophrenic is not aware of the meaning of "radioactive". So here is the definition:

radioactive | ˌrādēōˈaktiv |
adjective
emitting or relating to the emission of ionizing radiation or particles: radioactive decay | the water was radioactive.
DERIVATIVES
radioactively adverb

The word "radiation" is in the article I presented, but Da Scheide didn't recognise its meaning.
LOL

Feb 27, 2019
The emissions from the electrons in an atom are not "radioactive." They aren't capable of ionization because they're not high enough in energy.

All radiations are not radioactive radiations. For example I have lights in my house and they are not radioactive. They radiate visible light. Maybe yours are radioactive, this would account for your psychosis.

You're lying again.

Feb 27, 2019
You do realize that you've declared that all light bulbs are "radioactive," right?

Maybe you should take them all out.

Candles won't help either; according to you, they're "radioactive" too since they radiate light.

The "ionizing radiation" part is apparently more than you can handle since you're innumerate.

Feb 27, 2019
Just so everyone understands, "innumerate" is like "illiterate" except with numbers instead of letters.

Feb 27, 2019
Oh, you mean like this?

Radiation From Light Bulbs
Study: Fluorescent Light Bulbs Emit High Levels Of UV Radiation. ... Researchers at Stony Brook University found energy-efficient bulbs emit high levels of harmful ultraviolet radiation. They randomly tested the bulbs and found the rays were so strong that they could actually burn your skin on the cellular level.
Study: Fluorescent Light Bulbs Emit High Levels Of UV Radiation ...
CBS Los Angeles


Feb 27, 2019
Got a link?

Just askin'. 'Cause, see, I don't believe you. You're a troll and you'll lie any way you can.

Says you have to stay 2 feet away from them. Do you often work after you've climbed on the ceiling?

Feb 27, 2019
Got a link?

Just askin'. 'Cause, see, I don't believe you. You're a troll and you'll lie any way you can.


I just gave you a link, dummy. YOU'RE the troll and everyone knows it - even your evil master knows it.
LOL

Feb 27, 2019
So you do climb onto the ceiling to work?

Noted. Sounds about like your claims to be a mind-reading space alien for jebus.

https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

Feb 27, 2019
Noted as well that you don't understand

atomic clocks
radioactivity
inverse square law
incandescent light bulbs
math

and bloviate about them all.

Feb 27, 2019
Nice try at equating incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents.

Every time you're cornered you just lie.

Honesty is the best policy. You are dishonest. And everyone can see it.

Feb 27, 2019
Dudebro thinks atomic clocks are radioactive.

Teh stoopit, it burnz.

Feb 27, 2019
Dudebro doesn't get that orbitals are not orbits.

Teh stoopit, it burnz.

Feb 27, 2019
Dudebro doesn't get coherence. Or for that matter exclusion.

Teh stoopit, it burnz.

Feb 27, 2019
Dudebro doesn't get half-life nor understand "stable."

Teh stoopit, it burnz.

Feb 27, 2019
In short, dudebro doesn't get math.

Teh stoopit, it burnz.

Feb 27, 2019
Got a link?

Just askin'. 'Cause, see, I don't believe you. You're a troll and you'll lie any way you can.


I just gave you a link, dummy. YOU'RE the troll and everyone knows it - even your evil master knows it.
LOL
Didn't see where you showed the link indicated radioactivity.

The word doesn't occur in your link.

You're lying again.

Feb 27, 2019
Trolls always lie.

Teh stoopit, it burnz.

Feb 27, 2019
Absolutely loving the radioactive atomic clocks. This is like the EU electric stars. Or how jebus makes photonies move with "little elves." Or how there are mind-reading space aliens. Comedy gold. Another bookmarked thread.

Feb 27, 2019
LOL, radioactive atomic clocks. Jebus with machine guns and lasers. Radioactive incandescent lights. Electron orbits. Electric Universe quasars. Baseballs that can't move.

Minds that can't think. It's a shame they're DK so they can't tell.

Re-iterating a previous point, DK means stupids don't know they're stupid. And can't ever find out, which is why they're trolls.

Feb 27, 2019
Prove me wrong. Figure it out. But every time you lie, you get caught, and it reduces your cred.

You know, like radioactive clocks and light bulbs.

Feb 27, 2019
Loving the radioactive light bulbs. Comedy gold. Great stuff.

Feb 28, 2019
Dudebro doesn't get the difference between UV and gamma.

It's like not getting the difference between a sledge hammer and a fly swatter.

Radioactive light bulbs and jebus: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

Feb 28, 2019
Well well, you seem to have forgotten all of the things that I tried to teach you. Perhaps a fair bit of dementia creeping up on you, aye?

The only thing you've taught anyone is the futility in engaging an insane person.
So I will repeat. The CONCEPT OF TIME ONLY EXISTS IN THE MINDS OF HUMANS.

That's your own flawed opinion, which you're entitled to. Just keep in mind your Creator invented time, not humans. Your arrogance will not go unpunished, blasphemer.

(That's Clock with an L, SpookyOtto) in order that they could determine HOW LONG IT TOOK FOR ONE CYCLE OF SUNRISE TO THE NEXT SUNRISE, Bo.


Are you incapable of communicating a point without randomly capitalizing words?


Feb 28, 2019
Oh, and let me add:
in order that they could determine HOW LONG IT TOOK FOR ONE CYCLE OF SUNRISE TO THE NEXT SUNRISE


Cycle: an interval of time during which a sequence of a recurring succession of events or phenomena is completed

lol

Feb 28, 2019
Keep denying reality, while simultaneously using words which rely on the existence of time to explain how time isn't real.

Mmmm delicious irony.

Feb 28, 2019
It's funny that velocity's effect on physical systems is translated into the slowing of a man made construct. I would wager every intelligent civilization in the universe as created "time" as it is crucial to understanding cause and effect intimately, which is necessary for scientific advancement. But to deduct that the construct behaves differently when the device measuring it is moving, when in reality the effect is on the measurement device itself....well, that's just silly.

Feb 28, 2019
above should say "has" created time.

Feb 28, 2019
@theredpill.
It's funny that velocity's effect on physical systems is translated into the slowing of a man made construct. I would wager every intelligent civilization in the universe as created "time" as it is crucial to understanding cause and effect intimately, which is necessary for scientific advancement. But to deduct that the construct behaves differently when the device measuring it is moving, when in reality the effect is on the measurement device itself....well, that's just silly.
Yes, it is a problematic side-effect of the human mind's tendency to reify/anthropomorphise things which otherwise have no EFFECTIVE status in objective physically reality, but only as abstraction/conceptual 'conveniences/tools' in the human created abstract analytical/communication 'maths/language construct'.

For a fuller explanation of the 'conceptual category' under which TIME and TEMPERATURE belong, please see:

https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Thanks. :)

Mar 01, 2019
..forgotten all of the things that I tried to teach you. Perhaps a fair bit of dementia creeping up on you, aye?

The only thing you've taught anyone is the futility in engaging an insane person.
So I will repeat. The CONCEPT OF TIME ONLY EXISTS IN THE MINDS OF HUMANS.

That's your own flawed opinion, which you're entitled to. Just keep in mind your Creator invented time, not humans. Your arrogance will not go unpunished, blasphemer.

...in order that they could determine HOW LONG IT TOOK FOR ONE CYCLE OF SUNRISE TO THE NEXT SUNRISE, Bo.


Are you incapable of communicating a point without capitalizing words?

says Bo

NO.
And no again. The Creator God did not "invent" Time. The act of creating Matter/Energy is/was an Event. Humans did not "invent" it either. Time was not "invented" - but only thought of by human brains/minds. Do make an attempt to understand that your comprehension skills are found wanting

Mar 01, 2019
Time was not "invented" - but only thought of by human brains/minds. Do make an attempt to understand that your comprehension skills are found wanting


I appreciate your concern for my comprehension skills, but you should reflect inwardly and understand your current predicament. The bible is the Creator's word, and the bible opens up with "In the beginning." Now, if you're uncomfortable with the idea of time existing outside the human mind, I suggest you pray on it and ask your Creator for guidance.

Now, you seemed to have had a moment of lucidity when you said in another thread
What you call Time was not created. It was always there.


Was it always there or does it only exist in the mind of man? You can't have it both ways. I implore you to accept time as a consequence of the Creator, as you briefly did, lest you be judged a blasphemer.

Mar 01, 2019

Was it always there or does it only exist in the mind of man? You can't have it both ways. I implore you to accept time as a consequence of the Creator, as you briefly did, lest you be judged a blasphemer.
says Bo

LOL I have no predicament - current or otherwise. But thanks for your concern. The Bible is inaccurate in Genesis in that the Hebrew scribes who wrote it did not write down all that they should have - instead, eliminating that which they either didn't comprehend, such as the true age of the Earth, as well as the age of the Universe since the Creation. They were told what to write and ignored the pertinent facts which their minds could not grasp. Typical ancient humans.
Time is a "nothing". Do you really think that the Creator God would have stopped to create Time first before He created the Matter/Energy required? Only Space existed. When Space was used to house Matter/Energy, it retained the ability to expand, dilate, curve, bend. Space is flexible.

Mar 01, 2019
Still waiting for a troll to say they can see gravity.

Mar 01, 2019
-contd-
@Bojingles
As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is Time. Both are intangible concepts that require a "human mind" to process its intangibility in order to make sense of both. In the case of beauty, it is the eye that passes its imagery to the brain that has the capacity to process it into one or several categories.
That which we call "Time" is also processed by the brain into several categories which include variabilities of length/duration as the Passage of one or more Events, where there may be more than one Event of which the brain must divide into the increments which are perceived as Time passing. It is the human brain itself that is the determinator of the Passage of Events and their Lengths. It also processes what occurs within those frames of reference.
Just as the Creator God allowed unicellular life forms to EVOLVE after creating them, so too was Man given the capacity to determine the Nature of passing Events and giving it the name: Time.

Mar 01, 2019
Now, you seemed to have had a moment of lucidity when you said in another thread
What you call Time was not created. It was always there.


Was it always there or does it only exist in the mind of man? ..ways. I implore you to accept time as a consequence of the Creator, as you briefly did, lest you be judged a blasphemer.
says Bo

Time is a "nothing". In that nothingness Time doesn't "exist". It can't go forward, backward or any other direction. In that respect, it was always there - "there" being that it is too intangible, and is that which is without definition or description.
However, the Creator God is not Matter/Energy such as photons, when they collide with Mass and then are redirected/deflected toward another direction. God is pure Intellectual Energy who utilised Cosmic Space to house Matter/Energy. That Matter/Energy has the capacity for length, width and height, as well as assuming the passage/duration/lengths that are inherent in Matter/Energy.

Mar 01, 2019
@Bojingles
I am rating you a "5" for your seeming concern for honest Science, but even Herr Einstein was capable of making a mistake. And he did so by the inclusion of Time in Spacetime. If you go only with Space you should understand that ALL Events and the Passage/Lengths of those Events are done within the capable "hands" of Space - which IS tangible.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more