10

If the new adjusted revolution of the earth still equaled one day and 365 days still equaled one year, how old would someone be 20 years from now (20 years based on the current rotation of the earth) compared to the new rotation of the earth?

I'm looking for a formula for the summation. (It is understood that a complete revolution around the sun would not be equal to 365 days. For the sake of the equation, leap year will not be factored in..1 year=365 days. It is also assumed that human life would still be possible given the earth's new rotational speed)

Edit 1: The increase in speed will increase by 2% over the previous day's rotation, and it will happen at once at midnight. Midnight tonight will indicate the beginning of the 20 year period (at the current rotational speed)

Edit 2: I suppose a bit of suspended disbelief would be in order for this question. Someone who is adept in physics told me that human life and possibly the earth wouldn't even exist if the rotation of it increased at that amount for that length of time.

SUM GUY
  • 209
  • Why shouldn't the person be at the age of 98% of the original age? I mean, if I simply set the length of one day as 0.98, then the length of the year is 0.98, and so on, and so on. – arc_lupus Mar 27 '15 at 15:26
  • 1
    @arc_lupus If the rotation speeds up then one rotation, and thus one full day, would continue to come and go quicker and quicker. Quicker days = quicker years, and so on, so with the new rotational speed increasing by 2% each day of the previous day's rotation, then you can see that the # of years would increase greatly compared to the current rotation of the earth. – SUM GUY Mar 27 '15 at 15:31
  • 1
    Ah, ok, I missed the "increased" part. Short idea: $\sum_{k=1}^{k=20\cdot365} n^k$ with $n=0.98$? (Result would be near to 50, i.e. if the earth speed up continues till infinity, the people are half as old as before). – arc_lupus Mar 27 '15 at 15:32
  • 4
    Should the increase be gradual or a sudden change at midnight each day? – String Mar 27 '15 at 15:39
  • @String Good question. The increase would happen at once such as at midnight. So, let's say that the increase would start at midnight tonight, and midnight tonight would also be the starting point for the 20 years, (at the current rotation) – SUM GUY Mar 27 '15 at 15:44
  • 1
    @String All of the work above seems to imply a sudden change, but if it were continuous, we would need an integral. – MathHype Mar 27 '15 at 15:44
  • 1
    @SUMGUY: I find sudden changes at midnight physically implausible, but as MathHype states, a continuous change will require an integral rather than a sum. Of course I find the whole thing very plausible if we consider gradual speed changes. – String Mar 27 '15 at 15:47
  • But numerically, the two should not differ too much. – String Mar 27 '15 at 15:50
  • 1
    @SUMGUY: Why should shorter days equal shorter years? You can spin the Earth on its axis as fast or as slow as you like, which changes the length of the day, but that has no bearing on the Earth's orbit around the sun. If we slowed the Earth down by a factor of ten in its rotation, then there would be 36 days per year but each day would be 240 hours long. Is your supposition that as the day gets shorter, the Earth also moves closer to the Sun so that its year gets shorter? This question is extremely confusing. – Eric Lippert Mar 27 '15 at 18:34
  • 1
    @Eric Lippert I'm not trying to debate physics. I agree with what you are saying. It's simply a mathematical problem based on how we perceive one day now compared to using the same measurement with a faster rotational spin of the earth. Suspended disbelief is required in regards to physics as is stated in Edit 2. We currently consider 1 year = 365 days. 1 day = one rotation of the earth. 365 days = 1 year. – SUM GUY Mar 27 '15 at 19:09
  • @Eric Lippert This is the basis or the constant for the math problem. So, simply looking at math alone, if we were to increase the speed of the day by 2% daily..etc. etc. then what would be the difference in age based on the current method and current speed? Also stated in the question is that it is assumed, for the sake of the question, that 365 days = 1 year, and it's also understood that 365 days would not = one revolution around the sun based on the new rotational speed. – SUM GUY Mar 27 '15 at 19:10
  • 1
    By using words like "year" and "day" and "earth" you are naturally leading people to think about the actual definitions of those real things; if what you're really asking is how to solve a particular rate problem then I think you'd do better to simply state the rate problem in the abstract. It would be less confusing. – Eric Lippert Mar 27 '15 at 20:29
  • @Eric Lippert Duly noted. Conversely, I think you would probably do better to simply not try to solve math problems that require reading comprehension. The details are clearly stated in the question. – SUM GUY Mar 27 '15 at 20:46
  • 1
    If you think that insulting the people who are genuinely trying to help you solve your problem is a good avenue for getting high quality assistance in the future, I encourage you to change that attitude. Consider carefully reading http://math.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask. – Eric Lippert Mar 27 '15 at 20:53
  • I simply stated my opinion on the matter the same as you, Sir. If you take that as an insult, then I'm afraid I can't help that. I am truly thankful for those that have actually helped to solve this problem, and it has been quite fun engaging with them in doing so. The only thing you have done thus far is criticize the question. Again, the details are clearly stated in the question. – SUM GUY Mar 27 '15 at 21:09
  • @SUMGUY: "I think you would probably do better to simply not try to solve math problems that require reading comprehension." <-- The fact that that's an opinion doesn't mean it's not an insult. It is very clearly an insult. And insulting Eric Lippert is not going to get you far. He's kind of a big name. And he hasn't said anything rude, merely encouraged you to clarify the misleading wording in your question. – Mooing Duck Mar 27 '15 at 23:30
  • 1
    We currently consider a year to be the time it takes for the mean ecliptic longitude of the Sun to increase by 360 degrees. This has nothing to do with the Earth's rotation rate. Per the dominant giant collision hypothesis, a day was only 6 hours long 4.5 billion years ago. The length of a year, in seconds, was pretty much the same as it is now. The length of a year on the other hand remains pretty much the same. (This was the reason for the switch in 1901 in the definition of the second as 1/86400 day to 1/3155,925.9747 years.) – David Hammen Mar 28 '15 at 00:35
  • 1
    I think he's going to have to specify a frame of reference, since a person on the earth's surface will be approaching relativistic speeds well before the 20 years is reached, so his time will appear to move more slowly than that of a "stationary" observer outside the earth. – Johnny Mar 28 '15 at 00:55

4 Answers4

7

Since $speed \times time = distance$, and the distance is always constant, so on Day $1$, the speed is $1.02s$ ($s$ is the original speed), therefore the time needed for one full rotation is $t / 1.02$ ($t$ is the original time needed for one full rotation).

On Day $2$, the speed is $1.02^2s$. Therefore the time needed for one full rotation is $t / (1.02^2)$.

$\dots$

In general, on Day $x$, the speed is $1.02^xs$. The time needed for one full rotation is $t / (1.02^x)$.

Assume $20$ years is $7300$ days, now we need:

$$\sum\limits_{x=1}^y \frac{t}{1.02^x} = 7300t$$

and solve for $y$. The $t$ on both sides can be cancelled out so we are left with:

$$\sum\limits_{x=1}^y \frac{1}{1.02^x} = 7300$$

Then we can apply the formula for the sum of the first $n$ terms of a geometric series and solve for $y$.

Added: Bad News! In fact there is no solution for $y$. Using sum of geometric series, we get:

$$\frac{1}{1.02} \frac{1-(\frac{1}{1.02})^{y+1}}{1-\frac{1}{1.02}} = 7300 $$

Simplifying gets:

$$ 50 \times (1-(\frac{1}{1.02})^{y+1}) = 7300 $$

As pointed out by @HagenvonEitzen, the LHS cannot exceed $50$ no matter how large $y$ is. So if my workings are correct, it suggests that the speed of the rotation goes so fast that in such a world, the infinity in terms of time is equal to $50$ days in the world we are now living in.

LaBird
  • 1,018
  • This looks correct to me! I made the error of assuming that the changes were at midnight following the old day scheme. This solution seems to avoid that mistake. – String Mar 27 '15 at 16:24
  • @String Hold on, there is a big problem. After I found the equation as posted below, $y$ cannot be solved. Even $y$ goes to infinity, the sum can never go to $7300$. So does it suggest the speed of the rotation goes so fast that no one can exist in $20$ years' (old years') time? – LaBird Mar 27 '15 at 16:43
  • 4
    But even $\sum_{x=1}^\infty\frac1{1.02}^x=50\ll 7300$. That is, in 50 (old) days rotational speed reaches infinity – Hagen von Eitzen Mar 27 '15 at 16:43
  • @HagenvonEitzen You are right. I just posted the above comment. Either it can never be reached, or I made an error in the answer. – LaBird Mar 27 '15 at 16:45
  • @LaBird: Yes, I saw that too. It converges too fast to even get there. So that must be the conclusion? – String Mar 27 '15 at 16:45
  • 1
    So not only is it physically absurd, it is mathematically absurd too :P This is a really strange and entertaining problem. – String Mar 27 '15 at 16:46
  • But it still has infinitely many complex solutions so maybe if we warp time into a different "time space" we are good? – String Mar 27 '15 at 16:48
  • You guys have completely blown my mind. Is it agreed that it's mathematically improbable? Should I post this question on the black board in the hallway at MIT? – SUM GUY Mar 27 '15 at 16:50
  • @SUMGUY I admit I am very weak in physics and astronomy, but from a pure mathematical viewpoint, it seems like it's improbable. – LaBird Mar 27 '15 at 16:58
  • 1
    This is not mathematical absurd at all. You reach an arbitrary high speed the closer you get to 50 old days. After that you just haven't defined what happens. In Newtonian physics, accelerating to an infinite speed in a finite time can actually happen. I read this in the German translation of a Book by Ian Stewart. I believe the English version is “Another Fine Math You Have Got Me Into”. – Rolf Kreibaum Mar 27 '15 at 18:14
  • Unfortunately, the book is at my parents home (in another country), so looking up specific details isn't possible right now. – Rolf Kreibaum Mar 27 '15 at 18:22
  • 1
    @RolfSievers Yes you are right that the speed is arbitrary high when approaching $50$ old days. I cannot believe the result until thinking about it all over again. From a mathematical viewpoint, the lesson I learned (and was reminded) is "not to under-estimate the power of exponentials". – LaBird Mar 27 '15 at 18:32
  • That Newtonian physics has those quirks was also explained on stackexchange. – Rolf Kreibaum Mar 27 '15 at 18:35
  • 2
    This assumes the Earth's rotation gets 2% faster every rotation, not every current-rotation-speed day. It's not clear to me which the question is asking about. – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Mar 27 '15 at 19:46
  • @BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft: You are right - that is not necessarily clear from the question. But the word midnight seems to suggest that speed changes should occur at an increasing rate since midnight does. Thus I agree with this answer, not mine. – String Mar 27 '15 at 21:03
  • 1
    @BlueRaja The speed would increase by 2% over the previous day's speed each "midnight". Per String, as midnight occurs at an increasing rate the speed changes would also occur at an increasing rate. – SUM GUY Mar 27 '15 at 21:27
1

My original wrong answer: $$ \frac{1}{365}\sum_{k=0}^{7299} 1.02^k\approx 8.278\cdot 10^{61}\text{ years} $$


My original answer contained an error assuming that the increase followed the conventional days and not the new faster days. Here are my fixed versions:

Continuous version

If the speed increases gradually and by $2\%$ compared to the last midnight, it can be described via the following differential equation: $$ y'=1.02^y $$ where $y(x)$ denotes the number of rotations/"new days" after $x$ conventional days. Given the initial condition $y(0)=0$ this has solution $$ y(x)=-\frac{\ln(1-\ln(1.02)x)}{\ln(1.02)}\approx -50.498\ln(1-0.0198026x) $$ which has a vertical asymptote at $x=\frac{1}{\ln(1.02)}\approx 50.498$ so after approximately $50$ and a half conventional days, the earth reaches infinite rotational speed in this model.


Discrete version

The corresponding discrete model, similar to that given in LaBird's answer, should be $$ x=\sum_{k=1}^y \frac{1}{1.02^{k-1}}=51\left(1-1.02^{-y}\right) $$ which also has a vertical asymptote, this time at $x=51$.


Here is a graph of the two models (continuous as red curve, discrete as blue points):

enter image description here

String
  • 18,395
  • I agree that there shouldn't be down voting without at least a partial explanation. FWIW, I do not know the answer to this question which is why I have put it out to the world, so I am relying on this community to help decide the correct answer. – SUM GUY Mar 27 '15 at 16:21
1

Use $1$ real earth year as time unit, and denote the angular velocity of the earth rotation, measured in full turns per year, by $f(t)$. Then $f(0)=365$. When the angular velocity steadily increases by $2\%$ per day we have $f(t)=e^{\lambda t}f(0)$ for a certain $\lambda>0$, and this $\lambda$ is determined by the condition $$e^{\lambda/365}=1.02\doteq e^{0.02}\ .$$ Neglecting the error here we obtain $\lambda=7.3$. Therefore the number of felt days during the next $20$ years from now is given by $$\int_0^{20} f(t)\>dt=\int_0^{20} 365\>e^{7.3\>t}\>dt={365\over 7.3}\bigl(e^{146}-1\bigr)\ .$$ Counting the age as number of felt days divided by 365 produces a felt age of $${1\over 7.3}\bigl(e^{146}-1\bigr)\doteq 3.49681\cdot10^{62}$$ years.

  • 2
    I think your $f(t)$ assumes that the speed increases by $2%$ each real earth day which equals $1/365$ of $1$ real earth year, right? I made that error too and reached the discrete equivalent of this being $8.278\cdot 10^{61}$ years using a geometric series. But the change rate increases too as the days become shorter, which is what LaBird's answer takes into account, if I am not mistaken. – String Mar 27 '15 at 16:57
  • @String: Of course everything is not so clearly defined here. Nevertheless I think my interpretation of $f$ is correct: If you interpret $f$ as number of felt revolutions in $1$ felt year it is always $={1\over365}$. – Christian Blatter Mar 27 '15 at 17:37
  • Are you then suggesting that my discrete version of your answer is correct too? – String Mar 27 '15 at 18:03
  • @String: Your model is slightly different. Therefore it leads to a sum instead of an integral. The end results don' t differ much, as in the case of yearly interest vs. continuous interest. – Christian Blatter Mar 27 '15 at 19:00
0

If I well understand the problem, after $1$ day the duration of a day become $d_1=\dfrac{1}{1+k}$ where $k=2\%$. So after $n$ days the duration af a day is $d_n=(1+k)^{-n}$, and the difference with respect the old days is $\Delta_n=n-\sum_{i=1}^n({1+k})^{-n}$. Using $n=365\times 20$ we have the result.

Emilio Novati
  • 62,675
  • 2
    If it rotates faster, it achieves more "days". So subtracting $2%$ looks like an error. Anyway, adding $2%$ is not the opposite of subtracting $2%$. The opposite of multiplying by $1.02$ is dividing by it corresponding to a factor of $1/1.02\approx 0.980392156862745\neq 0.98$. BTW: I did not downvote your post. – String Mar 27 '15 at 16:18
  • @String: Maybe that I did not understand the question. But... if the Earth increase the speed of rotation, the day become shorter. After the first day it become $1-k$, after 2 days $(1-k)(1-k)$ and after $n$ days (1-k)^n. – Emilio Novati Mar 27 '15 at 16:27
  • 1
    @String: Now I see my stupid mistake!!! I' edit.. – Emilio Novati Mar 27 '15 at 16:37