Science Forums 2

[Thelonious]

Before one can begin to explore the possibilities of time and exploit it, one must have a firm grasp on the nature of time itself. It is a common musing among physicists that time intrinsically escapes definition. However, it is possible to get a feeling and understanding for time through exploration. So, with that in mind, I pose a seemingly curious hypothetical.

Let's say that our universe suddenly underwent a massive transformation. Our universe emerges from it with a temperature of a chilly 0 kelvins. While the universe does retains its shape and composition, mollecular motion has altogether ceased. So, has time "frozen?" In a traditional sense, when everything stops moving, time is said to have stopped as well. But, should this reasoning still apply, we encounter several oddities.

1. At a moment prior to the Big Bang, when space is a true vacuum, the temperature is a given 0 kelvin. Should the said relation of temperature and time be true, the moment of the Big Bang would never actually come, unless, of course, without some kind of extraordinary outside force.

2. Should it be possible to drop the temperature of an object (e.g. a human body) to zero kelvin, then revert the said object to temperature more conducive of life after a certain period of time, then would not the said object have just "traveled" in time relative to everything else in a manner not unlike special relativity? If so, this would make for a much more efficient method of time travel.

One can only imagine the further ramifications if the aforementioned relationship of time and temperature does exist. So, one finds himself stuck at a logical impasse of two possibilities. First, that the relationship of time and temperature does not exist and that time only ceases philosophically, while phyisically it keeps ticking away. Or second, that the relationship of time and temperature does exist and that certain oddities do exist and allow for certain exploits of time. Which is it?