[QUOTE=maddog]Sorry to shoot your whole thought problem down before it even starts. Like traveling at the speed of light with a particle that has mass, is the impossiblity of cooling a piece of matter (particles with mass) to ABOSLUTE 0 (Degrees Kelvin - 0 K). Just doesn't happen. You can approach the temperature of 0 K, just not get there. Current technology has broken the sub mili-Kevlin barrier and approaching the micro-Kelvins as of last year. Still not 0 though.[/QUOTE
Right, it is only a theoretical temperature, but there are ways that it can be achieved, such as in a pure vacuum.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by maddog
Thus, there is always a little energy left in a particle. This is the Heisenberg Uncertaincy Principle at work again.
|
Well, the particle gets as low as its ground, and, since as if it were in a finite containment, the potential inside is 0 and infinite outside, making it probable to find the particle outside. Regardless, I do not believe this holds any significance at the macroscopic level.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by maddog
1. Since no 0 Kelvin, even a "perfect vacumn" would have a temperature above 0 K (even though space is not really a "perfect" vacumn). Therefore saying much about the instant of during the Big Bang can not really be inferred because or presence or lack of temperature of space.
|
A perfect vacuum would have a temperature of 0 kelvin. If there is nothing irradiating or holding energy, then there is no temperature. Of course space today is not a perfect vacuum. Its temperature is about 2.7 kelvins. However, at a moment before the big bang, before matter permeated the universe, such a perfect vacuum would exist.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by maddog
2. Because of no 0 K, on cannot drop an object to it so as to travel somehow for an even bigger reason. Time does not slow down with temperature, actvity does. As far as is know the reference of time is independent of temperature.  |
Okay, but you are ignoring the possibility of a relationship. Even if one cannot reach absolute zero, he can get arbitrarily close, just as he can to the speed of light. If something is cooled .0001 kelvins, then aging slows with activity, so is it not fair to say time has slowed in a way akin to that described in the twin paradox?
