Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Thelonious
Even if that assertion is not correct, it does not change the validity of the argument.
|
What arguement ? How does my assertion that you are claiming a relationship between time and
temperature when there is insufficient evidence as incorrect ?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Thelonious
Who are you quoting? One could reason that time is nothing more than a dimension, an intrinsic property of space-time. Other spacial dimensions do not have to be observed to exist. According to string theory they could be curled up and as small as the Planck length, too small to be probed, read detected, by anything.
|
I was summarizing Einstein. Time can be expressed as a dimension as one of the components of spacetime
(a scalar one at that). However, time as a measurement is tied to the observer (straight from Einstein's
SR). Time does not exist without the observer. Read Elegant Universe, Brian Greene gives some good
examples. Bringing in String Theory which at the moment has no indenpendent validation by physical
evidence. Self consistent theories, yes. String Theory does not imply temperature and time have any
correlation. So in essence, you have a hypothesis that such a correlation exists. Fine. So what now.
What do you want to do with it. What I reacted to is you just leaving it at that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Thelonious
First of all, I have never asserted any of this as fact. These are just musings stemming from a hypothetical thought experiment. The fact that the possible equation is not known to us is irrelevant. Should I become convinced this is not worth further consideration, then I will simply move on to the next idea. However, in order to do so there must be some strong reasoning negating the hypothesis.
|
Forgive me taking what you said as fact. By considering time/temp relationship as a hypothesis is ok,
when stated as such. I'm fine with that. So now what. What speculation do see such a relationship look
like ?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Thelonious
Now, consider this. A stationary observer watching an object accelerate towards the speed of light would see the object's activity slowing down. This is the same thing that happens as we freeze an object. An "observer" would notice decrease in activity of the freezing object. I realise that the circumstances and forces at play are different, but the way that both processes work is strikingly similar.
|
I think you have something backwards. From SR, both observers would see the other as slowing down,
were they able to see such. As in the twin paradox experiment by Einstein, once the two twins got back
together both would agree the one who stayed appeared to age faster than the one who left.
Were the same twins, one to fall onto the surface of a black hole, the other outside would see his twin
falling in to slow down and stop his activity. The one falling in would see the same.
That the accelerating frame (black hole) - GR and the first SR being equivalent is because of Equivalence
Principle. Still no relationship time to temp...
Or at least none that I see.
Maddog
