"Freezing" time

[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?

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Thelonious

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?

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. Thus, there is always a little energy left in a particle. This is the Heisenberg
Uncertaincy Principle at work again.

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.

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.

Maddog

[maddog]

I forgot to mention something that can happen and was written up in a Scientific American
about a year or so ago (Jan or Feb issue of 2003 or 2004). The article was called "Frozen
Time". What the discussion is that photons can be in essence "frozen" to an effective
temperature of 0 K. This is another anomaly of QM and how photons interact with other
particles. Check it out. Maybe this is what you question is Really alluding to. Best wishes.

Maddog

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Thelonious

1. At a moment prior to the Big Bang, when space is a true vacuum, the temperature is a given 0 kelvin.

This seems incorrect. Even though string theorists can claim that time began before the bb, space and temperature are products of the bb. "0 Klevin" is by default a property of the universe and as such did not exist until long after the Big Bang (and then only as a concept, as Maddog explains above).

[Thelonious]

[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.

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.

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.

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?

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Thelonious

Right, it is only a theoretical temperature, but there are ways that it can be achieved, such as in a pure vacuum.

Vacumns per se aren't pure, though. However, I remember one experiment (published in
either Science, later Sci Am or Physics Today) that talks about Bose-Einstein Condensate.
Basically the researchers were able to cool down a few atoms so close to 0 that they
behaved as though the expression of 1 atom (synchonized wave function). Another form
of entaglement. This was close to a micro-Kelvin (10^ -6). There was still activity. This
does not mean that clocks would slow down. Time is a constuct we invent.

Originally Posted by Thelonious

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?

No paradox and no need to invent one. There is no relationship. You can believe as you
wish. Doesn't matter.

Maddog

[Thelonious]

Originally Posted by maddog

Vacumns per se aren't pure, though.

The vacuum of space from the moment of the Big Bang henceforth has not been a perfect vacuum. However, at a moment before the Big Bang, "space" would have been a perfect vacuum.

Originally Posted by maddog

However, I remember one experiment (published in either Science, later Sci Am or Physics Today) that talks about Bose-Einstein Condensate. Basically the researchers were able to cool down a few atoms so close to 0 that they behaved as though the expression of 1 atom (synchonized wave function). Another form of entaglement. This was close to a micro-Kelvin (10^ -6). There was still activity. This does not mean that clocks would slow down.

I know about the Bose-Einstein Condensate, but I fail to see how it has any bearing. The activity of the atoms was very slow. It would be interesting to perform an experiment of this nature on a radioactive molecule and seeing how it affected the half-life or doing the same on an atomic clock. I have not really thought this scenario through yet, as I just thought of it, so it may be a rather poor idea.

Originally Posted by maddog

Time is a constuct we invent.

Man invented the means to measure time, but to say the concept of time is a fabrication is erroneous.

Originally Posted by maddog

No paradox and no need to invent one. There is no relationship. You can believe as you wish. Doesn't matter.

If there is no relationship I expect there to be incontrovertible proof to corroborate. You have not yet met the burden of proof to say there is no relationship.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Thelonious

If there is no relationship I expect there to be incontrovertible proof to corroborate. You have not yet met the burden of proof to say there is no relationship.

Thelonious - don't demand proof for counterclaims if you do not provide proof yourself. The lack of evicende counter to your claim does not validate your assumptions.

I have never seen a single piece of evidence that time slows down at colder temperatures. This shold be easily measurable. All we need to do is to add a digital clock to the outer wall of the space station and see if it slows down.

In fact, if stuff slows down the colder it gets, then time must be very different in different parts of the universe. It is extremely cold in interstellar space...

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Thelonious

The vacuum of space from the moment of the Big Bang henceforth has not been a perfect vacuum. However, at a moment before the Big Bang, "space" would have been a perfect vacuum.

You have nothing to go on what before was like, vacumn or not. If you want to believe
there was "vacumn before" -- fine with me.

Originally Posted by Thelonious

Man invented the means to measure time, but to say the concept of time is a fabrication is erroneous.

Time does not exist except by its measurement. Time requires an observer.

Originally Posted by Thelonious

If there is no relationship I expect there to be incontrovertible proof to corroborate. You have not yet met the burden of proof to say there is no relationship.

For the there to be a relationship, there would be an equation. You brought this up as a
statement as though it was fact. I have been showing how it is fallacious. Your playing
games by demanding "proof" of a lack of relationship between time/temperature is
childish. The burden to corroborate is upon you, not me. I would like see how such a
relationship could exist and agree with the Standard Model and Thermodynamics. I am
not sure how. Please explain.

Maddog

[Thelonious]

Originally Posted by Tormod

Thelonious - don't demand proof for counterclaims if you do not provide proof yourself. The lack of evicende counter to your claim does not validate your assumptions.

Of course, you are correct. I do not have any proof, only a rationale. But following through the thought experiment, and an exercise in dialectics, like this, may bring a better understanding.

Originally Posted by Tormod

I have never seen a single piece of evidence that time slows down at colder temperatures. This shold be easily measurable. All we need to do is to add a digital clock to the outer wall of the space station and see if it slows down.

One can imagine that, like time dilation at increasing speeds, the relationship would be very steeply exponential. So a "mere" 2.7 kelvins might not be enough to have a measurable effect, and considering that clocks lose time on their own, it would be hard to account for this.

Originally Posted by Tormod

In fact, if stuff slows down the colder it gets, then time must be very different in different parts of the universe. It is extremely cold in interstellar space...

Why would the time be different in different parts of the universe because of temperature? It has been cooling for sixteen billion years, so one can expect a high degree of equilibrium to have been reached. Certian phenomena seem to cause the temperature to deviate by up to something of an order of magnitude of a thousandth or so here and there, but other than that it is pretty constant at the aforementioned 2.7 kelvins.