"Freezing" time

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Thelonious

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.

for the universe as a whole, yes. For stars and planets, no. So time would necessary flow differently in the vicinity of a star than in the rest of the universe. And that would mean that time on Earth would flow differently than, say, in the outer reaches of the solar system. I know of no studies which show this.

Please note I am not saying you are wrong - thinking about things is very good - but we need some sort of theory from which we can make predictions in order to verify or falsify it.

[Thelonious]

Originally Posted by maddog

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.

Even if that assertion is not correct, it does not change the validity of the argument.

Originally Posted by maddog

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

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.

Originally Posted by maddog

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.

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.

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.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Thelonious

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.

John D. Barrow writes about this in his book, "The Constants of Nature" (and also in his "Anthropic Principle", if I recall correctly). There can only be one time dimension because two would not be able to coexist, no matter how large or small. Multiple spatial dimensions work fine as long as there is one time dimension, but multiple time dimensions ruin the concept of space-time.

However, in order to do so there must be some strong reasoning negating the hypothesis.

Nobody is telling you to not investigate it. But you seem strangely hell-bent on confronting your critics without providing more proof. You only have a "hunch". Fine.

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.

Time dilation is caused by the acceleration of an object. That is also the solution to the twin paradox - both will see each other as younger than one self. But when the traveller steps out of his space ship it becomes apparent that he is the youngest because he is the one who has accelerated, not the other.

That near-zero temperaturs makes things move slowly does not in any way imply that time itself is freezing, only that the object's motion slows down. The flow of time is not determined by the motion of a single object, nor it's temperature. It is the acceleration of that object that defines it's time frame.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Thelonious

One could reason that time is nothing more than a dimension, an intrinsic property of space-time.

In fact, Einstein explained that space and time are inseparable and in fact properties of each other. Thus space-time is the unification of space and time, like electro-magnetism is the unification of electricity and magnetism.

[maddog]

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 ?

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.

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 ?

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

[Thelonious]

Originally Posted by maddog

What arguement ? How does my assertion that you are claiming a relationship between time and temperature when there is insufficient evidence as incorrect ?

I was referring specifically to your assertion that I quoted, in reference to space being a perfect vacuum at any moment prior to the big bang.

Originally Posted by maddog

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.

I see now what you meant, but I was referencing string theory for other spatial dimensions, not anything about temperature or time. Also, I mentioned previously a few experiments that could possibly show if the hypothesis in question is correct.

Originally Posted by maddog

What speculation do see such a relationship look like ?

If such a relationship were to exist, it would have to be highly exponential, like that of velocity and time.

Originally Posted by maddog

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.

Right. If such a relationship between temperature and time were to exist and one were frozen to sufficient enough of a temperature and then brought back to normal temperature, one would agree with another observer that he seemed to age slower. I am not certain of a way to find out if the frozen observer would notice a decrease in activity of the other observer though.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Thelonious

Right. If such a relationship between temperature and time were to exist and one were frozen to sufficient enough of a temperature and then brought back to normal temperature, one would agree with another observer that he seemed to age slower. I am not certain of a way to find out if the frozen observer would notice a decrease in activity of the other observer though.

The main problem with this is that SR means that both will perceive that the same amount of time has passed, yet when they meet up it turns out that their timelines have been very different.

A frozen person in "hibernation", say, will not have experienced any time passing at all. So all you do is slow down the metabolism, you do not change the properties of time.

[Thelonious]

Originally Posted by Tormod

The main problem with this is that SR means that both will perceive that the same amount of time has passed, yet when they meet up it turns out that their timelines have been very different.

From my understanding, the two observers will not perceive time at the same rate. Going back to the Twin Paradox, if one observer blasts off at 10% the velocity of light, by the time his watch reads .995 seconds, the stationary observer's watch will read 1 second. At 50% the velocity of light, his watch would read .876 seconds when the stationary observer's watch reads 1 second. At 99%, it is .141 seconds. Of course, at the velocity of light, the rocket-bound observer's watch will always read 0 seconds for any value of the stationary observer's watch. All of this data is based off the equation T1 = T0[√(1-(v²/c²))], which is the reciprocal of the Lorentz factor, where T1 is the measurement of time passed by the observer traveling at velocity v and T0 is the measurement of time passed by the stationary observer.

I forsee a similar trend if the relationship between time and temperature is true. Only at an arbitrarily cold temperature would the effects even be noticeable and they would become more and more apparent the lower the temperature, until finally at 0 kelvins time would essentially stop. Once again, I am not trying to say that the forces or circumstances are the same between the Twin Paradox and the relationship of time and temperature, but, rather, that the same effects can possibly be observed or at least interpreted as the same effects.

[Tormod]

You're missing the point. Both observers will see THEIR time as perfectly normal. It's the other person that will seem to be moving more slowly. This is the key issue of time dilation, which is an intrinsic property of accelerating objects in space-time.

With temperature there is no time dilation.

[Thelonious]

Originally Posted by Tormod

You're missing the point. Both observers will see THEIR time as perfectly normal. It's the other person that will seem to be moving more slowly. This is the key issue of time dilation, which is an intrinsic property of accelerating objects in space-time.

You are missing the point. I said twice that I am not trying to compare special relativity to this hypothesis, as there are obviously different forces and circumstances at play.

Originally Posted by Tormod

With temperature there is no time dilation.

By definition this is true. But at what point does the hypothesis break down? Without this, or incontrovertible proof of the contrary, the hypothesis still stands.