"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]

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]

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]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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]

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.

 

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]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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]

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]

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.

 

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. ;)

 

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]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[Tormod]

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]

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.

 

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.

 

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]

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]

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]

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 ? ;)

 

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.

 

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 ?

 

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]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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]

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.