"Freezing" time

[Thelonious]

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]

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.

 

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.

[Tormod]

We're talking past each other here.

 

When you are ready to explain what your hypothesis is based upon, other than an assumption that low temperature is connected with the apparent passage of time (in a physical sense, not as perceived by us) then I will cheerfully participate in the discussion again.

[maddog]

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.

Answer is ? ;)

 

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.

Maybe you could help me out by restating your hypothesis as a hypothesis (ie, what it is you are assuming).

 

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

I was thinking something like the following...

 

t = a (e ^ (k/T)) + b0 <== not that I accepting your idea. Just following what I think might be your

hypothesis...

 

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.

This is where you are wrong and don't understand SR as Tormod says. Take a modern physics course

and/or read Einstein's ABC of Relativity or Brian Greene's Elegant Universe. Might help. ;)

 

Maddog