Which Reference Frame Wins the Bet in Temporal Thermodynamics?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jackle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Thermodynamics
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of time travel and the second law of thermodynamics as experienced from different reference frames. Participants explore hypothetical scenarios involving time travel, the behavior of objects, and the paradoxes that arise from these situations, particularly focusing on the dropping of a glass of champagne aboard a time-traveling ship.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that if a team aboard a time-traveling ship drops a glass, the glass would smash as time moves forward, creating a paradox regarding the direction of time as perceived by different observers.
  • Another participant asserts that nothing can exceed the speed of light, rendering time travel to the past impossible, thus questioning the relevance of the scenario.
  • Some participants argue that the experience of time travel is dependent on the observer's reference frame, with the ship's crew experiencing events differently than those on the ground.
  • A participant references historical perspectives on the impossibility of certain technologies, suggesting that exploring time travel concepts could enhance understanding of causality, despite potential physical impossibilities.
  • Concerns are raised about whether the second law of thermodynamics would be violated from at least one observer's perspective, depending on the reference frame from which events are viewed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of time travel and its implications for thermodynamics, with no consensus reached on the validity of the scenarios presented or the resolution of the paradoxes discussed.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of time travel and the behavior of physical laws in different reference frames, which remain unresolved. The implications of the second law of thermodynamics in this context are also debated without definitive conclusions.

jackle
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Not sure where to post this. You can move it if you like.

There is no right answer to this but I hope it makes you think as
much as it made me think.

A long time in the future, man-kind can travel backwards in time by
breaking the light barrier. The research team calculate that according
to einstein's equations, they will trace a smooth path through
space-time as they are traveling backwards through time. The same
set of events can be viewed form inside and outside the ship. They are
however, curious as to what happens if they drop one of the glasses
of champaign aboad.

According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the glass drops then
smashes as time goes forward. This gives rise to a simple paradox.
Which way is forwards?

If the second law is obeyed in the reference frame of the space ship,
the on-board team experience nothing unusual, but the rest of the team
on the ground will see the same events, but to them, the glass is
smashing, then rising from the floor! Events aboard seem to go
backwards from the reference frame of the GROUND team.

To correct the paradox, the ground team argue that the second law must
be obeyed in the reference frame of the ground team, now they would
see it the right way round. BUT the on-board team complain
that they would experience the glass smashing, then rising from the
floor as they travel backwards through time! Events aboard seem to go
backwards from the reference frame of the ON-BOARD team.

Only one can be correct. The two teams place a bet. Who wins and why?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Simple. Nothing can go faster than light, and thus time-travel to the past is impossible.

- Warren
 
Yes

I quite agree, but did you think it through?
 


Originally posted by jackle
I quite agree, but did you think it through?
Yes. And I answered:
Simple. Nothing can go faster than light, and thus time-travel to the past is impossible.

- Warren
 
Imagine...
 
Originally posted by jackle
Imagine...
Imagine what? Shall I also imagine that 1 = 2? And left = right?

- Warren
 
Yes! Anything to expand the mind! Please!
 
Originally posted by jackle
Yes! Anything to expand the mind! Please!
The real world is much more fascinating than any imagined.

- Warren
 
Well, jackle, if it's not enough for you that we can never end up in a situation where this problem would become relevant, then perhaps the fact that reality is different depending on your inertial reference frame will help. Basically, the people on the ship are only going backward in time in some reference frames, and not in others.

Also, if I were to drop a glass before having begun traveling backward, then I could logically expect to see the cup "pick itself up" so to speak. However, if I drop it while traveling backward in time, then it will indeed fall, and shatter. Traveling "forward" or "backward" is only relevant when you have to change it.
 
  • #10
...despite the fact that the essay by Stephen Hawking in this volume explains that time machines, in all likelihood, are physically impossible. There are two reasons for my ignoring Hawking's prediction. First, in 1895, another outstanding physicist, Lord Kelvin, then president of the Royal Society, claimed that "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." The second reason is one that Kip Thorne has pointed out many times: even if the laws of physics forbid time machines, the effort to understand them may teach us much by helping to sharpen our understanding of causality.

Igor Novikov: an essay printed [p57] in The Future of Spacetime; Cal Tech, 2002


If the press picked up that the government was funding research into time travel, there would either be an outcry at the waste of public money, or a demand the research be classified for military purposes... We disguise what we are doing by using technical terms like "closed timelike curves", which is just code for time travel... Wormholes, if they exist, would be ideal for rapid space travel. You might go through a wormhole to the other side of the galaxy and be back in time for dinner.

Stephen Hawking: p87 The future of Spacetime
 
  • #11
Originally posted by Mentat
...if I were to drop a glass before having begun traveling backward, then I could logically expect to see the cup "pick itself up" so to speak. However, if I drop it while traveling backward in time, then it will indeed fall, and shatter.

But either way, will not the same chain of events be viewed in reverse from the ground team? Wouldn't this mean that the second law has to be violated from at least one observer's perspective?
 

Similar threads

High School Calculating an impossible reference frame as my own homework problem
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
High School Time dilation and the reference frame of the vacuum
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Hantavirus outbreak aboard ship MV Hondius; virus present in Argentina
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
High School My paraphrased explanation of the Twin Paradox
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
Undergrad DDWFTTW: Looking for the least confusing explanation
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
21K
Undergrad Three inertial particles: Separating the twins from the paradox
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
Graduate What Are the Limits of Classical Physics in Understanding Inertial Frames?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
High School Trying to understand how FTL would violate causality....
  • · Replies 145 ·
5
Replies
145
Views
20K
Graduate Causality violation from FTL signaling within the same reference frame only?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
Undergrad Resolving the Three Colliding Observers Paradox in Special Relativity
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K