Exploring the Effects of Absolute Zero on Time

• tanzanos
In summary, without change, it is difficult to determine if time still exists. Vibration of a mass can move atoms at relativistic speeds, which could potentially affect time.
tanzanos
If time requires movement in space time in order for change and hence time to occur then how does absolute zero in temperature effect time since no molecular or atomic movement is possible at such temperature?
Does vibration constitute movement that can affect time in relativistic terms?

Is it possible that a vibration equalling to the speed of light is possible with mass? If so how will this effect time regarding the mass?

Quantum Fluctuations always inhibit something from having a temperature of absolute zero.

Kevin_Axion said:
Quantum Fluctuations always inhibit something from having a temperature of absolute zero.
OK! Now what about achieving a vibration frequency equal to that of C. How will time effect the mass vibrating at such frequencies?

A vibrational frequency of c is impossible unless it is massless.

A vibrational frequency of c is impossible period. C and frequency don't have the same units, you cannot compare a speed to a frequency.

would 0 kelvin change the speed of light?

karan1114 said:
would 0 kelvin change the speed of light?

I don't see your logic...

Time is change and change is movement. Vibration is movement albeit a 'palindromic' one. If in theory one was to vibrate a mass at frequencies that translate to a movement almost the speed of C then will this effect the relativistic time of the mass?

tanzanos said:
If time requires movement in space time in order for change and hence time to occur then how does absolute zero in temperature effect time since no molecular or atomic movement is possible at such temperature?
Does vibration constitute movement that can affect time in relativistic terms?

Is it possible that a vibration equalling to the speed of light is possible with mass? If so how will this effect time regarding the mass?

I don't see how time requires movement in space for it to occur.

But if 0K did have an effect on time, then i would say that it would be the least relativistic that one can get. (If that makes sense)

Drakkith said:
I don't see how time requires movement in space for it to occur.

But if 0K did have an effect on time, then i would say that it would be the least relativistic that one can get. (If that makes sense)
If I were to fly to the moon and back then that would constitute a cycle. If I were to do that repeatedly without interruption then that would constitute palindromic cycles and thus for all intents and purposes no different to any mass traveling to and fro repeatedly from point A to point B. Now if in all the cases the speed was approaching C then relativistic effects would occur. How is this any different to vibration of a mass; since in both cases one is moving atoms to and fro at relativistic speeds?

tanzanos said:
If I were to fly to the moon and back then that would constitute a cycle. If I were to do that repeatedly without interruption then that would constitute palindromic cycles and thus for all intents and purposes no different to any mass traveling to and fro repeatedly from point A to point B. Now if in all the cases the speed was approaching C then relativistic effects would occur. How is this any different to vibration of a mass; since in both cases one is moving atoms to and fro at relativistic speeds?

I completely understand and agree that vibrational energy could be considered a speed. Did you not understand what i was asking in my post?

Drakkith said:
Did you not understand what i was asking in my post?
That is a possibility!

tanzanos said:
That is a possibility!

I was asking why time would depend on movement? Can time not continue forward if you have 0 movement?

I agree with that challenge... if nothing changes in a room, how does it affect time?

Does that make a clock stop in another room?

Without change you might not be able to infer time, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

MikeyW said:
I agree with that challenge... if nothing changes in a room, how does it affect time?

Does that make a clock stop in another room?

Without change you might not be able to infer time, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Right. Though time is an aspect of change, and that without change one cannot have time, one must take care to consider the "entire" system.
It is only when the entire system ceases to change in anyway that time itself can be considered to be completely stopped.

I disagree that it can ever be completely stopped. First, there is no reason to think the mere lack of motion of matter can stop time. We don't define it that way. Otherwise, if something stops moving, and stops time, how does it every start again?

Second, you are suggesting a local cause to a global phenomenon. Time is universal, though not universally constant, and the movement of matter is local. How is the lack of change in one part of space going to affect the flow of time in another part of space?

Third, the system can never be completely stopped, because of quantum fluctuations. My opinion is that your personal definition of time might depend on change (which is very reasonable conceptually) but it does lead to such contradictions that you are currently arriving at.

MikeyW said:
I disagree that it can ever be completely stopped. First, there is no reason to think the mere lack of motion of matter can stop time. We don't define it that way. Otherwise, if something stops moving, and stops time, how does it every start again?

Second, you are suggesting a local cause to a global phenomenon. Time is universal, though not universally constant, and the movement of matter is local. How is the lack of change in one part of space going to affect the flow of time in another part of space?

Third, the system can never be completely stopped, because of quantum fluctuations.

My opinion is that your personal definition of time might depend on change (which is very reasonable conceptually) but it does lead to such contradictions that you are currently arriving at.

It's NOT the lack of motion of matter that stops time, of course.
Rather it is the lack of change of EVERYTHING throughout the entire system that stops time, as time is a relationship and NOT an independent "force"

As you said, quantum fluctuations forbids this.
That was my point. One must cease change in the ENTIRE system in order for real time to stop. This is not possible as we currently know it.

But your logic is this:

If A then B,
but A is not possible.

So it is not meaningful to suggest that A causes B. You can't make a conjecture and then claim it's disprovability.

When A is impossible, any equation dealing with A is, by default, nonsensical.

Both premises of this question are wrong. Neither time nor absolute zero are defined by motion.

The original poster, as well as Kevin_Axion, seem to be under the common, but false impression that absolute zero is defined as the temperature where molecules, atoms etc are stationary.

It isn't. You do not need to know anything about motion or atoms to define absolute zero. In fact, the earliest values of absolute zero were calculated well before the modern atomic theory was proposed by Dalton. You only need classical, pre-statistical, thermodynamics. Its existence and definition doesn't rely upon atoms or motion more than classical thermodynamics does, which is to say: Not at all. Classical thermodynamics also prevents you from attaining absolute zero.

Vibrational zero-point energy means molecules will not be stationary at absolute zero, not that they can't be at absolute zero (although they still can't for other reasons).

There is one place where all movement has ceased and time has ceased too; And that is at the core of a black hole! Time means movement in spacetime. No movement is not possible since everything moves in the universe. Once movement in spacetime (at the quantum level) ceases then time cannot affect mass since change is impossible.

Now if I were to vibrate a mass at relativistic frequencies; How will this affect time within the mass? I say this since vibration is nothing more than palindromic movement of molecules in a mass!

You are working on a different definition of time. Until we all agree, then the argument is semantics, not physics.Also,

1. A frequency cannot be relativistic, only speeds can be
2. Time is not affected "within a mass", it depends on the velocity of an observer, not the position of the observer.
3. Deductions based on applying any physics to the centre of a black hole is meaningless.

Why are you continuing to try to prove something which is by your own admission unprovable (see post #17, bottom line), and as other people have said, meaningless (post 18 and 19) anyway?

Thread locked.

This whole discussion is all over the map! What happens at or near 0K, and what happens when objects move at relativistic speeds, are two entirely different topics. Also, making a new definition of time, and then asking what that implies for currently established physics, is nonsensical.

1. What is absolute zero?

Absolute zero is the lowest possible temperature that can be reached, at which point all molecular motion and energy cease. It is equivalent to 0 Kelvin, or -273.15 degrees Celsius.

2. How does absolute zero affect time?

At absolute zero, time essentially stops because there is no molecular motion or energy to measure the passage of time. However, this is only theoretical as reaching absolute zero is impossible.

3. Can absolute zero be reached?

Technically, no. It is impossible to reach absolute zero because it would require removing all energy from a system, which is not feasible. However, scientists have been able to come close to reaching absolute zero in laboratory settings.

4. What are the potential effects of absolute zero on time?

The effects of absolute zero on time are largely theoretical, but some scientists believe that at this temperature, time may behave differently or even cease to exist. It is also possible that absolute zero could have an impact on the laws of physics and cause them to break down.

5. How is absolute zero related to the concept of time travel?

Absolute zero is often brought up in discussions about time travel because it is theorized that at this temperature, time may behave differently or even stop. Some scientists believe that absolute zero could potentially be used to manipulate time and allow for time travel, although this is purely hypothetical.

Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
988
Replies
5
Views
10K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
14K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K