1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Zero kelvin!

  1. Sep 24, 2010 #1
    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?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 24, 2010 #2
    Quantum Fluctuations always inhibit something from having a temperature of absolute zero.
     
  4. Sep 24, 2010 #3
    OK! Now what about achieving a vibration frequency equal to that of C. How will time effect the mass vibrating at such frequencies?
     
  5. Sep 24, 2010 #4
    A vibrational frequency of c is impossible unless it is massless.
     
  6. Sep 24, 2010 #5
    A vibrational frequency of c is impossible period. C and frequency dont have the same units, you cannot compare a speed to a frequency.
     
  7. Sep 24, 2010 #6
    would 0 kelvin change the speed of light?
     
  8. Sep 24, 2010 #7
    I don't see your logic...
     
  9. Sep 25, 2010 #8
    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?
     
  10. Sep 25, 2010 #9

    Drakkith

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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)
     
  11. Sep 25, 2010 #10
    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 travelling 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?
     
  12. Sep 25, 2010 #11

    Drakkith

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I completely understand and agree that vibrational energy could be considered a speed. Did you not understand what i was asking in my post?
     
  13. Sep 25, 2010 #12
    That is a possibility!
     
  14. Sep 25, 2010 #13

    Drakkith

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I was asking why time would depend on movement? Can time not continue forward if you have 0 movement?
     
  15. Sep 25, 2010 #14
    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.
     
  16. Sep 25, 2010 #15
    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.
     
  17. Sep 25, 2010 #16
    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.
     
  18. Sep 25, 2010 #17
    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.
     
  19. Sep 25, 2010 #18
    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.
     
  20. Sep 25, 2010 #19
    When A is impossible, any equation dealing with A is, by default, nonsensical.
     
  21. Sep 25, 2010 #20

    alxm

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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).
     
  22. Sep 26, 2010 #21
    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!
     
  23. Sep 26, 2010 #22
    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?
     
  24. Sep 26, 2010 #23

    Redbelly98

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook