Time

[Saiph]

actually, that just means they don't have exactly 0 energy...they have a little, then none, then negative.<br /><br />Have fun with that idea.<br /><br />Anyway, it doesn't matter. They don't go anywhere, don't do anything, and have no energy, carry no information....So if the exist...it matters diddly squat. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

I think you mean 0K (-273C).<br /><br />Gravity is alive and well (pun intended). Are you asking about just a small sample at 0K or an entire universe? It matters (there I go again).

 

[main_sequence]

From my understanding 0 K could never exist in this unverse. By definition it is the stoppage of all motion of atoms within a particle - but then you would have to "freeze" the rest of the universe in order to not have any motion relative to the rest of the universe.<br /><br />

 

[holmec]

Is there a basic formula showing the relationship of time and temperature? Anyone? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">Is there a basic formula showing the relationship of time and temperature? Anyone?</font><br /><br />Hmmm... Speaking loosely...<br /><br />Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the random motion of a sample. Time is measured as a count of certain atomic transitions.<br /><br />Another way to ask the question is, does increasing the random motion in a sample change the way atoms transition between states? I suppose this could be the case, but I don't have any further information on this.

 

[rogers_buck]

I suppose he might be asking about relatvistic effects due to equivalence. Kinetic energy is as good as any other with respect to its mass equivalence. A hot penny has a bigger indent in space-time than a cool penny. The total relativistic energy is (mc**2) + the kenetic energy. <br /><br />I invite you to come up with your own derrivation. I suggest you take a look at the derrivation of E=mc**2. I think you will find it MOST helpfull.<br />

 

[najab]

><i>...but then you would have to "freeze" the rest of the universe in order to not have any motion relative to the rest of the universe...</i><p>But you just hit on the key word "relative" to the rest of the Universe. If you want to be specific to the point of being pedantic, an object can said to be at absolute zero when there is a <i>single</i> frame of reference in which all its constituent particles have zero velocity.</p>

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">A hot penny has a bigger indent in space-time than a cool penny.</font><br /><br />A fascinating idea. Hmmm.... Do I agree? Thinking outloud...<br /><br />Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the penny due to their random motion. The kinetic energy of a penny is a measure of the ordered motion of the penny. Increasing kinetic energy doesn't necessarily increase temperature.<br /><br />However, increased temperature does mean that the kinetic energy of each of the individual molecules in the penny is increased.<br /><br />Does a thrown penny have a bigger indent in space-time than a stationary penny? I'm not sure if the gravity of a fast object is larger than the gravity of a slow object. There have been threads about this, but I forget their outcome... (Someone: HELP here please.)<br /><br />If so, then, there are more copper molecules in the penny making a bigger indent in space-time in the hot penny than in the cool penny.<br /><br />I expect the space-time indents (the gravity) should sum without respect to the direction of the motion. That is, fast random motion is as good as fast ordered motion.<br /><br />So, yes, I agree that the hot penny makes a bigger indent in space-time than the cool penny.<br /><br />Possible Derivation: Given: the temperature of the penny. The velocity distribution of the molecules of the penny is a function of temperature. The relativistic mass of each particle is a function of the particle velocity. I ASSUME the gravitational influence of the particle is a function of the relatavistic mass (and distance). The gravitational influence of the various particles sum. The influence on time is a function of the increased gravity.<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

Yup. Energy and mass are equivalent. Take your energy however you like it. Mr. Lincoln will impress. Pressure too has mass equivalent (and anti-mass equivalent or we wouldn't be here).<br /><br />If all motion (KE) is -0- any object will still have a relativistic energy equivalent given by E=mc**2. Relativity cares not if there is any KE. Gravity will be alive and well. Quantum effects get interesting (BEC).<br /><br />Pulling a vacuum on He gets you pretty cold, laser cooling gets you even colder, but the 3K CBR will warm you up and ZP fluctuations will make it only a probable -0-K.<br /><br />Temperature is a gausian whoose lower limit is -0-K. The probability is quite low, hewever.<br />

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

That is also my question, any relationship between time and temperature? In my opinion, temperature is one of the most neglected subjects of research topic in cosmology. In my thinking there is a much deeper relation between space, time, and temperature (heat). As one of the above post pointed out around 273oK all motions will come to a stop, which represents or simulates a timeless situation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">Physicists say they have brought light to a complete halt for a fraction of a second and then sent it on its way, an achievement that could someday help scientists develop powerful new computers.<br /><br />--- http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20031209-2349-frozenlight.html</font><br /><br />In quantum computing, freezing light would act like memory storage. Data management would involve regulating temperatures within a network, for example: higher temperatures for high speeds, and lowered temperatures for slower speeds, and storage.<br /><br />Might want to consider utilizing Metal Hydrogen to act as a super conductor in these more advance quantum computers, since we are talking about a few thousand plus or minus degrees K.<br /><br />If someone could stop light with cold temperatures, then someone might theoretically be able to reverse light as well. This might be a time machine, when you think of teleportation and/or quantum tunneling. Anyway, it is just a thought ;o)<br /><br />If some hotshot scientist wanted to prove time-travel in a lab, they might prove it in a quantum computer?

 

[darthsnader]

How much influance does gravety have on Time and Light? I wonder this because I think about how time would flow if are solar system was closer to the center of our galaxey. Could larger galaxeies have slower light and time do to the effect of it size or the amount of mass? Over thousands to billions of years this could have a great effect. <br /><br />

 

[riflemannl]

time = a simple creation of humans. so is god.. but k that's my opinion.<br /><br />light has the same speed. light is no atom, no element. light is 'something', but what is unknown. the heat of a sun/star depends on it's mass and Ro (mass x volume = Ro, don't know the right name.. dutch <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />). with this also gravity is larger (if the mass is larger).

 

[adzel_3000]

Darth,<br /><br />According to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, space-time is curved near a massive object. Light rays naturally travel in straight lines but gravity will bend light. But if the space thru which a light ray is traveling happens to be curved (as would be found near a massive object like the sun) the paths of the light rays will likewise be curved. <br /><br />This prediction was first tested in 1919 during a total eclipse of the sun. During totality, the Moon blocks out the Sun. Astronomers used this opportunity to photograph stars that appeared near the Sun. Extremely careful measurement later revealed that the stars were “shifted” from their apparent positions by an amount that was consistent with Einstein’s theory.<br /><br />Gravity also has an effect on time. In Einstein’s general theory of relativity a large object, including the Earth, warps time as well as space. In Einstein’s model clocks will tick slightly more slowly on the ground floor of a building than clocks on the top floor. The clocks on the top floor are further from the Earth and not as deep in Earth’s gravity well. <br /><br />A light wave can be thought of as a clock. Just as a clock has a certain number of ticks a careful observer can see a steady number of complete cycles of a light wave passing by each second. If a light beam is aimed straight up from the bottom floor to the top floor of a building, an observer at the top floor will measure a “slow-ticking” light wave with a lower frequency and thus a longer wavelength, as compared to the guy on the b bottom floor. This increase in wavelength means that a photon reaching the top floor has less energy than when it left the ground floor. <br /><br />This type of effect is called gravitational redshift. It is very different than Doppler shift. Gravitational redshift is only created by time flowing at a different rate at a different location, such as various positions within a gravity well. This effect was first seen and measured in

 

[newtonian]

DarthSnader - Time is relative to the reference point - there is no absolute time in the theory of relativity. <br /><br />However, for a specific observer time flow is indeed constant - I think.<br /><br />In other words, e=mc^2 is always true in our universe - it is one of the laws or properties incorporated into our universe at creation by God.<br /><br />c involves time - and, to my knowledge, this is constant so that the proportion of energy needed to create matter during the origin of our universe should be known.<br /><br />However, some scientists have questioned whether c is constant, and if not this would imply that the proportion in e=mc^2 is not constant and this would effect the law of conservation of matter and energy.<br /><br />I believe it is constant - the variations you are referring to are because of different reference points and are included in Einstein's theory of relativity .<br /><br />A tangent on this is gravitational lensing, as per the above post.

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">Time is relative to the reference point - there is no absolute time in the theory of relativity.</font><br /><br />Space-time is relative to the reference point - there is no absolute zero space-time. Space-time has four dimensions, the three directions x, y, and z and time; however, if you consider the big bang, then the space-time absolute zero exists at precisely one point in space-time, if our universe is the only universe.<br /><br />And space-time is not curved, the fabric in space-time is curved by gravity. or some other undiscovered force like dark energy.

 

[slayera]

There is no god, no one created the universe and e=mc^ 2 is still true. It's not e=mc^2+god. <br />

 

[darthsnader]

Thanks for all your replies.<br /><br />If graveties effect on time is so limmited to such a small area.. Then I now assume that the mass of a galaxey has little effect on the age or how time flows through it. <br /><br />A suns gravety well will have little effect on time, and have alittle effect on the time it takes to burn its fuel.<br /><br />But a black holes effect on time will have a much greater effect on time.. And who know whats going on in there.<br /><br />As for the "thing" or energy that the big bang came from.... who knows if time even moved around it.<br /><br />ps. I love the recent photo shots of the center of are milky way galaxy<br />

 

[newtonian]

slayer - And how do you account for the laws and properties of our universe without a Creator?<br /><br />Why does e=mc^2?<br /><br />You cannot have laws without a lawgiver or lawmaker.<br /><br />You cannot have an effect without a cause. <br /><br />And you cannot have cause and effect without time, so there must have been primordial time before our universe's space-time was created.

 

[kmarinas86]

The law of conservation of cause and effect!!! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Every object in the universe must be an emergent property. This can only happen if the universe emerges from itself. Anything "happens", as long it is an emergent property. Time is not an object. Neither is space. Everything else is.<br /><br />If laws are not objects, then neither is the lawmaker.

 

[newtonian]

kmarinas86 - Ok, your latter comment indicates lawmakers in the United States congress are.....????<br /><br />Now, on emergent properties how do you propose that the laws and properties emerged????<br />

 

[kmarinas86]

If laws are not objects, then neither is the lawmaker. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Ok, your latter comment indicates lawmakers in the United States congress are.....????</font><br /><br />Now the law itself is not an object, unless if it said to be in paper form, or in some other medium. In the sense of ink and paper, a law is an object created by man.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />Now, on emergent properties how do you propose that the laws and properties emerged????</font><br /><br />Objects are made of different smaller objects and so on. That's what makes them distinct (and emergent). Properties are not objects (like "see black"), so they don't have to emerge from objects. Non-objects they can, but not objects.<br /><br />We believe in the seen and the unseen. (Nicene Creed)

 

[gfpaladin]

This is going to lead us down the path of trying to prove (or worse, disprove) the existence of God, thus derailing this entire thread. Perhaps a diferent thread in a different area might be more appropriate?

 

[newtonian]

gfpaladin - Good point. Indeed that is discussed on other threads.<br /><br />My main point is that time does not equal space-time.<br /><br />And Cause and effect cannot proceed without time.<br /><br />And the creation of our universe's space-time had a cause.<br /><br />Therefore I postulate the existence of primordial time.<br /><br />Of course, God would be the first cause - it is an understandable tangent from cause and effect during time.<br /><br />Another logical tangent is whether the first cause caused time or whether primordial time existed eternally in the past.<br /><br />The latter allows for an alternative to a first cause, namely: an infinite number of past causes and effects.<br /><br />I opt for a first cause - it is the Biblical model.

 

[tex_1224]

There is no Time. Humans see Time as a straight line. It is curved. Time is a Law that governs this instant. An outward operation. To bend Time we must understand the curve of in which Time exist. Time is what is left after we calculate speed and distance. <br /><br />How can science prove that we have soul, mind and spirit??? Or has science already done it, but just calls it something else? What is the Mind? can we see it? can we hold it? can we replace it when it goes bad? We all have memories, we all have mind. How does a flock of birds remain one in flight? how does a school of fish know how to stay together and move the way they do in such precision. can they communicate with their Minds? How do ants using their antennas, communicate. Is there a frequency that our Minds can use to communicate Mind to Mind. A microwave? Or maybe a Nano-wave?<br /><br />Is it not a positive charge that brings on goose bumps? Are we as humans able to use our bodily charge to Ionize the atmosphere around us? thus increasing our Temperature, thus increasing our frequency, thus reducing our mass inside the positively ionized charge? by doing this would we cause ourselves to be struck by lightning? like the launching of space shuttles can cause lightning?<br /><br />Time is a law, like gravity is a law. Any pilot can break the law of gravity, but only a Master can break the law of time.<br /><br />Mer -I -Ka<br /><br />(Mind -Infinite -Soul)