Does zero time exist ? Prove your answers !

[kos]

Is there something like zero time. What does it mean. Prove it in nature . What would be the consequence of existence of this kind of time.

For instance you can say hey zero time is at the verry begining of the universe. The moment of creation . The big bang . But it is not clear is there a creation at all and what if for instance the universe have existed forever. So in the second scenario there is no zero time.

[John Cuthber]

But it is not clear is there a creation at all

Yes it is., and it was 13.82 billion years ago.

[MigL]

That brief instant just after midnight.

I submit my digital alarm clock as proof.

[hoola]

I think there is no stoppage of change, which I define as time, within the cyclical universe model. One dissipates, another appears. Even with a one-shot universe, dissipation goes on forever. But time must have existed before any universe, in order to form it. In either type, if the universe(s) are finite, this makes the void timeless since it is outside the influence of any particular universe it contains...hence a sort of time stoppage. It would be more accurate to say it never got started though...

Edited December 13, 2015 by hoola

[TakenItSeriously]

I think absolute zero is considered zero time, but since you can only approach that asymptotically according to thermodynamics, then no.

[John Cuthber]

I think absolute zero is considered zero time, but since you can only approach that asymptotically according to thermodynamics, then no.

Time isn't affected by temperature.

[Strange]

Yes it is., and it was 13.82 billion years ago.

 

No really. An extrapolation back, using just general relativity, leads to a singularity at that time. I don't think most cosmologists think that the singularity has any physical meaning and there are several models which avoid it (and therefore any associated "creation" event).

[TakenItSeriously]

Time isn't affected by temperature.

sure it is, freeze an atomic clock to absolute zero for an hour then unfreeze it, and the clock has lost an hour of time.

 

Zero motion = zero time is experienced

[John Cuthber]

sure it is, freeze an atomic clock to absolute zero for an hour then unfreeze it, and the clock has lost an hour of time.

 

Zero motion = zero time is experienced

No.

Just plain wrong on two counts.

Firstly, absolute zero doesn't imply no motion (which would be a breach of the uncertainty principle and secondly

 

"Currently, the most accurate atomic clocks first cool the atoms to near absolute zero temperature by slowing them with lasers and probing them in atomic fountains in a microwave-filled cavity. "

from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock

[studiot]

To reinforce John's comment.

 

The statement that motion ceases at absolute zero is disingenuous because the full statement is

 

The vibrational motion of the atoms of a perfect crystal approaches zero as the temperature approaches absolute zero.

 

That is not to say that other forms of motion is forbidden, even for instance simple translational motion of the crystal itself.

Edited December 13, 2015 by studiot

[John Cuthber]

To reinforce John's comment.

 

The statement that motion ceases at absolute zero is disingenuous because the full statement is

 

The vibrational motion of the atoms of a perfect crystal approaches zero as the temperature approaches absolute zero.

 

That is not to say that other forms of motion is forbidden, even for instance simple translational motion of the crystal itself.

No, that would still breach the uncertainty principle.

Even at absolute zero the atoms stll vibrate.

[TakenItSeriously]

I think absolute zero is considered zero time, but since you can only approach that asymptotically according to thermodynamics, then no.

Time isn't affected by temperature.

sure it is, freeze an atomic clock to absolute zero for an hour then unfreeze it, and the clock has lost an hour of time.

Zero motion = zero time is experienced

No.

Just plain wrong on two counts.

Firstly, absolute zero doesn't imply no motion (which would be a breach of the uncertainty principle and secondly

 

"Currently, the most accurate atomic clocks first cool the atoms to near absolute zero temperature by slowing them with lasers and probing them in atomic fountains in a microwave-filled cavity. "

from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock

Ok, I'm not saying it's possible and I'm not sure arguing about impossible states makes much sense however, I don't know if those are valid arguements regardless.

 

It seems to me that:

 

if an object could be frozen to abs 0, and that state included properties of being static (no acc) and 0 energy, I still don't think Heisenburg is violated because doing something like bouncing a photon off of it would mean it's no longer in a 0 energy state and not observing it implies that it doesn't exist in space time which still doesn't violate quantum mechanics.

 

Also, for an atomic clock to work in that state it requires an electron to transition in energy states.

 

To reinforce John's comment.

 

The statement that motion ceases at absolute zero is disingenuous because the full statement is

 

The vibrational motion of the atoms of a perfect crystal approaches zero as the temperature approaches absolute zero.

 

That is not to say that other forms of motion is forbidden, even for instance simple translational motion of the crystal itself.

Constant velocity and 0 velocity are equivalent because from the POV of the object, it's not moving, anything around it is moving. Edited December 13, 2015 by TakenItEasy

[John Cuthber]

Ok, I'm not saying it's possible and I'm not sure arguing about impossible states makes much sense however, I don't know if those are valid arguements regardless.

 

It seems to me that:

 

if an object could be frozen to abs 0, and that state included properties of being static (no acc) and 0 energy, I still don't think Heisenburg is violated because doing something like bouncing a photon off of it would mean it's no longer in a 0 energy state and not observing it implies that it doesn't exist in space time which still doesn't violate quantum mechanics.

 

Also, for an atomic clock to work in that state it requires an electron to transition in energy states.

 

Constant velocity and 0 velocity are equivalent because from the POV of the object, it's not moving, anything around it is moving.

You really are not getting the message here, are you.

"if an object could be frozen to abs 0, and that state included properties of being static (no acc) and 0 energy, "

No. even at absolute zero the atoms and molecules are still moving; (and accelerating too) they vibrate.

If they did not then their positional uncertainty would be zero their momentum uncertainty would also be zero because you would know where they were (neatly arranged in a lattice) and their momentum would be zero.

And that is (whether you like it or not) a violation of the uncertainty principle.

 

The expression for the energy of a simple oscillator is given here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator

as

 

 

 

and there's no integer value of n for which that energy is zero.

[puppypower]

If you use special relativity, time stops at the speed of light. Based on my own ideas, at the speed of light the fabric of space-time breaks down into separate threads of time and threads of space. Thus allows one to follow a timeline without space restriction as well as follow a spaceline without time restrictions.

 

If we follow a thread of time without restrictions of space we knows the history of the universe at all points, since we are not limited to a given place in space. If we follow a space thread, without restrictions of time, we can be anywhere in zero time. In terms of ancient thinking these two states were called omniscience and omnipresence, respectively.

 

To form the universe, as we know, we need a timeline to intersect a space line to begin the weave. This intersection places restrictions on time and space that limits omnipresence and omniscience. We can no longer be everywhere but now need to be somewhere, specific, while we can't know everything but need to focus on this one thing; brooding.

Edited December 13, 2015 by puppypower

[Strange]

If you use special relativity, time stops at the speed of light.

 

No it doesn't.

1) Nothing can move at the speed of light.

2) The Lorentz transform does not apply at the speed of light (you end up dividing by zero)

 

 

Based on my own ideas, at the speed of light the fabric of space-time breaks down into separate threads of time and threads of space.

 

You really shouldn't post this sort of drivel in the science sections of the forum.

if an object could be frozen to abs 0, and that state included properties of being static (no acc) and 0 energy, I still don't think Heisenburg is violated because doing something like bouncing a photon off of it would mean it's no longer in a 0 energy state and not observing it implies that it doesn't exist in space time which still doesn't violate quantum mechanics.

 

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle has nothing to do with bouncing photons off an object. And things really don't cease to exist when not observed.

 

Constant velocity and 0 velocity are equivalent because from the POV of the object, it's not moving, anything around it is moving.

 

This would appear to contradict your argument. Everything can be considered to be stationary in its own frame of reference and yet time doesn't stop.

[studiot]

 

John Cuthber

No, that would still breach the uncertainty principle.

Even at absolute zero the atoms stll vibrate.

 

Agreed in QM.

 

But classically the Third Law sets S=0 at T=0 so that the integration of TdS from zero to any desired temperature may be perfomed to obtain the so named absolute entropy.

In those calculations zero point energy is not included.

 

Further discussion here

 

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=22970

Edited December 13, 2015 by studiot

[John Cuthber]

Agreed in QM.

 

...

And, therefore, the real world.

[Phi for All]

Based on my own ideas, ...

 

!

Moderator Note

Please, stop doing this in the mainstream sections. I don't know how to make it any clearer, so I'll give you a warning point. Next time you do it, you're gone. Understand? Good.

 

You should start looking for another forum where they let you speculate any time you want. This is NOT that forum.

[TakenItSeriously]

You really are not getting the message here, are you.

"if an object could be frozen to abs 0, and that state included properties of being static (no acc) and 0 energy, "

No. even at absolute zero the atoms and molecules are still moving; (and accelerating too) they vibrate.

If they did not then their positional uncertainty would be zero their momentum uncertainty would also be zero because you would know where they were (neatly arranged in a lattice) and their momentum would be zero.

And that is (whether you like it or not) a violation of the uncertainty principle.

 

The expression for the energy of a simple oscillator is given here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator

as

 

 

 

and there's no integer value of n for which that energy is zero.

Ok, I see where my confusion comes from now. After looking it up I found it defined as a theoretical minimum of zero-point energy, which is a quantum boundary condition which still allows for movement.

 

But another source defined it as where all motion in matter stops, which seems ironic, since it was a story about achieving -absolute temperatures which makes me doubt the source.

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/journey-other-side-absolute-zero

 

I did see another article which reported the *same story but called absolute zero a state at what most considered to be a theoretical minimum which the author was at least smart enough to qualify that definition given the story being reported. Though he also said it could also be seen as a temperature over infinity, so... I'd prefer to think of it as breaching theoretical minimum.

 

It was taught to me as meaning 0 motion as well and I can even recall the professor emphasizing the point by stating that not even electrons moved which is why it stuck with me. But that was a long time ago.

 

I always just assumed it was a hypothetical state similar to 100% efficiency I also recall hearing about a theory back then relating absolute zero to time that has stopped, but that came second hand and I never verified it which wasn't so easy to do back then.

 

So just to be clear, do you know if zero motion is just a competing school of thought, or a widespread misconception based on the name? Which does seem poorly chosen TBH

 

*sorry not the same story.

Edited December 13, 2015 by TakenItEasy

[MigL]

Not a competing school of thought at all, just a misconception.

As other members have told you, modern science ( which by necessity includes QM ) does not allow for such a localization of a quantum particle.

Zero motion implies you know its position and momentum, an impossibility.

And not because of any measuring limitations.

That's just the way reality is.

[swansont]

In a way it is a competing school of thought. Zero motion is based in classical physics, while zero-point in quantum. People citing zero motion are likely looking at classical thermodynamics.

[studiot]

There's been a lot of talk of uncertainty.

 

This is my last post on the subject because it really is off topic as it makes no difference if you cool something to absolute zero. That takes time. In fact the third law says infinite time. but you can warm it back up again also in time.

So zero time is not involved.

 

All those introducing uncertainty should calculate it, remembering that we are talking about the movement of massive objects like atoms or molecules, not electrons.

 

What is the uncertainty relative to the size of the atom and its uncertainty?

Edited December 13, 2015 by studiot

[TakenItSeriously]

Not a competing school of thought at all, just a misconception.

As other members have told you, modern science ( which by necessity includes QM ) does not allow for such a localization of a quantum particle.

Zero motion implies you know its position and momentum, an impossibility.

And not because of any measuring limitations.

That's just the way reality is.

Ok but to be fair, I've always stated it as a hypothetical state that I didn't think was possible. And I still wonder at the wisdom or logic to label any theoretical boundary condition as an absolute because regardless of how axiomatic a theoretical max/min is, it's still no basis for them holding up over time..

In a way it is a competing school of thought. Zero motion is based in classical physics, while zero-point in quantum. People citing zero motion are likely looking at classical thermodynamics.

Thanks, just curious, what replaced classical physics as the next paradine?

 

Edit to add, just realized that was a truly dumb question

Edited December 14, 2015 by TakenItEasy

[MigL]

To be fair studiot , it has nothing to do with the size of the uncertainty,

In posts #6 and #8, TakinItEasy made the assumption that at absolute zero, all motion ceases, and time stops.

Well all motion does not cease. Even if it did ( almost ) for atoms and molecules within the bounds of uncertainty, electrons and quarks would still move.

So this fails as an argument for time stopping.

[TakenItSeriously]

Back on topic, since it seems like the Big Crunch is out, i would think that any death of the universe scenario that predicts a finit time to die then it's just a matter of time before time looses meaning. Though I'm not sure if that counts.