[questionposter]

Theoretically, if an object has 0 kinetic energy, then it would mean that it's time stops, but, that same thing is exactly what happens in measurements in quantum mechanics. When we measure a particle, we are measuring a single finite and "not moving" point, its just a point, and since it's just a point and it's can't be moving because it would mean that your measurement is somehow getting information of it's motion before photons reach our eyes, it has 0 kinetic energy, so couldn't the reason why there's all this measurement weirdness be because a million times a second we are technically "stopping time" and therefore giving something 0 energy, and since it doesn't have energy it can't be a wave since wave mechanics clearly show you need energy to generate a wave?
Or...something like this? Because we can't actually measure continuous motion, because that would mean that we would need to have an infinitely continuous stream of photons hitting your eyes, without any break, so instead we only measure motion at tiny intervals....
Can anyone make sense of what I'm trying to say?

This post has been edited by questionposter: 19 January 2012 - 01:00 AM

[Widdekind]

I understand, that a quantum 'measurement' is equivalent to a 'wave-function collapse', e.g. free electrons 'collapsing onto' free protons, in space plasma, emitting a 'recombination' photon. The center-of-mass rest-frame is not necessarily the same, as the earth rest-frame.

[ajb]

questionposter, on 19 January 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

Theoretically, if an object has 0 kinetic energy, then it would mean that it's time stops,

I do not understand your reasoning.

Think about a particle in standard classical mechanics. Surely measuring a kinetic energy of zero means that the object is moving at zero velocity as measured by you?

[questionposter]

ajb, on 19 January 2012 - 08:32 AM, said:

I do not understand your reasoning.

Think about a particle in standard classical mechanics. Surely measuring a kinetic energy of zero means that the object is moving at zero velocity as measured by you?

But everything is always moving, so everything has kinetic energy, but perhaps not continuously. I'm actually very surprised you haven't heard of this before. Since it's impossible to make something have 0 kinetic energy (at least continuously) and things are always moving, if something did have 0 kinetic energy it would have to mean time stops, that's the only time something would have 0 kinetic energy.

This post has been edited by questionposter: 19 January 2012 - 01:27 PM

[ajb]

questionposter, on 19 January 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

But everything is always moving...

With respect to what?

[questionposter]

ajb, on 19 January 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

With respect to what?

Everything else. Pick an object in the universe...it has some kinetic energy. If it did have 0K, it would be at absolute 0.
But I guess if you don't like the notion of time stopping, perhaps the act of measuring technically makes something have absolute 0 for the measurement because we can't continuously measure that the measurement is moving (unless we have infinitely continuous photon telling us information which we don't), we can only measure that a measurement is a single point at a single time, which means no distance over time and no monentum to generate a wave governed by wave mechanics, which technically means means no kinetic energy and that the measurement has absolute 0.

This post has been edited by questionposter: 20 January 2012 - 12:41 AM

[ajb]

questionposter, on 20 January 2012 - 12:37 AM, said:

Everything else. Pick an object in the universe...it has some kinetic energy.

The problem I have is that kinetic energy is a frame dependent notion.

For example, go outside and pick up a rock. Hold it steady. What is the kinetic energy of this rock?

[D H]

ajb, on 20 January 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

The problem I have is that kinetic energy is a frame dependent notion.

For example, go outside and pick up a rock. Hold it steady. What is the kinetic energy of this rock?

It looks like questionposter is saying that it is essentially the rock's temperature.

questionposter, you are coming at this with the notion that time is motion. It isn't.

[swansont]

questionposter, on 19 January 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

Theoretically, if an object has 0 kinetic energy, then it would mean that it's time stops

According to what theory?

[morgsboi]

All of space has no kinetic energy so does it mean if we go there, we stop in time?

[ajb]

D H, on 20 January 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

It looks like questionposter is saying that it is essentially the rock's temperature.

Ok, so the idea is that zero temperature equals no time.

[D H]

ajb, on 20 January 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

Ok, so the idea is that zero temperature equals no time.

That does seem to be the premise. Essentially, that 0/0 = 0. Or perhaps it's 42?

[timo]

D H, on 20 January 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

That does seem to be the premise. Essentially, that 0/0 = 0. Or perhaps it's 42?

Since this is a physics "0/0" it must be related to the Planck units.

[questionposter]

swansont, on 20 January 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

According to what theory?

I don't even remember what theory, I think it just might have been something I heard from a high school teacher for an either physics or chemistry class, but I guess there isn't much that actually happens at absolute 0. But basically, the logic is that since everything is always moving in some way, if something didn't move at all in any way, it would have to mean time has stopped.

ajb, on 20 January 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

The problem I have is that kinetic energy is a frame dependent notion.

For example, go outside and pick up a rock. Hold it steady. What is the kinetic energy of this rock?

Your eyes still pick up the information to suggest its moving, you just don't notice it because it's so small. In fact, your eyes are even picking up information right now to suggest that atoms have wave-like properties, but the properties are happening over such a small distance that we don't notice. Not only that, but the rock is rotating as the earth is rotating and is also rotating around the sun, galaxy, local cluster and Virgo super-cluster.

morgsboi, on 20 January 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

All of space has no kinetic energy so does it mean if we go there, we stop in time?

Space at least in general relativity IS time, so wherever we go in space, there is time, and in the new standard model, space may be consisting of incredibly small strands of energy. There's also those virtual particle pairs that keep appearing and dis-appearing.

ajb, on 20 January 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

Ok, so the idea is that zero temperature equals no time.

Does the measurement of a point of a particle go along continuously through time? I don't think so...that would imply we know what path it takes.

This post has been edited by questionposter: 20 January 2012 - 01:36 PM

[mississippichem]

timo, on 20 January 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

Since this is a physics "0/0" it must be related to the Planck units.

I mathematician just crapped his pants.

[D H]

questionposter, on 20 January 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

I don't even remember what theory, I think it just might have been something I heard from a high school teacher for an either physics or chemistry class, but I guess there isn't much that actually happens at absolute 0. But basically, the logic is that since everything is always moving in some way, if something didn't move at all in any way, it would have to mean time has stopped.

This is pretty much nonsense. Keep in mind that high school teachers don't have to know a lot about the subject they are teaching. This is particularly so for the more advanced parts of the subject matter.

Quote

Space at least in general relativity IS time

No, it's not. Time is not a spatial dimension.

Quote

Does the measurement of a point of a particle go along continuously through time? I don't think so...that would imply we know what path it takes.

That's a non sequitur.

There are some physicists who conjecture that space and time are quantized. They are in the minority. The standard model and relativity are written in the form of differential equations. In other words, the underlying assumption is that space and time are continuous rather than discrete.

[immijimmi]

ajb, on 20 January 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

The problem I have is that kinetic energy is a frame dependent notion.

For example, go outside and pick up a rock. Hold it steady. What is the kinetic energy of this rock?

about 288K? When he refers to kinetic energy having an effect on time it isnt necessarily net movement. The rock is vibrating in your hand but not to a noticeable degree. Temperature is to movement what distance is to displacement, I suppose. If I kick a ball 5m into the air and it lands where i kicked it from, distance travelled is 10m but displacement is 0m. If you hold a rock steady in your hand, its movement is 0 but its temperature (and therefore kinetic energy) is quite a bit more.

[morgsboi]

questionposter, on 20 January 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

Space at least in general relativity IS time, so wherever we go in space, there is time, and in the new standard model, space may be consisting of incredibly small strands of energy. There's also those virtual particle pairs that keep appearing and dis-appearing.

I know what quantum mechanics is. Anyway, I'm not talking of M theory or particles. I'm talking about SPACE, the space that surrounds the particles because if there wasn't space they wouldn't exist.

Anyway, time could be stopping for "a billion years" (yes, I know you can't measure time where there is no time) every mili-second and we would never know.

[questionposter]

morgsboi, on 20 January 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

I know what quantum mechanics is. Anyway, I'm not talking of M theory or particles. I'm talking about SPACE, the space that surrounds the particles because if there wasn't space they wouldn't exist.

Anyway, time could be stopping for "a billion years" (yes, I know you can't measure time where there is no time) every mili-second and we would never know.

Well, I don't know what to tell you guys. The electron you measure isn't a wave, it's a point, and since we are not getting infinitely continuous measurements of the point, we can not observe that the point is moving any distance over time or that it has any momentum or kinetic energy, so I guess if time stops, what is it relative to?

D H, on 20 January 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

This is pretty much nonsense. Keep in mind that high school teachers don't have to know a lot about the subject they are teaching. This is particularly so for the more advanced parts of the subject matter.

Well, I wouldn't agree with that, it's not nonsense because they still have degrees in science and no one has at least knowingly reached absolute 0, so what happens at 0K is anyone's game.

D H, on 20 January 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

No, it's not. Time is not a spatial dimension.

Well then what do you call "the fabric of space-time"? Einstein called space and time a single entity, so...

D H, on 20 January 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

There are some physicists who conjecture that space and time are quantized. They are in the minority. The standard model and relativity are written in the form of differential equations. In other words, the underlying assumption is that space and time are continuous rather than discrete.

Well we can't measure space and time continuously even if things like time do actually flow continuously.

morgsboi, on 20 January 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

I know what quantum mechanics is. Anyway, I'm not talking of M theory or particles. I'm talking about SPACE, the space that surrounds the particles because if there wasn't space they wouldn't exist.

Anyway, time could be stopping for "a billion years" (yes, I know you can't measure time where there is no time) every mili-second and we would never know.

Well, I don't know what to tell you guys. The electron or proton or whatever piece of matter you measure isn't a wave, it's a point, and since we are not getting infinitely continuous measurements of the point, we can not observe that the point is moving any distance over time or that the point has any momentum or kinetic energy, so I guess if time stops, what is it relative to? Or I guess, can anyone think of a better explanation for what happens when we observe something as a point and.or what happens at 0K?

This post has been edited by questionposter: 20 January 2012 - 10:12 PM

[D H]

questionposter, on 20 January 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

Well, I don't know what to tell you guys. The electron you measure isn't a wave, it's a point, and since we are not getting infinitely continuous measurements of the point, we can not observe that the point is moving any distance over time or that it has any momentum or kinetic energy, so I guess if time stops, what is it relative to?

Huh? You are mis-mixing and mismatching a bunch of disparate concepts here. It's best not to do that.

Time doesn't stop at absolute zero. You are starting with this as your premise. It is a false premise.

questionposter said:

D H, on 20 January 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

This is pretty much nonsense. Keep in mind that high school teachers don't have to know a lot about the subject they are teaching. This is particularly so for the more advanced parts of the subject matter.

Well, I wouldn't agree with that, it's not nonsense because they still have degrees in science ...

Take a look at this site, http://www.phy.ilstu...pte/career.html. Scroll down to "Plan of Study in Physics Teacher Education at Illinois State University". Education in physics per se pretty much stops at the sophomore level physics classes. No thermodynamics, no statistical physics (essentially, advanced thermodynamics). High school science teachers need to learn the very basics of their subject matter, and that's about it.

questionposter said:

and no one has at least knowingly reached absolute 0, so what happens at 0K is anyone's game.

Just as a massive particle can never reach the speed of light, nothing can ever reach absolute zero. Both are physically impossible. Your premise that time stops at absolute zero (it doesn't) is better stated as time slows down near absolute zero (it doesn't).

questionposter said:

D H said:

No, it's not. Time is not a spatial dimension.

Well then what do you call "the fabric of space-time"? Einstein called space and time a single entity, so...

I call "the fabric of space-time" a phrase that is widely used and widely abused in lay science literature. I don't like the phrase. That word "fabric" carries connotations from the lay meaning of the word that lead to misconceptions.

The temporal dimension is quite different from spatial dimensions. It's an essential part of the spacetime metric. The spacetime interval between two points in spacetime is . If the temporal dimension was just another spatial dimension that subtraction would be an addition. Another way to look at the spacetime interval is as . In other words, time is on an imaginary axis. Yet another way to look at spacetime interval is as . This effectively places the spatial dimensions on imaginary axes, leading to a quaternionic representation of spacetime.