Exploring the Concept of Time: Limitations and Possibilities

[Meselwulf]

Let's say I have an object in thermal equilibrium with the background. The object emits a photon and loses that energy. Is it not in a lower energy state before it absorbs one from the background?

Never will.

 

[Drakkith]

Never will.

It never will what?

 

[Meselwulf]

Not when we are talking about the least action of a particle. The zero point energy means it cannot go below that temperature, it is simply a kinetic term.

 

[Drakkith]

Not when we are talking about the least action of a particle. The zero point energy means it cannot go below that temperature, it is simply a kinetic term.

I'm talking about an object in equilibrium with the background emitting a photon and then absorbing one. Will that object be in a less energetic state between the emission and absorption or not?

 

[Meselwulf]

I'm talking about an object in equilibrium with the background emitting a photon and then absorbing one. Will that object be in a less energetic state between the emission and absorption or not?

No, as I said, it will never be less or more, it will always vibrate at the same frequency, regardless of your set-up.

 

[Drakkith]

No, as I said, it will never be less or more, it will always vibrate at the same frequency, regardless of your set-up.

And if that object is something like a brick, not a single particle?

 

[Meselwulf]

Your least temperature will always be a zero point. If you add energy then obviously it is not your least action. In that case... we are not talking about zero point any more.

 

[Meselwulf]

And if that object is something like a brick, not a single particle?

Do you know anything about the difference between... quantized states and those which are macroscopic?

 

[Drakkith]

Hold on I think we had a misunderstanding. Are you saying the CMB is a zero point? Or are you saying that the background temperature, any background temperature, can have a minimal energy level? I thought you were saying the former.

 

[Meselwulf]

Hold on I think we had a misunderstanding. Are you saying the CMB is a zero point? Or are you saying that the background temperature, any background temperature, can have a minimal energy level? I thought you were saying the former.

The latter.

 

[Meselwulf]

However, the CMB is a background temperature... It can reach a minimal temperature, hence... the ZPEF.

 

[Drakkith]

The latter.

Ok, I agree with that. But I don't see how that means that temperature is quantized. Perhaps we have a different idea of what that means. I take it to mean that the energy values can only be certain numbers. AKA you can move between 5.001 and 5.002 k, but not 5.001 and 5.0011 k. (Just an example) What exactly do you mean?

 

[Meselwulf]

Because, again... the back ground temperature is basically... radiation, which may reach the minimal state, a zero point.

 

[Meselwulf]

when quantized

 

[Drakkith]

Meselwulf, please explain exactly what you mean when you say temperature is quantized.

 

[Meselwulf]

Meselwulf, please explain exactly what you mean when you say temperature is quantized.

What is the simplest vibration of energy? What makes temperatures? Can a system be a simple vibration?

 

[Meselwulf]

Temperatures in macroscopic systems are measured by how fast kinetic fluctuations are moving in that system. If ZPEF is your lowest state, how much more quantized can a temperature be?

 

[Meselwulf]

We aren't talking about a Planck Temperature here, this is something completely different.

 

[Meselwulf]

That is a very very high temperature, I don't even see how that can be considered ''quantized.''

 

[Meselwulf]

However, there is one exception, and that is a Planck Particle which does have a Planck Temperature which ... is arguably a quantized black hole. But that's a whole new ball game.

 

[Meselwulf]

I will continue this tomorrow, I need to go.

 

[Drakkith]

What is the simplest vibration of energy?

Energy cannot vibrate, it is not an object.

What makes temperatures?

Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic, rotational, and vibrational energy of a material. In cases such as the CMB, we say it has a temperature but in reality we mean that an object at 2.725 k emitting radiation will emit an identical spectrum. An object in thermal equilibrium with the CMB would remain at 2.725 k.

Can a system be a simple vibration?

A system can HAVE a simple vibration, but the vibration itself is not a system.

 

[Meselwulf]

Energy cannot vibrate, it is not an object.



Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic, rotational, and vibrational energy of a material. In cases such as the CMB, we say it has a temperature but in reality we mean that an object at 2.725 k emitting radiation will emit an identical spectrum. An object in thermal equilibrium with the CMB would remain at 2.725 k.



A system can HAVE a simple vibration, but the vibration itself is not a system.

A quantum system, a zero point fluctuation is a vibration of energy.

Go read wiki because I am tired of discussing this with you. Nothing I have said is wrong, a fluctuation is a vibrational energy.

 

[Drakkith]

A quantum system, a zero point fluctuation is a vibration of energy.

Go read wiki because I am tired of discussing this with you. Nothing I have said is wrong, a fluctuation is a vibrational energy.

No, that is incorrect. Unfortunately popular descriptions of many things in science are grossly misleading. Nothing is actually fluctuating when a system is in its ground state. Read the following quote from here: http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1256

It's misleading to say that large fluctuations 'are occurring' in that lowest state, although scientists often use sloppy phrases like that. The system is just sitting in a state, which happens not to have definite values of position and momentum. It's not true, however, to say that its position and momentum are changing in any way. That language comes from inconsistent attempts to force quantum facts into classical descriptions.

Energy is not something physical, it is not tangible, and it cannot undergo fluctuations. Energy is simply the ability to do work. Even a photon is not energy, it is an interaction of an electromagnetic wave with matter. The wave can do work, thus it carries energy with it, but it is not energy itself. Such a phrase doesn't even have any meaning, much like saying a moving electron is "velocity itself".

 

[Dale]

Sure... time may have existed before man

If time may have existed before man then obviously time cannot be man made.

 

[Dale]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that when man arrived (whenever we did) we saw repetition as a way of keeping track of events. When did I say that repetition didn't exist before man started counting it? That's obviously nonsense!

I agree it is obviously nonsense. So I always have a hard time understanding why people like yourself make such obviously nonsensical statements.

If you have some repetitive physical phenomenon then each different repetition must differ in some physical quantity. That physical quantity exists regardless of man or how man might measure or label or describe it. The fact that man made a label ("time") and a device to measure it (clocks) and applied those man made labels and devices to that physical quantity does not mean that man made the physical quantity itself.

 

[Jorriss]

What is the simplest vibration of energy? What makes temperatures? Can a system be a simple vibration?

Energy cannot vibrate. A system cannot be a vibration.

This is the most egregious case of a wikipedia education gone wrong that I have seen.

 

[Meselwulf]

An oscillator is synonymous to something vibrating - in fact, string theory deals with such cases where particles are simply vibrations of tiny particles we call strings.

This is physics 101.

 

[Meselwulf]

If time may have existed before man then obviously time cannot be man made.

Duh.

They key word was ''If'' time existed before man. You don't need to state the obvious because nothing intelligible is being made of these.. discussions.

It goes deeper than that. Time may not exist before man because time is not an objective phenomena. However, there is plenty evidence to support the idea that time is subjective, man-made call it what you will, even biological explanations, who, another posters hear wouldn't even want to listen to ... and had the audacity to call me a lunatic.

 

[Meselwulf]

Energy cannot vibrate. A system cannot be a vibration.

This is the most egregious case of a wikipedia education gone wrong that I have seen.

Well you'd be wrong then, because what is an oscillator?

 

[chill_factor]

time is not quantized because it is not an operator and therefore is not a dynamical variable.

 

[Drakkith]

An oscillator is synonymous to something vibrating - in fact, string theory deals with such cases where particles are simply vibrations of tiny particles we call strings.

This is physics 101.

...ok? Is there a reason you posted this?

Duh.

They key word was ''If'' time existed before man. You don't need to state the obvious because nothing intelligible is being made of these.. discussions.

It goes deeper than that. Time may not exist before man because time is not an objective phenomena. However, there is plenty evidence to support the idea that time is subjective, man-made call it what you will, even biological explanations, who, another posters hear wouldn't even want to listen to ... and had the audacity to call me a lunatic.

For the second time, we are not discussing the subjective experience of passing time. We are discussing the physical property, the dimension, whatever you want to call it. The two concepts require completely different discussions, and we would make more of a mess out of this thread than it already is if we don't stick to one.

Well you'd be wrong then, because what is an oscillator?

According to your earlier post, its a vibration. Which is only partly correct. And I don't see how Joriss is wrong. Energy cannot vibrate and a vibration in and of itself cannot be a system.

 

[Meselwulf]

time is not quantized because it is not an operator and therefore is not a dynamical variable.

In my opinion, you can't quantize which most likely doesn't exist, period.

 

[Meselwulf]

...ok? Is there a reason you posted this?



For the second time, we are not discussing the subjective experience of passing time. We are discussing the physical property, the dimension, whatever you want to call it. The two concepts require completely different discussions, and we would make more of a mess out of this thread than it already is if we don't stick to one.



According to your earlier post, its a vibration. Which is only partly correct. And I don't see how Joriss is wrong. Energy cannot vibrate and a vibration in and of itself cannot be a system.

Time is not physical.

 

[Meselwulf]

In the words of Julian Barbour...

''There is only change, there is no time.''