5 ms·

Put another way, at absolute zero, in the void of deep space, does time effectively stop for a quantum system that does not otherwise change. Does time exist f

Put another way, at absolute zero, in the void of deep space, does time effectively stop for a quantum system that does not otherwise change. Does time exist for systems with no events? If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

21 9y ago
By our current understanding the quantum fields still exist and have non-zero energy even in the void of deep space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy Particles will still be created and annihilated there and will interact with your system, so you cannot have no events.
- lisper 9y ago
  And the reason you cannot have no events is that these events are what create (or, of you prefer, define) time.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    That's... one view. Do you have any actual evidence for it?
    - lisper 9y ago
      http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-arrow-of-time.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-ar...
      - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        That's a bunch of handwaving and "physics woo", not evidence. OK, you can make an argument for it, within at least some interpretations of QM. That doesn't mean the position is correct, though, and certainly doesn't mean that it deserves the degree of certainty with which you stated it.
        lisper 9y ago
        I don't know what you would expect evidence for such a claim to look like. Did you follow the chain of references back to this paper? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167278998000451 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167278998... https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605039 https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605039
        AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        No, I didn't follow the chain of references back to there, nor, now that I'm looking for it, do I see any such references. The reference that I did see was to here: http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/09/are-parallel-universes-real.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/09/are-parallel-universes-re... And that page has what I would regard as an appropriate level of skepticism for it's own position. It says things like "IMO". It says what it thinks is correct, but it recognizes that it could be wrong. (Reasonable enough, when you're saying that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is wrong. That may in fact be correct, but dogmatism is not warranted yet, and may never be.) The links you present show a paper that puts forward a theory. Again, I'm not saying it's wrong, and it seems to make some things easier to understand. But where's the experiment that tests a prediction of this paper, which other interpretations of QM can't explain? Without that, it's just a nice theory. There are lots of those.
        lisper 9y ago
        > where's the experiment that tests a prediction of this paper I am nonplussed by this question. Did you even bother to read the first post I referred you to? Because that is all about a (thought) experiment.
        AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        A thought experiment, built on a foundation of assuming which interpretation of QM is correct. That's not the same as an actual experiment, you know. Yes, we can gain insight from a thought experiment. If the underlying assumptions are correct, we can even learn something true about reality. It's that "if" that I'm questioning. And without an actual experiment, you don't know. And with that assumption for a foundation, your experiment becomes a way to experimentally distinguish which interpretation of QM is correct. I'm not saying that such an experiment is impossible, but it's going to be really hard.
j_m_b 9y ago
>Put another way, an absolute zero, in the void of deep space, does time effectively stop for a quantum system that does not otherwise change. Even at absolute zero, there are still quantum fluctuations which give rise to phenomena such as quantum vibrational energy in molecules.
- mowenz 9y ago
  In such a scenario, where would this energy come from? Or am I not understanding this properly?
  - pavement 9y ago
    The general premise is that electrons would remain trapped in their shells, bound to protons, even in the cold dark. At the subatomic level, the system is still in motion, even if the temperature of the atoms themselves is zero. Even if they are stable, crystalized common elements, in a static molecular arrangement, uadulterated by decaying isotopes. Within the nucleus and among the electrons, a system would still exchange energy, even if there were no low energy photon emissions. Photons would still be in play between the electrons and the nucleus. Within the individual subatomic particles themselves, there is also activity. As far as we know protons don't decay, but it doesn't mean they are without events, even when no one is looking. Mostly I'm just trying to poke holes in the concepts and analogies that get bandied about, because when one attempts to apply common-sense, folksy wisdom to these topics, understanding frequently goes wildly off the mark.
    - mowenz 9y ago
      Thanks for responding, however I'm still confused. That is--I have no formal training in physics, but to my hobbyist's mind: interactions between subatomic particles creating scenarios where energy is produced in perpetuity either sounds like (1) the equivalent to a perpetual motion machine--impossible, or (2) mass-energy exchanged back and forth without radiating energy (but I am not sure if that's basically what's happening).
      - 9y ago
kowdermeister 9y ago
> Does time exist for systems with no events? Yes, haven't you been to any pointless meetings? :) > If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Obviously yes, sound is just resonating air and if physics is not broken it does make a sound.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  No it doesent make a sound. That requires something to convert it into that sound otherwise its just soundwaves.
  - kowdermeister 9y ago
    This problem is a human made one and relies on the definition of the word, sound. Sound does not require an observer. Sound-wave is just scientific / pedantic way of saying sound. It's not just English, it means the same in my language.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      Sound does require an observer indeed. Soundwaves even require observers and definition of them as soundwaves. Otherwise there is nothing.
      - kowdermeister 9y ago
        Why? If nobody is there air stops being compressed?
        ThomPete 9y ago
        Because there is not interpreter to make it a sound.
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  Like many words in the English language, the term "sound" has more than one meaning. One meaning is waves of compression in a gas, the other is the subjective experience in someone's mind.

21 9y ago

By our current understanding the quantum fields still exist and have non-zero energy even in the void of deep space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy Particles will still be created and annihilated there and will interact with your system, so you cannot have no events.

lisper 9y ago
And the reason you cannot have no events is that these events are what create (or, of you prefer, define) time.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  That's... one view. Do you have any actual evidence for it?
  - lisper 9y ago
    http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-arrow-of-time.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-ar...
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      That's a bunch of handwaving and "physics woo", not evidence. OK, you can make an argument for it, within at least some interpretations of QM. That doesn't mean the position is correct, though, and certainly doesn't mean that it deserves the degree of certainty with which you stated it.
      - lisper 9y ago
        I don't know what you would expect evidence for such a claim to look like. Did you follow the chain of references back to this paper? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167278998000451 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167278998... https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605039 https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605039
        AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        No, I didn't follow the chain of references back to there, nor, now that I'm looking for it, do I see any such references. The reference that I did see was to here: http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/09/are-parallel-universes-real.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/09/are-parallel-universes-re... And that page has what I would regard as an appropriate level of skepticism for it's own position. It says things like "IMO". It says what it thinks is correct, but it recognizes that it could be wrong. (Reasonable enough, when you're saying that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is wrong. That may in fact be correct, but dogmatism is not warranted yet, and may never be.) The links you present show a paper that puts forward a theory. Again, I'm not saying it's wrong, and it seems to make some things easier to understand. But where's the experiment that tests a prediction of this paper, which other interpretations of QM can't explain? Without that, it's just a nice theory. There are lots of those.
        lisper 9y ago
        > where's the experiment that tests a prediction of this paper I am nonplussed by this question. Did you even bother to read the first post I referred you to? Because that is all about a (thought) experiment.
        AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        A thought experiment, built on a foundation of assuming which interpretation of QM is correct. That's not the same as an actual experiment, you know. Yes, we can gain insight from a thought experiment. If the underlying assumptions are correct, we can even learn something true about reality. It's that "if" that I'm questioning. And without an actual experiment, you don't know. And with that assumption for a foundation, your experiment becomes a way to experimentally distinguish which interpretation of QM is correct. I'm not saying that such an experiment is impossible, but it's going to be really hard.

j_m_b 9y ago

>Put another way, an absolute zero, in the void of deep space, does time effectively stop for a quantum system that does not otherwise change. Even at absolute zero, there are still quantum fluctuations which give rise to phenomena such as quantum vibrational energy in molecules.

mowenz 9y ago
In such a scenario, where would this energy come from? Or am I not understanding this properly?
- pavement 9y ago
  The general premise is that electrons would remain trapped in their shells, bound to protons, even in the cold dark. At the subatomic level, the system is still in motion, even if the temperature of the atoms themselves is zero. Even if they are stable, crystalized common elements, in a static molecular arrangement, uadulterated by decaying isotopes. Within the nucleus and among the electrons, a system would still exchange energy, even if there were no low energy photon emissions. Photons would still be in play between the electrons and the nucleus. Within the individual subatomic particles themselves, there is also activity. As far as we know protons don't decay, but it doesn't mean they are without events, even when no one is looking. Mostly I'm just trying to poke holes in the concepts and analogies that get bandied about, because when one attempts to apply common-sense, folksy wisdom to these topics, understanding frequently goes wildly off the mark.
  - mowenz 9y ago
    Thanks for responding, however I'm still confused. That is--I have no formal training in physics, but to my hobbyist's mind: interactions between subatomic particles creating scenarios where energy is produced in perpetuity either sounds like (1) the equivalent to a perpetual motion machine--impossible, or (2) mass-energy exchanged back and forth without radiating energy (but I am not sure if that's basically what's happening).
    - 9y ago

kowdermeister 9y ago

> Does time exist for systems with no events? Yes, haven't you been to any pointless meetings? :) > If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Obviously yes, sound is just resonating air and if physics is not broken it does make a sound.

ThomPete 9y ago
No it doesent make a sound. That requires something to convert it into that sound otherwise its just soundwaves.
- kowdermeister 9y ago
  This problem is a human made one and relies on the definition of the word, sound. Sound does not require an observer. Sound-wave is just scientific / pedantic way of saying sound. It's not just English, it means the same in my language.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    Sound does require an observer indeed. Soundwaves even require observers and definition of them as soundwaves. Otherwise there is nothing.
    - kowdermeister 9y ago
      Why? If nobody is there air stops being compressed?
      - ThomPete 9y ago
        Because there is not interpreter to make it a sound.
woodandsteel 9y ago
Like many words in the English language, the term "sound" has more than one meaning. One meaning is waves of compression in a gas, the other is the subjective experience in someone's mind.