Can ‘Theory of Ideal Gas’ be model of Vacuum ?
========== .
Comments.
#
Hi Sadovnik
The notion of a ideal gas is only to simplify it's dynamics in order to frame it
in a mathematical model . When dealing with the real world a gas will never
be perfect but at least understanding and the the tools to predict it are in place .
I see no reason for a vacuum to be perfect unless it was at 0 K
The number zero is as demanding number similar to as infinity . Leaving this
aside I believe space can be modeled under ideal conditions . Making it a ideal
gas is another question . I say no but I am not adamant about it . It depends on
what a photon is . Information has to get from a to b in space . If a photon is a
particle then I see no problem with space being modeled after a ideal gas .
However you must take the bitter pill that goes with this . Energy expands
a gas which is in contradiction with relativity . The energy that goes into
expansion can not also increase it's mass due to conservation of energy .
Only when a gas is inhibited from expanded will all the energy go into
more inertia . Even then there is a problem with heat radiation taking energy
out of the system . So you can see in the case of a ideal gas the bulk of the
energy went into expansion . You can not say it is a ideal gas then change
all the rules when relativity comes along . Some would not agree with this
but I see no way around it .
That was an interesting question .
/ John /
#
I think the ideal gas is a good analogy of the vacuum
except the ideal gas sub-particles all travel at the speed of light C.
/ jerrygg38 /
#
only in the most naive way: by defining a vacuum as a gas of density
zero. Of course this is outside the domain of validity for this theory.
/ Lars /
#
1). It's Socrates, not Socratus.
2). You seem not to understand the meaning and use of theoretical
Terms (such as "ideal gas") in scientific theories.
3). Your quotes are taken out of context, making it seem as
if the world's leading physicists are admitting physics doesn't
know anything. This is called "quote mining". It is clearly not true,
and dishonest, to boot.
4). In any rate, even if modern physics were 100% wrong,
that would be no evidence of God's existence, let alone for the truth
of any particular religion.
5). Just because we don't know how something happened doesn't
mean God did it. For thousands of years people didn't know what
causes lightning, so they said it was God being angry and smiting sinners.
They were wrong. Today we don't know what dark energy is, so some
people say it is something God created. But that doesn't mean that's true.
6). Physics WORKS. It allows us to make predictions and experiments
an engineering feats. If it were deeply wrong, your computer would
not work, for example. Religion doesn't work. It cannot reliably predict,
it cannot be tested, it passes no experiments.
7). For this reason, it is very likely that physics is approximately true,
while religion is not.
Avital Pilpel
http://www.avitalpilpel.com/=========== . .
