Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 36 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
#44534 08/01/12 08:23 PM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Physics and Tautology.
=.
1
Where did the masses for big bang come from ?
These masses came from surrounding space.
2
Where did these masses from surrounding space come from ?
These masses came from big bang.
===.
Why he is poor ?
Because he is stupid.
Why he is stupid?
Because he is poor.
===.

.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: socratus

1
Where did the masses for big bang come from ?
These masses came from surrounding space.


No the mass came from interaction with the Higgs particle :=)


Originally Posted By: socratus

Where did these masses from surrounding space come from ?
These masses came from big bang.


No it was always there in the higgs field :=)


>>> Careful now I could really TAUNT you socratus <<<

You equate your god to the vacuum energy and yet science has shown that the vaccuum of space is most likely a FALSE vacuum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum) does that make your god a FALSE GOD ???????

You need to learn the lessons of history where people made things they did not understand into representing GODS like gods of thunder and lightning and such.

Later as science understood these so these GODS ceased to exist except as a funny myth and your GOD OF THE VACUUM ENERGY is in the same peril.

See be very careful about conversations with us devils :-)


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Orac
Originally Posted By: socratus

1
Where did the masses for big bang come from ?
These masses came from surrounding space.

No the mass came from interaction with the Higgs particle :=)

Where did ' the Higgs particle ' come from ?

==..

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: socratus

Where did ' the Higgs particle ' come from ?


Messenger particle for the Higgs Field :-)

Now you are going to ask where the Higgs field came from aren't you .... Hahaha

Your "God of the vacuum" is getting more removed and more unimportant to the universe by every reply.

Learn a lesson socratus if there is a GOD he doesn't need a mechanism or a structure, that is why in most religions it is a sin to make GOD into an effegy WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

>>> You have made your god an effegy of the vacuum of space <<<

GOD if he exists makes what he wants to happen BECAUSE HE WILLS IT SO ... he is a divine entity and outside the rules of science.

A rainbow exists to humans as a visibile thing yet to science it is nothing more than optical effect it does not exist as an "entity" to science.

Science views god it much the same way it can shed no light on the presence or absence of GOD because like the rainbow, god is not a physical entity to science. GOD may be real but it is not a matter of science it is a matter of FAITH.

The discovery of the higgs firms up science understanding of space and vacuum and QM advances every day but none of that will help you with proof of a vacuum or energy god.

To me you look like you are struggling with your FAITH looking desperately for signs of your god in science and I am sorry we can't help you.

Last edited by Orac; 08/02/12 05:29 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Physics and Tautology.
=.
1
Where did the masses for big bang come from ?
These masses came from surrounding space.
2
Where did these masses from surrounding space come from ?
These masses came from big bang.
===.
Why is he poor ?
Because he is stupid.
Why is he stupid?
Because he is poor.
===.
The big bang doesnt give answer to the question:
where did the mass come from ?
To understand this we need go out from big bang .
But the big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened
at the very beginning of our universe. Prior to that moment there
was nothing;
So, . . where do we go out ?
==.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: socratus

So, . . where do we go out ?


We can't test what's out of the universe so science doesn't care ... GET IT SCIENCE DOESN'T CARE AND IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Let me reverse the problem .. assume science knew everything about the universe .. every single thing ... does that prove there isn't a god?

NO ... because god could have made it all to run automatic like humans make a robot or a production line.

Being a divine entity a god could simply decide to break all the rules he setup to do whatever he likes in the same way a human modifies a robot or production line.

RELIGION IS ABOUT FAITH ... SCIENCE IS ABOUT USABLE KNOWLEDGE

And that is the basic answer to your posts and why they are garbage and get you banned on science forums because they simply don't matter EXCEPT TO YOU because you seem to need proof of your god even though religion tells you time and time again that god will never give you you proof it is a matter of faith.

>>>> So now your question Socratus <<<<

If YOUR god wanted us to know he was real why doesn't he appear in the middle of prime time television or a very public place and start doing miracles every day so we know he is real????????

Hell he could have his own TV channel and advertise it because after all he is GOD.

You really think he would waste time trying to trick and fool science as some sort of proof of his existance ... SERIOUSLY ARE YOU THAT NAIVE AND DESPERATE?

It's a pretty basic question Socratus I have answered yours as honestly as I can try answering mine.

Last edited by Orac; 08/02/12 02:36 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Orac
Originally Posted By: socratus

So, . . where do we go out ?


We can't test what's out of the universe so science doesn't care ... GET IT SCIENCE DOESN'T CARE AND IT DOESN'T MATTER.



If we go out of mass then it can be only one possibility -
- we will enter into an empty space.
==.
A world without masses, without electrons, without an
electromagnetic field is an empty world. Such an empty
world is flat. But if masses appear, if charged particles
appear, if an electromagnetic field appears then our world
becomes curved. Its geometry is Riemannian, that is,
non- Euclidian.
/ Book Albert Einstein The page 116 . by Leopold Infeld. /
===.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: socratus

If we go out of mass then it can be only one possibility -
- we will enter into an empty space.


INCORRECT

Mass is transferred by the reaction of matter with the higgs particle then if we go out as you put it we are simply something like the higgs.

Infact you would look alot like a something made of nuetrons and simply fly thru space barely interacting with the normal matter of this universe.

Where you would be well thats hard to say in the higgs world but not truely able to react in this universe.


Originally Posted By: socratus

A world without masses, without electrons, without an
electromagnetic field is an empty world. Such an empty
world is flat. But if masses appear, if charged particles
appear, if an electromagnetic field appears then our world
becomes curved. Its geometry is Riemannian, that is,
non- Euclidian.
/ Book Albert Einstein The page 116 . by Leopold Infeld. /
===.


AGAIN TOTALLY INCORRECT

The electron, mass and all our world is still there you just can't interact with it you would be like a classical ghost.

Mr Einstein predates the Higgs theory by 70 years so he can't help you in this matter :-)


GOTCHA


Socratus you havent answered your question about your god, cat got your tongue?

Last edited by Orac; 08/02/12 06:47 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Orac
Originally Posted By: socratus

If we go out of mass then it can be only one possibility -
- we will enter into an empty space.

INCORRECT

Mass is transferred by the reaction of matter with the higgs particle
then if we go out as you put it
we are simply something like the higgs.


. . if we go out, we enter in a kingdom of higgs-bosons . . ?

==.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: socratus


. . if we go out, we enter in a kingdom of higgs-bosons . . ?

==.



yes into a Higgs ocean :-)

Lets see if I can explain this.

Higgs Ocean is a term scientists use as an expression for what is actually a "Vacuum Coherence. In simple terms what is the vacuum of space made of. This concept was first introduced by physicist, Peter Higgs.

The ocean term is used because in some ways the vast open areas of space are very like the large oceans which we are more familar with.

... hmmm lets see if i can find you some decent links.

=> http://www.science20.com/big_science_gambles/the_ocean_of_spacetime_and_the_higgs
=> http://www.cosi.org/cosi-blog/item/swimming-in-the-higgs-ocean


So thats the higgs part now lets deal with the mass part of your question.


From (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino)
- About 65 billion (6.51010) solar neutrinos per second pass through every square centimeter perpendicular to the direction of the Sun in the region of the Earth.

Those are massless particles living in the world right near you from our sun and they are in the world without mass you are trying to understand.

We can sort of see them if we set up special detection but mostly they just pass through the universe without interacting with it.

The universe doen't end or change because of those massless particles they just look like ghosts passing thru our matter.

So as scientists we can test that realm to some extent and probably as time goes on perhaps fully.

So YES the kingdom of the higgs-bosson exists and it is here right now and always has been from what we can tell.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
You have asked alot of questions so time to answer a few Socratus because it interests me having grown up under our former masters whose stated ideological goal was the elimination of religion.

So about the great god of the vacuum.

1.) Why did your god make the universe.

Various religions give different answers from a battleground for good and evil to test the souls of men at a fundementalist level to because he god was bored and wanted to show his magnificence.

So why did the great god of the vacuum make the universe?


2.) Why did your god make humans.

The fundementalis battleground for good and evil answers that question but its a very relevant question to others. So are we here as an accident or are we here for a specific reason.

So why did the great god of the vacuum make the humans?


So there you have it two simple questions which you should have no reason to avoid unless the great god ofthe vacuum has something to hide.

Last edited by Orac; 08/03/12 05:29 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Orac
Originally Posted By: socratus


. . if we go out, we enter in a kingdom of higgs-bosons . . ?

==.

Higgs Ocean is a term scientists use as an expression for
what is actually a "Vacuum Coherence.
In simple terms what is the vacuum of space made of.


Higgs particle + Higgs Field = Higgs Ocean =
= Dirac virtual particles + Dirac Sea = Vacuum Coherence

===

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Not quite .... Dirac contrived a sea of negative charged particles to try and resolve an issue ... and I do mean contrived there is no scientific basis behind it other than to try and balance the cosmological constant.

That is VERY VERY different to the higgs where the particle is nuetral infact almost sterile in this universe. The higgs is a somewhat complex process by comparision as scientists struggled to find mechanisms that fitted the data not try to balance some abstract mathematical equation.

You still have NOT answered a single question Socratus and as this is getting boringly one sided I know how all this stuff works I shall probably cease discussion shortly.


My interest still is in why the universe and humans exist in your opinion.

This is one of the key differentials between science and religion.


Science can have the universe springing up because of some random fluctuation and humans here because we got a series of lucky breaks through evolution, so we are here because we are amongst the luckiest of chances.

The moment you bring a GOD into the equation all that changes the universe and humans have to exist for a very specfic reason

As someone who was bought up without religion and as a keen scientists this is the BIGGEST BY FAR change in introducing a GOD.

I can give you any number of papers and links on how the universe can be created by chance by subatomic quantum fluctions but the moment you bring in GOD chance goes there has to be reason.

As I look at all the religions now it my first question what is each religions logic of why GOD exists. Many I find totally lacking in any sort of sense.

And so the inescapable question I ask of the great vacuum god to you is

WHY?

Why does the universe exist and why humans exist for your religion.

Last edited by Orac; 08/04/12 04:26 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Orac
Originally Posted By: socratus


. . if we go out, we enter in a kingdom of higgs-bosons . . ?

==.



yes into a Higgs ocean :-)

Lets see if I can explain this.

Higgs Ocean is a term scientists use as an expression for what is actually a "Vacuum Coherence. In simple terms what is the vacuum of space made of. This concept was first introduced by physicist, Peter Higgs.

The ocean term is used because in some ways the vast open areas of space are very like the large oceans which we are more familar with.

... hmmm lets see if i can find you some decent links.

=> http://www.science20.com/big_science_gambles/the_ocean_of_spacetime_and_the_higgs
=> http://www.cosi.org/cosi-blog/item/swimming-in-the-higgs-ocean


So thats the higgs part now lets deal with the mass part of your question.


From (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino)
- About 65 billion (6.51010) solar neutrinos per second pass through every square centimeter perpendicular to the direction of the Sun in the region of the Earth.

Those are massless particles living in the world right near you from our sun and they are in the world without mass you are trying to understand.

We can sort of see them if we set up special detection but mostly they just pass through the universe without interacting with it.

The universe doen't end or change because of those massless particles they just look like ghosts passing thru our matter.

So as scientists we can test that realm to some extent and probably as time goes on perhaps fully.

So YES the kingdom of the higgs-bosson exists and it is here right now and always has been from what we can tell.


Higgs particle + Higgs Field = Higgs Ocean.

The Ocean Of Spacetime And The Higgs
http://www.science20.com/big_science_gambles/the_ocean_of_spacetime_and_the_higgs

Swimming in the Higgs Ocean
http://www.cosi.org/cosi-blog/item/swimming-in-the-higgs-ocean

==..
Higgs Ocean is a Frame of Reference.
Is Higgs Ocean an open or closed system ?
Is Higgs Ocean a hot or cold system ?
Does Higgs Ocean have the cosmic microwave background
radiation parameter T=2,7K ?


==.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
YAWN ... ANSWER A QQUESTION OR LEAVE

Othewise this is all pointless.

Is your GOD and beliefs that pathetic you can't discuss them.

Last edited by Orac; 08/14/12 01:34 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Now who's flogging a dead horse?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Now who's flogging a dead horse?


What object is ' a dead horse' ?

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: socratus
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Now who's flogging a dead horse?

What object is ' a dead horse' ?

Socratus, a dead horse is much the same as a live one except that it's dead - the point being that it's noticeably less responsive. In other words, it means: to engage in fruitless effort.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Originally Posted By: socratus
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Now who's flogging a dead horse?

What object is ' a dead horse' ?

Socratus, a dead horse is much the same as a live one except
that it's dead - the point being that it's noticeably less responsive.
In other words, it means: to engage in fruitless effort.


Thank you, redewenur
I understand your point.

Now try to understand my point.

Do you see the Orac picture: Beating a dead horse ?
You see the horse is dead.
And Bill S. ask : Now who's flogging a dead horse?

To beat a dead horse is a stupid business.
It is Sisyphean work
I changed the theme and ask: What object is ' a dead horse' ?

I will take this theme more broadly.
Modern physicists think that there is such thing as
randomness, probability, relativity . . . and they are basis of physics.


And I say that there is also such thing as absolutely
and absolutely is basis of physics.
For example: the reference frame T=0K is an absolute fact.
Speed of light quanta c=1 is another absolute fact.
Now it is possible to take these two (2) absolute parameters
and using SRT, QT and Thermodynamic laws and formulas
to explain the creation of nature and philosophy of physics
clear and logical.
=.
My question:
Can these two absolute parameters be a dead horse ?
=.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Since your in a talkative mood Socratus then lets see if we can engage you.

Temperature is an incomplete physical description in quantum mechanics it does not even exist as a physical unit or concept :-)

How can a physical thing I can see and measure not be real you ask and why doesn't it exist in QM.

lets look at 2 real world examples.

1.) The earth population has roughly on average 50% female and 50% male and therefore on an group of humans we select you can expect to find on average 1 testicle and 1 developed breast per human. Does this always hold ... no if you measure in a ladies hair salon or a public toilet you would get a vastly different answer.

2.) A rainbow is a thing I can see and I can even measure light, color and dimensions. Being a real thing I can measure and dimension it must have a temperature right, so what is the temperature of a rainbow socratus?


Hopefully this should give you some insight in example 1 our description is incomplete we have assumed breasts and testacles are fundemental to humans. The reality is they are fundemental to only 1 sex our combining of the two groups leads to a fundemental measuring problem.

Problem 1 was realised by Max Planck and lead to Planck's law as he realised temperature is an incomplete description of any physical property.

Problem 2 was realised by Heisenberg and Einstein that an observation of your rainbow and any measure on the rainbow is only valid in that reference frame. There is no zero reference frame that you can measure the rainbow because the reality is it doesn't exist as a solid thing, the rainbow only exists as a measurement in the observers reference frame.


So now to your answers.

the reference frame T=0K is an absolute fact IS WRONG

Temperature is an incomplete physical description and therefor can not be absolute just your ability to measure the physical composite you call temperature has a limit. This is why when you take things down to absolute zero QM behavior the other part of temperature you don't usually see becomes dominant and easy to see.


Speed of light quanta c=1 is another absolute fact IS WRONG.

Incorrect there may be other universes in which the speed of light is different but you will never SEE them.

It is like asking does the rainbow exist when there is no water in the sky and on a sunny day. The answer is it was never there to exist but a rainbow may exist for another observer but as you are not in the other observers position you will never know.

Observation is what makes the reality.


The memo for today:

Perhaps try understanding physics first Socratus before trying to extract meaning out of it.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Orac

Temperature is an incomplete physical description in quantum mechanics it does not even exist as a physical unit or concept :-)

How can a physical thing I can see and measure not be real
you ask and why doesn't it exist in QM.
So now to your answers.

the reference frame T=0K is an absolute fact IS WRONG

Temperature is an incomplete physical description and therefor
can not be absolute just your ability to measure the physical
composite you call temperature has a limit. This is why when
you take things down to absolute zero QM behavior the other
part of temperature you don't usually see becomes dominant and easy to see.

Speed of light quanta c=1 is another absolute fact IS WRONG.

Incorrect there may be other universes in which the speed
of light is different but you will never SEE them.

bservation is what makes the reality.


The problem number one (1) in QT is:
The infinite T=0K does not exist in QT as a basic physical concept .
=.
Everybody knows that now the cosmic microwave background
radiation parameter T=2,7K is our an absolute reference frame.
This parameter is not constant. It goes down to absolute zero
and tomorrow it will be T=0K.

Of course this infinite homogeneous T=0K in its local small places
can be changed / broken. In these local places we can see stars,
planets, vacuum polarization / fluctuation, Casimir effect .

=.
The problem number two (2 ) in QT is:
We dont know that quantum of light is.

The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the
speed of quantum of light is constant
in all directions regardless of the motion of the source.

On the other hand quantum of light can change its constant speed.
It is proved in Einsteins SRT ( by my opinion).
Why?
Because one of Einsteins postulate says that quantum of light
moves in a straight line with constant and independent
speed c=1.

The other Einsteins SRT postulate says that movement is
relative conception.(!) Every speed , even the speed of quantum
of light (!) is relative. It means that quantum of light can have
two kinds of motions: constant and relative. (!)
==.
P.S.
/ Faster-than-light. /
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
#
the best media for transmitting quantum information is single photons.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46765

===.

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Socratus
Everybody knows that now the cosmic microwave background
radiation parameter T=2,7K is our an absolute reference frame.
This parameter is not constant. It goes down to absolute zero
and tomorrow it will be T=0K.

I wonder which everybody you are talking about. I don't know that the cosmic microwave background is our absolute reference frame and there are many, many people who agree with me. Maybe you should change your statement to incorporate the fact that there are very few people who think it is.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Correct Bill I don't think any scientist would think any temeperature is a reference frame much less any sort of absolute reference because temperature is not a fundemental thing.

If your really interested in undertsanding socratus probably start here

http://www.lasalle.edu/~gentry/C331/Ch%200.%20%20Heat%20&%20Energy.pdf

This is sort of bringing in QM without the heavy complexity of QM and the key point to take is what science is telling you temperature is

Quote:

Temperature (T) = parameter that describes the energy distribution across the quantum states available to the system


Do you understand why temperature can't be a reference frame from that?


Perhaps if we take the problem into a one dimensional oscillator

http://cmm.cit.nih.gov/intro_simulation/node3.html

See the outcome

Quote:

The corresponding zero-point motion is a quantum mechanical phenomenon. Classically, there is no motion as T->0. Thus, we expect that quantum mechanics predicts more motion than classical mechanics, especially at low temperature.


See there is a huge problem for your temperature reference frame things move even at T=0K and thus temperature can not be a reference frame of any kind.

You may ask is this quantum movement proven and I selected the 1 dimensional oscillator example because it is quite topical for this week

=> http://phys.org/news/2012-08-good-vibrations-quantum-effects-optomechanical.html



Last edited by Orac; 08/17/12 02:54 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Orac
Correct Bill I don't think any scientist would think any temeperature is a reference frame much less any sort of absolute reference because temperature is not a fundemental thing.

If your really interested in undertsanding socratus probably start here

http://www.lasalle.edu/~gentry/C331/Ch%200.%20%20Heat%20&%20Energy.pdf

This is sort of bringing in QM without the heavy complexity of QM and the key point to take is what science is telling you temperature is

Quote:

Temperature (T) = parameter that describes the energy distribution across the quantum states available to the system


Do you understand why temperature can't be a reference frame from that?


Perhaps if we take the problem into a one dimensional oscillator

http://cmm.cit.nih.gov/intro_simulation/node3.html

See the outcome

Quote:

The corresponding zero-point motion is a quantum mechanical phenomenon. Classically, there is no motion as T->0. Thus, we expect that quantum mechanics predicts more motion than classical mechanics, especially at low temperature.


See there is a huge problem for your temperature reference frame things move even at T=0K and thus temperature can not be a reference frame of any kind.

You may ask is this quantum movement proven and I selected the 1 dimensional oscillator example because it is quite topical for this week

=> http://phys.org/news/2012-08-good-vibrations-quantum-effects-optomechanical.html




http://www.lasalle.edu/~gentry/C331/Ch%200.%20%20Heat%20&%20Energy.pdf

Temperature (T) = parameter that describes the energy distribution
across the quantum states available to the system

Thermal energy = kT = average Boltzmann energy level of
molecules in surroundings

http://www.lasalle.edu/~gentry/C331/Ch%200.%20%20Heat%20&%20Energy.pdf

1
According to Classical Physics total energy of T=0 is zero.
According to Quantum Physics total energy of T=0K is infinite.
2
Classical thermal energy of particles according to Boltzmann = kT
Quantum energy of particles according to Einstein / Dirac = Mc^2

#
http://cmm.cit.nih.gov/intro_simulation/node3.html

See the outcome

From equation 1, only the ground state ( ) is populated
as the temperature .
The energy does not go to zero but to .
The corresponding zero-point motion is a quantum mechanical phenomenon.

Classically, there is no motion as .

Thus, we expect that quantum mechanics predicts more motion
than classical mechanics, especially at low temperature.
==

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
And.. what you have seperated out is meaningless in isolation?

Space and time has a stability state that could be a ground stable state or a higher level metastable state thats all.

You are left with the problem there is quantum motion or quantum fluctuations even in these stable states. Therefore you can not reference anything absolutely but only through probabilties in QM.

So none of that gives you an absolute reference point and infact it is highly likely there is no absolute reference.


Please also note:
According to Quantum Physics total energy of T=0K is infinite IS WRONG

It goes to some arbritrary high value which we can not define on current data.

The same problem exists for you in the classic world ... what is the maximum temperature that can exist.

In the classic sense the answer is it depends on the start conditions of the universe energy at start divided by amount of space. Given we can't answer those variables the question is very very very high. It would be definitely finite but for intensive purposes that we will never be able to measure we call it infinite.

You are attempting to get to the same problem under QM and the answer remains the same initial energy of the system divided by the area of the system at start point.

To put some current background to this the highest temperature ever man made has been reported this week.

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-cern-physicists-hottest-manmade-material.html

You will notice alot of comments around the same question what is the highest temperature possible. I loved the link (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-highest-possible-temperature.htm) feel free to make your own number :-)

ANSWER: We don't know, we will know when we get there and for now you can call it infinite.

I fear you get hung up on infinity like a few others on this forum, looking at you Bill S :-)

Infinity is simply a place holder for a very large finite number that we don't know. I know of nothing in science that I would ever try to say was truely physically infinite and I doubt there is such thing as true infinity.

In physics you also get nonsensical answers based on our human observations as well for example

- What is the temperature of a rainbow.
- When I am standing in the eye of a cyclone which way is the wind blowing
- Find me a stationary point in the universe
- Which way is up in the universe

Last edited by Orac; 08/17/12 06:17 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I haved added this in as a seperate post for you socratus because you may wish to pick it up as a seperate theme.

Your problem with infinity above has a similar play out in religion where school children can prove to you there is NO GOD. Surely growing up you heard it.

The child proof goes like this:

- If there is a divine god he can do anything.
- If he can do anything then he can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.
- If he can't lift a rock he can't do everything
- Therefore there is no god.


It's an amusing child paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox)


Actually reading the article what I found funny is they don't resolve the paradox the way I do. I find there is a trivial way to resolve the paradox and it brings up an interesting thing.

This is actually the exact same problem you are levelling at science with infinity just in a different way. So I am interested how you resolve the paradox.

I had never really thought about this before but it is interesting god or science you still end up in a paradox on how this universe works.

Last edited by Orac; 08/17/12 08:00 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Orac
And.. what you have seperated out is meaningless in isolation?

Please also note:
According to Quantum Physics total energy of T=0K is infinite IS WRONG

It goes to some arbritrary high value which we can not define on current data.

The same problem exists for you in the classic world ... what is the maximum temperature that can exist.

Infinity is simply a place holder for a very large finite number that we don't know. I know of nothing in science that I would ever try to say was truely physically infinite and I doubt there is such thing as true infinity.

"Gentlemen, that is surely true,
it is absolutely paradoxical;
we cannot understand infinity,
and we don't know what it means.
But we have proved it,
and therefore we know it must be the truth."
/ from an email /

Again and again Infinity appears in many physical and
mathematical problems. And therefore we can read:
Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: socratus

we cannot understand infinity,
and we don't know what it means.


The meaning of infinity is simple the attempt you are making to make it real is the problem.

Originally Posted By: socratus

Again and again Infinity appears in many physical and
mathematical problems. And therefore we can read:
Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity


Infinity causes no crisis in any physics your lack of understanding is what is causing you crisis.

So resolve the childs paradox Socratus that proves there is no god it's the same problem as infinity based solely around a set of human logic and words.

So we can see if there is a crisis in physics there is a crisis in religion because there can be no god.

The reality is both crisis resolve to a stupid play on logic and wording and neither has a crisis.

If you want a good laugh google ("a rock too heavy to lift") and look at the number of religious sites that struggle with the problem. I can't believe that such a stupid paradox causes people problems.

Do you want me to tell you how to resolve the paradox logically and easily and it's completely consistant with physics and religion?

Last edited by Orac; 08/17/12 11:11 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
that proves there is no god


there you go again !

I would like to see your proof.

or is this just science once again spouting out claims without any type of data or proof.

which came first the egg or the egg samidge.

you must first have boot straps, if you want to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

you cant eat your lunch for free if there is no lunch to eat.

you exist inside a box , and that box protects you from seeing outside the box.

yet , inside that box you have found that there is another really small box where the laws of physics do not exist.

if you could see outside the box your in you might notice that the laws of physics also do not exist outside the box.

it might be that infinity exist outside the box your in.

in each direction.












3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
The child proof goes like this:

- If there is a divine god he can do anything.
- If he can do anything then he can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.
- If he can't lift a rock he can't do everything
- Therefore there is no god.



I'm sure he could make a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it.

but God can do anything so God can just make the rock light enough to lift , when he wants to lift it.

then he could lift it.

it must have been someone with a child like mind that thought this so called proof up.

is that why its called the child proof?



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: paul
[quote]
it might be that infinity exist outside the box your in.

in each direction.


the box your in - is Earth.
the infinity which exist outside the box your in is Vacuum
===

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul

or is this just science once again spouting out claims without any type of data or proof.


Read the origins of the argument Paul

Originally Posted By: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

The argument is medieval, dating at least to the 12th century, addressed by Averros (11261198) and later by Thomas Aquinas.[2] Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (before 532) has a predecessor version of the paradox, asking whether it is possible for God to "deny himself".


So once again you start wailing and ranting on that science did this or that when it has nothing to do with science it's a philosophical and logical argument.


Originally Posted By: paul


you exist inside a box , and that box protects you from seeing outside the box.

yet , inside that box you have found that there is another really small box where the laws of physics do not exist.

if you could see outside the box your in you might notice that the laws of physics also do not exist outside the box.

it might be that infinity exist outside the box your in.

in each direction.



And I see Socratus has picked up your idea and at least tries to tie up lose ends of the problems you are left with.

In your version there could be a box within a box within a box like a russian dolls, so now you have the problem there could be an omnipotent god controlling an omnipotent god.

Socratus realizes that and makes the outside infinite so it can't be russian dolled but even so a big problem remains.

I can setup an illogical paradoxes easily here let me show you.

A typical question "If god can make everything can he please make the universe so it is complete so there is no inside or outside box and can he make me his equal".

Now socratus world comes crashing down because saying no means god can't do everything and saying yes means he has an equal.


Why it's a chilrens paradox is because most children realise the paradox is in the word description to try and solve it is nonsense.

Can GOD make a line not straight ... ANSWER NO ... NOT because god can't do it BUT because a line is DEFINED as straight.

Can GOD make a rock so heavy that it can not be lifted ... ANSWER NO ... Not because god can't do it BUT because mass is DEFINED as finite.

It is your trying to make finite things infinite and REAL that creates the paradox.

There is NO LINE that is not straight.
There is NO such thing as an infinite mass.
There is NO such thing as an infinite universe.


Infinity is simply a name for a very large but as yet unknown number and the paradox disappears and that tells you that infinity is an abstract idea and can never be real.

Thus ends the memo for today and it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with philosophy and logic ... DO NOT TRY TO MAKE REAL THAT WHICH IS NOT.

So your final question to see if it has sunk in:

"How do you kill a yellow elephant" if you don't know the answer ask a child.

Last edited by Orac; 08/17/12 04:14 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Read the origins of the argument Paul


I dont care where the argument originated at.

Quote:
Can GOD make a line not straight ... ANSWER NO ... NOT because god can't do it BUT because a line is DEFINED as straight.


your answer was no , but did God define the WORD line.

Quote:

Can GOD make a rock so heavy that it can not be lifted ... ANSWER NO ... Not because god can't do it BUT because mass is DEFINED as finite.


your answer was no , but did God define the WORD mass.

your complaining that the barn your ancestors painted red is painted red.

Quote:

It is your trying to make finite things infinite and REAL that creates the paradox.

There is NO LINE that is not straight.
There is NO such thing as an infinite mass.
There is NO such thing as an infinite universe.


actually there is no such thing as a completely straight line.

also , all lines are curved or have waves in them , a curved line is not straight either!

your reasoning depends on the correctness of human made
definitions of words.

I would be willing to wager that
There is NO such thing as an finite mass.
and
There is NO such thing as an finite universe.

I would base the chances of my winning the wager on the fact
that you would be relying on what man has written.

still , I would like to see your so called proof!
surely what you have written so far was not your trump card.

if there is any proof!

think about it...




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Your really not very good at logic games are you Paul.

Originally Posted By: paul

actually there is no such thing as a completely straight line.

also , all lines are curved or have waves in them , a curved line is not straight either!


It is irrelevant whether you can actually realistically draw a straight line it is DEFINED as such no if's no but it is defined.

Can you actually draw a straight line thats an entirely unrelated question.


Originally Posted By: paul

your reasoning depends on the correctness of human made
definitions of words.


And your starting to get it not just the word but human experience and human reasoning in general.


So now lets see if you get it, answer the question how do you kill a yellow elephant?

Originally Posted By: paul

I would be willing to wager that
There is NO such thing as an finite mass.
and
There is NO such thing as an finite universe.


You are wrong and would lose badly why because they are DEFINED as such.

If there was a mass that was infinite it would have to be called something else and so with a universe.

Think about it our universe is expanding therefore it is not infinite because it is expanding into something bigger.

If either was truely infinite we would have to add in a new name because they would no longer meet the definition.


REALTY and DEFINITION do not have to be the same humans readily substitute something close to the definition as a reality.

Hence whether you can ACTUALLY draw a straight line is irrelevant humans will substitute something that looks like a straight line as a REALITY of a straight line.

It's called human subjectiveness and it is what defines reality.

Originally Posted By: paul

I would base the chances of my winning the wager on the fact
that you would be relying on what man has written.


WRONG it is not what is WRITTEN it's what HUMANS PERCEIVE as REALITY OF DEFINITIONS.


Originally Posted By: paul

still , I would like to see your so called proof!
surely what you have written so far was not your trump card.

if there is any proof!

think about it...



You really don't get it do you.

You cant prove anything absolutely it requires human subjective reality.

You think I am joking here take the hard discipline of mathematics you would think everything is well defined you would think there is no room for human subjectiveness ... right?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...)

Originally Posted By: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

The equality 0.999... = 1 has long been accepted by mathematicians and is part of general mathematical education. Nonetheless, some students find it sufficiently counterintuitive that they question or reject it, commonly enough that the difficulty of convincing them of the validity of this identity has been the subject of several studies in mathematics education.


You may want to look at the proofs in wikipedia.

It's quite funny watching good maths students getting traumatised by that problem.

The reality is you cant seperate 0.999... and 1 it requires human subjectivity.

So my answer to you is I could never prove there is no god to you Paul becuase your human subjectivity will not allow me to do so.

Last edited by Orac; 08/17/12 07:57 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
So now lets see if you get it, answer the question how do you kill a yellow elephant?


I would define a living elephant of my choice as being a yellow elephant.

then I would later define that all living yellow elephant's are dead.

by definition I would have killed a yellow elephant.

however , in reality I would have killed nothing.

Quote:
So my answer to you is I could never prove there is no god


you could have stopped there and been correct.

but you didnt.

you went on to say that you couldnt prove that there is no God
because of some trivial thing.

Quote:
to you Paul because your human subjectivity will not allow me to do so.


so your proof would be trivial if you had any.

Quote:
You think I am joking here take the hard discipline of mathematics you would think everything is well defined you would think there is no room for human subjectiveness ... right?


math cannot equally divide 1 by 3.

it would end up with a number like .333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

and would never equal 1 again by multiplying by 3

no matter how far out you carry the number , it could become as long as the universe is wide and still will never equal 1 again.

in fact that number could be infinite.
but its just a number.

just like the definition of a word is a close proximation of
an attempt to describe a word.

even though it is close that doesn't mean it is correct.

Quote:
You are wrong and would lose badly why because they are DEFINED as such.


sorry , I'm not wrong.

mass can never be finite.

because it also has energy.

and the degree of energy that mass contains changes.

therefore if mass can never be finite then our universe can never be finite.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul

I would define a living elephant of my choice as being a yellow elephant.

then I would later define that all living yellow elephant's are dead.

by definition I would have killed a yellow elephant.

however , in reality I would have killed nothing.


See typical adult answer full of stupid logic you try to solve the problem by defining things. In the same way you try to make god exist or not exist by defining infinity.

Ask any child the answer is there is no such thing as a yellow elephant have you ever seen one?


Originally Posted By: Paul

so your proof would be trivial if you had any.


Only trivial to you Paul because it's subjective in the same way a child views you answer on the yellow elephant as trivial.


Originally Posted By: Paul

math cannot equally divide 1 by 3.

it would end up with a number like .333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

and would never equal 1 again by multiplying by 3

no matter how far out you carry the number , it could become as long as the universe is wide and still will never equal 1 again.


And now you have got to the crux of the 0.99999... problem.

You need subjectivity to make mathematics work.


Originally Posted By: Paul

in fact that number could be infinite.
but its just a number.



NOT COULD BE ... IS INFINITE ... recursive is DEFINED AS SUCH.


Originally Posted By: Paul

sorry , I'm not wrong.

mass can never be finite.

because it also has energy.

and the degree of energy that mass contains changes.

therefore if mass can never be finite then our universe can never be finite.


You clearly failed science at school Paul I am sure they would have told you that energy can not be created or nor destroyed only converted to and from different forms they would have called it conservation of energy.

Einstein later went on to show the equivalence of energy (E=MC2) so no Paul changing matter to energy doesn't change the mass of the universe.

Infact if you converted the entire universe to energy you would get a hell of a lot of energy but it would still have the exact same mass ready here is the calculation

One approximation of the mass of the observable universe is 3E52 so if it was vapourised the total energy of the universe would be around 4E69 joules

But guess what 4E69 joules has 3E52kg of mass.

Science would tell you the observable universe has a mass or 3E52 Kg or that the observable universe contains 4E69 joules of energy and guess what those two things are exactly the same thing.

So if we invoke god from a science point of view your god Paul created the universe from 4E69 joules of energy. Why that number and that size I will leave for you to explain because I am not on speaking terms with god.

As I said MASS is defined as finite it can not be anything but finite.

Socratus linked it before but incase you missed it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity) read the section on physics.

The first sentence says it all

=> The practice of refusing infinite values for measurable quantities does not come from a priori or ideological motivations, but rather from more methodological and pragmatic motivations.

Now you can call the universe infinite and try and talk your way around it but physics by definition forces all measurable quantities to be finite or it is not physics.

So your infinite mass and infinite space IS WRONG AT PHYSICS and no argument can change that and you could never prove it to me.

See scientist have human subjectivity as well only we acknowledge ours.

Last edited by Orac; 08/18/12 01:30 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Zero Kelvin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero

Quote:
At temperatures near 0 K, nearly all molecular motion ceases


kinetic energy.
is the energy that an object has due to its motion.

at 0 K there is almost no motion.

thus almost all of the kinetic energy is lost.

Mass-Energy Equivalence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

Quote:
the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content.


if the entire Universe were to approach 0 K then the mass
of the Universe would shrink to the mass that it would
have minus the kinetic energy that it would lose.

so there would be very little kinetic energy left compared to the kinetic energy that there is in today's Universe.
and the mass of the Universe would shrink by that amount of kinetic energy that it has lost.

mass is not finite.
the universe is not finite.



open your box and look around.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Paul don't ever try expalining science and I will stay away from explaining religion.

Did you miss the memo classical physics is wrong and gets what happens at 0 degree Kelvin wrong ... even Socratus understood that.

For the record and so we are clear what science says:
Quote:

The corresponding zero-point motion is a quantum mechanical phenomenon. Classically, there is no motion as T->0. Thus, we expect that quantum mechanics predicts more motion than classical mechanics, especially at low temperature.


In other words NO at 0 degree Kelvin there is motion and plenty of it in the quantum domain thats why we do quantum experiments at that temperature and it's one of the foundation proofs of QM.

Under QM we have that Quantum information can not be created nor destroyed which leads to the same answer the mass of the universe still does not change.

Perhaps try understanding science and ask questions before trying to propose and answer deep science questions, I mean given my understanding of religion would you accept my explaination of deep religion issues?

I wouldn't even attempt to answer deep religious questions either because I accept my limitations on the subject.

I try not to be confrontational with you but for someone with such poor understanding of physic you do for whatever reason feel compelled to share and teach us.

Last edited by Orac; 08/18/12 09:31 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
LOL

are you saying that if the temperature of the universe were reduced
to almost 0 K there would be more motion than there is as we speak , or less motion?

I think your wrong unless your only saying that there is more motion predicted
than classical physics predicts.

so that the percentage of motion is not
.000000001 that classical physics predicts because quantum mechanics finds that it is
.000000002 vs today's motion of 1.000000000

either way the process of bringing mass to almost 0 K is by draining energy from mass.

which tells us that when mass is at almost 0 K , mass has less energy!

and therefore mass is lost because energy is lost.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/cooling.html

Quote:
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- MIT scientists have cooled a sodium gas to the lowest temperature ever recorded -- only half-a-billionth of a degree above absolute zero. The work, to be reported in the Sept. 12 issue of Science, bests the previous record by a factor of six, and is the first time that a gas was cooled below 1 nanokelvin (one-billionth of a degree).


Quote:
At absolute zero (-273 degrees C or -460 degrees F), all atomic motion comes to a standstill since the cooling process has extracted all the particles' energy. By improving cooling methods, scientists have succeeded in getting closer and closer to absolute zero. At room temperature, atoms move at the speed of a jet airplane. At the new record-low temperature, atoms are a million times slower -- it takes them half a minute to move one inch.


slower = less kinetic energy!

you can try all you want to make me look as if I dont understand what we
are talking about here , that is your prerogative.

perhaps it is because we are approaching the piece of tape
that keeps your box closed.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Paul I am not going to even bother answering your rubbish because links have been provided in the above discussion which if read explain everything.

On this forum you are BY FAR the weakest at understanding physics and yet you insist on shooting your mouth off so to speak I find it embarrassing for you and often feel like I am just getting free hits at you.

You can not criticise what you do not understand because you fail to even do basic reading on what current physics understanding is.

The reality is even a physics genius like Stephen Hawkings was bought back to reality and in the end had to conceed he was wrong when he tried to make QM information (Mass in your classic world) disappear into a black hole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

Quote:

In 2004 Hawking himself conceded a bet he had made, agreeing that black hole evaporation does in fact preserve information.


It is almost impossible for me to bring this down to your level of physics but it is proven by extreme experiments that the conservation of information is real.

No doubt you will try and fob this off with some stupid explaination that even layman can see is simply wrong. So this excercise is pointless ... physics is quite clear on the matter and it is beyond you to challenge it with your level of physics.

Personally I don't care what you believe just do not try and say science is confused about this matter because that would be a lie it is clear and concise and it says energy and/or information is conserved in the universe and there are no exceptions.

Last edited by Orac; 08/18/12 01:50 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Well Orac

I see that you have resorted to the verbal abuse method of science discussion that is so common amongst the really stupid smart people of the world when they have been confronted by facts and reality.

tuck your tail between your legs and run.

and here's a bit of information for you to consider on your journey.

information is not mass!

Quote:
he was wrong when he tried to make QM information (Mass in your classic world) disappear into a black hole.


I dont believe that mass disappears inside a black hole , I simply believe that
energy disappears in a black hole, and mass is reduced inside a black hole.

I believed this before it was a common thought , in fact I
said that all galaxies had a black hole in the center before it became a common thought.

and I said it right here on SAGG...

but just keep thinking that your right orac , as usual later on when you find out that you were wrong it wont really matter because to you what is right doesn't matter , to you the only thing that matters is that you think you look good to others as many or most of the stupid smart people of the world think.











3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
The fact you don't realise it is shows the problem in your physics understanding.

You are now denying Quantum Spin and down the rabbit hole you keep going (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)).

I am not running away Paul but you refuse to read and even try to understand the basics that can be step by step proved so this all becomes pointless.

I am not abusing you Paul it is a simple fact your physics is terrible surely you are not going to try and tell me you think it's good?

My understanding of religion is terrible too and if you said that to me I certainly would not consider it abuse.

My only criticism of you is for someone in that position you have a lot to say.

My question to you is if I started interpretting religion and telling you what it is and means would you not say the same of me given my lack of understanding of religion?


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Im not denying anything !
it is you that is in denial.
I dont have that problem as I see no boundaries.

you seem to think that the energy in the amount of motion predicted by QM
would somehow magically replace the kinetic energy lost.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
would somehow magically replace the kinetic energy lost.

Paul, when the temperature approaches absolute zero, where does the kinetic energy that is lost go? It doesn't just drain away down some rabbit hole and disappear. It just gets relocated to another part of the universe. The conservation of energy has been proved beyond any possible doubt.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
It just gets relocated to another part of the universe.


Would I be right in thinking that the agent that moves it to another part of the Universe is heat, flowing down a temperature gradient?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
It just gets relocated to another part of the universe.


Would I be right in thinking that the agent that moves it to another part of the Universe is heat, flowing down a temperature gradient?


I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Essentially in cooling one part of the universe, even if it is just one particle, the heat is transferred to another part of the universe, if it is just the particle next to the one being cooled. There are many different processes that can perform the exchange. In effect when one part of the universe is cooled another part is heated. As far as flowing is concerned, I think that is probably a classical concept, where heat "flows" from a high temperature source to a low temperature sink. When you are talking about temperatures near absolute zero there is no clear place for the heat to "flow" to because there is usually nothing around that is at a lower temperature. Getting those last few millionths of a degree requires the use of quantum effects and I'm not sure how to express that heat exchange.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Bill

Quote:
where does the kinetic energy that is lost go?


I'm not certain about that , there may be some sort of negative energy or something that the energy flows into or is attracted by.

my take on this is that it does not go anywhere , it just disappears , because the particles decrease in speed , the only reason there is any kinetic energy is motion.

this is why a black hole is possible.
only in reverse , the heat and pressures which are the result of gravity compress the mass inside the black hole so much that energy is expelled in the form of gamma rays.

the atoms are compressed so much that the orbits of the atoms
are are forced to move to a lower orbit by pressure , this reduction in orbit of the particles produces more and more heat.

I dont think that the particles slow down as they move to a
lower orbit , they maintain their speed and eventually the heat
and pressures of the particles overlapping result in an energy release.

when the energy is expelled the mass inside the black hole decreases by the amount of energy that is expelled.

which allows more room for more mass inside the black hole.

what we are discussing is sort of like the reverse of a black hole.

a black hole is the result of more pressure and heat.
what we are discussing is the result of
less pressure and heat.

in physics reversing a process in order to achieve a reversal of results is normal.

so by cooling a mass the particles are not as excited as they normally are so they slow down , they do not orbit as fast as they normaly do because they are less excited , in fact they move inward towards the center because their slower velocity will not allow them to maintain their current orbit.

there is less pressure and less heat.

so the atoms can get closer and closer to each other.
because the orbits of the particles have decreased.

which is why cooling a gas can produce superfluidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluidity




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Paul that sort of garbage was disproved in 1894 by Max Planck why do you insist on making up your own version of physics as you go.

I have to wonder at your motives given you are so anti-science pro-religion and you seem hell bent on spreading completely and blatantly wrong physics information.

Bill S think about laser cooling that is using hot lasers to cool an object to near absolute zero. How can the energy be flowing down a gradient it's going up it and in Paul's case it should be impossible because we don't have QM at all.

The answer is temperature is a set of quantum statistics or spins and those QM statistics or spins can be transfered around to other molecules or converted to other forms of energy.

There are hundreds of experimental proofs of the above and you are going to have a hard time explaining a different answer other than QM.

Last edited by Orac; 08/18/12 07:23 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
laser cooling that is using hot lasers to cool an object to near absolute zero


where did you see that at , Orac?

heres an article from MIT in 2007 that explains laser cooling
as a holding force , but there is no mention of heat.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/super-cool.html

Quote:
To reach such extreme temperatures, the researchers are combining two previously demonstrated techniques-optical trapping and optical damping. Two laser beams strike the suspended mirror, one to trap the mirror in place, as a spring would (by restoring the object to its equilibrium position when it moves), and one to slow (or damp) the object and take away its thermal energy.

Combined, the two lasers generate a powerful force--stronger than a diamond rod of the same shape and size as the laser beams--that reduces the motion of the object to near nothing.

Using light to hold the mirror in place avoids the problems raised by confining it with another object, such as a spring, Mavalvala said. Mechanical springs are made of atoms that have their own thermal energy and thus would interfere with cooling.


please paste a link to the hot laser.

Quote:
Paul that sort of garbage was disproved in 1894 by Max Planck


could you also paste a link to the information about max planck
showing how he disproved that sort of garbage.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
How can the energy be flowing down a gradient it's going up it


You anticipated my next question. smile

How does it do that?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
here is a video that shows cooling lasers.
I still cant understand what orac was talking about when
he suggested that the lasers were hot.

heat would be the last thing they would want to introduce
into the cooling chamber.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drnq_6ffTbo

laser light (1 watt) thats got to be hot! (LOL)

extended footage of the above video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXObBYGigyQ&feature=related


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Good links, Paul. Now I know, sort of, how laser cooling works. I assume the energy (heat) from the atoms being slowed down is transferred to the laser photons. Where does it go from there?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415

At absolute zero (0 degrees Kelvin, -273 degrees Celsius
or -460 degrees Fahrenheit), atoms lose all thermal energy
and have only their quantum motion.

Once the objects get cold enough, quantum effects such
as squeezed state generation, quantum information storage
and quantum entanglement between the light and the mirror
should be observable, Mavalvala said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/super-cool.html
==..

The Newtonian physics says that at T=0K the motion of particles
is stoped. And this is correct. The Quantum physics says that
at T=0K there is some kind of particles motion . And this is correct too.
Is one part of physics contradicts with the other one? Is here a paradox?
No, here is not paradox. How then is it possible to understand situation?
My opinion.
Newtonian physics and Quantum physics are two different parts of
one whole Physics.
These two parts of Physics explain behavior of two different particles.
Newtonian physics says about particles which have mass and energy
and speed : c<1.
Quantum physics says about particles which have mass/energy
and speed : c=1 and c>1.
As a result of this situation QED tries clearly and logical to explain
the interaction between Newtonian and Quantum particles.
==.
socratus

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Newtonian physics says that when Temperature = 0 Kelvin, the motion of particles
is stoped.

And this is correct.

Quantum physics says that when Temperature = 0 Kelvin there is some kind of particle motion .

And this is correct too.

does one part of physics contradict another part of physics? Is this a paradox?
No, this is not a paradox.

How then is it possible to understand this situation?

My opinion is that Newtonian physics and Quantum physics are two different parts of
the same Physics (Physics as a Whole).

These two parts of Physics both explain the behavior of particles.

Newtonian physics explains / describes the particles which have
mass and energy and speed : c<1.

Quantum physics explains / describes the particles which have
mass and energy and speed : c=1 and c>1.

As a result of this situation QED tries clearly and logically to explain
the interaction between Newtonian and Quantum particles.

Quote:
entanglement between the light and the mirror
should be observable, Mavalvala said.


that would make a nice picture to post up!



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
I assume the energy (heat) from the atoms being slowed down is transferred to the laser photons. Where does it go from there?


the photons are absorbed by the atoms.
they are traveling toward each other , so when the atom
absorbs the photon the momentum of the photon slows the atom.


look at the video at 3:30 from the begining.

or click this link to go to the moment.






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: paul

Quote:
entanglement between the light and the mirror
should be observable, Mavalvala said.


that would make a nice picture to post up!


and quantum entanglement between the light and the mirror
should be observable, Mavalvala said.
==.
and quantum entanglement between the quantum of light (!)
and the mirror/ matter (Newtonian matter ) (!)
should be observable, . . . . . it means.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
This whole thread has got so ridiculous I am leaving you all to it.

We have a people who can't even get there head around the most fundemental things that have countless experimental proofs making up there own data from around blackholes (what your god transported you there and back to get the data) and now inventing data around laser cooling.

Then we redfine how laser cooling works first we have the lasers aren't hot, then we have they are only holding stuff in position and then we finally work out its exchanging photons but not the significance of that.

Now we have two sort of physics in the world apparently classical and QM and they have a seperation.

NEWSFLASH that is all bullshit.

As Bill Gill has already also stated "The conservation of energy has been proved beyond any possible doubt" but not to you guys apparently. I can't even get common ground to prove it to you because your physics is so poor and you make stuff up as you as go, so I give in believe whatever you want.

So I shall leave you physics genius to it because discussion has become pointless because one does not need proof or show logic one just dribbles garbage and it is so in this discussion.

Last edited by Orac; 08/20/12 12:32 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I hate to see you go , so let me offer up some advice.
Dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5