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 (), 47 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
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 donít 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 Einsteinís SRT ( by my opinion).
Why?
Because one of Einsteinís postulate says that quantum of light
moves in a straight line with constant and independent
speed c=1.

The other Einsteinís 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.
==Ö

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 Ė is Vacuum
===Ö

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 AverroŽs (1126Ė1198) 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.
Page 2 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 Usok¬ĢĽ≠ĺW
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