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 (), 52 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
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 3 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 UsokW
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