Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade.

Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade.
=.
There are many different spaces: 2 dimension space, 3D space,
4D, 5D . . . .. .10D, 11D . . . . maybe more.
There are also ‘ closed’ and ‘open’ spaces.
There are many topological spaces too.
Question:
Which space has the Universe as a whole?
Answer:
It is fact: the Universe as a whole has exactly the
required density of matter to be flat.
The average density of matter in the universe (even
incorporating a dark mass and dark energy ) is equal to
or less than critical density and therefore the universe
as a whole is a flat infinite continuum.
==..
But the physicists refuse to admit this fact .
Why ?
Because they don’t know that to do with ‘ a flat infinite
continuum’. And they ‘ burned ‘ the real infinite flat
cosmological continuum ( using different abstract models )
to rid it of its infinite flatness.
And from Einstein’s time they discus about cosmological
constant that will close the flat- open Universe
into a close- sphere.
==..
The Universe as a whole is an Infinite Flat Universe.
Only in some rare places the Infinite Flatness is breaked.
==..
So, instead to say : ‘ It is fact: the Universe as a whole is flat,
they say: ‘To take the Universe as an infinite flat space - it is
impossible fact. There’s something wrong with the Universe. ‘
=== =..
P.S.
' But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice.
'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
/ Lewis Carroll.
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. /
==..
#
How is possible to understand the Flatness ?
How is possible to understand the Infinite Flat Universe ?
What is possible to say about a cold Kelvin space T=0K ?
==.
Flatness is a Vacuum.
Vacuum is an Empty space between billions and billions Galaxies.
Now (!) the physicists think (!) that the Universe as whole has
temperature: T= 2,7K . The parameter T=2,7K is not constant.
It is temporal and goes down. In the future it will come to T= 0K.
#
In my opinion this cold Kelvin space T=0K has old physical -
classical model so-called ‘ model of an Ideal Gas’.
Now we think that model of ‘ Ideal Gas is an abstraction’,
but this abstraction suit very well to another ‘ abstraction ‘,
to ‘a cold zero Kelvin space.’
These two models have negative temperature, and
in these two models there are ‘abstract ideal – virtual particles’.
And to have real model is needed something to change in these
abstraction models .. . .. and this change can be only quantum.
#
Now, let us put an elemenrary particles in the cold Kelvin space:
T = 2,7K ---> 0K. Which geometrical form they can have ?
The answer is: ‘ They must be flat particles.’
Why?
Because according to Charle’s law and the consequence of the
third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature
of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles
approaches zero too. It means the particles must have flat forms.
They must have geometrical form of a circle: pi= c /d =3,14 . . . .
#
All formulas, equations and laws of ‘ an Ideal Gas’
is possible to use to the Infinire Vacuum T=0K.
===…
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
===.
P.S.
The universe is flat on the large scale, as per the scientific
evidence provided by WMAP.
Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy
prior to the WMAP results.
WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision.
We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error.

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html.
==..

I am going to use Paul physics to answer you Socratus.

See apparently there is no conservation of energy so you can make energy and remove energy from the universe.

So I am going to make unlimited energy and via E=MC2 I can make as much matter as I like and therefore I can make my own infinite universe.

THERFORE I AM A GOD.

I choose to make it flat because it artistically contrasts to my round black holes where I remove energy to satisfy my artistic cravings.

So you religious types better pray energy is finite in this universe because it is you only chance of salvation from my me and my fellow scientists else we can become gods.

Sounds all perfectly reasonable hey.

Somewhere in this rambling there is an assumption that a temperature of 0K can actually be achieved; there is also an expressed need for QM. Wouldn’t the precepts of QM prevent 0K from ever being attainable?

Bill S sometimes you make my day with you logic ... and since you have sorted thru the garbage I will get you to think futher.

The reason laser cooling can cool lower to absolute zero than conventional cooling is because in effect it can cool out the quantum noise because it is a photonic effect.

So can you actually achieve near absolute zero on both a QM and physical vibration now there is an obvious QM question isn't there.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18541-what-happens-at-absolute-zero.html



Now things start to get interesting if you use a bit of logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate

Think about it a bit more Bill S you have a good logic and a keen sense of science even though you insist you don't have the maths and science background.

Hint the answer also sort of solves Socratus problem of why the universe is very close to flat.

This may help piece it together: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bose-einstein-condensate

cheat if you get stuck ... try doing it without using it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veU6hK3jMH4) :-)

The sucky bit with the scientific answer is I may never get to be a god ... sigh

Book ‘ Parallel Worlds’ by Michio Kaku.
#
‘ According to the picture emerging from the WMAP satellite,
a mysterious antigravity force is accelerating the expansion
of the universe. If it continued for billions or trillions of years,
the universe will inevitably reach a big freeze . . . .’
/ page 288 /
In 1854, . . . . Helmholtz realized that the laws of
thermodynamics could be applied to the universe as a whole,
meaning that everything around us, including the stars and
galaxies, would eventually have to run down.’
/ page 289 /
==..
There isn’t laws of thermodynamics without the ‘ Ideal gas’.
There isn’t thermodynamics of cosmos without the ‘ Ideal gas’.
==.

NEWSFLASH Socratus

That is one view from one scientist there is no consensus on it

HERE try a more active reference

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

I would want to have alot more data before I guessed at that ... in the end to science we have no urgency of time we will know the answer when we know the answer.

It took 58 years to find the Higgs Boson given the universe most likely isn't going to end tomorrow ... not really a huge time pressure on science to work out how the universe ends.

The second point is the ideal gas las is a crock of rubbish here try wiki in particular go down to the "Deviations from real gases" section. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law)

QM has rewritten all these "classic" laws and until you get that in your head you really are flogging a dead horse.

You keep trying to make meaning yet you refuse to start at the beginning and follow the proofs of what is known and how.

NOW YOUR QUESTION TIME SOCRATUS

Do you accept the conservation of energy or can I create infinite energy and thus become a god because that at a religious level is where that question leads?

thats interesting, socratus
perhaps the mysterious antigravity force is just gravity from the surrounding universes.

where has that law been violated , is it in this thread or the other discussion where laser cooling was being discussed?

you do understand the term troll dont you?

I dont know why you cant accept that the momentum of a photon
could slow an atom.

because that is all that is happening.

The gravity of our universe run down . . in every direction . .
According to your opinion the reason ' is just gravity from the surrounding universes. '
How many ' surrounding universes' ( as a russian matreshka )
can be ? 2 . . .3 . . .7 . . .10 . . . .Infinite ?
Isnt better to take Kaku conclusion:
' If it continued for billions or trillions of years,
the universe will inevitably reach a big freeze '

I have no idea how many.
all the universes combined might just be particles of some atom.

everything seems to form a spherical shape , because of gravity.

but , galaxies seem flat.

this is because time.

we see a flat solar system , flat galaxies , you have mentioned a flat universe.


when we finaly get to look at a motionless atom we may see a flat atom.



what we see in our little short billionth of a second lifetimes
compared to the universes lifetime just appears flat to us , actually it is spinning really fast , so fast that everything looks like a sphere.

I cant see that the universe would freeze , I cant see a reason
unless theres some scientist out there pointing a laser beam into the atom that we are inside of.

Actually the ideal gas law works just fine, if you use it appropriately. Engineers use it all the time when they are working on systems that use limited variations in temperature, pressure, and volume. It has almost always been used in those situations. It works great for steam engines, but not necessarily in the boiler, that involves a phase change and you may have to use other approximations. For limited areas it is a useful approximation. When you get outside those limits forget it.

Bill Gill

At first the universe as a whole was totally freeze
The particles was also freeze and flat ( potential state =
= circle form: c/d=pi=3,14 )
Later the situation in a local place was changed
( vacuum polarization/fluctuation )
The reason of this fluctuation is a freeze-particle,
who behave itself according to the quantum laws.
The universe in local place is not T=0K now.
==..

I should have said it can be useful Bill like any approximation but it isn't accurate as you note in many situations especially the ones Socratus seems all bent out of shape about being the open universe.

Your answer is correct as usual :-)

Something like this Socratus?

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-big-theory-chill.html

Google "Quantum Graphity"

I dislike the theory but it's a testable idea and within the next few years science will put it to the axe because it makes testable predictions.

Socratus unlike others you have at least made efforts to read and understand. So lets see if I can get you a bit futher along.

Lubos Motl did a really good article on why quantum mechanics has to be complex and linear. It has some heavy mathematics but the mathematics is not essential to the understanding.

Read around the mathematics and see if you can follow the science logic of how and why QM works.

The last few paragraphs spell it out for you very neatly and concisely.

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/why-quantum-mechanics-has-to-be-complex.html

Feel free to ask about anything you don't get.

Ther are so many problems with this I ain't touching it unless you are prepared to do some reading.

THAT IS IT HAS BEEN EASILY PROVED EXPERIMENTALLY WRONG AND WHY IT REQUIRES QM COOLING TO GET CLOSER TO ABSOLUTE ZERO THAN CAN BE DONE BY CLASSICAL MEANS.

Your start point you need to understand is "helicity" and "chirality" of matter.


Until you read and understand what that means and implies your answer is nonsensical.

See without those spins we have no gravity, no strong and weak forces and everything stops working and all matter flies apart ..... OOPS.

Still want to not have quantum spins??

See thats whats interesting about Bose-Enstein condensates is that matter starts acting not like normal matter.

And this is my last attempt to get you across the void as I am more than happy to ignore you.

I suppose your saying that the guys in the video are not really showing / telling us / acting out the truth about how the atoms are being slowed down.

when he says that the frequency of the laser light must match the frequency of the atom in order for the atom to be able to absorb the photon , he was just kidding.

these guys need to sit down and have a good talk / lecture from you so that you can tell them how wrong they are and so that you can set them straight on how to accomplish what they have already accomplished , right?

thats the way I see it anyway , if they dont really know what they are talking about they shouldnt be allowed to play with such dangerous stuff.

they could cut the world in half with that
extremely hot (1 watt)laser.



that sounds like a great idea.

Last go ...

What they are saying is correct at some level what they are not doing is talking about the quantum side of things.

At a Quantum level you have stuff spinning binding the matter together that is the energy that gets released by a nuclear explosion if you want some scale of how much energy we are talking about.

Like anything that spins there are vibrations in that spinning and add in our friendly sub atomic particles that are spinning doing there QM thing they have quite a bit of vibration because there position is not well defined.

That QM vibration is part of the larger molecule vibration you are talking about which is the classical measurable statistic you call temperature.

So they are correct laser cooling slows the macro molecule vibration but it has also the ability to slow the QM vibration within the atom which is very different to classical cooling which has no such ability.

I am sure if you think about this it makes perfect sense and in some ways you probably knew all this you just hadn't put it all together.

You are correct the macro molecule vibration is a large part of the statistic of temperature but there is a much larger energy involved in binding atom together you are ignoring and generally we only see that energy in a nuclear blast.

see, now dont you feel much better.



we were not discussing what binds atoms together now were we?

we were discussing mass , and how mass can not be finite.

we have shown that kinetic energy can be lost!

the fact that the atom absorbs the photon
and the atom also slows proves that kinetic energy was lost , not transfered , not converted , lost.

if the kinetic energy of the photon and the atom would not have been lost , it would be at that point that we should get worried about violating laws.

but everything worked just as physics expected it to.

at some point in time , something gave that photon its kinetic energy.

like when the sun is used in a solar sail.

the only difference is that the solar sail does not vibrate at the same frequency / wavelength as the photons , so they bump the sail and bounce off , giving momentum to the sail.

the motion of the mass of the sail is its kinetic energy.

Unfortunately those two things are linked you have accepted mass equivalence.

Even the universe at 0K has enoromous energy so long as there is still matter. Turn all the remaining matter into an atomic bomb and you will get some idea how much.

Heat is a trivial amount of the energy in the universe and that is the point you are missing do you know how much matter was converted in the atomic bombs on Japan?





It was transferred Paul I had to create the laser light that took an incredible amount of energy and the energy the laser absorbed from the molecule it was cooling ends up as heat in the laser cavity.

So the kinetic energy was transfered to heat in the laser cavity and the whole process took far more energy than it removed from the molecules.

Thats why I couldn't cool the whole universe in this way it would take more energy than there is the universe to cool the universe and the heat from the laser cooling it would have to go somewhere.


There is no energy lost in laser cooling infact as with almost any process we do it is quite inefficient there is far more energy injected into the system than is used and there is quite alot of waste.

This why Bill S was asking you where the energy was going in laser cooling because it's important you realise the energy is specifically going somewhere even if you open end the laser at one end the energy absorbed from the molecule ends a photon in space so space inherits the energy absorbed it doesn't disappear.

That photon travelling thru space has energy and therefore via energy mass equivalence it has mass and nothing changed in the universe your molecule got a liitle colder and shed some mass your photon got some energy and gained mass but the mass of the universe remained EXACTLY THE SAME.

Follow the logic ... heat has to go somewhere whatever cools loses mass whatever took the heat away gains mass net result for the universe is no change in mass.

The only way the universe could lose mass is if it lost energy to something outside the universe and that was the argument Stephen hawking tried to maek with black holes even we can show that doesn't even work.

that would be a really neat trick orac !

so the absorbed energy that the atom absorbs from the photon is also absorbed by the laser cavity from the same photon?

how exactly does that work there orac?

in QM does absorb still mean absorb?

or does absorb mean bounce back through all the mirrors and splitters to the laser cavity , if thats even possible.

or does QM just transport the photon back inside the laser cavity?

beam me up scotty!

Usually in laser cooling the laser is simply bouncing off a mirror back into the laser cavity because otherwise you have a laser beam going off into space until it runs into something to absorb it which is hopefully not human flesh.

Netherless as I said if you want to one side the laser your photon absorbed the energy from your molecule and heads off into space.

It matters not that photon gained energy and has slightly more mass and it is still definitely in the universe so the molecule lost some mass the photon gained some mass the mass of the universe stayed constant.

You can't dance around it Paul nothing changes for the universe heat exchange does not change the mass of the universe because the energy stays in the universe.

Beginning to see how hard it is to change the mass of the universe, to do it I think you would have to prove that energy mass equivalence is wrong and that is a tough technical hurdle I can take you thru it if you want.

it must be pretty late there or pretty early , you should delete your last post and start over again tomorrow.

I cant understand it.

usually a laser cooling setup looks like this


LASER MODULE ========== MOLECULE ========== MIRROR

So any energy picked up by photons from laser ends up back in the laser cavity. We do this for obvious safety reasons.


I assume you objection is because you want to cool like this


LASER MODULE =========== MOLECULE ============> OUT TO SPACE


From a universe perspective it makes no difference.

In the lower example the photon goes past the molecule takes some energy from the molecule and therefore your molecule lost mass.

However your photon picked up energy and is continuing out into space with that extra energy it therefore gained mass.

From the universe perspective a molecule lost some mass a photon gained some mass the mass of the universe did not change at all.

You can take the process out as big and complex as you like so long as you can't lose heat or energy outside the universe by energy mass equivalence the universe mass remains static and constant.

You said you accepted the mass energy equivalence so therefore you are as they say "stuffed" because the only way you can now make the universe mass change is by losing or gaining energy outside the universe.

The author of
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/why-quantum-mechanics-has-to-be-complex.htm
try to explain:
Why real numbers aren't good enough in QT
(in Schrödinger's equation, Feynman's path integral,
and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ) .
Why pure imaginary numbers are needed in QT
Why complex numbers are fundamental in physics .

This is another specific theme.
==.
P.S.
As regarding imaginary numbers I agree with G. Leibniz,
who wrote in 1702 that
‘ Imaginary numbers are beautiful and wonderful asylum
of divine spirit almost amphibian of genesis with non genesis’.
==.

See socratus the real science answers maybe not as scary to religion as you may think.

As scientists we don't know why we end up in the world of imaginary numbers for Quantum Mechanics and we can't make the real world translations using real numbers and we can't make the world solid no matter what our eyes and senses tell us.

You are at least reading and attempting to understand what the science evidence says which as humans is all we can do.

The next post I am about to supersize Paul's problem and show him the real background to universal mass it may interest you.

If you follow the logic you will understand as physicists it is dam hard to change the mass of the universe and why we say the universe can't have infinite mass or infinite energy it most definitely has to be finite.

The gotcha for me as a scientist is if the mass of the universe can't be change where the hell did the mass we now see come from.

So perhaps there is a god and he made the universe with approximately 3E54 Kg of mass that is one possible answer that is entirely consistant with science.

Okay Paul I am going to supersize your problem.

I am hoping you realize our sun sheds mass every second to make the light and radiation we take for granted in it's fusion reaction.

Infact from survey we know it consumes around 4 million metric tons of matter per second. So the sun is getting lighter by 4 million metric tons every second and will eventually burn out and collapse.

So you say the sun is changing mass therefore that is definite proof that the universe is changing mass in this case by 4 million metric tons per second.

NO ... run around collect all the energy and radiation it spews per second and you would find it weighs exactly 4 million metric tons by energy mass equivelance.

The universe has the exact same mass your sun got lighter and there is some mass thrown off into wider space but nothing from a total universe perspective changed.

So a slightly unorthodox but not incorrect way to view a sun is a stellar body that spews part of its mass constantly out into the universe.

Hopefully by now you are seeing just how hard it is going to be to change the mass of the universe because energy or mass is going to have to enter or leave the universe.

The big issue for science which I can not answer is where the energy/matter we see today came from because we can't just make the stuff and that is the real problem for science not some hangup you have with some concept of infinite mass.

LASER FIRES PHOTON---------->ATOM ABSORBS PHOTON

atom absorbs photon because of frequency / wavelength same.
if photon wavelength not same atom wavelength, photon bounce off.

the atom has absorbed the kinetic energy of the photon.
the photon looses its kinetic energy to the atom.

as a result of the atom absorbing the kinetic energy of the photon, the kinetic energy of the atom is reduced and the atom slows down.

because atom go slow , atom cool.

-----PHOTON-------><-------ATOM-----

that's pretty clear , we dont need some law trying to change that reality.

laws in the hands of some people can cause accidents.
mostly because logic is required to properly use those laws
and logic is a not a tool that everyone has.

most people just know how to read the laws
but they don't know how to apply those same laws.
yet they are constantly harping about the words in the laws.
and how the laws cant be violated when they see or read
something that their amount of logic cannot comprehend.

its just a collision , orac.

nothing more than that.
no reason to invoke laws.
or get concerned about law violations.

Paul and Orac. I'm beginning to wonder if each of you has lost sight of what the other is really saying.

Here's a suggestion: You each have 50 words in which to say exactly what your point is. If you still disagree, keep going; if not, flogging a dead horse comes to mind once again.

I thought up a simple example.

in space where there is no gravity.

two bullets traveling towards each other.

they each have a mass of 2 kg

if they did not have motion their mass would be 1 kg each.

because they have motion their combined mass is 4 kg

when they collide they stick to each other and all of the
kinetic energy is lost.

the two bullets are now stuck together but are motionless.

they now have a combined mass of 2 kg.

2 kg mass was lost because the kinetic energy was lost.

thats pretty easy to see.

Yes Paul, the 2 bullets lost their kinetic energy. However, the energy of the universe didn't change, because the kinetic energy was converted to heat, which was then radiated away. The total energy is the same.

An example. Did you ever hit something hard and solid, say a nail, with a hammer? Try it and then feel the spot that you hit. The spot will be warmer, and the place on the hammer head will be warmer. That is the energy that was the kinetic energy of the hammer.

Bill Gill

thank you Bill.

I was wondering when someone would realize that and
say something , because that's the stopper.

think of the universe as being the atom.

if the universe were to slow like the atom slowed.

the kinetic energy would be lost.

if all motion in the universe stopped for any reason
then all the kinetic energy in the universe would be
lost and only the base state energies would remain.

the universe could not transfer heat to something if there were
no other universes close to this universe.

so the mass of the universe is not finite.

unless this is wrong...



perhaps kinetic energy isnt really energy.
so mass should not be associated with motion (kinetic energy).

and therefore >c is achievable...

and that would nix the E=mc^2 bit

If kinetic energy isn't really energy then if I hit you with a baseball traveling at about 10 miles an hour and then throw it again at 100 miles an hour you won't even notice the difference.

Bill Gill

Okay Paul it's not important how we got there you have realized the important bit so long as you accept energy mass equivalence (E=MC2) you are stuffed the mass of the universe is constant.

From science point of view we accept it so for us we don't care if there is no matter and no kinetic energy in the universe (so everything is all energy) or the universe is a solid compact not moving brick (so no visible energy) or anthing in between he mass of the universe because E=MC2 is EXACTLY the same.

Now you are saying that you don't accept E=MC2 or energy/mass equivalence then knock yourself out have an infinite universe.

In future if you get involved in discussion don't get involved about kinetic energy and mass and examples just simply say I don't accept E=MC2 and therefore .......(explain away)

I never understood your want to make the universe infinite and any intimation that science says that is a lie it explicitly says the opposite and that was my argument with Socratus.

Travelling around the universe and whether we can observe the entire universe is another issue entirely and in those cases the universe can most definitely become infinite for science.

However observation is always pragmatic do you know what is happening specfically on the other side of the world right this second, a meteor could have just impacted and removed a huge chunk right now.

Personally I think the enery/mass equivalence or conservation of energy which are really the same thing is real and exists for a very good reason it stops a universe spawning more and more mass or creating more and more energy and going into a chaotic runaway.

From a science perspective I often wonder are there certain defined sizes of universes like size of suns with particular physics that match the size. I know in your religious background such thought is probably forbidden but it is fun to theorise.

I still find it interesting that being religious you want an infinite universe rather than god "imprisoning" humans in a fixed spacetime. I use imprision because I am sorry with my english I don't know a better word.

Can I ask what is the appeal of infinite over a god enforced box?

I didnt say it was wrong , I said unless!!

its pretty easy to see that if a single atom can be slowed
then the universe can also be slowed.

so the mass of the universe is not constant , because if
the mass of the universe slows then its kinetic energy has decreased.

so your ranting serves no real purpose except to stuff yourself.

mass is not constant!



the system must be isolated / closed in order for mass to remain constant!

but here is something very interesting for you to think about.

suppose you were at the periphery of the universe.
and in your hand there was a flashlight.

you shine the flashlight outside the universe.

does the light go beyond the periphery?

you throw the flashlight beyond what you think is the barrier, what happens?

do you break down and cry if there really is no barrier
or do you just learn to live with it.

This is a very old argument called the bucket argument goes back to 16th century.

Ready here we go its a classic 3D argument.

If the universe is moving laterally into what and around in what is it moving ... your universe is therefore not complete and there is a universe that is larger than your universe. This is called a translation in 3D terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation_(geometry))

If I can translate the universe by definition it can't be infinite because there is somethng bigger into which it is moving.

The universe can however be spining or as we say in 3D it has a rotation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_(geometry))

If you look at the top right picture if you rotate about any other point other than the centre you universe has to rotate into something bigger than the universe so your universe is therefore not infinite.

So there is only one movement of an infinite universe possible and that is to rotate about a perfect centre point.

Here is the bucket argument and it essentially answers your problem

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


The answer you come out with is if the universe is spinning the energy from an outside frame of reference may indeed be different but from within the reference frame it is fixed and agreed by all observers.

Ergo: If you have an outside reference frame the universe is therefore not infinite and from within a finite spinning universe all motions and therefore kinetic energy is agreed on by all observers.




I am not sure why you get so upset and heated about what is nothing more than a simple discussion. I am not trying to upset you or anything these are very historic and long settled science concepts and arguments.




Unless you can isolate a reference frame outside the universe than from a reference within the universe it has to be constant. As discussed if you can find a reference outside the universe then the universe by definition is not infinite.



The universe by your definition has to be closed otherwise there is something outside the universe and it can not be infinite. Anything that is infinite has to be closed because there is nothing outside it.




Again this is a very old and historic argument and the answer is very simple you can't do it space is a 3D manifold it has no edges :-)

In a 2D sense try finding the edge of earth in the dark ages you could sail off the edge of earth you know :-)




Again I ask why all the emotion these are very basic science and logic discussions there is nothing really at stake here.

I am a very logical person if you have a sound logical argument you can convince me I have no ideological or religious reason to believe what I do it is simply based on the facts and logic.

You still havent answered the question why is an infinite universe so important to you? I have explained E=MC2 is why the argument is important to science.

All arguments involving an infinite universe always break down under logic surely you have got that by now.

If we go back to your statement which is at the heart of your argument.



To slow the atom we exchanged energy outside the atom but inside the universe to slow our movement in the universe. To slow a car we exchange energy outside a car but within the universe to slow our movement in the universe.

Logic tells you to slow a universe you must exchange energy outside the universe and within what???? to slow our movement within what ??????

Can a universe that is within the what???? be infinite and that is the very bottom of logic of this argument.

I have been consistant with you all along if you can exchange energy outside the universe you can have what you want and as I said above just say that don't try and find examples because you are going to struggle because as scientists we have been unable to find any examples of what you want no matter how hard we look. Our law is based on observation and logic not because we like the idea or anything and it leaves us with a nasty problem how the hell did the universe get here. Bill Gill and I would love the idea the law of conservation of energy is wrong but unfortunately for now we have to accept it.

LOL



Im sorry your logic is illogical.

every thing in the universe has a periphery , so logic dictates that the universe also has a periphery.

illogical thinking would be needed to claim otherwise.



sorry once again , the atom absorbed the energy of the photon.
I keep telling you that and the video explains that quite well.

once the photon strikes the atom the photon does not bounce off.

the kinetic energy of the photon is absorbed by the atom , this is why the person who is performing the process / experiment in the video states that
when the atom is hit by the photon the atom becomes excited.

the kinetic energy of the photon is transferred to the atom.

the kinetic energy does not move away from the atom or outside the chamber it is absorbed by the atom.

kinetic energy is nothing but the motion of an object.

and it is this kinetic energy that excites the atom.

its needless to say that atoms dont just get excited over nothing.

so the energy of the photon moves into the atom , before the impact the atom has an amount of kinetic energy and the photon has an amount of kinetic energy.

after the impact the amount of kinetic energy that the atom has is less , its like 2-1=1


poential energy and kinetic energy really are not forms of energy.

just like oil and coal and wind and the sun are not forms of energy.


a 100 kg weight dangling from a string has potential energy but no kinetic energy.

if the string is cut then

that 100 kg weight has both potential and kinetic energy
the entire length of its fall.

and until the 100kg weight impacts against another object
the 100kg weight will not lose any of its energy , however the faster it falls the greater its kinetic energy will be and at each moment during its fall its potential energy is increased.

using your logic , you could create energy by cutting the string.
and using your logic the energy of the impact is not absorbed by the earth that the weight impacts with , it is somehow magically transported to the ends of the universe.

your so worried about where the kinetic energy goes
let me ask you where does the 100kg weight get its extra energy from when the string is cut?

does it get magically transported from the far ends of
the universe?

because that is the reverse of your argument.

lets freeze that frame right now , before the string is cut.

during the freeze frame all the energy in the earth is now a certain amount.

as soon as the string is cut the total amount of energy in the earth is increased.

where did the energy come from?

---------------

when the atom absorbs the kinetic energy of the photon
the atom becomes more massive.

since the atom is now more massive the gravity between the outer shell of the atom and the nucleus becomes stronger.

this stronger gravity pulls in the surrounding particles
closer to the center of the atom causing the frequency of
the atom to decrease.

ie..the particles do not orbit the atom as fast.

so all the particles surrounding the nucleus of the atom
have moved inward slightly causing the overall size of the
atom to shrink.

the total energy of the atom has decreased and the total mass of the atom has increased thus the total gravity of the atom has increased.

where does the kinetic energy come from in the falling 100kg weight?

gravity!


what happens to the heat that is the result of the impact?

it is absorbed by the earth!

what happens to the heat that is the result of the photon that impacts the atom?

it is absorbed by the atom.

1)the photon strikes the atom.
2)the atom becomes more massive (the kinetic energy of the photon).
3)because the atom has become more massive its gravity increases.
4)the increased gravity draws the particles inwards to a lower orbit.
5)the atom slows down because the momentum of the atom is not enough to maintain the atoms current speed because the total mass has increased.
6)the atom cools because its speed has decreased.

the results are

the atom has more mass
the atom has more gravity
the atom has less kinetic energy
the atoms frequency has decreased

If the universe is all there is, how would you know it was rotating? Everything in the universe remains static relative to everything else.

I am not going to explain that one you need to read because it requires thinking.

You can not sail off the edge of the world nor can you go to the edge of the universe there are no ends to the Universe, and all points within it are equal. There are no special points in space no edges and no ends becuase it is a 3D manifold and you need to read up on that.

The cosmic background radition would not be present and we would not have it with us if this was not so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation).

I am not going to explain this one too you because you treat everythign I try and teach and show you as hostile ... you need to read and follow the logic and proofs.





And once again I explain to you the photon is not inside the atom it is outside it and a seperate entity.

Now lets change that situation the photon absorbs the energy and stays with atom can it slow it ... of coarse not you have to react with the outside world.

When you next in your car try jumping around, singing, sucking up vibration anything you want from inside the car that does not react with the outside world and tell me can you slow the car. You know you can't you have to put drag either onto the ground into the wind or some other thing outside the car to slow it.

The universe is no different to your car you can't slow it down from within the universe because any energy you exchange is still within the universe surely this is blatantly obvious.

You could slow the universe down assuming it was moving assuming you could exchange or react with things outside the universe.




The keypoint you emit is the photon is also outside the atom that is and your words

>>> THE ENERGY LEFT THE ATOM IT WENT INTO THE PHOTON <<<.

How do you propose energy can leave the universe into where does it go it can't just disappear it didn't just disappear in you example above it left the thing that was slowing down.

SO TO SLOW THE UNIVERSE DOWN THE ENERGY GOES INTO ??????

Either
(A) the universe isn't infinite and the energy goes into the thing thats bigger than the universe
(B) you can't slow the universe down.

Choose (A) or (B) answer because there are no other choices


<SNIP>

I am going to ignore the bit about the 100Kg mass on the string because anyone who has gone to high school science level knows this stuff you have to be trolling.

Here is my troll back: http://www.visionlearning.com/library/flash_viewer.php?oid=1429&mid=46

And you are the gumby on the winch.

then why does this character say that the atom absorbed the photon?

this link will transport you to the moment that
this character says that the atom absorbs the photon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drnq_6ffTbo&feature=player_detailpage#t=216s

Thats the point of the bucket argument

YOU WOULDN'T AND IT DOESN'T MATTER ALL OBSERVERS AGREE ON OBSERVED MOTION.

Edward March correctly worked it out in the argument with Newton.

You would have to be the person standing outside the bucket or universe to have a totally different view of motion.

You can take this down to a simple example:

You go to a cannon and fire it in a normal 45 degree tragectory shot on a flat field. I selected this because it was the first physics applet I found.

http://www.splung.com/content/sid/2/page/projectiles

Simple stuff we can develop nice formula and its easy to understand the physics makes perfect sense doesn't it.

There is a problem this only makes sense to someone ON EARTH.

Consider now what you see from a stationary point in space

What I would see is the ball leave earths surface describe this weird spiral as the earth both rotated around its axis and moved around the sun and the sun moved around the galaxy etc etc.

You get the problem my space view of the motion is COMPLETELY different to the earth view of the motion and the earth formulas won't work for me in space.

Back in the 16th century it was probably heresy to suggest you could leave earth and it was rotating etc so they used a bucket for the argument.

So now if the universe is rotating as per the bucket argument

=> If we are outside the universe we will have observations which are very different to those inside the universe.

Ergo: Our physics won't hold outside the universe you would need to do some convoluted mathematics.

=> From inside the universe all observations would be consistant with all observers but you would have an underlying centrifugal force. In other words nothing in our physics would change except the appearance of a weird constant force.

Now the force would have to be in 3D so imagine a ball rolling because if it was on a directional axis like the earth spins you would easily notice it because the universe would bulge in the same way the earth does at the equator.

Yes they have looked and no it doesn't seem to exist so the only possibility left is a rolling spinning ball.

Last publication on that idea I can find was last year and well its underwhelming
http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0815

I assume you understand what he is doing trying to make a rotating centrifugal force = dark energy

Edit: BTW just found Alexey has a website if you are interested in the idea Bill S (http://www.janaganamana.net/getArticles.aspx?jgmsearch=Alexey+V.+Klimenko)

Ok this is a QM thing and is reasonably complex I will try the layman simple explaination from wiki because I am not sure I can translate correctly in english down to this level.

Laser cooling is a form of Doppler cooling

Wiki link => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_cooling



So answering your question the character correctly says the atom absorbs the photon which is the red slightly lower energy photon.

Go along a little bit more and he will talk about the emission of a photon which is how the atom loses energy because the emitted photon because of QM laws has to be a slightly higher energy so the atom makes up this small deficit by giving up heat vibration energy and quantum vibration energy.

So the whole process requires absorbtion of a slightly lower energy photon and then the emission of a slightly higher energy photon thereby taking energy away from the atom.

You will also note there is a limit to this cooling even under QM laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_cooling_limit)

The photon emission creates a vibration itself which in our big macro world we would call a recoil (like a gun) so again even using this we can't actually get to absolute zero just down very close to it.

Paul, Bill S and Orac, or anyone who cares to respond: Can I assume that those interested in this topic know something of the science of, the laws and the maths of physics. Sure I would love to know the how of many the sciences, but my interests and my will lead me to focus on the meaning and art factors. However, I will mix religion and the sciences by META-tating that we will have moral, ethical and loving scientists. Just maybe there are a few here:
http://www.ordainedscientists.org/

Because of an interest in maths, I studied basic physics in high school and first year university(1944-1947). But I have always had an interest in the story of physics, including the people and why they got involved--what I like to call the pneumatological(spiritual) factor.
=====================
HISTORY OF PHYSICS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos
http://physics.illinois.edu/history/timelines/1940s.asp
http://physics.illinois.edu/people/Memorials/loomis.asp
================
Bill, you askIs this a 'how' question? Or is it a 'why', spiritual or pneumatological one? Sounds, to me, like it is the latter.

Rev, let's try asking and answering the question in both of those forms.

1. If the universe is all there is, how would you know it was rotating?
You wouldn't.

2. If the universe is all there is, why would you know it was rotating?
Since you couldn't know, he question seems to have no relevance.

Perhaps we could say: "Why would you not know". Then the answer would be: "because you would perceive everything as being stationary relative to everything else".

Could be you had something different in mine, though.

the guy in the video never said anything like that.

what you posted did mention something about a random event.







each and if , tells me that the if might by chance slow the atom but the each always slows the atom.

every absorption causes the atom to slow in the intended direction.

if there is a spontaneous chance occurrence of a photon emission it will kick the atom in a random direction.

so , I was right.

so basically its saying that there are 2 separate processes.

1) absorption , without emission.
and
2) absorbtion , with emission.

but in each of the 2 processes the absorption slows the atom
due to the photons kinetic energy being absorbed by the atom.

I didnt need anything but a solid grasp on physics in our discussion , I dont think that QM belongs in this realm.

after the kinetic energy has gone and nothing could be predicted using classical physics then QM would be needed to
predict what the base energies would do in certain situations
but a firm grasp on classical physics is needed even as you peer deeper and deeper into the void.

I am surprised it took you so long to join the discussion Rev :-)

The rotation question came up because for some reason an infinite universe is important to Paul and Socratus.

One of the intersting things about a physically infinite universe it precludes and contains many problems which logically you can show to be factually wrong.

For Socratus and Paul I have posed your same question a number of occasions because an infinite universe seems overly important and disagreement with them causes distress.

Bill S says the same answer science and I give if the universe is moving and rotating how would you know and why would you care and it changes nothing to your observation. You do many things involving physics every day on a spinning earth every day without worrying about the rotation its only interactions with things that are not spinning with earth that the movement becomes important.

Hence the logical answer to Paul was if the movement of the universe is important there must be something outside the universe and therefore the universe can not be infinite.

I commented on this in another thread Rev none of this stuff in science causes you any belief stress because you seperate the universe into a physical and a spiritual universe overlaid and coexisting.

I discussed this in another thread with you when I read the book of genesis and I assumed this was like a fable you were meant to interpret it in that way and I ran into problems with some fundementalist friends who for them it is a literal translation and the word of god.

I am trying to work out if it is one of those issues with Socratus and Paul.

My other alternatives are it is important to them in their mind that science not understand the universe. Again we have discussed this you have no problem with that because you seperate spirituality from the physical world you get that even if I knew everything about the universe it won't answer the question of why are we here. The only answer science can give is we are here because of probability and chance and for many that is not a very satisfying answer at a spiritual level.

The final choice is they are confused and misunderstand science which I can help with and why I persist.

You and I have discusssed it a few times Rev I don't think science and religion are at war I don't even think they are discussing the same problem. To me religion seems to be about why we are here, our morality while we are here and the importance of our life none of which science can answer.

then why are you found to be wrong?

sometimes being helped is really not being helped.

we must try to choose carefully who we get help from.

I dont consider myself as being confused as you claim
so to me you are the one who is confused.

The guy is the video is trying to dumb this down as I said it gets a bit complex QM stuff.

So okay the guy in the video is your absolute reference you accept so lets use that.

Goto 2min in the video he compares the laser to a sound waves of an ambulance and discusses the frequency change ... that is called a doppler shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect)

Now at 2.30 he now talks about something about atoms that is different from "him" meaning normal macro objects and he desribes it as "atoms can only hear at 1 frequency".

What he is avoiding is getting into quantum mechanics the atoms only "hear at one frequency" BECAUSE OF QUANTUM MECHANICS.

It's called atomic absorbtion and the energy levels are pure QM (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod5.html)

He is specifically avoiding discussing why the atoms only "hear at 1 frequency" beacuse he doesn't wish to have to try and explain QM to average layman.

If you don't accept this please give me your explaination of why atoms only hear at 1 frequency?????

Next the guy in the video talks about moving towards and away from the laser and then starts the funny bit for me.

At 3.45 he talks about them absorbing a photon if they match the frequency and 3.48 he talks about them going to an excited state and you get a slight "baff" which slows you down :-)

At 4.08 if you keep the same frequency it now goes straight thru the atom ...... Okay so now you are transparent :-)

So at 4.14 we start changing the frequency down .. :-)

HANG ON A MINUTE HE TOLD ME 3.45 that atoms only absorb a specific frequency and second a go I was absorbing that frequency and now I have to absorb a lower frequency.

Do you see the problem he is trying to dance around because he doesn't want to discuss QM.

And the guy at 4.31 discusses you need not only "light not just at 671 nanaometers but 671.0005". What he is trying to say is you need to be able to lower the frequency of the laser as you cool.

Then the guy talks about being "baffed" by a photon and then you reach a lower movement then you lower the frequency and you get slowed by each "baff".

Whats funny is they avoid discussing why the lower frequency "baffs" you less ... surely that crossed your mind if you are taking a purely classical view Paul.

To be hit with less power in the classic world Paul you swing with less energy so shouldn't they be just turning the laser power down ... that had to cross your mind Paul.

It's also interesting they never go back to the excited atom they mentioned that at the beginning and he had the atom absorbing the photon then he brings in the concept that you are being "baffed" by each photon which slows you.

He never goes back to what happens to the absorb photon and so you have an atom which apparently can be excited and excited and excited and excited. He describes the atom as needing tens of thousands of photon collisions so I guess the atom is 10 000 fold excited a hugely funny thing for a scientist but I guess that means nothing to you.

To me this a major problem with this explaination he doesn't deal with the emission of a photon to get down for the excited state so it can again absorb ... it' weird.

I think I understand why because you then have to explain two photons and it's hard to avoid QM energy level discussion.

I can see now why you think that absorbing photons slows you down and you get a hugely excited atom :-)

All I can say to you Paul is that is not a great explaination and surely you can see the problems I have highlighted.




Unfortunately there are two problems with that and I can see how it came about from that explaination

1.) You can not just keep absorbing photons and getting more and more excited it's not a bottomless pit.

2.) It also induces a problem that you have it that excited states = slower atom because to get it excited you absorbed photons and thats slows the atom ... thats what you think isn't it.

That is a problem because it's actually the other way around
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_state

=>In quantum mechanics an excited state of a system (such as an atom, molecule or nucleus) is any quantum state of the system that has a higher energy than the ground state (that is, more energy than the absolute minimum). The temperature of a group of particles is indicative of the level of excitation.

See the problem with explaination an excited atom is hotter than a ground state atom.

That confusion comes about because they have not dealt with the re-emission





As I have shown you there was QM throughout his explaination he just didn't call it QM and you blindly accepeted it such that atoms can only "hear 1 frequency" and weirdly that 1 frequency changes with temeprature no explaination needed.

Sure no QM necessary if you blindly accept weird facts.

When you understand what flat universe is,
then you will understand the rotation problem.
=.

Okay Paul I am going to have a go at fixing up the explaination of the vidoe guy without changing the motion bit which is all you seem to care about.

HERE GOES LETS SEE IF THIS WORKS FOR YOU

Ok so the atom absorbs the photon and goes to the excited state and gets it's little "baff" to slow it down.

The excited atom hears at a different and higher frequency than the normal atom and so it no longer interacts with the laser and has the lower kinetic movement.

The excited atom will eventually drop down from the excited state and will emit a photon.

This emission can be in any random direction and also has a "baff" but if the "baff" makes the movement worse the process simply occurs over and over until we are lucky enough by chance to get an absorbtion and emission "baff" the sum of which results in a slowing of the atom or molecule.

**** THE END ****

I think that at least fixes the short comings of his explaination in which we have the atom not just getting more and more excited and absorbing more and more photons that the explaination lead you into.

It also at least deals with how the atom or molecule goes transparent to the laser which is consistant.

FACTUALLY YOU ARE ACCEPTING

1.) Atoms/Molecules can only absorb and emit photons at specific frequencies you just have to accept that not going to explain how or why.

2.) An excited atom/molecule absorbs a higher frequency than a stable or normal state atom or molecule again no explaination

3.) The absorption/emmission process will happen over and over again until by chance you get an absorbtion/emission "baffs" that reduce the temperature of the molecule. This is because we have setup a basic filter by pincering the molecules carefully in 3D.


Are you happy with all that because I think it fixs up the very large flaws in his explaination without compromising the motion you care about.

The answer you were already given multiple times none of this is an issue for science for some reason which you won't explain ... it is to you.

So we don't understand the flat universe according to you. Our answer is we understand it as much as we need to and beyond that who cares.

I don't completely understand Rev's understanding of spirituality or religion either doesn't make him wrong just we differ on opinion.

Do you have an opinion Socratus?

Science is very very specific about the conservation of energy.

It's not even within my power to be wrong on this issue science is not a democracy you don't get to vote on it.

I may not explain it correctly like your guy in the video but even an error by me would not make you right.

I have discussed this before when Einstein published his famous paper on relativity it was abhored by science.

There was a similar revolt over Darwins evolution theory.

Both exist today as science fact because they have never been proved to be wrong.

Science requires you to consider all the facts and work through all possible explainations and select the one that fits all known facts.

In your explaination from the guy in the video you accept weird random facts as absolute facts such that atoms absorb specfic frequecies no explaination of why or how. At that level alone your explaination FAILS at science.

You do get that your entire theory, sorry proof relies on some weird facts from a guy on a youtube video ... No QM needed :-)

On the other side I have been happily walking you thru the proof of each and every fact and you may ask questions and check any of them until your satisfied.

Man I really have to get on youtube.

1
The WMAP satellite showed that the universe as a whole is flat.
2
Kaku wrote :
‘ If it continued for billions or trillions of years,
the universe will inevitably reach a big freeze.’

I think that the universe as a whole is flat – infinite flat
( because gravity fields are only local fields ) and totally cold
( because one infinite flat parameter must have another infinite
constant ( not relative) parameter: T=0K.) (!)
3
I agree with Helmholtz that the laws of
thermodynamics could be applied to the universe as a whole.

And therefore I say:
There isn’t thermodynamics without the ‘ Ideal gas’.
There isn’t thermodynamics of cosmos without the ‘ Ideal gas’.
All formulas, equations and laws of ‘ an Ideal Gas’
is possible to use to the Infinire Vacuum T=0K.
=========…

And that means something to you Socratus?

My english is bad but that is meaningless quotes and your words clipped together in mindless mumbo jumbo that sorry I can't decipher.

It's not your English that's the problem here, Orac.

Let's hope it means more to Socratus than it does to either of us.

Bill, as I understand your questions they have more to do with philosophy than science or art : Then you comment: If I am moved by the Spirit (the Pneuma)--Genesis 1:2, "The power of God (ELOHIM--the powers) was moving over the water (symbol of chaos)."--I should, and WILL, comment on your questions in my thread on WILLpower.

you do realize that the atom slows dont you?
so wouldn't the atom's frequency also slow...

and that is the reason that he must lower the frequency of the laser...

and that is the reason the photon will pass through the atom
if he does not lower the frequency...

or did you expect that the atom somehow magically maintains the same exact frequency
after the photon is absorbed and the atom is slowed.

have you questioned your logic about that?

I wasn't talking about science orac , I was talking about you.

you orac , why are you found to be wrong.

not science.

science is a good teacher in itself , it has some tiny problems but those problems are mostly the way that people interpret science themselves.

I really hate it when people tell me what I accept

if I agree with something you say , I will let you know.

how's that?

allow me to pass this by you.

when the laser is set at a certain frequency and a photon
strikes a atom with that certain frequency , the atom becomes excited
( because of the momentum gained from the photon )
and the atom slows
( because of the momentum gained from the photon )
if that same atom is again struck by the laser at the same frequency the atom will not absorb a photon.
( because of the momentum gained from the photon )

the mass of a system increases for each photon absorbed
the energy of a system decreases for each photon emitted

the increase in mass and decrease in energy is proportional
to the mass and energy of the photon.

so in the laser cooling these are the results

so for each absorption the following occurs

1) momentum transfer.( the kinetic energy of the photon )
2) the atom slows due to the momentum transfer.
2) the atom gains the mass of the photon.
3) the atom slows due to its increase in mass.
4) the atom cools due to its lower frequency.

there are ( 2 ) items in the above list that slow the atom
in the desired direction.

when a atom emits a photon the following happens

1) the atom looses the energy of the photon.
2) there is a recoil in a random direction , but not in the desired direction.

there are ( 0 ) items in the above list that slow the atom
in the desired direction.

absorption Wins !!!


BTW: random direction is not the desired direction.

NO Paul I have no idea why that would happen I am not allowed to talk about QM.

So you tell me in your non QM world why would that happen whats the underlying reason that happens please .... besides some man on a youtube video told you.

Your long answer is sort of a 12 year old kiddy answer it is factually bending the truth to make it understandable and its full of simplifications that are actually a lie and can lead to wrong conclussions one of which is in your answer.

3) the atom slows due to its increase in mass.


It is factually wrong infact you guy in the video never spoke about that you have taken mass equivalence law imposed it on his silly simplification and come up with this.

I understand your logic and it is correct but his simplification leads to the problem. I do get why you think this but its not really a factor in what is happening in this case.

He never dealt with and discussed the re-emission of the photon and that has lead to this problem as well as the second error his simplification leads to.

Which is .... you can not simply keep absorbing photon in an atom and exciting it thousand upon thousands of times.

You haven't addressed this issue I have explained it to you and gave you the link to read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_state)

You have also strangely quoted a funny thing

4) the atom cools due to its lower frequency

I am intrigued by this statement can you elaborate and explain it to me please.

And a small but minor correction

BTW: random direction is not the desired direction.

The direction is RANDOM ... sometimes the random direction will be desired sometimes not. A random direction can not always be not desired BY DEFINITION OF RANDOM.

any increase in mass require's an increase in momentum to maintain speed.

are you saying that when the atom absorbs the photon its mass does not increase?



when the atom absorbs the photon its frequency lowers
ie...it slows down = it cools.



there are probably a billion different directions in random direction.

that is not the desired direction.

I want to hear your reason why you think the below is true.



why not?

Oh it does but it's fractional and it loses that extra mass when it re-emits the photon as it must eventually.

I realise from your answer below you don't accept that.




It's a fact you can't I have linked it twice but you choose to ignore it.

You can explain it all so lets stick with your explaination not worry about what I think because I am wrong remember.

So my question is there a limit to how many photons an atom can absorb I mean it must start getting really really heavy eventually and that leads to the question

How much does the atom weight at absolute zero then?

You still have not addressed this issue for me

"4) the atom cools due to its lower frequency."


Explain what the deal with the lower frequency is sorry it's not obvious to me.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00285799.pdf



how do you think a microwave heats up atoms?

if atoms must emit a photon for every photon they absorb
then the electrons would not need several energy levels
(higher or lower orbits) for the electrons to move to or move from as they gain or lose energy.

you would never even get past room temperature.

Stop worry anout my answers I got it that you don't accept QM.

Microwave heating is a very different kettle of fish the water molecule is bent it has an electrical dipole and thats how microwave heating works on the dipole moment.

Perhaps read up and tell me if you want to make microwave heating the same as laser cooling.

Can I also suggest you read up on multiple-photon absorption that you linked. Why was it surprising and clarify to me what exactly multiple-photon absorption means because I am confused.

For now since it needs no reading lets just follow your story it's far more interesting ... infact I find it fascinating.

Answer your two questions.

thats strange orac, the dipole just heats water.

so in microwave heating there is no photon absorbed by atoms?

I was thinking that there are thousands upon thousands of photons
absorbed.

and that is the reason that the molecules heat up.
they retain the heat energy of the wave.

even though that energy is given to the molecules as photons.

oh wait a minute , you only think that atoms can absorb 1 photon and then they spontaneously spit 1 out.

so there is never more than 1 photon absorbed by an atom.

I find that facinating , orac.

does it work like this?

1) a photon in the microwave strikes a molecules atom.
2) that atom becomes excited.
3) a electron moves out to a higher orbit because it has been charged to a higher level.
4) then that electron moves inward because it emits a photon
and the atom stabilizes.

and it emits a photon with the same energy that the photon had when it was absorbed.

how do the molecule's ever get hot?
where does the heat come from?
will they return?


I suppose the dipole borrows energy from the quantum illusion
and renames it or disguises it so that no one will ever find out.

heres a few people who for some strange reason seem to think
that water molecules ( molecules are a group of atoms ) absorb photons in a microwave oven.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110926080055AA4b2aK

these guys havent ever hear you explain that either orac maybe you should let them in on the secret you must be keeping to yourself.

http://www.jiskha.com/search/index.cgi?q...ter+in+the+soup

gosh it seems that everybody except you think's that crazy stuff.


teach me more oh great divine keeper of knowledge.

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_heating



Note the image on right


Sorry my physics doesn't match yours genius cause I am pretty sure thats how a microwave oven works as I said DIPOLE HEATING.

See nothing like laser cooling but obviously me and everyone else got it wrong so please explain away if you think we got it wrong.

Now back to your laser cooling.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS

1. How heavy do the atoms get at absolute zero I mean they are absorbing thousands of photons an gaining weight aren't they. I am fasincated by these heavy atoms got a link?

2. Quote => the atom cools due to its lower frequency. Still can't for the life of me work out how you think that comes about.

You said ... ie...it slows down = it cools but what the hell has that got to do with frequency??????

OMG , my bad

the word photon isnt even on the page you linked to.

it does say that it uses electromagnetic wave's!!

maybe the word photon is in the wiki microwave article!

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

thats odd , theres not much there either!
but it does mention a magnetron.

lets try the wiki magnatron page...

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

my my , this is getting stranger by the moment!
but the page does mention a magnetic field.

lets look on the wiki magnetic field page !

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

ah ha , there it is.

yep , photons are exchanged in magnetic fields.



I would have figured that you knew that.

so I guess that without photons exchanging none of the stuff
you use in the discussion even comes into play.

yeaaa photons...



how heavy are they before the laser beam?

how many photons are absorbed before the doppler effect is no longer in play?

how much does a photon weigh?

Yep I would like answers to all those as well they were going to be my next questions and ANSWER the two questions.

You know why you can't I can tell by your trying to avoid it because you are TRAPPED by your own logic.

This is called a FALSIFICATION in science Paul.

I am quite quite certain because of the stupidity you are engaged in you have worked it out.

just trying to show you that atoms can absorb photons without emitting photons.

but thats ok orac , you seem to have stopped dead in your tracks

all you want now it seems is for me to answer your stupid questions that never end.

so I guess theres no discussion left as you are no longer participating.

have fun.

HAHA no Paul I just refuse to let the conversation get dragged into side issues, I know your trapped you know your trapped.

Your whole universe slowing ends at the two questions the two questions you refuse to answer because you know they both end in dead ends and the whole idea is FALSIFIED BY SCIENCE LOGIC.

So yes unless you can answer the two questions the discussion does end indeed.