Temperature and the watched atom

PSI Blog 20170524 Temperature and the watched atom


Thanks for the comment. You always have an interesting take on physics. Please let me edit your comment so it will be more understandable to the audience:

Hi Glenn, I read the article 'Zeno effect' verified: Atoms won't move while you watch. So, my question is: is an atom an atom then?

[GB: Of course, but the idea expressed in the article is bogus. There are no such things as microcosms that are not in motion and how much they move has nothing to do with whether someone is watching.]

It seems like the situation that a coach has stopped, which can be verified, but the passengers, behind the blind windows, can't be seen and are moving around?

[GB: Right, the coach (a microcosm) can be at “rest,” but its submicrocosms will not be at rest.]

I know that small entities are used in physics, I read '(....).000000001 degrees above absolute zero.' Another question arises: what does that mean, being nearby absolute zero?

[GB: Temperature is defined as vibratory motion, so that means that, once again, physicists have been unable to find perfectly empty space that contains nothing at all. There is always something there, and it is always moving. That is why the intergalactic temperature was measured at 2.7 degrees Kelvin instead of 0 degrees Kelvin as predicted by Einstein. Note that it is possible to get very close to 0, but not actually possible to get to 0.0000…. That is because the universe is infinite, which means that space is infinitely subividable and that absolute zero, like absolute anything is not possible in nature.]

I once studied the Carnot cycle to get some idea what temperature is and the explanation why absolute zero was introduced. But, still, I do not know what temperature is. I then read in the cited article: Temperature is a measure of a particle’s motion.

[GB: Correct. If particles did not vibrate, you would never get burned by a fire.]

Hence, I can use the field of thermometry to measure the speed of my car or when I walk?

[GB: No. We only use that for vibratory motion. For instance, the vibrations of the aether will cause you to have vibrations in your skin that cause sun burn. These motions are side-to-side and are not in a uniform straight line as you observe for your car and for your walk.]

How then, do I know that p.e. 45 degrees above corresponds in a unique way to some velocity?

[GB: Velocities are measurements we use to describe the motion of a microcosm with respect to another microcosm. Again, henk, you are not far off, because any motion at any scale could be considered a “temperature.” In other words, the vehicles traveling to the city during the morning rush hour display a sort of “temperature,” which is high at times and low at other times. In other words, it is useful to think of “temperature” and activity as being the same phenomenon. ] 


Bligh said...

I think Henk will like my book, if I ever finish it. One of the reasons for the book (there are many)was to elucidate a theory that takes care of all of his concerns. E.g. Given an infinite space, if one thing is moving everything else is moving relative to it. So, in essence everything moves. Mach intuited that, I believe. My theory explains all phenomena in physics and shows why aspects of relativity are wrong or confused. Why the BBT is nonsense etc.

Glenn Borchardt said...


Re your "Given an infinite space, if one thing is moving everything else is moving relative to it. So, in essence everything moves. Mach intuited that, I believe."

[GB: You might want to discard Mach's assumption. It never did make any sense and doesn't "prove" anything at all. A single object cannot move the rest of the universe. The correct assumption is that all microcosms are moving with respect to all other microcosms in the universe.

Looking forward to your debunking of the BBT...]

George Coyne said...

Glenn: There is a good reason “physicists have been unable to find perfectly empty space that contains nothing at all.” It is impossible for emptiness or “nothing’ to exist because existence only applies to things. If “nothing” existed then it would have to be a thing, which would contradict the definition of nothing (or no thing. Understanding this means that there can be no beginning to microcosms in motion, and no termination of their limitless existence.

George Coyne said...

In order for anything to exist it has to have boundaries. As stated in my comment it is impossible for nothing to ”exist.” This implies limitless microcosms. That means there is no boundary by which a totality of microcosms can be contained. Therefore it would make no sense to ascribe existence to their totality since there is no such totality. Referring to a totality that does not exist as the “universe,” is simply an abstraction. Although specific items exist within abstractions, the abstraction itself has no existence. Thus, microcosms exist within the abstraction of the "universe," but the abstraction (i.e. universe), has no existence. This is not an opinion, just simple logic.

henk korbee said...

George Coyne: I quote: 'In order for anything to exist it has to have boundaries.' In math the notion of boundary is rather complex. I am n,ot a mathematician neither a physicist so I have to keep the examples from daily life. Does a cloud have a boundary and if yes, how to describe that? I can see a boundary from the ground but not flying in the clouds. So, if the universe exists as a thing it must have boundaries? Why?