PSI Blog 20170524 Temperature and the watched atom
Henk:
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. ]
Posts
7 comments:
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.
Bligh:
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...]
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.
Coyne is right of course, and I am sure GB agrees. The real problem is that GB is stuck in a particle mode of physics. Microcosms are particles.
Underlying the particles are quantum waves. Thus there is a field of these comprising nature.
Hidden, of course, but consistent with some interpretations of QP.
GB doesn't go into newer theories except his own. Thus a communication problem.
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.
Science does not give meaning to something, human beings do give meaning. I reformulate 'With 0.000000001 degrees above absolute zero ' in 'what is the physical meaning 0.000000001 degrees above absolute zero', if there is any? What do you measure? Getting closer to absolute zero? If I turn it into 100,000,000 degrees above absolute then maybe the question will be more clear. A numerical scale is used but can one use that scale in the extremes?
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?
Post a Comment