Sciencemadness Discussion Board - A New Physics Theory of Life

The Theoretical minimum would be the point where the sources dissipation no longer had an affect upon its environment.

I'm gonna stick with that for awhile.

For the sources (living things) to have no effect on their environment they have to be dead.

Even the most cold blooded animals, living in the coldest environments, operate at a temperature slightly higher than that of their environment. By definition they radiate heat to that environment.

Unless they die: they then cool down to that environment's temperature and stop dissipating.

Zombie - 21-2-2015 at 18:18

Well I'm thinking if you took one person, and stuck him in lets say a room. That room would be somewhat effected by that persons radiant energy loss but the entire house, much less. Then the street the house was on not at all. I am assuming the reference has to do with Direct impact on its environment. Radiant energy wise.

So the theoretical minimum would be somewhere between the room, and the house. Theoretically speaking of course.

No wonder these guys choose to think for a living. You could so easily get lost in there. Everything becomes possible at some point.

[Edited on 2-22-2015 by Zombie]

blogfast25 - 21-2-2015 at 18:38

Everything becomes possible at some point.

Nope. Loads of things remain impossible. Like violating the First or Second Law for instance. Machines are never 100 % energy efficient, "perpetual motion machines" always grind to a halt at some point.

England's work doesn't violate any known laws, he just combines them in a new way. So say the experts.

His work will require empirical corroboration, that's an interesting part of it.

Zombie - 21-2-2015 at 18:48

Let me ask this.

If you were in deep space, and pushed of a stationary (relative) object, is it not possible you would keep moving forever?

Wouldn't the act of pushing off be considered an engine? Same a a bow / arrow. The bow could be considered an engine.

Serious question. Perhaps it should not be asked in this thread tho.
Sorry if is in the wrong place.

[Edited on 2-22-2015 by Zombie]

blogfast25 - 21-2-2015 at 18:59

Deep space isn't empty. Small amounts of molecules still exert drag on a moving object. It may take a trillion years to come to a halt but it will. If it doesn't smash into another object, of course.

A bow is not an engine. An engine converts heat to work or work to heat (a heat pump, to be precise). A bow doesn't do that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine

A bow converts potential energy to kinetic energy and not perfectly efficiently either. The string always heat up a little bit so that some of the mechanical work you put into it (setting up the arrow) is lost.

[Edited on 22-2-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 21-2-2015 at 19:13

This is what I was basing the bow example on. (from the same link)

"In general an engine converts energy to mechanical work. Heat engines distinguish themselves from other types of engines by the fact that their efficiency is fundamentally limited by Carnot's theorem.[3]"

I've many times heard a trebuchet refer-d to as an engine or a rope wound hammer ie: ancient mining tools.

This all has nothing to do with your thread tho.

Perhaps I'll bring it up in another. My mind tends to wander.

Hope you're feeling better. Nite time for me...

[Edited on 2-22-2015 by Zombie]

blogfast25 - 22-2-2015 at 05:02

Trebuchets, bows, catapults etc are machines that rely on storing elastic energy and then releasing it when you 'pull the trigger'.

But you NEVER get 100.00000000 % of the elastic energy back: some of it is converted to heat.

Chemosynthesis - 22-2-2015 at 06:58

Also consider sound. Of you can hear something, this is likely vibrational energy that was not converted into useable work, and instead vibrates the air as sound waves. In a truly efficient system, this would probably be directionalized away from, or at least absorbed prior to hearing.

blogfast25 - 22-2-2015 at 07:48

Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis

Also consider sound. Of you can hear something, this is likely vibrational energy that was not converted into useable work, and instead vibrates the air as sound waves. In a truly efficient system, this would probably be directionalized away from, or at least absorbed prior to hearing.

I don't understand your point.

A tuning fork vibrates (say in the audible spectrum) and causes the elastic medium (air) to form travelling vibrations (waves) by transferring part of its vibrational energy to it.

Sound waves now are emitted from the fork as spherical wave fronts.

Part of those waves hit a human ear and the tympanic membrane, which resonates with the same frequency of the sound wave. Part of the energy received by the tympanic membrane is converted into electrical signals, interpreted by the brain as sound.

How does this relate to engines or machines and entropy/energy dissipation?

Zombie - 22-2-2015 at 10:10

I think I see the point there.

Theoretical minimum... At some point in space the sound wave would be so far dispersed that is can no longer be considered as a "unit".

blogfast25 - 22-2-2015 at 10:30

I think I see the point there.

Theoretical minimum... At some point in space the sound wave would be so far dispersed that is can no longer be considered as a "unit".

What do you mean, a "unit"?

You're randomly connecting 'things', erm... 'stuff'.

Zombie - 22-2-2015 at 11:48

A cohesive structure. A measurable unit.

A sound wave can be measured in DB or wave lengths but at some point the ability to measure the molecular energy as a unitized whole ceases.
At some point a sound wave becomes random molecules with no more structure than before it occurred.

In keeping with the minimum concept there is a theoretical point at which some structured energy becomes random.

blogfast25 - 22-2-2015 at 12:07

You're not wrong despite the use of weasel words.

But it has little to do with England's theory. In a nutshell he claims that in an energy-rich environment fast generation of Entropy (fast self-replication) is favoured. This would make the arising of self-replicating matter from inanimate matter more likely than previously thought.

It's to be hoped that England won't be assassinated by a Creationist nutter or by Michael Savage, before he can finish the theory.

[Edited on 22-2-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 22-2-2015 at 12:50

I understand that, and I agree it is a very reasonable point of view. "Energy rich, and environment" are the key factors. Low energy in an infinite environment sort of negate the concept but according to his theories / hypothesis low energy and,or infinite environment do not apply.

All the rest of the posts here (my bad) were just to get a grasp on the theoretical minimum concept.

One concept at a time. I'm a little slow to get some things but I am like a Pit Bull once I grab on.

blogfast25 - 22-2-2015 at 13:02

All the rest of the posts here (my bad) were just to get a grasp on the theoretical minimum concept.

One way to understand that is to look at why absolute zero Kelvin can never be reached. Despite experimentalists' best efforts, we're now a few nano K off that target (off the top of my head). But that little, little, little bit of residual heat can NEVER be removed.

Zombie - 22-2-2015 at 13:18

I assume that is because there can never be absolute empty space. Anything in that space would be some form of energy?

blogfast25 - 22-2-2015 at 13:45

I assume that is because there can never be absolute empty space. Anything in that space would be some form of energy?

No. Empty space doesn't contain any particles. No particles, no motion. No motion, no heat.

The experiments I'm referring to use small amounts of atoms (typically 10,000 or so). Not empty space at all.

aga - 22-2-2015 at 14:18

If you're looking for a Proof for God's existence, find a way Humans have created that concentrates energy, counter-entropy.

Don't think we did that yet.

blogfast25 - 22-2-2015 at 14:24

If you're looking for a Proof for God's existence, find a way Humans have created that concentrates energy, counter-entropy.

Huh?

aga - 22-2-2015 at 14:26

It'll be there somewhere.

The When is always a concern.

Zombie - 22-2-2015 at 15:06

Back to the drawing board...

aga - 22-2-2015 at 15:29

There is no such thing as Empty space.

By it's existence, it is there.

Zombie - 22-2-2015 at 15:42

There is no such thing as Empty space.

By it's existence, it is there.

Well that is what I thought, and kept me from discussing that further.

Lets suppose a complete vacuum. Every molecule of everything has been removed. would that void not collapse upon itself, and become a black hole? Or would that empty space simply cease to exist? Thereby being impossible to attain / maintain?

This goes back to my question about absolute zero being un achievable.

How could absolute zero exist in a state where matter must exist. Strictly speaking I believe it can not.

blogfast25 - 22-2-2015 at 15:57

There is no such thing as Empty space.

By it's existence, it is there.

Temperature is simply a measure of molecular/atomic motion. The higher the average speed of the collection of particles (in an isothermal vessel for instance). Close to 0 K, that average speed of motion is very, very low. Extracting that last bit of kinetic energy is impossible though.

Black holes need massive amounts of mass, which then due to internal gravity collapses in on itself.

There's a massive one at the centre of our Galaxy.

aga - 22-2-2015 at 16:28

My personal ideas regarding Matter, and Dimensions are currently at odds with what is Seen, and what is understood to be the fabric of reality.

The rift is so great that i cannot even attempt to bridge the gap, yet.

[Edited on 23-2-2015 by aga]

[Edited on 23-2-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 22-2-2015 at 17:09

My personal ideas regarding Matter, and Dimensions are currently at odds with what is Seen, and what is understood to be the fabric of reality.

The rift is so great that i cannot even attempt to bridge the gap, yet.

That could be a valid PoV, if it's rooted in philosophical concepts like Ontology and Epistemology.

For now I declare those well outside the intentions of the OP and that they would be better discussed in a non-science part of the forum. Could be very interesting, dare I say 'enlightening', especially in this age of Unreason?

If, on the other hand, it is caused by inebriation that becomes a different matter. That's not to say Kant, Hegel and Marx didn't enjoy a tipple: I don't know that!

Zombie - 22-2-2015 at 17:45

Here's to whatever started it all!

Triples for everyone!!! Meet ya' on the floor.

blogfast25 - 22-2-2015 at 17:47

Meet ya' on the floor.

Sorry, but I don't really dance!

Zombie - 23-2-2015 at 13:01

I'll hook you up w/ some friends.

mayko - 23-2-2015 at 13:38

If you're interested in life as a consequence of the 2LoT, you might check out Arto Annila of the University of Helsinki. He's explored a lot of different systems, such as natural selection and abiogenesis as the unfolding of entropic processes.

I got excited about their discussion of economies as emergent 2LoT engines, and gathered and crunched some numbers on the thermodynamics of poker competitions. My conclusion: Having a sample size of N=2 sucks.

Zombie - 23-2-2015 at 14:03

Quote from the first link

" Yet evolution is not a random sequence of events. Processes as flows of energy will themselves search by variation and select naturally those ways and means, such as species and societies or gadgets and galaxies that will consume free energy in the least time. In this way systems step from one state of symmetry to another by either acquiring or expelling at least one quantum of action. It is the photon, the basic building block of everything. A step down in free energy is an irreversible step forward in time. "

This sounds similar to England's work.

It is all very interesting. There are many tangents involved but they do combine to an understandable order.

zed - 23-2-2015 at 15:01

Space is space. It isn't nothingness. At least, not in our universe. It is a form (or mixture) of somethingness, that we don't understand very well.

I thought that was kinda the point of the Higgs experiments. You take some space, overload it with energy, and Shazaam-Whackadoo...you re-particle-ize it.

Of course, it's all just an illusion. A dream wherein the Supreme Being, consciousness itself, is enjoying a multi-viewpointed Saturday Afternoon matinee, but you gotta admit the fascinating details are enthralling. Don't look behind the curtain, Dorothy!

aga - 23-2-2015 at 15:26

The Biggie is that we are Time dependent.

We simply cannot easily think outside the Box, which is our attachment to the Time dimension, and similarly the X,Y and Z.

There are More dimensions, and as our natural sensory apparatus don't pick them up, our brains are not naturally able to easily understand or process them easily.

It's a bit like describing an outdoor Birthday Party, with fireworks, yet we evolved, and exist, totally Inside the bow-tied box containing the birthday present on one of the tables, yet we can sense there's more going on outside of the box.

Zombie - 23-2-2015 at 16:02

The Biggie is that we are Time dependent.

We simply cannot easily think outside the Box, which is our attachment to the Time dimension, and similarly the X,Y and Z.

There are More dimensions, and as our natural sensory apparatus don't pick them up, our brains are not naturally able to easily understand or process them easily.

It's a bit like describing an outdoor Birthday Party, with fireworks, yet we evolved, and exist, totally Inside the bow-tied box containing the birthday present on one of the tables, yet we can sense there's more going on outside of the box.

I have two sayings that I live my life by...

The ONLY unit of measure is time. (think about that one)

If you want to make God laugh... Tell him what you have planned.

morganbw - 23-2-2015 at 16:14

That fucking second law. Give it a break please.

Zombie - 23-2-2015 at 16:19

Quote: Originally posted by morganbw

That fucking second law. Give it a break please.

I like to cover all the bases. Buddha told me to. :cool:

morganbw - 23-2-2015 at 16:22

Quote: Originally posted by morganbw

That fucking second law. Give it a break please.

I like to cover all the bases. Buddha told me to. :cool:

I understand now.

blogfast25 - 23-2-2015 at 18:44

Quote: Originally posted by zed

Space is space. It isn't nothingness.

Space has dimensions and time flows through it. Even a perfect vacuum isn't 'nothingness' in that sense.

Due to the Uncertainty Principle it turns out that 'perfect' vacuum is teeming with virtual particles that constantly pop in and out of existence.

'Nothingness' is so hard to imagine that I prefer to believe that 'stuff' has always existed, without a beginning, an end or a moment of Creation.

[Edited on 24-2-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 23-2-2015 at 18:59

Let me ask this...
"Space" must be composed of something. Electrons. Protons , Quarks, something.
So that would mean the removal of everything would equate to nothing.

Is this the reason absolute zero or perfect vacuum can not be achieved or maintained?

blogfast25 - 23-2-2015 at 19:31

Zombie:

Imagine a strong and impermeable vessel. Now connect it to a very high spec vacuum pump. The pump quite literally removes all matter from the vessel. So high vacuum contains no matter or very, very little. The space occupied by the vacuum nonetheless exists, undeniably so. It cannot be 'nothing', at least not by a narrow definition.

A 'perfect' vacuum appears in violation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and thus is 'believed' to be filled with virtual particles.

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

[Edited on 24-2-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 23-2-2015 at 19:54

Quote:

" So high vacuum contains no matter or very, very little "

Understanding that there is no real explainable answer... The "very little" is the basis of my question, and the virtual particle theory kind of confirms why the question can not be answered.

I would assume that the moment the last measurable "something was removed from a vacuum, the virtual particle theory would come into play.

Now this begs another question... Could this be the basis of a "big bang" or could it be more similar to a "black hole"?

Immense gravity could be equated to immense vacuum (black hole) OR the absolute removal of particles could be the realization of a virtual particle "explosion" (big bang).

Risking being a smart ass... I can't believe people get paid for thinking this stuff up.

blogfast25 - 23-2-2015 at 20:07

Now this begs another question... Could this be the basis of a "big bang" or could it be more similar to a "black hole"?

Immense gravity could be equated to immense vacuum (black hole) OR the absolute removal of particles could be the realization of a virtual particle "explosion" (big bang).

Neither. Leave a 'big bang' out of it for a minute. A black hole requires the clumping together of immense (almost unimaginably) large amounts of matter. Extreme 'internal' gravity then causes that matter to collapse in on itself.

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

[Edited on 24-2-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 23-2-2015 at 20:35

I hope I am not annoying you with this persistent train of thought.

Taking the force(s) that create a black hole as a theory... and accepting the event horizon as a "barrier" that prevents us from actually knowing what is or is not contained within...

Is it not possible that a black hole is a source of perfect vacuum, and the event horizon is actually the outer edge of a virtual particle field?

That would tie together all the topics in this thread including theoretical minimum.

Do I sound like that kid that proposed light is thought?

Darkstar - 23-2-2015 at 21:05

A black hole requires the clumping together of immense (almost unimaginably) large amounts of matter. Extreme 'internal' gravity then causes that matter to collapse in on itself.

I don't mean to nitpick, but this isn't technically true. Black holes don't need large amounts of mass to form. For your typical gravitational collapse black hole, yes. However, according to GR, all that's actually required is a mass at least equal to the Planck mass. Anytime you have a region where the mass or energy in it has become so concentrated that the escape velocity of that region exceeds the speed of light, by definition, you have a black hole. For example, a microscopic black hole.

Zombie - 23-2-2015 at 21:10

There seems to be a lot of math that is applied, and even more accepted "truths".

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't black holes all theory? Perhaps accepted theory but theory none the less?

blogfast25 - 24-2-2015 at 05:52

Quote: Originally posted by Darkstar

A black hole requires the clumping together of immense (almost unimaginably) large amounts of matter. Extreme 'internal' gravity then causes that matter to collapse in on itself.

Fair enough. So far the only black holes discovered are massive ones though.

blogfast25 - 24-2-2015 at 05:57

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't black holes all theory? Perhaps accepted theory but theory none the less?

Have a look at the evidence for a massive black hole at the centre of our Galaxy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole#In_the_...

EVERYTHING is theory, Zomb. But that doesn't mean there isn't strong evidence for it. Black hole theory is very well developed. And vacuums don't enter into it, not sure why you are trying to connect?

'Young Earth Creationist Yokel:' "Science is a hoax perpetrated by academic libruhls to extract money from DC, lie to our innocent little children and spend the money on promoting Gay marriage. Repent or the Awlmighty will strike yee down and punish G-d's own country!"

(sorry, couldn't resist!

)

[Edited on 24-2-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 24-2-2015 at 06:21

I'm trying to wrap my head around a real difference between an intense vacuum, and massive gravity.

I can only theorize that immense vacuum would be created by complete absence of matter at its core.

To ME that is far more logical than some enormously compact clump of matter trying to suck all of Newtons apples into it.

If the former is true then a virtual particle field COULD be the cause of the event horizon, where our physical laws do not apply ie: light transmission, detectable matter. The boundary of the horizon is / could be observable evidence of theoretical minimum in action.
Due solely to the immense scale it becomes observable.

If the later is correct then I would have to believe that atomic fusion would be occurring on a Massive scale, and force would have an equal, and opposite reaction. Sort of negating the entire idea.

Work with me on this black hole / absence of matter idea... I'll give you all the credit for the discovery at the Nobel Dinner! I just want that good bottle of wine I hear they serve.

Again... Not being a smart ass, It's just that mechanically it makes MUCH more sense. Like a giant drain in the bathtub vs. jamming everything into the toilet, closing the lid, and saying Ta Da!!! It's gone!

It's sort of cool being ignorant to most of this.
You can see things that might have been overlooked. After all it IS all speculation / theory.

Edit:

" "Science is a hoax perpetrated by academic libruhls to extract money"

I'll give ya that one! No discussion needed!

Na! It's all this Hawkins Black hole crap I'm having a tough time with. It physically makes no sense.

Nothing in the center works. Like a vacuum hose.

Massive atom pile... not so good for me.

[Edited on 2-24-2015 by Zombie]

blogfast25 - 24-2-2015 at 06:35

Zomb:

You've resorted to unanswerable jibberish.

But let's look at this:

To ME that is far more logical than some enormously compact clump of matter trying to suck all of Newtons apples into it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Newton.27s_theory_of_gr...

It might help you understand how massive black holes arise?

Zombie - 24-2-2015 at 06:40

Ok

A group of professors are sitting at a table in the back of some swanky / upscale bar.

Two rednecks walk in. One goes to the professors, and one goes to the bar tender.

The redneck at the bar say... Barkeep... I'll bet you $100.00 that if you set a shot glass all the way down at the end of the bar, I can stand at this end, and piss directly into that glass.
Every single drop will fall into that shot glass.

Bartender winks at the professors, and sets down the shot glass.

Redneck pulls it out, and starts pee'ing all over the bar, the bottles, the bar keep, everywhere.

Bar tender wipes his face, smiles, and sticks out his hand to collect his hundred bucks.

Rednecks leave, and the professors approach the barkeep.

WTF is WRONG with you, they yell.

Bartender says, What? I just made a hundred bucks! All I have to do is clean up some pee!

Professor says, You just cost us 1,000.00 EACH.
That F'n redneck bet us 5 grand his buddy could piss all over you, and your bar, and you'd be Happy about it!

It's all in how you look at things...

Zombie - 24-2-2015 at 07:03

Zomb:

You've resorted to unanswerable jibberish.

But let's look at this:

To ME that is far more logical than some enormously compact clump of matter trying to suck all of Newtons apples into it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Newton.27s_theory_of_gr...

It might help you understand how massive black holes arise?

Yeah, I kind of get it. It just seems that there are too many assumptions, and math made up to fit the problems.

I know real smart people have looked at this for centuries, but they are all patting each others backs.

Going back to England's theory in the beginning... It's simple, elegant, and fits into a void in most of the accepted theories.

I get it... I'm not the guy that states gravity is wrong because of Centrifugal force, or that immense mass as the core of a black hole sounds just insane... but the first guy that proves any of this will be my hero for life.
Obviously I don't believe one word of theory as fact. It's been the same all through my life. I understand the concepts, and I can see how they are convincing to some / most people but if people believe in a closet monster, I don't think I have to. If I want to spend time thinking about what is really in there I will. Most of the time I'm worried about feeding the dogs, and paying property tax so I don't bother.

I will say this... I believe that the few thoughts I have on the whole gravity / anti gravity deal can be or are just as valid as any other concept I have heard throughout my life.
Most of the ideas you have pointed me toward in this thread sort of solidify this for me. The whole package gets a little neater.

I'm telling you... I'll let you get all the good stuff at the banquet, if you let me take home the wine.

blogfast25 - 24-2-2015 at 08:15

"A photon checks into a hotel. The clerk asks if he needs help with luggage. Photon replies, "i dont have any, I'm traveling light."

Jokes aside, poor understanding of basic concepts and conflation of terms leads to gibberish, pseudo-science and snake oil merchants.

Home work: define 'Energy' scientifically.

[Edited on 24-2-2015 by blogfast25]

Molecular Manipulations - 24-2-2015 at 09:25

Very interesting thread.
Even if a perfect vacuum did exist, it would still contain the background radiation right? I believe this is why space is the temperature it is, but space does contain matter, just not very much, so if there's no atoms to vibrate, how can a temperature be measured?
Another off topic question that's been bugging me for a while: how can the event horizon be the same for all wavelengths of light? A smaller wavelength has to travel faster, because it's path is far less direct, it makes sharper turns. Sure, it travels from point A to point B in the same amount of time as any other light, but each photon must travel a greater distance overall relative lower energy photons. I always assumed that was how a high-energy photon manifests it's energy. My only explanation is that since it's going faster, it's weight is proportionally greater relative it's energy according to E=Mc². Thus a high energy photon goes faster but weighs more, so it's ability to escape a black hole is the same as any other photon. I'm guessing this comes down to the whole "particles behave like waves" and vice-versa.
Does this make any sense? I'm just a chemist pretending to understand physics so I might sound completely stupid...

[Edited on 24-2-2015 by Molecular Manipulations]

Fulmen - 24-2-2015 at 09:48

I think you are pushing the mechanical model a bit too far. A photon is sometimes described as both a wave and a particle. It's not. A particle cannot move in a sinusoidal path without being constantly accelerated, what could provide the force for this? A photon is something completely different, but it's behavior can be described as either (or both) a wave and a particle. Big difference.

blogfast25 - 24-2-2015 at 09:53

Quote: Originally posted by Molecular Manipulations

Very interesting thread.
Even if a perfect vacuum did exist, it would still contain the background radiation right? I believe this is why space is the temperature it is, but space does contain matter, just not very much, so if there's no atoms to vibrate, how can a temperature be measured?
Does this make any sense? I'm just a chemist pretending to understand physics so I might sound completely stupid...

The cosmic microwave radiation isn't magical: you can shield against it like you do against any other radiation. There's no CMR inside a thermos flask, for instance.

Remember what temperature really is: a measure of the average kinetic energy of atoms/molecules of that object.

When you plunge a (cold) mercury thermometer into a cup of boiling water, the fast water molecules collide with the cold thermometer's material, thus transferring kinetic energy to them: the thermometer heats up.

In outer space, where there are very few atoms/molecules and very little radiation energy (all radiating bodies being far away), very little kinetic energy can be transferred to the atoms/molecules of a thermometer and the thermometer would cool down due to emission radiation (IR).

So why would a vacuum created on earth and shielded from radiation not be cold? Because as long as the container isn't cold it radiates heat.

I'm not well versed in event horizon issues, sorry.

Molecular Manipulations - 24-2-2015 at 10:17

Got it. But how does the heat transfer without a medium? Inferred rays or somthing?
I don't think there's really an issue with the event horizon, just a lack of understand on my part.
Fulmen, so basically a photon can be described as a particle but only behaves like a wave? Photons do have mass right?

[Edited on 24-2-2015 by Molecular Manipulations]

Fulmen - 24-2-2015 at 10:38

No, photons are regarded as massless. And it doesn't behave only like a wave, in fact it does behave like both at the same time. If you set up an experiment to confirm it's particle nature you will find it's a particle, the same happens if you test it's wave properties.

When it comes to vacuum you will of course always have radiation that will transfer energy. But as blogfast points out the term temperature is tied to kinetic energy of matter. Without matter the term temperature has no meaning. However, such a thing as a perfect vacuum doesn't exist. In all gases there is space between the individual molecules, it really doesn't matter if it's a nanometer or a light year. If you measure a large enough portion of space you will find enough matter to be ably to define it's temperature.
In addition there is quantum fluctuations which produce virtual particles in other-vice empty space.

Zombie - 24-2-2015 at 10:46

Quote: Originally posted by Molecular Manipulations

This is the point where I am removing the vacuums container, and placing it directly at the center of the event horizon.

In this train of thought it could be modeled after a drain in the ocean. There will be a direct measurable effect at or near this drain but as you move outwards the effect will eventually diminish just as in theoretical minimum.

This opens the door to where does it go?

Parallel dimension? Every action has an equal, and opposite reaction... Perhaps the other side (in my version) is the BIG Bang!

Perhaps this cycle is continuous, and never ending?

Risking gibberish... why not?

[Edited on 2-24-2015 by Zombie]

Zombie - 24-2-2015 at 10:53

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen

No, photons are regarded as massless. And it doesn't behave only like a wave, in fact it does behave like both at the same time. If you set up an experiment to confirm it's particle nature you will find it's a particle, the same happens if you test it's wave properties.

When it comes to vacuum you will of course always have radiation that will transfer energy. But as blogfast points out the term temperature is tied to kinetic energy of matter. Without matter the term temperature has no meaning. However, such a thing as a perfect vacuum doesn't exist. In all gases there is space between the individual molecules, it really doesn't matter if it's a nanometer or a light year. If you measure a large enough portion of space you will find enough matter to be ably to define it's temperature.
In addition there is quantum fluctuations which produce virtual particles in other-vice empty space.

This reminds me of "flat earth"

Just because we can not create it or find a formula to explain it in our infinite wisdom, IMHO it certainly does not mean that perfect vacuum can not exist.

My post above this is supposing a drain on this side, and an explosion of molecules on the other.

It sort of perfectly explains everything I have so far read on England's work. As well as every reference used since. Minus the gravity fellas...

The point of the entire thread.

I had to edit...
I am in NO way attempting to re-invent the wheel. I am however trying to look at everything we know in a new light. Perhaps the evidence can be re arranged in a more logical order.
If you follow you end up at the same place as the others.

[Edited on 2-24-2015 by Zombie]

Molecular Manipulations - 24-2-2015 at 11:02

IMHO it certainly does not mean that perfect vacuum can not exist.

How can you say this? No container could maintain a perfect vacuum. Everything sublimates.

Zombie - 24-2-2015 at 11:10

What about the universe as a container?

Black holes being the center of the negative pressure.

Yes eventually you would be correct. A sublimation would occur. But happens at that exact moment? Where does what existed go?

Molecular Manipulations - 24-2-2015 at 11:18

Into the black hole?
[Edit] I guess I misunderstood the question. You mean a void in the center of a black hole? Is that a joke? It would instantly collapse on itself.
BTW black holes are not made of matter like protons or neutrons.

All matter has density, defined as an object’s mass divided by its volume; substances that have the same mass in a smaller size have greater density. To give a few examples, water has a density of 1 gram per cubic centimeter, and osmium, the densest element, weighs in at 22.6 grams per cubic centimeter. Stellar remnants such as neutron stars are extremely dense, weighing in at millions of tons per cubic centimeter. These stars are composed not of atoms but particles such as electrons and neutrons; the pressure of gravity is too high for atoms to exist. A black hole goes a step further, crushing even neutrons; its density is infinite

[Edited on 24-2-2015 by Molecular Manipulations]

Zombie - 24-2-2015 at 11:38

I do get the concept of a black hole as it is understood.

I'm just trying to look at it from another view point.

If it were a vacuum it would not necessarily collapse, any more than your house collapses when you vacuum the drapes.

Molecular Manipulations - 24-2-2015 at 11:48

Oh, good point. I hadn't thought of it from the drapes perspective, thanks for enlightening me!
But really to hell it would collapse, does the pope shit in the woods, yes, yes he does.

Zombie - 24-2-2015 at 11:56

It's Bear. Bears crap in the woods...

Popes don't poop.

Free-shipping-Bad-Bears-font-b-Vacuum-b-font-font-b-cleaner-b-font-pvc-anime.jpg - 36kB

blogfast25 - 24-2-2015 at 12:27

Zombie:

You are making such wild assertions and links here that all meaning is lost, IMHO.

The art is to try and simplify, not needlessly 'complexify'.

Molecular Manipulations - 24-2-2015 at 12:28

I do get the concept of a black hole as it is understood.

I don't think you do. Infinite density. Infinite.
That means a black hole weighing as much as this galaxy takes up ZERO space. Not even the diameter of an electron. You can't have matter inside something that has no size, it makes no sense.

blogfast25 - 24-2-2015 at 12:30

Quote: Originally posted by Molecular Manipulations

Photons do have mass right?

Surely you've been taught the wave/particle duality?

And it works both ways: moving electrons also behave like waves. That's the basis of quantum chemistry, i.e. the theory of the chemical bond!

[Edited on 24-2-2015 by blogfast25]

Molecular Manipulations - 24-2-2015 at 12:57

Yes of course I understand the electron wave-particle duality well. I don't understand much about photons though. Like I said, I'm more of a chemist then a physicist, and I intend on keeping it that way!

blogfast25 - 24-2-2015 at 13:08

Quote: Originally posted by Molecular Manipulations

Yes of course I understand the electron wave-particle duality well. I don't understand much about photons though. Like I said, I'm more of a chemist then a physicist, and I intend on keeping it that way!

Physics and chemistry, it's all just science.

Molecular Manipulations - 24-2-2015 at 13:24

In the same way a Ford and Ferrari are just cars. Physics is great, reliable and fun, but chemistry can really take you for a ride if you go all the way. Analogy makes no sense, I know.

aga - 24-2-2015 at 13:25

Science is a great way to discover Proof of observed things, yet it's pretty useless without wild, random ideas of where to shine the Scientific Torch.

Obviously there have been countless Shinings that have discovered not gold, but piles of pointless dust.

Just because it seems pointless, that is no reason not to consider Ideas, then judge whether it is worthwhile following up the Snake Oil with some Science, in order to discover if it's useful/true or not.

My 10c: the way i see it all working, with an Absolute Vacuum, there are no dimensions, i.e. complete nothingness, as the presence of Matter or Waves (same thing 4 me) pre-supposes Somewhere and Somewhen to be, as they are both expressions of the same phenomena.

Edit : 'Both' meaning matter/energy and the dimensional matrix in which we perceive them.

Despite us being accustomed to sitting at a point in Space, and seeing stuff whizzing by over time, if there were no Us, and no Stuff : there would be no Space, or even Time.

Unscientific, yes. Those notions are merely a result of how i see the currently poorly understood mechanisms, which some Scientist may be able to test, and throw out the window, or maybe keep.

[Edited on 24-2-2015 by aga]

Molecular Manipulations - 24-2-2015 at 13:36

Are we getting into Dark Fluid yet? IIRC Dark Fluid exists in everything and is what allows light to go through a vacuum. It ties Dark Matter and Dark Energy together, showing that they are from the same "source". Only the known universe contains it, so before the Big Bang, even if light could exist, it could not travel except inside the singularity, which is a difficult thing to comprehend. Outside of the singularity was not vacuum, but nothing at all - which incredibly is not the same thing.

[Edited on 24-2-2015 by Molecular Manipulations]

blogfast25 - 24-2-2015 at 13:37

Science is a great way to discover Proof of observed things, yet it's pretty useless without wild, random ideas of where to shine the Scientific Torch.

Obviously there have been countless Shinings that have discovered not gold, but piles of pointless dust.

To the scientifically untrained eye it may look like that but that's an illusion, a mirage.

Great science evolves very slowly with a very concerted effort and cautious building on what came before ('standing on the shoulders of giants', dixit Newton)

Even revolutionary ideas, like Einstein's relativity, didn't arise because some guy decided to wildly think outside of the box.

Accidental discoveries do happen but then it still takes one very cognizant scientist to recognise it for what it is.

[Edited on 24-2-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 24-2-2015 at 13:56

My point was simply that discounting every unscientific idea leads very much nowhere.

The Scientific method has nowhere to go unless there is some 'silly idea' to begin with.

Disregarding ideas soley for their un-scientific origin is like standing on giants blinkered.

Science basically sorts the wheat from the chaff.

[Edited on 24-2-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 24-2-2015 at 14:01

My point was simply that discounting every unscientific idea leads very much nowhere.

'Promoting' unscientific ideas leads nowhere either.

I think you are using the term 'unscientific' wrongly here.

[Edited on 24-2-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 24-2-2015 at 14:09

I agree.

An Idea is just that - an Idea.

To dress it up in pseudo science etc is a pointless waste of time and effort.

To discount a raw idea soley on the basis of lack of scientific foundation is also dangerous, as it reduces the Raw Material required for advancement - i.e. ideas.

My own random womblings regarding Space, Time and Everything are just ideas, nothing more.

I doubt i'll live long enough to discover a way to mathematically prove any part of them, so they'll vanish like mist one day.

Perhaps i'll get drunk somewhere (guaranteed) with a nascent Physicist (unlikely) and ramble on about what i consider to be Reality, and maybe that will trigger an idea of their own that eventually advances our understanding of stuff.

Perhaps my Great Grandfather was Einsteins' Bartender.

blogfast25 - 24-2-2015 at 14:16

To discount a raw idea soley on the basis of lack of scientific foundation is also dangerous, as it reduces the Raw Material required for advancement - i.e. ideas.

It's extremely rare for such ideas to come to fruition. More likely the thing degenerates into incomprehensible rubbish, like what is used by the defenders of 'HHO', or Zombie's famous word salads...

Molecular Manipulations - 24-2-2015 at 14:20

I think you're on to something there aga. The last time I was drunk I figured out what initiated the Big Bang, unfortunately I don't remember it. I could be rich right now dammit!

aga - 24-2-2015 at 14:26

If you learnt anything, such a different way of thinking that could possibly arrive at such a thought, then that in itself is valuable.

Get a camera, set it to record you when you're way too drunk to remember anything.

Younger crowds usually have a considerate Sober friend who does the videos, and conveniently has already uploaded them to Youtube, ready for you to watch when you've sobered up.

Molecular Manipulations - 24-2-2015 at 14:32

Good idea. In my case all I had was a scientifically illiterate lady friend with me who genuinely thought I had solved the problem. She was nearly as drunk as me so who can blame her?
I'm usually the youngest in the crowd and if anyone's in the bottle it's me.

[Edited on 24-2-2015 by Molecular Manipulations]

Zombie - 24-2-2015 at 14:35

To discount a raw idea soley on the basis of lack of scientific foundation is also dangerous, as it reduces the Raw Material required for advancement - i.e. ideas.

It's extremely rare for such ideas to come to fruition. More likely the thing degenerates into incomprehensible rubbish, like what is used by the defenders of 'HHO', or Zombie's famous word salads...

Why does it always have to be ME that is the example...

MM said something... Infinite density, equating that to the size of nothing.
In my mind I can picture that as the same as or similar to Perfect vacuum.

Equal force creating equal action.

Given the excepted explanations for England's theories, and Newton/ Einstein, Hawking s, ect... I don't really see where the ideas I am expressing fall outside the realm of possibility.

A light sucking mass of whatever seems actually more far fetched if you look at it in a mechanical sense, and take theory out of it.
Apply known laws of physics, and take quantum physics out of it.

blogfast25 - 24-2-2015 at 14:38

Quote: Originally posted by Molecular Manipulations

I think you're on to something there aga. The last time I was drunk I figured out what initiated the Big Bang, unfortunately I don't remember it. I could be rich right now dammit!

I'd say that your chance of getting rich that way is about the same as winning a lottery.

Zombie - 24-2-2015 at 14:39

Quote: Originally posted by Molecular Manipulations

I think you're on to something there aga. The last time I was drunk I figured out what initiated the Big Bang, unfortunately I don't remember it. I could be rich right now dammit!

I did that on LSD when I was 17.

I was so disappointed at how simple it all was.

But then I forgot.

blogfast25 - 24-2-2015 at 14:48

Clearly drugs aren't the answer either.

aga - 24-2-2015 at 14:50

Apply known laws of physics, and take quantum physics out of it.

Same thing basically.

Quantum Physics isn't all a pile of random ideas, there are proofs.

Zombie - 24-2-2015 at 15:00

To a degree yes. I agree.

My ideas are much larger than my vocabulary.

aga - 24-2-2015 at 15:09

I tend to find that mere language doesn't work for me either.

The ideas are not bound by words, and more patterns of thought.

At times i've tried to Think without the Words being formed at the same time.
There's an appreciable delay as that happens.

It's very hard to get anywhere near the sheer speed of pure thought without the Need to form vocalisable words slowing the whole thing down.

Molecular Manipulations - 24-2-2015 at 15:28

Quote: Originally posted by Molecular Manipulations

I think you're on to something there aga. The last time I was drunk I figured out what initiated the Big Bang, unfortunately I don't remember it. I could be rich right now dammit!

I'd say that your chance of getting rich that way is about the same as winning a lottery.

One in five million ain't bad, I should get drunk more often.
If I was smart I could see how many vodka bottles it takes before it pays off. But I'm not smart so I'll just keep buying till my liver begs for mercy.

zed - 24-2-2015 at 15:50

There is No Absolute Vacuum within our universe. This is an area of somethingness, not nothingness. Now, prior to the emergence of our universe, such a thing as nothingness might have been possible in these parts. But, this current neighborhood is flooded with virtual particles, etc, etc.. , and a bunch of stuff we don't understand.

As for dimensions. Current theory says ten or so. The idea that these dimensions are present but somehow imperceptible to us, well I dunno. Some folks phrase it as their being very small. I prefer to think of it differently. Might be ten dimensions, but the big bang only expanded three of them. In those other dimensions, expansion did not take place. So that, if you could see the whole shebang, you might perceive a high energy single dot, with a large ghostly aura around it. That ghostly aura would be us and what we perceive as our universe. Might be imperceptible to physicists, but some mystics say they done seen it, and that's just what it looks like.

Now, I'm not a moderator, and I happen to think this forum tends to be over moderated, but if this bloated load of crap topic doesn't belong in a garbage can, I don't know what does.

blogfast25 - 24-2-2015 at 16:01

Quote: Originally posted by zed

Current theory says ten or so. The idea that these dimensions are present but somehow imperceptible to us, well I dunno.

That's String Theory, only popular in certain parts of the scientific community. Needs a lot more work to get accepted, to say the least. The theory keeps hitting mathematical problems.

But this:

Quote:

So that, if you could see the whole shebang, you might perceive a high energy single dot, with a large ghostly aura around it. That ghostly aura would be us and what we perceive as our universe. Might be imperceptible to physicists, but some mystics say they done seen it, and that's just what it looks like.

... does belong with the garbage. With the 'mystics'.

[Edited on 25-2-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 24-2-2015 at 16:08

Bloated crap it may be in your eyes.

Where it belongs, i dunno.

Let's strip SM down to talking about Known things, and that would be awesome, or pointless (you decide).

When i throw an Apple Up, it comes Down.

Horray ! Everyone in agreement, with no dissent.

blogfast25 - 24-2-2015 at 16:15