The lie Einstein played on is the word 'time'. We speak of time as flowing from the past to the present and into the future. As something independent of us, of the physical world. As something metaphysical. While in actuality, time is change. We first observe time passing with reference to change in temperature, change in the colour of leaf, we felt the change was metaphysical and we labled the change time. When we say we are constantly moving forward in time, we meant in a metaphorical way. Einstein took upon that and said that time is an absolute, universal quantity much like the nature of numbers, that it can be manipulated. This is a lie because time as a word is change. You say a second has passed because the second hand on your watch has moved. Time in that instance is movement. The example frequently used to demonstrate relativity is the ball which is given the same property as light on the train but the example is flawed and borders on the absurdity. It is important to understand that the ball is travelling, from the perspective of the independent observer has both an upward motion and a forward motion for the ball moves with the train. Thus when the ball is thrown up, the observer on the train observes the ball to have gone up and down for he is travelling in the same forward motion as the ball. The observer on the ground does not have the foward motion of the train, thus he sees the ball going up AND it moving foward.

Einstein derived from his "special relativity" postulates that simultaneous events according to an observer on the train would not be simultaneous for an observer on the ground. A simultaneous event is defined as happening at the same instant in time. Since the simultaneity of events can be manipulated, thus time must be able to be manipulated. So is Einstein lying about the word 'time'? No. Is the theory he came up with correct? Time will tell - though, most here will tell you special relativity is 100% correct, 100% verified, no need to do further experiments as everything we need to know is already known. Close up shop, why do those physicists still have jobs? Everything there is to know is already known.

You are both jerks.

Einstein took upon that and said that time is an absolute, universal quantity

Um... bullshit. AE said that time is nothing more than the duration between events. That, coupled with Galilean relativity and the independence of the measured speed of light from the motion of the measurer, leads directly to the results of SR.

And Aer, scientists are constantly testing Einstein. Just because they haven't "directly" observed... aww crap. You already know what I'm going to say. Pfft.

Maurice:

Einstein took upon that and said that time is an absolute, universal quantity much like the nature of numbers, that it can be manipulated.

Einstein said time is relative, not absolute. Time being absolute is an old idea.

You say a second has passed because the second hand on your watch has moved.

Right. A concept of time in the absence of some way to measure it would not be very useful, would it?

Aer

[M]ost here will tell you special relativity is 100% correct, 100% verified, no need to do further experiments as everything we need to know is already known.

Physicists are well aware of several situations under which relativity breaks down - e.g. near the singularity of a black hole, near the moment of the big bang. In other words, it is widely acknowledged that relativity (general and special) is not 100% correct and complete. To say otherwise is a misrepresentation of the consensus of the scientific community.

Close up shop, why do those physicists still have jobs? Everything there is to know is already known.

Maybe because those physicists are a little more open minded than some.

I first thank you all for replying, but I must say, none of you actually rebuked my proposition. I may have said too much and too abruptly and thus have lost all coherence.

Let's begin with time. What is time? How do you measure time? The previous question implicitly assumes time is of a metaphysical quantity that is ever present, which is not true. Anyway, time is often measured by a watch. But that statement assumes the causation of a watch's movement is directly caused by an abstract entity called time. This is a problem of causation. There is no such abstract entity, only our feelings of it. As often is the case, our feelings are misguided.

The history of time began with the day. Ancient civilizations measured the progress of the day with various means, such as water clocks, sun dails, modern means are the wrist watch. But how many have realised the basic fact that 'time' as we know it, is only change?

If there is no physical movement, then there is no time. A second, a minute are movements, or changes. It is a fundamental error to assume time to be a metaphysical quantity, while it is in fact a physical phenonemon.

A person on a spaceship going at a fantastic speed goes very fast relative to a stationary person. Here, when we talk about time, what exactly are we saying? We are mentioning the movement of clock hands in the cabin of the spaceship. Imagine this, for the clock to move at the speed the observer in the interior is accostomed with, the clock must move very fast in relation to the outside observer. But time does not go faster, only the clock does. If I change the clock display on my computer to 1888, does that mean I have gone back in time?

I am sorry for any ambiguities, I feel very strongly about the veracity of my claim. Einstein was wrong.

If your looking to have a disscusion about semantic's, causality or metaphysics I suggest the philosophy forum. This thread will turn into another agruement about SR in 5....4....3....2...

Aer



Physicists are well aware of several situations under which relativity breaks down - e.g. near the singularity of a black hole, near the moment of the big bang. In other words, it is widely acknowledged that relativity (general and special) is not 100% correct and complete. To say otherwise is a misrepresentation of the consensus of the scientific community.

OK - you assumed that I was talking about the scientific community when I was only refering to people on this forum. Some of the people are in fact a part of the scietific community, but they don't represent the community as a whole, and that is not what I meant. I agree with you.

The lie Einstein played on is the word 'time'. We speak of time as flowing from the past to the present and into the future. As something independent of us, of the physical world. As something metaphysical. While in actuality, time is change. We first observe time passing with reference to change in temperature, change in the colour of leaf, we felt the change was metaphysical and we labled the change time. When we say we are constantly moving forward in time, we meant in a metaphorical way. Einstein took upon that and said that time is an absolute, universal quantity much like the nature of numbers, that it can be manipulated. This is a lie because time as a word is change. You say a second has passed because the second hand on your watch has moved. Time in that instance is movement. The example frequently used to demonstrate relativity is the ball which is given the same property as light on the train but the example is flawed and borders on the absurdity. It is important to understand that the ball is travelling, from the perspective of the independent observer has both an upward motion and a forward motion for the ball moves with the train. Thus when the ball is thrown up, the observer on the train observes the ball to have gone up and down for he is travelling in the same forward motion as the ball. The observer on the ground does not have the foward motion of the train, thus he sees the ball going up AND it moving foward.
Maurice,


Your problem is a tad bigger, or at least different than you might imagine. I have been unable to have any SR theorists, real or imagined to admit that events are ocurring on the other side of he universe at this very instant. That we are not able to measure the current time there using our own timing system is irrelevant.

Events are occurring everywhere, the next room the next galaxy but not to those who have discarded the concept of absoljute time, absolute motion, that events are simultaneous in different inertial frames and accelerated frames, and the fact that clocks and watches and sand glasses are totally and physically out of the equation in this matter.

Your thread does belong here even with the use of the 'metaphysical' word as SRT has metaphysically corrupted the concept of time, as well as motion and space and they fraudulently call it both science and physics.

Geistkiesel :cool:

I have been unable to have any SR theorists, real or imagined to admit that events are ocurring on the other side of he universe at this very instant.

Funny. You wouldn't have had to look far.

Sign me up.

I know. Aliens are watching me from a distant galaxy at this very moment. Creeps me out.

geistkiesel

what exactly is your objection? do you understanding what I am prostulating?

Maurice: You and other anti-relativity nuts who put down Einstein really annoy me. You are ignorant of Einstein’s’ relativity theories and his thoughts on various subjects. I am not calling you stupid. Ignorant (in case you are ignorant of the meaning of the word) means not knowledgeable of some subject. For example: I am ignorant of the Swahili language; I am ignorant of the history of Chile. Einstein never made any statement such as the following, which you attributed to him.Einstein took upon that and said that time is an absolute, universal quantity much like the nature of numbers, that it can be manipulated.I happen to be quite familiar with Einstein’s philosophical view of time. A long, long time ago I took a philosophy course. The test had a 20 or so page chapter about time, which seemed confusing and which seemed to say nothing meaningful. I asked my father for advice on the subject. He was an engineer and a practical mathematician, not a physicist., However, he was only a few years older than Einstein and remembered reading about his effect on the physics of the early twentieth century (to him it was current events in the scientific community). He told me that Einstein had some important thoughts about time and I should go to a library (no internet then) to check on his views. This is what I remember finding in a book by Einstein for the layman (a paraphrase, not a quote)..When an individual contemplates the events of his life, he is able to order them using the criteria of before and after. If he wants to be analytical, he can assign a number to each important event in such a way that events associated with smaller numbers occurred before events associated with larger numbers. It is convenient to use a mechanical clock or some physical process to assign the numbers using consistent and equal intervals of what is commonly called time. The concept of time cannot be analyzed further, although physics seems to require the use of a continuous variable associated with the concept of time.Einstein’s view was far more meaningful and easy to understand than the verbal diarrhea in the philosophy text. I find it hard to believe that anyone would take issue with the above view.

The above is Einstein’s view of time out of the context of his thoughts relating to relativity. I am sure that you have no knowledge of that view. I am also sure that you have little knowledge of how time and distance are dealt with in either Special or General relativity. For example, I assume that you have never tried to express your thoughts on relativity using the concept of the interval between events, without which it is almost impossible to deal with Relativity and the Lorentz Transformation. The English language in the absence of some serious mathematical notation is not adequate to describing or understanding the concepts presented by SR & GR.

Others: No serious physicist claims that either SR or GR provide a compete description of the laws of physics. It is acknowledged by mainstream physicists that GR breaks down when it describes infinite density and zero volume at the center of a black hole. They also acknowledge that GR is not applicable to quantum phenomena, and that SR is not applicable to conditions relating to gravitaional fields and/or accelerated motion.

However, neither SR or GR are flawed in their description of the available experimental evidence. In the absence of gravity and accelerated motion, SR provides an unflawed, consistent view of the laws of physics. Any future theory must be consistent with SR under these hypothetical conditions, which are very closely approximated in interstellar space. SR also provides a less accurate (but still reasonable) description of many every day events. GR provides an unflawed (although incomplete) view of the laws of physics external to the event horizon of black holes, at scales beyond the quantum level, and at times after the initial events associated with the Big Bang (assuming the validity of that cosmology).

Due to the large amount of experimental eveidence supporting both SR & GR, any future theory must be consistent with them.

The anti-relativity posters are stuck with intuitive notions consistent with the world of our senses, but not applicable to more extreme situations. If you are not open minded enough to forgo your preconceived intuitive view of reality, you will never understand reality as described by SR & GR. You should avoid Quantum Theory like a lethal infectious disease. It is even more mind boggling than SR and GR.

You folks just do not understand that millions of years of evolution has developed a human mind designed for survival in the world of our senses, which is very consistent with the laws of classical physics. Such a mind will never be comfortable with the laws of modern physics.

They also acknowledge that GR is not applicable to quantum phenomena, Yes.


and that SR is not applicable to conditions relating to gravitaional fields and/or accelerated motion.
Yes and then No.

SR is not applicable to gravitational fields (curved spacetime), but..

SR is perfectly capable of handling accelerated motion. You may be refering to the lorentz transformations - those cannot handle accelerating frames. For acceleration application to SR, see the relativistic rocket equations.

Dinosaur

Thank you for your detailed reply. I respect Einstein as a man, but that does not mean I can not voice my objections if he made some errors. I want you to read my opening post again, without prejudice then read your quote of Einstein. If you still have trouble seeing the error, then I believe the error is of a psychological nature, meaning you love Einstein and respect the man so much that you dismiss all criticisms.

Maurice,

If you can bring yourself to not write a 500 word essay, state your objection to time as Einstein uses or seems to understand it please. One or two sentences should do.

(Note: the crackpot is usually unable to frame an objection in so simple a fashion due to the subconsciously recognized inconsistency of their own arguments).

(Note: the crackpot is usually unable to frame an objection in so simple a fashion due to the subconsciously recognized inconsistency of their own arguments).

No wonder James R's posts get so long. :D

Yeah, well, maybe I'm wrong about that. :rolleyes:

I just can't pick out Maurice's actual objection from the clutter.

Take your snide remarks elsewhere, MacM.

Take your snide remarks elsewhere, MacM.

I should think this applies to your continued false, unresponsive innuendo.

Innuendo:

insinuation: an indirect (and usually malicious) implication

Maurice: Magnanimous of you to respect him as a man, and sorry that you do not think much of his thoughts on time.Thank you for your detailed reply. I respect Einstein as a man, but that does not mean I can not voice my objections if he made some errors. I want you to read my opening post again, without prejudice then read your quote of Einstein. If you still have trouble seeing the error, then I believe the error is of a psychological nature, meaning you love Einstein and respect the man so much that you dismiss all criticisms.You have the right to claim that the moon is made of green cheese, which is about as sensible as your objections to Albert’s view of time. The above remark by you includes an assumption that Albert made some serious error relating to his view of time. I see no reason to believe that there is such an error.

I am too dense to recognize what to you is an obvious flaw in Einstein’s view of time. Perhaps you can point it out to me. I have broken down my paraphrase of his remarks to make it easier to analyze.When an individual contemplates the events of his life, he is able to order them using the criteria of before and after. If he wants to be analytical, he can assign a number to each important event in such a way that events associated with smaller numbers occurred before events associated with larger numbers.

Is there something invalid about the above? Perhaps you deny the possibility of ordering events as suggested. Perhaps you agree that the events in a person’s life can be ordered, but think it has nothing to do with a concept called time.

If there is some error in the above, could you point it out?


It is convenient to use a mechanical clock or some physical process to assign the numbers using consistent and equal intervals of what is commonly called time.

Is there something wrong with the above sentence?


The concept of time cannot be analyzed further, although physics seems to require the use of a continuous variable associated with the concept of time.

Perhaps time can be analyzed further, but Albert seems to have described the basic concept without going into further details. I like his suggestion that a time variable be used in describing the laws of physics. I would be lost without such a variable, but perhaps you have other ideas.

Is there some error in the above sentence?I am waiting to hear your view on the above.

Your original post seemed to want to ignore time as a meaningless concept, preferring to use the concept of change. Perhaps you are merely trying to define time as some property of the concept of change. Perhaps you object to the concept of a flow of time from past through the present and into the future, which is a philosophical concept, not related to the laws of physics. At least I do not remember ever reading about the time flow concept in a physics text, where time is used as a variable in various equations.

I think a useful notation is provided by the SR concept of events occurring at (x, y, z, t), which I believe was thought up by Minkowski and used by Albert. Do you have any thoughts about this? Perhaps you have devised a better notation. .

I completely missed the point of your ball dropped on the moving train. Perhaps you are suggesting that the view of the stationary observer is a more correct view than that of the observer on the moving train, which I do not think is the point being made in books for the layman about Special relativity. Could you further describe the point you were trying to make?


BTW: The stationary observer does not have some preferred view of the motion of the ball. He is unaware of various motions other than the motion of the train. At latitude 45 degrees, the rotation of the Earth imparts a speed of about 700 miles per hour to the ball. The orbital motion imparts a speed of about 67,000 miles per hour to the ball. Galactic rotation and the motion of our local galactic group toward a Great Attractor impart even higher velocities.

Innuendo:

insinuation: an indirect (and usually malicious) implication

So I have used the term correctly after all.

To answer your question, may I ask a question.

What is a second? How is a second measured?

To answer your question, may I ask a question.

What is a second? How is a second measured?

I don't have the frequency memorized but it is based on the number of cycles of an atomic clock. If others here don't post it I will search for the value.

Maurice: I suspect obfuscation to avoid facing the issues you brought up, but I will play your game for a little while.

For my personal purposes, a second is indicated by my digital watch, which counts seconds from zero to 60 for each minute, or there are 60 of them in a minute and 3600 in an hour. 100 years or so ago, when I ran for a track team, I had a stop watch which indicated time in minutes and seconds, and I thought of minutes & seconds in terms of how long it took me to run half a mile. For most of my life a second has been approximately one heart beat when I was not excited or exerting myself.

For a long time, I believe the official definition of a second was based on solar time as measured by the rotation of the Earth with respect to the sun, with there being 86,400 seconds in a solar day. Sidereal time might have been used instead of solar time for part of the twentieth century, but I am not sure of this.

Modern physicists now define the second by defining the resonant frequency of the cesium atom as being some number of cycles per second. When this standard was adopted, the number of cycles per second was consistent with the previously used definition in terms of either solar or sidereal time. There is a government agency in Colorado which provides signals for researchers requiring accurate time keeping.

BTW: The meter is now defined as the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. When this definition was adopted, the best estimate of the speed of light was 299 792 458 meters per second. Future improvements in measuring technology might result in a very small change in the length of a meter, but there will be no change in the official speed of light. The adoption of this standard forever fixes the speed of light as 299 792 458 meters per second.

I know. Aliens are watching me from a distant galaxy at this very moment. Creeps me out. They may be chatting with u right now here in Sciforums ? I know some who r aliens and trying to twist human science so that humans dont break speed of light barrier and claim their fair share of space occupations. But thats not fair, humans have a right to evolve and spread, over this they have prolifirated our planet with destructive technologies, internet seems to help them, but I am gona stop them.

Maurice: You and other anti-relativity nuts who put down Einstein really annoy me. ... Your long lectures are not going to help you. Relativist conviniently avoid the most important questions that we ask. you are nothing but an Ape.

... The stationary observer does not have some preferred view of the motion of the ball. He is unaware of various motions other than the motion of the train. At latitude 45 degrees, the rotation of the Earth imparts a speed of about 700 miles per hour to the ball. The orbital motion imparts a speed of about 67,000 miles per hour to the ball. Galactic rotation and the motion of our local galactic group toward a Great Attractor impart even higher velocities.

So how come you dont add up all thoes speeds to the particle accelerated in a particle accelerator ?

Ignorance is blisss isnt it ?

...
Modern physicists now define the second by defining the resonant frequency of the cesium atom as being some number of cycles per second. When this standard was adopted, the number of cycles per second was consistent with the previously used definition in terms of either solar or sidereal time. ...So how come this cesium isnt affected by accelerations, I mean how come the nucleus of a cesium atom dont have inertia to be affected by accelarations ?

Ignorance is blisssssssss

Anomalous:The following indicates that you have little knowledge of the implications of relativity.
So how come you dont add up all thoes speeds to the particle accelerated in a particle accelerator ?

So how come this cesium isnt affected by accelerations, I mean how come the nucleus of a cesium atom dont have inertia to be affected by accelarations ?The post by Maurice related to a stationary observer watching a train with a passenger dropping a ball. His post seemed to suggest that the stationary observer had a more realistic view of the ball, and perhaps suggested that it was some special view. I was merely pointing out that the observer was unaware of all sorts of motions relating to the ball, and did not have some special preferred view of the situation.

Classical physics claimed that an observer inside a closed room could not detect un-accelerated motion of the room using mechanical experiments with no view of the world external to the room. This is sometimes referred to as Galilean Relativity. Special Relativity further claimed that no experiments using light or any other phenomena could detect such motion. These claims are the reason for talk about dropping balls when on a moving train.

The experiments with cesium atoms are intended to calibrate clocks to indicate proper time for an observer in his own reference frame, and do not establish some universally applicable method of determining clock time for all experimenters in the universe.

Does the above enlighten you a bit?

BTW: I resent being called an ape, but such remarks make me feel superior to those who resort to insults rather than cogent arguments.

Time is just a perception of the human mind. Why is it that one person doing the exact same thing as another person, for the same amount of time might think that it has been longer than the other does, even if you were to eliminate all variables?

Hypothetically, if a person was in an absolute zero environment, and 1000 years passed, it would seem like an instant to them because they did not have any reference to the passing of time.

Correct me if im wrong...

You are correct IMO. Time, viewed as the passage of something like a flowing river, is a purely subjective experience. There are only events and a spacetime interval seperating them. That spacetime interval is also completely relative. Time exists, just not the way we commonly think of it.

Time is just a perception of the human mind. Why is it that one person doing the exact same thing as another person, for the same amount of time might think that it has been longer than the other does, even if you were to eliminate all variables?

One is clumbsy and stupid. Duh.


Hypothetically, if a person was in an absolute zero environment, and 1000 years passed, it would seem like an instant to them because they did not have any reference to the passing of time.

Correct me if im wrong... What the hell? If I was around for 1000 years and did absolutely nothing (couldn't even sit on my ass as that would involve a variable), I can tell you right now that it would seem like 5 billion and 1/365th years. The day was included to show you it wasn't an instant no matter your definition of time.

First off, by absolute zero i mean 0 degrees Kelvin.

Secondly, our perception of time is determined by the speed of our synapses firing in our brains.
Again, hypothetically, if you were to speed up your body and brain, it would seem as though everything was moving at a slower rate, and the time it took for the second hand on a clock to move for you would be longer than "one mississippi".

Now we have posts talking about subjective perceptions and philosophy, not physics.

BTW: It is philosophy which talks about time flowing from past through the present into the future. Physics merely uses time as a variable in various equations.

Yeah, so?

First off, by absolute zero i mean 0 degrees Kelvin.

What would an atom look like at 0 degrees Kelvin? Does it lose all motion entirely?

0 degrees Kelvin is impossible due to Heisenberg (quantum) Uncertainty. You can get very, very close though.

But, hypothetically, yes. At absolute 0 there is no movement at all.

What about zero point energy theory? Is there anything to that? I know very little about this subject.

http://www.padrak.com/ine/ZPESCIAM.html

0 degrees Kelvin is impossible due to Heisenberg (quantum) Uncertainty. You can get very, very close though.I'm not sure about Heisenberg (explain it), but the unattainability of the absolute zero of temperature is nothing more than the 3rd law of classical Thermodynamics.

Anomalous:...

Classical physics claimed that an observer inside a closed room could not detect un-accelerated motion of the room using mechanical experiments with no view of the world external to the room. This is sometimes referred to as Galilean Relativity. Special Relativity further claimed that no experiments using light or any other phenomena could detect such motion. ....

Hence, a blind man should reject all theories of Light.

QuarkHead: In answer to the following.I'm not sure about Heisenberg (explain it), but the unattainability of the absolute zero of temperature is nothing more than the 3rd law of classical Thermodynamics.Read about the properties of a Bose-Einstein condensate, predicted 70-80 years ago and experimentally verified about 15-20 years ago.

To summarize: The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle states that a quantum entity cannot in principle have an exact position and an exact momentum at the same time. (it actually relates uncertainty of position and momentum, but momentum uncertainty implies velocity uncertainty). This is a statement about the possible existence of an exact position and momentum, not a statement about the limitations of measurement technology. The fact that an attempt to measure position changes the momentum and vice versa is a practical matter, although some use this as an explanation for the Uncertainty Principle. This and other explanations relating to measuring technology are incorrect interpretation of the principle.

Heisenberg showed that the product of the uncertainty of position and velocity is a constant. This leads to the conclusion that an exact momentum implies an infinite uncertainty in position, which is considered to be impossible. If a substance is cooled to absolute zero, all is motionless meaning zero momentum, zero velocity, and an infinite uncertainty of position.

A Bose-Einstein condensate is a phenomenon which occurs when a group of atoms are cooled to almost absolute zero. The atoms in this state do not have an exact momentum, but their momentum is constrained to a very narrow range of values, implying a large uncertainty in position. The experiment showed that the group of atoms became a weird blurred entity, with each atom seeming to occupy a volume much larger than an atom. It has been described as the individual atoms losing their identity and the group acting as a single large (by quantum standards) entity. This experiment is viewed as evidence supporting the Uncertainty Principle.

Could you provide a description of the third law of thermodynamics? What I remember does not seem pertinent to attempts to reach absolute zero. My memory of the three laws is overlaid by a whimsical description of them.1: You cannot win.


2: You are not allowed to break even.


3: Furthermore, you must play the game.

Anomalous: I assume you are joking.Hence, a blind man should reject all theories of Light.I am sure you understand more about relativity than implied by the above.

The fact that an attempt to measure position changes the momentum and vice versa is a practical matter, although some use this as an explanation for the Uncertainty Principle. This and other explanations relating to measuring technology are incorrect interpretation of the principle. Yay! I've been banging on about this for...oh, ages. At last, somebody who gets it!

......the product of the uncertainty of position and velocity is a constant. This leads to the conclusion that an exact momentum implies an infinite uncertainty in position, which is considered to be impossible. If a substance is cooled to absolute zero, all is motionless meaning zero momentum, zero velocity, and an infinite uncertainty of position.Yes, but how does this allow one, for example, to to distinguish uncertainties at different temperatures? I agree that the Uncertainty Principle is consistent with TD3, but is hardly an explanation of it.

A Bose-Einstein condensate ........is viewed as evidence supporting the Uncertainty Principle.Yes, again I agree.

Could you provide a description of the third law of thermodynamics? What I remember does not seem pertinent to attempts to reach absolute zero. TD3 states that the absolute zero of temperature is in principle unattainable. This implies that as temperaure approaches absolute zero, entropy identically approahes zero..
Let's see.
Let's say that, in a non-adiabatic system, when ΔE = 0, then ΔS is positive (E is energy, S is entropy). In thermodynamic terms, S = E/K (K is temperature in kelvin units). Set K = 0, and there is a singularity.

Hmm..don't like that (although it's not wrong, I beleive). But I could do it more elegantly through the gas laws, I think, but it's late.

Definition: The lowest possible temperature allowed by the laws of thermodynamics. At this temperature, molecules would possess the absolute minimum kinetic energy allowed by quantum mechanics (the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle places a greater than zero lower limit on the kinetic energy of molecules). It is equivalent to -273.15°C or 0K (kelvin). At absolute zero, the entropy of any system vanished.

Now the question is: what are the atoms in the solid doing (if anything) at absolute zero. Are they totally motionless? The answer is no. Atoms, being very tiny particles, must be analyzed using quantum mechanics, and one of the cornerstones of this theory is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP).

The HUP states that the uncertainty of a particle's position and momentum (mass times velocity) are not independent of each other; the product of these uncertainties must be greater than a certain value. In equation-ese:

(position uncertainty)*(momentum uncertainty) > h

The number 'h' is called Planck's constant, and pops up throughout quantum mechanics. This equation requires the atoms in the solid to have a certain amount of intrinsic jitteriness, even at absolute zero. If the atoms were totally motionless, then both the position and momentum uncertainties would be zero, disobeying HUP.

Some peolpe just like to argue.

Some peolpe just like to argue. Do not.

Right. :rolleyes:

In thermodynamic terms, S = E/K (K is temperature in kelvin units). Set K = 0, and there is a singularity.

OK - I don't want to nitpick, but shouldn't your S and E in your equation be ΔS and ΔE? If you strictly want a value for S, you must first define a reference points, S_r and then, S = S_r + integral(dE/T). Anyway, this is not what I wished to comment on, but what I am going to ask needs this clarified first.

So as T approaches 0, then ΔE must necessarily approach 0, correct? I haven't dealt with entropy in quite awhile but I believe ΔE is the heat released, so it would make sense that ΔE goes to 0 as T goes to zero which leaves you with 0/0 - an undefined quantity. Strictly speaking N/0 can be thought of as infinity as the denominator goes to 0, but that is not what we have. We have 0/0 - and my question is, which goes to zero first, the numerator or the denominator? Perhaps this question doesn't even make sense.

Just for fun, let's start with an ideal gas expanding under constant pressure P and constant temperature T from V₁ to V₂, and ask what work is done in the process:

w = PdV, and for the whole process

w = ∫^v1_v2PdV

now go to the ideal gas laws, whereby

PV = RT where R is the gas constant
i.e. P = RT/V
and substituting
w =∫^v1_v2RTdV/V

we now recognise that the work done (+ or -) = ΔE, i.e. the change in energy during the process and as the quantities RT are constant we exclude them from the integration domain, and write

ΔE = RT∫^v1_v2dV/V

Now according to the second law, there is a quantity S, known as entropy and defined in such in a way that

ΔS = ΔE/T
so we may now write

ΔS = R∫^v1_v2dV/V

Integrating
ΔS = R(lnV₂ – ln V₁)

= Rln(V₂/V₁)

now ∆S is entropy difference in the two volumes, hence

S(V₂) – S(V₁) = Rln(V₂/V₁)

dividing by Avagadro’s number N ( i.e. number of molecules /mole)
we have
S(V₂) – S(V₁) = (R/N)ln(V₂/V₁) per molecule
classically R/N is denoted by the Boltzman constant k and has dimensions Joule per degree Kelvin

so
S(V₂) – S(V₁) = kln(V₂ /V₁).
Now the ratio of the volumes = the ratio of the probalities of a molecule being in each of these volumes v₂/v₁ = W₂/W₁ so

S(V₂) – S(V₁) = kln(W₂ /W₁).


Let's generalse to the probablity of states, and say that the probability of being in a state with entropy S is klnW i.e.
S = klnW, which is nothing more than the well-known Boltzman statistic.

Now TD2 and TD3 taken togther imply that, at the absolute zero of temperature S = 0, which from the above impplies that W = 0, i.e. the probability of zero entropy and zero temperature is zero.

Regarding Superluminal's comment, I would simply say, first, I would be very cautious in using a thereom from quantum mechanics to prove a classical law. And second, this is supposed to be a discussion/argument forum. The day it becomes a forum for the exchange of unattibuted internet info is the day I quit.

Just for fun, let's start with an ideal gas expanding under constant pressure P and constant temperature T from V1 to V2, and ask what work is done in the process:

You are right - such an excerise would be just for fun.



...Just for fun mathematical proof...



The reason this mathematical proof is useless to physics is two-fold.

First, you are applying an equation that is merely an approximation to come to a definite proof. The ideal gas law, PV=RT is an approximation often used in engineering. It is by no means an accurate equation for real situations because an "ideal gas" is never obtainable. An ideal gas assumes that the attraction between particles in the gas are 0 and for our reality, these attractions are always greater than 0.

Second, you are applying the ideal gas law for situations where the absolute temperature, T tends toward 0. The phase diagram of any gas you wish to consider will show you that the gas becomes a solid at some state P and T. Depending on the pressure you use, the temperature at which the gas becomes solid will vary. Surely you don't think the ideal gas law is going to be valid for a solid.

QuarkHead,

You may be very smart and a great guy all around, but you are also extremely anal. You're clearly in the middle of learning some neat stuff at school, and feel real good about that.

However, if you want to engage in the derivation of every fucking result that is already done and WELL supported by fully attributed internet research and other sources, start a goddamned thread for derivations. Do you realize that unless there is a good reason to dispute a finding that everyone accepts, that all you do is derail discussions?

Popping in and diverting a thread to show off your new found math skills is disruptive. So, if I post a result from Phys Rev. or Nature, or any number of reputable university sites (and I do check for multiple reputable verifications of the information), please don't assume we're stupid and go off on a demonstration of your abilities. We know you're smart. It's ok.

QuarkHead:

Regarding Superluminal's comment, I would simply say, first, I would be very cautious in using a thereom from quantum mechanics to prove a classical law.
Prove what classical law??? The explanation for the unattainability of absolute zero is a QM phenomenon. And cautious? You think I made this up? You give me and yourself too much credit.

And second, this is supposed to be a discussion/argument forum.
Keep that in mind bub.

The day it becomes a forum for the exchange of unattibuted internet info is the day I quit.
Quit having tantrums because you don't get your way. See your above comment regarding discussions. If you dispute a result, why not start a thread to work it out? Plenty of people will respond.

Obviously, I've gate-crashed a private party. So I'll leave quietly. Happy Googling! (and oh, you should just hope you don't run into my Wikipedia edits)

Baby. Wahhhh!

Obviously, I've gate-crashed a private party. So I'll leave quietly. Happy Googling! (and oh, you should just hope you don't run into my Wikipedia edits)
Actually, what you initially said was fine:


the unattainability of the absolute zero of temperature is nothing more than the 3rd law of classical Thermodynamics.


It wasn't until later when you tried to expand on your personal knowledge of the subject and once again provide an incorrect derivation that you outstayed your welcome.

Your very next post is where your knowledge on the subject shows to be lacking:


TD3 states that the absolute zero of temperature is in principle unattainable. Yes, good.


This implies that as temperaure approaches absolute zero, entropy identically approahes zero..

NO! Entropy approaches a constant. That is the change in entropy approaches zero.



Let's see.
Let's say that, in a non-adiabatic system, when ΔE = 0, then ΔS is positive (E is energy, S is entropy). Looks good.


In thermodynamic terms, S = E/K (K is temperature in kelvin units). Set K = 0, and there is a singularity. No! Two-fold..

The equation should be ΔS = ΔE/K where ΔS is the change in entropy, ΔE is the heat released, K is the absolute temperature.

Also, When the temperature goes to zero, ΔE also goes to zero. 0/0 is not a singularity. It is just undefined. N/0 is a singularity - the difference is significant.


Hmm..don't like that (although it's not wrong, I beleive). But I could do it more elegantly through the gas laws, I think, but it's late.
No you cannot use the gas laws for a system where the temperature goes to zero. First, the ideal gas law (which is what you used) is only an approximation and second, this gas law only applies to gases and gases become a solid as the temperature becomes significantly low enough.


And, I certainly hope you don't make a habit of editing Wikipedia. That would just create more work for others to re-edit or re-vert any of your edits!

Baby. Wahhhh!Oh great. Another intellectual for my ignore list.

QH,

If you happen to read this, I have no base to say anything about what you post. I will of course, cause' it pisses me off, but that's just my opinion. It's no reason to quit posting. I alternate between being nice as pie, and being an ass. That's just me.

Sorry.

In case anybody is interested, let me say this.....

I, like most here, I suspect, am in the process of learning Physics. How we each do this is, of course, our own affair; there's no reason why all roads shouldn't lead to Rome. Or rather, if one of them doesn't, then it's probably the wrong road.

I happen to have a great distrust of information arbitrarily selected from the internet, a view which is strengthened by the ease with which crackpots of all complexions seem able to find support for their theories. But that's a personal view.

For my part I am learning systematically and formally, and all texts I have seen are structured in a such way that assertions are always backed by proof, which is generally of a mathematical nature. It's the nature of the subject, that's why I try to do it that way here.

I highly resent the implication that in so doing I am somehow "showing off". If I get it wrong, I expect to be corrected, and I had hoped would it be done tactfully and constructively. But to claim that all attempts to provide proofs of physical assertions are somehow beside the point is to mistake, not only the nature of the subject, but of all science.

I am not complaining about subject matter or even level of discussion - these are neither of them my affair. But I am begining to get worn down by the adversarial tone of this site, which too often becomes aggressive and abusive

You may have gathered, not that anybody cares, that I am seriously reconsidering my position here.

QH,

I, like most here, I suspect, am in the process of learning Physics. How we each do this is, of course, our own affair; there's no reason why all roads shouldn't lead to Rome. Or rather, if one of them doesn't, then it's probably the wrong road.
Absolutely right.

I happen to have a great distrust of information arbitrarily selected from the internet, a view which is strengthened by the ease with which crackpots of all complexions seem able to find support for their theories. But that's a personal view.
This seems to be a big sticking point for you. You keep using the word arbitrarily when describing the information posted from the internet. I highly resent the implication that I somehow arbitrarily select information and post it. What do you think the internet is? It's just another source of information I use. I read books and periodicals also. I also went to college. I know what texbooks are good for. Hopefully one of the most important things you learn in school is how to discern the crop from the crap. I did.

For my part I am learning systematically and formally, and all texts I have seen are structured in a such way that assertions are always backed by proof, which is generally of a mathematical nature. It's the nature of the subject, that's why I try to do it that way here.
We all did. Not to put too fine a point on it but this isn't a classroom. This is a lot more like the real world. Not exactly of course, but a lot closer than the classroom. There's shouting, cussing, strong disagreements, fist-pounding and much gnashing of teeth.

I highly resent the implication that in so doing I am somehow "showing off". If I get it wrong, I expect to be corrected, and I had hoped would it be done tactfully and constructively.
It's a good hope but that dosen't always happen. Maybe it's your style or something.

But to claim that all attempts to provide proofs of physical assertions are somehow beside the point is to mistake, not only the nature of the subject, but of all science.
Not all, only most. Again, this is a discussion forum not a formal classroom. There are all levels of education and skill here. The idea that you need to derive the results of of every other fundamental statement made is flawed. You should learn to embrace the fountain of information that is at your fingertips and to use it wisely. A lot of us know how science works.

I am not complaining about subject matter or even level of discussion - these are neither of them my affair. But I am begining to get worn down by the adversarial tone of this site, which too often becomes aggressive and abusive
Oh well. I've posted at PhysicsForums and it seems that they are a lot more about the learning aspects. They even have sections dedicated to student help. One of the hallmarks of sciforums is the heated nature that the discussions are allowed to take. I like it. I've given some hard earned cash (as have many others) to keep it that way.

You may have gathered, not that anybody cares, that I am seriously reconsidering my position here.
Ok. Whatever.

P.S. If you look at some of my early posts, I was in the same spot. "Just who do these fuckers think they are anyway?" "I quit. Too frustrating." "Bye assholes". Still here.

It's dissapointing to see that none of the "textbook physicists" on this forum cared to address Maurice's objections to Einstein's (and relativists) perception of time.

Is time a physical phenomena, or is it just something that humans use to seperate events?

Is the passage of time determined by the speed of physical reactions, or can time exist seperately from those reactions?

If an area exists without matter and energy, does time still exist in that area? If not, how can time be dilated in an empty frame of reference?

Some of you may think that these questions are just a matter of semantics, but they are not. One of my major objections to SR is its assumption that time is a physical entity that can dilate even where no matter is present. This idea is a little far-fetched to me. What does everyone else think?

Prosoothus:

Your questions are more philosophical than physical.

Is time a physical phenomena, or is it just something that humans use to seperate events?

We observe that events happen at different times. That suggests to me that time is more than merely imaginary, but maybe you think differently.

Is the passage of time determined by the speed of physical reactions, or can time exist seperately from those reactions?

The "speed" or "rate" of anything is with reference to time. Therefore, time is primary, not secondary. The speed of something is determined with respect to time. Time is not determined or defined with respect to speed.

If an area exists without matter and energy, does time still exist in that area?

Pure philosophy. This is the equivalent of "if a tree falls in the forest...". If nothing happens in a region of space, does time exist in that region? You can argue it either way, and either answer will have no practical consequences, since answering it either way makes no observable difference to the region in question.

If not, how can time be dilated in an empty frame of reference?

Who says it makes any sense to talk of time dilation other than between two time-measuring devices?

Some of you may think that these questions are just a matter of semantics, but they are not.

Philosophy, yes. Semantics, no.

One of my major objections to SR is its assumption that time is a physical entity that can dilate even where no matter is present.

I don't believe SR makes that assumption.

James,

The "speed" or "rate" of anything is with reference to time. Therefore, time is primary, not secondary. The speed of something is determined with respect to time. Time is not determined or defined with respect to speed.

How do you determine what's primary and what's secondary? If you had a clock which consists of a swinging pendulum, one could argue that the tick rate is dermined by gravity and inertia. In other words, gravity and inertia are primary, and time is secondary.

Pure philosophy. This is the equivalent of "if a tree falls in the forest...". If nothing happens in a region of space, does time exist in that region? You can argue it either way, and either answer will have no practical consequences, since answering it either way makes no observable difference to the region in question.

I don't believe SR makes that assumption.

SR states that time dilates in a moving frame of reference. Since matter does not have to exist in a frame of reference, SR implies that time exists, and can dilate, where no matter is present.

If time is a physical entity that can exist seperately from matter and energy, then the concept of dilated time in relativity can have some validity. However, if time doesn't exist without matter and energy, how can someone claim that time is dilating in an empty frame of reference?

James,

How do you determine what's primary and what's secondary? If you had a clock which consists of a swinging pendulum, one could argue that the tick rate is dermined by gravity and inertia. In other words, gravity and inertia are primary, and time is secondary.

SR states that time dilates in a moving frame of reference. Since matter does not have to exist in a frame of reference, SR implies that time exists, and can dilate, where no matter is present.

If time is a physical entity that can exist seperately from matter and energy, then the concept of dilated time in relativity can have some validity. However, if time doesn't exist without matter and energy, how can someone claim that time is dilating in an empty frame of reference?

In spite of James R's objections, you are quite likely absolutely correct. That is time is a property of energetic mass and space (events) and not some independant enity in of itself. Clock merely mark a time interval at some man made frequency. None actually measure time perse.

BTW we have a Phd, Physicist's that agree with us. It is not you and I against the world as James R might suggest.

I think that a Strawman fallacy is being argued here. Relativity is actaually very pragmatic. It avoids discussion of space/time in the absence of matter/energy and vice versa.

As James R claims, in a region containing no mass/energy, discussion of distance and time is philosophy, not physics. There is no way of measuring or observing time intervals or distances in a region containing no mass/energy.

I suspect that discussions of what is primary is also philosophy. Time, space, velocity, mass, momentum, energy, et cetera do not occur independently of each other. If some experiment could show that one of these exists independently of the others, a claim could perhaps be made for that one being primary.

Physics in general, and relativity in particular, is concerned with events which occur at space/time coordinates (x, y, z, t). Relativity views the laws of physics using 4D geometric concepts, treating (x, y, z, t) as a point in a 4D space. Classical physics views events as occurring at time t at a point (x, y, z) in a 3D space.

As far as I know, neither modern nor classical physics have anything to say about time or distance in the absence of mass/energy. It is similar to asking if conservation of momentum is valid in a region of space containing no matter. For consistency, one might claim that momentum is conserved in the absence of matter, but could you support such a claim with experimental evidence? What difference would it make if you assumed that momentum was not conserved in the absence of matter?

BTW: Viewing time as something mystical which flows from past through the present into the future is also a philosophical concept. Physics does not talk about such a time flow. The equations of physics use a variable called time, which is defined by physical processes. Expressing the laws of physics without the use of such a variable seems semantically awkward at best, if not impossible.

Expressing the laws of physics without the use of such a variable seems semantically awkward at best, if not impossible.

Einstein multiplied it out when he applied the lorentz transformations.

x₄ = il = ict (i = sqrt(-1))

c = meters * cycles / second (wavelength*frequency)
t = second
ct = meters * cycles