A Universe from Nothing: Not that hard to understand.

[exchemist]

How do we ever get to zero temperature if there is thermodynamic energy. Only total motionless.
Kind of like what came first...? I submit they both gained physical existence at exactly the same hierarchy level of self-ordering functions. Which is the concept of zero itself. The beginning of a thing which mathematically may become expressed in reality. Latent potentials, inherent in the fabric of spacetime itself, which began during the FTL expansion epoch, t = 0, before the start, of the universe, then there was t1,t2,t3,t4......to present .

IMO, its highly probabilistic, after all here we are....

But What was at Zero time, temperature ? No, we had zero temperature, no value.

But because we invented ways to use this universal constant for our convenience, IF we make a relative assumption of zero being equal to thirty two, is, as has been defined, the arbitrary use of zero as a point of departure or event. Webster put it in sixth place (.6) as a general statement that you are permitted to give zero a valueless demarcation point for practical purposes.

Zero has no value, but it can Give you the power to use it for measurement purposes, but only because you use it in context as the baseline of a new set by the very definition of Zero Value.
We use it in count-downs or count-ups or starting time or end-time (time's up). It is in a Cardinal Value of nothingness that is "useful" as a variable demarcation point for specific applications, precisely because it represents the neutral (valueless state) before the event. It's handy dandy!.......

We can't get to absolute zero. This is fairly obvious, since extracting all the heat energy from matter requires a lower temperature reservoir into which it can be made to flow, i.e. you can only get to absolute zero if you can get to below absolute zero - which you can't, by definition!

Most of the rest of your post seems to be word salad, so I cannot address it. However, among your various apparent misapprehensions, I will try to address two:

Firstly, as Dave indicated earlier, temperature is only defined for bulk collections of matter in thermal equilibrium. In a non-equilibrium situation, or in the absence of matter, temperature has no meaning. It is thus not the case that all systems have a temperature.

Secondly, absolute zero is not an arbitrary level. It is the temperature at which there is no heat energy left to extract from a body.

P.S. this post of yours makes considerably less sense than your posts usually do. Is something wrong?

 

[Write4U]

We can't get to absolute zero. This is fairly obvious, since extracting all the heat energy from matter requires a lower temperature reservoir into which it can be made to flow, i.e. you can only get to absolute zero if you can get to below absolute zero - which you can't, by definition!

That's all I am claiming.

Exchemist said,
Secondly, absolute zero is not an arbitrary level. It is the temperature at which there is no heat energy left to extract from a body.

Right, it is the state of absolute zero temperature.

I believe I have stated several times that there is NO -1 K. Perhaps I am not stating it correctly, but that is a semantic problem, not the fact that Zero Kelvin is where the true temperature scale of the universe begins. Nothing arbitrarily about it. It's a fundamental constant.

All other uses of zero as a beginning or demarcation for any other uses is arbitrary.

 

[exchemist]

That's all I am claiming. Right, it is the state of absolute zero temperature.

I believe I have stated several times that there is NO -1 K. Perhaps I am not stating it correctly, but that is a semantic problem, not the fact that Zero Kelvin is where the true temperature scale of the universe begins. Nothing arbitrarily about it. It's a fundamental constant.

All other uses of zero as a beginning or demarcation for any other uses is arbitrary.

Not so. Zero electric charge is not arbitrary either, for example. Zero mass is not arbitrary. Zero net force is not arbitrary.

 

[Write4U]

Not so. Zero electric charge is not arbitrary either, for example. Zero mass is not arbitrary. Zero net force is not arbitrary.

Right, that's why it is called an "absolute", a fundamental state, which can move only in one direction.
To make zero a demarcation between up and down is arbitrary. The same as we can use t=0 arbitrary point of departure, or start of an new timeline.

We even use count downs to t = 0, say in a rocket launch, an arbitrary use of t = 0 (which could be at 7 AM in the morning). We don't equate t = 0 with 7 AM except as an arbitrary point of departure.

The absolute state of t = 0 was before the beginning of spacetime.

 

[exchemist]

Right, that's why it is called an "absolute", a fundamental state, which can move only in one direction.

Why then did you say that "all other uses of zero as a beginning or demarcation are arbitrary", if you did not mean it? Do you mean anything you say? Or just some of it? If so, how can we tell which bits you mean and which bits you don't? You sound like Trump.

 

[Write4U]

Why then did you say that "all other uses of zero as a beginning or demarcation are arbitrary", if you did not mean it? Do you mean anything you say? Or just some of it? If so, how can we tell which bits you mean and which bits you don't? You sound like Trump.

We can arbitrarily use the concept of zero as a state before an specific artificial event, so that it has it's own timeline, apart from the beginning of the universe and the beginning of time itself.

I can say today is the 1 st day of the rest of my life. But that doesn't mean yesterday was the zero day before the rest of my life. Yesterday I had an age in the course of my timeline, it was greater than zero. All arbitrary placemats for our convenience. Nothing to do with absoluteness, we use it as a arbitrary relative measurement of a time within a an absolute time scale or an arbitrary temperature measurement within an absolute temperature scale.

 

[DaveC426913]

We can arbitrarily

We can, but we don't. Science cannot happen if we arbitrarily change up meanings and conventions.

I can say today is the 1 st day of the rest of my life.

No problem. But if you want to have a scientific discussion, you really must stop making up your own rules, methods and definitions.

And this is a science subforum.

Please, can we stop having threads get derailed while you explore your own ideas?

 

[Write4U]

We can, but we don't. Science cannot happen if we arbitrarily change up meanings and conventions.

Sorry, but it seems to me that I am not the one who is ignoring certain absolutes and is speaking only from relativistic perspectives as they apply to human arbitrary convenience and conventions.

A horse is an animal, but not all animals are horses. This always seems to be a problem, separating constant absolutes from human relativistic arbitrary uses.

The universe is 14.7 billion years old, using an relativistic arbitrary measurement of Earth time.

When we measure things on a cosmic scale we use an arbitrary "light year" to measure a distance.

We make up many things for our convenience. Universal Constants are not relativistic, they are absolute.

 

[Write4U]

We can, but we don't. Science cannot happen if we arbitrarily change up meanings and conventions.

Right, such as claiming that o C is a real state of zero? It isn't in absolute terms. It's an arbitrary demarcation point for liquid water to be come solid ice. The true and absolute temperature is 273.15 degrees Kelvin and that is not a zero temperature.

 

[DaveC426913]

Right, such as claiming that o C is a real state of zero? It isn't in absolute terms. It's an arbitrary demarcation point for liquid water to be come solid ice. The true and absolute temperature is 273.15 degrees Kelvin and that is not a zero temperature.

We're all aware that some scales have arbitrary demarcations. That is a well-understood convention.

Every time you try to redefine something because it suits you, you make Jesus cry.

 

[Write4U]

We're all aware that some scales have arbitrary demarcations. That is a well-understood convention.

At last we have agreement. When I say arbitrary, I don't mean willy-nilly. I mean that in context of temperature it is convenient to use zero for certain arbitrary demarcations, such as Celsius. I am not arguing that these tools are useless. They are useful, that's why we use them in science as well as for other practical purposes.

Where we run into problems is when these measurements cannot be used for other purposes than what they were specifically chosen for. They may apply to a certain measurement, but not to other measurements.

Example: the English weight of 1 lb, has a different weight than a metric lb. The same as mile vs nautical mile. The English foot (ft) is incompatible with the metric system which translates to 30.48 centimeters.
1 US fluid ounce = 29.5735296 cu cm. 1 ounce (weight) = 28.34952 g. Or 1 g = 0.03527396 oz
Not convenient to use them except for the specific purpose they are used for.

I am only going by the true definition of the a priori fundamental value of zero, from Webster;

Zero, noun.

a : the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity

6 : something arbitrarily or conveniently designated zero

No. 6 is the definition of the symbol when arbitrarily applied for human purposes.

But below is the official scientific definition of zero as the null point absolute zero.

The kelvin is a unit of measure for temperature based upon an absolute scale. It is one of the seven base units in the International System of Units (SI) and is assigned the unit symbol K. The Kelvin scale is an absolute, thermodynamic temperature scale using as its null point absolute zero, the temperature at which all thermal motion ceases in the classical description of thermodynamics

Note that it is a base unit in the International System of Units.

The SI base units
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units

The International System of Units (abbreviated as SI, from the French Système international (d'unités)) is the modern form of the metric system, and is the most widely used system of measurement. It comprises a coherent system of units of measurement built on seven base units. The system also establishes a set of twenty prefixes to the unit names and unit symbols that may be used when specifying multiples and fractions of the units.

The system was published in 1960 as a result of an initiative that began in 1948. It is based on the metre–kilogram–second system of units (MKS) rather than any variant of the centimetre–gram–second system (CGS).

SI is intended to be an evolving system, so prefixes and units are created and unit definitions are modified through international agreement as the technology of measurement progresses and the precision of measurements improves. The 24th and 25th

General Conferences on Weights and Measures (CGPM) in 2011 and 2014, for example, discussed a proposal to change the definition of the kilogram, linking it to an invariant of nature rather than to the mass of a material artefact, thereby ensuring long-term stability.

I can understand the effort to use the Kilogram as a base unit, because it is directly related to the atomic weight of a cubic centimeter of water = 1 gram.

Of course this does beg the question if atoms weigh more or less under different gravity conditions. But for human purposes it is a good model of an fundamental unit of weight. Somewhat arbitrary, but at least stable

As always, my arguments rest on the assumption that the Universe is fundamentally based on mathematical functions.

 

[exchemist]

At last we have agreement. When I say arbitrary, I don't mean willy-nilly. I mean that in context of temperature it is convenient to use zero for certain arbitrary demarcations, such as Celsius. I am not arguing that these tools are useless. They are useful, that's why we use them in science as well as for other practical purposes.

Where we run into problems is when these measurements cannot be used for other purposes than what they were specifically chosen for. They may apply to a certain measurement, but not to other measurements.

Example: the English weight of 1 lb, has a different weight than a metric lb. The same as mile vs nautical mile. The English foot (ft) is incompatible with the metric system which translates to 30.48 centimeters.
1 US fluid ounce = 29.5735296 cu cm. 1 ounce (weight) = 28.34952 g. Or 1 g = 0.03527396 oz
Not convenient to use them except for the specific purpose they are used for.

I am only going by the true definition of the a priori fundamental value of zero, from Webster;

No. 6 is the definition of the symbol when arbitrarily applied for human purposes.

But below is the official scientific definition of zero as the null point absolute zero.

Note that it is a base unit in the International System of Units.

The SI base units
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units


I can understand the effort to use the Kilogram as a base unit, because it is directly related to the atomic weight of a cubic centimeter of water = 1 gram.

Of course this does beg the question if atoms weigh more or less under different gravity conditions. But for human purposes it is a good model of an fundamental unit of weight. Somewhat arbitrary, but at least stable

As always, my arguments rest on the assumption that the Universe is fundamentally based on mathematical functions.

Yet more muddle. Let's try to disentangle a bit:-

Water, being a compound, does not have an "atomic weight". It has a so-called "molecular weight" of 18 (16 for one oxygen atom plus 1 each for the 2 hydrogen atoms. However nowadays this is normally called, rather more correctly, the Relative Molecular Mass, as it is a measure of mass not weight and is relative to the mass of a proton (=1). So RMM, being a relative ratio, is dimensionless (=has no units).

One cm3 of water has a mass of 1 gramme, but this is unrelated to atomic or molecular weights or masses.

There is however a relationship between the "molecular weight" (=relative molecular mass) of water and the volume it occupies, namely that 18cm3 (18g) water contains Avogadro's Number (~ 6.02 x 10²³) of molecules.

So there is no need to beg questions about weight vs. mass under different conditions. Unless you have muddled your concepts up.

 

[exchemist]

We can arbitrarily use the concept of zero as a state before an specific artificial event, so that it has it's own timeline, apart from the beginning of the universe and the beginning of time itself.

I can say today is the 1 st day of the rest of my life. But that doesn't mean yesterday was the zero day before the rest of my life. Yesterday I had an age in the course of my timeline, it was greater than zero. All arbitrary placemats for our convenience. Nothing to do with absoluteness, we use it as a arbitrary relative measurement of a time within a an absolute time scale or an arbitrary temperature measurement within an absolute temperature scale.

Yes, we can. But that is not at all the same as saying that all uses of zero are arbitrary apart from the case of absolute zero, which is what you said. Or did you perhaps mean only that all uses of temperature scales with zero at a different point are arbitrary? If so that is true, if obvious.

 

[river]

Temperature has nothing to with this op .

 

[Write4U]

Yes, we can. But that is not at all the same as saying that all uses of zero are arbitrary apart from the case of absolute zero, which is what you said. Or did you perhaps mean only that all uses of temperature scales with zero at a different point are arbitrary? If so that is true, if obvious.

That's why I used zero Kelvin, which appears to be an absolute fundamental constant, according to the International System of Units which recognizes seven fundamental symbolic constants.

But as to the primary definition of Zero, I still accept Webster's definition of the "absence of all magnitude or quantity".
IMO, it is a logical mathematical hierarchical symbol which chronologically always comes before the existence of a magnitude or quantity, but can also be used arbitrarily (conveniently) to establish a departure point, a beginning of a new chronological event which starts with one, regardless of the unit of measure.
IMO, the equivalence in military time where 24:00 hrs (the completion of the previous day) = 00:00 hrs (the beginning of the next day) is a good example. The next number of the new day would be 00:01 hrs on the scale of Military time.

 

[Write4U]

Temperature has nothing to with this op .

How do you know this?
All states or conditions which we believe to be fundamental aspects of spacetime are relevant, IMO they are all related as being universal common denominators .

 

[river]

How do you know this?
All states or conditions which we believe to be fundamental aspects of spacetime are relevant, IMO they are all related as being universal common denominators .

Nothing has no temperature .

 

[exchemist]

That's why I used zero Kelvin, which appears to be an absolute fundamental constant, according to the International System of Units which recognizes seven fundamental symbolic constants.

Citation required. My recollection is that the SI system is a system of units.

 

[kx000]

Nothing has no temperature .

Nothing is impossible. Everything however is possible.

 

[birch]

To understand nothing, there has to be something.