[The Polymath]

maddog, on 20 February 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

There is no "At ... absolute zero". The term is not an "achievable" value.

Not with today's technology, but is it not possible that it may become achievable as technology advances? Either way, the concept of "absolute zero" still exists hypothetically, so how "achievable" it is does not matter.

maddog, on 20 February 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

It is a limit that can only
be approached. With today's technology we are approaching the range of MicroKelvins above Abs 0
(which 10e-6 Kelvins) and this is still greater than 0. Since this statement is incorrect any conclusion
you draw is incorrect. Garbage in - Garbage out.

See above. The statement is not "incorrect", because, even through we are only "approaching the range of microkelvins above absolute zero", absolute zero still exists as a possible state, even if it cannot be achieved.

[maddog]

The Polymath, on 22 February 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

Not with today's technology, but is it not possible that it may become achievable as technology advances? Either way, the concept of "absolute zero" still exists hypothetically, so how "achievable" it is does not matter.

Oh I am only saying invalidity as being measurable. You can define the ground state being 0 as used in
calculations of the Vacuum Energy. You can not measure "0" in either the Classical or QM sense. You
can approach the value like as in Zeno's paradox you reach the wall by walking to yet not reach it when
you only walk successive half steps. It is the nature of calculus. Just because the limit to a value may
exist the actual value may or may not.

The Polymath, on 22 February 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

See above. The statement is not "incorrect", because, even through we are only "approaching the range of microkelvins above absolute zero", absolute zero still exists as a possible state, even if it cannot be achieved.

I addressed this above.

Polymath - what is incorrect is the way in which Sexton Blake is using this analogy. If the argument is
flawed then the conclusion is flawed.

Look up the wiki on Absolute Zero and you will see what I mean.

maddog

This post has been edited by maddog: 22 February 2012 - 02:31 PM

[SextonBlake]

maddog. What is sense to one person may not be to another. If you are sticking 100% to what is on wikipedia, then we will disagree on a number of things.

You have made it clear that you do not think I make sense, though your evidence for this appears to be your opinion only.

I prefer to debate with someone, even someone that does not seem to make sense rather than just criticising them. That is what debate is about. Anyone can say someone is wrong, even if they do not understand the subject at all.

[SextonBlake]

maddog, on 20 February 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

I don't expect you anything...

Low expectations? Does this not indicate a lack of self worth according to psychiatrists?

Quote

Actually I find a flying elephant as a more credible than the diatribe about the Big Bang. Granted I don't have
same enthusiasm towards Dark Energy per se. I find this as a way similar to using epicycles in understanding
the orbit of planets around the sun.

Very few agree with what I say about the big bang, but then again they can't show me wrong either so I do not lose sleep over it.

Quote

Only in your mind. You stand alone.

How do particles racing away from each other at great speed ever annihilate each other?

Quote

There is no "At ... absolute zero". The term is not an "achievable" value. It is a limit that can only
be approached. With today's technology we are approaching the range of MicroKelvins above Abs 0
(which 10e-6 Kelvins) and this is still greater than 0. Since this statement is incorrect any conclusion
you draw is incorrect. Garbage in - Garbage out.

I gave a theoretical temperature. Maths uses infinity, square root of minus one, etc when such things do not exist.

Quote

Or even posted by SextonBlake.

Feel free to prove me wrong. That is what debate is about. Just criticism means nothing.

[SextonBlake]

maddog, on 22 February 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

Oh I am only saying invalidity as being measurable. You can define the ground state being 0 as used in
calculations of the Vacuum Energy. You can not measure "0" in either the Classical or QM sense. You
can approach the value like as in Zeno's paradox you reach the wall by walking to yet not reach it when
you only walk successive half steps. It is the nature of calculus. Just because the limit to a value may
exist the actual value may or may not.

In space at 2.7K, we may find absolute zero possible. We have too much heat to cope with in a planetary environment of getting on 300.K

Then again we can use a BEC to stop photons in their tracks so possibly one day we may do the same with particles, so producing absolute zero?

Zeno's paradox is stoooopid.

[maddog]

SextonBlake, on 24 February 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

maddog. What is sense to one person may not be to another. If you are sticking 100% to what is on wikipedia, then we will disagree on a number of things.

Probably so. This link on wiki does correlate though with papers found in archive at Princeton or Cornell,
not that you can read any of them.

SextonBlake, on 24 February 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

You have made it clear that you do not think I make sense, though your evidence for this appears to be your opinion only.

You have made it clear in that you draw conclusion from half formed thought, and sometime even nothing
at all.

SextonBlake, on 24 February 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

I prefer to debate with someone, even someone that does not seem to make sense rather than just criticising them. That is what debate is about. Anyone can say someone is wrong, even if they do not understand the subject at all.

Your form of debate is shouting others down until that last one wins or denying anything that disagrees
with your thinking. I would discuss if there was something of value that you had
to say. I would listen as in other threads where you have. I guess I could still
hold hope. Maybe.

maddog

[maddog]

SextonBlake, on 24 February 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

Low expectations? Does this not indicate a lack of self worth according to psychiatrists?

So we are adding credentials to you as a "psychoanalyst"? I think
you have it backwards. I have a "low expectation" at the moment of your
ability to formulate a series of logical statements that support each other
such as to draw some conclusion. So any lack of "self worth" is yours.
Of course things could change... I just haven't seen it in this thread on this
topic. Maybe you have some vendetta against "Hawking Radiation". I
don't know why...???

SextonBlake, on 24 February 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

Very few agree with what I say about the big bang, but then again they can't show me wrong either so I do not lose sleep over it.

I doubt you lose sleep over much really.

SextonBlake, on 24 February 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

How do particles racing away from each other at great speed ever annihilate each other?

Again you get clock in the wrong direction. A creation event is a time-reversed
annihilation event. There is a time symmetry here.

SextonBlake, on 24 February 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

I gave a theoretical temperature. Maths uses infinity, square root of minus one, etc when such things do not exist.

And then drew real world conclusions from it. I don't mind using theoretical values.
As a limit point Abs 0 is fine. You then can't talk about what goes on at the temperature
then.

BTW who said that i = sqrt(-1) doesn't exist. It is the solution to the polynomial

x^2 + 1 = 0

This makes it valid. I understand it is not real. It's is existence is not denied.

SextonBlake, on 24 February 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

Feel free to prove me wrong. That is what debate is about. Just criticism means nothing.

I just did.

maddog

[maddog]

SextonBlake, on 24 February 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

In space at 2.7K, we may find absolute zero possible. We have too much heat to cope with in a planetary environment of getting on 300.K

This is the repeat of your silliness. Maybe you just don't get it.
If you are speaking about the 2.7k in as derived from CMBR wich is a point on the Boltzman equation
which is showing an equivalence of energy to temperature, then you would not be at Abslute 0. So
you think throwing this out make Abs 0 now possible. <-- Just Silly.

SextonBlake, on 24 February 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

Then again we can use a BEC to stop photons in their tracks so possibly one day we may do the same with particles, so producing absolute zero?

I am assuming you are referring to a series of experiments where photons a "frozen" or trapped.
This does address the energy so as to represent a temperature.

SextonBlake, on 24 February 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

Zeno's paradox is stoooopid.

Now we are insulting ancient Greek thinking? I'm not sure you even understand Zeno's paradox.
Calling it stupid just proves my earlier point. I am wondering did you take any Algebra in high school?
Or maybe you haven't made it to high school yet.

maddog

[SextonBlake]

maddog. Ignoring where you were thinking of something to say:

Quote

Again you get clock in the wrong direction. A creation event is a time-reversed
annihilation event. There is a time symmetry here.

This is nonsense. Time is the same for anti-matter as matter as it's creation in colliders have shown. Time does not run backwards for anything outside of science fiction.

Quote

And then drew real world conclusions from it.

Excuse me for sticking with the real world.

sqrt(-1) is an imaginary value used in equations. As is infinity. How can something have existence if it does not exist?

Quote

I just did

Then you woke up.

[SextonBlake]

maddog.

Quote

This is the repeat of your silliness. Maybe you just don't get it.
If you are speaking about the 2.7k in as derived from CMBR wich is a point on the Boltzman equation
which is showing an equivalence of energy to temperature, then you would not be at Abslute 0. So
you think throwing this out make Abs 0 now possible. <-- Just Silly.

I'll type slower and see if you can understand it this time.

With temperatures approaching 300K, it is hard to get rid of all heat. At 2.7K, that may be possible.

Quote

I am assuming you are referring to a series of experiments where photons a "frozen" or trapped.
This does address the energy so as to represent a temperature.

Cooling something down is getting rid of all of it's KE, it's ability to move on a molecular level. If we can do that to molecules, it will be the same effect as freezing them to 0.K.

Quote

Now we are insulting ancient Greek thinking? I'm not sure you even understand Zeno's paradox.
Calling it stupid just proves my earlier point. I am wondering did you take any Algebra in high school?
Or maybe you haven't made it to high school yet.

My paradox. You can only hold five balls but there are six of them. Every time you pick up the sixth ball, you drop one so still only have five. Therefore no matter how hard you try, you can never pick up all the balls.

That is the equivalent of what Zeno wrote. Sound intelligent? Probably does to someone who finds the nonsensical interesting.

[SextonBlake]

maddog

Quote

You know discussing things with you is like an Atheist and a Theist discussing
things. I attempt to use logic; and then you just lob this one in.

I don't mind playing atheist to your creationist (as in someone who uncritically laps up all dogma).

Quote

If I construct a weight attached to a spring and I want to "prove" the behavior of the
spring will oscillate based on what input energy I give the weight. Also the my logic
was sound in the derivation of the system and detailed enough, I wouldn't actually
have to build it to show it. Hawking Radiation is just such a demonstration. That is
of a thought problem. Like you I might have questions about his conclusions. I do
not however think the line of reasoning was "unsound".

This is chalk and cheese.

Two fast moving particles are created yet somehow they manage to annihilate each other. They need contact to do this and that is not going to happen.

Quote

For example -- how populous can this event horizon be. As the black hole gets
smaller, wouldn't the Pauli Exclusion principle come into play? Preventing below
which more evaporation could occur (I remember seeing this somewhere). Well
it turns out that (assumption here: that because electron as all leptons are thought
of a point-size particles) this is not the case.

As hundreds of universe appear and die and the black hole gets smaller (that is the time scales we are talking of with Hawking Radiation).

Black holes are messy eaters and maybe 90% of what heads towards them does not enter. Even in quiet periods there is going to be stuff heading their way as they move through the universe.

But that aside, the magnetic field is always there, whipping up any particles to near light speed.

I think electrons are fundamental particles. They are apparently 100% (as near as makes any difference) spherical and I cannot see this being the case if they have internal structure.

[maddog]

SextonBlake, on 26 February 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

maddog. Ignoring where you were thinking of something to say:

Meaningless drivel...

SextonBlake, on 26 February 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

This is nonsense. Time is the same for anti-matter as matter as it's creation in colliders have shown. Time does not run backwards for anything outside of science fiction.

You "real" on the brain and you are stuck on it.
Time does not run "really" run backwards. In a thought problem of one kind
of event can be "seen" as another kind of even where time "flows" in the
opposite direction. Admit it this may just be too "simple" for you
to understand. As in "reading too much into it".

SextonBlake, on 26 February 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

sqrt(-1) is an imaginary value used in equations. As is infinity. How can something have existence if it does not exist?

Yeah, equation I can "really" write down on a piece of paper.
Once I print this equation x^2 + 1 = 0. This "really" does have
a valid mathematical solution. Yes! Really! It does. It's
Non-Real (Complex) value is sqrt(-1). It's value is Not real,
it's existence is real. Otherwise, I would not be able to solve
it.

SextonBlake, on 26 February 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

Then you woke up.

I was never asleep. I think you still must be. You hammer you head at a tree
thinking it must be another way, whatever way that is...
It just must be....

maddog

[maddog]

SextonBlake, on 26 February 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

I'll type slower and see if you can understand it this time.
With temperatures approaching 300K, it is hard to get rid of all heat. At 2.7K, that may be possible.

Oh, you are using that "new math" they are using in the US Congress to spend money they don't even have.
If x > 0 then x/n > 0 for all n > 0. Maybe you skipped high school algebra. It does not matter if is 300K this is
greater than zero. So 2.7 K is also greater than zero. and 10e-6 K is still greater than zero.

SextonBlake, on 26 February 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

Cooling something down is getting rid of all of it's KE, it's ability to move on a molecular level. If we can do that to molecules, it will be the same effect as freezing them to 0.K.

Cooling is one thing. The efficiency of this lessens with temperature. There are "tricks" to
get you a little closer. You're still not there. Sorry Zeno again.

SextonBlake, on 26 February 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

My paradox. You can only hold five balls but there are six of them. Every time you pick up the sixth ball, you drop one so still only have five. Therefore no matter how hard you try, you can never pick up all the balls.
That is the equivalent of what Zeno wrote. Sound intelligent? Probably does to someone who finds the nonsensical interesting.

You have a cute thought problem though not very intelligent.
It is not anything like Zeno's Paradox as your problem has a
solution once you consider it with a Kobyashi Maru mindset.

You throw all the balls down and pick them all up at once by gathering them together.
Your flaw in the problem was that in "assuming" that you "can never pick up all the balls".

maddog

[maddog]

SextonBlake, on 26 February 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

I don't mind playing atheist to your creationist (as in someone who uncritically laps up all dogma).

It is not I who play the "creationist" in this discussion. For it is the Atheist that uses Logic and Reasoning.
You have ignored both where possible and just said the same stuff over and over when not
just like a creationist would. You will even deny this statement.

SextonBlake, on 26 February 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

This is chalk and cheese.

Not sure what is meant by this reference. It does smell though.

SextonBlake, on 26 February 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

Two fast moving particles are created yet somehow they manage to annihilate each other. They need contact to do this and that is not going to happen.

So now you are telling me how my thought problem goes. Fascinating!

SextonBlake, on 26 February 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

As hundreds of universe appear and die and the black hole gets smaller (that is the time scales we are talking of with Hawking Radiation).

That totally depends on the mass of the Black Hole. For ones above about 10E15 g of mass (about size small asteroid)
the evaporation time would be figure in 100s of millions of years or greater. For stellar sized masses it
would probably be greater than 100s of billions or greater.
Hawking never exactly specified on what scale, just how to calculate it.
Now as you move below that thresshold (10e15 g) you pass to a hole
that is about the size of a proton. This is where black hole evaperation
dominates. It is Hawking's contention that the evaporation time must
be less than the 12 billion or so years, otherwise we could see these
structures that behave like very massive elementary particles and
could accrete a surface charge, yet have only one magnetic pole.
He proposed this because the big bang would have created things
like micro-mini black holes during the early inflation era.
If they all radiated away by evaporation, well we wouldn't then see
them. It is theory, one that hasn't been proven one way or the other.
BTW, this would be a good candidate for a magnetic monopole if
we could just find some. Haven't so far.

SextonBlake, on 26 February 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

Black holes are messy eaters and maybe 90% of what heads towards them does not enter. Even in quiet periods there is going to be stuff heading their way as they move through the universe.

Ok, you point.

SextonBlake, on 26 February 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

But that aside, the magnetic field is always there, whipping up any particles to near light speed.

Again, valid - so what?

SextonBlake, on 26 February 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

I think electrons are fundamental particles. They are apparently 100% (as near as makes any difference) spherical and I cannot see this being the case if they have internal structure.

You and most of the scientific world. I was considering an alternative just see if you jump
and commit yourself which you did.

Actually whether electrons and other leptons are really point-like elementary particles
or the opposite have an internal structure has not been answered definitively.

I guess that is what is so attractive of String Theory as it considers just such a internal
structure.

Currently the Standard Model makes the assumption that leptons are point-like in nature.

maddog