Discussion of absolute 0 from astronomy thread "Evaporation Of A Black Hole"

[joekgamer]

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.

 

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]

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.

 

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

Edited February 23, 2012 by maddog

[Cyberia]

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.

[Cyberia]

I don't expect you anything...

 

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

 

 

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.

 

 

Only in your mind. You stand alone.

 

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

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Or even posted by SextonBlake. :P

 

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

[Cyberia]

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]

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.

 

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.

 

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]

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...???

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

I just did.

 

maddog

[maddog]

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.

 

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.

 

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

[Cyberia]

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

I just did

 

Then you woke up.

[Cyberia]

maddog.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[Cyberia]

maddog

 

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).

 

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.

 

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]

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

Meaningless drivel... <_<

 

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".

 

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.

 

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]

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.

 

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.

 

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". :P

 

maddog

[maddog]

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.

 

This is chalk and cheese.

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

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

Again, valid - so what?

 

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