Alternative Models of Reality

Just how is it misleading to attribute something "from your link" to a link originated by you? I'm gonna artfully dodge my way outta here.

"He doesn't know what temperature is and will not acknowledge it."

I think I ought to answer this challenge.

If there is no boundary between classical and quantum mechanics (as I aver) temperature *cannot* be other than the measure of average kinetic energy in a system of defined measure space. I honestly do not know what you're getting at.

So there.

Tom.

"If there is no boundary between classical and quantum mechanics (as I aver) temperature *cannot* be other than the measure of average kinetic energy in a system of defined measure space. I honestly do not know what you're getting at."

What Tom means to say is that temperature is proportional to average molecular kinetic energy. That is, of course, not explaining what temperature is. For sure, it is not a measure of average molecular kinetic energy. A measure of Energy is a measure of energy. The units of temperature are degrees Kelvin and not joules. Degrees kelvin cannot be equated to joules. What Tom is pretending to not know is that the point of my question was to show that theory pushes ahead leaving blanks behind. One of those blanks is temperature. The reason i refer to it as a blank is because it has never been explained by anyone including Tom. What theorists offer is indirect answers in a form that amounts to misdirection. It is a physics fact that temperature was accepted, right from the time it was introduced, as an indefinable property having indefinable units. Being indefinable means being inexplicable. Being indefinable means the we cannot learn what temperature is from any of the other pre-existing properties or their units. Tom's answer is obviously wrong. Temperature is a measure of temperature having units of degrees Kelvin. There are four properties that are either naturally indefinable such as the properties of empirical evidence which are length and time as measure by clocks. In addition to those two, physicists did not know how to define mass and temperature. For that reason they were accepted into physics equations as indefinable properties with indefinable units. All other properties were accepted into physics equations as defined properties. So, because Tom gave a commonly taught indirect answer that is worded poorly for the purpose of misleading students into believing that they are learning what temperature is. It will be known when temperature is finally defined because its units of degrees Kelvin will be replaced by defined units. It will be known when temperature is finally explained because it will become a defined property.

If Tom artfully dodges out of here as he says he will I thank him.

I asked: "Tell me, what physical event did Clausius discover when he developed his mathematical expression for thermodynamic entropy?"

Tom replied: "Cyclic state change".

In other words Tom doesn't know.

He doesn't know because he doesn't know what temperature is. If he knew what temperature was, then, he could usefully refer to S=Q/T and explain what physical event S represents. Or in the case of an irreversible process with heat loss to the heat sink he could refer to dS=dQ/T and explain what physical event dS represents for a Carnot engine. Apparently he responded only to the second case in an indirect manner and avoided a real explanation. He does not say what thermodynamic entropy is, he recognizes that it can change. For the interested reader, thermodynamic entropy as defined by Clausius is not cyclic. It exists for a one time occurrence of a Carnot engine accepting heat from a heat source. It continues to exist indefinitely for the gas in the Carnot engine even if nothing else occurs. In the case of dS, when it does not equal zero, it is recognized that there is a loss of unused molecular kinetic energy to a heat sink. That loss represents a change in thermodynamic entropy for the heat sink.

My question was: What physical event did Clausius discover when he developed his mathematical expression for thermodynamic entropy? Tom responded without saying what it was. He merely acknowledge the common knowledge that whatever it was or is, it can change. That has been known since Clausius introduced it. It also can not change. That also has been known since Clausius introduced it. What was not known and remains unknown is what it was or is that Clausius discovered when he developed his mathematical expression for thermodynamic entropy.

Akinbo Ojo,

You claim: "- Mass cannot exist independent of space (length), but length can exist and be measured independent of mass. Nothing can have mass without occupying some space. Mass can also be considered as being merely a region of space that is observed to obey Newton's laws of motion and gravity."

I have to repeat that mass is an indefinable property. Neither Newton nor Einstein nor anyone else has defined mass. If you are thinking of mass in a particular manner that fits with someone's theory or your own conclusions about it, I need to suggest that you have to also define kilograms in the strict physics sense that I have provided here. That is how you can show that you have defined mass and, thereby, can describe for the first time in the history of physics what mass is and its relationship to other properties. My answers back to you based upon my own work where all properties are properly defined except for the two properties of empirical evidence, length and time as measured by clocks. Mass is not independent of space and space is not independent of mass. No one has empirical evidence to present from experimentation on space. What I say about space is that it provides room for us to move around in. If I said more about it that would be theoretical speculation. When I say that space is not independent of mass, I mean that there is no such thing as space without mass in it. I know of no empirical evidence for interactions between the two. They co-exist in a condition where mass is a variable accessible to us to manipulate. The same cannot be said for space.

Quoting you: "- On your statement, "Time and space are properties of the universe. We cannot take hold of them or change them.", you are in confrontation here with BOTH Newton and Einstein. In some sense, they BOTH disagree with you. I can give quotes from both that substantiate this later, if you want."

Please do provide any useful quotes. Also please provide empirical evidence to support them. I have provided the work necessary to support what I say here at FQXi.org and many other Internet outlets including my own website. I can tell you that the first necessary step to freeing oneself from speculative theory is to define mass. Something even more important comes afterwards.

James

Steve Dufourny,

Hi Steve, I think that you rely heavily on theoretical physics. As for your spheres, I am not clear what that is about. My impression is that they serve to represent classes of causes. I recognize that you are a serious thinker. It has been my impression that our views are very different. Also, I describe the properties of physics differently from what you appear to have accepted. I think that you think that mass and temperature are defined and explained,and, you use them as established known properties. If so then we will continue to say different things. I apologize for taking so long to respond to your first message. Thank you for your greeting. You are a kind person.

James

I like your reply James and will reply you soon in detail. I have a little difficulty doing so at the moment. Also I don't want to distract from your interesting discussion with Tom (a Tom and Jerry discussion :). Agree with you Tom's brilliance but he is not flexible to alternative points of view, kind of dogmatic. But the frustration in convincing him can be interesting in a kind of way.

Hello All,

Thank you dear James,You are kind also.It is important to be kind.About your interestings reasonings.I have a different point of vue indeed.I beleive that mass and temperature are correlated with our standard model.There are results of causes and properties.PV=nRT is always important like the second law of thermo.The proportions are essential like in the book of Zemanski about heat and thermo(I have it)mass and temperature are defined when we consider our relativity and this stabdard model.Now of course when we extrapolate with gravitation it is an other story.I beleive that the quantum of gravitational energy is ttaly different than a quantum of thermodynamical E like a photon.The evolution of encodings since this hypothetical Big Bang gives us a complexification of mass.The main codes seem gravitational and not photonic.The heat and therrmo I agree are not the last limits.This gravity encircles this standard model in giving it even the main codes of evolution.This zero absolute seems really relevant.The concept of heat and thermo is not complete I agree but our mesures at thismoment are correct.That is why this aether is gravitational and not luminiferous.Mass and temperature are resulst of cinetic mechanics implying properties.In my model, the sphères and their properties, volumes, velocities of rotations spinal and orbital more the linear velocity become relevant(ps a sphere for me is a star,a planet, A BH,a particle,eyes,waves,....the universe also,this form is universal and is the perfect equilibrium between forces)If this temperature and mass are not complete,perhaps that you are right when we consider this dark matter (I named them the spherons produced by BH in logic)How can we consider this mass and temperature indeed when we see my equation if it is correct E=mc²+ml² we have indeed a new road.But not with our standard model and its relativity and thermo.It is paraddoxal in fact James,it is like a superimposing like this gravitation encircling the standard model(and at the two scales,quant and cosm).This gravitation must be inserted,we see a serie of quantum BH more far than nuclear forces with gluons and we have spherons encoded in logic weaker than our lectromagnetism with photons.See that mass and temperature are encircled by this gravitation.How can we check this force paradoxal so strong and so weak.The force towards the central BH, the biggest sphere is so important considering this entropy.Photons and standard model need to be completed.But frankly I don't know how we can find a road tocheck these particles above our standard model.If somebody has ideas, they are welcome.It seems really a different reasoning when we consider this gravitation.It is nor baryonic nor photonic nor thermodynamical.What a big puzzle.Best Regards

It is nice James to say that I am a serious thinker.I am 41 years old I have searched a lot you know answers about why, how,...I have begun perhapsat the age of 18 in reading a lot ,the philosophies, the bibbles andothers sacred books.I was in secondary.After I have classed a lot in sciences.I must admit that the best way to encircle the message of God if I can say is by sciences and more specialy physics.I have always searched to encircle this universe and its evolution, why ,and how.How the codes of evolution are created, how this and why that....This infinite entropy above our physicality has created a physicality in evolution with specific gravitational codes Inside a closed evolutive system.mc² in a simplistic vue tells us that mass encodes the light.But about this gravitation there is a problem.If God,this infinity(probably sending the main gravitational informations from the central cosmological BH of the universal sphere)creates a sphere in imrpovement of materand energy?I am doubting that this infinite entropy has created a prison due to our relativity and standard model.It is just that we are Young still at this universal scale.The informations of evolution are more complex than our simple actual analyses.Mass and temperature are effects and can be causes also.But if we insert ml² it becomes surprising.I have even thought that photons were encircled also by this gravitation.We cannot change the main central code that said.I wish you allthe bests in your works and researchs.And I like read the debates between you and Tom.We search the équations of God after all.....Best Regards

Hello James,

The original thread is a bit muddied and become incoherent so let me reply on a new thread.

On "Mass is not independent of space and space is not independent of mass."... and "When I say that space is not independent of mass, I mean that there is no such thing as space without mass in it."

I take you to mean by this that Space can only exist if there is a matter particle. To give an example, the one-light year length/distance between two electrons in space exists because of the two electrons at the end of the line. Were any of the two electrons to cease existing, that line ceases to exist as well. This is the relational view of space promoted by Mach and others, as opposed to the substantival view supported by Newton and Einstein (a part of him), that the line exists on its own right independent of whether or not electrons exist at the end of it.

A Thought experiment (gedanken experimenten) may help here...

Assume you are an electron, all alone in space without any reference except yourself and your travel pack. If you get a hunch that there could be another human electron some distance away, how do you quantify how much food and water to take along? Especially as you say it is only the possible presence of the other human electron that would be the determinant of the travelled distance, distance having no meaning by and of itself according to you. Your view would also imply that after a lot of motion of your electronic legs, as there is no means of your knowing if you are moving on the same spot or from spot to spot, no energy is expended and in physics terms you have done no work. From this, it is only in the event that you now come face to face with the other human electron that you will acknowledge (1) that you have travelled a distance, (2) that you have expended energy. Take note of the various inherent contradictions your view will entail. Take note also that relationally there is no means of your knowing whether it was you that sought out the other human electron or it was the other human electron that sought you out. Forget the fact that you feel tired and are panting :)

This is what relationists want us to believe. See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for some of Newton's views on Space and also this.

On "Please do provide any useful quotes"

"...it is clear that they (philosophers) would cheerfully allow extension (space) to be substance, just as body is, if only extension could move and act as body can". Elsewhere in the same paper, he says, "...space is capable of having some substantial reality. Indeed, if its parts could move..., and this mobility was an ingredient in the idea of vacuum, then there would be no question about it - parts of space would be corporeal substance" - Newton in his uncompleted paper, De Gravitatione

..."It appeared beyond question that light must be interpreted as a vibratory process in an elastic, inert medium filling up universal space. It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light is capable of polarization that this medium, the ether, must be of the nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a fluid, but only in a solid. Thus the physicists were bound to arrive at the theory of the "quasi-rigid" luminiferous ether, the parts of which can carry out no movements relatively to one another except the small movements of deformation which correspond to light-waves" - Einstein put it in his 1920 Leiden lecture

"Whatever difficulties we may have in forming a consistent idea of the constitution of the æther, there can be no doubt that the interplanetary and interstellar spaces are not empty, but are occupied by a material substance or body, which is certainly the largest, and probably the most uniform body of which we have any knowledge."- James Clerk Maxwell

*Read ether as space itself in all cases. All quotes appear in Chapters 5 and 6 of my e-Book, Hypotheses Fingo, available in bookstores HERE and HERE.

If you and others are favourably disposed you may get a copy. If you can may also wish to give a review, make online comments and give a rating afterwards.

Regards,

Akinbo

Well,First akinbo space does not exist and second the aether is not luminiferous, so you are not coherent simply.So rewrite the e book ,thanks for your understanding.Well we are going to laught in live still and always ....Always turning 7 x its ...in its ....Simply.I have read some of your reasonings, they are not generaland rational sorry akinbo.To you t

be coherent please when you speak about what is mass, space and energy.Don't try to encircle the aether of God if you do not understand it my friend.Bad Fallen be sure.

We do not need courses or bizare ideas here on FQXi , we need determinism.I can understand that vanity is a main parameter of our global probelms,but there are limits there .But let's continue about what is mass and temperature in the works of James.Temperature and mass are what ? I have answered me.Not you Mr Ojo the ebooker.:)

Steve Douforny,

Quoting you: "We do not need courses or bizare ideas here on FQXi , we need determinism.I can understand that vanity is a main parameter of our global probelms,but there are limits there .But let's continue about what is mass and temperature in the works of James.Temperature and mass are what ? I have answered me.Not you Mr Ojo the ebooker.:)"

You don't say whom you are addressing. If it is directed to me that "...We do not need courses..." Then my response is don't learn it. When you make statements such as "...or bizare ideas here on FQXi,..." please quote the 'bizarre' idea so that it can be defended by the proper person. FQXi.org has its own moderators. If you know what temperature and mass are, then please repeat it. Thank you Steve,

James

:) no James it was not for you but for Akinbo.He says that there are incohérences, so now I explain him where are his incoherence.It is logic.I am nice James but Inside this sciences community we know that vanity is important.That is why I play also when they are arrogant and vanitious.It is ironical because people speaks about generalities of this entropy, this relativity and this aether but they do not really encircle its realmeaning ??? What is this circus.I beleive strongly that it is not possible to ponder general equations about entropy and matter and energy if this generality is not understood, and the entropy is god with of without their approvements.It is like that ,God creates a sphere with sphères in 3D and the project of this entropy above our physicality is Young still.It is irritating sometimes to see the vanity of scientists insisting on a thing that they do not understand ?You understand that you James ?and after we shall say all but how is it possible that this planet sphere earth is in this state......Vanity of vanities ,all is vanity .....There is a big problem Inside the sciences community,a time for all after all.Mass and temperature are effects of causes James, these mesures show us the motions and properties of particlessimply.Photons are not the only one quantum of E implying mass and temperature that said.It is a function James this temperature,the thermometric properties and functions are just mesures Under our gravitation.Pression and volume that said are relevant when we consider this temperature like a function.Mass and temperaure are results ofmotions of sphères in my model and they are always Under their gravitation due to our local gravity(here the earth)PV....T are universal and one of my favorite équations.Mass seems also linked indeed.The universal work appears with the sphères ,the volumes and the pressions more their rmotions.Temperature is just due to photons James,the quanta of thermodynamical E, that is all.When we give an external energy like fire for example on water, we see a transfert of photons simply and after they reach their points of equilibrium due to their gravitation(cosm and quant !!!) It is simple in fact.Mass is a result of evolution due to encodings of stable gravitational serie.The mass continues to encode and evolve James.But not only photons.....The heat and the work are always proportional .Regards

After allJames, all stable serie gravitational has its intrinsic properties due to kinetic mechanic of sphères and motions.These stable encodings shall have always the same stable gravitational properties everywhere in our universe.We can change the temperature of a mass , but not its mass that said.Let's take the uranium or the radium, they return always at their points of equilibriums due to their stable codes gravitational created by cosmologicl sphères simply.We cannot change the gravitational quantum codes ,we can play with photons and spherons but not with the main gravitational quantum codes.These codes encode furthermore the photons and spherons in logic.But we can change temperature but not mass.That is why we have possible irreversibilities and reversibilities due to these 3 different quant sphères in a general simplistic vue.The stable gravitational coded series(ENCODING), the photons and the spherons(ENCODED).The reversibilities and irreversibilities appear and can be classedin function of parameters.That said the mass and gravitation are correlated, not teperature which is Under our standard model.It is the same that our entropical principle, irreversible and its steps of disponible énergies.It is relevant when we consider the heat and thermo and this gravitation(and its stability like the mass)We can play with the works and the réversibles process and the points of equiibrium.It is the relevance of the entropical principle tending to infinity like our gravitation.But just a small part is sufficient in the two senses,quant and cosm.Regards

Imagine simply that mass encodes light and dark matter.Imagine the encodings since 13,7billions years.You imagine the numer of photons encoded in a serie stable gravitationaly speaking ? It is that the heat,each stable gravitational serie and its mass encode photons since the begining of the physicality and they are synchronised due to the stable series.That implies a specific intrinsic heat and so temperature uin function of external parameters.The photons are the causes of heat and thermo, not the spherons.If a mass and its intrinsic heat is put in a specific gravitation, so we have an acceleration of this mass implying the gravity ,this force James simply and so a specific temperature in function of the environment and its forces.The intrinsic heat and mass are not changeable ,temperature yes.The mass and intrinsic heat shall be always the same ,not the temperature.The fact that this entropy creates a physicality with codes implies the necessity to have stable series ,gravitational implying mass.Stars ,thermo ,standrad model,are just an entropical step.Gravitation is more far ....Regards

If we take the concept of entropy ,it is like the relativity, it is a general and spiritual even concept.We are just still so Young at this universal scale.If God, this infinite entropy creates codes, so they are produced by cosmol sphères(BH and stars) Now I don't beleive that only the thermodynamicalphotonic quantum of E exists,it is just a tool.There is an other logic for our gravitation.That is why I beleive that photons are encircled and that gravitation is the main chief orchestra.The heat and thermo and photons and temperature are just for our stars and standard model.The BH, the dark matter and the particles of gravitation must be inserted.This quantum of E seems very intriguing and paradoxal when we consider the entropical concept and its fractalisations of E.A photon is a photon because it is coded by gravitation.The sphrons seems the answer if they encircle these photons.So the gravitation is the main piece and so the aether is gravitational and space so does not exist due to smallest and speedest spherons produced by the central BH of the universal sphere.The relevance is to consider so an intrinsic energy due to these particles of gravitation governing the encodings, reversibilities and irreversibilities.God does not play at dices and the entropy concept is more than our simple human analyses.We appraoch all days but we are so far still of what is this gravitation.The spherisation, the gravitation and entropy are linked.This zero absolute and the maximum temperature and heat become intriguing when we consider the entropical increasing furthermore .....The real fascinating thing is this infinite entropy above our physicality.The complexification of mass is fascinating....Regards

James,

I have an idea what you are getting at. You desire a definition of mass that is non-circular? If that is the case, there is no such definition and in that case your claim that mass is an indefinable property is correct. But so are other properties like length and time. To paraphrase from your statement and replace mass with length, one can similarly say, "My point is that one needs to know what LENGTH is in order to describe its role in the universe. It keeps having to be repeated that LENGTH is currently an indefinable property".

If the version of the Big bang model that the universe started from zero/nothing (no mass, no length and no time) is correct, since nothing can only be defined as the absence of something, and our universe has arisen from such a state, it should not be a surprise if mass is not definable the way you want it to. Mass can only be described. And my description is that mass is a region of space that obeys Newton's laws of motion and gravity. Similarly, a charge is a region of space that obeys Coulomb's laws. Neither mass or charge are ultimately conserved. They can be lost and gained. The universe has been gaining in mass and radius. Therefore extrapolating backwards in time it has been reducing mass and radius. Today, the mass is estimated to be about 10 52kg. At the Planck epoch, the universe was of Planck density with a mass about 10 -8kg.

I will leave the definition of temperature to others.

In earlier conversation, I replied with illustration of how space is changed during motion, contrary to your statement that space cannot be changed. This may not be in the way you may have anticipated, but you may at least admit that in another sense, space is shortened and lengthened during what we perceive as motion.

Finally, as you continue in your quest to define mass, take into reckoning Newton's and Descartes''views that ultimately there is no actual difference between those regions we refer to as Space and those we refer to as Mass, they differ only in the manner in which their most fundamental constituents behave.

Akinbo