Just in case this statement has not registered with readers, I repeat it:

"All properties are undefined in theoretical physics."

In order to understand the meaning of this statement it is necessary to understand defined and indefinable properties in physics. That's 'physics'.

James Putnam

Tom,

"That's because the theory is sufficiently strong to accommodate then."

No. It's strong enough to accommodate the faith of its believers. It's a theory, not a bridge!!!

If that were true, it would be miraculous -- from what we know of physics -- that all these distant sources conspired to produce near perfect isotropy. If the distant events happened simultaneously, we could not in principle distinguish between their convergence into an isotropic universe, and isotropy that emerges from a single initial condition.

Since we are talking enormous quantities of sources all at enormous distance, there would be a natural averaging/flattening out of the light. The question is why is it about 2.7k? Could it be some form of phase transition occurring at that level. Sort of like the dew point of air, could there be some residual level at which the vacuum hows radiation. We think we know everything, but keep finding new things.

"It's you who assumes space is just background, not I. I assume physically real spacetime."

And I think time is an effect of action, just like temperature.

"That's because the theory is sufficiently strong to accommodate then."

No. It's strong enough to accommodate the faith of its believers. It's a theory, not a bridge!!!

If that were true, it would be miraculous -- from what we know of physics -- that all these distant sources conspired to produce near perfect isotropy. If the distant events happened simultaneously, we could not in principle distinguish between their convergence into an isotropic universe, and isotropy that emerges from a single initial condition.

Since we are talking enormous quantities of sources all at enormous distance, there would be a natural averaging/flattening out of the light. The question is why is it about 2.7k? Could it be some form of phase transition occurring at that level. Sort of like the dew point of air, could there be some residual level at which the vacuum hows radiation. We think we know everything, but keep finding new things.

"It's you who assumes space is just background, not I. I assume physically real spacetime."

And I think time is an effect of action, just like temperature. That leaves space as another issue.

"No it isn't. We can't possibly test all possibilities. That's why we test theories instead."

What I was talking about were theoretical possibilities, ie. what's the base state of reality, void, or point.

"There's no such thing as a dimensionless point in a quantum vacuum. A quantum vacuum, as I've explained, is necessarily 2-dimensional; it does not explain the origin of spacetime."

The issue is why the universe has to emerge from a point, rather than a field, or vacuum? If you had a cycle of "space" expanding between galaxies at the same rate it fell into them, it would get rid of all those patches, from inflation to dark energy. The base state would be that very field/vacuum!

What if a bullfrog had wings?

"There are lots of issues where it is fuzzy, uncertainty, non-locality, non-linearity, etc. If thermodynamics got as much attention in particle physics as strings, more progress might be made, but instead it's just herd thinking.

"Sensory signals comprise a language, too. Unless you are communicating with your horse telepathically at a distance, you are using language."

One is abstract distinctions and their relations. The other is physical connections. Personally I find the abstract thinking to be more of a resister than a connector.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

Sorry the above post got garbled. I was distracted.

To clarify the last observation;

While rational thought works to channel the input of the senses, it does so as impedance, rather than conductivity, which the senses do quite well on their own. In sports, it's called muscle memory and is about reaction times. Which is to say the thought process and thus language, is a function and effect of sensory feedback.

"No. It's strong enough to accommodate the faith of its believers. It's a theory, not a bridge!!!"

That's what creationist say about evolution -- "it's only a theory." The correspondence of theory to observation, however, is the highest measure of truth that science can bestow. Evolution is apparent fact; the theory of common ancestry explains it. The evolution of the universe is apparent fact; big bang cosmology is the theory that explains it.

"Since we are talking enormous quantities of sources all at enormous distance, there would be a natural averaging/flattening out of the light."

What the heck does that mean? Brightness doesn't average; it is dependent on distance from the source. If the source is everywhere, so is the brightness.

"The question is why is it about 2.7k? Could it be some form of phase transition occurring at that level. Sort of like the dew point of air, could there be some residual level at which the vacuum hows radiation. We think we know everything, but keep finding new things."

We don't think we know everything. And new things get new theoretical treatment -- the vacuum as you use the term, radiates virtual particles because of quantum theoretical principles.

(me) "It's you who assumes space is just background, not I. I assume physically real spacetime."

(you) And I think time is an effect of action, just like temperature."

Temperature is a measure of action (average kinetic energy), not the effect of it.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"That's what creationist say about evolution -- "it's only a theory." The correspondence of theory to observation, however, is the highest measure of truth that science can bestow. Evolution is apparent fact; the theory of common ancestry explains it. The evolution of the universe is apparent fact; big bang cosmology is the theory that explains it."

Yes and what do creationists propose? Another theory! One that tends to not correspond to observation. Instead of inflation and dark energy, they have God to fill the gaps.

"What the heck does that mean? Brightness doesn't average; it is dependent on distance from the source. If the source is everywhere, so is the brightness."

The CMBR comes from "the edge of the universe." In Big Bang cosmology, that's the beginning, but if it's the horizon line, then the light of those ever more distant sources would be coming from the edge as well.

"We don't think we know everything. And new things get new theoretical treatment -- the vacuum as you use the term, radiates virtual particles because of quantum theoretical principles."

Which I'm not arguing.

"Temperature is a measure of action (average kinetic energy), not the effect of it."

And all we really have of time is measures of activity.

You touch a hot stove and the transfer of energy to your hand is effect.(Put hot and cold water together and the hot molecules will transfer energy to the cold ones.) This distribution of energy is the process of increased entropy. The kinetic energy is seeking its own average. That is an effect.

Regards,

John M

" ... what do creationists propose? Another theory! One that tends to not correspond to observation. Instead of inflation and dark energy, they have God to fill the gaps."

Nope. "God did it" is a belief, not a theory. It cannot be falsified.

"The CMBR comes from 'the edge of the universe.' In Big Bang cosmology, that's the beginning, but if it's the horizon line, then the light of those ever more distant sources would be coming from the edge as well."

John, over and over I keep telling you that if you don't refer to the mathematics, you won't understand the physics. The unbounded universe has no edge. The source of the big bang is every arbitrarily chosen point.

(me) "'Temperature is a measure of action (average kinetic energy), not the effect of it.'"

(you) "And all we really have of time is measures of activity."

That's enough.

"You touch a hot stove and the transfer of energy to your hand is effect.(Put hot and cold water together and the hot molecules will transfer energy to the cold ones.) This distribution of energy is the process of increased entropy. The kinetic energy is seeking its own average. That is an effect."

To you, personally, it's an effect caused by sensory impression. Objectively, it's a measure of average kinetic activity. Science deals with objective knowledge; it isn't all about the appendage at the end of your wrist.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"Nope. "God did it" is a belief, not a theory. It cannot be falsified."

How do you falsify anything when its adherents are allowed to patch anything that might falsify it? Experience seems to show that Big Bang cosmology cannot be falsified.

"The unbounded universe has no edge."

A horizon is not a physical edge.

"The source of the big bang is every arbitrarily chosen point."

Yet they all recede from each other in a stable vacuum.

"That's enough."

Than why isn't time just a measure of activity, like temperature?

"To you, personally, it's an effect caused by sensory impression."

I added the example of water reaching an average temperature in an attempt to divert your usual tendency to ascribe everything I say to some form of "personal experience."

"Objectively, it's a measure of average kinetic activity."

Which, through the process of energy transfer, is also a state of thermal equilibrium.

Science deals with objective knowledge; it isn't all about the appendage at the end of your wrist.'

Physics presumably only deals with "objective knowledge." The mandate of science in general is more broad than that.

Ok, so what is an "effect" anyway, if the result of energy transfer is not an effect? Remember that causality is energy transfer and effects are the result. Even if it's just burning one's hand.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

Another point to keep in mind about temperature as effect is that while measuring distance or duration, the length has no effect on the ruler, nor the interval on the clock, but that molecular/atomic activity must physically affect the thermometer. Effect is required.

Regards,

John M

" ... that molecular/atomic activity must physically affect the thermometer. Effect is required."

The effect is that the instrument comes into thermodynamic equilibrium with the system it is measuring. It's a passive result, having nothing to do with the magical cause-effect relation you acribe to it.

"Physics presumably only deals with 'objective knowledge.' The mandate of science in general is more broad than that."

No it isn't.

Tom,

What on earth is a 'passive result' in terms of an induced temperature change? It seems clear John is quite correct.

All measurement of temperature require the small sink particle activity and density to change to thermodynamically align with the greater one. That is and always was a physical reaction, so a physical 'effect' with a cause. Describe it however else you wish but you can't change that!

Do you have any proper justification for your seemingly extraordinary claim?

I am however very pleased to see you do believe physics should be about objectivity not subjectivity. James has a point, including that much doctrine is not so, but I look forward to you consistently demonstrating your ability to avoid that mistake.

Best wishes

Peter

Tom,

"The effect is that the instrument comes into thermodynamic equilibrium with the system it is measuring. It's a passive result, having nothing to do with the magical cause-effect relation you acribe to it. "

And how does the instrument come into thermodynamic equilibrium, if there is no effect on it? Magic?

""Science deals with objective knowledge;"

"The mandate of science in general is more broad than that."

"No it isn't.""

The social sciences, political science, economics, etc. are thumb twiddling?

The irony here is that while physics is a search for objectivity, the solution is to declare "uncertainty" and "relativity" to be objective descriptions.

Regards,

John M

"The social sciences, political science, economics, etc. are thumb twiddling?"

Pretty much.

"What on earth is a 'passive result' in terms of an induced temperature change? It seems clear John is quite correct. "

Temperature is a measure of molecular action. It does not create it.

"The irony here is that while physics is a search for objectivity, the solution is to declare "uncertainty" and "relativity" to be objective descriptions."

No irony. The descriptions are entirely objective.

Tom,

Voting for the politician that makes you the most promises is entirely objective and certainly as rational as spacetime.

Is temperature still not an effect?

Regards,

John M

"Voting for the politician that makes you the most promises is entirely objective and certainly as rational as spacetime."

What's rational about voting for the politican who mnakes the most promises?

"Is temperature still not an effect?"

Not the last time you asked, and not now. Not ever.

Tom,

"What's rational about voting for the politican who mnakes the most promises?"

There is a certain 'prisoner's dilemma' aspect to politics. That doesn't mean it isn't a necessary field of study, in which such subjective realities do need to be picked apart. Otherwise our institutions congeal.

"Not the last time you asked, and not now. Not ever. "

So then how do you measure it?

Regards,

John M