Chasing the black holes of the ocean

Tom,

"whose state has been affected by the kinetic motion of molecules"

So then the very act of measurement is an effect of the same "kinetic motion of molecules" as would happen to a hand stuck in a pot of hot water? What is the difference between sticking your hand in the water, vs. sticking in a thermometer? It is an effect.

Regards,

John M

"So then the very act of measurement is an effect of the same 'kinetic motion of molecules' as would happen to a hand stuck in a pot of hot water? What is the difference between sticking your hand in the water, vs. sticking in a thermometer? It is an effect."

It isn't a *physically real* effect, John. Thermodynamics only distinguishes between hot and cold, and that is a relative measure. If one wants to use one's hand as a thermometer to estimate the degree of hotness or coldness -- except for less accuracy, it doesn't differ from using a thermometer. The only effect that the thermometer has on measuring temperature is to act as a heat sink. The physically real phenomenon is thermal activity, not the measure of the degree of thermal activity that we call temperature, which is only an average of molecular motion coming in contact with the measuring instrument.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

You contend that spacetime is "physically real," yet all it is, is measures of duration and distance. Which are relative to physical effects, like acceleration, velocity and gravity. Not to mention using completely arbitrary points of reference in the first place!

If you were to take an ideal gas and compress its volume, the temperature would rise in proportion. Why don't we say temperature is the fourth dimension of volume?

And as I keep pointing out, these molecules are also running into each other and transferring their energy to each other, creating that thermal medium. Now if there was none of this thermal interaction and it really was just an average of the motion of distinct molecules, you would have more of an argument.

It's not as though the temperature scale is completely arbitrary either. Kelvin starts at absolute zero and looking out across the universe, there do seem to be upper limits on thermal activity.

Regards,

John M

"You contend that spacetime is 'physically real, yet all it is, is measures of duration and distance."

So you think. Physically real means " ... independent in its properties, having a physical effect yet not itself influenced by physical conditions." The measure of temperature is influenced by physical conditions, and so not physically real.

"Which are relative to physical effects, like acceleration, velocity and gravity. Not to mention using completely arbitrary points of reference in the first place!"

So you think. Physically real spacetime interacts with mass points; these are relative, not arbitrary, even though they can be arbitrarily chosen.

"If you were to take an ideal gas and compress its volume, the temperature would rise in proportion. Why don't we say temperature is the fourth dimension of volume?"

Because you don't have a clue to how adding energy to the system by compressing it is symmetric to the energy increase in the gas.

"And as I keep pointing out, these molecules are also running into each other and transferring their energy to each other, creating that thermal medium."

No, John, the work of compression creates that thermal medium. Now matter how many times you keep pointing out your error.

"Now if there was none of this thermal interaction and it really was just an average of the motion of distinct molecules, you would have more of an argument."

I would, eh? It's simple thermodynamics, not magic.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"The measure of temperature is influenced by physical conditions, and so not physically real.

The question is what is an effect, not what is physically real.

And I contend, again, that spacetime is no more physically real than the giant cosmic gear wheels of epicycles.

"Physically real spacetime interacts with mass points;"

And the only evidence we have of this "physically real spacetime" is measures of mass points, just as the only evidence of those gears is the rotations of celestial bodies. As I've pointed out, assigning agency to pattern has a long history, underpinning most religious models. Think astrology.

"Because you don't have a clue to how adding energy to the system by compressing it is symmetric to the energy increase in the gas."

Much as accelerating a body will increase drag on its structure.

"No, John, the work of compression creates that thermal medium. Now matter how many times you keep pointing out your error."

The thermal medium creates pressure as well. It is only a question of whether there is external pressure to keep it from expanding. One is as real as the other, otherwise you have a vacuum. Temperature is a scalar, just like pressure.

"It's simple thermodynamics,"

Otherwise part of the category of effects, like time.

Regards,

John M

"The question is what is an effect, not what is physically real."

Okay. What is an effect?

Tom,

" What is an effect?"

Form, time, vacuum, pressure, temperature, are some I would put into the category of basic effects. Then it would get into secondary categories. A "day" would be the form of a unit of time. The permutations are endless.

Regards,

John M

What if the principles of thermodynamics were applied at the quantum level?

Quantum particles find safety in numbers

"However, in their new study, instead of using a simple system such as an isolated electron or ion, Barthel and his colleague Dr. Zi Cai consider a "many-body system", such as the electrons in a solid, which consists of very large numbers of particles. "We found that, in this case, the time-dependence of the coherence decay can be qualitatively different," Barthel explains. If the system is made up of a very large collection of particles, the interactions between these particles can alter the coherence decay from the typical exponential behavior of simpler systems to a much slower power law decay."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-quantum-particles-safety.html#jCp

"The permutations are endless."

So everything is an "effect." No causes?

"What if the principles of thermodynamics were applied at the quantum level?"

That's the only domain to which they *are* applied, John.

Research into the many body problem is an attempt to derive classical principles -- such as Mach's principle -- from quantum theory.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

The "bodies" and their actions are cause, because they are "physically real." There is a top down vs. bottom up situation, such as that anything actually being caused is real, but the question is going back to primary causes.

I don't see space as needing a cause, so it is not an effect. As vacuum, it is presumably the source of the fluctuations, positives/negatives, that are "physically real" and so might be considered primary cause, but the chain of causality is fuzzy there.

Regards,

John M

"The 'bodies' and their actions are cause, because they are 'physically real.'"

Let me get this straight, John. You believe that bodies cause the motion of other bodies independent of spacetime?

Best,

Tom

Tom,

As I see it, is is mass/energy occupying space. "Bodies" bounce into one another, but I would consider the "effect" of this to be an "event." Otherwise known as a point in time. As these bodies bounce around, they create lots of such events. Time then, is an effect of this action, not the basis for it. Much like temperature is an effect of this multi-body action.

The problem is that we perceive reality from the perspective of a single body, thus we experience this activity as a series of such events, so there is this linear effect of time, going from one event to the next, rather than the events occurring in a dynamic medium, in which the events are nothing more than a transitory configuration of the constituent mass/energy. Since civilization arises from our ability to remember and contemplate those events, so while time is an effect of action, civilization is an effect of time. Then physics distills this sequential effect down to units of measure and equates these with measures of space, since this action occurs in space. Because rates of change vary in different conditions, as do points in space, the concept of spacetime uses the most refined state of energy, light and the fact it crosses empty space at a constant rate, along with the fact that any factors which slow this rate, also correspondingly slow the elemental nature of any device used in comparison, as a clock. Thus meaning any attempt to measure this rate will always be the same.

Now a point in time is inherently transitory, but a point in space is not. 12 o'clock noon is simply when the sun is at its highest point of the day, while the point at the top of a pyramid remains fixed, relative to its local coordinates, until such time as that context is demolished.

So while time is an effect of action, space is the basis for action. The vacuum that fluctuates and measures of change within this fluctuation.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

Not really starting a debate here, just thought it was some news worth keeping an eye on.

The actions of the single body, vs. the actions of a multi-body system are much like the organism vs. the ecosystem. The mass balances the particular. As Newton put it, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." What he forgot to mention(since it is obvious) is that while an action is necessarily linear, the reaction is non-linear.

I think that in the long run, we don't need super symmetric particles to balance the existence of particular particles, but that it is feedback loops within the context. While context might seem merely effect of the actions of the particulars, the underlaying nature of balance that creates this feedback is fundamental to the particulars.

Wait and see how the physics community shakes out in the coming years, given HEP seems to have reached experimental limits, so anything new might have to arise from theory first.

Regards,

John M

"As I see it, is is mass/energy occupying space."

Why wouldn't you see it as space occupying mass-energy? An atom, after all, is mostly space.

"'Bodies' bounce into one another, but I would consider the 'effect' of this to be an 'event.' Otherwise known as a point in time. As these bodies bounce around, they create lots of such events. Time then, is an effect of this action, not the basis for it. Much like temperature is an effect of this multi-body action."

What caused the "multi-body action"?

"The problem is that we perceive reality from the perspective of a single body, thus we experience this activity as a series of such events, so there is this linear effect of time, going from one event to the next, rather than the events occurring in a dynamic medium, in which the events are nothing more than a transitory configuration of the constituent mass/energy. Since civilization arises from our ability to remember and contemplate those events, so while time is an effect of action, civilization is an effect of time. Then physics distills this sequential effect down to units of measure and equates these with measures of space, since this action occurs in space."

How can you tell the difference between "in space" and "by spacetime"?

"Because rates of change vary in different conditions, as do points in space, the concept of spacetime uses the most refined state of energy, light and the fact it crosses empty space at a constant rate, along with the fact that any factors which slow this rate, also correspondingly slow the elemental nature of any device used in comparison, as a clock. Thus meaning any attempt to measure this rate will always be the same."

That's a 'just so' story if I ever heard one. In the first place, from where did you pull your assertion that " ... the concept of spacetime uses the most refined state of energy, light ...?" What do you even mean by that?

"Now a point in time is inherently transitory, but a point in space is not."

Prove it.

"12 o'clock noon is simply when the sun is at its highest point of the day, while the point at the top of a pyramid remains fixed, relative to its local coordinates, until such time as that context is demolished."

The pyramid is moving in time, too, along with the rest of Earth.

"So while time is an effect of action, space is the basis for action."

Then spacetime is physically real. I am getting used to your contradictions in logic. I must be sick.

"The vacuum that fluctuates and measures of change within this fluctuation."

Must be another koan. :-)

Best,

Tom

"What he forgot to mention(since it is obvious) is that while an action is necessarily linear, the reaction is non-linear."

Nothing obvious about that, John; in fact, it isn't true. Imagine that the recoil of a rifle butt against your shoulder could go randomly up or down or sideways. You'd have a hard time holding onto the weapon or predicting where it will end up after you fire it.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"Why wouldn't you see it as space occupying mass-energy? An atom, after all, is mostly space."

With the concept of vacuum fluctuation, you can explain energy and thus mass, arising from space. While space without any physical properties doesn't need cause, being the absence of anything physical to move, bound, bend, etc.

Otherwise you have the big bang, expanding universe, which has no effective solution for the initial event, inflation or dark energy, since they are all energy arising from this space magically created by the expansion of energy. So, given the choice, the first seems a better solution.

"What caused the "multi-body action"?"

If you have vacuum fluctuation, the resulting expansion is naturally balanced by the tendency of these polarities to collapse, but being unstable in the first place, this contraction is not perfect, resulting in binary, triangulated, etc. particles. The effect is this cycle of mass contracting, breaking down and radiating back out across the vacuum, stirring up more virtual vortices.

"How can you tell the difference between "in space" and "by spacetime"?"

Because I'm looking at time as an effect of these events being created and replaced by the constant activity, not as an actual dimension of events, like objects can co-exist in space. This leaves space as just a neutral void. Neutral being the state between positive and negative.

"What do you even mean by that?"

Einstein uses C as the baseline. That's light in a vacuum.

"The pyramid is moving in time, too, along with the rest of Earth."

That goes back to whether action creates time, or time creates action. As I keep posing the question; Is the earth(and the pyramid) "moving in time," from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates?

"I am getting used to your contradictions in logic. I must be sick.'

I get a little seasick trying to think about it as well. Being one person, I still experience time as a sequence of events and when I try thinking non-linearly, the effects are destabilizing.

"Must be another koan. :-)"

I think koans are meant to destabilize one's sense of reality, by picking at the loose ends of assumptions. % -)

Regards,

John M

"With the concept of vacuum fluctuation, you can explain energy and thus mass, arising from space."

You can? How?

"While space without any physical properties doesn't need cause, being the absence of anything physical to move, bound, bend, etc."

That's what Aristotle said.

"Otherwise you have the big bang, expanding universe, which has no effective solution for the initial event, inflation or dark energy, since they are all energy arising from this space magically created by the expansion of energy. So, given the choice, the first seems a better solution."

Then why aren't we doing science according to Aristotle?

(me)"'What caused the "multi-body action'?"

(you) "If you have vacuum fluctuation, the resulting expansion is naturally balanced by the tendency of these polarities to collapse, but being unstable in the first place, this contraction is not perfect, resulting in binary, triangulated, etc. particles. The effect is this cycle of mass contracting, breaking down and radiating back out across the vacuum, stirring up more virtual vortices."

Really? Wow. Where can I go to study this phenomenon?

(me) "'How can you tell the difference between 'in space' and 'by spacetime'?"

(you) "Because I'm looking at time as an effect of these events being created and replaced by the constant activity, not as an actual dimension of events, like objects can co-exist in space. This leaves space as just a neutral void. Neutral being the state between positive and negative."

So you propose positive and negative time. How does that work?

(me) "What do you even mean by that?"

(you) "Einstein uses C as the baseline. That's light in a vacuum."

Nooo. Einstein uses c to represent the speed of light, not the speed of space.

(me) "The pyramid is moving in time, too, along with the rest of Earth."

(you) "That goes back to whether action creates time, or time creates action. As I keep posing the question; Is the earth(and the pyramid) 'moving in time,' from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates?"

Because the Earth rotates, the apex of the pyramid is a fixed point, as you claim? That would mean the Earth is rotating on the fixed point of some pyramid. You really believe that?

(me) "I am getting used to your contradictions in logic. I must be sick.'

(you) "I get a little seasick trying to think about it as well. Being one person, I still experience time as a sequence of events and when I try thinking non-linearly, the effects are destabilizing."

I don't experience time as a sequence of events. Perhaps that's why we think so differently.

(me) "Must be another koan. :-)"

(you) "I think koans are meant to destabilize one's sense of reality, by picking at the loose ends of assumptions. % -)"

I don't have a sense of reality, either. :-0

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Thankfully the recoil from the gun isn't as linear as the bullet being ejected from the barrel, or your shoulder would be more than a little bruised. A more complete scenario would include the effects on what the bullets strikes, as it is mostly pushed in all directions.

Possibly a more slow motion example would be a boat moving through water; As it pushes water out of the way in front and the water is filling in behind, the total effect is that a similar weight of water is having to move in the opposite direction of the boat, but with wave actions considered, over a much broader area than of the boat.

Regards,

John M