Philosophy Now Forum

Book:
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.
/ by Richard Feynman /
More details.
Book. QED:
The Strange Theory of Light ( E=h*f ) and Matter ( E=kT )
/ by Richard Feynman /
=====..
Objections, please.
==.

I have one. As usual you fail to provide a key for the symbols you use. We're not all physicists here.

Otherwise what objections would you be looking for? What in this book for the layman about what physicists do do you find objectionable?

Arising_uk wrote:I have one.
As usual you fail to provide a key for the symbols you use.
We're not all physicists here.

Otherwise what objections would you be looking for?
What in this book for the layman
about what physicists do do you find objectionable?

I want to say that on the one hand we have pure energy
of quantum of light: E= h*f.
On the other hand we have matter –
the beginning state of matter - : E= kT.
Later from this beginning state of matter all different atoms
were created and physicists began to study electromagnetic
and nuclear interactions
(as interaction between light / electron and matter).
==.

socratus wrote: I want to say that on the one hand we have pure energy
of quantum of light: E= h*f.
On the other hand we have matter –
the beginning state of matter - : E= kT.

I'm no physicist, but as I understand it, energy is essentially the damage something has the potential to do. On our scale we use Newton (E=1/2mv^2) and Einstein, (E=mc^2). You can use the first to work out how much of a dent a lump of uranium will make if you throw it at someone; with the latter you can tell how big a city it will flatten if it unravels. As far as I can tell, the equations you provide do the same thing at the sub-atomic level, but Arising is right, few of us have the foggiest idea what you are on about, this being a philosophy forum. If you are serious about engaging us, you need to do it in a language we all speak; ie a natural language, preferably English.

Book:
QED : The Strange Theory of Light and Matte'.
'' The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature
as absurd from the point of view of common sense.
And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd.''
/ page. 10. by R. Feynman /
==.
If Feynman is correct then I can say:
The interaction between light and matter ( in all parts of physics ?! )
we accept as absurd from our philosophical ( logical ) point of view.
Then to understand Nature we need to reconsider our
'' philosophy of physics ''.
Where was the mistake made ?
Where did we lose the true path ?

In my opinion, we ignore the absolute zero of vacuum and therefore
Feynman was correct writing that from the point of view of common
sense we accept Nature as absurd.
==.

About absolute zero of vacuum.
===..
The common today's opinion
Book :
Dreams of a final theory’ by Steven Weinberg. Page 138.
'‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
simple have no meaning.’'
/ Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /

Others opinions.
#
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./
#
The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be:
What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with
its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word
vacuum is a gross misnomer!
/ Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg /
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedwardt_Winterberg
#
Wikipedia :
“ Unfortunately neither the concept of space nor of time is well defined,
resulting in a dilemma. If we don't know the character of time nor of space,
how can we characterize either ? “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
#
"Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects
over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic,"
said Peter Milonni
from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
#
Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing
nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum
rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each
tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.
If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this
into particles, in line with E-Mc^2.
/ Book: Stephen Hawking. Pages 147-148.
By Michael White and John Gribbin. /
#
Somehow, the energy is extracted from the vacuum and turned into
particles...Don't try it in your basement, but you can do it.
/ University of Chicago cosmologist Rocky Kolb./
#
Vacuum -- the very name suggests emptiness and nothingness –
is actually a realm rife with potentiality, courtesy of the laws
of quantum electrodynamics (QED). According to QED,
additional, albeit virtual, particles can be created in the vacuum,
allowing light-light interactions.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2006/768.html
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum,
that endless infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18 ... everything
==.
And in spate of these opinions we still don't know what vacuum is
because we don't want to accept kingdom of T=0K as a real fact of nature,
as a real parallel world of another kind of existence .
The common today's opinion is triumphed:
'' temperatures below absolute zero simple have no meaning.’'

=.

What a lot of those quotes are alluding to is the fact that, in our universe, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. Temperature, in essence, is measured by seeing how much atoms are excited by their environment, we can't really make thermometers from anything else. The thing is you cannot shield matter from gravity (probably) and to prevent neutrinos getting in, you would need lead shielding as thick as the universe; which would absolutely bollocks your chances of shielding from gravity. T=0K is logically and mathematically possible, the problem is, there's a bloody great universe in the way.

[quote="tillingborn"]What a lot of those quotes are alluding to is the fact that,
in our universe, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.
Temperature, in essence, is measured by seeing how much atoms are
excited by their environment, we can't really make thermometers from anything else.
[quote="tillingborn"]
=

" temperature is the effect of the thermal energy arising from
the motion of microscopic particles[3] such as atoms, molecules
and photons. The relation is proportional as given by the
Boltzmann constant."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature

Thus, temperature is a measurement of kinetic energy.
But note that E = kT applies to photons, too.
===.

I don't think '' that E = kT applies to photons, too.''
Why ?
1
Because photons are distinguish / different particles than
atoms, molecules or Brownian particles.
( take constant speed c=1 )
2
The movement of electrons / photons in atom add nothing
to the temperature in atom.
3
According to classic physics the temperature depends on atom's movement.
But in quantum physics situation is different.
According to Planck / Einstein the reason of arising temperature is E=h*f.
==..

socratus wrote:

tillingborn wrote:What a lot of those quotes are alluding to is the fact that,
in our universe, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.
Temperature, in essence, is measured by seeing how much atoms are
excited by their environment, we can't really make thermometers from anything else.

=

" temperature is the effect of the thermal energy arising from
the motion of microscopic particles[3] such as atoms, molecules
and photons. The relation is proportional as given by the
Boltzmann constant."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature

Thus, temperature is a measurement of kinetic energy.

Do you think that is different to what I said?

socratus wrote:I don't think '' that E = kT applies to photons, too.''

How would you explain that equation in English?

tillingborn wrote:

socratus wrote:

tillingborn wrote:What a lot of those quotes are alluding to is the fact that,
in our universe, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.
Temperature, in essence, is measured by seeing how much atoms are
excited by their environment, we can't really make thermometers from anything else.

=

" temperature is the effect of the thermal energy arising from
the motion of microscopic particles[3] such as atoms, molecules
and photons. The relation is proportional as given by the
Boltzmann constant."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature

Thus, temperature is a measurement of kinetic energy.

Do you think that is different to what I said?

socratus wrote:I don't think '' that E = kT applies to photons, too.''

How would you explain that equation in English?

Photos are massless particles.
How can massless particles make :
" temperature is the effect of the thermal energy arising from
the motion of microscopic particles[3] such as atoms, molecules
and photons. The relation is proportional as given by the
Boltzmann constant."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature

???
==============.

.




I have an objection...Is it possible for you to be more technical?


Could you spit-out pure code or just straight formulas please?


Don't even use words at all...I think that slows you down...







................................................................................................................






.

tillingborn wrote:What a lot of those quotes are alluding to is the fact that, in our universe, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.

You don't really understand this. Did you even read the quotes? These physicists are making claims pointedly and directly, without "alluding". Perhaps you are not up-to-speed on modern versions of quantum mechanics, such as field theory.

tillingborn wrote: Temperature, in essence, is measured by seeing how much atoms are excited by their environment, we can't really make thermometers from anything else. The thing is you cannot shield matter from gravity (probably) and to prevent neutrinos getting in, you would need lead shielding as thick as the universe; which would absolutely bollocks your chances of shielding from gravity. T=0K is logically and mathematically possible, the problem is, there's a bloody great universe in the way.

You have claimed that the inability to reach zero kelvin temperatures is due to lack of proper "shielding" from neutrinos and gravity.

No no no. Wrong again. The reason that zero kelvin cannot be reached is because the time it takes to remove the residual heat from a sample takes longer as the temperature of that sample goes down. That is to say, to reach absolute zero is possible, but would take a near infinite amount of time -- far longer than 10 times the age of the universe itself. The way to imagine this (just as an example) is that for each additional zero digit on the temperature it takes 10 times more years.

0.01 nanokelvin (100 years)
0.001 nanokelvin (1000 years)
0.0001 nanokelvin (10,000 years)
etc.

socratus wrote:

tillingborn wrote:What a lot of those quotes are alluding to is the fact that,
in our universe, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.
Temperature, in essence, is measured by seeing how much atoms are
excited by their environment, we can't really make thermometers from anything else.

tillingborn wrote: =

" temperature is the effect of the thermal energy arising from
the motion of microscopic particles[3] such as atoms, molecules
and photons. The relation is proportional as given by the
Boltzmann constant."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature

Thus, temperature is a measurement of kinetic energy.
But note that E = kT applies to photons, too.
===.

I don't think '' that E = kT applies to photons, too.''
Why ?
1
Because photons are distinguish / different particles than
atoms, molecules or Brownian particles.
( take constant speed c=1 )
2
The movement of electrons / photons in atom add nothing
to the temperature in atom.
3
According to classic physics the temperature depends on atom's movement.
But in quantum physics situation is different.
According to Planck / Einstein the reason of arising temperature is E=h*f.
==..

I guess the first thing that bothers me about this whole thread is that you started out attempting to ask something about Feynman's QED book. But when pressed to clarify you started these weird posts that are totally unrelated to anything at the top of your own thread. You are dragging us down into a rabbithole about the theory of temperature versus heat content and its relationship to energy and Boltzmann mechanics.

Neither of these topics is mentioned even once in Feynman's book. Now, there are a number of really shocking absurd statements in QED, but you haven't even mentioned one of them yet, instead you want to start a whole new discussion about theories about temperatures of gasses.

I'd love to talk about either one of these subjects ((heat content versus temperature versus energy)), ((QED and field theory)) but I'd like to see a little bit of mental stability first on your part.

Kuznetzova wrote:Perhaps you are not up-to-speed on modern versions of quantum mechanics, such as field theory.

Maybe not, I've a fair idea what field theories entail, but I couldn't do the maths if that's what you mean. What you don't give any indication of appreciating is that there are physical models associated with GR and with QM and that they are incompatible. You have argued elsewhere that the fact that GR has passed all tests is evidence that the model of elastic spacetime is true. Yes it is, but it is hardly conclusive; especially given that the even more accurate QED paints a different picture. The fact that one or other, possibly both are wrong has given license to all sorts to have a go, so that there are more physical models of reality than you can shake a stick at, many worlds, string theory, loop quantum gravity, holographic and who knows what else.

Kuznetzova wrote:You have claimed that the inability to reach zero kelvin temperatures is due to lack of proper "shielding" from neutrinos and gravity.

No no no. Wrong again. The reason that zero kelvin cannot be reached is because the time it takes to remove the residual heat from a sample takes longer as the temperature of that sample goes down.

I've always understood that 0K is the state of maximum entropy, essentially when the wavelength of photons, and all particles for that matter, are stretched out to infinity. Since they will retain their amplitude, the waves will never be flat. Besides that, any passing particle or wave would disturb it; 0K is therefore a practical problem as much as a mathematical one. The fact that it takes longer does nothing to explain what is going on, I think once again you are confusing a mathematical model with reality. I very much doubt that the universe is Platonic; as I have stated elsewhere, it is my metaphysical suspicion that the cause of the phenomena that looks like a universe made of stuff, is stuff. If I had to commit to a belief, it would be that matter exists as perturbations in at least one field. I can't tell whether it is mathematical expedience that demands that QED and QCD have more; from a logical point of view, always a risky place to start I grant you, if the universe began as a dimensionless singularity, it is difficult to see how it could have had components. But then again a dimensionless singularity is a mathematical entity which may not refer to anything in the real world. At the other extreme it seems entirely plausible that every particle in the universe is associated with it's own field. Whatever the case may be, I'm reasonably confident that the universe does what it does and we can recognise patterns. To anyone who believes that the universe somehow 'obeys' the laws of physics, I would ask what the causal connection is, by what mechanism do the laws of physics influence the material world? It's the old problem of dualism.

tillingborn wrote:... I would ask what the causal connection is, by what mechanism do the laws of physics influence the material world? It's the old problem of dualism.

And raises Humes issue with causation.