munion

Ok could you provide me some please?? Where should i start? I want to know what influences has the relativity to thermodynamics.... Could you explain me how my question will be answered? The papers of plank-einstein that i read there are in controversy with the paper of Ott and really baffled me And if you know what will happen especially with the entropy of the photon gas please explain it to me... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedImagine that you have a box with steam if that box is moving then according with einstein - plank papers the temperature is falling (According to the Ott happens the opposite!!). this mean that one observer will observer steam another with greater speed water and another with much more speed ice? except if the relativity does not affect the entropy of the system. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedhttp://www.aip.org/pnu/2007/split/843-1.html Now there is a third approach T'=T0....

Ok then i wont learn anything about thermodynamics thank you for your support here... For the god shake it is only a question. Ps i have taken also some lessons in thermodynamics in university but that doesn't mean anything.Could you help me out with this?

If you meant that way i m own you an apology... i misunderstood. But you could wrote to me immediately i didn't knew about the gibs free energy

Yes you think.. at least i m not doing the smart guy here not the physics "expert" i have a lesson also for you for the ridiculous answer that you gave me... http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/uoveromega.pdf By the way with the link in Wikipedia i would not intent to insult you i put it there as a reference and only that... You guys really what is your job here to humiliate the question of the physics amateur? If you have an objection or you find a mistake please say it with no more comments... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI would not ask something again i will leave you to discuss the physics with your superior intelligence and as one last thing i would like to ask sorry for my silly questions.

The Volume is not constant ΔV not 0. The P=0 is derived by 1rst thermodyn law because as you say ΔU=0 the box *mounted on an elephant whose ΔQ=0 so ΔW=0 => P=0.... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedW = \Delta (p\,V) I think would be helpful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

Yeap thats the word

If remain the same then because ΔQ=0 (we assume that we have isolated box) and take notice that V'=1/γV0 this means from the 1rst law of thermodynamics that: ΔU=-ΔW+ΔQ => ΔW=0 => P=0 ???

Whatever frame you want except the rest frame.

I have another question about relativity combined with thermodynamics: Let assume that we have a Box of Volume Vo. Inside the box there is photons (photon gas). The gas has internal energy Eo, pressure Po and the box is accelerated to a velocity near to the speed of light. What will happen to the internal energy and the pressure of the gas?

I m sorry for that Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMy reputation is falling at least i had profit from my stocks Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnd something last my behavior is not something that i shame for...

"The short answer is, how the speed of light is not a part of the definition of how we measure time." But how could this happen according with relativity the speed of light it has primary role in that; all the reactions in nature (electromagnetism nuclear and gravity forces) happening with that speed. "Where in "the second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" do you see any reference to the speed of light?"" If all reactions in nature happening with the SOL then if this speed change is affecting also and the previous definition. Think about the 4D time space everything in this you me and my slow mind are running with this speed if could be changed then the time would be affected.

Hell NO give some time if i don't clear out the matter with the clocks it is difficult (give me an example with that why in generally would not happen the clock speed change as the SOL change)

Not exacly.... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Ok this is something that i don't understand if this clear out then my problem would solved... If the SOL slow down by a factor a the clocks would running slower by the same factor ?

This is not an argument... (about the angels) "There was no change if there is no change in what is measured, including everything that can be measured" You can compare something with something else but this is a relative process; you understanding the reality by the differences. There is no change if there is no differences even for the speed of light.

The article says " Suppose that we calibrate marks on a ruler using this definition one year, then next year find that light takes longer than 3 ns to travel the length of the ruler." No you WONT find the next year that light takes longer than 3 ns this would be valid IF the time flow does not affected by the speed of light. Is that simple what is your objection here? Everything will flow slower and the result would be the same. The calibration in first year will be valid and the next. Except if you mean that in the second case the 3 ns is "more" than the 3 ns of the fist case. And yes i m confused i don t have a clear mind as yours.

No! You are not reading the article. Units! Always carry units in your calculations: 1 m / (299792458 m/s) = 3.33564095 nanoseconds. The thought experiment to which you take objection starts with this as a basis. One step at a time: Setup: You have some device that enables you to measure the time it takes a light pulse to traverse the distance from a transmitter to a receiver. This is a "real" experiment; you cannot measure 3.33564095 nanoseconds. You can however measure down to the tenth of a picosecond, 3.336 nanoseconds, for example. You have a ruler that you want to calibrate with this device. [*]Make a mark on the ruler corresponding to the location of the transmitter. [*]Move the receiver along the ruler, measuring the transmission time as you do so. [*]Stop moving the receiver when the transmission time is 3.3356 nanoseconds. [*]Make a mark on the ruler corresponding to the location of the receiver. You now have a calibrated ruler. You missed the next part of the experiment. Suppose next year you use the device to measure the length between the calibrated scratch marks, but now you measure 3.3381 nanoseconds (for example). What does this new measurement mean? (Your turn.) Nope again. The device that enables us to measure the time that the light goes from the transmitter to receiver will slow down. The ray of light also slow down and in 3.3356 nanoseconds you will have again your meter. The ONLY difference is that the procedure now is more "slow" if you can say that. Please i m in work now and my boss are mad with me

Then that means that even the SOL change (hypothetical) by the previous definition the length won't change. You will not notice any lengthen on your meter definition. Let's do it step by step . The 1⁄299,792,458 is an indication in the screen of your chronometer. Correct?

The meter definition is the distance that cover the light in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. Correct?

Nope whatever is the definition that you are using the result will be the same because of the time in the first case the time will be 1⁄299,792,458 of a second; If the light speed change this time won't be different BUT your clock will go slower with everything else around you including the traveling ray of light and the result will be the same; by definition.

Whatever is the definition you are using to define to extract the measures is dependent from the speed of light. You say " Suppose someone did conduct the above experiment and found that the time it takes light to traverse the stick is increasing over time. The experimenters are going to try to find whether there are some hidden problems in their experiment. Suppose they find none. Are they going to assume the stick has grown longer just because it has per the current definitions of our units? No. They are going to poke, and poke and poke and poke, into this mystery. A result like that might well be worth a Nobel prize." I m saying that the time which the observer measures is the same and independent from the speed of light; not more not less and the stick has the same size; who said anything about length growth?. (except the writer of the article). Think about the inertia systems if you are an observer in one from that you say : i m not moving the rest around me are moving. If you have an acceleration and your speed increase to a value when this acceleration stop you will say the same thing that you are not moving and but the rest things around you. The very same thing i believe that is happening with the speed of light in 4D this time. Whatever changes you have (in the SOL "value") you are will always measuring the same value because everything scaled up or down by same amount. I cant explain to you any better..... Irrelevant but could be useful in order to be clear i m accepting all of the principles of special relativity and i hate aether theory. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMy english are going from the bad to worse...

Yes mooeypoo you have right but it makes me mad when he wrote that "You apparently missed the point of the article, munion". This article is erroneous and i least expect it to admit it. Now i m calm i want to express my apologies to D H if i insult him it wasn't in to my intentions .

"You apparently missed the point of the article" sorry for that but i don't have your intelligence. Not again! This guy there it has a clear example and has omitted the fact that the clock slow down as the light speed slow down. The rest are simple excuses.... And finally if something rhetorical why mention this silly example???? This paragraph is the key to the writer to support that the SOL variation is sci fi but unfortunately for the writer is WRONG. You say "First there is direct observation" and i answer you CAN 'T do that even if SOL is changing. Again with the fine structure??? i have 3 post in this matter. The fine structure it WONT change (but there is some physicians that support that this constant also changing). PS there is theories such as the joao magueijo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo%C3%A3o_Magueijo) that assumes the SOL changes by the time those guys are idiots by your opinion???

Yes now i saw it .... i m feeling very ridiculous right now ..... #51 i was meaning (i think this time i got the right number)

Tell me what do you want to clear out???

Guys i would like your opinion about the post #53...