npts2020 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Swansont, good point, I beleive that there is a distinction between nothingness and absolute zero that I failed to realize. Follow-up question: does nothingness interact with matter (nothingness meaning the presence of time/gravity, but without matter, waves or particles)? I'm imagining nothingness as having the temperature of absolute zero; such as if you put an item of matter into it, the matter would react as if you had just dipped it into a zone of absolute zero. What do you think? What you are aking to be defined is an oxymoron. Temperature by definition has to include substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Follow-up question: does nothingness interact with matter (nothingness meaning the presence of time/gravity, but without matter, waves or particles)? I'm imagining nothingness as having the temperature of absolute zero; such as if you put an item of matter into it, the matter would react as if you had just dipped it into a zone of absolute zero. What do you think? No. The kinetic energy the matter has will not simply diffuse into the "nothingness." Energy is conserved. The matter will radiate energy, but also absorb it from surroundings. i.e. if you put matter at temperature T into a vacuum surrounded by a chamber also at T, the temperature of the matter will not change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
czimborbryan Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 No. The kinetic energy the matter has will not simply diffuse into the "nothingness." Energy is conserved. The matter will radiate energy, but also absorb it from surroundings. i.e. if you put matter at temperature T into a vacuum surrounded by a chamber also at T, the temperature of the matter will not change. Using the same test above - What if the matter at temperature T (room temperature) was placed in a vaccuum of nothingness as described earlier. Remember, there would be no energy for the matter to absorb (from almost any form of radiation), because there will be no energy in that zone (arguable, I know, but go with it). Does matter radiate more energy while suspeneded in a state of much lower energy, even if there is no matter there to transfer it's energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 yes, it will radiate photons into the vacuum, the enthalpy of the object will lower exponentially but will only reach absolute zero after an infinite amount of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Maximum Possible temperature? 10 to the 32nd power degrees? Contender #1—1032 K Certain cosmological models, including the one that has held sway for decades, the Standard Model, posit a theoretical highest temperature. It's called the Planck temperature, after the German physicist Max Planck, and it equals about 100 million million million million million degrees, or 1032 Kelvin. The Planck temperature is the highest temperature in conventional physics because conventional physics breaks down at that temperature. Above 1032 K—that is, earlier than one Planck time—calculations show that strange things, unknown things, begin to happen to phenomena we hold near and dear, like space and time. Theory predicts that particle energies become so large that the gravitational forces between them become as strong as any other forces. That is, gravity and the other three fundamental forces of the universe—electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces—become a single unified force. Knowing how that happens, the so-called "theory of everything," is the holy grail of theoretical physics today. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/zero/hot.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 yes, it will radiate photons into the vacuum, the enthalpy of the object will lower exponentially but will only reach absolute zero after an infinite amount of time. While noting that the removal of the surrounding reservoir is unphysical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
czimborbryan Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 Maximum Possible temperature? 10 to the 32nd power degrees? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/zero/hot.html Now we're getting somewhere. So the highest temperature has a limit, not necessarily due to physics, but due to the limitations of science...(enter stories, conjecture, and hand-waving) The statement above about theorizing that the force of gravity may become super strong is interesting. The one thing that makes sense for my view on things is that once a super-high energy is attained, the time density becomes super-dense and freezes (not in the real use of the word, but almost all properties of time nearly stop, such as in a black hole). This is also what I beleive happens to waves to form particles. Now remember that I see time and gravity is one and not seperate (mostly because I think gravity is not a real force, just a result of varying time densities which causes movement). I immagined this "freezing" of time only possible at a catastrophic impact or explosion that reached such an energy that the explosion froze time. I never thought it could be achieved by particle vibration from heat. My reasoning for this is that if heated slowly and not instantly, to this Planck temperature, the particles would continue to release enough energy to never truly hit the "freezing" point of time. This would most certainly happen if the heat source was instant. So what i am saying is that if the heat source was a slow climb to Planck temp, I think the particles would eventually disintegrate instead of "freezing" and the forces and gravity would not become super-strong, but gravity and the forces would not be able to sustain matter or even particles. Oh wait! Here is the catch, if a bit of matter were to disintegrate in this fashion, it would provide just the spark needed to freeze time because of the tremendous release of energy from disintegrating. So, it looks as though either way time would freeze creating a super-strong gravity and what would most certainly be a black hole similarly dangerous time/gravity effect. Now it makes sense (at least to me). I wonder if this freezing of time would create conditions similar to absolute zero? Is there any ideas floating about concerning the temperature of a black hole? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOK, I'll answer this question. (based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics ) The temperature of a black hole, as classicaly understood, is (drumroll please) - Absolute Zero! However, according to recent calculations, the temperature is considered non-zero which means as close to absolute zero as possible while still emitting radiation. So, what we have learned here is that when you burn the hell out of something above it's maximum temperature, it's gravity goes into super-mode and haulting movement altogether and resulting in ... absolute zero. So, the highest temperature is also the lowest - absolute zero - as I stated about a dozen times now. Thank You, I will bill you later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 So, what we have learned here is that when you burn the hell out of something above it's maximum temperature, it's gravity goes into super-mode and haulting movement altogether and resulting in ... absolute zero. Wow, just.... wow. Black holes don't "burn the hell out of something" and their gravity isn't "super-mode" (whatever the heck that is supposed to be?!?). Black holes are the result of regular ol' normal gravity around a very large amount of mass. And how does the result that black holes -- which would be extremely dense matter -- prove the result that when you destroy something so thoroughly that nothing exits anymore that the result is a temperature of absolute zero? In a black hole, that is pretty much the opposite of nothingness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
czimborbryan Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 Wow, just.... wow. Black holes don't "burn the hell out of something" and their gravity isn't "super-mode" (whatever the heck that is supposed to be?!?). Black holes are the result of regular ol' normal gravity around a very large amount of mass. And how does the result that black holes -- which would be extremely dense matter -- prove the result that when you destroy something so thoroughly that nothing exits anymore that the result is a temperature of absolute zero? In a black hole, that is pretty much the opposite of nothingness. You missed some of the interesting conversation above that led me to change my mind about disintegration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 You missed some of the interesting conversation above that led me to change my mind about disintegration. Or it could just be that you are talking utter rubbish. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 You missed some of the interesting conversation above that led me to change my mind about disintegration. Fine -- leaving aside your changed mind about disintegration -- care to explain anything at all about how black holes "burn the hell out of something" and just what the heck "super-gravity" is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
czimborbryan Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 Read the quote above at posting #30 about gravity when objects reach super-high temps. I was reffering to this for burning the hell out of somthing. I do not beleive that black holes burn the hell out of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I did. Twice, in fact. It doesn't say what you think it says. The Planck temperature is the highest temperature in conventional physics because conventional physics breaks down at that temperature. Above 1032 K—that is, earlier than one Planck time—calculations show that strange things, unknown things, begin to happen to phenomena we hold near and dear, like space and time. Theory predicts that particle energies become so large that the gravitational forces between them become as strong as any other forces. That is, gravity and the other three fundamental forces of the universe—electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces—become a single unified force. Knowing how that happens, the so-called "theory of everything," is the holy grail of theoretical physics today. "We do not know enough about the quantum nature of gravitation even to speculate intelligently about the history of the universe before this time," writes Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg about this up-against-a-brick-wall instant in his book The First Three Minutes. "Thus, whatever other veils may have been lifted, there is one veil, at a temperature of 1032 K, that still obscures our view of the earliest times." Until someone comes up with a widely accepted quantum theory of gravity, the Planck temperature, for conventional physicists like Steven Weinberg, will remain the highest temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch. The OP has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread in a sufficient manner, or is encouraging a disordered discussion. The OP must bring the thread under control within 24 hours of the time of this post in order for the thread to stay open. If the thread does not turn into a normal and rational discussion within this time then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
czimborbryan Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 I did. Twice, in fact. It doesn't say what you think it says. The Planck temperature is the highest temperature in conventional physics because conventional physics breaks down at that temperature. Above 1032 K—that is, earlier than one Planck time—calculations show that strange things, unknown things, begin to happen to phenomena we hold near and dear, like space and time. Theory predicts that particle energies become so large that the gravitational forces between them become as strong as any other forces. That is, gravity and the other three fundamental forces of the universe—electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces—become a single unified force. Knowing how that happens, the so-called "theory of everything," is the holy grail of theoretical physics today. "We do not know enough about the quantum nature of gravitation even to speculate intelligently about the history of the universe before this time," writes Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg about this up-against-a-brick-wall instant in his book The First Three Minutes. "Thus, whatever other veils may have been lifted, there is one veil, at a temperature of 1032 K, that still obscures our view of the earliest times." Until someone comes up with a widely accepted quantum theory of gravity, the Planck temperature, for conventional physicists like Steven Weinberg, will remain the highest temperature. Speak for yourself. If you can't speculate intelligently about it, don't bother. Meanwhile, I'll be speculating up a storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Only for the next 23 hours if it's in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Speak for yourself. If you can't speculate intelligently about it, don't bother. Meanwhile, I'll be speculating up a storm. You have to be joking at this point. OK, this did it. I'm out. It has become obvious that you are simply a troll, and have no true intention of actually discussing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
czimborbryan Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 The Planck temperature is the highest temperature in conventional physics because conventional physics breaks down at that temperature. Above 1032 K—that is, earlier than one Planck time—calculations show that strange things, unknown things, begin to happen to phenomena we hold near and dear, like space and time. Theory predicts that particle energies become so large that the gravitational forces between them become as strong as any other forces. That is, gravity and the other three fundamental forces of the universe—electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces—become a single unified force. Knowing how that happens, the so-called "theory of everything," is the holy grail of theoretical physics today. "We do not know enough about the quantum nature of gravitation even to speculate intelligently about the history of the universe before this time," writes Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg about this up-against-a-brick-wall instant in his book The First Three Minutes. "Thus, whatever other veils may have been lifted, there is one veil, at a temperature of 1032 K, that still obscures our view of the earliest times." Until someone comes up with a widely accepted quantum theory of gravity, the Planck temperature, for conventional physicists like Steven Weinberg, will remain the highest temperature. What I am suggesting is that time/gravity already accounts for this. There is no veil, it's just that everyone is perceiving these three forces as seperate when time is the only thing there. This is a short list of terms that define a singled-out effect of time/gravity: momentum, inertia, gravity, magnetism, light... it's all the same thing. Time/gravity and the effects of varying density of time account for all of this. It's already there. The process of science has over-compartmentalized everything; look at what ties all of these things together - time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Define time then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 The problem with this approach is that it's all too common in "alternative" science discussion: find an area where there are still unanswered questions, and proclaim "my thesis explains this!" But your thesis has to be tested to be considered science, and you have to test it in experiments that can actually be done. It also needs to be consistent with science that has already been done. Your approach also suffers from the "search the internet until I find someone who sounds like they are agreeing with me" issue, which is a form of appeal to popularity, albeit using an odd definition of "popular." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
czimborbryan Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 As simply stated as possible, time is the speed at which matter or energy exists. Time is proportional to gravity and the density of time can be rendered with the same model that is used for the strength of gravitational fields. The strength of gravitational field is the result of the variation of time density which causes movement. Time is not a movement from past to future. It is in the here and now. When considering kinetic matter (linear and spinning) and tremendous explosive release of energy, the behavior of time density gets very complicated. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOh yeah, I'm not saying that this has been proven. It is an explanation for a few things and open for discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 As simply stated as possible, time is the speed at which matter or energy exists. Again, you are mixing units. Speed is distance/time. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThread suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts