lakmilis

I know Lucaspa, but experiments were still tried later...and my comment on c was not to do with lambda, I just saw someone mentioning above it was changing or so? well yes, SR says no medium is needed as such... but he (onestone) did state light must take the shortest path which due to curvature is curvilinear in minkowspi space...in other words, mass does not affect light dircetly but seemingly by curving space , so vacuum affects the path of light... Since this is an interaction, I simply mentioned the ideas of aether (or today we would be babbling abt vacuum energy density bla bla) as a changing c if this was/is the case, would be very interesting to know about.

Hmm, sure, but if a person is accelerating or indeed has any internal (as a local system) thermal energy , which indeed it must have to be able to observe, there are possible interactions again which as you say could make thermal vacuum interpretation ambiguous. Hmm, well unruh effect or not...clearly we know that from Heisenberg as such, we can not really measure the temperature....ah nevermind, I am starting to see the question is indeed valid but it goes into entirely other aspects... I think I might have something to preoccupy me soon enough (Oh, and I really wouldn't think temperature is a Lorentz-variable.. it should remain invariant, although just now I am not so sure anymore ^^)

Nah, I would like to hitch a ride, you know and grab a copy of adams whilst I'm at it weeeeeee

By all means, there was some nice things. I read other books long before him and had many questions and realisations before reading his. One of his books did indeed help with some stuff though, but equally I got an impression that he is trying to force a view which is far from consistent. He is brilliant in his work, but it is due to some of his personal deductions that I say he sometimes should maybe do the calculations then chuck the interpretation somewhere else

Oh I failed to see that post before mine. You two are discussing the semantics of the word dimension, discussing freedom of movement and if temperature is a dimension etc. It seems like it is just a matter of tensor ranks and scalar and vector properties. I am assuming the people involved at least know vector calculus enough to already be able to agree on yoru distinctions..if not, have a look into tensor ranks.

A good question. Indeed I am in principle agreeing with a seemingly unpopular stance of Farsight, but with perhaps more profound reasons for it. However, this is a physics forum, so the metaphysics of time is bound to be unpopular when one disagrees with the essence of time according to Einstein's adopted Minkowski space and realising time is a dimension. The question though is of paramount importance still and just to state where I am standing; Time is not a quality, it is an observation of one. Having said that, mathematical models work with many things. For example, often people 'explain' here how logical geometry is due to inherent properties of our reality which we observe and deduce from. However, points are mathematical entities, so are lines with no width, our reduction of n-1 dimensions when we try visualising 4-d space , etc. They work, yet it is perfectly legit to also state that they don't exist in real life. (All , ABSOLUTELY ALL *REAL* OBJECTS we are aware of, are [at least] 3 dimensional). 0-2D objects only exist as subsets in our minds (expressed in mathematics on good ol paper I have in my metaphysics a postulate stating a disagreement with the semantics of time in contrary to its quality as a dimension in physics aka GR for example: "Time is the perception of movement". Thus, I say it [time] is an observation of one [a quality] (hardlinking perceptory senses and minds as such) to physical reality rather than being a quality. Here, I am pretty sure this will meet some resistance (and flaming hihi ) but initially and foremost is because it seems like it is saying GR is wrong. Not at all, but I saw one of the admins severin or something, refer to people here as the odd philosophical nut passes by and makes comments. I believe that was a very unhealthy comment as we know that paradigmes in metaphysics often will lead to readjustment of physics, etc. Anyway, giving the benefiot of the doubt it might of been caused by some other heated argument or so. What I am saying to initial poster is that indeed, time is secondary to movement (rejuvenating Aristotle and the old Greek philosophers immensely advanced precognition of principles). So how would this translate in possible 'practical or useful' considerations in current GR for example? I personally am not gifted enough with abilities in maths (yet by all means I still am learning and have some skill) to fly out a revision hypothesis on the topic, how to incorporate this 'rejection' of time as a quality and how it would possibly affect our physical formulas to deal and predict events in space. I am sorry I am being somewhat digressive but this is exactly the work I am involved in on a private and personal level, I call it Epistemological Physics.. But from reading certain threads I believe this forum is more suited for 'current scientific thought' and explanations of these rather than a forum for trying to search for paradigmes I was looking into a 5-D alteration of GR to incorporate this so called postulate of there is movement only, and a substance of sensory capabilities can react ot movement, conceiving duration and displacement, thus perceiving 'time'. I did not manage to derive if a 5-element metric was necessary or not and I due to life commitments, stopped working in philosophy several years ago. This maybe does not help too much, certainly not compared to word count, but I do think that it is healthy to not necessarily take time as a quality (dimension) even if you should employ that understanding in the framework of 3+ D manifolds as today. Like many pointed out, to understand the limitations of a theory , certainly needs understanding of the theory itself. Final note, if I state time is not a dimension but a perception of one, yet talk about 5-D reality, what could the other 2 be? lakmilis

Hi ajb, from other posts, I have an inclination to look forward to your input.. however, two words...unruh sounds like stargate babble ot me ;p hihi going into reference frames and even observer crosses too much into my slightly different metaphysics than the normal scientific approach. Relativistic temperature hehe, let me just ask if I am getting you right...are you saying that we can choose a reference frame in such a way, that 0 Kelvin could always be avoided? That we have no way to determine if a certain 'system' (or secluded part of space perhaps?) is indeed in 0 K state? I just have this feeling you see, that 0 K is as much a physical boundary of the current space view we have as c ( vacuum wave propagation) is

no problem, myself gotta go now and hand in some dynamics ^^

drochaid> Klaynos, lies, I drink urine and call it beer PHILOSOPHY AND YOUR RANDOM THOUGHTS ARE NOT SCIENCE DO NOT POST THEM AS SUCH hehe, and is drinking urine and calling it beer not random thoughts doesnt matter, science is a subset of philosophy, if one can't post them here , then I posted this at perhaps an incorrect forum I did see Servian or something also say 'philosophical nutters' come this way... not much science can be done then however...just calculations

Yes, and by looking at other posts just now, it seems like this is the zero point energy realm...in any case... No, I still believe if we are to accept GR topology (or Minkowski space) one almost *has* to realize there must be non-0 Kelvin temp in any point in Minkowski space. (And no, I am aware *of* the vacuum fluctuations, do not have any awareness of manipulating nor relating the effective formulas ) Oh, and in answer to the pondering, can temperature exist with no particles...well that is kind of what I am pondering about with the thread lakmilis

I concur ~~ isn't that some of the ideas which some Japanese researcher claimed helped his now disproven claims of cold fusion?

He, c changing would love that...would that not make SR's confirmed experimental data of no aether interesting....as if c changes in 'vacuum' , space must have a property of a medium in similar ways as other denser medias do to light? kind of has some issues when you mention that with another thread i just started where I am wondering a bit about the exact properties of space with regards to temperature or heat density.

oh oh, and yes Gonelli, just as you say, 0 K would indicate no energy in a substance, thus I wonder could we measure the temperature between electron shells? Yes, like you say, a deeper question I am posing here then, is if space with no apparent matter present, really is 'nothing'. From that same inference we could not then 'imagine' that nothingness can curve like space-time does right After all quantum leaps we just have to take for granted...to explain how they[electrons] actually move between them[electron shells] is something else than just being able to visualise and accept them to work with them

not at all gonelli, it makes very much sense...although just like you say intuitively it seems like a very silly question..but it is not. Since space-time is connected to matter, and energy one would think that 'nothingness' in space-time is different from 'nothingness' beyond the visible universe? If we go along with big bang ideas etc, 0 K in 'non-reached' infinity is fine (these are not necessarily my understandings, just in case loads of people from those very funny long threads on what is beyond the universe come along.); however I still wonder if background noise (~3 K) is more subtly connected with [empty] space itself (I think this is something else yes) or *if* accurate enough sensors, we could predict a infinesimally small deviation from 0 K in any given point in Minkowski space.... I mean with our super tanks deep in the ground we have managed to indicate neutrinos for the love of God we might actually have a shot on figuring out just how connected space and matter really is on the very fundamental level...again I reiterate, I might easier be convinced of some (continuous????) transition of energy/heat to be predicted between vacuum space and occupied space (aka matter). Although all which you said makes as much sense to me as it does to you lakmilis

LOL, and this simple expression of Einstein's Field equations may tell you everything about space curvature: (dont know how to use math notation here) [math] G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi \, T_{\mu\nu}.[/math] simple though eh (if it shows)..anyway, I can promise you the day Hawkings has found GUT is the day I taught him it all :X (PS. that is meant as not plausible )

ye but he would be better off doing pure maths, than babbling about the Universe at times

The 'universe' has two obvious boundary conditions for present time man, vacuum-speed light and 0 kelvin. Does there really exist any one place in our Minkowski world where one may say 0 Kelvin is the temperature here? how accurate would that claim be? macroscopic? microscopic, subatomic? string level? (And sure, a reply on the thread question : the empty space where electrons make their leaps of faith, must of course be 0 Kelvin?) But then I wonder if any part of the space-time 'fabric' or call it empty space (for arguments sake I guess we would say between two neutrinos eh?) actually can have 0 Kelvin... the more intrinsic question is of course if space itself is indivisible with respect to virtual particles, various fields you name it me w00tles hoping for interesting thoughts

lol, like your way of expression :X

lol , now that must be one of the worst statements in science for the starter of the topic...it is a very long discussion which no answer has been found..so don't worry about it seeming to be mind boggling. In fact, like someone stated about a sphere having an infinite surface w.r.t. two dimensions. In mathematics, advanced differential geometry and manifold topology is the scientific area of working with the universe models today. No, stating that our universe with inherent 3-dimensional space properties is expanding into some similar 'empty space' which would have same properties is NOT an answer (YT2095). It is a hard question , simply because we are still researching it. Current research works with so-called positive semi definite metrics etc. The issue about finiteness and infiniteness geometrically speaking, has to do with certain experimental variables (look up the omega factor I believe its called). which is determined from what we think we know about the mass distribution and its relative velocities to again, arbitrary reference points (ps. the cosmological principle for example isn't as sound as we tend to assume but thats a different discussion). Anyway, this omega factor gives an indication of the curvature of space-time, or Einstein's adopted Minkowski space.. It might be positive (open) , negative (closed) giving it predictions about if the universe will expand forever and cool down (enthropy-wise) or actually collapse on itself again. Now, after the psychobabble, the more important question is what you initially are trying to do...visualise with the imagination how 'inside' the universe and 'beyond' it can be. aka Visible universe and there which original light has not reached (this is with the assumption of a centre point , big bang event). An eternal, infinite universe is of course much easier to imagine, but would then defy much of the astronomical data. ***** edited Yes, I am not answering anything in this post...just threw out some thoughts and some concepts you can google further and/or think about) lakmilis

Sisyphus gave you the 'correct' explanation as such...however many god questions arise and yes, the relation mathematically is very simple.. Relativistic mass (mass in motion) is defined as the rest mass (no velocity w.r.t a *very* arbitrary reference frame) plus additional mass due to velocity... The equation from this is given in special relativity: m = m0(rest mass)/(1- [v/c]) if memory serves me correct. It is easy to see that with increasing v, m increases and if v = c you would have m0 / 0 = -> undefined or infinity as they state it. Now, the question about how more mass comes about is due to another neat thing good ol' Onestone realised: E = mc^2 ... Thus to increase kinetic energy of something, energy must be added....(for example with fuel and yes, it would also increase in its mass, but in higher relativistic speeds, the energy density of the fuel would hmm either remain constant or would increase at a far lower rate than the increase of its mass). Now, as energy is added, much of this energy would also be translated into mass as the last equation shows that mass and energy are interchangeable, or two sides of the same coin. Does this help? (and for the question of mass, just like in another post i just sent, one needs to try and understand the inherent secrets of inertia ) lakmilis

A little out of date, but Let me make some corrections. Jakiri, photons can indeed 'emit' electrons...or be made to as initial poster stated. The photon is an antiparticle of itself and in 'total annhilation' of two photons , an electron and positron is emitted, thus correctly saying they can be 'made to' to emit electrons (however the emission of one leaves no remainder of the photon(s). Now, with respect to gravitons, they are being looked into , however no effects yet have been observed to verify their existense, thus please refrain from stating some 'reality' as if they do. Sure...it is still very nice to question if gravity immediately would disappear of would propagate. And for the record, another person who said, it does not propagate, effects woulod vanish immediately due to gravity being curvature of space fabric...A question arises...the 'de-curving' of space might take some time too. The greater the mass, the greater the distortion...A sudden disappearance of the sun might take space-time some period to uncurve again right? who knows, would this uncurving take 8 minutes? Now having said that, what do I personally think about gravity propagation? I think on a macro level, one would have instant effects yes... however, removing mass on a sufficient scale immediately brings in a whole lot of other concepts, zero point energy, macro-tunnelling (which statistically just aint feasible), perhaps even casimir effects, etc...a different ballgame altogether... it is futile to make such a discussion without understanding underlying concepts further... So one goes back to subatomic particles, talking about removing mass and seeing the effects of gravity fields...which is exactly why in QM gravitons DO have a proposal value. Last thing...delays in curvature (if mass is removed de curving of space cant happen faster than c, right? , rather try and explain to yourself...what is inertia really? what 'intrinsic' property of space-time gives rise to the explanation of inertia as opposed to its description. Enjoy