Ronald Hyde

No it doesn't, it says that he, who uses Real World Physics, recognizes valid concepts when he sees them, whereas you do not. They gave you a Physics education, I guess!, but they should have taught you Logic first, because you do not, or are maybe not able to, support anything you say with a reasoned argument. You resort to every method but that, and your buddy migL too, clones you two are, and by no means Turing Complete in any sense. Just read you own signature, full of contempt for your fellows. I hope they turned off the cloning machine. I don't think either of you could reason your way out of a paper bag.

Tridimensional networks are hard. That's how they cure rubber, cross linking linear polymers. And epoxy too.

This is much more what I want to see. Some interesting proof of whatever kind on either side of an argument. None of this negates what I've said, and just shows how interesting the algebra of color really is. You see in color algebra black is a color too, as in black light. You may say that's just UV light but the tetrachromats may well use it in composing their color space. Thank you for that. On the other hand your use of the phrase 'word salad' deeply offends me, I had even decided get on the case of the people who used that kind of 'justification' to make a case. I was born a logician first and became a human as I grew up, so I will not accept any unreasoned argument either toward me or from me. Calling something word salad is just an unsupported declaration, and pure nonsense. Twas' Brilig in the Slythe Tove. Pure nonsense, from Lewis Carrol, who was a logician. But 'make some substitutions' as the mathematicians say, and you will make a perfectly understandable phrase. In both language and physics, context is supremely important. So unless you have a good reasoned argument to sub for the phrase 'word salad' I will simply regard as a lack of reasoning, and reject it outright as invalid. You could say it 1000 time, I would be annoyed but it will not change my view. I've long applied what I call the 'Doctrine of Inherent Capability' in my reasoning. It simply states that you can't invent, discover, or otherwise use an effect unless it is inherent in Nature. I applied it first to biology, but it's extensible. Color is not limited to the range of 1.5 to 3.5 ev photons. Plants use .5 ev photons, Chlorophyll is tuned by a Magnesium ion to accept two of them as part of photosynthesis. It's just that our eyes are tuned to that range, because the light has to pass through water to get to the cornea. Yes, I still think very much that I have something.

I'll freely admit that I'm wrong about what the hole is the heated box looks like. The problem needs to be reformulated. Do you notice that the box color grades from black to red to yellow to white? It needs to include color to be fully formulated, because you need to explain the changes in color to have a complete theory. As for it being gibberish, that means you are not as perceptive or insightful as the inventor I was talking about, or as you think you are. Plain and simple. But you're not one of the red giant characters, you're a more positive and less angry one, but annoyed that I made a basic mistake. I have plenty of these puzzles, some you can test yourself, without any black boxes or special equipment. And since anyone can conduct them and observe the results they would probably have been a better choice. Maybe you will see that this is not gibberish, that it shows how to put a valid picture of the world together.

So far on this forum I have found only one person who actually understood what I am saying, and he did so without any detailed explanation of the underlying concepts. By coincidence he is located about 60km from where I am. He made some enormously positive suggestions which helped me greatly. Unfortunately he did not find this topic and hasn't posted on it, so I don't know what he would have added. However one of the suggestions he made on another topic was related to what this topic evolved to. He is an inventor and uses Physics in his line of work. His inventions employ thermodynamics with whatever physical theories are required, and his inventions work as physical models of systems of mathematical models. The inventions employ the concepts that I was asking about on the topic he was posting in. By all definitions he is a successful working Real Life Physicist, someone who understands things in a deep way, intuitively and mathematically. No one else on that topic or this has understood at all. Some have made a small effort but failed, some have fought any new ideas tooth and nail, largely because it threatens their enormous bloated egos ( think red-giant here ), their negativity is appalling, you can read it directly in their signatures. Others simply don't recognize how or where a new idea connects with the old ideas, and is therefore not entirely new, but a revision or addition to the old ideas. They can't 'connect the dots' so they can't see the underlying picture. Well, not everyone has every logical skill, so even someone like a Feynman, ( a long list should be here ) who was very nearly 'Turing complete' can see all of the picture. So on this topic the Forces of Darkness have won over the Forces of Light, at least temporarily.

I'll explain to you the problem. What we have here is failure to communicate. And you and your compatriots are completely in control in as much as you have placed a barrier up and are the only ones who can take it down. One of the difficulties is that all of you, to a person, seem to believe that you can correctly describe Nature by using a set of disconnected, uncoupled, or whatever you want to call it, equations models or whatever you want to call them. I and Philip Warren Anderson, and I don't know how many others, know that assumption, which is what it is, is not correct. I'm not an important person, I don't feel that I'm an important person, you probably know more than I do, both in fact and in theory, but I've been placed in the position of being a messenger, and I have a very important message. You all know about the Olympics, and how the messenger is honored because he recognized that the message is more important than the messenger. The message that I have is a systematic procedure for tying all the 'little' theories into one big theory that will faithfully represent Nature and increase our understanding thereby. It's still in development, it will always be in 'some kind of development' because Nature is a very large ( but not infinite ) hierarchy. I don't know all the parts of the procedures, but I'm at the point where it takes me by the hand and teaches me where to look and how the physical picture fits into it, and when I look I see that it tells me correctly. The perception that Color is a deep part of Nature is an important example, just search for images of nebulae and look at a hundred or so and see all the colors. That will be better proof of its validity than any words I can use, and it's real experimental evidence, the kind that Physics is supposed to be about. Sorry about all the problems and not getting the Black Body correct, I have to find Plancks paper and go over it again. There will be mistakes and difficulties, I think we're all Human ( no robots allowed ) but if we can get that barrier down we can begin to make some progress.

You must read and understand the original papers and Planck's in particular to understand that this is a genuine puzzle that still has question to be answered. You need to know the methods of measurements employed for one thing. Something that people still do not seem to understand is that by the rules of Quantum Mechanics every aspect of every experiment must be included so that the full context is defined. Planck's paper is really a beautiful one, an excellent example of reasoning among the facts. PS: Yeah, I'm not quite right there, it was the way it was measured, not when it was looked inside that gave the distribution. I've got to reread the paper again myself. I know it was all about the partition function for the energy. I know that you can deduce Plancks equation by assuming scale invariance for the radiation for one thing. Please respect me on this. This is in no wise an 'alternative theory'. What I intend to do is show how to fit the 'accepted theories' into a seamless whole, which is exactly what Nature is. And it is very mathematical. When you see how this works you will see an amazing and beautiful World in its full context. I won't be getting noise from the crank audience on this one, they won't understand it enough. All the boos will come from the people who think they know it all, but really don't. One of the hardest parts of learning something new is getting rid of some of your old ways of thinking. So give me a little time, I would like to post in the appropriate section and not the speculation section. It may take three or four posts to get enough out so people will start to understand it. I have about two dozen of these little 'puzzles' BTW, some a bit more sharply defined than this, maybe that will quite the noise down a bit. But a little patience please.

I never said that it was a complete description, and you gave me a simplistic explanation. Do you have the patent on simplistic explanations?If you want a complete overview of Lie groups, Lie algebras, tangent spaces, and all that stuff, I can give you that too. It just wasn't needed there. I got the name wrong, sorry about that baby. Forgot to pay my syntax.

In Physics, a label is a charge. If it's a conserved charge it has to meet one very simple requirement imposed by Lorentz invariance, it has to have an associated current which is also conserved. It does not have to be associated with with a vector field, a common mistake people make when they try to apply the notions of Maxwell's equations to other interactions, causing them no end of problems. Number charges and currents like Baryon number, Strangeness, etc. are a kind of charge. They are part of Natures bookkeeping, if you wish, and they have physical manifestations. An example of this is the beautiful little Mandelstam Relations where the charge is the rest energy of the two currents. This requires very little more than high school algebra to fully understand it. So what part of it don't you get? And it's Physics, spelled with a capital P. What part of that do you not get? Nature, unlike Lucy, doesn't have any 'splainin' to do. We have to figure it out all by ourselves. And she may speak with all the fury of a hurricane, or in the beauty of a rainbow. Listen to what she has to tell you, she is the first and last authority or what constitutes Physics.

You're wrong! You're wrong too. You're both very, very wrong. And you're pushing my buttons. Do either of you know who the most cited person in all of Physics is. Philip Warren Anderson. And he won a Nobey for his work, well deserved too. He's the one who suggested the spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism to Peter Briggs. Brigg's '64 paper is available on the web. You will find Anderson's name right there in it. You have read Brigg's paper, right? Anderson is one of my 'true life heroes', along with a few dozen others. A lot of people have heard of Briggs, few of Anderson. He's solved many problems, none more thorny than Ferromagnetism. One of my observations is that you can judge the quality of a Physicist by the depth of their dictums. Dirac has some good ones, look for beauty in your equations is one. Feynman has some too. So what is Anderson's favorite dictum, by his own words and in his own words? The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. This is in complete contradiction to the KISS approach, if you haven't noticed. It's what you get automagically, so to speak, when you combine the laws of thermodynamics with quantum mechanics. When you add Color Algebra, which you MUST, because it is a natural part of the SU(3) group, and if Nature has a religion it must be Unitary. And why must we enforce Unitarity? Because it represents the logically necessary requirement that any physical system, or any part of it, has a probability of One to occur.

Astronomers have actually looked at the spiral arms of the Milky Way, and they see good old Hydrogen streaming inward. Remembering that [latex]E = MC^2[/latex], and Hydrogen has mass, adding the premiss that energy is conserved, and accepting that experimental evidence is to be respected as having some validity, I think you can reach a correct deduction

Wilmot has a very deep understanding of what is involved, he is the only one besides myself who seems to. For my own purposes the topic is completed, I have taken every thing I need from it, thanks you Wilmot, and incorporated it into a larger picture. And in the process solved the pesky problem of defining 'free energy' in a thermodynamical system. Way to go!

If your reply is an attempt to 'solve' the puzzle, as it is a genuine puzzle and begs of a resolution, it is failure. My aim of posing the puzzle is to increase people's understanding of Nature. An introductory course in QM would help, but only to define the riddle better, and we know well of the UV catastrophe. A correct reply would have involved introducing more concepts, the concepts of QM, including the solutions of Planck's Equation would indeed be part of it, but by no means all of it. You would also have to introduce other parts of thermodynamics, and the everyday concept of Color too, and how Nature uses it. You see color has an algebra associated with it, as everyone who works with it will tell you, and that algebra is as much a law of Nature as the laws of QM and QCD and Relativity. Wait a minute, I just mentioned QCD, so I gave you part of the correct answer, so did you with Introductory QM. But please do not trivialize this very deep puzzle by trying to 'solve' it with a shallow answer. There is a very deep connection with Color and thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. The Blue of the Sky, the light Yellow of the Sun's disk, the Whiteness of the Sun's light, the Green of grass, the Red of Blood, the Brown of Decay, the colors of flowers, the three primary colors, the seven secondary colors, the three complementary colors. The correct answer will incorporate all of those and more. You see Planck's equation and QM only see the world in shades of Grey. If you don't think color is important in the world, I beg you to do this. Search the web for pictures of 'nebulae' and look at at least 100 images of them. And riddle yourself this, why do all those colors appear in Nature? The answer to that riddle will be as deep as the Ocean, as high as the sky, as far as the Sun, and as deep as the inky Blackness of Space. And your understanding of Nature will increase thereby.

Everything you've brought up is just spot on. That conclusion is exactly what I was coming to. I was thinking about living processes, Chlorophyll, Heme, Oxygen, triple phosphate, and how easy they would be to put together to make life. Scenario that I see is an atmosphere of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen, and moisture too, with water in liquid, vapor and ice form, including snow. Snow is needed because it catalyses the interaction between those ingredients and UV light to convert them into more biologically useful materials. And no ozone layer too, as there would be no free Oxygen. There might be a Nitrogen Oxide or Cyanogen layer in place of the Ozone, which would add even more. One thing that I see is that the Color Algebra of the strong interaction is propagated down through the scheme of things so that the 'imposed currents' you mentioned are actually Color Currents, and that is why brightly colored resonant compounds like the ones mentioned are important, they provide the access to the most important currents of all, Entropy and Energy. And the colors we see are not just something our mind has invented, they are built into the scheme of things at every level. It just all fits together so beautifully.

OK guys let's get this straightened out. First, I meant to say the 'principal of maximum work'. Just because it's defined for reversible processes doesn't mean that the definition can't be extended to include irreversible processes. Just off the top of my head I can think of some such that you have every one seen. The meandering of a river is a driven irreversible process that would be very well described by it. Another would be the radiation of light be the Sun. I'm sure there are 'too many exceptions to the principal' because it has not been properly combined with the other theories of Nature. And there are way too many 'theories of quantum thermodynamics and statistics' because no one has bothered to see how similar they are and reduce them to a single theory. But even then they need to be combined with all the other theories of Nature to make everything work. I tell you guys that Nature is a logical whole, and if you disregard some of her working principals or think that they 'go out of fashion', you're missing the boat. Shear is at least part of the answer. Pretty much just have to write the correct commutation relations for it and plug it into the rest of the picture.

When I was a kid the Sunday paper always had a little quiz problem. It would have a picture with all kinds of things messed up in it, with the question 'What is wrong with this picture?'. Quantum theory was invented when Max Planck solved the first Black Body problem. In a fairly short paper filled with a beautiful example of 'reasoning among the facts' he laid out a solution, that he later interpreted as energy being in the form of Quanta. Make a little ( hypothetical ) metal box painted black on the outside and inside, and with a small hole so that you can observe the inside. Now heat it to the surface temperature of the Sun which is 5800K. The reason it's hypothetical is no such box would stand that temperature. The box will glow an extremely bright white and radiate a great deal of heat. I remember and engineer describing an attempt to melt molybdenum which melts at exactly half that temperature. The whole room gets hot and still it doesn't melt! No look inside the box. You will see that the inside of the box is a dark red, which is exactly what it should be by the Planck Equation. Now the suns temperature corresponds to almost exactly .5 ev ( electron volt ) which is pretty far into the infrared. Visible light ranges from 1.5 to 3.5 ev, and the outside of the box is above visible light in color. What is wrong with this picture?

Actualy there isn't very much on the principal of least work, but it belongs to the area of quantum statistical dynamics, and that's what I meant to refer to. But it's exactly what is needed for the hurricane and galaxy problem, to get the most work out a given amount of entropy change, and keep driving it till it develops periodic behavior. QSD itself is a pretty obscure field. The Wiki has a good piece on it. This is quite interesting. When people look out at the arms of the galaxy, they see fresh Hydrogen streaming into it. So it almost looks like the 'central object', I hate to call it a 'black hole', might have some way of recycling going on. And the Aurora mechanism seems more analogous to a tornado.

I can't believe that you would say that about this elegant and powerful theory that some of the best minds in physics and mathematics have contributed too. I'm starting to think that computer people are smarter, or at least wiser than physics people. Computer people would never throw out anything that works, they would just improve and use it in a larger system. Look at the C language and Fortran, Forty and sixty years old, and still going strong. On the other hand look at string theory, thirty and hasn't fathered any babies yet. It applies very nicely, thank you, to any entropy driven system with constraints, in this case the local conservation laws. If the entropy is continuously 'supplied' it will become cyclic in time. Perfect for describing dust devils ( must add that to my list of examples ) hurricanes and galaxies.

There's an important difference between a prism and a rainbow, the prism represents forward scattering of the light, the rainbow back scattering. The forward scattering equivalent of the rainbow is the 'glory', which displays very little dispersion of the colors. It's a very interesting subject, well worth further study.

I had to find the answer to this myself. They both solve the equations related to the 'principle of maximum work' in quantum thermodynamics. The resistance in an electrical circuit solves them too. Which explains why, when Feynman tried to solve the resistance problem with the principle of least action he failed. There must be equivalent statements for capacitors and inductors.

Aluminum is not a good choice for making electricity, aka batteries. Its oxide forms an impervious coating which makes it hard to keep chemical activity going. Also the first electron yeilds 5.3 volts, the second about 3.4 and the third about 1.7, but the battery only produces the lowest voltage, so much of the energy is wasted. When 'they don't do this', it's usually because they found out it's not such a good idea. And that is why you won't find Aluminum batteries at the store.

Yes, C is a constant of Nature all the time, but in the piece of glass the photons don't travel at C, they travel at a speed determined by the Index of Refraction of the glass, which is closely related to its Dielectric Constant.

The torque only acts to twist the magnet around, but since it's held at one end, the center of the model, it can't do that.

No, I'll tell you politely that there won't be a net torque. Even though the S part of the ring has more field, because it is larger, it's also weaker, so its effect is equal to the N part. In Maxwells equations, Div B=0, B is the magnetic field strength.

No one has ever built a time machine that can take you back in time, and they never will. So you can regard the 'grandfather paradox' as being completely useless philosophical musing. As for consciousness, all our information comes from the past and helps us to survive in the future, so our little feeble brain has evolved to that end. That includes being aware of our surroundings and how our actions might affect our survival.