The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?  (Read 8328 times)

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
1.
In physics, a black body is an idealized object that absorbs all
 electromagnetic radiation that falls on it. No electromagnetic
 radiation passes through it and none  is reflected. Because no
 light (visible electromagnetic radiation) is reflected or transmitted,
 the object appears black when it is cold. However, a black body
 emits a temperature-dependent spectrum of light. This
 thermal radiation from  a black body is termed black-body radiation.
#
Studying the laws of the black body historically led to quantum mechanics
#
Blackbody radiation is light in thermal equilibrium, light radiation with
 a given temperature. It is the basic thermodynamic state of light. Because
 light is the oscillation of a continuous electromagnetic field, the study
 of blackbody radiation reveals how continuous fields can have a
 temperature, something which contradicts classical physics. Because
 the thermal state of light was so confusing before the advent of
 quantum mechanics, the 19th century arguments that light has a
thermal equilibrium state were made very carefully.
#
Today the black-body cavity may be thought of as containing a gas of photons
#
An almost perfect black-body spectrum is exhibited by the
 cosmic microwave background radiation.,  Hawking radiation is the
 hypothetical black-body radiation emitted by black holes.
!!!
#
Super black is an example of such a material, made from a
 nickel-phosphorus alloy. More recently, a team of Japanese scientists
discovered a material even closer to a black body, based on
 single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs), which absorbs between
97% and 99% of the wavelengths of the light that hits it.

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

2.
Max Laue (who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1914 )
 called the model of a black body as the ‘ Kirchhoff's vacuum.’
3.
And I have naive question:
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
========== .


 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #1 on: 21/06/2009 23:03:55 »
Here's my take.  Photons are only apparent when they physically interact with some amalgam.  This 'impact' changes their direction to deflect them from that first path.  The angle of that resulting deflection gives that amalgam it's characteristic colour.  In other words, an object's colour determines the level of, or in fact the depth of, that interaction.  When the photon hits an object which has a characteristic colour of black it is deflected back into the same path 'from whence it came'.  Same line but opposite direction.  Instead of moving perfectly forwards it now moves perfectly backwards. This cancels out the electromagnetic wave, just as an opposing ripple in a pool can cancel another.  It doesn't degrade the photon.  It just reverses it's frequency.

The difference in the ability of photons to transfer energy as heat - is simply because the colour black is like hitting a bull's eye.  It transfers more energy therefore than if, for instance, the photon deflected off the colour silver.  So perhaps I should say that the angle of deflection as a result of that interaction is also a measure of the frequency of the photon and therefore also a measure of the energy that was transferred to the impacted object.

But if it hits that bull's eye, the photon itself is doomed to continue that 'cancelling out' or reverse path until by some happy accident it may again deflect off another object to manifest a new colour in some new visible frequency.  But the photon stays 'intact' as a particle and it's waveform is exactly as it was prior to impact = but going the other way.  My own take is that the photon is inifintely stable, and doomed to travel through space - forever.  But sometimes it varies both its path and its frequency depending on whichever objects it meets along the way.

That black box - it's got no photons in it.  It just heated up more quickly than a white box.  Nor has the white box got photons in it.  And photons only show colour when they interact with objects.  Otherwise they're entirely without the property of colour or light.  That's why space is black.  I should add that this is why space stays perfectly cold.  The only time that photons can impart heat is when they interact with objects.  So all objects in space can be cold to warm to hot.  But space itself stays cold which I think is what Socratus and all scientists means by the symbol 0K.

Which is my personal take on the subject.  I may very well be wrong.  I just cannot buy into the whole blackbody radiation being any different to pink body radiation, or for that matter blue body radiation.  Just test different coloured boxes.  They all get warm inside.  It's just that some colours make them warmer quicker.  I know this.  I've tested it. 

Unless of course there's some other point to black body radiation which has eluded me.

This post has been substantially edited.  I fondly anticipate a howl of protest from the Sophiecentaurs of this forum.
« Last Edit: 22/06/2009 08:03:01 by witsend »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #2 on: 22/06/2009 12:09:51 »
witsend
If you want a rational response to this, perhaps you could point out rational bits I should answer. I was struggling to find any Science in there, to be frank. Lots of Science ideas but not related to each other causally.  Some nice turns of phrase, but not Science, as we know it Jim.
How does the word "doomed" come into Science, I wonder?
A Black Body is just defined as one which is not selective in its absorption or emission of radiation. You could find out about it in a textbook. Even wikkers could be useful.

Photons don't have 'colour', as such. They just have a frequency. I would agree that it is only is apparent when they interact. But I see no reason why photons need exist at all except during the interaction between an electromagnetic wave and a charge system.

If your black box is not at 0K it will have photons in it. Space is not at 0K - don't forget the CMBR?
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #3 on: 22/06/2009 12:43:39 »
If you want a rational response to this, perhaps you could point out rational bits I should answer.
Notwithstanding evidence to the contrary - there is, in fact, a serious side to this.

I understood a photon could be both a particle or a wave.  Just not at the same time?  Presumably you are stating that photons only become pariculate? (not sure if this is an acceptable term) when they interact with a charge.  I definitely agree with this. 

If that black box is simply used because it absorbs energy from all frequencies then I'm not sure that I agree.  I think that black has its own frequency.  I think what I'm trying to say is that a photon, when interacting with a black surface, has a frequency that is particular to that colour.  It's just the precise opposite of white.  And it moves into a deflected angle that reverses its previous path.  Is this out of the question?

I agree that the term 'doomed' tends to strain the tolerance level of scientific description.  But it is, you must admit, evocative?  I'm trying to convey the argument that it does not degrade - as I have heard argued in these threads.  Just a point of discussion.  I don't need to fall on my pen if the answer is that the photon does, in fact, degrade.  But I can't see this.  Try as I might.  It's pivotal in another argument I've come across.

Don't give up yet SophieC.  We're discussing.  It's a new beginning.

Photons don't have 'colour', as such.
No need to argue this.  That's more or less my own conclusion.

Please, assume that I cannot get a text book.  Could you, very simply, please describe to me the point of that black box?  And explain the term CMBR.  I've never heard of it.

As a point of interest.  I did those experiments to see which box got hot first.  But the difference in measurement was so slight it was hardly worth recording.  Perhaps I left them both in the sun too long?
 

lyner

  • Guest
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #4 on: 22/06/2009 13:20:49 »
The difficulty I have in discussing things with you is that you don't seem to want to get down to specifics. Evey one of your posts introduces new questions and new directions. Why not sort out one thing at a time? Believe me, you have no chance of getting it all!
If you want to tie things together you have to do more than quoting random Science ideas. There is no substitute for learning something.

You could just as easily found this on wikkers as I.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
That link and the other links it contains should give you more than enough.
Likewise this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cmbr

I see that you are not averse to doing experiments. Why not start on some straightforward classical experimenting with kitchen table Science and relate the results to simple 'High School' Science and you will find that the simple models of classical Science are very good for predicting what goes on around us.  You will find it fascinating and quite taxing enough for a start. You will, however, risk ending up 'knowing' some hard facts and they may inhibit some of your wilder fancies. Not a bad thing from my point of view but I don't know how it will leave you. It will constitute some foundations to what, otherwise, is a very shaky tower.
When you have got comfortably through that stage, then progress to the harder stuff. There is absolutely no point in trying to run before you can walk.
Have you the discipline? That's a challenge.
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #5 on: 22/06/2009 15:29:59 »
Here's my take.  Photons are only apparent when they physically interact with some amalgam.  This 'impact' changes their direction to deflect them from that first path.  The angle of that resulting deflection gives that amalgam it's characteristic colour.  In other words, an object's colour determines the level of, or in fact the depth of, that interaction.  When the photon hits an object which has a characteristic colour of black it is deflected back into the same path 'from whence it came'.  Same line but opposite direction.  Instead of moving perfectly forwards it now moves perfectly backwards. This cancels out the electromagnetic wave, just as an opposing ripple in a pool can cancel another.  It doesn't degrade the photon.  It just reverses it's frequency.

The difference in the ability of photons to transfer energy as heat - is simply because the colour black is like hitting a bull's eye.  It transfers more energy therefore than if, for instance, the photon deflected off the colour silver.  So perhaps I should say that the angle of deflection as a result of that interaction is also a measure of the frequency of the photon and therefore also a measure of the energy that was transferred to the impacted object.

But if it hits that bull's eye, the photon itself is doomed to continue that 'cancelling out' or reverse path until by some happy accident it may again deflect off another object to manifest a new colour in some new visible frequency.  But the photon stays 'intact' as a particle and it's waveform is exactly as it was prior to impact = but going the other way.  My own take is that the photon is inifintely stable, and doomed to travel through space - forever.  But sometimes it varies both its path and its frequency depending on whichever objects it meets along the way.

That black box - it's got no photons in it.  It just heated up more quickly than a white box.  Nor has the white box got photons in it.  And photons only show colour when they interact with objects.  Otherwise they're entirely without the property of colour or light.  That's why space is black.  I should add that this is why space stays perfectly cold.  The only time that photons can impart heat is when they interact with objects.  So all objects in space can be cold to warm to hot.  But space itself stays cold which I think is what Socratus and all scientists means by the symbol 0K.

Which is my personal take on the subject.  I may very well be wrong.  I just cannot buy into the whole blackbody radiation being any different to pink body radiation, or for that matter blue body radiation.  Just test different coloured boxes.  They all get warm inside.  It's just that some colours make them warmer quicker.  I know this.  I've tested it. 

Unless of course there's some other point to black body radiation which has eluded me.

This post has been substantially edited.  I fondly anticipate a howl of protest from the Sophiecentaurs of this forum.
===================================
witsend
Here's my take.
 Photons are only apparent when they physically interact with some amalgam
 that interrupts their path to deflect them from that path.  The angle of that
deflection gives that amalgam it's characteristic colour.  When it hits an object
 which has a characteristic colour of black it is because the angle of deflection
 is in precisely the same direction as as it's first path, but in the opposite
direction.  This cancels out the electromagnetic wave, just as an opposing
 ripple in a pool can cancel another.

The difference in their ability to transfer energy as heat - is simply because
 the colour black is like hitting a bull's eye.  It transfers more energy therefore
than if, for instance, the photon deflected off the colour silver.  EDIT 
So perhaps I should say that the angle of deflection is also a measure of
 the frequency of the photon and therefore also a measure of the energy
 transferred at that interaction.

But if it hits that bull's eye, the photon itself is doomed to continue that
 'cancelling out' or reverse path until by some happy accident it may again
 deflect off another object to manifest a new colour in some new visible
 frequency.  But my own take is that the photon is inifintely stable,
and doomed to travel through space - forever, but sometimes varying
 both its path and its frequency depending on whichever objects it meets
along the way.
======== .
#
S.
The colour depends on the photon’s frequency.
Look:
Frequency is the key to everything.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1243193539/last-1243568551/Frequency+is+the+key+to+everything.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/
=========== .
witsend
That black box - it's got no photons in it.
===== .
#
S.
In the laboratory, black-body radiation is approximated by the radiation
 from a small hole entrance to a large cavity, a hohlraum. (this technique
 leads to the alternative term cavity radiation) Any light entering the hole
would have to reflect off the walls of the cavity multiple times before it
escaped, in which process it is nearly certain to be absorbed.
#
Calculating the blackbody curve was a major challenge in theoretical
Physics  during the late nineteenth century. The problem was finall
 solved in 1901  by Max Planck as
Planck's law of black-body radiation.

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

S.
If  ‘ That (your ) black box - it's got no photons in it. ‘
 so, it is an another theory.  !!!
!!!
=========== .
witsend
It just heated up more quickly than a white box.
==== .
S.
Of course.
====== .
witsend
Nor has the white box got photons in it.
== .
S.
There is white box.
Is it means : white empty space . . .???
 ====== .
witsend
 And photons only show colour when they interact with objects.
======== .
S.
And photons only show colour when they interact with objects
( through photon’s frequency. !!! ).
=== .
#
P.S.
Sorry.
Maybe you have high knowledge but they are mixed.
S.
========= .
witsend
 Otherwise they're entirely without the property of colour or light.
 That's why space is black.
======== .
S.
Sorry.
Before there was white space
(Nor has the white box got photons in it.) and now you say about
black space.
Maybe it is because :
Photons without interaction are black particles, dark matter.
That's why space is black.  EDIT
So, in the beginning were black photons. . . ( virtual photons )
 and later they make white space.
No problem.
========= .
witsend
 I should add that this is why space stays perfectly cold.   
====== .
#
S.
No problem: space stays perfectly cold. !!!
But only which space stays cold at T= 0K:
3-D,  4-D,  . . .11-D  . .???
======= .
witsend
The only time that photons can impart heat
 is when they interact with objects.
============== .
#
S.
No problem
======== .
witsend
  So all objects in space can be cold to warm to hot.
======== .
#
S.
No problem.
===== .
witsend
  But space itself stays cold which I think is what Socratus
and all scientists means by the symbol 0K.
======== .
#
S.
No problem.
But only which space stays cold at T= 0K:
3-D,  4-D,  . . .11-D  . .???
===== .
witsend
Which is my personal take on the subject.
 I may very well be wrong.
=== .
#
S.
Maybe it is possible   !!!
================ .
witsend
 I just cannot buy into the whole blackbody radiation being
any different to pink body radiation, or for that matter blue
 body radiation.
================ .
#
S.
You have problem.
======== .
witsend
 Just test different coloured boxes. 
They all get warm inside.
========== .
#
S.
They all get warm inside
Yes, inside    !!!
===== .
witsend
 It's just that some colours make them warmer quicker.
 I know this.  I've tested it. 
====== .
#
S.
It's just that some colours make them warmer quicker . .!!!
The colour depends on the photon’s frequency.
Look:
Frequency is the key to everything.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.new-theories/browse_thread/thread/14bfbc1f6c7c3c63#

alt.sci.physics.new-theories
========= .
witsend
Unless of course there's some other point to black body radiation
 which has eluded me.
=========== .
#
S.
Frequency is the key to everything.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.org.mensa/browse_thread/thread/d1b4ec4cfe298665#

rec.org.mensa
============ .
witsend
This post has been substantially edited.
 I fondly anticipate a howl of protest from the Sophiecentaurs of this forum.
======== .
#
You do not really understand something unless
 you can explain it to your grandmother.
/ Albert Einstein /
======== .




 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #6 on: 22/06/2009 16:53:36 »
Socratus, I've had the best laugh ever.  It's ridiculous.  I never knew that I should have put a hole in that box. 

I shall look up all those links and try and do better.  It's awfully funny.

By the way - with reference to a WHITE BOX.  I did my own black box radiation test.  I had an idea that the object of that black box radiation thing was to caculate the rate of photonic absorbtion?  I thought that the claim was that a black box generated more heat than a white box.  So, I used a white box as a control.  In other words I had two boxes.  Neither box had a hole in it.  I carefully tested the two to see which got hotter quicker.  I had a thermometer in each box and both boxes in full sunlight.  I did not realise that the point of the black box was precisely to allow light through an aperture.  Now I know better.  But you must hand it to me I at least tested before I commented.  It's just I wasn't sure what I was testing.  It's a hoot.

The real joke is that my dog, Loki, couldn't contain himself.  He decided to check those measurements himself.  He systematically demolished the white box before the test was finished.  But I can at least report that there was hardly any difference in the temperature rise between the white and the black box.  But the control test was not that ideal.  And both tests seem to have been somewhat fruitless.
« Last Edit: 22/06/2009 17:09:50 by witsend »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #7 on: 22/06/2009 18:27:25 »
Socartus
If  ‘ That (your ) black box - it's got no photons in it. ‘
 so, it is an another theory.  !!!

Nor has the white box got photons in it. Me.

Socratus
There is white box.
Is it means : white empty space . . .???

And photons only show colour when they interact with objects. Me.

Socratus
And photons only show colour when they interact with objects
( through photon’s frequency. !!! ).


P.S.
Sorry.


Socratus, I've highlighted these comments.  It's got a kind of burlesque appeal. In fact I did not expect you to answer this at all.  As a rule you say nothing.  I expected Sophiecentaur to hit the roof. I've actually printed this post and will use it if I ever write a book on 'the strange universe of the forum'.  It's a classic from every perspective.

EDIT By the way, I've checked your links.  Very clear.  Thanks.  I can now assure you I better understand the concept.
« Last Edit: 22/06/2009 18:32:08 by witsend »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #8 on: 22/06/2009 18:57:57 »
Have you the discipline? That's a challenge. Sophiecentaur

I started on a 'self help' course to see if Wiki could be an adequate teacher.  I started with equation symbols.  Did you know that there are 138 of them.  Not a large vocabulary.  I thought it would be easy to digest.  I got up to Carstesian products which was relatively easy.  Then - horror of horrors - cross products.  Here I'm advised that (1,2,5)x(3,4,-1) = (-22,16,-2).  HOW is the first the same as the second.  I either get -22 or 356 for the second half of that sum.  Can you help, or any patient reader, please help me with this specific question or must I first do some kitchen science tests. 

I know your advice is well intended.  But I'm learning as best I can within the very real limitations of what I can understand.  I certainly have no intention of going back to school.  And that's what I need to do to learn math. I have no difficulty with physics concepts.  It's just that ocassionally I tend to get a litle confused with specific classical terms and references. 

Edit - I left out a comma.  I think it's right now.
« Last Edit: 22/06/2009 19:09:24 by witsend »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #9 on: 22/06/2009 19:57:38 »
Vectors are not the best thing to start with Maths. Don't try to run before you can walk. I did that stuff in my second year at Uni and it was still hard.
Wiki does not attempt to be a tutor. It is written by hordes of people and there is no structure to help you learn. Would you try to learn a language just using a dictionary?
 

lyner

  • Guest
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #10 on: 22/06/2009 20:09:53 »
Quote
I have no difficulty with physics concepts.
Almost every Physics concept that I can think of requires some level of Maths to describe it. I am fascinated that you could think you can do it without. Perhaps you are missing something in your "appreciations".
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #11 on: 23/06/2009 03:56:02 »
Would you try to learn a language just using a dictionary?

A really good novel and an equally good english to ? dictionary and I think I might be up for the challenge.  It may be laborious to begin with but I reckon that at the end of that exercise you'd have a fair grasp of the language.

 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #12 on: 23/06/2009 05:09:28 »
Almost every Physics concept that I can think of requires some level of Maths to describe it.Sophiecentaur

I'm not sure that I agree with this.  The 'concept' does not require math.  Only the measure of it.  Math doesn't describe it at all. In fact, the concept is better described with analogy.  Math is the tool to measure the concept - precisely.  That's the whole of my thesis.  While my model was an earnest attempt at finding my own unifying principles - it was also an answer to Pauli's challenge that atoms and their structure could never be understood outside of mathematics.  I find this offensively elitist, and it's elitism of the worst kind.  Intellectual elitism.  On a really broad level it's like the Early Church that maintained its authority over almost the entire known world - through the simple expedient of keeping the bible's text in Latin.  Nobody spoke latin, unless they were scholars.  And those same scholars were usually ordained, or soon to be ordained clergy, learning Latin within the cloisters of a monastery.  So, through such simple techniques were they able to wrest God's authority to themselves to become God's arbiter.  It was - indeed - a kind of conspiracy - perpetrated by a few on the millions throughout the many centuries. That's why it can be argued that an 'age of enlightenment' actually also co-incided with Martin Luther's translation of the bible into simple language. He made God's word accessible to the layman, stripped of it's obtuse. obfusticated, archaic, sterile reference.  And that way, people could make up their own minds as to God's relevance in their lives, or not, and thereby did they take back the responsibility for 'thinking for themselves'.

I could extend this analogy to the Greek Lyceum.  Unless the initiate first proved an understanding of geometry he was refused admission.  Again, the elitism removed the scholar from real life and real life from the scholar.  This rarified intellectulism can only weaken society unless it brings with it an earnest desire to communicate such concepts even if their measure remains outside the intellectual capability of everyone.

In this way - I sincerely believe that the layman gives up his authority to even comment on physics because he's 'bought into' the argument that he MAY NOT COMMENT unless he too, is a scholar, well versed in the art of math.  The sad part is that the 'concepts' in physics are actually very logical and easily understandable. I made it my business to try and find a way to understand physics as a layman and then to explain in simple english.

I never expected, thereby to get quite as comprehensive an overview as I now claim, but that was the initial and early object - the point of embarcation, so to speak.   
« Last Edit: 23/06/2009 05:24:38 by witsend »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #13 on: 23/06/2009 20:13:43 »
The problem with that analogy is that while you can translate the bible into English and piss off the priests by robbing them of their "special relationship" with God, you cannot really get to grips with the ideas of physics (or chemsitry come to that) without understanding maths.

How do you translate a second order partial differential equation out out "maths" and into English? What about the quantum mechanical momentum operator? I can't get a copy of that into this text but it's on this page under "Momentum in quantum mechanics
Further information: Momentum operator
In quantum mechanics, momentum is defined as an operator on the wave function. "

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

I really don't think you can translate that fully into English. You can explain all the terms but that doesn't help.
The best you can do is make up some analogy ( I'm not even going to try) but that doesn't really help because people will think that reallity does what the analogy does. Actually that may not be true. The only exact analogy you can construct is the mathematical one. Anything else ids going to give you the wrong answer.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #14 on: 23/06/2009 23:41:53 »
Hi Bored Chemist.  I wondered where you'd gone?  I rather missed your caustic 'one liners'.  But you're back. 

I had to look it up.  Apparently your partial differential equation is a way of getting to an answer where some of the properties are unknown or variable.  The answer is never complete.  So I'd describe an example of it like this.  'We know the general direction of the flight of a glider.  We also know its weight.  So.  If we can determine the wind speed and it's direction and the intended direction of flight of the glider in relation to that wind then we'd also be able to determine its velocity in flight.  The missing 'thing' is the actual wind after take off, sundry up drafts, and isolated variables related to actual influence of the craft in flight.  The actual differential equation is a way of getting to the answer knowing all those factors including the up drafts et al.  So the first example gives an approximate answer and the second an actual answer. As for the quantum mechancical momentum operator - I didn't even bother to look it up.  I guess it's to do with another form of measurement.  And I guess both your references to partial differential equations and quantum mechanical momentum operators are terms used to befuddle the layman and to stroke the intellectual ego in roughly proportionate quantity - both being excessive.  When one is reduced to parading an intellectual superiority it is at the cost of evidence of that superiority.  This is a little known law that carries a mathematical relationship.

I don't think that a problem can be expressed unless it is first identified - and if it's identified then it has a relation - however obtuse, to Nature and to reality. ALL problems can be expressed with the use of language.  It is their answers that are properly measured with mathematics.  That's all. 

In quantum mechanics, momentum is defined as an operator on the wave function."

All that's needed here is to define a wave function and define an operator.  Why can language not do this with analogy?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #15 on: 24/06/2009 06:59:39 »
"  I wondered where you'd gone?  "
I got bored of things like
"I didn't even bother to look it up.  I guess it's to do with another form of measurement. " and "And I guess both your references to partial differential equations and quantum mechanical momentum operators are terms used to befuddle the layman"

just after I had explained that was not what they were for.

There is none so blind as him who will not see.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #16 on: 24/06/2009 16:36:29 »
Bored Chemist.  I actually feel ridiculously guilty that I'm trying to take the moral high ground here.  I want you know that I am sincerely sorry for such nonsense.  Of course math is the answer to physics.  And I actually know exactly what you mean when you talk about mathematical constructs being difficult to describe.  They express everything exactly and eloquently.  Truth is I'm jealous of you guys.  Just wish I knew that language - you've no idea how much.

So.  For what it's worth - apologies.  By the way, while conceding this it in now way detracts from my concepts.  It's just that I know concepts are not nearly as articulate.


 

lyner

  • Guest
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #17 on: 24/06/2009 18:35:27 »
Your example, witsend, of a glider just goes to prove my (and BC's ) point. You can wave your arms around and talk about flight in general terms but you couldn't tell whether a glider would stay up for a reasonable time - you certainly couldn't tell how long it would stay up - without Maths.
The concepts are for the front page of a newspaper - along with statements about the economy and the lives of movie stars. Without the Maths, there's no way of knowing whether or not the Concept is the right one.
 One concept plus another concept won't necessarily give you another valid concept unless you have a good idea of the actual quantities involved.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #18 on: 24/06/2009 19:20:49 »
And I actually know exactly what you mean when you talk about mathematical constructs being difficult to describe.  They express everything exactly and eloquently.  Truth is I'm jealous of you guys.  Just wish I knew that language - you've no idea how much.


So learn it. I know it's not easy to learn but it's rewarding.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #19 on: 24/06/2009 20:32:34 »
Sophiecentaur - what I find remarkable  about you is not that you're a scientist but that you TEACH.   One always hopes that there's a general kindliness in members of this profession.  You know.  The sort of thing that encourages original thought - and does not slap it to death for fear that it'll be out of your reach to conceptualise.

The art of the concept is actually just that.  It is the foundation of all the arts, and is a critical requirement to all science. In a science context the CONCEPT precedes the maths.  And - at its best - math can also be used descriptively.

It's just that I happened to reconsider my position on this as it relates to Bored Chemist.  He, at least, is sincerely irritated.  You, on the other hand are just a dedicated bully with a clear misogynist bias.  I follow all these threads.  I'd go so far as to say that you're a numbers freak, with respect.  But your requirement for numbers, before getting to grips with the concept, is precisely why science is in the doldrums, as Vern describes it. And that you cannot see this is not your strength but your weakness.

I at least, am trying to learn maths.  I don't think you have it in you to understand the subtleties of the concept. You see, you've got the soul of a mechanic.  No imagination and no means to acquire it.    
 

lyner

  • Guest
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #20 on: 24/06/2009 20:49:45 »
Here's an example of where a concept on it's own fails to deliver the goods. A favourite of dilettante alternate science was to say that "science tells us that a bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly." Science has never, in fact, said that. If you try to scale an aeroplane down to bumblebee size , using aerodynamics, it won't fly. However, when you introduce the electric forces between air and bee molecules you find that the viscosity is very significant and the bee IS allowed to fly legitimately.
Unless you appreciate the actual values of all the quantities involved you can't predict what will happen.

Bringing gender  and personality into this business solves nothing. There's no need to throw your toys out of your pram because I keep telling you that you're wrong. I have done the same to BC, frequently and he usually responds with a valid argument, based on Science, which is worthy of respect and consideration. I don't remember him ever having said I was horrid to him.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #21 on: 24/06/2009 20:57:40 »
Unless you appreciate the actual values of all the quantities involved you can't predict what will happen. Sophiecentaur

That is NOT right.  Unless you know how to do the measurements you cannot explain what happens. That's what MATH does.  But by measuring the flight parameters does NOT describe the bee - only how it moves in the air.

 
 

lyner

  • Guest
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #22 on: 24/06/2009 21:31:04 »
To know what actually happens you have to know the values. How would you be able to say that molecular attraction affects a bee but not an aeroplane if someone hadn't already measured the quantities and understood how to include the dimensions of the flying machine in the calculations?

I am not concerned with "describing the bee", I am concerned with discussing how / why it manages to fly. I am saying that the two dominant aspects of flight of a bee and a plane are different because of the actual values of the variables involved. It is very risky to disregard this.

The 'holistic' approach is all very fine but, to get to a conference on 'holistic' science, the delegates rely on specific aspects of Science and Engineering when they get on board the aeroplane they travel on.

I can see that you want Science to be something other than what it actually is. I'm afraid that your approach to Science would not have taken us further than witches, warlocks and alchemists. In your use of so many modern scientific words and ideas, you are just hitching a ride on the backs of a legion of 'real' Scientists who reached their conclusions by the very methods that you are rejecting.
For your approach to be valid you should have started from scratch.

Have you ever tried to teach Science or Maths, I wonder? I should reserve your comments to areas in which you have some experience.

Btw, when you collect your wages, do you just appreciate the concept of pay or are you also a tiny bit interested in how much you get?
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #23 on: 24/06/2009 21:58:36 »
Sophiecentaur, I get it that math is required to measure.  It is a really reliable and dependable tool.  I've heard it argued that God Himself must be mathematician because it's so relevant.

But I have a question.  Through the use of MATH I was able to get to the mass size ratio of the photon to the electron.  It's one of those questions that are out there.  Not hugely interesting.  But nonetheless, there is no known relationship.  But with ONE self consistent argument I could prove that the proton could ONLY BE 1836 times greater than an electron.  But to get there I needed to give a photon a relative size of 1 and a proposed magnetic particle the relative size of 0.5 in relation to the photon.  I argued this with SUMS and with CONCEPTS and with LOGIC. 

With this argument I was able to propose the actual properties of the photon, the electron, the proton and the neutron which are entirely consistent with their known properties.  But it has the added advantage of giving the particle a physical body.  No longer a mathematical abstraction - but an actual proposed conceptually realisable thing.  SURELY THAT IS SCIENCE?

You have simply ignored it.  No comment at all other than to say I'm arm waving.  Why is that?

If you argued sundry points with Bored Chemist I am not aware of them.  It must have been in threads before my joining this forum.  But I can assure you that you have NEVER argued a single point that I have ever raised other than a fatuous reference to my glider analogy which was only intended to prove that the abstract mathematical concept COULD be understood through analogy.  In this instance I used the glider flight as the analogy.

And I did not understand your wages reference.  If you're saying that I'm trying to get more out than I put in - you are REALLY mistaken.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #24 on: 24/06/2009 22:53:57 »
Quote
But with ONE self consistent argument I could prove that the proton could ONLY BE 1836 times greater than an electron.
Show me, please.
The "arm waving" comment was there because you have only made assertions and not shown the steps in your argument. Show us these Sums and Logic. To deserve any recognition, these new ideas need to be presented in rigorous detail.

I think your memory is short. I gave a lot of detailed comments about your circuit measurements - you did not seem to see their significance, though.

"Sundry"? I think that, before you dismiss them as sundry, you should read a few.

The wages reference: You say that the concept is more important than the number. Is the amount you earn not more important to you than the concept of someone earning money?

« Last Edit: 24/06/2009 23:03:47 by sophiecentaur »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Can a ideal black body be model of real Vacuum T= 0K ?
« Reply #24 on: 24/06/2009 22:53:57 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums