The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: zero does not mean zero  (Read 931 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
zero does not mean zero
« on: 04/09/2016 13:11:13 »
I have been thinking lol,

things like light passing through space have zero net charge,

I was thinking if things ''evolved'' in a constant , and devices were set up to this constant, all the devices that read 0, would not necessarily mean zero.


 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #1 on: 04/09/2016 16:02:50 »
Are you getting at the difference between arbitrary zero and absolute zero? Zero on the charge scale is an absolute zero.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #2 on: 04/09/2016 16:10:04 »
-1+1=?

Now you could make a roundabout, enigmatic journey of the answer but that would be silly. Wouldn't it?
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
  • Thanked: 51 times
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #3 on: 04/09/2016 16:56:34 »
Which brings us to zero relative to what?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #4 on: 04/09/2016 18:10:04 »
Are you getting at the difference between arbitrary zero and absolute zero? Zero on the charge scale is an absolute zero.


Not sure now you   have asked, I think absolute zero, surely if equipment/devices is set up in a ''constant'' then surely the equipment/devices would not recognise a ''charge''/something of a ''constant''  that already existed before the equipment/devices were invented.   A sort of instant tare off?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4708
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #5 on: 04/09/2016 18:10:33 »
Relative to everything of relevance. You could have a bank balance of zero, which would mean that you couldn't get cash out of the hole in the wall, but a net worth of millions in property, which would enable you to borrow cash from the bank by negotiation.

Zero electrical charge is zero electrical charge however you look at it, because nothing else is relevant to charge.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #6 on: 04/09/2016 18:11:46 »
-1+1=?

Now you could make a roundabout, enigmatic journey of the answer but that would be silly. Wouldn't it?


How would you get minus 1 to begin with if the - 1 is only recognised as zero to  begin with?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #7 on: 04/09/2016 18:13:41 »


Zero electrical charge is zero electrical charge however you look at it, because nothing else is relevant to charge.


But what if zero is an amount of charge, but we obviously do not recognise it as a charge because the equipment/devices is set at zero an equilibrium to the charge?

In other words what if we set zero to be the lowest magnitude of charge, an equilibrium constant, we would not be able to tell surely?

 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #8 on: 04/09/2016 18:22:18 »
-1+1=?

Now you could make a roundabout, enigmatic journey of the answer but that would be silly. Wouldn't it?


How would you get minus 1 to begin with if the - 1 is only recognised as zero to  begin with?

Minus one is not zero and you know that. You couldn't help yourself. If you wish to waste your life this way then carry on. I for one won't be participating.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #9 on: 04/09/2016 18:27:42 »
-1+1=?

Now you could make a roundabout, enigmatic journey of the answer but that would be silly. Wouldn't it?


How would you get minus 1 to begin with if the - 1 is only recognised as zero to  begin with?

Minus one is not zero and you know that. You couldn't help yourself. If you wish to waste your life this way then carry on. I for one won't be participating.

What?  I never said -1 was zero, you are misinterpreting what I said Jeff.

Imagine free space had a constant charge, the only time we notice this charge is when the charge is increased, i'e detected by device,

The device being set up to the constant, it looks like 0 but its not really zero. But because it never changes and is constant , we never notice -1

added - this for example μ0


How do we know the constant is not really greater than 0 but with it being constant we would not be able to tell because it would never drop below its constant value , but we would be setting all our devices to the constant of 0?
« Last Edit: 04/09/2016 18:37:47 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4708
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #10 on: 05/09/2016 12:38:01 »


Zero electrical charge is zero electrical charge however you look at it, because nothing else is relevant to charge.


But what if zero is an amount of charge, but we obviously do not recognise it as a charge because the equipment/devices is set at zero an equilibrium to the charge?

In other words what if we set zero to be the lowest magnitude of charge, an equilibrium constant, we would not be able to tell surely?

If the charge on a body is not zero, it will have an electrostatic attraction to or repulsion from another body. If you can find two bodies with no electrostatic force between them, you know that the charge on either or both is exactly zero.

By experiment we know that charge is quantised in units of the electron charge, and we can detect the charge of a single electron or proton, so we can detect a state of zero charge.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #11 on: 05/09/2016 19:08:17 »


Zero electrical charge is zero electrical charge however you look at it, because nothing else is relevant to charge.


But what if zero is an amount of charge, but we obviously do not recognise it as a charge because the equipment/devices is set at zero an equilibrium to the charge?

In other words what if we set zero to be the lowest magnitude of charge, an equilibrium constant, we would not be able to tell surely?

If the charge on a body is not zero, it will have an electrostatic attraction to or repulsion from another body. If you can find two bodies with no electrostatic force between them, you know that the charge on either or both is exactly zero.

By experiment we know that charge is quantised in units of the electron charge, and we can detect the charge of a single electron or proton, so we can detect a state of zero charge.

Interesting Alan, we can detect a state of zero charge, are you sure you don't mean we can observe when our equipment says 0 charge?

My point is Alan, you know how we sort of evolved to not notice the planet is spinning at 1035 mph?   I should imagine in ancient times the world thought we were standing still and it was the rest of the universe that was moving relatively to them.  It is only because of Einstein we understand that relatively all observers are standing still and the rest of the Universe is moving but we recognise the rotation also.
So relative to ancient times the Earths velocity was zero even flat.

Now imagine  a constant charge that  permeated through space and we then evolve in this charge not noticing it like we did not notice rotation.

We then go on to invent devices, we set these devices at zero, but zero could surely ever only be equal to the constant because there is no where to ''hide'' from this constant.

I could be wrong , probably I am wrong, but it is a thought to consider.



 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #12 on: 06/09/2016 00:03:57 »
Ihre Logik ist erstaunlich schlecht.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #13 on: 06/09/2016 11:26:46 »
Ihre Logik ist erstaunlich schlecht.


fast hat schlecht, wie Ihr Konzept der Zeit
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4708
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #14 on: 06/09/2016 23:45:03 »


Now imagine  a constant charge that  permeated through space and we then evolve in this charge not noticing it like we did not notice rotation.



You will have to redefine charge. The property that the rest of us call charge is only asociated with  massive particles, not the space between them.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #15 on: 07/09/2016 01:28:00 »
Ihre Logik ist erstaunlich schlecht.


fast hat schlecht, wie Ihr Konzept der Zeit

Sie sollten wirklich nicht die netten Physiker ärgern.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #16 on: 07/09/2016 02:18:21 »
Ihre Logik ist erstaunlich schlecht.


fast hat schlecht, wie Ihr Konzept der Zeit

Sie sollten wirklich nicht die netten Physiker ärgern.
es ist ärgerlich, wenn die netten Physiker vorliegenden Informationen zitieren nur zurück ,
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #17 on: 07/09/2016 08:33:12 »
Ihre Logik ist erstaunlich schlecht.


fast hat schlecht, wie Ihr Konzept der Zeit

Sie sollten wirklich nicht die netten Physiker ärgern.
es ist ärgerlich, wenn die netten Physiker vorliegenden Informationen zitieren nur zurück ,

So is this a counting game?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #18 on: 07/09/2016 08:40:42 »
Ihre Logik ist erstaunlich schlecht.


fast hat schlecht, wie Ihr Konzept der Zeit

Sie sollten wirklich nicht die netten Physiker ärgern.
es ist ärgerlich, wenn die netten Physiker vorliegenden Informationen zitieren nur zurück ,

So is this a counting game?


Sorry , you  have confused me with that response.

 

Offline Katoomba-Flowers

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #19 on: 07/09/2016 14:48:52 »
Thats interesting topic really!
 
The following users thanked this post: Thebox

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #20 on: 08/09/2016 08:43:33 »
Thats interesting topic really!


Only an  interesting concept if a person understands it.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #21 on: 08/09/2016 08:46:05 »


Now imagine  a constant charge that  permeated through space and we then evolve in this charge not noticing it like we did not notice rotation.



You will have to redefine charge. The property that the rest of us call charge is only asociated with  massive particles, not the space between them.

True , but charge dissipates and ''changes while passing through space. I see charge in matter to be a ''collection'' of ''something''  or a reaction of ''something''.


added- I don' know Alan, all's I imagine is a constant to begin with and if we set devices and equipment up within this constant, it would not matter if the device was initially set to 0, -10 0r +10, it would be sort of auto calibrated/tarred  to the environment constant.


added - let's try this again


0=1

1=0


delta=0+

delta=1+


added - If I was to define this ''hidden'' constant 1, and 0=1, then delta = 0+ and 1+  .


-0 and -1 being impossible to show but not impossible to ''picture''.



« Last Edit: 08/09/2016 10:03:05 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4708
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #22 on: 08/09/2016 10:16:42 »

True , but charge dissipates and ''changes while passing through space.

Not true.

Beware. If you start with a lie, you can end up anywhere. This is a forum for science, not religion or politics.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #23 on: 08/09/2016 10:43:35 »

True , but charge dissipates and ''changes while passing through space.

Not true.

Beware. If you start with a lie, you can end up anywhere. This is a forum for science, not religion or politics.


Ok, I am not completely sure of the idea Alan, that is why I try to discuss the idea.

Charge is a  property of matter?

Is there no charge in free space or atmospheric space such as lightning ?


 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: zero does not mean zero
« Reply #23 on: 08/09/2016 10:43:35 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length