Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jsaldea12 on 23/03/2010 06:35:29
-
What makes outer space super cold?
Outer space is some 2 to 3 kelvin super cold. What makes it super cold?
It could be that vacuum outer space is INHERENTLY SUPER-COLD..that only extremely sparse atoms in plasma state inhibits outer space.Where air molecules are abundant, like in surface of earth, temperature is made warm, while in altitude, like the top of Mt. Everest, where air molecules are sparse, ice develops. The same principle is followed in air con and ref,freon is compressed out to create sparse freon in inlet to mae air con and ref cold.
Thus, the principle: the more vacuum is space, the more cold it becomes..because cold is inherent in vacuum.
jsaldea12
3/23/10
jsaldea12
3.23.10
-
The space itself does not possess any temperature it is the particles and radiation in it and pass through it that can be said to have a temperature. The low temperature that you are referring to is the temperature of the cosmic microwave background. very high energy cosmic rays are also passing through space and intercepting the earth. these represent things with effective temperature of billions of degrees K. the background light of the stars also represents a particular energy level and near the sun of course the radiation from the sun and the particles of the solar wind.
-
You're right Jsaldea. All temperature is a result of motion as far as I know, and the less thingies that can move the less heat there will be. but if you remember those Rindler observers uniformly accelerating, seeing virtual energy become 'real'. Now, what would that do the temperature in the Space they were observing, relative another observer, being at rest with their origin of departure (earth) observing that 'same' spot of space as they, seeing only cold emptiness there?
It seems, if this idea is true, that we really really :) only can describe our Universe as being 'frame dependent' if so. That is, you will see what you see depending on your frame of reference, and what you see will be real for your frame, which then should mean that either have the same spot of space two 'temperatures'. One for the observer at rest with Earth and the other relative the Rindler observer, simultaneously if we then play God, remembering that both observers of that spot also ideally would be able to observe each other, which then should place them in the same SpaceTime continuum.
Or else, possibly, that 'light' as a property is an expression of something we don't really can call 'propagating' in a 'empty perfect space', or, that it's times arrow possibly creating it giving us one description uniformly moving (Earth) and another when uniformly accelerating at a constant one G. There is also the alternative that it really could be seen as 'different SpaceTimes' of course, but to me it shouldn't be possible for the observers to constantly observe each other if so?
In fact this is one of the most confusing things I can think of, similar to the way a photon is intrinsically timeless, massless but still always having the same speed, uncaring about your frame of reference relative it, and constantly existing in our observation through its interactions with particles. As Fontwell thought of lights velocity, this fact is a result of different time and distance relative your movement through space as measured against another frame.
It all seem to speak about the same fact though, that what you see yourself as observing always will be a result of your 'frame of reference', uniformly moving (free falling sort of:) earth or uniformly accelerating rocket in this case. And what really takes my breath away is that those two frame still are able to observe each other as well as the same spot of space, but still seeing two different 'realities' there.
-
It's not that it's really cold. It is really quite normal.
We live in an environment that is anything but normal. We take that for granted, but we should not.
-
Outer space is 99.99% vacuum. Particles in outer space are in the average of 1 per 100,000 square meters. Thus such extremely sparse particles, called in state of plasma, generates heat energy of 2.7 K. What really intriguing is why do we not recognize there exists cold, super-super cold which is overwhelmingly outer space that is vacuum. That is because vacuum is Vacuum is inherent in the making of cold. The more vacuum, the more , super vacuum, the more cold. Suppose the absolute zero Kelvin is attainable (and this is possible) in isolated area of unlimited, unlimited wide outer space, thus, Kelvin temperature drops to absolute zero, in that absolute zero K, THERE IS NO HEAT ENERGY EXISTS, but will SUPER COLD EXIST? Yes. It I common sense to think that cold, the opposite of heat exists and it exists in space, the more vacuum is the space, the more cold is, and inversely heat energy is reduced, usi8ng Kelvin measurement, the point is both exist, heat and cold exist.. I am in favor of using Centigrade/Celsius measurement of temperature which has both positive and negative temperature, balance, than Kelvin which pertains to heat energy only.
Outer space is not perfect void, it is completely occupied by spacetime of Dr. Einstein, which has skein, fabric which has no mass, indivisible, not only does spacetime occupies outer space but even interior of atoms! Matters, particles, movement of particles gives heat energy, but spacetime is not divisible particles! Thus, vacuum spacetime, vacuum of particles, having no mass, is cold, inherently cold... .
Thus, the question, if absolute zero Kelvin is attained, heat energy cannot not exist, but WILL COLD exist?
Jsaldea12
4.1..10...
-
I've moved this thread because the idea of "super cold" seems like a new theory, since it doesn't exist in mainstream physics. It also makes no sense in mainstream physics. Heat is roughly the amount of internal energy an object has. An object is cold when it doesn't have much heat energy (it's not a precise term, so you're free to define "much"). There's no need to define something called cold since that concept is entirely described by the amount of heat energy something has.
-
Generally, I think it's the lack of heat that does it [;D]
-
"the question, if absolute zero Kelvin is attained, heat energy cannot not exist, but WILL COLD exist?"
Since the laws of physics prevent absolute zero being stained the question has no meaning.
Cold clearly exists (that's why I just put the heating on), but only as a relative term.
-
"the question, if absolute zero Kelvin is attained, heat energy cannot not exist, but WILL COLD exist?"
Since the laws of physics prevent absolute zero being stained the question has no meaning.
Cold clearly exists (that's why I just put the heating on), but only as a relative term.
I don't think cold exists. Thermal energy (heat) exists.
-
OK, so why did I put the heating on?
Cold clearly does exist- it's the relative absence of heat.
-
OK, so why did I put the heating on?
Cold clearly does exist- it's the relative absence of heat.
Okdoky.
So is "cold" negative thermal energy?
-
...or try this.
If I take all the heat out of something, it's temperature drops to 0K
What temperature does it reach if I take all the cold out?
-
But is not conceived higgs field, which occupies all outer space (uncannily like the making of spacetime) zero K temperature or below. Thus, if absolute zero K is that conceived, will heat energy exist , or super cold energy?
Jsaldea12
4.2.10
-
OK, so why did I put the heating on?
Cold clearly does exist- it's the relative absence of heat.
Okdoky.
So is "cold" negative thermal energy?
"it's the relative absence of heat."
-
OK, so why did I put the heating on?
Cold clearly does exist- it's the relative absence of heat.
Okdoky.
So is "cold" negative thermal energy?
"it's the relative absence of heat."
Certainly a new one on me. A reference perhaps?
-
Dr. Einstein, in a speech, in 1920, quote, “The space-time theory and the kinematics of the special theory of relativity were modelled on the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of the electromagnetic field. This theory therefore satisfies the conditions of the special theory of relativity, but when viewed from the latter it acquires a novel aspect. For if K be a system of co-ordinates relatively to which the Lorentzian ether is at rest, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations are valid primarily with reference to K. But by the special theory of relativity the same equations without any change of meaning also hold in relation to any new system of co-ordinates K' which is moving in uniform translation relatively to K. Now comes the anxious question: Why must I in the theory distinguish the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless inacceptable”.
As as can be gleaned, Dr. Einstein spoke of “K” a number of times. What is that “K”? Is that Kelvin? At rest? Complete rest…absolute zero Kelvin.
Thus, if absolute zero Kelvin is attained in outer space/aether/spacetime, according to Dr. Einstein, it is therefore zero heat energy but WILL SUPER COLD REMAIN?
It may be inacceptable but it is NOT DOWNRIGHT INCORRECT:THAT COLD EXISTS, the more vacuum, the more cold. Outer space is awesomely unlimited 99.99% vacuum, OVERWHELMINGLY COLD than HEAT.
It is amazing that the scientific world does not recognize that cold exists. Perhaps the super-heat Big Bang theory has substantially something to do with it, that everything started from heat which is incorrect. Spacetime came into being before Big Bang..
I believe we should recognize that cold exists by itself.
Jsaldea12
4.3.10
-
Heat energy, kinetic and potential, is based on thermodynamic that such kinetic and potential heat energy is inherent on molecules, repeat molecules. But spacetime/ aether is not molecules, it has no mass, is indivisible, though, intersectable skein, fabric of outer space VACUUM. This spacetime, which is not making of molecules, is not in motion, is the one creating that cold property of the universe.
Jsaldea12
4.4.10
-
OK, so why did I put the heating on?
Cold clearly does exist- it's the relative absence of heat.
Okdoky.
So is "cold" negative thermal energy?
"it's the relative absence of heat."
Certainly a new one on me. A reference perhaps?
"Noun
cold (plural colds)
A condition of low temperature."
from
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cold
-
It is amazing that the scientific world does not recognize that cold exists. Perhaps the super-heat Big Bang theory has substantially something to do with it, that everything started from heat which is incorrect. Spacetime came into being before Big Bang..
I believe we should recognize that cold exists by itself.
Well let's start with a definition of cold. I'm happy with the current one, but what's your definition?
-
"Noun
cold (plural colds)
A condition of low temperature."
from
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cold
Ah, right.
We can raise the temperature of something that is at 0K by adding heat. Will we be able to lower the temperature below 0K by adding cold?
I think the example you cite may be a tad subjective and therefore, of little scientific value. After all, one individual might consider a particular air temperature as cold while another might consider it rather hot.
We might use the term to describe something that is at 0K of course, but it seems unlikely we will ever be able to apply it. Anything that is above 0K is, at least, slightly hot.
-
It appears because cold is not recognized to exist, it has no clear definition. But the centigrade/Celsius measurement is more balance, because of positive and negative measurement..
The definition of temperature pertains only to molecular properties, kinetics and potentials. What is MISSED is that there exists spacetime which has skein, fabric, which spacetime is not molecular, is indivisible, no mass, and without characteristic movement of molecules, it could be motionless that is why outer space is frictionless, does not hinder light.. Outer space, spacetime, is vacuum. If a molecule were the size of pingpong, it would occupy 1,000 square miles, more or less. Thus, vacuum in outer space, proportionate to molecule is immeasurably large. What heat energy can be generated by a molecule in that area? But vacuum outer space is inversely immeasurably large. Thus, it appears that the 2.7K which is actually super-super cold is the unrecognized cold temperature of outer space.
I think Dr.Einstein has inkling of the existence of that cold property of vacuum outer space in that speech of 1920..that repeated “K”..Kelvin.
Thus, reiterating, what is missing in our concept of temperature is the existence of spacetime, which is vacuum, the source of cold. To make it complete, balance, the definition and concept of temperature must have positive and negative, balance. Positive – heat, cold – negative.
It could be that heat and cold intersect one another that heat can be there at smallest amount at bottom absolute zero k, in like matter intersecting cold can be there in smallest amount as heat temperature rises, because there is always space, vacuum though heated. It is like bar magnet, Positive and negative intersect one another that no matter how many cut and cut the bar magnet, there is always positive and negative each cut bar magnet.
Jsaldea12.
4.4.10..
Jsaldea12
4,4,10 .
..
.
-
In 2007, Larry Rodnick discovered “the biggest expanse of nothing in outer space, inside the void, there is hardly any galaxies, planets, or black holes, just mostly empty space spanning an area that’s a billion light-years across.”.
In that vast area of void, is it not very probable that an isolated portion therein is completely void of particles, thus attaining absolute zero Kelvin in which no heat energy exist but will there be cold, super-super cold in that area?
Jsaldea
4.7.10.
.
-
If you put a thermometer in deep space, far away from matter particles, you'd eventually measure a very low temperature (once the thermometer had radiated away its heat energy). What's new or interesting about this?
-
As stated, if in absolute zero Kelvin, no heat energy/property exists, will cold, super-super cold property not exist also or will such cold property exist? The point is both heat and cold property exist in the universe..
Jsaldea1`2
-
The fact that it is very cold in deep space isn't in doubt. You can call something very hot or cold if you want, but you're only measuring heat energy, which is the measurable quantity of interest.
-
Kindly permit me …the present temperature measurement refers to measurement of molecular movement which radiates heat energy. But spacetime is not molecular, it is massless, indivisible skein/fabric of outer space, has no movement of the molecules, thus it has not the characteristic radiating heat energy of molecules. Spacetime of Dr. Einstein is vacuum, such vacuum, absence of molecules, has inherent cold property, spacetime is missed in the consideration of measurement of all-encompassing temperature..
jsaldea12
4.7.10
-
In the absense of thermal energy, everything (yes, everything) will eventually drop to a temperature of 0K (Zero Kelvin)
Can you propose an alternative?
-
Spacetime of Dr. Einstein is vacuum, such vacuum, absence of molecules, has inherent cold property, spacetime is missed in the consideration of measurement of all-encompassing temperature..
I disagree. You seem to understand that heat is a property of molecular movement, but then want to claim that cold is a property of spacetime. It's not. It's an absence of heat.
-
I think you might be discussing what 'energy' would be Jsaldea?
And if an absolute 'nothing' like a 'perfect vacuum' then would be consisting of no 'energy'?
If you look at it that way there is no such thing as a 'perfect vacuum' as observed by those 'Rindler travelers' versus those at rest with their origin. Then it more seems like some weird dimensional 'Russian dolls'. You know, the ones where you will find one inside one, inside one, ad infinitum. And what seems to define that vacuum is either your speed(?) or does it have to be velocity? Nah, I think speed will suffice for it, aka motion, and mass.
It's very strange :)
-
Does monopole exists in the universe? Not even LHC can create one. The unwritten law of the universe is the law of opposite, always the two sides of everything: positive-negative, south pole-north pole, for every action, there is corresponding reaction, HEAT-COLD, etc.
Observe a bar magnet: one side is positive, the opposite side is negative. But it does not mean there is no positive in the negative side of the bar magnet, as well as it does not mean there is no negative in the positive side of the bar magnet. Cut both ends of bar magnet, and each cut bar has positive and negative! Meaning both positive and negative properties intersect one another but the positive property is prominent in the positive side of the bar magnet. while the negative property is prominent in the negative side of the bar magnet. Such, too, is the complete, balance interpretation of heat property and cold property, positive and negative, respectively. This is how the Kelvin temperature measurement is arrived but ONLY THE HEAT PROPERTY is measured, from billion Centigrade down to closest OK. The Cold property is entirely missed in the Kelvin temperature measurement.. Cold property measurement should have been from down OK to up the billion centigrade.
.
Can I suggest an alternative? The present Celsius temperature measurement is tailor-made. No need to change. Simply just to recognize that cold property exists, just like heat property. Both are intersecting energies on opposite directions., balance on middle, re-equilibrium 0.C , one side moving up is heat property, positive sign, the opposite side moving down is cold property, negative sign.
Thus, the definition of temperature is complete.
Jsaldea12
4.8.10
-
Slight clarification:
.
Can I suggest an alternative? The present Celsius temperature measurement is tailor-made. No need to change. Simply just to recognize that cold property exists, just like heat property. Both are intersecting energies on opposite directions., balance on middle, re-equilibrium 0.C , one side moving up is domain of heat property, positive sign, the opposite side moving down is domain of cold property, negative sign.
Thus, the definition of temperature is complete.
Jsaldea12
4.8.10
-
Does monopole exists in the universe?
Jsaldea12
4.8.10
Yes, the earth's gravitational field can be modelled quite well as being a monopole.
Incidentally, the opposite of cold isn't "heat", it's "hot".
You can't add or subtract "hot" from something but you can make a thing hot or cold by moving heat to or from it.
I can work out how much heat there is in something, but the question of how much hot or cold it has isn't defined.
-
Does monopole exists in the universe?
Jsaldea12
4.8.10
Yes, the earth's gravitational field can be modelled quite well as being a monopole.
Electric monopoles exist as well. A single charge, for example.
-
Please permit me, correct me if needee be: …Electric flow consists of electrons that gives electrical light, such electron flow on two electrical lines, re-positive and negative line. Proton consists of quarks which has positive and negative. Earth gravitational field is not monopole, there is a reason why gravity on earth is all attraction, please refer to posted article, “Why is gravity all attraction toward earth”.
But what do you agree with the suggestion? Is that plausible?
Jsaldea12
4.8.10
-
Earth gravitational field is not monopole, there is a reason why gravity on earth is all attraction, please refer to posted article, “Why is gravity all attraction toward earth”.
That would be the thread where you refused to listen to what people were saying, ignored facts and stuck with your fantasy ideas about physics?
-
Please permit me, correct me if needee be: …Electric flow consists of electrons that gives electrical light, such electron flow on two electrical lines, re-positive and negative line. Proton consists of quarks which has positive and negative. Earth gravitational field is not monopole, there is a reason why gravity on earth is all attraction, please refer to posted article, “Why is gravity all attraction toward earth”.
But what do you agree with the suggestion? Is that plausible?
Jsaldea12
4.8.10
Of course we don't agree with it, nor is it plausible as we have pointed out at some length in that thread; it's total cloud-cuckoo-land.
Why don't you accept it?
There's no point starting a post with "Please... correct me..." if you have absolutely no intention of accepting that you are still utterly wrong.
-
I like to think that the category I am posting is “New Theories”. ..that what I have posted is not in the mainstream of physics, rather, it is pioneering of physics..it is new theory.
Science is evolving, what concept we had centuries ago are being replaced, keeps o changing,developing, etc. Centuries ago, the concept was that atom was the ultimate, the indestructible, then it was found that it consists of electrons and protons/neutrons, then further found in modern time that proton is composed of quarks with three colors, representing positive and negative, also found that electrons has positive positron. There is even a very respectable scientist who claimed that electron is baryon…and you know what is baryon. (I agree as a new theory) Becaue electrical charge can go one direction ad the opposite direction, meaing it is intersecting, but it is direction that makes it positive in one direction and negative in opposite direction. Not only electrons are in such electrical current but protons. But more important is something fundamentally the same between magnetism and electricity, like coin with two sides, thus, the principles are the same. Something new? Just new theory..
Lastly,…give me some latitude, some time to keep up, …but don’t say I don’t know physics. It is like water to a duck to me.
Jsaldea12
4.9.10.
.
-
Actually, you posted it in the Physics and Astronomy section. I moved it to new theories: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=30887.0
Bringing up new theories is fine (provided you post them in the proper section of the forum), but this is a science Q&A forum and and completely ignoring discussions of actual science while proposing fantastic ideas that have no grounding in reality will get your threads locked.
Since this has turned into an advertisement for your previously locked thread "Why is gravity all attraction toward earth," I am locking it as well.