Null Physics anyone?

[Reality Check]

Counting is not a physical measure, my good sir. It is a numerical measure.

It is a physical measure and a numerical measure.

But here is a more physical example:
Put a Geiger couner next to a non-radioactive source. How many clicks do you hear?

Wherein his book it lies not, of a statement on physical properties with an absolute zero.

Then get back to the OP. If you want to discuss his book then discuss it. You are just derailing the thread into your own private obsession.

I am making such statements to offer support for the math and theories he has laid before you. You have not addressed the math I have laid out for you, only partially agreeing to it "Just because we cannot get to absolute zero does not mean that it does not exist." Mr. Check, methinks you are arguing with me for the sake of argument. I only move to exclude zero from the set of numbers you get to play with. so please tell me what's is so wrong with that.

You have not laid out any math.
You have stated your personal opinion that physcial quantities do not include a value of zero. I have shown that this is wrong.

What is wrong with this is that the set of numbers happens to include zero by definition.

 

[BFM]

Before I go to bed. Where have I stated that I move to exclude zero from the set of real numbers???? I humbly suggest that we watch the language we use, with all of the syntax bashing, is getting to be a little much.. would you prefer to think of you as polite.

 

[Reality Check]

Before I go to bed. Where have I stated that I move to exclude zero from the set of real numbers???? I humbly suggest that we watch the language we use, with all of the syntax bashing, is getting to be a little much.. would you prefer to think of you as polite.

I humbly suggest that you watch the language you use (emphais added)

If you permit that Zero is not in the set of numbers you and I can measure, how do we treat it. Boolean logic allows for sets to form, and unary operation allows me to say this - Zero is the complementary set of all real numbers.

And my reply to you allowed that you may be thinking abut real or measurable numbers.

P.S. Yet another physical measurement that is zero:
Look at the computer on your desk. What is the net force on it?

ETA: Which of these statements do you disagree with and why:

• If you permit that One is not in the set of numbers you and I can measure, how do we treat it. Boolean logic allows for sets to form, and unary operation allows me to say this - One is the complementary set of all measurable numbers.
• If you permit that pi is not in the set of numbers you and I can measure, how do we treat it. Boolean logic allows for sets to form, and unary operation allows me to say this - Pi is the complementary set of all measurable numbers.

 

[BFM]

It is a physical measure and a numerical measure.

But here is a more physical example:
Put a Geiger couner next to a non-radioactive source. How many clicks do you hear?

I would COUNT zero clicks

Then get back to the OP. If you want to discuss his book then discuss it. You are just derailing the thread into your own private obsession.

Sorry, but we haven't gotten past the 4 chapters of math you have a problem with

You have not laid out any math.
You have stated your personal opinion that physcial quantities do not include a value of zero. I have shown that this is wrong.

I have Deifined temperature as a measure, who's best fit would be a limit equation ending at zero. IE. Zero would never be in the set of measured temperatures. You agreed with this statement

What is wrong with this is that the set of numbers happens to include zero by definition.

Absolutely nothing. What is wrong with excluding zero from a set of numbers? By your own admission Boolean logic has a null set.

Goodnight.

 

[sol invictus]

No new math proposed here. Zero does exist. Just not as a physical property that can be measure. OK?

What utter and complete nonsense. First, zero is not a "property" - it's a number. And of course we can obtain zero in a measurement, just as we can any other number. In fact for many physical quantities zero has no particular special meaning - one can set the zero point wherever one wants (including, for example, at the result of the last measurement).

Your posts indicate a total ignorance of the fundamentals of math (and I really mean the basics - the kind of thing most 10 year olds understand perfectly). Not unlike Witt's book, in fact.

 

[Reality Check]

Absolutely nothing. What is wrong with excluding zero from a set of numbers? By your own admission Boolean logic has a null set.

Goodnight.

Feel free to exclude any numbers that you like from any set of numbers that you like. The null set is a standard part of set theory. So when you have excluded all of the numbers from your set of numbers you will have a null set.

But we seem to be talking about the set of measureable quantities. Firstly you need to define this set.
Is it any number that has been actually measured in any experiment?
Is it any number that could be measured in any experiment?
Is it any number that can be calculated from all scientific theories (but may not be able to be measured in an experiment)?
Is there a set for each of the units that can be measured, e.g. length, mass. charge, force, angular momentum, temperature, etc?

From your postings you seem to be looking at the first defintion.

Zero is not one of those numbers. I have done many experiments where a value of zero was measured.

But here are some even more physical examples:

• Put a Geiger couner next to a non-radioactive source. Attach the counter to an electronic device that outputs the rate of clicks.What rate of clicks does the electronic device tell you?
• Put an electrometer next to a neutal source. What charge do you measure?
• Attach a voltmeter at 2 points on a wire carrying no current. What voltage do you measure?
• Look at the computer on your desk. What is the net force on it?

 

[ben m]

I am not claiming it to make it do what i need it magically to do. There is some good work out there showing that pressure waves induce ionization. See the cooling work done at RPI, using a sterling engine to refrigerate using pressure waves. Where do you not see a charge separation occurring during this process? If it hasn't been lab tested, it might make a nice tabletop setup.

I wonder if you are confused about the difference between "ionization" and "charge separation". There are lots of pressure waves and ionization in plasmas but very rarely charge separation.

Thermoacoustic refrigerators do neither ionization nor charge separation.

I think there was a point to this! Do you think that the lack of lightning bolts in HII regions as an astrophysics puzzle---any more so than (e.g.) the lack of lightning bolts in the ocean? Do you think this puzzle is relevant to Witt somehow?

 

[Reality Check]

No new math proposed here. Zero does exist. Just not as a physical property that can be measure. OK?

In case you are serious about this bit of nonsense, lets give you the beginnings of a kind of mathematics for this:

• Let the set of measurable temperatures be R_t in Kelvin. This set does not include 0 Kelvin (absolute zero). It includes all other real numbers from negative infinity (negative temperature) to positive infinity.
• Let the set of measurable masses be R_m in kilograms. This set includes 0 kg and all positive masses. It does not include negative masses.
• Let the set of measurable charges be R_c in electron charges. This set is a set of integers, i.e. {..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...}.
• Let the set of measurable lengths be R_l in metres. This is a set of real numbers that includes 0 but has limits, e.g. the smallest length is the Planck length and the largest length is the size of the universe (which may be infinite).
• Continue defining these sets for all measurable units.

BFM: You now have the easy task of deriving Terence Witt's null geometry from these sets.
Have fun !

 

[orange31]

There was a recent interesting interview with Gell Mann in Discover Magazine...I'm not comparing Heisenberg to Witt, just an example of an interesting pitfall affecting a true genius-

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/ap...-made-sense-of-universe/?searchterm=gell mann




But I did know Werner Heisenberg fairly well. He was one of the discoverers of quantum mechanics, which is one of the greatest achievements of the human mind. But by the time I knew him, although he was not extremely old, he was more or less a crank.

How so?
He was talking a lot of nonsense. He had things that he called theories that were not really theories; they were gibberish. His goal was to find a unified theory of all the particles and forces. He worked on an equation, but the equation didn’t have any practical significance. It was impossible to work with it. There were no solutions. It was just nonsense...... Many of us talked to Pauli and said, “Look, you shouldn’t associate yourself with this. It’s all rubbish, and you have your reputation to consider.” Pauli agreed, and he wrote a letter to Heisenberg saying something like: “I quit. This is all nonsense. There’s nothing to it. Take my name off.” In another letter, Pauli drew a rectangle on the page, and next to it he wrote: “This is to show the world that I can paint like Titian. Only technical details are missing. W. Pauli.” In other words, Heisenberg had provided only a frame, with no picture.

 

[sol invictus]

There was a recent interesting interview with Gell Mann in Discover Magazine...

That happens relatively often to old, famous scientists. Linus Pauling is a good example (actually Gell-Mann himself is not so far from that...).

The difference is that Witt never made any contributions to physics at all. He's just another one of the thousands of physics cranks that self-publish books of nonsense and try to get people to read them. The only real difference is he has much more money than the average.

 

[ben m]

If you permit that Zero is not in the set of numbers you and I can measure, how do we treat it. Boolean logic allows for sets to form, and unary operation allows me to say this - Zero is the complementary set of all real numbers.

The set of numbers which are "the reals except for zero" is known in mathematics as the real multiplicative group R*. Not new. What properties of R* do you think map to what properties of the real world? Especially given that real-world physics seems to contain addition as well as multiplication, and R* does not play well with addition.

 

[ben m]

[*]Let the set of measurable lengths be R_l in metres. This is a set of real numbers that includes 0 but has limits, e.g. the smallest length is the Planck length and the largest length is the size of the universe (which may be infinite).

I don't like saying that "the smallest length is the Planck length"---rather it is the case that "the smallest length that you can say anything about without a complete quantum theory of gravity is the Planck length". It's possible that the Planck length is "the shortest deBroglie wavelength you can ever get" but even that isn't completely clear.

Even if that's how it works, you can discuss lengths smaller than the deBroglie wavelength of the particles involved, and indeed you can do so to as many digits of precision as you like. Those digits actually have observable consequences---not on single measurements (which obey the uncertainty principle) but certainly on expectation values (averages over multiple measurements)

 

[Tim Thompson]

Measuring 0

No new math proposed here. Zero does exist. Just not as a physical property that can be measure. OK?

I've never read the book in question, nor have I found anything you have said so far to be comprehensible. Except this. It's comprehensible & wrong. I stick the probes of my voltmeter into my wooden dining room table top and I measure 0 Volts (and they said it couldn't be done!). Or maybe you have some secret meaning in mind for "measure" that I am overlooking?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Zero most certainly does exist -- for example, the value of Witt's book.

 

[BFM]

The set of numbers which are "the reals except for zero" is known in mathematics as the real multiplicative group R*. Not new. What properties of R* do you think map to what properties of the real world? Especially given that real-world physics seems to contain addition as well as multiplication, and R* does not play well with addition.

To answer directly, Absolute temperature lends well to this model. Also, since we seem to be able to have this conversation, albian groups would lend to making mr witts math a little prettier

 

[BFM]

I've never read the book in question, nor have I found anything you have said so far to be comprehensible. Except this. It's comprehensible & wrong. I stick the probes of my voltmeter into my wooden dining room table top and I measure 0 Volts (and they said it couldn't be done!). Or maybe you have some secret meaning in mind for "measure" that I am overlooking?

you would be looking for the property of something that would not exist. If I am trying to measure something that is not there how can i measure it????? Lets stick to absolute temperature for the purposes of trying to illustrate the point i am making.

 

[BFM]

I wonder if you are confused about the difference between "ionization" and "charge separation". There are lots of pressure waves and ionization in plasmas but very rarely charge separation.

Thermoacoustic refrigerators do neither ionization nor charge separation.

I think there was a point to this! Do you think that the lack of lightning bolts in HII regions as an astrophysics puzzle---any more so than (e.g.) the lack of lightning bolts in the ocean? Do you think this puzzle is relevant to Witt somehow?

Ben, I am not trying to say that a thermoacoustic refrigerator aught to induce a charge separation , but there are natural magnetically induced electric currents flowing in the ocean. I bring up the idea of a sterling to illustrate a point that inducing an current in ionized gas might be a good tabletop way to prove or disprove what mr witt sugegsts here in his cosmology section.

 

[ben m]

So, What can you do when 2 things (i.e. nothing) are alike, you can add. So as some of our more illustrious posters admitted, that yes, his math is circular. Well that's fine. y=mx+b can when solved for zero certainly looks like 0=0 when b=0, regardless of m. A mathematical proof need only prove itself.

Your sentences green importantly, so addition commutes alike? Thusly---there you go.

(In other words: you're not making yourself clear.)

Mr. Check, the fundamental concept of zero is a place holder for nothing.
When I said that bookkeepers in India several thousand years ago gave us this concept, it came from an accounting standpoint. The ZERO sum is a useful tool when calculating balances, IE when the miller has received nothing from his customer, the baker.

So what? And Pi is a place holder for the diameter-to-circumference ratio of the circle. It remains true that mathematics has gotten beyond this, and for example the equation "e^(i pi) = -1" is true despite its total disconnect from circles and circumferences. Likewise, mathematicians now (and 500 years ago) know much more about zero---and about all numbers, and about non-numbers and functions and operators and whatnot---than ancient merchants did.

Keep in mind, before this point a lot of great work had been done without in geometry, astronomy etc. I am getting off track here, but I hope we can see eye to eye here.

The history of mathematics is interesting, but the truth or falsehood of math statements is independent of their history.

Can and will you admit an infinite amount of a dimensionless unit is smaller than the same amount of a unit with a bounded relationship?

You are again not being clear. Give an example.

 

[Reality Check]

ben m:
What is your opinion of Physics Essays?

It looks like Terence Witt has at last got something published in a journal.
Einstein's nonphysical geometry and intergalactic redshift

General relativity is the major driving force behind modern cosmology, causing the intergalactic redshift effect to be interpreted as a dynamic universal expansion. In this paper the author argues that (a) the geometry used by general relativity is not a literal, physical representation of space-time, and (b) the intergalactic redshift is caused by ancient photons' long exposure to space-time's geometry, not by the uniform universal expansion of space.

The journal states that it is peer-reviewed but it is strange that no one picked up the contradiction in the abstract:

• GR geometry is non-physical.
• Intergalactic redshift is caused by space-time's geometry, which is presumably the non-physical GR geometry!

What is even stranger is that I would expect Terence Witt to broadcast the publication of his paper extensively. But there is little mention of it - mostly in a press release about the book being available for order through another publisher.

 

[ben m]

you would be looking for the property of something that would not exist. If I am trying to measure something that is not there how can i measure it????? Lets stick to absolute temperature for the purposes of trying to illustrate the point i am making.

The statement "in practice you can describe temperature without using the real number zero" is a much, much weaker (and less interesting) statement than you seemed to be making before. Indeed, this statement is well-known and well-proven in perfectly normal, zero-using physics.

Moreover, keep in mind that temperature is a statistical property of (countable) ensembles of degrees of freedom---degrees which we count, using additive numbers which include zero, and whose energies we measure on the real number line including zero. Even the statement "you can't reach zero Kelvin" has a rarely-stated caveat: " ... in a statistical system". Shrink your system enough, isolate a specific set of degrees of freedom, and you can sometimes get into a perfect ground state with exactly zero entropy---i.e. absolute zero temperature---except that by convention it's not interesting to write down the temperature and entropy unless the numbers are "large enough".

Not a very good basis for a Grand Theorem about How Numbers Work In Nature.

I'm sure you would be happy to use 0 K as an analogy to illustrate what you want your grand theory to do. But you can find an analogy for anything you want, including many true things and many false things and many not-even-wrong things. Skip the weak analogy and get to the meat, OK?