Why is our universe so complicated?

The place to discuss particle physics
User avatar
Tim_BandTechDotCom
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:46 am

Re: Why is our universe so complicated?

Post by Tim_BandTechDotCom » Sat Nov 13, 2010 5:04 pm

I am coming here attempting to disprove a group fantasy; one that does not hold up to logical thinking; that heat is 'jiggling atoms' in Feynman's own words. So your response is anticipated, and a small bit of evidence on the human state of physics can be posed.

I'll spare you the details and just summarize that mimicry is the norm for the human form.
:butthead:

User avatar
tswsl1989
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:22 pm
Location: Swansea, Wales, UK
Contact:

Re: Why is our universe so complicated?

Post by tswsl1989 » Sat Nov 13, 2010 6:46 pm

I think the following analogy might be appropriate:

Take a crowd of people, spaced arms length apart in a grid (for simplicities sake assume that everyone in the crowd has approximately the same height, arm span etc)
Heat is the vibration of an atom -> people jogging on the spot. 1 person jogging might knock the people nearby a little, or encourage them to jog, but you're not going to get everyone jogging quickly like that

Sound is a wave of pressure transmitted through the material -> Get all the people on one side of the grid to shove the next row of people. They then knock into the people behind them, and the effect moves through the material much faster.


It's not a perfect analogy, but I believe it illustrates the situation well enough.

User avatar
Tim_BandTechDotCom
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:46 am

Thermodynamics as an open problem: 'jiggling atoms' is misno

Post by Tim_BandTechDotCom » Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:33 pm

tswsl1989 wrote:I think the following analogy might be appropriate:

Take a crowd of people, spaced arms length apart in a grid (for simplicities sake assume that everyone in the crowd has approximately the same height, arm span etc)
Heat is the vibration of an atom -> people jogging on the spot. 1 person jogging might knock the people nearby a little, or encourage them to jog, but you're not going to get everyone jogging quickly like that
Alright tswsl, I've got problems with this interpretation. First of all, if we are in a crystalline lattice, then the room which you've granted is nonexistent, for each atom is connected to its neighbors with no such freedom. Even a small move of one individual does interact with the group immediately, by the electrical bonds of the accepted atomic model. The freedom which you've built here is needed, but does not exist. There are other repercussions, but there is no point in digressing, for I've made those points elsewhere on this thread.
Sound is a wave of pressure transmitted through the material -> Get all the people on one side of the grid to shove the next row of people. They then knock into the people behind them, and the effect moves through the material much faster.


It's not a perfect analogy, but I believe it illustrates the situation well enough.
No your right, it is not a perfect analogy. Especially the fact that sound can emanate from a local position and spread globally, and does not require some inherent group velocity is a weakness. We don't need to 'get all the people on one side' coordinated. We only need one individual with enough energy to move the group. It's true that there are breaking strengths, but for instance we can pass sound through a bar of metal stimulating it at a point, say with a pencil tip instrument where the sharpness of the point is a matter of refinement. Certainly the tip will dull, but the crudest way would be to take an awl with a very fine point and tink it with a hammer at one end of a bar of steel. With a person wearing a stethoscope at the other end we can disprove your requirement of a group conspiracy.

Again, the lack of address of rates of propagation is the largest weakness in the existing theory, and it continues to go unaddressed by the few respondents. Wouldn't you think that here on the lhcportal we'd have some strong physicists who would smack me down like a mosquito? I'm waiting...

- Tim

User avatar
tswsl1989
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:22 pm
Location: Swansea, Wales, UK
Contact:

Re: Thermodynamics as an open problem: 'jiggling atoms' is misno

Post by tswsl1989 » Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:53 pm

Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:Alright tswsl, I've got problems with this interpretation. First of all, if we are in a crystalline lattice, then the room which you've granted is nonexistent
You still have space between atoms within a lattice, proportional to the lattice parameter a
Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:Even a small move of one individual does interact with the group immediately, by the electrical bonds of the accepted atomic model. The freedom which you've built here is needed, but does not exist.
Given that heat is small random vibrations of atoms, they need to repeatedly impart energy to their neighbours in order to set them vibrating as well - this being a reason for the slow conduction of heat. As I pointed out above, there is space between the atoms in a lattice, small as it may be. Compare the rate of conduction through as solid to that of a liquid or gas!


Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:...the crudest way would be to take an awl with a very fine point and tink it with a hammer at one end of a bar of steel. With a person wearing a stethoscope at the other end we can disprove your requirement of a group conspiracy.
Sound requires uniform movement, which is the point I was trying to make. Even with a very fine awl, you're still pushing a number of atoms uniformly in the same direction - a number of people on the same side as opposed to all of the people, but the argument still stands.
Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:Again, the lack of address of rates of propagation is the largest weakness in the existing theory, and it continues to go unaddressed by the few respondents. Wouldn't you think that here on the lhcportal we'd have some strong physicists who would smack me down like a mosquito? I'm waiting...
- Tim
My previous post did address the rates of propagation, hopefully the clarifications I've made here will help.
If you still believe the existing model to be wrong, feel free to provide a mathematically and physically valid model with evidence. I suggest you read MagneticTrap's responses in his thread for examples of how not to do this.

User avatar
Tim_BandTechDotCom
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:46 am

Re: Thermodynamics as an open problem: 'jiggling atoms' is misno

Post by Tim_BandTechDotCom » Mon Nov 15, 2010 6:09 pm

tswsl1989 wrote:
Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:Alright tswsl, I've got problems with this interpretation. First of all, if we are in a crystalline lattice, then the room which you've granted is nonexistent
You still have space between atoms within a lattice, proportional to the lattice parameter a
Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:Even a small move of one individual does interact with the group immediately, by the electrical bonds of the accepted atomic model. The freedom which you've built here is needed, but does not exist.
Given that heat is small random vibrations of atoms, they need to repeatedly impart energy to their neighbours in order to set them vibrating as well - this being a reason for the slow conduction of heat. As I pointed out above, there is space between the atoms in a lattice, small as it may be. Compare the rate of conduction through as solid to that of a liquid or gas!
I'm not denying that there is a distance between atomic centers and that this distance is finite. So i am in agreement with part of your statement here. Let's consider the case of a zero Kelvin (very cold) steel bar. It may be impossible to get this cold, but this is a theoretical case. Let's further suppose that we have the ability to impart a small force on an atom in that lattice. So we perturb it's nucleus by 1 very small unit of constant force. My understanding is that the force imposed on this nucleus will rapidly propagate through to the other atoms in the structure, for if it did not, then that atom would accelerate through the structure of the other atoms, thus destroying the crystalline nature of the solid.

This is the very same force that will enable acoustic propagation, and so there is a lack of discrepancy. No, I see no argument here for a large time delay mechanism. It is true that small forces will only propagate small forces, but it is not true that each atomic nucleus has some free space to wander in, and even if it did, what would be the source of the random action? Clearly the standard thermal model is of collisions with its neighbors as the source of those random actions, and so I'd say you've gotten the cart ahead of the horse here. You've started by positing random motions as inherent to matter.

You are teetering on the edge of stating that thermal energy is merely small sounds. This is usage of rhetoric to head off such an interpretation. Let's see if we can agree that the standard thermal model is of atomic collisions within the lattice, where by collision we mean 'springy' behaviors. That these behaviors are claimed to be the source of the 'random' effect, which barely exhibits any randomness at all. Where is the demonstration of random effects in solid matter? Shouldn't this have entered into Kittel's presentation a bit more if it were at the bottom? Yet, the only index listing is for the stacking pattern of a crystal structure. No, we'll have to go back to Brownian motion in the liquid state to arrive at random effects. Kittel makes no usage of them, and cannot, for the freedoms that exist in the liquid state do not exist in the solid state. Yet for some reason people bought into it; probably because they were worn out struggling with it.
Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:...the crudest way would be to take an awl with a very fine point and tink it with a hammer at one end of a bar of steel. With a person wearing a stethoscope at the other end we can disprove your requirement of a group conspiracy.
Sound requires uniform movement, which is the point I was trying to make. Even with a very fine awl, you're still pushing a number of atoms uniformly in the same direction - a number of people on the same side as opposed to all of the people, but the argument still stands.
Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:Again, the lack of address of rates of propagation is the largest weakness in the existing theory, and it continues to go unaddressed by the few respondents. Wouldn't you think that here on the lhcportal we'd have some strong physicists who would smack me down like a mosquito? I'm waiting...
- Tim
My previous post did address the rates of propagation, hopefully the clarifications I've made here will help.
If you still believe the existing model to be wrong, feel free to provide a mathematically and physically valid model with evidence. I suggest you read MagneticTrap's responses in his thread for examples of how not to do this.
Well, I've read some of MagneticTrap's work. I've also just been reading another author here; Bornerdogge, who says:
"Science proves nothing... It can only disprove! All scientists can do is build up hypothesises, and look how well they match with observation. If they match, we can move on. If they don't match, the hypothesis is wrong or needs to be refined... And we can never be sure there won't be an element which will disprove an hypothesis, even after many years of success!"

This is the case I believe on the thermal interpretation within the solid state.

User avatar
tswsl1989
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:22 pm
Location: Swansea, Wales, UK
Contact:

Re: Why is our universe so complicated?

Post by tswsl1989 » Mon Nov 15, 2010 7:10 pm

I suggest you read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon

It explains what I've already said, but perhaps you'll be happier with something a little more mathematically rigourous.

That said, I'm sure this is all explained in Kittel. When I get time I'll dig out a copy and see if I can find the relevant bits.

Kasuha
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Why is our universe so complicated?

Post by Kasuha » Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:54 pm

Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:I am coming here attempting to disprove a group fantasy; one that does not hold up to logical thinking
I am coming here to present a talk I consider interesting and I definitely don't like the way you hijacked the topic I created about it.

One of the first rules of posting etiquette is:

stick to the topic

And this thread is definitely not about what you are trying to discuss here. If you need to learn about thermal motion and sound waves, you should create your own topic. If you want to stick to your view instead of trying to learn the current state of science, I propose you to try the Controversial Topics section rather than the Science part.

Please refrain from further off-topic talk and create your own topic if you feel need for more discussion about your subject.

User avatar
Tim_BandTechDotCom
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:46 am

Re: Why is our universe so complicated?

Post by Tim_BandTechDotCom » Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:53 pm

I'm Very Sorry, Kasuha.

I am happy to start a new thread on this, but there seems to be nobody here to discuss this with. I did mean initially to stick to your topic, but is such a large question...

I suppose it is also part of etiquette not to moon each other in public, but here we see rather alot of emotional icons to the left. Let's try to understand the difference between rhetoric and content, and measure each other more by content. Still let's use some rhetoric, because that is part of the human condition.

I do find your awareness to be relevant, and wouldn't have posted here unless I thought you were a strong poster. Anyway, I don't mean to patronize, and the pressure of debate is regarded by many as a negative, whereas for me it is a path to the truth. Here I do not see any strong falsification of my claim.

I will always prefer a clean falsification to an empty insult, but also am capable of postitive interaction. I encourage you onward, and to keep sharing your thoughts, for they are strong. There are contradictory claims within existing physical theory, and within moderm mathematics. These subjects have mostly divorced themselves from philosophy, and the accumulation of information is very troubling.

Again, though, my apologies.

- Tim


Kasuha wrote:
Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:I am coming here attempting to disprove a group fantasy; one that does not hold up to logical thinking
I am coming here to present a talk I consider interesting and I definitely don't like the way you hijacked the topic I created about it.

One of the first rules of posting etiquette is:

stick to the topic

And this thread is definitely not about what you are trying to discuss here. If you need to learn about thermal motion and sound waves, you should create your own topic. If you want to stick to your view instead of trying to learn the current state of science, I propose you to try the Controversial Topics section rather than the Science part.

Please refrain from further off-topic talk and create your own topic if you feel need for more discussion about your subject.

n6io
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:32 pm

Re: Why is our universe so complicated?

Post by n6io » Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:45 pm

I'm not formally educated in physics beyond bachelor's level, so I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the motion of "heat" is not directly sent to adjacent atoms by colliding like a billiard ball. It's more like two kids on a trampolene. One sitting near one who starts jumping. With each jump the kid who is sitting will absorb some of the energy from the jumping kid. Eventually they will both be bouncing around. The heat conductance is more like the tension on the trampolene and distance they are apart.

Imagine sound transmission like pushing on the trampolene frame - both kids move at about the same time. Yeah - I know the trampolene has a frame. But in real life it's more like kids in a 3-dimensonal lattice all connected by rubber rods. You don't push on just one molecule or you will break the bonds. You push on a whole bunch and the whole mash sorts of mushes and moves all at once. The delay caused by the tension or springiness of the rods determines the speed of sound in that lattice. But if you start jiggling one kid in the lattice it can take a long time for the jiggling to ripple through from end to end.

Again - this is just how I imagine it works - but it seems to match what the teachers and books say so it works for me anyway.

Craig

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 739
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Why is our universe so complicated?

Post by chelle » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:16 am

Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:I'm Very Sorry, Kasuha.
You shouldn't feel sorry Tim, he just gets frustrated because the subject of heat and sound is like you have adressed a complicated one. You could check these previous posts:
- Quasiparticles, more energy in the lhc than expected?
- Mental illness (p.7)
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

Post Reply