Room-temperature superconductivity?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

Johan wrote: Maxwell introduced the concept of a little demon with supernatural; powers to illustrate concepts relating to entropy. I am thus going to take the liberty of introducing SR-demons with supernatural powers: The latter are:
(i) The ability to communicate instantaneously with one another when spatially separated as well as when moving relative to one another;
(ii) Any one of them can stop time at any instant on his/her clock and all of them can then move around to check coordinates and times on clocks within any and all inertial reference frames;
(iii) Each one of them has an indelible pencil with which he/she can permanently mark a coordinate position within a passing inertial reference frame, which at the time of making the mark coincides with his/her own position within his/her own inertial reference frame; within which he/she is stationary.
A good analogy. Just as MDs are profoundly non-physical - they will always use more entropy than they can reduce in the system on which they operate - so your SR-demons are non-physical.

Specifically the determination of simultaneity over both different spatial locations and velocity FRs is not physically well-defined, as would be needed for your SR-demons to exist.

A liberty indeed.

Best wishes, Tom

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

tomclarke wrote: Specifically the determination of simultaneity over both different spatial locations and velocity FRs is not physically well-defined, as would be needed for your SR-demons to exist.
(i) Do you want to tell me that two clocks at different positions within the same inertial reefrence frame do not keep exactly the same time? Yes or No?

(ii) Are you arguing that the two demons on the rod cannot, at exactly the same instant in time within K, respectively mark their coinciding positions within K? Yes or No?

(iii)What is not physically well-defined about (i) and (ii)?

Obviously when they make their marks simultaneously, a time transformation is also involved, and therefore the marks do not appear simultaneously within K. It is all well-defined and the conclusions have been directly derived from the Lorentz transformation which you for some unknown reason cosistently reject as being invalid.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

johanfprins wrote:
tomclarke wrote: Specifically the determination of simultaneity over both different spatial locations and velocity FRs is not physically well-defined, as would be needed for your SR-demons to exist.
(i) Do you want to tell me that two clocks at different positions within the same inertial reefrence frame do not keep exactly the same time? Yes or No?

(ii) Are you arguing that the two demons on the rod cannot, at exactly the same instant in time within K, respectively mark their coinciding positions within K? Yes or No?

(iii)What is not physically well-defined about (i) and (ii)?

Obviously when they make their marks simultaneously, a time transformation is also involved, and therefore the marks do not appear simultaneously within K. It is all well-defined and the conclusions have been directly derived from the Lorentz transformation which you for some unknown reason cosistently reject as being invalid.
Simultaneity can be uniquely defined over space within the same frame. However it cannot be uniquely defined for spatially separated points in different frames.

Neither (i) nor (ii) above addresses this case.

You can (for example) define a global time-measure for your demons, and from this derive your idea of simultaneity. For example choose a canonical reference frame, synchronise clocks throughout this, and synchronise clocks in any other frame with the local caninical time. This notion will be dependent on the specific frame chosen, and while it does for simultaneity, clocks which "keep time" in other frames will read differently from the global time measure as defined here, because of both LF time dilation and "time-slip" effects.

Your argument implies that you can define simultaneity canonically. I claim that is not possible, and show why a simple method attempting to do this leads to a frame-dependent simultaneity measure. To prove it possible you need to say how you would establish simultaneity canonically (without singling out one specific frame).

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

tomclarke wrote: Simultaneity can be uniquely defined over space within the same frame. However it cannot be uniquely defined for spatially separated points in different frames.
Exactly: Why do you say I did that? Are you really so dense? I clearly described that the two simultaneous actions of the two demons in Kp did not cause simultaneous marks to appear within K. Are you totally incapable of reading and understanding what is written? I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, until you show me where I have claimed simultaneity for two events within K which are also simultaneous within Kp. You are just spouting the usual illogical nonsense you have been spouting all along on this thread. For the future of the UK, please stop lecturing physics! You do not have a clue!

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

johanfprins wrote:
tomclarke wrote: Simultaneity can be uniquely defined over space within the same frame. However it cannot be uniquely defined for spatially separated points in different frames.
Exactly: Why do you say I did that? Are you really so dense? I clearly described that the two simultaneous actions of the two demons in Kp did not cause simultaneous marks to appear within K. Are you totally incapable of reading and understanding what is written? I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, until you show me where I have claimed simultaneity for two events within K which are also simultaneous within Kp. You are just spouting the usual illogical nonsense you have been spouting all along on this thread. For the future of the UK, please stop lecturing physics! You do not have a clue!
Fair enough. And easily done.

You have claimed your SR-demons have:
(i) The ability to communicate instantaneously with one another when spatially separated as well as when moving relative to one another;
This statement is only well-defined if frame-independent simultaneity ("instantaneous") is well defined. However if you wish to qualify this, saying that you view any two events with spacelike separation to be "instantaneous" that is fine by me. Of course it does violence to the normally accepted notion of simultaneity because it would mean either that the concept is not transitive, or that all events are instantaneous including those happening at different local times in a given frame.

or, maybe your definition of instantaneous is arbitrary and relative to some given and constant but unspecified frame of reference. In that case it needs to be so stated in the definition of the demons? (Note that having a consistent notion of simultaneity throughout space in one frame, this can be extended to different reference frames by at every point making a local time comparision with the preferred frame. But this notion is not canonical, and not well defined until the preferred reference frame is stated.

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

tomclarke wrote: Fair enough. And easily done.

You have claimed your SR-demons have:
(i) The ability to communicate instantaneously with one another when spatially separated as well as when moving relative to one another;
This statement is only well-defined if frame-independent simultaneity ("instantaneous") is well defined.
Why do you think I chose the term "demons" just as Maxwell has chosen the same term for a being that can control a gate which allows fast molecules through but not slow molecules through. We all know that such a demon with such powers cannot exist.

To now say that my demons must act within the constraints of the Lorentz transformation if I allow them, as demons, to be in instantaneous contact one another, is deliberately and wilfully inserting an irrelevant argument just for the sake of raising any argument. From your previous posts I should have expected this reaction from you.

I can come to the same conclusion when allowing two pilots on a spacehip to, beforehand, agree on the experiments with people who stay behind; and then having the spaceship sweeping past several times while switching on lights in the nose and tail of the spacship at different times during each passing by.

To make sure that such an assinine argument, like your present one, will not be used again in future, I will rewrite my demon post when I have the time by using real pilots, which are subject to the laws that make the Lorentz transformation valid.
If you wish to qualify this, saying that you view any two events with spacelike separation to be "instantaneous" that is fine by me.
It is of course nonsense to state that any two events that are space-separated must occur at the same time. There is nothing to prevent one event to occur at an earlier or later time than the other.
Of course it does violence to the normally accepted notion of simultaneity because it would mean either that the concept is not transitive, or that all events are instantaneous including those happening at different local times in a given frame.
GobblyGook! Local times within an inertial refrence frame are not different: They are exactly the same. It should be clear to any logical thinker that within an inertial refrence frame, all the clocks that are stationary within this reference frame, will keep time at exactly the same rate. It is a simple task to synchronise all these clocks so that when one shows certain time ALL of them show the same time no matter how far they are seprated from one another. This means that at any separation, two events which occur at the same time on the synchronsed clocks at these two positions will be simultaneous events.
or, maybe your definition of instantaneous is arbitrary and relative to some given and constant but unspecified frame of reference.
Where is it arbitrary? Within any inertial refrence frame two events at different positions are simultaneous when the synchronised clocks at these posittions show the same time.
In that case it needs to be so stated in the definition of the demons?
Why? They are demons and not subject to the laws of physics but only used in the sense that Maxwell also used his demon.
(Note that having a consistent notion of simultaneity throughout space in one frame, this can be extended to different reference frames by at every point making a local time comparision with the preferred frame.
Obviously, you can do this by instantaneously stopping the two reference frames from moving further relative to one another. If the clocks within the two reference frames are synchronised to show the same time within each reference frame respectively, and if, before stopping the relative motion a clock within K has been synchronised with a clock within Kp, and then the clocks within K were all synchronised with the clock that is synchronised with a clock within Kp, and the clocks within Kp were then all synchronised with the clock within Kp that is now synccronised with all the clocks within K, then on stopping the motion one will find that all the clocks within K AND Kp will show exactly the same time. If not, then Einstein's first postulate on which he based his Special Theory of Relativity will be null and void.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

johanfprins wrote:Why do you think I chose the term "demons" just as Maxwell has chosen the same term for a being that can control a gate which allows fast molecules through but not slow molecules through. We all know that such a demon with such powers cannot exist.

To now say that my demons must act within the constraints of the Lorentz transformation if I allow them, as demons, to be in instantaneous contact one another, is deliberately and wilfully inserting an irrelevant argument just for the sake of raising any argument. From your previous posts I should have expected this reaction from you.
I can't tell whether the way you will use these demons in argument is going to give wrong results till I see the argument.

But I can say that the definition of the demons, as stated by you, contains inconsistency. There is a difference between "not possible" and "not well defined".

Thus, a closed timelike worldline, in flat spacetime, is impossible.
Your demons are supposed to have properties which are not well defined, because the concept of "instantaneous", in the context you use it here, is not well defined.

You repeat it above, because "instantaneous contact" between spatially separated points in different frames, is meaningless.

So based on a provably meaningless definition I am concerned that any subsequenct argument will be NINO. (nonsense -in-ninsense-out).

krenshala
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Post by krenshala »

tomclarke wrote:
johanfprins wrote:Why do you think I chose the term "demons" just as Maxwell has chosen the same term for a being that can control a gate which allows fast molecules through but not slow molecules through. We all know that such a demon with such powers cannot exist.

To now say that my demons must act within the constraints of the Lorentz transformation if I allow them, as demons, to be in instantaneous contact one another, is deliberately and wilfully inserting an irrelevant argument just for the sake of raising any argument. From your previous posts I should have expected this reaction from you.
I can't tell whether the way you will use these demons in argument is going to give wrong results till I see the argument.

But I can say that the definition of the demons, as stated by you, contains inconsistency. There is a difference between "not possible" and "not well defined".

Thus, a closed timelike worldline, in flat spacetime, is impossible.
Your demons are supposed to have properties which are not well defined, because the concept of "instantaneous", in the context you use it here, is not well defined.

You repeat it above, because "instantaneous contact" between spatially separated points in different frames, is meaningless.

So based on a provably meaningless definition I am concerned that any subsequenct argument will be NINO. (nonsense -in-ninsense-out).
His demons are supposed to be fictional, to give a specific point of view to help in understanding the process he is describing. I thought Johan did a good job with his description.

Based on your objections, Maxwell's Demons deserve equal ridicule, and I somehow don't think you are going to agree with that even though your arguments above do so.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

krenshala wrote:
tomclarke wrote:
johanfprins wrote:Why do you think I chose the term "demons" just as Maxwell has chosen the same term for a being that can control a gate which allows fast molecules through but not slow molecules through. We all know that such a demon with such powers cannot exist.

To now say that my demons must act within the constraints of the Lorentz transformation if I allow them, as demons, to be in instantaneous contact one another, is deliberately and wilfully inserting an irrelevant argument just for the sake of raising any argument. From your previous posts I should have expected this reaction from you.
I can't tell whether the way you will use these demons in argument is going to give wrong results till I see the argument.

But I can say that the definition of the demons, as stated by you, contains inconsistency. There is a difference between "not possible" and "not well defined".

Thus, a closed timelike worldline, in flat spacetime, is impossible.
Your demons are supposed to have properties which are not well defined, because the concept of "instantaneous", in the context you use it here, is not well defined.

You repeat it above, because "instantaneous contact" between spatially separated points in different frames, is meaningless.

So based on a provably meaningless definition I am concerned that any subsequenct argument will be NINO. (nonsense -in-ninsense-out).
His demons are supposed to be fictional, to give a specific point of view to help in understanding the process he is describing. I thought Johan did a good job with his description.

Based on your objections, Maxwell's Demons deserve equal ridicule, and I somehow don't think you are going to agree with that even though your arguments above do so.
I will go on arguing ths, because there is a serious point here easily missed, and loose concepts in this very counterintuitive area prevent understanding.

Maxwell's Demon is a way to conceptualise why thermodynamics works as it does. The demon is (as a thought experiment, and in principle in actual device) real. The reasons why its operation as billed is impossible (though well-defined) are important and interesting. Basically implementing the demon uses more entropy than the negative entropy that it generates. None of this argument is meaningless, and it elucidates the problem.

Johan's SR agents are different not because they are impossible, but because as he stated their properties they contain a concept - instantaneity between different spatial points in different frames - that is meaningless.

Now, if his use of them is to show why this specific concept of instantaneity is meaningless that is fine, and I guess that could be what he is doing, but just as in maths false => everything so in this case if you start with a contradictory concept you can very easily end up with trouble. So technically he cannot show anything in this way.

Apologies if you or Johan think this is pedantic - mathematicians discovered in the late 19th and early 20th century that without extreme care they could build whole mathematical structures that seemed good but contained fatal flaws like Russell's paradox. I believe the situation is very similar here.

happy New Year

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

tomclarke wrote:Apologies if you or Johan think this is pedantic - mathematicians discovered in the late 19th and early 20th century that without extreme care they could build whole mathematical structures that seemed good but contained fatal flaws like Russell's paradox. I believe the situation is very similar here.
"Ivory Tower Philosophers" the same. That's why science wants more than just reason--it wants some affirmation from physical observation.

People can make up whatever scenario they like and propose it as "reason". Your average hobo, has a wonderfully worked out though psychotic version of reality to sell. What we need to know the difference between a psychotic's version of reality and a sensible scientist's version, is OBSERVATION.

When Johan gives us some observations that can be verified, he'll graduate to scientist from psychotic.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

See next post
Last edited by johanfprins on Tue Dec 27, 2011 7:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

johanfprins wrote:
tomclarke wrote:Johan's SR agents are different not because they are impossible, but because as he stated their properties they contain a concept - instantaneity between different spatial points in different frames - that is meaningless.
Nope. If at any instant you can do the "impossible" and stop all motion, and then compare the different reference frames: Why is this meaningless? If you stop time, and as a demon can then move from one site to another you can communicate with other demons within other reference frames during this instant in time. This concept has been demonstrated in many movies where motion suddenly stops for everything except one person who can then wander between the frozen people and other objects. Once motion starts again, the person who could move around during this frozen instant in time has had the ability to visit any position, also in other reference frames.

This is similar to Maxwell's demon that has the ability to open and close a gate for molecules with different kinetic energies. In fact, it is physically more plausible than the impossible action by Maxwell's demon. We know that we can freeze time by taking a photograph for example.

But let's accept the fact that tomclarke just does not have the ability to think abstractly like Maxwell could. It is sad that this is so, and I feel terribly sorry for tomclarke.

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

tomclarke wrote: Apologies if you or Johan think this is pedantic - mathematicians discovered in the late 19th and early 20th century that without extreme care they could build whole mathematical structures that seemed good but contained fatal flaws like Russell's paradox. I believe the situation is very similar here.
You have just now described your own position incredibly well. I could not have done it better!

Happy new year.

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

johanfprins wrote:
tomclarke wrote: Apologies if you or Johan think this is pedantic - mathematicians discovered in the late 19th and early 20th century that without extreme care they could build whole mathematical structures that seemed good but contained fatal flaws like Russell's paradox. I believe the situation is very similar here.
You have just now described your own approach incredibly well. You are defending a mathematical structure that seems good but contains fatal flaws. So let us rather argue plain physics as I am doing instead of "paths within Minkowski space". They are not required when discussing time-dilation, length contraction and the twin paradox. Even Einstein opposed the Minkowski construct for at least ten years after he had formulated his Special Theory of Relativity. He should have stuck to his guns!

Happy new year.

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Post by happyjack27 »

on the note of maxwell's demon and entropy, there's actual a near equivalence to thermodynamic entropy and information entropy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in ... ion_theory

maxwell's demon can reverse entropy increase, but for that he would need an amount of information proportional to the amount of energy that would produce.

Post Reply