Superfluids, magnetism, gravity, bose-einstein condensate - calling Chronos et al

Factual Questions
21

Maybe your math is inherantly two-dimensional, but I routinely work with four dimensional math. If you want to learn more, some good keywords to search on would be “Riemann geometry”, “Minkowski space”, “tensors”, and “Lorentz group”. You might also see if your school offers any courses in Special Relativity (physics department) or tensor algebra or differential geometry (math department). Be warned, though, that without much more physics or math background, you’ll have a hard time understanding such courses. You might want to just sit in on them, rather than taking them for credit. Meanwhile, you’re a bit confused on the four dimensions of spacetime: A point is zero dimensional, for starters. A line is 1-d, a plane is 2-d, and a solid figure like a cube is 3-d. The reason we treat length, width, bredth, and duration as dimensions is becuase those are the numbers necessary to completely specify the position of an event, or alternately, to describe the size of something. I might, for instnace, say that an airplane got struck by lightning at latitude 24 west, 17 north, 30,000 feet above sea level (three numbers describing spatial position) at 2:30 PM (one number describing temporal position). I might also say that the size of, say, a basketball game is 100 feet long by 50 feet wide by about 15 feet high, by an hour in duration. On to other points:

Superfluids aren’t necessarily just at very high and very low temperatures. A neutron star can have any temperature whatsoever; it’s just that they’re formed from stars, so they start off pretty hot, and most of them haven’t had a chance to cool off yet.

Force, power, energy, etc. are not all the same thing, although they are related. You can have energy associated with the gravitational force, for instance. That energy will not depend just on the force involved, though, but on the distance. For instance, near the surface of the Earth, we can approximate the gravitational force on an object as a constant. If an object weighs one kilogram, the force on it will be approximately ten newtons: A newton is a unit of force, equal to one kilogram times one meter per second squared. If I lift that object one meter, then I’ve given it ten joules of energy, where the joule is the unit of energy in the same system of units: 1 joule = 1 kilogram*meter[sup]2[/sup]/second[sup]2[/sup]. If I lift it twice as far, then I’ve put twice as much energy into it. The force is not the same thing as the energy; they’re not even measured in the same units.

Any force can be positive or negative, depending on which way it’s pointing, and which direction you’re calling positive or negative on your scale. There’s no continuum of different forces, much less a zero point on such a continuum. Information is not a meaningful dimension, at least not in any system of math I’ve seen. There are mathematical theories that describe information, but they don’t describe it as a dimension.

Bose-Einstein Condensates don’t spontaneously lose mass at some temperature. In fact, they never lose mass at all. I’m not sure where you get that idea.

You really need to learn a lot more about such matters before you try to form these grand theories. Most of your premises are false, and if you’re working from false premises, then it’s logically possible to come to literally any conclusion at all. Take smaller steps, and find make sure that you have all your premises correct, one at a time. Then, when you’re sure of that, you can start combining them.

22

Until the inception of computer modeling, more than two dimensions was difficult to accurately model. Now that we have good computer modeling, we can easily manipulate as many dimensions as we want. Perhaps with the growing acceptance of computers as teaching tools, one day we’ll be taught four dimensional math from gradeschool using computer modeling on the screen or projected with lasers so it appears ‘real’.

Thanks for the keywords to search on. I have alot of reading to do now. :slight_smile: My school does offer courses on special relativity among other interesting physics topics, and you’re right about my not ever being able to pass them.

I understand the dimensions, I was just simplifying. And isn’t something’s position, size, and duration the very object itself? That is to say, if we know everything about its’ position, size, and duration, we know all we need to about anything.

I understand that a superfluid can occur at any temperature, my conjecture was that the temperature that the change occured (or any change of matter’s state) was related directly to it’s position on the scale (previously described) in relation to ours.

I understand this point, I was trying to describe different aspects of the reactions.

Right, absolutely. There’s no challenge on these points. They’re given. They’ve been proven. But with the force, gravity, what I’m presupposing that gravity is not a force to itself but dependant upon, well, hell, you know by now what I’m saying.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. Everything’s definition is dependant upon the parameters given.

Of course not! HUP says that no zero point can be determined from anything. But I’m not saying it’s a continuum of different forces, I’m saying it’s the same force, but it’s reactions are dependant upon your position along it’s continuum.

Right. I was wrong to describe information as a dimension. Information is just one particle knowing about other particles. There’s nothing that should make a particle ‘know’ about other particles, that’s why something that posesses knowledge about something else is fascinating. Fascinating, yes, but having little to do (at the moment) with our discussion, so I apologize for bringing it up.

This article and this article both mention atoms ‘disappearing’ after a BEC explosion. I assume the mass disappears also, otherwise their ‘disappearance’ would be undetectable, OR, if the mass didn’t disappear, they would mention that as a point that, perhaps, they atoms didn’t disappear but became part of the other atoms.

LOL! What are you trying to say? That I’m unlearned? :slight_smile:

Seriously, though, starting from the post at “A basic premise of math”, where do I begin making logical errors? Sorry if I’m bothering you with my niggling questions. :stuck_out_tongue:

–Tim

23

You’re not making logical errors, so far as I can tell (OK, there might be a few logic errors hidden in there, but I didn’t find them). The errors you’re making are ones of fact. If you assume, for instance, that there’s such a thing as “opposite temperatures”, then you can logically conclude all sorts of things.
As to the BEC explosions mentioned in the articles you’ve linked, this is the first I’ve heard of them, but the articles don’t seem to have been written by someone knowledgeable on the subject: It’s meaningless to talk about different parts of a wavefunction being attracted or repelled to each other, for instance. For what it’s worth, though, that same article also says that the physics behind this phenomenon isn’t understood, so I’m not sure how any of us folks here could help any.

Meanwhile, three-dimensional math has been in use at least since the time of Euclid, and four (or higher)-d math for a few centuries. Sure, it’s tough to draw diagrams, but what does that have to do with the math?

24

I think the biggest stumbling block here is that we’re not using the same definitions. You are learned and educated in the science, I haven’t had a class since my junior year of high school (which I only passed one semester of, failing the second). Like you told me to look up Reimann geometry… oddly enough, upon reading one of Einstein’s papers on the subject, I realized that Reimann geometry is EXACTLY what I was trying to describe by my four dimensional diagram description earlier, except the graph I was attempting to explain is a moebius strip instead of a point to point graph.

Also, the “dark solitons” and “dark wave-forms” they describe (as ‘nothing that is caused by the absence of something’ or a description very similar) in the article about the BEC explosions (from NIST) are exactly what I was attempting to describe when I was talking about a force opposite of the intended force that cannot be detected because being opposite it doesn’t exist, or cannot be measured by our current means.

I think I’ve decided, Chronos, as to not bother you guys further, is to get a CAD program, chart exactly the patterns I’m talking about, re-organize my statements into a logical flow, pick through them and attempt to find accepted theories that back me up, then take this as a presentation to the professor here at my school who lists “dark matter, special relativity, and theoretical constructs” as his special interests on his homepage.

Thanks for all the help, guys. I guess if I’m right about any of this, you’ll be hearing about it anyway. :smiley:

–Tim