Physics Stupidity Hurts My Mind

[Thinkmarble]

So if you have an extremely fast interaction (small uncertainty in time), e.g. the short-range exchange of gluons in strong interactions, then the uncertainty principle allows for violations of energy conservation (large uncertainty in energy). Without this violation, virtual particles cannot be exchanged between fundamental particles, and none of the fundamental forces would exist.

That is actually bollocks, but bollocks you can find in any number of textbooks *sigh*

[kheegster]

So if you have an extremely fast interaction (small uncertainty in time), e.g. the short-range exchange of gluons in strong interactions, then the uncertainty principle allows for violations of energy conservation (large uncertainty in energy). Without this violation, virtual particles cannot be exchanged between fundamental particles, and none of the fundamental forces would exist.

That is actually bollocks, but bollocks you can find in any number of textbooks *sigh*

You mean the 'bollocks' that is the fundamental linchpin of particle physics since Yukawa described it back in the '30s? Care to explain?

[kheegster]

There's just so much BS here that i'll just concentrate on the stuff that I (presumably) have some specialist knowledge about.

As for his short timescale violations of the newtonian laws, AA is partially correct. Quantum fluxuations occur, but are unrelated to mechanical processes of the atoms. Their energy derives from vacuum fluxuations, in theory. This is an energy external to and inconsequential to the processes that atomic machines perform, and I am uncertain why AA would bring it up in this vein. To the point that quantum fluxuation demonstrate a violation of conservation of mass and energy, it is simply untrue. The energy source for quantum fluxuations are distinct from any other processes; this is the fundamental disconnect between quantum mechanics and classical physics. Energy of excitation and energy of any radiation are always exactly the same in any atomic process.

Quantum fluctuations are directly responsible for, among other things, the variations of the fine structure constant with interaction distance and momenta at extremely short ranges. The effects are small but has been observed to occur experimentally. And quantum fluctuations CANNOT OCCUR without a violation of energy conservation. The energy source of quantum fluctuations IS the violation of energy conservation. If he still doesn't believe this point, I can derive it for him.

The 'fundamental disconnect' between QM and classical physics is disingenuous at best. QM is at work in microprocessors powering the PC he's using to type this drivel

And please spell 'fluctuations' properly.

OK. If AA is going to go into virtual particles, we can invent any kind of relation. You can't use unknown processes as evidence against an observation. As far as BCS theory and superconductivity, the theoretical cooper pairs loose no energy to heat like normal conduction. Almost seems we've made a perfect device, but not quite. The crystal lattice in the supercondutor has no loss, but it's nt really converting anything or doing work, so why mention it? The atome within the lattice are perfect.

He's just being stupid now. 'Virtual' particles are in no way imaginary or unreal (it's one of my main peeves regarding badly named physics nomenclature, right up there with 'quantum teleportation'). Virtual particles are the lynchpin of modern particle physics, and as far as we understand physics, neither the strong, weak nor EM forces can occur without the exchange of virtual particles. And we do understand particle physics very well... QED is by far the most precise physics theory we know of, and it requires the exchange of photons in interactions, which requires the violation of energy conservation.

As for superconductivity 'not really converting anything or doing work'? What about perfect conductivity and the ability to generate huge magnetic fields, dipshit? Is 'conversion and doing work' the only purpose of the universe and everything in it?

And I resent his overall attitude towards 'theories' in science (which is typical of fundies). As far as we know, BCS theory and its refinements are the best descriptions of superconductors, and predictions of the theory have been tested and confirmed to be true, which makes it effectively reality as we know it.

Anyway he's gone on to harping on about how atoms are eternal, cannot be changed in reactions etc. to admitting that atoms are NOT eternal and CAN be changed or totally destroyed (see matter-antimatter reactions). Can you ask him what's his fucking point is again?

[kheegster]

Addendum: when I mean the fine structure constant changing at short distances, I do not mean that the quantity alpha = exhbar/(2 x m_e x c) is changing, but that it is being modified.

[Winston Blake]

I recommend a simple test of the claims made by these idiots.

1. Pour 25 ml of citric acid into a styrofoam coffee cup
2. Put a thermometer in it, and record the temperature.
3. Stir in 15 g of bakinjg soda.
4. Watch the temperature go down.

The reacion is H3C6H5O7(aq) + 3 NaHCO3(s) --> 3 CO2(g) + 3 H2O(l) + NaC6H5O7(aq)

It is one of thousands of endothermic reactions which do not generate heat, but actually absorb it. Reactions which generate heat are limited to a unique class called exothermic reactions.

Your source is a fucking idiot who can't find his own kitchen, apparently. Is that your special ed teacher?

He's just putting on a good show for the audience. He's throwing out snippets of info he knows and pretends like he understands. Obviously, entropy still increases in endothermic reactions.

[Thinkmarble]

So if you have an extremely fast interaction (small uncertainty in time), e.g. the short-range exchange of gluons in strong interactions, then the uncertainty principle allows for violations of energy conservation (large uncertainty in energy). Without this violation, virtual particles cannot be exchanged between fundamental particles, and none of the fundamental forces would exist.

That is actually bollocks, but bollocks you can find in any number of textbooks *sigh*

You mean the 'bollocks' that is the fundamental linchpin of particle physics since Yukawa described it back in the '30s? Care to explain?

I call bollocks to the idea that dE*dt>h_bar "explains" the violation of the law of conversion of energy.

[kheegster]

That is actually bollocks, but bollocks you can find in any number of textbooks *sigh*

You mean the 'bollocks' that is the fundamental linchpin of particle physics since Yukawa described it back in the '30s? Care to explain?

I call bollocks to the idea that dE*dt>h_bar "explains" the violation of the law of conversion of energy.

Well, as I learned it, the violation of energy conservation is in order to conserve 4-momenta during the exchange of a particle. I'll admit that I'm not an expert in this (yet), but would you care to elucidate in what way this is wrong?

In any case, the 'virtual phonon' model of Cooper pairs in superconductors invokes dE * dt > hbar in order to explain where the binding energy comes from as well.

[Cyborg Stan]

It's been far too long since I dealt with this subject... but take a closer look at :

dE * dt > hbar

Notice what the 'greater than' sign would imply here if it does indeed describe conservation of energy violation?

[DPDarkPrimus]

More penis-waving from Vogon.

I have never posted anything on my own authority, that would be lowering myself to your standards. Thus, my credentials are irrelevant.

And so, I do not need to provide credentials of these posters either.

No you just to cite need credible sources.

I did not mention chemical reactions at all. Vogon_Poet did this only now. I said that heat is generated in the system and eventually it will disrupt the molecular structure unless it is radiated away.

We are not talking about an indestructable material (although the carbon atoms will hardly care how many photons you throw at them at a time), we are talking about normal operation over time - perpetual action. The crystal lattice can diffract light for infinity. The crystal itself has an absorption spectrum which will absorb some photonic energy, but we o back to rationalizing what we consider to be "loss." There is no limit to the number of photons that can be processed by the lattice, and there is no energy lost in any processed photon, so at an atomic level it is perfect efficiency and perpetual operation.

This was in reference to the question "how many photons can a diamond pass before it breaks down?" You see, some photons are always absorbed by the material through which they pass and this will cause heating.
He seems to think that chemiluminescence is a perfectly efficient process. It is not. It's efficiency is measured by a statistic known as "quantum yield". Some reactions have a quantum yieald of almost 100%, while others have yields as low as 1e-15.

I'm arguing through a brick wall, and this is pointless. Try ignoring the macroscopic yield which is not a concern of this topic, and consider the chemicla and atomic operations individually, in keeping with the claim that atoms are perfect and perpetual energy converters. The energy of any atomic excitation is exactly the same as the energy yield from a subsequent emmision, thus perfect efficiency. Do not throw up another straw man about excess or improper operating levels like the diamond example. The machine does not need to be able to handle infinite simultaneous energy in its conversion
to be efficient. A process which requires x energy but is supplied with x+1 energy will invoke a new process to deal with the overage, however, if x is supplied, x is produced, for infinity.

Fuels (including hydrogen) are energy carriers. They carry their energy in the form of chemical energy. To convert chemical energy to mechanical energy without fuel is a contradictory statement.

And a statement I never made, o master of the straw man. My quote is bolded. Chemical to mechanical was an example used in demonstrating our imperfect machine if you had read my statement.

Let's finish this:

perpetual motion machine

n : a machine that can continue to do work indefinitely without drawing energy from some external source; impossible under the law of conservation of energy

The work of redirecting a photon by diffraction: A diamond can do so indefinitely without drawing energy in the process. If I am incorrect, show where energy is drawn away from a diffracted photon in the process of diffraction, or show where energy is otherwise consumed in the process of diffracting a single photon. Also show us what the maximum photon count (NOT count per minute, Mr. straw man) a diamond can pass before failing to refract. If you can't provide a number, then we have work done indefinitely with no energy drawn from an external source: perpetual motion. We are considering only the conversion process performed by the atom, not the efficiency of any transport mechanism through which a photon can "miss" the diffraction area and be absorbed. That transmission mechanism would have to be in perfect alignment to accomplish this and I make no such claim.

I'm not responding to any more of your diversions. Put up and show a credible citation showing your assumed loss. This universe is created with perfect and perpetual materials: atoms.

It really is quite fascinating how he keeps changing the subject. He mentions diffraction as a "perfect" reaction and when I point out that heat is lost in it, he starts harping on about endothermic reactions instead (which incidentally are not 100% efficient anyway, so I am not quite sure what he is driving at).

AA is changing the subject from his statement that "all systems lose heat" to whatever the hell he's throwing out as a diversion now. Endothermic and isothermic reactions do not lose heat, therefore your source is as stuborn and ignorant as you.

[DPDarkPrimus]

kheegan, I posted your rebuttal. Just a heads up.

[Lord Zentei]

We are not talking about an indestructable material (although the carbon atoms will hardly care how many photons you throw at them at a time), we are talking about normal operation over time - perpetual action. The crystal lattice can diffract light for infinity. The crystal itself has an absorption spectrum which will absorb some photonic energy, but we o back to rationalizing what we consider to be "loss." There is no limit to the number of photons that can be processed by the lattice, and there is no energy lost in any processed photon, so at an atomic level it is perfect efficiency and perpetual operation.

ROFL! "If you count only those photons that are not absorbed you get no energy loss" The comedy writes itself. When calculating the efficiency of a system you divide the output energy with the input energy. This is fucking elementary.

I'm arguing through a brick wall, and this is pointless. Try ignoring the macroscopic yield which is not a concern of this topic, and consider the chemicla and atomic operations individually, in keeping with the claim that atoms are perfect and perpetual energy converters. The energy of any atomic excitation is exactly the same as the energy yield from a subsequent emmision, thus perfect efficiency. Do not throw up another straw man about excess or improper operating levels like the diamond example. The machine does not need to be able to handle infinite simultaneous energy in its conversion to be efficient. A process which requires x energy but is supplied with x+1 energy will invoke a new process to deal with the overage, however, if x is supplied, x is produced, for infinity.

Quit projecting your strawmanning on others you imbecile. If not all energy that is delivered to the system will drive exitation and be subsequently released then the process IS NOT 100% EFFICIENT. Considering only that energy that drives exitation is, quite bluntly, not kosher.

And a statement I never made, o master of the straw man. My quote is bolded. Chemical to mechanical was an example used in demonstrating our imperfect machine if you had read my statement.

Oh, I read your bullshit statement all right.

Let's finish this:

perpetual motion machine

n : a machine that can continue to do work indefinitely without drawing energy from some external source; impossible under the law of conservation of energy

And this is precisely what atoms do NOT do, you ignoramus.

The work of redirecting a photon by diffraction: A diamond can do so indefinitely without drawing energy in the process. If I am incorrect, show where energy is drawn away from a diffracted photon in the process of diffraction, or show where energy is otherwise consumed in the process of diffracting a single photon. Also show us what the maximum photon count (NOT count per minute, Mr. straw man) a diamond can pass before failing to refract. If you can't provide a number, then we have work done indefinitely with no energy drawn from an external source: perpetual motion. We are considering only the conversion process performed by the atom, not the efficiency of any transport mechanism through which a photon can "miss" the diffraction area and be absorbed. That transmission mechanism would have to be in perfect alignment to accomplish this and I make no such claim.

I'm not responding to any more of your diversions. Put up and show a credible citation showing your assumed loss. This

universe is created with perfect and perpetual materials: atoms.

Here we come to the crux of Vogon_Poet's bullshit. To "do work indefinately without external energy" is NOT the ability to function indefinately. It refers to the ability to output work in the sense that physics assigns to the word. Work is measured in the same unit as energy. The Energy Input equals Work + Waste. Efficiency is Work/Energy Input. A 100% efficient process has no waste. No machine can be a perpetual motion machine since that requires Work to exeed Energy input, violating the conservation of energy. In the particular case of diffraction, you measure the energy of the diffracted photons and divide by the energy of the input photons to calculate the efficiency.

We are not talking about an indestructable material (although the carbon atoms will hardly care how many photons you throw at them at a time), we are talking about normal operation over time - perpetual action. The crystal lattice can diffract light for infinity. The crystal itself has an absorption spectrum which will absorb some photonic energy, but we o back to rationalizing what we consider to be "loss." There is no limit to the number of photons that can be processed by the lattice, and there is no energy lost in any processed photon, so at an atomic level it is perfect efficiency and perpetual operation.

Normal operation over time is NOT WHAT IS MEANT with regards to the perpetual motion machine. Your attempts to "rationalize what we consider to be 'loss.'" is IRRELEVANT. What matters is how these concepts are DEFINED.

AA is changing the subject from his statement that "all systems lose heat" to whatever the hell he's throwing out as a diversion now. Endothermic and isothermic reactions do not lose heat, therefore your source is as stuborn and ignorant as you.

Lies. My reference to heat loss was in regard to diffraction, as a quick read of the thread will show. In any case endothermic reactions are not 100% efficient regardless as I have already stated, as they will increase the entropy of the Universe. I grow tired of these sophistry games.

[Nephtys]

I recommend a simple test of the claims made by these idiots.

1. Pour 25 ml of citric acid into a styrofoam coffee cup
2. Put a thermometer in it, and record the temperature.
3. Stir in 15 g of bakinjg soda.
4. Watch the temperature go down.

The reacion is H3C6H5O7(aq) + 3 NaHCO3(s) --> 3 CO2(g) + 3 H2O(l) + NaC6H5O7(aq)

It is one of thousands of endothermic reactions which do not generate heat, but actually absorb it. Reactions which generate heat are limited to a unique class called exothermic reactions.

Your source is a fucking idiot who can't find his own kitchen, apparently. Is that your special ed teacher?

He's just putting on a good show for the audience. He's throwing out snippets of info he knows and pretends like he understands. Obviously, entropy still increases in endothermic reactions.

Oh Goddess. Oh no! Your ninth-grade knowledge of chemistry is DESTROYING US UTTERLY! Oh, woe. How could we not have seen this in those chemical Ice-Fast packets? What a moron.

Call him on this. Limited to a unique class called Exothermic reactions? There's Exo, or Endothermic, and it pertains to absorbing or emitting heat. Excuse me, that's like saying I belong to a unique class of gender called Female, thus I violate all known biological principles.

[Darth Wong]

perpetual motion machine

n : a machine that can continue to do work indefinitely without drawing energy from some external source; impossible under the law of conservation of energy

The work of redirecting a photon by diffraction: A diamond can do so indefinitely without drawing energy in the process.

This guy is obviously too stupid to realize that this is not work as defined by the physics textbook rather than his Sesame Street self-teachings. There is no change of energy states involved in this process, which is why the diamond does not need to draw any energy. It does not mean that a diamond is a perpetual motion machine.

Besides, if any interaction occurred the light would deposit energy into the diamond, not draw energy out. There is no conceivable way in which a diamond would actually do work on a beam of light; it would have to make the light beam more powerful and that is not going to happen. And of course, if you hit a diamond with a sufficiently powerful laser you would destroy it; another fact that is incompatible with these moronic claims of perfection.

[Thinkmarble]

I call bollocks to the idea that dE*dt>h_bar "explains" the violation of the law of conversion of energy.

Well, as I learned it, the violation of energy conservation is in order to conserve 4-momenta during the exchange of a particle. I'll admit that I'm not an expert in this (yet), but would you care to elucidate in what way this is wrong?
[/quote]

The conversion of energy, momentum as well as the relativistic relation between mass, energy, momentum and mass is violated by virtual particles (which is the reason why they are also called off-shell).
That's not something I dispute, I just dispute that this is something demanding a special explanation or that the energy-time uncertainty relation explains why the violation is allowed.

What conversion of energy means, is that the mean average of the Hamiltonian is time independent.
But the energy-time-uncertainty relation is not about a change in the mean average of the Hamiltonian, it is about the width of the distribution and the typical time scale of an observable.
In it dE is the standart deviation of the Hamiltonoperator, dt is the time in which an non-conserved observable changes it value by an standart deviation.

[H,A]=iC
=> dH*dA_1>C, with dH,dA being the standart deviations
but also
[H,A]=h_bar|d/dt<A>|

Now:
|<A(t)>-<A(t+dt)>| approx d/dt(<A>)|_t*dt = dA_2
so
dt*[H.A]=h_bar*dA_2

This leads us to
dH*dA_1*dt>h_bar*dA_2

Now we only have to set that dA_2=dA_1 and we get:
dH*dt>h_bar

[DPDarkPrimus]

His hypocrisy is astounding.

No you just need to cite credible sources.

I don't need sources any more credible than you, Vogon, and you aren't much of that.

I give credible sources; you give hopeless rants and fallacious diversions. You have ZERO ability to stay on topic - even the ones you incite. Kinda humerous. But until you at least match the credibility of all my assertions you're just babbling more bullshit.

There's just so much BS here that i'll just concentrate on the stuff that I (presumably) have some specialist knowledge about.

now we enter the diversion. Just a reminder, this whole discussion is about DPs assertion that the universe is made of imperfect materials. What the hell he's thrown this off to is anybody's guess.

Quantum fluctuations are directly responsible for, among other things, the variations of the fine structure constant with interaction distance and momenta at extremely short ranges. The effects are small but has been observed to occur experimentally. And quantum fluctuations CANNOT OCCUR without a violation of energy conservation. The energy source of quantum fluctuations IS the violation of energy conservation.

Which is why I mentioned that it is the disconnect between QM and classical (now special relativity) physics. QM violates the laws of conservation. Just remember I said it first (in bold). I did say "the point that quantum fluctuations demonstrate a violation of laws of conservation and energy is simply untrue," and of course in typical DP fashion he presents it without the original context. No one is doubting quantum fluctuations violate classical laws of physics - I said it did. They do not, however, factor in to the other energy conversion processes of the atom and make those processes violate laws of physics.

The 'fundamental disconnect' between QM and classical physics is disingenuous at best. QM is at work in microprocessors powering the PC he's using to type this drivel

What a fucking moron. Anyone who thinks Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics run la-dee-da down the lane to the chapel and physicsville is happy as pigs in shit is on crack. Quantum mechanics drove Einstein batty and still plagues physicists today.

"Based at La Sapienza University in Rome, Amelino-Camelia studies quantum gravity -- the attempt to mesh relativity with quantum theory and thus produce one consistent description of the Universe. Researchers in this field began to feel a certain discomfort with relativity in its present form long ago: it is proving extremely difficult to tie together with quantum mechanics. The offending experimental evidence comes in the form of cosmic rays detected in Japan with such high energies that special relativity says they shouldn't exist. It was a step too far for Amelino-Camelia. "I guess the cosmic ray data put me in the position of questioning the dogma of special relativity," he says."

Harris, David. After Einstein. New Scientist. 177 28-32 Feb 8 2003

OK. If AA is going to go into virtual particles, we can invent any kind of relation. You can't use unknown processes as evidence against an observation. As far as BCS theory and superconductivity, the theoretical cooper pairs loose no energy to heat like normal conduction. Almost seems we've made a perfect device, but not quite. The crystal lattice in the supercondutor has no loss, but it's nt really converting anything or doing work, so why mention it? The atome within the lattice are perfect.

He's just being stupid now. 'Virtual' particles are in no way imaginary or unreal (it's one of my main peeves regarding badly named physics nomenclature, right up there with 'quantum teleportation'). Virtual particles are the lynchpin of modern particle physics, and as far as we understand physics, neither the strong, weak nor EM forces can occur without the exchange of virtual particles. And we do understand particle physics very well... QED is by far the most precise physics theory we know of, and it requires the exchange of photons in interactions, which requires the violation of energy conservation.

Whoop-dee-doo! I said the same damn thing a month ago when Redwine asked about "what are quarks made of." There are over 200 virtual particles in the Standard Model and I know most very well. What the fuck is this straw man assault? Someone spends way too much time reading between the lines and can't keep their attention on the topic for more than 2 paragraphs. Virtual particles are explanitory abstractions which may or may not exist. Veering off to a discussion of cooper pairs doesn't prove anything regarding the efficiency of real processes. Nor is any of htis relevent since superconductivity was never claimed to be perfect. The entire debate concerns elemental particles, get it?

As for superconductivity 'not really converting anything or doing work'? What about perfect conductivity and the ability to generate huge magnetic fields, dipshit? Is 'conversion and doing work' the only purpose of the universe and everything in it?

I stand corrected. Didn't put alot of thought into it because all I cared about was finding anyway possible to shut up your innanities and get the goddamn discussion back on track. I never claimed superconsuction was perfect. Straw man #234,108 from DP.

And I resent his overall attitude towards 'theories' in science (which is typical of fundies). As far as we know, BCS theory and its refinements are the best descriptions of superconductors, and predictions of the theory have been tested and confirmed to be true, which makes it effectively reality as we know it.

Oh fucking spare me the pity. We fucking live by theory. Jesus, hide all the lighters or this whole forum will go up in an inferno of blazing straw men.

Anyway he's gone on to harping on about how atoms are eternal, cannot be changed in reactions etc. to admitting that atoms are NOT eternal and CAN be changed or totally destroyed (see matter-antimatter reactions). Can you ask him what's his fucking point is again?

Ahhhh! Finally, back on topic!

Hey Doctor Equivocation, ETERNAL != INDESTRUCTIBLE.

Fuckhead.

DP, you STILL haven't produced any credibility. You've thrown up wild claims about "every system looses heat" - including endothermic reactions?!?! and tried dodging the fuckup by babbling about "chemlight efficiency." So, does every single system loose heat, even the ones that absorb it? Can we at least get a mature "I stand corrected" amidst your circular ranting about the flaws in atoms?

[Lord Zentei]

I give credible sources; you give hopeless rants and fallacious diversions. You have ZERO ability to stay on topic - even the ones you incite. Kinda humerous. But until you at least match the credibility of all my assertions you're just babbling more bullshit.

Blah blah. Your hypocricy concerning fallacies is noted.

now we enter the diversion. Just a reminder, this whole discussion is about DPs assertion that the universe is made of imperfect materials. What the hell he's thrown this off to is anybody's guess.

This was in response to your bullshit. Lap it up.

What a fucking moron. Anyone who thinks Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics run la-dee-da down the lane to the chapel and physicsville is happy as pigs in shit is on crack. Quantum mechanics drove Einstein batty and still plagues physicists today.

Blah, blah. And this supports your contention how? Oh, that's right. It doesn't. Do cut the crap, there's a good fellow.

Whoop-dee-doo! I said the same damn thing a month ago when Redwine asked about "what are quarks made of." There are over 200 virtual particles in the Standard Model and I know most very well. What the fuck is this straw man assault? Someone spends way too much time reading between the lines and can't keep their attention on the topic for more than 2 paragraphs. Virtual particles are explanitory abstractions which may or may not exist. Veering off to a discussion of cooper pairs doesn't prove anything regarding the efficiency of real processes. Nor is any of htis relevent since superconductivity was never claimed to be perfect. The entire debate concerns elemental particles, get it?

And not your bullshit claims about atoms being "perpetual motion machines"? Just saying that bullshit destroyed your credibility right off the bat. And you did make claims that certain processes were perfect, only you got your shit ruined. As for elementary particles being "perfect" you should now clearly explain in no unclear terms what constitutes this "perfection" - hopefully without perpetual motion bullshit - and explain also whether scientists working at CERN and RHIC are now "gods" for having produced such "perfect" things as these.

I stand corrected. Didn't put alot of thought into it because all I cared about was finding anyway possible to shut up your innanities and get the goddamn discussion back on track. I never claimed superconsuction was perfect. Straw man #234,108 from DP.

Amazing that Vogon_Imbecile can actually concede and acnowledge a mistake The fact that this undermines your position sails by your head as per usual.

Oh fucking spare me the pity. We fucking live by theory. Jesus, hide all the lighters or this whole forum will go up in an inferno of blazing straw men.

Got anything substansive to say other than these bullshit accusations of strawmen? When you fail to grasp theory properly and yet enter a science debate, you get called on it. This is NOT a strawman, it is a consequence of your ignorance and stupidity.

Ahhhh! Finally, back on topic!

Hey Doctor Equivocation, ETERNAL != INDESTRUCTIBLE.

Fuckhead.

ROTFL! This is the most idiotic thing you have yet posted.

DP, you STILL haven't produced any credibility. You've thrown up wild claims about "every system looses heat" - including endothermic reactions?!?! and tried dodging the fuckup by babbling about "chemlight efficiency." So, does every single system loose heat, even the ones that absorb it? Can we at least get a mature "I stand corrected" amidst your circular ranting about the flaws in atoms?

You are a lying sack of shit. I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED TO YOU THAT THE REFERENCE TO HEAT LOSS WAS WITH REGARDS TO DIFFRACTION YOU ODIOUS LITTLE TURD. AND IN ANY CASE ENDOTHERMIC REACTIONS INCREASE THE ENTROPY OF THE UNIVERSE.

[Thinkmarble]

@Kheegan
I'm going to talk with a PhD tomorrow about this topic.
Not quite sure if I'm going to have the time to post something, if don't just assume that I've been shown the errors of my way

What a fucking moron. Anyone who thinks Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics run la-dee-da down the lane to the chapel and physicsville is happy as pigs in shit is on crack. Quantum mechanics drove Einstein batty and still plagues physicists today.

That guy has no clue about modern physics, none.
Special relativity has been an integral part of quantum theory since the birth of quantum electrodynamics.
The problem is, and that is what his quote is about, unifying general relativity and quantum theory.
So he is either quite ignorant about physics or he is lying to score points.

I would suggest that you either invite him to stardestroyer or that someone goes to the board where the discussion takes place.
At the moment what happens is that he posts, here comes the answer you play the go-between, and that's not a way to have a discussion.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Oh, I already invited him here. He brushed it off. I should do so again.

[kheegster]

@Kheegan
I'm going to talk with a PhD tomorrow about this topic.
Not quite sure if I'm going to have the time to post something, if don't just assume that I've been shown the errors of my way

No problem... I saw your response, and I've encountered it in a pure QM context, but I need some time to think of what it implies in particle physics.

But I'm pretty certain that '[H,A] = iC, therefore dH*dA < C/2' is merely the general expression for the Uncertainty Principle, so my original assertion wasn't wrong.

Note to all: but the point regarding the conservation of energy being violated is true nonetheless.

[kheegster]

Is this guy still trying to argue this? His points have been dismantled one by one and he's basically going on 'Boohoo, I'm still right, I'M STILL RIGHT no matter what you horrible people say!!!'

I don't think you even need to know an iota of science to see the sort of crap he's been reduced to now

[Thinkmarble]

But I'm pretty certain that '[H,A] = iC, therefore dH*dA < C/2' is merely the general expression for the Uncertainty Principle, so my original assertion wasn't wrong.

It is the general expression of Heisenbergs uncertainty relation, yes.
My point can be acutally split in two:
I. time-energy-uncertainty relation is not a Heisenberg relation, this point is rather tangential to my main point and partially a matter of definition
II. A relationship between standart deviation and time does not explain/allow the violation of conversation laws, as that would imply an change in the mean average.

What I'm thinking about at the moment is the relationship between deviation of an energy measurement and the time of the measurement, but as I see it, this does not help, as the collapse of the wavefunction does not care for conversion.

*sigh* I'm probably just stupid.

[DPDarkPrimus]

now we enter the diversion. Just a reminder, this whole discussion is about DPs assertion that the universe is made of imperfect materials.

Where did I say that?

Is an oxymoron. It's as simple as that.

As I said in my previous post, you're confusing "perfect" with "all-powerful".

And I was thinking, and had an interesting realization. A perfect creator can only create perfect objects with perfect materials. No matter the skill of a craftsman, one can only do so much with flawed material.

Well is the material flawed or not? Should I keep my reciept for the oxygen I'm breathing in case I get a defective batch?

ROFL! "If you count only those photons that are not absorbed you get no energy loss" The comedy writes itself. When calculating the efficiency of a system you divide the output energy with the input energy. This is fucking elementary.

That'd be great if we designed the difraction lattice, then we could project our standards upon the efficiency based upon our desired output. You've broadened the scope to a macroscopic process which does not include only the elementary particles in question, but also factors in the efficiency of the photonic emitter and reciever. No on'e claiming such a system defined by the standards of man was perfect. Only the elemental form is considered.

This is a matter of symantics which cannot be projected on a discussion of the creation of the materials of the universe. Our definition of efficiency is neccessarily relative to the intended output of the system. This argument cannot be won until the design of the material is considered in full scope of it's function.

Precisely. what does the math show for every diffracted photon, neglecting the transmission system which is external to the discussion?

I'm just reading the definition. Nothing more.

I read back and you are correct. I misread it as "all systems lose heat" because Dp stated all systems have loss, and you acknowledged.

I maintain that atoms fit the definition of perpetual motion.

To clarify the quote from me, I was simply musing that a perfect creator would require perfect materials to make something perfect. Had he asked rather than assumed the answer, I would have informed him that we are composed of DNA, which is not perfect.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Well, he's right about one thing; Atoms are the perfect building material. I can't imagine building a house without them

[Lord Zentei]

That'd be great if we designed the difraction lattice, then we could project our standards upon the efficiency based upon our desired output. You've broadened the scope to a macroscopic process which does not include only the elementary particles in question, but also factors in the efficiency of the photonic emitter and reciever. No on'e claiming such a system defined by the standards of man was perfect. Only the elemental form is considered.

The correct use of the term "efficiency" in any process counts the output energy and divides by the total input energy. On the elementary level, these processes are governed by the laws of probability, so there is a chance that the photon is either refracted or absorbed. The correct way of assessing this process is to calculate the probability of each event. It is still not "perpetual motion".

This is a matter of symantics which cannot be projected on a discussion of the creation of the materials of the universe. Our definition of efficiency is neccessarily relative to the intended output of the system. This argument cannot be won until the design of the material is considered in full scope of it's function.

False. It is a matter of the correct use of language and an absence of goalpost-moving and cyclic logic. When you refer to "efficiency" and "perpetual motion" you are using precisely defined physics terms. Saying that the "normal" use of these terms is invalid because atoms are perfect (upon seeing that your argument otherwise does not hold) and then concluding that the atoms are perfect because of this is nonsense.

Precisely. what does the math show for every diffracted photon, neglecting the transmission system which is external to the discussion?

Since when is the transmission system external to the discussion if it's effects? Particularly since it consists of the oh-so-perfect atoms of yours? But if you insist on counting only those photons that slip through, you still do not have perpetual motion, the energy levels of the photons remain unchanged, and hence no work is done upon them. WORK IS ABOUT CHANGING ENERGY LEVELS: WORK IS MEASURED IN ENERGY. THAT IS THE DEFININITION OF "WORK" IN PHYSICS AND HENCE THE MEANING OF "WORK" IN THE DEFINITION OF PERPETUAL MOTION.

I'm just reading the definition. Nothing more.

You are reading the definition but not understanding it. Work in physics refers to the amount of useful energy that a system produces. For instance, an internal combustion engine converts chemical energy (in the fuel) into mechanical energy (the work output). The statement that a machine cennot produce work indefinately is equivalent to saying that it cannot create energy, only convert it from one form to another.

Well is the material flawed or not? Should I keep my reciept for the oxygen I'm breathing in case I get a defective batch?

What receipt? Could you try to make sense at least?

[Nephtys]

Oxygen.. flawed? What the hell? I'm sorry, there's no point in arguing with a person who uses such terrible fallacy and lack of sense. Just because physics does not allow perpetual motion machines doesn't mean your oxygen is 'flawed' or in any way unusable. Sheesh.