Philosophical Vegan Forum

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:31 pm Probably. My physics teacher also often commented that the textbooks by Vladimir Paar were better, but that they were probably replaced to punish him because of his political beliefs.

If his Wiki page is to be trusted, he seems pretty wacky
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Paar

Paar is a global warming denier and is an advocate of a new ice age hypothesis. He argues that the rise of carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere is the effect - rather than the cause - of global climate change, and that the true cause lies in the change of Earth's orbit due to gravitational pull of Jupiter and other planets of the Solar System. Paar believes that the evidence against anthropogenic global warming is being deliberately suppressed.

Red wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:56 pm

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:31 pm Probably. My physics teacher also often commented that the textbooks by Vladimir Paar were better, but that they were probably replaced to punish him because of his political beliefs.

If his Wiki page is to be trusted, he seems pretty wacky
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Paar

Paar is a global warming denier and is an advocate of a new ice age hypothesis. He argues that the rise of carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere is the effect - rather than the cause - of global climate change, and that the true cause lies in the change of Earth's orbit due to gravitational pull of Jupiter and other planets of the Solar System. Paar believes that the evidence against anthropogenic global warming is being deliberately suppressed.

Yes. He is also anti-nuclear.

https://www.index.hr/mobile/clanak.aspx?category=vijesti&id=474647 wrote:Recimo, velika industrija ima potencijal da u kratkom roku izgradi tisuću nuklearnih elektrana. To je ogroman posao, ali danas je gradnja nuklearki usporena zbog otpora javnosti. Naime, ako se ograniči nafta i ugljen, čovječanstvo nema druge alternative osim nuklearne energije. Svi ostali izvori energije koji se spominju, poput Sunca i vjetra, znatno su skuplji. Nema sumnje da su interesi ogromni.

But my physics teacher tells us his textbooks are good.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:31 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote:Now that you have explained how bad the translation is it's more understandable.

And there is probably a big difference between saying "I don't see how bombs are compatible with the second law of thermodynamics, can you explain that?" and saying "Vukovar Massacre didn't happen, I can prove that by proving bombs don't exist.", right?

A very large one. One is admitting you don't understand something and asking for help (humility) the other is claiming to understand something contrary to every physicist in the world and making an outrageous claim based on that.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:31 pmI am not sure I understand the difference between entropy and heat capacity.

They're different concepts. Heat capacity is just how much energy it takes to increase the temperature of something. Entropy deals with a system and the relationships of the forms of energy etc. within it.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:31 pmDoes it make sense to say water has higher entropy than most forms of matter just because it has higher heat capacity?

Eh, the relationship is complicated and I can't really explain it here. It's relative to the state of the material and the circumstances you're evaluating it in. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_molar_entropy

Remember this is all about differences (see the deltas in those equations). For example we could talk about water vapor in a very cold and high pressure environment -- there the vapor would have very low entropy, and by condensing into a liquid and then freezing the entropy would be increased because it would release its energy into the cold environment. It really only deals with evaluating which reactions can happen spontaneously or which will require input. Of course you could design an engine that could extract work out of 0 degree water vapor in a 0 degree high pressure environment, because the water vapor really "wants to" condense and you can use that increase in entropy to decrease entropy elsewhere.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:31 pmWould heating up some hypothetical body which has the temperature of 0K, and therefore no entropy, take infinite energy to heat up, just like it takes infinite energy to reach absolute zero?

Eh, anything at 0K probably disappears because the wave function spreads indefinitely... like a condensate but way bigger. Don't know how you'd heat it up if you can't find it. I think there's an inevitability that as you cool it and the wave function spreads it's going to get heated up by something if not the 3 degree microwave background radiation.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:31 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote:You'd get yourself in less trouble reading it in English, your proficiency is pretty high.

People on the Internet forums, including this one, often tell me they think I don't understand English well.
And you think I correctly understood the basics of quantum physics?

Your English has improved in the past few years. I suggest you study physics only in English.

brimstoneSalad wrote:One is admitting you don't understand something and asking for help (humility) the other is claiming to understand something contrary to every physicist in the world and making an outrageous claim based on that.

And, what do you think, how should one behave when science doesn't make sense to him? Should he assume he has misunderstood something (like I misunderstood the 2nd law of thermodynamics), or should he assume things are just very counter-intuitive and he has understood them correctly (like when quantum physics talks about particles disappearing and coming from nothing)? Where do you draw the line?
It appearing to contradict some common knowledge doesn't seem to be where one should draw the line. It's common knowledge that zero-gravity chambers exist (movies and computer games present them as real things, much like they do bombs), yet they would, in fact, contradict basic physics.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I think there's an inevitability that as you cool it and the wave function spreads it's going to get heated up by something if not the 3 degree microwave background radiation.

Never thought about it that way. In our Basic Electronics classes, and in the textbook written by Švedek, we are told we can imagine absolute zero as a state in which electrons have enough kinetic energy to circle around the nucleus at the lowest free shell, but not enough to tunnel to a higher shell or leave the atom. Therefore, at absolute zero, any material is either a perfect insulator or a perfect conductor. So, that means there is some kinetic energy in the material (movement of the electrons around the nucleus) even at 0K. Therefore, the wavelength won't really be infinite, right?
And doesn't quantum physics say that not only is absolute zero possible, but also that temperatures below that are possible?
Also, wouldn't that, that we can make a thing disappear by putting energy to cool it down to absolute zero (be it infinite energy), contradict the conservation of energy?

teo123 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 2:01 am

brimstoneSalad wrote:One is admitting you don't understand something and asking for help (humility) the other is claiming to understand something contrary to every physicist in the world and making an outrageous claim based on that.

And, what do you think, how should one behave when science doesn't make sense to him? Should he assume he has misunderstood something

Yes, assume you probably misunderstand something. If not the fact of the matter, at least the why of the fact. You can't assuming what precisely you misunderstand and that the apparent opposite is true though.

An actual zero relative velocity (which would be absolute zero in the truest sense) creates a divide by zero issue. As we approach absolute certainty in velocity we approach zero certainty in position.

teo123 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 2:01 amAnd doesn't quantum physics say that not only is absolute zero possible, but also that temperatures below that are possible?

The first, no I do not think so. The latter, kind of because it's a weird math thing. It's strange to describe it as an actual negative temperature, it's more that the relationships in the system have been reversed.

teo123 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 2:01 amAlso, wouldn't that, that we can make a thing disappear by putting energy to cool it down to absolute zero (be it infinite energy), contradict the conservation of energy?

No, that's not how it works.

Anyway, I am not sure I correctly understand Special Relativity.

I know that this experiment to measure unidirectional speed of light will fail: attempting to measure it by first synchronizing the clocks of both the emitter of light and the receiver and then moving the receiver away from the emitter, no matter how slowly, will lead to time slowing down for the receiver exactly so that, once we run the experiment, the time that the receiver has noted it has received the light will be the same as the time the emitter will claim to have emitted the light (therefore, it will appear, if we don't take special relativity into account, that light has infinite speed).

However, let's propose a very similar experiment: There is an equilateral triangle, in which there is a clock with a light receiver in one corner, a light emitter in another corner, and a light receiver and emitter in the third corner. The emitter sends a signal to both the clock+receiver and the emitter+receiver at the same time. As soon as the emitter+receiver receives the signal, it sends light towards the clock+receiver. Now, the clock+receiver, as soon as it receives the signal from the emitter (at the same time as the receiver+emitter receives it), starts measuring time. And it stops measuring time as soon as it receives the light from the emitter+receiver.

What will that time measured by the clock+receiver in the second experiment be? I know it cannot be the distance from the emitter divided by the unidirectional speed of light, since that would give us the unidirectional speed of light then, and I know special relativity does not allow us to measure that. So, what would that time be then? Will it again be zero? If so, why?

This forum has been kind of dead lately, hasn't it? What do you think, why?

teo123 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:27 pm This forum has been kind of dead lately, hasn't it? What do you think, why?

As religions shrink due to modernization, as well as little interest in philosophy, these places have also seen shrinking.

It is getting hard to find a site to discuss religions as their apologists are dropping like flies.

This place is also small compared to others.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 11:49 am

teo123 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:27 pm This forum has been kind of dead lately, hasn't it? What do you think, why?

As religions shrink due to modernization, as well as little interest in philosophy, these places have also seen shrinking.

It is getting hard to find a site to discuss religions as their apologists are dropping like flies.

This place is also small compared to others.

Regards
DL

Do you think you understand special relativity? Can you answer my question?

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:43 am

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 11:49 am

teo123 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:27 pm This forum has been kind of dead lately, hasn't it? What do you think, why?

As religions shrink due to modernization, as well as little interest in philosophy, these places have also seen shrinking.

It is getting hard to find a site to discuss religions as their apologists are dropping like flies.

This place is also small compared to others.

Regards
DL

Do you think you understand special relativity? Can you answer my question?

I know a few things, but not that.

There are many science specific forums.

Regards
DL