Speck of Dust

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Malconstant
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:44 am UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby Malconstant » Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:29 am UTC

Noone believes that you could make a star that way or noone doubts that you could? Cause I really don't see why you couldn't (barring logistics)

I was responding to
bane2571 wrote: If you put a bunch of atoms with the same composition as a sun in the same space, there is no guuruntee they will act as a sun, muchless the type of sun you are expecting. In much the same way as putting all the atoms that make up a human in the same space won't make you a human.
, which I quoted above.

And my position has been that if you arrange all the atoms in just the right way than what you have is a star or human. Are you saying that noone in this thread thinks that would happen or everyone thinks that would happen? Either way I'm pretty sure that I'm fundamentally disagreeing with Bane about it, if not "everyone in this thread", but that would really surprise me.

Or do you want me to include that the atoms need to be a pre-given velocity and energy-configurations as well to make it work? Or...what are you getting at exactly?
Technical Ben wrote:PS, doogly, way to miss the point.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby Zamfir » Fri Sep 09, 2011 7:59 am UTC

Malconstant wrote:I honestly think that it's reasonable to believe otherwise, that stars are just incredibly robust things which can be formed a gajillion different ways and still be a star in every meaningful way.

I think "meaningful" is the dangerous term here. Because what is meaningful is extremely closely tied to what we humans consider important. We have a category of "stars" which contains lots of different objects, but beyond "big" and "small" only experts care about the details.

At the same time, we care a lot whether a bunch of carbon chains in water is human or some other variety of rotting process. For all we know a great galactic mind would think that our sun shows a unique and deeply interesting pattern of solar flares, or some other feature we never even thought of. While it considers its third satellite as one of those typical goo-planets you always get when a satellite forms at the right distance.

When we consider ourselves to be a very special kind of goo, it chuckles and thinks "aren't they always cute like that". And we point to our radio telescopes and fusion reactors, and it just htinks that the goo varieties that produce irritating microwave radiation are never the really cute ones, but luckily they never last long. Although to their advantage these humans turn out to have an esthecially pleasing variety of gut fauna, perhaps it will some for later.

I don't mean to offer the above as a serious alternative, of course. If anything, it's ridiculously anthropomorfic. But I think it shows that you cannot simultaneously consider all stellar formations as basically the same, but humans as special. We are after all a fringe effect of our own star, just a detailed byeffect of that same billion-year gravitational collapse process that produces shiny stars as another, larger byeffect. If we are special in a meaningful way, then our solar system's formation is special too and not all stellar formations are similar in every meaningful way.

We might perhaps indeed be an objectively interesting fringe effect, by some objective standard. But how can we tell that we are a special fringe effect of that process, but all those other complicated fringe effects like solar flares and the hurricanes of Jupiter are just quasi-random noise?
Last edited by Zamfir on Fri Sep 09, 2011 2:54 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Sep 09, 2011 2:44 pm UTC

Malconstant wrote:I was responding to
bane2571 wrote: If you put a bunch of atoms with the same composition as a sun in the same space, there is no guuruntee they will act as a sun, muchless the type of sun you are expecting. In much the same way as putting all the atoms that make up a human in the same space won't make you a human.
, which I quoted above.
Oh, hm. I guess I missed that post by bane2571.

Yeah, that's a pretty ridiculous claim, both for the star and for the human. I guess bane is a dualist about both stars and people? In that there is apparently some extra magic beyond the configuration of the atoms that makes stars and humans what they are?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1255
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby Sizik » Fri Sep 09, 2011 3:30 pm UTC

I think he means putting all the atoms there without regard to how they're put together.
she/they
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

User avatar
Malconstant
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:44 am UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby Malconstant » Fri Sep 09, 2011 3:49 pm UTC

Sizik wrote:I think he means putting all the atoms there without regard to how they're put together.


Who, me? Of course not, the whole point of my argument is that basic structure is important. If you just take all of the atoms of a star a hurl them at random into a blob, maybe it'll sort itself out and become a star, but that initial glob really couldn't be called a star. At best it could be a "pre-star", iff the mess ends up evolving in time to eventually function like a star.

Now, for whole regions then yeah, for my naive toy model of a star, I have a huge concentric shell with nothing by hydrogen, and for that shell sure, go nuts, just toss in hydrogen at random, fill up the space, and that'll suffice my naive toy model of a star.

Now you can argue whether or not there will be any differences between that toy model star and a star which is created in a nebula. My toy model argument runs on ubiquity. Given enough time and resources, any kind of star which can be created in our universe will be, and so unless there is something unique and currently unknown which goes into literally every type of star formation possible which forbids this toy model of star from ever forming, then I'd say ubiquity is currently on my side of reason. I certainly don't deny that there may be unique similarities among nebulae-created stars, but now that's making a distinction between nebulae-created hot plasma balls which fit our models of stars and star-evolution, and other rarer occurrences of star formation which presumably also fit our models of stars and star evolution. And I'm not sure that's actually a distinction that anyone is really trying to make.

Now, all that being said, Bane's objection was much more strongly stated, saying that even if I placed every atom exactly as they are currently in the sun today, if I just copy/pasted the whole thing and placed it elsewhere, that what you'd have wouldn't actually be a star, and that's just straight up dualism there, there's no recourse.
Technical Ben wrote:PS, doogly, way to miss the point.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:59 pm UTC

Malconstant wrote:
Sizik wrote:I think he means putting all the atoms there without regard to how they're put together.
Who, me?
No, I think Sizik was referring to bane's claim. Still misunderstood it, though, since it seems bane said it's not necessarily a star even if the atoms *are* all put together the right way.

And even then: a star will form regardless of how you put the atoms together.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
BobTheElder
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:30 pm UTC
Location: England, near Bournemouth

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby BobTheElder » Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:44 pm UTC

to get y'all back on topic,
perspective:
http://youtu.be/4nG6wGyFrSk
Rawr

collegestudent22
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:36 am UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby collegestudent22 » Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:57 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Modeling weather on Earth is impossible to do beyond a few days because it's so complex. The sun is a million times bigger.


We know even less about how consciousness derives from the brain's neural network - or if it even does, or is merely 'joined' in a dualistic nature. Who's to say that conscious thought is not even more complex?

User avatar
Malconstant
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:44 am UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby Malconstant » Sun Sep 18, 2011 6:51 pm UTC

@College

Lets not go down that ugly path again. Obviously the brain won't come anywhere near the sun in terms of "how much stuff is going on" complexity. We just had a really long and unpleasant discussion of different ways of thinking about complexity comparing a brain and a star. You'll really have to be more specific at this point if you mean something other than what's been brought up already.
Technical Ben wrote:PS, doogly, way to miss the point.

userxp
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:40 pm UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby userxp » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:10 pm UTC

Wow, I'm sorry, I didn't intend to create so much discord in here :oops:.
When I said "complexity" I guess it could mean something like negentropy, because humans can build things and keep them in a high-entropy state (buildings, cars...), unlike everything else we know in the universe.

In reality however, I think I was just misquoting a LessWrong post: humans are really good at optimizing, relative to other things like evolution by natural selection.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:19 pm UTC

userxp wrote:humans are really good at optimizing, relative to other things like evolution by natural selection.
Really? Because from where I'm sitting, it looks like evolution has managed to do most things more efficiently than our attempts at the same.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Macbi
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:32 am UTC
Location: UKvia

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby Macbi » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:38 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
userxp wrote:humans are really good at optimizing, relative to other things like evolution by natural selection.
Really? Because from where I'm sitting, it looks like evolution has managed to do most things more efficiently than our attempts at the same.
It has had about a million times to do so. Besides, I'm not even sure if evolution does have us beaten on most things. I guess it's hard to keep score.
    Indigo is a lie.
    Which idiot decided that websites can't go within 4cm of the edge of the screen?
    There should be a null word, for the question "Is anybody there?" and to see if microphones are on.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:53 pm UTC

We can't make things that walk, swim, or fly with nearly the energy efficiency of the animals that move in those ways.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Turtlewing
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:22 pm UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby Turtlewing » Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:56 pm UTC

Macbi wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
userxp wrote:humans are really good at optimizing, relative to other things like evolution by natural selection.
Really? Because from where I'm sitting, it looks like evolution has managed to do most things more efficiently than our attempts at the same.
It has had about a million times to do so. Besides, I'm not even sure if evolution does have us beaten on most things. I guess it's hard to keep score.


Technically evolution created us, therefore anything we do can be ultimately credited to evolution (otherwise you have to give your hammer credit for building tables).

userxp
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:40 pm UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby userxp » Tue Sep 20, 2011 2:46 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:We can't make things that walk, swim, or fly with nearly the energy efficiency of the animals that move in those ways.

The first living organisms appeared 3.8 billion years ago. How much have humans advanced in just the last 5,000 years? How much have humans advanced in the last 50 years? Do you really believe that with one more million years of human development we wouldn't be able to match the efficiency of animals? Because even if, somehow, we exponential progress stopped and we were forced to advance linearly, we'd probably be able to fill mars with self-replicating robotic mosquitoes in an evolutionary eyeblink.

Evolution is stupid, slow and chaotic. A mutation that gives you 2% of evolutionary advantage (and that's a lot) has 4% of chance of spreading, and it'd take about 100*ln(population size) generations to spread through the gene pool. Evolution is like trying to program an entire operating system in Brainfuck, except you're completely blind, can't remember anything for more than 2 seconds, don't know which keys on the keyboard correspond to which symbol, and have no idea at all about programming or operating systems.

User avatar
Macbi
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:32 am UTC
Location: UKvia

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby Macbi » Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:48 pm UTC

userxp wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:We can't make things that walk, swim, or fly with nearly the energy efficiency of the animals that move in those ways.

The first living organisms appeared 3.8 billion years ago. How much have humans advanced in just the last 5,000 years? How much have humans advanced in the last 50 years? Do you really believe that with one more million years of human development we wouldn't be able to match the efficiency of animals? Because even if, somehow, we exponential progress stopped and we were forced to advance linearly, we'd probably be able to fill mars with self-replicating robotic mosquitoes in an evolutionary eyeblink.

gmalivuk was replying to my assertion that we currently outdo evolution in many respects, so he can't be faulted for not appreciating the relative speeds of the optimisation processes.
    Indigo is a lie.
    Which idiot decided that websites can't go within 4cm of the edge of the screen?
    There should be a null word, for the question "Is anybody there?" and to see if microphones are on.

userxp
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:40 pm UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby userxp » Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:41 pm UTC

But he started by doubting that humans are better optimization processes than evolution.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:12 pm UTC

And I stand by that, with the caveat that being faster isn't the same as being better.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Malconstant
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:44 am UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby Malconstant » Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:45 pm UTC

Okay, so we're comparing what modern humans have done in 100 years with what evolution has done in millions of years...which of course includes creating modern humans. Cool.

Is there really an argument that modern engineers wouldn't be able to beat the energy efficiency of some modern life forms if they had millions of years to work on it?I wouldn't even know where to begin in trying to argue that, extrapolating where we'll be in a million years. Except for "probably dead because we'll have had ample opportunity to kill ourselves".

I wish there was some understanding of intelligence which required that any civilization technologically advanced enough to pursue galactic expansion would all but necessarily kill themselves before they get to that point because so much time will pass between acquiring the technology to kill the entire civilization, and finally dispersing it to the point that it would be a real challenge to kill the entire civilization. That the time scales are just so long that it's unreasonable to expect any civilization to not kill themselves at some point during it when all it takes is one metaphorical finger slip or lapse in judgement or doomsday cult / mainstream religion, or cold war with the wrong dictator, or technological malfunction, etc, etc.

But seriously, I wonder how you would go about making an actual prediction for at least something like technological malfunction. And then a prediction for the time scale for intersolar-system takeover, and start the clock with fingers crossed.
Technical Ben wrote:PS, doogly, way to miss the point.

jwwells
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:47 am UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby jwwells » Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:11 am UTC

Prediction:

* This discussion will get stored in a permanent record of websites, such as the Internet Archive.

* In several hundred years, a historian will read it and laugh hysterically.

* He will then send a copy to his life partner, Fwush'kboom the Solar Plasma Entity.

If you get enough of the right atoms together, you'll end up with an Earth. It may take a while to make people, but it can. This suggests to me that it would be unwise to underestimate large amounts of interacting atoms and time. People are amazing, but on some level, they're just what the universe does when it gets bored.

collegestudent22
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:36 am UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby collegestudent22 » Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:01 am UTC

Turtlewing wrote:
Macbi wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
userxp wrote:humans are really good at optimizing, relative to other things like evolution by natural selection.
Really? Because from where I'm sitting, it looks like evolution has managed to do most things more efficiently than our attempts at the same.
It has had about a million times to do so. Besides, I'm not even sure if evolution does have us beaten on most things. I guess it's hard to keep score.


Technically evolution created us, therefore anything we do can be ultimately credited to evolution (otherwise you have to give your hammer credit for building tables).


This is quite interesting. For one, can something actually be optimized by unthinking processes - doesn't it imply a conscious weighing of actual options? And for another, you wouldn't have to credit a hammer with building tables, and it has nothing to do with the fact that it is created by you. It has to do with the fact that the hammer is an unthinking object with no will or power of its own. Evolution is, leaving out my objections to the theory, an unthinking process with no will of its own. It doesn't create - it modifies. And it modifies blindly.

Humanity is a far better optimizer because, unlike gmalivuk's assertion, faster is better. If we assume that there is some physical limit upon the optimization of processes, and we further assume that evolution and human optimization can both reach it, then we have an impasse. The only way to determine which is "better" in this case is to see who reaches the limit in the shortest amount of time - which would be humanity, hands down. The only way that evolution could be better is if it has a separate, higher limit than any future technology man could possibly create under the laws of physics - which is theoretically impossible, and would require knowledge no one living now possesses.

User avatar
D.B.
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:08 pm UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby D.B. » Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:46 pm UTC

collegestudent22 wrote: For one, can something actually be optimized by unthinking processes - doesn't it imply a conscious weighing of actual options?
I don't see why it would. Isn't natural selection an immediate example? Or do your objections to evolution extend to that as well?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:45 pm UTC

collegestudent22 wrote:For one, can something actually be optimized by unthinking processes
Of course.
doesn't it imply a conscious weighing of actual options?
No, of course not. In the case of natural selection, the weighing of actual options is done by organisms reproducing or not. Which, in case you haven't noticed, isn't something that requires external conscious weighing of anything.

It's one thing to think there must have been a God who started the whole thing. But if your misunderstanding runs so deep that you think consciousness must be present at every step of the process, I'm kind of confused as to how you get the impression that you know anything about science at all.

and we further assume that evolution and human optimization can both reach it
Why the hell would anyone assume this? Do you have any process that's 100% efficient? Because I've for sure never encountered one.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby Shivahn » Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:05 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote:For one, can something actually be optimized by unthinking processes
Of course.


For simple examples, surface area to volume ratios are optimized by basically any attractive force. Gravity, fluid tension, etc.

It's not that hard to think of examples.

invisifly2
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:23 pm UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby invisifly2 » Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:08 pm UTC

Way to kill my ego, radium.

collegestudent22
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:36 am UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby collegestudent22 » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:54 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote:For one, can something actually be optimized by unthinking processes
Of course.
doesn't it imply a conscious weighing of actual options?
No, of course not. In the case of natural selection, the weighing of actual options is done by organisms reproducing or not. Which, in case you haven't noticed, isn't something that requires external conscious weighing of anything.

It's one thing to think there must have been a God who started the whole thing. But if your misunderstanding runs so deep that you think consciousness must be present at every step of the process, I'm kind of confused as to how you get the impression that you know anything about science at all.


No, my "misconception" here is with the definition of "optimization", and whether THAT requires consciousness, or just means a process that somehow improves efficiency (or some other metric) over time. Note also that I wasn't sure of the answer, so proceeded on the opposite line of reasoning for the rest.

and we further assume that evolution and human optimization can both reach it
Why the hell would anyone assume this? Do you have any process that's 100% efficient? Because I've for sure never encountered one.


I did not assume 100% efficiency. At all. In fact, I specifically stated that there was some limit to what can be achieved with efficiency (say like 98% efficiency or something) due to the laws of thermodynamics. The assertion here is that both a thinking, rational being and the unthinking, blind process of natural selection can reach the same upper limit of efficiency at some point in the future. You could argue that this is not the case, but then I would want to see some evidence as to why it is the blind process of natural selection, and not the focused reason of humanity, that would reach the higher limit. Especially since, in at least some aspects (like communication over distances), humanity has already surpassed natural processes on Earth.

D.B. wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote: For one, can something actually be optimized by unthinking processes - doesn't it imply a conscious weighing of actual options?
I don't see why it would. Isn't natural selection an immediate example? Or do your objections to evolution extend to that as well?


They do not. Also, the question was to the specific definition of optimization, which in my experience has usually been considered a focused effort - something that, at the very least, required some recognition that the thing in question was, in fact, being optimized. In this sense, it was a somewhat subjective word, much like "making it better", which requires some consciousness to evaluate it. Obviously, that is not how it is being used here, so I digress.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:42 pm UTC

collegestudent22 wrote:No, my "misconception" here is with the definition of "optimization", and whether THAT requires consciousness, or just means a process that somehow improves efficiency (or some other metric) over time.
Optimization means finding an optimal solution. Optimal in no way implies consciously directed improvement. As stated before, surface tension and similar forces can be said to optimize surface area to volume.

I did not assume 100% efficiency. At all. In fact, I specifically stated that there was some limit to what can be achieved with efficiency (say like 98% efficiency or something) due to the laws of thermodynamics.
But 100% *is* the only hard limit. It's just that it's a limit that cannot itself actually be reached. But that's not the same as saying there is some hard limit strictly less than 100%. Just like absolute zero is the hard limit on temperature, even though we'll never reach it. Or the speed of light is the hard limit on massive particle velocity, though we'll never reach it.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Malconstant
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:44 am UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby Malconstant » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:01 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote: Just like absolute zero is the hard limit on temperature, even though we'll never reach it. Or the speed of light is the hard limit on massive particle velocity, though we'll never reach it.

Well, negative temperatures and the occasional neutrino aside of course.
Technical Ben wrote:PS, doogly, way to miss the point.

gorcee
Posts: 1501
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:14 am UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby gorcee » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:05 pm UTC

Malconstant wrote:
gmalivuk wrote: Just like absolute zero is the hard limit on temperature, even though we'll never reach it. Or the speed of light is the hard limit on massive particle velocity, though we'll never reach it.

Well, negative temperatures and the occasional neutrino aside of course.


Wut?

User avatar
Malconstant
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:44 am UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby Malconstant » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:26 pm UTC

It's a dumb technicality which comes from a thermodynamic definition of temperature as T = dU/dS, where U is the energy of a system and S is the entropy. So generally speaking, when you add energy to a system its entropy will increase.

But, suppose you're looking at a closed quantum system where there are maximum limits of possible energy. You can imagine a system of binary particles with only two states, up and down, and up has energy 1, while down has energy 0. And suppose you have a system of a finite number of such binary particles, say 10 of them. As you start to pump energy into this system, starting at 0 energy, you increase the total number of possible states the system can be in, as defined by all the different ways it can configure its 10 particles to hold the amount of energy you've given it. But after you've given it 5 energies, now adding more energy will decrease the number of options your system has, such that if you gave your system 10 energies, it would have only one configuration available (all ten particles being up). So from energies 1-5, dU/dS is positive so temperature is positive, but from 6-10, dU/dS is negative so temperature is negative.

Interestingly in all cases the temperature is increasing as you add energy to it, it's just that when it's negative it becomes closer to 0 with more energy added. Unfortunately you still can't reach 0 this way, so that value is simply unattainable even with these silly technicalities.
Technical Ben wrote:PS, doogly, way to miss the point.

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby Technical Ben » Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:06 pm UTC

Malconstant wrote:
gmalivuk wrote: Just like absolute zero is the hard limit on temperature, even though we'll never reach it. Or the speed of light is the hard limit on massive particle velocity, though we'll never reach it.

Well, negative temperatures and the occasional neutrino aside of course.

You know better than that. Negative temperatures are statistical descriptions and not meaningful when talking about absolute zero*. Neutrinos are yet to be proven. I find your comments rather amusing. Nice to see them in another thread, so I am less worried about your replies to my posts. ;)

[edit for clarity]
I think the reference was getting more energy out of a system at absolute zero is impossible. The example of negative temperature does not involve this.

*Wiki quote:
By contrast, a system with a truly negative temperature is not colder than absolute zero; in fact, temperatures colder than absolute zero are impossible by definition. Rather, a system with a truly negative Kelvin temperature is hotter than any system with a positive temperature (in the sense that if a negative-temperature system and a positive-temperature system come in contact, heat will flow from the negative- to the positive-temperature system).
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

User avatar
Malconstant
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:44 am UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby Malconstant » Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:30 pm UTC

You got me. Caught red-handed in the act of jesting and practical jabbery. As a rule of thumb I'll only say such transparent trolling nonsense when responding to someone who I trust will "get it", however, so all the legitimate nonsense I've said to you on other threads still holds I assure you. I mean I even went on to clarify the negative temperature point above.

Also, neutrinos? Yeah they've been proven. They've been hella proven to exist. Been predicting and measuring them all over the place for decades now. Unless you mean the FTL thing, in which case you're right, but you shouldn't underestimate the legitness of the experiment. 6 sigmas is a well-known anagram for "this shit be serious".
Technical Ben wrote:PS, doogly, way to miss the point.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:11 am UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby Koyaanisqatsi » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:34 am UTC

Uh, we're not on a speck of dust. We're on a speck of rock. Dust is from human cells.

Also, I hate to do this, but I must.

The entire universe is made primarily out of hydrogen and rocks, right? So what? I'm supposed to feel like hydrogen and rocks are more important than me because they're bigger? That's like saying a whale is far more important than a person, or that a baby is much less important than an adult. Please! I rule the universe! All I have to do is turn my head, and I've changed the entire universe! Right now, I'm looking at a computer, but if I just turn my head a mere 180 degrees, the universe is now a couch! Brilliant, huh? I am IMPORTANT, I say! IMPORTANT!!! Sure, there are billions of planets, but they're all just rocks! This planet, we all must admit, is a lot more than just a rock! It's got LIFE on it! It's got HUMANS on it, AND off it! And we're, like, geniuses!

Besides, the Earth is huge anyway. How couldn't it be? The entire universe is inside it.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:45 am UTC

Koyaanisqatsi wrote:Dust is from human cells.
No, it isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby Technical Ben » Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:19 am UTC

Malconstant wrote:You got me. Caught red-handed in the act of jesting and practical jabbery. As a rule of thumb I'll only say such transparent trolling nonsense when responding to someone who I trust will "get it", however, so all the legitimate nonsense I've said to you on other threads still holds I assure you. I mean I even went on to clarify the negative temperature point above.

Also, neutrinos? Yeah they've been proven. They've been hella proven to exist. Been predicting and measuring them all over the place for decades now. Unless you mean the FTL thing, in which case you're right, but you shouldn't underestimate the legitness of the experiment. 6 sigmas is a well-known anagram for "this shit be serious".


Ok, thanks for clearing that up. ;)
Oh, I knew you'd notice I forgot to put "speed of neutrinos" is the latest development that may be under question. Even then it's most likely an error in the mechanics of the experiment or measurements from third party sources (GPS etc). I realised I'd just put "neutrinos" and you were* bound to be pedantic/joke about how they are already proven to exist. :lol:


*(nearly put "your" as well. That would get a right telling off!)
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:11 am UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby Koyaanisqatsi » Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:23 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Koyaanisqatsi wrote:Dust is from human cells.
No, it isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust

Oh. Whoops. Nevertheless, my point remains valid.

I don't think it would do us well to think that we aren't important. We must realize that we are, in fact, the most complex phenomenom we have yet found in the universe.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby yurell » Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:36 am UTC

Define 'complex'.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Oct 04, 2011 3:07 am UTC

Round and round we go...
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3713
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby PM 2Ring » Tue Oct 04, 2011 3:11 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Round and round we go...

It's a rich (and dusty) tapestry. :)

User avatar
Radium
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:13 am UTC

Re: Speck of Dust

Postby Radium » Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:44 pm UTC

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Those that don't read the first page are condemned to repeat it. Or something vaguely along those lines.


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests