Besides isn’t it more like sublimation than evaporation?I don't know, but if it is that throws a big monkey wrench into the whole idea because that is one of the things I was seeking to explain. But it would also throw a wrench into my understanding of the currently accepted process, which sheds graviton particles. But they, themselves, are probably massless particles, so the mass would lose particles, but not mass. I figured if there was an issue with this you would be the one to find it. Now I have to (get to) do some more research!
happy hunting
CC: "Besides isn’t it more like sublimation than evaporation?"It's like neither. Both those are matter-to-matter transitions of state. There are no single words that I could have used to get the idea across, and no amount of words would be better.
Until there is a word that is invented that we all understand, ‘evaporate’ will work fine. (But I do agree that sublimation does a better job of capturing the flavour of what I am imagining takes place when matter poofs into space.)
The way I understand evaporation and looking it up supported my impression that evaporation happens to a liquid.
I looked up “matter-to-matter transitions” didn’t find anything.
Well, I did find something that fits right in with your suggestion that a new word needs to be invented.
Transitions between states of matter: It’s more complicated, scientists find Date: November 6, 2014 Source: New York University Summary: The seemingly simple process of phase changes -- those transitions between states of matter -- is more complex than previously known. New work reveals the need to rethink one of science's building blocks and, with it, how some of the basic principles underlying the behavior of matter are taught in our classrooms. ...https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141106143532.htm
I meant that evaporation and sublimation are matter in one state or phase changing to matter in a different state or phase. In evaporation is is liquid changing to gas and sublimation is solid changing to gas.
The two words kinda convey the idea of something changing into something you can’t see. They are in no way analogous to matter converting to space, but they do the job of getting the point across on a forum.
You’d have to ask Widders if there’s a word for what he’s talking about. If there is, it is likely known to only those up-to-date on information in the field.
I really don’t know enough about the process to give an informed decision. I’ve always heard “evaporate” and just kind of drawn a conclusion that it meant “disappears” since platinum isn’t normally thought of as becoming a gas at very low temperatures. I always assumed there was some process by which it made sense other than to just turn into gas, but this is one area where, instead of actually learning what the were saying, I simply assumed that I knew “enough” when obviously I did not.
I would point out, however, that regardless what is happening there with the matter losing mass, current theory really still isn’t that far from what I’m suggesting. In my proposition matter degrades into space. By current physics a mass still sheds matter (gravitons) and is the reason for gravity. The two are very close. As I said, it’s just an alternate explanation for the observation, not really “new science”.
But I still do have to look into matter losing mass over time to see if that fits.
Okay, I looked into the loss of mass of the standard kilogram and good news for my proposition, scientists have no idea. But it’s actually a little more complicated than that.
The standard kilogram was created in 1889 to be the standard by which all other kilograms were measured. There were several copies made and taken to other countries. These copies are brought together and compared every few years. Now, here’s where it gets tricky. The original has lost about 50 micrograms in weight compared to a copy over the last century and a quarter or so. So technically scientists don’t know if that one is losing weight or the others are gaining weight. Or maybe we can just measure weight more precisely. 50 micrograms is about the weight of a fingerprint.
So here are the problems with my proposition. We don’t know for certain that it is losing weight, just that it now weighs less than its copies, or at least one of them. If it is losing weight, the copies should be too. And with the same mass they should be losing weight at roughly the same rate. But there may be some matter more likely to transition than other matter. Iron, for example, is the most stable element in nature. Other elements tend to pick up or shed particles to become something else at varying rates, but iron is the least likely to do that. 130 years ago I’m sure we didn’t have the quality control we do today, so there are a lot of possible reasons for the change in weight. Keep in mind, though, these are stored in vaults under glass to prevent contamination. They are never touched and they are routinely cleaned through an exacting process, if I recall, to remove excess hydrogen atoms which tend to stick to them. Or maybe it was nitrogen. I don’t remember. The point is these aren’t just stored in a box in someone’s garage to collect dust.
At any rate, not enough is known about the reason for the weight difference to say that this is evidence for or against my proposition. I’m sure there has been a thorough investigation, but a hunt for spare hydrogen atoms on the surface of a chunk of metal isn’t exactly riveting science, so I haven’t found any more information about it. I don’t even know how exact their composition is identical, their size, the original variance in weight (there must have been some), if the cleaning schedules coincide with the comparisons, the difference in weighing accuracy from creation to today, etc. It would be fascinating to know, though. If my proposition were correct and it is a half-life type thing you should be able to figure out the exact rate of decay (not the right word, but it’s quick) between different materials and then, using that, calculate what Earth’s gravity should be in a given place at a given time at a given altitude (it changes depending on the density of material under foot, the position of the moon, planets and sun and how far away from the center you are, not to mention the height of the matter, whether you be on a mountain or in a plane at the same altitude. But that’s all just nitpicking, really) and see if it matches.
If it is sub-sub atomic particles that convert to ‘space’, are the characteristics of the atom they are a part of relevant?
I would have thought that the bits of matter converting to space would have the same statistical chance regardless of what they are a part of. Maybe crazy high energy or forces might affect the statistics, but not the atom they are a part of. Basically, any amount of matter will have the exact same loss of mass due to conversion to ‘space’ as any other identical amount of matter, regardless of where in the universe they are and what they are made of (one kg of concrete from my basement will lose mass at the same rate as one kg of a comet orbiting a star in a different galaxy and one kg of hydrogen floating around in yet another galaxy.)
I was thinking of it on a much smaller scale than “subatomic particles”. An electron’s mass doesn’t change when it absorbs or emits a photon, just its energy level. A photon is a massless particle. But it’s still made of the same “stuff” as all other particles. So we know already that some particles contribute to gravity while others do not, and that not all particles have the same mass. It’s not the characteristics of the atom itself which would affect the speed of conversion, but ultimately the interactions of the underlying bits of fields which make up the quarks which make up the subatomic particles which make up the atom, with some potential interference between adjacent particles.
Think of it this way. You have to balloons which represent quarks. You put these quarks together with more balloons to represent two subatomic particles. You rub some of these balloons on your hair, creating a static charge which will represent the fields (not the best example since the fields don’t make up our quarks, but it should suffice). The charge on one balloon is going to be affected by the charge on nearby balloons, eventually reaching balance. But if you bring your two “subatomic particle” balloon clusters close enough together then the charges on each cluster are going to affect each other as well, though to a lesser extent because of the much greater distance between them (they’re not touching).
So you have the interactions of the fields within a quark, the interactions between adjacent quarks within a subatomic particle and the interactions of the subatomic particles within an atom. And then you can go further with the interactions between atoms in a molecule. Each of those things has known forces which bind them together (maybe the fields don’t have “known” forces). And all of that can be traced down to the smallest part, the field. The exact configuration of fields grants the quark its unique attributes, the exact configuration of quarks grants the electron its unique attributes and so on. But those attributes, no matter how far you take them out, are all results of the smallest component, the fields. So “electrons” don’t repel each other, it is the configuration of the fields in the configuration of the quarks in the electrons which are doing the repelling. Hopefully that makes sense to you.
The laws of thermodynamics don’t recognize the dissolution of matter into space. If we do then we must accept that space is a thing - a medium - and, horrors, an aether. Just a little bit of extrapolation leads to the idea that the aether is composed of the smallest things (particles) that can exist and that everything is composed of them. If we can accept that everything is made of space - the aether particles - then the dissolution of a thing back into space may be seen as a natural cooling process.
I hate when people try to bring magical nonsense words into science conversations. And use words like “medium” so they can suggest the possibilities of long discarded theories being correct without specifically naming them. And how, exactly, do laws governing specifically heat pertain to matter in general? You do know what the “thermo” in “thermodynamics” means, right?
And I never said everything is made of space. I said that everything, including space, is made of the same quantum waves.
I found one potential issue with my proposition. Fields may not work the way I expected they did. Someone, I think 3point, posted a fascinating lecture on fields some months ago and I re-watched parts of it. It seems that the fields correspond to individual particles. Electrons, for example, have their own field. An electron existing is the result of a perturbation in the electron field. I had been under the impression that a combination of different fields made each particle. That does not appear to be the case.
I was also under the impression that there were 13 accepted fields, 3 groups of 4 each plus gravity. The 3 groups of 4 fields each was very interesting to me because it suggested these fields all had some relation to each other and that gravity as a field was anomalous. After re-watching parts of that lecture it does mention other fields outside of those groups as well. Those 3 groups of 4 fields are just the “matter fields”, the fields associated with matter. Note, however, that “matter” is not the same as “particles”. There is a boson field as well, which is not part of the matter fields.
The short of it is that my understanding of fields was hopelessly flawed. The entire portion about the “universal speed” is completely baseless now. Not that it’s necessarily incorrect, just that it has been reduced from “intellectual musing” to “wild-ass guess” because what I based it on was inaccurate. It’s still an avenue I intend to keep pursuing because the intention of these musings was to simplify the universe. So I haven’t given up on that, but there is absolutely no evidence to support it at this point as I understand it.
Now if only Hoffman could achieve the honesty threshold to admit as much, but fame and fortune is so intoxicating.
In the end, seems to be, a product of our Mindscape and it’s fun to play mind games.
And we’re still stuck with atoms and time’s arrow - same as it ever will be. 
how, exactly, do laws governing specifically heat pertain to matter in general?In the most basic terms, heat is the transfer of "energy" from one object (matter) to another. Just like "energy" is not a thing, heat is not a "thing". Both are measures of the activity of the atoms in an object (matter). When heat is transferred from one thing made of matter to another thing made of matter some of the atoms in the thing with the most active atoms (the warmer thing) lose a bit of their activity and some of the atoms in the "cooler" thing get a bit more active. If the process continues until both things are at the same level of net atomic activity both objects will be at the same "temperature".
Heat transfer between objects which are not touching is called radiation. The more excited atoms in the warmer object produce a disturbance in the medium we call space (we call this electromagnetic radiation, EMR; the frequencies we can see we call “light”) and the atoms in the cooler object become more excited by being disturbed (displaced) by the motion of the medium.
Note that all objects which are not at absolute zero temperature (no activity in their atoms) emit EMR which we call heat and energy. Of course we would not be able to detect an object at absolute zero because it would not interact with other objects in its surroundings (receiving and emitting EMR) which would include a detector.
quantum wavesA wave by any other name is still a wave. A wave is a disturbance in a medium; no medium, no wave. A field is not a thing, it is a concept, a concept of a volume which contains things, things such as a medium.
If one can get away from all the “scientific” magical nonsense words, understanding the world we live in just ain’t that hard.
If one can get away from all the “scientific” magical nonsense words, understanding the world we live in just ain’t that hard.It's nice when you make sense.
"A wave is a disturbance in a medium; no medium, no wave."Electromagnetic waves need no medium. They pass through the vacuum of space. In fact, a medium will slow and usually stops them.
I’m not super strong in physics, but I’m pretty sure light doesn’t pass through walls, hills can affect my radio reception, lead stops x-rays, and light from stars in other galaxies can get here through millions of light-years of vacuum and only stop when it hits my eyeball.
They are in no way analogous to matter converting to space,How does that relate to the platinum-iridium losing weight?
The occasional electrons, atoms escaping into the air, improper cleaning, etc.
I don’t know of any reason to assume some weird physics is going on there.
It’s simply at the limits of our ability to track and maintain perfectly.
To put in perspective:
50 micrograms in mass, (roughly equal to a single eyelash - or fingerprint) /
1,000,000,000 micro grams = 1 kilogram
Ronald F. Fox, a Regents' Professor Emeritus in the School of Physics at the Georgia Institute of Technology.:“When you make physical and chemical measurements, it’s important to have as high a precision as possible, and these standards really define the limits of precision,”
I don’t deny that time exists. I deny that time exists as an independent dimension, because time is a result of duration of something and the future is as yet devoid of any duration, hence: No time.
Humans also can project expectation of the future, where animals live in the “now”, but that does not make the future a measurable object.
The future has no time. Neither space nor time has yet been created, simultaneously.
But every instance of Now does create and instance of duration (Time).
The past is filled with time. Time is the symbolic description of how we arbitrarily measure and record the past.
Time is the 4th dimension of passed spacetime (the Past).
Time is created as the 4th dimension of 3D passing of current spacetime
Future Time has not yet been created because a future 3D space has not yet been created.
The problem lies in the fact that we live in the Now, but we can only measure the Past.
1 Like
Makes me think of derivatives as a mathematical analogy. The change of something over something else is the derivative.
Change of distance over time is velocity.
The change of reality over ( ? ) is time.
But nothing fades as fast as the future
And nothing clings like the past,
More Than This
Peter Gabriel
1 Like