Subjective/Objective reallity

[Desert Snake]

Actually, the aspects she claimed about the shape of the Earth are very well verified.

You should be able to easily prove that in this thread, then.

 

[ChristineM]

You should be able to easily prove that in this thread, then.

There is this thing called the internet, i know you are at least semi aware of its existence. On the internet you can ask a special tool called a search engine to find "what is the shape of earth". The search engine tool will offer you a choice of thousands of works, citations, book, papers and even web sites explaining why earth is an oblate spheroid

Feel free to give it a try, there is no real secret to educating yourself.


Here is an example of just one of those search engine results.

The Shape of Our Earth Our World is an Oblate Spheroid

 

[Desert Snake]

I happen to think that the earth is a spheroid, but i cant prove it. It might be objective in a contextual argument.

This is what I originally wrote, referring to the outer dome. Since you can't personally prove any thing you're stating about the shape of the earth, I will assume that you are conceding defeat.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

From the link

Does Negative Mean Colder?
It is important to note that the negative temperature region, with more of the atoms in the higher allowed energy state, is actually warmer than the positive temperature region...

Ok, it says....

"Below is an image of the momentum distribution at negative temperatures of the potassium atoms in the optical lattice. The momentum is proportional to the kinetic energy (motion energy) of the atoms, and the peaks show the maximum kinetic energy. The negative temperature states are very stable, and the atoms do not go to lower motional energy states.1

Momentum distribution when the atoms are in the upper levels of their lowest energy band. The peaks correspond to maximum kinetic energy (motion energy).
Image Credit: LMU/MPQ Munich "

So the way I read this is as you said, the red peaks represent the higher energy of the negative energy region, and are thus warmer relative to the lower area. But what is the lower temperature?

How do you interpret this graph in the context of temperature < 0 ?

http://www.quantum-munich.de/research/negative-absolute-temperature/

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Look at post #112. Negative temperatures are defined through statistical mechanics and arise in non-equilibrium situations where there is an inversion in the population of energy states (where higher energy states are populated but lower ones are not). These happen, for example, in lasers.

It turns out that objects at negative temperatures are actually 'hotter' than those at positive temperatures. This happens because of the technical definitions.

I do not see why the zpe of the QV can not also be in a state of more or less quiescent, and thus ''warmer' or 'cooler'?

In my post above, I inquired of Christine about this, and I await to hear of her understanding, feel free to respond as well.

 

[ChristineM]

Ok, it says....

"Below is an image of the momentum distribution at negative temperatures of the potassium atoms in the optical lattice. The momentum is proportional to the kinetic energy (motion energy) of the atoms, and the peaks show the maximum kinetic energy. The negative temperature states are very stable, and the atoms do not go to lower motional energy states.1

Momentum distribution when the atoms are in the upper levels of their lowest energy band. The peaks correspond to maximum kinetic energy (motion energy).
Image Credit: LMU/MPQ Munich "

So the way I read this is as you said, the red peaks represent the higher energy of the negative energy region, and are thus warmer relative to the lower area. But what is the lower temperature?

How do you interpret this graph in the context of temperature < 0 ?

You appear to have cherry picked only the first half of the paper which incidentally excludes the actual explanation of results. I'm sure you wouldn't purposely try to mislead people so I'm assuming your extremely important omission was in error.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You appear to have cherry picked only the first half of the paper which incidentally excludes the actual explanation of results. I'm sure you wouldn't purposely try to mislead people so I'm assuming your extremely important omission was in error.

I was only asking for an explanation of your understanding, I can't say that I fully understand? If you can't clarify, then we will both have to wait for Polymath..

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, it says....

"Below is an image of the momentum distribution at negative temperatures of the potassium atoms in the optical lattice. The momentum is proportional to the kinetic energy (motion energy) of the atoms, and the peaks show the maximum kinetic energy. The negative temperature states are very stable, and the atoms do not go to lower motional energy states.1

Momentum distribution when the atoms are in the upper levels of their lowest energy band. The peaks correspond to maximum kinetic energy (motion energy).
Image Credit: LMU/MPQ Munich "

So the way I read this is as you said, the red peaks represent the higher energy of the negative energy region, and are thus warmer relative to the lower area. But what is the lower temperature?

No, that is not correct. The picture is of a negative temperature state. That means that the high energy states (red) are occupied instead of having the low energy states (blue) only. This is what is known as an inverted state: usually we expect everything to be at the lowest energy state possible. So, the fact that red appears here is what shows that we have a negative temperature.

How do you interpret this graph in the context of temperature < 0 ?

Well, entropy is a measure of how many microscopic possibilities there are for a given macroscopic state. So, when half the atoms are in a low energy state and half are in a high energy state, we have maximum entropy.

Next, temperature is essentially (up to a constant) the reciprocal slope of the graph above. So, when the temperature is positive, the slope is upwards as we go to the right (left half of graph) and when the temperature negative, the slope is downwards as we go to the right (right half of the graph). At the top, the slope is zero and the reciprocal is infinite.

 

[ChristineM]

I was only asking for an explanation of your understanding, I can't say that I fully understand? If you can't clarify, then we will both have to wait for Polymath..

I thought it got easier to understand the more i read of the page. Of particular interest to me was the last section on negative pressure having possible implications in the study of dark energy. But for explanation Polymath is the guy. Over the years I've learned a lot from him.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, that is not correct. The picture is of a negative temperature state. That means that the high energy states (red) are occupied instead of having the low energy states (blue) only. This is what is known as an inverted state: usually we expect everything to be at the lowest energy state possible. So, the fact that red appears here is what shows that we have a negative temperature.

Well, entropy is a measure of how many microscopic possibilities there are for a given macroscopic state. So, when half the atoms are in a low energy state and half are in a high energy state, we have maximum entropy.

Next, temperature is essentially (up to a constant) the reciprocal slope of the graph above. So, when the temperature is positive, the slope is upwards as we go to the right (left half of graph) and when the temperature negative, the slope is downwards as we go to the right (right half of the graph). At the top, the slope is zero and the reciprocal is infinite.

Thanks.

Still one more thing, referring to the graph, why does it indicate the temperature progressively decreasing below zero K on the right half of the graph?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I thought it got easier to understand the more i read of the page. Of particular interest to me was the last section on negative pressure having possible implications in the study of dark energy. But for explanation Polymath is the guy. Over the years I've learned a lot from him.

Yes, it seems the refrigeration principle of gas expansion producing cooling is related to the negative pressure producing negative temperature of the gas of potassium atoms. (But again I must say it is somewhat confusing to call it negative temperature when it is warmer than positive temperature.) So perhaps it is the negative pressure of the dark energy that sets the quiescent state of non-motion space at zero K.

Yes, Polymaths seems to know his stuff as far as present theory permits, and is a patient teacher, but always keep in mind that actual reality is on the other side of the theoretical representation, and like everyone else, he doesn't know what he doesn't know?

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks.

Still one more thing, referring to the graph, why does it indicate the temperature progressively decreasing below zero K on the right half of the graph?

Notice that the graph does not continue in that way. The energy cannot go below the minimum in this situation and so the temperature does NOT continue to the left (or right).

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, it seems the refrigeration principle of gas expansion producing cooling is related to the negative pressure producing negative temperature of the gas of potassium atoms. (But again I must say it is somewhat confusing to call it negative temperature when it is warmer than positive temperature.) So perhaps it is the negative pressure of the dark energy that sets the quiescent state of non-motion space at zero K.

Yes, this is one of the paradoxes of the definition of temperature in statistical mechanics. Again, in the graph, the temperature is the reciprocal of the slope. So, if entropy decreases with increased energy the temperature has to be negative. This case here because there are fewer high energy states than there are states of intermediate energy. So as you pass the half-way point, the temperature, according to the definition, must go negative.

Yes, Polymaths seems to know his stuff as far as present theory permits, and is a patient teacher, but always keep in mind that actual reality is on the other side of the theoretical representation, and like everyone else, he doesn't know what he doesn't know?

Well, I do try to know what I don't know. In this case, the theory is pretty well hashed out and the correspondence with reality is pretty good. The strangeness mostly comes from the strange way temperature is defined in this area of study.

Another situation where there is an inversion like this (and hence negative temperatures) is in lasers. After they are 'pumped', they have a negative temperature.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Notice that the graph does not continue in that way. The energy cannot go below the minimum in this situation and so the temperature does NOT continue to the left (or right).

But to the right of the center at the top shows temperature reading of < zero K, to the left shows > zero K, why is labeled so if not to be understood as the relative temperature reading from left to right from min to max energy levels?

Update...Never mind, I begin to get it now...thanks Polymath.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, this is one of the paradoxes of the definition of temperature in statistical mechanics. Again, in the graph, the temperature is the reciprocal of the slope. So, if entropy decreases with increased energy the temperature has to be negative. This case here because there are fewer high energy states than there are states of intermediate energy. So as you pass the half-way point, the temperature, according to the definition, must go negative.

Well, I do try to know what I don't know. In this case, the theory is pretty well hashed out and the correspondence with reality is pretty good. The strangeness mostly comes from the strange way temperature is defined in this area of study.

Another situation where there is an inversion like this (and hence negative temperatures) is in lasers. After they are 'pumped', they have a negative temperature.

Strange but I begin to understand...thanks...

 

[Polymath257]

I thought it got easier to understand the more i read of the page. Of particular interest to me was the last section on negative pressure having possible implications in the study of dark energy. But for explanation Polymath is the guy. Over the years I've learned a lot from him.

And I have learned from you also. *bows*

 

[ChristineM]

And I have learned from you also. *bows*

Thanking you good sir.

 

[Nakosis]

would you say this suggests that the more we will be able to explain how things work, the less the need for subjective reality will become?

I'm honestly conflicted here. So our entire experience of reality is subjective. Objective reality is something we have to conceptualize.

Yet it is important to objectively validate what we know. This provides certainty to whatever we claim as truth. If I want to prove something, I have to prove it objectively which basically means I have to show that my understanding of how something works provides consistent repeatable results.

So my experience is still subjective. What makes it objective is showing that subjective experience to be consistent.

Temperature for example. Whether I feel hot or cold is subjective. We can measure it through some mechanical means. What we measure will be consistent. However I can never actually experience that consistency. Sometimes a certain temperature will feel hot to me. Sometimes it will feel cold.

So while we can prove an objective reality though it's consistency. We can only conceptualize it, never directly experience it.

The shape of the earth, we can conceptualize it, never directly experience it.

Objective reality is important because it allows us to progress and validate our knowledge about how things work.

Subjective reality is also important because it is the reality of what we experience. Love, happiness, pain, contentment. These are not objective things. However in someways these subjective things seem more important than what we objectively know. I mean which is really more important? Possessing conceptual knowledge of the shape of the earth or the ability to be happy?

 

[Polymath257]

I'm honestly conflicted here. So our entire experience of reality is subjective. Objective reality is something we have to conceptualize.

Yet it is important to objectively validate what we know. This provides certainty to whatever we claim as truth. If I want to prove something, I have to prove it objectively which basically means I have to show that my understanding of how something works provides consistent repeatable results.

So my experience is still subjective. What makes it objective is showing that subjective experience to be consistent.

Temperature for example. Whether I feel hot or cold is subjective. We can measure it through some mechanical means. What we measure will be consistent. However I can never actually experience that consistency. Sometimes a certain temperature will feel hot to me. Sometimes it will feel cold.

There is a fairly wide range of illusions (visual and otherwise) that can help us objectively understand our subjective experiences. It is common for our sensory apparatus to get 'fooled' and it is a good thing to learn when that can happen. On the one extreme we have the common experience of seeing a face in the clouds or a picture of Jesus on toast. on the other we have things like 'magic eye' pictures which look 3D but are not. In between are situations where it is *impossible* to see two regions as the same color *unless* you cover up the surroundings.

The point is that our eyes often do some processing before the signal is even sent to the brain. And the brain has evolved to pick up certain types of information and ignore others.

We *never* see things as they 'actually are'. This is doubly true when we acknowledge the very small part of the spectrum we can even see. But they are 'faults' in our senses that are above and beyond even that.

So while we can prove an objective reality though it's consistency. We can only conceptualize it, never directly experience it.

The shape of the earth, we can conceptualize it, never directly experience it.

Objective reality is important because it allows us to progress and validate our knowledge about how things work.

Subjective reality is also important because it is the reality of what we experience. Love, happiness, pain, contentment. These are not objective things. However in someways these subjective things seem more important than what we objectively know. I mean which is really more important? Possessing conceptual knowledge of the shape of the earth or the ability to be happy?

Well, the brain is trained to hold certain types of things to be important. So we do. This can be changed a bit because of training or interests, but no matter what we do, our subjective views are likely to be inaccurate.

So, do you prefer happiness or truth?

 

[Nakosis]

So, do you prefer happiness or truth?

It depends on the situation. Sometimes the objective truth is not important.

The subjective truth is what I experience whether illusion or not. For example the color pink doesn't actually exist in the color spectrum but I still see it. Is it important that it doesn't exist? Not really.

There are times when the objective truth is important, critical. Just not all that often really.

So where objective truth is not important, I think happiness would be the choice of human self-interest.