Eric Gisse insists Temperature is Not a Tensor!
gu...@hotmail.com
Eric Gisse
> Eric Gisse insists Temperature is Not a Tensor Rank_0 !!!!!!
Energy is a scalar. Is Energy a rank 0 tensor?
gu...@hotmail.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
Quote:"For example, mass, ***temperature***, and other scalar
quantities are tensors of rank 0;"
*********************************************************************************************************************
(tensor = tension.... ......unfortunately ....they
neglected fluctuations = pulse vector but "you" know more then "I")
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 21, 6:23 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 8:43 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Eric Gisse insists Temperature is Not a Tensor Rank_0 !!!!!!
>
> > Energy is a scalar. Is Energy a rank 0 tensor?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
> Quote:"For example, mass, ***temperature***, and other scalar
> quantities are tensors of rank 0;"
Wikipedia is wrong and you are stupid for treating Wikipedia like a
comprehensive textbook on the subject.
>
> *********************************************************************************************************************
> (tensor = tension.... ......unfortunately ....they
> neglected fluctuations = pulse vector but "you" know more then "I")
Yes, I do. That comes with having something you don't: an education.
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Apr 21, 4:30 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 6:23 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 8:43 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Eric Gisse insists Temperature is Not a Tensor Rank_0 !!!!!!
>
> > > Energy is a scalar. Is Energy a rank 0 tensor?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
> > Quote:"For example, mass, ***temperature***, and other scalar
> > quantities are tensors of rank 0;"
>
> Wikipedia is wrong and you are stupid for treating Wikipedia like a
> comprehensive textbook on the subject.
>
>
>
> > (tensor = tension.... ......unfortunately ....they
> > neglected fluctuations = pulse vector but "you" know more then "I")
>
> Yes, I do. That comes with having something you don't: an education.
Educate this:
Derivative of 3x = 3 (= scalar)
Antiderivative of 3x = ...x^2 (= area = 2 vectors)
Derivative (not antiderivative) of scalar field(temperature) = vector
field
*************************************************
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_calculus
Quote:
Vector calculus is concerned with scalar fields, which associate a
scalar to every point in space, and vector fields, which associate a
vector to every point in space. For example, the temperature of a
swimming pool is a scalar field: to each point we associate a scalar
value of temperature. The water flow in the same pool is a vector
field: to each point we associate a velocity vector.
Three operations are important in vector calculus:
gradient: measures the rate and direction of change in a scalar field;
the gradient of a scalar field is a vector field.
***********************************
A change in ***direction***....and they're attribuing it to a
scalar...
A scalar field is ***SUFFICIENT**** to completely describe a
Manifold(3D & 4D).
(since you like to read, look-up "scalar field" theory as opposed to
quantum field (tensor/vector) theory)
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Apr 21, 4:30 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 6:23 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 8:43 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Eric Gisse insists Temperature is Not a Tensor Rank_0 !!!!!!
>
> > > Energy is a scalar. Is Energy a rank 0 tensor?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
> > Quote:"For example, mass, ***temperature***, and other scalar
> > quantities are tensors of rank 0;"
>
> Wikipedia is wrong and you are stupid for treating Wikipedia like a
> comprehensive textbook on the subject.
>
>
>
> > (tensor = tension.... ......unfortunately ....they
> > neglected fluctuations = pulse vector but "you" know more then "I")
>
> Yes, I do. That comes with having something you don't: an education.
It's impossible to confine temperature to a single vector, it's
distributes itself forcefully to all vectors ("perhaps" the time
vector as well)
Ken S. Tucker
> Eric Gisse insists Temperature is Not a Tensor Rank_0 !!!!!!
Years ago we had this discussion. Anyway
you can treat "temperature" as a scalar, rank 1
vector, or rank 2 tensor, it depends upon how
you measure it.
If you stick a thermometer in a chickens ass
while cooking it, and it reads on a dial 200F
then the number "200" is a scalar.
If OTOH, your dealing with the energy content
of the chicken then your increasing it's kinetic
energy which is a vector.
If OTOH you're measuring it's energy density
which increases by heating the chicken, then
that is a 2nd rank tensor.
Turns out all you guys are right, except wrong
to reject the other guys are right.
BTW, I'll add radiation increments a thermometer
and it's 3rd rank asymmetrical tensor, ok enough.
That last one screwed me, (sometimes I'm real dumb),
let me tell you a true story.
Wife buys me a handy electronic thermometer that
has an Indoor and Outdoor reading, ($10 or so) and
we place it near a little 10 watt red night light that's
always on, I left the Outdoor probe bundled beside it.
Well the Outdoor reading is 5F less than the Indoor,
(it has two LCD displays), so Tucker, being an idiot
pops a mind fuse and blames the equipment, to the
extent I was about to take it back for refund.
A few days later it donned on me that the Indoor
temperature probe was in a plastic case, and the
Outdoor probe was in a shiny little stainless steel
case, (I bet you can hear it coming), the albedo's
of the plastic and stainless are different for the
little 10w red-night light radiation. I switched off
the light and within minutes the two readings
became within a degree....duh.
For a physic's geek like me it was like WOW man,
(punctuated by self-incrimination for being such a
dummy).
Try it yourself, it's a simple experiment, and proves
my temperature measurements depend upon the
3rd rank radiation tensor.
Cheers n Regards
Ken S. Tucker.
gu...@hotmail.com
If the outdoor probe is beside the red lamp it shoud be 5f higher not
lower then the indoor?
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> On Apr 22, 4:16 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 4:30 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 6:23 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 21, 8:43 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Eric Gisse insists Temperature is Not a Tensor Rank_0 !!!!!!
>
> > > > Energy is a scalar. Is Energy a rank 0 tensor?
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
> > > Quote:"For example, mass, ***temperature***, and other scalar
> > > quantities are tensors of rank 0;"
>
> > Wikipedia is wrong and you are stupid for treating Wikipedia like a
> > comprehensive textbook on the subject.
>
> tensor. He only problem is that ***you*** do not know that a tensor
> (i.e. the general concept of TENSOR) is.
I understand full well the concept and application of tensors.
Wikipedia, as usual, is being imprecise. Temperature is a Galilean-
invariant scalar but it is not a Lorentz-invariant scalar.
Not all scalars are rank 0 tensors. Remember energy? Its' a scalar...
>
> >From _Physical Properties as Tensors_ [1]:
>
> [BLOCKQUOTE
> The pyroelectric tensor, (essentially a vector) represents the
> relation between a first-rank tensor (the vector of electric
> polarization) and a zero-rank tensor (the temperature).
> ]
>
> See also [2].
>
> [1] http://www.iucr.org/iucr-top/comm/cteach/pamphlets/18/node2.html
>
> [2]http://www.geol.umd.edu/pages/facilities/lmdr/press.html
Wow good job on using websites that are specifically referencing
classical mechanics in an argument that is obviously about
relativistic mechanics. Why do you continue to butt in on subjects you
simply _do not understand_ ?
The fact that temperature is not a Lorentz scalar follows from a quite
simple set of arguments.
Remember your thermodynamics - the second law can be expressed, when
changes in the system can be treated adiabatically, as dS = int [ dQ/
T].
Since entropy is simply a measure of the number of available states,
it will be the same from one reference frame to the next. With about
10 lines of algebra, it follows that dQ' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) dQ for an
observer moving with a constant velocity v with respect to the system
under consideration.
Equating dS and dS' gives T' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) T.
T is a scalar but it is not a rank zero tensor. A tensor is invariant
under a coordinate transformation - T does not qualify. Which is what
I have been saying _the entire fucking time_. I did not know the exact
argument when I said that it was not a Lorentz invariant scalar, I
just knew it could not be because T is defined as dE/dS [partials]
which means, via E, that T is a coordinate dependent number. Isn't
having an education a wonderful thing?
The argument I cribbed was taken from Relativity, Thermodynamics, and
Cosmology by Tolman. I could write out the entire argument and justify
every step for you, if you would like. It really is a short and sweet
argument from inarguable principles.
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 21, 9:43 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Eric Gisse insists Temperature is Not a Tensor Rank_0 !!!!!!
>
> Years ago we had this discussion. Anyway
> you can treat "temperature" as a scalar, rank 1
> vector, or rank 2 tensor, it depends upon how
> you measure it.
Jesus christ.
Temperature does not shift from having 1 to 4 to 16 to 64 components
'depending upon how you measure it'.
Where do you get this shit, Ken?
[snip remaining senility]
Ken S. Tucker
The thermometer case and the probe where at
the same location.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Apr 22, 10:15 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 9:43 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Eric Gisse insists Temperature is Not a Tensor Rank_0 !!!!!!
>
> > Years ago we had this discussion. Anyway
> > you can treat "temperature" as a scalar, rank 1
> > vector, or rank 2 tensor, it depends upon how
> > you measure it.
>
> Jesus christ.
>
> Temperature does not shift from having 1 to 4 to 16 to 64 components
> 'depending upon how you measure it'.
I explained it.
gu...@hotmail.com
Eric Gisse wrote:
> On Apr 22, 4:06 am, "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com>
> wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 4:16 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 21, 4:30 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Apr 21, 6:23 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Apr 21, 8:43 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Eric Gisse insists Temperature is Not a Tensor Rank_0 !!!!!!
> >
> > > > > Energy is a scalar. Is Energy a rank 0 tensor?
> >
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
> > > > Quote:"For example, mass, ***temperature***, and other scalar
> > > > quantities are tensors of rank 0;"
> >
> > > Wikipedia is wrong and you are stupid for treating Wikipedia like a
> > > comprehensive textbook on the subject.
> >
> > No wikipedia is not wrong when says that temperature is a zero rank
> > tensor. He only problem is that ***you*** do not know that a tensor
> > (i.e. the general concept of TENSOR) is.
>
> I understand full well the concept and application of tensors.
>
> Wikipedia, as usual, is being imprecise. Temperature is a Galilean-
> invariant scalar but it is not a Lorentz-invariant scalar.
>
> Not all scalars are rank 0 tensors. Remember energy? Its' a scalar...
>
QUOTE:
"For example, the distance between two points in space is a scalar, as
are the mass, charge, and kinetic energy of an object, or the
temperature and electric potential at a point inside a medium.
Scalars in relativity theory
In the theory of relativity, space and time are related (intp so
called Minkowski space-time) and as a consequence, scalar quantities
related to time (like energy, etc) and vector quantities related to
space (like momentum, etc) can be combined and treated mathematically
as ******four-dimensional vectors (four-vectors) or even
tensors.****** For example, the charge *****density***** at a point in
a medium, which is a scalar in classical physics, can be combined with
the local current density (a 3-vector) to make a relativistic 4-
vector. Similarly, mass density can be combined with momentum density
and pressure into the energy tensor.
Examples of scalar quantities:
electric charge and charge density (the latter nonrelativistically; in
relativity it must be combined with current density to comprise a 4-
vector)
spacetime interval
mass and mass density (the latter nonrelativistically; in relativity
it must be made part of the energy tensor in combination with momentum
density and pressure)
speed, but not velocity or momentum
******temperature ******
energy and energy density (the latter nonrelativistically)
" :END_QUOTE
(density and temperature are functions of each other)
> >
> > >From _Physical Properties as Tensors_ [1]:
> >
> > [BLOCKQUOTE
> > The pyroelectric tensor, (essentially a vector) represents the
> > relation between a first-rank tensor (the vector of electric
> > polarization) and a zero-rank tensor (the temperature).
> > ]
> >
> > See also [2].
> >
> > [1] http://www.iucr.org/iucr-top/comm/cteach/pamphlets/18/node2.html
> >
> > [2]http://www.geol.umd.edu/pages/facilities/lmdr/press.html
>
> Wow good job on using websites that are specifically referencing
> classical mechanics in an argument that is obviously about
> relativistic mechanics. Why do you continue to butt in on subjects you
> simply _do not understand_ ?
>
> The fact that temperature is not a Lorentz scalar follows from a quite
> simple set of arguments.
>
> Remember your thermodynamics - the second law can be expressed, when
> changes in the system can be treated adiabatically, as dS = int [ dQ/
> T].
>
> Since entropy is simply a measure of the number of available states,
> it will be the same from one reference frame to the next. With about
> 10 lines of algebra, it follows that dQ' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) dQ for an
> observer moving with a constant velocity v with respect to the system
> under consideration.
>
> Equating dS and dS' gives T' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) T.
>
T' is relavistic, T is invariant
M' = gamma M
M' is relavistic
M is invariant
X' = gamma X
X' is relavistic
******X is spacetime's invariant coordinate interval****
Ken S. Tucker
> Eric Gisse insists Temperature is Not a Tensor Rank_0 !!!!!!
I'd avoid Gisse, he's a goose-stepper.
If the world of physics occupies an audtiorium
he'd be a mouse in a small aquarium, I think
you guy's know what I mean, alot of people are
closed minded.
His "ilk" is common, she read a chapter in a
book and figures she's omni-potent and decides
to bully everyone. Yet there is plenty of room for
other peoples ideas, that's what I think is good.
My suggestion is, to keep an open mind but watch
your principles. That's the best thing you have.
Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
No, Ken. You made a series of intelligent observations then arrived at
a stupid conclusion.
Ken S. Tucker
Steve Carlip, with Baez's assistance, some years
back, wrote an article to the effect that all other
things being equal the energy density of a body
increases with temperature, and likewise so does
it's g-field, the energy density is a 2nd rank tensor,
((G_uv = T_uv)). After study I agreed with them.
It's you Gisse who jumped to ill formed conclusions.
I'm ok with temperature being described by tensors
with ranks, 0,1,2 or 3, as the author defines. What's
important is the author chooses the definition and
uses it consistently in their paper.
Ken
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 23, 2:19 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 8:03 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 7:05 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 10:15 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 21, 9:43 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Eric Gisse insists Temperature is Not a Tensor Rank_0 !!!!!!
>
> > > > > Years ago we had this discussion. Anyway
> > > > > you can treat "temperature" as a scalar, rank 1
> > > > > vector, or rank 2 tensor, it depends upon how
> > > > > you measure it.
>
> > > > Jesus christ.
>
> > > > Temperature does not shift from having 1 to 4 to 16 to 64 components
> > > > 'depending upon how you measure it'.
>
> > > I explained it.
>
> > No, Ken. You made a series of intelligent observations then arrived at
> > a stupid conclusion.
>
> Steve Carlip, with Baez's assistance, some years
> back, wrote an article to the effect that all other
> things being equal the energy density of a body
> increases with temperature, and likewise so does
> it's g-field, the energy density is a 2nd rank tensor,
> ((G_uv = T_uv)). After study I agreed with them.
TEMPERATURE IS NOT ENERGY DENSITY.
Ken S. Tucker
Just when you were getting interesting you became
Gisse the Goose stepper.
I'll argue TEMPERATURE is a 4th Rank tensor.
Normally spherical atoms, engaged in a kinetical
elastical relation, distort each atom equally in a
monotomic gas, so at the moment of engagement,
the usual spheroidal shape is transformed to an
oblate spheroid. Each atom induces into the other
said "oblateness", which is akin to a (negative) tidal
induction, commonly requiring a 4th rank tensor,
(Weinberg Grav&Cosmo, Eq.(6.10.1).
That's where two atoms collide with relative speed
that uses a rank 1 momentum vector.
The result of that collision *will be* (above superfluidity)
a radition emission using the 3rd rank tensor (G&C
eq. 5.2.4), akin to radiation emission.
So is it reasonable to suggest a
4th rank tensor * 1 rank tensor => a 3rd rank tensor?
(In a reaction)
In words,
(EM tidal distortion)* (Energy Momentum) =>
(Electromagnetic Radiation).
In tensors I'll write that as,
R_abcd * P^a = F_bcd
Naturally the F_bcd is described by Eq.(5.2.4).
The asymmetry of R_abcd is in Eq.(6.6.4), and it's
cyclicity in (6.6.5), and I'll write that out,
R_abcd + R_acbd + R_adcb = 0 , Eq. (6.6.5)
Now let's do an old style inner multiplication of
Eq.(6.6.5) with the energy momentum "P^a",
(R_abcd + R_acbd + R_adcb)*P^a = 0
to obtain,
F_bcd + F_cbd + F_dcb = 0 , Eq.(5.2.4)
to find an ElectroMagnetic Radiation equation
(5.2.4) as an emission from the monotomic
collision that induced the tidal force (6.10.1).
The reason I mentioned my little tirade about
my therometer anomally was to provide a
physical reality to (5.2.4).
That's why I think temperature is interesting.
Hey guy's anyone want to quantize that?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
kxsxt
gu...@hotmail.com
buhh....Look-up the meaning of enthropy =non-homogenous energy density
and look up the meaning of thermodynamics = temperature.
Both are never unidirectional and "ONLY" multidirectional.
>
>
>
> > It's you Gisse who jumped to ill formed conclusions.
>
> > I'm ok with temperature being described by tensors
> > with ranks, 0,1,2 or 3, as the author defines. What's
> > important is the author chooses the definition and
> > uses it consistently in their paper.
> > Ken- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> On Apr 23, 4:02 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > No wikipedia is not wrong when says that temperature is a zero rank
> > > tensor. He only problem is that ***you*** do not know that a tensor
> > > (i.e. the general concept of TENSOR) is.
>
> > I understand full well the concept and application of tensors.
>
> and next you would not say that Wikipedia was wrong.
>
> Wikipedia is not wrong when states that temperature is a zero rank
> tensor. Like are not wrong _Physical Properties as Tensors_ [1], like
> is not wrong [2] when stating the same.
Why do you continue to cite references that are based off of classical
mechanics in an argument about relativistic thermodynamics?
>
> Please, do not search excuses for trying to justify you.
>
> > The fact that temperature is not a Lorentz scalar follows from a quite
> > simple set of arguments.
>
> [Rest of dumb details sniped]
Good job asshole, snip all the 'dumb details' including the literature
reference that explicitly prove you wrong.
>
> Therefore you needed several days and extra textbooks to arrive a
> conclusion was written before! In a message on Apr 21, I wrote
Well, I did have to go through two textbooks before I found one that
actually talked about transformations of thermodynamic quantities. All
in all, it took about a half hour of my time - most of which was
walking to the library. At least I have an actual reference that is
related to relativistic thermodynamics, rather than countless
references to _classical_ thermodynamics as if they somehow enter into
an argument about relativistic thermodynamics.
>
> [BLOCKQUOTE
> However, Gisse is right on that non-relativistic
> temperature is not a relativistic invariant (a trivial thought
> however).
> ]
DUH
The POINT is that temperature is not a rank 0 tensor because
temperature is not a Lorentz invariant quantity. Only Lorentz
invariant quantities get to be called rank 0 tensors.
I posted a literature reference and gave you a quick summary of the
details of the argument with a promise for an explicit derivation. If
you aren't even going to touch base with the argument [temperature not
being Lorentz invariant] don't bother to reply.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> On Apr 28, 6:53 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do you continue to cite references that are based off of classical
> > mechanics in an argument about relativistic thermodynamics?
>
>
> I am citing non-relativistic literature WHEN you state nonsense like
> "temperature cannot be a zero rank tensor".
...even though I clearly do not dispute that temperature is a rank 0
tensor in classical mechanics when the argument is about relativistic
thermodynamics...
>
> I am citing relativistic literature WHEN you state adequate
> relativistic temperature may be a scalar. Then I cited about four-
> temperatures... relativistic of course.
Your so-called four-temperature is 1/kT multiplied by a velocity four
vector. That doesn't mean temperature is a four vector.
Wait, didn't I explain this before? When you first brought it up? Oh,
yes - I did. Maybe if you responded then, you wouldn't be repeating
those misconceptions _now_.
>
> > > > The fact that temperature is not a Lorentz scalar follows from a quite
> > > > simple set of arguments.
>
> > > [Rest of dumb details sniped]
>
> > Good job asshole, snip all the 'dumb details' including the literature
> > reference that explicitly prove you wrong.
>
> I deleted dumb details about something I wrote ***before***. Your
> conclusion T' /= T was did before, did not read when i wrote several
> days before
>
> [BLOCKQUOTE
> However, Gisse is right on that non-relativistic
> temperature is not a relativistic invariant (a trivial thought
> however).
> ]
>
> ?
>
> Of course, that IS different from NONSENSE you wrote about
> _impossibility_ of T to be a zero rank tensor or about _inexistence_
> of four-temperatures (or, more correctly, four-coldness) in the full
> relativistic regime.
Your so-called four-temperature is 1/kT multiplied by a velocity four
vector. That doesn't mean temperature is a four vector.
Wait, didn't I explain this before? When you first brought it up? Oh,
yes - I did. Maybe if you responded then, you wouldn't be repeating
those misconceptions _now_.
>
> [dumb details about you on library deleted]
Yes, I do visit libraries. Surprised?
>
> > At least I have an actual reference that is
> > related to relativistic thermodynamics, rather than countless
> > references to _classical_ thermodynamics as if they somehow enter into
> > an argument about relativistic thermodynamics.
>
> I cited two or three relativistic thermodynamics sources. Your problem
> is that you are not aware to differentiate concepts and dynamical
> regimes and you are unable to link each references I am citing to
> specific queries I am replying. You mix...
I saw the sources, and I read them. I read them carefully enough to
notice how they defined the four-temperature. I suggest you do the
same.
[...]
Ken S. Tucker
I have Tolman's classical book you ref'd to, but
you didn'tinclude pg.#'s or Eq.s, which to you mean?
Ken
Eric Gisse
Of course I didn't include page numbers and equations, because it
should be bleedingly obvious from context [and from me explicitly
saying so] that the subject in question is relativistic
thermodynamics.
Open your book to page 152 and read until you hit GR.
Ken S. Tucker
LOL, you got caught on Eq.(69.19), that's minnow bait,
all the newbies get hooked and reeled on that one.
Lucky for you, your an ugly fish, so I'm throwing ya back
into the pond, and dippin' my lure at Eq.(109.1).
Ken
Eric Gisse
God.
69.19 and the region around it contains the explicit construction of
how thermodynamic quantities change under a Lorentz transformation.
109.1 is a stress energy tensor. Just because it has "T" does not mean
it is a temperature.
Ken S. Tucker
> On May 1, 4:13 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > LOL, you got caught on Eq.(69.19), that's minnow bait,
> > all the newbies get hooked and reeled on that one.
> > Lucky for you, your an ugly fish, so I'm throwing ya back
> > into the pond, and dippin' my lure at Eq.(109.1).
> > Ken
>
> God.
Let's leave the big boy's upstairs out of this.
> 69.19 and the region around it contains the explicit construction of
> how thermodynamic quantities change under a Lorentz transformation.
>
> 109.1 is a stress energy tensor. Just because it has "T" does not mean
> it is a temperature.
Check to 109, quote...
"some problems connected with the energy-
momentum tensor"
OOP's, from the Tolmanite, I'll translate, that...
{wholey shit I'm up to my ass in a swamp filled
with alligators}.
Now count how many times he uses "average"
and "macroscopic", in 109, btw, remove your
shoes and socks it might be over 10.
Regards
Ken
PS: Tolman is one of my favorite authors,
no disrespect is intended, it's a matter of
noting an ambiguity, and sensing a discomfort,
best question to ask is why?
Eric Gisse
All that is remaining is to show how your unguided rambling is
relevant.
Ken S. Tucker
Elvis has left the building.
gu...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
And gone to Ken..Tucky!!!
Ken S. Tucker
Well thank you, thank you, thank you very much.
It's been a great honor to hunker a few tunes for
the pleasure of us of all.
I liked Dr. Carlips melody that included heating an
object, makes it more gravitational, via a 2nd
rank tensor. Let's give that young Grisse a banana.
Ken
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> On Apr 29, 10:07 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...even though I clearly do not dispute that temperature is a rank 0
> > tensor in classical mechanics when the argument is about relativistic
> > thermodynamics...
>
Except all the times that I did - directly and indirectly. The concept
of Lorentz scalars does not exist in classical mechanics.
Don't be mad I forgot that you were stupid.
>
> You said, for example, that the "wiki is wrong". Which is DIFFERENT
> from you are stating now.
>
> No the wiki was not wrong" and, again, no [2, 3] were not wrong like
> you stated".
>
> As remarked before you _clearly_ confounded general concept of tensor
> with certain subclasses of tensors.
No, I do not. My argument was specific: The thermodynamic quantity
known as temperature is not a rank 0 tensor because it is clearly
[with specific literature references] not a Lorentz invariant scalar.
Then you go dig up some worthless articles that use a certain
_convention_ of defining something called "temperature" as u/T, and
then interpret it to mean that temperature is somehow not a scalar.
>
> Do you really want i to collect quotes from you?
How about you spend another 2 weeks on something worth doing, like
learning relativity.
>
> > Your so-called four-temperature is 1/kT multiplied by a velocity four
> > vector.
>
> The Boltzmann constant is not compulsory, therefore do not write "is".
Actually, it is.
They are simply working in a system of units such that the k = 1.
>
> > That doesn't mean temperature is a four vector.
>
> Right! You are maintaining this trivial thought (a scalar is not a
> four-vector) many times. What do you wait? claps maybe?
The thermodynamic quantity known as temperature is not a four vector.
Open a thermodynamics textbook instead of pointing to me to random
references that use a specific convention which still disagrees with
you.
>
> Like I explained to you more than two times, a more adequate treatment
> of thermal phenomena in relativity implies the GENERALIZATION of the
> non-relativistic concept of temperature (or coldness) to its four
> relativistic version.
You confuse "generalization" with "handy convention in some
situations".
Temperature is a specific thermodynamic quantity. Plus - scalars do
not generalize to four-vectors when making the jump from classical to
relativistic mechanics. Show me how to get correspondence with
classical mechanics when taking the u --> 0 or c---> \infty limit.
>
> Notice the analogy of generalizations:
>
> Non-relativistic physics ==> Relativistic physics
>
> Phi A_i
>
> 1/T beta_i
>
> Too difficult to understand?
No, it is simply wrong. You confuse the convention used in some
specific papers with the actual generalization of temperature.
gu...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> On Apr 29, 10:07 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...even though I clearly do not dispute that temperature is a rank 0
> > tensor in classical mechanics when the argument is about relativistic
> > thermodynamics...
>
>
> from you are stating now.
>
hmmm, I doubt he will want to emphasize on that remark he made..
He is two-timing you with big words, such as Lorentz scalar vs
classical mechanics.
He's trying to dupe you with the wording "Lorentz scalar mass" which
means relavistic mass (as opposed to invariant mass).
Likewise there is both a Lorentz scalar temperature (relavistic
temperature) versus invariant temperature.
Or he's been reading too many books instead of figuring-out common
sense.
> No the wiki was not wrong" and, again, no [2, 3] were not wrong like
> you stated".
>
> As remarked before you _clearly_ confounded general concept of tensor
> with certain subclasses of tensors.
>
> Do you really want i to collect quotes from you?
>
> > Your so-called four-temperature is 1/kT multiplied by a velocity four
> > vector.
>
> The Boltzmann constant is not compulsory, therefore do not write "is".
>
> > That doesn't mean temperature is a four vector.
>
> Right! You are maintaining this trivial thought (a scalar is not a
> four-vector) many times. What do you wait? claps maybe?
>
> Like I explained to you more than two times, a more adequate treatment
> of thermal phenomena in relativity implies the GENERALIZATION of the
> non-relativistic concept of temperature (or coldness) to its four
> relativistic version.
>
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> On May 12, 5:06 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But you did NOT say before you are stating above, ok?
>
> > Except all the times that I did - directly and indirectly. The concept
> > of Lorentz scalars does not exist in classical mechanics.
>
> which is DIFFERENT.
No, it isn't. Same thing, different name.
A Lorentz scalar is a scalar quantity constructed in special
relativity that is invariant under Lorentz transformations. It is also
a rank zero tensor - it is a scalar which is invariant. A Lorentz
scalar does not exist in classical mechanics since there are no
Lorentz transformations in classical mechanics.
I distinguish because you continue to be confused.
>
> Next, you also said that encyclopaedias stating temperature is a zero
> rank tensor "were wrong" which is NOT true. They were not wrong, you
> were.
*sigh*
I said it is wrong. I explained why it is wrong. I gave a literature
reference supporting my explanation of why it is wrong from a popular
textbook on the subject. Can't do much better than that.
Saying that I am wrong is utterly meaningless if you can't support
your argument, which seems to be the case thus far.
>
> Now a new issue. You appear to use the concept of classical mechanics
> as a kind of synonym for Newtonian mechanics. It is true that in old
> textbooks, classical mechanics denotes mechanics _before_ SR. But in
> modern understanding classical mechanics includes special relativity,
> because 'classical' is used as contrary to quantum.
I have seen it used both ways, and the difference is obvious from
context since I am /not/ talking about quantum theory in any context.
Whine about something relevant.
>
> Update yourself!
>
> Once remarked that is now generally understood by "classical
> mechanics" your quote "The concept of Lorentz scalars does not exist
> in classical mechanics" sounds crancky.
Especially if you are intellectually dishonest and purposefully
misunderstand common language to suit your own ends.
>
> > > As remarked before you _clearly_ confounded general concept of tensor
> > > with certain subclasses of tensors.
>
> > No, I do not. My argument was specific: The thermodynamic quantity
> > known as temperature is not a rank 0 tensor because it is clearly
> > [with specific literature references] not a Lorentz invariant scalar.
>
> And again you _clearly_ confound different concepts of tensors. This
> is evident from you are writing.
>
> Since you do not know temperature is and since you do not know a
> tensor is, one can easily understand why you claimed that references
> stating that temperature is a zero rank tensor "were wrong". But
> neither enciclopedias cited nor the notes on tensors on physics i
> cited were wrong. You are wrong. Temperature is a zero rank tensor.
> Authors of those references know temperature and tensors are. You do
> not, clearly and mix concepts in a impressive way...
It really is quite simple - if the scalar transforms from frame to
frame, it is NOT a rank zero tensor. I gave a specific literature
reference [Tolman] that has the derivation of the transformation law.
What on Earth could you possibly be arguing against?
>
> > some worthless articles that use a certain
> > _convention_ of defining something called "temperature" as u/T, and
> > then interpret it to mean that temperature is somehow not a scalar.
>
> Worthless? But if you cannot understand the article how do you imagine
> that you can valuate it?
>
> The generalization for temperatures
>
> Non-relativistic physics ==> Relativistic physics
>
> 1/T beta_i
...you are leaving out something exceptionally important. The papers
you are quoting define beta_i as 1/kT multiplied the i'th component of
the velocity four vector.
The so-called four-temperature is a handy notation, but it in no way
means that the thermodynamic quantity called temperature is a four-
vector. Why are you making the same mistakes as Ken Tucker?
>
> is NOT a convention as you incorrectly think.
>
> Your claim is so unwise like believing that the generalization for
> potentials
>
> Non-relativistic physics ==> Relativistic physics
>
> Phi A_i
This is wrong. The scalar potential is the 0'th component of the four-
potential - not the spatial components of the four-potential.
>
> is a mere "convention". You claim is really NONSENSE!
The four-temperature definition is arbitrary and saves writing. The
four-potential comes out of the covariant formalism of Maxwell's
equations. Big fuck difference.
>
> > > > Your so-called four-temperature is 1/kT multiplied by a velocity four
> > > > vector.
>
> > > The Boltzmann constant is not compulsory, therefore do not write "is".
>
> > Actually, it is.
>
> > They are simply working in a system of units such that the k = 1.
>
> Again, the Boltzmann constant is not compulsory, therefore do not
> write "is".
YAWN.
>
> > The thermodynamic quantity known as temperature is not a four vector.
>
> Again you lack to understand that scalar quantity you call T cannot be
> used as proper measure of the _physical_ concept of temperature in
> relativistic thermodynamics. Papers I cited are clear on why _that_ T
> is not temperature in relativistic thermodynamics.
No, the papers you cited are clear that it is a definition and not a
statement about the physics.
Take the c-->\infty limit and explain how a four-vector reduces back
to a scalar. If it can't [it can't], relativistic thermodynamics does
not reduce to classical thermodynamics - which is a problem.
>
> > > Like I explained to you more than two times, a more adequate treatment
> > > of thermal phenomena in relativity implies the GENERALIZATION of the
> > > non-relativistic concept of temperature (or coldness) to its four
> > > relativistic version.
>
> > You confuse "generalization" with "handy convention in some
> > situations".
>
> Another NONSENSE.
>
> >From one of articles I cited before,
>
> [BLOCKQUOTE
> The very basic definition of temperature is based on the fact:
> when two equilibrium objects have heat exchange (random energy
> exchange), heat flows from the higher temperature one to the
> lower temperature one. Provided the entropy is suitably defined,
> this statement is paraphrased as: "heat flows spontaneously only
> when the total entropy increases."
A wordy version of the statistical definition of temperature.
>
> Let us generalize the above statement to relativity. Heat is a
> form of energy in non-relativistic thermodynamics, where the energy
> and momentum are distinct quantities. In relativity, however, the
> energy and momentum are components of one physical entity,
> energy-momentum four vector namely, and thus cannot be treated
> independently. Therefore we must treat the energy-momentum exchange
> between the objects, not energy alone. Consequently, the inverse
> temperature must have four components,
> ]
>
> It says "Let us generalize the above statement to relativity".
That does not mean it is the correct.
1) Nobody has ever cited it in another article.
2) It has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, nor does it
appear to have even been submitted for publication.
3) Momentum is not a thermodynamic quantity. He is correct in saying
in relativity, energy and momentum are a part of one entity. But he is
not correct in saying that momentum exchange needs to be considered in
explaining thermodynamics in relativity.
I know you will whine - loudly - about what I just said. But given
that I have actually studied thermodynamics, I will pre-empt some of
the whining but making the request that you show how momentum is a
relevant thermodynamic quantity.
>
> You read "handy convention in some situations".
>
> It says "Consequently, the inverse temperature must have four
> components".
>
> You read "Inverse temperature is a scalar".
>
> And so on...
...and so forth. You pick something out of the junk pile that supports
your opinions, I pick a text authored by one of the eminent
thermodynamics researchers in the 20th century whose textbook is still
popular. I think my reference trumps yours.
>
> > Plus - scalars do
> > not generalize to four-vectors when making the jump from classical to
> > relativistic mechanics. Show me how to get correspondence with
> > classical mechanics when taking the u --> 0 or c---> \infty limit.
>
> More nonsense and trivia...
>
> Zzzzz!
You can't do it, so you call it nonsense and trivia while ignoring the
important point that correspondence is required.