New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Patrick]: you would agree that there are actually an infinite number of phases, right? Doesn't the MM claim infinite phases?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Nope. Just four. (Or Maybe five. Superconductivity might be argued to be a new, low-temperature phase.) Temperatures can get much higher than for plasmas. But then the nucleons would disintegrate, and we would have all new forms (quarks? elysons? gravitons?), each in its own "solid" phase. But we are in an area of conjecture here. -|Tom|-

JoeW,

[quoteFor instance, ice can go directly to gaseous phase, a process called "phase transition", if enough pressure is applied, without ever passing from the liquid phase.[unquote]


Ans:I believe they call that sublimation. And yes glass is a liquid.

The following is from a Research Paper. I wonder if anybody here could write a mathematical expression for it?


**************Extract **************

Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all. (Davies, 1983, 31-32)

************************************

PS: It continues to discuss that that is due to the formation of +/- energy!

You might want to reconsider your position Patrick.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Patrick]: But wouldn't phase be the same as scale?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No connection that I can see.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>We only know of four(possibly five) phases but why would that be the limit?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Because outside the range of temperatures where phases are already defined, there is a change of form, and the process starts over with the new forms. I explained that in my last message.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If you break down the transformation from one to the next it is quit possible that there are an infinite number of phases, there is no disproof to this claim is there?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

There are four faces at Mount Rushmore. But if you look carefully enough and broaden your definitions, one can see an inlimited number of faces there.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The MM doesn't have a scale beyond planck does it?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes. That is what "infinite in scale" means -- no Planck limit.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Something is starting to smell suspicious around here.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Where are you going with this? I lose interest when I see no point to questions. -|Tom|-

I found this topic most interesting.

Although I did not read the entire thread here - the exchange between n/a and Tom was very entertaining.

I can't help but think that Tom lost this arguement. He eventually opted for the arguement that we are going in circles - Therefor no further discussion is necessary plea. I can only think - That he himself has doubts, for n/a was attacking the very core of the Meta Model - hardly something you decide to take a pass on when defending.

One arguement for Toms model is that you can't get something from nothing. Although I agree ...you can't get something from nothing. The flaw in this - is the thinking that before creation there had to be nothing. It is vital to understand that it is not possible to make this distinction in the absence of something. Nothing - carries no meaning at all in the absence of something. There is a requirement that both exist - to exist, and this excludes them both from a before creation scenerio.