Metaphysics.

[Catastrophe]

G_x0a, just in case you think that the hot air balloon can rise above the level where the atmosphere can carry it along:

The highest hot air balloon flight on record reached an altitude of 22,000 feet. This requires special equipment like oxygen and protective clothing.

Yes, a hot air balloon will generally travel with the atmosphere at 22,000 feet. Hot air balloons are essentially at the mercy of the wind and will move at the same speed and direction as the prevailing wind currents at their altitude.

Cat

 

[Jzz]

Hello @Jzz , just to voice my random thoughts about the universe, and to find communication in this hobby.
Thanks for introducing the article, I will read it when I need to refer to atomic issues.

That sums it up very well, with the caveat that if you do read the paper you probably would not have so many questions to ask.

 

[G_x0a]

That sums it up very well, with the caveat that if you do read the paper you probably would not have so many questions to ask.

You are really awesome Jzz, I can't justify my laziness to read anymore haha.
Your atomic level suggestion really fits in the direction of being manipulable, experimental.
I will read it, thanks for sharing the knowledge.

Yes, a hot air balloon will generally travel with the atmosphere at 22,000 feet. Hot air balloons are essentially at the mercy of the wind and will move at the same speed and direction as the prevailing wind currents at their altitude.

It seems like this is the job of an astronaut to optimize the way to move with the least amount of energy. It would be efficient and has been applied, I think.
Jumping out of the frame of reference I mentioned seems like the balloon would disappear and disintegrate immediately .

 

[Catastrophe]

G_x0a, You just mentioned hot air balloons. Look at hydrogen:

A hydrogen balloon can reach an altitude of 176,000 feet (53.7 km). The balloon's ascent is limited by the diminishing air pressure causing it to expand until it bursts. While weather balloons can reach altitudes of 40 km (25 mi) or more, the theoretical maximum for most latex-based balloons is around 137,000 feet.

Cat

 

[Jzz]

You are really awesome Jzz, I can't justify my laziness to read anymore haha.
Your atomic level suggestion really fits in the direction of being manipulable, experimental.
I will read it, thanks for sharing the knowledge.

Thank you G_x0a

 

[G_x0a]

Question:
I think that all existing reference frames are relative or contain relative quantities. Has there been any research attempting to find an absolute reference frame?

Spoiler: Grok answer

Grok:
Your question touches on a profound topic in theoretical physics: whether an **absolute reference frame** exists, as opposed to the relative reference frames commonly encountered in Einstein's theory of relativity and Newtonian mechanics.

Background on Reference Frames
In physics, a reference frame is a system from which motion is measured. According to Einstein's **special relativity** (1905) and **general relativity** (1915), there is no absolute reference frame in nature. All inertial reference frames (moving uniformly, without acceleration) are equivalent, and the laws of physics remain the same in all frames. This is a fundamental principle of relativity, rejecting the notion of an "absolute reference frame" like the 19th-century concept of the "ether."

Before Einstein, physicists like Newton assumed the existence of an absolute space or a privileged reference frame (such as the ether) relative to which all motion could be measured. However, the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) disproved the existence of the ether, paving the way for the development of relativity.

Has There Been Research on Finding an Absolute Reference Frame?
Currently, no widely accepted scientific work has demonstrated the existence of an absolute reference frame. However, several ideas and studies have been proposed historically and in modern times:

1. **Ether and Classical Experiments**:
- In the late 19th century, physicists attempted to find an absolute reference frame through the hypothesis of the ether—a supposed medium through which light waves propagated. The Michelson-Morley experiment and subsequent tests found no evidence of the ether, leading to the collapse of this concept.

2. **Cosmic Reference Frame (Cosmic Microwave Background - CMB)**:
- Some modern physicists consider the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the residual radiation from the Big Bang, as a candidate for a "near-absolute" reference frame. The CMB is nearly uniformly distributed across the universe. An observer moving relative to the CMB frame would detect a Doppler effect in the CMB spectrum, allowing measurement of velocity relative to this frame. However, this is not truly an absolute frame but rather a special frame tied to the universe's large-scale structure.

3. **String Theory and Theoretical Models**:
- Some modern theories, such as string theory or loop quantum gravity, occasionally propose ideas about a fundamental structure of spacetime (e.g., a "granular" structure at the Planck scale). These theories might imply a privileged reference frame at a fundamental level, but they remain speculative and lack experimental evidence.

4. **Modern Experimental Research**:
- Experiments testing Lorentz invariance (a core principle of special relativity, which asserts no privileged reference frame) are ongoing. For example, experiments using ultra-precise atomic clocks or laser interferometers have sought to detect any violations of relativity. So far, no evidence of an absolute reference frame has been found.

Current Perspective
Within the framework of modern physics, the idea of an absolute reference frame is not supported, as it contradicts the principles of relativity, which have been experimentally verified to extremely high precision. However, physicists continue to explore unified theories (e.g., a Theory of Everything) or quantum-scale phenomena that might suggest a fundamental spacetime structure, though these ideas remain speculative.

With the power of AI today, perhaps we should go find the "Ether" again.
The jump out of the reference frame is ridiculous, the reason it cannot exist is because the "Ether" exists.

 

[Catastrophe]

"All existing reference frames are considered to be relative in physics. This means that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial frames of reference, and there is no single absolute reference frame from which to measure motion, according to the principle of special relativity."

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

G_x0a,

to optimize the way to move with the least amount of energy

"To optimize the way to move with the least amount of energy" simply implies inertia.

If one is blown along by the wind that requires little energy; if there is no surrounding air, then there is nothing to prevent a balloon remaining "stationary" whilst the Earth rotates below. It all hinges on "relative to what".

You can be (and, in fact, always are) stationary relative to some things at the same time as being stationary relative to other (moving) things.

Cat

 

[G_x0a]

"All existing reference frames are considered to be relative in physics. This means that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial frames of reference, and there is no single absolute reference frame from which to measure motion, according to the principle of special relativity."

The constants of nature and the electromagnetic environment are probably suitable to continue searching for the Ether.
Rescue Princess "Ether" from the Remon Lative King.

"To optimize the way to move with the least amount of energy" simply implies inertia.

If one is blown along by the wind that requires little energy; if there is no surrounding air, then there is nothing to prevent a balloon remaining "stationary" whilst the Earth rotates below. It all hinges on "relative to what".

You can be (and, in fact, always are) stationary relative to some things at the same time as being stationary relative to other (moving) things.

Please, Cat.
I have no ideas about this.

 

[Catastrophe]

G_x0a,
Basically, there is no absolutely stationary object.
Therefore, every motion is relative to some other moving object.

If you are floating in the air (in a balloon) you are not moving relative to the Earth or to the Earth's atmosphere. Everything on the Earth's surface is either stationary, relatve to the Earth, or moving, relative to the Earth.

To us, on Earth, it seems we are stationary, if we are sitting at home in an armchair. But we know that the Earth is spinning on its axis. Then the Earth is moving around the Sun in 365 (and a bit) days. Then, the Sun is moving around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy.
The Milky Way is in a group of galaxies, which is also moving relative to other galaxies.

So we are stationary, relative to our home, but moving, in relation to everything else.
We are stationary (in this example) relative to Earth, and anything stationary on Earth, but moving, relative to anything else.

Does this help?

Cat

 

[G_x0a]

Basically, there is no absolutely stationary object.

Any concept need not be an object.
The Delta constant can be static.

 

[Catastrophe]

Google gives this definition:

not moving or not intended to be moved.

We are having semantic difficulties.

If one includes "emotionally moved" then we are talking about different things, if another person refers to "physically moved".

If one does not have agreed terminologies (agreed meanings) there can only be meaningless chatter and no worthwhile discussion.

We are both wrong if we try to communicate without agreed meanings.

Cat

 

[G_x0a]

Question:
Please find for me, in the field of electromagnetism, any concept that has the meaning of absolute stillness.

Spoiler: Grok answer

Answer:
In the field of electromagnetism, the concept of "absolute stillness" does not truly exist in practice, as all systems are influenced by dynamic factors or environmental noise. However, there are concepts related to "static" conditions in electromagnetism, particularly in **electrostatics** and **magnetostatics**, where quantities are assumed to be time-invariant. Below are some relevant concepts:

1. **Electrostatics**:
- **Concept**: Electrostatics studies stationary electric charges that do not move. In this state, the electric field \(\mathbf{E}\) and charge density \(\rho\) do not change over time.
- **Meaning of absolute stillness**: Charges are assumed to be completely fixed, with no current or charge movement. This simplifies Maxwell's equations, for example:
\[
\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = \frac{\rho}{\varepsilon_0}, \quad \nabla \times \mathbf{E} = 0
\]
- **Practical example**: A charged sphere suspended in space, unaffected by external forces, can be described as an absolutely static electric system in theory.

2. **Magnetostatics**:
- **Concept**: Magnetostatics studies magnetic fields produced by steady (DC) currents or permanent magnets, where the magnetic field \(\mathbf{B}\) and current density \(\mathbf{J}\) do not change over time.
- **Meaning of absolute stillness**: The magnetic field generated by a constant current or a permanent magnet is considered "static" because it does not vary with time. Maxwell's equations apply:
\[
\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} = 0, \quad \nabla \times \mathbf{B} = \mu_0 \mathbf{J}
\]
- **Practical example**: The magnetic field of a permanent magnet or a loop with a constant current.

3. **Electric and Magnetic Fields in Ideal Conditions**:
- In idealized systems, where there is no environmental disturbance (e.g., perfect vacuum or ideal insulator), electromagnetic fields can be considered absolutely static if there are no time-varying sources (such as oscillating charges or currents).
- **Example**: The electric field between the plates of a charged capacitor in an ideal insulating environment is absolutely static.

Note:
- In reality, "absolute stillness" is a theoretical assumption, as factors like thermal fluctuations, electromagnetic noise, or minor environmental changes can prevent a system from being perfectly static.
- If you want a deeper exploration of a specific concept or practical application, please let me know, and I can analyze it further! For example, would you like me to explain electrostatics in the context of a capacitor or the magnetic field of a magnet?

 

[G_x0a]

We are both wrong if we try to communicate without agreed meanings.

I'm the one who's finding the way so I can't be the one who's wrong, only you haha
It seems I understand why mathematicians like to dwell in Maxwell's equations, perhaps because of this absolutely static environment.

 

[Catastrophe]

Then we have nothing to communicate.

Cat