Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Absolute Zero?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    126

    Default Absolute Zero?

    I don’t know the scientific definition of absolute zero.

    Nothing is absolute zero, logically.

    I like to think about nothing, nothing fascinates me.

    Unless absolute zero is not possible. I like to think about that too.



    Something can be frozen at a higher temperature than absolute zero and time stops, or is not possible.

    If something is not frozen, absolute zero is not possible, and creates the beginning and end of the wave of time.

    Are those opposites?


    If none of that is right, what is absolute zero?
    Last edited by Eleftherios Karagiannis; 06-05-2015 at 01:25 AM. Reason: Actually added a question or two.
    Sometimes, the logical answer defies logic....Stupid accident.

    If my thoughts are math, how can I be wrong?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,951

    Default Re: Absolute Zero?

    You can look it up.

    Frozen means solid not absolute zero. Solids still have atomic vibration motions.
    Absolute zero is defined as when atomic motion stops. It doesn't mean that sub atomic motion stops. It doesnt mean that time stops. As long as there is motion or change of any kind, even at a sub atomic scale, there is time.

    Certain particles are thought to have no sub atomic motion. That means there is no change of any kind in them, and are therfore thought to experience no time. However certain experiments with those particles show they do change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    I don’t know the scientific definition of absolute zero.

    Nothing is absolute zero, logically.

    I like to think about nothing, nothing fascinates me.

    Unless absolute zero is not possible. I like to think about that too.



    Something can be frozen at a higher temperature than absolute zero and time stops, or is not possible.

    If something is not frozen, absolute zero is not possible, and creates the beginning and end of the wave of time.

    Are those opposites?


    If none of that is right, what is absolute zero?
    Last edited by astrotech; 06-05-2015 at 11:28 AM.
    Lies have the stench of death and defeat.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    126

    Default Re: Absolute Zero?

    When I try to look up scientific definitions, most of the time I can’t get passed the first sentence or two. It is just the way most are written. You and others explain it much better and it’s easier for me to understand. Otherwise, I would stand no chance of understanding any of these things, still might not, but chance is funny.

    Quote Originally Posted by astrotech View Post
    Frozen means solid not absolute zero. Solids still have atomic vibration motions.
    Absolute zero is defined as when atomic motion stops. It doesn't mean that sub atomic motion stops. It doesnt mean that time stops. As long as there is motion or change of any kind, even at a sub atomic scale, there is time.
    I did not think of absolute zero as frozen, just no change or time and acts the same as frozen. Now that I think about it more, food does not last that long when it’s frozen in a freezer.

    It was way passed my bedtime when I started this thread, I should know better. Plus I read a question here about temperature being a dimension. I’m sure that had nothing to do with it.

    If I understand correctly, frozen just slows change, but does not stop it. Time is still affecting, just differently as it would otherwise, and the further down the temperature goes, the slower the change, but not stopped, until absolute zero is reached, if that is even possible.

    I have asked myself, if nothing had a temperature, what would it be?

    As an object freezes, it freezes from the outside in. I'm wondering if time is a wave, how freezing would affect that wave. Just thinking out loud, trying to make it fit my theory. As bad as I am in science and math, my memory is not so good either. It comes naturally for me, has my whole life.

    Quote Originally Posted by astrotech View Post
    Certain particles are thought to have no sub atomic motion. That means there is no change of any kind in them, and are therfore thought to experience no time. However certain experiments with those particles show they do change.
    Doesn’t that prove that thought wrong, or have not all those types of particles been tested yet?


    Lucky for me and others who come here, many people here like to give and teach. And that is awesome.
    Last edited by Eleftherios Karagiannis; 06-15-2015 at 08:12 AM.
    Sometimes, the logical answer defies logic....Stupid accident.

    If my thoughts are math, how can I be wrong?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    126

    Default Re: Absolute Zero?

    Time exists in the smallest point in every point in space, whether something is there or not.

    At the smallest point, the eternal singularity is wrapped around nothing, and every something exists outside of it.

    Absolute zero cannot be achieved because time, the energy of the singularity, won't allow it. Those experiments fit, so far.

    Absolute zero is in nothing. There is time in distance, but no change, no mass, no particles, no nothing. (I like double negatives, especially when they fit.)

    Nothing is in every point, creating distance.

    For a particle to have no time, something is being nothing at the same time, defying the definition of existence and logically makes no sense. To be created in the first place requires time, if there is no time, there is no existence. Distance as time does not prove or disprove existence, but distance is a requirement for time to even exist.

    For any object, including a particle to exist, it has to stretch space; otherwise, it would be separate of space and not a part of it, and how and from what would it be created from in the first place? Energy makes more sense than nothing, and what makes more sense than being created from nothing is the energy is eternal and has and will always exist. All of space is time, even an object such as a rock has time, it is made of things inside, and every something has possibilities, which is part of time, it is in space. Any movement or distance is included in time. For any object not to have movement of any kind, it would have to be below the eternal singularity, in nothing, making it nothing. Anything above nothing is a part of existence.

    Distance all by itself is time, even in a void, unless distance can’t be time. Is that a fact, scientific definition or a theory? How could I tell?



    Is absolute zero a theory or a fact?
    Last edited by Eleftherios Karagiannis; 06-08-2015 at 06:31 PM.
    Sometimes, the logical answer defies logic....Stupid accident.

    If my thoughts are math, how can I be wrong?

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    384

    Default Re: Absolute Zero?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    I don’t know the scientific definition of absolute zero.
    It is the temperature of 1/273.16 of the triple point (the temperature and pressure where the substance can exist as gas, liquid and solid at the same time) of water. It is based on the idea that there exists a temperature so low, that it can be never obtained.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    Nothing is absolute zero, logically.
    I like to think about nothing, nothing fascinates me.
    Unless absolute zero is not possible. I like to think about that too.
    I´m not sure what you mean by that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    Something can be frozen at a higher temperature than absolute zero and time stops, or is not possible.
    Time stopping doesn´t really have anything to do with temperature. There may be a roundabout way to connect them, but it would be specific to an unusual instance, which would need detailed description.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    If something is not frozen, absolute zero is not possible, and creates the beginning and end of the wave of time.
    A gas is not frozen, but -273.16 degC is possible. What do you mean by your statement (it makes no sense)?
    --
    // 73s; LLAP
    // KG4PAE

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    384

    Default Re: Absolute Zero?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    When I try to look up scientific definitions, most of the time I can’t get passed the first sentence or two. It is just the way most are written. You and others explain it much better and it’s easier for me to understand. Otherwise, I would stand no chance of understanding any of these things, still might not, but chance is funny.
    I know the feeling. Often science on the internet is written by literature or journalism majors with no background in science. Sad really, since they so often get it wrong (example = climate change).

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    [ ... deleted ...]
    If I understand correctly, frozen just slows change, but does not stop it.
    A lot of thermodynamics is about the state of materials. And yes, within that state there can be changes. An example of this is that if you put a glass of (liquid) water on the table, after about a week you will notice the level decrease. That is because at that temperature and pressure some of the liquid can also exist as gas and so evaporate. However the idea of a stable state is a useful idea for an overall view of the material. So the idea that we can heat liquid water to 100 degC and observe a state change to gas is useful, and can lead to new and useful products. Coffee Joulies are based on a phase (state) change in a proprietary liquid/solid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    [ ... deleted ... ]
    I have asked myself, if nothing had a temperature, what would it be?
    Something always has temperature. As per the zeroth law of thermodynamics, you can specify a temperature of an object if it is in thermal equilibrium with something else with a known temperature. Temperatures of gases can always be determined in their quasi-static state by means of measuring their average kinetic energy since

    (Eq 1)

    So at least for a gas, temperature directly reflects the average kinetic energy of the particles in that gas. This gives a way to calibrate a themometer, which then reflects the temperature of anything that it is in thermal equilibrium with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    As an object freezes, it freezes from the outside in.
    Yes, very true. That is because when it freezes, it redistributes the heat within it by conduction. This is the same reason that hot water does not freeze faster than cold water, no matter what the engineers say (about the bubbles in hot water). (If you have any doubt, do the experiment, which apparently the engineers haven´t.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    I'm wondering if time is a wave, how freezing would affect that wave.
    Time is not a wave. It is a coordinate of an event in the event manifold.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    Lucky for me and others who come here, many people here like to give and teach. And that is awesome.
    Thanks. Take care and sleep well.
    Last edited by kg4pae; 07-02-2015 at 06:01 PM.
    --
    // 73s; LLAP
    // KG4PAE

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    384

    Default Re: Absolute Zero?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    Time exists in the smallest point in every point in space, whether something is there or not.
    True.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    At the smallest point, the eternal singularity is wrapped around nothing, and every something exists outside of it.

    Absolute zero cannot be achieved because time, the energy of the singularity, won't allow it. Those experiments fit, so far.

    Absolute zero is in nothing. There is time in distance, but no change, no mass, no particles, no nothing. (I like double negatives, especially when they fit.)

    Nothing is in every point, creating distance.

    For a particle to have no time, something is being nothing at the same time, defying the definition of existence and logically makes no sense. To be created in the first place requires time, if there is no time, there is no existence. Distance as time does not prove or disprove existence, but distance is a requirement for time to even exist.
    All of that is nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    For any object, including a particle to exist, it has to stretch space; otherwise, it would be separate of space and not a part of it, and how and from what would it be created from in the first place?
    There is a simple counterexample to what you´ve said: the photon. The photon is a particle that has no real extent. It simply follows geodesics in space-time. It is somewhat strange in that even though its size is zero, it´s probability wave goes from the point of origin to the point of destination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    Energy makes more sense than nothing, and what makes more sense than being created from nothing is the energy is eternal and has and will always exist. All of space is time, even an object such as a rock has time, it is made of things inside, and every something has possibilities, which is part of time, it is in space. Any movement or distance is included in time. For any object not to have movement of any kind, it would have to be below the eternal singularity, in nothing, making it nothing. Anything above nothing is a part of existence.
    I have no clue what you are trying to get across. Oh well...

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    Distance all by itself is time, even in a void, unless distance can’t be time. Is that a fact, scientific definition or a theory?
    Distance is not time. Distance and time are in fact orthogonal to each other even though they can be dilated as around black holes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    How could I tell?
    First you would need to take some physics courses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    Is absolute zero a theory or a fact?
    It is a definition. It is defined to be 1/273.15 the temperature of the triple point of water.
    So it is a fact.
    --
    // 73s; LLAP
    // KG4PAE

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    126

    Default Re: Absolute Zero?

    When applying relative to one, I understand it as follows:

    Assume I am one trillion cells.

    1 = 1 Trillion

    This is how you explained it to me:

    1 + (-1) = 0

    Or

    1 = (-1)

    What am I missing?

    If you remove some cells from my body, they are subtracted from me and added to our perception. At no point in time are my cells (-1), not when in my body or out. Most of all, not empty or none, just a different point in space and still something.

    Does an apple change differently or the same as everything else, mathematically?
    Last edited by Eleftherios Karagiannis; 01-02-2016 at 11:11 PM.
    Sometimes, the logical answer defies logic....Stupid accident.

    If my thoughts are math, how can I be wrong?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    126

    Default Re: Absolute Zero?

    Should there be different theories for ice water and liquid water?

    A recent observation brings into question the hottest. Was that not calculated with math?

    If nothing had a temperature, would it be absolute zero? That is my point of failure, nonsense cannot teach me that. Why do you think that? Is a better answer. Everyone believes what they do for a reason.

    The path of right is not its own path; it is the absolute end on the path of all wrong. Math proves it.
    Sometimes, the logical answer defies logic....Stupid accident.

    If my thoughts are math, how can I be wrong?

  10. #10
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,782

    Default Re: Absolute Zero?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleftherios Karagiannis View Post
    The path of right is not its own path; it is the absolute end on the path of all wrong. Math proves it.
    There is no true Absolute Zero.

    In order to reach Absolute Zero in a region anywhere within the Universe, all energy would need to be removed from that system. This means that the electron would halt it's movement around the proton of a hydrogen atom in that region of spacetime. It implies more than that, as well. Momentum AND position would both be defined at an Absolute Zero which contradicts the Uncertainty Principle. The removal of all energy from a system would wreak havoc on mass energy equivalence.
    Absolute Zero is Impossible given the properties of the Universe as defined.
    For this reason, we utilize the concept of zero-point energy.
    Zero-point energy is the lowest attainable energy state a system (Such as a hydrogen atom that has been supercooled) may have and still maintain its existence within the universe. The definition of "Absolute Zero" is then modified to mean the lowest limit a body can reach in temperature and still maintain enough energy to have movement and remain in definable physical existence.

    ETA To Clarify:
    You can define Absolute Zero as the total removal of all heat from a system
    or
    You can define Absolute Zero as the lowest Attainable temperature of a system (which makes it the single value on the entire scale that is an oddball.)
    Last edited by Neverfly; 04-17-2016 at 08:49 PM.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •