Closest to Absolute Zero

[Klaynos]

it did pass absulote zero did it not?

 

 

No it didn't, you can't go below absolute zero, so you cannot pass it as there is no where to go when you are past it. There are also constraints that say you can't even get to it.

[wormholeman]

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Brother...

[The_simpsons]

I've reached minus 30 celcius. Damn, that was a cold day!

 

 

ive reached -43°C one day when i lived in Luleå

[john5746]

I know this because zero dose exist. I can picture it in my mind.

Picture a thermometre and put it in an enviroment where the

temprature decreases past zero

 

This may prove difficult' date=' since the universe as we know it doesn't allow going below zero.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero

 

We can imagine going 100 times faster than the speed of light, etc. That doesn't mean it is possible.

[timo]

How do you know this, as I understand it there are certain conditions (mostly quantum mechanical condistions) that disallow 0K ever being observed.

Inobtainability of 0 K does not stem from a quantum mechanical condition. It´s a statistical argument.

I know this because zero dose exist. I can picture it in my mind.

I can picture in my mind that my cup of coffee mutates into a giant gremlin that eats my neighbour's dog. But hopefully we can agree that this is not likely to happen ... because I don´t have any neighbours who have a dog. The world simply doesn´t always work as you imagine, even though that´s very sad.

EDIT: I think I have a better analogon than the gremlin: You can theoretically dig a 10 meter hole in the earth. You can also dig 20 meter deep. Obviously, you can always dig deeper. Therefore, you can dig an ininitely deep hole in the earth. Now, if you think about the big picture (the earth being a sphere) you´ll notice that it somehow isn´t possible.

[swansont]

Absolute zero is 0 K, not 0 C. You never saw this happen on a thermometer - there is no thermometer that can read the coldest temperatures that have been attained.

[wormholeman]

oahhhhh! I understand now.

 

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/temperature.html

[silkworm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by silkworm

Absolute zero is the temperature of truly empty space' date=' and is not possible anywhere else.

 

 

To paraphrase/use a quote by Wolfgang Pauli, "That's not right That's not even wrong."[/quote']

 

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/images/bob-set/bob10.jpg[/img'] The coldest place in nature is the depths of outer space. There it is 3 degrees above Absolute Zero.

 

True absence in nature can only be determined by finding a place that is 0K, which is void of all mass and is even outside of the farthest reaches of the electromagnetic spectrum. Making the measurment of this area itself violates this nothingness to an extent for it will never naturally return again because of the infinite orders of magnitude this space must go through to return to 0K. However, 0K does exist in nature, by definition, where truly nothing is.

 

With that said, the temperature of 0K can not be applied to an object simply because it contains mass that is made of energy. Matter can not be created or destroyed so the object can not be made 0K simply because you can not destroy mass. Surely there is a threshhold in between, and is likely unique to each element, and it's one I find most interesting. Possibly, you could make the space the object is in 0K, but you've have to evacuate everything out of it and I mean everything and stay far away from it.

[timo]

However, 0K does exist in nature, by definition, where truly nothing is.

By what definition? Temperature is not the same as energy, in case that was your thought.

[swansont]

True absence in nature can only be determined by finding a place that is 0K' date=' which is void of all mass and is even outside of the farthest reaches of the electromagnetic spectrum. Making the measurment of this area itself violates this nothingness to an extent for it will never naturally return again because of the infinite orders of magnitude this space must go through to return to 0K. However, 0K does exist in nature, by definition, where truly nothing is.

 

With that said, the temperature of 0K can not be applied to an object simply because it contains mass that is made of energy. Matter can not be created or destroyed so the object can not be made 0K simply because you can not destroy mass. Surely there is a threshhold in between, and is likely unique to each element, and it's one I find most interesting. Possibly, you could make the space the object is in 0K, but you've have to evacuate everything out of it and I mean everything and stay far away from it.[/quote']

 

The temperature of the "depths of outer space" is that of the cosmic microwave background - i.e. electromagnetic radiation that is in thermal equilibrium, leftover from when the universe became transparent.

 

"Nothing" doesn't have a temperature, which is a statistical measure - you need an ensemble to have a temperature. A vacuum, devoid of matter, is not nothingness because of virtual particles that pop into existence and quickly annihilate. Just two reasons why your statements here are nonsense.

[wormholeman]

Absolute zero is 0 K, not 0 C. You never saw this happen on a thermometer - there is no thermometer that can read the coldest temperatures that have been attained.

 

This truly made me think more about it.

 

Thanks swansont.

[silkworm]

"Nothing" doesn't have a temperature, which is a statistical measure - you need an ensemble to have a temperature.

 

If nothing doesn't have a temperature, wouldn't it be 0K? If it were nothing it wouldn't have a temperature. There's nothing there, no motion, nada. 0K?

 

I mean beyond the reach of the electromagnetic spectrum, not in the depths. I mean beyond the depths. I mean nowhere. I mean outside of our universe but still part of nature.

 

A vacuum, devoid of matter, is not nothingness because of virtual particles that pop into existence and quickly annihilate.

 

What are you talking about? Seriously. I don't mean that as a huffy puffy or anything, I mean seriously, what are you talking about? Is this a theoretical thing? I'm a huge fan of physics but still in Newton stuff.

[wormholeman]

I understand why you would think nothing to have zero kalvin.

but how do you know "nothing" is at zero kalvin. Nothing

defines absolutley nothing and that would mean even no temprature.

[swansont]

If nothing doesn't have a temperature' date=' wouldn't it be 0K? If it were nothing it wouldn't have a temperature. There's nothing there, no motion, nada. 0K?

 

I mean beyond the reach of the electromagnetic spectrum, not in the depths. I mean beyond the depths. I mean nowhere. I mean outside of our universe but still part of nature.[/quote']

 

undefined is not the same as zero

 

"outside of the universe but still part of nature" is nonsenseical. If it's outside the universe, it's not something we can access - it's not part of nature.

 

What are you talking about? Seriously. I don't mean that as a huffy puffy or anything' date=' I mean seriously, what are you talking about? Is this a theoretical thing? I'm a huge fan of physics but still in Newton stuff.[/quote']

 

Welcome to physics after Newton, aka the quantum world.

[Daecon]

Surely even those virtual particles that only exist for a short period of time exert some influence, and thereby have at least some small fraction of temperature...?

 

It probably isn't possible to get absolute zero because in order to record that phenomenon, you'd have to have some energy reflecting off the matter, in order to record it with. That energy would interact with the matter bumping it off of the 0^oK reading...

[Klaynos]

Quick note, there is no degree symbol for Kelvin, it is just 0K.

[wormholeman]

What do guys think would happen if someone cooled an enviroment to zero Kelvin? sounds dangerous to me.

[timo]

What do guys think would happen if someone cooled an enviroment to zero Kelvin? sounds dangerous to me.

Every particle of the ensemble would be in the lowest possible energetic state. I don´t see anything particulary dangerous in that. A Bose-Einstein Condensate, for example, has almost all particles in the lowest attainable state - just not all.

[silkworm]

A Bose-Einstein Condensate, for example, has almost all particles in the lowest attainable state - just not all.

 

That's a misinterpretation. The next step to 0K from 0.0001K is not 0K, it's 0.00001K. And then 0.000001K. Til eventually 0.(infinite zeros)K. You won't ever get there unless you empy the space you're working on, meaning you can't act absolute zero upon an object (which you couldn't anyway without destroying its mass which is impossible).

 

undefined is not the same as zero

 

"outside of the universe but still part of nature" is nonsenseical. If it's outside the universe' date=' it's not something we can access - it's not part of nature.[/quote']

 

Nothing is not undefined. Nothing is 0. The temperature of nothing is 0K because it is empty and void of energy and/or motion. That part that I wrote about nature and the universe does sound nonsensicle, but not really if you really think about it. Our universe only goes as far as the sprectrum has traveled, outside of that is nothing. That nothing is part of out nature, but not in our universe.

 

Welcome to physics after Newton' date=' aka the quantum world.[/quote']

 

Come on, throw me a bone here. Can you be more specific?

 

Nothing

defines absolutley nothing and that would mean even no temprature.

 

Exactly. No temperature = 0K. Did you change your picture?

 

Hey, going back to the blonde guy, does anyone know how they're getting the great depths of the universe at 0K? Surely it's a calculation thing, but I'm wondering what they base it on.

[wormholeman]

Ya, I did change it.

[wormholeman]

It is difficult for me to say what and exactly where and how to get to zero kelvin. Mabey it's impossible for it to exist. Is not zero kelvin reffering to the coolest temprature? I don't think it has to do with nothing silkworm. Even on

a thermometre there is zero celcious and that dose not mean there is no temprature. When I defined nothing, I was just pointng out nothing is nothing and nothing more. thats what I beleive anyhow.

 

Mabey, who ever wants to try cooling an enviroment to zero kelvin they would just

need a strong and more efficiant cooling device.

[Daecon]

why is there no ^o when talking about Kelvin? Isn't any temperature measured in degrees by default?

[wormholeman]

why is there no ^{o[/sup'] when talking about Kelvin? Isn't any temperature measured in degrees by default?}

 

^{Check this out. It talks about degrees in kelvin.}

 

^{http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kelvin}

[Daecon]

Darn. I just figured out how to make the ^o sign, too!

[silkworm]

Even on

a thermometre there is zero celcious and that dose not mean there is no temprature. When I defined nothing' date=' I was just pointng out nothing is nothing and nothing more. thats what I beleive anyhow.[/quote']

 

0ºC = Freezing point of fresh water. The celsius scale was set up so 0ºC would be the freezing point of fresh water and 100ºC the boiling point of fresh water.

 

0ºF = The freezing point of seawater, the system is based with 0ºF = the freezing point of seawater (though it should be noted that the boiling point of seawater is not 100ºF).

 

The Kelvin scale is absolute temperature. The freezing point of fresh water in Kelvins is 273K, the boiling point 373K. It's based on molecular motion, and all temperate is based on energy (as is everything). The point at which there is no motion/energy is 0K. To have no motion/energy you would have to destroy the mass in an object which is impossible, so absolute zero can not be acted upon an object. However, whereever there is absolutely nothing there will be no motion or energy and it will not have a temperature, it will be at the base, it will be 0K.