Mass at 0 Kelvin.

[aman]

A Nobel Prize was awarded in 1996 because a scientist cooled a gas to millionths of a degree above 0 Kelvin. The atomic structure of the elemental gas collapsed into a super molecule.

They never said if it returned to normal upon adding energy.

They theorized it would have collapsed farther if they could have cooled it more.

If I cooled a desk to 0 Kelvin and it collapsed into a point. Then I reheated it would I have a desk? Just for thought.

Just aman

[Zarkov]

Seems a strange thought Aman ! but it would make desk storage quite compact.

 

This concept of 0 degrees Kelvin is a little odd!.

 

Since everything at this temperature becomes a solid, science has no means of going to a lower temperature.

 

So we really do not know if this is a real limit or just a technical problem.

[quantumdream]

Femi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein condensates are created respectively for those statistics by cooling fermionic atoms or helium to extremely low temperatures (less than 10^-6 degrees Kelvin). The phenomena observed, where atoms' radial displacement becomed less defined outwardly to the magnitude of approximately one centimeter(!), is a consequence of the cooling restricting their absolute momentum ~ (:delta: p) ~ (2mkT)^.5) ~ h/(:delta: r), according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

[aman]

If we cooled an asteroid to absolute 0 Kelvin, would it finally, theoreticaly, collapse into a singularity? Or would it be a clump of very unusual matter?:shrug:

Just aman

[fafalone]

According to theory 0 Kelvin can't be obtained, so we couldn't even begin to guess what a system at absolute zero would be like.

[aman]

My ex-wife was the Queen of absolute zero. I think it had something to do with her eyes. I volunteer her to be on a ship going to an asteroid as a test. If it's a male asteroid she'll shrivel it to a peanut and then it's gone.

Besides that are you telling me that theory says that absolute zero Kelvin is impossible?

Bwhaaaa haa haa haa.

Nothing is impossible. That's why we keep having kids so you can show us how it's done.

Just aman

[fafalone]

Yeah the theory says it's impossible, didn't say I agree with that.

[Sayonara]

What about the core of a black hole? Is this the mass of a star that is so cold that it has collapsed into a tiny pellet of supersolid, or is it so dense and highly pressurised that it is extremely hot?

 

(Actual question )

[dragoon]

I think it's most likely extremely hot, because if it was soo cold and when things do drop to absolute zero it is said that they stop moving. So if a blackhole does have all that energy to pull things through it then it must be extremely hot at the core to have so much energy.

 

-just my thoughts-

[fafalone]

Heat is a measure of molecular movement, with the density of a black hole atoms cannot move as freely.

[dragoon]

but they are moving arent they? and maybe not very far but quickly?

[jvanhalderen]

So what your saying is that by cooling a matter to 0 K, you will create an infinite density?

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by jvanhalderen

So what your saying is that by cooling a matter to 0 K, you will create an infinite density?

What?

____

 

Dragoon, your logic is flawed. Black Holes do not expend energy on pulling matter into themselves - their immense gravity well is responsible for trapping matter and some energy.

 

Consider the core of a black hole. It is the entire mass of a star collapsed into a volume smaller than an atom. For all measurable purposes every bit of empty space in the star has been removed (the vast majority of this of course coming from within the atoms themselves), so no single subatomic entity would have anywhere to move to. Like fafalone said - the denser the structure, the less potential there is for molecular movement (and therefore heat).

 

Additionally each subatomic entity must be immediately adjacent to perhaps thousands of others which will presumably exert a powerful net influence. I imagine it's some sort of compact lattice arrangement, unless the collapse due to gravitational pull is strong enough to force together opposing subatomic entities.

If the latter case is correct then I think there's a good chance that energy would be released, although I'm not sure what sort of storage||transport mechanisms would take place under such conditions.

[aman]

I haven't read the Hawking book but I imagine the energy has to go somewhere. Lack of moleculare or subatomic movement is our definition of lack of temperature. Since we also have the law of conservation of energy the energy had to go somewhere. Maybe it leaks into a brane?

Just aman