Temperature

[timo]

Ok, atheist, I follow what you're saying. But when we reach that fraction of a degree away from absolute zero, exactly what is happening to the electrons?

 

. No, I think you didn´t get my point. I was talking about T=0 not a point close to that.

 

The closer you get to T=0 the more electrons go to their energetically lowest state. At T=0 all are in their lowest state. Simple as that.

 

A rough approx I just made tells me that even at room temp most electrons would be in their lowest state (assuming difference in energy-levels to be in the eV-Range or even greater which I´m not certain of).

[jordan]

So hydrogen, having 1 electron would have reached absolute zero if its electron went to the lowest energy level? Or does T=0 not refer to the absolute zero concept?

[timo]

Thermodynamics doesn´t refer to single atoms :]. If all of your 10^23 atoms are at rest and all of their electrons are in the ground state, then yes: That´s T=0 (<=> "absolute zero").

 

Also (getting tired of repeating it) excited electrons do not play a role at low temps. It is sufficient to only consider the movement of the atoms. Forget about your electrons!

[jordan]

OK. I'll just have to wait until college or something to learn a little more about this stuff. Thanks for the help.

[K. B. Robertson]

On the high end you are limited by how much energy is available to you' date=' and the size of your sample.

 

At the low end, it's zero, as the Adm stated. people have come close - below a nanoKelvin - but the limit is unattainable.[/quote']

 

As most subscriber's in this forum apparently know, there's considerable, relatively obscure but active controversy on the issue of the opposite ends of the 'temperature' (motion) spectrum.

A limit on the high end is unknown to this membership (Equus), whereas, Lord Kelvin and Clausius made important contributions to thermodynamic principles and general knowledge in that field. 'Absolute Zero' is, to the best of this record's knowledge, unattainable, as earlier and following membership posts here have astutely submitted.

'Absolute Zero' is - (minus) 400 something Farenheit and - (minus) 200 something Centigrade.

 

Absolute Zero has yet to be achieved and may be unattainable.

That's when all molecular and even atomic and subatomic motion stops ('would stop'). There is no physical condition known to science where any known entity exists at Absolute Zero.

(Refer 'Lord Kelvin', 'Absolute Zero', on google).

 

('There is no space empty of field'. - Einstein. Whereas, a 'field', by definition is a moving proposition, and motion is heat. Ergo, until further notice, Absolute Zero is a universal 'non-event'... Which, notably, is exactly what Absolute Zero would achieve - a physical condition or space where 'nothing is moving'... It has been impressively implied that, should Absolute Zero ever be induced in a given physical test object, said object would promptly contract into the microcosms - becoming ever smaller, and proportionately more dense and timeless with the passage of time (motion) surrounding it - test object without any motion whatsover; motion being synonymous with time - for infinity.

 

Inspiring the consideration that microcosmic smallness may be just as endless as macrocosmic largeness.

 

Cryogenic experimentation has brought physical test objects to within near billionths of a of a (the) degree of Absolute Zero:

but - how close is 'close', when the microcosmic test object tenaciously bustles with motion, as the cryogenic effort to abate it is obliged to pursue the ever smaller microcosms with their accompanying, apparently interminable motions, and apparently limitless microcosmic 'smallness'...

 

Wheras, the 'center' of a given sub-atomic particle is, until further notice, unreachable - that is to say, the so called sub atomic 'particle' has no distinct, discontinuous 'surface', separating it from the space surrounding it... Instead, the so called 'particle' is an undulating charge of electricity, having no discontinuous boundaries (fullfilling the definition for mass/'particle' - that being: 'posesses negative and positive inertia; disallows the simultaneous occupaton of it's space by any other 'particle' )- found in fact to be a charge of electriciy having no distinct boundaries; becoming increasingly more dense toward it's center.

(The linear accelerator at Lawrence Livermore Lab, in Berkeley, CA., for example, continues to - so far, unsuccessfully - attempt to arrive at the center of a given sub-atomic particle. If that can be done, there may be a way to abate the otherwise inevitable motion <= heat>, therein.)

 

Until if and when the - any sub-atomic 'particular' -center can actually be arrived upon, most likely via cyrogenic - usually liquid Oxygen/LOX - or whatever other molecular and/or atomic and/or sub atomic 'particle' motion abatements may be employed, the effort to achieve Absolute Zero continues to be a notably unsuccessful but importantly thought provoking ('nul') experiment.

 

This - perhaps ubiquitously cogent; ironically obscure - issue of Absolute Zero is notably subjected in what may be a unique perspective, in the file on 'Gravity' and 'Einstein' on the menu at URL einstein.periphery.cc/ , wherein a remarkably tenable, unprecedented argument for the cause and dynamics of 'singularities' - black holes (among many other important previously irresolute issues), is comprehensively presented, along with what might be a - so far unrecognized - reversal or negation of standardized gravitational vector(s).

 

 

(*parenthesized statements are the replies to 'Athiest', from K. B. Robertson, aka 'Equus'.)

TAKE TWO

(Dialogue mode):

Atheist wrote:

^^ I didn´t really understand much in above post (but I didn´t really try hard) except the reference to Kelvin - and he is wrong on the subject which is not too surprising since his physical knowledge is a bit outdated (a hundred years) for today's standards.

 

(*Hello Atheist:

Your ‘debate' <contention?>, so far as I understand it,

You clarify that you ‘didn't really try hard to, and didn't really understand' the issued post ; then going on to state that "Kelvin... is wrong on the subject which is not too surprising since his physical knowledge is a bit outdated (a hundred years) for today's standards".

 

(*Am I to understand that Absolute Zero (-273) degrees Kelvin <after Lord/Baron William Thompson Kelvin - 1824 - 1907>, 'is wrong on the subject'? 'Since its out dated for today's standards'? Are you in the right - topic is TEMPERATURE - forum? How & why is Kelvin's standard ‘wrong'?

What among 'today's standards', 'outdates' it?

Archimedes principle of bouyancy remains unimproved upon, for example, having nothing to do with it's pre Christian aged longevity, but rather, because until further notice, no one has ever improved upon it, up to and including 'by today's standards'... Contributions to Science by GrecoRoman and other ancient authors are generally as immutable as they are quasi innumerable.

 

It seems, Mr. Atheist, that your remarkablly redundant misunderstandings are not only multifarious, but also reveal themselves as grandiosely delusionary. <You are what you do; all the more ostentatiously on the WWWinternet....>

There's heaps of historical antiquity in ‘today's standards', such as the - liberating, dogmatically geocentric - contribution of Nicolaus Copernicus' Heliocentric Theory.

 

Have ‘today's standards' gone back to a universe revolving around the <a flat or hollow> earth? Has some fast-lane moving jet-setter ‘outdated' the millenium aged invention of the spoked, geared and/or balanced or counter-balanced wheel? The history and evolution of science at large is built on rock steady foundations and principles; many of which were established much further back than a mere 100 years. Yet you deign to wave aside the inventor of the Kelvin standard as ‘not surprisingly being wrong', ‘because' it's one hundred years old'... (New Age ageism?)

 

Moreover and very importantly, you make no effort to qualify your disagreement with Kelvin; as though your proclamation that he's wrong constitutes irreproachably supreme arbitration <Speaking of ‘temperature', has yours been measured, lately?>

 

What 'subject', specifically - relative to your arrogantly plebean opening barb about Lord Kelvin - are you declaring to be 'wrong'? You conspicuously omit an explanation here, and elsewhere, as you ardently advance, with a series of what figuratively amount to unabashed, philogistic dangling participles...

 

Repeat: How is Kelvin's determination of Absolute Zero - the (so far unachieved, perhaps unachievable) point at which molecules have no heat energy, ‘wrong'? <Acknowledging that there's not only a lot of heat - molecular motion - in boiling water, and that there is also a lot of heat in an ice cube. Boiling and freezing points of H20 being benchmarks on various standardizations of measuring temperature - heat.>)

 

(*Athiest goes on to say:)

"Nevertheless I´ll take the reactivation of this debate as an occasion to repeat more explicitely what I already said:"

 

(*Please excuse me, I'm new to this forum and all other internet activities, and am not familiar with what you ‘already said'.... Where might I find your previous statement<s> - please send me the exact URL,, since, due to my own ignorance of required skills of being 'on line', I'm having difficulty finding - landing on /calling up - 'Science Forums and Debate!'; particularly given discussions in specific categories. As far as I presently understand, my post was under the category of 'General Science'.

 

My post was in response - under the assigned topic of TEMPERATURE - to:

 

SWANSONT's Commentary on Absolute Zero

(*The post I responded to, when you responded to my post...)

"On the high end you are limited by how much energy is available to you, and the size of your sample.

At the low end, it's zero, as the Adm stated. People have come close - below a nanoKelvin - but the limit is unattainable."

 

(* I don't understand what you're disagreeing with, when you say, ‘No it wouldn't',,, Although I think the <my> submitted suggestion that, if and when Absolute Zero is ever induced in a test object, that object will contract into microcosmic infinity - become 3-Dimensional - as the 4-Dimensionally expanding universe grows larger around it; the resulting ‘singularity'; possibly what is called a ‘black hole' - becoming increasingly more dense and smaller, relative to the physically and spatially expanding universe surrounding it...)

 

(Atheist wrote:)

No it wouldn´t. Quantum Mechanics doesn´t allow a bound electron to stop moving. QM tells you that bound atoms can be only in certain states. None of these states is associated with stop of movement (*resistthetemptationtostressuncertainty). Each of these states have an energy associated to it so if for example an electron changes to a lower-energetic state the differrence in energy will be released as a photon of characteristic energy.

 

(*More specifically, a given number of photons - quanta - will be released, equaling whatever added or subtracted change in the electonic valence or co-valence. Please clarify what role other than quantitative measurement, Planck's Constant H factor has to do with the established issue under discussion here. Namely TEMPERATURE and SWANSONT's post, regarding Absolute Zero <the considered cessation of all molecular, atomic and subatomic motion>. With regard to your ex tempor, parenthesized insertion - ‘(resistthetemptaiontostressuncertainty)' - I may only speculate that you are implying any allusion to +Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty, as not being cogent to this - however duplicitous, rosada smoke obscured - ‘communication'...

Whereas, regarding any tangential references to +that scientific placebo, I have learned to say, when evasive maneuvers attempt to find refuge in it:

‘When in doubt, cite Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty' - no one but myself authored that aegis. The same original authorship is true of and applicable to your exemplary - notably unqualified - ‘corrections' - ‘For parlor or political use, the vague generality is a lifesaver'.)

 

Atheist wrote:

At absolute zero all particles will be in the state with the lowest energy. But since there´s no state allowing the bound electrons to rest they won´t do so.

 

(*Although your point may be in need of some editing, I think I understand what you mean, in the above sentence and couldn't agree with you more, with the qualification that ‘they won't do so', Until Further Notice <if and when any test object is successfully brought to Absolute Zero..>..)

 

Atheist wrote:

I can imagine that eating "there is no state where everything is at rest" isn´t that easy but that´s the best answer I can give you assuming you don´t know QM (you might want to read it up; the Hydrogen atom and it´s quantitized states is not too hard to understand - non-relativistic).

 

(*It seems , Mr. Atheist, in your opening concession that you 'didn't really understand the above post, but that you didn't really try hard', that you have elaborately- however artlessly - missed the point<s> and premises that, not only Yours Truly was fairly adhering to, but the vector, if you will, of the entire series of posts, wherein you have burst upon the scene to paradoxically argue - however crudely and rudely - with the very points that are for the most part being made by the majority of contributors to this post, which is after all, entitled: TEMPERATURE - a measure of the relative ‘hotness' or ‘coldness' of a body, but not, however, a measurement of the quantity of heat contained in the body <this is expressed by calories or indicated in the specific heat>.

Whereas, your knee kick, obsessive compulsion to correct that which needs no correction - by your very disingenous emergence in this forum on ‘temperature', belied by your transposition of contexts, with the (amazing?) grace of a hippopotomus stepping from a pier into a canoe.

 

(* Regarding your invective culinary indulgence:)

 

Atheist (the galloping bellicose gourmet?) wrote:

‘I can imagine that eating "there is no state where everything is at rest" isn't that easy, but that's the best answer I can give you, assuming you don't know QM..'

 

(*Your - You are what you eat - ‘assumption' that I ‘don't know QM' is of itself, non-sequiturially unscientific - a deliberate and pompous condescension of yourself, including your affectatiously unseasoned. anticipation-apparent condiment that I don't know Quantum Mechanics, as you express it ‘QM' - the work of Max Planck, the ‘quantum h constant', the currency of every exchange of energy invariably reduced to absorbtion or projection of photons - quanta - all having the same value, preceded by the rudimentary observation that ‘there is no state where everything is at rest', as it is applicable to the so far - acknowledged - unsuccessful inducement of Absolute Zero to any test object and remains unobserved in any known or recognized physical manifestation, in situ...

 

Whereas, my typewriter - Molly Keyboard MacColley - the most formidable counteroffensive weapon in the world - puts that train of thought on these rails, as they were laid down by Einstein:

"There is no space empty of field".

 

Atheist wrote: (*Reiterating his redundancy?)

And to repeat it once more: Temperature is no physical quantity. It´s a statistical variable. I don´t think there´s much point thinking about it and speculating what this tells us of the world if one hasn´t really understood that and can tell statistics from physics.

 

(*Iinsofar as Atheist has demonstrated his inability to distinguish apple or pi r squared from bovine meadow pie, He shows every thespian sign of dining upon and/or wearing any or all of them for a hat.)

 

(*Digressing to reality: Returning to the germane <but notably challenged and denigrated> topic of Temperature: is a measure of the relative ‘hotness' or ‘coldness' of a body, but not, however, a measurement of the quantity of heat contained in the body <this is expressed by calories or indicated in the specific heat>.

The best known standard scales and methods of measuring temperature are in Farenheit, Centigrade <Often called Celsius, after Anders Selcius - 1701 -1744; who invented and standardized the Centigrade thermometer> - all of which employ as benchmarks, the boiling and the freezing temperature of water; with auxiliary measurements such as Absolute Zero and the ignition - or ‘kindling'/'combustion' - point of given materials & compounds; whereas, the phenomenon of ‘critical temperature' was discovered and so named by one Thomas Andrews.

Lord Baron William Thomson's - since, much controversied Absolute Zero corresponds to (approximately) - 273 K (Kelvin - K - scale).

Of course, by ‘today's standards' according to Atheist, this <cold case?> information is ‘unsurprisingly outdated'. He idiosyncratically offers no further explanation. (Believe you me?).

 

(*TEMPERATURE, which is the topic of discussion in the forum wherein you pointedly state you ‘didn't really try hard, and didn't really understand'...<That may be the most important statement put forth in your mysterious ‘disagreement', which assertively begins with: ‘No it {what?} won't.'>...

No entry in this forum <on Temperature> as known to myself, appears as any Debate! - or other axe to grind - in opposition to Atheist <at least they didn't use to?>...

 

Reminiscent of the champion high diver who strutted confidently to the platform, winked at and spat upon his hushed audience; executed a #10 - flawless - double full gainer with a half twist and a jack knife on his 222 meter way to the bottom of an empty pool. )

 

(* Suggest you address yourself to 'Brownian Movement', as Einstein brought it to light - it's about visible effects of molecules that may be ambivalently measured as temperature, regarding the increasing statistical collisions of microcosmic molecules with <relatively> macrocosmic systems of floral pollen, suspended in a, cold, tepid & warm water medium. Bon apetit.)

 

P.S. Atheist: Recommend you avoid http:// einstein.periphery.cc/

(It may take several weeks, months or years for your socks to quit rolling up and down.)

 

Ciao & Prego

 

_ Equus (aka Kent Benjamin Robertson)

[K. B. Robertson]

Absolute zero being unattainable is a consequence of the third law of thermodynamics. Subatomic motion does not stop. It doesn't even slow down as you near the limit - temperature is indicative of center-of-mass motion only.

 

 

No' date=' these temperatures were achieved in Bose-Einstein condensation experiments, which use laser cooling in a magneto-optic trap or optical molasses, followed by evaporative cooling in a magnetic trap. No cryogenics.[/quote']

 

Don't know who made (who to thank for) the above correction from my equivocation regarding employed 'cryogenics', whereas I concede the statement citing employment of 'Bose-Einstein condensation experiments' etc., in the more successful ('closest') approaches to Absolute Zero. 'No cryogenics'.

You're apparently and absolutely right. Thank you.

- Sincerely, K. B. Robertson

[Mr_Mediocre]

lol...'twould appear that Atheist really got your goat up Equus . You may, however, have gotten your points across to a wider audience if they didn't have to wade through a quagmire of sarcasm and invective to reach them. With involved subjects like this one, maybe use sentences more for stating one or two points, rather than vehicles for conveying your ability to formulate witty, razor-sharp rejoinders. This way, more of us will gain more from the debate.

 

For the record, I don't disagree with any of the scientific points you made, except perhaps the assertion that Molly Keyboard MacColley is the most formidable counteroffensive weapon in the world

 

Cheers, MM

 

p.s. noticed that you removed the sentence regarding Atheist `...vainly proselytizing - and breathing the air of - those in a higher pay bracket (or something to that effect)..' when you edited your original message. Too harsh?

[timo]

@Robertson:

 

Oh my. To a point I´m really quite sorry that I had trouble understanding your post again but on the other hand I think if you should have put more emphasis in content (was there any?) than in fancy wordings. Well, assuming your post wasn´t only a flame post (little things indicate this but I always think people should be given a 2nd chance):

 

-- You were asking why I said Kelvin is wrong:

That was refering to "That [0K] is when all molecular and even atomic and subatomic motion stops ('would stop')". Answer should be obvious since you seem to have read my post quite extensvely (hint: subatomic motion).

 

-- You asked why I say his physics is outdated:

Because he based his point of view on classical mechanics. QM wasn´t known at his time. QM is also the "today's standard" I was talking about.

 

-- About my mentioning/not mentioning uncertainty:

I put this in so that people knowing QM could follow my argumentation (stop of movement => delta-peak in momentum-base => no bound state). For people not knowing QM that point is absolutely unimportant since they have to believe my words without being able to understand the reason anyways.

I don´t feel responsible for uncertainty being prostituted by pseudo-scientists (yes, I agree with you that some people bring it in whenever they want to sell you some obscure pseudo-science).

 

-- About your rantings I didn´t stay on the subject:

You have said yourself that you can´t access this forum correctly. Where the hell do you take the arrogance to tell me my posts are off-topic? My post was refering to Jordan´s post about "What happens when the electrons stop moving at T=0" not to yours. Most of your flames thus become pointless.

 

-- My 1st post:

As you asked for it, here´s the URL: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4634

it´s post #18.

 

One last thing: Might I ask you upon what authority you judge the things I said (which you basically didn´t even reject - you just seemed to randomly flame around) and my mental state? From the style of your post you seem more like a columnist or historian than a scientist.

 

EDIT: From the E-Mail (was it an E-Mail?) you posted in your last post it seems that the quote in my post between "[...] occasion to repeat more explicitely what I already said:" and the rest of my post is missing. This might explain your confusion.

[AtomicMX]

This topic is particullary difficult... but well... the highest temp. would be the point when the biggest atomic (talking about atomic number) you can make, has its electron spinning to the point that it will beat the bind with the nucleum (could we say the electron to the nucleum gravity) and well... there you have your highest temperature.

[ed84c]

according to my book' date=' New York Public Library Science Desk Reference (1995)

 

the Highest temp is: 1,000,000,000,000 Kelvin, and that`s from the fireball at the beginning of the Universe.

 

[/quote']

 

how have they come about by that figure? it looks awfully like somebody has made it up.

 

Quantum mechnaics tells us (if i have interpreted this right) that something can be spontentiously created from nothing and therefore theoretically (all though the chances are 1/inft.) you could have a temperature of infinity.

[Martin]

...

 

What about the highest or hottest temp possible. The biggest number I've seen is 100Million degrees C' date=' or are there even higher temps?[/quote']

 

Core of the sun is estimated at around 15 million kelvin

(must be this hot to avoid further compression by weight of material over it, the temperature and density of the sun layer by layer are fairly reliably modeled)

 

more massive stars would have higher core temperatures, so 100 million kelvin is probably fairly common. there may be a website for this.

 

Planck temperature is 1.4 x 10³² kelvin

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/

 

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Category?view=html&Universal.x=74&Universal.y=15

 

it's probably a reasonably good order-of-magnitude handle on

the highest temperature there has ever been since the expanding world began

 

or the temperature of the bounce, if there was a prior contracting world that we dont know about

 

if nothing else, the laws of physics themselves melt at 1.4 E32 kelvin

[bloodhound]

I attended a lecture at imperial colege given by a nobel laureate from america. He did work on Laser cooling. basically using laser to slow down particles. Soemthing to do with doppler shift helping to slow it down as well. cant remember much

[Martin]

I attended a lecture at imperial colege given by a nobel laureate from america. He did work on Laser cooling. basically using laser to slow down particles. Soemthing to do with doppler shift helping to slow it down as well. cant remember much

 

you are lucky to have access to lectures at imperial college

I would like to understand laser cooling better,

maybe someone here could explain how it works

(must have something to do with being able to tune a laser to

be just above or below a resonant frequency of the atom, I am

guessing)

[swansont]

I attended a lecture at imperial colege given by a nobel laureate from america. He did work on Laser cooling. basically using laser to slow down particles. Soemthing to do with doppler shift helping to slow it down as well. cant remember much

 

Bill Phillips, Eric Cornell, Carl Wieman or Steven Chu?