Having 0 kinetic energy

[swansont]

Ok, now there's a conflict, because in the same page I have "0K is impossible" and "0k is completely possible".

 

You have misread something or have a misconception if that's what you have taken away from this.

 

The objects making up something in a center-of-mass system are made out of atoms, and atoms are constantly moving in some way because they have energy, so if they have no energy, there would be no wave...oh wait, a point, it's not a wave, and we can't infinitely continuously measure that the point moves distance over time, so how is the point not having 0 kinetic or really 0 of any energy?

 

Why do you think there is no wave, and you have a point, if there is no energy? The deBroglie wavelength tends to infinity as kinetic energy (and thus momentum) goes to zero. That's the opposite of a point.

[questionposter]

You have misread something or have a misconception if that's what you have taken away from this.

 

 

 

Why do you think there is no wave, and you have a point, if there is no energy? The deBroglie wavelength tends to infinity as kinetic energy (and thus momentum) goes to zero. That's the opposite of a point.

 

Because if a wave doesn't have energy, then it's no longer a wave, and when you measure something, we don't measure it as a wave which suggests it may not have energy, and the other part is that a measurement which is a point isn't traveling any distance over time and thus cannot have momentum or I guess kinetic energy.

Also, I thought it was impossible for a particle itself to have 0 momentum because of the uncertainty principal and you would have to add energy into the system to try and force a a particle to a lower energy state beyond it's lowest possible state to 0 which isn't decreasing the energy, it's just forming degenerate matter which definitely has a lot of energy.

Edited January 23, 2012 by questionposter

[Widdekind]

I understand, that a particle can have a momentum expectation value [math]\langle \hat{p} \rangle = 0[/math], indicating that the "centroid" of the wave-function is stationary. The HUP demands, however, some "uncertainty", i.e. some mathematical statistical spread, in momentum. Er go, a particle which is "stationary" is a super-position, of numerous momentum states, representing equal amounts of momentum, flowing forward as backward, left as right, up as down.

[swansont]

Because if a wave doesn't have energy, then it's no longer a wave, and when you measure something, we don't measure it as a wave which suggests it may not have energy, and the other part is that a measurement which is a point isn't traveling any distance over time and thus cannot have momentum or I guess kinetic energy.

Also, I thought it was impossible for a particle itself to have 0 momentum because of the uncertainty principal and you would have to add energy into the system to try and force a a particle to a lower energy state beyond it's lowest possible state to 0 which isn't decreasing the energy, it's just forming degenerate matter which definitely has a lot of energy.

 

The wave has an infinite wavelength. Why is a measurement involved here?

 

HUP says you cannot simultaneously measure momentum and position to arbitrary precision. You can know the momentum as long as you don't know the position. In any event, trying to tie time to motion is misguided.

[questionposter]

The wave has an infinite wavelength. Why is a measurement involved here?

 

HUP says you cannot simultaneously measure momentum and position to arbitrary precision. You can know the momentum as long as you don't know the position. In any event, trying to tie time to motion is misguided.

 

But you technically don't know the position still, all you know is what the photon tells you and by the photon is measured the particles has already gone into a state with an undefined location.

Perhaps there is uncertainty in "where" you will end up measuring the location of the point which can be contained within the photon you measure information from, otherwise what else are your eyes and instruments actually measuring? Are they measuring triangles? Circles? Squares?

Edited January 23, 2012 by questionposter

[swansont]

But you technically don't know the position still, all you know is what the photon tells you and by the photon is measured the particles has already gone into a state with an undefined location.

 

Why is there a photon involved? I though the question was whether something can have zero kinetic energy. I mean, sure, you can say nothing can be at rest because I am going to continually perturb it, but that's not really the same thing, is it?

[questionposter]

Why is there a photon involved? I though the question was whether something can have zero kinetic energy. I mean, sure, you can say nothing can be at rest because I am going to continually perturb it, but that's not really the same thing, is it?

 

I suppose no "object" can have 0 kinetic energy (and therefore has to be constantly moving in some way?), but a measurement isn't an object...

[DrRocket]

Ok, but kinetic energy is different than temperature. Temperature is the measure of the average kinetic energy. A single atom doesn't have an average kinetic energy, but it does have just plain kinetic energy.

 

Of course a single atom has an average kinetic energy. When you average over a single data point, that point IS the average.

 

However, what you are grasping to say is that temperature is normally used to describe the statistical behavior of a large number of particles, and hence temperature is not really germane to the description of a single particle. Also you have to be rather careful when considering a single particle, as kinetic energy is a frame-dependent quantity. In statistical thermodynamics, it is implicitly assumed that one is working in a reference frame in which the net momentum of the system of particles under consideration is zero. In engineering thermodynamics (which considers open systems as well as closed systems) one has to be careful to specify what means by "temperature" so when gas dynamics enters the picture you have "stagnation temperature" or "static temperature" and the two can differ by literally thousands of degrees in problems of practical interest.

 

You are also confusing the general, classical kinetic theory with quantum theory. They are not the same thing and the classical theory does not consider quantum effects.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I'm not saying that you can't measure different motions from different points of reference, but every atom has some kind of kinetic energy.

 

That is simply not true.

 

The internal energy of a monatomic gas, like hydrogen, in classical statistical thermodynamics is just the translational kinetic energy, and it is very easy to pick a reference frame in which the energy of any single atom is zero.

 

When you invoke quantum theory the situation is a bit more muddy.

 

In fact at the quantum level the notion of kinetic energy as distinct from potential energy rather loses meaning. In fact "motion", given the uncertainty in position, is not particularly well-defined.

 

What you have are quantum states, and "energy" is part of what is necessary to define a quantum state.

 

 

Actually, because of the uncertainty principal, there HAS to be motion because there will always be uncertainty about a particle's momentum, so a particle can't actually have 0K without I guess either time having been stopping or it just not existing at least as a wave any more.

 

Nope.

 

You are trying to impose classical notions on quantum mechanics. That doesn't work.

 

 

Also a distinction that somehow people still aren't recognizing is between an actual particle and a measurement. A measurement is different than a particle, that's why they have different definitions in the dictionary. The measurement you make is a point which is not traveling distance over time, where the measurement of a point came from is a particle which does travel distance over time. A measurement doesn't travel distance over time and therefore cannot have kinetic energy or even momentum which is why we don't observe a measurement as a wave, since you need energy to generate a wave.

 

This makes no sense. Of course a measurement is different from a particle. A measurement is not a physical thing, but rather is an action taken by someone. It is also true, and equally relevant, that a horse is not a political principle.

 

It is you, not others, who is not recognizing what is going on.

 

You are also confusing the second law of thermodynamics -- which in one form states that no system not already at absolute zero can reach absolute zero in a finite number of thermodynamic steps -- with the idea that "0K is impossible". The concept of absolute zero is crystal clear -- either in the abstract language of classical thermodynamics or in the slightly more concrete language of quantum mechanics in which it is the lowest possible energy state of a system (which by the Pauli exclusion principle is not a state of zero energy).

[questionposter]

Of course a single atom has an average kinetic energy. When you average over a single data point, that point IS the average.

Then there is always an average above 0. I have yet to see a head line that saying "Scientists Achieve Absolute 0 in a substance" or even something as 'simple' as "Scientists Achieve Absolute 0 With Single Atom".

 

However, what you are grasping to say is that temperature is normally used to describe the statistical behavior of a large number of particles, and hence temperature is not really germane to the description of a single particle. Also you have to be rather careful when considering a single particle, as kinetic energy is a frame-dependent quantity. In statistical thermodynamics, it is implicitly assumed that one is working in a reference frame in which the net momentum of the system of particles under consideration is zero. In engineering thermodynamics (which considers open systems as well as closed systems) one has to be careful to specify what means by "temperature" so when gas dynamics enters the picture you have "stagnation temperature" or "static temperature" and the two can differ by literally thousands of degrees in problems of practical interest.

 

You are also confusing the general, classical kinetic theory with quantum theory. They are not the same thing and the classical theory does not consider quantum effects.

 

Some classical mechanics happens at the atomic level. When you have kinetic energy, atoms are LITERALLY moving. When you push on something, you are LITERALLY pushing on the atoms and giving them kinetic energy and making them move and bump into each other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is simply not true.

 

The internal energy of a monatomic gas, like hydrogen, in classical statistical thermodynamics is just the translational kinetic energy, and it is very easy to pick a reference frame in which the energy of any single atom is zero.

 

When you invoke quantum theory the situation is a bit more muddy.

 

In fact at the quantum level the notion of kinetic energy as distinct from potential energy rather loses meaning. In fact "motion", given the uncertainty in position, is not particularly well-defined.

 

What you have are quantum states, and "energy" is part of what is necessary to define a quantum state.

Energy within an atomic system, such as with hydrogen gas, is quantized. Losing all kinetic energy requires an electron to lose energy past it's ground state (which is always a non-zero momentum above the nucleus) and remain solely in the nucleus, which isn't known to be possible. And then, we can try to force an electron into the nucleus, but that only adds more energy to the system and eventually forms high-energy degenerate matter.

I get that there are frames of reference, but there's also different frame's of reference in which to measure light yet it is always measured at C. Given the proper instruments, we could always measure something is moving because we can never actually achieve a perfectly "still" or "perfectly in uniform motion" system, and this is because everything we can measure light from is made up of atoms which have uncertain momentums.

 

 

 

 

Nope.

 

You are trying to impose classical notions on quantum mechanics. That doesn't work.

 

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal is quantum mechanics, not classical mechanics. Even though I already mentioned the quantinization problem, it still holds true that there is uncertainty about the momentum of a particle and thus the energy level of a particle cannot actually solely be at 0. Perhaps it maybe can be "at 0 and at it's next energy level and some energy levels above that" but all simultaneously.

Math is not reality because math is deterministic.

 

 

 

 

This makes no sense. Of course a measurement is different from a particle. A measurement is not a physical thing, but rather is an action taken by someone. It is also true, and equally relevant, that a horse is not a political principle.

 

It is you, not others, who is not recognizing what is going on.

 

You are also confusing the second law of thermodynamics -- which in one form states that no system not already at absolute zero can reach absolute zero in a finite number of thermodynamic steps -- with the idea that "0K is impossible". The concept of absolute zero is crystal clear -- either in the abstract language of classical thermodynamics or in the slightly more concrete language of quantum mechanics in which it is the lowest possible energy state of a system (which by the Pauli exclusion principle is not a state of zero energy).

 

The laws of thermal dynamics which have already been broken by substances like liquid helium apply to physical objects, not measurements.

Kinetic energy can be defined basically as something that causes acceleration or motion, and atoms have both literal and quantum mechanical motion.

Perhaps you can try to make the net kinetic energy of an object "0" so that you can try to state it has no kinetic energy and isn't traveling in any direction, but the atoms themselves will have to be moving as they cannot exist in a defined location. Only a defined location can have a net energy equal to 0 at least in a vector system. How could an undefined location have it? It doesn't exist a specific location, so it doesn't hold specific kinetic energy.

With a measurement itself however, a measurement, which is the point, isn't traveling distance over time and so can't be moving, so the measurement has 0 kinetic energy.

 

 

A measurement has no momentum so that is perhaps why we perceive atoms as points instead of waves since you need momentum to generate a wave.

 

It's already expected and essentially proven that consciousness has weird effects on matter on the atomic scale, I don't get why the above notion this is such a catastrophe to people.

Edited January 24, 2012 by questionposter

[swansont]

The laws of thermal dynamics which have already been broken by substances like liquid helium apply to physical objects, not measurements.

 

What thermodynamic laws do you think have been broken by liquid Helium?

[questionposter]

What thermodynamic laws do you think have been broken by liquid Helium?

 

With liquid helium, I forgot which law specifically, but something about infinite thermal conductivity causes some problems. Liquid helium can also transfer energy from both hot to cold and cold to hot, which I know goes against 1 rule thermal dynamics.

 

Otherwise, atoms themselves break I think the second law which implies that "everything will exhaust energy" or radiate it away in the form of entropy, is broken by the mere fact that even at the ground state, an atom won't just lose it's energy because energy in an atomic system is quantized as well as uncertain. So the energy of an atom will never just "decay" to 0 or at least stay at defined at 0.

 

And then there's something about black holes not being able to radiate entropy, although theoretically they evaporate, but I don't know how seriously that's taken by the science community.

Edited January 24, 2012 by questionposter

[DrRocket]

Then there is always an average above 0. I have yet to see a head line that saying "Scientists Achieve Absolute 0 in a substance" or even something as 'simple' as "Scientists Achieve Absolute 0 With Single Atom".

 

 

 

Some classical mechanics happens at the atomic level. When you have kinetic energy, atoms are LITERALLY moving. When you push on something, you are LITERALLY pushing on the atoms and giving them kinetic energy and making them move and bump into each other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Energy within an atomic system, such as with hydrogen gas, is quantized. Losing all kinetic energy requires an electron to lose energy past it's ground state (which is always a non-zero momentum above the nucleus) and remain solely in the nucleus, which isn't known to be possible. And then, we can try to force an electron into the nucleus, but that only adds more energy to the system and eventually forms high-energy degenerate matter.

I get that there are frames of reference, but there's also different frame's of reference in which to measure light yet it is always measured at C. Given the proper instruments, we could always measure something is moving because we can never actually achieve a perfectly "still" or "perfectly in uniform motion" system, and this is because everything we can measure light from is made up of atoms which have uncertain momentums.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal is quantum mechanics, not classical mechanics. Even though I already mentioned the quantinization problem, it still holds true that there is uncertainty about the momentum of a particle and thus the energy level of a particle cannot actually solely be at 0. Perhaps it maybe can be "at 0 and at it's next energy level and some energy levels above that" but all simultaneously.

Math is not reality because math is deterministic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The laws of thermal dynamics which have already been broken by substances like liquid helium apply to physical objects, not measurements.

Kinetic energy can be defined basically as something that causes acceleration or motion, and atoms have both literal and quantum mechanical motion.

Perhaps you can try to make the net kinetic energy of an object "0" so that you can try to state it has no kinetic energy and isn't traveling in any direction, but the atoms themselves will have to be moving as they cannot exist in a defined location. Only a defined location can have a net energy equal to 0 at least in a vector system. How could an undefined location have it? It doesn't exist a specific location, so it doesn't hold specific kinetic energy.

With a measurement itself however, a measurement, which is the point, isn't traveling distance over time and so can't be moving, so the measurement has 0 kinetic energy.

 

 

A measurement has no momentum so that is perhaps why we perceive atoms as points instead of waves since you need momentum to generate a wave.

 

It's already expected and essentially proven that consciousness has weird effects on matter on the atomic scale, I don't get why the above notion this is such a catastrophe to people.

 

This is absurd. Learning science requires more than reading comic books and posting inane questions the responses to which you ignore.

 

You need to get past pop-sci and buzz words that you don't understand and learn some real physics.

 

I suggest that you start with The Feynman Lectures on Physics by Feynman, Leighton and Sands

 

With liquid helium, I forgot which law specifically, but something about infinite thermal conductivity causes some problems. Liquid helium can also transfer energy from both hot to cold and cold to hot, which I know goes against 1 rule thermal dynamics.

 

Otherwise, atoms themselves break I think the second law which implies that "everything will exhaust energy" or radiate it away in the form of entropy, is broken by the mere fact that even at the ground state, an atom won't just lose it's energy because energy in an atomic system is quantized as well as uncertain. So the energy of an atom will never just "decay" to 0 or at least stay at defined at 0.

 

And then there's something about black holes not being able to radiate entropy, although theoretically they evaporate, but I don't know how seriously that's taken by the science community.

 

More gibberish.

 

Now go read a book.

[questionposter]

This is absurd. Learning science requires more than reading comic books and posting inane questions the responses to which you ignore.

 

You need to get past pop-sci and buzz words that you don't understand and learn some real physics.

 

I suggest that you start with The Feynman Lectures on Physics by Feynman, Leighton and Sands

Well your probably not a scientist because real scientists know that laws aren't meant to be these "grand, un-shakable pillars of eternity". They simply state what "should" logically happen given our current knowledge. But, we don't know everything, so there's room for these things to be wrong and change, just as the very model of an atom has changed.

Besides, I thought kinetic energy and quantum mechanics was physics, but I guess if you have some way to disprove all of that, I'd like to see it.

Once again, general relativity isn't the only thing that describes the universe, and in fact it cannot completely describe the universe because it implies determinism. Yeah, I understand all these "reference points" and how all that works, but some things are just not so relative. The laws of physics are not relative, at least not with our current knowledge, and part of the laws of physics is that atoms exist as entities of undefined locations, as well as kinetic energy having the inherent property to make things move, although "how" much something moves can be perceived differently.

 

 

 

 

More gibberish.

 

Now go read a book.

 

What I'm saying with regards to liquid helium and broken thermal dynamical laws has been proven through experiments conducted around the world (except for black holes obviously). If you are somehow a scientists, your obviously one of those scientists who isn't really keeping up with the times, much like Einstein who didn't even acknowledge the existence of the Strong Force within nuclei and so faded away from the frontier of science.

C'mon, even quantum mechanics was invented like half a century ago, get with the times.

Edited January 24, 2012 by questionposter

[Samm]

Well your probably not a scientist because real scientists know that laws aren't meant to be these "grand, un-shakable pillars of eternity". They simply state what "should" logically happen given our current knowledge. But, we don't know everything, so there's room for these things to be wrong and change, just as the very model of an atom has changed.

Besides, I thought kinetic energy and quantum mechanics was physics, but I guess if you have some way to disprove all of that, I'd like to see it.

Kinetic energy and quantum mechanics IS physics. What you're saying doesn't make any sense. It's not physics. I mean from what I can see, you're trying to establish that objects stop in time because measurements are events that don't occur continuously. As you're very keen to point out, measurements are distinct from the object. The measurement is just an image that we can see of what's going on, so... what does that have to do with any objects actually stopping in space, let alone time?

 

And if a law of thermodynamics was disproved, it would be the largest science news was disproved, it would likely make headline news and be everywhere. I don't think we have yet seen that.

 

Once again, general relativity isn't the only thing that describes the universe, and in fact it cannot completely describe the universe because it implies determinism. Yeah, I understand all these "reference points" and how all that works, but some things are just not so relative. The laws of physics are not relative, at least not with our current knowledge, and part of the laws of physics is that atoms exist as entities of undefined locations, as well as kinetic energy having the inherent property to make things move, although "how" much something moves can be perceived differently.

General Relativity doesn't say "EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE". It doesn't. The laws of physics apply to all reference frames, to the same degree. It's just the way it works.

 

What I'm saying with regards to liquid helium and broken thermal dynamical laws has been proven through experiments conducted around the world (except for black holes obviously). If you are somehow a scientists, your obviously one of those scientists who isn't really keeping up with the times, much like Einstein who didn't even acknowledge the existence of the Strong Force within nuclei and so faded away from the frontier of science.

Liquid helium is a superfluid under the correct conditions. Superfluids have high thermal conductivity, not infinite thermal conductivity. They are very strange, but it's not like they actually break any rules. They are frictionless, yes, but that is well documented and it doesn't actually void the laws of physics.

 

C'mon, even quantum mechanics was invented like half a century ago, get with the times.

It's funny that you say this because Dr Rocket seems to have the famous Nobel Prize-Winning Quantum Physicist Richard Feynman as his picture. Which would be odd for someone who doesn't know anything about Quantum Mechanics, now wouldn't it?

[DrRocket]

Well your probably not a scientist because real scientists know that laws aren't meant to be these "grand, un-shakable pillars of eternity". They simply state what "should" logically happen given our current knowledge. But, we don't know everything, so there's room for these things to be wrong and change, just as the very model of an atom has changed.

Besides, I thought kinetic energy and quantum mechanics was physics, but I guess if you have some way to disprove all of that, I'd like to see it.

Once again, general relativity isn't the only thing that describes the universe, and in fact it cannot completely describe the universe because it implies determinism. Yeah, I understand all these "reference points" and how all that works, but some things are just not so relative. The laws of physics are not relative, at least not with our current knowledge, and part of the laws of physics is that atoms exist as entities of undefined locations, as well as kinetic energy having the inherent property to make things move, although "how" much something moves can be perceived differently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I'm saying with regards to liquid helium and broken thermal dynamical laws has been proven through experiments conducted around the world (except for black holes obviously). If you are somehow a scientists, your obviously one of those scientists who isn't really keeping up with the times, much like Einstein who didn't even acknowledge the existence of the Strong Force within nuclei and so faded away from the frontier of science.

C'mon, even quantum mechanics was invented like half a century ago, get with the times.

 

rubbish

 

go read the damn book

[imatfaal]

Questionposter - this is/was an interesting thread but I would like to make one suggestion: In the last four pages of thread you have come into conflict with and contradicted at least 4 posters with doctorates in Physics - now this is not an appeal to authority, nor an implication that those with qualifications are always correct; but in order to learn one must temper the desire to ask questions with the ability to absorb and understand the answers, it is also essential that one assimilates and stores the knowledge of teachers and experts in addition to demonstrating one's own knowledge. I would be a shame if the lurkers on this thread learn more from the response of the experts than the original poster.

[swansont]

With liquid helium, I forgot which law specifically, but something about infinite thermal conductivity causes some problems. Liquid helium can also transfer energy from both hot to cold and cold to hot, which I know goes against 1 rule thermal dynamics.

You'll have to cite something specific.

 

Otherwise, atoms themselves break I think the second law which implies that "everything will exhaust energy" or radiate it away in the form of entropy, is broken by the mere fact that even at the ground state, an atom won't just lose it's energy because energy in an atomic system is quantized as well as uncertain. So the energy of an atom will never just "decay" to 0 or at least stay at defined at 0.

 

No. Left on their own, atoms will decay to their minimum energy level, which increases entropy. The entropy will not decrease in a ground state atom, also consistent with the second law.

 

And then there's something about black holes not being able to radiate entropy, although theoretically they evaporate, but I don't know how seriously that's taken by the science community.

 

Again, this is very vague.

 

DrRocket is correct that learning the pop-sci version of science is no replacement for the real thing.

[questionposter]

Kinetic energy and quantum mechanics IS physics. What you're saying doesn't make any sense. It's not physics. I mean from what I can see, you're trying to establish that objects stop in time because measurements are events that don't occur continuously. As you're very keen to point out, measurements are distinct from the object. The measurement is just an image that we can see of what's going on, so... what does that have to do with any objects actually stopping in space, let alone time?

 

And if a law of thermodynamics was disproved, it would be the largest science news was disproved, it would likely make headline news and be everywhere. I don't think we have yet seen that.

Well I already said that I can agree that time stopping isn't logical and haven't mentioned it since.

 

 

General Relativity doesn't say "EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE". It doesn't. The laws of physics apply to all reference frames, to the same degree. It's just the way it works.

You should really read my posts more carefully because I said that exact same thing.

 

 

Liquid helium is a superfluid under the correct conditions. Superfluids have high thermal conductivity, not infinite thermal conductivity. They are very strange, but it's not like they actually break any rules. They are frictionless, yes, but that is well documented and it doesn't actually void the laws of physics.

 

 

It's funny that you say this because Dr Rocket seems to have the famous Nobel Prize-Winning Quantum Physicist Richard Feynman as his picture. Which would be odd for someone who doesn't know anything about Quantum Mechanics, now wouldn't it?

 

It would be weird except atoms actually do follow principals of quantum mechanics which for some reason he doesn't like.

rubbish

 

go read the damn book

 

It's very ironic because I discovered quantum mechanics from reading a small book called Quantum Mechanics in the first place. It's not pop science, the atoms LITERALLY have an undefined location because they aren't only a particle, they're also a wave.

 

 

 

 

 

You'll have to cite something specific.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Liquid_helium

 

http://cryo.gsfc.nas...uid_helium.html

 

"-It carries no thermal energy (no entropy): all of the heat energy is in the normal component<br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: medium; ">-It has no viscosity: it can flow through tiny holes.<br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: medium; ">-It flows towards areas where the helium II is heated. Heat causes superfluid to convert to normal. A flow of superfluid into the heated area cools that area and restores the uniform mixture of normal and superfluid."

"Since superfluid helium flows from cool areas to warm areas "

Maybe a substance can be at absolute 0 because "it carries no thermal energy"?

Otherwise, is there actually some other experiment where we would relatively measure something to be at absolute 0 just because of the angle or location we're at?

 

 

No. Left on their own, atoms will decay to their minimum energy level, which increases entropy. The entropy will not decrease in a ground state atom, also consistent with the second law.

Ok, so we agree that left on their own, atoms can ONLY decay to the ground state and not magically to pure entropy, right? But, even at the ground state, do atoms not have a probability of containing higher momentum?

 

 

 

Again, this is very vague.

 

DrRocket is correct that learning the pop-sci version of science is no replacement for the real thing.

 

Well we can't really prove anything with black holes, but entropy is carried by photons right? Well photons aren't suppose to be able to escape a black hole, but I don't know for sure because Stephan Hawking, a very smart person, said black holes can evaporate.

 

It's not pop science though, a bunch of great scientists have worked on quantum mechanics: Warner Heisenberg, Max Planck, and even Einstein in some ways.

Edited January 24, 2012 by questionposter

[swansont]

http://en.wikipedia....i/Liquid_helium

 

http://cryo.gsfc.nas...uid_helium.html

 

"-It carries no thermal energy (no entropy): all of the heat energy is in the normal component<br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: medium; ">-It has no viscosity: it can flow through tiny holes.<br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: medium; ">-It flows towards areas where the helium II is heated. Heat causes superfluid to convert to normal. A flow of superfluid into the heated area cools that area and restores the uniform mixture of normal and superfluid."

"Since superfluid helium flows from cool areas to warm areas "

Maybe a substance can be at absolute 0 because "it carries no thermal energy"?

Otherwise, is there actually some other experiment where we would relatively measure something to be at absolute 0 just because of the angle or location we're at?

 

Where in those links does it say that a law of thermodynamics is violated?

 

Ok, so we agree that left on their own, atoms can ONLY decay to the ground state and not magically to pure entropy, right? But, even at the ground state, do atoms not have a probability of containing higher momentum?

 

I don't know what "pure entropy" is. Entropy is a property of a system.

 

The ground state is the ground state. That's a statement of energy, not momentum. But atoms will not spontaneously start moving.

 

Well we can't really prove anything with black holes, but entropy is carried by photons right? Well photons aren't suppose to be able to escape a black hole, but I don't know for sure because Stephan Hawking, a very smart person, said black holes can evaporate.

 

It's not pop science though, a bunch of great scientists have worked on quantum mechanics: Warner Heisenberg, Max Planck, and even Einstein in some ways.

 

Am I to understand that you are reading papers and textbooks written by these people, and that is the basis of your questions?

[timo]

A bunch of great scientists have worked on quantum mechanics: Warner Heisenberg, Max Planck, and even Einstein in some ways.

Warner Heisenberg later worked as a producer of Hollywood movies, but almost went bankrupt due to the notoriously blurry images in his films. Only by a drastic strategy change by his half-brother and partner Fineman, who specialized on movies that were entirely hand-drawn, the company could be saved and became a famous icon of the US entertainment industry.

 

(sry, could not resist. no offense meant)

Edited January 24, 2012 by timo

[questionposter]

Where in those links does it say that a law of thermodynamics is violated?

It doesn't need to say that. If you know the laws of thermal dynamics, you'd know it's violated. The second law of thermal dynamics says that energy will always flow of hot to cold within a substance, but in liquid helium, as stated by the NASA site, can do cold to hot.

 

 

 

I don't know what "pure entropy" is. Entropy is a property of a system.

Well, heat isn't suppose to escape a black hole, and we can't measure that black holes have any entropy.

 

The ground state is the ground state. That's a statement of energy, not momentum. But atoms will not spontaneously start moving.

Ok, energy, but atoms can't decay past the ground state even though the laws of thermal dynamics say that all matter has to eventually decay to heat or I guess photons right?

Also, if it won't start spontaneously moving at all, isn't that stating that we know with 100% accuracy what it's precise energy is for the energy of an atom to be solely at one single energy level?

 

 

 

Am I to understand that you are reading papers and textbooks written by these people, and that is the basis of your questions? The bases for the very fist question was random but with some influence from information that they discovered.

 

Not written by them, but with summarized information they discovered. Even Einstein who pioneered relativity helped to explain how light works using the quantinization discovered to exist within atomic systems.

Warner Heisenberg later worked as a producer of Hollywood movies, but almost went bankrupt due to the notoriously blurry images in his films. Only by a drastic strategy change by his half-brother and partner Fineman, who specialized on movies that were entirely hand-drawn, the company could be saved and became a famous icon of the US entertainment industry.

 

(sry, could not resist. no offense meant)

 

So what about Enrico Fermi and Debroglie?

Edited January 24, 2012 by questionposter

[DrRocket]

 

It's very ironic because I discovered quantum mechanics from reading a small book called Quantum Mechanics in the first place. It's not pop science, the atoms LITERALLY have an undefined location because they aren't only a particle, they're also a wave.

 

 

Get a beter book. Read it, as often and as slowly as necessary, and understand it this time.

 

it would be weird except atoms actually do follow principals of quantum mechanics which for some reason he doesn't like.

 

 

I like quantum mechqnics just fine, thank you very much.

 

What I have no use for is the crap that constitutes your understanding of quantum theory.

 

Read a real book.

 

For something accessible and written by one of best quantum theorists ever, try volume 3 of The Feynman Lectures on Physics.

Edited January 24, 2012 by DrRocket

[questionposter]

Get a beter book. Read it, as often and as slowly as necessary, and understand it this time.

 

 

So, the Heisenberg Uncertainty principal is crap? The Planck quantinization of wavelengths within atomic systems that was even used by Einstein to explain the ultra-violate catastrophe is false? Because those are the quantum mechanical principals that I presented in my posts, and those things are proven to exist...so, I don't think I need to get a better book. It's even observed what I was saying about liquid helium. Whether or not those observations break the laws of thermal dynamics I guess is something I'm waiting on swan for.

 

Although, is every atom in a substance existing in a ground state technically absolute 0?

 

Or I guess a distinction would need to be made again with classical and quantum, because if you look around you, then according to some properties of relativity in this topic, those objects all have 0K because they aren't moving relative to you since they are all on the Earth's surface and so rotating at the same speed as you. But at the same time, on the atomic level, there's constant motions which are happening but not apparent enough for you to observe them, supposadly even tiny constant motions predicted by manifold physics within the fabric of space itself...

Edited January 24, 2012 by questionposter

[DrRocket]

So, the Heisenberg Uncertainty principal is crap? The Planck quantinization of wavelengths within atomic systems that was even used by Einstein to explain the ultra-violate catastrophe is false? Because those are the quantum mechanical principals that I presented in my posts, and those things are proven to exist...so, I don't think I need to get a better book. It's even observed what I was saying about liquid helium. Whether or not those observations break the laws of thermal dynamics I guess is something I'm waiting on swan for.

 

Although, is every atom in a substance existing in a ground state technically absolute 0?

 

Or I guess a distinction would need to be made again with classical and quantum, because if you look around you, then according to some properties of relativity in this topic, those objects all have 0K because they aren't moving relative to you since they are all on the Earth's surface and so rotating at the same speed as you. But at the same time, on the atomic level, there's constant motions which are happening but not apparent enough for you to observe them, supposadly even tiny constant motions predicted by manifold physics within the fabric of space itself...

 

Your misconceptions and misrepresentations are too numerous to merit individual consideration.

 

Go read the damn book.

[swansont]

It doesn't need to say that. If you know the laws of thermal dynamics, you'd know it's violated. The second law of thermal dynamics says that energy will always flow of hot to cold within a substance, but in liquid helium, as stated by the NASA site, can do cold to hot.

 

No, that's not what it says. It says that the liquid helium — i.e. the fluid — flows. Not heat. Liquid helium superfluid carries no thermal energy, just as the link says, so there is no heat flow associated with the fluid flow.

 

 

Ok, energy, but atoms can't decay past the ground state even though the laws of thermal dynamics say that all matter has to eventually decay to heat or I guess photons right?

 

What version of the law says that?

 

Also, if it won't start spontaneously moving at all, isn't that stating that we know with 100% accuracy what it's precise energy is for the energy of an atom to be solely at one single energy level?

 

Yes we know the energy of the ground state. The ground state has an infinite lifetime, so that fits with the HUP.

 

Not written by them, but with summarized information they discovered. Even Einstein who pioneered relativity helped to explain how light works using the quantinization discovered to exist within atomic systems.

 

Whatever you are reading, assuming it's correct, it is obvious you are not understanding it sufficiently well. When someone here who know physics tells you that you are wrong, perhaps it would be better to assume your understanding is less than perfect.