Does gravity work at absolute zero?

[ecoli]

Attaining absolute zero would violate the Heisenberg Princible. If an atom stops moving, as it does at absolute zero, then it's electrons would stop moveing. We would then be able to see where it is and how fast it is moving, which according to the princible is impossible.

[Joshua]

An interesting point. But keep in mind that one of the reasons for the Heisenberg principle is that the system is always disturbed by observation. It does not seem unreasonable to think that the system might be disturbed LESS at Absolute Zero and therefore the uncertainty in the observation would decrease, though I don't believe any such experiments have been done.

[JaKiri]

Attaining absolute zero would violate the Heisenberg Princible. If an atom stops moving, as it does at absolute zero, then it's electrons would stop moveing. We would then be able to see where it is and how fast it is moving, which according to the princible is impossible.

 

You're assuming that electrons stop moving at 0K, or at least that they lose their quantum fuzz. I'm not sure that is the case; 0K has the minimum energy for the thang to be stable, not no energy at all.

 

If you cool something by 3 degrees and it's not even near the a.z. then it doesn't lose mass I think (maybe I'm wrong)

 

Yes, you are. Any change in energy represents a change in mass, just (usually) an exceptionally tiny one.

 

I know of no special conditions around 0K that would change this.

[swansont]

As far as I know' date=' though it is impossible to reach absolute zero, theoretically the closer you approach the a.z. the less mass the material has.It was proved when scientists where very very very close to a.z. the saw that the hellium that was frozen started losing his mass.

 

So I don't understand WHAT can be affected by gravity at a.z. [/quote']

 

Link, please.

 

This may be something out of context. Liquid helium has a tendency to boil. But AFAIK liquid helium hasn't been anywhere as near to 0K as BECs.

[jdurg]

An interesting point. But keep in mind that one of the reasons for the Heisenberg principle is that the system is always disturbed by observation. It does not seem unreasonable to think that the system might be disturbed LESS at Absolute Zero and therefore the uncertainty in the observation would decrease, though I don't believe any such experiments have been done.

 

Yes, but the act of observing that 'object' at absolute zero would inherently transfer energy to the object, thus pushing its temperature above 0K. Since the act of observing it would involve some type of particle (photon) or EM wave to perform the observation. That particle/wave would cause the 'object' to obtain some of the energy from the particle/wave, thus pushing it above absolute zero.

[maverick88]

I am sorry but I have read it some time ago so I don't have it

I suppose you can easily find it by googling...

[maverick88]

 

Yes' date=' you are. Any change in energy represents a change in mass, just (usually) an exceptionally tiny one..[/quote']

 

If so then why scientists hadn't payed attention to the disappearance of the mass at normal temperatures and when they neared significantly to the a.z. they did?

[JaKiri]

If so then why scientists hadn't payed attention to the disappearance of the mass at normal temperatures and when they neared significantly to the a.z. they did?

 

It's not ignored, it's just negligable at both temperatures.

 

For instance, if you have 1.0000000000000000000000kg of water at 3K.

 

When you cool it to 0K it'll have a mass of 9.9999999999999999999985kg.

[Guest Taylor]

It's not ignored' date=' it's just negligable at both temperatures.

 

For instance, if you have 1.0000000000000000000000kg of water at 3K.

 

When you cool it to 0K it'll have a mass of 9.9999999999999999999985kg.[/quote']

 

Which only goes to actually 'answer' the original question:

 

Would an object still be able to emit and/or absorb gravitons at absolute zero?

 

Where there is mass...

 

Would an object have the same gravitational attraction at 0 degrees Kelvin as it does at 3 degrees Kelvin?

 

And so, you are thinking that if our Sun was a husk with -equal- mass but @ 0K we would spin out of or orbit?

 

In my opinion (and it's one of a 'layman', nothing more) Absolute zero, is not the mystical source of Ragnarok as some might have the general populous believe.

 

1. Subatomic particles? (including Quarks (do they have their own motion?))

 

Again, only my opinion. I'd have no problem accepting that Quarks of any flavor would succumb to 0K.

 

2. Radioactivity? (does the half life of a radioactive material extend at temperatures near absolute zero, is it possible to stabilize a radioactive material at a cold enough temp?)

 

Given that Radioactivity permeates space*...I wouldn't back that theory

 

Thermal motion, I feel is the clue here. I'm not convinced that -every- aspect of an Atoms make up is a contributory element to Thermal Motion. As such where TM decists there can be other forces still at work within a static Atom generating no heat or motion.

 

Many regards,

 

Darren.

[Guest Taylor]

Wanted to add the missing "*"

 

* Clearly Space isn't Absolute Zero and that we would need to measure radioactivity from the source and then again after it's travels through space and measure that against it's expected degredation to be sure.

[swansont]

Given that Radioactivity permeates space*...I wouldn't back that theory

 

Surely you mean radiation, not radioactivity.

[Guest SpeedyString]

I dont know if this is close to what you all are talking about but what about the whole dropping liquid nitrogen onto a magnet and watching the silicon chip float in air is this defying gravity or is it just and example of magnetism?

[swansont]

I dont know if this is close to what you all are talking about but what about the whole dropping liquid nitrogen onto a magnet and watching the silicon chip float in air is this defying gravity or is it just and example of magnetism?

 

Gravity hasn't ceased. It's just that there is another force involved. In this case it's due to the Meissner effect.

 

"Defying" gravity is a very nebulous term. I do it every time I stand up, but there's nothing mysterious about that.

[Gilded]

"'Defying' gravity is a very nebulous term. I do it every time I stand up, but there's nothing mysterious about that."

 

Agreed. Gravity is a weak force that can be overcome quite easily (hey, even swansont and I can do it! Though I seem to have hard time doing it in the mornings...), yet I wouldn't call it "defying".

[Guest SpeedyString]

Oh, ok thanks i was just seeing if that was an example or not, and thank you for pointing out that defying is a bad choice of words. lol

[Guest milliwatt]

so is everyone saying that we cannot reach absolute zero because of gravitational effects?

[JaKiri]

No...

[5614]

so is everyone saying that we cannot reach absolute zero because of gravitational effects?

no, we are saying you cant reach absolute zero because of the 3rd law of thermodynamics.

[ydoaPs]

Would an object have the same gravitational attraction at 0 degrees Kelvin as it does at 3 degrees Kelvin?

 

here's the answer: can't go to [math]{0}K[/math], but there is a VERY small effect on gravity due to temp loss. even though gravity is weaker, it still influences the matter at a frac of [math]{1}K[/math].

[5614]

here's the answer: can't go to http://www.blike.com/tex/lateximg/pictures/f212649a88057c747c2969754a428049.gif[/img']

why cant we get to 1K ????

[Ophiolite]

We can and we do. Yourdad is just being his usual inaccurate self.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/NehemieCange.shtml

[5614]

i KNOW we can.. hence my post!

 

0.0000000001 K is what we've reached so far... its just 0K exactly we cannot reach.

[Ophiolite]

I know you know. (Did you know I knew you knew?) I'm not sure pogos does.http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

Smile

[5614]

i did know that you knew that i knew that you knew that i knew that you knew that i knew that you knew that i knew that you knew that i knew that you knew that i knew however...!

 

"Yourdad is just being his usual inaccurate self."

this place is about learning, just coz he's wrong dont mean you should put him down... more you should just teach him.

 

moving on switftly what is the accuracy of this statement:

 

but there is a VERY small effect on gravity due to temp loss

i didnt think that that was true

 

(ps. ophiolite, for the smilies, just use : and - and ) together like this : - ) but without spaces to make , you cant link in images as you tried to!)

[JaKiri]

here's the answer: can't go to [math]{1^o}K[/math], but there is a VERY small effect on gravity due to temp loss. even though gravity is weaker, it still influences the matter at a frac of [math]{1^o}K[/math'].

 

1K. It's One Kelvin. Not One Degree Kelvin. One Kelvin.