Absolute Zero

[erm]

A lot more than motion is relative. Energy is also relative, so what's special about this particular zero energy, when you can simply define anything so it has zero energy (same as zero motion)?

Again, there's energy-less motion, field fluctuations and many other complexities on top of this.

 

[Jonny]

I'm not sure if it is so simple erm. I believe absolute zero represents a theoretical absolute, not a relative temperature; hence the use of the term absolute.

 

[erm]

So I ask again, what makes it special, meaning what makes it absolute?

 

[Jonny]

I don't know the specifics, but I believe it relates to the ceasing of all molecular motion. If your concerned with relativity here, then it would be the ceasing of all molecular motion relative to itself.

 

[Fluffywolf]

The closer particles reach absolute zero, the more remarkable properties they show. Supercondictivity and superfluidity, the possibilities for potential practical use for this is endless.

100% effecient electrical systems for example, you could even theoretically create electric loops and electric engines that need to be started and can run off of its starting power infinitely!

Ofcourse, that would only be possible if we can create the perfect container in which we can allow the superconductive material to do it's work, which is pretty much impossible, probably.

 

[erm]

I don't know the specifics, but I believe it relates to the ceasing of all molecular motion. If your concerned with relativity here, then it would be the ceasing of all molecular motion relative to itself.

That's not a privileged frame of reference. All things have zero motion relative to themselves. It's as simple as using a frame of reference which remains completely parallel with the object being measured (so there are countless other reference frames that give an object zero motion, not just the one in the same space and time as the object).

Zero temperature relative to a particular frame of reference seems trivial if it simply means zero motion or energy, as every molecule has zero motion and energy relative to countless frames of reference during every moment.

 

[Jonny]

That's not a privileged frame of reference. All things have zero motion relative to themselves. It's as simple as using a frame of reference which remains completely parallel with the object being measured (so there are countless other reference frames that give an object zero motion, not just the one in the same space and time as the object).

Zero temperature relative to a particular frame of reference seems trivial if it simply means zero motion or energy, as every molecule has zero motion and energy relative to countless frames of reference every moment.

I knew the ambiguity would get me into trouble. Thank you for assuming me stupid rather than inept at communication. Molecules are made up of constituent matter. The temperature of a molecule is due to the motion of those constituent pieces of matter relative to each other. Absolute zero, then, would be achieved by a molecule whose constituent matter was not in motion (at least relative to other constituents).

 

[Fluffywolf]

That's not a privileged frame of reference. All things have zero motion relative to themselves. It's as simple as using a frame of reference which remains completely parallel with the object being measured (so there are countless other reference frames that give an object zero motion, not just the one in the same space and time as the object).

Zero temperature relative to a particular frame of reference seems trivial if it simply means zero motion or energy, as every molecule has zero motion and energy relative to countless frames of reference during every moment.

Absolute zero in terms of relativity means zero motion relative to the fixed space of the container it is put in. Absolute zero can not be reached outside of a container. And since it is contained, it does not submit to the chaos of standard physical laws.

Absolute zero attempts to bridge the gap of chaos and order. To bring order to chaos and to bring chaos to order.

 

[erm]

Molecules are made up of constituent matter. The temperature of a molecule is due to the motion of those constituent pieces of matter relative to each other. Absolute zero, then would be a molecule whose constituent matter was not in motion.

And all I have said, again, applies to those constituent pieces of matter, just as it is to molecules relative to each other and beyond. What's absolute about any of that? What's absolute about multiple objects moving in parallel?

You can keep shrinking the matter, or even energy, being referred to, but the question remains the same.

Absolute zero in terms of relativity means zero motion relative to the fixed space of the container it is put in. Absolute zero can not be reached outside of a container. And since it is contained, it does not submit to the chaos of standard physical laws.

Absolute zero attempts to bridge the gap of chaos and order. To bring order to chaos and to bring chaos to order.

What's special about this container, that it subverts the laws of nature? If such a state is achieved, where the container and what's inside have parallel motion, how is that different from two particles having parallel motion but being at seperate sides of the visible universe?

 

[Jonny]

It seems to me that there might be a distinction between kinetic energy and thermal energy, even though both involve motion. Let us assume that there exists a universe which is composed of only two molecules, and these molecules orbit around each other (a.k.a. they are not motionless relative to one another). The temperature of said molecules can still theoretically be absolute zero if there is no motion going on within the molecules.

Edit: I have taken all of one semester of calculus based physics, so my understanding of this stuff is pretty shameful. This is purely conjecture.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Well, order and chaos.


Any particle anywhere in the universe, wether they move parallel or not, they have a vibration due to the chaos and influence of other particles to them and are always above absolute zero.

Within a perfect container, theoretically, a particle can be excluded from outside influence and be removed of all the chaos from the universe that makes it vibrate and exist in a vacuum truly by itself, relatively alone in its own universe, in a matter of speaking.. There lies the difference between absolute zero and point inside a container and relative points in space.

It seems to me that there might be a distinction between kinetic energy and thermal energy, even though both involve motion. Let us assume that there exists a universe which is composed of only two molecules, and these molecules orbit around each other (a.k.a. they are not motionless relative to one another). The temperature of said molecules can still theoretically be absolute zero if there is no motion going on within the molecules.

Edit: I have taken all of one semester of calculus based physics, so my understanding of this stuff is pretty shameful. This is purely conjecture.

Ah, but because of the influence those two particles have on each other, they will cause each other vibration and therefor be above absolute zero. Unless... If you position particles in a perfect grid inside a perfect container, the particles could retain their absolute zero capabilities as the power the particles have on each other are cancelled out. They will not be orbiting each other in this case though, but rather remain fixed in their position relative to one and other. Perfect order.

 

[erm]

Again, if those two molecules have no motion relative to one another, how is that different from the particles inside each molecule having no motion relative to each other? There's forces acting between the objects in both of those scales. Unique forces for unique reactions, but no fundamental difference.

I'm not sure of the odds of two particles having parallel motion for even the smallest unit of time, but it seems the same as absolute zero, which is merely a specific case of this idea occuring.

Any particle anywhere in the universe, wether they move parallel or not, they have a vibration due to the chaos and influence of other particles to them and are always above absolute zero.

Vibrations relative to what frame of reference? With no such thing as absolute vibration, in a magical container taking a "vibrating" frame of reference will mean that "still" particle is suddenly "vibrating".

I get that all the particles in a particular atom being perfectly still relative to one another might cause strange chemical events theoretically, because of their relationship to one another and the forces involved in that. In fact, that is essentially proven because of what has been shown to happen when you get close to that state. However, those particles within the atom are never "still" in any absolute sense. Where two particles are still to one another, they are in a state a rapid vibration relative to a third. So they effectively maintain temperature to other frames of reference regardless.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Yes well, I was talking hypothetically concerning the magic container, it's unlikely it can ever be created, I'm saying that if you could remove all influence of outer parties. So whilest in observation they may be relatively moving to a third from our perspecive, but they are having no relation whatsoever to that third physically, that observation of relativity is a false assumption. When talking about relativity, you talk about two objects that inhabit the same space (space in the broad sense). What absolute zero research and my container idea try to create is a space inside a space. where the space inside has no relativity to the outside space other than its own container boundaries. And within that contained space, a particle can reach absolute zero and act in perfect order, vibrationless in the greater sense of the word, not just relative wise.

 

[erm]

Yes well, I was talking hypothetically concerning the magic container, it's unlikely it can ever be created, I'm saying that if you could remove all influence of outer parties. So whilest in observation they may be relatively moving to a third from our perspecive, but they are having no relation whatsoever to that third physically, that observation of relativity is a false assumption. When talking about relativity, you talk about two objects that inhabit the same space (space in the broad sense). What absolute zero research and my container idea try to create is a space inside a space. where the space inside has no relativity to the outside space other than its own container boundaries. And within that contained space, a particle can reach absolute zero and act in perfect order, vibrationless in the greater sense of the word, not just relative wise.

This container seems to make a seperate universe, not change the laws of nature. So how can absolute zero occur in the seperate universe anymore than in this one? Is it because it's a lot simpler universe, what with a bit of vaccuum and a single molecule (or is there not even a vaccuum in this container?).

Space is also relative, of course, so treating it as its own object without "stuff" in it, can start to cause problems.

To me, what would happen if the entire universe was still, with no frame of reference perceiving motion, is very different from what would happen if all the particles in a molecule were still relative to one another, but there were still countless reference frames giving them motion (and vibration, thus temperature). Your scenario turns the latter question into the former.

 

[Fluffywolf]

This container seems to make a seperate universe, not change the laws of nature. So how can absolute zero occur in the seperate universe anymore than in this one? Is it because it's a lot simpler universe, what with a bit of vaccuum and a single molecule.

In case that wasn't clear, the magic container is the boundary between those two universes.

I know what you mean, but you have to look further than that.

Imagine our universe is empty but for three particles who are in relative space terms not in a perfect triangle. A very simplified chaotic structure as an example of how space and relativity works in the universe.

. .
.


The force exhanged by those three particles is pulling on each particle in different strengths causing the particle to become centrifugal and they will start moving around each other infinitely as they are pulled more strongly by one and less by the other.

If two particles should move exactly parallel to one and other in different spaces of the universe as we know it like you said, then both particles will stil be differently influenced by the chaos surrounding them, and although it's not impossible for two particles to move parallel for a period of time in the known universe, it is impossible for two particles to move parallel forever in a chaotic universe, unless the universe was perfectly mirrored. Would be fun if that was true, I'd be writing this post from right to left on the other side of the universe then if you think about it, but over there I'd experience it like I do here. Relativity's a bitch.

Inside a container, that chaos that is present in our universe can be removed/negated and order can be created. Where particles behave unlike they would in any other part of the universe, untainted by their surroundings..

 

[erm]

With those three particles, they can only be still relative to a frame of reference. That fact is not removed by isolating them. As far as I can tell, exactly the same thing would happen if you made those three particles still to each other, inside the container or out. The state of the rest of the universe does not impact those three particles relationship to one another, since we have pre-defined their relationship as being identical in either case.

The only possible exception, which I mentioned above, is when the entire universe becomes still. No frame of reference containing motion. If the universe were just three particles, or anything else, I have no idea what would happen. Simply isolating three particles, or having a universe consisting of solely three particles, does not incur that situation though. There will still be frames of reference that contain motion, even if those particles are stationary relative to each other. Those frames could be moving in the space between the particles, for example.