20 Oct 05
Originally posted by sonhouseSigh... you guys are not understanding me, maybe I should rephase,
Yes, I repeated it because I thought he might get it if we got to it
from another direction. I see it, you see it, we are trying to get HIM
to see it!
I know that it is a certain impossibility to stop movement, My only argument is that at 0 Kelvin there would be no movement
Fact #1: Temperature is a measurement of molecule movement (Am I wrong here?)
Fact 2: IF there is no movement, then there is no temperature. (Am I wrong here?)
Fact 3: Which means 0 Kelvin = no molecule movement (Why am I wrong here?)
And for the umpteenth time, I KNOW that getting 0 Kelvin (totaly no motion) is an impossibility, But that is where scientist start the measurement of temperature. If there was molecule motion, then it wouldnt be 0 Kelvin. Which means that 0 Kelvin has no motion
Kelvin did not base his measurment on no absolate molecule movement. He based it on totaly no molecule movement
20 Oct 05
Originally posted by flyUnityNot sure what you mean by absolute molecular movement and
Sigh... you guys are not understanding me, maybe I should rephase,
I know that it is a certain impossibility to stop movement, My only argument is that at 0 Kelvin there would be no movement
Fact #1: Temperature is a measurement of molecule movement (Am I wrong here?)
Fact 2: IF there is no movement, then there is no temperature. (Am I wrong here? ...[text shortened]... base his measurment on no absolate molecule movement. He based it on totaly no molecule movement
molecular movement, sounds the same to me.
Just remember, thats classical physics, like I said before.
You can't pin down the energy content and the position at the same
time with unlimited precision, only one or the other. Thats just a
fact of life, unknown in the 19th century. Back then they would never
have been able to grasp this concept either so don't feel too bad.
If the energy is known to 50 decimal places, the position information
slips away to some much less accurate degree. If the position
information is accurate to 50 decimal places the energy uncertainty
goes up, that is to say you don't know what the exact energy is
so as far as absolute zero goes, there is still some movement but
the temp is still 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000...K
They thought the same thing about electrons, can't penetrate a
barrier higher than its own energy/velocity level.
The Tunnel diode proved classical physics wrong, some of the buggers
get through a voltage barrier despite classical physics saying thats
impossible. Its quantum physics that proves them wrong.
20 Oct 05
Originally posted by flyUnityYou're trying to apply non-quantum physics to a quantum physics problem. It doesn't work. If you don't understand ground states and uncertainty among other quantum properties it would probably be best to just accept that absolute zero is not no motion.
Sigh... you guys are not understanding me, maybe I should rephase,
I know that it is a certain impossibility to stop movement, My only argument is that at 0 Kelvin there would be no movement
Fact #1: Temperature is a measurement of molecule movement (Am I wrong here?)
Fact 2: IF there is no movement, then there is no temperature. (Am I wrong here? ...[text shortened]... base his measurment on no absolate molecule movement. He based it on totaly no molecule movement
Quantum physics routinely makes no sense when you try and think about it too much. That's not because it's wrong but because of what it is. We live in a world where we can say exactly where a ball is and how fast it's going, how much it weights and then work out it's kinetic energy. We can't do that for molecules.
20 Oct 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZThats right. One of the biggest questions in physics today is
You're trying to apply non-quantum physics to a quantum physics problem. It doesn't work. If you don't understand ground states and uncertainty among other quantum properties it would probably be best to just accept that absolute zero is not no motion.
Quantum physics routinely makes no sense when you try and think about it too much. That's not bec ...[text shortened]... ng, how much it weights and then work out it's kinetic energy. We can't do that for molecules.
where is the line between the micro and the macro world?
How many molecules can you get together and not destroy the
quantum properties that go with the micro world?
For instance, the Einstein-Bose condensate was predicted 75 years
ago, whereby a number of molecules in a batch that get cold enough
will cease acting like a batch of molecules but act as if they were
one molecule, that is to say all the molecules attain the exact
same wavefunction and all wave together🙂 They become one,
energy-wise. That is an example of quantum physics entering the
world of the macro (our sized world made of trillions of atoms, etc.)
20 Oct 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZSomehow Im gonna believe my school instead of you guys, We'll just leave it at that.
You're trying to apply non-quantum physics to a quantum physics problem. It doesn't work. If you don't understand ground states and uncertainty among other quantum properties it would probably be best to just accept that absolute zero is not no motion.
Quantum physics routinely makes no sense when you try and think about it too much. That's not bec ...[text shortened]... ng, how much it weights and then work out it's kinetic energy. We can't do that for molecules.
Scientist measure Tempurature by how much molecules move. If there is no movement there is no tempurature
Im sticking with 0 Kelvin = no movement
and you guys say there is movement at 0 Kelvin.
Maybe I'll show this thread to my professor 😛
20 Oct 05
Originally posted by flyUnityThe problem with physics and many other sciences is you are often taught simple versions of things so it is understandable.
Somehow Im gonna believe my school instead of you guys, We'll just leave it at that.
Scientist measure Tempurature by how much molecules move. If there is no movement there is no tempurature
Im sticking with 0 Kelvin = no movement
and you guys say there is movement at 0 Kelvin.
Maybe I'll show this thread to my professor 😛
When you first learn about kinetic energy you learn Newtons model and E= 0.5*m*v^2. However then you get to Relativity and learn how that isn't actually the whole story. It's an excellent approximation for anything not a decent fraction of c but nevertheless it's isn't completely right and isn't even close to right when the speeds approach c.
The same is true for basic atom theory relating temperature and motion. You are taught a simplified version which has absolute zero and no uncertainty. Again this works for temperatures not approaching absolut zero. However once you are working very close to absolute zero the uncertainty and ground state levels become significant and the model breaks down.
So saying that absolute zero is no motion is similar to giving a Newtonian answer to kinetic energy at c.
20 Oct 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZis Einstein your grandfather or something?
The problem with physics and many other sciences is you are often taught simple versions of things so it is understandable.
When you first learn about kinetic energy you learn Newtons model and E= 0.5*m*v^2. However then you get to Relativity and learn how that isn't actually the whole story. It's an excellent approximation for anything not a decent ...[text shortened]... that absolute zero is no motion is similar to giving a Newtonian answer to kinetic energy at c.
21 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by JusuhJust believe him, ok? Maybe you professor will learn something too
is Einstein your grandfather or something?
but I think he will agree with us that quantum physics rules when
you get down to nanokelvin or microkelvin and the uncertainty
principle will mean there would be some motion left even at
absolute zero. Remember even at absolute zero, electrons still
do their little cloud dance around the nucleus so there is still
movement there and the quarks that make up the nucleus don't
give a rats behind about absoulute zero or much of any other
temp. either, it takes trillions of degrees K to knock them out
so they have internal "orbits" that goes on pretty much no matter
what is happening externally.
His point about newtonian physics breaking down when a mass
gets close to C is this: The closer you get to C the more massive
the original mass becomes so when you are at rest, the old
1/2 MV^2 thing might give you say, 1000 joules of energy at 1M/S.
Get up to .99C (297,987,200 M/S * .99= 295,007,328 M/S)
Newton would say it now has about 8.7 ^16 Joules, Einstein says nay,
at .99C the mass goes up about 7 times its rest mass so now we have
8.7 ^16 *7 or about 6.1 ^17 Joules of energy. Newton would not be
able to figure out where that extra kinetic energy came from.
He is in the world of classical physics.
21 Oct 05
Originally posted by sonhouseyou are definitely Einstein`s close relative.
Just believe him, ok? Maybe you professor will learn something too
but I think he will agree with us that quantum physics rules when
you get down to nanokelvin or microkelvin and the uncertainty
principle will mean there would be some motion left even at
absolute zero. Remember even at absolute zero, electrons still
do their little cloud dance around ...[text shortened]... figure out where that extra kinetic energy came from.
He is in the world of classical physics.