Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 25 Feb '08 19:56
    ...anywhere in the universe? (Absolue Zaro=-273 degrre Celcius or 0 degrees Kelvin-460 degrees Fahrenheit)

    Heat means the motion of particles, so is it possible that there's no motion at all anywhere in the universe?

    Also another discussion question is "what is the opposite (is there any) of absolute zero?


    Discuss.
  2. 25 Feb '08 20:34
    Originally posted by kenan
    ...anywhere in the universe? (Absolue Zaro=-273 degrre Celcius or 0 degrees Kelvin-460 degrees Fahrenheit)

    Heat means the motion of particles, so is it possible that there's no motion at all anywhere in the universe?

    Also another discussion question is "what is the opposite (is there any) of absolute zero?


    Discuss.
    No, it's not possible. When you are sufficiently near the zero kelvin, quantum effects will take charge. You can come near but not to zero Kelvin.
  3. Standard member agryson
    AGW Hitman
    25 Feb '08 20:40
    Originally posted by kenan
    ...anywhere in the universe? (Absolue Zaro=-273 degrre Celcius or 0 degrees Kelvin-460 degrees Fahrenheit)

    Heat means the motion of particles, so is it possible that there's no motion at all anywhere in the universe?

    Also another discussion question is "what is the opposite (is there any) of absolute zero?


    Discuss.
    As for an upper limit, no, it just is a matter of how much energy density you can create, which as far as I'm aware, shouldn't have an upper bound...
  4. 25 Feb '08 20:42
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    No, it's not possible. When you are sufficiently near the zero kelvin, quantum effects will take charge. You can come near but not to zero Kelvin.
    I have heard two different answers but I am not sure. One person, who is a chemistry doctor basically, told me the same exact thing (another one told me another another thing!?) you said...

    ...but we cannot know how big is the universe and let alone we cannot even go to Mars.

    How is that just the lab expoeriments on earth will verify everything that going on in black holes and other galaxies? What if there is a parallel universe, or a negative of this universe where things. I guess these are just my philoshopical question. (damn it, we do not have a ophilosophy forum yet. )
  5. 25 Feb '08 20:43 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by agryson
    As for an upper limit, no, it just is a matter of how much energy density you can create, which as far as I'm aware, shouldn't have an upper bound...
    It's called planck temp. ( 10^32 Kelvin degrees ), experienced right after big bang.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_temperature
  6. 25 Feb '08 20:56
    Originally posted by kenan
    ... and let alone we cannot even go to Mars.
    Well, we can, but it cost too much so far.
  7. 25 Feb '08 21:03
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Well, we can, but it cost too much so far.
    Ok, say Alpa Centauri then.
  8. 25 Feb '08 21:06
    Originally posted by kenan
    Ok, say Alpa Centauri then.
    I still say we can, but it takes too long time to go there (many generations of travellers) so noone wants to go there, and, it's too expensive.
  9. 25 Feb '08 21:14
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I still say we can, but it takes too long time to go there (many generations of travellers) so noone wants to go there, and, it's too expensive.
    Our closest neighboor Alpha Centauri is forty trillion kms away, a few light years that is.
    Let me tell you the furthest so far. 14 milion years, oh light years sir.

    http://www.universetoday.com/2004/03/01/record-for-furthest-galaxy-is-broken-again/

    That tells the story about how much human beings know.
  10. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    25 Feb '08 22:49
    Originally posted by kenan
    I have heard two different answers but I am not sure. One person, who is a chemistry doctor basically, told me the same exact thing (another one told me another another thing!?)
    What was the other explanation?
  11. Standard member Mexico
    Quis custodiet
    25 Feb '08 22:53
    I was a physics demo in uni a few years back where they got damn close to Absolute Zero using 7 or 8 lasers all pointing in opposite directions to trap particles and almost cause them to stop moving completely.... It was pretty cool.... But as far as I know no its not actually possible at the moment...
  12. 25 Feb '08 22:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    What was the other explanation?
    That there must be a place in the universe where absoulte zero is possible. It's a big place, you know and our brain is so little.
  13. Standard member mnem
    Suicidal Neophyte
    25 Feb '08 23:24
    How is that just the lab expoeriments on earth will verify everything that going on in black holes and other galaxies? What if there is a parallel universe, or a negative of this universe where things. I guess these are just my philoshopical question. (damn it, we do not have a ophilosophy forum yet. )[/b]
    For most practical physics (and we all know that other sciences are just fluffier versions of physics , there is the assumption that the universe is homogenous, and that's called the Cosmological Principle:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Principle

    It's a reasonable basis to explore things on. The local universe seems to behave in predictable ways, as does the observable distant universe, within limits.

    However, there are also a lot of people working on other theories that assume the Cosmological Principle is wrong. The trick is creating theories that are testable in some fashion. If you can't test it, it's just waffling Still, it's very interesting.

    Some links, if you are into this sort of thing:

    http://www.physorg.com/news107109720.html
    http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/millennium/


    M
  14. 26 Feb '08 00:10
    Originally posted by mnem
    For most practical physics (and we all know that other sciences are just fluffier versions of physics , there is the assumption that the universe is homogenous, and that's called the Cosmological Principle:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Principle

    It's a reasonable basis to explore things on. The local universe seems to behave in predicta ...[text shortened]... ysorg.com/news107109720.html
    http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/millennium/


    M
    Thanks for the links.

    The postulate says it's the universe is homogenous, now that's only a theory, like big bang theory. If I said "God created the universe" you cannot disprove that.

    Basically what I am saying in good English is written in your link: "Empirical observations of patterns occurring within a limited scope can shed no light on the state of things outside that scope.

    Philosophically speaking, this answer does not satisfy me and maybe scientists cannot create the lab circumstances to reach to no motion state, but it does not verify for the rest of the world. Heck, there might even be aliens!

    Anyway, I am not expert (just a hobbyist) so I might be way off. Why no motion is impossible in universe?

    Why?
  15. 26 Feb '08 00:49
    Originally posted by kenan
    ...anywhere in the universe? (Absolue Zaro=-273 degrre Celcius or 0 degrees Kelvin-460 degrees Fahrenheit)

    Heat means the motion of particles, so is it possible that there's no motion at all anywhere in the universe?

    Also another discussion question is "what is the opposite (is there any) of absolute zero?


    Discuss.
    Only in vacuum.
    The 0-energy level of a particle is not really zero in quantum field theory.
    But saying "what's the temperature of nothing" is really nonsense... right?


    Also another discussion question is "what is the opposite (is there any) of absolute zero?
    I remember something that could be interpreted as a negative temperature.
    The scale would be from 0 to infinity, then -inf up to the left limit of 0.
    The opposite for absolute zero (limit to zero from positive numbers) would be zero approaching from negative numbers. It would correspond to all particles being in the highest energy state.
    But this is only due to the definition of temperature.
    Hmm... unfortunately I can't remember my condensed matter lessons that well to elaborate...

    Topic interesting to think about, keep it up