0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I gave two simple definitions that clash with each other.
Trying to mumble that there is such a thing as absolute zero, except in theory, also will mean that there is no 'motion'. If so there can be no fluctuations, as long as you find fluctuations inside our arrow of time you also have something that is in motion.
the simple solution to this problem as I see it is to define it as such as it is outside Planck time. And that is a simple solution. Not doing so will get you into a place between a rock and a hard place.
Maybe we need to define it as collisions?Kinetic energy released in radiation?But if we do so, what would then then our virtual 'radiation' be?A 'not radiation'
Quote from: yor_on on 07/08/2011 17:46:10Trying to mumble that there is such a thing as absolute zero, except in theory, also will mean that there is no 'motion'. If so there can be no fluctuations, as long as you find fluctuations inside our arrow of time you also have something that is in motion. Your problem is that the definition of absolute zero is the theoretical temperature when entropy reaches zero - in the 19th century it was thought this would mean absolute stillness and lack of movement, it has not meant that for almost 100 years. Quotethe simple solution to this problem as I see it is to define it as such as it is outside Planck time. And that is a simple solution. Not doing so will get you into a place between a rock and a hard place. no; that solution is neither easy nor a solution. Absolute zero and the zero point energy are connected - but you are continuing Mr D fallacy if you insist they are the same. Abs Zero is a temperature theorised over a system that is at its lowest entropy. ZPE is a characteristic of individual entities and redefines the ground state as a state of motion. The fact that Abs Zero is theoretical does NOT imply that ZPE is theoretical - we have good evidence of ZPE occurring in the lab.
The vibrational energy of most of the molecules you are breathing is zpe.
As you say JP any temperature must be the result of something interacting, and if what (absurdity ad infinitum) 'interacts' would be at 'absolute zero' I would be wrong in my assumptions.
What everyone seem to miss in this discussion is time. Whatever you observe is a direct result of you being inside a arrow of time, only delivering you in one direction, to your death. As long as nobody can prove me wrong in that assumption, and you can't , then everything you define, whatever temporal direction, or no direction at all, is a direct result of observations made under that arrow. Only delivering you, and your experiment, one way. It constantly surprises me reading of diffuse definitions of systems being 2-dimensional and 'time reversible' as if this was a defined truth. Symmetry is a truth, but time reversibility have still to be proven, and that goes directly to the truth that there can be no observations ever being able to be defined if we didn't have our arrow. People seem to miss that this is what makes all definitions able to stand the test of time If they're not constant under our arrow then they are no repeatable.
Yes, as long as we define it as two different states I have no real problem with ZPE. If we define it as the same as 'absolute zero' it got to be wrong.
Absolute zero is to my eyes where there can be no 'jiggling'. And that is to me the same as no longer being 'here'. Whatever we see is defined by its ability of interacting. If something interacts you will have to assume that there is something that allows it to do so. In my eyes that will be the 'vibrational energy' intrinsic to whatever you observe. As you say JP any temperature must be the result of something interacting, and if what (absurdity ad infinitum) 'interacts' would be at 'absolute zero' I would be wrong in my assumptions.
As for Planck size, it's what defines what we can make sense of as I see it. That doesn't say that you can't have a mylliard bylliard different 'states' existing outside what we can observe, it just states that ''There there might be thygers' as there is no way we ever are going to observe them directly. And that's also why I prefer to place 'virtual particles' outside Planck size myself.
To get nitrogen into the first vibrational excited state you have to add quite a lot of energy. As I said, it is the equivalent of getting it very hot.To get it into the first excited electronic state you have to get it very hot- say 10,000 degrees.Most nitrogen molecules at normal temps only have rotational and translational energy.
As for time being a thermodynamic phenomena, thats a theory, or just a hypothesis as far as I know.
Planck scale is the smallest definable quantities we have. Beyond that you find a lot of absurdities and infinities, making no sense to us Imatfaal. "Planck units may sometimes be semi-humorously referred to by physicists as "God's units". They eliminate anthropocentric arbitrariness from the system of units: some physicists argue that communication with extraterrestrial intelligence would have to use such a system of units to make common reference to scale. Unlike the meter and second, which exist as fundamental units in the SI system for historical reasons (in human history), the Planck length and Planck time are conceptually linked at a fundamental physical level." ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN I'm surprised that you want to argue this?
Yep, that's another way of defining it that makes sense. But I will stand with that to me 'absolute zero' is where there can be nothing happening, as observed by us.
As for the rest of, you may think that you've asked those questions, but I didn't see it.Getting to be a 'thought police' are we?
Every experiment we do, we do under the arrow. Every definition we have we get from there. Does that mean that the arrow is a must? That there can be no state where the arrow disappear. We can't reach that state where our macroscopic arrow 'breaks down', but we assume that this might be possible at very small scales. Still, as long as you have a motion you must have a duration, you can't presume a motion without it. But if assuming no duration, then that also should be a state where noting 'moves'. All as I see it. And that might be seen as my very own definition, but, it wasn't what we discussed with 'Absolute Zero', although it has a relevance to my thinking.
By contrast, all physical processes occurring at the microscopic level, such as mechanics, do not pick out an arrow of time. Going forward in time, an atom might move to the left, whereas going backward in time the same atom might move to the right; the behavior of the atom is not qualitatively different in either case.
You can argue all you want, but until you overturn the laws of classical and quantum mechanics
QuoteYou can argue all you want, but until you overturn the laws of classical and quantum mechanics It seems as though the laws of classical mechanics are already overturned. Are there any that have survived quantum mechanics?
Seems the standard is sinking here.