25 Feb 08
...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.
25 Feb 08
Originally posted by kenanNo, 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.
...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.
25 Feb 08
Originally posted by kenanAs 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...
...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.
25 Feb 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI 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...
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.
...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.😞 )
25 Feb 08
2 edits
Originally posted by agrysonIt's called planck temp. ( 10^32 😲 Kelvin degrees ), experienced right after big bang.
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...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_temperature
25 Feb 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasOur closest neighboor Alpha Centauri is forty trillion kms away, a few light years that is.
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.
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.
25 Feb 08
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...
25 Feb 08
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
26 Feb 08
Originally posted by mnemThanks for the links.
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
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?
26 Feb 08
Originally posted by kenanOnly in vacuum.
...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.
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