Can temperature ever truly reach absolute zero?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of absolute zero, particularly its definition, implications in quantum mechanics, and whether it can ever be truly achieved. Participants explore theoretical aspects, experimental observations, and the limitations imposed by the laws of thermodynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that absolute zero is often defined as the state where all atoms are in their lowest energy states, yet this leads to questions about the remaining energy due to the uncertainty principle.
  • One participant explains that for quantum systems like the quantum harmonic oscillator, the lowest energy state is not zero, but rather a non-zero value, indicating that energy remains even at absolute zero.
  • Another participant expresses confusion about the definition of absolute zero, recalling that it was described as the total absence of energy, which seems to contradict the uncertainty principle.
  • Questions are raised about the nature of confinement in quantum systems and how different potential energy profiles affect the energy at absolute zero.
  • There is curiosity about whether noble gases were studied for their non-reactive properties and how this might differ for reactive atoms.
  • One participant suggests that reaching absolute zero might be a theoretical postulate, questioning the implications of motion and stillness in relation to achieving such a state.
  • A reference to a Scientific American article discusses methods for measuring temperatures close to absolute zero, leading to a query about the feasibility of measuring a true zero temperature.
  • Speculation arises about whether achieving zero Kelvin would result in observable phenomena, such as the disappearance of a cloud of atoms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of absolute zero, its implications in quantum mechanics, and whether it can be achieved. There is no consensus on these points, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding absolute zero, including the dependence on definitions and the implications of quantum mechanics. The discussion reflects a range of interpretations and assumptions that are not fully resolved.

Michael2003
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
RIght, everytime I hear someone define absolute zero lately they say that it is when all of the atoms are in their lowest energy states, which leaves a finite amount of energy because the uncertainty principle does not allow knowing exactly where something is and how fast it is moving, and if there is absolutely no energy (above mass-energy and such) you know the speed exactly and where it is. So, what amount of energy is there left? Is it a range of energys? If so how big is it? And does the energy that you can say is left depend on just how well you know where the atoms all are?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Michael2003 said:
RIght, everytime I hear someone define absolute zero lately they say that it is when all of the atoms are in their lowest energy states, which leaves a finite amount of energy because the uncertainty principle does not allow knowing exactly where something is and how fast it is moving, and if there is absolutely no energy (above mass-energy and such) you know the speed exactly and where it is. So, what amount of energy is there left? Is it a range of energys? If so how big is it? And does the energy that you can say is left depend on just how well you know where the atoms all are?

Your question has two different aspects to it. The first is that for many quantum systems, there is already a MINIMUM energy state the system can occupy. The clearest example of this is a quantum harmonic oscillator. The lowest energy state is not zero, but rather [tex]1/2 \hbar\omega[/tex] simply based on the energy eigenvalues. So for a quantum harmonic oscillator, already one can see that even at T=0, there is still a non-zero energy to the system without explicitly invoking the HUP (even though it is a direct consequence of it).

Secondly, the amount of energy the system has at T=0 depends on the nature of the "confinment" or the potential energy profile. A Lenard-Jones type potential will give a different energy correction than the harmonic oscillator potential, etc. For Noble gasses, such energy corrections have been carefully studied (theoretically and experimentally) and are contained in what is known as the de Boer parameter[1,2]. This will tell you exactly what energy to add as the zero-point state is approached. The correction to "solid" He, for instance (both He4 and He3) is tremendously big that purely classical treatement of it fails spectacularly.

Zz.

[1] Ashcroft and Mermin "Solid State Physics" p.412 (Saunders, 1976).
[2] C.P. Herrero, J. Phys. Condens. Matt., v.15, p.475 (2003).
 
Last edited:
This has been puzzling me recently, as well. When I was in high school, I was told that Absolute Zero was the total absence of all energy. Thsi would indeed violate Uncertainty, but I always thought that was why Absolute Zero could never really be achieved.
 
Right, I think I sort of understand that.

Just a couple of questions though. Firstly, does this site look fairly informative on quantum harmonic oscillators (I wouldn't want to read something that's wrong and try to understand it). Secondly, you said noble gases were studied. Was this done because they don't react with each other so are easy to observe the effect on. If so, would there be any difference using atoms that reacted together?

And just what stops a system reaching absolute zero? It's one of the laws of thermodynamics, but I thought I read somewhere that they are statistical, so there would still be a chance that absolute zero could be reached, surely?
 
Wouldn't absolute zero be mostly a postulate, since everything is moving, regardless of how we still it? Wouldn't we have to cool something, in a spin counter to the solar system, in fact the galaxy, to to reach a state of non energy like absolute zero? Would it make a hole in time, if we did that? Keep the answer simple, if there is one. I am very interested in motion vs stillness.
 
Scientific American magazine for May 2004, p. 120 [ASK THE EXPERTS] included this question:

Scientific American online > ASK THE EXPERTS > How are temperatures close to absolute zero achieved and measured?
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=00037290-04B2-1007-84B283414B7F0000&catID=3

I would love to pepper Professor Ketterle with more questions about his carefully-worded answer, but I zero in on one paragraph (page 2 of online article):

"How do we measure very low temperatures of atoms?"

(my summarization)
1. Extension of the cloud indicates indirectly the kinetic energy opposing the energy of the entrapping magnetic field.
2. Magnetic trap is switched off and cloud expands. The rate indicates directly the average velocity of the previously trapped atoms. Small clouds observed AFTER A FIXED TIME OF EXPANSION indicate previous low temperature.

? ->
If these are practically the only means for estimating extreme small temperatures acheived, then isn't measurement of a former zero temperature automatically excluded from possibility?
<- ?

Hmmm! Maybe if a zero Kelvin temperature were actually attained, the size of the cloud would disappear and no expansion would be detected afterward.

Hmmm! Maybe heating something that is at zero Kelvin is completely futile.

Your turns!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K