Absolute Zero: Lowest Possible Temp? Evidence Explained

AI Thread Summary
Absolute zero is defined as the temperature at which particle movement ceases, representing the lowest possible temperature. This concept is supported by examining temperature versus volume graphs of gases, which show a linear relationship at constant pressure. As temperature decreases, gas volume also decreases until it reaches zero at absolute zero, indicating a universal point for all gases. Experimental evidence aligns with this theoretical framework, confirming the existence of absolute zero. Understanding this concept is crucial in the study of thermodynamics and the behavior of matter at extreme temperatures.
MalayInd
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
How can we say that Absolute zero is the lowest possible temperature?
Is there any experimental evidence for it?

Keep Smiling
Malay
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy (movement) of the particles in a substance. Theoretically, absolute zero is the temperature at which everything stops moving, making it the lowest possible temperature.

People first got the idea from looking at temperature vs. volume graphs of gasses. At constant pressure, they are directly proportional and form a straight line. Imagine a graph with a y intercept of 5 liters at 0 degrees celsius. As you decrease temperature into the negatives, the volume will decrease linearly until a certain point. What happens at the x intercept, with zero volume? The answer is the same for all gases and is called absolute zero. If you extend the line enough, you get to the lowest temperature possible
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top