Am i right when i say its impossible to reach absolute zero? Because of the uncertainty principle, you would need an infinite amount of energy to keep a particle completely still. Thanx
Yes, you are correct. In fact, the impossibility of reaching absolute zero is sometimes referred to as the Third Law of Thermodynamics. You can approach arbirtrarily close, but you can't ever reach exactly absolute zero.Matrixman13 said:Am i right when i say its impossible to reach absolute zero? Because of the uncertainty principle, you would need an infinite amount of energy to keep a particle completely still. Thanx
That's simply an incorrect statement. It has nothing to do with energy, an infinite amount or not- because of the uncertainty principle, you CAN'T have an collection of completely immobile particles.primal schemer said:Hi,
Just wondering why you need an infinite amount of energy to keep the particles still. How would you use energy to restrict the movement of particles??
Not true, although there are people saying "you can´t know that because you can´t reach T=0". But thoseGara said:I've heard that IF atoms got to 0°K, they would cease to exsist. Is this true, and why?
This has absolutely nothing to do with uncertainly principle. Are you trying to argue that [tex]\Delta E \Delta t \le \hbar[/tex], so you must have some flutuation in energy, and hence zero temperature is impossible? This principle has nothing to do with temperature. What this says is that you can violate conservation of energy temperarily, provided that you pay back what you borrow in short enough amount of time. (The more you "borrow", the shorter you can have it).Matrixman13 said:Am i right when i say its impossible to reach absolute zero? Because of the uncertainty principle, you would need an infinite amount of energy to keep a particle completely still. Thanx
I side with the dissenters. HUP has everything to do with absolute zero. All atoms have a zero point energy state that is above absolute zero. This means they still radiate [albeit in the extremely long wavelengths] and still have a blackbody temperature. This is one instance where quantum theory and GR do agree.Atheist said:Assuming with absolute zero you talk about temperature :
Uncertainty has absolutely nothing to do with temperature:
Very good questions.Atheist said:@Chronos:
Three questions and one suggestion:
q1) Where is the connection between uncertainty and temperature in your post? Uncertainty never appears except at the point where you claim that "it has everything to do with absolute zero".
q2) If an atom in it´s energetically lowest state emits a photon (radiates): What state does it change to?
q3) Could you please show from my 1st post where you think I am wrong? Simply saying "I disagree" is ok, but doesn´t help anyone, i think.
s1) Please take a bit more time to explain what you want to say. Here, you jump from uncertainty over Thermodynamics (very well knowing that I, for example, don´t see any connection) over to Relativity (why?!?!) within four sentences. Also, your posts (this mainly reffers to one of your posts that raised my attention just yesterday) sometimes are very vague and leave room for a lot of interpretation.
you've got a definition that is incongruent with any in accepted use.Chronos said:(snip)
q1] If you define temperature as a measure of the intensity of motion [kinetic energy], and absolute zero as the point at which all motion ceases, then (snip)