How Does Cooling Matter to Absolute Zero Relate to Energy Release?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter milks
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Matter
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the relationship between cooling matter to absolute zero and the energy involved in this process. Participants explore concepts related to energy release, the nature of matter at low temperatures, and the implications of cooling techniques in experimental physics, particularly in the context of the CERN LHC.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that cooling matter to absolute zero results in its conversion to energy, although this claim is challenged by others who assert that matter does not cease to exist at this temperature.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the energy stored in matter is described by E=mc², indicating that temperature does not affect the mass-energy equivalence directly.
  • Concerns are raised about the practical challenges of cooling matter to absolute zero, including the significant energy required and the difficulty of removing energy without adding more.
  • Some participants discuss the ideal gas law and its implications, questioning whether the mass of a gas could theoretically approach zero at absolute zero temperature.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the relationship between thermal energy and mass, suggesting that a fraction of the energy extracted from a substance relates to its mass due to relativistic effects.
  • Another participant mentions the enthalpy of formation and its relevance to the energy required to displace the environment when cooling matter.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach consensus on several points, including the nature of matter at absolute zero, the relationship between temperature and mass, and the implications of cooling techniques. Disagreements persist regarding the interpretation of energy and mass in the context of cooling.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions and implications of concepts such as thermal energy, mass, and the ideal gas law. There are references to unproven claims and the challenges of cooling matter to absolute zero, indicating limitations in the discussion.

milks
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
ello


first of all appologies for my fuzzy knowledge and termanology, its been nearly ten years since I have studied physics in any form.

Watching a BBC documentry the other week 'Star on Earth?' with Prof. Brian Cox, he talked of how a gram of matter has the same amount of energy as that which is released during a nuclear explosion (I think this must be comparing to one of the early nukes).

Now I believe also that when matter is cooled to absolute zero it ceases to exist as all the matter has been converted to energy, though this has never been proven.

Given these two facts, surely to cool all the equipment of the CERN LHC to near absolute zero must require extracting unthinkable amounts of energy?

My understanding is that temperature and energy have a linear relation. So to heat a mass by one degree requires a fixed amount of energy regardless of the starting temperature of the mass (assuming constant pressure and that the mass is not at the cusp of changing state).

My question then is does cooling a mass to nearly 0°K really require extracting as much energy as a nuclear explosion per gram, or is there some kind of latent heat/energy of existence, similar to the energy overhead required to change the state of matter e.g. the latent heat of fusion? Perhaps latent heat of tactility would be more descriptive for this case.
 
Science news on Phys.org
milks said:
Now I believe also that when matter is cooled to absolute zero it ceases to exist as all the matter has been converted to energy, though this has never been proven.
This is not true at all. When cooled to absolute zero, the molecular kinetic energy of a substance is at a minimum, but that doesn't mean that "matter has ceased to exist" or that "matter has been converted to energy". (Where did you hear this wild claim?)
 
How can something that's "never been proven" be considered fact?
 
The amount of energy stored in matter is given by E=mc2. The only variable in there is the mass, temperature doesn't factor in. The amount of thermal energy matter has depends on the specific heat of whatever it is. 1kg of water at 0 C has 1,142,778 J in thermal energy. The same kg of anything has 8.98755179 * 1016 J of energy for it's mass.
 
I thought it was only in the gas theory that when a gas was cooled to absolute zero the mass would be nil and would in theory it would not exist, however even this was not proven and clearly should not happen so it is only an ideal gas that would?

Cooling to absolute zero does require a lot of effort absolute zero as far as i know has never been reached, it is hard to find ways of removing energy without giving it more energy.

As far as i know temperature and engery always increase at a set amount if one increases, what's the proportion that the other will increase in?

I always thought that the probelm with cooling mass to 0°K was the fact that it is hard for the engergy to be moved from that mass as it has become so low.

I am asuming you are right with the fact that it will require a lot of energy to cool a mass to 0°K, how much energy is required i am not sure about but if it did require the same engergy as a nuclear explosion would this be safe at all?
 
TheUnkown said:
I thought it was only in the gas theory that when a gas was cooled to absolute zero the mass would be nil and would in theory it would not exist, however even this was not proven and clearly should not happen so it is only an ideal gas that would?
Nope, not true at all. Even "in theory". Mass doesn't just disappear when you cool something.
 
The tests on gases show that the mass decreases so in theory should it not be able to reach nil?
 
TheUnkown said:
The tests on gases show that the mass decreases so in theory should it not be able to reach nil?
Please provide a reference for this statement so I can understand what you are talking about.
 
I think I'm getting confused with the ideal gas theory which states

"The state of an amount of gas is determined by its pressure, volume, and temperature."

which would give the equation "pV = nRT"

am i right so far?
 
  • #10
Well, PV = nRT is the ideal gas law.
 
  • #11
yes so if the temperature was low enough would the mass of the gas be reduced to a point where it has a volume of nil?
 
  • #12
Note: I am not an expert by any means. I'm a sophomore in college, so my statements should be elementary at best. I've studied physics in school as well as in my free time, but I'm sure I've probably understood several things incorrectly. If a more learned member would confirm or deny my claims, it'd be much appreciated. However:

I noticed in this discussion some say "no thermal energy = no mass because mass = energy". However, I think the confusion lies in saying "thermal energy = energy". If you extract energy (thermal or kinetic) from a substance, only a fraction of that energy actually comes from the mass itself, and I think this energy is only due to relativistic effects. A mass at 0.0001K will still have a large portion of its mass left. Now I suppose if you were to convert the entire mass into energy and then extract that, then there'd be no mass left... but that's called an explosion.
-DT
 
  • #13
so if you keep pressure and volume constant and increase the temperature to infinity you will end up with zero moles!?

just kidding.

to answer the initial question: there is an enthalpy of formation, but this is commonly considered zero for elements. work is required to displace the enviornment by whatever volume the object takes up. The closest thing I can think of to this "energy of tactility" would either be E=mc^2 or the enthalpy of formation.
 
  • #14
TheUnkown said:
yes so if the temperature was low enough would the mass of the gas be reduced to a point where it has a volume of nil?
The volume going to zero does not mean that the mass goes to zero. (Realize that real gases will deviate from the ideal gas law at these limits, anyway.)
 
  • #15
ohhh i see now sorry, I'm doing an essay on xenotransplantations at the moment so I'm a bit muddled with this, but i think i understand now thanks for you clarification.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad How does evaporation generate cooling? Swamp coolers edition
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
High School What is the energy required to approach near absolute zero?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Calculating Cooling Effect in Gas Cylinder Expansion
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
Graduate Negative absolute temperatures
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Potential energy and the gravitational field of a collapsing cloud of gas
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Thermal Energy when Heating and Cooling a Cabaret
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad How much energy does a fission nuke actually release?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Graduate Cooling below 1 K: How long can it stay cool?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Graduate Didn't we mess up with the temperature?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Radiation - mode of heat transfer
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K