Is it possible to achieve absolute zero?
So it is...
Only if you do very poorly on your thermo exam.
But how is it possible that there is no place below -273 cantigrate degrees in the universe?
why do you feel the need for there to be something at absolute zero ?
Did you read the link given in post #3 above explaining the conditions at absolute zero ?
There are empty areas between galaxies. I mean no any sun nearby not even 100000000000000000000 light year nearby. Aren't they even below -273,15?
Just because a chart that shows that volume is zero at absolute zero. I can't be convinced there isn't a -273 cEntigrade degrees out there. This volume thing at 0 point is not even experimental but a chart assumption.
I'll ask again ... did you read that wiki link ?
about the coldest thing you will find out there is the cosmic microwave background which is about 3 Kelvin (ie. 3 deg above absolute zero)
This permeates the universe everywhere between the galaxies So it pretty much predetermines the coldest temperature you will find
You don't need to humiliate me. That's why students don't ask questions their mentors. Anyway, yea I've read it but then it is not polynomial degradation when you leave the sun to the outer space? Because you will achieve the 0 or even below if you do so.
Probably you are thinking of exponential degradation. That pattern arises when you have a hot object that transfers heat to an infinitely large cold reservoir and the rate of heat loss is proportional to the temperature difference. The hot object cools down and its temperature asymptotically approaches the temperature of the cold reservoir.
Given the cosmic microwave background at 3 degrees kelvin, the temperature that is approached is 3 degrees kelvin, not absolute zero.
If you were asking questions, I'd have a little more sympathy. But you're not - you are making statements like "This volume thing at 0 point is not even experimental but a chart assumption." If you don't like being told your statements are wrong, maybe you should stop making wrong statements.
Our lecturer said it is because of the V-T chart. But maybe he didn't want to mention more. I am sorry for my behaviour didn't mean to make statements but tried to understand.
There could be some exceptions...?
ha ha , very funny answer.
But seriously, didn't absolute zero come from a theoretical vanishing 'volume' of gas or object?
How can anyone justify zero volume of anything? This tells us the theory breaks down before temperature reaches absolute zero.
Another way of saying, temperature below absolute zero is possible in an unknown state of matter.
No. Absolute zero has to do with temperature, not volume. It's perfectly possible to describe mathematically a system at absolute zero with finite volume.
What chart are you talking about? Do you have a reference?
Because there has to be a state of minimum possible energy. Absolute zero is that state.
I think they are arguing that all we know about absolute zero came out of Charles' Law, as if no progress was made in the intervening two centuries.
Zero kelvin, or -273.15 centigrade, is the temperature at which the atoms/molecules that compose an object would be solely in their ground states. The ground state is the minimum energy level for that atom/molecule, so at absolute zero an object would have the least internal energy possible. There is literally no other internal energy for it to give up.
I think that's not the proper way of saying it. Its better to say, at absolute zero, by definition, particles will have zero energy. But because any system has a ground state energy which is greater than zero, no system can reach absolute zero.
I'm sorry, but that's not correct. Drakkith's message is right.
No need to be sorry!
What I understand from he's message is that absolute zero is where the system(of course a system for which we can define temperature) is in its ground state. Now if we say absolute zero can't be reach, we're actually saying that we can't have such a system in its ground state even in principle. That seems wrong to me but maybe I'm just getting things wrong.
Also as far as I remember from thermodynamics, its the definition of absolute zero that the motion of all particles stop at this temperature which means zero energy.
No, that's pretty much correct. It isn't possible for objects larger than atoms and perhaps small molecules to reach their ground state through thermodynamic means.
If you're talking about the 3rd law of thermodynamics(at least its Nernst's statement), then its about absolute zero, not the ground state. So what you're saying is equivalent to defining absolute zero as the temperature the object has when it is in its ground state. So this post actually is equivalent to your last post.
The chart I was talking about. It is not possible to reach that temperature in labs but we can estimate it is zero volume from the chart if we lenghten the line to the -273.15 centigrade degrees.
Source: http://www.avogadro.co.uk/miscellany/t-and-p/t-and-p.htm [Broken]
Separate names with a comma.