Notices

View Poll Results: Do you believe this is possible?

Voters
6. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes it is a possibility

    3 50.00%
  • No I think it is highly unlikely

    2 33.33%
  • I have no Idea

    0 0%
  • I think you should stop slagging off Mr Hawking.

    1 16.67%
Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: The dissappearing atom.

  1. #1 The dissappearing atom. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    Ok,

    Here's my idea, nothing to back it up nor can it be tested, no reason or mathematics behind it (which puts it in the same ranks as Hawking radiation)


    1) An Atom will cease to exist should it's temperature ever fall to absolute zero


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: The dissappearing atom. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Ok,

    Here's my idea, nothing to back it up nor can it be tested, no reason or mathematics behind it (which puts it in the same ranks as Hawking radiation)


    1) An Atom will cease to exist should it's temperature ever fall to absolute zero
    It CERTAINLY IS possible, for consider the following. In a parallel universe model, it is possible to have maverik worlds in other universes so bizarre that time may even oscillate (1). In this case, we are allowed to have quantum waves that decohere for instance, and please stetch the imagination slightly, where this information can collapse into the state of an actual phsyical atom. However, due to the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics (ultimately linked to other possibilities that can collapse in other universes), these universes hold statistical effects therego on ALL universes that are superpositioned upon each other, so whilst one universe may oscillate in the time dimension, those universes which don't and continue to move forwards, or backwards, still effect the quantum issues of statistics when averages are taken into account of the ''said'' oscillating-time maverik universe...

    .. Thus, an atom in one of these universes could appear, and due to certain collapses in other universes, when time begins to move back in an oscillating manner CAN experience the loss of information, and thus an entire atom could cancel out due to the lack of waves that defined it in the first place.

    DID Hawking really say this, and if he did, when? Because he is certainly wrong, and this is not a problem of hypothesis, but more contention towards which interpretation of physics you desire to adopt. Needless to say, i hate parallel unievsrses, but it doesn't flame your true point.


    (1) -Fred Alan Wolfs ''Parallel Universes'' 1985


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    Hold on, I'm suggesting it is true in this universe, I am not a believer (nor a non-believer) in the multiverse theory. Our universe has had (we are told) a finite life thus far, and that the big bang was the start of it all, I like that, it fits well with my idea in that since there was no matter prior to the emergence of our universe there was no time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Hold on, I'm suggesting it is true in this universe, I am not a believer (nor a non-believer) in the multiverse theory. Our universe has had (we are told) a finite life thus far, and that the big bang was the start of it all, I like that, it fits well with my idea in that since there was no matter prior to the emergence of our universe there was no time.
    Only if by the emergance of very high statistical averages could it happen in this universe then. I would imagine on scales much more than the amount of matter we have even contained in this spacetime fabric, which surprisingly, only 1% has a matter and energy contained (in the real sense) in it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Hold on, I'm suggesting it is true in this universe, I am not a believer (nor a non-believer) in the multiverse theory. Our universe has had (we are told) a finite life thus far, and that the big bang was the start of it all, I like that, it fits well with my idea in that since there was no matter prior to the emergence of our universe there was no time.
    Take my post above. This makes your point possible, but highly unlikely, by the way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    No.

    This would violate lepton number and baryon number, both of which are usually conserved. Therefore, I predict that it is impossible for an atom to fall below absolute zero.

    More likely, the atom will appear to disappear because it emits no EM radiation (seeing as it has no 'free' energy), and will only be observable when light is shone on it, giving it energy and allowing it to emit EMR once more.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    No.

    This would violate lepton number and baryon number, both of which are usually conserved. Therefore, I predict that it is impossible for an atom to fall below absolute zero.
    1) Rubbish, explain why a violation would occur.

    2) Rubbish, nobody said the atom would fall below Az
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Not to hijack your thread, but my hypothesis/idea presents particles as contained manifolds under regular oscillation that could, in principle, undergo destructive interference. Absolute zero would represent a stop to the oscillation and set subsequent annihilation in motion.

    But enough of that (I'll open my own thread). I wonder what happens exactly when a Bose nova occurs. Matter disappears also, though it might simply have escaped the trap.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    Never mind all that, just vote possible and I'll support yours!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Well if we use the uncertainty principle, at absolute zero we can now for certainty that the momentum of all the particles is 0 for some reference frame. That would imply that the particle's position would be unknowable to an infinite degree of unknowableness. It could be anywhere in the universe.

    So I'd say the atom still exists and so no, I wouldn't agree with your hypothesis. But it'd definitely "disappear" in the sense that it would be everywhere and nowhere in the universe all at once. Sort of like God I guess. Maybe god is made of atoms at absolute zero
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    We have no experience of anything at absolute zero.

    So it seems you are all prepared to accept that a black hole can evaporate as proposed by Mr Hawking and that the entire universe started from zilch, particles can appear, annihilate each other and dissappear but an atom has to remain an atom? many of you even accept the possibility of time travel, or a bunch of atoms dissappearing and re-appearing, so what is so impossible about this hypothesis?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    We have no experience of anything at absolute zero.

    So it seems you are all prepared to accept that a black hole can evaporate as proposed by Mr Hawking and that the entire universe started from zilch, particles can appear, annihilate each other and dissappear but an atom has to remain an atom? many of you even accept the possibility of time travel, or a bunch of atoms dissappearing and re-appearing, so what is so impossible about this hypothesis?
    In a single universe, using the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, allows entire planets to disappear when no one is osberving them... alas recent evidence however seems to show things do continue to exist, but just without any sensical behaviour.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    We have no experience of anything at absolute zero.

    So it seems you are all prepared to accept that a black hole can evaporate as proposed by Mr Hawking and that the entire universe started from zilch, particles can appear, annihilate each other and dissappear but an atom has to remain an atom? many of you even accept the possibility of time travel, or a bunch of atoms dissappearing and re-appearing, so what is so impossible about this hypothesis?
    We have clearly defined laws which describe the known universe, and we can take those laws to the limit (in the mathematical sense as well as the usual sense). For you to be right, something fundamentally different would have to occur at absolute zero than pretty much any other temperature. It would be mathematically discontinous. Now that doesn't mean automatically that it's impossible. Lots of new and exciting things happen at low temperatures, as scientists probing nanoKelvin temperatures are finding put. But it would be an extremely surprising result.

    It's like saying that if everyone left Long Island, and there were no people there at all, that the island would cease to exist forever and sink into the sea. It's impossible to test, and would seem to fly in the face of common reasoning. Maybe if you explain why you would think such a thing I can understand your position and change my mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    For you to be right, something fundamentally different would have to occur at absolute zero than pretty much any other temperature. It would be mathematically discontinous.
    That's odd, I thought in mathematics EVERYTHING dissappeared at zero!

    Just what is left when any quantity of any substance is reduced to zero?

    Mostly in science we tend to delelope the mathematics to explain the observation, sadly today it's the other way round, some pratt produces a blackboard full of pregnant calculus, and then invents all sorts of dark mysterious things to back it up wasting almost the whole scientific community's output for 50 years trying to find it! Now I accept that occasionally this does indeed work (the discovery of the non-planet pluto) - and the awesome inspiration of Mr Mendelev (but even these examples were born from observation) BUT now everybody wants a slice, so what is wrong with me doing the same?

    Before you poo poo the idea completely, consider it's implications with respect to the big bang, I am suggesting that temperature is a unique feature and may even be a dimension within itself, losing any dimension the universe would collapse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    [quote="Megabrain"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    For you to be right, something fundamentally different would have to occur at absolute zero than pretty much any other temperature. It would be mathematically discontinous.
    That's odd, I thought in mathematics EVERYTHING dissappeared at zero!

    Just what is left when any quantity of any substance is reduced to zero?

    Mostly in science we tend to delelope the mathematics to explain the observation, sadly today it's the other way round, some pratt produces a blackboard full of pregnant calculus, and then invents all sorts of dark mysterious things to back it up wasting almost the whole scientific community's output for 50 years trying to find it! Now I accept that occasionally this does indeed work (the discovery of the non-planet pluto) - and the awesome inspiration of Mr Mendelev (but even these examples were born from observation) BUT now everybody wants a slice, so what is wrong with me doing the same?

    Before you poo poo the idea completely, consider it's implications with respect to the big bang, I am suggesting that temperature is a unique feature and may even be a dimension within itself, losing any dimension the universe would collapse.
    Only that you find still half the amount of the energy of any system at a zero-point condition, so in essence, you can't really have no energy at an absolute temperature of zero. There still remains a massive amount of energy which is thought to be the sea of virtual particles which gives birth to everything in the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    huh?
    Yeh... it's true. I believe Einstein worked alongside another scientist... name escaped me now, but they found that even at absolute temperatures which we would associate to a total ''freezing of movement'' in systems, seems to still find a massive amount of energy left over. In fact, we use this zero-point field as a source of origin all energy and thus all matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    And I believe the content of your post is rubbish, and that you have yet again ignored the very vitals of my hypothesis, now please go and annoy somebody else.
    as it is quite clear you are simply replying to every post in every strand of this forum, probably to raise your post count. I am going to hit the ignore button in your case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    And I believe the content of your post is rubbish, and that you have yet again ignored the very vitals of my hypothesis, now please go and annoy somebody else.
    as it is quite clear you are simply replying to every post in every strand of this forum, probably to raise your post count. I am going to hit the ignore button in your case.
    I've not lied to you. This is the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    And I believe the content of your post is rubbish, and that you have yet again ignored the very vitals of my hypothesis, now please go and annoy somebody else.
    as it is quite clear you are simply replying to every post in every strand of this forum, probably to raise your post count. I am going to hit the ignore button in your case.
    I've not lied to you. This is the truth.
    I don't usually qoute wiki, but here is a good source to what i was talking about:

    Zero-point energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    History|Foundational...|Varieties of...|Experimental...
    In physics, the zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have and is the energy of the ground state. The quantum mechanical system that encapsulates this energy is the zero-point field. The concept was first proposed...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy - 57k - Cached
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Hence what i said, you can find literature very similar in this link:

    ''In the year 1913, using this formula as a basis, Albert Einstein and Otto Stern published a paper of great significance in which they suggested for the first time the existence of a residual energy that all oscillators have at absolute zero. They called this "residual energy" and then Nullpunktsenergie (in German), which later became translated as zero-point energy.''

    The risidual energy is still found when you freeze the vacuum to absolute temperatures we call the zero-point field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    For you to be right, something fundamentally different would have to occur at absolute zero than pretty much any other temperature. It would be mathematically discontinous.
    That's odd, I thought in mathematics EVERYTHING dissappeared at zero!
    That's quite silly. Let's take a trivial example: x + 5. x = 0, answer is 5. EVERYTHING doesn't necessarily disappear at 0.

    Just what is left when any quantity of any substance is reduced to zero?
    Well first temperature isn't a substance. But let's ignore your actual wording and use what you meant. Let's take the case of kinetic energy of a macroscopic object in a Newtonian framework. Its mass is the same at 100 kph as at 10 kph as at 1000000 kph (again, we're ignoring relativity atm). If we take this to the limit, we would expect to see the same mass at 0 kph.

    Relativity makes things more complex, because velocity can change inertial mass. But we can do the same limit trick and define a "rest mass" for subatomic particles, even though this rest mass can never be experimentally verified. For you to be right, mass would have to disappear at 0 velocity. That means at .00000001 kph a subatomic particle would be very close to its rest mass, but at 0 kph it discontinuously jumps to 0 rest mass. I am not aware of many discontinuous behaviors in nature, so this would be an extremely surprising result if true.

    Mostly in science we tend to delelope the mathematics to explain the observation, sadly today it's the other way round, some pratt produces a blackboard full of pregnant calculus, and then invents all sorts of dark mysterious things to back it up wasting almost the whole scientific community's output for 50 years trying to find it! Now I accept that occasionally this does indeed work (the discovery of the non-planet pluto) - and the awesome inspiration of Mr Mendelev (but even these examples were born from observation) BUT now everybody wants a slice, so what is wrong with me doing the same?
    Math is a powerful tool, because it can describe not only what is possible in our universe, but what is maybe possible. It allows us to understand the range of what is possibly possible and impossibly impossible. It's a dark mistress and many mathematicians and physicists can get lost in her labyrinthine corridors. But every credible scientific theory must start with a mathematical model. Newton started with Kepler's laws, Relativity started with Maxwell's field equations (? I think, something like that). You can't just pull an idea out of your ass and ask what the implications are without bowing even a little to the mathematics of existing physics.

    I demonstrated a far more convincing argument for "disappeared" using the uncertainty principle. I think you'll find it gives the same results essentially, with a more plausible rational than "matter goes poof".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    Please do not suggest that I in anyway suggested "Matter goes poof" - it deeply offends me and you to have missed the point

    Now what happens to matter that is sucked into a black hole?
    does it not 'dissappear' from our universe...

    Here's a question for you, if temperature (in simple terms) is an amount of energy held by an atom and displayed as a form of harmonic motion, what temperature is the 'matter' that is at the centre of a black hole, where the pressure is so great that atoms (or whats left of them) cannot move ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Please do not suggest that I in anyway suggested "Matter goes poof" - it deeply offends me and you to have missed the point

    Now what happens to matter that is sucked into a black hole?
    does it not 'dissappear' from our universe...

    Here's a question for you, if temperature (in simple terms) is an amount of energy held by an atom and displayed as a form of harmonic motion, what temperature is the 'matter' that is at the centre of a black hole, where the pressure is so great that atoms (or whats left of them) cannot move ?
    Hawking has retracted his statemement in believing matter dissappears in a black holes. Instead, the information it is composed of ''tunnels'' from within the black hole and back into this universe. If it didn't, we would have what is called ''an Information Paradox.''
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Please do not suggest that I in anyway suggested "Matter goes poof" - it deeply offends me and you to have missed the point
    Oh terribly sorry. To me "cease to exist" (your wording in OP) and "goes poof" are synonymous statements.

    Now what happens to matter that is sucked into a black hole?
    does it not 'dissappear' from our universe...

    Here's a question for you, if temperature (in simple terms) is an amount of energy held by an atom and displayed as a form of harmonic motion, what temperature is the 'matter' that is at the centre of a black hole, where the pressure is so great that atoms (or whats left of them) cannot move ?
    Who says matter can't move inside a black hole? All you have to do to make a black hole is get enough mass to be inside its Schwarzchild radius. The matter inside that radius does not have to be concentrated to a single point or anything like that. It can be a hot and dense soupy mixture of neutrons with convection currents if you like.

    Honestly I don't understand your fixation on black holes and Hawking radiation in this thread.

    Oh, I think I understand now. Is the point of this thread "Hawking radiation is silly, but accepted as fact. So I'm going to invent something else silly and insist it also be accepted as fact." ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    No.

    This would violate lepton number and baryon number, both of which are usually conserved. Therefore, I predict that it is impossible for an atom to fall below absolute zero.
    1) Rubbish, explain why a violation would occur.
    A violation will occur because the atom's electrons (positive lepton number) would be destroyed. As would the protons and neutrons (positive baryon number). Since both of these values must be conserved, this is not possible. The accepted model for the 'removal' of leptons is through pair annihilation. Baryons can be destroyed through annihilation, or through weak interaction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    2) Rubbish, nobody said the atom would fall below Az
    This was part of the hypothesis at the beginning of the topic - 'if an atom falls below ultimate zero...'
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    1) An Atom will cease to exist should it's temperature ever fall to absolute zero

    Now read it again, word by word, you have used the word 'below' it does not, nor ever did appear in my original post. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •