Thread: About absolute zero

Is there any explanation as to why absolute zero is capped at -273 degrees while heat can go waaay much higher on the cold/heat scale? Or does it really just go "Thats just how it is"?

Is the absolute zero simply the lowest that can be scientifically proven at the moment? Is there any evidence that it could go even colder?

I just always found it curious that cold has such a limitation and heat doesent. Logically one could assume the cold scale could go as far as the heat scale, due to some sort of equilibrium? I dunno...

Absolute zero = zero heat.
How can you go any lower?
(There's no such thing as "cold" or a "cold scale").

Originally Posted by Raziell

Is there any explanation as to why absolute zero is capped at -273 degrees while heat can go waaay much higher on the cold/heat scale? Or does it really just go "Thats just how it is"?

Is the absolute zero simply the lowest that can be scientifically proven at the moment? Is there any evidence that it could go even colder?

I just always found it curious that cold has such a limitation and heat doesent. Logically one could assume the cold scale could go as far as the heat scale, due to some sort of equilibrium? I dunno...

It's based on molecular motion. At absolute zero, there is absolutely zero molecular motion. You cannot have less motion than none. There is no anti-motion.

Originally Posted by Raziell

Is there any explanation as to why absolute zero is capped at -273 degrees while heat can go waaay much higher on the cold/heat scale? Or does it really just go "Thats just how it is"?

Is the absolute zero simply the lowest that can be scientifically proven at the moment? Is there any evidence that it could go even colder?

I just always found it curious that cold has such a limitation and heat doesent. Logically one could assume the cold scale could go as far as the heat scale, due to some sort of equilibrium? I dunno...

Yes, this reminds me rather of Spike Milligan in a darkened room, saying, "Hey, who turned on the dark?"

It seems initially counterintuitive I agree, but as others have said, "cold" isn't a "thing" that you have unlimited degrees of, any more than "darkness" is. We have no trouble understanding that darkness is just absence of light. Absolute zero is just the heat equivalent of total darkness.

Temperature reflects the amount (or a better analogy would be the "pressure") of heat energy. When you've taken out ALL the heat energy, the heat "pressure" naturally becomes zero.

We have no trouble understanding that darkness is just absence of light.

That does not apply to all posters.

Originally Posted by AlexG

We have no trouble understanding that darkness is just absence of light.

That does not apply to all posters.

Yes, I sort of mentally strapped on my crash helmet after writing that. There may be someone out there, and I mean, out there, who will take issue even with that.

Theorist is banned andAndyThomasTheKey​ hasn't been around for a while -- I think we're OK

Oh shit, another one: http://www.thescienceforum.com/physi...tml#post558850

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Oh shit, another one: http://www.thescienceforum.com/physi...tml#post558850

"Give me strengf!", as they say in the East End of London.

Sorry for posting such a dumb question but I needed to scratch that itch.

Thanks for answering though. Montana put it into the perspective I feel I was missing.

Originally Posted by Raziell

Sorry for posting such a dumb question but I needed to scratch that itch.

Thanks for answering though. Montana put it into the perspective I feel I was missing.

No, it's not dumb, it's quite reasonable until you have the idea of heat being "something", namely a form of energy. It took centuries for that idea to take shape.

Originally Posted by Raziell

Sorry for posting such a dumb question but I needed to scratch that itch.

Thanks for answering though. Montana put it into the perspective I feel I was missing.

It's not a dumb question. If it were, you would have been made aware of that when Dywyddyr was licking tears off your cheek.

As others have mentioned, it is just absence of energy. Once all energy is gone you cannot remove anymore.

temperature goes so high because you can usually dump more energy into something. More pressure, more exchange, fusion, more energy can be added in.

It is kinda like making a fire. you can turn a match into a raging inferno simply by adding more energy to fuel it, but once the match burns out you need to light a new one.

I just always found it curious that cold has such a limitation and heat doesent.

This is the bit that caught my attention (I assume heat refers to energy rather the temperature). Just to try a restatement of the query, "Is it possible that a moon encircling a planet (no sun or other energy source) could have a temperature of zero degrees absolute?". Such an object would have finite gravitational energy.

Originally Posted by JonG

I just always found it curious that cold has such a limitation and heat doesent.

This is the bit that caught my attention (I assume heat refers to energy rather the temperature). Just to try a restatement of the query, "Is it possible that a moon encircling a planet (no sun or other energy source) could have a temperature of zero degrees absolute?". Such an object would have finite gravitational energy.

No, a moon circling a planet without a host star would be very very cold. However it would not be absolute zero.

Edit: I would like to point out, nothing in the universe is absolute zero. Matter cannot get to absolute zero for a variety or reasons but the most prominent that will defeat all efforts is zero-point energy. This is the minimal amount of energy that molecules must have. It cannot get any lower.

Naturally occuring in the coldest depths of the universe is around 2-3 kelvin. In labs we have gotten colder. Look up bose-einstein condensate.

An idea has been in my heas for awhile, would if we had nega tive movement, or in other worda using dark energy to theoreticly create something that is negative ly heated

Edit: I would like to point out, nothing in the universe is absolute zero.

Please don't be so patronising - difficult to avoid on science forums, I know.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Oh shit, another one: http://www.thescienceforum.com/physi...tml#post558850

that's right, because I have better things to do. How about you?

Originally Posted by thulium_gal

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Oh shit, another one: http://www.thescienceforum.com/physi...tml#post558850

that's right, because I have better things to do. How about you?

You have better things to do than get an education?

I have better things to do

Yeah, posting nonsense on science forums is one of them I suppose it's easier than learning enough to make sensible posts. Is it laziness or stupidiy that made you choose that route?

Originally Posted by JonG

I just always found it curious that cold has such a limitation and heat doesent.

This is the bit that caught my attention (I assume heat refers to energy rather the temperature). Just to try a restatement of the query, "Is it possible that a moon encircling a planet (no sun or other energy source) could have a temperature of zero degrees absolute?". Such an object would have finite gravitational energy.

Don't confuse gravitational (or any other kind of) energy of a bulk object with the random kinetic energy of the molecules. The fact a moon has kinetic and gravitational potential energy does not in principle stop it from having a temperature of absolute zero. (It won't in practice be that cold, as the cosmic background radiation is 2.7K: Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but that another story.)

Originally Posted by GoldenRatio

Originally Posted by JonG

I just always found it curious that cold has such a limitation and heat doesent.

This is the bit that caught my attention (I assume heat refers to energy rather the temperature). Just to try a restatement of the query, "Is it possible that a moon encircling a planet (no sun or other energy source) could have a temperature of zero degrees absolute?". Such an object would have finite gravitational energy.

No, a moon circling a planet without a host star would be very very cold. However it would not be absolute zero.

Edit: I would like to point out, nothing in the universe is absolute zero. Matter cannot get to absolute zero for a variety or reasons but the most prominent that will defeat all efforts is zero-point energy. This is the minimal amount of energy that molecules must have. It cannot get any lower.

Naturally occuring in the coldest depths of the universe is around 2-3 kelvin. In labs we have gotten colder. Look up bose-einstein condensate.

I'm not sure this is right. My understanding is that at absolute zero, zero point energy persists. Conversely therefore, the existence of zero point energy does not prevent one from attaining absolute zero. Absolute zero is merely the temperature at which no more heat can be extracted. And by definition you can't extract zero point energy. So its residual presence does not confer any temperature on the substance in question.

From exchemist:

Don't confuse gravitational (or any other kind of) energy of a bulk object with the random kinetic energy of the molecules. The fact a moon has kinetic and gravitational potential energy does not in principle stop it from having a temperature of absolute zero.

This was precisely my purpose in restating the question ! There is a misconception that zero temperature implies zero energy. It is quite possible for a million molecules to be moving in the same direction at at 1000 m/sec, so they have kinetic energy, and yet be at absolute zero of temperature.

PS. I have spent most of my professional career in research which involved cooling molecules to temperatures close to absolute zero by entraining them in expanding supersonic jets, which ensures that the molecules concerned have very similar velocities. The purpose of this was to obtain high resolution spectra of the entrained molecules. I am not likely to confuse temperature as referenced in the Boltzmann distribution and the mistaken notion that temperature equates to kinetic energy.

Originally Posted by JonG

From exchemist:

Don't confuse gravitational (or any other kind of) energy of a bulk object with the random kinetic energy of the molecules. The fact a moon has kinetic and gravitational potential energy does not in principle stop it from having a temperature of absolute zero.

This was precisely my purpose in restating the question ! There is a misconception that zero temperature implies zero energy. It is quite possible for a million molecules to be moving in the same direction at at 1000 m/sec, so they have kinetic energy, and yet be at absolute zero of temperature.

PS. I have spent most of my professional career in research which involved cooling molecules to temperatures close to absolute zero by entraining them in expanding supersonic jets. The purpose of this was to obtain very high resolution spectra of the entrained molecules. I am not likely to confuse temperature as referenced in the Boltzmann distribution and the mistaken notion that temperature equates to kinetic energy.

Ah I see, so your intent was to highlight the absurdity of the idea.

I'm sorry for misreading you. All I can say in defence is that we get such a wide spectrum of knowledge on this forum that it is sometimes hard to tell whom one is dealing with. I'll keep your area of expertise in mind for future queries I may have. Thanks for letting me know.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

I have better things to do

Yeah, posting nonsense on science forums is one of them I suppose it's easier than learning enough to make sensible posts. Is it laziness or stupidiy that made you choose that route?

I know how tricky your mind can get that I am not that stupid. Is it laziness or cluelessness that you have not contributed anything in the thread?

To exchemist:

And thank you for your response. Misreading on Science forums seems to be rife - I have certainly done it myself.

Originally Posted by thulium_gal

Originally Posted by PhDemon

I have better things to do

Yeah, posting nonsense on science forums is one of them I suppose it's easier than learning enough to make sensible posts. Is it laziness or stupidiy that made you choose that route?

I know how tricky your mind can get that I am not that stupid. Is it laziness or cluelessness that you have not contributed anything in the thread?

Let us not disturb the thread of member Raziell with personal insults, shall we?
It would be a shame if the Staff had to intervene.

I had to split up with my atomic partner. Just didn't have the energy.

Originally Posted by Chesslonesome

I had to split up with my atomic partner. Just didn't have the energy.

We can't all share that special bond.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Chesslonesome

I had to split up with my atomic partner. Just didn't have the energy.

We can't all share that special bond.

It brought me to new levels.

Let us not disturb the thread of member Raziell with personal insults, shall we?
It would be a shame if the Staff had to intervene

Fair enough, but vapid stupidity annoys me and I pointed it out. I still fail to understand why the chronically ignorant feel the need to display their ignorance on a public forum. I'll leave it there :shrug:

Originally Posted by Chesslonesome

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Chesslonesome

I had to split up with my atomic partner. Just didn't have the energy.

We can't all share that special bond.

It brought me to new levels.

Glad it helped you break out of your shell.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Chesslonesome

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Chesslonesome

I had to split up with my atomic partner. Just didn't have the energy.

We can't all share that special bond.

It brought me to new levels.

Glad it helped you break out of your shell.

Considering all the space I had things seemed to be pretty neutral.

Originally Posted by frumpydolphin

An idea has been in my heas for awhile, would if we had nega tive movement, or in other worda using dark energy to theoreticly create something that is negative ly heated

What? This makes no sense to me. Please explain this gibberish.

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by frumpydolphin

An idea has been in my heas for awhile, would if we had nega tive movement, or in other worda using dark energy to theoreticly create something that is negative ly heated

What? This makes no sense to me. Please explain this gibberish.

As far as I can tell,
(s)he has the idea that anti-motion of molecules (which is equated to dark energy somehow) exists, thereby creating the possibility of negative heat.

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by frumpydolphin

An idea has been in my heas for awhile, would if we had nega tive movement, or in other worda using dark energy to theoreticly create something that is negative ly heated

What? This makes no sense to me. Please explain this gibberish.

"Fascinating, Captain: sensors indicate negative intelligence!"

Seriously though, frumpydolphin is a new member who does take the trouble to go away and read things. I think Descartes' translation of this is probably right. By pointing out that "anti-motion" would be required, he has put his finger on the problem with the concept.

So dark energy is the opposite of regular energy right? If so it should have opposite affects aswell.
And by the way I just said its an idea only theory until we can test it so please dont say anything about it being stupid.

Originally Posted by frumpydolphin

So dark energy is the opposite of regular energy right?

Nope. That's not right. (For one thing, "regular energy" is a pretty broad spectrum of things.)

Originally Posted by frumpydolphin

its an idea only theory until we can test it so please dont say anything about it being stupid.

It's an 'idea' that you have -- that part is true. It doesn't qualify as a hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is not a theory until all steps of the scientific method have been passed. And I have no idea what sort of testing that 'we' are going to do ????

You should do some reading: Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by frumpydolphin

So dark energy is the opposite of regular energy right? If so it should have opposite affects aswell.
And by the way I just said its an idea only theory until we can test it so please dont say anything about it being stupid.

Frumpydolphin, I'm afraid it is logically possible to write off certain ideas as stupid before going to the bother of testing them. And a good job too, or we would never get anything useful done. But in your case I think there is a simple misunderstanding. Dark energy does not mean "anti-energy". You may be thinking of matter versus "anti-matter". But "dark matter" and "dark energy" are not anti-forms of anything. They are just forms we cannot detect, hence "dark", but which cosmologists think may nevertheless be there, due to some features of the cosmos that we can observe. More about it here: Dark energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to anti-movement, surely would mean stationary, wouldn't it? What else could it mean?

That is what I needes to know dark energy is not anti energy.

Anti-energy?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Anti-energy?

I think he means negative energy lol

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Anti-energy?

Energy that has opposite effects of regular energy is what I meant, kind of like how in sci-fi movies anti-matter is highly explosive(opposite of most regular matter)

Again though, "energy" is too broad a term for "anti-energy" to make much sense. Negative energy is something more specific (and AFAIK, doesn't have anything to do with dark energy).

Originally Posted by frumpydolphin

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Anti-energy?

Energy that has opposite effects of regular energy is what I meant, kind of like how in sci-fi movies anti-matter is highly explosive(opposite of most regular matter)

The concept of 0 be it in temperature or the concept of darkness would be voided from any type of energy. Dark energy is making an effect that astronomers can measure, the effects show the signs of making a measurable effect on galaxies. Knowing that this dark energy can move entire galaxies, and how it is effecting them, if it had a negative effect it would surely be pulling the universe together. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Again though, "energy" is too broad a term for "anti-energy" to make much sense. Negative energy is something more specific (and AFAIK, doesn't have anything to do with dark energy).

However, dark energy does have negative pressure.

Originally Posted by GoldenRatio

Naturally occuring in the coldest depths of the universe is around 2-3 kelvin.

I have a great t-shirt. Deep Space weather forcast:

Originally Posted by Raziell

Is there any explanation as to why absolute zero is capped at -273 degrees while heat can go waaay much higher on the cold/heat scale? Or does it really just go "Thats just how it is"?

Is the absolute zero simply the lowest that can be scientifically proven at the moment? Is there any evidence that it could go even colder?

I just always found it curious that cold has such a limitation and heat doesent. Logically one could assume the cold scale could go as far as the heat scale, due to some sort of equilibrium? I dunno...

I believe it is possible to 'go lower' - Absolute nothing. i.e a 100% perfect vacuum, not even any quantum foam, but then as nothing at all exists in this state, it cannot be measured or observed and therefore has no temperature at all.

Originally Posted by leohopkins

I believe it is possible to 'go lower' - Absolute nothing. i.e a 100% perfect vacuum, not even any quantum foam, but then as nothing at all exists in this state, it cannot be measured or observed and therefore has no temperature at all.

I do not understand your post. If temperature is a measure of molecular motion,
then how is it possible that nothingness goes lower than 0 K if there is an absence of molecular motion and it therefore has no temperature?