Thread: 0K

Have they managed to get any substance down to 0 degrees Kelvin? Or is this not possible?

I remember reading something many years ago that said it was impossible to take 100% of the energy out of matter.

0K is not possible.
One reason is that if it were possible all of science will break down as we know it.

example (gas law):
PV=nRT
R = (PV)/(nT)

"T" is temperature measured in Kelvin. If temperature was 0K then it would make no sense.

That was just one of many reasons why its impossible. Personally thats my favorite reason.

The boring reason is that temperature is the measure of average kinetic energy and its impossible for it to be zero (i.e. nothing is moving).

Scientists have gotten below 0.1 degree Kelvin thats for sure. But 0 is still impossible.

I happened to read this the other day.

The Coldest Place in the Universe

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc.../12359501.html

Although I gave a decent scientific proof for why zero kelvin is impossible, I still believe that a non-physical entity may be less than zero degree kelvin. Yes I said it; go scream your head off.

I have a theory that I'm too scared to explain to this forums because it sounds very stupid and I haven't researched enough on it yet to fully develop it. But one outcome of that theory is that it is possible for a non-physical entity to have a temperature of negative degree Kelvin (don't deny this statement, I know its scientific fact that its impossible but please if you must bash me, just ignore this post).

Very interesting article.

Personally to get 0 Kelvin would mean you'd have to stop time. Which is a bit hard me thinks. Thats a point, does any relative time dilation occur at such temperatures?

EDIT: Would negative Kelvins mean backward motion in time?

Originally Posted by Bunbury

I happened to read this the other day.

The Coldest Place in the Universe

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc.../12359501.html

Good find Bunbury!
I'm bookmarking that article because it supports my so called "theory".

You are correct to preface your "theory" with so-called, because it is not a theory unless you have some sort of evidence for it.

Also, please explain what a non-physical entity is. As far as I can figure out it is exactly equal to nothing. So your theory is like the Seinfeld show. It's about nothing. Well Seinfeld was very good.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

You are correct to preface your "theory" with so-called, because it is not a theory unless you have some sort of evidence for it.

Also, please explain what a non-physical entity is. As far as I can figure out it is exactly equal to nothing. So your theory is like the Seinfeld show. It's about nothing. Well Seinfeld was very good.

Your absolutely correct in stating that I'm correct about stating that its a "so called theory"

I have no evidence, just support. I NEED EVIDENCE! But how...?
a non-physical entity is another way of saying "I have no clue what I'm talking about but something convinces me otherwise"

Originally Posted by DivideByZero

Originally Posted by Bunbury

You are correct to preface your "theory" with so-called, because it is not a theory unless you have some sort of evidence for it.

Also, please explain what a non-physical entity is. As far as I can figure out it is exactly equal to nothing. So your theory is like the Seinfeld show. It's about nothing. Well Seinfeld was very good.

Your absolutely correct in stating that I'm correct about stating that its a "so called theory"

I have no evidence, just support. I NEED EVIDENCE! But how...?
a non-physical entity is another way of saying "I have no clue what I'm talking about but something convinces me otherwise"

Have you got the theory in a form that is understandable? Can we see it? I'm always keen on learning other peoples new ideas and thoughts.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Originally Posted by DivideByZero

Originally Posted by Bunbury

You are correct to preface your "theory" with so-called, because it is not a theory unless you have some sort of evidence for it.

Also, please explain what a non-physical entity is. As far as I can figure out it is exactly equal to nothing. So your theory is like the Seinfeld show. It's about nothing. Well Seinfeld was very good.

Your absolutely correct in stating that I'm correct about stating that its a "so called theory"

I have no evidence, just support. I NEED EVIDENCE! But how...?
a non-physical entity is another way of saying "I have no clue what I'm talking about but something convinces me otherwise"

Have you got the theory in a form that is understandable? Can we see it? I'm always keen on learning other peoples new ideas and thoughts.

The theory is very simple but very premature. If I just tell you the "theory" you may straight away deny it (naturally). I want to wait until I can actually find some direct evidence (which is hard to do).

Originally Posted by svwillmer

EDIT: Would negative Kelvins mean backward motion in time?

The whole point of the Kelvin scale is that zero is the absolute lowest it can go, unlike with Fahrenheit or Celsius. There simply is no such thing as a negative number on the Kelvin temperature scale.

Originally Posted by Chemboy

Originally Posted by svwillmer

EDIT: Would negative Kelvins mean backward motion in time?

The whole point of the Kelvin scale is that zero is the absolute lowest it can go, unlike with Fahrenheit or Celsius. There simply is no such thing as a negative number on the Kelvin temperature scale.

So its like setting negative infinity as 0
and (negative infinity + 1) as 1
(negative infinity + 2) as 2
etc...
?

That is a cool article, but I have to say that I hate it when people use Farenheit, pounds, inches, yards, gallons, etc. I have another nice site where summaries of cutting-edge physics research is kept, http://www.aip.org/pnu/archives.html. I am interested in seeing your theory, DivideByZero!

Originally Posted by DivideByZero

So its like setting negative infinity as 0
and (negative infinity + 1) as 1
(negative infinity + 2) as 2
etc...
?

No, it's like how something can't have negative length.

If there is time in the opposite direction, thats only when I believe such circumstances would be allowed.

v = d/t aka v = 100m/2sec = 50m/sec

t = d/v aka t = 100m/2m/sec = 50sec

If t is a minus number:

v = 100m/-2sec = -50m/sec

This may not work at all, in standard universal expressions and cirumstances but would somewhere else out of normal universal circumstances.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

That is a cool article, but I have to say that I hate it when people use Farenheit, pounds, inches, yards, gallons, etc. I have another nice site where summaries of cutting-edge physics research is kept, http://www.aip.org/pnu/archives.html. I am interested in seeing your theory, DivideByZero!

I'm with you. Why the old, frankly rubbish, Imperial measures? It takes away most of the pleasure from reading that article. Tut. And another tut.

Because 12 is a more convenient base than 10.

SI, “Customary US” and MKH units are all in everyday use in US engineering. I’m a bit surprised that the scientific community still uses Customary US units (Fahrenheit, feet, lbs etc.). Perhaps they don’t, and Smithsonian Magazine converted for the convenience of its general readership.

Happily most of our engineering software includes a toggle that instantly converts among three units systems, and can also be customized to any conceivable hybrid system.

It takes away most of the pleasure from reading that article. Tut. And another tut.

Come on, Shanks, that's a bit peevish innit?

Nice answers guys. I think that article is for the general reader, someone that might not know what the Kelvin scale is.

A question was raised in the Q & A following the Smithsonian article, about the definition of temperature. In the article temperature was defined as a measure of the motion of atoms, absolute zero being when all motion would stop. In interstellar space however, the microwave background apparently defines temperature. Are there enough atoms in interstellar space for the conventional definition to hold?

Originally Posted by Bunbury

It takes away most of the pleasure from reading that article. Tut. And another tut.

Come on, Shanks, that's a bit peevish innit?

I'm a grumpy old bugger sometimes but it drives me crazy - the USian habit of taking out-dated, out-moded, incommensurable measures and blandly using them as though they're the world standard. Certainly a respected institution like the Smithsonian would have been better advised to respect its readers' intelligence and knowledge to provide SI (or at least standard metric units) with old-fashioned stuff in conversion, in brackets, the way, say, wiki does it. That's my feeling, anyway (I can't think of temperatures in fahrenheit in any case, the scale is wrong) and now I'm going off into sulky swamp to resume my normal guise as an ogre... mumble mutter.

Is that a pint of London Pride you're mumbling into, or a litre?

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Is that a pint of London Pride you're mumbling into, or a litre?

I really wish they'd sell the stuff by the litre - those pint glasses (568ml) are just too small.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I hate it when people use Farenheit, pounds, inches, yards, gallons, etc.

We did try to swich, a while ago. Imagine swiching every road sign and map in America from miles to kilometers. That's just the begining part. We are taught the metric scale in high school though. :wink:

Originally Posted by Shaderwolf

We did try to swich, a while ago. Imagine swiching every road sign and map in America from miles to kilometers. That's just the begining part. We are taught the metric scale in high school though. :wink:

They did that in Ireland about 2 1/2 years ago. Swapped out all the road signs from MPH to KPH. I still can't help thinking in MPH though. True, it's what you grow up with that you stick with but I agree that if someone is going to write a scientific artilce, dealing with measurements, they should use scientific scales. Using feet, inches, fahrenheit etc. is basically calling everyone that reads it a moron.

How does using infrared light cool the matter down?

Its amazing, how they trapped light....I always knew it was possible dammit!
Everybody doubted me when I told them that.....shows them!!!! I HATE idiots.

Is the light completely trapped, or is it letting off small amounts of itself, allowing you to see it? That would look pretty cool.

Just thought of something, is there such thing as a perfect white? Never mind, I'll make a separate thread for this.