Absolute rest - What does it mean?

I would suggest that the notion of the universe being an open system is highly debatable given the basic laws of thermodynamics etc... i.e. conservation of energy laws would require a absolutely closed system. IMO

Also notions of entropy must necessitate a closed system as well.

[why over unity devices are not possible with out creating under unity first.]

However that doesn't preclude the universe being infinitely finite in dimension. Another thread prehaps.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Absolute zero and absolute rest are NOT related. Absolute zero being absolute rest would need firstly there to be an inertial frame which is special, ie absolute rest would have to exist, irrespective of BECs, and secondly that the BEC would allow for its component atoms to stop at its critical temperature.

Absolute rest does not exist according to relativity and no experiment has justified that it does. And even when a substances goes past the critical BEC temperature (which not all substances have so you can cool them and they don't become BECs) it doesn't mean the particles stop, it means the majority fall into the lowest quantum energy state. Anyone whose done quantum mechanics will know this doesn't mean they stop, for two reasons. Firstly the Uncertainty Principle prevents it and secondly the non-zero ground state energy means they still move. Unlike classical mechanics, in quantum mechanics you can take out ALL the energy you can and there'll still be energy in the system, inextractable energy.

So QQ, I haven't redefined anything, I've just clarified something you didn't understand in the first place.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The least I can do is thank you for the attempt....
It is interesting to me that you do not see the relationship between absolute zero temperature and absolute non-motion [rest]
The basic premise is that if there is movement there must be heat and vica versa....if I am wrong show how movement can exist with out generating heat even in miniscule quantiies.The ground state of inextracable energy must have some heat to it...

Thus IMO absolute rest and absolute zero temperature are directly related. [ when using the term absolute in a literal sense [ absolutely]] and of course this is only a logical ratio-nal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, look for example at a fermion gas. At zero temperature, all the low energy levels are filled. Since these are fermions, there are no two fermions at the same level. If you have a lot of fermions (for example the electrons in a conductor), the total energy may be quite high, even though the temperature is zero. You cannot take any thermal energy (i.e. you cannot take heat) from this system since there is no lower state for this system to go.

 

Except that absolute zero doesn't mean the particles stop, even if absolute rest existed. They are both, in a classical pre-relativistic view point, to do with minimal motion but when you factor in relativity you destroy absolute rest and when you factor in quantum mechanics you destroy even relative rest on the atomic level.

Classically. At absolute zero temperature there is still movement.

This is another catch 22. To explicitly demonstrate, from basic postulates, that the ground energy of harmonic oscillators is non-zero takes several pages of algebra and requires a familiarity with such things as non-commuting operators and bra-ket notion, which you do not possess. I've already seen many times in the "Does light move?" thread in pseudo that if you can't understand something you won't accept it is true. It's in standard textbooks that the energy states of harmonic oscillators are \(E_{n} = \hbar\left(n + \frac{1}{2}\right)\). n=0 gives the ground state, but \(E_{0} \not= 0\) unless \(\hbar=0\), which is the classical limit.

You are using your intuition and assuming the highly quantum mechanical systems behave classically. They don't. Or they wouldn't be quantum mechanical.

You seem to have missed the fact both my link and your MIT quote says nothing about BECs. You claimed BECs were the coldest, yet both of our links talk about records in coldest substances yet they aren't BECs. BECs can be as 'hot' as 14K, which is a long way from absolute zero. A BEC is not defined by its temperature but by the quantum states of its constituents.

How is that relevant? I've been in the 'dungeons' of the Cambridge maths department. For 4 years, As a student there. All you've done is visit MIT. I've visited Washington DC, doesn't make me president. I went to the college Isaac Newton went to, doesn't make me a world beating mathematician.

Says the guy who thinks that because he's been on the grounds of MIT he's somehow more knowledgeable?

So you tell others to read up on Bose-Einstein condensates but you think that Bose-Einstein statistics (which govern the structure of particle states in bosonic systems, like BECs) is just 'for making fun of Planck'?

My claim was that BECs are not the coldest or lowest energy things in the universe. The coldest thing ever made by Man was not a BEC and 'high temperature' BECs of 14K are known. Therefore BECs are not the coldest things. They are defined such that the majority of their constituent particles are in the same state, specifically the ground state, but this is not the same as 'coldest' or 'stillest'. The date of my evidence doesn't matter, simply the fact you can get things colder than BECs which aren't BECs.

Irrelvant. I said "Acceleration isn't relative, velocity is" and you said I'm 'funny' and laughed at me. Now you have done a U turn.

Let me guess, it's not published anywhere? And I've worked with plenty of people, both in my department and elsewhere in the world. And unlike you, I've got evidence to prove it.

Your own MIT reference doesn't mention BECs. Are you struggling to grasp that?

 

This reminds me of a discussion I had a while ago about the use of infinitesimals to deal with the problems of infinite reduction to zero.

The problem is I am used to dealing with a concept that is foreign to physics so it seems and that is something it believes can not possibly exist and that thing is absolute zero in an absolute sense. What I see is the use of this term in ways that imply substance and not zero or nothingness.

To me and obviously not compatable with conventional thought, zero is zero with out condition. I guess you are using the term absolute zero when to me maybe absolute infintesimal temperature or motion would be more appropriate. [ accommodating substance where as absolute zero is "beyond" the infinitesimal.


So I would assume that absolute zero according to physics is the coldest any thing of "substance" can get to, which to be honest would be fair enough but the term absolute zero would have to be qualified to imply substance to me other wise I see an issue as the only true absolute zero involves zero dimensionals. [ non-substance ]

Just trying to explain why I have been having so many issues with terminology.

My mistake and I apologise if I have confused...

 

fair comment...thanks

according to things of substance I guess and fair enough....
If you had a void of space with out any mass in it how absolute zero temp. do you think it would be compared to the absoloute zero in a universe with mass in it? [ just curious] same applies to absolute non motion...how still is a void with out mass in it? pretty damn still I bet....

excellent post and yep I am a stubborn fool sometimes just like someone else I know who posts to this thread eh?
but fair enough all the same....quite reasonable I might add.

 

First of all, I didn't used the term absolute zero.
Second, what I described here was zero temperature, which is not infinitesimal. It is just zero.
In classical physics (at high temperatures), the temperature is aproportional to the average kinetic energy. However this is not true when you go to low temperatures. At zero temperature, the system is at its lowest energy, this does not mean that this energy is zero.

 

I understand ...thanks for showing me the differing approach I have been unknowingly been using.

 

Simply being in magnetic traps and being at 1 nK doesn't mean something is in a BEC state. Both the links you and I have provided demonstrate that.

And what makes you claim to have a grasp of BECs? You complain I don't have any due to a lack of experiment experience with them, do you have such experience? You don't have the mathematical knowledge to describe them and you haven't done any of the mathematical physics (ie theory) which relates to them, so if you don't have the experimental experience you have nothing other than the ability to read wikipedia and search ArXiv.

 

MOD NOTE:

Temporarily locking this thread to make another "Bishadi gets set straight" thread where you two guys can hash it out.

 

Thread purged.

 

absolute rest means complete absence of any form of energy absolutely

 

You're a member of the custodial staff there?

 

again , absolute rest means complete absence of any form of energy absolutely

there are no if , what ifs or buts , really

 

Except at absolute zero there's still motion and even if there werent that wouldn't mean an object has 'absolutely no energy', it would just mean it's stationary in a particular inertial frame. The point of absolute rest is there's some inertial frame which is special, which can be distinguished from all others. Your statement doesn't give that.

 

but Alpha if we are now talking about stationary in a particluar inertial frame doesn't that mean relative rest and not absolute rest?

 

Yes, except I was replying to someone's statements about absolute rest.

 

Here's an interesting hypothesis which by all means you can theorise about or argue over (I don't have any definitive proof of it, so take it as you will).

If you were to accelerate a body faster than the speed of light and faster than any body being capable of being relative to it. The accelerated body would cease to exist in this universe, while the universe would cease to exist to it. Now the absence of the universe and all it's moving parts would mean there is no way for this body to continue to accelerate and no way for it to slow down, since there is nothing providing any friction. (In essence it's created a new universe with only itself as the matter to it).

With the absence of anything relative to the body, it could be suggested that even though it originally had been travelling distance at speed, it would now be at "Absolute Rest" since there is nothing else in it's universe other than itself and it would no longer appear to be moving.

 

Physics wise you can't do such an acceleration and grammatically I have no idea what 'and faster than any body being capable of being relative to it' means.