Absolute zero

Discussion in 'Chemistry' started by Beaconator, May 27, 2021.

  1. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,224
    Before you join in on this one you might want to research all posters!?!?!

    “caution” there could be songs made from this.

    why is liquid nitrogen the closest we can get to absolute zero and not a heavier gas, the first element, or the last one?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,067
    What has your own research revealed so far?
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,818
    It isn't.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,133
    ???
    I think you've misspelled "helium" there.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Liquid nitrogen is c.77K
    Liquid helium is c.4.2K

    But even that is not the closest we can get - although it is the coldest liquid gas, I believe.

    The closest we have gotten is to around 500 pico-Kelvin, I believe, in 2002 (sometime around there).
    That's 500 x 10^-10 K.
    Pretty darn close to absolute zero, I think you'll agree.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,067
    True, although I don't think that's with just liquid gasses. They use laser cooling gizomology nowadays.
     
  9. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,224
    Good to know
     
  10. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,224
    That I was wrong and the order of elements has no relation to absolute zero.

    but on the bright side it’s rubidium they used in laser cooling
     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,133
    Yeah, definitely not with just liquid gasses. Lasers, blasters, wish-fulfilment devices, thermal detonators, and luck... that's what gets you there.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I think the first Bose-Einstein condensate was achieved in mid-1990s, and since then it's been a literal race to the bottom (of the temperature scale).
     
    river likes this.
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,818
    With gases, yes. But doesn't superfluid helium 4 involve a Bose-Einstein condensate? That's been around for ages.
     
    river and Sarkus like this.
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,133
    That was a partial condensate, so yeah, I guess it counts. The first pure one, though, was in the news mid-90s, iirc.
     
    river and exchemist like this.
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,818
    Yes that fits with my understanding, certainly.
     
    river and Sarkus like this.
  15. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,224
    I’m condensing just thinking about this
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,859
    Can one use the phrase: Absolute zero is the complete absence of heat-producing energy?
     
  17. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    216
    Depends if one wants to sound like a walking embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect or not.
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,859
    Questions are an example of misplaced confidence?

    Why don't you try to answer the question before you assume a superior intellectual position.
     
  19. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    216
    The answer to your question is obviously yes you can say whatever you like. However the sentence you asked about betrays misunderstandings of basic physics terms and if you were to use it then it would be clear that you didn't know the meanings of the words you were using. Hence my previous answer.
    No but using the statement you asked about would demonstrate misplaced confidence quite well.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,859
    Just the "Yes" would have been sufficient. A "yes" followed by ad hominem is merely annoying and not conducive to constructive dialogue.
     
  21. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    216
    But the "yes" is obvious. There are no legal or physical laws anywhere requiring all speech to be exactly consistent with physical law.
    You asked for opinions on whether you could use a phrase and I simply pointed out a consequence that if you did use it then people would draw certain conclusions about the contrast between your apparent knowledge of physics and your apparent confidence in making declarative statements about physics. I am not obligating you to use the phrase nor am I assuming that you would choose to use it so it cannot be an attack on you.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,859
    How interesting.
    Yet you saw fit to state your opinion of my level of understanding science.
    That sounds very much like an attack on me. Don't make it worse, trying to justify it.
     
  23. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    216
    No I did not. I stated my opinion of what using that sentence would imply about the user. But you have not used that sentence only asked if it could be used (to which the answer is obviously yes and also obviously listeners would be able to draw conclusions about the user and perhaps less obviously the user would probably not like those conclusions).
    I think you are not parsing your own sentences carefully so are reading things into my responses that are not there. Only if you are claiming the phrase in #13 as something you would say can there be any implication about you and you have not made such a claim.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2021

Share This Page