Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Jan 20, 2017.
Is that another way of saying that no system is isolated?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
No. It is just that to get all the heat out of something you have to provide a reservoir at lower temperature, into which it can flow. And since by definition you can't have a reservoir < 0K, you can't get a system down to 0K.
Agreed. I haven't checked the details but a statistical mechanics treatment will probably show that a sufficiently microscopic object at very low temp may very occasionally achieve zero temp, but only fleetingly and randomly at that. The probability of that happening in a macroscopic object will of course be vanishingly small. Like the proverbial case of all the air molecules in a room suddenly cramming into one corner.
Well I am quite sure that individual atoms or molecules do spend some time in their full ground states, that is to say the ground states of all their degrees of freedom of motion, though with translational motion the levels are very close together so it may be a stretch.
However temperature is a bulk property of a statistical ensemble and has no meaning for an individual atom or molecule. I suppose one can speculate about very small ensembles (in a very small enclosure, to make the spacing between translational levels greater) but perhaps by the stage where you have a sufficiently small number of members of the ensemble, you find that, by the same token, the concept of temperature for the ensemble has already become ill-defined! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Heaven forbid we should introduce ill-defined concepts into this excellent thread!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I wonder how long a research team comprised of a zillion monkeys pounding away on a zillion super-computer terminal keyboards would take to figure out the odds of a sufficiently-microscopic-system-zero-T event? Fascinating thought, what?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In passing it occurs to me that when I spoke of getting all the heat out of something, I should perhaps have made explicit that that does not, of course, include the residual zero-point energy it contains. It seems to me that zero point energy does not count as heat, because it is not transmissible from one entity to another.
But heat is energy. Residual motion is the zero point field and motion is kinetic energy. They are really all the same thing going by different names.
Still smarting over your anti GR and gravitational waves threads amounting to nothing I see qreeus?
That's a shame....
Still not yielding to reason? Your #77 again:
In #80 rebutted all your above error in general, but neglected to point out specifically the red highlighted part is flat wrong for ZPE motions. And it should have been obvious just by considering the case of atoms and molecules in their ground states. Electron orbitals in such are stationary states but nevertheless there has to be continually accelerated electronic motions, yet without any EM emissions. Similarly for ZPE motions. Evidently you were and still are incapable of making the connection between that and what Stefan-Boltzmann law proclaims - at zero T there is precisely zero radiant emission from any object. Regardless of ZPE motions. Which as per exchemist's comment in #106, precludes any possible radiant exchange of heat with another body also at zero T. Because both lack any heat content. Duh.
No. I have shifted somewhat on my position regarding GR GW's (they are in principle possible), but still regard G4v as the better prospect. The thread simply petered out - and btw you never made ANY useful contribution to it. And you are back to deliberately misspelling my name. Bad form as usual.
Fact is, imo you are the one smarting. Having swallowed your pride re the rough patch between yourself and SimonsCat spanning #10-#14, you took a gamble that he was a 'somebody' who in your feeble estimation was getting the better of your enemy (me), so decided to go on a snuggling-up charm offensive from #78 on. Gamble has failed. Wear it.
I have no interest in egotistical arguments, I care only about facts and yours was lacking. You gave a wiki article without properly understanding it, which I forgave you for, but ultimately, I could see it had been a desperate attempt to find a problem with the things I was telling you, to the point, you actually convinced yourself zero point fields (in the classical sense) was achievable ie. \(T \rightarrow 0\).
and yet still after making those mistakes and then being corrected on it, you still haven't shifted your attitude as you seem to want to believe you somehow know more than me or anyone else here.
You do realize what you quoted was my reply to someone else, right?
It was definitely you, no one else.
Playing a game? Check out the quote in #111, against your #114! You appear to be quite rattled. I suggest to go on a break.
A game? You denied what you said and then I quoted what you said.
The only person playing games here appears to be you.
Good grief. You really have lost it!
Stop having yourself on qreeus.....Yep, I certainly took Simon wrong on his first few posts...Nice to see you come to your senses though on GR and gravitational waves.....
Now go cry on someone else's shoulder for Christ's sake!
On your thread "just petering out" excuse me [Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!] while correct, it simply petered out because what you were claiming so hysterically was just not evident in the proper professional mainstream circles, although obviously you will refuse to acknowledge that.
I suggest you go back to your ID idea/s and see what progess you can make there.
And while I certainly do realise that these matters re your past errors are irrelevant to this thread, it was also irrelevent and actually quite infantile to boot to draw me into your dummy spitting at.....
It is improper of you to drag in matters from another topic like that. Let alone that you have distorted the facts relating to such. But so slack and partisan is the hierarchy here at SF, I expect no action will be taken against you as usual. Which situation simply emboldens you to continue such foolish tactics. And btw, since you have lyingly claimed 'hysteria' on my part in that other thread - prove it by citing any such 'hysterical' posting of mine. But do it there in that thread, not here so as to further your thread derailing agenda.
Just in case you missed it, that's exactly what I just said, but was in reply to your usual nonsense.....
Separate names with a comma.