User:Jpbrooke

I have some questions about absolute zero.

It seems to me that either I am misunderstanding something, or somebody has a bad definition.

In general terms, (from my understanding) Absolute Zero is the point where all atomic motion ceases. Ok, that's fine. I can buy that. However, the concept of temperature implies the measurement of the energy of both the system and the individual components of that system. Our present definition of temperature only takes into account the energy of the system! Because of this, I think the definition is a bad one, and is thus erroneus! In order to state a temperature accurately, one must also account for the energy of all the components of the system too! (at least conceptually).

Ok, some might point to the law of Charles and Gay-Lussac and say the extrapolated convergences of the gases point to a theoretical value of volume which becomes infinitely small as one approaches -273.5 C, or 0 Kelvin. Fair enough. However, I wonder if there is another interpretation of this data other than saying it is the point of absolute zero temperature?

Suppose that, instead of saying one achieved absolute zero, that you said at that point there occured a reduction in the energy of the individual components of the system such that the electrons ceased to orbit around the nucleus (very simplistic, I know). What would happen? There would be a collapse in the volume of the individual atoms, making a nuclear volume corresponding to a change of phase analogous to a gas forming a liquid (an increase of mass in a smaller volume).

Suppose you reduced the energy of the nuclear components further, such that they also cease their individual traverses and vibrations (again, very simplistic). Another change of phase would occur, again analogous to a gas changing from its gaseous phase to its liquid phase.

If one continued this process, eventually you would come to a point where the volume would be infinitely small while the mass would be infinitely large (a black hole).

I contend that the temperature of this black hole in absolute energy terms must be below -273.15 Centigrade! It has to be, because it takes into account the energy of both the system as well as the individual components of the system, whereas our present definition of temperature does not! In that our present definition of temperature does not take the energy of the individual components of system into account, it is in error, and thus flawed!

If someone can point out to me where my reasoning is wrong, I'd be happy to know it, as this whole absolute zero issue has bothered me for some time.

Basically, I'm saying the value of -273.15 Centigrade points to a change of phase on an atomic level instead of being the absolute lowest value that there is. Saying one can't measure system-component energies now doesn't mean they can't/won't ever be measured. It just means that they can't be measure NOW! Because of this, energies (at least theoretically) need to be accounted for of both the system and the components of the system to have a true value of temperature. For all practical purposes, the energies of the components don't change because there is such a quantity of energy over and above what's required to keep them motioned that they can be treated as constants in terms of energy (this is what our present temperature scale has done). However, the energies do exist, so they have to be accounted for when defining what temperature is.

The only reason I think this needs to be addressed is that there are implications of viewing temperature from this perspective. If one can artificially collapse the electron cloud (wave interference:positrons) then you establish an energy gradient. Furthermore, if one can isolate the intended atoms of the interference, eliminating the gradient (no new electrons replacing the ones anhilated) then you eliminate Van der waals repelling forces, allowing the nuclei to come together and thus fuse under cold conditions. Also, if one is able to economically anhilate specific atoms, then one could eliminate say, oxygen from water, leaving just pure Hydrogen.

Anyway, your thoughts on this are appreciated.