Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Pre Big Bang State


  • Please log in to reply
151 replies to this topic

#35 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 10:20 AM

You are very confused.

 

zero point energy is the energy that remains at 0 temperature, or absolute zero.

 

There is nothing in physics that says a Temperature of absolute zero cannot be reached.

 

 

 

This is so stupid, and I don't know how many times you go around giving people this false knowledge. Zero temperature refers to a zero Kelvin state, it is well-known and well-written about that no system actually exists at a zero temperature, instead, a correction is given into the equations because you cannot create a perfect vacuum.

 

There is no state at zero temperatures, all that exists is the ground state, known as the zero point field which contributes a true ground temperature to the vacuum.



#36 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2272 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 10:55 AM

All this stuff about oscillators misses the point that an oscillator in its ground state cannot, by definition, emit any radiation. (If it could it would need to drop to a state below its ground state.)

 

So the zero point energy of an oscillator does not contribute to black body radiation. In other words a black body at absolute zero does not radiate at all.



#37 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 10:56 AM

They are a contribution of heat, do you know Plancks law?



#38 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 10:58 AM

Let's try you on something, Plancks law is

 

[math]E = \hbar \omega \frac{1}{e^{\frac{\hbar \omega}{kT}} - 1}[/math]

 

What happens if [math]T \rightarrow 0[/math]?


Edited by Dubbelosix, 17 January 2019 - 10:58 AM.


#39 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 11:07 AM

I'll save you some pain, if [math]T[/math] goes to zero, then there can be no energy present at all. It is a general fact of the work of Planck and others, that the energy of a system is roughly proportional to its thermodynamic properties. In classical mechanics, an expectation of a vacuum state is

 

[math]<0|H|0> = 0[/math]

 

This is a ground state, no energy present and no temperature can be present, system indicating a perfect vacuum. In quantum mechanics however, this is not true and the expectation value is

 

[math]<0|H|0> \ne 0[/math]

 

This is because of vacuum fluctuation motion, and motion is the approximation to a temperature. This is why a system cannot ever reach a zero temperature state, because Plancks law was shown to require a correction term to prevent temperature going to zero

 

[math]E = \hbar \omega \frac{1}{e^{\frac{\hbar \omega}{kT}} - 1} + \frac{1}{2}\hbar \omega[/math]

 

This means the fluctuation is in fact contributing a minimal temperature to the vacuum.


Edited by Dubbelosix, 17 January 2019 - 11:08 AM.


#40 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2272 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 11:33 AM

Further misunderstanding. The radiation law predicts the radiation from matter, considered as a set of quantised oscillators. At absolute zero it predicts no radiation, which is what I have been saying.

 

However that does not mean there is no energy in the oscillators themselves (i.e. in the matter responsible for the radiation), because whatever energy they retain in the ground state does not allow them to emit radiation. 

 

Thus an object at 0K can have as much zero point energy as it likes and yet emit zero radiation, as would be expected for an object at absolute zero. 


Edited by exchemist, 17 January 2019 - 11:35 AM.


#41 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 845 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 11:33 AM

I will save you some pain and just quote these sources for you:

 

 

Quantum mechanics carries the implication that no oscillatory system can lose all its energy; there must always remain at least a “zero-point energy” amounting to hν/2 for an oscillator with natural frequency ν (h is Planck’s constant). This also seemed to be required for the electromagnetic oscillations constituting radio waves, light, X-rays, and gamma rays.

 

and

 

Zero-point energy, vibrational energy that molecules retain even at the absolute zero of temperature. Temperature in physics has been found to be a measure of the intensity of random molecular motion, and it might be expected that, as temperature is reduced to absolute zero, all motion ceases and molecules come to rest. In fact, however, the motion corresponding to zero-point energy never vanishes.

 

 

You are wrong, as usual but I do not expect you to admit it.

 

You are a waste of time to discuss any physics with.



#42 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 11:35 AM

Learn something you fool.

 

https://www.quora.co...-Why-or-why-not

 

https://chemistry.st...ro-unattainable

 

Just because a bit of bad terminology exists, will not prevent me from showing you why you are wrong.



#43 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 11:37 AM

Further misunderstanding. The radiation law predicts the radiation from matter, considered as a set of quantised oscillators. At absolute zero it predicts no radiation, which is what I have been saying.

 

However that does not mean there is no energy in the oscillators themselves (i.e. in the matter responsible for the radiation), because whatever energy they retain in the ground state does not allow them to emit radiation. 

 

Thus an object at 0K can have as much zero point energy as it likes and yet emit zero radiation, as would be expected for an object at absolute zero. 

Not entirely accurate, yes the power law describes radiation, but it also provides the lowest energy associated to the oscillator. Because temperature is approximately energy, and because that energy contains some circular motion from the term [math]\omega[/math] you will find that there has to be a lowest state of temperature, which is NOT zero like you keep claiming, I have provided two very useful discussions on this subject in my previous post you may want to look at.



#44 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2272 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 11:45 AM

I will save you some pain and just quote these sources for you:

 

 

Quantum mechanics carries the implication that no oscillatory system can lose all its energy; there must always remain at least a “zero-point energy” amounting to hν/2 for an oscillator with natural frequency ν (h is Planck’s constant). This also seemed to be required for the electromagnetic oscillations constituting radio waves, light, X-rays, and gamma rays.

 

and

 

Zero-point energy, vibrational energy that molecules retain even at the absolute zero of temperature. Temperature in physics has been found to be a measure of the intensity of random molecular motion, and it might be expected that, as temperature is reduced to absolute zero, all motion ceases and molecules come to rest. In fact, however, the motion corresponding to zero-point energy never vanishes.

 

 

You are wrong, as usual but I do not expect you to admit it.

 

You are a waste of time to discuss any physics with.

Yes this is right of course. (Especially the last line  :winknudge: )

 

I think Dubbelsox has got in a muddle between matter and radiation, actually. He's really interested in the vacuum. However defining temperature at all in the absence of matter is highly problematic. It only makes sense if one has a black body radiation distribution, i.e. a radiation distribution equivalent to matter at a certain temperature.

 

P.S. I would, however, take issue with your earlier remark that absolute zero is attainable. It is normally said not to be attainable "in a finite number of steps", due simply to the non-existence of any heat bath below absolute zero, which is what one would need to extract the very last bit of extractable heat.  


Edited by exchemist, 17 January 2019 - 11:46 AM.


#45 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 11:50 AM

Despite giving discussions which overwhelmingly prove my interpretation of physics, this is just amounting to trolling because you have no intentions discussing these things or following up any link I provide.

 

This is useless for me, so I will be ignoring you both from now on. Go stroke each others ego and keep to the wrong interpretations you live by, I really don't care any more.



#46 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 845 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 11:56 AM

Yes this is right of course. (Especially the last line  :winknudge: )

 

I think Dubbelsox has got in a muddle between matter and radiation, actually. He's really interested in the vacuum. However defining temperature at all in the absence of matter is highly problematic. It only makes sense if one has a black body radiation distribution, i.e. a radiation distribution equivalent to matter at a certain temperature.

 

P.S. I would, however, take issue with your earlier remark that absolute zero is attainable. It is normally said not to be attainable "in a finite number of steps", due simply to the non-existence of any heat bath below absolute zero, which is what one would need to extract the very last bit of extractable heat.  

 

Yes, I meant to say it is theoretically possible, but I left out the "theoretically" part, so I stand corrected on that point.



#47 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 845 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 11:58 AM

Despite giving discussions which overwhelmingly prove my interpretation of physics, this is just amounting to trolling because you have no intentions discussing these things or following up any link I provide.

 

This is useless for me, so I will be ignoring you both from now on. Go stroke each others ego and keep to the wrong interpretations you live by, I really don't care any more.

 

Anyone can post to Quora, even you, so quoting those posts does not help your case. But even some of those posters disagree with you, if you bother to read them all and not just cherry pick a few.



#48 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 01:03 PM

Physics stack is the best one, and you'll find the majority of posters are saying exactly what I have said.

 

If you knew anything about the third law of thermodynamics, no system, can be at absolute zero in any finite steps. It's a fact of physics which you and the other poster have never understood, and it's not my problem if you cannot understand basic physics.



#49 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2272 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 02:32 PM

One special characteristic of Dubbelsox is his ability to quote someone as saying the exact opposite of what he actually said.

 

For example it was I who mentioned - in post 44 - that it is not possible to get to absolute zero in a finite number of steps. And yet, by post 48, Dubbelosox is saying I will never understand that it is impossible to get to absolute zero in a finite number of steps. WTF?

 

Another example: in post 23 he claims that for a while I was asserting that absolute zero could be reached. I defy him to produce evidence of any such statement on my part, as I have never said any such thing, here or on any forum. 

 

I've experienced this pattern of behaviour before with him, in previous sockpuppet incarnations (Simon's cat, Geon etc). This is another reason why actual discussion with him is useless. The best thing to do is simply to state the correct science when he makes incorrect statements. He does not do this very often, in fact, because most of the time he is engaged in his mathematical knitting, which is very unlikely to mislead anyone. 


Edited by exchemist, 17 January 2019 - 03:02 PM.


#50 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 03:01 PM

You have an extraordinary ability yourself to act like a total *******. How about that one?

 

Go ****ing learn science, you are not up to these debates. Who apart from you two, could argue with a ****ing link supporting my claims yet call it cherry picking... which was clear and concise concerning credible arguments which have been supporting everything I have said, yet can still be so disingenuous about what he has learned, or should I say haven't?

 

You are a total waste of my time.



#51 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2272 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 03:19 PM

Anyone can post to Quora, even you, so quoting those posts does not help your case. But even some of those posters disagree with you, if you bother to read them all and not just cherry pick a few.

In fact even in the discussions Dubbelsox quotes, there are some nuggets. Someone quoted Richard Feynman:

Remember that when a crystal is cooled to absolute zero, the atoms do not stop moving, they still 'jiggle'. Why? If they stopped moving, we would know were they were and that they had they have zero motion, and that is against the Uncertainity Principle."

 

So he is stating quite plainly that zero point motion persists at absolute zero.

 

Now, who do we think is more likely to have got this right: Feynman or Dubbelsox? 


Edited by exchemist, 17 January 2019 - 03:20 PM.