Difference between revisions of "Talk:Absolute zero"
From Conservapedia
(Interesting!) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:::Actually the uncertainty principle doesn't need to be invoked. Since the Cosmic Background Radiation has an observed temperature of around 3 Kelvins any object in the currently observable universe would be at least that warm since it would be bathed in microwave radiation. Because the universe is filled with some degree of energy everywhere absolute zero is impossible. Even the best cooling system would heat a cooled object via electro-magnetic radiation to a point above 0 Kelvin. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 02:37, 12 March 2007 (EDT) | :::Actually the uncertainty principle doesn't need to be invoked. Since the Cosmic Background Radiation has an observed temperature of around 3 Kelvins any object in the currently observable universe would be at least that warm since it would be bathed in microwave radiation. Because the universe is filled with some degree of energy everywhere absolute zero is impossible. Even the best cooling system would heat a cooled object via electro-magnetic radiation to a point above 0 Kelvin. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 02:37, 12 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::::Huh, very interesting! Do you happen to have sites where this is discussed/explained? It would make a good addition to the article, but I wouldn't know where to look for it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 13:45, March 12, 2007
Why was the paragraph regarding how Absolute Zero cannot be attained removed? I believe this is a valid point in the face of the overwhelming positive media coverage of this highly theoretical concept. ATB 17:53, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- The alternative would have been a[Citation Needed] tag after pretty much each sentence. I would have done so, but pretty much each sentence had only opinions and/or otherwise unencyclopedic bits. It should also be noted that the paragraph was NOT about how it cannot be attained, but rather about how the possibly biased scientific community potentially made up stuff to cover up their lack of tangible proof of its existence. In your universe, these may be equal sentences, but I didn't think so. If you want to write about how the laws of thermodynamics or something show that it cannot be reached (but that you can get very close), be my guest and maybe dig out a source or two since that's non-trivial research. --Sid 3050 19:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- As I understand it, it's the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that limits the ability of substances to be at absolute zero. You cannot simultaneously know the position and velocity of a particle precisely. Since temperature is molectular motion, and absolute zero is a state of "no molectular motion at all," if you knew the position of a particle and that its temperature was absolute zero, you could in theory violate the Uncertainty Principle under certain circumstances. Since I'm not a physicist, though, I'll leave it to others to write the clarification in the article. --JesusSaves 23:28, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- Actually the uncertainty principle doesn't need to be invoked. Since the Cosmic Background Radiation has an observed temperature of around 3 Kelvins any object in the currently observable universe would be at least that warm since it would be bathed in microwave radiation. Because the universe is filled with some degree of energy everywhere absolute zero is impossible. Even the best cooling system would heat a cooled object via electro-magnetic radiation to a point above 0 Kelvin. --WOVcenter 02:37, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- Huh, very interesting! Do you happen to have sites where this is discussed/explained? It would make a good addition to the article, but I wouldn't know where to look for it. --Sid 3050 09:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
