Posted on 06/18/2025 12:46:24 PM PDT by Red Badger
University of Seville professor José María Martín-Olalla has published a new solution to a 120-year-old problem regarding matter states at absolute zero that disproves a previous solution offered by famed scientist Albert Einstein.
The controversy originally arose in 1905 when Walther Nernst proposed a new approach to the properties of matter as entropy causes them to approach absolute zero (minus 273 degrees Celsius). Dubbed Nerst’s theorem, the concept argued that absolute zero must be inaccessible, or one could theoretically construct an engine that uses absolute zero as a coolant to convert all heat energy into work. This idea goes directly against the accepted thermodynamic idea of entropy increase.
After Nerst proposed his conceptual engine, Einstein responded, noting that the theoretical engine could not be built and therefore did not constitute a real violation of the second law of thermodynamics. By offering this rebuttal, Olalla says Einstein essentially “detached” Nerst from the second law altogether.
In a statement announcing his new approach, Olalla points to a fundamental flaw with the entire discussion. Specifically, he states that a core problem with thermodynamics is that people tend to think of temperature in terms of a “sensation” of hot or cold and not “the abstract concept of temperature as a physical quantity.”
“In the discussion between Nernst and Einstein, temperature was merely an empirical parameter: the absolute zero condition was represented by the condition that the pressure or volume of a gas became close to zero,” Olalla explained.
Instead, Olalla notes that the second law of thermodynamics offers scientists a “more concrete idea of the natural zero temperature.”
“The idea is not related to any sensation, but to that engine imagined by Nernst, but which has to be virtual,” the professor explains. “This radically changes the approach to the proof of the theorem”.
With this in mind, Olalla’s new Proof of the Nerst Theorem, published in the European Physical Journal Plus, highlights the two “nuances” left out by both Nerst and Einstein, which he says support the former and prove the latter wrong.
First, he says that the “formalism” of thermodynamics essentially requires the existence of Nerst’s theoretical engine. However, the described machine must also be virtual, does not consume any heat, does not produce any work, and does not question the second principle. Olalla says the “concatenation” of these two nuances “allows us to conclude that entropy exchanges tend to zero when the temperature tends to zero (which is Nernst’s theorem) and that absolute zero is inaccessible.”
Because the newly proposed solution, which says Nerst was correct and Einstein was wrong, employs an unconventional approach, it is still not generally accepted. Fortunately, Olalla says that publishing this article laying out his own solution is a “first step” toward his concept gaining wider support.
“The students on the thermodynamics course I teach were the first to learn about this demonstration. I hope that with this publication the demonstration will become better known, but I know that the academic world has a great deal of inertia.”
Physics bump for later.....
Heat is work, and work’s a curse
And all the heat in the universe
Is gonna cool down
‘Cause it can’t increase
Then there’ll be no more work
And there’ll be perfect peace
Really?
Yeah, that’s entropy man
-Flanders & Swann
I am with you on that one. I have never believed it would be possible to travel in time because I believe time is an artificial human construct.
When we die I am lead to believe there is no time in Heaven. If true then for most of the eternal existence of our soul there is no time. :-)
A joke.
We can say that in 2025:
1. Manmade CO2 Glowbull warming = "Settled Science"
2. Please get vaxxxxxxinated, vaxxxxxxinate ALL of the children to save granny
3. "BIG BANG THEORY" = JWST keeps finding well developed galaxies from just after the calculated TIME=0 of the BIG BANG. How could these have formed so fast? (HINT: IT's called a theory because it has NOT been proven to be true but every one of these "geniuses" act like it has been!)
ETC. ETC. ETC.
As unbelievable as it might sound, time-travel is an established fact in physics. It is based on Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity, and has been verified experimentally.
Ah, but there are two snags. One, to be easily noticed the object must be moving close to the speed of light relative to you. Doable for atoms. But for humans that would take enormous amounts of energy.
And two, it’s a one-way trip. You can travel into the future. You cannot travel back to the past. So none of that killing baby Hitler stuff.
If it was 0 degrees F in your backyard last Winter, twice as cold would be -32.001 F.
Zero F = -17.778 Celsius
-17.778C x2 = -35.556C
-35.556C =-32.001 °F
There’s an inherent paradox in the equation. The orbit of electrons depends on their movement. If there is no movement, there is nothing preventing an electron from collapsing into the positively charged nucleus.
At ansolute zero, the basic charges of the individual atomic elements would cause collapse into an inert blob. Without directed energy (i.e.: Not simple added heat to the environment), I would think that the atom could not resume its shape or prior action once absolute zero had been attained.
I’m an engineer, not a theoretical physicist. But to me, anything that requires velocity to maintain its orbit would collapse if all motion stopped.
> So, at absolute zero, are electrons stationary in their nucleus orbiting? <
Hmm. Interesting question. I’m not sure, but will hazard an opinion. Electrons really don’t orbit the nucleus as planets orbit the Sun (as was once thought).
That model is a good approximation though. And that’s why we use it today. But electrons really “occupy” a standing wave around the nucleus. I would suppose that wave would still exist at absolute zero.
Explaining how it would differ (if at all) is a bit beyond my pay grade.
🙂
> Does that apply to photons or gravity or time … <
If that were a Jeopardy question, I would not buzz in as I am not sure of the answer.
But if it were Final Jeopardy and I had to write something, I’d say the concept of motion does not apply because none of those objects have a rest mass.
Just a guess.
Humans could not withstand the forces required for a change of any significance. Esoteric exercise.
For polyatomic molecules, the laws of quantum mechanics (specifically the uncertainty principle) says you cannot simultaneously know both the position and momentum with arbitrary position; hence, molecules continue to vibrate (hence the name "zero point energy").
Nice pun, Sunken.
That could be overcome by accelerating over a very long period of time. But one weird result of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is that as an object’s speed increases, so does its mass (“weight”).
So as a human’s speed approaches the speed of light, his mass would become so great that there would not be enough energy in the universe to make him move even faster.
For the really curious:
:^)
No the electrons and the atomic structure [assuming it is a solid state] are in their ground state energy-meaning that nuclei are vibrating with the zero point energy required by the uncertainty principle.
Here is the paper under discussion: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-025-06503-w
I had that debate in 1545 before I left to 1959.
Stop it! 😂
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
