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.”
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
If you have not watched any of Sabine Hossenfelder’s videos on yewtewb, I highly recoomend them.
I’m in luuuuuuv ...
(I don’t always agree with her ... but then I don’t always agree with myself.)
That question makes no sense. First of all things can’t be “twice as cold” since “cold” is not a physical concept but rather the absence of molecular energy. Speaking loosely, “twice as cold” would really mean “half as hot”. Since temperature is a measure of “hotness” (or more accurately, molecular energy), if the temperature is absolute zero, you can’t get “half as hot” (half of zero is still zero). The question is analogous to saying “if you build a house at the North Pole, what would you see when you look north from your house?” The question just doesn’t make sense.
There is a lot of confusion on this. Einstein has been wrong about a lot of things. He was wrong about the universe being static. He was wrong about randomness in quantum mechanics. People confuse “Einstein was wrong” with “general relativity is wrong”. Examples like the ones I gave and like this example are examples of the former. It by no means implies that Einstein’s theories, especially relativity, are wrong.
Probably fine for 9th grade, but that form of relativity was already well
known long before Einstein. It was actually Galileo who first made an argument for simple relativity of velocities. He argued (using the fastest method of transport in his day — ships) that a person picked below deck on a smoothly traveling ship has no way of determining whether or not the ship is moving. An insect onboard would fly in all directions with equal ease and speed. A fish in a bowl would swim at the same speed in all directions within his bowl.
Galileo assumed, though, (incorrectly as it turned out) that if you go 50 mph one way and someone approaches at 50mph in the opposite way, that the relative speed of the two people would be 100 mph - that is velocities are additive. The reason it took so long to figure out that this is wrong is that for low velocities they are approximately additive with the deviation too small to detect. Only at speeds approaching light speed would there be noticeable deviations.
You are thinking classically. The classical treatment of the atom was actually one of the main driving forces that led to quantum mechanics. Not only at absolute zero would there be an issue with the classical picture of electrons orbiting the nucleus, but regardless of temperature, atoms could not exist in this model. An accelerating electrical charge produces electromagnetic radiation. To orbit the nucleus, the electron must be accelerated (accomplished by the electrical attractive force the nucleus exerts on the electron.) This radiation reduces the energy of the electron, and therefore the electron would eventually lose its velocity and fall into the nucleus.
This picture is modified by quantum mechanics. The electron bound in an atom is not orbiting the nucleus. The idea of the electron as a tiny particle with a definite position at any given time and a definite velocity is not a valid one. The electron is better treated as a delocalized standing wave rather than a particle. The standing wave under ordinary circumstances constructively interferes with itself at certain locations in the space around the nucleus. The electron always, even at absolute zero, possesses a zero point energy. The atoms and molecules as a whole lose their kinetic energy, but the zero point energy of the electron is constant and does not depend on temperature.
Keep in mind I’m just thinking out loud.
For an electron to have zero-point energy at absolute zero means that there can be energy absent movement. I’m having a difficult time assimilating that concept.
Energy is either based on movement or it is untethered to reality.
Again, just dipping my toes in! LOL
Good post on string theory—nailed it.
And you get perfect electrical transmission at 0 Kelvin.
Just a hint on how science can go wrong (in general terms).
Experiments showing X provides a satisfactory explanation for phenomenon Y—and Experiment X continues to do that under controlled conditions.
Science then concludes that X causes Y.
Why is that a problem?
Because then science stops. They conclude they have found the explanation.
But—suppose there is another unknown phenomenon (Z) that has never been a part of any experiment.
One hundred years from now somebody tries Z and it also causes Y.
Now there are two possible explanations that are both possible—but scientists accepted the first one.
Centigrade or Farenheit?
We have all seen people fight over things like:
Ginger or Maryann or which football teams are the best etc.
Imagine being in a room with Einstein and Walther Nernst when they argue....
Einstein: Maryann!
Nernst: Ginger!
BTW they used the time travel machine their buddy H. G. Wells invented to view the tv show Gilligan’s Island.
But supposedly at 0K everything collapses.......They have gotten within a few tenths of a degree of 0 but haven’t touched it yet.........
At 0K, electrons stop orbiting the nucleus..................
2 times zero is still zero.
Such an argument is no different than arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's a totally irrelevant argument. A "virtual engine" simply does not exist, regardless of the characteristics imagined for it.
Like Schrodinger’s Cat, ‘Time Travel’ is and isn’t possible.
Let’s say you actually invent a machine that can traverse time.
You get inside it and do whatever it requires for start-up, press the ‘GO’ button, and POOF! you are GONE!
At least from this ‘time’.
Where did you go?
It doesn’t matter which ‘direction’ you chose, backwards or forwards in time, nor does it matter the length of time you dialed up.
One thousand years or one second is all the same.
You will be dead.
Why?
Because we do not live in a ‘static’ Universe. Everything in our universe is in motion. From the tiniest atomic particle to the largest Black Hole, everything is moving.
The Earth you stand on is rotating at about 1000 MPH and revolving around the Sun at approximately 67,000 MPH.
The Sun and it’s entire retinue of planets, asteroids, comets and dust is revolving around the Milky Way’s central Black Hole (which will eventually subsume us all) at a leisurely pace of 140 Miles per Second.
The galaxy itself is travelling, depending on your frame of reference, thousands of miles per hour.
The speed of the Milky Way galaxy varies depending on the reference frame and the specific motion being considered. According to various sources, the Milky Way and its neighboring galaxies, such as the Andromeda galaxy, are moving at a speed of about 130 km/s relative to each other.
Additionally, the Milky Way is part of the Local Group of galaxies, which is moving at 600 km/s in the direction of the constellation Hydra.
The Milky Way itself is moving through space within the cluster of galaxies it is a member of, and this cluster in turn moves through space towards another larger cluster of galaxies off in the direction of the constellation Virgo at a speed of approximately 300 km/s.
Furthermore, the Milky Way is moving at a speed of about 550 km/s with respect to the cosmic microwave background (CMB) rest frame.
These speeds are relative to different reference points and can vary depending on the direction of motion.
To top that all off, the Universe itself is expanding............
From BRAVE AI:
The expansion of the universe is measured by the Hubble constant, which quantifies how fast space itself is expanding. Recent measurements indicate that the universe is expanding faster than previously expected. For instance, data from NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope suggests that the universe is expanding at a rate of approximately 73.4 kilometers per second per megaparsec (km/s/Mpc), while measurements of the cosmic microwave background suggest a slower rate of about 67.4 km/s/Mpc.
This discrepancy, known as the “Hubble tension,” highlights a growing mystery in cosmology.
The expansion rate is not a fixed speed but a proportional rate. For example, space expands at about 70 km/s per megaparsec, meaning that for every 3.26 million light-years of space, the distance increases by about 70 km/s.
At very large distances, this expansion can result in galaxies moving away from each other faster than the speed of light. However, this does not violate Einstein’s theory of relativity, as the expansion of space itself is not constrained by the speed of light.
The current estimate for the Hubble constant is around 73 km/s/Mpc, with some measurements suggesting it could be as high as 73.5 km/s/Mpc.
This means that the universe’s expansion is accelerating, and the distance between cosmic objects will double in about 9.8 billion years.
The exact value of the Hubble constant remains a topic of active research, as resolving this discrepancy could provide insights into the nature of dark energy and the ultimate fate of the universe.
So to conclude, even if you had a machine this very second that could traverse ‘time’ as we know it, you would suddenly find yourself in interstellar, or intergalactic, space. Temperature near absolute zero, no oxygen, food or water. If you were ‘lucky’ you would reappear inside a Black Hole or an active star and be instantly crushed into oblivion or incinerated.
So, while Time Travel may be possible, it will never be practical...................
hmmm, so if was twice as cold it would be the same temprature?
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.