New Solution to 120-Year-Old ‘Absolute Zero’ Problem Shows Einstein was Wrong

The Debrief ^ | June 18, 2025 | Christopher Plain

[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.”

[Jolla]

pick either

[Jolla]

That question makes no sense

there are a couple of answers that indicate they understood the question

[stremba]

That is not necessarily true. Energy is a property of all fields. In QM (more specifically quantum field theory) the electron is seen as an excitation of an underlying field. This field does have a zero point energy so there is energy even at absolute zero. In fact absolute zero means absence of energy from thermal motion - that is the random motion of small-scale particles. It does not imply zero energy, just zero thermal energy. It would be difficult to produce a situation where a system at absolute zero had actually zero energy. It makes no real sense to speak of temperature for massless particles (this is not strictly true, but such particles will always have a definable energy that would still exist at zero temperature). For massive particles you would always have gravitational potential energy — all massive bodies attract each other. You also would have rest energy (the very name tells you that energy does not require motion). This is more commonly known (outside of relativity) as mass, a form of energy as given by Einstein’s most well-known equation E=mc^2.

[stremba]

As an Wnglish sentence, of course it makes sense and is understandable. As an actual question about physics and physical systems it has no sensible answer. Better? It is like asking what you see when you go to the North Pole and look northward. There is no sensible answer because the concept of “northward” has no meaning at the North Pole. Similarly at absolute zero the concept of “colder” has no physical meaning.

[stremba]

Electrons don’t actually orbit the nucleus. That is a classical model and a simplistic description based on classical physics. It is in fact impossible as a description, even in classical physics since electronically charged particles traveling in orbits would lose energy via electromagnetic radiation and spiral into the nucleus. This in fact was one of the main drivers toward quantum mechanics (along with the inability of classical physics to describe black body radiation and the photoelectric effect).

In quantum mechanics we lose the idea of a particle following an orbit. We simply cannot see such a thing at small scales. The electron is actually a de localized standing wave when bound in an atom. The energy of this wave has nothing to do with temperature. It can only take on discrete values (although thermal agitation can excite the electron to a higher energy state). Even at absolute zero the electron is in its ground state and has a certain energy that is independent of the thermal energy of the system

[MortMan]

You certainly know much more in this arena than I do. Thanks for the constructive information, FRiend.