Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
To: MtnClimber; SunkenCiv; rktman; mowowie; SuperLuminal; Cottonbay; telescope115; laplata; ...
Absolute Ping!...................
2 posted on
06/18/2025 12:46:57 PM PDT by
Red Badger
(Homeless veterans camp in the streets while illegals are put up in 5 Star hotels....................)
To: Red Badger
To: Red Badger
One of my favs:
If it is zero degrees and it gets twice as cold, how cold is it?
PS
I don’t know.
4 posted on
06/18/2025 12:54:29 PM PDT by
Jolla
To: Red Badger
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.” This sounds like when I was working on my BS in CS, while Hollywood was making Star Trek The Next Generation. US CS students would argue about time travel paradoxes as though it was actually possible to travel in time and worth arguing about what would happen. LOL
5 posted on
06/18/2025 12:55:55 PM PDT by
Tell It Right
(1 Thessalonians 5:21 -- Put everything to the test, hold fast to that which is true.)
To: Red Badger
Trust the science!
Until its proven wrong.
Hence the problem of inductive reasoning.....
6 posted on
06/18/2025 12:56:33 PM PDT by
PGR88
To: Red Badger
If I’m proven wrong on something 120 years from now, I’m okay with that.
To: Red Badger
From what I read, it sounds like nothing has been proven or disproven, and the theories are now just in competition with each other. However, Einstein's theory apparently still prevails for now, until the machine can be built. 😋👍
But can someone explain what the application would be? 🤣
To: Red Badger
A crock of crap!
Einstein, given science at the time, was not “wrong”...
He just had a different opinion...
Everybody loves to claim Einstein was “wrong” about something...
He made many statements in the early 1900s that he later changed his mind on when new scientific techniques were developed...
He often recanted based on new info appearing...
12 posted on
06/18/2025 1:10:48 PM PDT by
SuperLuminal
(Where is rabble-rising Sam Adams now that we need him? Is his name Trump, now?)
To: Red Badger
I'm an engineer, not a physicist or chemist and thus my understanding of this stuff is pretty rough. But I tend to imagine "heat" as being the kinetic energy of individual atoms, either zipping around in space or vibrating as it is held in place by any atomic/chemical bonds. And so absolutely zero would be a state of zero motion by the various atoms involved, with them locking into a motionless lattice or other framework as a solid material. But to interact with such absolute zero particles would mean moving other atoms into proximity with them, which inherently means the presence of heat (in the kinetic motion of atoms) according to my understanding.
There are probably some defects/shortcomings/caveats in my way of looking at it, but I can understand the point of the article in my way of looking at it.
To: Red Badger
When I think about thermodynamics and absolute zero...

18 posted on
06/18/2025 1:33:03 PM PDT by
Magnum44
(...against all enemies, foreign and domestic... )
To: Red Badger
I’ll stick with Einstein.
To: Red Badger
Physics bump for later.....
21 posted on
06/18/2025 1:51:34 PM PDT by
indthkr
To: Red Badger
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
22 posted on
06/18/2025 1:52:02 PM PDT by
Harmless Teddy Bear
( Not my circus. Not my monkeys. But I can pick out the clowns at 100 yards.)
To: Red Badger
‘Absolute Zero’ has been proven real.

25 posted on
06/18/2025 2:27:38 PM PDT by
Sirius Lee
("Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”)
To: Red Badger
To: Red Badger
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. No work, means no engine. No such thing as an engine without it producing some form of work. It's pretty much definitional.
41 posted on
06/18/2025 3:28:32 PM PDT by
ShadowAce
(Linux - The Ultimate Windows Service Pack )
To: Red Badger
If you are in a car...traveling at the speed of light, and you turn on your headlights, what will you see?
42 posted on
06/18/2025 3:28:45 PM PDT by
Herodes
To: Red Badger
did not constitute a real violation of the second law of thermodynamics.I'm sure there's a liberal judge out there what will rule that law unconstitutional.
To: Red Badger
54 posted on
06/18/2025 3:57:55 PM PDT by
SunkenCiv
(Putin should skip ahead to where he kills himself in the bunker.)
To: Red Badger
And you get perfect electrical transmission at 0 Kelvin.
69 posted on
06/18/2025 7:27:30 PM PDT by
mfish13
(Elections have Consequences.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson