At absolute zero

[Baron von Richthofen (Vaclav)]

I have a theory that at absolute zero that gravity no longer exists, the only way to get to absolute zero is if there is no radiated energy like gamma rays x rays ect ect
What do you think

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

I am anything but a physicist but I believe that in space it is absolute zero and I think that there has some gravitational effect or the planets and stars wouldn't be able to affect each other as I said I may be full of it.

[Baron von Richthofen (Vaclav)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

I am anything but a physicist but I believe that in space it is absolute zero and I think that there has some gravitational effect or the planets and stars wouldn't be able to affect each other as I said I may be full of it.

In space it is 3 K in one part it is 1 K , there is no place that we know of that is 0 K

[mental4astro (Alexander)]

Gravity is not electro-magnetic radiation. It would be independant of any other source of energy other than that inherent to mass (gravity).

The way I see it, with space being a vacuum, a body can drift unimpeeded & devoid of any exothermic radiation, so be at abs. zero. Gravitational attraction can take place and cause a tide pull on two bodies- still no friction. Then, crash & no more abs. zero.

In the case of electromagnetic radiation, only those electrons so affected to raise them out of dormancy would react. Depending on the amount of radiation would determine the depth of penetration and just how much heating of the body there is.

Question from me is how much energy is then required to raise a mass above abs. zero? Is it dependant on its mass to affect its latent heat or just its molecular weight, or energy levels of the atoms?

I hope I'm making sense!

Good proposition Red Baron.

[renormalised (Carl)]

It's damn cold!!!!!

Space is at 2.7K above absolute zero.

The temp' can't be reached...just as no physical object can travel at the speed of light. If it did, there'd be a cascade effect where everything surrounding that spot at "AZ" would very quickly cool till it reached equilibrium with that spot. Once that happened and the whole universe was at "AZ", no energy would be present, not even quantum zero point fluctuations. It would, in effect, be violating every known law of physics if it occurred.

For instance, the entire universe would have no mass at all...weigh nothing...because the matter and such within it would have no interaction at all with the Higgs Field and no Higgs Bosons would form as a consequence of the interaction. No mass...no gravity.

[mental4astro (Alexander)]

Red, just saw your last entry after posting mine.

A body at 1K, would this temp be throughout the body? Could this temp. be limited to its outer surface so the rest be zero K?

[Baron von Richthofen (Vaclav)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

It's damn cold!!!!!

Space is at 2.7K above absolute zero.

The temp' can't be reached...just as no physical object can travel at the speed of light. If it did, there'd be a cascade effect where everything surrounding that spot at "AZ" would very quickly cool till it reached equilibrium with that spot. Once that happened and the whole universe was at "AZ", no energy would be present, not even quantum zero point fluctuations. It would, in effect, be violating every known law of physics if it occurred.

For instance, the entire universe would have no mass at all...weigh nothing...because the matter and such within it would have no interaction at all with the Higgs Field and no Higgs Bosons would form as a consequence of the interaction. No mass...no gravity.

How would one atom affect another atom a million miles apart if one atom is at zero k

[renormalised (Carl)]

No, if the rest of the body was at zero K and the outer surface was at 1k, the body would cool till it reached zero K throughout. There would have to be an input of energy from somewhere to keep the surface at 1K. In a closed system, like we believe the universe to be, where there's no energy input from "outside", the body must obey the laws of thermodynamics, so it would cool till it reached equilibrium.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Baron von Richthofen

How would one atom affect another atom a million miles apart if one atom is at zero k

Hot flows to cold till both are at equilibrium (simple thermodynamics). Since "AZ" is your equilibrium temp, a wave of change of state would rapidly expand out through the universe till it was all at "AZ".

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

For instance, the entire universe would have no mass at all...weigh nothing...because the matter and such within it would have no interaction at all with the Higgs Field and no Higgs Bosons would form as a consequence of the interaction. No mass...no gravity.

That's one of the reasons why I believe electromagnetism has one frequency (overtone actually), gravitons have another, and so-on. particles which can interact with another other merely connect with a common overtone (just like beats produced between two different frequencies of sound waves).

That way, no matter how cold a universe - to be more accurate, no matter how small the number of events or how much dynamism is within the system - the pathway between electromagnetism and gravitation is nonexistent.

Gravitation can only effect electromagnetism by tidal forces and other convergent/divergent related features. These aren't interactions, they are only affects. I also believe we won't find gravity waves with devices composed of electromagnetic interactions, that includes light.

So it doesn't matter how much energy (activity) is present in the electromagnetic system (the temp), the gravitational field is focused only on the amount of energy/mass that is there. If the atomic systems are lifeless, so be it.

[xelasnave]

Baron great to see you think about such things

If there was no force of attraction and one were to consider gravity was a part or all of the EMS (or the result of some other universal particle flow) communicating its force via "push" or as a pressure such that the relevance of mass could be regarded as the ability of one body to shield another from the universal pressure than such an approach would suggest than temp would be a relavent consideration when dealing with gravity.

If the graviton is a particle even the standard model may have to consider the question you raise one would think...

I think most will know of my "feelings" on gravity and that I reject the notion that gravity works via attraction so I hope my stand is no surprise and you can log my conclusions in the crazy box for ideas that dont match the standard model.... so please no one get upset.

I have different interpretations of observations made in respect to the Bose Einstein condensate experiments.

ASK Why does very very cold helieum run up the side of the holding vessel does this not suggest temprature is indeed a consideration with gravity.

If gravity works via a pressure created by a flow of particles one would think that the colder an object than the less active the molecules within that mass will become and therefore the particle interaction will be less with colder temperature and hence less shielding....less shielding = less gravity.

I spent a lot of time looking into this but at this point recall little other than I felt it reasonable to come to my conclusions... however that may well be morosophic ...

Look at the experiments with Bose/E condensate and ask yourself the question again.

Also it is interesting that with the casimeer effect reducing temp seems to change the "attraction" between the bodies ...again it is a long time since I looked at this...I have not looked at the work with this for over 12 months but they may well still be working on the matter as from recollection the way they were trying to explain the then new found results would be cut down by the razor...still I think those experiments suggest that temp certainly played some part in determining "attractive" force... which is of course actually "PUSH"


alex

[xelasnave]

AND with respect Baron avoid the use of the word "theory" as in science "theory" is closer to "fact" and call your thoughts "ideas" ...when your ideas meet certain requirements... observation experiment prediction... it is called a theory... certainly when we have so many "theories" put up in science that fail that test one wonders ...string theory for example is in my view not a theory but an idea complex and well worked out but scant on observation or experiment...

alex