Absolute zero

Are you somewhat clumsily trying to ask what would be a correct statement instead of the one you asked about in #13?
 
Ssssssss said:
No I did not. I stated my opinion of what using that sentence would imply about the user. But you have not used that sentence only asked if it could be used (to which the answer is obviously yes and also obviously listeners would be able to draw conclusions about the user and perhaps less obviously the user would probably not like those conclusions).
Click to expand...
Reference to Dunning-Kruger even?
I think you are not parsing your own sentences carefully so are reading things into my responses that are not there. Only if you are claiming the phrase in #13 as something you would say can there be any implication about you and you have not made such a claim.
Click to expand...
I parse my words very carefully. Apparently you are unable to follow the logic and look for "correct" language as if that implies understanding.

OK, you have spit your venom. now slither away, please.
 
So I take that last post to mean that you now know that the sentence in #13 is wrong but are not interested in knowing a correct way to phrase it.

OK!
 
Write4U said:
Can one use the phrase: Absolute zero is the complete absence of heat-producing energy?
Click to expand...
Let me try: In a body at absolute zero, the only energy remaining is zero point energy, i.e. the energy left in the ground state. Since there are no energy levels below the ground state, there can be no heat flow from it.
 
exchemist said:
Let me try: In a body at absolute zero, the only energy remaining is zero point energy, i.e. the energy left in the ground state. Since there are no energy levels below the ground state, there can be no heat flow from it.
Click to expand...
Thank you. That is what I was trying to say with the fewest words.
 
Last edited:
Ssssssss said:
But the "yes" is obvious. I simply pointed out a consequence that if you did use it then people would draw certain conclusions about the contrast between your apparent knowledge of physics and your apparent confidence in making declarative statements about physics.
Click to expand...
W4u has been told this a dozen times by a dozen different members. Welcome to this not very exclusive club.
 
Ssssssss said:
In that case "absolute zero is the complete absence of heat". It's the "heat-producing energy" that makes what you originally wrote into nonsense.
Click to expand...
Now we are engaging in productive discourse.

That short version was my first choice, but then I anticipated a question about what would cause the absence of heat and tried to use a shorthand version of exchemist's much lengthier explanation. Apparently, he saw fit to include the cause of lack of heat.
In a body at absolute zero, the only energy remaining is zero point energy
Click to expand...

So now we have your even shorter version of mine which is somewhat vague, and a lengthier version that addresses the why and how the lack of heat.

I am beginning to think that my version might be a happy medium, addressing everything with the fewest words including a short-hand synopsis of the causal relationship.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Now we are engaging in productive discourse.
Click to expand...
It appears that what you originally asked ("can I use this") wasn't what you actually wanted to ask ("what is a better way of saying this"). Perhaps we'd get here quicker if you asked the actual question you wanted an answer to straight off.
Write4U said:
I am beginning to think that my version might be a happy medium
Click to expand...
No it isn't because "heat-producing energy" is nonsense. Heat is a form of energy it isn't produced by energy.
 
Ssssssss said:
It appears that what you originally asked ("can I use this") wasn't what you actually wanted to ask ("what is a better way of saying this"). Perhaps we'd get here quicker if you asked the actual question you wanted an answer to straight off.

No it isn't because "heat-producing energy" is nonsense. Heat is a form of energy it isn't produced by energy.
Click to expand...
Are there other forms of energy other than heat?

diagram_800_resize_q95.jpg


In a Flash
summary_370x210_crop_center_q95.jpg

Light is a form of radiant energy.

Forms of energy
There are many different types of energy, which all fall into two primary forms – kinetic and potential. Energy can transform from one type to another, but it can never be destroyed or created.

https://www.solarschools.net/knowledge-bank/energy/types
 
Ssssssss said:
It appears that what you originally asked ("can I use this") wasn't what you actually wanted to ask ("what is a better way of saying this"). Perhaps we'd get here quicker if you asked the actual question you wanted an answer to straight off.

No it isn't because "heat-producing energy" is nonsense. Heat is a form of energy it isn't produced by energy.
Click to expand...
This area is a minefield, however, if there are pedants about.:wink: I have in the past been picked up by physicists for loose language, when talking of "heat energy", since strictly speaking it is internal energy flowing due to temperature difference.

For some reason this distinction was never really stressed during my education, with the result that if I'm not careful I think of heat as being the energy content of a body due to kinetic energy of its molecules. Which apparently is wrong.
 
exchemist said:
I think of heat as being the energy content of a body due to kinetic energy of its molecules. Which apparently is wrong.
Click to expand...
It's correct for a monatomic gas which is the kind of ideal gas that's usually covered even up to early undergraduate courses but there's more that can go on with more general materials. The molecules of gases that have more than one atom can start vibrating or rotating when they collide which absorbs energy which it can later release to other materials when it collides with them. That's also heat. When you start talking about solids there are all of the vibrational modes of the solid called phonons that are also energy sinks.

In some senses you could call it all kinetic energy but it isn't all the simple translational kinetic energy of atoms or molecules moving around randomly that you might be imagining.
 
Last edited:
Ssssssss said:
It's correct for a monatomic gas which is the kind of ideal gas that's usually covered even up to early undergraduate courses but there's more that can go on with more general materials. The molecules of gases that have more than one atom can start vibrating or rotating when they collide which absorbs energy which it can later release to other materials when it collides with them. That's also heat. When you start talking about solids there are all of the vibrational modes of the solid called phonons that are also energy sinks.

In some senses you could call it all kinetic energy but it isn't all the simple translational kinetic energy of atoms or molecules moving around randomly that you might be imagining.
Click to expand...
Yeah I meant k.e. in rotation and vibration too. (I did spectroscopy and some molecular QM at university).

My point was that heat seems to be a term used only for energy in transit, flowing from one body to another as a result of a temperature difference, not for the total internal energy present in all these degrees of freedom.
 
exchemist said:
My point was that heat seems to be a term used only for energy in transit, flowing from one body to another as a result of a temperature difference, not for the total internal energy present in all these degrees of freedom.
Click to expand...
Some people say that but I bet they will also use terms like "heat reservoir" (a store of energy in transit that's not in transit) and "heat transfer" (the amount of energy in transit that transitted from one heat reservoir to another) so I wouldn't take such complaints too seriously.
 
Ssssssss said:
Some people say that but I bet they will also use terms like "heat reservoir" (a store of energy in transit that's not in transit) and "heat transfer" (the amount of energy in transit that transitted from one heat reservoir to another) so I wouldn't take such complaints too seriously.
Click to expand...
Haha, you are probably right. But if I look up internet definitions, they indeed all seem to be confined to a flow of internal energy due to a temperature gradient.

Maybe some (other?:D) pedant will show up and comment....
 
Here I am! The ignorant word mangler......:confused:

Methinks we just listened to a pair of pedants discussing the subtleties of thermal energy.

Thermal energy
Thermal energy (also called heat energy) is produced when a rise in temperature causes atoms and molecules to move faster and collide with each other. The energy that comes from the temperature of the heated substance is called thermal energy.
Click to expand...
https://www.solarschools.net/knowledge-bank/energy/types/thermal#

Are all forms of energy heat?
Energy exists in many different forms. Examples of these are: light energy, heat energy, mechanical energy, gravitational energy, electrical energy, sound energy, chemical energy, nuclear or atomic energy and so on. Each form can be converted or changed into the other forms.
Click to expand...
https://vikaspedia.in/energy/energy-basics/forms-of-energy

Seems that not all energy IS heat!

Question: IS gravitational energy heat? Or does applied gravitational energy produce heat?

Question: in absolute zero, is gravity still effective?
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Here I am! The ignorant word mangler......:confused:

Methinks we just listened to a pair of pedants discussing the subtleties of thermal energy.

Thermal energy
https://www.solarschools.net/knowledge-bank/energy/types/thermal#

Are all forms of energy heat?
https://vikaspedia.in/energy/energy-basics/forms-of-energy

Seems that not all energy IS heat!

Question: IS gravitational energy heat? Or does applied gravitational energy produce heat?

Question: in absolute zero, is gravity still effective?
Click to expand...
Of course all forms of energy are not heat. What a daft question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top