


	Articles \| Forums \| Polls \| Quotes \| Who's Online \| Store

"Arrogance:mask worn by the insecure." - Chained Wings

Main -> Technology and Science -> Science and Technology | NewPosts

Paradox?

USER

THREAD

819 Posts / 55M

19yrs

Angel Of Death

Paradox? [+ favourites]

Hey, well I vz jus wondering, heat is caused by movement of atoms, and movement of atoms is caused by heat, so what starts the process?!?!?!?

"I'll heal ur woundz I'll set u free, I m jesus christ on xtacy"

228 Posts / 55M

25yrs

Windupnostril

i thought heat was the movement of atoms.

"You are reading this."

819 Posts / 55M

19yrs

Angel Of Death

Yes, so what causes the movement?

"I'll heal ur woundz I'll set u free, I m jesus christ on xtacy"

1669 Posts / 59M

21yrs

Angelfire

Energy causes movement, energetic atoms release energy by vibrating, IE through heat.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

45 Posts / 54M

29yrs

rschulz

Not to be clich� but your problem is chicken or egg. Unless you default to God in which case he would be the energy for atoms to move since Christians describe him as the first mover (presuming you are Christian). Science could probably break it down into smaller parts for you but will not be able to give you an answer.

Another good example of a paradoxical statement would be, "There are no universal truths." Can you see why?

"Morals here. Get your morals. Only cost...your freedom."

819 Posts / 55M

19yrs

Angel Of Death

Yeah, it�s kinda like �this sentence is a lie�, which is an infinite circle. However, �there are no universal truths� is not a paradox. If that sentence is true, then it must be false, because that sentence itself would be a universal truth, so that would mean that universal truths infact do exist.
Yes, rschulz is right, it is like the chicken or egg thing(although that too is not a paradox anymore)

"I'll heal ur woundz I'll set u free, I m jesus christ on xtacy"

85 Posts / 54M

1945yrs

otb

A O D....Rschulz is somewhat correct.
First science will tell you about "zero point energy", or as I have often mentioned on here "aether". Basically energy starts here. It is everywhere moving through mass at a sub atomic level. This they will tell you is what excites the neutron, giving the atom its power.
In religious text they have refered to it as God, the Holy spirit, and / or the point between heaven and earth. Depending on the interperetation i suppose.

Now at the atomic level, of which you are refering....it still takes energy to create energy.
And to excite an atom to create heat, you don't necessarily need heat....but some form on energy....an example would be something You may have in your kitchen.

1764 Posts / 62M

56yrs

cturtle

Hmm . . . One would have to state what form of heat you are referring? In your microwave, radiated energy passing through the medium (dinner) causes excitation of the molecules. If you are cooking over a fire then the energy results from some form of an exothermic chemical reaction. If you are cooking with electric then the resistance to energy flow produces the heat.

quote:
First science will tell you about "zero point energy", or as I have often mentioned on here "aether".

this zero point, is it called absolute zero that is used in the Kelvin degree temperature scale?
.

quote:
Note: I don't expound this method as this process may cause (an electroplating effect) metallic ions from the spoon to form in the solution (coffee).

curious thing, as I drink coffee in a mug, i would nuke it in the microwave to heat it. the mug i use is ceramic which i found it generally hotter than the coffee so i leave the sugar spoon in it when i reheat it. Although metal is not normally used in a microwave, the end of the metal spoon being immersed in the coffee transfers more energy into the liquid and doesn't form a discharge normally experienced by the metal becoming electically charged.

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."
[ Edited by cturtle at ]

1764 Posts / 62M

56yrs

cturtle

Absolute 0
Webster�s New World Dictionary of Science
Copyright � 1998 Macmillan

quote:

absolute zero Lowest temperature theoretically possible, zero kelvin (0� K), equivalent to �273.15� C or �459.67� F,
at which molecules are at their lowest state.
Although the third law of thermodynamics indicates the impossibility of reaching absolute zero exactly, a temperature of 2.8 X 10-10 �K (0.28 billionth of a degree above absolute 0) was produced in1993, at Lancaster University, England.
Near absolute zero, the physical properties of some materials change substantially; for example, some metals lose their electrical resistance & become superconducting.

Temperature & Heat
Back in the chemistry classroom of college, we had formed study groups. We were discussing this concept of absolute zero but seemed to be laboring under a false perception. Because the teacher, overhearing our debate, made a similar statement �Lowest temperature theoretically possible, at which the atom are at it�s lowest state.� (?) {energy level}
1) We thought in theory any further reduction of energy would collapse into the structure of the nucleus?
2) Another thing we found strange was she hadn�t identified the structure used as the measure of this lowest (energy state) temperature?
Having this question raised, I had replied by pointing to this concept but as I thought it through I wondered if �was this her statement� or �our perception of her statement�? As a student, this teacher had once taught me that I needed to learn (memorize) these concepts and that later, they would come to form a cohesive understanding (comprehension) of the subject. Therefore, I went back to the basics to rethink my understanding. I realized that I hadn�t made the distinction between elemental species and molecular species when I had learned this concept. As a group, we accepted this definition and went on to discuss other concepts.
As such I thought, the simplest atom is hydrogen and therefore an atom containing an electron & a proton would have the least energy. So this atom (1S1 orbital) must represent the model that formed the bases for their computation? Which I accepted as the form of my misconception.
If I had thought about it, I might have had concerns like:
What about other elements such as metals? Don�t they contract as they are cooled (lose energy), if they were supercooled to their lowest energy then do they remain at that temperature even in the presence of hydrogen being lowered in temperature?
As helium has a filled 1s orbital & exist as an individual atom, hydrogen forms a covalent bond with itself to form H2 molecules. Therefore, to reach hydrogen�s lowest level, this covalent bond would have to be broken. This being the case, then no compounds would exist at or near absolute 0? (0� K)
If the basic hydrogen atom was to be lowered to a temperature (reduced into its atomic particles), would they exist as an ionic pair or would they compress into a neutron? Then would not other elements be reduced similarly as their energy was lowered? That after they reached their lowest state (in the presence of hydrogen) as the temperature was lowered they too would decompose into basic particle form?
On the other hand, neither I probably would have had these thoughts nor would I have considered the other possibilities. That if compounds exist at or near absolute 0? (0� K), then the lowest energy state (temperature) is not the measure of the least energy. Then how could a relatively small atom like hydrogen have an equivalent energy level to a massive atom of lead?
One of the things about chemistry is your thinking becomes polarized into certain lines of thoughts. As an example, chemical bonds form with what is called the valance shell electrons but all atoms have 1S orbital so we might fail to make this connection.
F.Y.C. � For your consideration: Suppose we were to place an ordinary piece of ice & crystalline salt within sealed containers in a walk-in freezer, effectively isolating it from changes in temperature from outside sources. Now we calculate the resonant frequency for the 2S orbital of the oxygen atom in the water molecule & set an rf generator (microwave) to emit only at this frequency. Using a directional antenna, we pass energy into the containers. Now we accept that the 2S orbital of the oxygen atom would absorb this energy but would the 1S orbital of the hydrogen or the 3S orbital within the Na & Cl of the salt? If not then we expect that the hydrogen bonded by an SP orbital to oxygen would transfer energy to the hydrogen & the water molecule as a whole would rise in temperature. As to the salt, we would consider that the 2S orbital of the closed shell absorbing the energy. This energy applies (pressure) energy to the valance shell expanding it. As these shells expand, the 1S orbital expands absorbing energy as well from the 2S orbital?
If we accept that these orbitals are energized by this radiation then we should consider that the energy held within various shells act to produce a (continuous emf wave) low level field which transfers energy at short inter & intra molecular distances? Just as emission of photons could be related to pulse radar, heat could be related to cw radar?
So we have thermolecular reactions forming bonds and Chemistry?

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."
[ Edited by cturtle at ]

85 Posts / 54M

1945yrs

otb

yes

quote:
To return to basics, if all the air molecules are pumped out of a chamber, the chamber still contains residual radiation (electromagnetic noise from stars, x-rays, and heat radiation). Even before quantum mechanics, it was shown by classical radiation theory that if the temperature of the container is lowered to absolute zero, there remains a residual amount of thermal energy that can not by any means be removed. This residual energy in an empty container at absolute zero, was named "zero-point energy."

1764 Posts / 62M

56yrs

cturtle

quote:
To return to basics, if all the air molecules are pumped out of a chamber, the chamber still contains residual radiation (electromagnetic noise from stars, x-rays, and heat radiation).

If all the matter is removed (ie. a vacumn is formed) then there is nothing to react to the radiant energy! But as a complete vacumn may not exist and the walls of the container would react to this energy (heat is formed)?
Not that I am dening the existence of the residual energy in an empty container at absolute zero, named "zero-point energy."

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."
[ Edited by cturtle at ]

1764 Posts / 62M

56yrs

cturtle

A little piece of the Paradox: Why am I here as opposed to the one I just left?
Had something to do with a file I wanted to post . . . Then reading through the thread, I thought strange I was thinking that there had been more or different comments. Then I remembered that the significant role the concept of absolute zero played.

quote:
This residual energy in an empty container at absolute zero, was named "zero-point energy."

True that although it is good to return to the relatively familiar 'concepts' like atoms & molecules, and things heats of formations, etc . . . as stated these conventions were used as conceptions relating the physical (chemical) properties. As I studied a bit of chemistry, I tend to see it as going from the rational concepts of heat & energy of bonds, but that these bonds (atoms) have a residual energy associated with their movement... Say, the expansion & contraction of a bar of metal.

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

120 Posts / 10M

26yrs

Jimbobby

All chemistry can be explained by atomic physics. That isn't a joke; its a fact.

At absolute-zero, all motion stops. That is things are stagnant. But there is residual energy. And therefore there is zero-point energy. Whoever termed that name is a genius. Its bang on. There are scientists who deny it. But they are dumb halfwits with shit for a head.

This is the point that scientists get to when they see that there must be a form of energy universally available and unknowable. Of course, this is when half-witted spiritualist new age wankers stop and give up.

What we do is to keep chipping away.

"Only gay people have quotes to look good"

1764 Posts / 62M

56yrs

cturtle

quote:
At absolute-zero, all motion stops. That is things are stagnant. But there is residual energy. And therefore there is zero-point energy.

Perhaps a matter of semantics, but I wonder about that? Probable resonant energy form still exist then resonant energy remains. Three containers Br., Cl., & water along with a bar of solid lea, are brought to absolute zero. The bar of lead noted to bee maul able, shader like glass. But like the atomos, the shards are still lead. Of course, the 2 containers of element (g<=>l) are used in photography, hmm . . . wonder if I could substitute lead for silver? Well, I need the water to mix the solutions. Besides that they are in the same family, chemically (extending the principle of the Periodic Table) whose chemical nature are similar due to having similar orbital configuration but having different shells => mass. Hmm . . . yes, it is well known that even small variations in temperature make a significant effect on the reactivity of the Cl & Br <=> -Cl & -Br ions & therefore photo reactivity to Zero! Oh, the water, depends on the volume of the container, you put it in?

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."
[ Edited by cturtle at ]

1764 Posts / 62M

56yrs

cturtle

Yes, let's see, we have a chamber (freezer) & we put a container of gas, er liquidized fluorine . . . I limited to chlorine's reactivity & of coarse size (mass => high proton & neutron counts). But I would note that chlorine gas when exposed to light tends to react violently. So even at absolute zero, would react to light forming chlorine ions (2)? But then they probably wouldn't be at absolute zero either.

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

Paradox?


<<<	PAGE:	1 2	>>>
1ST <-15 <<>> +15> END

A1 F1 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16