Science breaks the Absolute Zero barrier. (Alter all the laws of physics!)

Thats pretty















cool

 

I'm an agnostic too, but my agnostism is more for the religious flavor.

 

My agnosticism does not restrict itself to or from religion. In particular, I am a "Strong Agnostic" in that I believe we are incapable of realizing most of the things we see as they actually are. We see "Phosphenes" and foresee it as hallucination, or worse, as something real that others are unable to see.

Just because we can explain something in every conceivable way, that does not mean we are correct. Even if we account for millions of variables and track all manner of things to form what seems a solid and accurate model of what we observe, there is still no evidence that the entire reality we see is not a carefully crafted illusion.

Doubt is the only thing I have universal Faith in. If any Deity exists, I welcome him/her/it/them to stop by and introduce themselves so I may leave some of my doubt behind. But despite doing that for decades, no being has taken the invitation yet. (Excluding my pet Cat.)

But do not worry for me. I may yet pull my head from my rear and see things as you do. (Addressing whomever is reading this at the moment.)

 

YEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

 

I think scientism, which is what seems to be being discussed, is a religion of sorts. So I don't think it's possible to talk about science in this context without talking about religion.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174/

Anyway, speaking of science. What really makes me mad is the soft sciences. People build entire careers based on failing to understand the difference between correlation and a causal relationship. The worst is "social science". And now I've steered this thread towards politics

 

This thread will certainly die in a fire if we cannot get off the subjects from politics and religion. Sorry, but this is mostly my fault. That much is usually the case, but we really need to get back to science.

So back to science it is.

What if any significance would there be in our day to day lives if absolute zero was not so very absolute? I can think of nothing.

We do not ever have reason to attempt to bring substances near absolute zero, much less below that, except in specific experiments.

Anyone know what if anything I am missing on this subject?

 

Actually -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenics#Cryogenic_processing

 

They do not and in fact cannot even get close to absolute zero except in tiny experiments using massive volumes of that stuff.

It even says 78 Kelvin is the temperature in the article. Sure that is pretty damned cold, but zero is zero is zero.
"The cryogenic process continues this action from ambient temperature down to −320 °F (140 °R; 78 K; −196 °C)."

But I checked to be certain that I was right on what I believed. Wikipedia seems to agree.
"Absolute zero is defined as a temperature of precisely 0 kelvins, which is equal to −273.15 °C or −459.67 °F."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero

 

The main idea is that if you find that, say, at 0.04 degrees kelvin, copper becomes a 0 resistance conductor, and that - better still - it somehow does something cool and useful - you can use it. That's how we found out all the other cool 70K stuff.

 

While I appreciate the example, I have to point out for others, much more than for yourself, that even a 30 gauge copper wire carrying a single ampere of current at a single volt a single foot would have enough heat in the form of friction of the electrons across the wire surface to make 0.04 Kelvin all but unmanageable in even a tiny apparatus in a massive heatsink and cooling system with all the best volatile fluids for cooling.

As far as I know, the only way to manage zero resistance is to stop all movement. That obviously includes electrons. Likewise you can eliminate resistance to electrical current by removing the current. And that thought makes me laugh, but is accurate still.

The biggest problem is that the more resistance you remove, the more appealing it is to add more current, and that feeds the problem of resistance as you do so.

 

I do know for certain that the cake is a lie, and there is no spoon.

 

Not true for a superconductor, though -- you don't actually get any heat production. That's part of what makes it a superconductor.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity

Worth a read. And saying you have zero loss of power via resistance while you must expend massive power to keep something superconductive is like saying you have a machine that generates infinite energy, but for it to work, it has to draw its energy from a fuel.

I will have to eat my words if someone ever makes a superconductor that works in any temperature, over any distance, with any load and regardless of magnetic fields. Until then I thumb my nose at the idea of superconductors, despite having seen some in person.

 

Ding ding ding, lol.

 

Well, I have a riddle for you:

What's more energy efficient, burning coal in your house to heat your house, or using an air conditioner (that draws electricity that has to be dragged through power lines for miles, with continuous power loss).

Spoiler: Answer:

Spoiler: Inception Answer:

Spoiler: No cheating:

The air conditioner.

It turns out that burning X for heat is ~100% efficient.
Energy transfer via power lines = ~33% efficient.
Thermal exchange via an air conditioner = 300% efficient. That is not a typo. You can 'filter' air to only permit the transfer of warmer air at a cost of ~1/3 of generating that hot air through, e.g. combustion.

 

Since you specify an air conditioner, I must presume you are speaking of a Peltier unit since as far as I know liquid/gas phase changing units are incapable of heating.
(I.E. if it uses Freon to cool, it cannot heat.)

BTW, 1 x .33% x 300% = 0.99. But do not worry, I get your point.

 

Yah, a heat pump.

 

Sorry for changing the topic back a bit but Omni, what you're saying is that you can't know anything. When you apply something universally it becomes meaningless. There's absolutely no way ever to know something is correct in any universe or reality, but we assume. In fact the idea of existance is rather difficult to define because of this. Basically you have to assume what you see is correct and act on it, if it's wrong and you've made the wrong decision than so be it. If science gives a near certain answer that you can believe in it's in your favor to just assume it as true in light of its evidence.

If you can't believe something that you can't be certain you're not being smart you just don't want to realize that you can be wrong.

 

One little thing that *IS* Universally true is that every time you paraphrase a crazy person, they sound even crazier.

Uncertainty is a mark of intellect. Wear it proudly even when people claim to have undeniable proof. Eventually they will be found to be wrong on any specific claim made. (Even that claim.)

I do realize I am quite capable of being wrong. That is the very nature of my arguments in most of my posts in this thread and most of the other physics threads we have.

That said, I am at a loss in my attempt to understand the nature of your post.