And lo on Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:10:11 -0000, Tim Cook  
<z99### [at] bellsouthnet> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:38:17 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>>   Isn't that kind of contradictory with the very definition of absolute
>>> zero temperature? By definition if there's movement it's not absolute  
>>> zero.
>> To tie this back to your original query the concept of absolute zero  
>> resided in 'classical' science whereas ZPE belongs in quantum science.  
>> Once again we have two otherwise accurate methods disagreeing.
>
> Not as such; if absolute zero is defined as the temperature at which all  
> molecular motion ceases, and ZPE is an accurate description of what  
> exists, then one simply says "absolute zero is an unattainable property  
> due to the phenomenon of zero-point energy".

But we know absolute zero is unattainable in non-isolated systems due to  
the implications of the second law of thermodynamics without the  
requirements of ZPE, however ZPE seems to set a limit on isolated systems  
too. IOW from a classical viewpoint there appears to be no reason why 0K  
for an isolated system cannot be achieved, but there is in quantum theory.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message