Well, here goes nothing. In 7th grade, I was asked to do a report on the origin of the universe. I ended up with my own hypothesis eventually, but it turned out wrong in too many ways (sucks! I worked hard on that hypothesis!) It had to do with a multiverse and that perhaps our universe was actually pressed between two connected black holes in a zone of absolute zero. It is completely bunk now, and I knew nothing about the universe at that time, but there is one application I came up with from the theory, and it was that absolute zero was everything where nothing was. No space or time, just, literally, empty space. I thought that perhaps EVERYONE knew that, until this year when I went into Chemistry classes. My teacher said that "we don't know what happens to matter at absolute zero." I told him that I thought absolute zero was empty space. And he looked at me with an empty look. I also said that reaching absolute zero would destroy matter, and he just repeated that we don't know what happens at that temperature. Then, for once, I kinda wondered whether or not absolute zero being nothing was a new or old concept. Perhaps Ten or Choobus know, but EXPERIMENTAL evidence is, I suppose, impossible. Well, here is my claim. I am trying to prove that absolute zero would destroy matter if reached. It seems to be right mathematically (E=mc^2) and with thought experiments, but otherwise I can't quite prove it.

I just wondered what everyone else thought about absolute zero, and if anyone else also has the same thought. And, while on the subject, anybody believe there may also be an absolute high temperature as well?

logic would suggest if there is an absolute zero then there should be an absolute high.

after all nothing would be able to resist infinity degC so an absolute high will be there somwhere.

zero point energy

uncertainty principle

look them up

doyoudoanal

maybe if we shoved a red hot poker up your ass choobus, maybe you would find your own absolute high!

Absolute zero is used in the sciences as a measure of temperature - 0 degrees Kelvin. (basically, heat is molecular motion and absolute zero is when it stops. There are complications due to quantum effects etc but that'll do as a basic summary. There isn't really an absolute high - there is a speed limit at lightspeed, true, but molecules can never reach it: they can approach it as close as you like while gaining more and more kinetic energy and associated temperature, due to relativity theory).

You seem to be using absolute zero in some different sense of "total nothingness" such as you might find "before" the big bang. This is probably the cause of your chemistry teacher's confusion.

The comment about "not knowing what happens to matter" is probably due to the aforementioned quantum effects which imply molecules never actually can stop moving. Even in empty space you'd have quantum fluctuations ("zero point energy"). So in this sense absolute zero is a theoretical point at the end of a graph not something you would expect to find in nature.

You're probably going to have to find a new term - firstly, absolute zero is already taken; secondly, the idea that there could be any kind of medium without matter and energy is highly problematic, and so is the idea of "before" the big bang, "outside" the universe etc. So it is unclear exactly what, if anything, the term (in your sense) could be assigned to anyway.

Hope this helps.

Nothing is nothing. No matter. No energy. No space/time. Nothing.

Nothing is literally nonexistence.

And if allowed the lee-way of waxing metaphysical:

Understanding the meaning of nothing

leads to the

understanding to the meaning of the universe....

Just checking: Ab zero is not possible, right?

*slow pitch to Philboid*

its theoretical to the tune of -273 Deg C so i have read.

The Holy Grail -- you know it doesn't really exist but the eternal quest for it is reward enough ...

I think brad is confusing types of energy. He is thinking that if something were brought to absolute zero, then it would have zero energy, and since E=mc^2, (and c is constant) it would thus have to have zero mass. However, when you bring something to absolute zero, you are bringing the heat energy to zero, where heat energy is related to the kinetic energy of the molecules that make up the substance. It says nothing of the potential energy, which would still exist.

Am I getting that right, brad? If not, my apologies.

I love this shit! And wouldn't even claim to know the basics... But in all honesty, I love this shit! Very glad there is an actual category for science now. I hope you all don't mind my ignorant attempts in here in the future. [ Freakin dial up again... WTF! Should be back up to speed here in a couple weeks when the good ole cable company decides that they want me more than I want them and they give me a better rate than 60 (fuckin) dollars a month for internet service!!! WTF! Don't they know I'm poooooor? ]

Absolute zero is the lowest point that science can currently measure, no? And therefore it is more or less just a number agreed upon by scientists, a starting point to base measurments off of? (Similar to the idea of morals - a starting point must be defined?) I know... I shouldn't go there in a science thread... I apologize.

I think you mean rtest mass energy, not potential energy. It is entirely possible for the potential energy to be zero. The heat energy is in fact derived from the kinetic energy of moving particles, and at absolute zero they have no classical motion but, due to the uncertainty principle, cannot have exactly zero velocity and so there is always some minimum energy (called the zero point energy). This is an extremely small amount of energy and in most situations is negligible.

it is more blessed to give that it is to recieve.

bend over baznap......

Um.. yeah, yeah, that's what I meant. The rest mass energy. Anyway, I think that's what brad is confusing. At absolute zero, heat energy related to the kinetic energy of the molecules is brought to zero. Then he tries to apply the rest mass energy equation (E=mc^2) with kinetic energy in place of "E", and concludes that since "c" is constant, mass must also somehow become zero. All he needs to know is that:
rest mass energy is not the same as heat energy.

*I think.