brimstoneSalad wrote:One is admitting you don't understand something and asking for help (humility) the other is claiming to understand something contrary to every physicist in the world and making an outrageous claim based on that.
And, what do you think, how should one behave when science doesn't make sense to him? Should he assume he has misunderstood something (like I misunderstood the 2nd law of thermodynamics), or should he assume things are just very counter-intuitive and he has understood them correctly (like when quantum physics talks about particles disappearing and coming from nothing)? Where do you draw the line?
It appearing to contradict some common knowledge doesn't seem to be where one should draw the line. It's common knowledge that zero-gravity chambers exist (movies and computer games present them as real things, much like they do bombs), yet they would, in fact, contradict basic physics.
brimstoneSalad wrote:I think there's an inevitability that as you cool it and the wave function spreads it's going to get heated up by something if not the 3 degree microwave background radiation.
Never thought about it that way. In our Basic Electronics classes, and in the textbook written by Švedek, we are told we can imagine absolute zero as a state in which electrons have enough kinetic energy to circle around the nucleus at the lowest free shell, but not enough to tunnel to a higher shell or leave the atom. Therefore, at absolute zero, any material is either a perfect insulator or a perfect conductor. So, that means there is some kinetic energy in the material (movement of the electrons around the nucleus) even at 0K. Therefore, the wavelength won't really be infinite, right?
And doesn't quantum physics say that not only is absolute zero possible, but also that temperatures below that are possible?
Also, wouldn't that, that we can make a thing disappear by putting energy to cool it down to absolute zero (be it infinite energy), contradict the conservation of energy?
