|
|
Post by woodlandmystery on Mar 31, 2014 2:23:18 GMT
I have a weird question. Everything, even the smallest atoms electrons, neutrons, protons are always in motion. What would happen if everything just stopped moving?
|
|
|
|
Post by abstractapathist on Mar 31, 2014 2:55:30 GMT
When all particles cease moving, you reach absolute zero (the coldest temperature). This isn't physically possible for a number of reasons, the first one I can think of being gravity, so I don't think science knows much about what would happen or what it would be like.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodlandmystery on Mar 31, 2014 3:04:38 GMT
So, if movement makes heat, why doesn't light scald us to death? I'm thinking low temperature can slow things down, and friction can make heat, but something not moving doesn't make something absolute zero
|
|
|
|
Post by abstractapathist on Mar 31, 2014 3:29:25 GMT
Well if something is truly not moving, including all of the individual particles inside it, then yes, that is the definition of absolute zero. Temperature is the average motion of the molecules inside an object.
About light, it has both properties of a wave (like sound) and a particle (called a photon), and it does impart some energy to us when it hits us. If you do get hit by enough focused light at once, it can be powerful enough to burn you.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrEggman on Mar 31, 2014 6:17:21 GMT
Absolute zero is theoretically possible in deep space (as in several million light years outside of the cluster of systems in the known universe), but could never be actually achieved, as any device that could detect temperature or organism put in that environment would have atoms within it that are in motion, therefore the temperature would rise, if only .00000001 degrees.
But aside from the impossibility of the premise, if all motion of particles ceased, all bonds between atoms that form molecules would break, and every single thing in existence would turn to simply atoms of their element. I'm sure it would have some effect on radioactive materials beyond that, but I don't know enough about the science of half-life's etc. to make any kind of guess as to those. Of course, to my knowledge, none of the people here are physicists so our answers, especially mine, as I've never been to college and am a cook, are flawed in some way, I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodlandmystery on Mar 31, 2014 11:08:00 GMT
I'm actually curious now...has anyone focused non-sunlight? Sunlight seems to have heat with it, but what about artifical light? Beyond the lightbulb that is. Can light have friction?
|
|
|
|
Post by ieatfood7 on Mar 31, 2014 18:20:37 GMT
I'm actually curious now...has anyone focused non-sunlight? Sunlight seems to have heat with it, but what about artifical light? Beyond the lightbulb that is. Can light have friction? Radiation is a transfer of energy. Light is one form of radiation, microwaves are another (sound is not...sound is just movement in the existing medium....vibrating air molicules etc.) The sun gives off many different types of radiation, not just light. Light does generally turn into heat when it hits a non-reflective surface (ie a black shirt....a blue shirt reflects some but not all of the light....I'm not sure if mirrors are ever able to reflect 100% of the light or not....I expect it can be close to 100, but never actually 100). Light is weird...like really weird. A photon of light ( a beam of light is a LOT of photons going the same direction) has many properties of a particle, but also many properties of a wave. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality In any useful sense, Light does not have "friction." Friction as i understand your meaning is is two surfaces are pushed in different directions against each other. You can't get a block of light to drag along behind your car. I'm not certain whether the moment a photon "bounces" off a mirror affects the photon in any way (a tennis ball bounced on the ground will spin and slow due to the momentary friction with the ground). But, light is slowed down when it passed through a non-vaccum (the light goes slower than the "speed of light" when it passes through water) (I am almost certain the light speeds back up after it leaves the water though...light is weird). Light photons also can convert their energy into force or push....check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail on a theoretical use of such light force. |
|
|
|
Post by ieatfood7 on Mar 31, 2014 18:25:13 GMT
Absolute zero is theoretically possible in deep space (as in several million light years outside of the cluster of systems in the known universe), but could never be actually achieved, as any device that could detect temperature or organism put in that environment would have atoms within it that are in motion, therefore the temperature would rise, if only .00000001 degrees. My understanding is that regardless of how far you go, there will always be at least small levels of background radiation left over from the big bang. The big bang wasn't all the matter being in one spot, it was the whole universe (space itself) all being in one spot (yeah...it hurts my head to understand that). But the important part is that the universe really stretched during the big bang, and that all parts of the entire universe, known and unknown, were close to the big bang and have the same background radiation. The coldest known or theorized place in the entire universe was created at MIT. www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-coldest-place-in-the-universe-8121922/?no-istI am a science dork, if you can't tell, and I like physics best. |
|
|
|
Post by ieatfood7 on Mar 31, 2014 18:41:41 GMT
So, if movement makes heat, why doesn't light scald us to death? I'm thinking low temperature can slow things down, and friction can make heat, but something not moving doesn't make something absolute zero The difference here is that a baseball sitting still may have any heat it wants...."heat" doesn't mean the baseball is spinning or flying through the air...it means the molecules in the baseball are each "vibrating." the faster they vibrate, the more heat energy they have in them. The answers you got assumed that you meant each atom stops moving. So everything would be at absolute zero. I don't know what would happen to the atomic bonds (the force that connects hydrogen and oxygen to make water molecules), but lets assume those are still fine in your question (since them all breaking would make either a lot of explosions or just a desintigration into radiation, and that's boring) Now, immediately after freezing everything, assuming physics works like normal again, there would be a lot of movement and heat. All water (which would theoretically be supercooled past the freezing point by stopping all motion instantly) would flash-freeze, and the act of freezing actually would release/create some heat (-10 degree water has more energy in it than -10 degree ice, and changing from one to the other would release some heat). All planets would start to fall into their suns, like how a baseball in mid-throw would fall straight down if you took away its momentum. If you meant that all large masses stop moving, but all small masses (atoms) keep going...well thats sort of a weird question to look at scientifically since it would be hard to define what is "big" and what is "small" moves and what doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by woodlandmystery on Mar 31, 2014 18:42:31 GMT
Well what happens when two photons collide? I imagine when light is focused do the photons bounce off one another? Or do they combine?
And I already understood the above. And was thinking on a microscopic scale
|
|
|
|
Post by ieatfood7 on Mar 31, 2014 18:54:47 GMT
Well what happens when two photons collide? I imagine when light is focused do the photons bounce off one another? Or do they combine? And I already understood the above. And was thinking on a microscopic scale Photons that hit each other........well I think that's getting into quantum physics ...and that is way over my head. See www.2physics.com/2006/03/photon-photon-scattering.htmlalso see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experimentthe short answer is that they interfere with each other, but they do not bounce off each other like pool balls (they won't stop if they hit with equal force exactly evenly) but hey also don't cancel each other out like a wave in water. |
|
|
|
Post by Gorzo on Apr 1, 2014 9:58:40 GMT
Anyone else been watching Cosmos? It may not answer these specific questions, but I've been thoroughly enjoying it. I love Niel DeGrasse Tyson. And science, and space, and all of that jazz. I could listen to Tyson all day talking about science and never be bored.
|
|
|
|
Post by ieatfood7 on Apr 1, 2014 13:48:27 GMT
I have missed it, but i read the website I09 every day and it covers everythign sciency and dorky (lots of comics/scifi movies, lots of science, rarelymagic the gathering)
|
|
|
|
Post by kaleo42 on Apr 5, 2014 11:08:22 GMT
Glad to see this type of discussion on here. I am a little rusty on my quantum physics but there was a portion of my life that theoretical physics occupied my mind.
Returning to the origional question. Atomic particles are not actually things that can stop moving. They are to our current grasp on reality a very fast moving photon like particle that commands a space and the manner in which that particle moves makes what we know as neutrons and protons. There my be even smaller particles beyond that with far greater amounts of energy for it's size than we can comprehend.
With this in mind and the knowledge that two objects in space create a pull (gravity) as they displace their environment (higgs discussion). The only way to freeze all particles would be to have them all and exact distance apart and in equilibrium as such that they will not pull together. Basically think of a bag full of magnetic balls that you have to spread out on a metal sheet. You would have to place each the right distance from each other that they are pulled equally in all directions. This ever expansive cloud of particulates would have no qualities and nothing could exist in that state let alone observe it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ieatfood7 on Apr 5, 2014 18:41:35 GMT
Glad to see this type of discussion on here. I am a little rusty on my quantum physics but there was a portion of my life that theoretical physics occupied my mind. Returning to the origional question. Atomic particles are not actually things that can stop moving. They are to our current grasp on reality a very fast moving photon like particle that commands a space and the manner in which that particle moves makes what we know as neutrons and protons. There my be even smaller particles beyond that with far greater amounts of energy for it's size than we can comprehend. With this in mind and the knowledge that two objects in space create a pull (gravity) as they displace their environment (higgs discussion). The only way to freeze all particles would be to have them all and exact distance apart and in equilibrium as such that they will not pull together. Basically think of a bag full of magnetic balls that you have to spread out on a metal sheet. You would have to place each the right distance from each other that they are pulled equally in all directions. This ever expansive cloud of particulates would have no qualities and nothing could exist in that state let alone observe it. I think te question was not about if you made things never move...we can imagine that like a photograph...it was if you remove all momentum from everything to stop it, and then let it move after. Its easy to imagine in a simple hypothetical of neutonian sizes and speeds, like two balls that are at rest being pulled towards each other. But I don't know what happens to a photon if it somehow lost all "momentum". I'm sur emomentum is no longer the right word and I don't know if it even makes sense to talk about. thought? |
|
|
|
Post by woodlandmystery on Apr 7, 2014 11:34:03 GMT
I'm thinking if a photon or electron lost all its momentum, they would dissipate into the air
|
|
|
|
Post by woodlandmystery on Apr 7, 2014 11:39:50 GMT
Maybe it would turn into radiation? Doesn't sunlight have some radioactive qualities to it?
|
|
|
|
Post by abstractapathist on Apr 7, 2014 18:16:30 GMT
Maybe it would turn into radiation? Doesn't sunlight have some radioactive qualities to it? Err no. Radioactivity is the process by which unstable particles like Uranium molecules and some subatomic particals break down into smaller particles. Ultraviolet radiation is a form of electromagnetic energy, which is not related. |
|
|
|
Post by woodlandmystery on Apr 7, 2014 20:01:32 GMT
Maybe it would turn into radiation? Doesn't sunlight have some radioactive qualities to it? Err no. Radioactivity is the process by which unstable particles like Uranium molecules and some subatomic particals break down into smaller particles. Ultraviolet radiation is a form of electromagnetic energy, which is not related. I wasn't nesicarily talking about ultraviolet radiation, or any specific radiation for that matter. I was just saying radiation in general And while we're on the subject, where does ultraviolet radiation come from? |
|
|
|
Post by abstractapathist on Apr 8, 2014 12:45:42 GMT
Err no. Radioactivity is the process by which unstable particles like Uranium molecules and some subatomic particals break down into smaller particles. Ultraviolet radiation is a form of electromagnetic energy, which is not related. I wasn't nesicarily talking about ultraviolet radiation, or any specific radiation for that matter. I was just saying radiation in general And while we're on the subject, where does ultraviolet radiation come from? Yeah my bad I was using UV as an example, but it isn't different from any other form of light in that it's not radioactive. UV radiation, like other forms of light, is one form in which energy can be released. In the sun, for example, the nuclear reaction of fusion releases tons of hear and light. |
|
