Absolute Zero/stillness Has Been Declared Mathematically Impossible Or The Only "absolute" Is Motion

[Salaam]

https://www.sciencealert.com/after-a-century-of-debate-cooling-to-absolute-zero-has-been-declared-mathematically-impossible

"After more than 100 years of debate featuring the likes of Einstein himself, physicists have finally offered up mathematical proof of the third law of thermodynamics, which states that a temperature of absolute zero cannot be physically achieved because it's impossible for the entropy (or disorder) of a system to hit zero."

"This explains why, no matter where you look, every single thing in the Universe is moving ever so slightly - nothing in existence is completely still according to the third law of thermodynamics."

Hopefully, people can take the article and evidence above and apply it to their philosophies on life. Understanding that the seeking of absolutes is a flaw humans have yet to evolve and expand from due to our brains compulsion for tunnel-vision and propensity for choosing extremes rather than nuance and diversity, as well as foregoing balance through contrast rather than this blind reaching for balance through homogeneity.

The void as an absolute is nonsense. Life is always a mixture of diversity to one degree or another and efforts to reach some idealized state of nothingness will always eventually lead you out of step with reality and how the world truly moves.

Motion is the most honest thing in the world. Motion is life and understanding that, the elements of motion and how they provide shape and distinction and potentiality will do more for your development then chasing a void. 
 

Edited March 15, 2017 by Salaam

[Principium Nexus]

Singularities don't have entropy, since space and time break down. Physics break down there aswell, those are the places where 0K is possible.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Principium Nexus

[Christian]

So what you are saying is because of the third law of thermodynamics, nothingness or the void cannot exist in absolute terms. It is  nonsense as you says. Because everything is in motion - no temperature can mathematically and literally hit zero. This implies constant movement for what the universe is made up of which is atoms and molecules.  This sort of thinking implies that you believe nothingness to be some sort of absolute thing and that the absolute is pure stillness. And it cannot exist because well, nothing ever goes to zero. The truest thing we have is movement according to what you say. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 I would, however, like for you to reevaluate that assumption that nothingness or the void cannot exist. Who says nothingness cannot exist? Have you ever had an experience of true nothingness? There are insights that can be grasped that are outside of the rational paradigm. They are paradoxical in nature, but they are certainly out there. And that includes the insight that reality is NOT made up of matter, energy, molecules, atoms, but NOTHING. Literally nothing. It is unbelievable. Nothingness is what is left when you remove all of the ideas and concepts and you are left with raw reality. 

But to understand this, you need to do an empirical investigation. This means using your senses, including vision, taste, touch, feeling, etc to enquire into the truth of existence. No one can do that for you, but yourself. Get outside of your rational mind and you might glimpse nothingness. It's right under your nose! 

 

[Salaam]

29 minutes ago, Christian said:

So what you are saying is because of the third law of thermodynamics, nothingness or the void cannot exist in absolute terms. It is  nonsense as you says. Because everything is in motion - no temperature can mathematically and literally hit zero. This implies constant movement for what the universe is made up of which is atoms and molecules.  This sort of thinking implies that you believe nothingness to be some sort of absolute thing and that the absolute is pure stillness. And it cannot exist because well, nothing ever goes to zero. The truest thing we have is movement according to what you say. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 I would, however, like for you to reevaluate that assumption that nothingness or the void cannot exist. Who says nothingness cannot exist? Have you ever had an experience of true nothingness? There are insights that can be grasped that are outside of the rational paradigm. They are paradoxical in nature, but they are certainly out there. And that includes the insight that reality is NOT made up of matter, energy, molecules, atoms, but NOTHING. Literally nothing. It is unbelievable. Nothingness is what is left when you remove all of the ideas and concepts and you are left with raw reality. 

But to understand this, you need to do an empirical investigation. This means using your senses, including vision, taste, touch, feeling, etc to enquire into the truth of existence. No one can do that for you, but yourself. Get outside of your rational mind and you might glimpse nothingness. It's right under your nose! 

 

Do you understand how physically cold an actual experience of true nothingness would be? Just reaching the "edge" of absolute zero is 100 million times colder than the depths of space. It would kill you. Our bodies can't handle such an extreme.

People may think or believe they've experienced "true nothingness" but that is just a label and not what they're really experiencing.

 

[Salaam]

1 hour ago, Principium Nexus said:

Singularities don't have entropy, since space and time break down. Physics break down there aswell, those are the places where 0K is possible.

You might want to take a look at black hole thermodynamics...

 

 

"When we take quantum mechanics into account, black holes can emit light and other particles through a process known as Hawking radiation. Since a “quantum” black hole emits heat and light, it therefore has a temperature. This means black holes are subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Integrating general relativity, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics into a comprehensive description of black holes is quite complicated, but the basic properties can be expressed as a fairly simple set of rules known as black hole thermodynamics. Essentially these are the laws of thermodynamics re-expressed in terms of properties of black holes.

The zeroth law states that a simple, non-rotating black hole has uniform gravity at its event horizon. This is kind of like saying that such a black hole is at thermal equlibrium.

The first law relates the mass, rotation and charge of a black hole to its entropy. The entropy of a black hole is then related to the surface area of its event horizon.

The second law again states that the entropy of a black hole system cannot decrease. One consequence of this is that when two black holes merge, the surface area of the merged event horizon must be greater than the surface areas of the original black holes.

The third law states that “extreme” black holes (those with a maximum possible rotation or charge) would have minimum entropy. This means that it would never be possible to form an extreme black hole. For example, it would never be possible to spin a black hole so fast that it would break apart.

The advantage of black hole thermodynamics is that provides a way to get a handle on the complex interactions black holes can have. Thermodynamic black holes have not just mass, charge and rotation, but also temperature and entropy. The rules first devised to describe the heating and cooling of simple gases also seems to apply to black holes."

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/09/09/black-hole-thermodynamics/

 

 

[Principium Nexus]

@Salaam Isn't that all about the event horizon? I'm talking about the actual singularity, where space and time break down mathematically.

[Salaam]

2 hours ago, Principium Nexus said:

@Salaam Isn't that all about the event horizon? I'm talking about the actual singularity, where space and time break down mathematically.

Nah, it's for all of the black hole and speaks to the current view that slowly over extremely long lengths of time black holes kind of evaporate and fade away as the particles that split at the edge of the event horizon take some of their mass with them as they escape the gravity of the black hole.

When you add quantum mechanics to the mix rather than just general relativity, the concept of a singularity begins to fade away.

In fact, some are positing that what happens is particles split along the event horizon, some get sucked into the black hole and others get flung back into space, and after this pattern concludes to the eventual evaporation of the black hole the information that was sucked into the black hole lies dormant as kinds of soft particles that can then be re-engaged or activated once again by introducing energy into their environment. However, no one has yet to see a black hole evaporate, because even the smallest ones we've discovered will still take a shit load of time to do so. Plus, there is still a major issue or conundrum to figure out when the black hole evaporation event meets the threshold at the half-way point between particle splits. The tipping point in other words between the ratio of particles flung back out into space and those sucked into the black hole.

And, there are other ideas out there like instead of a singularity there is a wormhole or bridge to another part of the universe or multiverse via quantum loop gravity. You reach a sort of threshold density in the black hole that then flip flops and reduces as you "come out the other side" into some other part of the universe.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Salaam

[Sevi]

13 hours ago, Salaam said:

https://www.sciencealert.com/after-a-century-of-debate-cooling-to-absolute-zero-has-been-declared-mathematically-impossible

"After more than 100 years of debate featuring the likes of Einstein himself, physicists have finally offered up mathematical proof of the third law of thermodynamics, which states that a temperature of absolute zero cannot be physically achieved because it's impossible for the entropy (or disorder) of a system to hit zero."

"This explains why, no matter where you look, every single thing in the Universe is moving ever so slightly - nothing in existence is completely still according to the third law of thermodynamics."

Hopefully, people can take the article and evidence above and apply it to their philosophies on life. Understanding that the seeking of absolutes is a flaw humans have yet to evolve and expand from due to our brains compulsion for tunnel-vision and propensity for choosing extremes rather than nuance and diversity, as well as foregoing balance through contrast rather than this blind reaching for balance through homogeneity.

The void as an absolute is nonsense. Life is always a mixture of diversity to one degree or another and efforts to reach some idealized state of nothingness will always eventually lead you out of step with reality and how the world truly moves.

Motion is the most honest thing in the world. Motion is life and understanding that, the elements of motion and how they provide shape and distinction and potentiality will do more for your development then chasing a void. 
 

❤

[Leo Gura]

Don't confuse Nothingess/Absolute/God/Consciousness with scientific ideas of nothingness. Two totally different domains.

[gleb]

15 hours ago, Salaam said:

https://www.sciencealert.com/after-a-century-of-debate-cooling-to-absolute-zero-has-been-declared-mathematically-impossible

"After more than 100 years of debate featuring the likes of Einstein himself, physicists have finally offered up mathematical proof of the third law of thermodynamics, which states that a temperature of absolute zero cannot be physically achieved because it's impossible for the entropy (or disorder) of a system to hit zero."

"This explains why, no matter where you look, every single thing in the Universe is moving ever so slightly - nothing in existence is completely still according to the third law of thermodynamics."

This is referring to the kinetic energy of particles like protons, neutrons, electrons and smaller. Having those particles reach absolute zero, at this point, is mathematically "impossible".

But what about the pallet in which those particles are thrashing about? Remember that old scientific saying of "99.9% of an atom is empty space"? Is movement happening in that empty space? And this can only go further down the rabbit hole in the field of quantum mechanics where just the act of observation changes the properties of particle movement. Just something to consider. 

15 hours ago, Salaam said:

Motion is the most honest thing in the world. Motion is life and understanding that, the elements of motion and how they provide shape and distinction and potentiality will do more for your development then chasing a void. 

Imagine the possibility of taking a step OUTSIDE of the system of motion and viewing it without being involved in the motion. Entering the void and taking a look back over your shoulder at what you were grappling with could allow you to see the bigger picture. That would allow for huge progressions in personal development.

 

Declaring that particle motion cannot mathematically reach zero proves that an absolute void doesn't exist doesn't hold water.

Edited March 16, 2017 by gleb

[Tancrede Pouyat]

Awareness is absolute constant Nothing, its contents are ever-changing Somethings.

Embrace both parts of reality - they're you. 

[Principium Nexus]

If we were to presume that quantum physics and hawking radiation are an flawless description of what's going on, then shouldn't we take Planck length as an example that physical reality has some sort of quantanized values at the fundamental level? That would mean you don't need infinity to get to an absolute (like a infinitely small fraction) but rather a huge amount of energy, that could eventually create a real absolute singularity. If we say planck is wrong and physical reality is continuous than we can indeed not reach a true absolute anywhere. And what does that mean for all of space-time? If we were to look at all space, wouldn't there be highest and utmost lowest temperatures/densities somewhere in the cosmic background radiation? 

This is interesting to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

Edited March 16, 2017 by Principium Nexus

[Salaam]

On 3/16/2017 at 1:36 AM, Leo Gura said:

Don't confuse Nothingess/Absolute/God/Consciousness with scientific ideas of nothingness. Two totally different domains.

Science is the disciplined and systematic observation and study of reality. I can understand taking issue with some of the conclusions they draw from that study, but the actual dynamics of motion are grounded in reality. You're assertion above reads to me like you are divorcing your spiritual or philosophical view of reality from reality. Which comes across as delusional or at the very least un-grounded.

I don't know how many years you've been working on your mind or how far you've gotten, but progress should be leading you towards foundational touchstones that are present in all facets of reality that govern and protect the balance, harmony, and incredible inter-related diversity of the universe. It should not be leading you towards extremism and delusion.

Have you for instance expanded your awareness down into the different layers of internalization all humans hold? How deep into your subconscious have you gone?

I've gone so deep it's made me sick, because like I mentioned below to Gleb, awareness does have a weight to it and there are very fragile things inside us that govern automated processes inside us that will degrade under it's weight. A person learns from those experiences how there are limits that are only properly handled through balance and synergy, rather than one dimensional extremism. You learn that the uncertainty principle is a real dynamic of reality and how to protect the integrity and coherency of all the diverse things inside a human being.

The way the universe moves is really quite beautiful actually. I mean, it's also brutal as well... it's beautifully brutal.

On 3/16/2017 at 1:43 AM, gleb said:

This is referring to the kinetic energy of particles like protons, neutrons, electrons and smaller. Having those particles reach absolute zero, at this point, is mathematically "impossible".

But what about the pallet in which those particles are thrashing about? Remember that old scientific saying of "99.9% of an atom is empty space"? Is movement happening in that empty space? And this can only go further down the rabbit hole in the field of quantum mechanics where just the act of observation changes the properties of particle movement. Just something to consider. 

Imagine the possibility of taking a step OUTSIDE of the system of motion and viewing it without being involved in the motion. Entering the void and taking a look back over your shoulder at what you were grappling with could allow you to see the bigger picture. That would allow for huge progressions in personal development.

 

Declaring that particle motion cannot mathematically reach zero proves that an absolute void doesn't exist doesn't hold water.

That "empty space" in an atom isn't empty its permeated by fields. In fact the whole universe is permeated by fields and clouds of probability/potentiality. Absolute emptiness is not what is at play here. There are vacuums, which are suspensions of a certain degree of excitation, but even that state relies on motion to contain and restrain it along the edges of that vacuum in order to be maintained, while again STILL being permeated by fields and still not an "absolute" emptiness. 

"The idea that atoms are mostly "empty space" is, from a quantum viewpoint, nonsense. The volume of an atom is filled by the wave function of its electrons, or, from a QFT viewpoint, there is a localized excitation of the electron field in that region of space, which are both very different from the "empty" vacuum state.

The concept of empty space is actually quite tricky, since our intuition "Space is empty when there is no particle in it" differs from the formal "Empty space is the unexcited vacuum state of the theory" quite a lot. The space around the atom is definitely not in the vacuum state, it is filled with electron states. But if you go and look, chances are, you will find at least some "empty" space in the sense of "no particles during measurement". Yet you are not justified in saying that there is "mostly empty space" around the atom, since the electrons are not that sharply localized unless some interaction (like measurements) takes place that actually force them to. When not interacting, their states are "smeared out" over the atom in something sometimes called the electron cloud, where the cloud or orbital represents the probability of finding a particle in any given spot.

This weirdness is one of the reasons why quantum mechanics is so fundamentally different from classical mechanics - suddenly, a lot of the world becomes wholly different from what we are used to at our macroscopic level, and especially our intuitions about "empty space" and such fail us completely at microscopic levels."  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/126512/why-doesnt-matter-pass-through-other-matter-if-atoms-are-99-999-empty-space

You're second to last paragraph about imagining makes no practical sense to me and ignores what you touched on earlier about the fact that awareness or observation has a "weight" to it that spurs or activates change/collapse/shifts in the composition of a thing. Observation is an action with motion, so there is no observation without motion, there is no direction without motion, no position or orientation, so there would be no "looking back" or looking at all. There would be no contrast, so no bigger or smaller, no inside or outside, no relativity, or perspective. Which means no progress, no development, and no growth. It's an imagining that provides no value in practical application within reality, no offense.
 

On 3/16/2017 at 8:17 AM, Principium Nexus said:

If we were to presume that quantum physics and hawking radiation are an flawless description of what's going on, then shouldn't we take Planck length as an example that physical reality has some sort of quantanized values at the fundamental level? That would mean you don't need infinity to get to an absolute (like a infinitely small fraction) but rather a huge amount of energy, that could eventually create a real absolute singularity. If we say planck is wrong and physical reality is continuous than we can indeed not reach a true absolute anywhere. And what does that mean for all of space-time? If we were to look at all space, wouldn't there be highest and utmost lowest temperatures/densities somewhere in the cosmic background radiation? 

This is interesting to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

Well what I believe happens and most of the patterns I've experienced bears this out, is that the creation and releasing of those intensities wouldn't create a singularity, but instead a kind of "flip-flop" effect where the overall dominant and submissive contrasts in the dynamic would shift positions creating a threshold,  floor to ceiling change rather than a unitary absolute.

It's kind of like the action prevalent in the concept of "negative" temperature. But, it's also mirrored in the way stress adaptations occur. An upward trend in intensity that reaches a threshold and then flip-flops (or breaks the system unfortunately).

http://physicscentral.com/explore/action/negative-temperature.cfm

Edited March 20, 2017 by Salaam

[gleb]

On 3/20/2017 at 2:51 PM, Salaam said:

Science is the disciplined and systematic observation and study of reality...

Observation is an action with motion, so there is no observation without motion, there is no direction without motion, no position or orientation, so there would be no "looking back" or looking at all. There would be no contrast, so no bigger or smaller, no inside or outside, no relativity, or perspective. Which means no progress, no development, and no growth. It's an imagining that provides no value in practical application within reality, no offense.

Clearly you have a deeper understanding of particle physics than I do (or just a really intricate vocabulary) but I don't really see how you can categorize observation as an act of motion. How would you quantify that?

Also if observation is how you describe it leading to "no progress, no development, no growth" and "no practical application within reality", couldn't one argue that science itself (based on your own definition as an act of observation) carries those same characteristics? 

All I'm trying to do is poke holes in your science so that maybe you can see that science has flaws and may not be able to answer every question we have.  

Additionally, what we are doing here is just theory and projection, which has nothing to do with grasping the true nature of reality (from my understanding). It probably creates even more distance from the Truth. 

Edited March 22, 2017 by gleb

[Salaam]

On 3/21/2017 at 11:04 PM, gleb said:

Clearly you have a deeper understanding of particle physics than I do (or just a really intricate vocabulary) but I don't really see how you can categorize observation as an act of motion. How would you quantify that?

Also if observation is how you describe it leading to "no progress, no development, no growth" and "no practical application within reality", couldn't one argue that science itself (based on your own definition as an act of observation) carries those same characteristics? 

All I'm trying to do is poke holes in your science so that maybe you can see that science has flaws and may not be able to answer every question we have.  

Additionally, what we are doing here is just theory and projection, which has nothing to do with grasping the true nature of reality (from my understanding). It probably creates even more distance from the Truth. 

Well, it's quite simple actually. Observation is an action and a sending and receiving and all those things involve motion. Things bounce off of each other during observation and those things have a weight and a unique feel to them. Haven't you ever felt the "weight of someone's gaze"? How things change in your experience, how your motions change, when you realize your being observed? 

That sending and receiving, that bouncing back and forth of information wouldn't happen in a theoretical place where motion can't occur. Things need to bounce off each other, involve themselves with each other to spur change. And change is require for growth.

On that second part, you're misunderstanding what I said about observation leading to "no progress, etc,". I was saying observation without motion leads to those things. Observation with motion, the sending and receiving of information as things connect will definitely lead to progress.

And a final thing. Please stop making the assumption that I dogmatically follow science. Science is a supplement, a corroborator for my direct experience. I've been doing focus/meditation work for over a decade, fine tuning my senses and observational capabilities. 
 

Edited March 23, 2017 by Salaam

[AlwaysBeNice]

www.reddit.com/r/holofractal is in complete alignment with the infinity, oneness, ancient understanding, the LOA and the Bashar's teachings

One of the most awesome things about this infinity stuff by the way is s that infinity goes both ways.

So in every point there is infinity, in every light point, water thingy, space in the air etc.

So every point actually contains everything and is in everything, which makes is this impossible one thingy. And so obvious too right.

And it's all consciousness, so it's this infinite magical thing EVERYWHERE, and we're just in one realm.