Another tough 'elementary' question from my tutor

[n1cm0c]

Post 05 Mar 2008 17:02

You are starting *another* thread on this ???

Conduction band electrons are like a plasma, and will move anywhere an externally imposed field pushes them, even at 0K (bohr model, otherwise things get quantum mechanical, as reality does). They will impart slight vibrations to the atomic structure as they traverse the material, raising the thermal energy above your assumed ideal 0K.

Electrons which are in their ground state won't come out of it, they'll stay bound to the nucleus by a *VERY STRONG FORCE* , much stronger than Yoda's... and there's no way you can shake them out , if it's 0K, so no thermal energy in the material. Shine a laser on them, and you RAISE the energy of the system.

Gravity is kind of weak on electrons, btw.

Really, intuition does not really work at 0K, I have a feeling you are not in kansas anymore, Dorothy.

Toto

BTW, how about the mathematical resolution of the capacitor energy paradox ? Anyone actually *reads* the papers ?

 

[jasmin_123]

I have started another thread on an absolutely different problem:
here we are talking about oscillators and there on electrons at 0K.

BTW, you might notice that my opinion seconds yours:
"Conduction band electrons are like a plasma, and will move
anywhere an externally imposed field pushes them, even at 0K."

So, we both are not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

Dorothy.

PS: I have read the papers, they do not deny my statements.

 

[fletcher]

When you connect these capacitors, even in theory you will lose half of system energy. For soultion, refer to Basic Theory of Circuit and Networks by Charles Desor and Ernest Koh. (I have read tanslation of this book so I am not sure about the english name of the book.)

 

[jasmin_123]

The question was: what it would be if energy loss = 0.

 

[n1cm0c]

I have started another thread on an absolutely different problem:
here we are talking about oscillators and there on electrons at 0K.

BTW, you might notice that my opinion seconds yours:
"Conduction band electrons are like a plasma, and will move
anywhere an externally imposed field pushes them, even at 0K."


PS: I have read the papers, they do not deny my statements.

Selective quoting... I also write that the moving electrons will interact with the material and slightly raise the temperature, so it won't be 0K anymore.

In a selected set of materials (small, and not *all* metals) there will exist super-conductivity. This can't be explained w/o quantum mechanics, and certainly not in a intuitive fashion.

And in many more materials the conduction band will have no electrons if they are all in the ground state (0K condition), so no electrical current will take place (unless the midi-chlorians give enough energy to the electron so it comes out of ground state... hey, it's not 0K anymore! damn, violates lemma #1).

If you keep adjusting the conditions around your assertions then you can be always right, of course.

0K is a theoretical state, and what happens there, or close to there, can't be modeled by classical physics, afaiu.

As for the papers, they show (mathematically) that no infinite frequency oscilation is needed. it's enough to posit that the discharging process is a continuous one, w/ finite time constant, as small as you like (but not zero).

Your intuitive view posits infinite speed charging, oscilatory behavior, w/o an inductance (that is, electric *and* magnetic field) , etc. Your abstraction has no mathematical or physical underpinnings that I can discern. It's more like "this situation would be nice and gives the right number and it's intuitive".

I believe that the behavior you describe is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain a paradox of an abstraction, unless your version of the abstraction is so constrained that it's of little use.

The paper does not deny oscilations, it just makes them irrelevant to explain the paradox.

This 0K thing is also going in a similar direction, it appears. Enjoy yourself positing intuitive explanations that are really just statements, with nothing else supporting them. Have you thought really really hard about a career in theoretical physics ?

 

[jasmin_123]

Thank you, n1cm0c, very much for your speculations on my personality!
Studying psychology?

Jasmine

 

[n1cm0c]

Thank you, n1cm0c, very much for your speculations on my personality!

I am sorry ?! I made no remarks on your personality per se.

I just pointed out that the 0K conduction "problem" seems to be a(nother) discussion around abstractions w/ statements that may be true only under limited conditions. Those validity limitations may further the intellectual value, but then it bears no relationship to the actual phenomenon (if there's any...).

This is imho a hallmark of theoretical physics. I wished you personal enjoyment of the 0K discussion, under those considerations above. Career advice early can save a lot of time later, btw. I've seen experimental physicists turning to astro-physics , sadly.

I fail to see what part of it speculates on your psychology or internal motivations.

How is carnival btw ?

 

[jasmin_123]

Just a few examples:

"Selective quoting..."

"If you keep adjusting the conditions around your assertions then you can be always right, of course. "

"Your intuitive view posits infinite speed charging, oscilatory behavior, w/o an inductance (that is, electric *and* magnetic field) , etc. Your abstraction has no mathematical or physical underpinnings that I can discern."

And a masterpiece:

"Enjoy yourself positing intuitive explanations that are really just statements, with nothing else supporting them. Have you thought really really hard about a career in theoretical physics ?"

A real pleasure to read! Is not it?

Enjoying you even more than a carnival,
Jasmine

 

[n1cm0c]

Just a few examples:

"Selective quoting..."

Selective quoting... I also write that the moving electrons will interact with the material and slightly raise the temperature, so it won't be 0K anymore.

that's a statement, not an interpretation of your motivation. You did quote only a selected part of the phrase.

"If you keep adjusting the conditions around your assertions then you can be always right, of course. "

Refers to the limitations of the abstract solution. No psychology there that I can see. I mention the fact that additional constraints were imposed as points were raised. Given enough constraints, only your proposal will fit.

"Your intuitive view posits infinite speed charging, oscilatory behavior, w/o an inductance (that is, electric *and* magnetic field) , etc. Your abstraction has no mathematical or physical underpinnings that I can discern."

Refers to the limitations of your proposed solution, followed by a statement of opinion on the proposal. No judgement of intent either that I can see. I use the word intuitive as I believe you have yourself referred to it.


And a masterpiece:

"Enjoy yourself positing intuitive explanations that are really just statements, with nothing else supporting them. Have you thought really really hard about a career in theoretical physics ?"

I clarified that I wish you enjoyment proposing intuitive views to abstract situations unconnected to experimental phenomena. Specifically, 0K conduction.

Are you trying to be ironic btw ?

A real pleasure to read! Is not it?

Enjoying you even more than a carnival,

Jasmine

I suspect that you are trying that, irony. Ok, enjoy yourself, I can add little more to this.

It's perpetual september every year...

 

[jasmin_123]

You have added enough!

 

[vaibhavbanga]

we can easily say that if two capacitors are parallal and one is charged at v volt and other is at zero volt .......if there is nothing connecting inspite of that then since ecery capacitor has impedance and two has voltage drops on these impedences and this will work as voltage sources and two voltage sources in parallal only have equal voltages v/2 on bothe capacitors but there are some energy losses surely....