Everything we study in science generally comes back to the one thing we cannot measure absolutely...energy. Whether we are studying the kinematics of large objects like trains, planes, and automobiles or we are examining the behavior of large groups of nanoscopic particles like atoms and ions we can only measure the change in energy not the total or absolute amount of energy. This idea, in and of itself, occupies and very special singularity in the universe and has incredible ramifications.
In chemistry we study thermodynamics in terms of enthalpy, temperature, entropy, and free energy. When we study reactions we ascertain whether the reaction is exothermic or endothermic, i.e., is the change in enthalpy negative or positive. If it is endothermic then heat is absorbed in the process and heat (enthalpy) is a reactant in the thermo chemical equation. In this case the change in enthalpy is positive. If it is exothermic then heat is emitted into the surroundings and it is a product in the thermo chemical equation. In this case the change in enthalpy is negative.
What does this say about work? An endothermic reaction has work done on it from the surroundings and an exothermic reaction does work on the surroundings. The particles of the surroundings slow down during an endothermic reaction and the particles of the surroundings speed up during an exothermic reaction. It is all about the work...it is all about the particles. As Richard Feynman says so eloquently…particles ‘jiggle’.
Consider a closed piston with a plunger. If you add heat to it you will speed up the particles and they will expand pushing the plunger up and therefore doing work on the surroundings. Consequently if you remove heat from it you will slow the particles down...they will lose kinetic energy...and the volume will decrease as the surroundings do work on the piston. Everything is about work...and heat...and particles (internal energy)...and ‘jiggling’…
The far reaching ramification is that we can not measure the total energy in the universe because we can't seem to stop all the particles from moving...and this includes the subatomic particles. Supposedly absolute zero is defined as the absence of all heat...but, and this is according to Feynman...heat correlates directly with particle motion...however, if we stop all particles from moving it will include the subatomic particles and that would violate Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle because then we could in fact define the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously...so therefore we are always measuring changes in energy.
So I guess absolute zero could be a singularity just like the speed of light and maybe we will never get there...I say maybe...
Indeed this is a most perplexing problem. I nearly thought why not just find the kinetic energy of the particles and average it to find the energy throughout the object, but then I realized that to find the kinetic energy of a particle we would need to find its velocity and to find its velocity would be to violate Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Then I realized this would also not be accounting for the nuclear energy, the electrostatic energy, and probably five or so other energies I'm forgetting or don't know about of the the particle of an object.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the "definition" of work stated in this essay I would say that Feynman and Mr. Legare have the right answer. When it comes to work it all has to deal with the jiggling of particles. Internal combustion engines ,for example, simply make a certain amount of particles jiggle much faster in a brief amount of time to power the pistons which causes work and turns the an axle of the car using that work thus repurposing the initial work for a later purpose.
I found Feynman's concept of the "jiggling" of particles both amusing and informative. It helped me to better understand the motion of particles, and in turn the concept of work. When reading the lecture and Mr. Legare's and JSharkey's posts, two questions came to mind.
ReplyDeleteIf all objects in the universe are in perpetual motion, what would happen when objects float too far away from the "center" of the universe? If we are to assume that the Big Bang resulted in our universe as we know it, then we must also assume that all objects in our universe are moving away from the center of the explosion. The definition of gravity states that all objects in the universe attract all other objects, and the further away the objects are, the less attraction there is between them. Is there some large mass in the center of the universe from which everything has emanated? And if there is, what will happen when our galaxy, and all other galaxies, moves too far away from it? Will we gradually group around another large mass? Will the center of the universe change?
In response to JSharkey's idea on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, I would like to propose a theory.
"Heisenberg originally explained the limitation using a thought experiment. Imagine shining light at a moving electron. When a photon, or particle of light, hits the electron, it will bounce back and record its position, yet in the process of doing so, it has given the electron a kick, thereby changing its speed." Different wavelengths of light have varying effects on electrons. For example, a gamma-ray allows for the most precise measurements, but it also has the most energy. Because of this, it would give the electron the greatest "kick," thus changing the electron's momentum the most (http://www.livescience.com/18567-wacky-physics-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle.html).
If an experiment were to be created in such a way as that different wavelengths of light could be applied to an electron from all directions, would we be able to stop the movement of that electron? If varying forces or "kicks" could affect the electron to slow it down, could we at least get a more precise location for that particle?
All stars, planets, and moons are attracting each other in the universe, and they are moving in their orbits and they will not hit each other
DeleteThe Solar System formed in 4.5 billion years ago by the Big Bang. Stars, planets, and moons formed because of the difference between their mass. The sun has the greatest mass and it stays at the center of a solar system and pulls the planets and moons to it. Planets attract moons in the same way. And because of the Big Bang, galaxies are moving apart from each other, but I don’t think they will group around another large mass because if they will, that would have happened before. And galaxies are moving away from each other at the same velocity, but they always have one center, that is where the Big Bang happened 4.5 billion years ago.
I agree this is a really perplexing question about the Big Bang theory. I think that it is honestly really hard to believe that every planet came from the same one breaking apart and if we are all moving away from it what are we moving towards? Because as you said in your response gravity attracts all objects and the farther apart you are the less gravitational pull it has; so what pull is so much greater than the one every planet emanated from?
DeleteIn response to MarkY's post:
DeleteI believe that galaxies are NOT moving away from each other at the same velocity. Back in the '90s, scientists generally agreed on one thing: the universe might perpetually expand, or it may expand and then contract, but the force of gravity would slow this process. However, with the invention of the Hubble Telescope, scientists discovered through observing supernovae an enormous distance away from Earth that the Universe is actually expanding FASTER than it had in the past. This would imply that the velocity of the galaxies is changing.
How can this increase in speed be explained? Scientists don't really know, but they have named it: dark energy.
It turns out that dark energy comprises 70% of the universe, followed by dark matter at 25%, and the remaining 5% is filled with "normal" matter, that is the things we can actually see. No one really knows what dark energy is, but Einstein provided an interesting theory. He was the first to understand that empty space is not really "empty," as that would imply the absence of matter. Scientists have proposed that this "empty" space is really filled with substances that we can't see.
Josh, I really enjoyed this idea:
Delete"If an experiment were to be created in such a way as that different wavelengths of light could be applied to an electron from all directions, would we be able to stop the movement of that electron? If varying forces or "kicks" could affect the electron to slow it down, could we at least get a more precise location for that particle?"
However, I have one question or thought that further complicates the "equation", as you will. If the electron, just for pure example, is moving 45 degrees in a 2-dimensional universe (on an x-y axis plane), how would we know how many lightwaves/what frequency of wave to hit the electron AND where? We can either know, as stated by the Uncertainty Principle, it's direction or velocity, but not both. So, if we know direction, we would know where to hit the electron in order to turn it around, but not what frequency. Furthermore, if we know velocity, we know what frequency it will take to stop the electron, but not where to point those lightwaves.
If you blasted waves of equal frequency at the electron, you may not know where you pushed it - the electron will not simply stop if equal frequencies push on it in all directions. The electron has momentum, and one of those wave will push the electron in the direction of that moment, and one against it, one perpendicular to it, etc. The only important lightwaves here are the ones parallel to the electron's path of travel, because, essentially, the electron will continue going in the way it was going.
Remember everything that I've said is being explained on a 2-dimensional plane. Add another dimension, and we further complicate the electron's movement and the understanding of where to point and lightwaves and of what frequency.
I agree with Josh in that I like how Feynman writes his article. He makes his writing sound like he is giving an actual lecture rather than writing an article. Looking at Legare's response to the blog makes me wonder about that plunger...
ReplyDeleteAccoring to Legare and any other scientist, if you add heat to the piston then the particles move faster and the plunger expands out of the piston. On the contrary, if you take away heat from the piston then the plunger contracts. Using this knowledge, if you are able to take enough heat out of the piston to where the plunger contracts all the way to the bottom of the piston, then wouldn't that mean that all of the heat was removed from the piston? If all the heat were taken out of the piston then that would mean that for the first time in the history of the human race, absolute zero has been reached!
But we really know that this has never happened. Scientists would have already made this discovery if it was possible. So in reality there still must be just a miniscule amount of heat remaining in the piston. Relating to space, if the universe is expanding then that means that heat is constantly being applied to the universe. Therefore, absolute doesn’t exist somewhere out there because everything is gaining heat.
I really enjoy the way that Richard Feynman explains the jiggling of particles with simple examples that makes me easily understand.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Mr Legare, exothermic or endothermic are all about the jiggling of particles. The work done on the system from the surroundings in an endothermic reaction and the work done by the system on the surroundings is an exothermic reaction. Heat is a reactant in endothermic reactions, when adding heat to the system, collisions between particles become stronger and faster. And the collision between particles in exothermic reaction is weaker and slower, because heat becomes a product that the system gives out energy(joules). The collision between particles is what Richard Feynman calls the jiggling of particles.
Work is equal to the force that you need to move an object multiplied by the distance that the object moved. I think the reason why we can’t measure the work in the universe is because all planets keeps move in a circular path. So we don’t know the distance that the planet moves, therefore we don’t know its work.
It is very interesting that that the work...jiggling of particles creates energy, and we use energy to do all kinds of things.
Work equals to energy and simply use W=FS is not 100 percent right in this case. The jiggling particles being talked about is more abstract that can't be measured in meters and newtons.
DeleteAlso for bigger topics like universe, we can't just use the work to measure how the universe is!
The way how feynman described the vibrate of particles in atoms as "jiggling particles" really gave me a new idea of these invisible movenment in atoms, let's imagine a picture of water gets heaten up, the particles in the water jiggles keeps
ReplyDeleteincrasing and the energy it contained increased as well.
Same thing that Mr. Legare talked about in the blog about a closed piston with a plunger. The particles in the piston will speed up with more heat added to the piston and do work on the surroundings. If heat is removed from the piston, the particles will be slowed down. That means, less "jiggle"
There is one more thing about the reality of jiggling particles is it can't obtain absolute zero, as what david commented, because heat, or enery , can't be taken from one thing totally. That means particles are always jiggling, moving.
The useful of to make imagination of heat,energy and jiggling particles to understand how heat, work and jiggling particles are combined together.
I agree with Feynman and Mr. Legare with the definition of work having to do with the "jiggling" of particles. Because when you think about when you rub your hands together this creates heat by doing work which makes the particles in your hands speed up. I agree with Josh when he says that it is amusing that Feynman calls it the "jiggling" of particles, but then when I think about it I couldn't think of a better word. Because when particles move they are spastic; they aren't just going up and down or in any particular pattern, they are going all over the place. I think it's interesting to think about small subatomic particles being all around us, to be honest it reminds me a lot of Horton Hears a Who and in that movie (for those of you who never saw it) there is a little tiny town inside a spec on a dandelion and this elephant, Horton, is the only one that can see this man and in the movie they explain earthquakes by when Horton moves the dandelion. Well what if we are like a subatomic level to everything else in the universe? How do we know that we are the largest universe? What if we are a really tiny universe inside an even bigger universe?
ReplyDeleteI agree that there can never be an absolute zero because people and objects are constantly having one force or another acting on it. Our particles could never be still because we are always breathing or blinking or moving or doing sports. And because the "jiggling" is from heat would absolute zero be closest to dry ice then because it is so cold? What would happen to us if we could make a particle reach absolute zero? Would we even be able to study it or would it simply just not be there anymore?
I agree with Bridget in saying that Feynman’s use of the word “jiggling” is actually very appropriate. It is more descriptive than it initially sounds. When I first heard the phrase “jiggling of particles” I honestly thought it was some sort of joking way to explain physics…maybe even to dumb it down for us. Then I thought about it, and after reading Feynman’s article it makes perfect sense. As mentioned by many other students, when particles get heated, they bounce and move around fast. They bounce of the walls of the container that holds them and they move so fast to where they might even change state. This concept can be so easily explained as the “jiggling of particles”. If you really think about it…by the word “jiggle” it simply means that the particles are just moving extremely fast and they just jiggle.
ReplyDeleteI really actually agree with David that this article was more like a lecture than a written article. I was surprisingly interested with it; he made the subject to the point where I can understand what exactly he meant. I felt like he made it simple but not to the point where I felt like he was talking to a three year old…. It reminded me a lot of the way Mr. Legare teaches because, to me at least, it was interesting and it made sense. I didn’t feel like he was just talking at me. Even though it was an article and a piece of paper, I felt like he was interactive in how he asked multiple questions throughout the article; either questioning what you once previously thought or trying to explore your knowledge.
Overall, I thought the article was interesting and helped with my process of thinking and understanding of physics. Feynman is obviously a very intelligent man…who likes to the word “jiggle”.
As many other people have said, I really like Feynman's way of explaining very complicated subjects - put more simply, his style of teaching. Many of the books that I enjoy to read are written by authors with parallel ways of showing the reader how the universe works. Nobody likes "text-book" reading, so why not talk about what makes up everything casually?
ReplyDeleteWhich brings me to my next point. I personally think people learn better in a casual environment, simply because you are more relaxed and free to accept different things - not to mention better understanding the information being given - and I think the word "jiggling particles" is one of those casual moments. Sure, they could have come up with a better or more formal word for how the particles move, but as Bridget said, there couldn't have been a better word. Vibrations, rotations, and translations all come out to word: jiggling... and hey, we know what things look like when they "jiggle". We've all seen Jello jiggle, so we have a basic idea of particles when we say that they "jiggle". This is why casual speech is so important, because it puts otherwise different and complicated terms into phrases and words that we use on a day to day basis, which I think is an excellent teaching style.
Now, we all know particles jiggle - that's the whole point of this blog. And we have a theory that, to reach absolute zero would mean to stop the jiggling of particles. Okay, so that's tucked away into our safe. So what happens if we DO reach absolute zero? You might say that the particles stop and break Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Well, yes they do, so let's ignore that for now. But another question is, what happens to the environment?
We have to reach absolute zero somewhere, somehow. For this spiel I'll use a metal bucket to hold the experiment in.
Okay, so we have reached absolute zero inside this bucket - wonderful... but wait, wouldn't the surroundings heat up the contents of the bucket? Simple enough, sure. Now let's make it so that the particles DON'T heat up the system, because absolute zero is so powerful like that. Given the bucket with absolute zero (essentially "stopped" particles inside the bucket) and its surroundings, we can say something ridiculous will happen. If a particle moving at normal velocity hits a particle "infected" with absolute zero, it could either heat up the particle (which we are saying is impossible for this experiment because absolute zero means that there is no transfer of heat) or lose its heat and energy entirely - or it could just bounce off, but that's no fun.
Okay, so the healthy particle loses its heat entirely to the infected particle, which dispels all of the heat, almost like a shield because of the absolute zero state.
Now, wait a minute... the healthy particle just touched an infected particle. So the healthy particles turns into an infected one because it lost all of its heat, therefore entering absolute zero.
Now wait one more minute, you might say. There are trillions of particles around that bucket, and trillions of particles around those trillions of particles... they just keep going. This means that the reaction stated above will continue, and will keep continuing to affect all of the jiggling particles near the bucket, near that system, and so on and so forth. We have just effectively set off a huge chain reaction of stopping particles - put into more "fun" terms, we just stopped the universe (that is, if the rate of heat exchange exceeds the speed of light. If it doesn't then we didn't stop the universe entirely from expanding, we just stopped it, much like a huge explosion that never ends.)
Thinking back on it, my whole spiel sounds pretty ridiculous and outrageous, but we never know what might happen if we reach absolute zero.
I like how you put these ideas because it is fairly simply put where people other than the people in the class can understand it. If people didn't take physics class, then they would have no idea what we are talking about except if they listen to Feynman's lecture or if they read these blogs. if someone didn't take the class, they could read this and completely understand what physics is. I like how you put Feynman's idea into a great situation about how the particles interact.
DeleteOverall, I think you put this idea perfectly.
This is really just an interesting idea. I personally love thinking about the stuff that is supposed to be "impossible", and trying to imagine what would happen if we could find a way to make it happen. In this case, the idea that reaching Absoulte zero would stop not only time, but effectively destroy the universe is simply terrifying. By definition, heat travels from hot to cold, and in this case, it would travel from hot to nothing, effectively creating the bottomless hole that would drain the universe of energy. This is very well stated by Michael, good job bringing your idea across.
DeleteVery Nasty stuff.
I loved reading your post. This is a very interesting idea and clearly you feel passionately about it. However, in your experiment, you assume that particles in a system will not gain heat. That is a massive assumption! In fact, it has been proven that in normal conditions, this assumption is entirely false. However, i understand that this is not exactly a normal condition; this is absolute zero. Nonetheless, in your experiment, you assume that we already have absolute zero and from there all hell breaks loose. There's really only one immediate problem with this: we haven't achieved absolute zero yet. Therefore, this experiment could not currently physically take place. It is a fascinating theoretical idea, but I highly doubt that this is really possible. (But if it is, we'll never know because we'll be frozen at absolute zero.)
DeleteYour post is so interesting. The idea that what happens in that one, small bucket could stop the universe is mind-blowing to say the least. The thought of the impossible, as Nick stated, becoming possible is interesting as well as incomprehensible. It's ironic that this would be a never ending reaction that ended everything. Heygal 19 makes an interesting point to say that we would never know even if we do acheive absolute zero because we will be frozen in time.
DeleteFeynman's description of particular motion as a "jiggling" just works. It gets its point across and describes what it needs to describe, but it's still playful and provokes the imagination. Sure, he could've achieved the same description and sounded like a much bigger scientific smarty-pants by describing it as an oscillation or something lame like that, but I'm quite certain that if I had had to read an entire lecture about the oscillation of particles I would've just fallen asleep right there on my desk. At least jiggling made me sit up and take a bit of an interest. Once I read that description I had to know what the heck he was talking about: was he right or was he just crazy?
ReplyDeleteI also like Josh's idea about the panoramic gamma rays. I think of it like those electric field graphs that Mr. Legare showed us on monday. When he put four equal charges at the corners of the square, they created an electrically isolated and neutral "void" at the center of the graph. If you fired gamma rays at an electron from all sides, theoretically the forces of each proton-on-electron collision would cancel out the others and the electron would stay in place, and we would now know where that place was, so we could actually find it and measure it. If we tried to do it this way, we could completely avoid having to deal with the whole absolute zero conundrum before we could find an electron. In fact, if we could find one using this gamma ray method, we would also prove that absolute zero is indeed possible and that we just hadn't managed it yet, thereby resolving the absolute zero discussion and killing two birds with one stone.
Although I think you have an interesting idea Lucas, I don't think that the electron would stay in one place. First of all, a proton-on-electron collision would result in the positive charges sticking to that electron. I think what you mean is electron-on-electron collisions. Even if that occurred, we all saw on Monday how even when an electron meets multiple forces around it, the charge NEVER stops jiggling.
DeleteI don't think that the electron would stay in one place either. Jiggling is something that particles must do to epress the energy they hold. The main forces that accelerate the electrons are electrical forces, from electrical fields. I also think that once we get some atoms or electrons moving around quickly, they can bounce off other atoms, transferring some of their energy.
DeleteBut isn't it possible that the collisions would allow that electron to express its inherent energy without jiggling? And maybe you're right David, perhaps electron-on-electron would be a better option that proton-on-electron. But in the end, it seems like what kind of particle it is wouldn't really matter, as long as they were all the same kind of particle with the same charge all hitting the electron at the exact same time.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf it had not been coined by a scientific genius, the term "jiggling particles" would perhaps be dismissed as an inappropriately worded term. In fact, the term "jiggling", describes the universe perfectly. We are all constantly moving, never truly at rest, endlessly vibrating. And thus, what better way to describe it other than "jiggling". The term makes the subject interesting, and it doesn't sound like a scientific know it all is reading definitions from his field notes.
ReplyDeleteBut more importantly, what does this constant jiggling imply? That everything has heat, internal energy, and a temperature to some degree. This has already been explained by Professor Feynman, and I will waste no one's time rehashing the ideas that have been previously stated ad nauseum.
I do a lot of thinking about this stuff, specifically absolute zero, the expansion of the universe, and gravity, and my mind keeps drawing back to the same crazy idea (which has been promptly shot down by my peers time and time again.) I enjoy thinking about what Michael M. has already stated, specifically what would happen if we reached absolute zero, but my mind seems to want to take it one step further. It always comes back to this:
Is there such a thing as negative heat? Or rather, is it possible to reach a temperature under absolute zero.
Before you start yelling at me about how stupid this is, I would like you to know you are right. But the concept is nontheless intriguing. My benchmark for this is the concept of negative numbers. It is still hard for my mind to comperehend the idea that a number can be... less that nothing?? Under zero? How is that possible? How CAN you take three from two and get one less than zero? It makes so much sense in numerical form but the concept itself is baffling.
So why can't the same be true for absolute zero? If we ever did reach it, I believe that something relative to Michael's theory would occur, but what if it didn't? And my brain only has one logical answer.
It is impossible, simply because of entropy. Every object in the universe has entropy to its own degree, and to assume that we could reach numbers of negative heat would infer that we would reach negative entropy, which is not only a physical impossibility, but far too hairy for me to think about and stay sane.
Good thing I'll try anyways.
As Feynman describes it, science is filled with hypotheses which scientists seem to continually test as well as accept some which they see valid. I really like your comparison to negative numbers as well as the approach you took to think about absolute zero. In mathematics, we are taught to accept many different equations and ideas, and when we begin to write them on paper, as you said, it is very easy to grasp the numerical forms and such. But when one begins to question ideas (and yes, they are only ideas that are widely accepted in the mathematical world) like negative numbers or infinite, conceptually, ones mind begins to wander. What is a negative number? Sure, less than zero. But if zero is nothingness then what does it mean to have less than zero? I see it from the exact same perspective as Nick in terms of absolute zero. And to take it even further (maybe I'm trying to relate it too much to mathematics and zero), but what about less than the so-called absolute zero?
DeleteI agree with Mr.Legare and Feynman's opinion. Either an exothermic reaction or an endothermic reaction is about the "jiggling" of particles. Feynman uses a piston as an example, I totally understand how area, density, and temperature infulence the pressure. And I would say that when we heat something, the molecules would speed up. For example, if we drop ink to two different cups, one is filled with cold water, the other is filled with hot water. We could see that the ink in hot water would diffuse faster. It also prove the "jiggling" of the particles. Since they are jiggling all the time, the molecules can go anywhere they want. It causes the diffusion.
ReplyDeleteAs for the absolute zero, I think we can never get there is because absolute zero means there is no energy. According to the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution, the more energy the particles have, the higher temperature the object has. However, the particles are moving all the time, so we can't get to the absolute zero.
I agree with you and very like you example. It is really good to explain "jiggling of the particles".Ink lab is a kind way to see the influence the temperature to the molecules clearly. We cannot see "jiggling of the particles" and molecules move, but we do have some ways to prove that.
DeleteI completely agree with your idea on absolute zero, Elaine. It's very practical and logical. I too believe that it is impossible to reach absolute zero. Stopping a particles energy seems very difficult when they are constantly moving and colliding with each other. Although scientists have come close to the point of reaching absolute zero, it has never been achieved. I think that it will stay like that forever due to the complexity of particles and the way act.
DeleteI agree with Feynman. I really love his way to explain things more simple and interesting as many people said. “Jiggling" of particles” caused by atoms are everywhere in our life. We cannot see “Jiggling" of particles” very clearly but it do exist. Heating things will speed up their molecules and cause “jiggling" of particles”.
ReplyDeleteAs the temperature of an object depends on the velocity of its molecules, the faster the molecular motion, the object the higher the temperature, molecular motion is slower, lower temperature, when the absolute rest of the molecular objects show the temperature of -273.15 degrees Celsius, that is, molecules can not be absolutely stationary, so it was never to reach the temperature. Not only today's technology reach, and will always be impossible to achieve. Although this value is the theoretical value, but it is very important in thermodynamics, heat transfer, can even say that is the basis for the calculation of all thermal.
I agree with Shirley in that she mentions the impossibility of a still molecule. This implies that electrons aren't able to remain stationary as well. Considering that reaching absolute zero is practically impossible, why invest time and energy in theories involving absolute zero? Surely, if it's actual possibility were proven, scientists could then draw conclusions from those results. Just something to consider.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found that Feynman's idea of "jiggling of particles" was quite interesting due to how some other people describe it in the past. I liked how his lecture was easier to follow that other lectures because it seamed like it was basically connecting two different ideas into something easy to understand.
ReplyDeleteI liked how Feynman describes the "jiggling of the particles" by saying "the faster the velocity the higher the temperature". this was easy to understand by the means of having college professors giving lectures.
I think that Legare's opinion is fairly similiar to Feynman because 1) they know what they are talking about and 2) it is common sense about the motion of particles.
This is all i have to say about Feynman and th "jiggling of particles".
Though short and sweet and to the point, I agree with 'Turtle' in that Feynman's lecture made physics more graspable. He started small, describing the characteristics of atoms and then moved on to the characteristics of matter that's made of these atoms. He was able to connect all these basic characteristics of atoms: heat, pressure and attraction to biology, temperature, heat and machine work. He is able to give an understandable lecture to a group of potential physics majors.
DeleteFeynmann's playful use of the term "jiggling of particles" describes the movement of said particles with surprising accuracy. I don't believe that absolute zero is possible simply because I don't know of any technology or method which would allow a substance to be cooled to such an extent. According to the 3rd law of thermodynamics, a material's temperature cannot be lowered to absolute zero within a finite amount of steps. In other words, the jiggling simply displays the energy the particles have. I don't think it's possible for any object to be completely without energy because it would simply disintegrate: there would be no movement and the particles would fall apart. Absolute zero is when a substance is completely still with no "jiggling". These two ideas contradict each other, but it is impossible to tell which one is fully true until a way is found to lower an object's temperature to absolute zero.
ReplyDeleteMr. Legare's opinion seems to echo Feynmann's with a couple twists, including the inclusion of a "maybe" (i.e., maybe absolute zero could exist.) However, I agree with them both. Still, it is impossible to know until absolute zero can be demonstrated.
To say that something is impossible is a bit extreme. Mankind has always even innovating and, in my opinion, can accomplish anything when given enough time. Just because we haven't proven absolute zero in the year 2012 does not by any means rule out the possibility of the concept being proven in the near or distant future. Also, there is no guarantee that a substance would disintegrate when subjected to absolute zero. Then again, there's no proof that anything else would happen. All we can do right now is sit back and watch technology unfold into a glorious age for mankind as we solve the unsolvable mysteries of the universe. I think that Legare has it right by including his "maybe" option to the hypothesis of the universe and it's laws.
DeleteI really enjoy the way Feynman conveys his ideas in his article, as many have previously stated. Feynman writes in a way which connects with the readers who are true physicists as well as with the ones who are in the class to just take physics. He is not too pompous while writing and uses terms which are easy to understand such as “jiggling,” and at the same time this simple word is accepted by the well-read readers of his article.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Feynman’s concept of the ‘jiggling’ atoms. The ‘jiggling’ of atoms can be used to describe many things, as he did in the article such as with the atoms ‘jiggling’ faster when heated up, causing more bouncing within the enclosed space which then causes a build of pressure. This concept is very logical and it seems as if one only has the choice to accept that everything jiggles and that all particles are constantly moving. A glass of water, for example, has the oxygen and hydrogen molecules are constantly moving about. When someone spills (not by means of tipping the glass over), for instance, we look at it in the perspective that the cup was moved, say, side to side quickly and the water flew out of the cup. When looked at from the perspective of Feynman’s concept, it makes complete sense to say that the jiggling of the atoms were sped up enough to the point that they bounced out of the glass.
Absolute zero involves a completely different discussion, from my perspective. This deals with logistics, conceptual thinking, and acceptance of a hypotheses, theory, or law. I like Nick's approach to it of attempting to conceptually grasp absolute zero as well as 0 in mathematics, or just nothingness.
I would first like to comment not on the content of the article, but more on the aspect of the character. I really enjoyed reading this article because it's not anything like a textbook. In this article, there are complex ideas explained in simple ways with a playful tone. It's like someone is actually talking to you, but you just happen to be reading along. However, the tone of this article is not the only thing about it that makes it interesting and the reason that Feynman is such a great professor.
ReplyDeleteIn class, we talked about how there are no answers in physics, only more questions. Well, I have a question: how do we know that absolute zero can actually be reached? Some scientist say that it is possible and that we simply haven't achieved it yet while others say it cannot be reached at all. Here's another question: how do we know if it can or cannot be reached? In theory, it can be reached. However, in reality it has not been reached despite the "knowledge" that it can be reached. So, could theory possibly be fact? I suppose it could be, but there really is no way of telling. I think absolute zero to some is like a postulate in mathematics: it cannot be proven, but it is known to be true and is regarded as such. On the other hand, those who are skeptical like me can simply ask: if all of the things that we have proven contradict the very idea of absolute zero (such as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle), how is it possible for it to exist in reality? "Everything we know is only some sort of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet," Feynman states so nicely. I guess we just have to ask some more questions.
The ideals expressed from Mr.Feynman are things that should be considered obvious, yet they aren't always something that the we always think of, we just assume. What I found the most interesting is the way he begins his discussion; he almost forces the audience to get as excited as he is about the vast world of physics. He makes you think about more that just formulas and gravity, but the applications that physics has in even biology, astronomy and chemistry. The ideas of experimenting and creating and finding laws that apply to things that effect our every day lives. He also concludes that energy is the driving force behind reactions and changes, but who would guess that water had energy? Or that the same energy in water whats the energy in machines and people? All matter is made of atoms. Therefore everything has the same reactions in the jiggling and movement of their particles.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting part of the discussion was his creation of a paradox of how all mater is linked. All atoms are always moving in perpetual motion and attracting or repelling each other constantly. That is, until something happens and the particles slow down or speed up their movements. It's crazy how these tiny particles can affect each other so greatly that they create massive changes, like turning water into steam and also ice. Also, how steam can be used to fuel the energy behind a piston. The heat exchange and gain of the particles is the particles' work it receives or does on the system it's in. It explains Mr. Legare's statement of the exothermic and endothermic reactions that cause inverse reactions on the system. Then, these changes in work causes changes in heat and then changes of the atom's state because of the changes in the 'jiggling'. It's crazy!
I really enjoy the way that Feynman explains the way that particles move. It is very easy to understand and it makes learning much easier. The phrase that he used, "jiggling of particles" is very simple, yet it explains a lot. The jiggling motion is what he used to represent heat. And when temperature is increased, the jiggling is increased because of the energy inside of the particle. This may seem simple, but in all actuality it's not.
ReplyDeleteI think that Elaine makes a great point about the idea of absolute zero. She referred to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution which describes the speed of particles within gases, where the particles can move loosely and freely between short collisions. Since heat is dictated by the amount of energy a particle has, it would be hard to slow those particles down forcing them to lose heat and energy until they become still, putting them into the category of absolute zero. I do not think that there is a possibility that this could happen. Particles are moving all the time, and to single one out, forcing its entropy to become zero just seems outrageous.
Absolute is such a defining and constraining word that I find it best to avoid using it. Saying that something is "absolute" like Absolute Zero implies that there is a finality to he universe that we live in. The jiggling of particles allows them to maintain some form of anonymity in our perspective of the universe. As humans we have always strived to have a total understanding of our environment. If we could indeed understand where everything was at a given time then where would the fun of the adventure be. The journey is just as important as the end, so if we already knew the ending of the story would we really want to continue our scientific exploration? Without the drive to solve the unsolvable, we are doomed to become lackluster in our efforts to make the world a better place. Energy is. That's all it really needs to be. It performs when we need it to and it does work for us, allowing us to perform otherwise impossible tasks like flying into space. There is no absolute when talking about the universe because it is always expanding and always changing. You may be able to take a picture but by the time you see it the universe will have descrambler itself.
ReplyDeleteFeynman portrays his ideas on the "jiggling of particles" in an easy to read step by step process. Someone who has never really taken physics before could pick up the article and understand the point that he is trying to get across. He makes a rather complicated subject seem extremely simple in his explanation. One way that he does this is through the use of simple, uncomplicated language and the fact that he writes the article as though he is speaking to a class of students. This really helped me to grasp the concept of how all particles interact and when you stop to think about it, there really is no better word than "jiggling".
ReplyDeleteAs Mr. Legare showed us in class, there is no set pattern in which particles move other than the simple fact that oppositely charged particles attract and like charged particles repel. After this, all they really do is constantly "jiggle". They can be sped up by increasing their temperature (energy) or slowed down as they approach absolute zero, but they can't be stopped as absolute zero has never been obtained.
I agree with Feynman and Mr. Legare. And I also appreciate the fact that he uses simple words but can still get his point across. He writes in a speaking voice rather than an essay voice. He has a light tone despite the fact that the topic is serious. I also think that Henry makes an interesting point in saying that he avoids using the word "absolute" because it is too defining. But the point of the word "absolute" is to express an amount of certainty.
ReplyDeleteHis explanations are also a lot easier to understand because he uses imagery. "Jiggling of particles" is easy to visualize, so you can understand what he is talking about regardless of the fact that it is a very difficult concept to grasp. I also enjoyed the part where he talks about all matter being linked and the "jiggling" particles are responsible for all of it. There are many interesting concepts that are explained by Feynman in this essay.