If the electrons compeltey stop at K = 0 then where do they go? Are they frozen in space? Do they fall to the ground? My chemistry teacher could not explain this.
Well, electrons at absolute zero must have no kinetic energy, so they would not move at all (if the were being acted upon by gravity then gravitational p.e. would convert to k.e., raising their temps)
But of course absolute zero isn’t obtainable as it violates the third law of thermodynamics and not to mention the fact that too-well defined temps cannot exist in quantum physics.
Wait till he explains quantum chemistry… The electrons effectively exist in fields of probability called orbitals, not really a given point in space, as weird as that sounds. Heat isn’t reflected in the motion of the electrons, but the movements of the atoms and molecules taken as complete units. As far as I know, the electron continues in its orbital while the entire atom taken as a whole has stopped moving.
as an addition to my first post: Frozen is the wrong word though, as it implies an absolute postion.
I’m not sure if your correct Brahamantor, because electric fields are impossible at absolute zero 
I’m not sure that’s true. IIRC, 0 degrees Kelvin is where molecular motion is at a minimum. There is some residual activity left that, evidently, cannot be reduced further in any circumstances.
Thinking about it more at absolute zero it would have a completely defined speed, so it’s position could not be defined.
I thought heat was molecular motion, not atomic?
If electrons and protons have definite charges and heat meant a change in the speed of the electrons, then I’d think atoms could only exist at one temperature–any colder, and the electrons would collapse into the nuclues, while any faster and they’d escape orbit and radiate off from the atom.
Unless temperature changes the radii of the orbitals? But I don’t think it does, under “normal” conditions.
Well, heat does effect the electrons (combustion for example), but your probably right as I thik my treatment of the electron is wrong.
But electrons at absolute zero cannot occupy the higher energy levels and therfore cannot be conducted and fall into the valence band.
Anyway, I think I’ve confused myself now
Since absolute zero is unattainable, isn’t this rather like asking what happens to a space craft that accelerates to the speed of light?
I think the question is full of misconceptions as are some of the replies.
Temperature is a Macroscopic phenomenon, not a microscopic one. There is nothing like temeperature of an atom or electron.
Temperature can be thought as the average rms energy of the molecules hitting the walls or the thermometer you put in it.
i meant Macroscopic property :smack:
Scientists still measue temperatures on a microscopic scale, most of the experiments involved in creating temp.'s near absolute zero only involve a comparitvely small number of molecules.
For the OP: this site
Quote:
Even at absolute zero there is motion. It is just that all the matter is
in its lowest vibrational state and therefore cannot lose energy to its
environment.
…even at absolute zero, some motion is necessary (zero-point energy)
by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Since the uncertainty in a
particle’s position times the uncertainty in its momentum must be greater
than Planck’s constant, if a particle is constrained in its position at
all, it’s momentum must have some uncertainty, which means it cannot be
zero. For example, electrons in atoms must still move in their orbits.
Not that I know anything about physics, but if it is strictly the case that temperature is a macroscopic property, then why are entities such as “high temperature protons” referred to in the study of the solar wind?
There are also many references to “high temperature electrons”, but I won’t bother to list any sites/cites.
In these contexts, what does a “high temperature proton/electron” mean? Is it just imprecise jargon?
N.B. I asked a similar question a while back but I’m not sure it was ever answered satisfactorily (IMO)
Both the sun and the solar wind are gases (or more precisely plasmas) made up of many protons and electrons. In other words, they are macroscopic systems. In the above sites the references to “high temperature protons” seem to me to simply be shorthand for “protons which are elements of this high temperature macroscopic system. In a similar vein, I could refer to the properties of “a liquid molecule” even though it takes more than one molecule to form a liquid. I think that in this case the problem is just semantics.
I can’t give you a definite answer to this one without seeing the article to which you refer (and even then I don’t know if I could give you an answer, but what the heck) however……
Astronomers are weird. They like to deal with something they define as a “virial temperature.” This is based on a “virial energy” which is based on assumptions about the relationship between the total, potential and kinetic energies which I, quite frankly, don’t really understand. But, as can be seen at this site they are in the habit of assigning a temperature to individual protons based on the assumption that each proton will be at the “virial temperature” (which you will recall is still actually an average value for a macroscopic system).
I suspect that your article may have used similar assumptions with respect to some similar virial temperature.
Many thanks, zigaretten, for your detailed and helpful response. I think I am beginning to see that a lot of the problem is semantic (and, of course, other stuff that I don’t understand).
And of course just making the observation … ::: flee ::;
You may want to do some research on “Bose-Einstein Condensate”. From this site, http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/cornellbose.htm
I leave if for the physicists to further explain the remarkable properties of this form of matter.