This is from a popular science book by the physicist George Gamow:
“If we heat the liquid the wild dance of tiny particles suspended in
it becomes more violent; with cooling the intensity of the motion
noticeably subsides. This leads no doubt that we are actually
watching here the effect of the hidden thermal motion of matter, and
that what we usually call temperature is nothing else but a
measurement of the degree of molecular agitation. *By studying the
dependence of Brownian motion on temperature, it was found that at
the temperature of -273˚ C *or -459˚ F, thermal agitation of matter
completely ceases, and all its molecules come to rest.”
Leaving aside the sense of observations leaving 'no doubt' about a
theoretical interpretation (rather counter to the idea of theory always
being underdetermined by observation) I was very surprised to read that
absolute zero had been found from studies of Brownian motion rather
than, say, change in volume/pressure of a gas or some other method.
I would have thought 'well, I never knew that', but I am not sure how
reliable Gamow is. (Elsewhere in the same book he has neutrons decaying
to protons AND protons decaying to neutrons
<https://science-education-research.com/glossary/proton-decays-into-a-neutron/>,
in both cases emitting neutrinos and electrons/positrons, which to my
mind could have solved our power supply issues - if it had been
correct.) Is Gamow right about Brownian motion? I thought Brownian
motion was only well understood after Einstein in 1905, well after
absolute zero was estimated?
Keith
--
“The main point to realise is that all knowledge presents itself within
a conceptual framework adapted to account for previous experience and
that any such frame may prove too narrow to comprehend new experiences"
<https://science-education-research.com/commonplace/>