Is ash lowest state of energy ?
955555
There are different forms of Energy.... the energy of which you are speaking about is energy in the form of a chemical reaction, which is why ash cannot be used in its ash state... it is chemically dead unless another process is applied. The ash does still contain atomic energy in the very matter it is composed of... but to use that would require an atomic process to convert the matter into energy. However, one must realize that even the best atomic energy system used today does not extract the full potential of the energy in a substance, because to obtain the full potential we would need to convert that matter into a pure photon state. The best fission and fusion systems only convert a small amount of matter into pure energy when the substance changes from one from to another.\n\nThis is the same reason we cannot energize a rock.... the energy applied to it... does not affect the atomic stability of the protons and neutrons contained in the substance. In order to cause any atomic reaction to take place outside of a reactor to a substance like a rock, we must apply forces to contract the atomic distances between atoms and cause fusion.... The only way to do that is under high gravitational fields, as what exist in a sun or a star at the center.\n\nSo unless you want to stand with that rock in the middle of a star or a black hole.... you never get the high energy conversion outside of a reactor.
814112
For Al .. \n\nElectron configuration : [Ne] 3s2 3p1 ... so after losing 3 electrons its stable and need high energy to destabilize it ..\n\nwhile for As [Ar] 3d10 4s2 4p3 .. \nfor Ga [Ar] 3d10 4s2 4p1\nfor Se [Ar] 3d10 4s2 4p4\nfor S [Ne] 3s2 3p4\n\n4th ionization energy in kJ/mol :\n\nAl  11577 \nGa 6180 \nAs 4837 \nS 4556\nSe 4144
278842
Disregard butchtroll, he doesn't know anything and is obviously just guessing.\n\nA absolute zero, although practically impossible to reach, it is theoretically very easy to calculate. Just assume that all particles have a velocity of zero, and calculate the lowest potential structure according to the lennard-jones potential and possible electro-static potential. The result concludes a structure quite similar to crystals at living-room temperature.\n\nButch - practically as in cannot be obtained through anything but theoretical experiments. Although, temperatures can actually be achieved that is sufficiently low to allow, in some degree, to regard matter as having a temperature of absolute zero. Theoretically, if such matter should exist, it would affect the universe in any significant way. That the universe cease to exist if absolute zero was reached, would be a prerequisite, not a result. You can do that math yourself and see if it is possible - or borrow the particle similator program I've written.\n\nmore: I find it funny that you preach about humility, after calling me an idiot. Especially after mixing different types of energy together and calling the lot for temperature. Sure, if an atom contain absolutely no energy, it would collapse into a black hole. But temperature is NOT a measure of total energy.\n\nyet more: Still you call me an idiot, and still you attempt to call humiliary high ground. I'm not saying I know everything myself - but wheter temperature is all energy, or just momentum of "particles", is pretty far from'everything'. As a student in nanotechnology, I can honestly say that, you sir, are blinded by your own feeble knowledge of physics. Temperature of matter is usually described as the summation of vibrational, momentum, rotational energy and phonons. NOT electronic excitation or any kind of potential energy.\n\nYour question was inane, and I *did* answer it. Nothing would happen with the universe if a cloud of hydrogen would suddenly come into existence with a temperature of zero kelvin. If you don't understand what I'm writing, just say so, instead of stating that I didn't answer your question.\n\nWhat do you attempt to prove with your citation? You seem lost, sir?\n\nWhat do you need a value of? What the temperature of the solid hydrogen would be after 1 second? Sorry, but I don't care enough to calculate how much a certain amount of hydrogen crystal would increase in temperature from background radiation.
513160
ONE THING IT MUST HAVE POTENTIAL ENERGY BUT FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE I ASSUME IT HAS 0 KE & PE\nTHE TOTAL ENERGY OF A SYSTEM REMAINS CONSTANT SO IT MUST HAVE "ZERO" END ENERGY
212537
Well considering temperature is just a measure of the speed of the particles moving in a substance, the lowest temperature would be where there is no motion in the particles of a substance. This is called absolute zero which is measured as −459.67°F. This has never been acheived by scientists but they have come to within several thousanths of a degree away from it.
1117763
The second law states that each time energy is used, the quality of that energy is decreased.\nSo the technically the energy is there, but it is in a form that cannot be utilised (just yet).
452881
False, because the binding energy increases steeply till iron and again reduces. So I would require enormous accelerators to transmute the element with Z>20.
595034
A school student?\n\nNike and one other are very thorough.\n\nSimply:\n\nMatter can neither be created nor destroyed in ordinary chemical and physical changes, though matter may change its forms or shapes.\n\nExamples:\nPhysical Change of conversion of ice into water or vice verssa. The total mass remains constant.\n\nChemical change of burning of wood apparently shows loss of mass of wood when we find ash but if this change is brought in a closed system the weight of the system will remain unchanged.\n\nIn simple total weight of wood and oxygen will be equal to the total weight of ash, CO2, water vapors and other vapors of organic and inorganic substance coming out as a result of combustion.\n\nThere are two exceptions:\n\nIn nuclear reactions some of the mass of the substance, (radio active substances in present science of experiments) converts to energy and so mass is lost. But this change is on such a small scale that the change of mass can not be noticed. \nThe conversion of mass into energy is governed by the formula E=MC2\nApply the values say for 0.001 gram of mass.\n\nThe other exception is change of mass in bodies approaching velocity of light. This is yet theoretical as man has not been able to achieve such high speeds.
343972
NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!\nAbsolute zero simply means that all EXCESS energy from the system will have been removed - the system will still have ground-state energy!\nThink of the quantum harmonic oscillator, E = (n+1/2)hw/2pi\nEven if n=0 (lowest energy state for the oscillator) there is still some energy.\nIf you model the vibrations of atoms as independent harmonic oscillators, you will see that all molecular motion DOES NOT STOP at absolute zero.\n\nFurthermore, whether something is solid depends not only on the temperature, but also on the pressure.\nExperiments have shown that liquid helium stays liquid until all the way to about 0.0001 kelvin (about the lowest temperature ever reached) at atmospheric pressure, (but displays superfluidity) but that increasing the pressure will cause it to solidify at some temperature.\n\nI am sorry to get so side-tracked answering this question, but i felt that the misconceptions of the other answerers must be addressed.\nIn answer to your question, no, not everything will be solid at absolute zero.
612377
while i cant give you scientific terms, the best short answer i can give is that they are all forms of energy.
604944
Electrons can only have certain energy levels.  These levels are determined by a set of mathematical laws.  Potassium has 19 electrons. The first 18 complete the lowest 3 energy levels (similar to the element Argon).\n\nThe only available position for the 19th electron is in the next higher (4th) energy level.  These is no "room" for it to "squeeze in" the lower level.
480675
no. depending on the exact details its either inverse beta decay or electron capture. both release energy in very small amounts tho, in the form of radiation.
952897
Decreased....your using energy not storing it
1117649
several things are at work:\n\n1) the mass of the trees & coal in any area is comparatively insignificant when contrasted against the mass of the earth\n\n2) conservation of matter (which roughly translates in this instance to conservation of mass): the involved processes are not nuclear in nature\n\nfor instance, a pound of coal is taken from the Black Mesa, AZ and burned in New York, NY.  in New York, it leaves behind 0.8 ounces of Mercury, 1.2 ounces of carbon black and 0.5 ounces of material retained in the formation of ash: 13.5 ounces were converted to components of exhaust gases -- commonly, carbon dioxide and water.\n\nNow imagine the total mass of the earth is 2000 tons and the average density is 4 g/cm^3 (just over 249.71 lbs/cu ft): the average radius of the earth would then be very slightly less than 15.638 feet (roughly 27,680,013 cu ins).\n\n\nWithout going into the slight deformation of our oblate spheroid, and imagining the pound of coal had an average density of 1.5 g/cm^3, the extracted coal had a volume of roughly 18.453 cu ins.\n\nThe distance those 18+ cu ins were moved amounts to just under 93 inches along a great circle route describing a 1179.07-inch circumference (almost 28.387 deg).\n\nObviously, this is going to have negligible effect on the mass of the overall body, even with it rotating at 1/4 deg per minute (1 revolution per 24 hours). \n\nthese gases disperse, and are usually absorbed by various organisms.  however, some of these gases are further converted (for instance, lightning can separate water and other compounds into their constituent atoms, and provide the energy for reforming other compounds such as ozone).\n\nfor those unfamiliar with it, ozone is the triatomic form of oxygen (which is why i get a kick out of ads like the one for the "ionic breeze" that "converts ozone to oxygen")\n\nthe point is that the masses of the constituent elements never changed: they were simply redistributed -- arguably, in a way that mitigates against the creation of even a very slightly unbalanced condition.
145763
Linmar--i want to propose MY personal theory, which cannot be scientifically proven in any publication to date.  I had a vision one evening after watching a show about spontaneous combustion victims.  One victim was a middle-aged man with a stump for an arm.  He described the event as a mild tingling with no pain, and much to his dismay, his hand and most of his forearm turned to ash.  \n\nUsing his experience, this isn't about fat burning, or too much oxygen, or even about oxidation as we know it.  The material in our bodies has stored chemical potential energy.  We have internal heat generation which keeps our bodies warm.  It is like a clock spring slowly unwinding.\n\nNOW, if you sped up this clock, relative to normal time-space, your energy would dissipate so rapidly, that the object WOULD turn to ash due to the release of heat.  If a human arm dissipates 10 watts every second for the lifetime of the arm, say 70 years, that equals 22*10^9 joules.  THAT"S A LOT OF ENERGY.  Now for instance, if for some reason a time-space continuum intersected with the man, if his arm actually was accidentally inserted into another dimension whose time constant was 100 times our speed, his arm simply aged and died.  All the energy that would have unwound in this time space over the course of 70 years, unwound in minutes or seconds.  If there are time-space defects and other dimensions, it makes sense that entropy may not unwind at the same pace in all spaces.  \n\nIt reminds me that the earth is travelling at thousands of miles per hour through space.  We have no perception of this at all.  But put a cosmic bed post by the earth, and have an impact, BAM!! Bye-bye earth.  I think it is the same thing.  For some unlucky reason, I beleive this particular man had an interdimensional event wherein the potential energy in his arm dissipated very quickly in that other dimension.  \n\nFood for thought--tell me whatchya think.
219763
gamma rays, nuclear fission, <-- High energy\n\natomic nuclei<-- low energy, necessarily low energy neutrons will remain in the atomic nucleus. Since a neutron has no electric charge its energy can only be increased by collision.
297172
The stability of individual minerals, or combinations of minerals is governed by the energetics of the minerals themselves.  More specifically, it is governed by the thermodynamics of the minerals or the possible combinations of minerals that may form from the chemical elements present.  In essence, thermodynamic principles require that the most stable state of any chemical system be the state characterized by the lowest possible Gibbs Free Energy (G).  Reduced to the simplest of terms, G represents a combination of the "heat content" or enthalpy (H) of a mineral phase (or assemblage of phases), and the product of temperature and entropy (S)  [G = H-TS].  The most stable state of a system is the one with the lowest Gibbs Free Energy.  It turns out that both H and S are functions of temperature and pressure, consequently G is dependent on P and T, and hence mineral stability is strongly controlled by temperature and pressure.