
The paper argues that the third principle of thermodynamics follows from the second principle, rather than being a separate or independent concept.
Professor José María Martín-Olalla of the University of Seville has published a paper addressing a thermodynamics problem that has remained unresolved for 120 years. In doing so, he corrects an idea proposed by Albert Einstein more than a century ago.
The paper links Nernst’s theorem, an experimental observation from 1905 stating that entropy exchanges approach zero as temperature approaches zero, directly to the second principle of thermodynamics. Published in The European Physical Journal Plus, the study extends the implications of the second principle, which states that entropy in the universe tends to increase.
The historical problem of absolute zero
The problem surrounding Nernst’s theorem emerged in the early 20th century, during investigations into how matter behaves at temperatures near absolute zero (minus 273 degrees Celsius). Walther Nernst received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1920 for his contributions to this field.
To explain his findings, Nernst argued that absolute zero must be unreachable. Otherwise, one could theoretically construct an engine that uses absolute zero as a coolant to convert all heat into work, violating the principle that entropy always increases. He used this reasoning to formally state his theorem in 1912.
Soon after, Albert Einstein challenged the argument by noting that such an engine could not actually be built, and therefore it posed no real threat to the second law of thermodynamics. As a result, Einstein separated Nernst’s theorem from the second principle and classified it as a third, independent principle. That interpretation has now been overturned.
In the demonstration presented, Professor Martín-Olalla introduces two nuances that were omitted by Nernst and Einstein: the formalism of the second principle of thermodynamics, on the one hand, requires the existence of the engine imagined by Nernst, and, on the other hand, that this machine be virtual; the engine does not consume any heat, does not produce any work, and does not question the second principle. The concatenation of both ideas allows us to conclude that entropy exchanges tend to zero when the temperature tends to zero (which is Nernst’s theorem) and that absolute zero is inaccessible.
Rethinking temperature and physical abstraction
Martin-Olalla points out, “a fundamental problem in thermodynamics is to distinguish the sensation of temperature, the sensations of hot and cold, from the abstract concept of temperature as a physical quantity. In the discussion between Nernst and Einstein, temperature was merely an empirical parameter: the absolute zero condition was represented by the condition that the pressure or volume of a gas became close to zero. Formally, the second principle of thermodynamics provides a more concrete idea of the natural zero of temperature. The idea is not related to any sensation, but to that engine imagined by Nernst but which has to be virtual. This radically changes the approach to the proof of the theorem.”
The study points out that the only general property of matter near absolute zero that cannot be related to the second principle of thermodynamics is the cancellation of heat capacities, also compiled by Nernst in 1912. However, Martin-Olalla proposes a different formalization: “The second principle contains the idea that entropy is unique at absolute zero. The cancellation of specific heats only adds that this unique value is zero. It seems more like an important appendix than a new principle.”
The professor at the University of Seville points out that the publication of this article is a first step towards the acceptance of this novel point of view: “The students on the thermodynamics course I teach were the first to learn about this demonstration. I hope that with this publication the demonstration will become better known, but I know that the academic world has a great deal of inertia.”
Reference: “Proof of the Nernst theorem” by Jose-María Martín-Olalla, 13 June 2025, The European Physical Journal Plus.
DOI: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-025-06503-w
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
26 Comments
In the demonstration presented, Professor Martín-Olalla introduces two nuances that were omitted by Nernst and Einstein: the formalism of the second principle of thermodynamics, on the one hand, requires the existence of the engine imagined by Nernst, and, on the other hand, that this machine be virtual; the engine does not consume any heat, does not produce any work, and does not question the second principle. The concatenation of both ideas allows us to conclude that entropy exchanges tend to zero when the temperature tends to zero (which is Nernst’s theorem) and that absolute zero is inaccessible.
VERY GOOD!
According to the topological vortex theory (TVT), when entropy exchanges tend to zero, absolute zero is inaccessible.
If researchers are interested in this, please visit https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/1917878197971816654.
Today’s physics and the so-called peer-reviewed publications stubbornly insists on two sets of cobalt-60 rotating in opposite directions, whether symmetrical or not, they are two mirror images of each other. It is a typical manifestation of pseudoscience’s rampant and domineering behavior.
The guy in this article opposed Einstein, and still got kudos for his work. No one held him back. The old boys club didn’t threaten him. The publications didn’t blacklist him.
There is no conspiracy in “today’s physics”
You don’t get published because you aren’t any good. If you could prove this result (in this article) using vortices, you would have done so. But you couldn’t, and still can’t.
Maybe instead of spamming this blog constantly for years, with the same BS claims no one cares about, you could focus on understanding why everyone rejects your ideas. If everyone in the world seems crazy, it is time to examine your head.
VERY GOOD! Very exciting!
Please continue to believe that the two sets of cobalt-60 rotating in opposite directions, whether symmetrical or not, are two mirror images of each other and should receive the Nobel Prize. This is today’s physics, this is the science you believe in, this is the dogma that all people believe in.
I don’t know if you are fooling the public or if the public is fooling you?
You are using facts to tell the public how crazy the negative impact of pseudoscience is.
Again, you should worry if all of public, all your responders here, and all of the Nobel committee seem like fools to you. Likely it is that you are the fool. Especially since with all your vortex talk, you haven’t been able to prove any of the results that scientists here are proving. It’s time for you to show up with actual results. Calling Nobel laureates morons does not make you look smart. Or, sane.
@AG3
Thank you for participating in the SciTechDaily comments.
When the so-called official publications of physics suppress my theories everywhere. Your interaction with me, may raise doubts among some people. Whether it is foolish or honest, you only need to answer one question to the public, the Nobel Committee, and the so-called peer-reviewed publications:
Two sets of cobalt-60 rotating in opposite directions, if they exhibit asymmetry, are they two objects that are mirror images of each other?
YES or NO.
1) There is a massive effort to subvert actual science in the scientific communities. If you don’t see that or understand that that’s a personal problem.
2) The article was written very poorly as most are these days. No one seems to be able to write or articulate their ideas very well and editing or having editors for a particular website seem to have died as well. Most people couldn’t make heads or tails of what was being explained here even if you were an expert on it. That is why most of the comments on this thread have nothing to do with the article at all.
VERY GOOD! In some senses your criticisms were justified.
It should be noted that the so-called peer-reviewed publications cannot represent the scientific community. There is a massive effort to subvert actual science in the so-called peer-reviewed publications not the scientific community.
For example, two sets of cobalt-60 artificially rotating in opposite directions, whether symmetrical or not, are two mirror images of each other, and based on this, the theory that won the Nobel Prize in Physics is deduced. This is already a scientific axiom.
The difference between the abstract concept of temperature and the sensation of hot and cold is the starting point of thermodynamics. The real problem is the present Kelvin scale. The Kelvin scale should be from (-infinity) to (+infinity), like other temperature scales. Then absolute zero will be around 0.7K. Below that, temperature (hotness) has to be negative. Then hot and cold states can be defined scientifically. Then at absolute zero, the entropy will be normal (neither hot not cold), making hot and cold states potential states.
When water turns to ice it’s a zero. No rocket science
I’m learning it’s not hard to correct Einstein, who seemed to forget how algebra works in his later career while searching for a unification theory. He seems to have forgotten the 2 most important physics equations, E=mc^2 and E=hf–which both bear his name–share a common “E” that links them as the classical-quantum bridge we’ve been trying to find for 125 years.
…and, what was it about 1905? It seems half of what we still call physics was published that year.
Although mathematics is the language of science, we should not ignore whether the nature of the world is geometric shapes, mathematical codes, or formulas.
Today’s physics and so-called peer-reviewed publications are crazily searching for the particles from God, but ignoring the fact that space can form spatiotemporal vortices and nucleation through its own dynamic evolution. This is the rampant prevalence of pseudoscience, which poses the greatest threat to the development of science. They are collectively obsessed with specific individuals, institutions, and groups, and have long deviated significantly from science.
Which amuses me to think that knowledge of physics has a half-life, which leads to Zeno’s conclusion that he will never get to the finishing pole despite ever-increasing numbers of publications scattered about his track. So we go from Archimedes to 1905, and then keep dividing by 2 until we can learn approximately when we will never discover anything new, despite a humungous mass of papers that drown the gutters of the world in wasted ink………….keep laughing!.
That doesn’t really link classical and quantum, it lets us translate between different perspectives in one sense, from waves frequencies to masses. We need to understand what a quantized gravity or a smoothed quantum background look like to be able to resolve the many quantum gravity questions.
Today’s physics has been severely misled by so-called peer-reviewed publications. They revel collectively for particles from God, but ignore the fact that space can dynamically evolve into vortices and nucleate through its own dynamics.
Just a regular person here. So was Einstein’s theory unequivocally proven wrong?
Although mathematics is the language of science, we should not ignore whether the real world is geometric shapes, mathematical codes, or formulas. Using mathematical codes and formulas to interpret the geometric shapes of the real world is what mathematics and physics should do.
So based on that principle that an engine can be created if absolute zero could be a Panama, doesn’t it still allow us to create an engine for the coldest temperature we can attain? Just leaving everything at a greater temperature available to create this work?
I apologize I talk text my last response. Here’s what it should have said:
So based on that principle that an engine can be created if absolute zero could be unattainable , doesn’t it still allow us to create an engine for the coldest temperature we can attain? Just leaving everything at a greater temperature available to create this work?
Also I forgot to ask if I absolutely zero exists somewhere.{
Your expla nation Need’s to be better
Not a mathematician or scienctist yet but based on what apper to be the general opinion on the matter this is pseudo-science and thus cringe
We need to dive deeper into some unsettling assumptions that are raising eyebrows. It’s time for a thorough investigation!
мое имя Юрис, как адвокат Бога, заявляю что в вечном двигателе созданном богом, все работает по саморегуляции. я как очередной наладчик, намекаю. Вселенная не может иметь места, где что то равно ноль. Масса, Время Пространство, близко к ноль, да. Но ноль нет. все привязано к фундаментальной частице, из которой все и сложено. Она имеет собственную массу, собственное время И собственный размер и промежутков пространства. Для взаимодействия масс, как продолжение действия сил. Время и
пространство бесплатное но обязательное приложение и неотъемлемо.