EPT. It's not that we broke physics, but so minorly that it can be written off...
You can't "break" physics. It's something that's been around since creation, our understanding has just been false.
Scientists go below Absolute Zero - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Note from micronesia: please read the thread before making comments about how we have just turned physics on its head. | ||
|
Zenbrez
Canada5973 Posts
You can't "break" physics. It's something that's been around since creation, our understanding has just been false. | ||
|
namste
Finland2292 Posts
| ||
|
JOJOsc2news
3000 Posts
On January 06 2013 06:32 micronesia wrote: The only advantage I can think of is that we won't need to turn young female children into magical girls anymore. I don't get it. :/ EDIT: I get it! =) But regarding implications: This article that corpuscle linked to actually outlines some of the interesting consequences. E.g.: Matter at negative absolute temperature leads to a whole bunch of astounding consequences: With its help, one could create heat engines with an efficiency above 100%. This does not mean that the law of energy conservation is violated. Instead, the machine could not only absorb energy from the hotter substance, but, in contrast to the usual case, also from the colder. The work performed by the engine could therefore be larger than the energy taken from the hotter substance alone. | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5281 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lyReQ.jpg?1) We're that much closer to it now! | ||
|
xxpack09
United States2160 Posts
(Think of it like a two-level system, once your ground and excited states are equally populated, adding energy [pumping] will excite a molecule from ground to excited, lowering the amount of microstates. Thus, dq/ds is negative, and thus temperature is negative, even though the laser is operating at well above absolute zero.) Interestingly enough, when you define it this way, a substance with negative temperature is actually hotter than a substance with infinite positive temperature. | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
Thank you. Wtf though =/ I don't think saying "going below absolute zero" is a very helpful or useful way of describing this then. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
 .I'm most curious now about this anti-gravity phenomenon. Is it truly anti-gravity? Or is that another misinterpretation? Because if it is that's pretty much the most amazing piece of science news I've ever heard since the mistaken "we passed the speed of light" moment last year in CERN. There is one interesting bit from "http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/scientists-create-negative-temperature-system/" as linked from the first page (thanks Spinoza!): This has some pretty bizarre consequences. If you could maximize the entropy in the system, temperature becomes discontinuous—it jumps from positive to negative infinity. Strange things would happen if you bring it together with a system that has a normal temperature. "In thermal contact," the authors write, "heat would flow from a negative to a positive temperature system. Because negative temperature systems can absorb entropy while releasing energy, they give rise to several counterintuitive effects, such as Carnot engines with an efficiency greater than unity." Pretty crazy sounding. I mean if temperature isn't what we think it is, what would it feel like to touch something that goes from positive to negative infinity in temperature?? I guess I'll learn about this soon | ||
|
SecondHand
United States329 Posts
| ||
imallinson
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 06 2013 00:06 Terrix wrote: I thought absolute zero was no movement in molecules... How can you have less than no movement? I didn't see this addressed in the thread so I thought it would be good to clear up this common misconception. Absolute zero doesn't correspond to no movement but the reason behind this is quantum mechanical so wasn't known about when the absolute temperature scale was devised. One of the consequences of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that the position and momentum of a particle can only be determined to a certain precision (+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4KaP6.png) | ||
|
Solarsail
United Kingdom538 Posts
"Von Neumann told me, 'You should call it entropy [for the reason that] nobody knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage." imallinson, doesn't that say that they might not be moving, if their position isn't known? | ||
|
imallinson
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 06 2013 07:53 Solarsail wrote: Looked at the Entropy article on Wikipedia to find some definitions more complex than 'disorder' and: "Von Neumann told me, 'You should call it entropy [for the reason that] nobody knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage." imallinson, doesn't that say that they might not be moving, if their position isn't known? But if they stop moving their position is fixed thus has a definite and precise value and their momentum is also the definite and precise value of 0. | ||
|
lightrise
United States1355 Posts
On January 06 2013 02:59 Evangelist wrote: No, entropy is pretty much the disorder in a system when you define order as having structure. That's about all you really need to know at the quantum mechanical level, certainly enough to understand how this works. What is your expertise to comment on the issue btw. I am curious because you have no correct both micronesia and myself and a graduate level physicist. I am a senior in chemical engineering and have studied this stuff in Physical chemistry and other classes and it still doesn't make that much sense. | ||
|
dannystarcraft
United States179 Posts
Schneider and his colleagues reached such sub-absolute-zero temperatures with an ultracold quantum gas made up of potassium atoms. Using lasers and magnetic fields, they kept the individual atoms in a lattice arrangement. At positive temperatures, the atoms repel, making the configuration stable. The team then quickly adjusted the magnetic fields, causing the atoms to attract rather than repel each other. “This suddenly shifts the atoms from their most stable, lowest-energy state to the highest possible energy state, before they can react,” says Schneider. “It’s like walking through a valley, then instantly finding yourself on the mountain peak.” I am not quite sure how this is different from Superfluid Helium. The results seem a lot like when particles begin to act like bosons (they begin to overlap, etc.-- although I don't think that they attract...). Could someone tell me why I am wrong? EDIT: formatting | ||
|
makedajuiceboxwhet
United States28 Posts
| ||
|
AUGcodon
Canada536 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On January 06 2013 10:04 makedajuiceboxwhet wrote: More grant money that could have gone to biomedical research. As a doctor and currently full time clinical researcher I personally (without understanding any of the ramifications, nor am I entirely sure I understand the outcome itself) think money spent in the area of chemistry and physics are great spent because historically they have had great returns for society and oftentimes been useful in the field of medicine. | ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On January 06 2013 10:04 makedajuiceboxwhet wrote: More grant money that could have gone to biomedical research. What, to keep your sorry ass alive? | ||
|
Solarsail
United Kingdom538 Posts
On January 06 2013 08:28 imallinson wrote: But if they stop moving their position is fixed thus has a definite and precise value and their momentum is also the definite and precise value of 0. I'm an idiot, that reasoning isn't even necessary. If one of those terms is zero the product is zero and hence not greater than the thing on the right. | ||
|
Jisall
United States2054 Posts
| ||
| ||
