• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 12:11
CEST 18:11
KST 01:11
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic7
Community News
Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form?4FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event13Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster14Weekly Cups (June 16-22): Clem strikes back1Weekly Cups (June 9-15): herO doubles on GSL week4
StarCraft 2
General
Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form? How does the number of casters affect your enjoyment of esports? Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation
Tourneys
HomeStory Cup 27 (June 27-29) WardiTV Mondays SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025 FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event $200 Biweekly - StarCraft Evolution League #1
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] Darkgrid Layout
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ ASL20 Preliminary Maps Unit and Spell Similarities BW General Discussion I made an ASL quiz
Tourneys
[BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] ProLeague LB Final - Saturday 20:00 CET Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Summer Games Done Quick 2025!
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
RECOVER YOUR SCAMMED CRYPTO FUNDS HIRE iFORCE Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Blog #2
tankgirl
Game Sound vs. Music: The Im…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 732 users

Scientists go below Absolute Zero

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Normal
Note from micronesia: please read the thread before making comments about how we have just turned physics on its head.
Fruscainte
Profile Blog Joined December 2009
4596 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 23:46:01
January 05 2013 14:57 GMT
#1
Yeah.

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-zero-1.12146

It may sound less likely than hell freezing over, but physicists have created an atomic gas with a sub-absolute-zero temperature for the first time1. Their technique opens the door to generating negative-Kelvin materials and new quantum devices, and it could even help to solve a cosmological mystery.

Lord Kelvin defined the absolute temperature scale in the mid-1800s in such a way that nothing could be colder than absolute zero. Physicists later realized that the absolute temperature of a gas is related to the average energy of its particles. Absolute zero corresponds to the theoretical state in which particles have no energy at all, and higher temperatures correspond to higher average energies.

However, by the 1950s, physicists working with more exotic systems began to realise that this isn't always true: Technically, you read off the temperature of a system from a graph that plots the probabilities of its particles being found with certain energies. Normally, most particles have average or near-average energies, with only a few particles zipping around at higher energies. In theory, if the situation is reversed, with more particles having higher, rather than lower, energies, the plot would flip over and the sign of the temperature would change from a positive to a negative absolute temperature, explains Ulrich Schneider, a physicist at the Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, Germany.

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.”

At positive temperatures, such a reversal would be unstable and the atoms would collapse inwards. But the team also adjusted the trapping laser field to make it more energetically favourable for the atoms to stick in their positions. This result, described today in Science1, marks the gas’s transition from just above absolute zero to a few billionths of a Kelvin below absolute zero.

Wolfgang Ketterle, a physicist and Nobel laureate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, who has previously demonstrated negative absolute temperatures in a magnetic system2, calls the latest work an “experimental tour de force”. Exotic high-energy states that are hard to generate in the laboratory at positive temperatures become stable at negative absolute temperatures — “as though you can stand a pyramid on its head and not worry about it toppling over,” he notes — and so such techniques can allow these states to be studied in detail. “This may be a way to create new forms of matter in the laboratory,” Ketterle adds.

If built, such systems would behave in strange ways, says Achim Rosch, a theoretical physicist at the University of Cologne in Germany, who proposed the technique used by Schneider and his team3. For instance, Rosch and his colleagues have calculated that whereas clouds of atoms would normally be pulled downwards by gravity, if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity4.

Another peculiarity of the sub-absolute-zero gas is that it mimics 'dark energy', the mysterious force that pushes the Universe to expand at an ever-faster rate against the inward pull of gravity. Schneider notes that the attractive atoms in the gas produced by the team also want to collapse inwards, but do not because the negative absolute temperature stabilises them. “It’s interesting that this weird feature pops up in the Universe and also in the lab,” he says. “This may be something that cosmologists should look at more closely.”


Physics itself is being rewritten gentlemen. We have broken the seemingly impossible to break barrier in temperature, and may have the ability to replicate Dark Energy-esque forces in a lab.

What do you think some of the implications may be?

Paper Itself:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0545v1.pdf

EDIT: Secondary source:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/below-absolute-zero/

+ Show Spoiler +
Physicists have created a quantum gas capable of reaching temperatures below absolute zero, paving the way for future quantum inventions.

Wired U.K.
The chilly substance was composed of potassium atoms which were held in a lattice arrangement using a combination of lasers and magnetic fields. According to a news report in the journal Nature, by tweaking the magnetic fields the research team were able to force the atoms to attract rather than repel one another and reveal the sub-absolute zero properties of the gas.

“This suddenly shifts the atoms from their most stable, lowest-energy state to the highest possible energy state, before they can react,” said Ulrich Schneider of the Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich to Nature. “It’s like walking through a valley, then instantly finding yourself on the mountain peak.”

Schneider’s findings were published Jan. 3 in Science.

Previously absolute zero was considered to be the theoretical lower limit of temperature as temperature correlates with the average amount of energy of the substance’s particles. At absolute zero particles were thought to have zero energy.

Moving into the sub-absolute zero realm, matter begins to display odd properties. Clouds of atoms drift upwards instead of down, while the atomic matrix’s ability to resist collapsing in on itself echoes the forces causing the universe to expand outwards rather than contracting under the influence of gravity.

The ability to produce a relatively stable substance at several billionths of a Kelvin below absolute zero will allow physicists to better study and understand this curious state, possibly leading to other innovations.

“This may be a way to create new forms of matter in the laboratory,” said Wolfgang Ketterle, a Nobel laureate at MIT, commenting in Nature on the results.


EDIT 2: Useful posts

On January 06 2013 00:41 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 05 2013 23:57 Fruscainte wrote:
Physics itself is being rewritten gentlemen. We have broken the seemingly impossible to break barrier in temperature, and may have the ability to replicate Dark Energy-esque forces in a lab.

We have been able to get negative temperatures since before this paper.... it is just the first time it was done with a gas, I believe.

The common understanding of temperature that it is a measure of the speed of the motion of molecules in a system, while useful, is not accurate. You can actually define temperature using this formula:

1/T = dS/dU where S is entropy and U is internal energy. Temperature therefore has to do with how a change in internal energy relates to a change in entropy. For normal systems (positive Kelvin temperatures) increasing energy of a system will increase entropy (this is very important for studying the Carnot Cycle). For systems where the opposite happens (negative temperature), the object will give off heat to any system it comes into thermal equilibrium with. A few cases:

System A      System B                        Result
Warm            Hot                               Heat flows from hot to warm; temperatures equalize
Negative      Warm                               Heat flows from negative temperature system to warm system
Negative      Very Hot                        Heat flows from negative temperature system to hot system

Another example where you can get negative temperature: Place a 2-state paramagnet into a magnetic field such that the dipoles align. Then, reverse the magnetic field polarity.

On January 06 2013 00:43 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 00:41 Whitewing wrote:
Okay so, they are hitting a temperature below it by looking at the definition in a cute fashion, but they aren't actually able to hit absolute zero perfectly either.

Still impressive though.

This is true. It's easier to get a negative temperature than absolute zero. We have gotten very close to absolute zero from the positive direction though! (millionths of a kelvin, I believe)

Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 00:43 emythrel wrote:
a few billionths below aboluste zero? phew. For a second i thought we had again discovered that we were completely wrong about the universe. While a few billionths is a massive deal, its not like they managed to go a whole degree below or further, which would mean a complete re-write of some major components of modern physics.

I think you are misunderstanding what this means. It's not that we broke physics, but so minorly that it can be written off... it's that the conventional understanding of temperature is incorrect. I realized this when I studied thermal physics, well before this article.

Terrix
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany305 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 15:08:37
January 05 2013 15:06 GMT
#2
I thought absolute zero was no movement in molecules... How can you have less than no movement?

Instead of repelling each other, they attract each other, with temperature? I'm really not educated enough to understand this...

Edit: Flip the chart gives them negative temperature? what what what?
thOr6136
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
Slovenia1775 Posts
January 05 2013 15:07 GMT
#3
holy fuck, chills~
IntoTheWow
Profile Blog Joined May 2004
is awesome32274 Posts
January 05 2013 15:08 GMT
#4
I guess it depends on how you define temperature.

If you release these atoms from their arrangement, you would not get heat transfering to them, but from them.
Moderator<:3-/-<
Takkara
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States2503 Posts
January 05 2013 15:09 GMT
#5
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?

Instead of repelling each other, they attract each other, with temperature? I'm really not educated enough to understand this...

The entire middle of the article, including a bolded part, explains what it means.
Gee gee gee gee baby baby baby
Datauven
Profile Joined May 2010
Sweden3 Posts
January 05 2013 15:09 GMT
#6
Wow.. Just wow.

It's quite like when the aincent greek speculated about the atom beeing as small as smal can bee. It seems that the Absolut zero ain't defined right but it seams to be an negliglable error for everyday use. :-)
Zealotdriver
Profile Blog Joined December 2009
United States1557 Posts
January 05 2013 15:09 GMT
#7
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 think the temperature is calculated based on the energy state probabilities of the atoms, and they achieved a high energy state with the atoms locked in position, which results in the calculated temperature being negative.
Turn off the radio
TheAmazombie
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States3714 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 15:16:45
January 05 2013 15:10 GMT
#8
Yeah, I read this yesterday, so it is not that they actually got "colder" than absolute zero, but only when defining temps by the laws of thermodynamics and entropy...it is still a really cool and interesting feat, but it is a bit misleading the way they are saying it is "colder than absolute zero." They actually pumped more energy into this and created a state where entropy decreased with more energy, which is opposite of what is supposed to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

I am still very curious on what kinds of things they will still find and discover by this.
We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery, we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost. -Charlie Chaplin
ShadoWYP
Profile Joined February 2012
Germany83 Posts
January 05 2013 15:11 GMT
#9
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?

Instead of repelling each other, they attract each other, with temperature? I'm really not educated enough to understand this...

Edit: Flip the chart gives them negative temperature? what what what?


I guess no movement means no energy at all.
Terrix
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany305 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 15:21:13
January 05 2013 15:20 GMT
#10
On January 06 2013 00:09 Takkara wrote:
Show nested quote +
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?

Instead of repelling each other, they attract each other, with temperature? I'm really not educated enough to understand this...

The entire middle of the article, including a bolded part, explains what it means.


See that's what I read and then asked the question...
It's later explained by other ppl here
On January 06 2013 00:10 TheAmazombie wrote:
Yeah, I read this yesterday, so it is not that they actually got "colder" than absolute zero, but only when defining temps by the laws of thermodynamics and entropy...it is still a really cool and interesting feat, but it is a bit misleading the way they are saying it is "colder than absolute zero."

I am still very curious on what kinds of things they will still find and discover by this.

, and here

I think the temperature is calculated based on the energy state probabilities of the atoms, and they achieved a high energy state with the atoms locked in position, which results in the calculated temperature being negative.


So I'm still not sure on whether or not my understanding of absolute zero is wrong or now, but by having these unstable energy state probabilities you can have a scenario that is, in theory, under absolute zero... But how are they defying gravity now... This seems all very neat and sci-fi esque, but lab based and far from our daily lives D: Would be cool to have -1 Kelvin hover boards or something xD

edit: omg I'm a zergling!
Smoot
Profile Joined April 2011
United States128 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 15:29:35
January 05 2013 15:27 GMT
#11
@Terrix

On the sub atomic level, gravity is a negligible force compared to everything else which needs to be accounted for. It is sort of a buzz word.. "defy gravity"... but in reality, the mass of particles are so small, that gravity is almost non-existent anyway.
ThomasjServo
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
15244 Posts
January 05 2013 15:33 GMT
#12
Well guys, we broke the universe. I hope you all are happy with yourselves.
CursOr
Profile Blog Joined January 2009
United States6335 Posts
January 05 2013 15:38 GMT
#13
On January 06 2013 00:33 ThomasjServo wrote:
Well guys, we broke the universe. I hope you all are happy with yourselves.

LOL Nerd Chills. ^_^
CJ forever (-_-(-_-(-_-(-_-)-_-)-_-)-_-)
Spinoza
Profile Joined October 2010
667 Posts
January 05 2013 15:38 GMT
#14
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/scientists-create-negative-temperature-system/

This explains it a bit better in my opinion.
FanTaSy | Flash | Movie | Leta | Stork | Map:Destination[BW]
Ludwigvan
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Germany2371 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 15:39:33
January 05 2013 15:39 GMT
#15
Negative temperatures can only exist in a system where there are a limited number of energy states (see below). As the temperature is increased on such a system, particles move into higher and higher energy states, and as the temperature increases, the number of particles in the lower energy states and in the higher energy states approaches equality. (This is a consequence of the definition of temperature in statistical mechanics for systems with limited states.) By injecting energy into these systems in the right fashion, it is possible to create a system in which there are more particles in the higher energy states than in the lower ones. The system can then be characterised as having a negative temperature. A substance with a negative temperature is not colder than absolute zero, but rather it is hotter than infinite temperature.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature
FluffyBinLaden
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States527 Posts
January 05 2013 15:40 GMT
#16
Science is confusing. The lack of... absoluteness even in the absolutes... it's strange.

It's an interesting thought.
Riddles in the Dark. Answers in the Light.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24664 Posts
January 05 2013 15:41 GMT
#17
On January 05 2013 23:57 Fruscainte wrote:
Physics itself is being rewritten gentlemen. We have broken the seemingly impossible to break barrier in temperature, and may have the ability to replicate Dark Energy-esque forces in a lab.

We have been able to get negative temperatures since before this paper.... it is just the first time it was done with a gas, I believe.

The common understanding of temperature that it is a measure of the speed of the motion of molecules in a system, while useful, is not accurate. You can actually define temperature using this formula:

1/T = dS/dU where S is entropy and U is internal energy. Temperature therefore has to do with how a change in internal energy relates to a change in entropy. For normal systems (positive Kelvin temperatures) increasing energy of a system will increase entropy (this is very important for studying the Carnot Cycle). For systems where the opposite happens (negative temperature), the object will give off heat to any system it comes into thermal equilibrium with. A few cases:

System A      System B                        Result
Warm            Hot                               Heat flows from hot to warm; temperatures equalize
Negative      Warm                               Heat flows from negative temperature system to warm system
Negative      Very Hot                        Heat flows from negative temperature system to hot system

Another example where you can get negative temperature: Place a 2-state paramagnet into a magnetic field such that the dipoles align. Then, reverse the magnetic field polarity.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Whitewing
Profile Joined October 2010
United States7483 Posts
January 05 2013 15:41 GMT
#18
Okay so, they are hitting a temperature below it by looking at the definition in a cute fashion, but they aren't actually able to hit absolute zero perfectly either.

Still impressive though.
Strategy"You know I fucking hate the way you play, right?" ~SC2John
Snorkels
Profile Joined May 2011
United States1015 Posts
January 05 2013 15:41 GMT
#19
On January 06 2013 00:38 CursOr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 00:33 ThomasjServo wrote:
Well guys, we broke the universe. I hope you all are happy with yourselves.

LOL Nerd Chills. ^_^

WP

I've wondered in the last year or so why breaking a hard barrier of the speed of light is a well known science fiction trope but the absolute zero barrier is unexplored. It should be interesting to see what can be influenced by this new knowledge.
emythrel
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United Kingdom2599 Posts
January 05 2013 15:43 GMT
#20
a few billionths below aboluste zero? phew. For a second i thought we had again discovered that we were completely wrong about the universe. While a few billionths is a massive deal, its not like they managed to go a whole degree below or further, which would mean a complete re-write of some major components of modern physics.
When there is nothing left to lose but your dignity, it is already gone.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24664 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 15:44:40
January 05 2013 15:43 GMT
#21
On January 06 2013 00:41 Whitewing wrote:
Okay so, they are hitting a temperature below it by looking at the definition in a cute fashion, but they aren't actually able to hit absolute zero perfectly either.

Still impressive though.

This is true. It's easier to get a negative temperature than absolute zero. We have gotten very close to absolute zero from the positive direction though! (millionths of a kelvin, I believe)

On January 06 2013 00:43 emythrel wrote:
a few billionths below aboluste zero? phew. For a second i thought we had again discovered that we were completely wrong about the universe. While a few billionths is a massive deal, its not like they managed to go a whole degree below or further, which would mean a complete re-write of some major components of modern physics.

I think you are misunderstanding what this means. It's not that we broke physics, but so minorly that it can be written off... it's that the conventional understanding of temperature is incorrect. I realized this when I studied thermal physics, well before this article.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Ikidomari
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
Australia485 Posts
January 05 2013 15:43 GMT
#22
can't go faster than the speed of light? make the speed of light faster
cant go colder than absolute zero? decrease absolute zero
ezpz
Just break the rules, and you see the truth.
emythrel
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United Kingdom2599 Posts
January 05 2013 15:46 GMT
#23
On January 06 2013 00:41 Snorkels wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 00:38 CursOr wrote:
On January 06 2013 00:33 ThomasjServo wrote:
Well guys, we broke the universe. I hope you all are happy with yourselves.

LOL Nerd Chills. ^_^

WP

I've wondered in the last year or so why breaking a hard barrier of the speed of light is a well known science fiction trope but the absolute zero barrier is unexplored. It should be interesting to see what can be influenced by this new knowledge.


pretty simple, because there are ways around the light barrier, such as warping space. Unfortunately, there is still no known or theorised way to go below absolute zero, what would u gain from it anyways? Travelling past light speed is needed for most sci-fi, below absolute zero temperatures are not.
When there is nothing left to lose but your dignity, it is already gone.
DarkPlasmaBall
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States44184 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 16:01:44
January 05 2013 15:51 GMT
#24
I don't have a strong background in chemistry, but I had my mother read this article, and she's been teaching chemistry for about 30 years now. She doesn't really seem too concerned. If I've understood this correctly, Kelvin is just a conversion and measurement, and not actually a degree, and so it would seem sensible to just redefine absolute zero as the new established low point (recently discovered here) and change the conversion scales between Kelvin and Celsius/ Fahrenheit (since -273.15 degrees Celsius was originally found using estimates and graphs and asymptotes to begin with), as absolute zero is simply defined as the lowest possible temperature. It would seem silly to have negative Kelvin, because its null point is, by definition, absolute zero.
"There is nothing more satisfying than looking at a crowd of people and helping them get what I love." ~Day[9] Daily #100
Evangelist
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
1246 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 15:55:51
January 05 2013 15:54 GMT
#25
Okay. I'll do a quick TLDR for the people who aren't in this field.

Absolute zero is a misnomer as far as physicists are concerned. We only really consider temperature as a thermodynamic process where we can define temperature as a relation between entropy and energy where entropy is the disorder within a system (where disorder is defined by physicists as the degree to which a system is seperated from a perfectly spread, entirely equal medium). The ultimate entropic system is one where all energy is spread through an entire body of the system in perfectly equal amounts and any distribution demonstrated on this system is FLAT.

What this means in laymans terms is if you imagine that the universe is full of strings of lumpy custard, a perfectly entropic universe is not only perfectly smooth but has absolutely no heat flow at all.

When considering entropy, when you increase the temperature of an atom, the electrons preferentially distribute themselves up through increasing energy levels and entropy thus increases with temperature. In the case of negative temperature, as I understand it, a decreasing negative temperature preferentially fills the HIGHER energy shells and not the lower energy shells. This implies a bound higher energy state which if considered in the perspective of a system which is collapsing, will administer a repulsive anti-collapsing potential.

Essentially, the way to think of it is that normally when you increase the temperature of a system, you fill a glass from the bottom up. With negative temperature, it is the equivalent of taking that same glass and filling it and finding it actually fills from the top down.

Very interesting stuff. The paper is fascinating too. Something at negative temperature is going to be fighting local attempts to be at a positive temperature and thus reach a steady state.
lightrise
Profile Joined March 2008
United States1355 Posts
January 05 2013 15:55 GMT
#26
People are not understanding this correctly at all. They didn't break the previous attempt to achieve absolute zero. Instead they played with the mechanics of physics and thus created a situation with negative temperature. The two scenarios don't really align in their idea of temperature. The entropy, or the measure of disorder, created the negative temperature in this case. This is a big deal but has been done before as previously stated. The article just blew this out of proportion by saying we got below 0 kelvin.
Awesome german interviewer: "What was your idea going into games against Idra" "I WANTED TO USE A CHEESE STRATEGY BECAUSE IDRA IS KNOWN TO TILT AFTER LOSING TO SOMETHING GAY" Demuslim
Terrix
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany305 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 16:00:45
January 05 2013 15:59 GMT
#27
On January 06 2013 00:43 Ikidomari wrote:
can't go faster than the speed of light? make the speed of light faster
cant go colder than absolute zero? decrease absolute zero
ezpz


That's why scientists raised the speed of light in 2208. - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
Evangelist
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
1246 Posts
January 05 2013 16:00 GMT
#28
On January 06 2013 00:55 lightrise wrote:
People are not understanding this correctly at all. They didn't break the previous attempt to achieve absolute zero. Instead they played with the mechanics of physics and thus created a situation with negative temperature. The two scenarios don't really align in their idea of temperature. The entropy, or the measure of disorder, created the negative temperature in this case. This is a big deal but has been done before as previously stated. The article just blew this out of proportion by saying we got below 0 kelvin.


No, they are actually quite right in how they describe it. The main problem is most people don't understand how physicists define temperature. The paper attributes the opposite property to the commonly thought one - where entropy is a function of temperature. Instead, temperature is defined as a function of entropy and energy which is how we can arrive at negative temperatures.

They aren't stating what they think most people think they are (where a negative temperature implies negative energy) though the effect might ultimately be similar.
Luisa_2
Profile Joined August 2011
Germany200 Posts
January 05 2013 16:02 GMT
#29
wow :O, I'm interested in future experiments of that stuff
"Tasteless,why did the Colossus fall over?" "Why?" " Because it was imbalanced"
Evangelist
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
1246 Posts
January 05 2013 16:03 GMT
#30
Oh, I would also note that they demonstrated that said temperature is stable in the region of around 0.6s. Which if you think in physics terms is an eternity.
Sinedd
Profile Joined July 2008
Poland7052 Posts
January 05 2013 16:04 GMT
#31
pretty damn impressive
T H C makes ppl happy
Tuczniak
Profile Joined September 2010
1561 Posts
January 05 2013 16:07 GMT
#32
Are there any possible application of this?
Superconductors are thanks to cold physics right? Anything else?
Ender985
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
Spain910 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 16:11:58
January 05 2013 16:11 GMT
#33
Ok, at the beggining I thought this was a troll post, then I read the paper and was very impressed, then I read the wiki page and found out this has been known and done for a while.. Still very interesting.

As others are pointing out, these guys 'just' created a quantum system that decreases in entropy the more energy you apply, instead of the other way around, which is what you would expect of a classical system. Since the quantity driving this conversion is temperature, they call it a negative temperature system, because it's what the math model needs to explain this behavior.

Nothing too extremely ground-breaking, but still very interesting when they mention that the system has negative pressures, and makes me wonder if this could have some hand in solving the dark energy/missing antimatter problems.
Member of the Pirate Party - direct democracy, institutional transparency, and freedom of information
InfusedTT.DaZe
Profile Joined August 2010
Romania693 Posts
January 05 2013 16:12 GMT
#34
wow this is a pretty interesting discovery, things like these add up in my opinion over time
"Echoes of past events nudge the tiller on my present course, I await its reflection in the future"
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24664 Posts
January 05 2013 16:13 GMT
#35
I want to point out that saying entropy is the disorder of a system is about as accurate as saying temperature is the speed of molecules in a system. Thermal physics is difficult to discuss without studying it.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Trasko
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Sweden983 Posts
January 05 2013 16:14 GMT
#36
ahhhhhh myy god. That's actually really cool. It's amazing what we can do and prove with quantum physics. It has really opened up a whole new world of study! With this type of technique, creating anti-gravity could be a possibility in the future. Imagine flying cars that use anti-gravity as their main source of flying.
Jaedong <3
Numy
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
South Africa35471 Posts
January 05 2013 16:14 GMT
#37
On January 06 2013 01:13 micronesia wrote:
I want to point out that saying entropy is the disorder of a system is about as accurate as saying temperature is the speed of molecules in a system. Thermal physics is difficult to discuss without studying it.


What do/did you study btw? I'm currently 4th here Chem Eng student and I can't agree with this more. Thermal physics is a ball ache even when you study it :<
docvoc
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
United States5491 Posts
January 05 2013 16:17 GMT
#38
MIT, breaking physics one experiment at a time . A bit misleading as others have said, but nonetheless an important and groundbreaking feet.
User was warned for too many mimes.
diehilde
Profile Joined September 2008
Germany1596 Posts
January 05 2013 16:19 GMT
#39
On January 06 2013 01:13 micronesia wrote:
I want to point out that saying entropy is the disorder of a system is about as accurate as saying temperature is the speed of molecules in a system. Thermal physics is difficult to discuss without studying it.

oh dear god tell me about it. Unfortunately nobody cares about such minor details when its psychology or philosophy people are talking about. But for natural sciences, the plausibility of this concept reveals itself to all but the most dense people. For that, I envy natural scientists. Unfortunately though, we are on TL General, so Id expect a great deal of random comments from people nearing high school graduation on whatever topic possible.
Savior: "I will cheat everyone again in SC2!" - SCII Beta Tester
Mowr
Profile Joined November 2010
Sweden791 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 16:21:28
January 05 2013 16:20 GMT
#40
Guys guys, in first year thermodynamics you learn about negative temperatures, it is nothing new. This is just in a gas, not in the classical sets of arranged dipoles or similar. Don't panic.
Kill one man and they'll call you a murderer. Kill an army of men and they'll call you a general. But kill all men and they'll call you a god.
Solarsail
Profile Joined July 2012
United Kingdom538 Posts
January 05 2013 16:23 GMT
#41
On January 06 2013 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I don't have a strong background in chemistry, but I had my mother read this article, and she's been teaching chemistry for about 30 years now. She doesn't really seem too concerned. If I've understood this correctly, Kelvin is just a conversion and measurement, and not actually a degree, and so it would seem sensible to just redefine absolute zero as the new established low point (recently discovered here) and change the conversion scales between Kelvin and Celsius/ Fahrenheit (since -273.15 degrees Celsius was originally found using estimates and graphs and asymptotes to begin with), as absolute zero is simply defined as the lowest possible temperature. It would seem silly to have negative Kelvin, because its null point is, by definition, absolute zero.


It's not that. The Kelvin is still accurate and nothing needs to be changed. As explained, this temperature is not colder than absolute zero, it's just convenient to express the state with a negative number because of the definition of entropy.
Everyone left over is a member of the OP race and you have to figure out which one of them is the least OP. - CosmicSpiral
gedatsu
Profile Joined December 2011
1286 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 16:36:57
January 05 2013 16:30 GMT
#42
On January 06 2013 00:41 Snorkels wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 00:38 CursOr wrote:
On January 06 2013 00:33 ThomasjServo wrote:
Well guys, we broke the universe. I hope you all are happy with yourselves.

LOL Nerd Chills. ^_^

WP

I've wondered in the last year or so why breaking a hard barrier of the speed of light is a well known science fiction trope but the absolute zero barrier is unexplored. It should be interesting to see what can be influenced by this new knowledge.

There's something in one of the Dune books about freezing a material to a negative temperature. Totally a minor detail that doesn't matter for the plot, but I thought it was pretty cool when I read it. Unfortunately can't remember which book.


Edit: Heretics of Dune.
"His dart throwers had been sealed and "washed"
against snoopers, then maintained at minus 340[degrees] Kelvin in a
radiation bath for five SY to make them proof against snoopers."
endy
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
Switzerland8970 Posts
January 05 2013 16:33 GMT
#43
Oh wow, I expected that they went a bit below 0 kelvin, and they got a few billionths below absolute zero? Sick !
ॐ
BillClinton
Profile Joined November 2009
232 Posts
January 05 2013 16:37 GMT
#44
On January 06 2013 00:40 FluffyBinLaden wrote:
Science is confusing. The lack of... absoluteness even in the absolutes... it's strange.

It's an interesting thought.


there is only "absoluteness" in universe until the point of time at which you develop the medium to conceive a new degree of "absoluteness"
Before you judge sth, keep in mind that the less you know about sth, the more that what you think or pretend to know about it, it says about yourself and your environment.
Solarsail
Profile Joined July 2012
United Kingdom538 Posts
January 05 2013 16:42 GMT
#45
On January 06 2013 01:37 BillClinton wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 00:40 FluffyBinLaden wrote:
Science is confusing. The lack of... absoluteness even in the absolutes... it's strange.

It's an interesting thought.


there is only "absoluteness" in universe until the point of time at which you develop the medium to conceive a new degree of "absoluteness"


We're pretty certain about absolute zero and the speed of light being fixed. Science isn't philosophical mysticism like you're implying.
Everyone left over is a member of the OP race and you have to figure out which one of them is the least OP. - CosmicSpiral
sCCrooked
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Korea (South)1306 Posts
January 05 2013 16:51 GMT
#46
On January 06 2013 01:42 Solarsail wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 01:37 BillClinton wrote:
On January 06 2013 00:40 FluffyBinLaden wrote:
Science is confusing. The lack of... absoluteness even in the absolutes... it's strange.

It's an interesting thought.


there is only "absoluteness" in universe until the point of time at which you develop the medium to conceive a new degree of "absoluteness"


We're pretty certain about absolute zero and the speed of light being fixed. Science isn't philosophical mysticism like you're implying.


Science is also not rigid or fixed. Its a constantly evolving philosophy to explain how the Universe works. I should hope both of those things would be dis-proven over time as it signifies that we're still evolving our knowledge base.
Enlightened in an age of anti-intellectualism and quotidian repetitiveness of asinine assumptive thinking. Best lycan guide evar --> "Fixing solo queue all pick one game at a time." ~KwarK-
BillClinton
Profile Joined November 2009
232 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 16:54:28
January 05 2013 16:53 GMT
#47
On January 06 2013 01:42 Solarsail wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 01:37 BillClinton wrote:
On January 06 2013 00:40 FluffyBinLaden wrote:
Science is confusing. The lack of... absoluteness even in the absolutes... it's strange.

It's an interesting thought.


there is only "absoluteness" in universe until the point of time at which you develop the medium to conceive a new degree of "absoluteness"


We're pretty certain about absolute zero and the speed of light being fixed. Science isn't philosophical mysticism like you're implying.


Earth not being flat was once thought to be "mysticism" as well (when you use the term "we", who do you mean?)
Before you judge sth, keep in mind that the less you know about sth, the more that what you think or pretend to know about it, it says about yourself and your environment.
The_Masked_Shrimp
Profile Joined February 2012
425 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 16:57:55
January 05 2013 16:54 GMT
#48
I am a grad physics student and even with that i found that article quite blur.
I really don't understand how some of you can debate about what's told in that article with statements as confidents and "clear" .

One has to be really cautious with signs and their interpretation in physics equations. In particle physics you can encounter something which looks like particles with negative energy going backward in time when it's antiparticles with positive energy going forward in time.

There are also a lot of understanding problems because people don't talk about the same things because they don't use the same definitions.
So just an advice when you read articles like these, don't take it for granted.

And Solarsail, speed of light and absolute zero are fixed in the framework of the THEORY we built to describe what we see. One could build a theory where these are not fixed even if it might take complicated tricks or "laws" to match the observations back.
BillClinton
Profile Joined November 2009
232 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 17:07:43
January 05 2013 17:01 GMT
#49
On January 06 2013 01:51 sCCrooked wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 01:42 Solarsail wrote:
On January 06 2013 01:37 BillClinton wrote:
On January 06 2013 00:40 FluffyBinLaden wrote:
Science is confusing. The lack of... absoluteness even in the absolutes... it's strange.

It's an interesting thought.


there is only "absoluteness" in universe until the point of time at which you develop the medium to conceive a new degree of "absoluteness"


We're pretty certain about absolute zero and the speed of light being fixed. Science isn't philosophical mysticism like you're implying.


Science is also not rigid or fixed. Its a constantly evolving philosophy to explain how the Universe works. I should hope both of those things would be dis-proven over time as it signifies that we're still evolving our knowledge base.


Exactly, you can only use the operants which are system immanent. Math is also "only" a system which can be true until the basic axioms (Einstein), thats why science can be considered some kind of belief too. You should be careful using "absolute" terms describing "reality" (whatever it really is or seem to be). When you use "absolute" terms in science its only to have some form of standardisation which enables you to work more efficiently (or work at all) [respectively religious belief systems].
Before you judge sth, keep in mind that the less you know about sth, the more that what you think or pretend to know about it, it says about yourself and your environment.
Raysalis
Profile Joined July 2010
Malaysia1034 Posts
January 05 2013 17:16 GMT
#50
Thanks for the clear explanation of negative temperature. Don't remember my thermodynamic lecturer ever mention negative temperatures at all.


On January 06 2013 00:41 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 05 2013 23:57 Fruscainte wrote:
Physics itself is being rewritten gentlemen. We have broken the seemingly impossible to break barrier in temperature, and may have the ability to replicate Dark Energy-esque forces in a lab.

We have been able to get negative temperatures since before this paper.... it is just the first time it was done with a gas, I believe.

The common understanding of temperature that it is a measure of the speed of the motion of molecules in a system, while useful, is not accurate. You can actually define temperature using this formula:

1/T = dS/dU where S is entropy and U is internal energy. Temperature therefore has to do with how a change in internal energy relates to a change in entropy. For normal systems (positive Kelvin temperatures) increasing energy of a system will increase entropy (this is very important for studying the Carnot Cycle). For systems where the opposite happens (negative temperature), the object will give off heat to any system it comes into thermal equilibrium with. A few cases:

System A      System B                        Result
Warm            Hot                               Heat flows from hot to warm; temperatures equalize
Negative      Warm                               Heat flows from negative temperature system to warm system
Negative      Very Hot                        Heat flows from negative temperature system to hot system

Another example where you can get negative temperature: Place a 2-state paramagnet into a magnetic field such that the dipoles align. Then, reverse the magnetic field polarity.

:)
DarkPlasmaBall
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States44184 Posts
January 05 2013 17:25 GMT
#51
On January 06 2013 01:23 Solarsail wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I don't have a strong background in chemistry, but I had my mother read this article, and she's been teaching chemistry for about 30 years now. She doesn't really seem too concerned. If I've understood this correctly, Kelvin is just a conversion and measurement, and not actually a degree, and so it would seem sensible to just redefine absolute zero as the new established low point (recently discovered here) and change the conversion scales between Kelvin and Celsius/ Fahrenheit (since -273.15 degrees Celsius was originally found using estimates and graphs and asymptotes to begin with), as absolute zero is simply defined as the lowest possible temperature. It would seem silly to have negative Kelvin, because its null point is, by definition, absolute zero.


It's not that. The Kelvin is still accurate and nothing needs to be changed. As explained, this temperature is not colder than absolute zero, it's just convenient to express the state with a negative number because of the definition of entropy.


Silly sensationalism then ^^
"There is nothing more satisfying than looking at a crowd of people and helping them get what I love." ~Day[9] Daily #100
MichaelDonovan
Profile Joined June 2011
United States1453 Posts
January 05 2013 17:35 GMT
#52
Wow that's really cool.
rackdude
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
United States882 Posts
January 05 2013 17:36 GMT
#53
On January 06 2013 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 01:23 Solarsail wrote:
On January 06 2013 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I don't have a strong background in chemistry, but I had my mother read this article, and she's been teaching chemistry for about 30 years now. She doesn't really seem too concerned. If I've understood this correctly, Kelvin is just a conversion and measurement, and not actually a degree, and so it would seem sensible to just redefine absolute zero as the new established low point (recently discovered here) and change the conversion scales between Kelvin and Celsius/ Fahrenheit (since -273.15 degrees Celsius was originally found using estimates and graphs and asymptotes to begin with), as absolute zero is simply defined as the lowest possible temperature. It would seem silly to have negative Kelvin, because its null point is, by definition, absolute zero.


It's not that. The Kelvin is still accurate and nothing needs to be changed. As explained, this temperature is not colder than absolute zero, it's just convenient to express the state with a negative number because of the definition of entropy.


Silly sensationalism then ^^


It's not sensationalism, it's just... people are misunderstanding something because they never took a statistical mechanics / thermodynamics course. We got to negative temperature. Great. Does it ever say the system got to absolute zero? No. It never "passed through" absolute zero, think of it as hopping over it. If you define temperature using entropy, this is possible in systems with a finite number of states. So why would we redefine absolute zero? It is still a temperature that we cannot get to with any non-trivial system.
Sweet.
hp.Shell
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States2527 Posts
January 05 2013 17:49 GMT
#54
Wow that's so cool! Doesn't this have some renewable energy implications?

Next thing I wanna see is something smaller than Planck length. And man-made UFOs, of course. Y'know, those things that can effortlessly escape Earth's gravity.
Please PM me with any songs you like that you think I haven't heard before!
Cinim
Profile Joined April 2011
Denmark866 Posts
January 05 2013 17:49 GMT
#55
I think this will have a great impact on the upcoming episodes of the Big Bang Theory!!
Hell, it's about time
Legate
Profile Joined November 2011
46 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 17:54:14
January 05 2013 17:53 GMT
#56
On January 05 2013 23:57 Fruscainte wrote:
if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity4.


errm.. dont know if you guys missed that? Isn't this the really interesting part about this? Or does it sound more spectacular than it is?
Myrkskog
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
Canada481 Posts
January 05 2013 17:53 GMT
#57
On January 06 2013 00:43 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 00:41 Whitewing wrote:
Okay so, they are hitting a temperature below it by looking at the definition in a cute fashion, but they aren't actually able to hit absolute zero perfectly either.

Still impressive though.

This is true. It's easier to get a negative temperature than absolute zero. We have gotten very close to absolute zero from the positive direction though! (millionths of a kelvin, I believe)

Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 00:43 emythrel wrote:
a few billionths below aboluste zero? phew. For a second i thought we had again discovered that we were completely wrong about the universe. While a few billionths is a massive deal, its not like they managed to go a whole degree below or further, which would mean a complete re-write of some major components of modern physics.

I think you are misunderstanding what this means. It's not that we broke physics, but so minorly that it can be written off... it's that the conventional understanding of temperature is incorrect. I realized this when I studied thermal physics, well before this article.


[image loading]

User was warned for this post
Reason
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
United Kingdom2770 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 18:05:52
January 05 2013 17:55 GMT
#58
^Lol.

So.. to clarify this for the layman.

Supposing my finger was a perfect measure of how hot or cold something was and was capable of feeling any temperature without being permenantly damaged, and ignoring the changes caused by me sticking my fingers in there and any other sort of technical details:

If I touched something that was the coldest we've "achieved" previously, which I understand is slightly above absolute zero,

It would feel very cold.

If I touched something that was actually absolute zero,

It would feel slightly colder.

If I touched this new "negative temperature"...

It would feel even colder still?

I'm still unsure as to whether they've actually created something at a temperature colder than what we previously understood to be absolute zero or if due to technical definitions of what temperature actually means this has to be a "negative" temperature or a temperature "below" absolute zero.
Speak properly, and in as few words as you can, but always plainly; for the end of speech is not ostentation, but to be understood.
KazeHydra
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
Japan2788 Posts
January 05 2013 17:57 GMT
#59
lol what a misleading yet accurate title. I guess this is what happens when the common person (even the common educated person) doesn't understand the more technical definitions of a field. It's times like this, I'm glad I took those pchem classes @_@
"Because I know this promise that won’t disappear will turn even a cause of tears into strength. You taught me that if I can believe, there is nothing that cannot come true." - Nana Mizuki (Yakusoku) 17:36 ils kaze got me into nana 17:36 ils by his blog
Evangelist
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
1246 Posts
January 05 2013 17:59 GMT
#60
On January 06 2013 01:13 micronesia wrote:
I want to point out that saying entropy is the disorder of a system is about as accurate as saying temperature is the speed of molecules in a system. Thermal physics is difficult to discuss without studying it.


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.
Evangelist
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
1246 Posts
January 05 2013 18:00 GMT
#61
On January 06 2013 01:54 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
I am a grad physics student and even with that i found that article quite blur.
I really don't understand how some of you can debate about what's told in that article with statements as confidents and "clear" .

One has to be really cautious with signs and their interpretation in physics equations. In particle physics you can encounter something which looks like particles with negative energy going backward in time when it's antiparticles with positive energy going forward in time.

There are also a lot of understanding problems because people don't talk about the same things because they don't use the same definitions.
So just an advice when you read articles like these, don't take it for granted.

And Solarsail, speed of light and absolute zero are fixed in the framework of the THEORY we built to describe what we see. One could build a theory where these are not fixed even if it might take complicated tricks or "laws" to match the observations back.


Read the paper. It's much simpler than reading the attempt at explaining thermodynamics to the layman that is that article.
WeRRa
Profile Joined December 2010
378 Posts
January 05 2013 18:02 GMT
#62
But wouldn't this mean that the absolute zero (wich we thought it would be) isn't the absolute zero?
InnoVation Fighting!!!
speknek
Profile Joined February 2012
758 Posts
January 05 2013 18:11 GMT
#63
http://www.empiricalzeal.com/2013/01/05/what-the-dalai-lama-can-teach-us-about-temperatures-below-absolute-zero/
a different kind of explanation ^^
NervO
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
Netherlands511 Posts
January 05 2013 18:18 GMT
#64
Ooh shit :D
Currently working with Team Acer CSGO | @AcerNervO
SupLilSon
Profile Joined October 2011
Malaysia4123 Posts
January 05 2013 18:22 GMT
#65
God dammit, just waiting for Half Life to happen! xD
Soulstice
Profile Joined December 2011
United States288 Posts
January 05 2013 18:26 GMT
#66
Times like these when think back to when it was preposterous to think the earth was anything but flat. A year ago scientists would have clung on to the idea of absolute zero for dear life, now this. No Science is absolute!
Living the liefe
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 18:34:13
January 05 2013 18:28 GMT
#67
But wouldn't this mean that the absolute zero (wich we thought it would be) isn't the absolute zero?


Well as far as i understand the confusion comes from the different definitions of temperature that are going on here.
As far as most people understand temperature and what the term absolut zero refers to , is a state in which particles don't move at all. They have no kinetic energy left over, and you can't possibly go below that.

But the temperature definition of thermodynamics is a little bit different. It's not so much about kinetic energy, but about entropy and energy. If you raise the temperature of a a system, what it means is that energy and entropy increase
But in this special case, scientists actually lowered the entropy while rising the energy, by "trapping" the particles.

This changes the behaviour of such a system drastically, (which also by the way proves that is isn't just a redefinition of terms) and means that although you put energy into it, it still got colder, and even an object with a higher temperature will still get energy from the "below-zero" system.



ClanRH.TV
Profile Joined July 2010
United States462 Posts
January 05 2013 18:39 GMT
#68
On January 06 2013 00:43 emythrel wrote:
a few billionths below aboluste zero? phew. For a second i thought we had again discovered that we were completely wrong about the universe. While a few billionths is a massive deal, its not like they managed to go a whole degree below or further, which would mean a complete re-write of some major components of modern physics.


It doesn't matter how much below absolute zero they achieved, more the fact that it was achieved with this artificial gas.
"Don't take life too seriously because you'll never get out alive."
Kyrillion
Profile Joined August 2011
Russian Federation748 Posts
January 05 2013 20:24 GMT
#69
There's an excellent example with magnetic dipoles in a magnetic field to explain negative temperatures. I don't remember it exactly now sadly.

If you seek well, you shall find.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24664 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 20:47:37
January 05 2013 20:47 GMT
#70
On January 06 2013 02:59 Evangelist wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 01:13 micronesia wrote:
I want to point out that saying entropy is the disorder of a system is about as accurate as saying temperature is the speed of molecules in a system. Thermal physics is difficult to discuss without studying it.


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.

You yourself had to say 'pretty much' which is the same thing as how temperature is 'pretty much' the average kinetic energy of the molecules.

There is nothing wrong with thinking of entropy has the disorder of a system if you are willing to acknowledge that it is not technically accurate.... but it will get you into trouble sometimes.

On January 06 2013 05:24 Kyrillion wrote:
There's an excellent example with magnetic dipoles in a magnetic field to explain negative temperatures. I don't remember it exactly now sadly.


I did mention this earlier in the thread, although it's tricky to explain fully for those who aren't already studying it...
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
ZackAttack
Profile Joined June 2011
United States884 Posts
January 05 2013 20:47 GMT
#71
On January 06 2013 02:55 Reason wrote:
^Lol.

So.. to clarify this for the layman.

Supposing my finger was a perfect measure of how hot or cold something was and was capable of feeling any temperature without being permenantly damaged, and ignoring the changes caused by me sticking my fingers in there and any other sort of technical details:

If I touched something that was the coldest we've "achieved" previously, which I understand is slightly above absolute zero,

It would feel very cold.

If I touched something that was actually absolute zero,

It would feel slightly colder.

If I touched this new "negative temperature"...

It would feel even colder still?

I'm still unsure as to whether they've actually created something at a temperature colder than what we previously understood to be absolute zero or if due to technical definitions of what temperature actually means this has to be a "negative" temperature or a temperature "below" absolute zero.


No, it would feel extremely hot.
It's better aerodynamics for space. - Artosis
corpuscle
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States1967 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 20:58:01
January 05 2013 20:56 GMT
#72
So much misleading information about this finding. This is a much better explanation of what's going on, written by someone who actually understands it and isn't trying to mislead people for page views.

A TLDR summary by the scientists who did the experiment:

The gas is not colder than zero Kelvin, but hotter. It is even hotter than at any positive temperature – the temperature scale simply does not end at infinity, but jumps to negative values instead.
From the void I am born into wave and particle
a176
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Canada6688 Posts
January 05 2013 20:57 GMT
#73
I was completely wtf reading the article at first. But when some of you described it in terms of entropy it makes sense now.
starleague forever
HunterX11
Profile Joined March 2009
United States1048 Posts
January 05 2013 21:10 GMT
#74
On January 06 2013 03:26 Soulstice wrote:
Times like these when think back to when it was preposterous to think the earth was anything but flat. A year ago scientists would have clung on to the idea of absolute zero for dear life, now this. No Science is absolute!


Was there really any time it was controversial to point out that the Earth is round, though?
Try using both Irradiate and Defensive Matrix on an Overlord. It looks pretty neat.
AXygnus
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
Portugal1008 Posts
January 05 2013 21:12 GMT
#75
On January 06 2013 05:56 corpuscle wrote:
So much misleading information about this finding. This is a much better explanation of what's going on, written by someone who actually understands it and isn't trying to mislead people for page views.

A TLDR summary by the scientists who did the experiment:

Show nested quote +
The gas is not colder than zero Kelvin, but hotter. It is even hotter than at any positive temperature – the temperature scale simply does not end at infinity, but jumps to negative values instead.


So wait, we can think of the scale as a circle?
"To create, to recreate. To create, to recreate. Down to the last seed, I stand with a dark stare. Still silent. Still frighteningly silent."
divinesage
Profile Joined April 2010
Singapore649 Posts
January 05 2013 21:13 GMT
#76
What I'm curious is the effects of this reversal of entropy. Take for example a carnot engine, if we have applications like this won't we theoretically be able to increase the efficiency of said system?
corpuscle
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States1967 Posts
January 05 2013 21:15 GMT
#77
On January 06 2013 06:12 AXygnus wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 05:56 corpuscle wrote:
So much misleading information about this finding. This is a much better explanation of what's going on, written by someone who actually understands it and isn't trying to mislead people for page views.

A TLDR summary by the scientists who did the experiment:

The gas is not colder than zero Kelvin, but hotter. It is even hotter than at any positive temperature – the temperature scale simply does not end at infinity, but jumps to negative values instead.


So wait, we can think of the scale as a circle?


Sort of, yeah. It's mostly just some weirdness with physicists trying to make the traditional idea of temperature coincide with what we later learned is actually going on.
From the void I am born into wave and particle
Kyrillion
Profile Joined August 2011
Russian Federation748 Posts
January 05 2013 21:20 GMT
#78
The traditional idea of temperature is very vague and not well-defined though. It was expected someone would find better one at some point. Imagine we're Greek mathematicians encountering irrational numbers.

Also, it's making me realize Aquarius Camus was just a noob.
If you seek well, you shall find.
JOJOsc2news
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
3000 Posts
January 05 2013 21:30 GMT
#79
On January 06 2013 00:10 TheAmazombie wrote:
Yeah, I read this yesterday, so it is not that they actually got "colder" than absolute zero, but only when defining temps by the laws of thermodynamics and entropy...it is still a really cool and interesting feat, but it is a bit misleading the way they are saying it is "colder than absolute zero." They actually pumped more energy into this and created a state where entropy decreased with more energy, which is opposite of what is supposed to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

I am still very curious on what kinds of things they will still find and discover by this.


This is what I was looking for. That's how I understood it.
Not sure about all the implications this has though.
✉ Tweets @sc2channel ⌦ Blog: http://www.teamliquid.net/blog/JOJO ⌫ "Arbiterssss... build more arbiterssss." Click 'Profile' for awesome shiro art!
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24664 Posts
January 05 2013 21:32 GMT
#80
On January 06 2013 06:30 JOJOsc2news wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 00:10 TheAmazombie wrote:
Yeah, I read this yesterday, so it is not that they actually got "colder" than absolute zero, but only when defining temps by the laws of thermodynamics and entropy...it is still a really cool and interesting feat, but it is a bit misleading the way they are saying it is "colder than absolute zero." They actually pumped more energy into this and created a state where entropy decreased with more energy, which is opposite of what is supposed to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

I am still very curious on what kinds of things they will still find and discover by this.


This is what I was looking for. That's how I understood it.
Not sure about all the implications this has though.

The only advantage I can think of is that we won't need to turn young female children into magical girls anymore.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Zenbrez
Profile Joined June 2012
Canada5973 Posts
January 05 2013 21:36 GMT
#81
. 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.
Refer to my post.
namste
Profile Joined October 2010
Finland2292 Posts
January 05 2013 21:44 GMT
#82
Seems like people have no idea what this means at all. :p
IM hwaitiing ~ IMMvp #1 | Bang Min Ah <3<3
JOJOsc2news
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
3000 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 21:55:30
January 05 2013 21:48 GMT
#83
On January 06 2013 06:32 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 06:30 JOJOsc2news wrote:
On January 06 2013 00:10 TheAmazombie wrote:
Yeah, I read this yesterday, so it is not that they actually got "colder" than absolute zero, but only when defining temps by the laws of thermodynamics and entropy...it is still a really cool and interesting feat, but it is a bit misleading the way they are saying it is "colder than absolute zero." They actually pumped more energy into this and created a state where entropy decreased with more energy, which is opposite of what is supposed to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

I am still very curious on what kinds of things they will still find and discover by this.


This is what I was looking for. That's how I understood it.
Not sure about all the implications this has though.

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.
SOURCE: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-atoms-negative-absolute-temperature-hottest.html
✉ Tweets @sc2channel ⌦ Blog: http://www.teamliquid.net/blog/JOJO ⌫ "Arbiterssss... build more arbiterssss." Click 'Profile' for awesome shiro art!
niteReloaded
Profile Blog Joined February 2007
Croatia5281 Posts
January 05 2013 21:49 GMT
#84
[image loading]


We're that much closer to it now!
xxpack09
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States2160 Posts
January 05 2013 21:54 GMT
#85
This isn't as special as everyone seems to think.... it relies on a rather unintuitive definition of temperature as dq/ds. If you define temperature that way, then ANY LASER achieves negative temperature since lasing requires population inversion.

(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
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
United Kingdom2770 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 22:03:06
January 05 2013 22:02 GMT
#86
On January 06 2013 05:47 ZackAttack wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 02:55 Reason wrote:
^Lol.

So.. to clarify this for the layman.

Supposing my finger was a perfect measure of how hot or cold something was and was capable of feeling any temperature without being permenantly damaged, and ignoring the changes caused by me sticking my fingers in there and any other sort of technical details:

If I touched something that was the coldest we've "achieved" previously, which I understand is slightly above absolute zero,

It would feel very cold.

If I touched something that was actually absolute zero,

It would feel slightly colder.

If I touched this new "negative temperature"...

It would feel even colder still?

I'm still unsure as to whether they've actually created something at a temperature colder than what we previously understood to be absolute zero or if due to technical definitions of what temperature actually means this has to be a "negative" temperature or a temperature "below" absolute zero.


No, it would feel extremely hot.

Thank you. Wtf though =/ I don't think saying "going below absolute zero" is a very helpful or useful way of describing this then.
Speak properly, and in as few words as you can, but always plainly; for the end of speech is not ostentation, but to be understood.
radscorpion9
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
Canada2252 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 22:07:07
January 05 2013 22:04 GMT
#87
Well if you read the Wikipedia article on negative temperature it explains things pretty well if anyone is still confused. Thankfully this time its not ridiculously dense for any non-expert .

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
Profile Blog Joined October 2011
United States329 Posts
January 05 2013 22:06 GMT
#88
That is a very interesting story.. As radscorpion said I would be completely blown away as well..
Ladder more, win less
imallinson
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
United Kingdom3482 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 22:44:36
January 05 2013 22:44 GMT
#89
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]
). This means that a particle can't have zero momentum because then it would have definite position and momentum violating the uncertainty principle. Therefore even if we could cool something to absolute zero the molecules would still be moving, although very slowly.
Liquipedia
Solarsail
Profile Joined July 2012
United Kingdom538 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 22:54:37
January 05 2013 22:53 GMT
#90
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?
Everyone left over is a member of the OP race and you have to figure out which one of them is the least OP. - CosmicSpiral
imallinson
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
United Kingdom3482 Posts
January 05 2013 23:28 GMT
#91
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.
Liquipedia
lightrise
Profile Joined March 2008
United States1355 Posts
January 05 2013 23:51 GMT
#92
On January 06 2013 02:59 Evangelist wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 01:13 micronesia wrote:
I want to point out that saying entropy is the disorder of a system is about as accurate as saying temperature is the speed of molecules in a system. Thermal physics is difficult to discuss without studying it.


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.
Awesome german interviewer: "What was your idea going into games against Idra" "I WANTED TO USE A CHEESE STRATEGY BECAUSE IDRA IS KNOWN TO TILT AFTER LOSING TO SOMETHING GAY" Demuslim
dannystarcraft
Profile Blog Joined October 2011
United States179 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 00:31:16
January 06 2013 00:17 GMT
#93
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
Profile Joined April 2011
United States28 Posts
January 06 2013 01:04 GMT
#94
More grant money that could have gone to biomedical research.
AUGcodon
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
Canada536 Posts
January 06 2013 02:01 GMT
#95
Eh, physicists always have cool toys other fields can eventually use. The guys who first did NMR spectroscopy thought it was neat and can get a few papers out of it. Took the chemists to recognize how revolutionary it was.
2809-8732-2116/ Fighting/ Mienfoo, Tyrogue, Sawk
Ghostcom
Profile Joined March 2010
Denmark4782 Posts
January 06 2013 02:09 GMT
#96
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
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
United States6733 Posts
January 06 2013 02:12 GMT
#97
It's amazing we have the technology to get temperatures this low, but as previously stated it's not earth shattering. Using sustained low temperatures may be useful for future technology however.
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
January 06 2013 02:15 GMT
#98
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?
shikata ga nai
Solarsail
Profile Joined July 2012
United Kingdom538 Posts
January 06 2013 03:48 GMT
#99
On January 06 2013 08:28 imallinson wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


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.
Everyone left over is a member of the OP race and you have to figure out which one of them is the least OP. - CosmicSpiral
Jisall
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States2054 Posts
January 06 2013 03:58 GMT
#100
Interesting, if they can find out how dark energy works, maybe they could stabilize the universe.
Monk: Because being a badass is more fun then playing a dude wearing a scarf.. ... Ite fuck it, Witch Doctor cuz I like killing stuff in a timely mannor.
GGTeMpLaR
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United States7226 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 04:23:35
January 06 2013 04:14 GMT
#101
On January 05 2013 23:57 Fruscainte wrote:
For instance, Rosch and his colleagues have calculated that whereas clouds of atoms would normally be pulled downwards by gravity, if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity4.


Holy shit.. mass effect anyone?

I have a question though. Since the energy moves from a parts of atoms in the cloud at negative-kelvin to the positive-kelvin atoms in the cloud (from cold to hot, the opposite of what is normal), would the negative-kelvin atoms just continue to get colder and colder with a higher and higher value of negative-kelvin?

edit: Is negative-kelvin actually cold or is it hot? I'm reading negative-kelvin is actually hotter than any value of positive-kelvin since heat will always flow from negative to positive?

Also, does this invalidate the second law of thermodynamics? Is it possible the conditions necessary to reach this negative-kelvin temperature could ever occur naturally in the cosmos?
philcorp
Profile Joined August 2010
Canada32 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 04:24:12
January 06 2013 04:23 GMT
#102
I am surprised that this article is atracting so much popular attention. As has been mentioned, there is nothing really special about reaching "negative temperatures", we have been doing it from years. Someone mentioned LASER devices as an example of a popular device which feature negative temperatures.

Conventional wisdom tells us that high temperatures correspond to all states being equally probable. The thermal fluctuations can put atoms into any state. As one lowers the temperature, the atoms cannot access as many states. They prefer to stay in those with low energy (the thermal fluctuations are not enough to access the high energy states). So, "negative temperature" is the situation when the system perfers to be in high energy states instead of the low energy ones. It takes some experimental creativity to come up with such a situation, but it can be done!
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24664 Posts
January 06 2013 04:40 GMT
#103
On January 06 2013 13:23 philcorp wrote:
I am surprised that this article is atracting so much popular attention. As has been mentioned, there is nothing really special about reaching "negative temperatures", we have been doing it from years. Someone mentioned LASER devices as an example of a popular device which feature negative temperatures.

Conventional wisdom tells us that high temperatures correspond to all states being equally probable. The thermal fluctuations can put atoms into any state. As one lowers the temperature, the atoms cannot access as many states. They prefer to stay in those with low energy (the thermal fluctuations are not enough to access the high energy states). So, "negative temperature" is the situation when the system perfers to be in high energy states instead of the low energy ones. It takes some experimental creativity to come up with such a situation, but it can be done!

I believe a large mass of particle, influenced by gravity (a star) is another example of this. Adding energy causes the particles to 'orbit' at a higher altitude, slowing them down (as per satellite motion).
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
philcorp
Profile Joined August 2010
Canada32 Posts
January 06 2013 04:59 GMT
#104
On January 06 2013 13:40 micronesia wrote:
I believe a large mass of particle, influenced by gravity (a star) is another example of this. Adding energy causes the particles to 'orbit' at a higher altitude, slowing them down (as per satellite motion).


This sounds correct. If I add energy to something orbiting, its orbit gets larger. This is probably why they are hyping it up as the same as 'dark energy' (the name for the thing causing the large scale expansion of the universe). I am somewhat weary to make the analogy too certainly, at least without a great deal of thought though. I am not a general relativity guy, but I do recall some weird things about energy not always being conserved in GR, so one has to be a bit careful, I think.
Chargelot
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
2275 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 05:47:46
January 06 2013 05:47 GMT
#105
On January 06 2013 13:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 05 2013 23:57 Fruscainte wrote:
For instance, Rosch and his colleagues have calculated that whereas clouds of atoms would normally be pulled downwards by gravity, if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity4.


Holy shit.. mass effect anyone?

I have a question though. Since the energy moves from a parts of atoms in the cloud at negative-kelvin to the positive-kelvin atoms in the cloud (from cold to hot, the opposite of what is normal), would the negative-kelvin atoms just continue to get colder and colder with a higher and higher value of negative-kelvin?

edit: Is negative-kelvin actually cold or is it hot? I'm reading negative-kelvin is actually hotter than any value of positive-kelvin since heat will always flow from negative to positive?

Also, does this invalidate the second law of thermodynamics? Is it possible the conditions necessary to reach this negative-kelvin temperature could ever occur naturally in the cosmos?

This occurs naturally in stars and black holes. Negative-kelvin is hotter than any positive-kelvin. That is:

-1K > 100,000,000K

Because energy will always flow from the negative system to the positive system. In this case, temperature is being described as

T^(-1) = dS/dE

meaning when you find the slope of the line that you get when you graph entropy vs energy, its inverse will be the temperature. I'm sure if you could hold something that was -100k in your hands, and something that was 100,000,000K in your hands, the -100k wouldn't feel nearly as "hot" as the other. But, the -100K would still donate energy to the 100,000,000K system, and therefore it has a higher temperature.

But I suspect that -100K feels as hot as 100K. It's just the movement of energy which differs them for the most part.
if (post == "stupid") { document.getElementById('post').style.display = 'none'; }
imallinson
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
United Kingdom3482 Posts
January 06 2013 06:16 GMT
#106
On January 06 2013 14:47 Chargelot wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 13:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On January 05 2013 23:57 Fruscainte wrote:
For instance, Rosch and his colleagues have calculated that whereas clouds of atoms would normally be pulled downwards by gravity, if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity4.


Holy shit.. mass effect anyone?

I have a question though. Since the energy moves from a parts of atoms in the cloud at negative-kelvin to the positive-kelvin atoms in the cloud (from cold to hot, the opposite of what is normal), would the negative-kelvin atoms just continue to get colder and colder with a higher and higher value of negative-kelvin?

edit: Is negative-kelvin actually cold or is it hot? I'm reading negative-kelvin is actually hotter than any value of positive-kelvin since heat will always flow from negative to positive?

Also, does this invalidate the second law of thermodynamics? Is it possible the conditions necessary to reach this negative-kelvin temperature could ever occur naturally in the cosmos?

This occurs naturally in stars and black holes. Negative-kelvin is hotter than any positive-kelvin. That is:

-1K > 100,000,000K

Because energy will always flow from the negative system to the positive system. In this case, temperature is being described as

T^(-1) = dS/dE

meaning when you find the slope of the line that you get when you graph entropy vs energy, its inverse will be the temperature. I'm sure if you could hold something that was -100k in your hands, and something that was 100,000,000K in your hands, the -100k wouldn't feel nearly as "hot" as the other. But, the -100K would still donate energy to the 100,000,000K system, and therefore it has a higher temperature.

But I suspect that -100K feels as hot as 100K. It's just the movement of energy which differs them for the most part.

I'm certainly no expert at biology but if your hand could actually hold either of those things without melting and you could differentiate between two very high temperatures surely the -100K object would feel much hotter because your nerves are basically sensing the heat transfer which would be greater for the -100K object.
Liquipedia
Physician *
Profile Blog Joined January 2004
United States4146 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 06:42:01
January 06 2013 06:28 GMT
#107
"I have beheld the births of negative-suns and borne witness to the entropy of entire realities..." - Zeratul.

Anyway, anyone with access to the original paper?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/42.summary
"I have beheld the births of negative-suns and borne witness to the entropy of entire realities...."
Alex1Sun
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
494 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 06:42:19
January 06 2013 06:39 GMT
#108
It has been done before in other systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature

The simplest example is a laser. Any laser has some atoms at negative temperature if you use entropic definition of temperature.

In the paper presented in OP it is done in a different system (and involves motional degrees of freedom), which is cool and might be very useful, but not the first time negative temperature was achieved.
This is not Warcraft in space!
ZackAttack
Profile Joined June 2011
United States884 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 08:50:10
January 06 2013 08:42 GMT
#109
On January 06 2013 13:40 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 13:23 philcorp wrote:
I am surprised that this article is atracting so much popular attention. As has been mentioned, there is nothing really special about reaching "negative temperatures", we have been doing it from years. Someone mentioned LASER devices as an example of a popular device which feature negative temperatures.

Conventional wisdom tells us that high temperatures correspond to all states being equally probable. The thermal fluctuations can put atoms into any state. As one lowers the temperature, the atoms cannot access as many states. They prefer to stay in those with low energy (the thermal fluctuations are not enough to access the high energy states). So, "negative temperature" is the situation when the system perfers to be in high energy states instead of the low energy ones. It takes some experimental creativity to come up with such a situation, but it can be done!

I believe a large mass of particle, influenced by gravity (a star) is another example of this. Adding energy causes the particles to 'orbit' at a higher altitude, slowing them down (as per satellite motion).


Adding energy and causing a slower larger orbit does not mean the the object in orbit prefers the higher energy state because it wants to have a lower, faster orbit with a higher kinetic energy. You also have to take into account the binding energy of the total system of the satellite object and the star. Causing a system to be more tightly bound cause a release of energy overall, including potential, so the lower orbit is actually a lower energy system.

On January 06 2013 15:16 imallinson wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 14:47 Chargelot wrote:
On January 06 2013 13:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On January 05 2013 23:57 Fruscainte wrote:
For instance, Rosch and his colleagues have calculated that whereas clouds of atoms would normally be pulled downwards by gravity, if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity4.


Holy shit.. mass effect anyone?

I have a question though. Since the energy moves from a parts of atoms in the cloud at negative-kelvin to the positive-kelvin atoms in the cloud (from cold to hot, the opposite of what is normal), would the negative-kelvin atoms just continue to get colder and colder with a higher and higher value of negative-kelvin?

edit: Is negative-kelvin actually cold or is it hot? I'm reading negative-kelvin is actually hotter than any value of positive-kelvin since heat will always flow from negative to positive?

Also, does this invalidate the second law of thermodynamics? Is it possible the conditions necessary to reach this negative-kelvin temperature could ever occur naturally in the cosmos?

This occurs naturally in stars and black holes. Negative-kelvin is hotter than any positive-kelvin. That is:

-1K > 100,000,000K

Because energy will always flow from the negative system to the positive system. In this case, temperature is being described as

T^(-1) = dS/dE

meaning when you find the slope of the line that you get when you graph entropy vs energy, its inverse will be the temperature. I'm sure if you could hold something that was -100k in your hands, and something that was 100,000,000K in your hands, the -100k wouldn't feel nearly as "hot" as the other. But, the -100K would still donate energy to the 100,000,000K system, and therefore it has a higher temperature.

But I suspect that -100K feels as hot as 100K. It's just the movement of energy which differs them for the most part.

I'm certainly no expert at biology but if your hand could actually hold either of those things without melting and you could differentiate between two very high temperatures surely the -100K object would feel much hotter because your nerves are basically sensing the heat transfer which would be greater for the -100K object.


The reason that the heat transfers faster and the negative object feels hotter is because there are more molecules in higher energy states that any positive temperature could yield. There is really nothing special about negative temperature other than the fact that the higher energy states are filled before the lower ones. This is actually pretty special, but the end result is something that can be thought of in the classical sense of actually comparing temperature by touch as negative being hotter that positive.
It's better aerodynamics for space. - Artosis
a176
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Canada6688 Posts
January 06 2013 09:12 GMT
#110
I must say I am intrigued by the notion that dark matter may not obey the laws of thermodynamics+entropy
starleague forever
ZackAttack
Profile Joined June 2011
United States884 Posts
January 06 2013 09:16 GMT
#111
On January 06 2013 18:12 a176 wrote:
I must say I am intrigued by the notion that dark matter may not obey the laws of thermodynamics+entropy


What makes you think that?
It's better aerodynamics for space. - Artosis
Chemist
Profile Joined November 2011
Austria127 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 10:28:35
January 06 2013 10:13 GMT
#112
So i'm just a chemist and i thing i don't really get this so tell me if i'm wrong:

They created a state of some Atoms in an special environment where they behave the opposite they should at positive temperature, and so they calculate that the atoms have a negative temperature?

So my Problem with this whole thing is: They get a lot of energy into the System (with the Laser) but then the Atoms got less than no energy?


EDIT.: this helped for understanding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature
imallinson
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
United Kingdom3482 Posts
January 06 2013 10:51 GMT
#113
On January 06 2013 17:42 ZackAttack wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 15:16 imallinson wrote:
On January 06 2013 14:47 Chargelot wrote:
On January 06 2013 13:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On January 05 2013 23:57 Fruscainte wrote:
For instance, Rosch and his colleagues have calculated that whereas clouds of atoms would normally be pulled downwards by gravity, if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity4.


Holy shit.. mass effect anyone?

I have a question though. Since the energy moves from a parts of atoms in the cloud at negative-kelvin to the positive-kelvin atoms in the cloud (from cold to hot, the opposite of what is normal), would the negative-kelvin atoms just continue to get colder and colder with a higher and higher value of negative-kelvin?

edit: Is negative-kelvin actually cold or is it hot? I'm reading negative-kelvin is actually hotter than any value of positive-kelvin since heat will always flow from negative to positive?

Also, does this invalidate the second law of thermodynamics? Is it possible the conditions necessary to reach this negative-kelvin temperature could ever occur naturally in the cosmos?

This occurs naturally in stars and black holes. Negative-kelvin is hotter than any positive-kelvin. That is:

-1K > 100,000,000K

Because energy will always flow from the negative system to the positive system. In this case, temperature is being described as

T^(-1) = dS/dE

meaning when you find the slope of the line that you get when you graph entropy vs energy, its inverse will be the temperature. I'm sure if you could hold something that was -100k in your hands, and something that was 100,000,000K in your hands, the -100k wouldn't feel nearly as "hot" as the other. But, the -100K would still donate energy to the 100,000,000K system, and therefore it has a higher temperature.

But I suspect that -100K feels as hot as 100K. It's just the movement of energy which differs them for the most part.

I'm certainly no expert at biology but if your hand could actually hold either of those things without melting and you could differentiate between two very high temperatures surely the -100K object would feel much hotter because your nerves are basically sensing the heat transfer which would be greater for the -100K object.


The reason that the heat transfers faster and the negative object feels hotter is because there are more molecules in higher energy states that any positive temperature could yield. There is really nothing special about negative temperature other than the fact that the higher energy states are filled before the lower ones. This is actually pretty special, but the end result is something that can be thought of in the classical sense of actually comparing temperature by touch as negative being hotter that positive.

I knew that. I was only talking about which would theoretically feel hotter to touch.
Liquipedia
Defacer
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
Canada5052 Posts
January 06 2013 11:22 GMT
#114
I'm not a science buff ... but holy shit. Thanks for posting this.
neptunusfisk
Profile Blog Joined July 2012
2286 Posts
January 06 2013 12:06 GMT
#115
All you wondering out there; second law only says zero can't be reached.
maru G5L pls
PREDATORCroatia
Profile Joined November 2012
Croatia5 Posts
January 06 2013 12:15 GMT
#116
Looks like they can't call it aboslute zero anymore.
My life for Aiur!
Belisarius
Profile Joined November 2010
Australia6226 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 12:37:11
January 06 2013 12:31 GMT
#117
Okay, I'm just a dumb biologist, but I'm confused...

I think what we have here are low-entropy (eg. crystalline) states that only occur at high temperature, and so as you add heat the system's entropy decreases. That means it's "happier" at high energies, which is the unusual property that makes this possible. That much is okay, I think...

But why do they then dump heat onto anything they come in contact with? Working forward, you'd assume they're going to want to pull as much as they can from whatever's around them because they're stable at higher energies... right?

What am I missing?
RowdierBob
Profile Blog Joined May 2003
Australia13004 Posts
January 06 2013 12:54 GMT
#118
What are the practical implications for a discovery like this?
"Terrans are pretty much space-Australians" - H
imallinson
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
United Kingdom3482 Posts
January 06 2013 14:46 GMT
#119
On January 06 2013 21:31 Belisarius wrote:
Okay, I'm just a dumb biologist, but I'm confused...

I think what we have here are low-entropy (eg. crystalline) states that only occur at high temperature, and so as you add heat the system's entropy decreases. That means it's "happier" at high energies, which is the unusual property that makes this possible. That much is okay, I think...

But why do they then dump heat onto anything they come in contact with? Working forward, you'd assume they're going to want to pull as much as they can from whatever's around them because they're stable at higher energies... right?

What am I missing?

I don't think that its necessarily low entropy. The scale for temperature is defined by change in thermal energy divided by change in entropy so for a negative temperature you need one to decrease as the other increases. I don't know enough about it to know which is the one decreasing in this experiment.
Liquipedia
See.Blue
Profile Blog Joined October 2008
United States2673 Posts
January 06 2013 14:55 GMT
#120
On January 06 2013 00:08 IntoTheWow wrote:
I guess it depends on how you define temperature.

If you release these atoms from their arrangement, you would not get heat transfering to them, but from them.


Exactly. Its a definitional game thats being played. It's neat, but nothing groundbreaking and the terminology/pop sci hype around it is outright misleading.
Mentalizor
Profile Joined January 2011
Denmark1596 Posts
January 06 2013 15:33 GMT
#121
As a guy studying natural sciences at the university - this is pretty exciting. Just might write a paper about this if the source is reliable enough
(yಠ,ಠ)y - Y U NO ALL IN? - rtsAlaran: " I somehow sit inside the bus.Hot_Bit giving me a massage"
imallinson
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
United Kingdom3482 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 15:52:00
January 06 2013 15:50 GMT
#122
On January 06 2013 23:55 See.Blue wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 00:08 IntoTheWow wrote:
I guess it depends on how you define temperature.

If you release these atoms from their arrangement, you would not get heat transfering to them, but from them.


Exactly. Its a definitional game thats being played. It's neat, but nothing groundbreaking and the terminology/pop sci hype around it is outright misleading.

Well the definition is, in the technical sense, correct. It's the unscientific interpretation of scientific language where the the misleading comes in. Pop sci hype being misleading is certainly nothing new as it happens with basically every popularised discovery or theory.

edit: I definitely found the actual science interesting though. I have ended up learning a lot about how temperature is defined and some interesting stuff about thermodynamics that hasn't been covered in my degree so far.
Liquipedia
Djzapz
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Canada10681 Posts
January 06 2013 15:51 GMT
#123
May I suggest that we burn the witch?
"My incompetence with power tools had been increasing exponentially over the course of 20 years spent inhaling experimental oven cleaners"
imallinson
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
United Kingdom3482 Posts
January 06 2013 15:52 GMT
#124
On January 07 2013 00:51 Djzapz wrote:
May I suggest that we burn the witch?

Well first we need to determine whether things at negative temperature float or sink.
Liquipedia
frogrubdown
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
1266 Posts
January 06 2013 16:55 GMT
#125
On January 06 2013 06:10 HunterX11 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 03:26 Soulstice wrote:
Times like these when think back to when it was preposterous to think the earth was anything but flat. A year ago scientists would have clung on to the idea of absolute zero for dear life, now this. No Science is absolute!


Was there really any time it was controversial to point out that the Earth is round, though?


Well, there was at least a time when the idea that it was round was thought to be in need of argument. Aristotle offers some convincing ones.
Chargelot
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
2275 Posts
January 06 2013 17:17 GMT
#126
On January 06 2013 15:16 imallinson wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 14:47 Chargelot wrote:
On January 06 2013 13:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On January 05 2013 23:57 Fruscainte wrote:
For instance, Rosch and his colleagues have calculated that whereas clouds of atoms would normally be pulled downwards by gravity, if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity4.


Holy shit.. mass effect anyone?

I have a question though. Since the energy moves from a parts of atoms in the cloud at negative-kelvin to the positive-kelvin atoms in the cloud (from cold to hot, the opposite of what is normal), would the negative-kelvin atoms just continue to get colder and colder with a higher and higher value of negative-kelvin?

edit: Is negative-kelvin actually cold or is it hot? I'm reading negative-kelvin is actually hotter than any value of positive-kelvin since heat will always flow from negative to positive?

Also, does this invalidate the second law of thermodynamics? Is it possible the conditions necessary to reach this negative-kelvin temperature could ever occur naturally in the cosmos?

This occurs naturally in stars and black holes. Negative-kelvin is hotter than any positive-kelvin. That is:

-1K > 100,000,000K

Because energy will always flow from the negative system to the positive system. In this case, temperature is being described as

T^(-1) = dS/dE

meaning when you find the slope of the line that you get when you graph entropy vs energy, its inverse will be the temperature. I'm sure if you could hold something that was -100k in your hands, and something that was 100,000,000K in your hands, the -100k wouldn't feel nearly as "hot" as the other. But, the -100K would still donate energy to the 100,000,000K system, and therefore it has a higher temperature.

But I suspect that -100K feels as hot as 100K. It's just the movement of energy which differs them for the most part.

I'm certainly no expert at biology but if your hand could actually hold either of those things without melting and you could differentiate between two very high temperatures surely the -100K object would feel much hotter because your nerves are basically sensing the heat transfer which would be greater for the -100K object.


Allow me to restate

To a 0.01K system, a -100K system and a 100K system have the same energy to offer it, and independent of each other, the energy flow from a -100K system to a 0.01K system and the energy flow from a 100K system to a 0.01K system would be about the same, within reason. Would a 100K system actually feel hot in your hand? No, it'd fucking turn your hand to ice and your hand would fall off of your arm.
if (post == "stupid") { document.getElementById('post').style.display = 'none'; }
Yergidy
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States2107 Posts
January 06 2013 17:24 GMT
#127
I remember in chemistry class my teacher saying we have gotten close, but never absolute zero before. This is truly an amazing achievement. Who knows what this will lead to!
One bright day in the middle of the night, Two dead boys got up to fight; Back to back they faced each other, Drew their swords and shot each other.
Ecrilon
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
501 Posts
January 06 2013 17:26 GMT
#128
On January 07 2013 02:24 Yergidy wrote:
I remember in chemistry class my teacher saying we have gotten close, but never absolute zero before. This is truly an amazing achievement. Who knows what this will lead to!

This is still true. The "temperature change" in the article is discontinuous and does not pass absolute zero.
There is but one truth.
Reason
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
United Kingdom2770 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 18:04:01
January 06 2013 17:37 GMT
#129
+ Show Spoiler +

On January 07 2013 02:17 Chargelot wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 15:16 imallinson wrote:
On January 06 2013 14:47 Chargelot wrote:
On January 06 2013 13:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On January 05 2013 23:57 Fruscainte wrote:
For instance, Rosch and his colleagues have calculated that whereas clouds of atoms would normally be pulled downwards by gravity, if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity4.


Holy shit.. mass effect anyone?

I have a question though. Since the energy moves from a parts of atoms in the cloud at negative-kelvin to the positive-kelvin atoms in the cloud (from cold to hot, the opposite of what is normal), would the negative-kelvin atoms just continue to get colder and colder with a higher and higher value of negative-kelvin?

edit: Is negative-kelvin actually cold or is it hot? I'm reading negative-kelvin is actually hotter than any value of positive-kelvin since heat will always flow from negative to positive?

Also, does this invalidate the second law of thermodynamics? Is it possible the conditions necessary to reach this negative-kelvin temperature could ever occur naturally in the cosmos?

This occurs naturally in stars and black holes. Negative-kelvin is hotter than any positive-kelvin. That is:

-1K > 100,000,000K

Because energy will always flow from the negative system to the positive system. In this case, temperature is being described as

T^(-1) = dS/dE

meaning when you find the slope of the line that you get when you graph entropy vs energy, its inverse will be the temperature. I'm sure if you could hold something that was -100k in your hands, and something that was 100,000,000K in your hands, the -100k wouldn't feel nearly as "hot" as the other. But, the -100K would still donate energy to the 100,000,000K system, and therefore it has a higher temperature.

But I suspect that -100K feels as hot as 100K. It's just the movement of energy which differs them for the most part.

I'm certainly no expert at biology but if your hand could actually hold either of those things without melting and you could differentiate between two very high temperatures surely the -100K object would feel much hotter because your nerves are basically sensing the heat transfer which would be greater for the -100K object.


Allow me to restate

To a 0.01K system, a -100K system and a 100K system have the same energy to offer it, and independent of each other, the energy flow from a -100K system to a 0.01K system and the energy flow from a 100K system to a 0.01K system would be about the same, within reason. Would a 100K system actually feel hot in your hand? No, it'd fucking turn your hand to ice and your hand would fall off of your arm.

Did you write that correctly or are you missing a - ?

Also, why are people saying it would be hot -_-

Would it be very hot or very cold ffs?


I need to pay more attention =(
Speak properly, and in as few words as you can, but always plainly; for the end of speech is not ostentation, but to be understood.
CapnAmerica
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States508 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 17:51:19
January 06 2013 17:50 GMT
#130
On January 07 2013 02:37 Reason wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 02:17 Chargelot wrote:
On January 06 2013 15:16 imallinson wrote:
On January 06 2013 14:47 Chargelot wrote:
On January 06 2013 13:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On January 05 2013 23:57 Fruscainte wrote:
For instance, Rosch and his colleagues have calculated that whereas clouds of atoms would normally be pulled downwards by gravity, if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity4.


Holy shit.. mass effect anyone?

I have a question though. Since the energy moves from a parts of atoms in the cloud at negative-kelvin to the positive-kelvin atoms in the cloud (from cold to hot, the opposite of what is normal), would the negative-kelvin atoms just continue to get colder and colder with a higher and higher value of negative-kelvin?

edit: Is negative-kelvin actually cold or is it hot? I'm reading negative-kelvin is actually hotter than any value of positive-kelvin since heat will always flow from negative to positive?

Also, does this invalidate the second law of thermodynamics? Is it possible the conditions necessary to reach this negative-kelvin temperature could ever occur naturally in the cosmos?

This occurs naturally in stars and black holes. Negative-kelvin is hotter than any positive-kelvin. That is:

-1K > 100,000,000K

Because energy will always flow from the negative system to the positive system. In this case, temperature is being described as

T^(-1) = dS/dE

meaning when you find the slope of the line that you get when you graph entropy vs energy, its inverse will be the temperature. I'm sure if you could hold something that was -100k in your hands, and something that was 100,000,000K in your hands, the -100k wouldn't feel nearly as "hot" as the other. But, the -100K would still donate energy to the 100,000,000K system, and therefore it has a higher temperature.

But I suspect that -100K feels as hot as 100K. It's just the movement of energy which differs them for the most part.

I'm certainly no expert at biology but if your hand could actually hold either of those things without melting and you could differentiate between two very high temperatures surely the -100K object would feel much hotter because your nerves are basically sensing the heat transfer which would be greater for the -100K object.


Allow me to restate

To a 0.01K system, a -100K system and a 100K system have the same energy to offer it, and independent of each other, the energy flow from a -100K system to a 0.01K system and the energy flow from a 100K system to a 0.01K system would be about the same, within reason. Would a 100K system actually feel hot in your hand? No, it'd fucking turn your hand to ice and your hand would fall off of your arm.

Did you write that correctly or are you missing a - ?

Also, why are people saying it would be hot -_-

Would it be very hot or very cold ffs?


When a system is putting out energy it will feel warm, when it's taking energy away, it will feel cold.

The negative system would be putting out energy to a system with 'more' energy, like your hand (which is way warmer than 100K) and the positive system would take energy away, because your hand would have more (the 100K itself is 'cold' and has less energy).

It's like... a kid who has a bunch of candy giving away some candy is regular positive temperatures, and a kid with one piece of candy giving it to the kid with lots is negative temperatures.

EDIT: This is really not a proper technical description, but I'm also not a physicist.
After all this time, I still haven't figured out the correlation between sexual orientation and beating an unprepared opponent. Are homosexuals the next koreans? Many players seem to think it's an unfair advantage. - pandaburn
Reason
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
United Kingdom2770 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 17:58:15
January 06 2013 17:58 GMT
#131
Wait wait wait, my hand is warmer than 100k =/ ?

Don't make me read the whole thread again =(
Speak properly, and in as few words as you can, but always plainly; for the end of speech is not ostentation, but to be understood.
Chargelot
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
2275 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 17:59:00
January 06 2013 17:58 GMT
#132
On January 07 2013 02:37 Reason wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 02:17 Chargelot wrote:
On January 06 2013 15:16 imallinson wrote:
On January 06 2013 14:47 Chargelot wrote:
On January 06 2013 13:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On January 05 2013 23:57 Fruscainte wrote:
For instance, Rosch and his colleagues have calculated that whereas clouds of atoms would normally be pulled downwards by gravity, if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity4.


Holy shit.. mass effect anyone?

I have a question though. Since the energy moves from a parts of atoms in the cloud at negative-kelvin to the positive-kelvin atoms in the cloud (from cold to hot, the opposite of what is normal), would the negative-kelvin atoms just continue to get colder and colder with a higher and higher value of negative-kelvin?

edit: Is negative-kelvin actually cold or is it hot? I'm reading negative-kelvin is actually hotter than any value of positive-kelvin since heat will always flow from negative to positive?

Also, does this invalidate the second law of thermodynamics? Is it possible the conditions necessary to reach this negative-kelvin temperature could ever occur naturally in the cosmos?

This occurs naturally in stars and black holes. Negative-kelvin is hotter than any positive-kelvin. That is:

-1K > 100,000,000K

Because energy will always flow from the negative system to the positive system. In this case, temperature is being described as

T^(-1) = dS/dE

meaning when you find the slope of the line that you get when you graph entropy vs energy, its inverse will be the temperature. I'm sure if you could hold something that was -100k in your hands, and something that was 100,000,000K in your hands, the -100k wouldn't feel nearly as "hot" as the other. But, the -100K would still donate energy to the 100,000,000K system, and therefore it has a higher temperature.

But I suspect that -100K feels as hot as 100K. It's just the movement of energy which differs them for the most part.

I'm certainly no expert at biology but if your hand could actually hold either of those things without melting and you could differentiate between two very high temperatures surely the -100K object would feel much hotter because your nerves are basically sensing the heat transfer which would be greater for the -100K object.


Allow me to restate

To a 0.01K system, a -100K system and a 100K system have the same energy to offer it, and independent of each other, the energy flow from a -100K system to a 0.01K system and the energy flow from a 100K system to a 0.01K system would be about the same, within reason. Would a 100K system actually feel hot in your hand? No, it'd fucking turn your hand to ice and your hand would fall off of your arm.

Did you write that correctly or are you missing a - ?

Also, why are people saying it would be hot -_-

Would it be very hot or very cold ffs?


-100K would feel warm, maybe even hot.
-1000K would be like sticking your hand into a blue flame.

+100K would be so cold it would kill whatever part of you touched it.
+1000K would be like sticking your hand into a blue flame.

On January 07 2013 02:58 Reason wrote:
Wait wait wait, my hand is warmer than 100k =/ ?

Don't make me read the whole thread again =(


100K is about -173C or -279F. It's really really cold.
if (post == "stupid") { document.getElementById('post').style.display = 'none'; }
Reason
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
United Kingdom2770 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 18:05:39
January 06 2013 17:59 GMT
#133
On January 07 2013 02:58 Chargelot wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 02:37 Reason wrote:
On January 07 2013 02:17 Chargelot wrote:
On January 06 2013 15:16 imallinson wrote:
On January 06 2013 14:47 Chargelot wrote:
On January 06 2013 13:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On January 05 2013 23:57 Fruscainte wrote:
For instance, Rosch and his colleagues have calculated that whereas clouds of atoms would normally be pulled downwards by gravity, if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity4.


Holy shit.. mass effect anyone?

I have a question though. Since the energy moves from a parts of atoms in the cloud at negative-kelvin to the positive-kelvin atoms in the cloud (from cold to hot, the opposite of what is normal), would the negative-kelvin atoms just continue to get colder and colder with a higher and higher value of negative-kelvin?

edit: Is negative-kelvin actually cold or is it hot? I'm reading negative-kelvin is actually hotter than any value of positive-kelvin since heat will always flow from negative to positive?

Also, does this invalidate the second law of thermodynamics? Is it possible the conditions necessary to reach this negative-kelvin temperature could ever occur naturally in the cosmos?

This occurs naturally in stars and black holes. Negative-kelvin is hotter than any positive-kelvin. That is:

-1K > 100,000,000K

Because energy will always flow from the negative system to the positive system. In this case, temperature is being described as

T^(-1) = dS/dE

meaning when you find the slope of the line that you get when you graph entropy vs energy, its inverse will be the temperature. I'm sure if you could hold something that was -100k in your hands, and something that was 100,000,000K in your hands, the -100k wouldn't feel nearly as "hot" as the other. But, the -100K would still donate energy to the 100,000,000K system, and therefore it has a higher temperature.

But I suspect that -100K feels as hot as 100K. It's just the movement of energy which differs them for the most part.

I'm certainly no expert at biology but if your hand could actually hold either of those things without melting and you could differentiate between two very high temperatures surely the -100K object would feel much hotter because your nerves are basically sensing the heat transfer which would be greater for the -100K object.


Allow me to restate

To a 0.01K system, a -100K system and a 100K system have the same energy to offer it, and independent of each other, the energy flow from a -100K system to a 0.01K system and the energy flow from a 100K system to a 0.01K system would be about the same, within reason. Would a 100K system actually feel hot in your hand? No, it'd fucking turn your hand to ice and your hand would fall off of your arm.

Did you write that correctly or are you missing a - ?

Also, why are people saying it would be hot -_-

Would it be very hot or very cold ffs?


-100K would feel warm, maybe even hot.
-1000K would be like sticking your hand into a blue flame.

+100K would be so cold it would kill whatever part of you touched it.
+1000K would be like sticking your hand into a blue flame.

Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 02:58 Reason wrote:
Wait wait wait, my hand is warmer than 100k =/ ?

Don't make me read the whole thread again =(


100K is about -173C or -279F. It's really really cold.

Okay that makes sense.

It REALLY doesn't help using a number system where positive values are actually temperatures below and above zero -_-

When you said this

"To a 0.01K system, a -100K system and a 100K system have the same energy to offer it, and independent of each other, the energy flow from a -100K system to a 0.01K system"

It seems like you're referring to three systems, one above and one below absolute zero, and one as close as we can possibly get... that's what I thought you meant. Sorry that's just my own ignorance I guess but still confusing imo.

I think actually if you had written what you'd said as -100o, 0.01o and 100o (celsius) you maybe could have made the point clearer?

At least I would have understood lol -_- thanks for explaining anyway.
Speak properly, and in as few words as you can, but always plainly; for the end of speech is not ostentation, but to be understood.
RaelSan
Profile Joined February 2012
Belgium223 Posts
January 06 2013 18:07 GMT
#134
On January 07 2013 02:59 Reason wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 02:58 Chargelot wrote:
On January 07 2013 02:37 Reason wrote:
On January 07 2013 02:17 Chargelot wrote:
On January 06 2013 15:16 imallinson wrote:
On January 06 2013 14:47 Chargelot wrote:
On January 06 2013 13:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On January 05 2013 23:57 Fruscainte wrote:
For instance, Rosch and his colleagues have calculated that whereas clouds of atoms would normally be pulled downwards by gravity, if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity4.


Holy shit.. mass effect anyone?

I have a question though. Since the energy moves from a parts of atoms in the cloud at negative-kelvin to the positive-kelvin atoms in the cloud (from cold to hot, the opposite of what is normal), would the negative-kelvin atoms just continue to get colder and colder with a higher and higher value of negative-kelvin?

edit: Is negative-kelvin actually cold or is it hot? I'm reading negative-kelvin is actually hotter than any value of positive-kelvin since heat will always flow from negative to positive?

Also, does this invalidate the second law of thermodynamics? Is it possible the conditions necessary to reach this negative-kelvin temperature could ever occur naturally in the cosmos?

This occurs naturally in stars and black holes. Negative-kelvin is hotter than any positive-kelvin. That is:

-1K > 100,000,000K

Because energy will always flow from the negative system to the positive system. In this case, temperature is being described as

T^(-1) = dS/dE

meaning when you find the slope of the line that you get when you graph entropy vs energy, its inverse will be the temperature. I'm sure if you could hold something that was -100k in your hands, and something that was 100,000,000K in your hands, the -100k wouldn't feel nearly as "hot" as the other. But, the -100K would still donate energy to the 100,000,000K system, and therefore it has a higher temperature.

But I suspect that -100K feels as hot as 100K. It's just the movement of energy which differs them for the most part.

I'm certainly no expert at biology but if your hand could actually hold either of those things without melting and you could differentiate between two very high temperatures surely the -100K object would feel much hotter because your nerves are basically sensing the heat transfer which would be greater for the -100K object.


Allow me to restate

To a 0.01K system, a -100K system and a 100K system have the same energy to offer it, and independent of each other, the energy flow from a -100K system to a 0.01K system and the energy flow from a 100K system to a 0.01K system would be about the same, within reason. Would a 100K system actually feel hot in your hand? No, it'd fucking turn your hand to ice and your hand would fall off of your arm.

Did you write that correctly or are you missing a - ?

Also, why are people saying it would be hot -_-

Would it be very hot or very cold ffs?


-100K would feel warm, maybe even hot.
-1000K would be like sticking your hand into a blue flame.

+100K would be so cold it would kill whatever part of you touched it.
+1000K would be like sticking your hand into a blue flame.

On January 07 2013 02:58 Reason wrote:
Wait wait wait, my hand is warmer than 100k =/ ?

Don't make me read the whole thread again =(


100K is about -173C or -279F. It's really really cold.

Okay that makes sense.

It REALLY doesn't help using a number system where positive values are actually temperatures below and above zero -_-

When you said this

"To a 0.01K system, a -100K system and a 100K system have the same energy to offer it, and independent of each other, the energy flow from a -100K system to a 0.01K system"

It seems like you're referring to three systems, one above and one below absolute zero, and one as close as we can possibly get... that's what I thought you meant. Sorry that's just my own ignorance I guess but still confusing imo.

I think actually if you had written what you'd said as -100o, 0.01o and 100o (celsius) you maybe could have made the point clearer?

At least I would have understood lol -_- thanks for explaining anyway.


Btw, do you use C or F in United Kingdom ?
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it
Chargelot
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
2275 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 18:17:26
January 06 2013 18:13 GMT
#135
Negative numbers in this sense really aren't usable on the traditional number line.

-1...0...+1 is good for just about all other applications. But for negative temperature (in terms of kelvins) it is closer to:

0...+1...+∞...-1...-∞. It's almost like two number lines grow out of zero in the same direction (Hopefully this is a good description). But describing how they'd feel in your hand was a unique challenge, because negative temperatures are describing energy/entropy states, not how they actually feel to us.

In terms of the actual energy there, I think an X Kelvin system has the same energy as a -X kelvin system. Below body temperature (310K) the positive system would feel cold, while the negative system would feel hot. Above 310K, all systems would feel warm/hot.
if (post == "stupid") { document.getElementById('post').style.display = 'none'; }
Evangelist
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
1246 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 18:29:59
January 06 2013 18:28 GMT
#136
On January 06 2013 08:51 lightrise wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 02:59 Evangelist wrote:
On January 06 2013 01:13 micronesia wrote:
I want to point out that saying entropy is the disorder of a system is about as accurate as saying temperature is the speed of molecules in a system. Thermal physics is difficult to discuss without studying it.


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.


I'm a PhD plasma physicist working in the field of laser induced plasmas. As far as I'm concerned, that definition of entropy holds for all but the most theoretical of works - which this isn't.

To state it in a manner more defined than that is to lose the purpose of my posts here which is to explain this to the layman. I'm not really here to impress anyone with my understanding, just to help people understand the significance of something that was achieved in a field not so far removed from mine and furthermore justify my future funding :p
Big-t
Profile Joined January 2011
Austria1350 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 18:57:55
January 06 2013 18:55 GMT
#137
Could we even feel negative temperature? I doubt our skin had much time to evolve a feeling process for this.
Just throwing this question in here, because it´s really hard to understand why it feels the same way with +300K and -300K :/
monchi | IdrA | Flash
krzych113
Profile Blog Joined April 2003
United Kingdom547 Posts
January 06 2013 19:07 GMT
#138
holy cow
TheDemonic
Profile Joined June 2011
United Kingdom11 Posts
January 06 2013 19:24 GMT
#139

Btw, do you use C or F in United Kingdom ?

We use C
Derrida
Profile Joined March 2011
2885 Posts
January 06 2013 19:24 GMT
#140
so if I get this right, they have enhanced a gas so that its atoms can shift from low to high energy states, making it possible for these atoms to move at 0K, and therefore creating the possibility of the temperature to get colder than 0K?
#1 Grubby Fan.
lumencryster
Profile Joined March 2012
35 Posts
January 06 2013 19:56 GMT
#141
now i'm going to wait till we can get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. i mean, people didn't think it was possible to fly, seems ridiculous enough since we don't have wings, right?
RaelSan
Profile Joined February 2012
Belgium223 Posts
January 06 2013 20:01 GMT
#142
On January 07 2013 04:24 TheDemonic wrote:
Show nested quote +

Btw, do you use C or F in United Kingdom ?

We use C


Ok thx ( especially because I could have googled it :D ) funny because you are pretty famous for differenciating yourselves from Europe :p But there must be some obvious reasons
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it
Mortal
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
2943 Posts
January 06 2013 20:12 GMT
#143
On January 06 2013 00:38 CursOr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 00:33 ThomasjServo wrote:
Well guys, we broke the universe. I hope you all are happy with yourselves.

LOL Nerd Chills. ^_^


THE PUN, IT BURNS
The universe created an audience for itself.
GGTeMpLaR
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United States7226 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 21:06:35
January 06 2013 20:59 GMT
#144
On January 07 2013 04:24 Derrida wrote:
so if I get this right, they have enhanced a gas so that its atoms can shift from low to high energy states, making it possible for these atoms to move at 0K, and therefore creating the possibility of the temperature to get colder than 0K?


0K still isn't possible.

Basically, the modification of the atoms (not sure exactly sure what the nature of the modification is) reverses how their entropy will change in response to an increase or decrease in energy (essentially breaking the second law of thermodynamics - correct me anyone if this is wrong).

Mathematically, this gives the function a negative value. Negative-temperature isn't colder than 0K though; if I understand it right, it's still theoretically hotter than any positive-temperature due to how it would behave in relation to a nearby positive-temperature body. All heat would flow from the negative to the positive in any circumstance.

The theoretical implications of this seem odd if you placed a body at -1K next to a body at 999,999K. Heat would theoretically flow from the -1K into the 999,999K body?
remedium
Profile Joined July 2011
United States939 Posts
January 06 2013 21:08 GMT
#145
It's only a matter of time before physicists pull a Mines of Moria and unleash a Balrog on us. Just sayin'.
Stay positive!
Desertfaux
Profile Joined June 2012
Netherlands276 Posts
January 06 2013 21:12 GMT
#146
Where's my flying car, goddamnit, its 2013 already.
Rogue Deck
Chargelot
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
2275 Posts
January 06 2013 22:16 GMT
#147
On January 07 2013 06:12 Desertfaux wrote:
Where's my flying car, goddamnit, its 2013 already.

It's called a plane.
On January 07 2013 06:08 remedium wrote:
It's only a matter of time before physicists pull a Mines of Moria and unleash a Balrog on us. Just sayin'.

No. Just sayin'.
On January 07 2013 04:56 lumencryster wrote:
now i'm going to wait till we can get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. i mean, people didn't think it was possible to fly, seems ridiculous enough since we don't have wings, right?

You cannot move faster than the speed of light. You cannot move at the speed of light. Any passage that you take to arrive somewhere, light will travel through it faster. Light will always win.
if (post == "stupid") { document.getElementById('post').style.display = 'none'; }
Microsloth
Profile Joined August 2010
Canada194 Posts
January 06 2013 22:22 GMT
#148
On January 07 2013 07:16 Chargelot wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 06:12 Desertfaux wrote:
Where's my flying car, goddamnit, its 2013 already.

It's called a plane.
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 06:08 remedium wrote:
It's only a matter of time before physicists pull a Mines of Moria and unleash a Balrog on us. Just sayin'.

No. Just sayin'.
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 04:56 lumencryster wrote:
now i'm going to wait till we can get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. i mean, people didn't think it was possible to fly, seems ridiculous enough since we don't have wings, right?

You cannot move faster than the speed of light. You cannot move at the speed of light. Any passage that you take to arrive somewhere, light will travel through it faster. Light will always win.


Unless you're that particle that was accelerated beyond the speed of light.

Words like cannot and always means you're predicting the future. To that I say: You'll never accurately predict the entire future. Ever.

Suck it.
Double digit APM. ftw?
Ghostcom
Profile Joined March 2010
Denmark4782 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 22:35:02
January 06 2013 22:34 GMT
#149
EDIT: Nevermind.
adwodon
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United Kingdom592 Posts
January 06 2013 22:47 GMT
#150
On January 07 2013 07:22 Microsloth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 07:16 Chargelot wrote:
On January 07 2013 06:12 Desertfaux wrote:
Where's my flying car, goddamnit, its 2013 already.

It's called a plane.
On January 07 2013 06:08 remedium wrote:
It's only a matter of time before physicists pull a Mines of Moria and unleash a Balrog on us. Just sayin'.

No. Just sayin'.
On January 07 2013 04:56 lumencryster wrote:
now i'm going to wait till we can get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. i mean, people didn't think it was possible to fly, seems ridiculous enough since we don't have wings, right?

You cannot move faster than the speed of light. You cannot move at the speed of light. Any passage that you take to arrive somewhere, light will travel through it faster. Light will always win.


Unless you're that particle that was accelerated beyond the speed of light.

Words like cannot and always means you're predicting the future. To that I say: You'll never accurately predict the entire future. Ever.

Suck it.


What particle? You mean the one detected by faulty equipment at CERN?

Particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light, to suggest otherwise is to suggest that the fundamental underpinnings of physics are completely wrong, and considering most modern technology relies heavily on these concepts I'd say they are correct.

However, quantum information can 'travel' faster than the speed of light via entanglement. This is not classical information though and I'm afraid I reach my limit when talking about these kinds of things, so I can only really say that it is impossible to communicate through quantum teleportation due to states being impossible to measure accurately.

You are correct when you say we can't predict the future, but what you're saying is akin to someone suggesting that one day everyone in America might wake up and start speaking Chinese out of the blue, you can't say it won't happen because the future hasn't happened yet, but it violates everything we know about language, learning, behavior etc so its a pretty solid bet (aka solid fact) that it definitely won't happen.
Shival
Profile Joined May 2011
Netherlands643 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 22:54:54
January 06 2013 22:47 GMT
#151
On January 07 2013 07:16 Chargelot wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 06:12 Desertfaux wrote:
Where's my flying car, goddamnit, its 2013 already.

It's called a plane.
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 06:08 remedium wrote:
It's only a matter of time before physicists pull a Mines of Moria and unleash a Balrog on us. Just sayin'.

No. Just sayin'.
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 04:56 lumencryster wrote:
now i'm going to wait till we can get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. i mean, people didn't think it was possible to fly, seems ridiculous enough since we don't have wings, right?

You cannot move faster than the speed of light. You cannot move at the speed of light. Any passage that you take to arrive somewhere, light will travel through it faster. Light will always win.


While the possibility of matter speeding faster than the speed of light seems rather impossible to us now, and may very well be always impossible, someone of science will never say never. It's one of the principles of science to not preclude something just because it seems impossible with our current understanding. There's countless times in history that we've said XYZ is impossible to have the idea broken a couple years later.

On January 07 2013 07:47 adwodon wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 07:22 Microsloth wrote:
On January 07 2013 07:16 Chargelot wrote:
On January 07 2013 06:12 Desertfaux wrote:
Where's my flying car, goddamnit, its 2013 already.

It's called a plane.
On January 07 2013 06:08 remedium wrote:
It's only a matter of time before physicists pull a Mines of Moria and unleash a Balrog on us. Just sayin'.

No. Just sayin'.
On January 07 2013 04:56 lumencryster wrote:
now i'm going to wait till we can get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. i mean, people didn't think it was possible to fly, seems ridiculous enough since we don't have wings, right?

You cannot move faster than the speed of light. You cannot move at the speed of light. Any passage that you take to arrive somewhere, light will travel through it faster. Light will always win.


Unless you're that particle that was accelerated beyond the speed of light.

Words like cannot and always means you're predicting the future. To that I say: You'll never accurately predict the entire future. Ever.

Suck it.


What particle? You mean the one detected by faulty equipment at CERN?

Particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light, to suggest otherwise is to suggest that the fundamental underpinnings of physics are completely wrong, and considering most modern technology relies heavily on these concepts I'd say they are correct.

However, quantum information can 'travel' faster than the speed of light via entanglement. This is not classical information though and I'm afraid I reach my limit when talking about these kinds of things, so I can only really say that it is impossible to communicate through quantum teleportation due to states being impossible to measure accurately.

You are correct when you say we can't predict the future, but what you're saying is akin to someone suggesting that one day everyone in America might wake up and start speaking Chinese out of the blue, you can't say it won't happen because the future hasn't happened yet, but it violates everything we know about language, learning, behavior etc so its a pretty solid bet (aka solid fact) that it definitely won't happen.


He might've meant Tachyon particles (hypothesized of course). You're thinking of particles that are below the speed of light to be sped up to a speed that is higher than or the same as the speed of light.
Alex1Sun
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
494 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 23:37:33
January 06 2013 22:54 GMT
#152
On January 07 2013 04:56 lumencryster wrote:
now i'm going to wait till we can get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. i mean, people didn't think it was possible to fly, seems ridiculous enough since we don't have wings, right?

I did it in the lab, and before me it was done in at least in a dozen other labs. Called quantum teleportation. Still requires a classical channel for read-out though...
This is not Warcraft in space!
Alex1Sun
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
494 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-06 23:59:45
January 06 2013 23:57 GMT
#153
On January 07 2013 07:47 adwodon wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 07:22 Microsloth wrote:
On January 07 2013 07:16 Chargelot wrote:
On January 07 2013 06:12 Desertfaux wrote:
Where's my flying car, goddamnit, its 2013 already.

It's called a plane.
On January 07 2013 06:08 remedium wrote:
It's only a matter of time before physicists pull a Mines of Moria and unleash a Balrog on us. Just sayin'.

No. Just sayin'.
On January 07 2013 04:56 lumencryster wrote:
now i'm going to wait till we can get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. i mean, people didn't think it was possible to fly, seems ridiculous enough since we don't have wings, right?

You cannot move faster than the speed of light. You cannot move at the speed of light. Any passage that you take to arrive somewhere, light will travel through it faster. Light will always win.


Unless you're that particle that was accelerated beyond the speed of light.

Words like cannot and always means you're predicting the future. To that I say: You'll never accurately predict the entire future. Ever.

Suck it.


What particle? You mean the one detected by faulty equipment at CERN?

Particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light, to suggest otherwise is to suggest that the fundamental underpinnings of physics are completely wrong, and considering most modern technology relies heavily on these concepts I'd say they are correct.

However, quantum information can 'travel' faster than the speed of light via entanglement. This is not classical information though and I'm afraid I reach my limit when talking about these kinds of things, so I can only really say that it is impossible to communicate through quantum teleportation due to states being impossible to measure accurately.

You are correct when you say we can't predict the future, but what you're saying is akin to someone suggesting that one day everyone in America might wake up and start speaking Chinese out of the blue, you can't say it won't happen because the future hasn't happened yet, but it violates everything we know about language, learning, behavior etc so its a pretty solid bet (aka solid fact) that it definitely won't happen.

This applies only to what we know. What about dark matter, dark energy and other unknown things? Maybe harnessing tachyons will someday allow faster than light communication... Well, likely not, but we don't know now for sure.

As for quantum teleportation, faster than light travel of quantum states, although doesn't transmit classical information, makes quantum communication and quantum cryptography possible - they are not faster, but much more secure.
This is not Warcraft in space!
GGTeMpLaR
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United States7226 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-07 00:26:30
January 07 2013 00:23 GMT
#154
On January 07 2013 07:47 adwodon wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 07:22 Microsloth wrote:
On January 07 2013 07:16 Chargelot wrote:
On January 07 2013 06:12 Desertfaux wrote:
Where's my flying car, goddamnit, its 2013 already.

It's called a plane.
On January 07 2013 06:08 remedium wrote:
It's only a matter of time before physicists pull a Mines of Moria and unleash a Balrog on us. Just sayin'.

No. Just sayin'.
On January 07 2013 04:56 lumencryster wrote:
now i'm going to wait till we can get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. i mean, people didn't think it was possible to fly, seems ridiculous enough since we don't have wings, right?

You cannot move faster than the speed of light. You cannot move at the speed of light. Any passage that you take to arrive somewhere, light will travel through it faster. Light will always win.


Unless you're that particle that was accelerated beyond the speed of light.

Words like cannot and always means you're predicting the future. To that I say: You'll never accurately predict the entire future. Ever.

Suck it.



You are correct when you say we can't predict the future, but what you're saying is akin to someone suggesting that one day everyone in America might wake up and start speaking Chinese out of the blue, you can't say it won't happen because the future hasn't happened yet, but it violates everything we know about language, learning, behavior etc so its a pretty solid bet (aka solid fact) that it definitely won't happen.


I'd say your example is a lot less believable because it literally makes no sense that it could occur without a cause (which is what "out of the blue" implies). Having a higher velocity than the speed of light can at least make some sense if our current set of scientific paradigms is flawed, incomplete, or just wrong, which is definitely more possible than you're admitting.
Entirety
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
1423 Posts
January 07 2013 00:33 GMT
#155
I have a question.

So, place an object at -100K next to an object at 100K.
Energy will flow from the object at -100K to the object at 100K.

Since the object at 100K is receiving energy, let's say it increases to 150K.
As for the object at -100K, which is currently transferring energy, will it change to -150K or to -50K? And why?
IMMvp (정종현) | Fan Club: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=211431
GGTeMpLaR
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United States7226 Posts
January 07 2013 00:36 GMT
#156
On January 07 2013 09:33 Entirety wrote:
I have a question.

So, place an object at -100K next to an object at 100K.
Energy will flow from the object at -100K to the object at 100K.

Since the object at 100K is receiving energy, let's say it increases to 150K.
As for the object at -100K, which is currently transferring energy, will it change to -150K or to -50K? And why?


Would like an answer and explanation to this question too!
Aerisky
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
United States12129 Posts
January 07 2013 00:54 GMT
#157
Oh really really interesting. I saw this article/paper a week ago or so. Cool stuff.
Jim while Johnny had had had had had had had; had had had had the better effect on the teacher.
lumencryster
Profile Joined March 2012
35 Posts
January 07 2013 02:32 GMT
#158
On January 07 2013 07:16 Chargelot wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 04:56 lumencryster wrote:
now i'm going to wait till we can get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. i mean, people didn't think it was possible to fly, seems ridiculous enough since we don't have wings, right?

You cannot move faster than the speed of light. You cannot move at the speed of light. Any passage that you take to arrive somewhere, light will travel through it faster. Light will always win.

i never said move faster than the speed of light, i said get from point A to point B.
imallinson
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
United Kingdom3482 Posts
January 07 2013 06:04 GMT
#159
On January 07 2013 02:17 Chargelot wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 15:16 imallinson wrote:
On January 06 2013 14:47 Chargelot wrote:
On January 06 2013 13:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On January 05 2013 23:57 Fruscainte wrote:
For instance, Rosch and his colleagues have calculated that whereas clouds of atoms would normally be pulled downwards by gravity, if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity4.


Holy shit.. mass effect anyone?

I have a question though. Since the energy moves from a parts of atoms in the cloud at negative-kelvin to the positive-kelvin atoms in the cloud (from cold to hot, the opposite of what is normal), would the negative-kelvin atoms just continue to get colder and colder with a higher and higher value of negative-kelvin?

edit: Is negative-kelvin actually cold or is it hot? I'm reading negative-kelvin is actually hotter than any value of positive-kelvin since heat will always flow from negative to positive?

Also, does this invalidate the second law of thermodynamics? Is it possible the conditions necessary to reach this negative-kelvin temperature could ever occur naturally in the cosmos?

This occurs naturally in stars and black holes. Negative-kelvin is hotter than any positive-kelvin. That is:

-1K > 100,000,000K

Because energy will always flow from the negative system to the positive system. In this case, temperature is being described as

T^(-1) = dS/dE

meaning when you find the slope of the line that you get when you graph entropy vs energy, its inverse will be the temperature. I'm sure if you could hold something that was -100k in your hands, and something that was 100,000,000K in your hands, the -100k wouldn't feel nearly as "hot" as the other. But, the -100K would still donate energy to the 100,000,000K system, and therefore it has a higher temperature.

But I suspect that -100K feels as hot as 100K. It's just the movement of energy which differs them for the most part.

I'm certainly no expert at biology but if your hand could actually hold either of those things without melting and you could differentiate between two very high temperatures surely the -100K object would feel much hotter because your nerves are basically sensing the heat transfer which would be greater for the -100K object.


Allow me to restate

To a 0.01K system, a -100K system and a 100K system have the same energy to offer it, and independent of each other, the energy flow from a -100K system to a 0.01K system and the energy flow from a 100K system to a 0.01K system would be about the same, within reason. Would a 100K system actually feel hot in your hand? No, it'd fucking turn your hand to ice and your hand would fall off of your arm.

Of course. I think I must have been really tired when I wrote that because I kept reading it as 100k K. Obviously 100K would be really cold because its -173 C.
Liquipedia
Mikau
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
Netherlands1446 Posts
January 07 2013 13:09 GMT
#160
On January 06 2013 13:40 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 13:23 philcorp wrote:
I am surprised that this article is atracting so much popular attention. As has been mentioned, there is nothing really special about reaching "negative temperatures", we have been doing it from years. Someone mentioned LASER devices as an example of a popular device which feature negative temperatures.

Conventional wisdom tells us that high temperatures correspond to all states being equally probable. The thermal fluctuations can put atoms into any state. As one lowers the temperature, the atoms cannot access as many states. They prefer to stay in those with low energy (the thermal fluctuations are not enough to access the high energy states). So, "negative temperature" is the situation when the system perfers to be in high energy states instead of the low energy ones. It takes some experimental creativity to come up with such a situation, but it can be done!

I believe a large mass of particle, influenced by gravity (a star) is another example of this. Adding energy causes the particles to 'orbit' at a higher altitude, slowing them down (as per satellite motion).

I think it's funny that all these complex and intricate laws and theories get change upon change upon change, whereas something as mathmatically simple as Keppler motions still hold true after all this time.
Spidinko
Profile Joined May 2010
Slovakia1174 Posts
January 07 2013 13:30 GMT
#161
On January 07 2013 07:16 Chargelot wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 06:12 Desertfaux wrote:
Where's my flying car, goddamnit, its 2013 already.

It's called a plane.
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 06:08 remedium wrote:
It's only a matter of time before physicists pull a Mines of Moria and unleash a Balrog on us. Just sayin'.

No. Just sayin'.
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 04:56 lumencryster wrote:
now i'm going to wait till we can get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. i mean, people didn't think it was possible to fly, seems ridiculous enough since we don't have wings, right?

You cannot move faster than the speed of light. You cannot move at the speed of light. Any passage that you take to arrive somewhere, light will travel through it faster. Light will always win.

While faster than maximum light speed is a science fiction right now, you can be faster than light through some passages.
Tobberoth
Profile Joined August 2010
Sweden6375 Posts
January 07 2013 15:11 GMT
#162
On January 07 2013 22:30 Spidinko wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 07:16 Chargelot wrote:
On January 07 2013 06:12 Desertfaux wrote:
Where's my flying car, goddamnit, its 2013 already.

It's called a plane.
On January 07 2013 06:08 remedium wrote:
It's only a matter of time before physicists pull a Mines of Moria and unleash a Balrog on us. Just sayin'.

No. Just sayin'.
On January 07 2013 04:56 lumencryster wrote:
now i'm going to wait till we can get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. i mean, people didn't think it was possible to fly, seems ridiculous enough since we don't have wings, right?

You cannot move faster than the speed of light. You cannot move at the speed of light. Any passage that you take to arrive somewhere, light will travel through it faster. Light will always win.

While faster than maximum light speed is a science fiction right now, you can be faster than light through some passages.

Such as?
adwodon
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United Kingdom592 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-07 15:30:27
January 07 2013 15:30 GMT
#163
On January 07 2013 09:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 07:47 adwodon wrote:
On January 07 2013 07:22 Microsloth wrote:
On January 07 2013 07:16 Chargelot wrote:
On January 07 2013 06:12 Desertfaux wrote:
Where's my flying car, goddamnit, its 2013 already.

It's called a plane.
On January 07 2013 06:08 remedium wrote:
It's only a matter of time before physicists pull a Mines of Moria and unleash a Balrog on us. Just sayin'.

No. Just sayin'.
On January 07 2013 04:56 lumencryster wrote:
now i'm going to wait till we can get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. i mean, people didn't think it was possible to fly, seems ridiculous enough since we don't have wings, right?

You cannot move faster than the speed of light. You cannot move at the speed of light. Any passage that you take to arrive somewhere, light will travel through it faster. Light will always win.


Unless you're that particle that was accelerated beyond the speed of light.

Words like cannot and always means you're predicting the future. To that I say: You'll never accurately predict the entire future. Ever.

Suck it.



You are correct when you say we can't predict the future, but what you're saying is akin to someone suggesting that one day everyone in America might wake up and start speaking Chinese out of the blue, you can't say it won't happen because the future hasn't happened yet, but it violates everything we know about language, learning, behavior etc so its a pretty solid bet (aka solid fact) that it definitely won't happen.


I'd say your example is a lot less believable because it literally makes no sense that it could occur without a cause (which is what "out of the blue" implies). Having a higher velocity than the speed of light can at least make some sense if our current set of scientific paradigms is flawed, incomplete, or just wrong, which is definitely more possible than you're admitting.


That was essentially the point, by out of the blue, I just mean suddenly, ie some crazy new learning tool allowing you to learn a new language overnight wasn't invented or some other explanation that would make sense with what we know. It would occur with a cause, but any cause would violate everything we understand about language, for instance that it is learned etc etc as a sudden, otherwise unexplainable, mass language 'shift' would imply.

That's basically the same as discovering that we can move faster than the speed of light, and remember, this person wasn't talking about some kind of random new shiny particle with exotic properties, which I'll concede there may be a remote chance of discovering, they were arguing that you cannot say 'we' cannot ever travel faster than the speed of light because we can't predict the future.

Considering we understand this far better than we do language / the human mind I'd say it was a perfectly reasonable statement, in fact I would say it would be far more believable that everyone would wake up speaking fluent Chinese than discovering normal particles can push past that barrier.
Tobberoth
Profile Joined August 2010
Sweden6375 Posts
January 07 2013 16:07 GMT
#164
On January 08 2013 00:30 adwodon wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 09:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On January 07 2013 07:47 adwodon wrote:
On January 07 2013 07:22 Microsloth wrote:
On January 07 2013 07:16 Chargelot wrote:
On January 07 2013 06:12 Desertfaux wrote:
Where's my flying car, goddamnit, its 2013 already.

It's called a plane.
On January 07 2013 06:08 remedium wrote:
It's only a matter of time before physicists pull a Mines of Moria and unleash a Balrog on us. Just sayin'.

No. Just sayin'.
On January 07 2013 04:56 lumencryster wrote:
now i'm going to wait till we can get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. i mean, people didn't think it was possible to fly, seems ridiculous enough since we don't have wings, right?

You cannot move faster than the speed of light. You cannot move at the speed of light. Any passage that you take to arrive somewhere, light will travel through it faster. Light will always win.


Unless you're that particle that was accelerated beyond the speed of light.

Words like cannot and always means you're predicting the future. To that I say: You'll never accurately predict the entire future. Ever.

Suck it.



You are correct when you say we can't predict the future, but what you're saying is akin to someone suggesting that one day everyone in America might wake up and start speaking Chinese out of the blue, you can't say it won't happen because the future hasn't happened yet, but it violates everything we know about language, learning, behavior etc so its a pretty solid bet (aka solid fact) that it definitely won't happen.


I'd say your example is a lot less believable because it literally makes no sense that it could occur without a cause (which is what "out of the blue" implies). Having a higher velocity than the speed of light can at least make some sense if our current set of scientific paradigms is flawed, incomplete, or just wrong, which is definitely more possible than you're admitting.


That was essentially the point, by out of the blue, I just mean suddenly, ie some crazy new learning tool allowing you to learn a new language overnight wasn't invented or some other explanation that would make sense with what we know. It would occur with a cause, but any cause would violate everything we understand about language, for instance that it is learned etc etc as a sudden, otherwise unexplainable, mass language 'shift' would imply.

That's basically the same as discovering that we can move faster than the speed of light, and remember, this person wasn't talking about some kind of random new shiny particle with exotic properties, which I'll concede there may be a remote chance of discovering, they were arguing that you cannot say 'we' cannot ever travel faster than the speed of light because we can't predict the future.

Considering we understand this far better than we do language / the human mind I'd say it was a perfectly reasonable statement, in fact I would say it would be far more believable that everyone would wake up speaking fluent Chinese than discovering normal particles can push past that barrier.

The difference is that we can't even theoretically really come up with a decent explanation that would work for how everyone would suddenly start speaking fluent chinese, but there are many theories in how we could move from point A to point B faster than light, such as wormholes and the alcubierre drive.

Sure, the odds that a particle we know of could physically be made to travel through normal space faster than light are so small that they can be ignored and are indeed comparable to everyone suddenly speaking fluent chinese, but I wouldn't say it's even close to as unrealistic to think that there could eventually be a way to travel faster than light.
corpuscle
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States1967 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-07 18:11:36
January 07 2013 18:09 GMT
#165
On January 08 2013 01:07 Tobberoth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 08 2013 00:30 adwodon wrote:
On January 07 2013 09:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On January 07 2013 07:47 adwodon wrote:
On January 07 2013 07:22 Microsloth wrote:
On January 07 2013 07:16 Chargelot wrote:
On January 07 2013 06:12 Desertfaux wrote:
Where's my flying car, goddamnit, its 2013 already.

It's called a plane.
On January 07 2013 06:08 remedium wrote:
It's only a matter of time before physicists pull a Mines of Moria and unleash a Balrog on us. Just sayin'.

No. Just sayin'.
On January 07 2013 04:56 lumencryster wrote:
now i'm going to wait till we can get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. i mean, people didn't think it was possible to fly, seems ridiculous enough since we don't have wings, right?

You cannot move faster than the speed of light. You cannot move at the speed of light. Any passage that you take to arrive somewhere, light will travel through it faster. Light will always win.


Unless you're that particle that was accelerated beyond the speed of light.

Words like cannot and always means you're predicting the future. To that I say: You'll never accurately predict the entire future. Ever.

Suck it.



You are correct when you say we can't predict the future, but what you're saying is akin to someone suggesting that one day everyone in America might wake up and start speaking Chinese out of the blue, you can't say it won't happen because the future hasn't happened yet, but it violates everything we know about language, learning, behavior etc so its a pretty solid bet (aka solid fact) that it definitely won't happen.


I'd say your example is a lot less believable because it literally makes no sense that it could occur without a cause (which is what "out of the blue" implies). Having a higher velocity than the speed of light can at least make some sense if our current set of scientific paradigms is flawed, incomplete, or just wrong, which is definitely more possible than you're admitting.


That was essentially the point, by out of the blue, I just mean suddenly, ie some crazy new learning tool allowing you to learn a new language overnight wasn't invented or some other explanation that would make sense with what we know. It would occur with a cause, but any cause would violate everything we understand about language, for instance that it is learned etc etc as a sudden, otherwise unexplainable, mass language 'shift' would imply.

That's basically the same as discovering that we can move faster than the speed of light, and remember, this person wasn't talking about some kind of random new shiny particle with exotic properties, which I'll concede there may be a remote chance of discovering, they were arguing that you cannot say 'we' cannot ever travel faster than the speed of light because we can't predict the future.

Considering we understand this far better than we do language / the human mind I'd say it was a perfectly reasonable statement, in fact I would say it would be far more believable that everyone would wake up speaking fluent Chinese than discovering normal particles can push past that barrier.


The difference is that we can't even theoretically really come up with a decent explanation that would work for how everyone would suddenly start speaking fluent chinese, but there are many theories in how we could move from point A to point B faster than light, such as wormholes and the alcubierre drive.


Both the Alcubierre drive and traversable wormholes would require matter with either negative energy density or negative mass, which, in my opinion, is even more implausible than everyone somehow learning Chinese for no apparent reason, but I guess that's somewhat subjective.

edit: unless relativity is fundamentally "wrong" in the same way Newtonian physics was, I guess, but that seems unlikely.
From the void I am born into wave and particle
Mikau
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
Netherlands1446 Posts
January 07 2013 21:06 GMT
#166
Newtonian physics wasn´t fundamentally wrong, just only applicable within a certain set of boundaries.
corpuscle
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States1967 Posts
January 07 2013 22:36 GMT
#167
On January 08 2013 06:06 Mikau wrote:
Newtonian physics wasn´t fundamentally wrong, just only applicable within a certain set of boundaries.


That's why I put "wrong" in quotations. It is technically wrong in the sense that it ignored relativity, but we can still use it very effectively.

To elaborate: you could argue that at the time Einstein came up with relativity, you would have called speeds where relativity matters "exotic," i.e. things that can't be described by or outright violate Newtonian physics. It's possible that there are other "exotic" things in physics that violate relativity, and we still don't have a true complete picture. I just really doubt it.
From the void I am born into wave and particle
GGTeMpLaR
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United States7226 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-07 23:02:41
January 07 2013 22:59 GMT
#168
Newtonian physics has been falsified. Saying "it is only applicable within a certain set of boundaries" is exactly why it is fundamentally wrong (assuming you think that it is actually possible there is a right theory capable of holistically explaining the nature of reality).

A wrong theory can still yield correct predictions under some circumstances, but that doesn't make it any less wrong when it fails to accurately describe the nature of reality. Anyone can make an ad-hoc description of past events and claim they've discovered a theory that causally explains the nature of reality within certain boundaries (for example, Astrology is great at this).

Let's say ice cream sales increase and shortly following this trend, the rate of drowning increases. One might conclude that increased ice creams sales causes more people to drown. If you only look at a certain set of boundaries for the results yielded, this theory wouldn't be fundamentally wrong either. However, we all know that increases in ice cream sales doesn't actually cause more people to drown. Just because Newtonian physics is capable of yielding extremely accurate results in most every-day situations doesn't make it right. It is useful and pragmatic, but still fundamentally wrong (unless you're a hardcore pragmatist).
adwodon
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United Kingdom592 Posts
January 08 2013 10:19 GMT
#169
On January 08 2013 07:59 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Newtonian physics has been falsified. Saying "it is only applicable within a certain set of boundaries" is exactly why it is fundamentally wrong (assuming you think that it is actually possible there is a right theory capable of holistically explaining the nature of reality).

A wrong theory can still yield correct predictions under some circumstances, but that doesn't make it any less wrong when it fails to accurately describe the nature of reality. Anyone can make an ad-hoc description of past events and claim they've discovered a theory that causally explains the nature of reality within certain boundaries (for example, Astrology is great at this).

Let's say ice cream sales increase and shortly following this trend, the rate of drowning increases. One might conclude that increased ice creams sales causes more people to drown. If you only look at a certain set of boundaries for the results yielded, this theory wouldn't be fundamentally wrong either. However, we all know that increases in ice cream sales doesn't actually cause more people to drown. Just because Newtonian physics is capable of yielding extremely accurate results in most every-day situations doesn't make it right. It is useful and pragmatic, but still fundamentally wrong (unless you're a hardcore pragmatist).


I think you completely miss the point of physics and science in general making comments like that.

No physicist will ever claim to know what truly happens in nature, this isn't something we aim for because its impossible, we can't know what happens. Instead we simply try to describe what we see, the general tool used for this is mathematics as it has been shown over centuries to be an amazing tool for describing the world around us.
This is basically physics, describing the behaviour and interactions of particles / objects through maths.

This is where classical mechanics has been phenomenally successful as it is still provides us with accurate descriptions of the classical world. What you are confusing things with is that we eventually we discovered there is more to the world than what we can immediately see, these generally concern extremes, like the extremely fast relativistic mechanics or the incredibly small quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics falls apart at this point and these other forms of mechanics step in, however you would never use quantum mechanics on macroscopic objects etc

This does not mean classical mechanics is wrong, it is simply a collection of mathematical rules to describe the motions of macroscopic objects at non-relativistic speeds, this never changed and it still works to make accurate predictions through simple models, the rules still apply, it is still correct. In fact it still does this better than anything else we have, but as mentioned above, it works within certain constraints / under certain assumptions, wander out of these and it will fall apart.

Just think about it for a second, if you want a truly accurate description of even something simple, say a ball falling, you'd need to model ever single particle, how it moves, interacts with the ball and all the total outcomes, that's the only 'correct' model, at least according to how we understand the world now, which also makes assumptions and so is probably not entirely accurate.

The whole thing is a massive waste of time which is why physics is not about 100% guarantee'd true totally accurate models of exactly what happens, rather making assumptions and applying constraints to make an extremely complex problem manageable ( the ball falls with acceleration ~9.81m/s^2 ), its simply about modelling the world in ways we can understand, some people might like to chase some kind of crazy equation that does it all but most of us just simply want good equations to describe the parts we work on, and generally that's what we get.
Evangelist
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
1246 Posts
January 08 2013 13:51 GMT
#170
Newtonian mechanics are wrong. They are a generalisation which assumes a continuous energy distribution and a linear increase of energy with velocity which is of course wrong where v -> c as well as E -> 0 and m -> 0.

In fact they are so wrong that if we were to use Newtonian mechanics as they were originally intended we would not have the ability to treat cancer, amongst other things. Newtonian mechanics are a subset of relativistic mechanics where none of the above conditions apply. It's a simple exercise to derive the Newtonian force and energy equations from their relativistic expressions. It is not really the quantum regime where this applies - we use a different subset of mechanics for that based upon the quantization of properties of given particles where property distribution is no longer continuous.

It doesn't matter that they are useful. They are still wrong and in a lot of cases by several orders of magnitude or more. Relativistic equations will ultimately provide the more accurate answer even in traditionally Newtonian cases. However, there is little need for that kind of accuracy when dealing with macroscopic bodies as ultimately every model we use is a simplification of some sort.

What you are confusing the situation with is the problem of n-body simulation - something we don't deal with by simplifying equations in physics but by statistical averages and assumptions of stability.
Evangelist
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
1246 Posts
January 08 2013 13:56 GMT
#171
On January 08 2013 00:30 adwodon wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 07 2013 09:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On January 07 2013 07:47 adwodon wrote:
On January 07 2013 07:22 Microsloth wrote:
On January 07 2013 07:16 Chargelot wrote:
On January 07 2013 06:12 Desertfaux wrote:
Where's my flying car, goddamnit, its 2013 already.

It's called a plane.
On January 07 2013 06:08 remedium wrote:
It's only a matter of time before physicists pull a Mines of Moria and unleash a Balrog on us. Just sayin'.

No. Just sayin'.
On January 07 2013 04:56 lumencryster wrote:
now i'm going to wait till we can get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. i mean, people didn't think it was possible to fly, seems ridiculous enough since we don't have wings, right?

You cannot move faster than the speed of light. You cannot move at the speed of light. Any passage that you take to arrive somewhere, light will travel through it faster. Light will always win.


Unless you're that particle that was accelerated beyond the speed of light.

Words like cannot and always means you're predicting the future. To that I say: You'll never accurately predict the entire future. Ever.

Suck it.



You are correct when you say we can't predict the future, but what you're saying is akin to someone suggesting that one day everyone in America might wake up and start speaking Chinese out of the blue, you can't say it won't happen because the future hasn't happened yet, but it violates everything we know about language, learning, behavior etc so its a pretty solid bet (aka solid fact) that it definitely won't happen.


I'd say your example is a lot less believable because it literally makes no sense that it could occur without a cause (which is what "out of the blue" implies). Having a higher velocity than the speed of light can at least make some sense if our current set of scientific paradigms is flawed, incomplete, or just wrong, which is definitely more possible than you're admitting.


That was essentially the point, by out of the blue, I just mean suddenly, ie some crazy new learning tool allowing you to learn a new language overnight wasn't invented or some other explanation that would make sense with what we know. It would occur with a cause, but any cause would violate everything we understand about language, for instance that it is learned etc etc as a sudden, otherwise unexplainable, mass language 'shift' would imply.

That's basically the same as discovering that we can move faster than the speed of light, and remember, this person wasn't talking about some kind of random new shiny particle with exotic properties, which I'll concede there may be a remote chance of discovering, they were arguing that you cannot say 'we' cannot ever travel faster than the speed of light because we can't predict the future.

Considering we understand this far better than we do language / the human mind I'd say it was a perfectly reasonable statement, in fact I would say it would be far more believable that everyone would wake up speaking fluent Chinese than discovering normal particles can push past that barrier.


Really? One of these problems is the spontaneous transmission of vast quantities of information to every single human being on the planet without an obvious vector capable of effecting such a change. The other is the violation of world lines. It is theoretically possible for faster than light particles but not this side of the relativistic barrier. We also have absolutely no idea how we might discover these particles.
qrs
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
United States3637 Posts
January 08 2013 14:20 GMT
#172
On January 06 2013 00:43 micronesia wrote:
I think you are misunderstanding what this means. It's not that we broke physics, but so minorly that it can be written off... it's that the conventional understanding of temperature is incorrect. I realized this when I studied thermal physics, well before this article.
I don't think you're choosing your words well. When you say "the conventional understanding of temperature is incorrect", you mean that it's not the one used by physicists. It's still perfectly adequate to describe hot and cold as most people experience it, and since that's the experience that the word "temperature" was created to describe, I don't see how any adequate description of it can be called objectively "incorrect".

On January 06 2013 00:54 Evangelist wrote:
Okay. I'll do a quick TLDR for the people who aren't in this field.

Absolute zero is a misnomer as far as physicists are concerned. We only really consider temperature as a thermodynamic process where we can define temperature as a relation between entropy and energy where entropy is the disorder within a system (where disorder is defined by physicists as the degree to which a system is seperated from a perfectly spread, entirely equal medium). The ultimate entropic system is one where all energy is spread through an entire body of the system in perfectly equal amounts and any distribution demonstrated on this system is FLAT.

What this means in laymans terms is if you imagine that the universe is full of strings of lumpy custard, a perfectly entropic universe is not only perfectly smooth but has absolutely no heat flow at all.

When considering entropy, when you increase the temperature of an atom, the electrons preferentially distribute themselves up through increasing energy levels and entropy thus increases with temperature. In the case of negative temperature, as I understand it, a decreasing negative temperature preferentially fills the HIGHER energy shells and not the lower energy shells. This implies a bound higher energy state which if considered in the perspective of a system which is collapsing, will administer a repulsive anti-collapsing potential.

Essentially, the way to think of it is that normally when you increase the temperature of a system, you fill a glass from the bottom up. With negative temperature, it is the equivalent of taking that same glass and filling it and finding it actually fills from the top down.

Very interesting stuff. The paper is fascinating too. Something at negative temperature is going to be fighting local attempts to be at a positive temperature and thus reach a steady state.
Thanks for the post; very helpful.
'As per the American Heart Association, the beat of the Bee Gees song "Stayin' Alive" provides an ideal rhythm in terms of beats per minute to use for hands-only CPR. One can also hum Queen's "Another One Bites The Dust".' —Wikipedia
Douillos
Profile Joined May 2010
France3195 Posts
January 08 2013 14:26 GMT
#173
On January 08 2013 22:51 Evangelist wrote:
Newtonian mechanics are wrong.


They aren't wrong, they just apply at a different scale. Comparing Quantum and Newtonian mecanics is just plain stupid to start with.

Look a giraffe! Look a fist!!
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24664 Posts
January 08 2013 14:41 GMT
#174
On January 08 2013 23:20 qrs wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 00:43 micronesia wrote:
I think you are misunderstanding what this means. It's not that we broke physics, but so minorly that it can be written off... it's that the conventional understanding of temperature is incorrect. I realized this when I studied thermal physics, well before this article.
I don't think you're choosing your words well. When you say "the conventional understanding of temperature is incorrect", you mean that it's not the one used by physicists. It's still perfectly adequate to describe hot and cold as most people experience it, and since that's the experience that the word "temperature" was created to describe, I don't see how any adequate description of it can be called objectively "incorrect".

Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 00:54 Evangelist wrote:
Okay. I'll do a quick TLDR for the people who aren't in this field.

Absolute zero is a misnomer as far as physicists are concerned. We only really consider temperature as a thermodynamic process where we can define temperature as a relation between entropy and energy where entropy is the disorder within a system (where disorder is defined by physicists as the degree to which a system is seperated from a perfectly spread, entirely equal medium). The ultimate entropic system is one where all energy is spread through an entire body of the system in perfectly equal amounts and any distribution demonstrated on this system is FLAT.

What this means in laymans terms is if you imagine that the universe is full of strings of lumpy custard, a perfectly entropic universe is not only perfectly smooth but has absolutely no heat flow at all.

When considering entropy, when you increase the temperature of an atom, the electrons preferentially distribute themselves up through increasing energy levels and entropy thus increases with temperature. In the case of negative temperature, as I understand it, a decreasing negative temperature preferentially fills the HIGHER energy shells and not the lower energy shells. This implies a bound higher energy state which if considered in the perspective of a system which is collapsing, will administer a repulsive anti-collapsing potential.

Essentially, the way to think of it is that normally when you increase the temperature of a system, you fill a glass from the bottom up. With negative temperature, it is the equivalent of taking that same glass and filling it and finding it actually fills from the top down.

Very interesting stuff. The paper is fascinating too. Something at negative temperature is going to be fighting local attempts to be at a positive temperature and thus reach a steady state.
Thanks for the post; very helpful.

I think I should say definition rather than just an understanding.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
et
Profile Joined September 2010
Switzerland367 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-08 14:50:19
January 08 2013 14:50 GMT
#175
That's not really better. A definition is just giving a name to something. A set of definitions can be inconsistent, but calling a definition wrong is weird.
Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24664 Posts
January 08 2013 14:52 GMT
#176
On January 08 2013 23:50 et wrote:
That's not really better. A definition is just giving a name to something. A set of definitions can be inconsistent, but calling a definition wrong is weird.

I disagree, since we are in the realm of science rather than language
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
et
Profile Joined September 2010
Switzerland367 Posts
January 08 2013 15:03 GMT
#177
No, that's not the case. There's nothing in nature sticking the label 'Temperature' to the partial derivative of entropy wrt. energy. You could call that something else, and define temperature as something else, and physics would still work. Definitions are really just names.
Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken
radscorpion9
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
Canada2252 Posts
January 08 2013 15:04 GMT
#178
On January 08 2013 23:26 Douillos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 08 2013 22:51 Evangelist wrote:
Newtonian mechanics are wrong.


They aren't wrong, they just apply at a different scale. Comparing Quantum and Newtonian mecanics is just plain stupid to start with.



I think the whole point is that Newtonian mechanics actually doesn't apply at *any* scale unless you want approximations of an answer. If you want an exact answer then you can't use Newtonian mechanics, because...why else? Its wrong.

Einstein's theory of general relativity is something that does apply at a different scale, as it gives extremely precise answers on the macroscopic scale. It just doesn't work on the "quantum scale" obviously.
Silvanel
Profile Blog Joined March 2003
Poland4725 Posts
January 08 2013 15:06 GMT
#179
On January 08 2013 23:52 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 08 2013 23:50 et wrote:
That's not really better. A definition is just giving a name to something. A set of definitions can be inconsistent, but calling a definition wrong is weird.

I disagree, since we are in the realm of science rather than language


You are always within language.
Pathetic Greta hater.
Mauldo
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States750 Posts
January 08 2013 15:11 GMT
#180
So what the article says about dark energy, is that a big deal, or are all the physicists in the thread not touching on that? It seems rather awesome, like a significant step forward in figuring out what exactly dark energy is and how it works.

I'm assuming this isn't as awesome as finding the Higgs-Boson, but still pretty awesome. Is that a fairly accurate assessment?
Silvanel
Profile Blog Joined March 2003
Poland4725 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-08 15:16:24
January 08 2013 15:14 GMT
#181
On January 09 2013 00:04 radscorpion9 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 08 2013 23:26 Douillos wrote:
On January 08 2013 22:51 Evangelist wrote:
Newtonian mechanics are wrong.


They aren't wrong, they just apply at a different scale. Comparing Quantum and Newtonian mecanics is just plain stupid to start with.



I think the whole point is that Newtonian mechanics actually doesn't apply at *any* scale unless you want approximations of an answer. If you want an exact answer then you can't use Newtonian mechanics, because...why else? Its wrong.

Einstein's theory of general relativity is something that does apply at a different scale, as it gives extremely precise answers on the macroscopic scale. It just doesn't work on the "quantum scale" obviously.


You cant measure anything with infinite accuracy, therefore all calculations and results always bear some uncertainty born in intial measerment. The only real difference between Einsteins theory and Newtonian is level of accuracy when calculating something. Newtonian physics is just fine for most calculations. That is unless You are living in delusional world of theoretical physicist.
Pathetic Greta hater.
synapse
Profile Blog Joined January 2009
China13814 Posts
January 08 2013 15:20 GMT
#182
On January 09 2013 00:14 Silvanel wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 09 2013 00:04 radscorpion9 wrote:
On January 08 2013 23:26 Douillos wrote:
On January 08 2013 22:51 Evangelist wrote:
Newtonian mechanics are wrong.


They aren't wrong, they just apply at a different scale. Comparing Quantum and Newtonian mecanics is just plain stupid to start with.



I think the whole point is that Newtonian mechanics actually doesn't apply at *any* scale unless you want approximations of an answer. If you want an exact answer then you can't use Newtonian mechanics, because...why else? Its wrong.

Einstein's theory of general relativity is something that does apply at a different scale, as it gives extremely precise answers on the macroscopic scale. It just doesn't work on the "quantum scale" obviously.


You cant measure anything with infinite accuracy, therefore all calculations and results always bear some uncertainty born in intial measerment. The only real difference between Einsteins theory and Newtonian is level of accuracy when calculating something. Newtonian physics is just fine for most calculations. That is unless You are living in delusional world of theoretical physicist.

It's not about accuracy, it's about Newtonian models not taking into account relativity. I wouldn't say that Newtonian physics are wrong, but they're certainly incomplete.
:)
et
Profile Joined September 2010
Switzerland367 Posts
January 08 2013 15:23 GMT
#183
On January 09 2013 00:11 Mauldo wrote:
So what the article says about dark energy, is that a big deal, or are all the physicists in the thread not touching on that? It seems rather awesome, like a significant step forward in figuring out what exactly dark energy is and how it works.

I'm assuming this isn't as awesome as finding the Higgs-Boson, but still pretty awesome. Is that a fairly accurate assessment?


From a glance, it isn't what you make out. The guy just points out that one phenomenon they have observed (negative pressure) is also a property that dark energy needs to explain the accelerating rate of expansion of the universe that we see. It's interesting, but i wouldn't call it a significant step now. Maybe you can call it that in hindsight later, but for now it doesn't stand out.
Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken
Maenander
Profile Joined November 2002
Germany4926 Posts
January 08 2013 15:25 GMT
#184
Another case of bad science reporting.

Unfortunately it is common practice in science today to use shiny terminology to convince the layman, who has no idea what is going on, that the work is revolutionary. It's the same principle that is applied in advertizing. We didn't lie, we just took the risk to be misunderstood
aeroblaster
Profile Blog Joined November 2011
United States422 Posts
January 08 2013 15:26 GMT
#185
Hover boards, here we come!
If you want to catch a rabbit just hide behind a tree and make the sound of a carrot.
Silvanel
Profile Blog Joined March 2003
Poland4725 Posts
January 08 2013 15:26 GMT
#186
On January 09 2013 00:20 synapse wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 09 2013 00:14 Silvanel wrote:
On January 09 2013 00:04 radscorpion9 wrote:
On January 08 2013 23:26 Douillos wrote:
On January 08 2013 22:51 Evangelist wrote:
Newtonian mechanics are wrong.


They aren't wrong, they just apply at a different scale. Comparing Quantum and Newtonian mecanics is just plain stupid to start with.



I think the whole point is that Newtonian mechanics actually doesn't apply at *any* scale unless you want approximations of an answer. If you want an exact answer then you can't use Newtonian mechanics, because...why else? Its wrong.

Einstein's theory of general relativity is something that does apply at a different scale, as it gives extremely precise answers on the macroscopic scale. It just doesn't work on the "quantum scale" obviously.


You cant measure anything with infinite accuracy, therefore all calculations and results always bear some uncertainty born in intial measerment. The only real difference between Einsteins theory and Newtonian is level of accuracy when calculating something. Newtonian physics is just fine for most calculations. That is unless You are living in delusional world of theoretical physicist.

It's not about accuracy, it's about Newtonian models not taking into account relativity. I wouldn't say that Newtonian physics are wrong, but they're certainly incomplete.


Which results in calculations based upon Newtonian model to be less accurate in some circaumstances than those based upon Einsteins model. Relatyvistic physics is also incomplete.
Pathetic Greta hater.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24664 Posts
January 08 2013 15:39 GMT
#187
On January 09 2013 00:03 et wrote:
No, that's not the case. There's nothing in nature sticking the label 'Temperature' to the partial derivative of entropy wrt. energy. You could call that something else, and define temperature as something else, and physics would still work. Definitions are really just names.

Yes, but there are actual answers when it comes to how science defines temperature. Many people think that science defines temperature as a measure of the vibrational speed of molecules, which is inaccurate. Of course, you could argue that that is one definition of temperature, and the one I subscribe to is another, but you'll be hard pressed to find a justification for this that stands up to the rigors of science, today (this may not have been the case many years ago).

On January 09 2013 00:06 Silvanel wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 08 2013 23:52 micronesia wrote:
On January 08 2013 23:50 et wrote:
That's not really better. A definition is just giving a name to something. A set of definitions can be inconsistent, but calling a definition wrong is weird.

I disagree, since we are in the realm of science rather than language


You are always within language.

Right, but giving something a scientific definition is different than giving something a more general definition.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
January 08 2013 15:43 GMT
#188
cool. I look forward to hearing more about this over time; and see if they can use this to invent some awesome new tech as it becomes more developed. Scientists always coming up with crazy new things; and weird physics to bypass limitations.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
qrs
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
United States3637 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-08 19:45:16
January 08 2013 19:43 GMT
#189
On January 09 2013 00:39 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 09 2013 00:03 et wrote:
No, that's not the case. There's nothing in nature sticking the label 'Temperature' to the partial derivative of entropy wrt. energy. You could call that something else, and define temperature as something else, and physics would still work. Definitions are really just names.

Yes, but there are actual answers when it comes to how science defines temperature. Many people think that science defines temperature as a measure of the vibrational speed of molecules, which is inaccurate. Of course, you could argue that that is one definition of temperature, and the one I subscribe to is another, but you'll be hard pressed to find a justification for this that stands up to the rigors of science, today (this may not have been the case many years ago).
On January 08 2013 23:52 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 08 2013 23:50 et wrote:
That's not really better. A definition is just giving a name to something. A set of definitions can be inconsistent, but calling a definition wrong is weird.

I disagree, since we are in the realm of science rather than language
It sounds to me that you're saying that if you're speaking in a thermodynamic context, it's wrong to use the popular definition, but that's still a matter of language—scientific language. When you say, "Many people think that science defines temperature as a measure of the vibrational speed of molecules, which is inaccurate," I can go along with that—I only learnt about the entropy definition from this thread—but to say that that's an inherently wrong definition of temperature of general is going too far, IMO.

This is starting to sound like hair-splitting so I'll try to be clear. IMO, the "essence" of the word temperature—the place where all the definitions start—is "the property that leads to what we experience as 'hot' and 'cold'." Now, it turns out that there is more than one property that fits that description—in the ordinary run of things they all coincide, but in certain extraordinary cases there are ramifications between them. There may be good reasons why the scientific definition is most useful, but as long as one's definition of temperature satisfies the 'ur-definition' that I put in bold, it's a valid way to use the word "temperature", unless he's speaking in a specifically thermodynamic context. Could you agree with that?
'As per the American Heart Association, the beat of the Bee Gees song "Stayin' Alive" provides an ideal rhythm in terms of beats per minute to use for hands-only CPR. One can also hum Queen's "Another One Bites The Dust".' —Wikipedia
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24664 Posts
January 08 2013 20:20 GMT
#190
On January 09 2013 04:43 qrs wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 09 2013 00:39 micronesia wrote:
On January 09 2013 00:03 et wrote:
No, that's not the case. There's nothing in nature sticking the label 'Temperature' to the partial derivative of entropy wrt. energy. You could call that something else, and define temperature as something else, and physics would still work. Definitions are really just names.

Yes, but there are actual answers when it comes to how science defines temperature. Many people think that science defines temperature as a measure of the vibrational speed of molecules, which is inaccurate. Of course, you could argue that that is one definition of temperature, and the one I subscribe to is another, but you'll be hard pressed to find a justification for this that stands up to the rigors of science, today (this may not have been the case many years ago).
Show nested quote +
On January 08 2013 23:52 micronesia wrote:
On January 08 2013 23:50 et wrote:
That's not really better. A definition is just giving a name to something. A set of definitions can be inconsistent, but calling a definition wrong is weird.

I disagree, since we are in the realm of science rather than language
It sounds to me that you're saying that if you're speaking in a thermodynamic context, it's wrong to use the popular definition, but that's still a matter of language—scientific language. When you say, "Many people think that science defines temperature as a measure of the vibrational speed of molecules, which is inaccurate," I can go along with that—I only learnt about the entropy definition from this thread—but to say that that's an inherently wrong definition of temperature of general is going too far, IMO.

This is starting to sound like hair-splitting so I'll try to be clear. IMO, the "essence" of the word temperature—the place where all the definitions start—is "the property that leads to what we experience as 'hot' and 'cold'." Now, it turns out that there is more than one property that fits that description—in the ordinary run of things they all coincide, but in certain extraordinary cases there are ramifications between them. There may be good reasons why the scientific definition is most useful, but as long as one's definition of temperature satisfies the 'ur-definition' that I put in bold, it's a valid way to use the word "temperature", unless he's speaking in a specifically thermodynamic context. Could you agree with that?

What are you saying sounds reasonable, but in lieu of calling it hair splitting I'd say we are kinda going off the deep end here all because I worded something somewhat ambiguously that is difficult to word clearly. This all began because some people were saying things which showed they don't really understand the scientific implications of the study in the article (this is why I thought a moderator note would be helpful, also).

There is a reason why we currently define (mathematically) temperature the way we do. It is quite difficult a topic to fully understand though.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
adwodon
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United Kingdom592 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-08 22:47:26
January 08 2013 22:46 GMT
#191
On January 08 2013 22:56 Evangelist wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 08 2013 00:30 adwodon wrote:
On January 07 2013 09:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On January 07 2013 07:47 adwodon wrote:
On January 07 2013 07:22 Microsloth wrote:
On January 07 2013 07:16 Chargelot wrote:
On January 07 2013 06:12 Desertfaux wrote:
Where's my flying car, goddamnit, its 2013 already.

It's called a plane.
On January 07 2013 06:08 remedium wrote:
It's only a matter of time before physicists pull a Mines of Moria and unleash a Balrog on us. Just sayin'.

No. Just sayin'.
On January 07 2013 04:56 lumencryster wrote:
now i'm going to wait till we can get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. i mean, people didn't think it was possible to fly, seems ridiculous enough since we don't have wings, right?

You cannot move faster than the speed of light. You cannot move at the speed of light. Any passage that you take to arrive somewhere, light will travel through it faster. Light will always win.


Unless you're that particle that was accelerated beyond the speed of light.

Words like cannot and always means you're predicting the future. To that I say: You'll never accurately predict the entire future. Ever.

Suck it.



You are correct when you say we can't predict the future, but what you're saying is akin to someone suggesting that one day everyone in America might wake up and start speaking Chinese out of the blue, you can't say it won't happen because the future hasn't happened yet, but it violates everything we know about language, learning, behavior etc so its a pretty solid bet (aka solid fact) that it definitely won't happen.


I'd say your example is a lot less believable because it literally makes no sense that it could occur without a cause (which is what "out of the blue" implies). Having a higher velocity than the speed of light can at least make some sense if our current set of scientific paradigms is flawed, incomplete, or just wrong, which is definitely more possible than you're admitting.


That was essentially the point, by out of the blue, I just mean suddenly, ie some crazy new learning tool allowing you to learn a new language overnight wasn't invented or some other explanation that would make sense with what we know. It would occur with a cause, but any cause would violate everything we understand about language, for instance that it is learned etc etc as a sudden, otherwise unexplainable, mass language 'shift' would imply.

That's basically the same as discovering that we can move faster than the speed of light, and remember, this person wasn't talking about some kind of random new shiny particle with exotic properties, which I'll concede there may be a remote chance of discovering, they were arguing that you cannot say 'we' cannot ever travel faster than the speed of light because we can't predict the future.

Considering we understand this far better than we do language / the human mind I'd say it was a perfectly reasonable statement, in fact I would say it would be far more believable that everyone would wake up speaking fluent Chinese than discovering normal particles can push past that barrier.


Really? One of these problems is the spontaneous transmission of vast quantities of information to every single human being on the planet without an obvious vector capable of effecting such a change. The other is the violation of world lines. It is theoretically possible for faster than light particles but not this side of the relativistic barrier. We also have absolutely no idea how we might discover these particles.


I'll restate once more seeing as people seemed to be confused by my example, and is rather vague so I'll explain my thoughts behind it.

I basically meant that it is more likely that language is not actually learned, that it is ingrained in all of us, all languages and we 'learn' which one to use or something equally bizarre, and somehow it switched at we suddenly started to speak Chinese instead, total nonsense I know but that kind of violation of everything we know about language, how it works, how the mind works, learning etc, is a still not as big as suggesting that NORMAL particles can break the relativistic barrier, I'm not talking about a hypothetical particle that doesn't exist and travels faster than light, the original post I was responding to was talking about us, we, people, macroscopic objects, travelling faster than light.

Could you also explain to me how it is theoretically possible to travel faster than light? The only ways I can find require you to violate Lorentz invariance and seeing as noone's proved that possible it's all just hypothesis and no solid theory.

On January 08 2013 22:51 Evangelist wrote:
Newtonian mechanics are wrong. They are a generalisation which assumes a continuous energy distribution and a linear increase of energy with velocity which is of course wrong where v -> c as well as E -> 0 and m -> 0.

In fact they are so wrong that if we were to use Newtonian mechanics as they were originally intended we would not have the ability to treat cancer, amongst other things. Newtonian mechanics are a subset of relativistic mechanics where none of the above conditions apply. It's a simple exercise to derive the Newtonian force and energy equations from their relativistic expressions. It is not really the quantum regime where this applies - we use a different subset of mechanics for that based upon the quantization of properties of given particles where property distribution is no longer continuous.

It doesn't matter that they are useful. They are still wrong and in a lot of cases by several orders of magnitude or more. Relativistic equations will ultimately provide the more accurate answer even in traditionally Newtonian cases. However, there is little need for that kind of accuracy when dealing with macroscopic bodies as ultimately every model we use is a simplification of some sort.

What you are confusing the situation with is the problem of n-body simulation - something we don't deal with by simplifying equations in physics but by statistical averages and assumptions of stability.


Relativistic mechanics still make generalizations and assumptions, if you use either of them to simulate a ball falling to ground neither will account for everything happening but they are both accurate enough for all intensive purposes.

I'm not saying Newtonian mechanics are better, or that we should ignore relativistic mechanics so I don't know why you're little cancer point was relevant. Newtonian mechanics work, maybe not as all encompassing as Newton had thought, but maybe the same will be said about relativistic mechanics in a few 100 years.

To me that doesn't make them 'wrong' because I never saw them as something which tried to explain everything (as if that's some kind of goal of physics?) and they are still relevant today. If they were wrong, we could never have used them. If they were outdated we wouldn't still be using them. I could see an argument for saying Newton was wrong about the applications of his mechanics, that's fine, he was, but his mechanics are still valid.

They are simple, elegant and provide accurate answers when use appropriately. Please explain to me how that makes them wrong in anything but an extremely pedantic sense?

Also I know about statistical mechanics thanks, I was merely demonstrating that we make assumptions to simplify systems otherwise we'd be overwhelmed by the amount we had to deal which is why, at least as far as I see it, if you claim Newtonian mechanics are wrong then so is everything in physics, it all makes assumptions or generalizations which don't reflect the true nature of things but are there for our benefit when dealing with the maths.

So in short, why do you suggest that the assumptions / constraints Newtonian mechanics makes are invalid, yet accept the assumptions / constraints of other theories?
GGTeMpLaR
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United States7226 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-08 23:15:45
January 08 2013 23:08 GMT
#192
On January 08 2013 19:19 adwodon wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 08 2013 07:59 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Newtonian physics has been falsified. Saying "it is only applicable within a certain set of boundaries" is exactly why it is fundamentally wrong (assuming you think that it is actually possible there is a right theory capable of holistically explaining the nature of reality).

A wrong theory can still yield correct predictions under some circumstances, but that doesn't make it any less wrong when it fails to accurately describe the nature of reality. Anyone can make an ad-hoc description of past events and claim they've discovered a theory that causally explains the nature of reality within certain boundaries (for example, Astrology is great at this).

Let's say ice cream sales increase and shortly following this trend, the rate of drowning increases. One might conclude that increased ice creams sales causes more people to drown. If you only look at a certain set of boundaries for the results yielded, this theory wouldn't be fundamentally wrong either. However, we all know that increases in ice cream sales doesn't actually cause more people to drown. Just because Newtonian physics is capable of yielding extremely accurate results in most every-day situations doesn't make it right. It is useful and pragmatic, but still fundamentally wrong (unless you're a hardcore pragmatist).


I think you completely miss the point of physics and science in general making comments like that.

No physicist will ever claim to know what truly happens in nature, this isn't something we aim for because its impossible, we can't know what happens. Instead we simply try to describe what we see, the general tool used for this is mathematics as it has been shown over centuries to be an amazing tool for describing the world around us.
This is basically physics, describing the behaviour and interactions of particles / objects through maths.

This is where classical mechanics has been phenomenally successful as it is still provides us with accurate descriptions of the classical world. What you are confusing things with is that we eventually we discovered there is more to the world than what we can immediately see, these generally concern extremes, like the extremely fast relativistic mechanics or the incredibly small quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics falls apart at this point and these other forms of mechanics step in, however you would never use quantum mechanics on macroscopic objects etc

This does not mean classical mechanics is wrong, it is simply a collection of mathematical rules to describe the motions of macroscopic objects at non-relativistic speeds, this never changed and it still works to make accurate predictions through simple models, the rules still apply, it is still correct. In fact it still does this better than anything else we have, but as mentioned above, it works within certain constraints / under certain assumptions, wander out of these and it will fall apart.

Just think about it for a second, if you want a truly accurate description of even something simple, say a ball falling, you'd need to model ever single particle, how it moves, interacts with the ball and all the total outcomes, that's the only 'correct' model, at least according to how we understand the world now, which also makes assumptions and so is probably not entirely accurate.

The whole thing is a massive waste of time which is why physics is not about 100% guarantee'd true totally accurate models of exactly what happens, rather making assumptions and applying constraints to make an extremely complex problem manageable ( the ball falls with acceleration ~9.81m/s^2 ), its simply about modelling the world in ways we can understand, some people might like to chase some kind of crazy equation that does it all but most of us just simply want good equations to describe the parts we work on, and generally that's what we get.


I think you misinterpreted or misread what I was saying if you think I was advocating scientific realism. I'm well aware how science generally attempts to describe the nature of reality (and how such an approach may never be perfect, even if capable of yielding useful results).

You seem to be advocating a hard pragmatist stance of "if it works, it isn't wrong", which is what I was criticizing as naive. The fact that it works extremely well in everyday conditions is irrelevant to whether it is wrong or not. The fact that it fails to explain phenomena at extremities is all that is required to say it is in fact wrong and fails to accurately describe the true nature of reality. Whether it is even possible of coming up with a general holistic theory capable accurately describing the true nature of reality is irrelevant to the fact that Newtonian physics is specifically wrong.

You seem to be under the false impression that Newtonian physics yields perfect results at normal living conditions, which is not the case. Newtonian calculations are theorized in a vacuum that is oversimplified. The reasons we say they "work" in everyday conditions is because the margin of error is negligible. This margin of error becomes much more noticeable at extremities, but is is always present. That is why it is wrong. Useful =/= Truth is my point, which you seem to disagree with.

Your last paragraph isn't why physics isn't 100% guaranteed either. The problem of induction is why physics will never guarantee absolute truth. Again though, this really has no impact on whether we can say Newtonian physics is wrong or not. Aristotelian physics works in some situations as well, it just makes many more metaphysical assumptions and it's scope is much more limited than Newtonian physics. It seems like this wouldn't be enough to say it is wrong though according to your pragmatist argument. You're right to note that we probably will never have 100% certainty through science in describing the nature of reality, but you're wrong to say that it follows that we can't say "X theory is wrong" when it clearly fails to describe reality, regardless of whether it is useful in some situations or not.

On January 08 2013 23:26 Douillos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 08 2013 22:51 Evangelist wrote:
Newtonian mechanics are wrong.


They aren't wrong, they just apply at a different scale. Comparing Quantum and Newtonian mecanics is just plain stupid to start with.



They are wrong. They continue to prove useful because the situations and scopes to which they are wrong are insignificant for everyday uses, but this doesn't grant them the sort of "diplomatic immunity" that makes them unable to be charged with being wrong.

On January 09 2013 00:20 synapse wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 09 2013 00:14 Silvanel wrote:
On January 09 2013 00:04 radscorpion9 wrote:
On January 08 2013 23:26 Douillos wrote:
On January 08 2013 22:51 Evangelist wrote:
Newtonian mechanics are wrong.


They aren't wrong, they just apply at a different scale. Comparing Quantum and Newtonian mecanics is just plain stupid to start with.



I think the whole point is that Newtonian mechanics actually doesn't apply at *any* scale unless you want approximations of an answer. If you want an exact answer then you can't use Newtonian mechanics, because...why else? Its wrong.

Einstein's theory of general relativity is something that does apply at a different scale, as it gives extremely precise answers on the macroscopic scale. It just doesn't work on the "quantum scale" obviously.


You cant measure anything with infinite accuracy, therefore all calculations and results always bear some uncertainty born in intial measerment. The only real difference between Einsteins theory and Newtonian is level of accuracy when calculating something. Newtonian physics is just fine for most calculations. That is unless You are living in delusional world of theoretical physicist.

It's not about accuracy, it's about Newtonian models not taking into account relativity. I wouldn't say that Newtonian physics are wrong, but they're certainly incomplete.


Newtonian physics provides an incomplete description of the nature of reality. It does not have perfect accuracy. That is precisely why it is wrong. Whether or not such a "perfect accuracy" exists is irrelevant to the fact that it doesn't have it.
GGTeMpLaR
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United States7226 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-08 23:44:07
January 08 2013 23:27 GMT
#193
On January 09 2013 07:46 adwodon wrote:
Relativistic mechanics still make generalizations and assumptions, if you use either of them to simulate a ball falling to ground neither will account for everything happening but they are both accurate enough for all intensive purposes.

I'm not saying Newtonian mechanics are better, or that we should ignore relativistic mechanics so I don't know why you're little cancer point was relevant. Newtonian mechanics work, maybe not as all encompassing as Newton had thought, but maybe the same will be said about relativistic mechanics in a few 100 years.

To me that doesn't make them 'wrong' because I never saw them as something which tried to explain everything (as if that's some kind of goal of physics?) and they are still relevant today. If they were wrong, we could never have used them. If they were outdated we wouldn't still be using them. I could see an argument for saying Newton was wrong about the applications of his mechanics, that's fine, he was, but his mechanics are still valid.

They are simple, elegant and provide accurate answers when use appropriately. Please explain to me how that makes them wrong in anything but an extremely pedantic sense?

Also I know about statistical mechanics thanks, I was merely demonstrating that we make assumptions to simplify systems otherwise we'd be overwhelmed by the amount we had to deal which is why, at least as far as I see it, if you claim Newtonian mechanics are wrong then so is everything in physics, it all makes assumptions or generalizations which don't reflect the true nature of things but are there for our benefit when dealing with the maths.



"Relativity isn't entirely correct either!" doesn't make Newtonian physics any less wrong.

You've dug yourself into a whole where your definition of "wrong" really makes it hard to pin down anything as "wrong" and so the entire concept of right/wrong are useless. Anything has the potential to be useful.

Your italics is entirely baseless. Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it can't be useful, which is what I tried to explain originally.

Why do you have a problem with your bold statement? That is literally the standard definition of "wrong". (making assumptions or generalizations which don't reflect the true nature of things)

The only way I can see your argument working is if you take up the position of an instrumentalist/pragmatist that just accepts truth as equivalent to utility. If that's the case, then we've just been talking over each other and there isn't really anything else to argue about relevant to this thread.
heroyi
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States1064 Posts
January 08 2013 23:44 GMT
#194
This still seems a big breakthrough no?

Kinda challenges how we measure temperature no?
wat wat in my pants
Luepert
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
United States1933 Posts
January 08 2013 23:57 GMT
#195
Doesnt volume vary with temperature? 0 temperature= zero volume.
And now negative temperature, I feel like negative volume is a good way to make a black hole or something lol.
esports
asdfOu
Profile Joined August 2011
United States2089 Posts
January 08 2013 23:57 GMT
#196
dayum. that's all i gotta say
rip prime
GGTeMpLaR
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United States7226 Posts
January 09 2013 00:14 GMT
#197
On January 09 2013 08:57 Luepert wrote:
Doesnt volume vary with temperature? 0 temperature= zero volume.
And now negative temperature, I feel like negative volume is a good way to make a black hole or something lol.


This would be good for one of those troll science comics with the ragefaces.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24664 Posts
January 09 2013 00:21 GMT
#198
On January 09 2013 08:44 heroyi wrote:
This still seems a big breakthrough no?

Kinda challenges how we measure temperature no?

No. This doesn't change science's understanding of temperature or how to measure it. It merely shows a new type of material that can be made to have a negative temperature (a gas).
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Hundisilm
Profile Joined July 2011
Estonia99 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-09 00:48:48
January 09 2013 00:47 GMT
#199
On January 09 2013 05:20 micronesia wrote:
What are you saying sounds reasonable, but in lieu of calling it hair splitting I'd say we are kinda going off the deep end here all because I worded something somewhat ambiguously that is difficult to word clearly. This all began because some people were saying things which showed they don't really understand the scientific implications of the study in the article (this is why I thought a moderator note would be helpful, also).

There is a reason why we currently define (mathematically) temperature the way we do. It is quite difficult a topic to fully understand though.


To nitpick a bit further - I don't think it's correct to say that "science" (it's a bit of a dirty word) defines temperature like that. The "temperatures" differ somewhat between classical thermodynamics and statistical thermodynamics for example I think. Some of the quite common formulas would go bonkers if negative temperatures were allowed (pV=nRT for example wouldn't make much sense) although the temperature . It's not even a particularly good definition to my fairly limited understanding (the math seems to get rather messy very quickly). Wouldn't it be better to rather define such a system as having negative entropy?

Edit: I suppose the negative Entropy thing is a bit tricky for the statistical mechanics people.
et
Profile Joined September 2010
Switzerland367 Posts
January 09 2013 13:40 GMT
#200
On January 09 2013 09:47 Hundisilm wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 09 2013 05:20 micronesia wrote:
What are you saying sounds reasonable, but in lieu of calling it hair splitting I'd say we are kinda going off the deep end here all because I worded something somewhat ambiguously that is difficult to word clearly. This all began because some people were saying things which showed they don't really understand the scientific implications of the study in the article (this is why I thought a moderator note would be helpful, also).

There is a reason why we currently define (mathematically) temperature the way we do. It is quite difficult a topic to fully understand though.


To nitpick a bit further - I don't think it's correct to say that "science" (it's a bit of a dirty word) defines temperature like that. The "temperatures" differ somewhat between classical thermodynamics and statistical thermodynamics for example I think. Some of the quite common formulas would go bonkers if negative temperatures were allowed (pV=nRT for example wouldn't make much sense) although the temperature . It's not even a particularly good definition to my fairly limited understanding (the math seems to get rather messy very quickly). Wouldn't it be better to rather define such a system as having negative entropy?

Edit: I suppose the negative Entropy thing is a bit tricky for the statistical mechanics people.


First, pV=nRT has only a limited domain of where it is a good approximation. Second, they actually observed negative pressure, so you actually wouldn't have a problem with signs there (that doesn't mean that formula applies though).
Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken
meegrean
Profile Joined May 2008
Thailand7699 Posts
January 09 2013 13:53 GMT
#201
Interesting... I'm hoping something beneficial to mankind could be gained from this breakthrough in the future.
Brood War loyalist
adiga
Profile Joined July 2011
495 Posts
January 09 2013 13:57 GMT
#202
So I just spent a semester studying thermodynamics for nothing?
The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.
Tobberoth
Profile Joined August 2010
Sweden6375 Posts
January 09 2013 13:59 GMT
#203
On January 09 2013 08:57 Luepert wrote:
Doesnt volume vary with temperature? 0 temperature= zero volume.
And now negative temperature, I feel like negative volume is a good way to make a black hole or something lol.

This is actually mentioned specifically on the wikipedia page for Charle's Law. Not the part about black holes, but the implication of absolute zero in the discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles's_law
adiga
Profile Joined July 2011
495 Posts
January 09 2013 14:15 GMT
#204
On January 09 2013 08:57 Luepert wrote:
Doesnt volume vary with temperature? 0 temperature= zero volume.
And now negative temperature, I feel like negative volume is a good way to make a black hole or something lol.


Yeah but they are locking the atoms at their spots so volume doesn't change. And that's why the temperature drops bellow zero.
The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.
The_Masked_Shrimp
Profile Joined February 2012
425 Posts
January 09 2013 15:01 GMT
#205
On January 09 2013 23:15 adiga wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 09 2013 08:57 Luepert wrote:
Doesnt volume vary with temperature? 0 temperature= zero volume.
And now negative temperature, I feel like negative volume is a good way to make a black hole or something lol.


Yeah but they are locking the atoms at their spots so volume doesn't change. And that's why the temperature drops bellow zero.



perfect gas equation is only good for academic pruposes, you get additionnal terms when you want more accuracy, hence it's not 0
Setev
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Malaysia390 Posts
January 09 2013 17:15 GMT
#206
On January 06 2013 00:41 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 05 2013 23:57 Fruscainte wrote:
Physics itself is being rewritten gentlemen. We have broken the seemingly impossible to break barrier in temperature, and may have the ability to replicate Dark Energy-esque forces in a lab.

We have been able to get negative temperatures since before this paper.... it is just the first time it was done with a gas, I believe.

The common understanding of temperature that it is a measure of the speed of the motion of molecules in a system, while useful, is not accurate. You can actually define temperature using this formula:

1/T = dS/dU where S is entropy and U is internal energy. Temperature therefore has to do with how a change in internal energy relates to a change in entropy. For normal systems (positive Kelvin temperatures) increasing energy of a system will increase entropy (this is very important for studying the Carnot Cycle). For systems where the opposite happens (negative temperature), the object will give off heat to any system it comes into thermal equilibrium with. A few cases:

System A      System B                        Result
Warm            Hot                               Heat flows from hot to warm; temperatures equalize
Negative      Warm                               Heat flows from negative temperature system to warm system
Negative      Very Hot                        Heat flows from negative temperature system to hot system

Another example where you can get negative temperature: Place a 2-state paramagnet into a magnetic field such that the dipoles align. Then, reverse the magnetic field polarity.


OK, from an equation perspective, T = temperature, de = change in Entropy, dE = change in Internal Energy.

So from micronesia's passage, 1/T = de/dE.

If de approaches 0, and dE approaches Infinity (as stated in a negative T system), how is T negative? 1/T will be approaching zero Kelvin, because 0/Infinity = 0. T will then be near infinity Kelvin. How come the temperature derived from this equation can be below 0 K?

It'd be great if someone can elaborate...
I'm the King Of Nerds
gyth
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
657 Posts
January 09 2013 17:28 GMT
#207
If de approaches 0, and dE approaches Infinity

For this material adding energy decreases the entropy, that is why de/dE is negative.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Setev
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Malaysia390 Posts
January 09 2013 18:21 GMT
#208
On January 10 2013 02:28 gyth wrote:
Show nested quote +
If de approaches 0, and dE approaches Infinity

For this material adding energy decreases the entropy, that is why de/dE is negative.


Oh yeah, thanks for correcting that. Forgot my basics...makes sense now =D
I'm the King Of Nerds
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
January 09 2013 23:09 GMT
#209
On January 10 2013 02:15 Setev wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 06 2013 00:41 micronesia wrote:
On January 05 2013 23:57 Fruscainte wrote:
Physics itself is being rewritten gentlemen. We have broken the seemingly impossible to break barrier in temperature, and may have the ability to replicate Dark Energy-esque forces in a lab.

We have been able to get negative temperatures since before this paper.... it is just the first time it was done with a gas, I believe.

The common understanding of temperature that it is a measure of the speed of the motion of molecules in a system, while useful, is not accurate. You can actually define temperature using this formula:

1/T = dS/dU where S is entropy and U is internal energy. Temperature therefore has to do with how a change in internal energy relates to a change in entropy. For normal systems (positive Kelvin temperatures) increasing energy of a system will increase entropy (this is very important for studying the Carnot Cycle). For systems where the opposite happens (negative temperature), the object will give off heat to any system it comes into thermal equilibrium with. A few cases:

System A      System B                        Result
Warm            Hot                               Heat flows from hot to warm; temperatures equalize
Negative      Warm                               Heat flows from negative temperature system to warm system
Negative      Very Hot                        Heat flows from negative temperature system to hot system

Another example where you can get negative temperature: Place a 2-state paramagnet into a magnetic field such that the dipoles align. Then, reverse the magnetic field polarity.


OK, from an equation perspective, T = temperature, de = change in Entropy, dE = change in Internal Energy.

So from micronesia's passage, 1/T = de/dE.

If de approaches 0, and dE approaches Infinity (as stated in a negative T system), how is T negative? 1/T will be approaching zero Kelvin, because 0/Infinity = 0. T will then be near infinity Kelvin. How come the temperature derived from this equation can be below 0 K?

It'd be great if someone can elaborate...

However, we would usually use U for internal energy to differentiate from the total system energy and S for entropy, since 'e' usually refers to an electron or the charge of that electron. Energy in this process and in others can appear in various forms; internal energy is just one of them.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
setey1
Profile Joined January 2013
1 Post
January 17 2013 15:15 GMT
#210
If I touched something that was the coldest we've "achieved" previously, which I understand is slightly above absolute zero,

It would feel very cold.

If I touched something that was actually absolute zero,

It would feel slightly colder.

If I touched this new "negative temperature"...

It would feel even colder still?


Not quite, when the temperature goes below absolute zero, it would actually feel extremely hot. hotter than any positive temperature. so assuming that it didn't cause permanent damage to your hand, it would still be extremely painful :D
Fenris420
Profile Joined November 2011
Sweden213 Posts
January 17 2013 15:37 GMT
#211
Have I understood this correctly by saying it is not hacking, but clever use of game mechanics? As in we abuse the definition of temperature rather than actually making something colder.
Fusa
Profile Joined March 2010
Canada148 Posts
January 17 2013 15:59 GMT
#212
On January 18 2013 00:37 Fenris420 wrote:
Have I understood this correctly by saying it is not hacking, but clever use of game mechanics? As in we abuse the definition of temperature rather than actually making something colder.



The problem is the natural definition we all grow up to love and know "temperature". We think of it as cold and hot, that's it but much like many others have said there is another definition which involves entropy.

So a negative temperature would be hotter ( only if "you" touched it )
Normal
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Monday Night Weeklies
16:00
#20
BRAT_OK 23
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RotterdaM 501
ProTech77
BRAT_OK 23
StarCraft: Brood War
Rain 3549
Calm 3274
Hyuk 1617
Horang2 1360
EffOrt 1176
Mini 883
Shine 827
BeSt 579
Stork 386
firebathero 379
[ Show more ]
Soma 375
Soulkey 175
Rush 142
[sc1f]eonzerg 59
Sharp 43
soO 36
Rock 27
Free 21
sorry 19
Terrorterran 18
scan(afreeca) 13
Shinee 9
Hm[arnc] 7
Dewaltoss 6
Bale 3
Stormgate
RushiSC43
NightEnD9
Dota 2
Gorgc7502
qojqva3982
Counter-Strike
fl0m1155
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King186
Other Games
singsing2380
B2W.Neo1507
hiko1453
FrodaN1124
crisheroes456
Lowko386
ceh9187
Liquid`VortiX159
KnowMe130
ArmadaUGS101
Fuzer 81
Trikslyr61
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• FirePhoenix0
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV302
League of Legends
• TFBlade1477
Other Games
• Shiphtur229
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
7h 49m
Wardi Open
18h 49m
PiGosaur Monday
1d 7h
The PondCast
1d 17h
Replay Cast
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
WardiTV European League
2 days
Replay Cast
3 days
RSL Revival
3 days
WardiTV European League
3 days
[ Show More ]
FEL
3 days
Korean StarCraft League
4 days
CranKy Ducklings
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
FEL
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
FEL
5 days
BSL: ProLeague
6 days
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-06-28
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.