|
Note from micronesia: please read the thread before making comments about how we have just turned physics on its head. |
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 ResultWarm 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.
|
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?
|
|
is awesome32274 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
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. :-)
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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!
|
@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.
|
Well guys, we broke the universe. I hope you all are happy with yourselves.
|
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. ^_^
|
|
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
|
Science is confusing. The lack of... absoluteness even in the absolutes... it's strange.
It's an interesting thought.
|
United States24664 Posts
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.
|
United States7483 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
United States24664 Posts
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
wow :O, I'm interested in future experiments of that stuff
|
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.
|
|
Are there any possible application of this? Superconductors are thanks to cold physics right? Anything else?
|
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.
|
wow this is a pretty interesting discovery, things like these add up in my opinion over time
|
United States24664 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
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 :<
|
MIT, breaking physics one experiment at a time . A bit misleading as others have said, but nonetheless an important and groundbreaking feet.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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."
|
Oh wow, I expected that they went a bit below 0 kelvin, and they got a few billionths below absolute zero? Sick !
|
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"
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?)
|
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.
|
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].
|
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 ResultWarm 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 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 ^^
|
|
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.
|
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.
|
I think this will have a great impact on the upcoming episodes of the Big Bang Theory!!
|
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?
|
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]](http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg169/Myrkskogg/cooled_zps23104d59.jpg)
User was warned for this post
|
^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.
|
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 @_@
|
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.
|
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.
|
But wouldn't this mean that the absolute zero (wich we thought it would be) isn't the absolute zero?
|
|
|
God dammit, just waiting for Half Life to happen! xD
|
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!
|
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.
|
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.
|
Russian Federation748 Posts
There's an excellent example with magnetic dipoles in a magnetic field to explain negative temperatures. I don't remember it exactly now sadly.
|
United States24664 Posts
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...
|
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.
|
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.
|
I was completely wtf reading the article at first. But when some of you described it in terms of entropy it makes sense now.
|
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?
|
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?
|
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?
|
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.
|
Russian Federation748 Posts
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.
|
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/EntropyI 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.
|
United States24664 Posts
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/EntropyI 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.
|
. 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.
|
Seems like people have no idea what this means at all. :p
|
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/EntropyI 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.
|
We're that much closer to it now!
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
That is a very interesting story.. As radscorpion said I would be completely blown away as well..
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 06 2013 00:06 Terrix wrote: I thought absolute zero was no movement in molecules... How can you have less than no movement? I didn't see this addressed in the thread so I thought it would be good to clear up this common misconception.
Absolute zero doesn't correspond to no movement but the reason behind this is quantum mechanical so wasn't known about when the absolute temperature scale was devised. One of the consequences of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that the position and momentum of a particle can only be determined to a certain precision (+ Show Spoiler +). 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.
|
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?
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 06 2013 07:53 Solarsail wrote: Looked at the Entropy article on Wikipedia to find some definitions more complex than 'disorder' and:
"Von Neumann told me, 'You should call it entropy [for the reason that] nobody knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage."
imallinson, doesn't that say that they might not be moving, if their position isn't known? But if they stop moving their position is fixed thus has a definite and precise value and their momentum is also the definite and precise value of 0.
|
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.
|
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
|
More grant money that could have gone to biomedical research.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
Interesting, if they can find out how dark energy works, maybe they could stabilize the universe.
|
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?
|
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!
|
United States24664 Posts
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).
|
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.
|
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.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
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.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
|
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.
|
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.
|
I must say I am intrigued by the notion that dark matter may not obey the laws of thermodynamics+entropy
|
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?
|
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
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
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.
|
I'm not a science buff ... but holy shit. Thanks for posting this.
|
All you wondering out there; second law only says zero can't be reached.
|
Looks like they can't call it aboslute zero anymore.
|
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?
|
What are the practical implications for a discovery like this?
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
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.
|
May I suggest that we burn the witch?
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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!
|
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.
|
+ 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 =(
|
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.
|
Wait wait wait, my hand is warmer than 100k =/ ?
Don't make me read the whole thread again =(
|
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.
|
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.
|
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 ?
|
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.
|
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
|
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 :/
|
|
Btw, do you use C or F in United Kingdom ?
We use C
|
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?
|
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?
|
On January 07 2013 04:24 TheDemonic wrote: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
|
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
|
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?
|
It's only a matter of time before physicists pull a Mines of Moria and unleash a Balrog on us. Just sayin'.
|
Where's my flying car, goddamnit, its 2013 already.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
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.
|
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...
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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!
|
Oh really really interesting. I saw this article/paper a week ago or so. Cool stuff.
|
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.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Newtonian physics wasn´t fundamentally wrong, just only applicable within a certain set of boundaries.
|
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.
|
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).
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
United States24664 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
United States24664 Posts
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
|
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.
|
On January 08 2013 23:26 Douillos wrote: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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
Hover boards, here we come!
|
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.
|
United States24664 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
United States24664 Posts
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.
|
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?
|
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: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.
|
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.
|
This still seems a big breakthrough no?
Kinda challenges how we measure temperature no?
|
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.
|
dayum. that's all i gotta say
|
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.
|
United States24664 Posts
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).
|
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.
|
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).
|
Interesting... I'm hoping something beneficial to mankind could be gained from this breakthrough in the future.
|
So I just spent a semester studying thermodynamics for nothing?
|
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
|
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.
|
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
|
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 ResultWarm 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...
|
If de approaches 0, and dE approaches Infinity For this material adding energy decreases the entropy, that is why de/dE is negative.
|
On January 10 2013 02:28 gyth wrote: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
|
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 ResultWarm 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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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 )
|
|
|
|