Scientists Reach A Temperature Lower Than Absolute Zero

Bump for the death of thermodynamics and relativity.

for being a bigger sci-news story than the higgs

I don't have a Ph.D in thermodynamics, but I like how you stated this.

Thread: Tired of the bullshit America? Then lets take back our MF Land!

heres a great episode of NOVA

At a temperature below absolute zero you would be working with anti thermal energy which of course would be cold anti matter. The mass would slowly degrade of all the matter present as the matter broke down into energy to feed the anti matter. Instead of the temperature dropping the mass would begin dropping thereby reducing the thermal capacity of the mass in question and reducing its energy content. Real zero point energy has to utilize cold energy sources or energy vacuums to operate.

excuse me, I spent several years in college to get smart enough to have an opinion like that, which you can't even fucking read let alone comprehend.

Good question, maybe this would actually absorb heat, something opposite to emitting heat :)

Anyway my speculation would be that absolute zero was not actually correct, maybe the universe still has some energy stored on the time-space frame of our dimension.

In the Great Universe, All things are possible.

Water will shrink as it cools until it reaches 4C, then it expands again to 0C freezing point. For what ever reason, water is at its most dense around 4C.

Why water behaves that way, we don't know yet for sure.

I suggest reading this article. It gives the best visual and written explanation I've seen thus far.

[link to www.mpq.mpg.de]

You guys don't quite understand the concept of Negative Temperature in relation to absolute zero.

Temperature in quantum theory is basically energy vs. entropy

I'll explain all this in laymans terms:

They took the atoms to basically absolute zero, then they pumped in as much energy as they could, making it hot as fuck, and made sure the movement of the particles involved kept still. When they pumped in all this energy so quickly, they found that instead of radiating energy away via heat, radiation stopped, and actually reversed a slight bit.

So they took the "laws of physics" and used them to interpret this change in entropy. Because these potassium atoms can pull energy from everything both hotter and colder than it, it was considered to have dropped slightly below absolute zero, where no energy exists save for atomic energy.

Also, to the nimrod who defended himself about entropy being time, gtfo, this advance just means you wasted your time in college buddy, as 100 years of science just got toppled on its ass. The beauty of the real world is that there are always multiple ways to the right answer, and just because something works when you perform an experiment, does not mean it's working as you envisioned it. That's why everyone hates Quantum Theory, it makes no sense in comparison to what they see and know.

Just face the facts, we live in an open system universe, with energy pouring out of every corner, and for 100 years in science we've been digging a ditch with our hands so to speak, rather than using a backhoe sitting next door cause we're amish and don't believe in that junk. Still advancing and getting where we want to go and doing what we've wanted to do, but ignoring the easy ways because THERE IS NO MONEY IN FREE ENERGY AND LIGHTSPEED TRAVEL FOR THE MASSES. Give them both, and you ruin the energy, tourism, transport, and real estate sectors. Oh, and you make it so that people unhappy with earth can just leave, find a new planet, and settle it. TPTB don't want their debt slaves to do this. Who will do the work for them when they're gone?

I find it fascinating but lower than ABSOLUTE zero?

I think it's fishy and scary too.

Frater

I'd say it more like this. Temperature is not the same as heat. Temperature is related more to entropy, heat is a form of energy. Under our typical conditions termperature is pretty much linearly related to heat, and so it's OK to substitute one for the other. But in these extreme conditions they diverge. The "special equations" used to calculate temperature are the equations one should always use in principle, but under typical conditions they'll give something that looks just like a heat measurement.

Again, temperature is not the same as heat. Negative temperature does not imply negative energy. Take a good course in statistical mechanics to see the difference.

The result is unintuitive and intriguing.

Maybe what temperature scientists thought was absolute zero was off. Absolute zero is in reality lower...

Yeah for science!

As temperature is defined, I don't think so. The experimental result implies a negative temperature.

One of the standard definitions of temperature is the ability to induce heat transfer in conductive material. Since adding energy to the potassium caused it to pull in more energy from elsewhere, rather than shedding it as one would normally expect, we have a "sign error", or negative temperature.

By the way, this is a reason to describe the air around us in terms of temperature, rather than heat or energy. You don't really care how cold the air is. You care how cold the air will make you feel, i.e. how much heat the air will suck out of your body.

The other reason is that temperature is something that doesn't depend on volume. If we talked about energy, it would have to be something "Newton-meters per cubic meter" which I guess is "Newtons per square meter", pretty complicated and unintuitive.

All this means is that absolute "zero" is farther down the scale than previously thought. Change the scale, fix the error. Go forward with more correct information. Get over it.

So I guess I'm a thread killer. Isn't logic and reason amazing that way?

Erm, no. Not as temperature is defined.

It's something that we thought had to be positive, but the behavior of this potassium sample shows it can be negative.

Now the job is to "grok" that new information!

You mean something like "common sense". The result certainly violates our intuitive expectations.

But there it is. Rerun the experiments, try to replicate or debunk the result, but if it's true, it's science and our common sense must adjust.

That really is logic, and reason.

oops error

Last Edited by aether on 01/08/2013 04:56 PM

we should NOT be fucking with cold fusion.

Things WILL go wrong.

Imagine creating a star on Earth. Another Sun.

The entire solar system would be sucked into the new sun instantly.

Time fields would erupt in that 0.000000000000000001 power of 1000 second.

Time in parts of the world would speed up and slow down at the same time, killing us instantly.

The risk of the two suns colliding and creating a black hole.

For WTF.

If you can generate more energy then the universe can produce via cold fusion you can open a portal.

50.cals won't stop whatevers on the other side from coming through.

Or the generation of mass would imbalance the universe causing a sudden collapse.

This is dumb. Damn Germans.

Time isn't real. Space doesn't bend.
The implications of this experiment mean that we live in an open system. It means there is something going with the superfluid of the universe. It flows through us.

Time is just something we humans created to cope with the movement of matter through the cosmos. It's not a force that can be detected with instruments or physically measured. We are so full of pride to believe that our concept of time means anything in a universe filled with objects with lives infinitely longer than ours.

This experiment means there is hope. It means Tesla was right all along. No need for cold fusion.

To comprehend the negative temperatures scientists have now devised, one might think of temperature as existing on a scale that is actually a loop, not linear. Positive temperatures make up one part of the loop, while negative temperatures make up the other part. When temperatures go either below zero or above infinity on the positive region of this scale, they end up in negative territory. (...)

At absolute zero, atoms would occupy the lowest energy state. At an infinite temperature, atoms would occupy all energy states. Negative temperatures then are the opposite of positive temperatures — atoms more likely occupy high-energy states than low-energy states.

"The inverted Boltzmann distribution is the hallmark of negative absolute temperature, and this is what we have achieved," said researcher Ulrich Schneider, a physicist at the University of Munich in Germany. "Yet 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."

To comprehend the negative temperatures scientists have now devised, one might think of temperature as existing on a scale that is actually a loop, not linear. Positive temperatures make up one part of the loop, while negative temperatures make up the other part. When temperatures go either below zero or above infinity on the positive region of this scale, they end up in negative territory. (...)

At absolute zero, atoms would occupy the lowest energy state. At an infinite temperature, atoms would occupy all energy states. Negative temperatures then are the opposite of positive temperatures — atoms more likely occupy high-energy states than low-energy states.

"The inverted Boltzmann distribution is the hallmark of negative absolute temperature, and this is what we have achieved," said researcher Ulrich Schneider, a physicist at the University of Munich in Germany. "Yet 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."

Tesla was right all along. I agree, but dimensional energy still exists.