Scientists Get Below Absolute Zero

[WiiUBricker]

The term absolute zero is a relative term. If atoms don't move in the slighest, you reach absolute zero. This article proves that our absolute zero actually wasn't really absolute zero. Scientists call it absolute zero if they reach the limit with their technology to stop atoms from moving. What this means is that this "new" absolute zero may end up not being absolute zero in 20 years when technology evolves to further stop atoms from moving.

 

[Ace Overclocked]

I wonder though, generally speaking does the cold temperature stop the atoms of moving or is the fact that they aren't able to more that makes the temperature go down?
As far as I understood here it's the latter, or is it not?

 

[Arras]

From what I understood from Gahars's quote this isn't really all the atoms not moving, it's more like instead of having tons of slow atoms with a few fast ones as low temperature, they have tons of fast ones with a few slow ones and that somehow turns positive into negative?

 

[YayMii]

Was this verified? I recall the whole faster-than-light thing a while ago being proven false.

 

[Deleted User]

I really like topics like this, science is awesome

 

[Taleweaver]

I wonder what those scientists tend to do during lunch breaks.

guy 1: you know...if we got some fancy schmancy gear, I bet we could go below absolute zero in temperature.
guy 2: don't be retarded. 0 kelvin is BY DEFINITION the coldest temperature. At best, you could get your gear to give false results.
Farnsworth: hmmm, yes. Or we could change the temperature of absolute zero, and THEN go below it!
guy 1: that old guy has the right idea! Nothing's impossible if we can make measurements complicated enough.
guy 2: what? No! That's not science. Just using smoke and mirrors isn't going to help.
guy 1: smoke and mirrors? I like the sound of that. Let's see...with lasers and magnets, we've got plenty of stuff to make it appear we're going below zero.
guy 2: but...
guy 1: jeez, dude. Do you rather want to continue with those boring theoretical tests or do you want to achieve something you can actually pick up chicks with?
guy 2: ...
guy 2: good point. Let's go mess with atoms.

 

[Wizerzak]

--snip--

ROFLOL! That's gold!

 

[lismati]

I read up a bit on absolute zero and such stuff, and it's really not so hard to understand how could eggheads drop a temperature below 0 kelvins. Wikipedia has a nice paragraph on that in its' absolute zero article. Long story short, when a temperature is defined as a corelation of energy to entropy, in some systems, adding energy results in decreasing entropy, thus dropping temperature. That means we not only stop atoms, but also reduce their entropy, resulting in dropping a bit below absolute zero

 

[kineticUk]

So the next time you're caught out in the cold, freezing and miserable, just remember that it could always be colder; science is making sure of that.

Brilliant.

 

[WiiUBricker]

So the next time you're caught out in the cold, freezing and miserable, just remember that it could always be colder; science is making sure of that.

Yeah, but there's no point in knowing that it can get colder when our cells can't tell the difference between ~250 Kelvin and 0 Kelvin because they die up on us.

 

[SifJar]

The term absolute zero is a relative term. If atoms don't move in the slighest, you reach absolute zero. This article proves that our absolute zero actually wasn't really absolute zero. Scientists call it absolute zero if they reach the limit with their technology to stop atoms from moving. What this means is that this "new" absolute zero may end up not being absolute zero in 20 years when technology evolves to further stop atoms from moving.

Not actually correct I'm afraid. You see "temperature" refers to the energy of the particles. A positive temperature (i.e. Every temperature recorded previously) means most particles have low energy and some have high. As you increase the temperature (becomes more positive), more particles will have higher energy, until infinite temperature where there will be an even distribution. "negative" absolute temperature is beyond that so to speak, at which points most particles have the higher energy. As I mentioned earlier "negative" absolute temperatures are hotter than an infinite positive. It's called negative because it is an inversion of the energy distribution of positive temperatures.

Another way of thinking about it is the entropy reasoning put forward on the previous page. Entropy is a state of disorder; the more particles are moving, the higher the level of entropy. For positive temperatures, adding more energy will increase the motion and thus increase the entropy. For negative temperatures, the particles already have the maximum kinetic energy, so cannot gain any speed. Absorbed energy will be absorbed as potential energy and the entropy will not increase.

So it's not a case of "we were wrong about absolute zero, here's a new guess", it's something else entirely. If something were found that is colder than absolute zero, what you said would apply, but that is actually not the case. More negative temperature doesn't necessarily mean colder

 

[bRKcRE]

The term absolute zero is a relative term.

but if it is absolute, how can it be relative??

 

[shakirmoledina]

I think any pun from arnold as ice man from batman the movie would be great e.g. "Let's kick some Ice"

the more we know, the more we don't know

 

[WiiUBricker]

but if it is absolute, how can it be relative??

Relative to humans technology. Example: You are a scientist whose only method to lower the temperature is a freezer because technology wasn't evolved enough to further lower the temperature. You think it can't get colder than what your freezer provides, so you define the lowest temperature of your freezer as absolute zero.

Then you suddenly travel to the future and see that some asshole nullified your definition of absolute zero because he achieved even lower temperatures than your freezer with his superior technology. And so on and so on. You get it?

 

[Canonbeat234]

Off-Topic: So we are one step away from Dr. Wily building his first robot master, ICEMAN! Then again, Samus ice missiles can now become reality.

On-Topic: So that's why we mortals can't survive in the cold. Our bodies can't produce energy from the harsh elements of the arctic. The core temperature will drop due to lack of internal heating. Makes sense that carching a cold is the first response of the body telling us to warm up.

 

[SifJar]

Relative to humans technology. Example: You are a scientist whose only method to lower the temperature is a freezer because technology wasn't evolved enough to further lower the temperature. You think it can't get colder than what your freezer provides, so you define the lowest temperature of your freezer as absolute zero.

Then you suddenly travel to the future and see that some asshole nullified your definition of absolute zero because he achieved even lower temperatures than your freezer with his superior technology. And so on and so on. You get it?

Again, that is not what has happened here. An absolute negative temperature is not just "a lower value for absolute zero than previously thought". Absolute zero has been calculated, not measured (as far as I know), therefore it's not a case of being limited by our technology; it is indeed absolute. If it were wrong, every other temperature ever recorded in Kelvin would be wrong as well.

"Absolute negative temperatures" are a whole other thing completely. They are not colder than absolute zero. They are merely an inversion of the Boltzmann distribution for positive temperatures.

Makes sense that carching a cold is the first response of the body telling us to warm up.

The common cold is actually not a response to cold temperatures/weather, but in fact is caused by a virus which spreads from person to person. The virus is constantly mutating, hence our immune systems can't deal with new strains, so we keep catching a cold again and again (although not the same strain, as we will usually have become immune to that one).

 

[FAST6191]

Makes sense that catching a cold is the first response of the body telling us to warm up.

I dare say that is not quite how infectious diseases work.

Anyway an interesting experiment- others reading and having a hard time getting their heads around things consider it like the time you had to abandon Newtonian mechanics when things got very small or very fast.

 

[DinohScene]

That's LORD Kelvin to you!

 

[Canonbeat234]

@FAST6191: Oh wow, that's true. Diseases don't work like that at all. For the sake of misinterpreting my response to your post. The body in general has a way to tell you that your sick. However, those limitations of general awareness causes us to be vulnerable without any indication we are sick or not until the sickness impairs us to function in our daily lives.

 

[Dann Woolf]

Well, shit. I hate the cold.