Let the SCIENCE!!! Pics and quotes flow!

NO NOT LISTENING! You can't do that it isn't allowed! Stop it now! PLEASE STAHP!

I don't even know what to think any more. My mind is blasted.

I'm still not sure I understand the concept of negative temperature. To the study article!

My head hurts, I've been trying to understand how this works but I really can't. I guess quantum physics really wasn't for me.
Now if you don't mind, I'm going to get some ice for my headache.

Captcha: Get well
Aww... Thank you Captcha :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5NylmdC_uEM#t=25s

That's what I love about science. Can't reach absolute zero? Fuck it, go negative and find everything goes wopsy trupy.

Thanks to four years of Mechanical Engineering I can safely say, if this isn't some weird April Fool's joke, this is huge.

This whole "negative temperature" thing is mostly just an artifact of one way to describe temperature at a quantum scale. It is not negative temperature in the conventional sense of temperature, nor even particularly related to that concept.

Vegosiux:

elilupe:
I love how none of this actually makes any common sense. They have found a way to get past absolute zero without hitting it, it gets hotter than positive numbers could get, and it could lead to more than 100% efficient machines.
I love science.

I'm pretty sure the issue is with interpretation, not the experiment itself.

But the thing is, "temperature" is basically defined as the kinetic energy of the particles. And therefore, the lowest possible temperature is the one where the particles are not moving at all. You can't "cool an atom below absolute zero", at least not if you still want to keep the same definition of "temperature" as we use when we say "Oh, it's 23 degrees outside".

Oh and why does this suddenly come to mind?

Bottom line...the scientists themselves don't know what exactly they have discovered so they'll look into it further while the media sensationalizes and misinterprets the research results. Nothing new.

Nothing to see here, citizen, move along.

PS: Not saying that we're never, ever, going to redefine "temperature". Science does redefine stuff to fit with empirical results. But, the current definition of temperature simply does not allow negatives.

The problem comes from the difference between classical notion of temperature and the technical terms of temperature in statistical mechanics. In statistical mechanics the functions also define the distribution of energy states and given a certain distribution the temperature term becomes negative, but this was generally ignored as it didn't seem possible until now.

In simple terms, they've not removed the heat energy they've rearranged it.

First step... reproducable results! Then start calling it something new discovered.

Well that's nothing-wait what?!?! Entropy isn't supposed to work like that O_O, wtf.

Okay, I think everyone needs to read at least some of
http://www.empiricalzeal.com/2013/01/05/what-the-dalai-lama-can-teach-us-about-temperatures-below-absolute-zero/

They've been doing things like this since the fifties. It's just that this time the news media picked up on it and keeps getting it wrong.

Or, as http://www.coffeeshopphysics.com/articles/2011-08/26_leprechauns_and_laser_beams/ puts it:

The laser in your CD player routinely breaks the supposed law that nothing can be colder than absolute zero temperature. (The actual law is that nothing can reach exactly zero. The laser strives toward zero from below.)

kajinking:
Let the SCIENCE!!! Pics and quotes flow!

Damn, must think of something else now...

Aha!

_{Oh come on, don't look at me like that. Someone had to do it.}

wizzy555:

The problem comes from the difference between classical notion of temperature and the technical terms of temperature in statistical mechanics. In statistical mechanics the functions also define the distribution of energy states and given a certain distribution the temperature term becomes negative, but this was generally ignored as it didn't seem possible until now.

In simple terms, they've not removed the heat energy they've rearranged it.

That seems like a much better method of describing it. As personally I go by the definition of temperature: "Average heat of a system", which I would think most people would think of at first glance.

Still rather cool though, but I imagine it would require a better name though. Referring to it as a negative temperature is confusing. (Though I bet that any news article will still call it negative temperature. Sounds much more unbelievable)

elilupe:
I love how none of this actually makes any common sense. They have found a way to get past absolute zero without hitting it, it gets hotter than positive numbers could get, and it could lead to more than 100% efficient machines.
I love science.

Actually, it does make a bit of sense.

Above zero, atoms diffuse, which you can observe by dropping food dye in water.

However, temperature is a measurement of atomic velocity. That is, the faster the atoms move, the higher the temperature.

So, what happens when you play a video at -2x speed? It goes twice as fast as normal, backwards. Thus, intuitively, atoms at negative temperatures will undiffuse.

Which means they all start occupying each other -

... nope, stops making sense again.

However, if that does cause the insane heat that we're told it does, then yeah, I can see that creating > 100% efficiency engines.

So, would it mean writing a new law of Thermodynamics, or extending the 3rd?

someperson1423:

ciancon:
Thanks to four years of Mechanical Engineering I can safely say, if this isn't some weird April Fool's joke, this is huge.

Exactly what I was thinking. If this is actually possible and becomes applicable then our long-term energy concerns look a lot less problematic.

I wonder if there are side effects. 300% more efficient engines, but pre-natal exposure causes biotic abilities.

Ukomba:
So, would it mean writing a new law of Thermodynamics, or extending the 3rd?

It doesn't break the third law of thermodynamics, because that only says that you can't get zero temperatures. These guys got to negative temperatures by going through infinity, by being very clever with the definition of temperature and the idea of entropy.

I want to make it clear that they have not created anything with negative heat. This thing still has positive heat and positive energy.

Sounds more like they created antimatter to me... but what do I know.

Redingold:

Ukomba:
So, would it mean writing a new law of Thermodynamics, or extending the 3rd?

It doesn't break the third law of thermodynamics, because that only says that you can't get zero temperatures. These guys got to negative temperatures by going through infinity, by being very clever with the definition of temperature and the idea of entropy.

I want to make it clear that they have not created anything with negative heat. This thing still has positive heat and positive energy.

I didn't say it broke the 3rd, just that it might need to be extended to reflect this reversal. I don't know that it Breaks the 2nd law yet either.

Ukomba:

Redingold:

Ukomba:
So, would it mean writing a new law of Thermodynamics, or extending the 3rd?

It doesn't break the third law of thermodynamics, because that only says that you can't get zero temperatures. These guys got to negative temperatures by going through infinity, by being very clever with the definition of temperature and the idea of entropy.

I want to make it clear that they have not created anything with negative heat. This thing still has positive heat and positive energy.

I didn't say it broke the 3rd, just that it might need to be extended to reflect this reversal. I don't know that it Breaks the 2nd law yet either.

Well, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

As for the second law, while they did manage to decrease the entropy of this supercooled whatever-it-is, the equipment they used will almost certainly have raised entropy in the surrounding environment, so the second law's fine too.

ritchards:
First step... reproducable results! Then start calling it something new discovered.

I agree. If so, let me be the first to claim

SORCERY! BURN THE FOUL BREAKERS OF GODS LAW BACK TO THE HELLS FROM WHICH THEY CAME!!!

Seriously could be pretty big if its repeatable and can be repeated cheaply enough to make it marketable.

lacktheknack:

Above zero, atoms diffuse, which you can observe by dropping food dye in water.

However, temperature is a measurement of atomic velocity. That is, the faster the atoms move, the higher the temperature.

So, what happens when you play a video at -2x speed? It goes twice as fast as normal, backwards. Thus, intuitively, atoms at negative temperatures will undiffuse.

Which means they all start occupying each other -

... nope, stops making sense again.

It's simple, the atoms have joined the occupy movement:

They're just sick of those 1% dark matter elitists stealing all their energy, they did make signs to explain all this, but they're so tiny no one can read them without an electron microscope.

That said, I still haven't made it past Schroedinger's cat, so this is just more bafflingly impossible crap that makes me think the Large Hadron Collider is really just a huge LSD production machine.

Or as someone else said, the media are just mis-representing quantum physics again. Because trying to summarise several decades of thought experiments and advanced mathematics in a half a page article opposite pictures of celebrity botox comparisons is pretty damn hard.