Colder than Absolute Zero.

[borg69unimatrix]

I guess I am more dumb then I thought. I need a "Zero For Dummies" book. They talk of below zero in weather all the time. I am assuming this thread is basically talking about changing how much below zero the universe is able to get???? Right ?? What's the limit so far? -200? -400?

[Rolyo85]

"below zero" implies the "zero" of any particular system of measurements. Celsius is based on the point of water freezing - that's 0 there. Fahrenheit is based on quicksilver, so the point where quicksilver freezes is the Fahrenheit 0. But those are just random zeroes, used to measure regular human temperatures. "Absolute zero" means the point of coldness after which it's impossible to get colder. We're talking temperatures impossible on Earth that no system truly measures. It's a theoretical point.

[oakpope]

O is in Kelvin degree. We need to understand what is temperature, it is a measurement. It measures movement. O K is where nothing move at all. Due to quantum mechanics and the fact that particles-antiparticles appear and disappear constantly it is impossible to reach 0 K. We can go pretty near it, but think of it as the 1/x where x tends to 0.

[Kulindahr]

"below zero" implies the "zero" of any particular system of measurements. Celsius is based on the point of water freezing - that's 0 there. Fahrenheit is based on quicksilver, so the point where quicksilver freezes is the Fahrenheit 0. But those are just random zeroes, used to measure regular human temperatures. "Absolute zero" means the point of coldness after which it's impossible to get colder. We're talking temperatures impossible on Earth that no system truly measures. It's a theoretical point.

Actually the zero in Fahrenheit was based on the coldest thing Fahrenheit could find around, which was frozen brine (Dutch-German-Poles can be weird).

[borg69unimatrix]

"below zero" implies the "zero" of any particular system of measurements. Celsius is based on the point of water freezing - that's 0 there. Fahrenheit is based on quicksilver, so the point where quicksilver freezes is the Fahrenheit 0. But those are just random zeroes, used to measure regular human temperatures. "Absolute zero" means the point of coldness after which it's impossible to get colder. We're talking temperatures impossible on Earth that no system truly measures. It's a theoretical point.

So... the question is, "in theory", could the universe get cold enough to slow down and stop molecular activity - and "IF" that did happen, would that essentially stop time ? Perhaps Einstein was correct and Time, space, and distance are all interwoven ?

[youfiad]

O is in Kelvin degree. We need to understand what is temperature, it is a measurement. It measures movement. O K is where nothing move at all. Due to quantum mechanics and the fact that particles-antiparticles appear and disappear constantly it is impossible to reach 0 K. We can go pretty near it, but think of it as the 1/x where x tends to 0.

A rather large misconception in physics is that temperature is a measure of kinetic energy of atoms. Those are the consequences of temperature and is our prefered method of linking back to temperature. A more accurate definition of temperature is 1/T=δs/δu. This is at least based on what I have been told.

I don't know if you want to even look at this, but http://urila.tripod.com/Boltzmann.htm

[youfiad]

So... the question is, "in theory", could the universe get cold enough to slow down and stop molecular activity - and "IF" that did happen, would that essentially stop time ? Perhaps Einstein was correct and Time, space, and distance are all interwoven ?

I believe that his theory of special relativity has been consistant. I have no reason to doubt that they aren't intertwoven int he fabrics of space-time.

[borg69unimatrix]

While I get a lot of what they talk about on the show, I'm completely lost here. NOW I know how Penny feels.

"I'm just a big blonde monkey to you, aren't I ?"

[Telstra]

Can i say my mind is faster than speed of light?
Example:
i'm here and i can imagine seeing many galaxies in just a few seconds.

[oakpope]

A rather large misconception in physics is that temperature is a measure of kinetic energy of atoms. Those are the consequences of temperature and is our prefered method of linking back to temperature. A more accurate definition of temperature is 1/T=δs/δu. This is at least based on what I have been told.

I don't know if you want to even look at this, but http://urila.tripod.com/Boltzmann.htm

I indeed studied Boltzmann. Read the article and it's pretty obvious temperature is a measurement of movement. And yes it is linked thermodynamically to Entropy (S).

In the beginning :
"Consider a system with non-uniform particle density and temperature. In each place within the system there is a local range where the thermal velocities are given by an equilibrium distribution function. The distribution is temperature dependent and varies from place to place.

A non-equilibrium distribution function determines the probability of a particle within the system to be at some place and to have some local thermal velocity. Boltzmann transport equation expresses the global non-equilibrium distribution in terms of local equilibrium distributions. The equation enables application of properties of equilibrium systems to the study of a non-equilibrium system. "

The experiment in the OP, as far as I understand it, is a way to change the distribution of energy states occupation when nearing O K. The negative comes from the observation of the distribution, but it's a mathematical sleight of hand. The movement (in absolute value) is still strictly positive and they themselves tell that the particles are very hot.

O K is still an impossibility to reach (but scientists came very very very close to it).

[oakpope]

Can i say my mind is faster than speed of light?
Example:
i'm here and i can imagine seeing many galaxies in just a few seconds.

Sorry but no
And there are more stars in the universe than you have cells in your brain
( 300 sextillions against #100 billions or 3E23 against 1E11)

[Telstra]

A rather large misconception in physics is that temperature is a measure of kinetic energy of atoms. Those are the consequences of temperature and is our prefered method of linking back to temperature. A more accurate definition of temperature is 1/T=δs/δu. This is at least based on what I have been told.

I don't know if you want to even look at this, but http://urila.tripod.com/Boltzmann.htm

from that link i have a hard time understanding these mathematical equations.
I admire physicists for their work (so boring to me)

[Telstra]

Sorry but no
And they are more stars in the universe than you have cells in your brain
( 300 sextillions against #100 billions or 3E23 against 1E11)

But isn't afew seconds between different galaxies faster than speed of light ?

[oakpope]

from that link i have a hard time understanding these mathematical equations.
I admire physicists for their work (so boring to me)

Mathematic is the language of the physicists
That's why I am so amazed and impressed by those that have the genius to simplify things, like Dirac, Feynman, etc.
HΨ = EΨ, it's so elegant !

[oakpope]

But isn't afew seconds between different galaxies faster than speed of light ?

? seconds are a measurement of time, speed of light is speed, they are thus not comparable

What do you mean ?

[Telstra]

? seconds are a measurement of time, speed of light is speed, they are thus not comparable

What do you mean ?

I mean it takes light years to travel from one galaxy to another.
It only take afew seconds for my mine to imagine traveling from one galaxy to another.
Isn't that faster than the speed of light ?


I'm talking the speed/time ...

[oakpope]

I mean it takes light years to travel from one galaxy to another.
It only take afew seconds for my mine to imagine traveling from one galaxy to another.
Isn't that faster than the speed of light ?


I'm talking the speed/time ...

Oh yes, imagination is splendid I concur
We can imagine going faster than light, being invisible, teleporting anywhere, being 60 meters tall and crushing everything under our feet.
But that doesn't teach us much on the universe, does it ?

[Telstra]

Oh yes, imagination is splendid I concur
We can imagine going faster than light, being invisible, teleporting anywhere, being 60 meters tall and crushing everything under our feet.
But that doesn't teach us much on the universe, does it ?

ok you win

[Kulindahr]

A rather large misconception in physics is that temperature is a measure of kinetic energy of atoms. Those are the consequences of temperature and is our prefered method of linking back to temperature. A more accurate definition of temperature is 1/T=δs/δu. This is at least based on what I have been told.

I don't know if you want to even look at this, but http://urila.tripod.com/Boltzmann.htm

That motion definition was what we were taught in thermodynamics class . . . .

I got lost about a half dozen lines after the diagram.

[Kulindahr]

I indeed studied Boltzmann. Read the article and it's pretty obvious temperature is a measurement of movement. And yes it is linked thermodynamically to Entropy (S).

In the beginning :
"Consider a system with non-uniform particle density and temperature. In each place within the system there is a local range where the thermal velocities are given by an equilibrium distribution function. The distribution is temperature dependent and varies from place to place.

A non-equilibrium distribution function determines the probability of a particle within the system to be at some place and to have some local thermal velocity. Boltzmann transport equation expresses the global non-equilibrium distribution in terms of local equilibrium distributions. The equation enables application of properties of equilibrium systems to the study of a non-equilibrium system. "

The experiment in the OP, as far as I understand it, is a way to change the distribution of energy states occupation when nearing O K. The negative comes from the observation of the distribution, but it's a mathematical sleight of hand. The movement (in absolute value) is still strictly positive and they themselves tell that the particles are very hot.

O K is still an impossibility to reach (but scientists came very very very close to it).

But that's not what the article is saying -- it says they really did get below absolute zero.

Though in my understanding that would mean observing the atoms would be impossible, because any observation would involve the use of particles which would impart energy, thus raising the temperature.

[Kulindahr]

Can i say my mind is faster than speed of light?
Example:
i'm here and i can imagine seeing many galaxies in just a few seconds.

There are phenomena which move faster than the speed of light. Imagination is one of them.

[Kulindahr]

? seconds are a measurement of time, speed of light is speed, they are thus not comparable

What do you mean ?

"seconds between" is a velocity.

[Kulindahr]

Oh yes, imagination is splendid I concur
We can imagine going faster than light, being invisible, teleporting anywhere, being 60 meters tall and crushing everything under our feet.
But that doesn't teach us much on the universe, does it ?

Without imagination we would never understand anything about the universe.

[frankfrank]

So... the question is, "in theory", could the universe get cold enough to slow down and stop molecular activity - and "IF" that did happen, would that essentially stop time ? Perhaps Einstein was correct and Time, space, and distance are all interwoven ?

I've always wondered about the Einstein equation E = MC squared. (Does anybody know the Alt/Number command to do a superscript 2? I've never seen those on a list.) Wouldn't the formula vary depending on WHAT units the speed of light (C) is measured in?

Squaring the "C" will NOT bring the same results if kilometers per second are changed to miles per second, or vice versa. What if, instead, somebody decides to measure in HOURS...or PER YEAR? What if somebody measured the speed of light in MICRONS per second? That number might have 19 zeroes on it, or something crazy like that.) Or, if astrononmical units per second, that number is LESS THAN ONE (it's about 1/480th AU per second) and squaring THAT would actually shrink the number to something like 1/200,000.

I've never understood how the forumla works. It seems to me that it's entirely arbitrary, depending on what measuring method is used.

[Kulindahr]

I've always wondered about the Einstein equation E = MC squared. (Does anybody know the Alt/Number command to do a superscript 2? I've never seen those on a list.) Wouldn't the formula vary depending on WHAT units the speed of light (C) is measured in?

Squaring the "C" will NOT bring the same results if kilometers per second are changed to miles per second, or vice versa. What if, instead, somebody decides to measure in HOURS...or PER YEAR? What if somebody measured the speed of light in MICRONS per second? That number might have 19 zeroes on it, or something crazy like that.) Or, if astrononmical units per second, that number is LESS THAN ONE (it's about 1/480th AU per second) and squaring THAT would actually shrink the number to something like 1/200,000.

I've never understood how the forumla works. It seems to me that it's entirely arbitrary, depending on what measuring method is used.

This is just like having speed limits posted in kilometers per hour and expecting the number to match your speedometer that reads miles per hour. You have to use the same system of measurement all the way through.

Here, if you go with the metric system, you use kilograms for mass, meters for length, seconds for time, and joules for energy. Ignoring the numbers, the 'e' side will read joules, and the other will read kg*m^2/seconds^2 -- which happens to be the definitions of joules. What happens is that all the units "vanish", and you're left with numbers that match. It's the same if you pick pounds(mass), feet, etc. So long as you're using the same measurement system throughout, it works -- even if what you're interested in for velocity is furlongs per fortnight

[opinterph]

(does anybody know the alt/number command to do a superscript 2? I've never seen those on a list.)

e = mc²

[JockBoy87]

A SI quantity for temperature of 0 would be undefined in certain applications, and as the article stated, would lead to classically impossible systems such as perpetual motion.