Science breaks the Absolute Zero barrier. (Alter all the laws of physics!)

Discussion in 'Discussions' started by DavidB1111, Jan 4, 2013.

  1. DavidB1111

    DavidB1111 Member

    By a tiny tiny amount.
    Unlike my Aburcumbie drive thing, this story makes more sense. :)

    or this one, thanks Mining.

    I can find more sources if you like. But the main thing, is we broke the Absoulte Zero barrier.

    Also, apologies for the bad meme use.

    I know I don't spend much time on this forum any more, I'll try to do so. Thoughts on this event?
  2. mining

    mining Member

    Kazeto and OmniaNigrum like this.
  3. mining

    mining Member

    Actually - here's the publication:

    It's a big advance in the experimental sciences, and will allow for refinement of the theory underlying it, but it does seem to not - as headlines spout - overthrown science :).
    Kazeto, Anghammarad and OmniaNigrum like this.
  4. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    Off topic, but welcome back DavidB1111. Glad to see you again. :D
    DavidB1111 likes this.
  5. mining

    mining Member

    And here's a relevant quote from elsewhere:

    "Quantum physics formally assumes infinitely positive or negative temperatures in descriptions of spin system undergoing population inversion from the ground state to a higher energy state by excitation with electromagnetic radiation"
    Kazeto and OmniaNigrum like this.
  6. DavidB1111

    DavidB1111 Member

    Thank you both. :) At least I understand some of Quantum Physics and thermodynamics. Although, I am now somewhat confused.
    I'll try to be more active on this forum, if I don't get sucked into playing games/watching Let's plays/etc.
    I don't mean to be distracted. And I really should play Dungeons of Dredmor again.
    I'm going crazy. I guess.

    I don't think it's going to alter all the laws of physics either. But it's really amazing.
    OmniaNigrum likes this.
  7. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    Well, frankly the significance of a few billionths of one Kelvin is practically nothing at all. I honestly have significant doubts that *ANY* measuring device would even register that outside the margin of error. That is crazy accurate.

    It is akin to stepping on a floor scale and reading that you lost two particles of weight since last you were measured. Even with the most accurate scale ever made I would doubt the accuracy of that.
    Kazeto likes this.
  8. DavidB1111

    DavidB1111 Member

    Well, Omni, it's like this, we have atomic clocks that measure to such a small period of time, I don't mean just nanoseconds, I mean periods of time so small, that nanoseconds are about the equivalent of billions of years to.
    So, why can't we have a temperature gauge that can register things at a billionth of a degree?
    OmniaNigrum likes this.
  9. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    Those time measuring devices are also suspect at best. They firstly presume the decay rate of the elements used is exact and unvarying. This is already known to be relative, so even if the elements where 100% pure and perfect, they would never decay at the same rate in different spacial co-ordinances.

    To a Human there is no difference, but we must remember that for things as sensitive as what we are discussing, the tiniest difference is a mountain rather than a molehill.

    If one extra electron was shed from the mass on a tiny element sample used to determine the time in an atomic clock, it is fully likely to be missed by the device. They do a whole lot of extrapolation and very little to verify the extrapolations are accurate.

    I may be too skeptical for modern science. That may be good or bad. Only time will tell. (Pun intended.)
    Kazeto likes this.
  10. Anghammarad

    Anghammarad Member

    Well it seems that you are thinking to macroscopical. It is possible to measure the mass of small single particles it is just not done with a normal scale and it is only possible if you only measure the small particles. If you go up some orders of magnitude you have to use other methods to measure the mass of something which are not that accurate. That means although your example is right you cannot measure the something as accurate as the missing weight of 2 particles if you try to measure your own weight but that doesn't mean that you cannot measure something which is that small in absolutes.
    That being said I'd like to add that this is kind of the same case with the negative "temperature". I guess a lot of people would like to think in terms of hot and cold which are not really applicable in this case (they have not measured this with a thermometer :) ). It is all a matter of quantum states and at the end of the publication (thanks to mining for the link by the way :) ) they state that there is still research to be done if the concept of tempearature is really valid in such cases.

    That doesn't mean that this is not a great accomplishment but people tend to freak out at statements like this because they don't really know the context in which such stuff is qouted.

    I hope this makes sense, I am bit tired at the moment and english isn't my first language so apologies for any weird sentences:confused:
    mining and OmniaNigrum like this.
  11. DavidB1111

    DavidB1111 Member

    I'm not sure if you're understanding how decay works, Omni.. Or maybe I don't know how it works.
    All I know is that atomic clocks are accurate.
    And that radioactive decay doesn't really vary that much. Unless I'm missing something.

    Also, there's a difference between being skeptical, and being silly. :)
    You're starting to cross that line. :) But don't worry, if you cross back, there will be cake, and it will not be a lie, nor will it be served by a homicidal computer.
    Giygas, Kazeto, mining and 2 others like this.
  12. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    No worries. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just do not think that outside of elements than never occur here like Neutronium there is a way to measure the loss of a particle, much less a single electron or a few over time like with nuclear decay. And the part about the decay rate being extrapolated is not a guess. It is a fact. You physically cannot measure the decay rate of something to determine how much of a sample is present at any one time.

    We measure weight in volumes because we cannot take sample A and say this device measures 1 billion molecules and five of them lost an electron. We can only estimate based on known decay rates for a given substance and even then it is literally a guess.
  13. Anghammarad

    Anghammarad Member

    How did you get the idea that they assume that the decay rate is exact? If you want to measure the time with an atomic clock you use the radiation which gets send if an electron in the atome changes from one state to a lower state. Without any further adjustments you kind of measure a wiggly line which doesn' tsuggest any absolutes. What is done than is that the atoms are exposed to an electromagnetic field with a certain frequency. This frequency gets varied and if you hit the frequency of the radiation which gets send out in the targeted transition between the 2 states you get a higher rate of decay for the high energy state which is a really big peak in your measured line. Which is different from the normal decay rate of the high energy state that doesn't really change if you use another coordinate system.

    Oh and I would say being sceptical is almost always a good thing :)

    PS: This isn't what you would call radioactive decay.
    EDIT: To make this more clear, you don't measure the amount of electrons or atoms in the sample and you don't try to measure single electrons
    Kazeto and OmniaNigrum like this.
  14. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    Then I stand (Sit) corrected. :)

    Also I misused Neutronium in my previous post.

    Nothing about the article indicated any electrons would exist in Neutronium at all.

    I made several presumptions in my previous posts. And I will continue to doubt the accuracy of atomic clocks, not to mention the other types of clocks.

    Just to throw it out there, I have seen no evidence that convinces me that light even moves at a constant speed (generally) within the Sol system, much less outside the heliosphere of Sol.

    I am an unflinching skeptic. I even doubt my own doubts. :D
    Kazeto and Anghammarad like this.
  15. Anghammarad

    Anghammarad Member

    That is why it's called neutronium :)

    and even if I repeat myself....being a skeptic isn't a bad thing, a lot of that physics stuff is quite easy to misunderstand and if you don't spend a lot of time (and I mean A LOT :) ) to inform yourself on these topics you cannot really verify that some claims are true or not.
    OmniaNigrum likes this.
  16. Essence

    Essence Will Mod for Digglebucks

    The part you're missing, Omni, is that the moment you step over the Absolute Zero barrier, you apparently go into fucking anti-gravity mode:

    It's easy to measure really really small changes when one of the side effects of those small changes is that the rules just fly out the window the moment you cross an arbitrary boundary by an arbitrarily small amount. :D
    Kazeto, mining and OmniaNigrum like this.
  17. Daynab

    Daynab Community Moderator Staff Member

    Suddenly millions of nerds stood up and yelled 'YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS'
    Aegho, Kazeto, OmniaNigrum and 2 others like this.
  18. Anghammarad

    Anghammarad Member

    Well but nothing of that is mentioned in the paper so my first guess would be that this is sadly a bit of an exaggeration :(
    OmniaNigrum likes this.
  19. Essence

    Essence Will Mod for Digglebucks

    You got access to the full original paper? How's that? I tried to find it, but they were all pay-for-access sites.
    OmniaNigrum likes this.
  20. Anghammarad

    Anghammarad Member

    Well, as a student I can access it through the university network :)
    OmniaNigrum likes this.