Quantum gas goes below absolute zero
nature.com
nature.com
A subsequent publication[0][1] argues that their notion of "negative temperatures" is invalid as they used a flawed definition of entropy.
[0] http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?cites=41283096248189415...
[1] http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/theo1/hanggi/Dunkel_Nature...
If we think that temperature is a measure of how much the atoms move around then it is not possible to have less than zero movement.
But if we think temperature as related to the ratio of how much a system's entropy changes when a certain amount of energy is added (or removed) to the system [1],
1/T = dS/dq
then it's possible to construct systems with a negative T.
[1] Eqs. 8–10 in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature#Second_law_of_therm...
It's just a matter of convention, a negative temperature just means that the temperature gets closer to 0 as you add energy. Did I get that correctly?
Well, kind of, but I think that would be an oversimplification.
Negative temperatures have a concrete physical meaning, being "hotter than infinity", in the sense that if we bring in contact 2 systems: one with an arbitrarily high positive temperature, and one with a negative temperature, energy (heat) will flow from the negative system to the positive.
This looks tidier if we use the thermodynamic beta (beta = 1/T) instead of temperature. Then we can say that heat always flows from a system with a smaller beta to systems with a larger beta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_beta
Maybe debt is a somewhat useful metaphor here. If someone has a debt of 5 apples, in some ways if makes sense to say that this person owns -5 apples. But in some other ways it makes no sense: a person with 5 apples can eat them to get less hungry. A person with -5 apples cannot eat them to get more hungry.
>> Exotic high-energy states that are hard to generate in the laboratory at positive temperatures become stable at negative absolute temperatures
and
>> ... whereas clouds of atoms would normally be pulled downwards by gravity, if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity
Pun intended? If so, nicely done.
But hey, IANAP.
Yes.
> When calling this a temperature below 0K - isn't this shoehorning the concept of temperature onto something it wasn't meant to do?
No. Suppose you're doing a Fluid Dynamics Simulation. You need to assign a temperature and pressure to each point in space to simulate gas flows. Using the negative temperature will correctly predict the evolution of the gas flow.
This is actually a strength of physics, having equations that can take on values that to your knowledge are unphysical (such as negative refraction indices for example) but still work. This means that when someone manages to figure out how to build such a system; we don't need to rework all of our theorems (conservation of energy; momentum; etc) to see which are still valid. We also have the ability to investigate the applications of such materials; should we ever be able to find a way to create them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial
> Isn't this transition from a positive temperature to a negative temperature system non continuous, as in it needs to be set up with different properties
There are plenty of discontinuous transitions in thermodynamics, phase diagrams are an example. This is hardly an argument to that the concept of negative temperature is a broken one.
As for discontinuities, another non-thermodynamic physical discontinuity is the speed of light. Special relativity predicts it's entirely possible for particles to move FTL, when it's actually crossing the boundary that's a problem.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_wave#Complex_exponential_...
I´m have no idea about physics, so surely what I say doesn´t make sense.
It has to do with how much a certain property of a system (object) changes when you add a certain quantity of heat energy.
In certain edge cases adding energy makes this quantity change in the opposite to usual way and therefore the temperature is negative.
But still is there a way that you could start affecting the forces inside the atom this way?. Or then we are talking about something different?.
The forces holding atoms together and the energies associated with changing those forces are far larger than the amounts that are presented in this study.
You can make a plot of entropy vs. energy of a system. Further, you can calculate the derivative (slope) of that plot and give it a name. You could also calculate the quantity 1/slope and give that a name, too--and the name we give it is "temperature." So, the temperature of the system is negative any time the slope of entropy vs. energy is negative.
How do we get a negative slope? We need to find a place where entropy decreases when energy is added to the system. Entropy is proportional to the natural log of something called the "partition function (see below)." That means we need to find a place where partition function has a negative slope.
The partition function tells us essentially "how many distinct ways can we arrange (store) a given amount of energy in this system?" For almost all macroscopic systems, there are a greater number of ways to rearrange the system each time a unit of energy is added. However, it is possible to construct a system where adding a unit of energy actually restricts the number of ways you can arrange the system. And that is the basis for negative temperature.
"For instance, Rosch and his colleagues have calculated that whereas clouds of atoms would normally be pulled downwards by gravity, if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that the gas molecules (at near-0K from negative) were extraordinarily hot? My understanding is that -1/T is the "true measure", ergo super-low negatives are, in fact, "absolute hot".
Does anyone know what are the thermodynamic properties of negative temperatures? For example, a pin-sized blackbody at 10^9 K would probably kill everyone on earth if it remained at that temperature. Would that apply to macroscopic objects at negative temperatures (if that were even possible, and if blackbody mechanics make sense in such states)?
They are, after all, created in a lab, so their energy content is limited by how much electricity the lab equipments has consumed.