addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Re: [humanism-174] Re: Below Zero K.?

From: Tim C.
Sent on: Saturday, January 5, 2013 12:55 PM
Beyond my paygrade, but I get from the article that the state of absolute zero does not mean that ALL atoms are motionless, but that they average.  Thus some atoms are in motion with postive energy while others are giving off negative energy. If they average zero, then you have absolute zero even though some of those atoms are still moving!  I am not sure how this works either!
In a message dated 1/5/[masked]:48:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [address removed] writes:
I realize that the popular summary of the original work may have left some things out, but as described, it makes no sense to me.  Absolute zero is defined as the state of zero energy and zero motion.  The authors seem to agree with that, but then talk about achieving temperatures slightly below absolute zero. That would imply less than no energy and less than no motion, which seems nonsensical. If something is not moving at all, how can you make it move less?  I read several other accounts of this work, and none of them gave a satisfactory answer to this, other than to talk in vague ways about temperature loops or energy states. One suggested a parallel to help us understand it, imagine a temperature more than infinitely hot. Excuse me, but that only accentuates the problem, since it's equally nonsensical.  Things cannot be greater than infinite, by definition.  I know physicas can be very strange, but this report kinda reminds me of cold fusion, or
something you'd expect to read in the April 1 issue of Science.

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Glen ([address removed]) from The Cleveland Freethinkers.
To learn more about Glen, visit his/her member profile:
Set my mailing list to email me

As they are sent

In one daily email

Don't send me mailing list messages
Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy