So why is 0K absolute zero again? It was disproven already that values beyond 0K can exist and it works exactly as it is supposed to - you will achieve in a gas negative pressure, pulling particles together.
When do we start abusing the shit out of it? Imagine what you can achieve with that.
Also there is even more fun in this: minus infinite K and plus infinite K are actually the saame thing.
Other urls found in this thread:
nature.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Absolute zero is because you cant go colder you mongolid. There is no proof of going negative under absolute zero. You cant even reach absolute zero.
>nature.com
Guess again, faggot, before insulting others.
Negative temperatures are "hotter" than any possible positive temperature, even infinity, so he's still right. These sorts of experiments just take advantage of the rigorous mathematical definition of temperature to produce weird results that won't happen under any normal circumstances.
Icegellent!
Imagine casully boiling a tea with -373K, then drinking it and being turned into statue, kek.
This. Temperature is defined as being proportional to ∂U/∂S, so if adding energy to a system decreases its entropy, you've got negative temperature. I think it's theoretical possible if you've got a system with maximum energy levels, but I don't think that's actually a thing. Might be wrong on that though.
Hold up, isn't temperture actually not a real value like entropy but just a "shortcut" to simplify calculations?
Because it's nothing else but average amount of kinetic energy of every atom in the given substance.
So glass of water isn't 20°C or 293K, it has N Joule of energy would be correct.
How does it work out for negative temperature? Is it defined as negative energy or just different way of interaction?
How do you define negative temperture on a particle scale?
You misunderstand how Kelvin works. absolute 0K will always be absolute 0K because if you go lower, that lower number then becomes absolute 0K. Why? Because there are no negative numbers in Kelvin. 0K is meant to be the lowest on that scale.
The correct response is nothing. OP is not interested in facts or opinions of others. OP has raging nerd boner for negatives, wait 10 minutes, OP will be gone, working on making his problems someone else's problem.
0 is a place holder, not a number. Claims to say anything can go below nothing and rise again as negative value is irrational fiction. Value of something is based on something, present. Dont be a fukindunce
>0 is not a number
Is this bait?
You misunderstand how temperature works. 0 Kelvin is the point at which ∂U/∂S = 0 for a system.
>Because it's nothing else but average amount of kinetic energy of every atom in the given substance.
It so happens that there is a completely different definition of temperature that, in thermal equilibrium and a few other assumptions about energy levels, comes out to be related to the "average kinetic energy of every atom in a given substance." This generalized version of temperature also works for systems that have funnier energy levels, such as a spin system. The generalized definition is that the change in entropy with energy is one over the temperature, and this leads to "negative" temperatures that are hotter than positive ones.
To answer your question about how it works out, if a particle that has kinetic energy has a negative temperature, it's in extreme enough conditions and has some funky energy levels such that this generalized definition of temperature no longer coincides with the average kinetic energy.
en.wikipedia.org
0k define a system with zero energy and that would imply that either Heisenberg uncertainty principle is false or that you can have negative energy
At absolute zero atoms separate into evaporation.
Thank you for the keks my friend.
OP here: I am not giving up this shit so easily and humby waiting for good arguments from both sides
Just drink liquid nitrogen by then, it's basically the same, maybe even bit less dangerous.
Not true. That's not how it works, that's not how any of it works.
Temperature is a derivative aspect of movement. Minus movement is just the same kind of movement in another direction where temperature is a uniform movement in all directions. So going below 0 would actually be a positive temperature.
There is the entropy based explanation of negative temperature (as in below absolute zero) and it indicates movement resulting in an infinitely large temperature, again, positive.
Absolute zero is absolute so it is better to just accept it and move on to the next question in your physical chemistry test.
OP it's this
There are different definitions of temperature. Most are equivalent over positive temperature and some have negative values and some dont.
The zero temperature is still a singular value that cant be physically reached by a system which is why we define it as 0.
Hello people, I'm here to remind you that temperature's just stupidly defined energy and thus you're all stupid.
With negative temperature you can achieve negative pressure and entropy where particles will try pull themselves together instead of spreading.
Probable expalation how dark matter works.
Systems with negative temperature are those systems for which entropy is decreasing with addition of energy (since for systems in equilibrium 1/T = dS/dE). The concept is heavily used in many fields, such as NMR spectroscopy, laser technology etc.
Well, you get negative energy solutions in particle physics and such solutions are called antiparticles (such as the positron).
That's 'negative' charge m8
Thank you. It's all just manipulation of math + language