Temperatures below Absolute Zero!

[Professor Fenway]

Oh snap.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/ ... lute-zero/

WHAT DO WE DO?

[CaptainSporatic]

Oh snap.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/ ... lute-zero/

WHAT DO WE DO?

Dear god, I have no clue.

"Oddly, another way to look at these negative temperatures is to consider them hotter than infinity, researchers added."
So, technically, if one could set an atom on fire, setting one of the negative temperature atoms on fire would make it cooler, since it is hotter than infinity?

[Iv121]

Dunno, so far researchers haven’t achieved even the absolute zero mark, I guess it's all theoretical. BTW you can't set an atom on fire, fire is hot gases. You ppl should go and watch Vsauce

Spoiler:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVb7XzTb ... E10D69CD6E <--Vsauce leanback about temperature.

[Tunnelthunder]

I smell infinite power.

[Iv121]

Check your nose then

[hyperlite]

Get the cats and the toast!!

[Professor Fenway]

No. Apparently they made a gas that exhibited properties only possible when below Absolute Zero. They surpassed Zero, so technically they reached it.

It says greater than 100% Efficiency Engines. I smell infinite power too! Just feed it using itself!

[Prototype]

not surprising, seeing as matter and energy are interchangable, we already have anti-matter, so why not anti-energy?

[Iv121]

Infinite energy is OP , and s I know this world the only thing that can ever be OP here is computer games ... It's just an area where our theories stop working, when we build theories for that one I guess you'll find it quite normative (If you can call temperatures below absolute zero normative :P )

[Prototype]

Actually I'd say a nuke or something like a Tsar bomb (100 megatron blast) is pretty OP.

Asides from that, as much as I doubt the validity of this, I know there is a possibility that we have found a second observable quantum effect (first one is superconductivity), I'll probably get a lecture about this from my physics teacher at some point.

Although wouldn't atoms with negative energies, cause other atoms to lose energy when they collide? and cause the negative atom to gain energy?

[Iv121]

What do you mean by negative energy ? It's a word used in the article you brought but currently it has no meaning for me. (I bet our teacher is also gonna give us a lecture about it, he has some pretty interesting lectures, especially about crazy yoga style stuff and their scientific side )

[Prototype]

I guess anti-energy would be a better way of describing it, If matter and energy are interchangeable, and we have anti-matter, then couldn't we have anti-energy? (I know anti matter is just normal matter with its quantum numbers flipped, but couldn't energy also have different forms? and when energy and anti energy collide they form matter and anti matter?)

This is confusing.

[ACH0225]

Anti-energy + energy makes stuff. Unless, of course, you focus them both to collide after and while going through a Yttrium/Anti-Yttrium matrix. Then, focusing them through special energy locks, you rip dimensions.

[Professor Fenway]

You all have it wrong. It means that the atoms prefer higher energy states rather than low energy states. So they absorb energy. NOPE.

[hyperlite]

This is way too complicated and theoretical, however...

Spoiler:

This is much simpler.