Comments on: Physicists Find That “Absolute Zero” May Not Be Quite So Absolute

By: Andyc

Andyc — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 01:13:04 +0000

Your logic is flawed.

By: Nissanman

Nissanman — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 11:27:46 +0000

There is no absolute MAXIMUM temperature so logic tells me that there can’t possibly be a limit to the MINIMUM temperature.

By: Atticus black

Atticus black — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 11:05:29 +0000

Rad.

By: Steven Gardiner

Steven Gardiner — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 09:23:37 +0000

This is exciting physics, but please be careful with the terminology.

The system in the experiment reached a *temperature* below absolute zero, but the average *energy* of the atoms was very high, higher than it would be if they were at any positive temperature.

Absolute zero still corresponds to the temperature for which the average energy of the atoms is the lowest. It is still “absolute” in that sense.

By: swany

swany — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 07:45:14 +0000

Even easier, a check of the very first paragraph of the wikipedia article on negative temperature tells you what you need to know: negative temperature in physics does not mean colder than 0 Kelvin but hotter than any positive temperature. Fascinating stuff, but it has nothing to do with “absolute zero.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature

By: swany

swany — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 07:41:32 +0000

I expected better of the Smithsonian than to take in such poorly worded journalism without screening. Zero Kelvin is not “absolute zero.” Absolute zero = on energy. Negative temperature means something different than going beyond “absolute zero.” I recommend this reading some comments here so you can re-word this a little:

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/15whon/quantum_gas_goes_below_absolute_zero_nature_news/

No laws of physics have been broken.

By: Robert Hale

Robert Hale — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 00:04:10 +0000

I am not convinced.