We can heat things up to absolutely ridiculous and unbearable heat. Hot enough where if there's anything that exists, we can melt it or burn it.
Can we lower the temperature this way? Has anyone ever managed to make something thousands of degrees 'cold'?
Just.. remove the heat from a space until there's just nothing in it? Anti-heat?
Yes we put ice packs on it until it is coldness enough
>>8006801
We do, it's used in fridges, car engines, etc.
But you need something colder than 0 K otherwise there's no temperature gradient
The lowest temperature we can get is 0 Kelvin wich we never reached so far...
>>8006801
In much the same way that farenheit or celsius is used to measure heat. Kelvin is used to measure cold.
Now actually, when you heat up things you need to "cool" them down as well. Since heat is just a measure of the movement of individual particles of matter, cold is the force binding them together, keeping the particles the same.
That's why when you heat things up in celsius their Kelvin measure goes up as well.
When you heat things up to something like 1000 celsius and reduce theKelvin that's when explosions happen. Because all the particles are moving so fast and there's nothing keeping them together.
It's counter intuitive to what we recognize as 'heat' or warmth in our daily lives.
We have never managed to go below 0 Kelvin because nobody has discovered "negative heat". But that's what they're trying to find using the CERN Large Hadron Collider.
>>8006801
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature#Lasers
>>8006836
Kelvin measures heat exactly like Celsius...
There is no such thing as "cold"
Is there a theoretical limit for temperature involving maybe special relativity? Or is this question essentially equivalent to asking if there is a maximal length?
>>8006836
interesting.
Jesus fucking christ.
Oh god what mindbending fuckery is this
Temperature is a measure of particular agitation.
Heat is a measure of energy flux.
Read articles on thermodynamics for the link between the two. (1st, 2nd principle)
As for temperature, it's a measure of agitation as I said. You can't be less agitated than not agitated at all. This static state is nothing but theoretical, it can only be converged towards. Other things prevent it from happening, cf Lavoisier, articles on conduction (isolation), etc...
So there's a cap to how low in temperature, aka "cold", you are.
I'm sure this was a troll but I couldn't help myself.
>>8007179
it actually isn't a troll.
I'm not stupid, but I don't pretend to know everything. I ask stupid questions to see if there's any enlightenment to be had in the answers. No different from the way any other scientist throws shit at the wall to make it stick.
It's also a measure of other peoples character. Much the same way you can tell a lot about a persons mental health by the way they treat small animals, insects and children, you can tell a lot about a persons maturity and emotional nobility by the way they speak to ignorant and stupid people.
By asking stupid questions I legitimately don't know the answer to, I agitate those that do know. The ones that will tell me reveal themselves to be reasonable people. The ones that mock reveal themselves to be assholes.
>>8007280
I wasn't saying you were stupid. I would have questions entailing lower basics of other subjects if only I dared formulate them.
I meant it more towards>>8006836
That was mostly a bullshit answer.
As for further research, the term used for the lowest possible temperature is "absolute zero". This refers, as I said, to zero particular agitation.
>>8006801
I feel like you've never taken a class in chemistry but there is something known as absolute zero. Which is 0 degrees Kelvin. We can get very close but we've never gotten to 0 degrees Kelvin.
>>8007280
Not that guy but this is something you learn in high school. Or maybe middle school. This is just some very basic stuff. Like how you can't have a negative volume.
This is, by far, one the stupidest questions I've ever seen on /sci/. You could have literally googled the answer. Also you're asking an incredibly stupid question and then expecting not to be mocked. I don't know what you were thinking.
There's nothing wrong with not knowing stuff, like what happens when you press the run command on a compiler, but you should attempt to figure it out on your own. I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything but I don't post every question I have on /sci/. Don't pretend that you're some sort of philosopher by asking incredibly stupid questions to "enlighten" yourself. That's what you have google for.
In fact:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+the+lowest+temperature+possible+#
>>8006801
>Can we lower the temperature this way? Has anyone ever managed to make something thousands of degrees 'cold'?
We got very close to absolute zero.
>>8006801
you remind me of an old friend who had this idea of creating a "micro-wave freezer", he called it the "cold-wave oven"... damn, it's being almost a decade and it still makes me laugh.
>>8006801
The coldest it gets ~-273 celsius aka 0 kelvin
>>8007280
>i dont understand fundamental principles of energy or thermodynamics, but im an expert in psychology
fuck off you cunt
>>8010102
?
this actually exists, a friend of mine made one.
>>8010139
>Temperature is defined by the relationship between entropy and energy. The negative temperatures discussed here arise from statistical mechanics using the Boltzmann definition of entropy. Entropy is also independently defined in thermodynamics, and in the thermodynamic limit (i.e. many degrees of freedom) these definitions are generally consistent with each other. However, for small systems and systems where the number of states decreases with energy, the Boltzmann entropy and the thermodynamic entropy are not consistent, and the temperatures derived from these entropies are different. Some theorists have proposed using an alternate definition of entropy originally proposed by Gibbs as a way to resolve these inconsistencies,[5] although this new definition would create other inconsistencies.[6] Regardless of how we choose to define entropy and temperature, the physical behavior of a negative temperature system is the same.
do you understand any of this beyond "negative temperature"?
>>8010206
Yes, and I've read the explanation of it on John Baez's website.
As substances with negative temperature are hotter than any substance with positive temperature, it is accurate to say that 0 K is the "coldest" temperature.
However, it is not accurate to say, as some in this thread have, that 0 K is the lowest possible temperature.
>>8006856
https://youtu.be/oHyctwgE6m4
>mfw absolute zero is only as cold as an oven is hot
>>8010647
Holy shit, is this guy in family with critical? It's gold.
I have a very limited understanding of this shit, but entertain my thoughts please:
For the most part when things are cold they contract and when they're hot they expand (sometimes rapidly like explosions) does that not mean that the densest things must also be the coldest?
What else do we know is the densest thing? THE CENTER OF BLACK HOLES.
The singularity of a black hole is so dense it must be cold as possible so cold we can't even measure it, so cold it shivers a hole in spacetime and allows for interstellar travel.
Science award please.
>>8010933
Part 2:
We all know that light is a particle and a wave so what happens when that particle gets really really cold? It loses energy and can longer function as a wave and gets trapped inside the black hole's event horizon.
Boom
>>8010206
Do you not understand it?
We can have negative temperatures in a substance. From entropy - the maximum temperature a substance can have is when this graph is at its maximum. The temperature of a system is defined by:
[math]\displaystyle\frac{1}{T}=\frac{\partial S}{\partial E}[/math]
As you can see, as [math]S\rightarrow S_{max},\ T\rightarrow \pm\infty[/math]. If the energy of the system is higher than at the point of [math]S_{max}[/math], we have negative temperatures. These are unstable though, and radiate energy until the system comes to equilibrium again.
>>8010933
planck epoch was densest and hottest point in universe
your argument is invalid
>>8010933
There's nothing preventing things to get hotter when they become denser.
In fact water is at it's densest at 4°C below that it expands a d above that it expands too
>>8010959
Stop using the word substance, it doesn't mean shit.
Some systems can have a negative temperature, but these systems are not made of atoms or molecules.
Matter can not have a negative temperature.
>>8011065
>Some systems can have a negative temperature, but these systems are not made of atoms or molecules.
Matter can not have a negative temperature.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/52
Oh, I didn't realise potassium wasn't an atom.
