Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Set New Coldest Temperature Record

Posted by michael on from the wear-your-mittens dept.

one_who_uses_unix writes "Scientists recently successfully cooled a gas to the coldest temperature ever recorded ABC News reports. This is good news for proponents of basic research (read non-applied) which has seen shrinking budgets over the past few decades, and for overclockers hoping to squeeze 1 more cycle out of their CPUs."

56 comments

  1. Low temperatures scare me by JAZ · · Score: 1

    So what happens if they ever hit absolute zero anyway?

    Will electrons fall out of orbit and cause atoms to collapse, thus creating a super dense cluster of subatomic particles?

    What effect would that have on the other atoms in the area? Could that cause a chain reaction that results in a black hole?

    I really hope I'm missing something, but that seems like the only logical outcome I can see.

    Can someone explain why I'm being over paranoid?

    --


    "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -- Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Low temperatures scare me by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative
      The chances are that they'll never hit absolute zero, it'll just get harder and harder the closer they get. If you look at the methods used here - lowering pressure, removing hotter atoms, slowing atoms using lasers pretty much none of them does anything beyond reduce the temperature by a percentage.

      You might look at it in a similar vein to reaching the speed of light. As your mass increases exponentially the closer you get to the speed of light, you'd have used up all the energy in the universe to accelerate long before you "get there".

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Low temperatures scare me by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Will electrons fall out of orbit and cause atoms to collapse

      Probably not, since most electrons live in their lowest allowable quantum state already, unless you're in a plasma.

      This really is an achievement, getting down to a nanokelvin.

      Our experience is using degrees or Kelvin to measure temperature and people tend not to be impressed that the coldest temperature went from a microK to a nanoK, because the upper end of the scale is millions and billions of degrees - so who cares about changing temperature from 10^-3 K to 10^-9 K?

      It was explained once to me that if the temperature scale were redefined using a logarithmic mapping (T_new = log(T_old)) that we'd be a lot more impressed with low temperatures and with the asympototically unreachable nature of "absolute zero" that sits at a finite and seemingly reachable value.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    3. Re:Low temperatures scare me by PD · · Score: 1

      It's not possible to hit absolute zero because of something called Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

      Absolute zero is then the atoms are not moving at all. It would be trivial then to know the position and speed at the same time, which is not possible.

      --
      If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
    4. Re:Low temperatures scare me by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      What effect would that have on the other atoms in the area? Could that cause a chain reaction that results in a black hole?

      Not a black hole, the earth and anything that falls into its orbit will become one giant Bose-Einstein condensate. :J

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Low temperatures scare me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is quite likely that Heisenburg doesn't apply. When you look at extreme conditions you sometimes discover things about the universe you cound't see otherwise. Look at Newton's "Laws" regarding motion. When you look at things accelerating to extremely high speeds these laws turn out to be very wrong.
      They do these sort of things to try to disprove laws, or rather amend them to more accurately represent the universe.

    6. Re:Low temperatures scare me by QuantumFTL · · Score: 5, Informative

      The chances are that they'll never hit absolute zero

      You're more right than you know. According to current quantum mechanics (which has been tested inside and out), the Heizenberg uncertainty principle states that the more you know about the velocity of a partical, the less you can know about its position, etc. In other words, the uncertainties must multiply together to be greater than plank's constant divided by 2PI. As temperature approaches absolute zero, the uncertainty in momentum (which is a functional of thermal energy at that point, which is proportional to temperature) decreases. This causes the uncertainty in posiition to drastically increase.

      Anyways at absolute zero this would mean the uncertainty in position would become infinite, in other words the position of the particle would be completely undefined. This is not possible so thus Absolute Zero is unattainable, even in theory.

      Disclaimer: I'm still working on my degree, and I was in a hurry writing this. Please correct me if you can :)

    7. Re:Low temperatures scare me by gnovos · · Score: 2

      Why couldn't the particle just kind of phase out of reality and simultaniously exist everywhere at once, Heart-of-Gold style? Or maybe be moving in some other dimension thet we can't measure? Does Heisenburg's principle apply universally or is it only a 4 dimension thing?

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    8. Re:Low temperatures scare me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not sure but was wondering wouldn't this be a kind of exception to Heizenberg since absolute zero is the state of no movement then it would seem you would lose the uncertainty in location because that wasn't changing.

    9. Re:Low temperatures scare me by Master+Rux · · Score: 1

      I always wondered about that. If the speed of light is so impossible, then how does light manage to go that fast?

      --
      IMO the best browser game ever http://wittyrpg.com
    10. Re:Low temperatures scare me by jovlinger · · Score: 1

      I always thought of this ass the particle getting larger: I thought a bose-einstein condensate was when the particles in a gas started overlapping with each other.

      An interesting side-effect would be that the size of the chamber limits the temperature. Perhaps someone with access to the constants involved could calculate what size (ie delta x) 9 nanokelvin represents?

    11. Re:Low temperatures scare me by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

      My disclaimer is that all I've got is a programming job and an AS in computer-aided drafting, but here goes:

      Is absolute zero really an unreachable limit because of uncertainty? Or is it like the example in a previous Slashdot article where Apollo never passes the tortoise, because he must first close half the distance, then half the remaining distance, then half that distance, etc... and never actually passes the turtle.

      And what if we're dealing with non-quantum masses? I don't know where any particular electron is, but I do know where I can find the mass of electrons, protons, and neutrons that make up my fingernail are when I'm typing. Most of the time, that is.

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    12. Re:Low temperatures scare me by Dr+Tall · · Score: 1

      Apollo never passes the tortoise

      And yet he obviously does in a real experiment. I guess thats what the absolute zero experiments are about; there's no point in having a theory if you don't test it. If a lab really were to reach absolute zero, that would totally destroy the basis of quantum physics.

    13. Re:Low temperatures scare me by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

      Why couldn't the particle just kind of phase out of reality and simultaniously exist everywhere at once.

      Because we don't live on Star Trek.

    14. Re:Low temperatures scare me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I always wondered about that. If the speed of light is so impossible, then how does light manage to go that fast?

      It's impossible for non-photons because they have a rest mass that increases the faster you go, until it's infinite at lightspeed.

      Photons are different - they don't have a rest mass and they are created moving at lightspeed so the rule about increasing mass with increasing speed doesn't apply to them.

    15. Re:Low temperatures scare me by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

      Not sure but was wondering wouldn't this be a kind of exception to Heizenberg since absolute zero is the state of no movement then it would seem you would lose the uncertainty in location because that wasn't changing.

      Actually as much as you might think this... it's not! In fact, even situations where you surely would think the uncertainty principle doesn't apply, it turns out it does!

      In an "empty space", you would think energy was zero. However, the uncertainty principle applies to all conjugate quantum variables (position/momentum, energy/time, etc)... So in any amount of space, if you measure the energy in it over a certain amount of time, you always have some uncertainty. Thus "empty space" must be seething with a roughly uniform amount of random energy.

      The Casimir Effect is a manifestation of this which as been experimentally verified. Weird, eh?

      As another poster mentioned, the Bose Einstein condensates form precisely due to this Heizenburg "expansion" due to cooling, and so Absolute Zero really isn't reachable. Sorry.

      Cheers,
      Justin

    16. Re:Low temperatures scare me by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

      Is absolute zero really an unreachable limit because of uncertainty? Or is it like the example in a previous Slashdot article where Apollo never passes the tortoise, because he must first close half the distance, then half the remaining distance, then half that distance, etc... and never actually passes the turtle.

      Firstly, I believe that's Zeno, not Apollo. Secondly, no, it's nothing like that. Look at the formula:

      Um*Up >= Hbar

      The uncertainty of the momentum (Mass*velocity) times the uncertainty of postion must be larger than Hbar (planks constant divided by 2 pi). So if Um = 0 (as is the case at absolute 0), what times 0 is larger than or equal to HBar? Clearly no finite number!

      Now obviously theories cannot "prove" a negative. That is, I could try an experiment 100000000 times to show that a tennis ball cannot phase through a planet, however that only says it's very unlikely that it would happen, not that it's truely impossible. I was careful to say that according to quantum theory absolute zero is unattainable, however it could very well be wrong. It's been well tested though, and I for one have much confidence in it.

      Interesting question though.
      Cheers,
      Justin

    17. Re:Low temperatures scare me by 20_ooodbye · · Score: 1

      Firstly, I believe that's Zeno, not Apollo Sorry, just have to put pedant you. Zeno was the philosopher who phrased the paradox, it was achilles who never won the race.

    18. Re:Low temperatures scare me by annisette · · Score: 0

      very well said, I get the gist of it though it is abit beyond me being able to walks your walk in conversation. But as usual I always want to give my idea on the subject. I remember that it takes two points to measure distance (and speed I assume). So if you have a stationary object such as an absolute zero state for an atomic particle in an atom then there is no two points to measure to find speed. Since a Point is a ficticious "thing" and atomic particles about as small as a reference there is. this cannot exist. Thanks for reading this. Annisette

      --
      I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
    19. Re:Low temperatures scare me by sanders_muc · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. 1. As some of the other posts point out, too, absolute zero cannot be reached, according to the Third Fundamental Law of Thermodynamics. And even if you do (well, in 'contradiction' to the sentence before, you can, if you restrict your ambition to only certain degrees of freedom, like, bringing all vibrations of the atoms' center-of-mass motion to a halt), there is still the quantum zero-point fluctuation. 2. These nanokelvin experiments usually only cool down a few thousand atoms. Or, to be precise, you start of with a some hundred millions at, say, some tens of microkelvins or so, and then do 'evaporative cooling', i.e. slowly reduce the magnetic fields confining the atoms in order to let escape the faster (hotter) ones. The remaining ones then 'thermalize', i.e. mix to a lower temperature. 3. You have to carefully insulate your remaining extra-cold atoms by vacuum and radiation shielding (latter usually meaning cooled copper sheets) because if a hot atom from the residual gas or a photon of (say, infrared) radition emitted by the warm vacuum chamber wall hits the condensate of cold atoms they will absorb the energy and heat it up again. So, don't worry. Ultracold gases are very fragile: They are not abel to freeze something else, because it's only so few matter. But they'll heat up again by the slightest bit of warmth.

    20. Re:Low temperatures scare me by Alsee · · Score: 3, Informative

      Is absolute zero really an unreachable limit

      Yes, and there have been experiments that have demonstrated this is a way.

      Quantum mecanics says that everything (including energy) comes in unit size packets. The unit size is called a Planck unit. You can only add energy to a particle or subtract energy from a particle a full Planck at a time. Now here's the catch - if you look at how much energy a particle has it always has a "point five" on the end. A particle can have 1.5 Plancks of energy, 8.5 Plancks of energy, or a billion and a half Plancks of energy. As you try to take energy out eventually you get down to 0.5 Planks of energy and you are stuck. You can only take out a full Planck at a time.

      I'll explain one of the experiments they did that demonstrates this. Imagine you lie on the ground to the left of a flat table and randomly toss ping-pong balls up at it. The ping-pong balls have random energy. Any ping-pong ball you throw too slowly will fall back down without reaching the table top, it will fall back down and stay on the left. Any ping-pong ball you throw fast will reach the table top and bounce along and eventually fall off the right side. If you throw it real high it will make big bounces along the table-top and it will come down the right side falling really fast. Throw it slower and it will make little bounces. If you throw ping-pong ball *just barely* fast enough to reach the edge of the table top it will roll across the table top with zero up/down bounce and it will come off the right edge with zero falling speed. (It may be moving to the right very fast, but we are just looking at the up/down speed)

      Scientist did something like this, but instead of big fat ping-pong balls they used neutrons. They "tossed" them randomly up at the edge of a flat plate and the neutrons bounced along and fell off the right edge. They then studied the neutrons falling off the right and looked at their minimum speed:

      The researchers report seeing a minimum (quantum) energy of 1.4 picoelectron volts (1.4 x 10-12 eV), which corresponds to a vertical velocity of 1.7 cm/sec.

      NONE of the neutrons came off the right edge with zero up/down speed. They were ALL bounced along and came off going atleast 1.7 cm per second.

      In scientific terms gravity is really really weak. Almost infinitly weaker than the other forces. Since gravity is so weak and a single neutron is so tiny they "magnify" the size of a single a Planck. One Planck unit of gravitational energy for a single neutron on Earth is about 3.4 cm per second. That means you can only change the up/down speed of a neutron by 3.4 cm/sec at a time. If a neutron is going up at 5.1 cm/sec gravity will pull down and the speed will JUMP by 3.4 cm/sec. It will skip from an up speed of 5.1 to an up speed of 1.7 (5.1 - 3.4 = 1.7) Then gravity keeps pulling down and you get another 3.4 jump in speed. It will skil from UP 1.7 cm/sec to going DOWN 1.7 cm/sec. (1.7 - 3.4 = negative 1.7)

      The neutron is always going up or down by at least 1.7 cm per second. It "teleports" right past zero without ever being zero.

      We never notice this in the "real world" because even the tinyest spec of dust is made of many millions of neutrons, half of them going up at hundreds of miles per hour and half going down at hundreds of miles per hour. They constantly bounce off of each other reversing direction a million times per second.

      That's why you can never hit absolute zero, quantum mechanics says the energy always ends up least one-half of a step off of zero.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    21. Re:Low temperatures scare me by Alsee · · Score: 1

      wouldn't this be a kind of exception to Heizenberg since absolute zero is the state of no movement then it would seem you would lose the uncertainty in location

      No, you can't reach zero.

      A crucial but difficult to grasp part of it is that Heisenberg's uncertainty is NOT a measurement failure. The precise value can't be meausered because it does not exist.

      It's sort of like trying to measure the distance between Earth and Mars to the exact inch. Different parts of the Earth and different parts of Mars are different distances from each other. Earth and Mars are each way bigger than an inch. Lets say you measure the precise center of the Earth and the precise center of Mars and say they are precisely a trillion inces apart. Lets also assume the Earth and Mars each have a radius of a million inches. The closest point on Earth to the closest point on Mars will be (one trillion minus one million) inches, and the farthest point on Earth to the farthest point on Mars will be (one trillion plus one million) inches.

      The distance is one trillion inches with an uncertainty of one million inches. The uncertainty isn't a failure of measurment. The distance between the Earth and Mars actualy and simultaneuously has ALL of the values over the uncertainty range.

      When Heisenberg says there is an uncertanty in momentum of one mile per hour then the partical actualy and simultaneously has ALL of those values. When Heisenberg says there is a one inch uncertainty in position then it actually and simultaneously exists across that entire inch of space.

      The really weird thing about quantum mechanics is that whenever you "touch" a particle in any way that causes it to instantaneously collapse from that whole range of speeds and that whole range of positions down to a single random speed and position within that range. Before you touch it, it actually is a big blurry blob, when you touch it the blob vanishes and all you see is a random point that was within the blob. Any attempt to measure it or even look at it counts as touching it.

      It's like a 3-foot ballon that pops down to a single small lump of randomly placed rubber the instant you look at it. You can measure the the little lump of popped rubber to an exact inch, but it was actually a 3-foot ballon before you looked. Three-foot uncertainty means you had a three-foot ballon. You know the center of the balloon was within that distance of the lump of rubber, but you see, but it's impossible to know whether the center of the ballon used to be to the left of the lump of rubber, to the right, above it, or below it.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    22. Re:Low temperatures scare me by Alsee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      logarithmic mapping

      Good idea. Here is a logarithmic (base 10) scale:

      Core of a supernova: 9.2
      Highest man made (1996): 8.7
      Core of the Sun: 7.2
      Surface of the Sun: 3.75
      Water boils: 2.57
      Human body temperature: 2.49
      Room temperature: 2.47
      Water freezes: 2.44
      Liquid oxygen: 1.95
      Dark side of the moon: 1.95
      Pluto: 1.68
      Deepest depths of space: 0.44 (Cosmic microwave background)
      Boomerang Nebula, coldest natural place in the universe: roughly zero
      Coldest man made (1995): -6.77
      Coldest man made (today): -9.3

      Man made (-9.3) is as much colder than coldest place in the natural universe (zero) as the core of a supernova (9.2) is hotter than the coldest place in the natural universe.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    23. Re:Low temperatures scare me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your interpretation of the uncertainty principle is off. If you tried to measure the temperature of something that had hit zero kelvin then you would not get an answer of zero kelvin. I think it's more likely that the atom would simply vanish at zero kelvin. That would at least stay in line with the uncertainty principle.

    24. Re:Low temperatures scare me by PD · · Score: 1

      Definition: The lowest possible temperature allowed by the laws of thermodynamics. At this temperature, molecules would possess the absolute minimum kinetic energy allowed by quantum mechanics (the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle places a greater than zero lower limit on the kinetic energy of molecules). It is equivalent to -273.15C or 0K (kelvin). At absolute zero, the entropy of any system vanished.

      --
      If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
    25. Re:Low temperatures scare me by GenSolo · · Score: 1

      Of course not. It takes energy to measure it, so it'd be raised above absolute zero and of course you agree that the principle applies there.

  2. Why was this posted? by tomcio.s · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Other discoveries and applications remain to be found -- but the scientists are at least certain new ones will be found." -- From article

    What does that sentence mean? Isn't it like saying the earth is round and it spins and because of that we are certain that there might be another sunrise around the corner???

    And how does this discovery help the overclockers.. especially ones on a budget???

    Oh, wait why am I asking.. This is Slashdot isn't it.
    Sigh, time to find a semi-credible news source.

  3. Overclockers ? by $exyNerdie · · Score: 4, Insightful


    and for overclockers hoping to squeeze 1 more cycle out of their CPUs

    How does such a low temperature help in overclocking ?
    Article says:
    "At less than 1 nanokelvin, the atoms screech to a crawl, moving only one inch every 30 seconds. "

    Does anyone else also think that "overclocking" was mentioned just to get attention of /. editors ??

    1. Re:Overclockers ? by one_who_uses_unix · · Score: 4, Funny

      As a matter of fact, you are correct, I mentioned overclockers to get their attention. This was a blatant attempt to introduce humor into the otherwise serene and serious atmosphere maintained on /. If I could retract the sentence and replace it with....

      "No facetious observations regarding the relationship between extremely low temperatures and overclocking are permitted."

      I have a few comments on this observation that should server to vindicate me in the mind of those who might be concerned by the gratuitous use of technology buzzwords:

      1. What is wrong with getting /. editor's attention?
      2. Smile - you will find it is healthy.
      3. Made ya look.

      --
      KK4SFV
    2. Re:Overclockers ? by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      "Does anyone else also think that "overclocking" was mentioned just to get attention of /. editors ??"

      No. The rest of us know that it was meant to be humorous.

  4. Amazing... by feidaykin · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The last time a new record was set, a scientist was quoted saying that if there was a colder temperature anywhere in the universe, it was in the lab of an alien civilization.

    I would imagine his opinion would remain unchanged by this new record...

    This is the coldest known place in the universe: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030220.html

    --

    "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

    1. Re:Amazing... by Misanthropic+Lycanth · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the scientist knew all too well. I'd like to be the first to welcome our new alien overlords.

      --

      Physics: Making the universe open source.
  5. In other news... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    scientists report that SCO verbal FUD apparently does not obey the laws of physics.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  6. Homer Jay Simpson by Yanray · · Score: 1

    "In this house we will obey the laws of thermal dynamics."

    --
    --"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
    DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
  7. Scientists Set New Coldest Temperature Record by pmz · · Score: 1, Funny


    by combining the hearts of Bill Gates, John Ashcroft, and Hillary Clinton.

    --
    Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
  8. Overclocking? by Mad+Quacker · · Score: 1, Redundant

    "and for overclockers hoping to squeeze 1 more cycle out of their CPUs."

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but chips stop working completely at temperatures that cold. In fact chips for extraterrestrial use often need heaters to bring them up to operational temperatures.

    Absolute zero is absolute because it means zero atomic movement; no electron movement; no Quake frames per second.

    --
    "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
    1. Re:Overclocking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure the heaters are there to "bring them up to operational temperature" so much as to mitigate the gigantic differences in temperature that spacecraft are subjected to.

    2. Re:Overclocking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact chips for extraterrestrial use often need heaters to bring them up to operational temperatures.

      They wouldn't have to worry about that if they used AMD chips.

  9. Somebody's GOT to say it ... by ninewands · · Score: 2, Funny

    even though I'm SURE to get modded into oblivion ...

    this is SO COOL!

    --
    utter rubbish
  10. the newscientist article by Wycliffe · · Score: 1



    Coolest thing in the Universe revealed

    A tiny cloud of sodium atoms has been chilled to within half a billionth of a degree of absolute zero

    1. Re:the newscientist article by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1
      Great link... I'd subscribe to New Scientist if it weren't $89 a year to the US.

      Their article leads off:
      The coolest thing in the Universe is now a cloud of sodium atoms in a laboratory in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
      That reminded me of another cloud of sodium atoms, in a lake on the Oklahoma/Texas border, that wasn't the hottest thing in the Universe but was close enough for the 'researchers'!
      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  11. nanokelvin overclocked boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a Beowolf Cluster of THESE!!!

  12. mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Troll?

    He included Bill Gates (universally hated on Slashdot), one Christian-right Republican, and one bleeding-heart fiscally corrupt Democrat. Something for everyone!

    While the comment itself was kinda lame, it deserves a +1 funny simply for the people he selected :)

  13. Which is it? by CowboyRobot · · Score: 1

    The article states that "in deep space where gases are 3 degrees above absolute zero, or about -454 degrees Fahrenheit." which puts absolute zero at -457F.
    Then it states "Absolute zero, or -460 degrees..."
    And my science book places it at -459. I know there is a difference between a Kelvin degree and a Fahrenheit one, but which is it?
    And, with no other base of reference, how can they no that their temperature detectors are accurate at such low temps?

    --
    every stain tells a story
    1. Re:Which is it? by ZigMonty · · Score: 1
      Deep space is 3 degrees C above absolute zero (or about 3 K). Courtesy of google:

      3 Kelvin = -454.27 degrees Fahrenheit

      0 Kelvin = -459.67 degrees Fahrenheit

      Note: the temp of deep space isn't exactly 3 K, so don't put too much faith in those digits after the decimal point.

    2. Re:Which is it? by dosius · · Score: 1

      C=5(F-32)/9
      K=C-273

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
  14. That's not the lowest by whydna · · Score: 1

    The MicroKelvin Lab at the University of Florida does research in the 100uK range. They have the largest ultra-low temperature lab in the world (there's another one like it at Cornell).

    1. Re:That's not the lowest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nano is 1000 times smaller than micro.
      Pico is 1000 times smaller than nano.

      500 picoKelvin is nearly 1 million times lower than 100 microKelvin.

    2. Re:That's not the lowest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the moral is: "Read the article before you post"... my bad!

      -whyDNA?

    3. Re:That's not the lowest by smeenz · · Score: 1

      Isn't it a tad ironic that one of the warmest places in the world happens to have the coldest testing environement in the world ?

  15. I Can Show You Something Colder by Ed+Almos · · Score: 2, Funny

    My ex-wife's heart.

    Me ? Bitter ? Nah !!

    --
    The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
  16. Correction by doru · · Score: 1
    It's been years since I last opened a QM book, but I'll take a shot at this.

    Heisenberg's principle is not related to temperature. In fact, introductory QM courses usually ignore temperature (unless there is some mention of kT, you're at 0 K). This does not mean that the particles are immobile, just that they are in the fundamental state (no excitations); the uncertainty principle still holds. Of course, if you go to finite temperature your system can jump to an excited state an the uncertainty Dp Dx will be higher than the Heisenberg limit, but that's a different story.

    So, to summarize, Heisenberg says that even when you cool your system at 0 K and you prepare it in the "most condensed" state, you still can't beat Planck's constant, but it does not forbid cooling it to absolute 0 (it's the Nernst theorem which does).

  17. some illustrated explanation of the physics by sanders_muc · · Score: 2, Informative
    As you might know, the Nobel Institute publishes posters each year explaning the achievements of the Nobel laureates for the general public.

    So if you want to know about ultracold gasses, have a look at these links:

    * Doppler cooling, or: how to use a laser not to hup stuff but to cool it: Nobel prize 1997

    * the Bose-Einstein condensate: a weird state of matter that is formed by bosonic atoms at really ultralow temperature: Nobel prize 2001

    * not that cool but still quite cool: suprafluid helium flowing against gravity: Nobel prize 1996

    1. Re:some illustrated explanation of the physics by sanders_muc · · Score: 1

      s/hup/heat up/

  18. Coldest temperature by Spooge+Knight · · Score: 1

    Pac's dead body because I KILLED HIM!

  19. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    funny