Slashdot Mirror
Quantum Gas Goes Below Absolute Zero
First time accepted submitter mromanuk writes in with a story about scientists at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich who have created an atomic gas that goes below absolute zero. "It may sound less likely than hell freezing over, but physicists have created an atomic gas with a sub-absolute-zero temperature for the first time. Their technique opens the door to generating negative-Kelvin materials and new quantum devices, and it could even help to solve a cosmological mystery."
Lasers have had negative temperature for decades!
wikipedia has quite a good explanation of negative temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature
the mesaured temperature happened to be -2147483648
From TFA:
Another peculiarity of the sub-absolute-zero gas is that it mimics 'dark energy', the mysterious force that pushes the Universe to expand at an ever-faster rate against the inward pull of gravity. Schneider notes that the attractive atoms in the gas produced by the team also want to collapse inwards, but do not because the negative absolute temperature stabilises them. “It’s interesting that this weird feature pops up in the Universe and also in the lab,” he says. “This may be something that cosmologists should look at more closely.”
Your momma so fat even absolute zero shocked away.
Sadly, our universe runs on a quite old hardware, which allowed the scientists to overflow the temperature variable. Why the Great Programmer didn't use unsigned longs ist beyond me, rookie mistake, really!
Heat is just atoms moving around, after all, so negative temperatures are easy:
just make the atoms move backwards.
sudo ergo sum
Now that we've found a temperature colder than absolute zero, we need to adjust the scale so that zero is this new low.
Just recalibrate. Simple.
HAH! When I was a freshman in college a long long time ago, I lost points in a computer science assignment because I did not perform error checking to ensure the user enter temperatures were above absolute 0. Prof didn't believe me when I told her that wasn't a hard limit, so there!
I'm sorry, but to me that is just absolute bollocks. So if you have more particles with a higher energy, you have a lower temperature? If I flip my thermometer upside-down, I'm also measuring a decrease in temperature when I heat it up. That makes sense too.
So is this story misleading to say that absolute zero was achieved. Wikipedia The Celsius and Fahrenheit scales are defined so that absolute zero is 273.15 C or 459.67 F. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero
But in the news story it says SUB and SUB means below, yet there is no mention of the temperature whatsoever in the article and going beyond absolute zero is not possible even out in space! You can get close, but not to absolute zero otherwise you would have created the ultimate weapon!
Enough said.
All cows eat grass!
Maybe because the Great Programmer wanted us to be able to use buffer overruns to invoke the debugger and thus do magic?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1733076&cid=33042664
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1733076&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=33043184
"I've thought about writing a sci-fi novel based around three interacting groups (taking off on Arthur C. Clark's ideas of any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic):
* Those who have expanded human consciousness in a transhumanist technical nanotech/biotech direction and can do magical-looking things like with nanotech (like when nanites rebuilt the Red Dwarf).
* Those who have found this debugger link or just a bug and can affect reality in magical seeming ways (so, like Harry Potter or Earthsea, where words an incantations and symbolic movements and symbolic devices like wands are combined to create patterns that invoke complex programs written in arcane symbols, such as from "lumos" causing light to all sorts of complex spells invoked in complex ways -- maybe with a high degree of secrecy involved in who makes these things and who is told about them).
* Those who have just expanded humanity in a brute-force sort of way throughout the solar system and beyond through self-replicating space habitats duplicating themselves from sunlight and asteroidal ore, and maybe also have recently learned to tap zero-point energy and so create energy and matter in empty space (so, they can duplicate things out of thin vacuum as it were).
I have no idea where that would go. But those are the major sorts of "magic" things I can imagine in our future, and all are hard-sci-fi "plausible". Would the mystery of consciousness be an underlying theme?"
Or perhaps there are deeper aesthetic issues involved that we have only just begun to be aware of? :-) :-) So, I'll go you one further -- are people going to fight over what color-temperature their local Dyson sphere should be tuned to? :-) Or even the color-temperature of the universe? Would you like a naturally balmy 2.725 K background temperature in the universe, or is that excessively wasteful and just an unasthetic looking color, and 2.724 K would be better? :-) Or maybe a slightly warmer 2.726 K would be worth it for making a peppier cosmos?"
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1963016&cid=34980884
"Still, ultimately, you may be right as far as there always being some issue to be in conflict about, and how on a cosmic scale, groups may well disagree fundamentally about things like enclosing stars. I'm also reminded of the Red Dwarf theme of David Lister's cat's descendants fighting over what color hats they should be wearing.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
You mean -- The serpent offered Eve a Perl script to parse /etc/passwd, and Adam's punishment was crypt (3) ...?
This sounds like ZPMs - zero point modules - from Stargate.
Negative temperatures, vomiting robots, and "you're a snotty person" taxes on electric cars. 2013 is starting off just swell!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Sigh.... or the Kelvin scale is simply incorrect and does not reflect absolute zero. Damn scientist newbs.
How many not so hot angles fit on the head of a pin head?
. Yet we can only detect photons due to electron promotions, so we could never detect the half photons, so we build models as though the photon (the thing we observe) can't exist in partial forms
I wonder if you are the same AC that posts this every other topic on quantum mechanics, or if multiple people think that is how things work. It has been repeatedly pointed out that this is incorrect, there are ways to detect photons that are non-destructive and ways other than using electron transitions. There are non-discrete ways of detecting photons in common use.
Also, if you are basing your bashing of quantum mechanics on the idea of negative temperature, then you have really no idea what you are talking about. Negative temperature is a classical concept and does not require quantum systems to implement or demonstrate. There are examples of quantum systems that produce it much as there are examples of quantum systems reproducing just about any aspect of classical mechanics.
Negative temperature is a concept from classical thermodynamics and there are classical systems that exhibit it. Quantum systems just give more options and variety for finding more examples.
I thought if they have replicable results showing a lower temperature that they where suppose to update the Kelvin scales adjustment so that the lowest temperature is zero.
You explanation is informative. Not only is your definition of temperature new to me, I find the consequences unfortunate. They should have a different term for this state rather than "negative temperature". Sure it's interesting physics, but the headline seems a bit sensational due to the definition of temperature needed to make it possible.
I don't think it means what you think it means
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
Proving/Disproving God isn't a Scientific Mission. Understanding how the Universe works is.
If we ever figure it all out we can go.
Well that is how the Universe Works and that is it.
or we can go.
Wow so that is how God did it.
You are confusing the Idea of a God with Religious interpretations of God. Science has more or less disproven that the Stories in the Bible are often not Factual or at least exaggerations. But it doesn't disprove God.
God and Science do not Mix. The God idea exists outside of Science as God is defined as a SuperNatural entity or more plainly God exists out of the rules of Observable Nature, Science is the study of Observing Nature.
This come with a two edge sword.
1. Any Science that states that God did it, is faulty because God is unobservable thus you cannot equate it as an observed fact. At best if there is a God Influence it would probably be considered a seemingly Random Element that will need further study.
2. The counter to this, is Science can't disprove God, because he is out of Observable Ability. Thus any work to Disprove God will be trying to apply God as a factor to disprove it.
Keep God out of Science, Also Keep Atheism out of Science as well.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If scientists have been able to reach temperatures below absolute zero then the Kelvin scale is wrong! You can't have negative temperature. Absolute zero should be a point where there is absolutely no kinetic energy in the particles. What they've really discovered is the new absolute zero.... or is it? Maybe it's even lower. Instead of negative kelvins, they need to adjust the Kelvin scale accordingly.
These researchers had to give it 110% to achieve this less than nothing.
Please do not look directly at wallet with remaining eye.
Reading the summary, it looks a bit like when you go into Congress there is an average IQ-level, but when you use a mechanism to separate citizens from Congressmen, you end up with a room full of Congressmen. When you jolt them awake all at the same time, the IQ in the room drops below zero too.
These physicists should hang their heads in shame.
What if 'God' is simply the sum total of everything. Are we not created in his image? We, as 'individual' humans are composed of hundreds of different systems, with different purposes, all somehow working together as a functioning whole.
God, put simply, is the set of all sets. Absolutely no problem in science studying that.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
They should team up with the researcher from last year,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2115974/Einstein-right-CERN-says-particles-DIDNT-travel-faster-light--quite-right-years-experiment.html
Yes, if you make your own definition, it is possible to disprove said definition.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Now just plain zero!
It is the unknowning masses who created the stupid definition that gets railed against by ignorant science fanbois.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Bleah your post has several glaring deficiencies:
1) your definition of God as "unobservable" is only one of the many different (and quite often incompatible) definitions of God.
Science can (and did) rule out many definitions of God (where God should have been observed but wasn't) so for these Gods, science is atheistic.
2) if you start from a definition of God as unobservable, then what you know about this God was necessarily reached only but a pure construction of human minds, an hypothesis in other word.
So you should name your God as "an hypothetical and unobservable God".
Except it isn't my definition. It's the definition at the top of every spiritual/religious path.
[citation needed]. This sounds very dependent on which religions you're talking about and/or subjective.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Seriously though, even read a wiki on hindu cosmology. The point is regardless which path you take to the top, once there you can see all the paths that lead up.
Of course, it isn't spelled out so simply. You don't teach a child integrals before addition.
Even the corrupted definition of the attribution of omnipresence of the christian god is from the teaching that god is everything. Unfortunately, paul corrupted the church in it's formation, laying the groundwork for doublespeak that would chain the masses in ignorance. One can only wonder at the manipulation needed to still include Jesus saying we are god/part of god in the bible and yet convince the masses that only Jesus is God.
I think everybody should read the bible at least once. It is an eye-opener to just how much ignorance there is on both sides as to what the true foundations of christianity are.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
It is impossible to prove the non-existence of an omnipotent God through observation and experiments.
Long before there was Paul, God was identified as an individual being, and that we are within God and he is within us. The particular statement that science really has a problem disproving is that He is, always has been, and always will be.
So there's no possible way to disprove God without disproving his foundation of Omniexistence because everything else that God can do is simply a manifestation of, and explained by, his existence. To that end, science is currently worthless because pretty much every scientific theory on the matter including the Big Bang starts out with everything already existing (likewise God). Unless a theory is accepted that begins from absolutely nothing (eg: no energy, no matter, no concepts of time or space, no concepts of multiple dimensions or universes, no concept of a contained Universe, etc.), or in other words a point before God could have existed, science cannot even begin to disprove God.
You are referring to pantheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism and no, not all religions adopt this belief, Catholocism amongst them. You are engaging in a "no true Scotsman" argument where your critics are wrong because they don't accept your "one true definition". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
And on the moral aspects of simulation: http://users.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/rants/simulation_errors.html
http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/LegalRightsOfRobots.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6200005.stm
http://www.aspcr.com/newcss_rights.html
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Also on this theme: "The World Was Probably Already Destroyed" ... Will the destruction happen again in the simulation? Probably not since the conditions that caused it were of stochastic nature. However, even if the destruction takes place in the simulation, the computer will restart it and the world will be created again in an endless fashion. ..."
http://www.digitalcosmology.com/Blog/2012/12/06/t/
"Some people wonder if our planet will be destroyed on December 21, 2012. I have friends asking me every day whether I think the world will end in a few weeks. But it is possible that our planet was already destroyed and before that occured its scientists managed to send a capsule in space with a supercomputer running its simulation.
I have for a time made a little niche creating a little ripple with my sig on the irory of technologies of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity, as well as related writings. That is a little ripple that may only be meaningful as a "trimtab" when surveillance AIs newly emerging into sentience decades from now process it from all the other stuff being archived these days. :-) Perhaps even after the human race is physically long gone from our follies as above? :-( Recent example:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/12/06/0055206/army-tests-autonomous-black-hawk-helicopter
Would I like to do more such as with various other projects I've tried that have not gone very far in reality (educational simulations, self-replicating space habitats, design libraries, social-semantic desktops, etc.). Sure, but at least I can do something even if it is small. Our path out of any technological singularity may have a lot to do with our path going into one. Every little effort may make a difference. So, as I see it, with every email I send and slashdot post I make, I'm potentially programming the values of computers that won't exist for decades. :-) Well, or statistically as above, I guess I'm most likely perhaps programming an infinite chain of future simulated versions of the same computers that are already simulating me? What an admittedly odd way to spend so much time... :-)
Although, that is not that different from the plant growth algorithm my wife and I developed in our PlantStudio software, which grows structures through successive iterations on a numerical seed. And it is in keeping with someone else's point on the interrelation between the universe coming into being and our own personal growth. And of course everyone is doing that kind of programming too with every Slashdot post or twitter or text message; I'm just more aware of the possibility perhaps. See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trim_tab#Trim_tab_as_a_metaphor
So, in that sense, are we creating our own future "God" at some moral and physical temperature? Which is a different argument from saying we are "God" or that we see "God" in our own image. And even different from this ultra-short sci-fi story (only as big as the previous paragraph):
""Is there a God?" sci-fi short story âoeAnswerâ by Fredric Brown"
http://obront.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/is-there-a-god-sci-fi-short-story/
I wish I could remember the author or title of a journal article my (sadly late, just found out recently) advisor at Princeton, George A. Miller, had laying around about 1984, which talked about mind as an infinite tower of effectively simulations. I'm sure that theme may also pop up in some religions, especially Eastern ones. Perhaps it indeed is simulated turtles all the way down? :-)
Anyway, at least we can try to see an upsid
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Unfortunately, paul corrupted the church in it's formation, laying the groundwork for doublespeak that would chain the masses in ignorance.
The Catholics kind of consider Paul the founder of the entire freakin' church...can you even say that the founder "corrupted" it if it didn't exist prior?
One can only wonder at the manipulation needed to still include Jesus saying we are god/part of god in the bible and yet convince the masses that only Jesus is God.
I would be very interested in seeing verses that you quote in support of this. The Bible as far as I've ever seen emphasizes the ability of the reader to have a relationship with God, but it's at best as a confidant, and usually as an authority to be obeyed. God and/or Jesus (Trinity, y'know), angels, and man are rather clearly delimited as separate classes of beings.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
English translations have jesus calling himself continuosly the son of man and saying we are all son of man(adam), we are all brothers and sisters etc... The trinity lie was in part based on using this as a messianistic title to seperate Jesus from other humans. However, in the language of the time he was basically just saying "listen, i'm just an ordinary joe like you, just another human". Perhaps a more accurate translation (this one I have no objective proof for but others hold it as well) would be what is possible when man attains perfection. Perfection in this case is entrance into the kingdom of heaven, which Jesus kept wisely mentionning is 'in you'. Or translated as a part of you.
The church controlled by controlling access to the bibles and simply providing interpretations. Later on, sure you had your bible, but it had sanitized translations.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
I always enjoy it when somebody whips out the "oh, it was distorted all along, the translation is a conspiracy, but I HAVE THE *TRUE* MEANING!"
This whole ~nirvana thing you're pushing seems to be rather at odds with the recurring "I am the Way...only through me" messages, but after all, you know better.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
As for having the true meaning, dude it's a translation, this is what the translation experts say. Hey, it's your call, you want to believe the translation experts or you want to believe the catholic church?
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
I should add that even without the help and research of translation experts it is fairly simple to grasp what Jesus is saying if you don't view it through the interpretation of the church or society. I had the good fortune of avoiding both by starting to read it around 6.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." -- Gospel of Thomas 77
Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where did you come from?', say to them, 'We came from the light, the place where the light came into being on its own accord and established itself and became manifest through their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?', say, 'We are its children, we are the elect of the living father.' If they ask you, 'What is the sign of your father in you?', say to them, 'It is movement and rest.'" -- Gospel of Thomas 50
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
Your shift key seems broken, there's unneeded capital letters all over your post...
I'm going to assume you're German, since it's a pattern in your other posts too.
In this case, and at first glance, I'm afraid it makes you look like a religious nut.
As a rule of thumb, only capitalize:
- The first word in a sentence
- The word I
- Specific names and derivatives (John; West African)
- Specific titles (the Holy Book; the President; God; but not for: a book, a president, a god)
- Acronyms (IBM; LEDs; FYI)
The full rules are complex and depend on region, but in general, it's better to not use capital letters than to use them improperly.
Will my Jeep run on Quantum Gas? Below zero is really cheap.
I had heard about the Isis thing, yeah. It's an interesting theory.
Catholicism vs. Protestantism was at one point basically "believe what we tell you because we won't let you read the actual Bible" versus "we're sick of this, we're going to read it ourselves and draw our own conclusions." So in the fight between tradition maintained by powerful bishops, popes, etc. and "Scripture alone, faith alone, grace alone," I come out on the side of reading the actual book. As you might have guessed, I have been a Lutheran.
Of course, then there's the problem of whether to include certain books that may contradict the rest......
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Some definitions of "God" differ quite markedly from yours, and are explicitly interventionist. Bear this in mind.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Some Smart Ways To Get A Job
What does job search actually mean? It is the art of finding jobs for employment. It is done at a time when an individual is looking for a job after education or is not happy with his current job. Everyone wants to grow, thereforea person is constantly on the questof a better opportunity.
careers in it Jobs or careers
Finding a job is a very complicated andlengthy process. No one knows how long it will take to find a good job. If you are not getting a job that interests you, then you should start availingyourself of some short-term jobs to gain experience.
careers in it Jobs or careers
There are many tips, whichcan help an individual finding a good job conveniently. They include:
Choose job sites very carefully because there are millions of sites which post jobs. Therefore one should be selective about carefully selecting an authentic website for your job application. There are many sites such as OLX, Indeed and roze.com, wiseguysjobs.com, they are reliable sites.
While an individual is finding a job, use keywordsbecause it will make your research easy.
While looking for a job through sites like OLX, you must always givea zip code and the area you belong to so that the site searches all the jobs in your territory of residence.
You must always save your job searches to get emails alerts.
You should only apply to those jobs that match your education. Big companies want candidates who have skills and who have experience. If these two criteriaare lacking, then the resume will be rejected.
These sites sometimes have scams. One should be conscious because no job can give effortless money.
You should write a good cover letter that shows that the candidate is very attractive in the job. In the cover letter, try to impress the company with your skills and degree.
Candidates should also post resumes on different company’s websites so that those companies approach you directly. Be careful because anyone can see that posted resume.
Other than that, check your resume for spelling and grammatical mistakes. Make your resume in a proper way. Keep your resume updated.
When an individual knows that he/she has applied to a particular firm, than research is very important. Try to learn what the company is doing. Research online about the company that what its reputation is.
If there is an interview with the company, then before going for the interview, find out who is going to interview you. Do a little research on that person. If you know anyone in thecompany,or anyoneelse who is applying in, then ask that person first for advice.
If the company is ready to hire you, then your consideration must be the salary. Most companies discuss salary package with the candidate and you can negotiate. If the company wants to hire you, they will consider your demands.
careers in it Jobs or careers
There are many different ways through which you can find a job. Advertisement in the newspaper is one of the easiest ways to find a job without effort. Internet is another advanced way to find a job. There are even agencies that help you to find a job that takes time and money both, but it is worth utilizing.
Jobs employment
careers in it Jobs or careers