Slashdot Mirror
What 'Negative Temperature' Really Means
On Friday we discussed news of researchers getting a quantum gas to go below absolute zero. There was confusion about exactly what that meant, and several commenters pointed out that negative temperatures have been achieved before. Now, Rutgers physics grad student Aatish Bhatia has written a comprehensible post for the layman about how negative temperatures work, and why they're not actually "colder" than absolute zero. Quoting:
"...you first need to engineer a system that has an upper limit to its energy. This is a very rare thing – normal, everyday stuff that we interact with has kinetic energy of motion, and there is no upper bound to how much kinetic energy it can have. Systems with an upper bound in energy don’t want to be in that highest energy state. ...these systems have low entropy in (i.e. low probability of being in) their high energy state. You have to experimentally ‘trick’ the system into getting here. This was first done in an ingenious experiment by Purcell and Pound in 1951, where they managed to trick the spins of nuclei in a crystal of Lithium Fluoride into entering just such an unlikely high energy state. In that experiment, they maintained a negative temperature for a few minutes. Since then, negative temperatures have been realized in many experiments, and most recently established in a completely different realm, of ultracold atoms of a quantum gas trapped in a laser."
I do not think this word means what you think it means.
This doesn't really help. I pondered this for a while the other day when I read that first and gave up trying to wrap my head around it. I was always under the impression that 0 kelvin (absolute 0) meant a state at which there was no movement at the atomic/subatomic level. It would seem as though to reach a negative temperature, one would have to slow a substances particles to less than 0 movement. Then I realized they were talking about a quantum state and I pretty much gave up trying to understand it at that point, because anything which has the word 'quantum' in it suddenly defies all the rules I'd ever been taught about anything at all. :o)
Give up a little precision and rigor for ease of understanding you snob.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
In the USA, it means its really, really cold, you'll have to dress well, including good gloves and hat. If there is any wind you'll wand to cover your face too.
and the air is very dry, inside, getting a humidifier is a good idea.. If your car or truck has been parked outside for a while you would need to start it and have it warm up for 10 minutes before driving off.
In the rest of the world its cold but bearable, since its just below freezing sidewalks may be slippery.
Yeah. Systems hate snobs and their feelings get hurt.
It would have been nice for Aatish to go a bit into what Purcell and Pound did in their 1951 experiment, namely "inverting" the orientation of the fluorine nuclei in the presence of an applied magnetic field by application of a radio frequency magnetic pulse, where the frequency is the Larmor frequency of fluorine and the pulse amplitude and length was sufficient to cause a 180 degree nutation. The result is that the nuclei have the same order (entropy) as the rest state, but have higher energy. In NMR, this is referred to as applying a 180 degree or pi pulse.
Aatish's comment about reality being liberal is unconvincing.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
I majored in Physics and am currently in grad school and I have no problem with that wording. In fact we Physicist often anthropomorphize when talking amongst ourselves, so what the hell is your problem? Grow up and realize that language is simply a tool used to convey ideas, no one with half a brain reads that statement and actually thinks the particles in the system have needs or desires. Instead they will realize by the wording and context that the particle(s) are simply less likely to be in the higher energy states for reasons that the author doesn't want to go into. If you disagree you're wrong.
If 'nerds' had paid any attention to their thermodynamics/statistical mechanics class they would have already know all this and we would have been spared two frivolous posts in the front page.
Why are you being so negative?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Here!
a system with a truly negative temperature in absolute terms on the Kelvin scale is hotter than any system with a positive temperature. If a negative-temperature system and a positive-temperature system come in contact, heat will flow from the negative- to the positive-temperature system.
That a system at negative temperature is hotter than any system at positive temperature is paradoxical if absolute temperature is interpreted as an average internal energy of the system. The paradox is resolved by understanding temperature through its more rigorous definition as the tradeoff between energy and entropy, with the reciprocal of the temperature, thermodynamic beta, as the more fundamental quantity. Systems with positive temperature increase in entropy as one adds energy to the system. Systems with negative temperature decrease in entropy as one adds energy to the system.
You add more energy, but the entropy doesn't increase. Gods damn that moronic blogger and his useless "tricks" metaphor. You don't "trick" shit you stupid fuck. You wouldn't say gunpowder "tricks" a lead projectile to scurry from the gun barrel if you were explaining a gun. We're not idiots, we just need to have the terms defined because some of us hadn't heard the term before in relation to absolute zero.
Protip: Next time you want to submit or vote up a "follow-up" fucking read the damn thing, and compare it to the wiki. Unless it's significantly more useful than the damn wikipedia article, don't fucking submit or vote it up.
Systems with an upper bound in energy have fewer possible configurations at or near the highest energy state, so the probability of remaining in one of those few configurations as opposed to the many, many more lower-energy configurations is low.
Not a sentence!
So you give more energy to it to force it into a high energy state and that lowers its temperature even though it's more energy? Or you force the material to act like it's in a high energy state without giving it the energy so its amount of transmittable heat results in a math glitch? Either way, that's stupid and all it means is temperature isn't measured correctly. I'm in the minority who considers temperature to be total average speed that a group of atoms are moving at. Since that type of system can't drop below zero, I'd say it's superior.
I think you meant François Petit.
Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
Systems with an upper bound in energy don’t want to be in that highest energy state.
Sigh...
Well, I concur, anthropomorphising these systems is a big problem.
You see: the matter and energy (no matter their colour - dark/white, orientation - up/down, flavour/charm/strangeness, etc) are freer and have more self-determination than any human being will ever have. They only obey the laws of physics, while the human beings need to obey heaps of others (e.g. did you ever see an electron being groped by TSA agents when passing through a semiconductor gate?).
Anthropomorphizing is degrading for physical entities and, for their sake, need to stop. Join the movement for upholding the inalienable rights of energy and matter before is too late!
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
You, being a physicist don't generally run into these people. I, on the other hand, have to deal with them daily.
You blame a wording used to more conveniently convey a meaning, because you surround yourself with idiots.
It's not a physicists problem that you end up with uncool friends. Give it up, no amount of "correct" wording is going to make sane people out of crackpots. Your attempts to teach them logic are going to be futile no matter what (hey, you called them crackpots, and you're _still_ arguing with them). Just give it up dude.
Don't quote me on this.
If you increase the average energy in certain types of quantum systems beyond a certain point, the entropy starts to go down again. Take a large number of ordinary binary bits and define the average energy as the number of 1s and the entropy as (the logarithm of) the number of combinations/binary numbers that have that many 1s. You'll see that there's only one combination for "all 0s" (entropy=0), the entropy peaks at "50% 1s", and then goes down again to reach 0 at "all 1s". I tried to explain that here.
I thought about explaining it, and i will do so *without* mentioning the Dalai Lama.
The Situation is very simple: The definition of Temperature you learned in school, namely that it is only related to the average energy of many equal systems *is right*, but only for *classical systems*.
What does it mean?
If i have a classical gas, e.g. air at room temperature and i have to input to it, i can add this energy in whichever distribution i want. Easy to do that, no matter at which temperature we are.
No lets consider a quantum gas (to be complete: a quantum gas and not consiting of harmonic oscillators), e.g. electrons spins which are aligned to a magnetic field. Each of the electron can either have an Energy of -1/2E or +1/2E, where E depends on the electron spin and the magnetig field, but is constant. This means that if i have N electrons, we wont be able to input more energy than N * E into the system. Moreover if only a single electron in not in the high-energy state, we have to flip exactly this electron to get the system into its highest energy state. That may be pretty hard, statistically speaking.
So now imagine a quantum gas somehow statistically exchanging energy with a classical gas. That means, in our case, to bring the quantum gas to the state of Total energy = N*E (from the state of (N-1)*E) a high energy gas molecule would have the hit the very last of the low-ebergy electrons. If the high-energy molecules bounce from the electron in the excited state, then nothing will happen.
It is intuitive that, even if the two gases are in contact, the avergae energy between the systems will *not* be the same, just because its unlikely to flip *all* or *nearly all*.
The fromal version if this consideration is the textbook definition of the Temperature as a property in statistical physics, which is T=dE/dS, where E is the total energy and S is the Entropy (yes, the very same one as in computational science).
In the case of the two-level systems we find (let n be the numebr of systems in exited state)
S is proportional to -(n*log(n/N) + (N-n)*log((N-n)/n))
E is proprotioanl to n
That means that the sign of the temperature changes, as soon as more systems are excited than not.
Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics, and the field of statistical mechanics in general, work quite well with quantized systems. As an example, if you look at Boltzmann's definition of entropy: S = k ln W, where W is the possible number of microstates that can contribute to the system, you can see how statistical mechanics does a good job of handling quantized energy levels. Likewise, the Maxwell-Boltzman distribution does a fine job of describing the population distribution of an equilibrium ensemble of molecules / atoms / whatever with discrete quantized energy levels. The critical term here is equilibrium. If the system is not in equilibrium, such as a laser, then one can argue that it's temperature (at least for the degrees of freedom where there's a population inversion) is not well defined.
The thing that makes the Science paper really interesting is that the negative temperature is observed in the motional degrees of freedom where you normally think about a continuum of energies, and where you seldom have the necessary isolation from other degrees of freedom to prepare such exotic states. The key here is that Bose-Einstein condensate have coherent, quantized motional degrees of freedom that are highly decoupled from the rest of the universe.
Actually, it's not to hard to intuitively understand negative temperature if you think of it as something hotter than the hottest possible temperature. Classically, that isn't possible, but then you need a bit of quantum weirdness.
In a typical system of normal temperature particles of occupy various quantum energy levels available to them. In thermal equilibrium, statistically, lower energy levels tend to get occupied first and higher energy levels have fewer particles. If somehow you can create a stable system where higher energy states are occupied, but by some quirk (of quantum mechanics), lower ones are not, it turns out that is what a negative temperature system is.
As it turns temporarily creating a system where the higher energy levels are occupied before the lower ones is something that people do all the time to create a pumped laser. But lasers aren't designed to be a stable system (you eventually want the higher energy state to emit light/photons and fall to the lower energy state), so although the population of the energy states are inverted (more in the upper energy states), it's not stable, so it's generally not accurate to call this a negative temperature system.
The reason the "sign" of the temperature is negative is just a problem with the definition of temperature. For most defintions of temperature, if you add energy, you increase entropy, so temperature is a measure of how these relate to each other (the slope). If somehow when you add energy to your system, you decrease entropy of your system (e.g, you pack the upper energy states even tighter reducing entropy instead of just letting particles in all energy states into statistically higher energy states), the slope is negative.
There's a link in the article to Leprechauns and Laser Beams, which IMHO does a much better job of explaining things. As I understand it, negative temperatures don't just come from the entropy-based definition of temperature. You also need to be talking about a system whose energy content is capped. Normal materials don't do this -- you can keep adding energy (speeding up atoms) as long as you want. But if you have a group of atoms with exactly two energy states (high and low), once every atom is in the high-energy state you can't add more energy. Apparently, one example of this is a laser.
From an entropy point of view, the lowest energy and highest energy states have identical entropy (i.e. none -- one possible state). Entropy reaches a peak with half of the atoms in the high energy state, since this gives the largest number of possible atom state combinations.
Temperature is defined as the slope of the energy/entropy curve. The curve goes vertical at max entropy. If I understand right, at this point the temperature overflows like an integer variable, going from +inf to -inf and approaching zero from the negative end. (It's not really a continuous curve, but I don't know enough to guess at what difference that makes.)
So it sounds like the recent news about a negative-temperature gas was more about creating a new material with these sorts of quantum states. The negative temperature part caught the attention of the reporters (and the rest of us), but isn't the real scientific discovery. That's my reading of it, anyway.
Visit the
Yes, particles hate it when you anthropomorphize them.
Learn to love Alaska