First off, I must say that IAAP; however, as with all science that shouldn't be your only reason to believe me, it just gives some credence to what I am about to say. One of the most important things to point out with both your critique of the article, and TFA itself, is with regards to the temperature said to be obtained.
The basic problem with describing the temperature of the fusion elements is that there is no clear temperature. To describe something as having a temp, it must be in some form of thermodynamic equilibrium. If you relate the temperature, for example, to the kinetic energy of a particle, then there is a certain distribution of energy of the particles in thermodynamic equilibrium, the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.
If, however, you take only a small number of particles at a very specific velocity in the distribution, you may have an exceedingly large temperature, but it cannot be said to be in thermodynamic equilibrium! So calling it eleventy-billion degrees Kelvin [sic], does not make it so.
By way of another example, we may use that same distribution to describe other forms of the energy of the particles, such as their atomic/molecular energy levels. If we to now preferentially prepare the particles in the higher energy states, and compare this energy distribution to a Fermi-Dirac Distribution or the Classical Limit, we see that in order to accomplish this distribution, we need to have either k (Boltzmann's Constant) or T (the ABSOLUTE temperature) to be negative. As k is a constant, we have the absolute temperature, which can never be less than zero Kelvin or Rankine, less than zero.
Then surely such a system could never exist, you cry. But it does, for this "population inversion" as it is called, is what drives nearly all forms of lasing with the exception of Free Electron LASERs and their ilk. Most everyone has seen a laser, and while they may be cool, they certainly are not that cool.
Basically, my major beef is that, unless the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, you must be very careful about throwing out anything about raising the temperature or similar ideas.
So, why is it still called temperature? Because it's a nice handy word that we're all familiar with. And that is fine, as long as you don't take the analogy of temperature too far and try to apply ideas to it that can't be applied given your assumptions.
I'm certainly not saying you're wrong in being skeptical, nor am I saying TFA is wrong, I am merely suggesting that thermodynamics (particularly the first law) does not successfully deny the claims made.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, I must say that IAAP; however, as with all science that shouldn't be your only reason to believe me, it just gives some credence to what I am about to say. One of the most important things to point out with both your critique of the article, and TFA itself, is with regards to the temperature said to be obtained.
The basic problem with describing the temperature of the fusion elements is that there is no clear temperature. To describe something as having a temp, it must be in some form of thermodynamic equilibrium. If you relate the temperature, for example, to the kinetic energy of a particle, then there is a certain distribution of energy of the particles in thermodynamic equilibrium, the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.
If, however, you take only a small number of particles at a very specific velocity in the distribution, you may have an exceedingly large temperature, but it cannot be said to be in thermodynamic equilibrium! So calling it eleventy-billion degrees Kelvin [sic], does not make it so.
By way of another example, we may use that same distribution to describe other forms of the energy of the particles, such as their atomic/molecular energy levels. If we to now preferentially prepare the particles in the higher energy states, and compare this energy distribution to a Fermi-Dirac Distribution or the Classical Limit, we see that in order to accomplish this distribution, we need to have either k (Boltzmann's Constant) or T (the ABSOLUTE temperature) to be negative. As k is a constant, we have the absolute temperature, which can never be less than zero Kelvin or Rankine, less than zero.
Then surely such a system could never exist, you cry. But it does, for this "population inversion" as it is called, is what drives nearly all forms of lasing with the exception of Free Electron LASERs and their ilk. Most everyone has seen a laser, and while they may be cool, they certainly are not that cool.
Basically, my major beef is that, unless the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, you must be very careful about throwing out anything about raising the temperature or similar ideas.
So, why is it still called temperature? Because it's a nice handy word that we're all familiar with. And that is fine, as long as you don't take the analogy of temperature too far and try to apply ideas to it that can't be applied given your assumptions.
I'm certainly not saying you're wrong in being skeptical, nor am I saying TFA is wrong, I am merely suggesting that thermodynamics (particularly the first law) does not successfully deny the claims made.