Double Negative Kelvin

Reports that researchers elicited a temperature "lower than absolute zero" might make one question the meaning of the word absolute.  On Built on Facts, Matt Springer writes "temperature is a relationship between energy and entropy, and you can do some weird things to entropy and energy and get the formal definition of temperature to come out negative."  Usually collisions between atoms ensure that less than 50% of atoms in a sample are excited, no matter how much heat you add.  But Springer analogizes "What if I start with a huge pile of ground-state atoms, and one by one I whack them with a hammer to get them excited and then throw my collection of excited atoms into a jar?"  In this case, as more than 50% of the atoms are excited, physical equations yield a negative temperature.  Chad Orzel explains that the smallest negative temperature (i.e. -.01 K) reflects the highest concentration of excited atoms, while larger negative temperatures (i.e. -100K) actually approach lukewarm.  In his latest post, Chad Orzel breaks down the highly technical details of the researchers' accomplishment.

More like this

I'm sitting in a hotel in Utah at the PQE 2013 conference.  As I write this, the temperature is a rather brisk 19F. (For everyone else in the world, -7.2C) That's not cold at all to some of you, but some of you didn't grow up in south Louisiana. Once a year they let us grad students out of the…
I've been slacking a bit, lately, in terms of putting science-related content on the blog. Up until last week, most of my physics-explaining energy was going into working on the book, and on top of that, I've been a little preoccupied with planning for the arrival of FutureBaby. I'd like to push…
Love it or hate it, physics is a demanding subject. It defines much of our knowledge and experience in a daunting variety of ways. But really, you do love physics, don't you? On Uncertain Principles, Chad Orzel describes a modern implementation of "Maxwell's Demon," a dreamed-of 19th century…
So, what's the deal with that graph I was talking about the other day? I sort of left it hanging at the end, there, but I ought to actually interpret the figure. It also serves as a nice and fairly simple illustration of how physicists approach experimental data. Here's a newer version of the plot…