what does /sci/ think of this? http://www.sciencedaily.com/

>>7842951
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTeBUpR17Rw

>>7842951
Negative Absolute Temps aren't a new concept. They are actually hotter than positive temps. This might seem paradoxical, but it makes sense scientifically.

>>7843147
Seems intuitive. You go so far back that your end up in the front

>>7843149
It has to do with population inversion. If I have more excited states than ground states, I have achieved negative absolute temperatures. So, all laser pointers achieve negative absolute temperatures since lasing requires a population inversion.

>>7842951
>Kelvin is absolute
>Kelvin is not absolute
This is why humanity still prefers rwligion over science.

>>7843184
It's more of a definition thing and makes sense in that regard.

We have never even reached 0 K. And if we did, we could not go into negative temperatures by decreasing the temperature even further.

>this means below zero kelvin

Stopped reading there. It's bullshit

>>7843309
Reactionary close-minded retard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/neg_temperature.html

>>7844664
>neg_temperature
poz my neghole senpai

>>7842951
>I thought temperature was measured according to particle movement and 0 Kelvin means no movement.

That's not what 0 Kelvin means, FYI. Matter at 0 K would still be moving around. It would just be unable to lose any more energy. "No movement" is physically impossible.

>>7842951

Ususally you hear of temperature as a measure of movement/jiggling. However, temperature is defined as:

1/T = dS/dE

As in, how much more disordered/mixed up does a system get when I pump in some energy? Turns out that some systems get less disordered when you pump in more energy, which gives a negative temperature.

It's a bit far away from what you conventionally think of as temperature, you could say it's autistically following the definition wherever it goes. Which is strangely how much of physics works.