Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4
2cool4school
100 million times colder 2017-03-06 11:27:45 Post No. 8727278
[Report] Image search: [Google]
100 million times colder 2017-03-06 11:27:45 Post No. 8727278
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: CAL_mission_timeline.jpg (184KB, 960x720px) Image search:
[Google]
184KB, 960x720px
NASA has announced the Cold Atom Laboratory (CAL), developed by Jet Propulsion Laboratory, is in the final stages of assembly at JPL, ahead of a ride to space this August on SpaceX CRS-12.
>Its instruments are designed to freeze gas
>atoms to a mere billionth of a degree above
>absolute zero. That's more than 100 million
> times colder than the depths of space.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6765
My friends and I argued about the measurement of "colder" in the last sentence above, and my proposed solution is to measure coldness by an inverse Kelvin (K) unit, and call it Nivlek (N). Thus one billionth degree Kelvin (10^(-9) K) is equivalent to one billion Nivlek (10^9 N) which is indeed 100 million times greater (colder) than the 10N (0.1K) depths of space. What say you, /sci/ ? Genius or madness?
>>
>>8727278
or they could just call it a nanoKelvin (nK), you daft faggot.
>>
File: IMG_0199.png (183KB, 648x504px) Image search:
[Google]
183KB, 648x504px
>>8727278
>Nivlek
I prefer degrees Tiehnerhaf, personally
>>
Are you stupid? Taking the inverse of something doesn't need a new unit.
Also, measuring coldness is a dumb idea because temperature is a measure of energy, it's stupid to measure an absence of something. That's like measuring the darkness by the lack of photons.
Temperature already has a rigorous definition as the inverse of the derivative of internal energy with respect to entropy.
In total, you're a brainlet
>>
Yeah, and then we can start using Smoot units to unify metric and imperial for international collaborations
>>
File: 1480635475001.jpg (31KB, 320x320px) Image search:
[Google]
31KB, 320x320px
>>8727298
>temperature is a measure of energy
Off u'rself brainlet
>>
>>8727278
This wouldn't be useful for real measurements. While for example in special relativity it's useful to operate with the gammas instead of directly the velocities, in this case it makes no sense to invert the temperature, it would only make things more complicated. Even a logarithmic scale where the absolute 0 is minus infinity would be a more useful than inverting the temperature. The Kelvin is good enough, and it's the standard for temperature in science, we don't need more units.
>>
>>8727298
temperature is a measurement of speed
>>
>>8727287
less nK = more colder
that's the problem, Sherlock
>>
>>8727278
>spacex
It's gonna blow up. Screen cap this post.
>>
>>8727439
capped, hope you're in the launch thread so you can see your post and feel like a retard
>>
>>8727278
Pretty sure I've seen this idea when defining temperature via entropy (micro/macrostates)
The general form of temperature (from statistical mechanics) is
[eqn] T = \left ( \frac{\partial S}{\partial U} \right) ^ {-1} [/eqn]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature#Temperature_as_an_intensive_variable
This gives us silly things like negative Kelvin being "hotter" than say...1 million degree K.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature
If you used inverse temperature, I believe these ideas become simpler
>>
>>8727278
>from 2.59K down to almost nothing = 100 million times
Seems like it is only 2.58999...K, but whatever.
>if it is 0F outside and tomorrow is supposed to be twice as cold, how cold will it be tomorrow?
-32F
>>
File: ny4rwVnu.png (425KB, 400x400px) Image search:
[Google]
425KB, 400x400px
Bose-Einstein Condensate IN SPACE!
>>
>>8727298
>Taking the inverse of something doesn't need a new unit
Mho = unit of conductance, inverse of resistance
Lrn2inverse, stoopid branelet
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4