First I didn't understand anything. Then I thought I understood something. Then I realized I understand even less. Negative learning.

@philipripper1522

8 жыл бұрын

+apinakapinastorba And being negatively learned, knowledge will flow from you to positively learned individuals.

@JanWey91

8 жыл бұрын

+apinakapinastorba But the absolute value of learning can still improve right

@aspiringscientificjournali1505

8 жыл бұрын

knowledge cannot be created or destroyed only change form from false to true to quantum

@allannicol5106

8 жыл бұрын

+Anthony Pedraza but it can be lost

@DrummerRF

8 жыл бұрын

+apinakapinastorba Its how it is supposed to be. Its learning how complicated something is.

Professor Moriarty is definitely in a high energy state.

@Gnurklesquimp

8 жыл бұрын

Mattias Sollerman Was about to make this comment hahaha

@512TheWolf512

8 жыл бұрын

420 high level

@ioncasu1993

7 жыл бұрын

im literally crying.

@sexismagainstmen4617

7 жыл бұрын

Moriarty. an excellent example of how even the brightest minds can be susceptible to deceit. this is the guy sargon of akkad lambasted for his support of SJW

@lyreco7910

7 жыл бұрын

Haha get a grip

it's easy... take 1 degree,... add to that 2 degrees, the 3, then 4, then 5... keep adding heat to the infinity and then you get -1/12 degrees!!!

@amineabdz

7 жыл бұрын

Felix Rojas its a troll but to answer you... the wavelength of whatever astronomically high energy rays coming from that object would be smaller than planks distance which means its smaller than space itself... i dont think the concept of temperature still holds up till this stage

@PowerCrafter123

5 жыл бұрын

Is this a reference to riemann ?

@brendanmccabe8373

5 жыл бұрын

Felix Rojas okay this is epic

@Tom_Het

5 жыл бұрын

You can't do it sequentially like that. The heat death of the universe will happen before you're done.

@Patrickhh69

5 жыл бұрын

Use a super task. Wait 1 minute, and increase the temperature by 1. Then, after half a minute, increase by 2. After a quarter, increase by 3. After an eighth, increase by 4. Then by 5 after a sixteenth, and so on. After 2 minutes, you completed all of the steps to create negative temperature

What I've learned is that physicists can never put books on the lower shelves of their bookshelves because they need to keep some free to visualize energy levels.

@sabinrawr

Жыл бұрын

Or, find a way to differentiate high-energy books from low-energy ones.

This guy is my absolute favorite

@hookerWithATool

7 жыл бұрын

Pun intended?

@CaptainCandycorn

7 жыл бұрын

Positively!

@contingenceBoston

7 жыл бұрын

I thought there was something of value around here, but I needed a sign.

@BryceRoberts

7 жыл бұрын

Alyosha Romanov what?

@Trias805

4 жыл бұрын

Positive or negative?

Trying to explain physics without mathematics is like trying to do masonry without chisels. This poor man is clawing and ripping on the marble.

@SpySappingMyKeyboard

8 жыл бұрын

+Taxtro I think that is going to be one of my favorite quotes. Thank you for making my day :)

@fodorstefan8231

4 жыл бұрын

@Gumbo Clay his problem is that they are very restricted on how much math they can use in the videos

@hybmnzz2658

3 жыл бұрын

@Gumbo Clay Clearly the same problem as Moriarty had at the end when the analogy broke down.

didnt understand a thing , but loved the energy of the professor lol .

@roxydzey

7 жыл бұрын

same here!

6:35 "Got an equation and a graph, I'm very proud! Whether it makes the final cu-" Oh Brady.. :P

I love how engaged in teaching he is, i wish all teachers and tutors were like this!

@Aegis23

9 жыл бұрын

Atabey Ayata I am thinking the same thing time and time again when watching him explaing everything. It must be a real delight to be taught by someone like him.

@Aegis23

9 жыл бұрын

Atabey Ayata I am thinking the same thing time and time again when watching him explaing everything. It must be a real delight to be taught by someone like him.

Please tell me this man is a teacher.

@shayhan6227

7 жыл бұрын

In a way, he is. :-)

@ericeaton2386

7 жыл бұрын

He's a professor of physics at the University of Nottingham. So yep, he is

Everyone is missing the most important thing here, which is that HIS NAME IS PROFESSOR MORIARTY.

@vatnidd

9 жыл бұрын

Yes, I noticed that. Thanks, Sherlock. (no pun intended)

@kajoel

9 жыл бұрын

No shit Sherlock...

@fillemptytummy

3 жыл бұрын

His parents are massive StarTrek TNG fans.

@Tuvok_Shakur

3 жыл бұрын

@@fillemptytummy so was sir arthur conan doyle

@blacktimhoward4322

2 жыл бұрын

Literally no one missed this

I'll have what he's having.

@hjembrentkent6181

8 жыл бұрын

Coffee, lots of it

@TylerMatthewHarris

8 жыл бұрын

I'm starting to notice that quite a few physicists have the same level of enthusiasm. As a group, its more than I've seen in any other field. Somebody should do a study to find out if/why this is true and apply it to a business model. Lol

@SlopedOtter

8 жыл бұрын

+Tyler Harris it's the coffee

@alexserrano2850

8 жыл бұрын

+Tyler Harris An incredible passion for what you love and a job that fulfills your life?

@TylerMatthewHarris

8 жыл бұрын

+Alex Serrano exactly

Been watching these for couple days now. I don't get how Nottingham has managed to get some of the most charismatic physicists ever to stay working there. Shout out to Professor Copeland and Moriarty for being awesome.

I love his reaction when Brady told him to imitate particles with negative temperature.

"whether it makes the final cu-" X3 you are so mean. you should let professors do more equations, or maybe do a variation of the same video with more complex explanations. nvm, invalid due to timeframe. this is a lot older than i thought it was. =P

@skyx12435

8 жыл бұрын

They have an extra channel for more detailed explanations. There the profs sometimes even get to write equations :D I thin it's called Nottingham science or something like that...

@omaraljohani9298

6 жыл бұрын

Wulframm Rolf in fact the equation made a great job of making me understand the model

@davecrupel2817

6 жыл бұрын

I laughed at that mark. Lol

To everyone posting their weird analogies to try to explain negative temperatures: Stop. This is a purely quantum effect and has no classical analogue. Heres the best description I can give: (as a note, I am a masters engineering physics student to give a little credibility): Temperature, for most people, is defined by the kinetic energy of a system. That works because thats the most apparent macroscopic factor. But on a quantum scale, we define temperature more fundamentally - as a function of entropy. Effectively, as you add energy to a system, the entropy of the system increases, and thus its temperature goes up. Now, a 'Negative Temperature' would be if you added energy, but the entropy DECREASED. This never happens in classical physics. To do this, you would need a system that has a /bounded/ maximum energy. Aka there is a cap to the amount of entropy it can have. So what kind of system has this? Picture a bunch of particles with nuclear spins which can only be in an up or down state. With no magnetic field on them, both states are the same energy and so there is a 50/50 that a particle is up or down and so this is a maximum entropy state. However, apply a magnetic field, and suddenly one of the states (ie up) is now higher energy. Now, as we pump in more energy, the particles which used to be spin down take it and become spin up, moving the system away from the initial 50/50, and therefore decreasing the entropy. Thus, this system has a negative temperature since as energy is added, entropy decreases. If we put this system in contact with another system, energy will flow to the new system to try and get these particles out of the high-energy state.

@arthsharma6576

8 жыл бұрын

Very nice explanation.

@coopergates9680

8 жыл бұрын

Nyx72 So it can't work like the usual definition of "negative," where if you increase the quantity it moves toward zero, because you're adding energy and the temperature is becoming more negative (as opposed to heating it and it's coming back toward absolute zero). I might prefer to call it "super positive" even though some of its properties are opposite of those of typical positive temperatures.

@IchigoCandy1

8 жыл бұрын

Cooper Gates In a sense, yes. Negative temperatures are 'hotter' than positive ones

@coopergates9680

8 жыл бұрын

Nyx72 So it's any sort of an inversion, where the majority of the molecules or electrons are in the higher energy state? Or not that broad?

@IchigoCandy1

8 жыл бұрын

Cooper Gates Its any situation where inputting energy decreases entropy. That can include states where the majority of molecules are high in energy IF AND ONLY IF this energy state is LOWER in entropy than a lower energy state. But in general, no, not that broad.

I would really love to see a version of this that _does_ explain it in terms of entropy.

@Gyroglle

8 жыл бұрын

***** No, that absolutely did the trick refreshing my memory of thermodynamics. You put a lot more energy and time in this than I ever asked for, thanks! If this was Reddit I'd give you gold.

@CamMci

2 жыл бұрын

So it seems like it is simply another feature of the nature of integrated infinities tending towards weird numbers?

@doszlopleonard6031

2 жыл бұрын

@Cedric Wehrum you know I used to watch sixtysymbols‘ videos and other ones like these back in like 6th grade or so (I’m in year 12 of Highschool rn) and I couldn’t understand a thing. My interest in these topics however hasn’t faded one bit and reading your explanation of the statistical interpretation of entropy (something that I’m just beginning to grasp as of right now) really made me feel like I’ve come a long way. thank you I guess for motivating me even further 😄

I love your work, Brady. All of your videos are interesting and educating while reaching most of the masses - I hope!

It seems to me (no expertise on this subject) that the system/equation of "negative temperature" might as well not be called that, it might be more accurate to call it anti-temperature. It's a system that's structured opposite to our basic understanding of temperature.

@lordihlendam3619

7 жыл бұрын

No, it isn't. Temperature is not, strictly speaking, the amount of 'jiggling' of particles. If you want the proper physics definition, Temperature is a slope. A positive temperature occurs when increase in energy increases entropy (technically, the rate of change of energy with respect to change in entropy). A negative temperature (as in lasers or magnetic spins) occurs when increase in energy causes a decrease in entropy. It isn't so much that the 'basic understanding' of temperature is only applicable to positive temperatures, but rather, the visual explanation that temperature is the amount of random motion is only factually correct for systems with positive temperatures.

@baganatube

6 жыл бұрын

I think the problem is in reusing everyday vocabulary for something very different. Like spins, like colors, like orbitals.

@SolidSiren

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, that is basically correct if im understanding this correctly (the first part only.) It is the inverse of the arrangement of particles that we call positive temperature. This reminds me of learning how space becomes timelike in a black hole or about past and future light cones on a spacetime diagram.

I love how frustrated the Prof gets XD 'Show me what happens when that's a negative temperature' ' NGHH YOU CAN'T DO IT.'

@victorfergn

3 жыл бұрын

that's how he got bald

Phils reaction is priceless, always makes me laugh. Keep up the questions Brady.

It's rare to see a professor so passionate about his field. If all teachers were like this, it would make education much more interesting. Most of the time, teachers drone on like they wish they were somewhere else, especially in lower level courses. In the few cases where I have had professors who are that passionate, it made the subject matter infinitely more enjoyable. Their passion sparked my interest in the subject matter at hand.

13:06, this is where the analogy breaks down, the right explanation from a professor to a layman. It's worthwhile to watch 60 symbols. Thanks Prof. Moriarty and Brady.

I've watched the intro to this so many times! It's gold!

I cannot believe this video is 8 years old! It's been so pivotal in how I understand temperatures.

There is nothing sexier in this world of an attractive witty man who can talk about things my brain could never even try to think to elaborate and has such a cute dog too. Fact.

@vinylhedgehog5574

7 жыл бұрын

It's just that he's so passionate about it. The passion he has for it is really quite attractive.

This is one of my favorite videos in the entire series. I actually have it bookmarked separately because i've watched it so many times. Every time i do, i end up thinking about the implications in a different way.Prof. Moriarty's explanation not only gives you a working idea of the theory, with an equation to boot, but also provides multiple ways of visualize the subject. Good job on working in several offensive terms while also bashing a nationality! A valuable addition to this site, no doubt

I appreciate all of the videos you folks post, making more of an aware individual everyday.

This video is an example of how hard it can be to explain some concepts in physics without going to the maths and equations, etc. Makes me feel like cracking open my old physics books and getting back into it. Great job though explaining something that's so hard to visualize. You guys are awesome!

I want a follow-up with imaginary temperatures.

@sakesaurus1706

7 жыл бұрын

Reminds me of e^πi=-1

@Trias805

5 жыл бұрын

And then 3D temperatures

@theonionpirate1076

4 жыл бұрын

complex temperatures?

0:28 This is just so pure everytime, I could watch that 100 times in a row

Very excited to get a reply! I'm a comp. scientist and my fiancee a chemist, and it was a pleasure to show her this video. I'm getting her hooked on all of the science-y youtube channels (this, #phile, etc). As an American, she finds your accent charming. Videos like this one give me a healthy dose of the other sciences, and your efforts to enlighten the masses are so greatly appreciated. You and Brady really nail a thought-provoking balance of facts vs entertainment. Keep up the good work!

It seems like if you can understand this video, you don't need to watch this video; confusing stuff! :)

@GalaxyGal-

6 жыл бұрын

Roli Rivelino I’m a physics undergraduate student and I didn’t know about this. I understood what he was saying, but if you don’t, that’s perfectly fine.

@pariot4567

4 жыл бұрын

i am a highschool student if you are not getting this it is probably due to the equation you need to get the essence of the math first

@DenzelLN936

4 жыл бұрын

pariot 456 shutup

@jorgepeterbarton

2 жыл бұрын

A combination of videos usually explains it, each one has gaps. Another explains "infinite limit of temperature where the distributions of energy states are equal" low temperatures are unequal as all in low energy state. High ones spread to all energy states. Negative ones are unequal in HIGH energy states. I believe then this is perhaps how temperature is defined as a distribution curve, and not just 'how much heat energy' because these circumstances of sticking in higher states are "quantum weirdness" or such like, never formed the distribution/entropy definition, like feeding the max amnt of energy usually causes 'maxing out' at this equal distributions (low P: low probability in equation btw), and the only way to achieve beyond equal, as in more higher states than lower states is through some "quantum loophole" for want of better term.

Very interesting. So going off the ball metaphor, if I understand at least part of this video correctly, a negative temperature would be pinching off the top of the bag, turning it upside down, then quickly releasing the pinch?

@Oners82

10 жыл бұрын

No, as he says the analogy simply doesn't work for negative temperature.

@AstonishedByTheLackOfCake

9 жыл бұрын

That doesn't have anything to do with it

@moviemaker1986

9 жыл бұрын

Oh well, thanks to you both for the clarification. I'll be honest, I forgot I asked this question until you both replied. Well, all metaphors break down at some point, and I guess we've found that point.

Hope KZread lives for 1000 years so that this gold can be seen by people in future, like I saw it after 10 years

I remember when I first watched this 4 years ago, being confused. But now, re-watching it, I think I understand it (a bit) more! At least, the equation and the explanation of the equation make much more sense. Yay for a growing understanding of the universe! :D

It's important to say that, in statistical mechanics, temperature is NOT defined as the mean kinetic energy of a system. It's defined in terms of the change in entropy with energy. Like this: T^-1 = ∂S/∂E Sometimes this definition falls within our normal understanding of temperature, sometimes it doesn't. If, in the case presented in the video, there was only one particle it's temperature would be 1 over 0 because entropy is always 0, regardless of which level the particle is on.

I want to know more about Professor Moriarty's dog

I absolutely love this guy. He's so passionate. :D

I keep coming to this video just for the clip at the beginning and Prof. Moriarty flipping right out. Also for the mindbending concept of negative temperatures, which at some point in the video does click in one's head correctly. EDIT: Wow, I just saw a comment I left a year prior to this, saying basically the same thing.

but with negative temperatures that equation becomes non normalizable, thus non physical..?... or thats why you need an upper limit so that you can normalize it?

Mathematics on many things goes beyond reality. Mathematics have little to no bounds is all, so just because you can express or "prove" something mathematically, it doesn't guarantee that the real world will agree.

@fillemptytummy

3 жыл бұрын

So he tried to use maths to prove something that can't happen?

@bo64hellfire

3 жыл бұрын

@@fillemptytummy wow this was a while ago. I had to watch the video all over again. To answer your question, yes and no. Different things can happen in quantum physics. The rules change, and progress in figuring out what those rules actually are is ongoing (with great success) . So in terms of standard physics, yes, math can produce what the real world cannot, BUT that kind of ends when you get down to the quantum level, because different rules. So in it's SIMPLEST form, to make for a shorter response, the most fundamental level of traditional physics (sub atomic particles) are the net result of a different set of rules (quantum). So when you actually manage to force a limitation of the real world in its laws of physics, a different set of rules is in play, and we can't interact with that in a traditional "physical" sense.

I taught myself the basics of C/C++ programming in about an hour or two at home. Enough that I understood each part of the code I knew how to write, why I needed it, what it did, and how I can use it. I was able to write a simple and compounding interest calculator as well as a normal calculator based on the two KZread video's I watched. I know it's not anything amazing, but the point is I was able to teach myself that in an hour or two, whereas at school I'm unable to learn anything.

Love your teaching style. Subscribed

Please tell me that is NOT a Les Paul propped precariously against the cabinet behind you. Lucky to be in one piece with all the energetic particles, professors and unruly dachshunds flying about.

@Videohead-eq5cy

5 жыл бұрын

A white (Buckethead special, I'm guessing) Les Paul and also a dreadnaught right next to it. Both guitars would be worth 3000$ in total

Has temperature got a limit or is it 'infinite'?

Love from India sir.. I still amazed by this concept. I watching all of your videos in a row. Wish I could join you too..

This is one the best sixty symbols - love the passion

Math and science are awesome, i like to share that fact often

"I got an equation and a graph! I'm very happy. Whether it makes the final cu- ..."

I often come back to this video just to replay the first 34 seconds. I love Prof Moriarty.

This is an awesome channel! I know you try to avoid mathematical formulas but I think that they can be very useful. This video is a great example.

I didn't understand a word of this. After about 6 minutes it was like I was just watching Telemundo.

When anyone talks about the absolute zero they always talk about Kelvin. Poor Rankine is always forgotten...

That is some brilliant editing at 6:39

Thanks for explaining this

Wait his name is actually professor Moriarty? AWESOME

If I were the physicist, I would have opened up the bag and made a huge ball pit mess when he asked to demonstrate negative temperature.

Very nice. Very informative. Thank you!

I’m reading same article and thank for making it easier to understand I wish u were my professors

Teachers should be like this, shaking a bag of balls and telling you that dachshunds are disobedient little ones.

actually, if you put something to absolute zero, it is still moving due the the Heisenberg uncertainty principal which states that the closer you measure something then that measurement will affect molecules around it. so by measuring to see if all motion has stopped you have inadvertantly created motion. an example of this would be when you are trying to observe an electron, but to observe it you need light, or photons, and the photons would hit the electrons, skewing you observation. so if an atom has a defined position, it cannot have a defined momentum, so therefore your statement about no motion is FALSE.

@joshuababb6077

9 жыл бұрын

***** isnt that the same thing i wrote?

@joshuababb6077

9 жыл бұрын

Okay I understand.

@cyberizedfuture1657

9 жыл бұрын

You state hasn't invalidate anything. Your statement merely shows why we can't get something to absolute zero. There's no way to remove the consequences of the actions you use to lower the temperature. IF something was at absolute zero, it would not be moving. It's just impossible to actually create that state.

@cyberizedfuture1657

9 жыл бұрын

***** The answer lies with your confusion on how to visualize the topic as shown by this: "Electrons cannot reflect light." No one states that they reflect light, it's that they absorb photons. This gives them energy, thus putting it in what is often referred to as an "excited state" when the electron has moved up an 'orbital' (for the sake of simplicity you can simply picture this as Earth sundenly switching to Mars's orbit around the sun, but know that that is not accurate, it's just a metaphor of sorts) however the electron is in a more stable state in the lowest available energy level, so it releases a photon and drops down to the original level. This is why the sky is blue, as the amount of energy released in the photon determines it's wavelength and frequency it will have, thus the oxygen releases blue light when energized by the sun. As you see, this much different from what you thought of it. You're right as there are many characteristics of the electron to try and study it, however you have to do something to it to observe these characteristics. Information doesn't just randomly transfer from something to else ware. Each method interacts with the electron (or whatever else on this scale) thus altering it. When can learn one piece of date at the cost of another (for example it's position or its direction but not both). The reason the OP mentioned photons the the only way to detect the movement of something is hit it with a photon and analyze the released photons. Basically it was specific to his example.

@joshuababb6077

9 жыл бұрын

it was really just a rough comparison trying to explain that in the process of observing something, you affect how it will act.

If I'm correct, the X-axis of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution curve represents Kinetic energy and not velocity (don't know how else to word it). So this graph shows that the probability of finding a particle with a higher kinetic energy begins to become infinitely lower. When it is heated, the distribution shifts to the right so you have a higher probability of finding particles with higher kinetic energy. I hope this helps you understand.

Spot on. i think you mean that the x axis IS velocity and relates to Kinetic Energy through KE=1/2mv(squared) where v=velocity

Shouldn't this be considered "Inverse" and not "Negative" temperature?

@ScoreMagnet

6 жыл бұрын

That is basically the same.

@thedarkspeedninjashadittsux

5 жыл бұрын

They are, but I feel that "Inverse" is less confusing and misleading than "Negative".

@jorgepeterbarton

2 жыл бұрын

Inverse means 1/x not -x so no

I'm no less confused.

@Yosef52434

6 жыл бұрын

Now I'm more confused.

It does, (because it precipitates my certainty). I would call this an inverted hot system. The net velocity or inertia of the system is still above zero, (so temperature is positive) but the ratio of fast:slow molecules is inverted from normal. Thank you CE.

i dint understand shit, but his enthusiasm and passion for physics is what pulled me through to watching the whole video :)

Sometimes I want to watch these videos, then I remember I'm not smart enough...

@wailer27

3 жыл бұрын

perhaps time to get to the kitchen?

this must be what my dog feels like when I talk him ...

Just found your channel. Awesome explanation of negative temperatures. Subscribed! ❤👍

@sixtysymbols

7 ай бұрын

Welcome aboard - thanks.

மிக நன்று, மிக்க நன்றி! Superb explanation... Thank you....

So in essence they didn't go THROUGH zero Kelvin... They hopped over it?

@MozartJunior22

7 жыл бұрын

If I understand correctly, negative temperatures are hotter than positive ones, because if you put a negative temp' object next to a positive temp. object, heat will flow from the negative temp to the positive temp. It has to be this way from the second law of thermodynamics. Essentially they went through infinity rather than through 0.

@TheAllBlackMan

7 жыл бұрын

I think I see what you're getting at.

@magnetar02p.23

7 жыл бұрын

TheAllBlackMan no

@zacchon

7 жыл бұрын

Wow, 0 is apparently even scarier than infinity!

@sauron1427

7 жыл бұрын

Zacchon they're two sides of the same coin, if T is 0 in the equation he showed you'd be dividing by 0 and going to infinity. A negative temperature on the other hand can be handled.

Never draw a graph without labelling the axes.

@SmellySquid

3 жыл бұрын

But he did label the axes

I really only got this when I was learning about lasers later. Look into Population inversion for optical pumping or laser pumping. That kinda helps.

Awesome and I thought it was a great and simple to follow explanation

This was higly interesting..

@SonariNeiracchen

9 жыл бұрын

Higgley interesting lmfao

@JorgetePanete

6 жыл бұрын

Jarmo187 highly*

Would time stop at absolute 0?

@bdnugget

7 жыл бұрын

No, why would you think that?

@lloydtshare

7 жыл бұрын

bdbdbd why wouldn't it? isn't time responsible for all motion?

@bdnugget

7 жыл бұрын

No? If time stops, all motion stops as well, but if motion stops at some place, time doesn't stop right? Motion is local and time very general.

@lloydtshare

7 жыл бұрын

bdbdbd no you're wrong motion can't stop that means absolute zero which isn't possible? why does multiple clocks have anything to do with this?

@eusou0

7 жыл бұрын

Which scale are we talking about? Quantum or Relativity?

Moriarty is by far my favorite professor on this channel.

This video and the One about Touching atoms are my favorites

3ed time i have watched this, finally get it!!

@donkeydonk96

9 жыл бұрын

Matt Dolloff No you don't.

@mjlv3862

8 жыл бұрын

A famous physicist once said something along the lines of: "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." And this is a top tier physicist saying this; who are you?

@coopergates9680

8 жыл бұрын

Max J lifting videos So if you think you don't understand it then you do understand it? .... ;)

@captainjack6758

8 жыл бұрын

Cooper Gates Makes me think of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

@ProDigit80

8 жыл бұрын

+Cooper Gates I just think I don't not understand it. Perhaps a double negative helps here :)

wait he's called moriarty? he certainly is clever enough

I understood this!!! - I'm amazed that I did!!! thank you!

Sounds pretty cool and could bring about something awesome for energy production in the future. Only problem I see with it is that the use of the word temperature at -K is paradoxical. Once you pass 0 it would absorb heat that fast to get back to 0 that it's energy state would be incredible not temperature. I could never see it as 'hotter' than anything above it. It might gain energy quick enough to shoot over those above it as it equals out but I wouldn't know. Nice vid'.

-1/12 all over again. Infinite numbers really tend to be negative, huh?

@lokar2000

9 жыл бұрын

Marcus Liebenthal Yeh, look at 1/x graph from right to left.

I think a lot of confusion could've been avoided if nobody had mentioned temperature in relation to this, and just left it in the rabbithole of quantum-mechanics, where it belongs.

The idea comes from the 1st law, dU = TdS - it all boils down to the shape of S(U), and u can see how the 'upper bound' thingy comes about if you think, for a 2-level system, in terms of _how many distinct states_ (AKA entropy) can you get by distributing particles along these two levels (S is a symmetric function of U!). Now, if u want to think in terms of the Boltzmann kernel, I think it's more useful to think that it's the distribution that defines what T is, not the other way around: if u _make_ a system in which the probability of the higher levels being occupied is bigger, than when u fit this into the 'Boltzmann scheme' using a fitting parameter T, this parameter will be negative :)

Love that frustration, I get like that right before I start to understand lessons.

Can you guys start doing videos that use math??

It's ironic that he said that his head hurts when he contemplates entropy, because too much entropy for the brain to handle is the cause of headaches.

@wolfiethebumpireslyr

9 жыл бұрын

Ummm... No. Just no.

@KnakuanaRka

8 жыл бұрын

How does entropy cause headaches? Or are you talking through your hat?

@chaswilson6569

8 жыл бұрын

+Eric Haag (Physics) Deepak Chopra, is that you?

Thank you for the kind words about our paper!

I don't think that this definition of temperature can be explained adequately without the concept of entropy, because it depends upon entropic state. But entropy is not an attribute of fundamental particles individually, it is a state of organization of those particles. So it's quite similar to the concepts of crystallization and phase transitions, wherein extra energy is required to attain greater organization of matter, and is therefore stored as a potential to be released. It is the low entropic state which can be achieved only through investment of energy, and is an unstable store of that energy.

Temperature is defined as how hot something is. Once again we have scientists trying to change how things are defined to make life easier on themselves. What we have here isn't negative temperature, what we have is a positive temperature that has an inverted energy density function or however you want to say it. Something with negative temperature would have to be able to absorb energy from any system, including those at absolute zero. What they have effectively described in this video is infinite temperature.

@enoesiw

9 жыл бұрын

Why isn't this comment rated higher? This video is complete BS and this comment completely embodies why.

@isodoublet

9 жыл бұрын

Matthew Brown That's because this comment is incredibly ignorant, and the video is broadly correct.

@coffee4laffdip

9 жыл бұрын

Did you even watch the video? 7:50 the Boltzmann factor describes the population distribution of the particles. At positive temperatures, more particles populate the lowest energy states, and exponentially less particles populate higher energies. But at a "negative" temperature, exponentially more particles possess higher energies, a phenomenon called "population inversion". Look at the equation again and you will see why

@lennysmileyface

9 жыл бұрын

RipleySawzen It's scientists understanding things better than you.

@enoesiw

9 жыл бұрын

jimsir812 OR our understanding is flawed. An inversion of the energy distribution doesn't mean the temperature is negative. 0K is an absence of heat energy. We haven't been able to observe 0K (and thus haven't obtained 0K) because of this. How then can you say that negative temperatures have even MORE energy? How can you say that a negative temperature is hotter than a positive one? Heat energy flows from high to low, this is something we know. Heat flows from so-called "negative temperatures" to positive ones. I'm less inclined to think that our understanding of heat transfer is flawed and more inclined to think the math/understanding of the "negative absolute temperature" scale is wrong.

Such passion

Fantastic stuff there!

e- > 0 Scalable Aether, Casimir Effect Universe. e- and p+ are the plates. The Inertial plane attracts and repels the plates. Absolute zero is in the Inertial plane/Counterspace.

I did my graduate work on laser safety, and I knew that the key to laser operation was a population inversion in the lasing medium, whether it was a gas, a diode, or other more exotic systems, but I never thought about it in terms of negative temperature. Definitely an ah-ha moment there. As for showing a negative temperature, if my understanding is correct, you possibly could show a bunch of ball fired out of an air cannon at the same speed, much faster than the bag?

it seems like the deeper I look into physics, the more it looks like programming.

he said the E is exponential (-delta E/ KT), K is a constant, T is temperature at the moment, and delta E is the change in energy from the current state your in to the another state. (like electrons going from an inner ring to an outer ring, delta E is how much energy does that take). The more it takes the less likely you're going to have electrons, or in this case atoms moving at that higher energy state.

I'm re-visiting this video after having watched it in March, and on second look, a possibility has occurred to me: perhaps our mathematical understanding of temperature is backwards. If something that has "negative" temperature can always transfer heat into something with a "positive" temperature, then that means the negative temperature object has more energy. It wouldn't be the first time conventional thinking has got something arse-backwards. Look at electricity: you have "conventional current", where electricity flows from positive to negative, which was decided entirely abitrarily, and you have the way things actually are, "electron flow", where electrons move from a negatively charged body to a positively charged body. It could also be that what we've thought of as a one-dimensional concept for so long isn't actually one dimensional.

@KorySteele

9 жыл бұрын

Temperature thing just goes back to the Theory of Relativity, mostly. It's a matter of where the observer that determines the values and associations.

@giulio2lavendetta

9 жыл бұрын

Kory Steele this is very intresting. could you explain the idea a bit or give me one or two links? thank you

@jonawhite17

9 жыл бұрын

It's not backwards, and negative temperature systems don't necessarily have more energy. Here's the math: Temperature is defined in the following way: dS/dE = 1/T, where dS is the differential in entropy, and dE the differential in energy. Consider a heat-exchange process between a system with negative temperature, T-, and a system with positive temperature, T+. The change in entropy for this process is: (Delta)S = (dS+/dE)(dE) + (dS-/dE)(-dE) The dE outside of the derivatives is the amount of heat exchanged. There is a minus sign in front of the dE in the second term because heat differentials for the two systems must have opposite sign - in one system heat is added, in the other heat is taken away. Now, substitute the the derivatives in the above equation using the definition of temperature: (Delta)S = (1/T+)(dE) + (1/T-)(- dE) = dE[(1/T+) - (1/T-)] In any process, entropy must increase or stay the same (i.e., (Delta)S >= 0). Since [(1/T+) - (1/T-)] is a positive number minus a negative number, this factor is always positive, no matter the magnitudes of the two temperatures. This means that dE must also be positive in order for the expression on the right hand side to be positive. Based on the sign convention I used above, dE can be interpreted as "heat added to the positive-temperature system." Since this dE is always positive for arbitrary T+ and T-, heat always flows from a negative-temperature system to a positive-temperature system, regardless of the magnitudes of the temperatures involved.

@jweebo1463

9 жыл бұрын

You're forgetting the key element of what he was saying. Distribution of Energy in a given area.

@ObiWanCannoli

9 жыл бұрын

Really nice to see other open minded people on our planet : ) somehow it seems im surrounded by them 24/ 7