Is Below Zero Kelvin Possible in Outer Space? Curiosity and Scientific Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter jaredmt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Zero
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of absolute zero, defined as 0 Kelvin, which is considered the lowest possible temperature according to current scientific understanding. It is clarified that while temperatures can be approached very closely to 0 K, achieving it is practically impossible due to the laws of thermodynamics, specifically the principles of statistical mechanics. In outer space, the temperature is around 2.7 K due to Cosmic Background Radiation, which is still above absolute zero. The conversation also touches on the idea of negative temperatures, particularly in systems like lasers where population inversion occurs, leading to counterintuitive results where these states are hotter than any positive temperature. However, these negative temperatures are described as a mathematical construct rather than a physical reality, emphasizing that they do not represent a true state of being colder than absolute zero. Overall, the consensus is that 0 K is a thermodynamic limit that cannot be surpassed, and negative temperatures are more of a theoretical concept than a practical possibility.
jaredmt
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
is this possible anywhere?
i know 0 kalvin is the lowest temperature possible that we've been able to attain. but is it possible that in outerspace where there is no heat from sun, that it gets below zero kalvin?

im just curious. I am not sure wether this was "proven" to be the lowest possible temp or just the lowest temp we've been able to get. because i do know that no matter how hard you try to take heat out of something, more heat will just keep going back into it at the same time
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
According to current understanding, no temperature below 0 K exists. Also, it is not possible from a practical perspective to cool an object to 0 K (the process would take an infinite amount of time). The lowest humans have achieved is less than one billionth of a Kelvin, far colder than interstellar space, which is approximately 2.7 K.
 
Yes, we've never been able to get to 0K. Space is at about 2.7K like Mapes says because of the Cosmic Background Radiation.

The reason we can't get to 0K is because of statistical mechanics, basically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0K
 
jaredmt said:
is this possible anywhere?
i know 0 kalvin is the lowest temperature possible that we've been able to attain. but is it possible that in outerspace where there is no heat from sun, that it gets below zero kalvin?

im just curious. I am not sure wether this was "proven" to be the lowest possible temp or just the lowest temp we've been able to get. because i do know that no matter how hard you try to take heat out of something, more heat will just keep going back into it at the same time

Yes, it's possible, in a Laser system, for example.

Temperature can be defined as the partial derivative of energy with respect to entropy; in a system like a Laser, there is "population inversion" so entropy *decreases* instead of increase, when energy increases, so the absolute temperature is negative.
 
As Norman Ramsey has pointed out, objects with negative temperature are not colder than absolute zero, but instead hotter than anything else. Heat energy will always flow from a inversion state to a state that is closer to equilibrium; this is the characteristic of a high temperature, not a low temperature.
 
As lightarrow points out, the statistical-mechanical origin of 'temperature' can lead to counterintuitive results- for example, a population inversion in a two-state system corresponds to negative temperatures.

0 K should be considered a thermodynamic limit.

'0 K' is not acheivable due to the laws of thermodynamics, and it is also not true that 'all motion ceases at 0 K' due to the zero-point energy.
 
ok that is confusing that -k is actually hotter than +k. there are actually mechanical tests where they created a negative temperature? and it was hotter? that's strange
 
jaredmt said:
ok that is confusing that -k is actually hotter than +k. there are actually mechanical tests where they created a negative temperature? and it was hotter? that's strange
Probably better to think of it as a mis-use of the concept of temperature.
There are areas of solid state physics where you treat an electron as having negative mass - the maths works and you get the right answer - but it's not necessarily 'real'.
 
o. so basically we just arent technologically advanced enough to get the right formula to achieve the real -k (if it exists)
 
  • #10
jaredmt said:
o. so basically we just arent technologically advanced enough to get the right formula to achieve the real -k (if it exists)

How did you conclude that from the responses? It's not a technological barrier.
 
  • #11
jaredmt said:
o. so basically we just arent technologically advanced enough to get the right formula to achieve the real -k (if it exists)

No I mean that negative temperature in a laser inversion isn't real it's just a convenient mathematical trick.
It's like being overdrawn at the bank, you don't really own 10 negative dollars - it's just easier to do the sums that way.
 
Back
Top