Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AssCakesMcGee t1_j68rpdq wrote

Reply to comment by Yaver_Mbizi in In the absence of cosmic radiation, would an object placed in space eventually cool to absolute zero? by IHatrMakingUsernames

That's not a conventional definition of temperature. A particle gaining energy but losing entropy is strange, but it's not what people think when you say 'negative temperature' since these particles are indeed, quite hot.

21

Awhodothey t1_j693ug3 wrote

Yeah, because defining temperature is, in fact, not as straightforward as you might imagine.

16

QuantumCakeIsALie t1_j69wxbt wrote

It's a very conventional way to define temperature in thermodynamics/physics.

Fun fact, you could create infinite energy if you could create a Carnot thermodynamical cycle that crosses + and - temperatures. That was a big issue with the concept of negative temperatures, until someone proved that it's impossible to create such a cycle to begin with.

8

Putrid-Repeat t1_j6ae0nv wrote

Well it's not the layman definition of temperature but, it is the actual definition 😉

2

sebzim4500 t1_j6ck159 wrote

What definition of temperature are you thinking of? The only definition I know is based on how the entropy changes with energy, which clearly makes negative temperature objects extremely hot.

1