Quantcast
issue
Read articles, including Science News stories written for ages 9-14, on the SNK website.
Hottest temperature ever measured is a negative one
Ultracold gas sets record on the kelvin scale
A+ A- Text Size

Ultracold gas sets record on the kelvin scale

By Andrew Grant

Web edition: January 4, 2013
Print edition: February 9, 2013; Vol.183 #3 (p. 10)

Coaxing a gas to a negative temperature on the kelvin scale has produced, paradoxically, the hottest temperature ever measured. The study, published in the Jan. 4 Science, will help physicists learn about quantum phenomena and perhaps even the strange form of energy that dominates the universe.

A negative kelvin temperature indicates that particles at high energies outnumber those at low energies.

“We are used to positive temperatures,” says Achim Rosch, a physicist at the University of Cologne in Germany who was not involved in the research. “But there’s nothing forbidden about negative temperatures. It’s always fascinating to do something unusual.”

Temperature is commonly interpreted as a measure of the average energy of the particles in a sample. Each of the molecules buzzing around in a pot of boiling water, for example, has more energy on average than a sluggish water molecule within an ice cube.

But for scientists who study matter at quantum scales, temperature is better defined as the energy distribution of the particles in a sample. Just above absolute zero (0 kelvin, or -273° Celsius), almost all of the particles within a sample have energies very close to zero, with little variation. But as temperatures rise, the variation in energies widens — some particles still have very small energies, but others have more.

Physicist Ulrich Schneider at the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich set out to do something unusual: He wanted to cajole the particles within a substance to be confined to a very high amount of energy. In other words, instead of having the particles start at a minimum energy (corresponding to absolute zero) and spreading out toward higher energies, he wanted to start at a maximum energy and spread toward lower energies. By definition, such a substance would have a negative kelvin temperature.

His team achieved that with potassium atoms chilled to a few billionths kelvin above absolute zero. Through the use of lasers and magnets, the team managed to get the atoms to jump to a high-energy state. By creating a cluster of particles exclusively at high energies, Schneider and his colleagues had a gas at a few billionths negative kelvin.

This temperature is technically not below absolute zero, because negative on the kelvin scale (unlike that on the Fahrenheit or Celsius scale) is a construct that simply indicates something about the energy state of the particles involved. In fact, the new creation is extremely hot because of the high energies of the particles. Heat travels from hot to cold, Schneider says, and heat will always flow away from this gas. “It’s actually hotter than everything we know,” he says.

Despite the semantics involved, this experiment isn’t merely a fun physics trick. Scientists are fascinated by negative-temperature substances because they have other strange properties. The molecules in a typical gas spread out and exert a force on the walls of their container. But a negative-temperature gas also has negative pressure, meaning the particles tend to cave in rather than expand. “It wants to collapse into a single point,” Schneider says.

Negative pressure may be important in another part of the physics universe: Cosmologists believe that dark energy, the mysterious entity that is causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate, also has negative pressure. Schneider suggests that experimenting with the quantum phenomenon of negative temperature could reveal the nature of dark energy throughout the cosmos.

Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

S. Braun et al. Negative Absolute Temperature for Motional Degrees of Freedom. Science. Vol. 339, January 4, 2013, p. 52. doi:10.1126/science.1227831. [Go to]

A.Rapp, S. Mandt and A. Rosch. Equilibration rates and negative absolute temperatures for ultracold atoms in optical lattices. Physical Review Letters. Vol. 105, November 26, 2010, 220405. [Go to]


A. Witze. Negative temperature, infinitely hot. Science News Online, November 23, 2010. [Go to]

R. Cowen. Beyond Galileo’s universe. Science News. Vol. 175, May 23, 2009, p. 22. Available online: [Go to]

Comments (8)

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

  • The concept of negative temperature has been used for many years-with tongue slightly in cheek- in the laser physics community to describe the energy level population inversions that produce amplification of EM waves in laser action. It's a slightly contradictory usage, as temperature is a thermodynamic attribute of systems in thermal equilibrium.
    Mike Rankin Mike Rankin
    Jan. 7, 2013 at 2:22pm
  • I can not understand why this people name them-self Scientists.
    They do not know basic : mass, gravity, speed of light and believe in Big Bang. It is no Science. It is Science-Fiction. Pleaseeeee... go back to experiments the results and do correct interpretation. Time is running. Universe rule no.1 is all-or-nothing.
    Remigiusz Zarosinski Remigiusz Zarosinski
    Jan. 7, 2013 at 2:22pm
  • "But for scientists who study matter at quantum scales, temperature is better defined as the energy distribution of the particles in a sample."

    Here as in many other ScienceNews articles, just a little bit more specificity would be very helpful. Temperature, when defined as the average kinetic energy of a molecule, is a quantity that is intuitively fairly easy to grasp. If we are now to understand a different definition, we need some kind of general explanation of how an arbitrary distribution can be turned into a number, which need not be positive.
    Ralph Dratman Ralph Dratman
    Jan. 7, 2013 at 2:22pm
  • I agree with a prior comment: Temperature has been defined in terms of a measure of "kinetic energy". In fact the article uses this same analogy when describing particles as "buzzing" about etc. Now we have a group that uses a different definition. Pumping atoms or molecules to a higher state (masers, lasers work on this principle) does not indicate the particles involved have any additional "kinetic energy" imparted.Only that they energy has resulted in a change in the electron orbital configuration but not the particle "buzzing" about any more rapidly than before.
    I get the idea that the general public has been taught (by the scientists) that a way of understanding temperature is to consider the more (kinetic) energy a sample's particles have, the higher the sample's temperature, And, absolute zero represents the point at which kinetic energy of the particle equals zero. Energy distributions haven't entered into the picture nor has anyone (previously) indicated the need to rely on distribution profiles as a means of measuring the temperature of samples, particles, molecules, or atoms.
    J G J G
    Jan. 8, 2013 at 3:30pm
  • I am sure glad some of you understand this. but I sure don't.
    H.W.G
    wayne gardner wayne gardner
    Jan. 9, 2013 at 2:34pm
  • J G. comment seemed to help me the most to understand what is going on. They are using lasers to cool the atoms down by exciting the electron to an energy state that is just below the point where they will emit a photon; so when an extra energy nudge is found it does so. This is putting the atoms' electrons into a more excited energy state (at least for an instant before it releases more energy as a photon at a higher energy level than the one introduced by the laser.) Once the collection of atoms gets so cold that there is no more energy able to be released the electrons stay more readily in the excited state generated by the laser and are not finding any energy is found to emit a photon. So the atoms are functionally in a lower energy state, ready to absorb energy, while also being in an excited state as far as the electrons are concerned. For what ever it worth, it seems that there needs to be a continuing energy input to maintain this 'energy vacuum', if you will. So I've yet to see how it could be generated by matter in space, unless the fact that red shifting of energy by an expanding universe is providing energy that is just a tad low for re-emitting a photon by the same type of atom or molecule.
    gdmellott gdmellott
    Jan. 15, 2013 at 2:48pm
  • The article did not make sense. The commentators tell us why. The researchers are confusing energy and heat in their own minds. Heat and energy are not always the same.
    Rycke Brown Rycke Brown
    Feb. 12, 2013 at 11:08am
  • "Negative pressure may be important in another part of the physics universe: Cosmologists believe that dark energy, the mysterious entity that is causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate, also has negative pressure. Schneider suggests that experimenting with the quantum phenomenon of negative temperature could reveal the nature of dark energy throughout the cosmos."

    I have to agree with Zarosinski; this is not science.

    Long ago, when the red shift was discovered, it was confused with a Doppler effect, which led to the conclusion that the universe is expanding and therefore had to have started expanding from a single point, the "Big Bang."

    This is obviously impossible, but so-called scientists did not then go back and check their premise that the red shift is actually a Doppler effect. They have ignored the fact that the impossible is not possible, and the universe has to be infinite, else what is beyond it?

    The contradictions in their theory have resulted in more nonsense to explain the apparent speed of the supposed expansion, like "dark matter" and "dark energy," which cannot be observed, but only inferred from their math, based on a faulty premise.

    Since then, we have an explanation for the red shift that is not Doppler and needs no dark matter or dark energy. Light responds to the gravity of matter by bending, which lowers its energy and shifts it to the red as it passes all the matter in the intervening space.

    This is a simple explanation that accounts for the red shift without impossible conclusions and gives us a steady state universe, the only one that really makes any sense.

    Rycke Brown Rycke Brown
    Feb. 12, 2013 at 11:08am
Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.

Follow Us