News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Hitting Absolute Zero Has Been Declared Mathematically Im... by Phemist on Wednesday March 15, 2017 @02:07PM (#13878340)
I'm a total layman to this stuff, but from my understanding isn't thinking about temperature in terms of linear scales (Fahrenheit, Celsius, Kelvin) fairly misleading for understanding how hard it is to "hit" absolute zero. Wouldnt describing temperature as a logarithmic scale make it much more obvious, from a layman's perspective, that absolute zero is impossible to "hit". Ie, negative infinity degrees of "temperature"?
Re:Hitting Absolute Zero Has Been Declared Mathematically Im... by x1798DE on Wednesday March 15, 2017 @02:17PM (#13878426)
I've heard arguments to this effect, that absolute zero is more obviously impossible when you think in terms of Thermodynamic beta - which is standard physics notation for 1/(k_B * T) and appears in many places including in statistical mechanics.[1]

That also makes it more clear that while reaching 0 (i.e. infinite Beta) is impossible, negative temperatures are possible (this occurs in processes that undergo a state inversion like in a laser / maser). [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_beta

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature

Re:Hitting Absolute Zero Has Been Declared Mathematically Im... by Phemist on Wednesday March 15, 2017 @08:08PM (#13881150)
Interesting! Thanks, great answers (both this post and your response to its sibling post)
Re:Hitting Absolute Zero Has Been Declared Mathematically Im... by sparky_z on Wednesday March 15, 2017 @02:24PM (#13878474)
Even if that's a vaild approach (I have no idea if it is) I suspect that such a system would be hilariously impractical for any real-world day-to-day usage. Therefore there would be no reason for a layman to even learn about it in the first place (much like the Planck unit system).
Re:Hitting Absolute Zero Has Been Declared Mathematically Im... by x1798DE on Wednesday March 15, 2017 @03:58PM (#13879250)
Actually, I'm not so sure. If you used inverse temperature (i.e. "coldness") and scaled it properly, it wouldn't actually be all that different, in practice, from a positive temperature scale.

Here is a plot of Temperature vs. Coldness from 0-100 C, scaled such that water freezes at 100 coldness units and boils at 0 coldness units[1]: https://i.imgur.com/fluOSY2.png

It traces out a pretty gentle curve, which seems like it's not appreciably less linear than our ability to perceive differences in temperatures (from eyeballing this: https://biology.stackexchange.com/a/28522), so probably for day-to-day use inverse temperature would be a perfectly acceptable substitute.

Of course, this is just to say that if we were starting de novo today in determining how to discuss temperature, coldness could be a reasonable choice. I don't think it actually offers substantial advantages over the current system and it would likely be very costly to switch everyone over just for the sake of making it a bit easier to think about why temperature has an absolute zero.

[1] Python source code: https://bpaste.net/show/76bf4f7c36cb