Coldest Place in the Universe 361
Chris Gondek writes "The Sydney Morning Herald has an article on how NASA has released a high-quality image of the coldest place found in the universe. Five thousand light years from Earth in the constellation of Centaurus, the nebula, a gas cloud formed from a dying star, has a temperature of minus 272 degrees.
It is only one degree warmer than absolute zero, the coldest possible temperature, when atoms cease to vibrate and radiate no heat whatsoever.
This radiation is the remnant of the Big Bang, the explosion which forged the universe in trillion-degree temperatures. More than 11 billion years later, this heat has cooled to minus 270 degrees, but is still detectable."
Damn That's Cold.... (Score:5, Funny)
Almost as cold as Hillary Rosen's heart 8^)
Didn't you mean... (Score:2, Funny)
her tit?
If only... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:If only... (Score:4, Funny)
of course, all those flaming processors would end up creating enough heat to send the whole nebula boiling away, and we'd be back searching for the ultimate cooling solution once again....
Re:If only... (Score:2)
Re:If only... (Score:2)
You don't need air to "carry heat away"
Radiative transfer is proportional to delta T ^4
Re:If only... (Score:2)
I thought I found that last month... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hmmm but.. (Score:2, Funny)
I should have sold my soul to the devil instead - at least he's honest.
Coldest place in the Universe? (Score:4, Funny)
Grumble, grumble - absolute zero (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Grumble, grumble - absolute zero (Score:5, Informative)
*) Something colder, to cool it - but you can't get colder than 0.
*) A bigger space to put the nonzero heat it - but trivally if you expand something with non-zero temperature into an finite space, then the result is still going to be above zero.
*) If it radiates/conducts/etc heat away, then it must be into an area that has a non-zero heat, so that will (instinctively) also radiate an equal or greater amount of heat back again. Hmm, thinking about it this means you can't have a one-way heat shield, or something that absorbes without emitting. (Unless a material stops radiating/conducting below a certain temperature.)
There's probably some other cases I missed - I don't know anything about this field.
Re:Grumble, grumble - absolute zero (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Grumble, grumble - absolute zero (Score:5, Informative)
The energy of a free particle is not, and can take on pretty-much any value.
Re:Grumble, grumble - absolute zero (Score:2)
Re:Grumble, grumble - absolute zero (Score:5, Informative)
On a more serious note, look into laser evaporation. It turns out that if you have a laser and an atom, you can tune laser so that only in the presence (sp?) of positive dopler shift (ie, atom moving towards the laser source) will the atom be able to absorb a photon. If you gradually tune the laser to a smaller and smaller band, and you have such a laser pointing from every which way, you have effectively used a laser to cool the atom.
Think of it as shooting ball bearings to stop a bowling ball.
Re:Grumble, grumble - absolute zero (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Grumble, grumble - absolute zero (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Grumble, grumble - absolute zero (Score:2)
Re:Grumble, grumble - absolute zero (Score:2)
Put it in a brass bra.
Re:Grumble, grumble - absolute zero (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Grumble, grumble - absolute zero (Score:5, Informative)
E = nu ( v + 1/2)
where v is the vibrational quantum number and nu is related to the force contant. nu is positive, and v is always a non-negative integer, so even when v is zero the energy is nu/2. freshman chemistry students are told that this is to accomodate the heisenberg uncertainty principle in that a particle that is not vibrating would have a definite position and momentum.
another poster hinted on what has been stated eloquenty for hundreds of years and restated by homer: in this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics! the third law states:
"if the entropy of every element in its most stable state at T=0 is taken as zero, then every substance has a positive entropy which at T=0 may become zero, and which does become zero for all perfect crystalline substances, including compounts"
WTF? an alternate statement has more meaning in our context:
"it is impossible to reach T=0 in a finite number of steps".
thus, as altairmaine suggests, it is impossible to reach absolute zero. other posters suggested that it is only possible to cool things by contact with a colder substance. for those people i would suggest doing a google search on the term "adiabatic demagnetization". research into bose-einstein condensates work with clusters of atoms at fractions of a kelvin, and it is not because they have a super-secret stash of a zero-kelvin heat sink.
reference: "Physical Chemistry" by Peter Atkins. 5th ed.
Re:Grumble, grumble - absolute zero (Score:3, Interesting)
A bit out of my league, but isn't it also impossible to reach absolute zero because of the uncertainty principal? As I understand it, a molecule can "borrow" energy and exist in a given space for a bried period of time, including this "absolute zero" area.
As I understand it, the uncertainty principal is what determined that black holes "do have hair" (sorry Steven H.) and thus can dissipate, but at a rate that exceeds the entire history of the universe. In theory, this would prevent any given space from maintaining a mean temperature of exactly 0 for any given time, or more properly, it means that a given area with a temperature of 0 has a probability of not being 0.
Of course, I could be completely wrong....
Re:Grumble, grumble - absolute zero (Score:2)
What absolute zero means is that each atom, or molecule, or whatever, is perfectly ordered (as far as quantum mecanics will allow) Each atom, ect. is in its lowest allowed quantum states. every one of them. Thus you know what state every atom is in at absolute zero.
In order to observe the atom or particle, would you not have to introduce some energy into it, raising the temperature anyway (to observe, you gotta bounce some photons off of it).
Also, now that I think about it, the idea that a group of molecules can be moving and then go into a state of rest may violate the rules of entropy. Granted, somewhere else some molecules may have gained more entropy than this 0 degree group lost (thanks to the uncertainty principle).
Thus it takes more and more energy to cool a substance a unit of temperature......Therefore, it would take an infinite amount of energy to bring a substance to absolute zero.
Or is it that you would have to REMOVE an infinite amount of energy to reach absolute 0?
Ok, now my brain hurts.
Hmm yeah, but... (Score:2)
We now know how low IS temperature in some place: -272C . We have to take it simply as is, a new record and a proof to the very possibility to reach such temperatures in nature.
BTW, is there any proof to that "Zero Point Energy can't be removed" theory?
Re:Hmm yeah, but... (Score:2)
Re:Grumble, grumble - absolute zero (Score:2)
Re:Negative temperatures. (Score:3, Informative)
from cold to hot:
0K...100K..1000K..+infinity/-infinity..-1000K..
How can we be sure? A negative temperature system will transfer heat energy to a postive temperature system when the two systems are in thermal contact. Heat flows from hot objects to cold objects, so negative temperatures are hotter.
To summarize the link you provided, negative temperatures only can be realized in systems which have an upper bound to their energy. In practice, this means that one is looking at a restricted set of degrees of freedom of a larger system as a system in isolation from the larger system. For instance, consider just the spins of atoms or nuclei, as separate from the spins+kinetic energy of the atoms or nuclei. As the spins of nuclei are often weakly coupled to the kinetic energy (i.e. collisions or atomic vibrations do not easily flip nuclear spins), this is a good approximation. In reality, if you put the spins into a negative temperature state, the energy of the spins will eventually dissipate, cooling the spins, while slightly increasing the kinetic energy in the system.
(The mathematical reason for this is that temperature is actually the reciprocal of a microscopically meaningful property.)
Re:Grumble, grumble - absolute zero (Score:4, Funny)
That happened to a friend of mine, after he fell through into the lake on an ice-fishing trip.
I Apologize in Advance (Score:5, Funny)
Most frigid place in the universe? They've already shown Janeway's quarters.
Ba-dum-ch-OW! That hurt!
Article contradicts itself... (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA has released a high-quality image of the coldest place found in the universe ...
But then says:
Man has produced yet chillier temperatures. In 1995, American researchers cooled rubidium atoms to less than 170 billionths of a degree above absolute zero.
I see the point they are making, but still.
--sex [slashdot.org]
Re:Article contradicts itself... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Article contradicts itself... (Score:2)
No. It doesn't. (Score:2, Informative)
Needs to be qualified (Score:5, Interesting)
It is also possible that there are cooler regions farther out in the universe than we can currently study.
Re:Needs to be qualified (Score:4, Informative)
As far as I am aware, at HUT Low Temperature Laboratory [boojum.hut.fi] they currently have the world record with 100 picokelvins [boojum.hut.fi].
Re:Needs to be qualified (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess the best thing we can say is that knowing the physics we know now, we cannot predict that there will a be a naturally occuring region of the universe with a sub milli-Kelvin temperature. But we could be wrong- I fill in 'e', not enough information to answer.
Re:Needs to be qualified (Score:2)
cold radiation?? (Score:2, Interesting)
temperature is defined by the movement of atoms, right? how can microwave radiation have temperature?
if i got my physics right, radiation just induces movement of atoms... ?-)
Re:cold radiation?? (Score:3, Informative)
It's because the cosmic microwave background has the spectrum of a blackbody with the given temperature (2.7K).
Waves and particles... (Score:2)
Remember that EMR travels both as waves and particles, just NOT electrons, neutrons and protons. So while there is very little in EMR there is still some mass to EMR.
Light is just microwave radiation we can see and has been proved to be distorted by gravity.
No its not - Brighton is. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No its not - Brighton is. (Score:2)
Correction: Coldest place in the known universe. How do you know that there are no ultra-advanced cililizations out there that have got even closer to absolute zero?
Someone please explain (Score:2)
What is driving the movement of the gas?
I may just be stupid, but this article seems to raise a lot more questions than it answers. Can someone expand this beyond newspaper-level pop science?
Re:Someone please explain (Score:2)
Re:Someone please explain (Score:3, Informative)
From the article:
So it was done with a radio telescope, possibly SEST [eso.org], by looking at molecular lines from CO. It sounds like they found that the CO was absorbing some of the background radiation. So it wasn't "seen" with a telescope in the way that you're thinking.
Re:Someone please explain (Score:3, Funny)
"One can say the Boomerang acts as a refrigerator,"
So you can see it because someone left the door open?
New Project (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New Project (Score:2)
Pity silicon doesn't semi-conduct below about -90 C or thereabouts.
Vibration (Score:4, Informative)
I hope someone corrects me if I am wrong
Re:Vibration (Score:2)
If you wish to put the zero of energy at the lowest energy you would expect the corresponding classical system to have, then the ground state of the true quantum system will be higher. That said, there isn't any lower quantum state the system can be in, so its energy isn't going to get any lower (unless you change the system, modifying the ground state).
When you say that atoms cannot cease to vibrate, it all depends on what you mean by "cease." You can argue that they aren't "moving" (it starts in the ground state, it stays in the ground state, nothing is changing) but the position is also (by the uncertainty principle) not a fixed mathematical point of zero extent. (You can say where an atom is located only by describing its statistical distribution, which might be well-localized if the atom is in an atomic lattice or some kind of potential well.) "Not fixed" is not the same as "moving" or "vibrating", unless you choose to define it that way.
That choice only affects the manner in which you view the quantum motion using classical terminology, so it is physically meaningless (there is presumably no such physical thing as a classical system, although we might be able to use an accurate classical model) and potentially misleading (you will get potentially wrong answers by arguing classically).
What matters thermodynamically is that the system is in its ground state. An atom in the ground state is at zero temperature.
Houston we have a problem here (Score:4, Insightful)
The temperature of the microwave background radiation is 3K. This means that unless something is shielding an object (or large gas mass) it will be irradiated (heated) to this temperature. And because of the nature of blackbody radiation - the thing doing the shielding would need to be colder than 3K - else it would be a source of 'hot' radiation itself.
And then how do you take a picture of something that is only 1K? This object would emit less radiation than the 3K background - thus it would be a dark spot. It could reflect light - but not all the light is reflected (or is it due to some cool QM effect that I don't know about)? Anyway the absorbed light from other stars would most likely over years - heat the gas mass to a temperature between the 3K background and temperature of the star surface (5000K). Probably something in the neighborhood of 4K.
Conclusion - unless there is some sort of active cooling, nothing can cool down to less than temperature of the background radiation (3K). Is this an early April fools joke - or state schools worthless?
Re:Houston we have a problem here (Score:5, Informative)
Correct.
There is active cooling in this case, and it works the same as a domestic refrigorator. Both systems cool down because gases are expanded, thereby doing work. That energy has to come from somewhere and it comes from the heat content of the gas: it cools in other words.
At the center of nebulae like these is a star which is driving off the remnants of what was previously its outer layers. That is, its atmosphere is expanding. If the heat loss through expansion is greater than the heat input from the rest of the universe, the gas will cool.
Paul
She's as cold as ice.... (Score:5, Funny)
I know a girl like that....
You have to wonder (Score:2, Funny)
Absolute zero, where "atoms cease to vibrate"... (Score:2, Interesting)
Confusing quote (Score:2, Informative)
People who don't read the article (and let's face it, that's most of us, right?), are certain to be confused by the quoted text. The submitter apparently left out this important sentence:
The microwave background radiation is "this radiation" the next sentence refers to.
For Americans and Scientists (Score:2)
-272 degrees Celsius is 1.15 degrees Kelvin and -457.6 degrees Farenheit.
Re:For Americans and Scientists (Score:2)
Bose Einstein condensates (Score:2, Informative)
Matter (Score:2)
Old photo - old news (Score:2)
Apod [nasa.gov].
I think Slashdot should have a box on the right with the APOD (astronomy picture of the day.) Of course, then it might get slashdotted... maybe someone nice could setup a mirror.
M@
Does this mean.... (Score:2, Funny)
Absolute Zero Is Not the Lowest Temperature. (Score:2)
Re:Absolute Zero Is Not the Lowest Temperature. (Score:3, Interesting)
Once. And please tell me how it is flawed. Negative absolute temperature was first rigorously described in 1956, and has been the subject of a lot of confirmed research since. The author of this first article was Norman Ramsey who later won a Nobel Prize for the invention of the MASER, the predecessor of the LASER. Som have called the MASER the modt important invention of the 20th Century. Ramsey is also famous for seminal work in NMR chemical shifts, etc.
Here are some DIFFERENT links on the same topic:
http://boojum.hut.fi/~pjh/nuclearmagnetism.htm
http
http://www.maxwellian.demon.co.uk/art/esa/
http://www.nobel.se/physics/lau
If it's nothing... (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay, so I got thinking... if the space you're measuring was contained by a magnetic field and contained nothing, could it reach absolute zero? Theoretically I would think so. But there's 2 problems with this, right?
The first is simply the observation of "nothing." If I'm not mistaken, you can not measure or observe "nothing" because if it could be observed in any way, it would be "something". Even if you could somehow detect the abscense of "something" you'd be effecting "nothing" and making it into "something." Correct?
The second would be how do we define "nothing?" If I am to define it as something that does not contain matter in any form, then how do I contain it? Is it a matter of containment, or a matter of exclusion? If I am to exclude "something", philosphically this is far different from containing "nothing."
Anyway, I've got a headache now and it's 10 AM EST. Thank you slashdot for another wonderful morning
Chillier temperatures (Score:3, Funny)
We're so cool!
Note from mom (Score:5, Funny)
Love,
Mom
Atoms do not stop vibrating at absolute zero (Score:2, Interesting)
the wonders of science (Score:2)
Image of Nebula (Score:2, Informative)
Click on the image and you'll get the enlarged verson.
Auto-Summarize (Score:2)
I have to conclude that this submission came from Microsoft Word's "AutoSummarize".
Coldest place? (Score:2)
More than 11 billion years later, this heat has cooled to minus 270 degrees, but is still detectable."
After only 2 of dating years I think she'd made it well past absolute zero.....
You are WRONG (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Serious Question (Score:2)
And that's enough.
Simon
Re:yahoo for the big bang _THEORY_ (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they can. Entropy only applies in a closed system. The earth is continually receiving energy from the sun, hence the earth is not a closed system.
Besides, who's to say God and evolution cannot coexist? What if that's the method He used?
Re:Excuse me, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
See, the point is that there is indeed a theory behind religion - it is the direct outcome of
socio-economic situations.
Religion is based on faith, that's what defines it.
Religion is based on a set of actions which are believed to constitute faith. That some people have faith is in itself besides the point.
Once you start having to 'justify' your beliefs, you have lost faith, and most religions (esp. Judeo-Christian ones) would not consider you a member based on your 'lack of faith'.
Agreed. But justification of a faith need not necessiate the lack of any.
No one gets into heaven (if your religion happens to have one) if they don't have complete faith.
Well no. A lot of Eastern Religions stress on your duty more than your faith. Sure, faith gets in too, but remember that your duty is the reason you're here.
I would not say that religion is a phenomenon that cannot be explained by theory, I would rather include it among the various socio-economic forces, and is perhaps an inevitable consequence. In fact, several behaviour and ritualistic factors of religion can be traced back to the state of the affairs when the religion flourished.
Anyways, my 0.02.
Re:Excuse me, but... (Score:2, Informative)
As a Christian, I can agree with you that I can't prove that there's a God. However, I think you might have a misunderstanding of what constitutes "faith". My faith is not based on nothing. I don't believe in God, despite the evidence. I believe in God because I think there's pretty good evidence to support such a belief. For example, I've had experiences that, try as I might, I can't explain without the existence of God. Of course, that's not particularly compelling to you, but just because I can't prove something to you does not make it unreasonable for me to believe it.
For example, my children this morning, woke up at about 6:45am. I let them jump around in their room until about 7:15am, when I finally dragged my tail out of bed and got them, fed them, and sent them off to school. Unfortunately, if I were asked to prove this, I would find it to be very difficult. I suppose that there may be some way to actually prove it, but I know of none, so I'm content in saying that I can NOT prove it to you. That doesn't make me any less certain that it's true. My experiences compell me to believe these things regardless of whether or not I can prove it to someone else.
CS Lewis, in "Mere Christianity", gave a much better description [merelewis.com] of how faith is not the thing that most people think it is. That faith is not an independant thing from reason and rationality. Here's an excerpt:
The entire chapter expounds on this basic idea. Considering your hobby, I would encourage you to read it. Hope it's helpful.
Re:Excuse me, but... (Score:2)
MC Hawking said it best (Score:4, Funny)
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!"
Tim
Re:MC Hawking said it best (Score:2, Informative)
check it!
TROLL (Score:2, Informative)
Sometimes its fun to go sacred cow tipping.
Re:Boomerang? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:First Post on my Birthday (Score:2, Funny)
Re:First Post on my Birthday (Score:2)
Re:image ? where ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Big Bang? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't get anything stronger than a theory. Contrary to popular belief, a law isn't a theory that has become ironclad because it can't be disproved - laws are outside the 'speculation-conjecture-hypothesis-theory' hierarchy.
everything is theoretically disprovable. Maybe some day off in the future the theory of neutrons will be replaced by a new one, and neutrons will be viewed as a primitive but workable explanation of a natural phenomenon, the same way Newtonian physics came to be viewed after the advent of relativity.
Re:Big Bang? (Score:2)
Exhibit B: Ohm's Law.
Apparently 'laws' are more accurate than 'theories'. Well, quite.
Re:Hrm (Score:5, Insightful)
When was the Big Bang theory proven and the guesstimation of 11 billion years determined to be fact?
When Penzias and Wilson detected the microwave background radiation. Despite Fred Hoyle's best efforts, steady state theory could never convincingly explain the properties of the microwave background, which were precisely as Big Bang theory predicted. As for the 11 billion years, notice that the article actually says 'more than 11 billion years' - 11 billion is the lower end of the scale for age estimates.
Re:Hrm (Score:2)
Have you considered that people bite your head off because you question theories that you don't understand? And how exactly are you questioning these theories? Simply saying that you don't buy it doesn't count. Are you capable of arguing your claim against the big bang with reason and evidence or do you just "not like" the theory?
Re:Cooling? (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny, I've always thought going from -272 degrees to -270 degress is called heating.
That was referring to the background radiation of the Universe, which has cooled over time since the Big Bang. The astonishing thing is that the nebula is colder still.
Re:not a summary, and not correct (Score:2)
Query (Score:2, Interesting)
It just seems likely to me that there's someplace out in the black which doesn't even have enough matter for heat to exist. That would be colder.
Re:Query (Score:3, Informative)
There are other things like thermal neutrons and all that, but we're looking at IR here.
Only not really, IR isn't visible to the human eye...
-Mark
Re:Bigger picture? (Score:3, Informative)
I was interested as well Best I could find [nasa.gov] 1590x1590
Re:Is everything going to cool down eventually? (Score:5, Interesting)
This nebula is weird because it's _colder_ than the ambient background temperature of the universe; some process must be going on to cool it, apparently the rapid expansion of the gas.
Ultimately, yes, the Universe seems doomed to cool down indefinitely. The Universe is expanding, and it seems that it isn't going to stop; the galaxies end up spread out much further, the background radiation redshifts further and further down into radio noise, the stars start dying off... The future is a cold, cold place. No energy is destroyed, it's just spread out thinner and thinner over time.
Re:Hmm, what about the opposite? (Score:2)
I don't know how you work out the actual temperature though, as my knowledge of relativity isn't too hot.
Re:Hmm, what about the opposite? (Score:2)
Explanation by Cecil Adams here [straightdope.com] mostly agrees, though it says the upper limit is when the particles are traveling so fast they gain so much mass that each particle becomes a singularity. IIRC, it's impossible for any object with a nonzero rest mass to actually reach c.
Re:I thought that the coldest place was in Boulder (Score:2)
That would have been pretty funny if your login name was Hobbs.
Re:Fact or Fiction (Score:2)