[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 16 KB, 288x266, ice-crystal2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1698652 No.1698652 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /sci/. I think I've thought of a "cool" way to get energy.

If we could somehow get to a temperature below absolute zero, atoms would move so close togeter that they would fuse. Releasing energy.

No I know some people believe that it is impossible to get below absolute zero, but perhaps we could use anti-matter.

>> No.1698661

-3/10

>> No.1698659
File: 175 KB, 500x375, trolling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1698659

>temperature below absolute zero

>> No.1698666
File: 87 KB, 370x278, 1281839151374.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1698666

>atoms would move so close togeter that they would fuse

Yup, confirmed retard

>> No.1698670

absolute zero is when atoms would have zero movement. going below would require the atoms to have negative movement. how do you propose this would work?

also antimatter isn't negative energy it is just positive energy with opposite charges and it follows all the same rules as matter so wouldn't be useful for going below absolute zero. we have yet to see negative energy, shit not even string theory theorizes the possibility of negative energy and it theorizes pretty much everything.

>> No.1698673

>>1698666
In neutron stars protons and electrons move so close together that they fuse into neutrons

>> No.1698675

>>1698670
please do not feed the trolls.

>> No.1698680

>>1698673

2/10

>> No.1698682

>>1698670
Well, Hawking radiation assumes there is such a thing as negative energy. Not that big a leap to negative movement.

>> No.1698691

>>1698670
>going below would require the atoms to have negative movement. how do you propose this would work?

tempted to say they move backwards in time, but realised it might just encourage the trolls.

>> No.1698694

>>1698682

Yes, yes there is.

And temperature isn't just movement. It's not that simple.

>> No.1698702

Mybe OP has a point. Assuming that there is a "anti heat"

>> No.1698712

>>1698652

Why cool them to that dangerous temperature. You can just push stuff together at room temperature & there will be less chance for injury.

>> No.1698727

>>1698682
>Hawking radiation assumes there is such a thing as negative energy.

no. no it does not. it just appears to be negative energy to those of us outside the black hole.

>> No.1698739

Oh come on people. Logic time. Cooling matter below absolute zero would require (I argue) more energy than that which would be neutralized by the heat of the fusion.

HURR DURR CAN I FREEZE THE SUN AND STILL MAKE IT FUSE HYDROGEN?

>> No.1698786
File: 4 KB, 120x180, Clipboard06d5r67fe5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1698786

>>1698739
>Oh come on people. Logic time.

FOR WHY?

>> No.1698795

>>1698786
I agree, logic time is not today

>> No.1698802

>>1698673
has nothing to do with temperature.... its cause of lots and lots of gravity

>> No.1698808

>>1698802
but why use gravtiy? The force is so week that you can overcome it even when the earth.

>> No.1698815

>>1698727
How then is the mass/energy of a black hole decreased? Someone at /sci/ told me it's due to adding negative energy. That way, the energy within the event horizon decreases without any energy/mass/information escaping the black hole, with is impossible due to escape velocity >c (or there being no "path" light, or anything, can take that leads outside)

>> No.1698829

>>1698670
they'd just move backwards

>> No.1698870

>>1698815

in a vacuum there are constantly fluctuations, some small some big. really big ones turn into particle+antiparticle pairs, medium and small ones just make spacetime fuzzy for a bit. hawking radiation is when some of the energy in the immense gravity field of a black hole is used to turn only a medium sized fluctuation into a particle+antiparticle pair, when normally it would not form a pair. if this happens the perfect distance from the singularity only one half of the pair is caught by the black hole's gravity and the other escapes.

both of the particles have positive energy, but since much of that energy came from the gravity of the black hole, the mass/energy of the black hole is decreased by the amount of the particle that escapes its gravity.

it seems to be negative energy, but it is not. we do not know of any negative energy particles that spontaneously form with positive energy particles, in fact we know of no negative energy particles at all.

>> No.1698876

>if we could somehow go to a temperature below absolute zero