Hi Frank. >People think of Temperature as an absolute concept. >(pun intended) >In other words they think the Kelvin scale with its >Absolute Zero of -273 is the only game in town. >They think that you can't have negative temperatures >and that all temperature have to be positive.
Not true. If you are describing just the translational motion of atoms, the positive temp model applies. When you take into account spin, a negative temperature model can also apply. This is due to the anisotropic nature of spin. For example, we can spin polarize a substance in a static magnetic field, wait for the system to stabilize, and call that a positive (spin) temperature. We then reverse the static field faster than the decay rate of the system. Now we have a spin system at a negative temperature. This is part of the standard physics as taught in university. I gather from your post that what I'm describing is different from your notion of negative temperature. But unless the beta-aether is anisotropic, I think a positive temperature model would still apply, given your examples and my admittedly meager understanding of it. By the way, you talk about this beta aether as if it were an old friend, can you point to some basic papers or posts which describe it? It sounds like better fodder for discussion that Jesus and UFO's, which we seem to be wallowing in of recent.... >And the correct temperature zeros for substances >are those which the substances choose for themselves, >not puppet zeros which are foisted upon them by some >power mad top hatted fat director. Death to the imperialist lackey running dogs of Kelvin! (grin). K.
