Coldest place in the universe discovered. Boomerang Nebula ~1.1°C above absolute zero. - Polidicks

I wonder, if absolute zero is the complete elimination of heat energy in matter, and heat energy is little more than slight vibrations and movements on the molecular and atomic scale... ...and movement and motion is based on perspective... does that mean that a particle that is not moving can potentially still have "energy" compared to a particle that IS moving based on the absence of a preferred inertial frame of reference? [editline]27th October 2013[/editline] [sp]Not trying to be a showoff or even "appear" to be smart, I am legitimately curious...[/sp]

[QUOTE=Falubii;42665095] [editline]27th October 2013[/editline] I don't think these dust clouds are contracting due to change in temperature. They are in a vacuum and spread very far apart, so I really don't think that there is going to be any refraction. Also if you're suggesting that time is universal, that's wrong too. [/QUOTE] Atoms are one of the smallest things in our universe, that means even the smallest changes, such as extremely slight contraction, is going to move quite a bit of atoms. If that dust cloud was hotter, than it would surely be less denser, similar to how the light moving through the cold dust is the slightest bit slower, the change in cold dust and warmer dust is very slight, but it still happens. "Hotter" dust is more energetic, and has more potential to resist gravitational attraction than if it were cold. Les resistance to gravity, means they are more attracted to each other, and therefore slightly more dense. Even if the photon has to greet 5 more atoms in its line of fire due to the slight density change, the light is still going to be a minuscule amount slower than a photon that didn't have to greet 10 more atoms because there was more energy resisting gravitational attraction. Also, time should be somewhat universal in the way that it reacts to the things around it, if I went to two different parts of a completely empty universe and moved at high velocities in each, the difference in time from the (empty) universe should be the same in each part of the universe. Of course, there are so many variables in this universe that there are very very small differences in how times moves in certain spots, but time reacts to changes all the same way, but this seems like a poor explanation, hopefully you understand what I mean, that although time moves differently in certain situations, time itself reacts to its stimuli(?) the same way throughout it.

[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;42661369]We already lost to Greenland.[/QUOTE] Greenland is viking false advertising.

[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;42662599]I'm curious to know if the light is frozen or if it continues outwards.[/QUOTE] Light doesn't freeze, it doesn't have a temperature. Only matter can have temperature, if it's not made of molecules it can't be hot or cold

[QUOTE=PredGD;42662529]that's right, didn't think of that. the water wouldn't be moving in the first place![/QUOTE] I'm sure being near it would freeze you solid.

[QUOTE=Kirbyfactor;42661452]Wonder how it feels to be there.[/QUOTE] Oh it's like a nice warm sandy beach.

[QUOTE=Aznsniper911;42659609]Title says 1.1 degrees celsius above kelvin.[/QUOTE] iirc they're the exact same units except Kelvin starts at 0 and Celsius starts at around -274

[QUOTE=Cabbage;42665855]iirc they're the exact same units except Kelvin starts at 0 and Celsius starts at around -274[/QUOTE] Celsius starts at 273.15 K. [editline]27th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=supersoldier58;42665767]Atoms are one of the smallest things in our universe, that means even the smallest changes, such as extremely slight contraction, is going to move quite a bit of atoms. If that dust cloud was hotter, than it would surely be less denser, similar to how the light moving through the cold dust is the slightest bit slower, the change in cold dust and warmer dust is very slight, but it still happens. "Hotter" dust is more energetic, and has more potential to resist gravitational attraction than if it were cold. Les resistance to gravity, means they are more attracted to each other, and therefore slightly more dense. Even if the photon has to greet 5 more atoms in its line of fire due to the slight density change, the light is still going to be a minuscule amount slower than a photon that didn't have to greet 10 more atoms because there was more energy resisting gravitational attraction.[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand refraction. These particles are so scattered that it is mostly empty space. You have to have some kind of structure in order to slow light down. It doesn't occur by photons colliding with atoms. Also, it isn't contracting. It is expanding very rapidly which is why it is cooling. [quote]It continues to form and develop due to the outflow of gas from its core where a star in its late stage life sheds mass and emits starlight illuminating dust in the nebula. Millimeter scale dust grains mask portions of the nebula's center so most escaping visible light is in two opposing lobes forming a distinctive hourglass shape as viewed from Earth. The outflowing gas is moving outwards at a speed of about 164 km/s and expanding rapidly as it moves out into space; this gas expansion results in the nebula's unusually low temperature.[/Quote]

[img]http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/dota2.gamepedia.com/b/b1/Ancient_Apparition.png[/img] AA's home.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;42658817]Since that means molecules are slower (almost stopped), I wonder if time goes slower there[/QUOTE] it's just really cold there. but you know on some planets, entire years are just months of our time. it has a lot to do with the size, axis of the planet, and distance to its sun, and God knows what else.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;42666487]it's just really cold there. but you know on some planets, entire years are just months of our time. it has a lot to do with the size, axis of the planet, and distance to its sun, and God knows what else.[/QUOTE] That's not time passing differently, it's just the orbits being shorter or longer. A "year" is defined as 365.25 days, and a day is 24 hours, 1 hour is 60 minutes and 60 minutes is 60 seconds. These definitions don't change on other planets, a year is still 86400 seconds. However, there are things such as "martian years" (686.98 days), "venusian years" (224.701 days) and similar for every planet. If we don't have a name for a planet we usually just say "one orbital period of X" or similar. And it has nothing to do with the size or axis of the planet, only the orbital period.

[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;42658830]Time itself, no. But it would appear like it.[/QUOTE] It'd be hard to keep track since every clock would naturally slow itself down

[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;42663347]the light molecules[/QUOTE] [sp]I want to see how much my Chemistry or Physics tutor will laugh at this.[/sp] It was a bit of a dick move to say that, sorry.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42658552]Thats really hard to imagine.[/QUOTE] Pfft, citing laws of physics as a source. They're incredibly biased.

[QUOTE=James xX;42667302]I want to see how much my Chemistry or Physics tutor will laugh at this.[/QUOTE] Didn't you know that light is warm because of the friction of light particles warm you up? :v:

[QUOTE=James xX;42667302]I want to see how much my Chemistry or Physics tutor will laugh at this.[/QUOTE] I'm just trying to figure out how it works and guessing. Thanks for being an asshole, though.

[QUOTE=James xX;42667302]I want to see how much my Chemistry or Physics tutor will laugh at this.[/QUOTE] You're being very unfriendly, Chernobyl426 is trying to figure out how things are working and are asking questions about it, not stating that things are a certain way without evidence. He's basically trying to do exactly what science is all about, and even if he might not have received the same education as you, but that is no reason to disregard his questions and jump to insults instead. I don't know your chemistry or physics tutors, but I hope they would, instead of laugh at it, correct him and explain how it works. [editline]28th October 2013[/editline] There's nothing wrong with being wrong, really clever people have been incredibly wrong many times throughout history.

[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;42668830]I'm just trying to figure out how it works and guessing. Thanks for being an asshole, though.[/QUOTE] Don't worry about it. No question is a bad question if you genuinely don't know.

[QUOTE=proch;42667308]Pfft, citing laws of physics as a source. They're incredibly biased.[/QUOTE] Reality does have a well known liberal bias.

I can't imagine this, let alone 0K when no particles have the ability to move at all.

[QUOTE=Call Me Kiwi;42669150]Reality does have a well known liberal bias.[/QUOTE] Thats a pretty bias statement I imagine.

So I'm very familiar with that fact that 0K is impossible...but why? If I had to hazard a guess I'd say that maybe all matter is really just energy?

[QUOTE=geel9;42670942]So I'm very familiar with that fact that 0K is impossible...but why? If I had to hazard a guess I'd say that maybe all matter is really just energy?[/QUOTE] 0K implies that there is a total vacuum; which is impossible. Even in between Galaxies, there are still molecules flying through space with vast amounts of energy.

[QUOTE=geel9;42670942]So I'm very familiar with that fact that 0K is impossible...but why? If I had to hazard a guess I'd say that maybe all matter is really just energy?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy[/url] Thermodynamics my nigga. Sorry about the mobile version, I'm on my phone, obviously.

[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;42668830]I'm just trying to figure out how it works and guessing. Thanks for being an asshole, though.[/QUOTE] Sorry for being a bit of a joke, I just assumed everyone had learned about photons and waves and annoying stuff like that. If you are interested on reading up on them, Photons, Wave Particle Duality, the photo electric effect, Light diffraction and the double slit experiment are good things to read up on.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;42659631]If we ever go there, we'll need astronauts that can layer spacesuits so they won't get too cold. Of course, this means that Minnesota must start a space program specifically for this task.[/QUOTE] Nah just send a few of us Canucks up there with some tuques and nice boots.

[QUOTE=LarparNar;42666626]That's not time passing differently, it's just the orbits being shorter or longer. A "year" is defined as 365.25 days, and a day is 24 hours, 1 hour is 60 minutes and 60 minutes is 60 seconds. These definitions don't change on other planets, a year is still 86400 seconds. However, there are things such as "martian years" (686.98 days), "venusian years" (224.701 days) and similar for every planet. If we don't have a name for a planet we usually just say "one orbital period of X" or similar. And it has nothing to do with the size or axis of the planet, only the orbital period.[/QUOTE] I know, the time itself moves on regardless of anything, and I bet someone else could go on about correcting or continuing your post too regarding fucking astrophysics.

[QUOTE=James xX;42671675]Sorry for being a bit of a joke, I just assumed everyone had learned about photons and waves and annoying stuff like that. If you are interested on reading up on them, Photons, Wave Particle Duality, the photo electric effect, Light diffraction and the double slit experiment are good things to read up on.[/QUOTE] Still learning about it & and trying to manage it with shitty educational resources. Definitely interested in it.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42661139]Not really. Something having a temperature means that it basically constantly wiggles on elementary particle level. If it had no energy, it wouldn't wiggle, the particles would be perfectly still. It can't be any colder.[/QUOTE] Things at absolute zero don't have no energy. They have the energy of their ground state.

e=mc^2 bitch In retrospect this post was extremely autistic sounding and I am sorry.