Human Torch vs Captain Cold

Originally posted by -K-M-
Yep

Below absolute zero? /facepalm

If we have a system at a given non-zero temperature, the energies of its individual particles are not all equal: some have higher energy, some lower. Particle collisions redistribute the energy until a certain thermal equilibrium distribution of energies has been reached: this is called the Boltzmann distribution (of particle energies).

According to the Boltzmann distribution, the number of particles possessing energy E is

This distribution is characterized by a parameter T, which in statistical thermodynamics is the DEFINITION of absolute temperature (k is a physical constant, Boltzmann constant). For example, the distribution tells us that if the amount of particles having the energy E1 = kT is F(E1) = 100, then the amount of particles having twice that energy (i.e. E2 = 2E1 = 2kT) is only F(E2) = 37.

(Proof: according to the eq above, F(E2)/F(E1) = e^(-E2/kT) / e^(-E1/kT) = e^(-2)/e^(-1) = e^(-1) = 0.368.)

This makes only sense when the temperature T is positive: then the number of particles at higher energies is smaller than the number of particles at lower energies. But if the absolute temperature of the system was negative we would end up in a paradox: the number of particles with a given energy would be an exponentially increasing function of energy! Thus, if a (non-empty) system had negative absolute temperature, it would have an infinite amount of infinitely energetic particles. Such a system would be, not extremely cold, but extremely hot. It would release infinite amounts of heat to its surroundings. In fact, creating a negative absolute temperature anywhere within the universe would collapse the entire universe into a giant black hole ("big crunch"😉.

I highly doubt captain Cold's weapon is a universe-buster.

Originally posted by Magnon
[B]Below absolute zero? /facepalm

If we have a system at a given non-zero temperature, the energies of its individual particles are not all equal: some have higher energy, some lower. Particle collisions redistribute the energy until a certain thermal equilibrium distribution of energies has been reached: this is called the Boltzmann distribution (of particle energies).

According to the Boltzmann distribution, the number of particles possessing energy E is

This distribution is characterized by a parameter T, which in statistical thermodynamics is the DEFINITION of absolute temperature (k is a physical constant, Boltzmann constant). For example, the distribution tells us that if the amount of particles having the energy E1 = kT is F(E1) = 100, then the amount of particles having twice that energy (i.e. E2 = 2E1 = 2kT) is only F(E2) = 37.

(Proof: according to the eq above, F(E2)/F(E1) = e^(-E2/kT) / e^(-E1/kT) = e^(-2)/e^(-1) = e^(-1) = 0.368.)

This makes only sense when the temperature T is positive: then the number of particles at higher energies is smaller than the number of particles at lower energies. But if the absolute temperature of the system was negative we would end up in a paradox: the number of particles with a given energy would be an exponentially increasing function of energy! Thus, if a (non-empty) system had negative absolute temperature, it would have an infinite amount of infinitely energetic particles. Such a system would be, not extremely cold, but extremely hot. It would release infinite amounts of heat to its surroundings. In fact, creating a negative absolute temperature anywhere within the universe would collapse the entire universe into a giant black hole ("big crunch"😉.

I highly doubt captain Cold's weapon is a universe-buster. [/B]

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-zero-1.12146

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-zero-1.12146

"There does seem to have been a lot of confusion caused by this article, possibly because some of its content was incorrect. In the original Science article, the authors explained quite lucidly what they had achieved and justified their claims with correct thermodynamic arguments. Unfortunately, in this piece by Zeeya Merali, she made the grave error of claiming the researchers had achieved temperatures below absolute zero. This was simply untrue as the original paper showed. Temperatures below absolute zero are simply not possible; achieving them would necessitate violating both the Second and Third Laws of Thermodynamics. No; odd as it may seem, due to the definition of temperature, negative temperatures are hotter than positive temperatures. This has been well known and accepted since the pioneering work of Purcell, Pound and Ramsey in the 1950's."

Please in particular note the part "negative temperatures are hotter than positive temperatures" just as I said in my previous post.

I personally feel this is the most scientifically accurate article to go by

http://www.howitworksdaily.com/can-dogs-look-up/

Human Torch wins.....

Originally posted by Galan007
Read the scan carefully. Cold's tech can generate temperatures below Absolute Zero.

You guys are arguing real life physics with a Flash character of all things?

Comic logic =/= real life logic

Originally posted by -K-M-
You guys are arguing real life physics with a Flash character of all things?

😂

👆

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
😂

👆

Agreed 👆

Yah. We all know Cold wins this, handily!

Originally posted by -K-M-
You guys are arguing real life physics with a Flash character of all things?

If F(E) is the number of particles within the system having energy E, then at negative absolute temperatures *by definition* this F(E) would be an exponentially increasing function of energy. I.e. the higher the energy the larger the number of particles with that energy. At the limit of infinite energy you would have infinite number of particles.

A (non-empty) negative-temperature system would thus have infinitely many infinitely energetic particles, and it would therefore be infinitely hot; releasing infinite amounts of heat to its surroundings.

If in DCU negative absolute temperature doesn't correspond to the above situation, then it means their very definition of temperature must be dramatically different from our scientific one. And if that is the case, any DC reference to e.g. absolute or below-absolute zero temperatures is meaningless since we don't know what they mean by those. In DC those might mean something very unimpressive. We'd only know that those are not the same things as our concepts with the same name.

Originally posted by Magnon
Well, I, for one, wasn't actually arguing as much as *explaining* what temperature is, and what *below absolute zero* would mean.

I can't speak for everybody, but I understand absolute zero, and I can follow the science and the absurdity of below absolute zero temperatures...

... but I also understand that comics ask me to suspend my disbelief, and accept that Captain Cold can, through superscience, reach theoretically impossible temperatures.

EDIT: KMC has seen similar arguments about superluminal travel, including hypotheses that DC universe has a different standard for C, much like your conclusion that DC may have a "dramatically different" definition of temperature.

These arguments make big leaps and bound to avoid the very simple ideas put forward by authors. In a medium as varied and, again, absurd as comics, all we have to discuss are the ideas of the writers and artists.

Originally posted by Smurph
lol, the ego.

I can't speak for everybody, but I understand absolute zero, and I can follow the science and the absurdity of below absolute zero temperatures...

... but I also understand that comics ask me to suspend my disbelief, and accept that Captain Cold can, through superscience, reach theoretically impossible temperatures.

EDIT: KMC has seen similar arguments about superluminal travel, including hypotheses that DC universe has a different standard for C, much like your conclusion that DC may have a "dramatically different" definition of temperature.

These arguments make big leaps and bound to avoid the very simple ideas put forward by authors. In a medium as varied and, again, absurd as comics, all we have to discuss are the ideas of the writers and artists.

Lol, you didn't understand my post at all, it seems.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
What else can you be swayed to do?

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Just about anything...if the arguments are sound 😉

This is also important.

I've seen a scan floating around where one of the Firestorms created an absolute zero ice cage.. And it seemed to be inside of the sun.

Wonder if that means an ice shield/field from Cold can tank a nova?

How's his defenses hold up against Heatwave? (Who I realize is less powerful then a nova burst.)

Just wanted to stop by and let everyone know that Smurph does, in fact, not know what absolute zero is.

It's time for the lies to stop, I've been keeping his secret for years.

Originally posted by cdtm
I've seen a scan floating around where one of the Firestorms created an absolute zero ice cage.. And it seemed to be inside of the sun.

Wonder if that means an ice shield/field from Cold can tank a nova?

How's his defenses hold up against Heatwave? (Who I realize is less powerful then a nova burst.)

Well, here you can see his ice sculptures still standing despite Heat Wave torching everything:

But yeah, Heat Wave is no Storm.