Skip to main content
Physics

Return to Question

added 233 characters in body; edited tags
Source Link
Emilio Pisanty
Emilio Pisanty
  • 135.3k
  • 33
  • 358
  • 677

"The new technique theoretically could be used to cool objects to absolute zero, the temperature at which matter is devoid of nearly all energy and motion, NIST scientists said."

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2017/01/nist-physicists-squeeze-light-cool-microscopic-drum-below-quantum-limitThis press release by NIST, titled "NIST Physicists ‘Squeeze’ Light to Cool Microscopic Drum Below Quantum Limit", makes the following claim:

The new technique theoretically could be used to cool objects to absolute zero, the temperature at which matter is devoid of nearly all energy and motion, NIST scientists said.

I'm not sure that's exactly what the NIST scientists said, nor what they meant. I'm very suspicious of anyone who claims to be even theoretically capable of reducing a mechanical system to absolute zero.

I don't have access to theThe full publication, but here itself is a link to the article in Nature:at

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v541/n7636/full/nature20604.html

Sideband cooling beyond the quantum backaction limit with squeezed light. J.B. Clark et al. Nature 541, 191 (2017), arXiv:1606.08795.

Can someone with access to the actual article in Nature clarify whether the news article at NISTNIST was accurately reporting on the content of the Nature article regarding achieving absolute zero? The abstract instead references cooling "arbitrarily close to the motional ground state".

I'm not looking for a debate about whether or not reaching absolute zero is possible, nor a discussion about the discrepancies in definitions of absolute zero. I just want someone to clear up the probable discrepancy between what NISTNIST wrote and what Nature published.

"The new technique theoretically could be used to cool objects to absolute zero, the temperature at which matter is devoid of nearly all energy and motion, NIST scientists said."

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2017/01/nist-physicists-squeeze-light-cool-microscopic-drum-below-quantum-limit

I'm not sure that's exactly what the NIST scientists said, nor what they meant. I'm very suspicious of anyone who claims to be even theoretically capable of reducing a mechanical system to absolute zero.

I don't have access to the full publication, but here is a link to the article in Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v541/n7636/full/nature20604.html

Can someone with access to the actual article in Nature clarify whether the news article at NIST was accurately reporting on the content of the Nature article regarding achieving absolute zero? The abstract instead references cooling "arbitrarily close to the motional ground state".

I'm not looking for a debate about whether or not reaching absolute zero is possible, nor a discussion about the discrepancies in definitions of absolute zero. I just want someone to clear up the probable discrepancy between what NIST wrote and what Nature published.

This press release by NIST, titled "NIST Physicists ‘Squeeze’ Light to Cool Microscopic Drum Below Quantum Limit", makes the following claim:

The new technique theoretically could be used to cool objects to absolute zero, the temperature at which matter is devoid of nearly all energy and motion, NIST scientists said.

I'm not sure that's exactly what the NIST scientists said, nor what they meant. I'm very suspicious of anyone who claims to be even theoretically capable of reducing a mechanical system to absolute zero.

The full publication itself is at

Sideband cooling beyond the quantum backaction limit with squeezed light. J.B. Clark et al. Nature 541, 191 (2017), arXiv:1606.08795.

Can someone with access to the actual article in Nature clarify whether the news article at NIST was accurately reporting on the content of the Nature article regarding achieving absolute zero? The abstract instead references cooling "arbitrarily close to the motional ground state".

I'm not looking for a debate about whether or not reaching absolute zero is possible, nor a discussion about the discrepancies in definitions of absolute zero. I just want someone to clear up the probable discrepancy between what NIST wrote and what Nature published.

Tweeted twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/821894839356784644
Source Link
Sasha
Sasha
  • 516
  • 4
  • 11

Did NIST fudge this news story about absolute zero?

"The new technique theoretically could be used to cool objects to absolute zero, the temperature at which matter is devoid of nearly all energy and motion, NIST scientists said."

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2017/01/nist-physicists-squeeze-light-cool-microscopic-drum-below-quantum-limit

I'm not sure that's exactly what the NIST scientists said, nor what they meant. I'm very suspicious of anyone who claims to be even theoretically capable of reducing a mechanical system to absolute zero.

I don't have access to the full publication, but here is a link to the article in Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v541/n7636/full/nature20604.html

Can someone with access to the actual article in Nature clarify whether the news article at NIST was accurately reporting on the content of the Nature article regarding achieving absolute zero? The abstract instead references cooling "arbitrarily close to the motional ground state".

I'm not looking for a debate about whether or not reaching absolute zero is possible, nor a discussion about the discrepancies in definitions of absolute zero. I just want someone to clear up the probable discrepancy between what NIST wrote and what Nature published.