Physicists discover 'apparent departure from the laws of thermodynamics'

August 19, 2016, University of California, Los Angeles
A microscopic sample of barium ions, shown in teal, immersed in a cloud of calcium atoms whose temperature is 1/1,000th of a degree above absolute zero. Credit: University of California, Los Angeles

According to the basic laws of thermodynamics, if you leave a warm apple pie in a winter window eventually the pie would cool down to the same temperature as the surrounding air.

For chemists and physicists, cooling samples of charged particles, also called ions, makes them easier to control and study. So they use a similar approach—called buffer gas cooling—to lower the temperature of ions by trapping them and then immersing them in clouds of cold atoms. Collisions with the atoms cool the originally hot ions by transferring energy from the ions to the atoms—much the same way a warm pie is cooled next to the cold window, said Eric Hudson, associate professor of physics at UCLA.

But new research by Hudson and his team, published in the journal Nature Communications, demonstrates that ions never truly cool to the temperature of the surrounding gas. Also, very surprisingly, they discovered that under certain conditions, two final temperatures exist, and the temperature that the ions choose depends on their starting temperature.

"This apparent departure from the familiar laws of thermodynamics is akin to our warm apple pie either cooling as expected or spontaneously bursting into flames, depending on the pie's exact temperature when it is placed in the window," said Hudson, the senior author of the study.

The UCLA researchers have, for the first time, placed fundamental limits on the use of buffer gas cooling in "ion traps." To perform their experiment, the researchers prepared a microscopic sample of laser cooled ions of the chemical element barium and immersed them in clouds of roughly 3 million laser-cooled calcium atoms. The researchers make molecules extremely cold under highly controlled conditions to reveal the quantum mechanical properties that are normally hidden.

The ions were trapped in an apparatus that levitates charged particles by using electric fields that oscillate millions of times per second, confining the ions to a region smaller than the width of a human hair. Both the atomic and ionic samples were brought to ultra-cold temperatures —just one-thousandth of a degree above absolute zero—via a technique in which the momentum of light in a laser is used to slow particle motion.

After allowing collisions between the atoms and ions to occur and the system to reach its final temperature, the physicists removed the calcium atoms and measured the temperature of the barium ions. The results, which show the existence of multiple final temperatures based on ion number and initial temperature, suggest that subtle non-equilibrium physics is at play.

The researchers trace these strange features to the heating and cooling rates which exist in the system—the peculiar temperature dependence of the interaction among multiple in an ion trap. Both simulation and theory support their experimental findings, and paint the buffer-gas cooling process as a fundamentally nuanced, non-equilibrium process rather than the straightforward equilibrium process it was originally understood to be.

Lead author Steven Schowalter, a graduate student researcher in Hudson's laboratory and now a staff scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said, "Our results demonstrate that you can't just throw any buffer gas into your device—no matter how cold it is—and expect it to work as an effective coolant."

Buffer gas cooling is crucial in fields ranging from forensics to the production of antimatter. Hudson's research group has discovered important nuances that revise the current understanding of the cooling process, explain the difficulties encountered in previous cooling experiments and show a new path forward for creating ultra-cold ion samples. With this framework the researchers showed how troublesome effects can be overcome and even exploited to study the mechanisms at play in molecular motors and single-atom heat engines in a precisely controlled manner.

"Of course, this work does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, but it does demonstrate there are still some interesting, potentially useful things to learn about cooling," said John Gillaspy, a physics division program director at the National Science Foundation, which funds the research. "This is the sort of fundamental research that can really guide a wide range of more applied research efforts, helping other scientists and engineers to avoid going down dead-end paths and illuminating more fruitful directions they might take instead."

Explore further: New methods for ion cooling

More information: Steven J. Schowalter et al. Blue-sky bifurcation of ion energies and the limits of neutral-gas sympathetic cooling of trapped ions, Nature Communications (2016). DOI: 10.1038/ncomms12448

Related Stories

New methods for ion cooling

November 26, 2012

Among the most important techniques developed in atomic physics over the past few years are methods that enable the storage and cooling of atoms and ions at temperatures just above absolute zero. Scientists from Bangalore ...

The quantum fridge

February 1, 2016

When cold milk is poured into a hot cup of tea, a temperature equilibrium is reached very quickly. The milk droplets and the tea particles interact, and after a few moments they all have the same average energy. This process ...

A brake for spinning molecules

March 13, 2014

Chemical reactions taking place in outer space can now be more easily studied on Earth. An international team of researchers from the University of Aarhus in Denmark and the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, ...

Cooling with the coldest matter in the world

November 24, 2014

Physicists at the University of Basel have developed a new cooling technique for mechanical quantum systems. Using an ultracold atomic gas, the vibrations of a membrane were cooled down to less than 1 degree above absolute ...

Recommended for you

Scientists produce 3-D chemical maps of single bacteria

November 16, 2018

Scientists at the National Synchrotron Light Source II (NSLS-II)—a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science User Facility at DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory—have used ultrabright x-rays to image single bacteria ...

Quantum science turns social

November 15, 2018

Researchers in a lab at Aarhus University have developed a versatile remote gaming interface that allowed external experts as well as hundreds of citizen scientists all over the world to optimize a quantum gas experiment ...

Bursting bubbles launch bacteria from water to air

November 15, 2018

Wherever there's water, there's bound to be bubbles floating at the surface. From standing puddles, lakes, and streams, to swimming pools, hot tubs, public fountains, and toilets, bubbles are ubiquitous, indoors and out.

Terahertz laser pulses amplify optical phonons in solids

November 15, 2018

A study led by scientists of the Max Planck Institute for the Structure and Dynamics of Matter (MPSD) at the Center for Free-Electron Laser Science in Hamburg/Germany presents evidence of the amplification of optical phonons ...

53 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

AllStBob
1 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2016
Maybe entropy, S, in all those classical thermodynamic equations was just a place holder for quantum energy?
tinitus
Aug 19, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 19, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 19, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 19, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Anonym
4.5 / 5 (16) Aug 19, 2016
Click bait headline. The "apparent departure" from the laws of thermodynamics is only that.

"Of course, this work does not violate the laws of thermodynamics" ---- last graf.

Keep 'em guessing, eh PsyOrg?
RNP
3 / 5 (12) Aug 19, 2016
Heat is transferred to surrounding, this is OK. But the particles don't spread - they will condense instead into a lattice.


What does the particles "condensing into a lattice" have to do with it? The TOTAL entropy has still increased.

After all, the spreading of heat into an outside is disputable concept: most of stars around us are way hotter and I seriously doubt, the ice freezing in cosmic vacuum would heat them...


Of course the heat "spreads to the outside"! Or are you questioning the conservation of energy now?
tinitus
Aug 19, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 19, 2016
What does the particles "condensing into a lattice" have to do with it? The TOTAL entropy has still increased
Total energy of what? What is spreading into outside? Heat? How to measure the geometry of heat?


You clearly do not understand the first thing about this and have not even bothered to read my previous post properly. I said total ENTROPY has increased, and, yes, the heat dissipates "to the outside". This is obvious to anybody with even a basic understanding of the subject. The "geometry of heat" is a meaningless phrase that you introduce solely in an effort to hide the fact that you are out of your depth and do not know what you are talking about.
Steelwolf
1.1 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2016
Actually RNP, the above article shows that there is a DEFINITE 'Geometry of heat' and that it is different than we thought it was. And also, heat radiates in all directions, meaning from any point within the heated object the heat may and will not only go outwards, but also inwards, since heat is a matter of vibratory motions of all the particles in the mass. This article is showing a discontinuity of the thermal dynamic situations as we have previously known them with the ionic crystalisation it shows.
RNP
3 / 5 (12) Aug 19, 2016
Actually RNP, the above article shows that there is a DEFINITE 'Geometry of heat' and that it is different than we thought it was.


The "geometry of heat" is a meaningless phrase that @titinus invented for purposes of obfuscation. I challenge you to find a single scholarly paper that uses the phrase.

And also, heat radiates in all directions, meaning from any point within the heated object the heat may and will not only go outwards, but also inwards, since heat is a matter of vibratory motions of all the particles in the mass.


Of course the heat dissipates in all directions, but the overall result is an outflow of energy, so your comment is irrelevant.

Steelwolf
2.2 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2016
RNP, Just a quick look at the web shows a surprising amount of papers and other information when you put Thermal Geometry into the search tab. This is the same as a Geometry of Heat, just put into it's more Latin scientific form. Thus, I think you did not even bother to do any looking. Sad.
tinitus
Aug 19, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2016
@Bob: You can't equate entropy with energy, different units for starters. [Long story if you want the specifics.]

@tinitus: Well then, even if negentropy is an old (and not very useful) concept, it is *your* theory, not any scientific shared. And not touching the subject of the article.

@Sttelwolf: Not really "many" at 1900, and not any recurrent theme among them, just spurious hits.
Urgelt
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 19, 2016
Heh. "Heat geometry' is fancy way to say 'plotting temperatures on a graph.' I'm sure the folks behind this study indulged in 'heat geometry' to their hearts' content.

Geometry is useful in all *sorts* of endeavors. For example, you can represent the distribution of scientists and cranks geometrically - the scientists have attributes which cause them to cluster (common terms, evidence-based reasoning, peer review, deep knowledge of subject matter) whereas cranks scatter (uncommon terms, crankery-based reasoning, no peer review, superficial knowledge of subject matter). If the scientists are in the stadium, cranks are distributed out in the Oort Cloud somewhere, all convinced that they, and they alone, are right and despising other cranks as much as they despise scientists.

You can represent lots of things with n-dimensional geometries, like crankery, mental illness and narcissism. Of course they're just graphing plots, but by all means, let's pretend it's profound.
RNP
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2016
@Steelwolf

RNP, Just a quick look at the web shows a surprising amount of papers and other information when you put Thermal Geometry into the search tab. This is the same as a Geometry of Heat, just put into it's more Latin scientific form. Thus, I think you did not even bother to do any looking. Sad.


You are still showing your ignorance. "Thermal Geometry " is a term that refers to a particular object or arrangement of objects. The "geometry of heat" as it was used in the post (and were it to exist) referred to a property of heat (i.e. no reference to a particular configuration of objects). So, again, I challenge you to find a reference to the "geometry of heat" in the literature.

As to my not searching the internet, such things are not usually necessary if you have already learned about the subject that you are discussing.

Thus, I think you did not even bother to do any learning. Sad.
KBK
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2016
possible connectivity:

http://phys.org/n...ion.html

polarization-strong-field-ionization
tinitus
Aug 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Steelwolf
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2016
RNP, considering that at one point I was a very high level welder (Navy) I would know one heck of a lot more by direct experience than you ever could by your trying to dis people for the terms they use. Geometry and heat have a lot to do with each other, geometry of an article makes a huge difference in the dissipation rates, and yes, there is actually a 'structure' to heat, a definite series of things that happen at differing heats, so sorry, but in trying to be nice to you I seem to have riled the troll in you instead.

However, you asked (Challenged me) for even a single article mentioning "The Geometry of Heat", So here ya go:

http://onlinelibr...073/full

That you consider yourself already so intelligent that you do not bother to use the web to check things yourself, THAT is Sad.
RNP
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2016
@Steelwolf
The article is about the "Geometry of heat transfer" NOT the "geometry of heat".
However, the distinction seems to be lost on you.

It is also not about intelligence, it is about having taken the time to learn the subject. Something you have obviously failed to do and that IS sad.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2016
Thermal Transfer and how it propagates IS thermal or Heat Geometry, so quit obfuscating the subject. The article I sent to you starts with the very words "Geometry of Heat"...that was all you challenged me to do, you seem to miss my rather deep levels of experience in the subject on top of the intelligence that allowed me to be top in my classes and help re-write textbooks, and do work in nuclear reactors (which they dont let you anywhere near unless you have certain levels of intelligence And training) Try building and fully heat treating your own swords, and be able to guarantee them, geometry and mass distribution is extremely important, look up 'sword harmonic tuning'.

You are outclassed, so go pout elsewhere, OK? You receive the Ignore for no real input, just harassment of others putting their two cents worth in. Go take a chill pill.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2016
Geometry of heat is always going to do with it's heat input, rate of input to comparative size of article, and the different changes that the material goes through, and then the ways in which it cools, the plateaus, the rises and dips as inner heat vorticies release heat, Crystallization is an example of the geometry of heat coming to it's lowest levels of energy, there is so much more to it, but conduction and dissipation are only portions of the full set of equations, which will differ for any group of elements in question. The precise geometry of heat and it's radiation, propagation and conduction is extremely important in boilers, where you have to keep a very precise construction of heat propagating evenly, same in a steel mill. But there is most certainly a 'geometry of heat, which also includes cooling by various methods, and it is the tracking and seeing what actual changes occur at different temps and alloy mixes that lead us to desirable alloys etc.
tinitus
Aug 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2016
@Steelwolf
Despite your boastful claims, you have failed to show any understanding of the topic in question and just claiming that you found the words SOMEWHERE in an article while ignoring the context is another example of (perhaps deliberate?) obfuscation. One can talk about the geometry of water flow, the geometry of water pressure or even the geometry of water molecules. It does NOT however, make sense to talk about the geometry of water! Exactly the same is true for heat.

I do not expect you to accept this, particularly publicly, but I have had enough of this nonsense, so that is all I have to say on this subject.
tinitus
Aug 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2016
RNP, I did give ye a last chance, so now to the ignore role ye go,
RNP
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2016
RNP, I did give ye a last chance, so now to the ignore role ye go,


Thank god for that!
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2016
RNP, I did give ye a last chance, so now to the ignore role ye go,


Thank god for that!
@RNP
or Euclid...

LMFAO
SiDawg
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2016
Instead of writing personal comments like "you don't know anything" (paraphrasing numerous comments above) why not just write your comments and leave the personal attacks out of it?

A discussion is not people relaying facts then critising the facts the other people relay. If you don't agree with something someone said, that's not a reason to insult them. If we encourage that sort of behavior, we potentially scare people away who would otherwise add something interesting to the discussion. Anyone should have the right to comment regardless of what they have or haven't read.

Besides, as adamant as we are of certain facts there are always time's we're proven wrong... when that happens, it's much less embarrassing to be humbled when you haven't previously announced how brilliant you are and how stupid everyone else is.
tinitus
Aug 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2016
A discussion is not people relaying facts then critising the facts the other people relay
@SiDawg
whereas i can see your point, the problem isn't the critique of other facts, but rather that the other posts aren't factual to begin with - they're conjecture (opinion, subjective) or, at their very best, untested claims ( http://www.auburn...ion.html )

there is a difference between a "fact" and a post of opinion based upon a pseudoscience conjecture about the topic/science

When you allow any pseudoscience equivalent merit to science (or studies) in the discussion, it ceases to be a discussion about "facts" and becomes a discussion about the strength of your belief, which is religion, not science

one major reason to eliminate pseudoscience from a science discussion is the spread of misinformation, blatantly false data or belief over fact
See also: https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2016
@SiDawg cont'd
take the above gish-gallop from Zephir AKA tinitus

he is making his argument based upon his personal belief in aether theory, as demonstrated by the linking of: -aetherwavetheory.blogspot.cz - history-of-aether-wave-theory

(i deleted the link but left the general description for you - you can find it by searching the following words "return to the dense aether concept of Oliver Lodge")

considering the aether theory is debunked to 10^-18 degree of accuracy (see: http://www.nature...174.html ) and there is no evidence supporting zephir's argument for any of his comments except his "interpretations" of physics and his beliefs, then why allow zeph to continue to post nonsensical argument from religion over science?

that is the definition of pseudoscience and ignorance (or stupidity)

it is zehp's blatant Dunning-Kruger based narcissistic delusional behaviour pushing a known fallacy
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2016
When you allow any pseudoscience equivalent merit to science (or studies) in the discussion, it ceases to be a discussion about "facts" and becomes a discussion about the strength of your belief, which is religion, not science......one major reason to eliminate pseudoscience from a science discussion is the spread of misinformation, blatantly false data or belief over fact


.......like perpetuation of the concept that Infinite Gravity Wells can exist on the surface of a FINITE Stellar Mass mislabeled Black Holes. You bet, anything akin to such Perpetual Motion is "blatantly false pseudo-science", but you don't believe such a silly concept "is the spread of misinformation".

What you really believe is that consensus concepts put forth by MAINSTREAM Astro-physicists should be the marching orders of the trends in Pop-Sci culture irregardless of proof, or lack thereof for the concept.

You have the most prolific foul mouthed posting routine of anyone here, it's emboldening.

Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2016
What you really believe is that consensus
@benji
what i really "believe" is *evidence*

and what you've never been able to bring to any conversation is *evidence*

until you can produce any evidence that refutes any mainstream science claim with the exact same constraints as they use, meaning utilising the scientific method, peer review, publication and validation, etc, then what you bring to the argument is your beliefs

NOT any facts

i can at least prove my posted observations of you- including your failure WRT basic math
http://phys.org/n...ood.html]http://phys.org/n...ood.html[/url]

or any other math
http://phys.org/n...s_1.html

http://phys.org/n...and.html

http://phys.org/n...als.html

http://phys.org/n...ood.html]http://phys.org/n...ood.html[/url]

IOW- i can use evidence to validate my claims - whereas you got nothing but troll comments

FOAD
tinitus
Aug 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2016
BTW This guy is claiming to have magnet motor
@Zeph
1- there is no such thing as "free energy" or perpetual motion generators

2- if you (or anyone else) is claiming to have created either free energy or a perpetual motion machine, they you can guarantee it is either fake, a hoax or pseudoscience

That isn't a claim, but a verified fact proven time and again through history

.

.

also - i see that you're pissed about being outed yet again, so i will give you the chance to validate your claims re: aether/daw, since that is the reason you down-rated:

Where is your scientific evidence supporting your claims about aether/daw being a legitimate Theory?

where is the validated evidence like my linked study, that is equivalent to my scientific evidence, refuting the falsification of your daw/aw or proving your beliefs correct?

do not link your reddit site: source material from reputable peer reviewed journals only - like my link
tinitus
Aug 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2016
@tinitus
You flood this site with half baked theories, displaying serious lack of knowledge of physics and chemistry, and dare to call others "stupid" ? That is funny.


WHAT!!!!!! You believe Infinite Gravity Wells exist on the surface of Finite Stellar Bodies called Black Holes, puts you in the same realm of pseudo-science. He just writes it up better than you do & that is what really gets you all bent out of shape, "and you dare to call others stupid", along with a lot of other foul mouthed profanity so peculiar to you & Stumpo.
Steelwolf
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2016
So Stumpy, Riddle me this, if you are able, with Today's article here:
http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

And this paragraph from the article says what you say "Ain't Possible":

"Kono said the amount of terahertz light put into the cavity is very weak. "What we depend on is the vacuum fluctuation. Vacuum, in a classical sense, is an empty space. There's nothing. But in a quantum sense, a vacuum is full of fluctuating photons, having so-called zero-point energy. These vacuum photons are actually what we are using to resonantly excite electrons in our cavity."

THIS is why people actually ignore you ranters and listen to us that try to make the scientific correlations, WE Think rather than just Complain about someone elses thinking. ANYbody can complain. And they usually complain PAST the point they are shown they are wrong.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2016
And this paragraph from the article says what you say "Ain't Possible":

"Kono said the amount of terahertz light put into the cavity is very weak. "What we depend on is the vacuum fluctuation. Vacuum, in a classical sense, is an empty space. There's nothing. But in a quantum sense, a vacuum is full of fluctuating photons, having so-called zero-point energy. These vacuum photons are actually what we are using to resonantly excite electrons in our cavity."
He did not say that isn't possible.
THIS is why people actually ignore you ranters and listen to us that try to make the scientific correlations, WE Think rather than just Complain about someone elses thinking. ANYbody can complain. And they usually complain PAST the point they are shown they are wrong.
And this is why you should actually read what is being said - both by him and by the authors of the paper you reference.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2016
The Title;
Physicists discover 'apparent departure from the laws of thermodynamics'

From the last paragraph - the reality;
"Of course, this work does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, but it does demonstrate there are still some interesting, potentially useful things to learn about buffer gas cooling,"

Fargin' science writers...
sheesh...
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2016
So Stumpy, Riddle me this
@steel
Well, I couldn't say it any better than Maggnus nor Whyde...

so i will let their posts stand as my reply

i hope you can read their posts and comprehend what they said

.

.

The fact, that no device heavier than air can fly also sounds very logical and it was also repeatedly proven by time
@zeph
1- i guess you don't actually have any evidence to share?
didn't think so

2- the point wasn't about history: it was about following the evidence
(at least you have the whole language barrier as a semi-excuse... but it still doesn't excuse your lack of evidence)

still waiting for your equivalent evidence

[crickets]
tinitus
Aug 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.