Before you join in on this one you might want to research all posters!?!?! “caution” there could be songs made from this. why is liquid nitrogen the closest we can get to absolute zero and not a heavier gas, the first element, or the last one?
??? I think you've misspelled "helium" there. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Liquid nitrogen is c.77K Liquid helium is c.4.2K But even that is not the closest we can get - although it is the coldest liquid gas, I believe. The closest we have gotten is to around 500 pico-Kelvin, I believe, in 2002 (sometime around there). That's 500 x 10^-10 K. Pretty darn close to absolute zero, I think you'll agree.
True, although I don't think that's with just liquid gasses. They use laser cooling gizomology nowadays.
That I was wrong and the order of elements has no relation to absolute zero. but on the bright side it’s rubidium they used in laser cooling
Yeah, definitely not with just liquid gasses. Lasers, blasters, wish-fulfilment devices, thermal detonators, and luck... that's what gets you there. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think the first Bose-Einstein condensate was achieved in mid-1990s, and since then it's been a literal race to the bottom (of the temperature scale).
With gases, yes. But doesn't superfluid helium 4 involve a Bose-Einstein condensate? That's been around for ages.
That was a partial condensate, so yeah, I guess it counts. The first pure one, though, was in the news mid-90s, iirc.
Questions are an example of misplaced confidence? Why don't you try to answer the question before you assume a superior intellectual position.
The answer to your question is obviously yes you can say whatever you like. However the sentence you asked about betrays misunderstandings of basic physics terms and if you were to use it then it would be clear that you didn't know the meanings of the words you were using. Hence my previous answer. No but using the statement you asked about would demonstrate misplaced confidence quite well.
Just the "Yes" would have been sufficient. A "yes" followed by ad hominem is merely annoying and not conducive to constructive dialogue.
But the "yes" is obvious. There are no legal or physical laws anywhere requiring all speech to be exactly consistent with physical law. You asked for opinions on whether you could use a phrase and I simply pointed out a consequence that if you did use it then people would draw certain conclusions about the contrast between your apparent knowledge of physics and your apparent confidence in making declarative statements about physics. I am not obligating you to use the phrase nor am I assuming that you would choose to use it so it cannot be an attack on you.
How interesting. Yet you saw fit to state your opinion of my level of understanding science. That sounds very much like an attack on me. Don't make it worse, trying to justify it.
No I did not. I stated my opinion of what using that sentence would imply about the user. But you have not used that sentence only asked if it could be used (to which the answer is obviously yes and also obviously listeners would be able to draw conclusions about the user and perhaps less obviously the user would probably not like those conclusions). I think you are not parsing your own sentences carefully so are reading things into my responses that are not there. Only if you are claiming the phrase in #13 as something you would say can there be any implication about you and you have not made such a claim.
