Getting below 0K would be a physical breakthrough comparable to reversing time, I guess.
Two different scales have to cross somewhere; most are defined to cross at zero. The Fahrenheit and Celsius scales are defined so that they cross at -40.
F = 1.8C + 32
F = C; solve for F
If I liked rum, I’d volunteer to experiment. I can tell you this much, I’ve had a shot of Goldschlagger thet was kept outside in a glass bottle on a night where the temp was around 10 degrees. I was fine. Well, at least I was fine until the next morning. What we need to do is experiment.
Technically, even getting to 0K is impossible, since all atomic activity stops at that temp, you would have no means to remove the last approximately .1degree of heat.
IIRC the record (such as it is) stands at -172.75 degrees C.
Just because -40 Celcius happens to coincide with - 40 F does not mean the to are interchangeable. I think some NASA scientist proved that quite well when they slammed one of our tax payer funded probes into the surface of Mars. The fact that the two scales coincide at a certain point does not render the distinction irrelevant.
As to Kelvin, it is all well and good that THEORETICALLY 0K is absolute Zero. But I highly doubt any QUANTUM physicist would back that theory.
Sure it does.
You are off by more than 100 degrees Celcius. (Zero Kelvins is equivalent to -273.15 degrees Celcius.)
In any event, the record is now about one-half of a nanokelvin (500 picokelvins).
Cites:
What percentage does an alcoholic beveridge have to be at to go a night in a domestic freezer compartment without freezing? I know beer freezes and the beer I generally drink is around 5% but will a bottle of tequilla at 38% freeze? How about wine at 12.5%?
I don’t think it’s accurate to say they’re defined to cross at -40. They just happen to by happy coincidence.
Fahrenheit originally devised his scale so that 0 was the point at which an equal mixture of salt and water would freeze, and 12 would be the average human body temperature. He later subdivided each of the 12 units into 8 subdivisions, thereby arriving at 96 for the average body temperature. He observed that plain ol’ water froze at 32, and boiled at 212.
Celsius, of course, defines 0 as the freezing point of water, and 100 as the boiling point. Because of the rather clean way these scales relate to each other (one degree celsius being equal to 1.8 degrees Farnheit), they cross at a rather clean number, namely, -40.
Do either of you have any evidence to support these assertions?
It is my understanding that it is no more meaningful to discuss temperatures less than zero Kelvin than it is to speak of volumes, masses, or pressures that are less than zero. All of these concepts are physically meaningless.
I don’t know where the “cut-off” point is, but I store all my liquor in the freezer. The tequila will not freeze. The wine will.
This website (question #4) indicates that you need a solution of water and ethanol that is about 35% ethanol by volume to remain liquid at zero degrees Fahrenheit. Pure ethanol freezes at -173.4 degrees F.
So it seems to be a question for ol’ Sess.
I would be interested in learning what quantum mechanics has to do with temperatures lower than absolute zero. (what, do they vibrate at a negative frequency, going backward in time or something?)
Believe it or not the first digit was a typo - I meant -272.75. Still wrong, but a damn sight closer.
I stand corrected.
I figured it was a typo, actually, but I still felt compelled to correct the error. 
No big deal, really. (Also, I knew the record low temperature was much lower than 0.1 kelvins.)
All scales are defined; these two are defined in such a way as to be related by the equation I used. Fahrenheit did not “observe” that 32=freezing, 212=boiling – these points were defined after the actual values under his original scale were observed to be close to them. The Fahrenheit scale no longer relates to body temperature or to salt water; it’s defined to have 180 degrees between the boiling and freezing points of water, just as the Celsius scale is defined to have 100 degrees between the boiling and freezing points of water. You can call that a coincidence if you want to; I don’t. The only coincidence I see is that Fahrenheit’s original scale gave values for the boiling and freezing points of water that made the shift seem like a good idea in the first place. BTW, Celsius actually assigned 100 to the freezing point of water and 0 to its boiling point. The modern scale was named after him, not devised by him.
For obvious reasons I haven’t read the thread, so this may have been said before:
PLEASE DON’T PUT SPOILERS IN YOUR THREAD TITLES!
I’m almost at the end of Drop City and Pan’s still alive.
Well, I stand corrected, then. It’s just that canvassing various websites about temperature scales supported my recollection that this was the case. But you seem to know what you’re talking about, so I’ll take your word on it.
Ah ha!
I think I see the source of my confusion:
from http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF13/1317.html
So 32 as the freezing point had been established by Fahrenheit from the beginning. But I’m assuming now that 212 was established as the boiling point by scientists later because it’s mathematically neat, while still keeping close to the increments devised by Fahrenheit?
At any rate, with the above source, it does seem to be true that Fahrenheit did observe freezing to be 32, no?
Given the information I have about the subject, with the 32 freezing point staying the same, scientists found the boiling point of water according to Fahrenheit’s scale increments to be 172.972972… 180 is a neat mathemetical number, while 170 is not, so they recalibrated the scale thusly.
This is just my deduction based on the facts I have presented. I don’t claim this is what happened, but this is what makes sense. If you have more knowledge on this matter, please share, as I am very curious.