Reply to "comment on 'Negative temperature of vortex motion'"

V. Berdichevsky; I. Kunin; F. Hussain

doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.47.2968

Reply to "comment on 'Negative temperature of vortex motion'"

V. Berdichevsky, I. Kunin, F. Hussain

Mechanical Engineering

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

We respond to the questions raised in the preceding Comment [K. O'Neil and L. J. Campbell, Phys. Rev. A 47, 2966 (1993)]. We explain why our statement "vortex temperature is always positive" is equivalent to the "opposite" statement in the Comment: "vortex temperature is always negative," and why we viewed the negative temperature states as paradoxical. We discuss also the notion of temperature for the limit case of infinite number of vortices.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	2968-2969
Number of pages	2
Journal	Physical Review E
Volume	47
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.47.2968
State	Published - 1993

Access to Document

10.1103/PhysRevE.47.2968

Cite this

@article{5340fa12e84740b8b71bdc6f65e091df,

title = "Reply to {"}comment on 'Negative temperature of vortex motion'{"}",

abstract = "We respond to the questions raised in the preceding Comment [K. O'Neil and L. J. Campbell, Phys. Rev. A 47, 2966 (1993)]. We explain why our statement {"}vortex temperature is always positive{"} is equivalent to the {"}opposite{"} statement in the Comment: {"}vortex temperature is always negative,{"} and why we viewed the negative temperature states as paradoxical. We discuss also the notion of temperature for the limit case of infinite number of vortices.",

author = "V. Berdichevsky and I. Kunin and F. Hussain",

year = "1993",

doi = "10.1103/PhysRevE.47.2968",

language = "English",

volume = "47",

pages = "2968--2969",

journal = "Physical Review E",

issn = "2470-0045",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reply to "comment on 'Negative temperature of vortex motion'"

AU - Berdichevsky, V.

AU - Kunin, I.

AU - Hussain, F.

PY - 1993

Y1 - 1993

N2 - We respond to the questions raised in the preceding Comment [K. O'Neil and L. J. Campbell, Phys. Rev. A 47, 2966 (1993)]. We explain why our statement "vortex temperature is always positive" is equivalent to the "opposite" statement in the Comment: "vortex temperature is always negative," and why we viewed the negative temperature states as paradoxical. We discuss also the notion of temperature for the limit case of infinite number of vortices.

AB - We respond to the questions raised in the preceding Comment [K. O'Neil and L. J. Campbell, Phys. Rev. A 47, 2966 (1993)]. We explain why our statement "vortex temperature is always positive" is equivalent to the "opposite" statement in the Comment: "vortex temperature is always negative," and why we viewed the negative temperature states as paradoxical. We discuss also the notion of temperature for the limit case of infinite number of vortices.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=35949006162&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1103/PhysRevE.47.2968

DO - 10.1103/PhysRevE.47.2968

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:35949006162

SN - 2470-0045

VL - 47

SP - 2968

EP - 2969

JO - Physical Review E

JF - Physical Review E

IS - 4

ER -

Reply to "comment on 'Negative temperature of vortex motion'"

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this