That seems like a much better method of describing it. As personally I go by the definition of temperature: "Average heat of a system", which I would think most people would think of at first glance.wizzy555 said:The problem comes from the difference between classical notion of temperature and the technical terms of temperature in statistical mechanics. In statistical mechanics the functions also define the distribution of energy states and given a certain distribution the temperature term becomes negative, but this was generally ignored as it didn't seem possible until now.
In simple terms, they've not removed the heat energy they've rearranged it.
Still rather cool though, but I imagine it would require a better name though. Referring to it as a negative temperature is confusing. (Though I bet that any news article will still call it negative temperature. Sounds much more unbelievable)