/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2398066
Lack of heat.

Space's hot. It feels cold because it doesn't transfer much heat.

>>2398067
Is absolute zero the default temperature then?

>>2398066
It's lack of kinetic energy?
The formation of the universe aka astrophysics?
Got to be more specific. It's cold because it's cold - that's what the evidence says.

>>2398067
But if Vaccuum space cannot into heat, why is there no absolute Zero?

>>2398073
And damnit, I misspelled its.

Cold is particles moving slowly.
Heat is particles moving quickly.
A vacuum is the absence of particles.
Space does not have a temperature.

>>2398075
Background radiation not a complete vacuum

>>2398081
Why is it cold in space then?

>>2398081
To use a formal definition of temperature, yes.

One might say space is cold because if you stick out your hand into space, it would feel quite cold - unless it's the sunny side then it ?might? be quite warm.

>>2398086
Why keep asking the same question?

>>2398072
Actually it's the other way around. It's cold but it feels hot, because the density is so low you can't conduct heat to the surrounding particles.

Cold is concept; a way of describing a human reaction to a certain state of event.

Space can only be said to be cold by the unfortunate and soon-to-be-dead human experiencing it.

Damnit. I realized I'm talking out of my ass.

If you are exposed to the hard vacuum of space, does it actually feel cold?

The lack of particles in space means that there is no easy way for the heat to disperse.

I think O.P. Should do a field test in space to see why it's so cold.

>>2398127
They don't let idiots board shuttles.
Except chimps. OP, are you a chimp?

The body doesn't seem to be abe to interpret and process extreme temperatures very well as usable experiential information.

Extreme cold often "feels" hot the the person suffering it. Consider the strange fact that numbness caused by cold actually "feels" closer to heat.

>>2398109
this is the correct answer. technically there is no such thing as cold or hot

>>2398140
The body would essentially be boiling itself in space. That's a lovely thought.

the particules in space lose their heat rapidly cause there are not other particles nearby

So if I took a thermometer in space, it wouldn't show any temperature then?

How hot something is, comes down to how fast atoms jiggle.

Put pressure on gas and the atoms will jiggle faster and faster because they're under pressure.

stick something (full of atoms) into outer space, and they have nothing to "jiggle against", meaning basically they lose momentum, and they do so very very fast. You can compare it to having 0 pressure, since vaccum produces 0 pressure.

That is why space appears cold.

then if you want to get technical why it appears cold to you, it is because your nerves are designed to pick up how fast atoms jiggle, they sense very little jiggling, send signals to your brain that it is cold, and if there is a lot of jiggling in the substance examined, they need to send that info to the brain as well.

Prevents cavemen from falling asleep in fire or naked on the ice etc, i.e. is useful for survival.

>>2398176
It depends on how far it is from the sun

Vacuum has no temperature, morons. It can't absorb heat or produce it. It preserves temperatures of the things surrounded by it.
The only exception is radiation from other bodies that propagates through the vacuum.

yeah really...wtf is cold anyway?

>>2398190

can't produce heat.

preserve is a stretch because anything not vacuum will have higher pressure and then anything that comes in contact with it will lose heat to it from having higher pressure and at the edge of contact, atom jiggle speed will slow down compared to wherever they came from.

>>2398109
so only if u stick ur hand out into space, u'll still die?

>My face when this is the kind of question a 3rd grade pupil might ask and /sci/ can't answer

>>2398216
I've answered it perfectly here.

>>2398181

>>2398201
Low / lack of thermal energy coming from particles.

Is /sci/ fucking retarded today?


>>2398181
>>2398181
>>2398181
>>2398181
>>2398181
>>2398181

There, read that fucking post over and over until you fucking get it.

Damn there is some serious fucking stupidity in this thread.

>>2398181
>>2398181

You're a fucking idiot, you certainly aren't a physicist.

Space is low energy, therefore it's cold. However it doesn't transmit heat that well, so spacesuits don't need to be 2 feet thick.

>>2398239
>Is /sci/ fucking retarded today?
Your the fucking retard expecting >>>/sci/ to be intelligent.

>>2398223


thermal energy described in terms of particles...

The question 's been answered from diffrenet angles already.

Source of heat must be present for space to have a higher temperature. If not, then the particles present in any particular area of space must generate enough thermal energy for temperature to rise. Barring that, the cold takes over the space.

>>2398239
>>2398221
>atoms can lose momentum from having nothing to "jiggle against"
Heh.

>>2398278
Even if you are in a vacuum, it's not so much the issue of the particles in your area generate enough thermal energy, but ALSO if you are close to a source of exogenous source of heat, like a star. There are more factors that interact to create a certain termperature in a particular zone of the universe. Stop thinking like fuckin autists only in terms of local particles.

>>2398304

>defines nonlocal particles mathematically and precisely

>shocks the world